# SWP expulsions and squabbles



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 21, 2012)

There's been some discussion of the latest SWP rows and expulsions over on the Callinicos / Penny thread, but, it tended to get buried under mountains of hate directed at the "left" commentariat. So here's a thread to discuss expulsions and squabbles in one of Britain's main left wing groups.

The Weekly Worker (as always, caution advised) has an account of four people getting the boot in the run up to SWP conference. There's an amusingly Kafkaesque edge to it too. They were expelled for factionalism, seemingly as a result of facebook messages. But this happened during the "pre-conference period", where for a few months a year, SWP members are supposed by allowed to form factions. The problem is though that to gain factional rights, you need 30 signatories... but to gather those 30 signatories you have to engage in what the Central Committee considers "factionalism". Which is an expellable offence.

So two of the people who wrote critical articles in the pre-conference bulletins and a couple of others were unceremoniously ejected.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/943/swp-expelled-before-conference-begins


----------



## el-ahrairah (Dec 21, 2012)

splitters


----------



## plug ugly (Dec 21, 2012)

Paris is a good bloke. The SWP should be striving for more like him, working-class and pretty ordinary. A great loss to the SWP although its not surprising they've got rid of him, they were bound to do it at some point.

He got demoted from the SWP in Leeds a year or so back I think? His girlfriend is Jen Wilkinson who was the Manchester/North West full timer but is now down in London on the NEC I think.


----------



## Red Storm (Dec 21, 2012)

Paris is appealing the expulsion.

I can concur with the above, Paris ain't your usual swappo.


----------



## Red Storm (Dec 21, 2012)

Makes me laugh that the CPGB (pcc) are commenting on expulsions when they forced out one of their few good members only a few months back.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2012)

2009


> Ged, Adam and Paris from Leeds refer to “John Rees and the renegades and charlatans of the Left Platform”.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 21, 2012)

Red Storm said:


> Makes me laugh that the CPGB (pcc) are commenting on expulsions when they forced out one of their few good members only a few months back.


 
What's that all about then?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 21, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> 2009


 
So no jobs openings for them in Firebox it seems.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2012)

I don't know Paris myself but Ged is an irritating little prick - he's a fulltimer in over here now and he's one of only two SWPers in Sheffield that I dislike on a personal level.


----------



## belboid (Dec 21, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't know Paris myself but Ged is an irritating little prick - he's a fulltimer in over here now and he's one of only two SWPers in Sheffield that I dislike on a personal level.


ohhhh, _him_.....


----------



## Red Storm (Dec 21, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What's that all about then?


 
Forced out some Manchester member(s?)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2012)

belboid said:


> ohhhh, _him_.....


 
You too eh?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 21, 2012)

Red Storm said:


> Forced out some Manchester member(s?)



What does "forced out" actually mean though?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 21, 2012)

plug ugly said:


> Paris is a good bloke.


 
He dropped in my estimation with the way he precipitated that whole Trojan War thing though.


----------



## Red Storm (Dec 21, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What does "forced out" actually mean though?


 
IIRC they weren't allowed right of reply and were attacked in the _Weekly Worker_. From what I heard they were made to feel unwelcome in the party anymore.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 21, 2012)

i hear on good authority that this most recent expulsion has caused a serious rift in the office, and could well create quite a significant split from within the actual party apparatus. though it is notable that all of the expelled members have been active 'oppositionists' to the SWP's undemocratic culture, there are also personal allegations linked into the 'factional' charges too, which will no doubt get revealed in due course.

this petition has been circulated by those accused:



> We the undersigned do not accept that Charlotte Bence, Adam Marks, Tim Nelson and Paris Thompson should have been expelled on a charge of being "part of, and helping to organise, a secret faction".
> *Like many other comrades the four named are concerned with the handling of a recent Disputes Committee investigation into the alleged misconduct of a Central Committee member. There have been informal conversations on and offline between a number of comrades regarding this matter. This does not constitute the formation of a secret faction.*
> We are also aware that a number of comrades have circulated a petition in some branches calling on the Central Committee to add the above mentioned CC member to the 2013 slate. So far as we are aware these comrades have not been accused of any form of factionalism. This is a clear double standard.
> We call on party conference as the sovereign body of the party to overturn this decision and reinstate these comrades.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 21, 2012)

Red Storm said:


> IIRC they weren't allowed right of reply and were attacked in the _Weekly Worker_. From what I heard they were made to feel unwelcome in the party anymore.


 
I'm always a bit skeptical of people saying that they "were made to feel unwelcome" in a political organisation which didn't take disciplinary action against them. That said, the CPGB/WW are always making those sort of claims about other groups, with little or no evidence to back them up, so I'm not really inclined to defend them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 21, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i hear on good authority that this most recent expulsion has caused a serious rift in the office, and could well create quite a significant split from within the actual party apparatus. though it is notable that all of the expelled members have been active 'oppositionists' to the SWP's undemocratic culture, there are also personal allegations linked into the 'factional' charges too, which will no doubt get revealed in due course.
> 
> this petition has been circulated by those accused:


 
Thanks for that DU. It puts things into a much clearer context than the Weekly Worker piece. Looks like there's going to be quite a barney at the conference this year, over whether or not a certain CC member is a wrong'un. There was a bit in one of the IBs saying that a bunch of people were going to appeal the dispute's commission decision on that case at conference, so now there's that and the appeal from these expulsions to go through.

Allegations of sexual misconduct are often pretty explosive in left organisations.


----------



## MikeC (Dec 21, 2012)

Red Storm said:


> IIRC they weren't allowed right of reply and were attacked in the _Weekly Worker_. From what I heard they were made to feel unwelcome in the party anymore.


 
Hi Red Storm,

Given that most splits/resignations/expulsions on the left *are* driven by a bureaucratic dynamic,administraive measures etc. I can see why people would be eager to believe that this was the case here too, particularly that we (CPGB) make a big deal out the of appalling bureaucratic-centralism of the left and so on and any chance for us to be ignored is a chance many are happy to take... but thankfully it's not the case.

Look through the Weekly Worker. The comrades who left - who were *not* expelled or otherwise forced out - had letters and articles printed on *numerous* occasions and what is more were actively encouraged by the pcc to submit  pieces detailing their political criticisms of the party for debate and discussion - criticisms which turned out to be very unclear indeed, some comrades even admitting that they struggled to articlulate exactly *what* they disagreed about. Space in the paper was offered and given as was time at members aggregates. They were free to have formed a faction etc etc but instead left to join the ACI. Its a bit of a boring none story really. Sad they left.

I think this interpretation of the cpgb forcing comrades out, denying them space in the paper and so on is the usual suspects on the left interpreting things as they *wish* they were.

My two pennies.

Comradely,

Mike C (cpgb)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2012)

lol


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2012)

But what about the CPGB's toilet habits eh?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 22, 2012)

Balbi said:


> But what about the CPGB's toilet habits eh?


_Towards a daily log_


----------



## emanymton (Dec 22, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Thanks for that DU. It puts things into a much clearer context than the Weekly Worker piece. Looks like there's going to be quite a barney at the conference this year, over whether or not a certain CC member is a wrong'un. There was a bit in one of the IBs saying that a bunch of people were going to appeal the dispute's commission decision on that case at conference, so now there's that and the appeal from these expulsions to go through.
> 
> Allegations of sexual misconduct are often pretty explosive in left organisations.


Yes the unease about xx (there I have named the CC member involved) is the background to this I think. I have meet Paris a coupe of times and was a little surprised he remained a member so there is nothing new about his opposition to the SWP leadership to explain this expulsion. This is about the SWP CC trying (and failing it would seem) to cover its arse and get rid of xx as quietly as they can. I missed my chance to find out more of what was going on this week as I was going to go out for a meal with a friend who is in the SWP and a mate of Paris, but I couldn't make it in the end.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 23, 2012)

As I understand it from someone late of this Parish, a "Democratic Opposition" factional document has now been circulated in the SWP, with some 50 or 60 signatories.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2012)

This seems to be pretty serious - almost certainly a split coming up if what I heard last night is anything to go by.


----------



## Red Storm (Dec 23, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> This seems to be pretty serious - almost certainly a split coming up if what I heard last night is anything to go by.


 
What did ya hear?


----------



## JHE (Dec 23, 2012)

emanymton said:


> Yes the unease about Martin Smith (there I have named the CC member involved) is the background to this I think.


 
What are/were the accusations against Martin Smith?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2012)

Persistent wearing of Fred Perry shirts


----------



## Cornetto (Dec 23, 2012)

I went for a pint with Paris the other night, they all want back in the SWP and are working towards that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2012)

They can want what they like. Have they learnt nothing about how it works yet? If allowed back in after requisite grovelling you are going to have to leave because you'll be isolated, placed under attack, accused of not _grasping the new perspective_, of further secret factionalising and so on - possibly in the way that they did to previous dissidents.


----------



## Cornetto (Dec 23, 2012)

I'll be sure to tell them next time.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2012)

Am i wrong?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They can want what they like. Have they learnt nothing about how it works yet? If allowed back in after requisite grovelling you are going to have to leave because you'll be isolated, placed under attack, accused of not _grasping the new perspective_, of further secret factionalising and so on - possibly in the way that they did to previous dissidents.


 
Mattkid being the ultimate example


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Mattkid being the ultimate example


Who, let it not be forgotten, had to suffer the indignity of having big Martin Smith sit on top of him when he dared try to enter Marxism - and this was before Smith had lost some weight running around after the edl for a few years and then running around whenever the prof pulled his strings.. I think matt was banned from turning up for his own _control commission _hearing as well.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 23, 2012)

Red Storm said:


> What did ya hear?


Can't really say without potentially getting people in trouble - would be obvious where I got the info from. Sent us a PM if you're really interested though.


One small matter of interest - the only two members of the original faction that got expelled that I know anything about are both former full timers who got 'demoted'. Might be significant, might not. They definitely do want back in the SWP but I can't see it happening - the CC would lose too much face. I predict another split, potentially bigger than left platform/counterfire if my area is anything to go by.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They can want what they like. Have they learnt nothing about how it works yet? If allowed back in after requisite grovelling you are going to have to leave because you'll be isolated, placed under attack, accused of not _grasping the new perspective_, of further secret factionalising and so on - possibly in the way that they did to previous dissidents.


 
the difference with this lot is that they've have gotten further in terms of reform _within the party_ than any other group, and have already achieved a massive shift in internal discourse and culture within the central party apparatus. using external groups like the Association of Musical Marxists and the Revolutionary History Journal as bases, they've been able to indirectly and provocatively front discussions on the nature of party democracy in essentially open forums and disseminate these debates around the party cadre quite effectively. Paris has been openly in opposition to the CC since he was booted after disagreeing with the UAF strategy for the last Bradford demonstration, and if anything has _increased_ his influence within party circles during that period.

that's one of the reasons that these expulsions are quite a big deal; the CC know they're going to face a pretty significant revolt from within some of their most formerly loyal ranks about it. essentially, by expelling Paris and the rest they have openly declared that their own clique's control over the organisation is worth more to them than the organisation surviving or failing.

if they did get back in, they might genuinely have a chance to upset things - and it should be made clear that though they are appealing their expulsions they are not grovelling. not an inch is being given to the CC over the issues on which these members want to return to the party - i genuinely don't believe Paris Thompson in particular is capable of grovelling.

if they get back in it will represent a major - perhaps even lethal - defeat for the present ruling clique of the party. if they don't, there will be a major and perhaps lethal split.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 23, 2012)

genuinely, for several years now this group have danced an insane dance around the impossible rules of the party structure, maintained an open hostility to the leadership, increased their real support within the organisation whilst simultaneously failing to put a foot wrong irt charges of 'factionalism' or any of the other spurious charges often used to isolate troublesome members


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 23, 2012)

i think it might have been a subconscious reaction to his name that set him off on his subversive course in the first place


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 23, 2012)

Here's the "Democratic Platform" statement in full





> *Statement of SWP Democratic Opposition*
> 
> Four comrades have been expelled for forming a ‘secret faction’ during the discussions prior to SWP conference. The expelled members had been legitimately concerned about the handling of very serious allegations directed at a CC member and the way that this was being handled by the organisation and had discussed about what this represented and how comrades could ensure the matter was dealt with properly.
> 
> ...


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 23, 2012)

Rocky Chevalier said:


> He's surely the only working class bloke in the English speaking world to be called Paris.


 
i know of two others tbh.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> the difference with this lot is that they've have gotten further in terms of reform _within the party_ than any other group, and have already achieved a massive shift in internal discourse and culture within the central party apparatus. using external groups like the Association of Musical Marxists and the Revolutionary History Journal as bases, they've been able to indirectly and provocatively front discussions on the nature of party democracy in essentially open forums and disseminate these debates around the party cadre quite effectively. Paris has been openly in opposition to the CC since he was booted after disagreeing with the UAF strategy for the last Bradford demonstration, and if anything has _increased_ his influence within party circles during that period.
> 
> that's one of the reasons that these expulsions are quite a big deal; the CC know they're going to face a pretty significant revolt from within some of their most formerly loyal ranks about it. essentially, by expelling Paris and the rest they have openly declared that their own clique's control over the organisation is worth more to them than the organisation surviving or failing.
> 
> ...



The association of musical Marxists website is absolutely bonkers IMO. I spent several minutes listening to some esweirdo who lives in Stockport ( prime candidate for tarring and feathering if his neighbours ever hear his music) who records him flicking paper clips or tapping a paper whilst he sits at work in a call centre. Nuts.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2012)

bluestreak said:


> i know of two others tbh.


 Working class or named Paris?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 23, 2012)

OH NOEZ NOT CHRIS BAMBERY


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 23, 2012)

_Leninism requires discipline to confront the class enemy_


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 23, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> The association of musical Marxists website is absolutely bonkers IMO. I spent several minutes listening to some esweirdo who lives in Stockport ( prime candidate for tarring and feathering if his neighbours ever hear his music) who records him flicking paper clips or tapping a paper whilst he sits at work in a call centre. Nuts.


 
i really like them, though they're a mixed bag. they republished that Jim Higgins book recently (which was a blatant provocation against the CC and the SWPs undemocratic culture) and several of Andrew Wilson's articles on organisational culture within the SWP make some genius observations (amidst a sometimes incomprehensible array of flash zappa-isms and maverick theories).

it's all fun though, which is refreshing...

edit: note the forward by John Game, arch Seymourite and former anti-democratic stalwart


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 23, 2012)




----------



## frogwoman (Dec 23, 2012)

Is Richard Seymour in the faction?


----------



## discokermit (Dec 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> _Leninism requires discipline to confront the class enemy_


do you not agree?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Is Richard Seymour in the faction?


calling it a faction, as the document above states, is a bit misleading... so no he's not. but he's been quietly supportive of a lot of these democratic murmers for a while


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 23, 2012)

discokermit said:


> do you not agree?


 
i agree with some of it and to some extent aye but i've never been fully convinced on "democratic centralism" tbh.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 23, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i really like them, though they're a mixed bag. they republished that Jim Higgins book recently (which was a blatant provocation against the CC and the SWPs undemocratic culture) and several of Andrew Wilson's articles on organisational culture within the SWP make some genius observations (amidst a sometimes incomprehensible array of flash zappa-isms and maverick theories).


i think andy is the cleverest person i've ever met. also one of the funniest


----------



## discokermit (Dec 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i agree with some of it and to some extent aye but i've never been fully convinced on "democratic centralism" tbh.


isn't the sp democratic centralist?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 23, 2012)

discokermit said:


> isn't the sp democratic centralist?


 
meant to be, yeah, though i think it's a lot more flexible in its approach to DC than the swp is. like i said tho i've never been fully convinced on it.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They can want what they like. Have they learnt nothing about how it works yet? If allowed back in after requisite grovelling you are going to have to leave because you'll be isolated, placed under attack, accused of not _grasping the new perspective_, of further secret factionalising and so on - possibly in the way that they did to previous dissidents.


different times, different party. things change. wakey wakey!


----------



## discokermit (Dec 23, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> meant to be, yeah, though i think it's a lot more flexible in its approach to DC than the swp is. like i said tho i've never been fully convinced on it.


i'm convinced*. i'm also convinced the swp isn't democratic centralist as there is no real democracy. democracy is essential, but so is discipline. you can't punch and waggle your fingers at the same time.


*i think. just about.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 23, 2012)

bruce lee did, in 'Fist of Fury' and in 'The Big Boss'


----------



## discokermit (Dec 23, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> bruce lee did, in 'Fist of Fury' and in 'The Big Boss'


no i never.


----------



## bluestreak (Dec 23, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Working class or named Paris?


 
both.  a coworker's son is called Paris, and one of our clients.  both definitely male and working class.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 23, 2012)

Everyone working class is called Fred. or Bob.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> The association of musical Marxists website is absolutely bonkers IMO. I spent several minutes listening to some esweirdo who lives in Stockport ( prime candidate for tarring and feathering if his neighbours ever hear his music) who records him flicking paper clips or tapping a paper whilst he sits at work in a call centre. Nuts.


It's worth it for this pic alone though:


----------



## articul8 (Dec 23, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> The association of musical Marxists website is absolutely bonkers IMO. I spent several minutes listening to some esweirdo who lives in Stockport ( prime candidate for tarring and feathering if his neighbours ever hear his music) who records him flicking paper clips or tapping a paper whilst he sits at work in a call centre. Nuts.


I think I met that guy - he used to live in Levenshulme


----------



## emanymton (Dec 23, 2012)

JHE said:


> What are/were the accusations against Martin Smith?


I honestly don't the details, other than they are of a sexual nature, it was taken before the disputes committee, which was split on the issue and a lot of people are very angry about it.


----------



## LiamO (Dec 23, 2012)

plug ugly said:


> Paris is a good bloke. *The SWP should be striving for more like him, working-class* and pretty ordinary. A great loss to the SWP although its not surprising they've got rid of him, they were bound to do it at some point..


 

That's WHY they got rid of him. 

Everything changes ... and everything remains the same.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 23, 2012)

LiamO said:


> That's WHY they got rid of him.


no it isn't.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i really like them, though they're a mixed bag. they republished that Jim Higgins book recently (which was a blatant provocation against the CC and the SWPs undemocratic culture) and several of Andrew Wilson's articles on organisational culture within the SWP make some genius observations (amidst a sometimes incomprehensible array of flash zappa-isms and maverick theories).
> 
> it's all fun though, which is refreshing...
> 
> edit: note the forward by John Game, arch Seymourite and former anti-democratic stalwart



I am all for fun and fun for all


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 23, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> The association of musical Marxists website is absolutely bonkers IMO. I spent several minutes listening to some esweirdo who lives in Stockport ( prime candidate for tarring and feathering if his neighbours ever hear his music) who records him *flicking paper clips or tapping a paper whilst he sits at work in a call centre*. Nuts.


 
Lusty will have all his recordings then


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 23, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Everyone working class is called Fred. or Bob.


Bit bad giving a bloke a girls name though


----------



## discokermit (Dec 23, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Bit bad giving a bloke a girls name though


maybe it made him tough. like in "a boy named sue".


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 23, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Bit bad giving a bloke a girls name though


----------



## mk12 (Dec 23, 2012)

I _think_ Adam Marks used to work in head office in about 2006-7.


----------



## Cornetto (Dec 24, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> The association of musical Marxists website is absolutely bonkers IMO. I spent several minutes listening to some esweirdo who lives in Stockport ( prime candidate for tarring and feathering if his neighbours ever hear his music) who records him flicking paper clips or tapping a paper whilst he sits at work in a call centre. Nuts.


 
Sounds like something Mr Lustabther would like.


----------



## Cornetto (Dec 24, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Bit bad giving a bloke a girls name though


 
The face don't fit the name either, I know the estate he is from. Paris is a nice bloke and a good comrade.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 24, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> The face don't fit the name either, I know the estate he is from. Paris is a nice bloke and a good comrade.


 
Don't doubt it for one minute. I had a mate who was a huge fireman called Fern ( got beat up by Dessie Noonan as it goes).


----------



## ayatollah (Dec 24, 2012)

Beyond the understandable glee felt by some olde members of the SWP Expellee Club on here at the apparent continuing internal meltdown of the SWP... what does it all mean in the bigger political picture ? Most posters only seem interested in the minutiae of the infighting. However, It can't be accidental that rather than experiencing massive growth in the context of the most serious systemic capitalist crisis since the 1930's , no-one on the revolutionery (or radical) Left or fascist Right is growing in the UK. In fact , as in the BNP and SWP cases, key organisations are locked in internal infighting and falling apart.

It might seem unfair to lump in both Far Left and Far Right together as afflicted by the same basic problems, but I suspect this is so. Namely, all the well established Far Left and Far Right organisations got stuck in political practices and tactics which fitted their survival in the long fruitless neo-Liberalist years of economic growth - and now they're all organisationally "unfit for purpose" in the new era of the Long Slump. Leaving aside the Far Right's current shambolic malaise (and thank gawd for that) - currently outpaced by the radical petty nationalism and" polite racism" of UKIP -- what about the deeper issues behind the SWP's failure ? In theory every Revolutionery Left grouping should be gleefully recruiting members with a "told you capitalism was in crisis" (for the entire post War period though) mantra. Instead the SWP , and as far as I can tell, noone else has really significantly recruited since the 2008 Crash.

It is true that for both Far Right and Far Left , the problem is that in the UK itself the impact of "austerity" on masses of people is only now starting to kick in - so few people have been forced to reject traditional reformist politics yet (unlike , say, in Greece). This is a situation unlikely to last however. The crisis aint going to go away, or "get better" any time soon. In the meantime it appears that the SWP has so locked itself into a bureaucratic cult mentality, that it will find it very difficult to grow even when/if the opportunity arises . This is partly down to the inflexibility and dogmatism of the Trotskyist/Leninist organisational and political tradition. But, being harsh, one has to ask just what sort of people have wanted to completely fruitlessly work inside as fulltimers or be active members of "revolutionery" socialist organisations for the last 30 years ? I'm afraid all too many are likely to have been "middle class" political cultists/lifestyle Lefties, rather than real revolutionery socialists willing to really take personal risks and able to motivate and lead masses of newly radicalised workers when circumstances change. Just look at that key Guru of the SWP, Alex Callinicos. The man who thinks it "isn't "his role in the Party" to confront fascists (as retold in BTF)-- basically isn't his role to take personal risks - but just seemlessly meld his academic career with the comfortable life of party ideologue. Not going to face up to the new challenges of a society in turmoil is he ?

The new times ahead will find most (not all of course) of the existing members of "revolutionery" Left organisations completely freaked out by the personal hazards and challenges of this new era of crisis - particularly the "Old Guard" of full time Party hacks, whose entire careers were spent in the obsessive small sect politics/opportunist plotting of the last 30 years of political stasis.

Unlike some on this thread, who will no doubt wish to draw the conclusion that because as currently configured the UK revolutionery Left is manifestly "unfit for purpose" .. that socialist politics themselves are irrelevant - I just think the current crisis in the SWP is simply an inevitable stage on the Left as the growing social/political crisis tests existing organisational forms and personnel , and politics, to destruction. Hopefully out of this painful process will come more dynamic, better revolutionery socialist organisations - buoyed up eventually by lots of radicalised working class fresh blood recruits, as the capitalist crisis really bites in the UK. May be a few years off yet though. Nevertheless look at the growth of the (reformist but radical Left) Syriza in Greece , or Golden Dawn too of course unfortunately (!) to see how radically politics can change when the economic shit really hits the fan. In the meantime, it looks looks its faction fighting and organisational splitting/recombining time on the Far Left (much as has chaotically, and so far unsuccessfully, happened on the Far Right over the last few years).


----------



## JHE (Dec 24, 2012)

The reason the far left is not prospering is that it has not got a convincing account of a socialist society to present to its potential supporters/recruits. This is not a problem specific to Trots. It is a much wider and, IMO, the biggest problem faced by all of us who would like to replace capitalism with a society based on common ownership and planning subordinated to democracy.

The Social Workers' particular problems are, I reckon, in significant part a slightly belated consequence of Cliff's death. While he was alive, 'the party' was so much _his_ group that the show could be kept on the road. Without the old man's magic touch, the wheels come off, the drivers fall out, blame each other for their common failures and fight over the steering wheel. Meanwhile, the passengers become disgruntled and start to disbelieve what they are told by the drivers.

Cliff died 12 years ago. His heirs have done quite well to keep the Cliffmobile chugging on this far.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It's worth it for this pic alone though:


 
Got to say I'm not convinced it was necessary to have this pic on the site, it's put me right off me carrots 






And since I had to endure it I decided to inflict it on you lot too


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 24, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Persistent wearing of Fred Perry shirts


 
I'm Spartacus


----------



## Athos (Dec 24, 2012)

imposs1904 said:
			
		

> I'm Spartacus



I'm Dave Spart!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> the difference with this lot is that they've have gotten further in terms of reform _within the party_ than any other group, and have already achieved a massive shift in internal discourse and culture within the central party apparatus. *using external groups like the Association of Musical Marxists and the Revolutionary History Journal as bases, they've been able to indirectly and provocatively front discussions on the nature of party democracy in essentially open forums and disseminate these debates around the party cadre quite effectively.* Paris has been openly in opposition to the CC since he was booted after disagreeing with the UAF strategy for the last Bradford demonstration, and if anything has _increased_ his influence within party circles during that period.
> 
> that's one of the reasons that these expulsions are quite a big deal; the CC know they're going to face a pretty significant revolt from within some of their most formerly loyal ranks about it. essentially, by expelling Paris and the rest they have openly declared that their own clique's control over the organisation is worth more to them than the organisation surviving or failing.
> 
> ...


 
Hi DU

The bit I've put in bold sounds interesting - can you expand on it please? Were the discussions had in the publications put out by these groups or do you mean they've used the networks these groups provide to speak to members from other regions etc?

I say best of luck to them anyway, the CC constantly shows utter contempt for the membership and although I haven't been in the SWP for a while now I've got a lot of respect for a lot of people in that party and they deserve better - gotta say I don't rate their chances but if they can get rid of the CC and get some proper democratic debate going on that's got to be a good thing - and not just for the SWP IMO.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2012)

Worst of luck to them. Wasting time. Maybe they can now inject leninist discipline elsewhere.


----------



## bignose1 (Dec 24, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Got to say I'm not convinced it was necessary to have this pic on the site, it's put me right off me carrots
> 
> Fucking great torpedos imo
> 
> ...


----------



## bignose1 (Dec 24, 2012)

imposs1904 said:


> I'm Spartacus


 
Im Scartacus


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2012)

I would certainly stop my criticisms of the SWP if they had better more consistent leninists at the top table. I think the class would give more of a shit too. And look at you going ooh paris is working class - what does that tell you? That you need to point that out? What situation have you put up with enough to point out that he's working class?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 24, 2012)

Not sure if that's directed at me but I've never met this Paris fella, got no idea whether he's working class or not and couldn't really give a shit either way. Just think it would be better if they had the opportunity to seriously debate stuff without fear of getting booted out - I don't even know what they mean about more consistent Leninists to be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2012)

It was directed to the anarchist cornetto and the leninist  DU. That better opp means fuck all as well- look at the state of it.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 24, 2012)

discokermit said:


> maybe it made him tough. like in "a boy named sue".


He certainly is a courageous and capable lad from what ive seen of him against fascists.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> Were the discussions had in the publications put out by these groups or do you mean they've used the networks these groups provide to speak to members from other regions etc?




the latter, basically - both the groups are separate entities which exist in their own right (none of the main members of AMM are members of the SWP, not anymore at least) but both have an overlap and niche interest in SWP politics. the AMM, for example, reprinting the Higgins book mentioned earlier was massively provocative to the SWP CC, and the primary readership of that book and most of their other publications will have been from active members of the SWP. similarly, Andy Wilson has been regularly publishing polemics on his time in the SWP voicing his criticisms of the internal culture, which have played in tandem with the arguments Paris's circle have been having openly within the organisation. basically, it's nothing more than that the groups have both enabled a pole of interest to develop and discuss party issues 'abstractly', in full frontal view of the most important and dedicated members of the organisation.

i do wish the group luck but personally, i wouldn't be rejoining the SWP any time soon either way. in that regard, if i'm honest i would prefer them to be out of it and looking to build something else - though obviously that decision isn't up to me. i've got the greatest respect for all four of the expellees and numerous others who've patiently worked over the past few years to improve the organisation.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 25, 2012)

And they circle the SWP for evermore. Evermore.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 25, 2012)

Trapped in the circles of hell.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 25, 2012)

i don't think so this time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not sure if that's directed at me but I've never met this Paris fella, got no idea whether he's working class or not and couldn't really give a shit either way.


 
But you should, Norm. The fact that people are representing Paris's class as some kind of badge of authenticity tells us all we need to know about the SWP, how it is structured, and how the CC is the preserve of a mainly middle-class minority. One of the reasons I've come across repeatedly from people who're socialist but would never dream of joining the Swappies is "they only want us so they can lead us".  Why should we accept their guidance, however benevolent, when we have the capacity to make up our minds for ourselves?



> Just think it would be better if they had the opportunity to seriously debate stuff without fear of getting booted out - I don't even know what they mean about more consistent Leninists to be honest.


 
I think you're missing the point, mate. The SWP CC as is won't allow "serious debate" of the type you're talking about, because *real* internal democracy would see most of them off pretty damn quickly. What they'll *possibly* do is make a few concessions: Expel Smith; commission an "independent report" into party democracy that'll eventually get buried/overtaken by events; isolate "troublemakers" so that they leave of their own free will.
Same old formula for the same old problems.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 25, 2012)

as i say, not necessarily this time. if the CC concede to the new group the likelihood is that they will all fall, every one of them. if they don't, they'll cripple the organisation possibly this time for good. either way, a new situation


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> But you should, Norm. The fact that people are representing Paris's class as some kind of badge of authenticity tells us all we need to know about the SWP, how it is structured, and how the CC is the preserve of a mainly middle-class minority. One of the reasons I've come across repeatedly from people who're socialist but would never dream of joining the Swappies is "they only want us so they can lead us". Why should we accept their guidance, however benevolent, when we have the capacity to make up our minds for ourselves?


 
Granted, but it would take a lot more than a single working class fella getting onto the CC (which I assume is his aim - it usually is with these things) to change that.





ViolentPanda said:


> I think you're missing the point, mate. The SWP CC as is won't allow "serious debate" of the type you're talking about, because *real* internal democracy would see most of them off pretty damn quickly. What they'll *possibly* do is make a few concessions: Expel Smith; commission an "independent report" into party democracy that'll eventually get buried/overtaken by events; isolate "troublemakers" so that they leave of their own free will.
> Same old formula for the same old problems.


 
Agreed - that's why I'm not at all optimistic about their chances of success. 

I do think DU is right in saying there's something a bit different about this one though. I joined the SWP shortly after the Respect fiasco. The democracy commission or whatever it was called that followed soon after was the first national meeting I went to (and the last unless you count Marxism  ). I left around the time of the conference where left platform (counterfire) were expelled. This is not the same as either of those - in both those cases the dissent was regionally isolated and coalesced around former members of the CC, and even in some of those regions there were people who'd only really heard the CC's side. That's definitely not the case with this one. In my area, and from what I can gather from people I've spoken to elsewhere this is by no means an exception, in addition to those who have signed (I'm told the number of signatures is now over 100 - not a large number but I reckon that's not far off 5% of the active membership) well over half are fully behind the faction but have chosen not to sign yet (presumably because they share mine and your lack of optimism about their chances) and plenty more are sympathetic.

What seems to be different is that the CC hasn't been able to contain it in a few areas - it's spread right across the country. And I think it also demostrates that more members are questioning the CC's line. That in and of itself represents change, even if they don't succeed in their aims.

I agree that the scenario you outline is by far the most likely outcome (well, either that or the CC manages somehow to avoid any concessions whatsoever) but I'm not quite ready to dismiss it altogether - there's a widespread resentment of the CC and the way they operate that I've not seen before. In addition to that, the very fact of widespread distrust of the CC and the greater scrutiny this can entail can, in a sense, improve democracy without any formal democratic reform if you see what I mean.

It's certainly interesting from the perspective of an outsider and as far as I'm concerned the fact that it's making the lives of those on the CC miserable and difficult alone makes it worth celebrating


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 25, 2012)

I think it hasn't helped them that Smith was and is pretty widely loathed even if you don't take into account the many complaints about him channeling Gerry Healey.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Same old formula for the same old problems.


in the same old situations that never ever change. really? that's your analysis?


----------



## discokermit (Dec 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Granted, but it would take a lot more than a single working class fella getting onto the CC (which I assume is his aim - it usually is with these things) to change that.


i don't think that is their aim. have they said that? and when you say "it usually is with these things", have you got any previous examples?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 25, 2012)

discokermit said:


> i don't think that is their aim. have they said that? and when you say "it usually is with these things", have you got any previous examples?


 
No but my natural cynicism, which has always served me well, brings me to that conclusion. And what was the left platform if it wasn't a platform for the personal political ambitions of John Rees and Lindsay German, ambitions that would certainly have included a return to the CC?


----------



## discokermit (Dec 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> No but my natural cynicism, which has always served me well, brings me to that conclusion. And what was the left platform if it wasn't a platform for the personal political ambitions of John Rees and Lindsay German, ambitions that would certainly have included a return to the CC?


i'm flu'd up and it's xmas so i'm not sure i can really be arsed. the idea that the faction is a careerist idea to get paris onto cc is laughable. this would probably be the worst way of building a career within the swp imaginable.
the rees and german example is not good either, as their factionalism was a result of their isolation on the cc to begin with.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 25, 2012)

discokermit said:


> i'm flu'd up and it's xmas so i'm not sure i can really be arsed. the idea that the faction is a careerist idea to get paris onto cc is laughable. this would probably be the worst way of building a career within the swp imaginable.
> the rees and german example is not good either, as their factionalism was a result of their isolation on the cc to begin with.


 
Either way the general point still stands. In fact it's strengthened if I'm wrong - the question of whether or not that one individual is working class doesn't really make any difference to what VP was talking about - in fact it makes less difference if he's not trying to get on the CC. And I do suspect from some of the stuff they're arguing that they would see themselves on the CC if they are successful. First of all it's not the worst possible way of advancing your career in the party if you've already pissed the CC off and been sacked from fulltime positions (as at least two of them have) they've not got much to lose really. And considering that they want the CC expanded massively it's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that they see themselves as part of it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that - if they think they'd do a better job on the CC why shouldn't they try and get on there?

Not quite sure what you're getting at with Rees and German - of course it's not identical but you asked for an example and I gave one.

Either way it's a strange thing to pick up on since it's incidental to the point I was making and was actually brought up by VP and not me.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 25, 2012)

So is the CC these days?

ETA: Have found this info myself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 25, 2012)

Off the top of my head Charlie Kimber is now the general secretary then there's Callinicos, Joseph Choonara, Michael Bradley and Amy Leather, not sure who else is on there these days though.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Either way the general point still stands. In fact it's strengthened if I'm wrong - the question of whether or not that one individual is working class doesn't really make any difference to what VP was talking about - in fact it makes less difference if he's not trying to get on the CC.
> 
> Not quite sure what you're getting at with Rees and German - of course it's not identical but you asked for an example and I gave one.


the point may still stand, but at least we've cleared up your smear about the comrades motivations.

the rees and german thing is about the difference between this faction, grassroots democratising, and that one, top down manouevring, which you appear not to see. you apply the word 'usual' to a situation which, for the swp, is very unusual indeed.

what vp says is true, working class militants don't want to join an organisation to do the bidding of some unaccountable middle class intellectuals and arsehole crawlers. the new faction is part of trying to change that.

hope that makes sense. my head is a giant ball of snot at the moment.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 25, 2012)

discokermit said:


> the point may still stand, but at least we've cleared up your smear about the comrades motivations.


 
It wasn't a smear - what's wrong with him wanting to be on the CC if he thinks he could do a better job 



discokermit said:


> the rees and german thing is about the difference between this faction, grassroots democratising, and that one, top down manouevring, which you appear not to see. you apply the word 'usual' to a situation which, for the swp, is very unusual indeed.


 
I know it's different - that's my general point - did you even read the post?



discokermit said:


> what vp says is true, working class militants don't want to join an organisation to do the bidding of some unaccountable middle class intellectuals and arsehole crawlers. the new faction is part of trying to change that.


 
Good - best of luck to them. But that would be the case whether he was working class or not, surely?



discokermit said:


> hope that makes sense. my head is a giant ball of snot at the moment.


 
Guessing it might be the cold and possibly my awkward writing style that's caused confusion, but I don't think we disagree - have another look at my posts.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 25, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Guessing it might be the cold and possibly my awkward writing style that's caused confusion, but I don't think we disagree - have another look at my posts.


it's probably me. i'll come back to it later.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 25, 2012)

yeah you're broadly fighting the same side guys!


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 25, 2012)

Why would he want to be on the CC if what he wants is a democratic party with a confident membership? In what way would he do a better job if the problem is structural and cultural?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 25, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> Why would he want to be on the CC if what he wants is a democratic party with a confident membership? In what way would he do a better job if the problem is structural and cultural?


 
I don't think it's that important a question to be honest, but the most obvious place to go if you want to help change the structures and that culture is....


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 25, 2012)

Why do you consider it unimportant?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 25, 2012)

I mean, change isn't going to come from the CC, the only change could come from the rank and file, collectively, which Paris understands, surely.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 25, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> I mean, change isn't going to come from the CC, the only change could come from the rank and file, collectively, which Paris understands, surely.


 
It's not important because it's completely speculative - I can have a guess at what his intentions are bit I I have no idea really - I don't know him. But yes I'd agree that it has to come from the rank and file. But the actions of the CC for as long as I can remember have demonstrated that they will generally do all in their power to prevent this happening, disrupting any attempts to create rank and file dissent and where necessary expelling ring leaders. Their actions in regards to this dispute in particular have reinforced that view. Changing the makeup of the CC could potentially change that.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 25, 2012)

personally i wouldn't have a problem if part of their strategy to alter the culture and direction of the organisation was to take over the leadership, though in this instance i don't believe that is a fleshed out part of their strategy. it might happen by default, if they won...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2012)

discokermit said:


> in the same old situations that never ever change. really? that's your analysis?


Don't put words in my mouth, there's a good chap. It's not exactly news to anyone that the SWP CC has a very limited range of default actions for such situations, that revolve around expulsion,  co-opting or sending to Coventry. Why change a winning formula?


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 26, 2012)

I don't see how changing the individuals at the top is going to change anything. It's not about individuals.

I think the SWP will fall apart because its internal contradictions are unsustainable. Its raison d'etre is to be the revolutionary party in the revolution that _may just be around the corner because they always happen when you least expect them_ and to do this they must be BIGGER, always BIGGER. Building the party is at odds with a more democratic culture because _all_ party activity is about building the party and to build the party means obeying the line. In the absence of a context of industrial action or widespread activism what is the point of the party? The point of the party is to be the party and the party is defined by its line because without the line what is the party?

So branch meetings continue to be places where comrades gain experience of arguing the line so they can go into their workplaces, colleges, trade unions and argue the line, rather than places where the line is constructed through debate, and debate isn't going to happen because comrades lack confidence in their perspective due to a lack of experience in activity, activity in which they've been a part of bringing about change, in activity, then, that's about their everyday life. I don't think this is how things always were - when I was a member most of the older than me comrades had become so because they were involved in something in which SWP activity had been really important, often a workplace dispute, and I suspect this is the reason for their continuing commitment. But most of the comrades my age and younger (42) don't have this experience and so a commitment to the theory of the party is very much an abstract thing, not something that comes from experience and is therefore contested.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 26, 2012)

I don't think anyone is saying that it's down to individuals or changing things at the top - just that changing things at the top could form part of a wider strategy for reforming the SWP. And those changes at the top won't happen without more fundamental changes from below anyway. Changes at the top would be an expression of those bottom up changes but could also help them along, or at least remove some obstacles to it.

Just to be clear - I _do not _think changes to the CC can make any real difference on their own. That's why I didn't say they could 

I agree with what you're saying though and I suspect that the SWP is beyond saving now. But I do think that in the IMO unlikely event of something worthwhile being salvaged the course of events that would bring about the change would have to _include_ changes to the CC. It's probably not going to change from 'build the party build the party' and therefore it's unlikely to change into anything worth having. But it _definitely_ won't with the current CC in place.

It's worth noting that back when the SWP were playing a bigger role in struggles they were far more open to debate etc (I think you are hinting at that in your post actually). For example, if you look at their publications from the 70s it's not just Trotsky and Lenin - there was loads of stuff about Rosa Luxemburg, the IWW, stuff from all kinds of traditions - and not the kind of hatchet jobs you see now when they're talking about anarchism/'autonomism'. You'd get guest articles too. And I don't think it was an accident that this changed - I think TC changed it quite deliberately, tightening the party up, making it more rigid and the party line far less flexible. And if they tightened it up from the top you need changes at the top to stand any chance, no matter how slim, of reclaiming it.

I suspect that part of this may have been a deliberate strategy to expand the membership and that it was always TC's intention to tighten things up from the top once the party was big enough (the structures he used to do this were there long before he used them). Either way that's exactly what happened.

I wasn't actually around at the time so I'm taking this from what people who were have told me - I've also seen posters on here talk about it - I think one of them might have been the39thstep.

It looks to me like when the party started to lose members rather than opening things up and returning to the strategies that won a lot of people over, they kept the rigidity but started being much more opportunistic with the party line in order to appeal to their recruitment targets, and since students generally make easier recruits (I know this from experience) they tailored it to students - meaning you have to appeal to all kinds of liberal fads and water down anything that refers to class. It's not done them any good at all really - the kind of people you recruit on that basis won't stick around and are less likely to have a genuine commitment to the politics.

This stuff is a big part of why I left. I had political differences too but those are more of a problem if you're not able to debate them properly.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 26, 2012)

I was a student at the relevant period -- early to mid eighties. I was already starting to move left of Labour at that time (plus always hated the Tories as I still do).

Even for someone pretty naive politically back then, and also dangerously lazy , the SWP came over as *immensely* alienating with their habit of ranting in identikit Trot-Lego-language and simplisitic headlines/slogans -- tabloid headlines for Trots.

The many many true and direct anecdotes I heard from fellow leftie students, and later from others, who'd been recruited for a while, did nothing to contradict this impression.

Any student, or anyone, attracted to the idea of selling papers and ranting slogans and 'recruiting' at Tube stations and picket lines at stupid-am in the morning, and prepared to put up with the pressure from 'The Party' to work their arses off doing this, must either have been pretty weird, or pretty likely to drop out in short order from burnout and pissedoffness and disillusionment.

Even at the Height Of Thatcher!.

And although I was a reasonably politically aware student, I was same with limited life experience at the time!
CAMRA activism and also even direct TU membership activism, both later on, held much more of an attraction.  

Fuck knows what your average working, or even striking, Londoner, with their own much more life-experienced reactions, must have thought of the SWP ... : 

Just giving a bit of an old schooler outsider's impressions/memories.

Respect all the same to the properly informative insights in Red Cat's and Spiney's posts.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 26, 2012)

Take it that Xmas day evening wasn't a carnival of fun for some of you?


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 26, 2012)

Well I'm not in the SWP and never was, and I have plenty of beer in, so I did fine!


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 26, 2012)

The course of the proletarian struggle is not always about you


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 26, 2012)

Have never claimed it was at any point on this forum.

That was an unnecessarily unpleasant snipe, so get stuffed and Happy Xmas. Ta.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 26, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Take it that Xmas day evening wasn't a carnival of fun for some of you?


 
Not for me no - dental abscess so I'm in absolute agony and the emergency doctor (couldn't even get to see a dentist) gave me antibiotics so I can't drink - it's remarkably shit. And I won't get to see a dentist till the 8th


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 26, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not for me no - dental abscess so I'm in absolute agony and the emergency doctor (couldn't even get to see a dentist) gave me antibiotics so I can't drink - it's remarkably shit. And I won't get to see a dentist till the 8th



Sorry to hear that


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 26, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> Have never claimed it was at any point on this forum.
> 
> That was an unnecessarily unpleasant snipe, so get stuffed and Happy Xmas. Ta.



Over sensitive type ? Seasons greeting to you anyway


----------



## love detective (Dec 26, 2012)

seasonally adjusted greetings


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 26, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not for me no - dental abscess so I'm in absolute agony and the emergency doctor (couldn't even get to see a dentist) gave me antibiotics so I can't drink - it's remarkably shit. And I won't get to see a dentist till the 8th


 
thats just a lie doctors tell you just to stop you drinking . A few beers will do you no harm whatsoever . Only specialised antibiotics are affected by alcohol . Most aren't . Id assume you've been prescribed a course of amoxycilin . 3 or 4 beers will do sweet fuck all harm . Any more than that and youve only got to worry about a bit more dehydration than usual . Still eff all to do with the antibiotic and just related to the infection itself. Just drink more water.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 26, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Over sensitive type ? Seasons greeting to you anyway


 
If you'd read some of my posts five or so years back, you'd have realised that that one above from me was pretty restrained on my part 

But yeah enjoy the season and so on


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 26, 2012)

Maturity is the mark of a man


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 26, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> thats just a lie doctors tell you just to stop you drinking . A few beers will do you no harm whatsoever . Only specialised antibiotics are affected by alcohol . Most aren't . Id assume you've been prescribed a course of amoxycilin . 3 or 4 beers will do sweet fuck all harm . Any more than that and youve only got to worry about a bit more dehydration than usual . Still eff all to do with the antibiotic and just related to the infection itself. Just drink more water.


 
Seriously doesn't stop the antibiotics working? Only I got a bottle of single malt and a crate of Guinness in my Christmas box and I'm thinking it might be more effective as a painkiller than the ibuprofen I've been taking.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 26, 2012)

nope 





SpineyNorman said:


> Seriously doesn't stop the antibiotics working? Only I got a bottle of single malt and a crate of Guinness in my Christmas box and I'm thinking it might be more effective as a painkiller than the ibuprofen I've been taking.


 
nope . Its only antibiotics for some serious strains of bacteria, like water borne illnesses and tropical diseases and the likes or for some serious gastric illnesses. Your run of the mill amoxies and the like wont be affected. Its a myth doctors peddle to stop you having fun, which is of course always bad for you . Just remember to drink a fair bit of water if your going to cane it .


----------



## Buckaroo (Dec 26, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Seriously doesn't stop the antibiotics working? Only I got a bottle of single malt and a crate of Guinness in my Christmas box and I'm thinking it might be more effective as a painkiller than the ibuprofen I've been taking.


 
Whiskey and guiness every time mate. Crush some cloves and pack em round yer tooth. Tastes like the dentists, must be right. Saw that about 'M', cheers, and saw Dave's 'Phew' comment on twatter. Silly, dangerous stuff.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 26, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Seriously doesn't stop the antibiotics working? Only I got a bottle of single malt and a crate of Guinness in my Christmas box and I'm thinking it might be more effective as a painkiller than the ibuprofen I've been taking.


 
dont just take my word for it


http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ate/infections/202426.html


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 27, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> thats just a lie doctors tell you just to stop you drinking . A few beers will do you no harm whatsoever . Only specialised antibiotics are affected by alcohol . Most aren't . Id assume you've been prescribed a course of amoxycilin . 3 or 4 beers will do sweet fuck all harm . Any more than that and youve only got to worry about a bit more dehydration than usual . Still eff all to do with the antibiotic and just related to the infection itself. Just drink more water.


Depends on what they give you, I got given some stuff that began with m (can't remember the name) that made me want to puke even if I smelled alcohol, apparently if you drink with this one you're supposed to chuck your guts up


----------



## cesare (Dec 27, 2012)

KeeperofDragons said:


> Depends on what they give you, I got given some stuff that began with m (can't remember the name) that made me want to puke even if I smelled alcohol, apparently if you drink with this one you're supposed to chuck your guts up


Yeah, I can't remember the name of it either but I was given one for a dental abcess where I was told alcohol would make me vomit and vomit etc. Casually Red's right about the general broad spectrum ones though.


----------



## JimW (Dec 27, 2012)

I always check the left sectariana threads before I take any medication 

Hope you feel better soon, Spiney.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2012)

Can I ask anti-SWPers, ex-SWPers, and maybe even present ones, this question? Kind of coming from my first post on this thread.

Is the fast turnover of membership -- recruit a lot, and then quicky lose a lot -- something the Central Committee and leaders happily accept as a deliberate part of their strategy? Refine the wheat (hardcore cadres) from the chaff (temporary enthusiasts)??

Reads a bit like that from some of what people have been posting on this thread. But hugely pissing off far more people (see my earlier post #118) than you successfully rant at/indoctrinate, seems like a fuckload of thankless work and waste to this outsider.

Maybe I ought to remind myself of what Leon, Vladimir and Josef wrote originally, as well as Karl  but anecdotal UK-SWP specific answers would be fine


----------



## bignose1 (Dec 27, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not for me no - dental abscess so I'm in absolute agony and the emerge.ncy doctor (couldn't even get to see a dentist) gave me antibiotics so I can't drink - it's remarkably shit. And I won't get to see a dentist till the 8th





cesare said:


> Yeah, I can't remember the name of it either but I was given one for a dental abcess where I was told alcohol would make me vomit and vomit etc. Casually Red's right about the general broad spectrum ones though.


Ive got a script for Tramadol that I never used...been told it'd work even if someone pulled your arm off at the shoulder.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 27, 2012)

Been updating myself about 'vanguardism' etc in the Workers Girder thread.

I think most of the answers to my questions above can be found there


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 27, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Ive got a script for Tramadol that I never used...been told it'd work even if someone pulled your arm off at the shoulder.


 
My brother has them for his back - seriously good shit - very, very powerful. Gave me one when my shoulder (out of which my arm once really was very nearly ripped off but that's another story) was playing up and within about an hour I could hardly feel a thing. It was a bit too good for me though cos since it didn't hurt I ended up using my arm much more than I should have so when the tramadol wore off it hurt even more. 

You need to be careful with the dose though because they're either opiates or opiods, can't remember which, so if you take too much for too long you'll be clucking like a christmas turkey when your script runs out.


----------



## harpo (Dec 27, 2012)

Metronidozole alert!!! Often given for gumboils and DO NOT drink on them. They will make you projectile vom.

I hope this comment has not come too late although I suspect it may have and someone will be finding out the hard way, as did I, that metronidozole and alcohol is a very nasty combination.


----------



## cesare (Dec 28, 2012)

harpo said:


> Metronidozole alert!!! Often given for gumboils and DO NOT drink on them. They will make you projectile vom.
> 
> I hope this comment has not come too late although I suspect it may have and someone will be finding out the hard way, as did I, that metronidozole and alcohol is a very nasty combination.


That's the one!!!


----------



## harpo (Dec 28, 2012)

cesare said:


> That's the one!!!


 
It's a dirty drug alright.  You do have to question the motives for prescribing it.  As people have said, amoxycillin usually does the job, There's no need to prescribe stuff that makes you puke (/gives you thrush/).


----------



## Cornetto (Dec 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It was directed to the anarchist cornetto and the leninist DU. That better opp means fuck all as well- look at the state of it.


 
I'm not an anarchist BA.

I dont agree with the CC of the SWP on most organisational issues. However the SWP has been the most significant org in assiting and organising UCU left, of which I am a part of. Getting national struggle kicked off for the first time in donkeys years around pensions. It's a shame that issue got kicked into the long grass, but, it is, what it is.

I think Paris and the Democratic Opposition platform may cause a massive internal reflection and discussion on future organisation, this has been going on for some time and many agree with the DO platform. The SWP has too many full timers and London hangers on, this has gor to go, it is not healthy for a left party or organisation of this size.

I dont have a problem with a centrally organised group based on the principles of DC, however the SWP as it is is not DC.

You keep banging on about the failings of the SWP BA, but to be honest its just bluster there is no other left organisation capable of putting out the level of information and support for left trade unionists, that in itself is problemtaic.
Im utterly bored of people banging on the net, winning arguments and been right, the left is always winning arguments and getting no where. One of the reasons i post very rarely on here.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2012)

Why didn't you put an announcement in the paper about it? How are we to keep up with your spots otherwise?


----------



## JimW (Dec 28, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> I'm not an anarchist BA.


Say it three times so it's even more like Peter denying Christ


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2012)

Looking at that musical marixts things again - it totally revolves around the two of them's relationship with the swp - one expelled  18 years ago one left 3 years ago and everything, no matter what the ostensible topic is actually about the SWP. I actually have a lot of time for what they are trying to do and how they do it, but after all this time to still be concentrating on the SWP (and to only have gone as far as Debord and Adorno) is a bit...well crap.


----------



## mutley (Dec 28, 2012)

_'Can I ask anti-SWPers, ex-SWPers, and maybe even present ones, this question? Kind of coming from my first post on this thread._

_Is the fast turnover of membership -- recruit a lot, and then quicky lose a lot -- something the Central Committee and leaders happily accept as a deliberate part of their strategy? Refine the wheat (hardcore cadres) from the chaff (temporary enthusiasts)??'_

Absolutley not - significant effort has gone into reducing the level of turnover. How successful that has been I'm not sure, as 2012 has been a much harder year than 2011 was, its hard to judge the success of any particular change in recruitment strategy. I'm not actually convinced that the swp's turnover is significantly worse than other organisations, but I might be wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2012)

What efforts? And why? What does the fact that these efforts were required suggest to you?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Looking at that musical marixts things again - it totally revolves around the two of them's relationship with the swp - one expelled 18 years ago one left 3 years ago and everything, no matter what the ostensible topic is actually about the SWP. I actually have a lot of time for what they are trying to do and how they do it, but after all this time to still be concentrating on the SWP (and to only have gone as far as Debord and Adorno) is a bit...well crap.


 
you answered your own issue there, it's about the SWP because it's about the SWP. like it or not that is a large factor in the modus operandi. obviously that's not too interesting or useful for those not interested in the SWP, but hey ho.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2012)

I think the site and the stuff they write aggressively pushes the idea of working class culture and capabilities that points directly and immediately beyond the SWP, beyond _leninist discipline, _beyond _the party. _Yet it's always there for them. It doesn't have to be.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 28, 2012)

i do actually agree with that... as i say though,  in the not unlikely event that the DO are prevented from returning to the Party, i think that will be it. hopefully all the serious old cadre will leave with the DO this time and things can move on.


----------



## mutley (Dec 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What efforts? And why? What does the fact that these efforts were required suggest to you?


 
Various measures at the national level aimed at making sure that when people filled in a membership form that they actually did want to be members (ie phoning them up!), and more systematic attention paid to who had joined by people at a branch level. Membership secretaries. Educationals (not sure how consistently they've happened). None of it earth shattering stuff.

i think that second part of your question obviously has a whole range of possible answers. For me its a combination of the frustrating nature of the current period (ruling class on the rampage, our side led by donkies) plus lack of attention to ppl at a local level (ie the infamous 'subjective factor'). I dare say you'd have other answers, but I still think the turnover problem is a problem for the left in general, not just the swp.


----------



## Nigel (Dec 28, 2012)

Pre conference article produced for bulletin by Paris Thompson.
No wonder the CC were a bit pissed off!
http://www.unkant.com/2012/12/paris-political-engagement-and-party.html


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think the site and the stuff they write aggressively pushes the idea of working class culture and capabilities that points directly and immediately beyond the SWP, beyond _leninist discipline, _beyond _the party. _Yet it's always there for them. It doesn't have to be.


 

Beyond the pale if you ask me


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 28, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> I'm not an anarchist BA.
> 
> I dont agree with the CC of the SWP on most organisational issues. However the SWP has been the most significant org in assiting and organising UCU left, of which I am a part of. Getting national struggle kicked off for the first time in donkeys years around pensions. It's a shame that issue got kicked into the long grass, but, it is, what it is.
> 
> ...


Or why you edit on long posts after your original one liner been replied to. Naughty.

Are you now in the swp? If so, why? Is it a reflection of your position as a lecturer? The relative strength in this niche area? How then does that translate to class organising?


----------



## past caring (Dec 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Looking at that musical marixts things again - it totally revolves around the two of them's relationship with the swp - *one expelled 18 years ago* one left 3 years ago and everything, no matter what the ostensible topic is actually about the SWP. I actually have a lot of time for what they are trying to do and how they do it, but after all this time to still be concentrating on the SWP (and to only have gone as far as Debord and Adorno) is a bit...well crap.


 
Like a lefty Miss Haversham.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 28, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Beyond the pale if you ask me




What the fuck is that?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think the site and the stuff they write aggressively pushes the idea of working class culture and capabilities that points directly and immediately beyond the SWP, beyond _leninist discipline, _beyond _the party. _Yet it's always there for them. It doesn't have to be.



This!

I think there's a lot of good stuff on there (although i can see why it might not be to some people's tastes!) but I am flummoxed by the gravitational pull the SWP has on them...

"One more effort..." as the old patronising cliche goes.


----------



## mk12 (Dec 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Off the top of my head Charlie Kimber is now the general secretary then there's Callinicos, Joseph Choonara, Michael Bradley and Amy Leather, not sure who else is on there these days though.


 
Posh Cambridge student called Dan Mayer too iirc.


----------



## nogojones (Dec 29, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Beyond the pale if you ask me





This is why I never went partying with my mates from the SWP


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 29, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Beyond the pale if you ask me



A case of the remedy being more toxic than the disease.
 I am reminded of Nick Cohen's point that when the left began to revel in being separate or ahead of the class; avant- guard and vanguards, it began to lose its fundamental link with the class.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Dec 30, 2012)

What a surprise. A member of one nobody left group starts a thread about another nobody left group. Nobody else cares.

It's truely pathetic the amount of time that people in left groups spend looking at what other left groups are doing, when none of them amount to a hill of beans as the saying goes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2012)

I stand to be corrected on this but I don't think anyone believes this thread will become a decisive factor in the class struggle.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Dec 30, 2012)

No it won't. But the post was mainly directed at the person who started the thread rather than the rest of it. Someone in the Socialist Party gloating about problems in the SWP and pretending it is for another reason. When in reality the Socialist Party is very little different from the SWP.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2012)

I don't think that's why he did it at all - he's a notorious lefty trainspotter - I think he's genuinely interested in what's going on.

And you're having a dig at the SP and pretending it's for another reason so I reckon there might just be a tiny bit of projection going on here.


----------



## Cornetto (Dec 30, 2012)

BA I added the rest about 2 minutes later as i had to go wipe a toddlers arse on the toilet.

I pay money towards the SWP as they are effective within UCU left (that does give membership rights), I also make donations and have direct debits to various leftist groups. The SWP are effective as a grouping as the UCU is a small union focused ona specific work area. They have formations in all the TU orgs, but the mega union nature of unison, unite, GMB etc make impact more difficult.

Ideologically I'm more in the camp of Plan C, i have been to a few meetings,  but it seems to be much more of a discussion forum. It may go somewhere in the future. One annoying thing is that most of the Plan C lot are academics, yet they make no intervention within their workplace via UCU.

As for class organising I do what I can given my time and constraints of life, work and family. This is at the moment confined to TU work and a local community assocaiation. I work in higher education so that is where i organise as i did before in health and socail care and prior to that in catering and hospitality.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 30, 2012)

Cornetto said:


> Ideologically I'm more in the camp of Plan C,


What's plan C? Or maybe I should say which plan C as Google gives quite a few hits.


----------



## Cornetto (Dec 30, 2012)

emanymton said:


> What's plan C? Or maybe I should say which plan C as Google gives quite a few hits.


http://www.weareplanc.org/

Thats the London Group


----------



## audiotech (Dec 30, 2012)

nogojones said:


> This is why I never went partying with my mates from the SWP


 
Many years ago I went to see the Buthole Surfers with one person featured in that vid. It was an enjoyable night out all in all.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Dec 31, 2012)

> I don't think that's why he did it at all - he's a notorious lefty trainspotter - I think he's genuinely interested in what's going on.
> 
> And you're having a dig at the SP and pretending it's for another reason so I reckon there might just be a tiny bit of projection going on here.


 
How is my dig at the SP for another reason? I'm saying the far left groups are irrelevant, inward looking and totally off putting to the vast majority of people. That's not because socialist ideas are wrong in my view but because these orgnisations are run little differently than cults in a lot of respects.

Most of the people in far left groups are lefty trainspotters, obsessed with the tiny and ever shrinking world of the far left. And each group, whether the SWP, SP or whoever else gloat at any problems that other groups have while seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are little different from each other.


----------



## Cornetto (Dec 31, 2012)

Some one leaked the Democratic Oppistion staement to the Grazia of the left - Weekly Worker.

http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/socialist-workers-party-faction-declared


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2012)

Only 6 Lenins in that _updated_ version - o_nwards to the 21st century comrades!_

_(_Includes this corker: _This is most basic principal of Leninism: bringing revolutionary theory to mass working-class organisation.)_


----------



## nogojones (Dec 31, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Many years ago I went to see the Buthole Surfers with one person featured in that vid.


 
This is another reason I'd not go partying with them


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 31, 2012)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> How is my dig at the SP for another reason? I'm saying the far left groups are irrelevant, inward looking and totally off putting to the vast majority of people. That's not because socialist ideas are wrong in my view but because these orgnisations are run little differently than cults in a lot of respects.
> 
> Most of the people in far left groups are lefty trainspotters, obsessed with the tiny and ever shrinking world of the far left. And each group, whether the SWP, SP or whoever else gloat at any problems that other groups have while seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are little different from each other.



Except your analysis of the nature of the left, which I share, drives everything (including the ideas which you state are correct). 

This is why the left constantly intervene in issues when have no ability to influence them. It's why on issue after issue the left puts itself on the opposite side of the debate from the class it aspires to 'lead' and it's why the left have nothing at all to say about the bread and butter issues that any organisation serious about gaining credibility amongst the class would want to put at the centre of their work.

Not fit for purpose organisationally or intellectually in other words.


----------



## belboid (Dec 31, 2012)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> How is my dig at the SP for another reason? I'm saying the far left groups are irrelevant, inward looking and totally off putting to the vast majority of people. That's not because socialist ideas are wrong in my view but because these orgnisations are run little differently than cults in a lot of respects.
> 
> Most of the people in far left groups are lefty trainspotters, obsessed with the tiny and ever shrinking world of the far left. And each group, whether the SWP, SP or whoever else gloat at any problems that other groups have while seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are little different from each other.


And yet you have turned solely to whine about other lefty groups' behaviour! You seem to be even more oblivious than the people you're trying to criticise!


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 31, 2012)

The SWP doesn't talk much about far left groups at all, they talk about Labour and reformist orgs.  I never met any trainspotter types in the SWP.


----------



## belboid (Dec 31, 2012)

Red Cat said:


> The SWP doesn't talk much about far left groups at all, they talk about Labour and reformist orgs. I never met any trainspotter types in the SWP.


There are loads.  They just dont put it in the paper.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2012)

belboid said:


> There are loads. They just dont put it in the paper.


They do let the prof do his regular round-up of lefty trainspotting around europe though. It's ok when he does it.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 31, 2012)

belboid said:


> There are loads. They just dont put it in the paper.


 
I never met them.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 31, 2012)

My admittedly long ago experience of the SWP was nothing like my experience of p&p on urban. There's a lot wrong with the SWP but they've always IME been outward looking in their attempts to make themselves bigger.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 31, 2012)

harpo said:


> Metronidozole alert!!! Often given for gumboils and DO NOT drink on them. They will make you projectile vom.
> 
> I hope this comment has not come too late although I suspect it may have and someone will be finding out the hard way, as did I, that metronidozole and alcohol is a very nasty combination.


That's what it was - & no I didn't drink - couldn't even stand the smell of alcohol.  Reminded me of when I was pregnant - both times


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 31, 2012)

harpo said:


> It's a dirty drug alright. You do have to question the motives for prescribing it. As people have said, amoxycillin usually does the job, There's no need to prescribe stuff that makes you puke (/gives you thrush/).


I was given it as when I had the remains of a tooth pulled it took a bit of my jaw bone with it


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 31, 2012)

I was a lefty train spotter in the SWP- even had the spartacists round whilst I was a member, there were plenty of others, but one had to be quiet about it in front of the gaffers.


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 31, 2012)

Maybe my memory is fuzzy but I really don't recall trainspottery tendencies. I was very active for the short period of my membership - one of those off to conference 2 weeks after joining kind of member, maybe that makes a difference. I have to say that the SWP was very good for me personally in many ways - it remains possible that despite my many criticisms, I rose-tint a little.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

they existed, but as barney says they were actively discouraged by the leadership


----------



## articul8 (Jan 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> only have gone as far as Debord and Adorno) is a bit...well crap.


Where should they be looking in terms of theory post adorno and debord?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 1, 2013)

> And yet you have turned solely to whine about other lefty groups' behaviour! You seem to be even more oblivious than the people you're trying to criticise!



Not sure what you mean about other groups as I'm not in a group?! Most threads I've started have been about practical stuff to try and stop the cuts. However my point here is that people actually in far left groups, despite being so marginalised, spend a huge amount of time fighting other left groups. The damage this has done to the anti cuts groups is a good example where they all have their fronts that all do very little in practical terms.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Where should they be looking in terms of theory post adorno and debord?


Theory?


----------



## Cornetto (Jan 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Theory?


 
What theory BA, how will we ever storm heaven?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 1, 2013)

Earlier on, I asked about the SWP's new-member-alienating and off-pissing tendancies, active for at least the last 40 years.

No-one's given me any kind of *honest* answer about why the fucking fuck the SWP's Central Committee is so completely OK with that 'piss off the anyone' and _maximum_ bolierplate-ranting strategy.

IE pissing *normal* lefties and non-lefties off so much.

Vanguardist? 

Rubbishist, surely


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

it comes from the general contempt the CC holds for the membership more broadly, i think. for a long time now there has been no criteria for membership, not even the slightest degree of political like-mindedness - this is because the CC consider the education of the 'footsoldiers' as a sickening decadence, when time would far be best spent not knowing anything and just selling papers. this is also a by-product of the CC's degraded ambitions for the organisation, which having lost sight of an overarching project long long ago, now focus solely upon fulfilling the same ritualistic activities centred primarily around sustaining the bloated bureaucracy in its place.

the real issue is that the CC _don't really care_ about politics, engaging people, or anything else. they're all mates from way back when, the _creme de la creme_ of Cliffite arselickers, and they have a neat little niche in a world for which they are otherwise unqualified (only Callinicos has spent any significant time in a job not on the CC and not being a student). this niche allows them to essentially live a lazy lifestyle, in which they are simultaneously revered, and in which they can ostensibly live the life of an exciting Bolshevik revolutionary.

IMO


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 1, 2013)

Thanks for that -- interesting 

I'm as lazy as beyond-fuck myself, both politics-wise and anything else-wise, but at least I spend my lazy times in the pub and in CAMRA activism  rather than by promoting anti-politics.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> it comes from the general contempt the CC holds for the membership more broadly, i think. for a long time now there has been no criteria for membership, not even the slightest degree of political like-mindedness - this is because the CC consider the education of the 'footsoldiers' as a sickening decadence, when time would far be best spent not knowing anything and just selling papers. this is also a by-product of the CC's degraded ambitions for the organisation, which having lost sight of an overarching project long long ago, now focus solely upon fulfilling the same ritualistic activities centred primarily around sustaining the bloated bureaucracy in its place.
> 
> the real issue is that the CC _don't really care_ about politics, engaging people, or anything else. they're all mates from way back when, the _creme de la creme_ of Cliffite arselickers, and they have a neat little niche in a world for which they are otherwise unqualified (only Callinicos has spent any significant time in a job not on the CC and not being a student). this niche allows them to essentially live a lazy lifestyle, in which they are simultaneously revered, and in which they can ostensibly live the life of an exciting Bolshevik revolutionary.
> 
> IMO


 
Complete misreading IMO


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

go on...


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 1, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Thanks for that -- interesting


 

In what way is it interesting william? In what way does that add to your understanding of that kind of organisation in this kind of context?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> In what way is it interesting william? In what way does that add to your understanding of that kind of organisation in this kind of context?


I presume he meant that as uberdog has recently been one of the more aggressive SWP defenders on here over the last 5 years that for him to say that was interesting. Certainly was interesting to me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> go on...


 
To say they don't really care about politics, is absolutely staggering especially coming from a former member...

Also to say they don't care about the political education of their members - why Bookmarks? Why ISJ? Why the pamphlets and discussion forums/public meetings?

It may not be the politics or political education we would like to see but it's writ large across loads of what they do...

You are of course correct about the membership criteria, and about the CC being a gang of mates who run their fiefdom as they see fit - but that is a symptom of what they do as much as being one of the reasons behind it.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

should say that all the time i was defending the SWP on here i was raising criticisms internally.. i was never in line with the majority in the organisation. people who know me from in the party wouldn't be as surprised by the above statement


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> To say they don't really care about politics, is absolutely staggering especially coming from a former member...
> 
> Also to say they don't care about the political education of their members - why Bookmarks? Why ISJ? Why the pamphlets and discussion forums/public meetings?
> 
> ...


 

they don't care, and that's shown up in the way they've dealt with the present dispute. i can't go into details yet, but by expelling Paris and the rest the CC have pretty much openly declared that they care more about maintaining their own little fiefdom than they do about any kind of politics - especially in light of the allegations which have been made about a given CC member. how else do you explain the absolute and utter hostility to otherwise productive and loyal individuals who raise even the most minor internal criticisms? or the happiness of the leadership to allow the organisation to stagnate into repetitive and directionless activities? or the way they so quickly sell out with campaigns like UAF as soon as it starts to present any kind of personal risk to them individually?

they don't give a shit mate


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

you don't even need to be critical to raise their ire, often you can do it simply by acting off your own initiative and running local campaigns which aren't directed entirely through the centre


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I presume he meant that as uberdog has recently been one of the more aggressive SWP defenders on here over the last 5 years that for him to say that was interesting. Certainly was interesting to me.


 
Pretty much that. I certainly remember Das Uberdog being much more of an SWP defender than he was in that earlier post.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> they don't give a shit mate


 
The current dispute is evidence that they do very much give a shit that their political leadership and ideas remain unchallenged within the organisation - if they didn't give a shit about "politics" they could quite easily have either dealt with the expellees through internal polemic or a combination of polemic and throwing a few bones.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> you don't even need to be critical to raise their ire, often you can do it simply by acting off your own initiative and running local campaigns which aren't directed entirely through the centre


 
Yes I'm aware of that, I was briefly a member as well around 01/02


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> why Bookmarks? Why ISJ? .


income.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

they give a shit that they stay in their untouchable positions and don't have to work a real job - give me one consistent theoretical position on a given issue that any of the CC have maintained against criticism over the past 10 years. nothing they stand by, democratic centralism, analysis on anti-fascism, the economic crisis, is ever clearly defined and the rhetoric in no instances lives up to the reality. the SWP still churns out books like 'The Two Souls of Socialism' to its young members, chats shit about how they can't allow their members to get tangled up in the bureaucracy of Trade Unions, whilst simultaneously and brazenly promoting its members into bureaucratic positions in the TUs... on nothing can you pin them down


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> income.


 
So the books and pamphlets they publish play no role in pushing the political ideas the CC want to push to members and the wider public?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 1, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Pretty much that. I certainly remember Das Uberdog being much more of an SWP defender than he was in that earlier post.


 
Maybe it was the smile that did it William. It comes over as gleeful, like you're watching a freakshow, which I don't like, as if you don't really give a shit, but fancy a bit of entertainment. But I am familiar with your way of expressing yourself and know that you've a fondness for smilies...so maybe I'm wrong. You post in this forum more than me so apologies if I've misjudged.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> they give a shit that they stay in their untouchable positions and don't have to work a real job - give me one consistent theoretical position on a given issue that any of the CC have maintained against criticism over the past 10 years. nothing they stand by, democratic centralism, analysis on anti-fascism, the economic crisis, is ever clearly defined and the rhetoric in no instances lives up to the reality. the SWP still churns out books like 'The Two Souls of Socialism' to its young members, chats shit about how they can't allow their members to get tangled up in the bureaucracy of Trade Unions, whilst simultaneously and brazenly promoting its members into bureaucratic positions in the TUs... on nothing can you pin them down


 
All this I agree with, except it doesn't mean they don't have politics, it means that they have many faces which they use to promote and build the party - but the politics are clearly there - how much does a CC member get paid?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> they don't care, and that's shown up in the way they've dealt with the present dispute. i can't go into details yet, but by expelling Paris and the rest the CC have pretty much openly declared that they care more about maintaining their own little fiefdom than they do about any kind of politics - especially in light of the allegations which have been made about a given CC member. how else do you explain the absolute and utter hostility to otherwise productive and loyal individuals who raise even the most minor internal criticisms? or the happiness of the leadership to allow the organisation to stagnate into repetitive and directionless activities? or the way they so quickly sell out with campaigns like UAF as soon as it starts to present any kind of personal risk to them individually?
> 
> they don't give a shit mate


 
What about Charlie Kimber industrial organiser?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

on paper they get paid around £15k i believe, but there's also expenses and stuff factored into that. they get a lot for free. but a shit wage for a fun, powerful position and lifestyle like they have isn't really a poor pay-off, especially if it's the only work you've ever known.

i don't see where their politics 'clearly' manifests itself at all - where is it? again, i think from the face of things it's clear that they're institutionalised within the party and scared like fuck of losing their stations


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What about Charlie Kimber industrial organiser?


 
all of them have displayed significant personal cowardice over the years to survive Cliff's zany purges and then to continue flourishing in the post-Cliff SWP environment. Kimber is a likable sort i can't lie but i can't imagine him willingly martyring himself for anything either.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

in fact if i were to make a personal exception to the rule it might be Mark Bergfeld, but i understand his time on the CC is to be short-lived too


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> So the books and pamphlets they publish play no role in pushing the political ideas the CC want to push to members and the wider public?


how come when you suggest educational meetings for new members you get "no time, comrade! the revolutions tomorrow!"?

although, to be fair, my knowledge is based on the mid nineties.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

the saving grace for the SWP, imo, is a core of dedicated, genuinely knowledgeable and mature cadre who've been sustaining the organisation through torrents of abuse from above for years... and its exactly these people that the CC is on the verge of finally throwing out now


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 1, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Maybe it was the smile that did it William. It comes over as gleeful, like you're watching a freakshow, which I don't like, as if you don't really give a shit, but fancy a bit of entertainment. But I am familiar with your way of expressing yourself and know that you've a fondness for smilies...so maybe I'm wrong. You post in this forum more than me so apologies if I've misjudged.


 
No worries man. I honestly do give some sort of shit, despite my own laziness.

But I also find the _utterly counterproductive_ approach to politics that the SWP seems to have, to be bewildering to say the least.

See the Workers Girder thread for how much the piss is *justifiably* taken out of fringe Trottery. Freakshow's an accurate word.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> how come when you suggest educational meetings for new members you get "no time, comrade! the revolutions tomorrow!"?
> 
> although, to be fair, my knowledge is based on the mid nineties.


 
When I was a member they had educational meetings every fortnight - they were of course all about hammering home the position of the CC but it was still clearly political education.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> When I was a member they had educational meetings every fortnight - they were of course all about hammering home the position of the CC *but it was still clearly political education*.


 
Did it work, as far as you remember? Genuine question.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the saving grace for the SWP, imo, is a core of dedicated, genuinely knowledgeable and mature cadre who've been sustaining the organisation through torrents of abuse from above for years... and its exactly these people that the CC is on the verge of finally throwing out now


 
That core cadre have been slavishly following every twist and turn of the CC for years, or they drop out after one twist too many which makes them no core at all.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Theory?


Er, yes, in current circcumstances.  What else?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 1, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Did it work, as far as you remember? Genuine question.


 
Not as political education no, and also it didn't seem in my view to convince a new generation of willing paper selling drones - it did work in cementing any new political line for long term core cadre, and helping to furnish them with arguments to use against heretics and unbelievers - which is success of sorts I suppose.

IMO


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> When I was a member they had educational meetings every fortnight - they were of course all about hammering home the position of the CC but it was still clearly political education.


 
those meetings which should have been branch meetings but where, actually, a broad historical meeting on one of the IS's tropes was hammered out followed by the local organiser 'declaring' what activities (i.e. paper sales) were going to be happening that given week...

there was a very linear political education in the SWP, but by far the best education always came unofficially for me, discussing and debating with 'the old guard' for hours in pubs. the day schools were far too sparse and the topics never related to any of the party's present strategies - any discussion of how any of the 'flavour of the week' national campaigns were building constructively into something more meaningful was always treated with absolute scorn and suspicion. as for the branch meetings/history lessons, i was always too frustrated that we weren't discussing what we, as a branch, were actually planning to do in the local area, voting on positions, discussing the paltry party notes, and delegating individuals to things like conference to appreciate the often botched and inaccurate meetings hosted by the CC's favourite student of the month.

i learnt a lot in the SWP, but i learnt most of it despite the CC not because of them.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> When I was a member they had educational meetings every fortnight - they were of course all about hammering home the position of the CC but it was still clearly political education.


their position on education is complex. on the one hand, everything you say, plus marxism. on the other, you only have to learn the key buzzwords, throw yourself into unquestioning activity and before you know it you're a fulltimer and doing a meeting at marxism. agreement and obedience are more important than reading. buying is more important than reading.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Not as political education no, and also it didn't seem in my view to convince a new generation of willing paper selling drones - it did work in cementing any new political line for long term core cadre, and helping to furnish them with arguments to use against heretics and unbelievers - which is success of sorts I suppose.
> 
> IMO


so, more about organisational control than actual education?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That core cadre have been slavishly following every twist and turn of the CC for years, or they drop out after one twist too many which makes them no core at all.


 
this isn't entirely the case, which is why i think the current situation is so interesting. there has always been a quiet, loyal but critical core of mainly old ISers (and post-STW, younger people too) who've been grinding away trying to improve things. not for much longer though.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> When I was a member they had educational meetings every fortnight - they were of course all about hammering home the position of the CC but it was still clearly political education.


The frequency of these has varied quite a bit over the years. The branch in the town where I live tries to have a meeting every week but they don't always mange it. About a year ago the SWP organized more specific educational courses (in each of their districts I think), which was a serious of about 10 meetings on a variety of topics. They even produced a series of booklets to go along side them with questions and activities. I think the idea for the meetings was they wold take up most of an afternoon and breakup into groups to discus the questions and all that sort of stuff. So I think it is a nonsense to say they don't try to educate their members, it's limited to education in the SWP tradition and the SWP line but it is taken seriously.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> this isn't entirely the case, which is why i think the current situation is so interesting. there has always been a quiet, loyal but critical core of mainly old ISers (and post-STW, younger people too) who've been grinding away trying to improve things. not for much longer though.


 
cliff is dead. harman is dead. bambery, german and rees are gone. the cc faction, in relation to the party, is the weakest it's ever been. the party is failing to grow in any real measure, which in such turbulent times and being one of the prime objectives for the organisation, could be fatal for them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

Improve the SWP - grind away at it, why? Unless you have a very different view of what they are, what they should do and what they represent, then what the fuck is the point? Or unless you represent something entirely different?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Er, yes, in current circcumstances. What else?


What else what?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

the only prevailing justification relies on remembering the dynamism of the old IS and not wishing for that tradition to die, in my experience. i still think the IS was a great thing and the worst thing that ever happened in it's tradition was the SWP declaring itself an actual political party in 1977, due to the ANL. i can understand why some of them have invested so much in it, even if i disagree.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

It wasn't due to the ANL but Cliff. Years wrong.

(edit:and i'm trying to watch the darts:X)


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

to do with cliff's enthusiasm for the success of ANL, and the IS became the SWP in January 1977


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

And the ANL was set up _after_ jan 77.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

shit you're right.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the only prevailing justification relies on remembering the dynamism of the old IS and not wishing for that tradition to die, in my experience. i still think the IS was a great thing and the worst thing that ever happened in it's tradition was the SWP declaring itself an actual political party in 1977, due to the ANL. i can understand why some of them have invested so much in it, even if i disagree.


the birmingham engineers were kicked out of the i.s. as was higgins.
the rot goes back much further, probably as far back as the rcp. maybe. at least as far back as "the club".


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

the IS wasn't perfect by any means, but it was going somewhere at least.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the IS wasn't perfect by any means, but it was going somewhere at least.


yes, but i think your analysis of "it was the swp wot dunnit" is a bit false. you try to date something that has no date. a strand that has always been there in varying degrees, certainly post ww2.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

that wasn't my intention, i could actually forgive certain elements of the SWPs terrible internal culture if the organisation itself were achieving something tangible. what it does in the present period is paralyze the thing beyond any hope of revival. i didn't say that all of these problems emerged because of the formation of the SWP, just that the formation of the SWP was the worst thing to happen to the IS tradition


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

You're still talking like them: _in the present period_


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're still talking like them: _in the present period_


we'll crush you under our leninist boot, _in the future period._


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're still talking like them: _in the present period_


seriously though, how do you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

It's just wanky back covering talk - uberdog doesn't even know he's done it.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's just wanky back covering talk - uberdog doesn't even know he's done it.


oh yeh. didn't realise "in the present period" was a quote.


----------



## ReturnOfElfman (Jan 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> their position on education is complex. on the one hand, everything you say, plus marxism. on the other, you only have to learn the key buzzwords, throw yourself into unquestioning activity and before you know it you're a fulltimer and doing a meeting at marxism. agreement and obedience are more important than reading. buying is more important than reading.


 
I know a guy who joined the SWP around the time I left and a few months later became a full timer. He was on the dole and became quite active because of his spare time and was taken under the wing of a well known experienced member, who isn't too popular with a lot of people. The problem with this guy is he didn't know too much about revolutionary socialism other than what he was told as he didn't read too much outside of the paper. I can remember talking to him after this while he was on an SWP stall and someone came over to talk. She ended up asking 'are you lot communists then?' (in a negative way) and he tried to convince her that they weren't communist 

This is just one example of how they let drones get full time positions who know nothing but follow what they're told.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

_Do you want to buy a paper? No thanks i'm a communist. _They love that.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _Do you want to buy a paper? No thanks i'm a communist. _They love that.


i refused to sell the edition with the headline "the end of communism" on the grounds of being a communist. they loved that as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

Did you not scrawl in a *?*


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Did you not scrawl in a *?*


i wanted to put " " around communism but i couldn't be arsed. just threw my toys out of the pram, told everyone to fuck off and sulked for a couple of weeks.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're still talking like them: _in the present period_


 
you read an awful lot into not much


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> you read an awful lot into not much


Hey, i was right about the swp and you didn't listen...maybe, just maybe you speak like them after being in them? It's not a huge claim.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

i did listen, i accepted your correction didn't i? 'speaking like them' or whatever, i don't understand all this 'back covering' business - at best it's a needlessly hostile little contribution on your part


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i did listen, i accepted your correction didn't i? 'speaking like them' or whatever, i don't understand all this 'back covering' business - at best it's a needlessly hostile little contribution on your part


Which correction? I meant your previous life as as an aggressive swp booster (and now here washed clean) , not being wrong on a fact  (no matter how telling it effected your tale of how the swp happened).

This:



> i could actually forgive certain elements of the SWPs terrible internal culture if the organisation itself were achieving something tangible. *what it does in the present period* is paralyze the thing beyond any hope of revival


 
Is both the logic and justification of the swp cc for the last thirty years. You don't even know that you're doing it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> So the books and pamphlets they publish play no role in pushing the political ideas the CC want to push to members and the wider public?


 
I don't think it's right to say "plays no role", because obviously it's great if you actually convince people with argument, but does everyone who buys the books and the pamphlets actually read them? The number of times I've seen pristine copies of tomes by Cliff, Harman, Callinicos etc in charity shops says "probably not"?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 1, 2013)

my previous jaunts on urban were inspired as much by the constant counter-productive harping which used to go on as much as any loyalty i had to the party (which i did have). this place used to be a genuinely annoying whine-fest, almost as obsessed with the SWP as you rightly accuse AMM of being today. not really sure how 'you being right on the SWP' (in respect to what exactly? i didn't change my mind because of anything you told me if that's what you think!) would be relevant to anything anyway, other than just another assertion of your supreme urban ego. 




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Is both the logic and justification of the swp cc for the last thirty years. You don't even know that you're doing it.




no it's not, because i don't use it to justify anything. i would always have an issue with the culture of the SWP 'in any period' - but at least in a situation where the organisation was achieving something i could still invest in it as an effective vehicle. that's all i was saying, everything else is what you've put in.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 1, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> no it's not, because i don't use it to justify anything. i would always have an issue with the culture of the SWP 'in any period' - but at least in a situation where the organisation was achieving something i could still invest in it as an effective vehicle. that's all i was saying, everything else is what you've put in.


so, an organisation working to the whim of tony cliff is good as long as cliff is getting it right?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 2, 2013)

no, i discount that exact point in the quotation you use


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> my previous jaunts on urban were inspired as much by the constant counter-productive harping which used to go on as much as any loyalty i had to the party (which i did have). this place used to be a genuinely annoying whine-fest, almost as obsessed with the SWP as you rightly accuse AMM of being today. not really sure how 'you being right on the SWP' (in respect to what exactly? i didn't change my mind because of anything you told me if that's what you think!) would be relevant to anything anyway, other than just another assertion of your supreme urban ego.
> 
> 
> 
> no it's not, because i don't use it to justify anything. i would always have an issue with the culture of the SWP 'in any period' - but at least in a situation where the organisation was achieving something i could still invest in it as an effective vehicle. that's all i was saying, everything else is what you've put in.


You're doing it again - i was right to be an aggressive dicky knob because that period called for it. See also :"the constant counter-productive harping"

And me being right on the swp didn't mean that i had personally changed your views, but that i said that _your views would change after experience_. And here we fucking are. With you right and me wrong.

And all this pleading means, _i believed in it at that point_ - at which point every new year of individual recruits covers its back for evermore.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> no, i discount that exact point in the quotation you use


You seem to be me be saying, right org - wrong people. Which is not a lesson leant but a desire to make it all over again.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 2, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't think it's right to say "plays no role", because obviously it's great if you actually convince people with argument, but does everyone who buys the books and the pamphlets actually read them? The number of times I've seen pristine copies of tomes by Cliff, Harman, Callinicos etc in charity shops says "probably not"?


 
Of course


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 2, 2013)

And now there's another faction declared, the "democratic centralist faction" on a political basis best summarised as "calm down calm down". It' seems to be a bunch of panicked middle cadre who are worried that the CC have shat the bed and are about to lose much of the younger membership but who don't have the bottle to back the original faction. Details over on the CPGB site.

Their initial statement is piss weak stuff, placing themselves as a moderate grouping in between the poles of the CC and the DO. It doesn't put forward any clear demands or proposals.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I actually have a lot of time for what they are trying to do and how they do it, but after all this time to still be concentrating on the SWP (and to only have gone as far as Debord and Adorno) is a bit...well crap.


I'll start again - where should they be going in order to go further than Debord/Adorno?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

articul8 said:
			
		

> I'll start again - where should they be going in order to go further than Debord/Adorno?



I wouldn't start from here.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And now there's another faction declared, the "democratic centralist faction" on a political basis best summarised as "calm down calm down". It' seems to be a bunch of panicked middle cadre who are worried that the CC have shat the bed and are about to lose much of the younger membership but who don't have the bottle to back the original faction. Details over on the CPGB site.
> 
> Their initial statement is piss weak stuff, placing themselves as a moderate grouping in between the poles of the CC and the DO. It doesn't put forward any clear demands or proposals.


 
Why can't the SP be more like this?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 2, 2013)

I think the point made earlier about the how full timers and central committee members want to keep their jobs because despite their low pay it gives them a fun, ego boosting thing to do in life is important. I agree with the person that said this comes from political problems and is a symptom, but once it kicks in it also becomes a something which cements the problems. I imagine most of the CC would be screwed if they lost their posts, what job would they do? This is something you see across the trade union movement as well with both those paid by the union and those lay officials on full time facility time. Funnily enough at a lay level there is quite a lot of far left people who get full time facility year on year and who are in far left groups. As far as I know there is also the issue that full timers in left groups such as the SWP and Socialist Party aren't even elected!

There is also the issue that this isn't about just the wrong people being in place but about the politics and the organisational forms. It's hardly just the SWP, look around the world at the amount of far left groups who operate like cults. And in this country as far as I can see the other left organisations are just the same. The Socialist Party also have unelected full timers, also have leaders who have been around decades and decades and who operate in very similar ways to the SWP as do the myriad of even smaller left organisations. In the anti cuts stuff I've been involved with all of the far left groups have been pretty much as bad as each other, building their do nothing fronts at any expense.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 2, 2013)

I think the post above me, which I've just seen, seems to be making the same point. Which is why I originally posted on this thread. There are too many people in very similar left groups who take glee out of this (whether they admit it or not), yet are doing the same thing themselves. You can almost feel the excitment from people in other groups who post up threads like this, but who are totally missing the wood for the trees.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 2, 2013)

I think the post above me, which I've just seen, seems to be making the same point as you as well. (gleefully - you can almost feel the excitment...)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "calm down calm down".


 
*resists 80s militant joke*


----------



## dennisr (Jan 2, 2013)

wood <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------> trees


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You seem to be me be saying, right org - wrong people. Which is not a lesson leant but a desire to make it all over again.


 
well that's not what i mean, i mean that i could still at least theoretically invest time in an organisation which was at least progressing the political situation whilst still having an awful internal culture, but also that the SWP can't even say that for itself.



> And me being right on the swp didn't mean that i had personally changed your views, but that i said that _your views would change after experience_. And here we fucking are. With you right and me wrong.




as for the rest^^^, no i wasn't _right_ to be an SWP troll but i really don't understand what relevance all this 'right and wrong' stuff has to anything whatsoever. p+p also had an inordinate obsession with my favoured tiny Trot sect and was bloated with irrascible whingers too, and i was like 16 -where does right or wrong come into any of that? why are we even talking about it? where have i come in and 'i'm right and you're wrong'? labelling something to a period in time isn't a justification for anything in itself, still less is it some credible analogy with my attitudes somehow pyscho-politically linked back to my time in the SWP. it doesn't have to be anything other than what it claims to be at face value; a description of a given period. this is quite a strenuously warped logical connection you're making.



fwiw though sorry to anyone i aggravated as an inflammatory SWP mouthpiece back in the day.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 2, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> fwiw though sorry to anyone i aggravated as an inflammatory SWP mouthpiece back in the day.


 
that's ok, winding up SWPers was the number one entertainment on here, you made it worthwhile


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> well that's not what i mean, i mean that i could still at least theoretically invest time in an organisation which was at least progressing the political situation whilst still having an awful internal culture, but also that the SWP can't even say that for itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Where does right or wrong come into it? I thought you were being all serious and that now?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 2, 2013)

this is a nonsensical argument


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

I don't see how suggesting that there are long term well informed  critiques of how vanguardist parties operate in general and the swp in particular that have proven to to be correct and so deserve to be taken seriously are nonsensical. When the musical marxists say it you think it's great.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 2, 2013)

what are you talking about about... you start by claiming me using the term 'in the present period' means i'm 'still talking like them' and thus justifying the logic of the CC unconsciously... then when i 'wtf?' that you claim that you were 'right' on the SWP so why shouldn't you be right that i've picked up habits of speech from the party - and after a further clarification you then claim that by this you meant that you were right that i, personally, would change my mind on the SWP through experience after having been a 16-17 year old mouthpiece for the party on p+p... then you claim that _*I*_ am claiming that 'i was right and you were wrong' thus further proving your point that i was justifying the same logic as the SWP CC, and now all of this somehow links into some 'well informed critique' of 'how vanguardist parties operate in general and the SWP in particular that have proven to be correct so deserve to be taken seriously'...

seriously man if you have a point to make then just make it, rather than just chucking out bitty little antagonistic statements designed just to provoke responses you can retrospectively weave backwards into some kind of obscure narrative at the end.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

You can take the student out of the swp but you can't take...

Come the fuck on, you offer apologies (not that i think anyone is after them) that are surrounded with _but i was right to be wrong at that time. _You show that you do take the criticisms made at the time (and before and ongoing seriously, but then undermine them with this _but but but. _Its the same problem that i have with wilson and watson. Make your criticism of the party - and all vanguardist parties - concrete. Argue for the parties dissolution and refounding on different basic principles, not a call to leninist discipline. Imagine all that energy the party wastes on this shit being freed.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 2, 2013)

what is this obsession with 'right and wrong'!? you brought it up, in the terms that you claimed _you_ had been right about my attitudes on an internet message board over 5 years ago - for what reason i have no idea - then despite the fact you repeatedly bring it up you claim you don't want a retraction or apology (why do you keep bringing it up then? and why do you insist that _i_ accept you were 'right' about it?)

this isn't an argument, you're just peppering the discussion with semi-coherent soundbites and put-downs whilst concocting new angles as you go along. perhaps if i allow it you'll settle into a position and act like that's what was being said all the time, and on that note - on perhaps the first actually coherent issue you've raised in 7 posts:




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Argue for the parties dissolution and refounding on different basic principles, not a call to leninist discipline




for the record, i do do this - and this fact also has absolutely _nothing to do_ with me using the phrase 'in the present period' or claiming that i was 'right to be wrong when i was 17' or anything else you've taken issue with.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 2, 2013)

You could ask the apron about his former membership of the Labour party, for the lols like.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 2, 2013)

audiotech said:


> You could ask the apron about his former membership of the Labour party, for the lols like.


 
not sure that would be relevant in any way??

It would be if butchers was saying that there are still good people in the Labour party and that if only the LRC could gain more influence there might be something worth salvaging


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

for the lols like.

DU: if the new party is founded on the same chest prodding _i was right to be wrong, it was the period_ then it'd die immediately as the trapped masses escape. Do you see why i'm emphasising this - an organisation breeds attitudes that can outlive that organisation. Especially an aggressively vanguardist organisation due to its self selected role as brain and memory of the class, the one who can see clearer and further than the class, who can generalise class lessons by its very existence. _Dissolve this_ as well.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 2, 2013)

nogojones said:


> This is another reason I'd not go partying with them



I'm in an annoying mood.

Edit: The annoying song by the butthole surfers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

audiotech said:


> I'm in an annoying mood.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=/&gl=GB


Great link.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> DU: if the new party is founded on the same chest prodding _i was right to be wrong, it was the period_ then it'd die immediately as the trapped masses escape. Do you see why i'm emphasising this - an organisation breeds attitudes that can outlive that organisation. Especially an aggressively vanguardist organisation due to its self selected role as brain and memory of the class, the one who can see clearer and further than the class, who can generalise class lessons by its very existenced. _Dissolve this_ as well.


 
Is it just me? I find the way SWPers used to speak of 'the class' almost as annoying as *how* they did stuff.

In any case 'aggressively vanguardist' has got to be identical to 'aggressively offputting' as far as most normal people are concerned. IME and IMO anyway.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> for the lols like.
> 
> DU: if the new party is founded on the same chest prodding _i was right to be wrong, it was the period_ then it'd die immediately as the trapped masses escape. Do you see why i'm emphasising this - an organisation breeds attitudes that can outlive that organisation. Especially an aggressively vanguardist organisation due to its self selected role as brain and memory of the class, the one who can see clearer and further than the class, who can generalise class lessons by its very existenced. _Dissolve this_ as well.


 
but i'm not arguing that, all i ever originally said was that the IS tradition - whilst accepting it still contained many of the undemocratic elements which would later surface in the SWP - was still achieving something and on that basis i could have invested energies into rectifying it rather than just writing it off altogether... that and that the formation of the SWP ruined the progress being made by the IS (implicitly, this means i argue against 'saving' the SWP today).

the point you make here is fine as a stand-alone point but it's not in any real sense a response to what i posted. what can i say? i agree


----------



## articul8 (Jan 2, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> seriously man if you have a point to make then just make it, rather than just chucking out bitty little antagonistic statements designed just to provoke responses you can retrospectively weave backwards into some kind of obscure narrative at the end.


 
you want him to make his point, openly and argue for it?  Whatever next?  Good luck with that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

Ted knight.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 2, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I think the post above me, which I've just seen, seems to be making the same point. Which is why I originally posted on this thread. There are too many people in very similar left groups who take glee out of this (whether they admit it or not), yet are doing the same thing themselves. You can almost feel the excitment from people in other groups who post up threads like this, but who are totally missing the wood for the trees.


 







Come on admit it - you were so gleeful when you saw that post that you had to have a little play with your private parts.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Make your criticism of the party - and all vanguardist parties - concrete. Argue for the parties dissolution and refounding on different basic principles, not a call to leninist discipline. Imagine all that energy the party wastes on this shit being freed.


there's nothing wrong with discipline. in fact it's essential.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

discokermit said:


> there's nothing wrong with discipline. in fact it's essential.


Discipline about what though? Just saying discipline is good is like saying that organisation is good. It's meaningless.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Discipline about what though? Just saying discipline is good is like saying that organisation is good. It's meaningless.


action. argue it through, thrash it out, make a decision and act on it. together.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2013)

discokermit said:


> action. argue it through, thrash it out, make a decision and act on it. together.


I agree, that's good. 50 years of leninist discipline suggest otherwise. They suggest that it's a stupid outdated method of organisation - when tied to a single party.

But what does it mean to say 'leninist discipline' is what is required in 2013


----------



## past caring (Jan 2, 2013)

discokermit said:


> action. argue it through, thrash it out, make a decision and act on it. together.


 
You mean democracy?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I agree, that's good. 50 years of leninist discipline suggest otherwise. They suggest that it's a stupid outdated method of organisation - when tied to a single party.


i don't think the single party is necessarily the problem.i also don't think we've seen 50 years of leninist discipline. everything has been distorted through stalin and capitalism.

i'll be back with a better thought out response in a bit, i'm off to the chippy now.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2013)

Tantalising!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 2, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Tantalising!


not really. i've been back hours and can't think of anything better.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 2, 2013)

Spineynorman you seem to be missing the point. I'm not in a far left group, so it makes no difference to me what happens to any of them. But at a rough guess the people responding to my posts in a defensive way are in one of the far left groups themselves.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 2, 2013)

discokermit said:


> not really. i've been back hours and can't think of anything better.


----------



## Dougie Winthrop (Jan 3, 2013)

god bless you lefties!


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2013)

Dougie Winthrop said:


> god bless you lefties!


 
Eighth year a member and only your second post? That deserves a like.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 3, 2013)

that's some superior lurking for sure...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 3, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Spineynorman you seem to be missing the point. I'm not in a far left group, so it makes no difference to me what happens to any of them. But at a rough guess the people responding to my posts in a defensive way are in one of the far left groups themselves.


 
Nah I don't think I am. Who's 'respondong to your posts in a defensive way' anyway? I for one am just taking the piss out of your hypocrisy.


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Eighth year a member and only your second post? That deserves a like.


have you seen that other post?  He deserves acquainting with a pavement


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2013)

belboid said:


> have you seen that other post? He deserves acquainting with a pavement


 
I haven't seen the other post.

eta: Oh dear.

Eight years is remarkable restraint for a would be troll, don't you think?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 3, 2013)

So you're not in a far left group?

Again you are missing the point. I'm making the point the left groups love it when they think another far left group is in trouble but they miss the point that they are in a group that has all the same problems and issues. As I'm not in a far left group what I'm saying can't be hypocritical, but there you go.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 3, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> So you're not in a far left group?


 
What on earth does that have to do with you being a hypocrite 



One_Stop_Shop said:


> Again you are missing the point. I'm making the point the left groups love it when they think another far left group is in trouble but they miss the point that they are in a group that has all the same problems and issues. As I'm not in a far left group what I'm saying can't be hypocritical, but there you go.


 
I'm not missing the point - I couldn't miss it if I tried seeing as you don't really have one. It matters not whether you're in a far left group. The point is that nobody on here is gleeful - just interested in what's going on and, at least in my case, hopeful that the SWP might be improved. Except of course you, admit it - it gives you the horn. I haven't ever seen you do anything else on here apart from slag off far left groups - nothing at all, and now you're slagging off a far left group on a thread about another far left group - you're really showing everyone how much you don't care about far left groups aren't you?

Silly fucker


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 3, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I haven't ever seen you do anything else on here apart from slag off far left groups - nothing at all, r


 
be fair I've seem him slag off the rest of the left as well, like unions etc


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 3, 2013)

Yes you've made the giving it the horn joke already, and it wasn't funny the first time round.

I think you are misunderstanding the word hyprocrit. I'm saying that far left groups don't see that when they point things out that are going on in other groups when stuff goes wrong (and there usually is an underlying glee), its exactly the same in their organisation. As I'm not in a far left organisation I can't really be a hypocrit on that point. You are probably in a far left organisation so get defensive about it.

Also calm down a bit, it's only a web forum.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 3, 2013)

> I haven't ever seen you do anything else on here apart from slag off far left groups - nothing at all


 
As it goes the majority of the threads I've started have been about local campaigns to stop the cuts, but don't let reality get in the way.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 3, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> As it goes the majority of the threads I've started have been about local campaigns to stop the cuts, but don't let reality get in the way.


 
most of those resulted in you slagging off 'the left' you 'don't give a shit about' - boring cunt


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 3, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Yes you've made the giving it the horn joke already, and it wasn't funny the first time round.
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding the word hyprocrit. I'm saying that far left groups don't see that when they point things out that are going on in other groups when stuff goes wrong (and there usually is an underlying glee), its exactly the same in their organisation. As I'm not in a far left organisation I can't really be a hypocrit on that point. You are probably in a far left organisation so get defensive about it.
> 
> Also calm down a bit, it's only a web forum.


 
I'm not being defensive - I'm taking the piss out of you. I'm also perfectly calm, thanks for the concern though. It was funny both times by the way.

I am in a far left organization, but then again you already knew that. I'm not being defensive though - I'm perfectly aware of and don't deny the problems my own organization has. I'm just taking the piss out of your slightly bizarre hypocritical obsession. You are being a hypocrite - you're accusing people of gleefully slagging off left groups whilst gleefully slagging off left groups.



One_Stop_Shop said:


> As it goes the majority of the threads I've started have been about local campaigns to stop the cuts, but don't let reality get in the way.


 
That's funny cos I've just had a look at your recent contributions to this board and all of them are either slagging off the SWP, the SP, the left in general or the GMB. You have to go back to February to find anything else.

Anyway, this is getting boring now. The only thing here that gives me feelings of glee is the idea that the people I know and respect from my time in the SWP might finally get rid of a CC that treats them with utter contempt.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 3, 2013)

When you have to say your own jokes are funny it's not a good sign 

Again you miss the point. I'm not accusing people of slagging off left groups. I'm saying when they slag them off then can't see that the same thing applies to their own organisation. There is a difference. But, of course, it is only the SWP CC that is the problem. Doesn't apply to your group. Oh no. And that is the point other posters on this thread have been making. It's not about individuals in the CC of the SWP, it's about a political method which all the far left groups in this country have as far as I can see. It leads to a totally top down bureaucratic way of organising, with unelected full timers, people being in the leadership for decades on end and a way of operating in campaigns which totally alienates people (my experience of the various fronts in the anti-cuts movement, UTR/SWP, NSSN/SP and COR/CF turned out to be little different. They were all fronts, all did very little and all had bun fights at a national and local levels which alienated loads of people and helped result in the mess that is the anti-cuts movement at the moment). I don't think socialist organisations have to be that way though.

Also you aren't looking very hard:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/demonstrate-this-wednesday-say-no-to-cuts-in-lambeth.299278/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Yes you've made the giving it the horn joke already, and it wasn't funny the first time round.
> 
> I think you are misunderstanding the word hyprocrit.


 
Probably because you've spelt it wrong.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 3, 2013)

> most of those resulted in you slagging off 'the left' you 'don't give a shit about' - boring cunt


 
At least be honest about it. I've put up loads of threads about anti-cuts campaigns and literally none of them have resulted in this. Here are just a few. But don't let reality get in the way of things.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/demonstrate-this-wednesday-say-no-to-cuts-in-lambeth.299278/

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/f29-why-lobby-the-cop-out-council.288202/

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...h-council-cuts-lobby-29-february-2012.287002/

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-cooperative-council.282468/

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...lambeth-demonstration-tomorrow-friday.278383/

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/uk-uncut-demonstration-sat-28th-may-2011.275005/

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...es-libraries-park-rangers-weds-11-may.274046/


----------



## articul8 (Jan 3, 2013)

> ... rather than just chucking out bitty little antagonistic statements designed just to provoke responses you can retrospectively weave backwards into some kind of obscure narrative at the end





butchersapron said:


> Ted knight.


Genius


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Genius


 
More of an _idiot savant_.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 3, 2013)

Apron? Idiot will suffice...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 3, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> When you have to say your own jokes are funny it's not a good sign
> 
> Again you miss the point. I'm not accusing people of slagging off left groups. I'm saying when they slag them off then can't see that the same thing applies to their own organisation. There is a difference. But, of course, it is only the SWP CC that is the problem. Doesn't apply to your group. Oh no. And that is the point other posters on this thread have been making. It's not about individuals in the CC of the SWP, it's about a political method which all the far left groups in this country have as far as I can see. It leads to a totally top down bureaucratic way of organising, with unelected full timers, people being in the leadership for decades on end and a way of operating in campaigns which totally alienates people (my experience of the various fronts in the anti-cuts movement, UTR/SWP, NSSN/SP and COR/CF turned out to be little different. They were all fronts, all did very little and all had bun fights at a national and local levels which alienated loads of people and helped result in the mess that is the anti-cuts movement at the moment). I don't think socialist organisations have to be that way though.
> 
> ...


 
When people are too humourless to get them you have to explain that they're funny. And I'm not missing the point and you're still a boring hypocrite. Please learn to use the quote function too. And is 'And that is the point other posters on this thread have been making' a new variation of 'numerous PMs of support'? Only I don't see many people backing you up here so maybe that's not the point other posters were making at all.



> I'm not accusing people of slagging off left groups. I'm saying when they slag them off then can't see that the same thing applies to their own organisation.


To do one you have to do the other - do you not realize that?



> But, of course, it is only the SWP CC that is the problem. Doesn't apply to your group. Oh no.


 
That's interesting, especially as in the post you replied to I said this:

"I am in a far left organization, but then again you already knew that. I'm not being defensive though - I'm perfectly aware of and don't deny the problems my own organization has. I'm just taking the piss out of your slightly bizarre hypocritical obsession. You are being a hypocrite - you're accusing people of gleefully slagging off left groups whilst gleefully slagging off left groups."

You're right that the problem isn't just the SWP CC. But they're among the biggest obstacles in the way of the real problems being addressed - they're part of the problem. In fact I agree with pretty much all your criticisms of the far left. And I'm not all that optimistic about it but I do hold out some hope that this lot might be able to go some way towards changing that. You seem to be making all kinds of weird assumptions about my views.

Anyway, this derail has gone on for long enough and I've got better things to do than spend all day talking to an internet obsessive.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 4, 2013)

So boring that once again you just have to reply, and have to point out again that you are actually very funny. Also you just have to read the posts earlier in the thread to see what they are saying. Also fairly amusing that you tell me to use the quote function and then use quotation marks, oh well.

Personally I don't see how the SWP are any more an obstacle than the Socialist Party. Two peas in a pod. But I agree that hopefully people will find a better way of going about things.

As for internet obsessive you might want to look at your post count. Happy new year.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 5, 2013)

Getting back to the subject of the thread, and away from tedious one note moaning, SWP conference is on at the moment and it seems that things are a bit lively. According to various anonymous posters on the less than reliable Socialist Unity site, there have been two developments so far:

1) the CC is now split between a majority including all of the old hands and a minority of four of the more junior members. The four opposed the CC reply to the factions and as a result, the majoritys recommended slate throws two of them off. As a result there are two rival slates proposed.

2) some of the votes have already happened, with the CC majority winning on various democracy proposals with a 2:1 split. I'm not aware of the leadership ever having a third of conference delegates vote against them on anything significant ever before. Certainly the proto counter fire couldn't get anything like that support.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 5, 2013)

The four dissident CC members are Dee, Choonara Jr, Bergman and Ray whatsisface. The majority's recommended slate includes Choonara and Bergman but not the other two. The latest CC (majority) document also makes reference to a CC vote to censure one of the removed.

Apparently Choonara and Bergman say that they won't agree to be on the CC should the majority slate win.

No word as of yet about the disputes committee case or the expulsions.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 5, 2013)

Just had a look at SU, it looks like the majority faction on the CC proposed a new slate but replaced Dee and Ray whatshisface with two new people, the four 'dissident' CC members than proposed a slate identical to the one listed in one of the internal bulletins.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 5, 2013)

If anyone is interested it looks like the disputes committee report (or whatever it's called) was accepted, but it was a 'close' vote.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> If anyone is interested it looks like the disputes committee report (or whatever it's called) was accepted, but it was a 'close' vote.


 
Someone on Twitter said it was 230 to 209 and there was shouting involved. If that's accurate, it's likely to get messy.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Someone on Twitter said it was 230 to 209 and there was shouting involved. If that's accurate, it's likely to get messy.


Much closer than the democracy motions then. Whatever happens the SWP isn't coming out of this any stronger. I wonder how accurately the conference votes reflect felling among the wider membership.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 5, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Anyway, this derail has gone on for long enough and I've got better things to do than spend all day talking to an internet obsessive.


 
Comrade, with the SWP imploding, AWL dissappearing into the Labour party, Respect abandoning all pretence of socialism and becoming a tame islamist party and the Workers Power Anti-Capitalist Initiative, incredibly, failing to make much headway, we should be preparing for The Socialist Party aka Militant aka Revolutionary Socialist League to become the biggest Trots on the Block.

Wasting time with this exchange is not what a highly experienced cadre, whose experience and guidance will be required in order cement the CWI's position as the natural party of the Trotksyite left, should be doing at this critical opening in the class struggle.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 5, 2013)

It's the combination of the democracy/expulsions stuff with the disputes committee issue which makes the whole situation so hard to manage for the leadership.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Comrade, with the SWP imploding, AWL dissappearing into the Labour party, Respect abandoning all pretence of socialism and becoming a tame islamist party and the Workers Power Anti-Capitalist Initiative, incredibly, failing to make much headway, we should be preparing for The Socialist Party aka Militant aka Revolutionary Socialist League to become the biggest Trots on the Block.
> 
> Wasting time with this exchange is not what a highly experienced cadre, whose experience and guidance will be required in order cement the CWI's position as the natural party of the Trotksyite left, should be doing at this critical opening in the class struggle.


 
Why do I get the impression that you might be slightly taking the piss?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 5, 2013)

This one does seem to go a bit deeper than previous splits, I'm starting to think that the only way the SWP will be able to prevent itself from splitting right down the middle would be for the alternative slate to win.

This is based on the assumption that the democratic left platform opposition revolutionary bolshevik faction or whatever they're calling themselves have as much support elsewhere as they do in my area though, which isn't necessarily the case.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 5, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> the democratic left platform opposition revolutionary bolshevik faction or whatever they're calling themselves .


there's two factions. democratic opposition and democratic centralism.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 5, 2013)

discokermit said:


> there's two factions. democratic opposition and democratic centralism.


Both showing a lamentable lack of imagination in their naming scheme, it has to be said. They should have gone with something gloriously silly like "Seattle Bolshevik" as the minority in the German SWP group did a few years ago.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Someone on Twitter said it was 230 to 209 and there was shouting involved. If that's accurate, it's likely to get messy.


Anyone confirmed this? Simply can't imagine the ructions that must be going on if this is true. Shit like this just doesn't happen in the SWP, the leadership never has to sweat over a major vote and certainly not over a disciplinary matter. If this is true then what DU said earlier in this thread about the core, educated cadres having had enough is likely true as well. Which is kind of depressing for those of us with residual affection for that party and no desire to see it implode :-( How can the leadership have so badly misjudged the mood? Looking at the history of the party cynically the one thing the cc was always good at was knowing what would be acceptable to the membership and what wouldn't. They must really have lost their way if they allow silly, unnecessary expulsions to tip the organisation over the brink. From a distance this is very sad to watch.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Anyone confirmed this? Simply can't imagine the ructions that must be going on if this is true. Shit like this just doesn't happen in the SWP, the leadership never has to sweat over a major vote and certainly not over a disciplinary matter. If this is true then what DU said earlier in this thread about the core, educated cadres having had enough is likely true as well. Which is kind of depressing for those of us with residual affection for that party and no desire to see it implode :-( How can the leadership have so badly misjudged the mood? Looking at the history of the party cynically the one thing the cc was always good at was knowing what would be acceptable to the membership and what wouldn't. They must really have lost their way if they allow silly, unnecessary expulsions to tip the organisation over the brink. From a distance this is very sad to watch.


no it isn't. it's a great opportunity.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 5, 2013)

I remember when we had major ructions in the Irish Cliffite group over alternate slates and the Prof was in Dublin for the conference. He was like a pillar of strength in support of the 'official' slate because he had behind him the full  authority of the British cc which never, ever allowed things to get so out of control. If I'd known then (over 20 years ago) that some day he'd be facing the same sort of crisis I and others might have stood up to him with something more like a backbone


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 5, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no it isn't. it's a great opportunity.


fair enough, can see why many will say so. But surely it's more likely to just destroy a lot of good people and/or leave them a lot weaker than they were before this started?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 5, 2013)

I don't think anyone should be nostalgic about the end of the swp, whatever their former glories it's commonplace to go on about how inadaquet they are, it's been a stock joke amongst lefties for ages. Look at that workers power thread. Well, things that can't last forever don't.

I do think if the SWP splits into about 3 different factions and effectively collapses as a coherent group, then for all the gloating, it should be a huge wake up call for all the other small trot groups especially the Socialist Party. It's a significant episode in the decline of marxism in Britain, and a perfect example of how dysfunctional "democratic centralism" can be.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 5, 2013)

Found that tweet about the vote. It claims the majority were shouting 'liar' at the minority :-(


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I don't think anyone should be nostalgic about the end of the swp


 
I don't think that this is the end of the SWP. It has proven itself to be a very resilient organisation over very many years.

That said, it does seem hard to see how a split can be avoided now. At the very least, it would seem inevitable that some people who feel very strongly about the disputes committee case will go. And also that some allies of the expelled will go (or stay and get expelled at some point in the future). What sort of numbers that will involve is very uncertain though. And whether things will escalate between the CC minority, the DC faction and other more moderate critics and the CC majority is another huge unknown.

Best case scenario for the SWP is a smallish split, perhaps one that doesn't cohere into a viable pole of attraction for others. Worst case scenario is a very large split or series of splits. That there is a range of different issues and factional alignments in play, some of them overlapping, makes the whole situation very complex for the leadership. There are any number of potential flash points.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Anyone confirmed this? Simply can't imagine the ructions that must be going on if this is true. Shit like this just doesn't happen in the SWP, the leadership never has to sweat over a major vote and certainly not over a disciplinary matter.


 
I haven't seen it confirmed yet. If it's true, you are right. This is really, completely new territory for the SWP.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Worst case scenario is a very large split or series of splits.


 
I agree that it probably won't be the end of the SWP entirely, some group of people calling themselves a revolutionary committee will still be knocking claiming the mantle of Tony Cliff 5, 10, 15 years from now, but if it splits in a bad way then where can it go from there? It's been in decline for years, and it's reputation for internal democracy, hi-jacking campaigns, behaving really opportunistically and generally fucking things up has been around for as far back as I can remember. It is a resilient organisation that's true, but I think it's nothing short of miraculous they've stayed going this long to be honest, and it can't last forever. Worst case scenario is they're effectively over as a political force of any significance - two or three rival groups call a claim the name SWP, the membership (which is a paper membership anyway) just evaporates back into the ether they counjoured it from, and within a few years they're on the same scale as the sparts and the IBT.

The SP is a very "resilient" organisation that seemingly isn't as prone to splits, but that's partly down to their own sectarianism and partly because it's been run by the same person/group of people for a very long period of time. There's still the same problems within the SP, and I don't care much whether it's marginally better or worse in the SP or SWP that's beside the point because these are pretty fundamental problems.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 6, 2013)

The people I know at the conference are all refusing to say anything. They were unhappy yesterday but reasonably communicative. Now there's just a stunned silence.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 6, 2013)

discokermit said:


> there's two factions. democratic opposition and democratic centralism.


 
Are there? Fucking hell, I'd assumed it was just people mixing up the name of the one faction - what's the difference between the two then?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 6, 2013)

One sees itself as an opposition and the other wants to reconcile the former with the cc somehow.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are there? Fucking hell, I'd assumed it was just people mixing up the name of the one faction - what's the difference between the two then?


 
www.cpgb.org.uk

and socialist unity will answer your questions


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> One sees itself as an opposition and the other wants to reconcile the former with the cc somehow.


 
The left oppostion and the vaccilating centrists


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 6, 2013)

I've not read socialist unity in ages, i feel dirty


----------



## emanymton (Jan 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Found that tweet about the vote. It claims the majority were shouting 'liar' at the minority :-(


That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> One sees itself as an opposition and the other wants to reconcile the former with the cc somehow.


 
Take it the latter one is the democratic centralist faction then?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 6, 2013)

emanymton said:


> That doesn't even make sense.


 
Assume it means they were accusing Smith's accusers of lying about whatever it was that went on.


----------



## SLK (Jan 6, 2013)

This is really shocking, and if true something I never thought I'd see within the SWP. When you see the CC slate though, it's amazing how many good people have disappeared over the last twenty years; I can't say I particularly rate most of them on the CC now. Accepted they might have improved politically and personally in that time.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 6, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I agree that it probably won't be the end of the SWP entirely, some group of people calling themselves a revolutionary committee will still be knocking claiming the mantle of Tony Cliff 5, 10, 15 years from now, but if it splits in a bad way then where can it go from there? It's been in decline for years, and it's reputation for internal democracy, hi-jacking campaigns, behaving really opportunistically and generally fucking things up has been around for as far back as I can remember. It is a resilient organisation that's true, but I think it's nothing short of miraculous they've stayed going this long to be honest, and it can't last forever. Worst case scenario is they're effectively over as a political force of any significance - two or three rival groups call a claim the name SWP, the membership (which is a paper membership anyway) just evaporates back into the ether they counjoured it from, and within a few years they're on the same scale as the sparts and the IBT.
> 
> The SP is a very "resilient" organisation that seemingly isn't as prone to splits, but that's partly down to their own sectarianism and partly because it's been run by the same person/group of people for a very long period of time. There's still the same problems within the SP, and I don't care much whether it's marginally better or worse in the SP or SWP that's beside the point because these are pretty fundamental problems.


I don't think that damage will be as bad as you think. It looks likely that they will lose a significant chunk of the most active younger members, some now and some over the next few years as they find it too uncomfortable to remain members. Most of the older members will just suck it up and set about the job of recruiting a new layer of young members in September. I am curious to see if an actual split with a rival organisation will take place or if people will just drift away as individuals.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Assume it means they were accusing Smith's accusers of lying about whatever it was that went on.


 
stay classy SWP cadre


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

SLK said:
			
		

> This is really shocking, and if true something I never thought I'd see within the SWP. When you see the CC slate though, it's amazing how many good people have disappeared over the last twenty years; I can't say I particularly rate most of them on the CC now. Accepted they might have improved politically and personally in that time.



Think I've just sussed you.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Assume it means they were accusing Smith's accusers of lying about whatever it was that went on.


I assume so as well but unless the accuser was actually there it makes no sense to me, and if she was it is disgusting beyond words.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

emanymton said:
			
		

> I don't think that damage will be as bad as you think. It looks likely that they will lose a significant chunk of the most active younger members, some now and some over the next few years as they find it too uncomfortable to remain members. Most of the older members will just suck it up and set about the job of recruiting a new layer of young members in September. I am curious to see if an actual split with a rival organisation will take place or if people will just drift away as individuals.


Expansion of university access certainly helped keep them buoyant during the last few decades travails (serious point that). If numbers fall and there are  more youthful and energetic competing groups within a smaller arena...


----------



## emanymton (Jan 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Expansion of university access certainly helped keep them buoyant during the last few decades travails (serious point that). If numbers fall and there are more youthful and energetic competing groups within a smaller arena...


On the first point absolutely. As for the second, are there any such groups in a position to seriously compete? Even if there is a split and a new group forms it won't have anything like the resources of the current SWP. While this will be very damaging to the SWP it will not necessarily lead to a downward spiral, but It might, especially if they can't begin the process of replacing the lost membership from the next crop of students.

Also while those who look likely to leave may be from the current crop of activist many of them wold propably have left or drifting into more passive membership over the next few years anyway.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 6, 2013)

If what DU is saying about the faction being made up of the more experienced and active (but still relatively young) cadre then it's not just numbers they'll need to replace.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 6, 2013)

The numbers are pretty meaningless anyway spiney, it's how many of the competent rump of active members is still loyal to the party.

It's like waiting for Assad to fall this.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 6, 2013)

It will be massively damaging but given time they can recover, if they get the numbers in. And it is all about the numbers, recruit as many as you can, most will never bee seen again some will be Ok members and a few will be the 'stars' of the future. It's the SWP way.

In some ways I think this is still fallout from respect, some of those splitting now where those most critical of Ress/German and the whole Respect project. If the SWP does go into a downward spiral I think it will have been Respect that Killed it.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 6, 2013)

On a personal note this feels really odd. If the SWP was to disappear I don't know if that would be a good thing or a bad thing, I suspect it won't matter too much either way. But I still have friends who are members, hell I share a house with one. It's a bit like when a friend tells you a relative has died.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 6, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> The numbers are pretty meaningless anyway spiney, it's how many of the competent rump of active members is still loyal to the party.
> 
> It's like waiting for Assad to fall this.


 
That's the point I was making.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 6, 2013)

A mate who's there is taking a positive approach. Says he's proud of how the debate went, that it was serious and passionate and that the young, upcoming cadre he was with last evening are the means by which the party can still renew itself. I did have to point out that the mere fact of he and they sitting discussing this last night and again today could be excuse enough to have them expelled as the ban on permanent factions was reiterated again yesterday.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 6, 2013)

This is like a particularly dull soap opera set in a dwindling sect.  None of them count for jack shit beyond their own little circle.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

articul8 said:


> This is like a particularly dull soap opera set in a dwindling sect. None of them count for jack shit beyond their own little circle.


At least you count for "jack shit" in a far bigger party eh?

_Jack-shit _


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> A mate who's there is taking a positive approach. Says he's proud of how the debate went, that it was serious and passionate and that the young, upcoming cadre he was with last evening are the means by which the party can still renew itself. I did have to point out that the mere fact of he and they sitting discussing this last night and again today could be excuse enough to have them expelled as the ban on permanent factions was reiterated again yesterday.


And this sort of discussion being one of the grounds for one of the expulsions if i remember right.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 6, 2013)

articul8 said:


> This is like a particularly dull soap opera set in a dwindling sect. None of them count for jack shit beyond their own little circle.


 
I have a working prototype model of the Cockneyrebel machine for measuring the  relevance of far left groups.Its  somewhere in the garage. I will try and dig it out


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 6, 2013)

Indeed butchers


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 6, 2013)

We once proposed having a branch meeting to discuss the expulsion of 'the squaddists' in Harlesden. Phone never stopped ringing but in those days you could just ignore it. Holborrow and the full timer kept calling at my house and my mates and then attended every branch committee meeting and branch meeting  for months afterwards.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 6, 2013)

Actually the mere fact that my mate has mentioned in even an oblique way the conference debate on his FB page with his many non member friends able to read it could be enough excuse to expel him judging by the reasoning of the cc statement on the expulsion of the 4.


----------



## chilango (Jan 6, 2013)

The end of an era. The end of an error.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

emanymton said:


> On a personal note this feels really odd. If the SWP was to disappear I don't know if that would be a good thing or a bad thing, I suspect it won't matter too much either way. But I still have friends who are members, hell I share a house with one. It's a bit like when a friend tells you a relative has died.


 
yes the mad aunt you used to bump into being wheeled around town on a Saturday now and again to pick up her latest batch of incontinance pads.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

it's at times like this the Weekly Worker wishes it was still a daily.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2013)

Nothing much leaking out of today's conference sessions so far. It's scheduled to end in a bit over an hour, and there should be more news then. Also, the factions are due to dissolve then.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 6, 2013)

First person I have ever come across outside of the SWP who is  concerned about  the timetable for the SWP annual conference. Is it a quiet day in Ireland or something?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Is it a quiet day in Ireland or something?


 
Yes. I'm fucking shattered today and about the most exciting thing I've managed to do is to walk to the corner shop to buy some bacon and eggs.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes. I'm fucking shattered today and about the most exciting thing I've managed to do is to walk to the corner shop to buy some bacon and eggs.


 
I had a sausage sarnie with that sweet German mustard for breakfast myself


----------



## tony.c (Jan 6, 2013)

You two need to eat more healthily. All that chlosterol ain't good for your heart.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

tony.c said:


> You two need to eat more healthily. All that chlosterol ain't good for your heart.


They didn't say it was part of a sustained diet. Now, you're here to spill beans or to respond to spilled beans. Which?


----------



## tony.c (Jan 6, 2013)

Beans on (wholemeal) toast is reasonably healthy for breakfast.
And it's more than a quarter of a century since I was in the SWP and don't take much interest in them now, so I've got no beans to spill.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

So you're about 30 then, these magic beans, they didn't work this time...


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 6, 2013)

The SWP is dead. Long live the Socialist Party.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> The SWP is dead. Long live the Socialist Party.


Quite insulting to say that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> The SWP is dead. Long live the Socialist Party.


 
There are plenty of other threads for you to peruse on this site if you find this all so boring and trivial and inward looking. In fact let me encourage to cease delighting us here.


----------



## tony.c (Jan 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So you're about 30 then...


 
I wish!


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 6, 2013)

Nigel this subject is of great importance to the class.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2013)

Rumours trickling in on SU that all of the oppositional stuff was defeated, sometimes by small margins, and that the expulsions were confirmed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Nigel this subject is of great importance to the class.


Quite interesting to me thanks.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Nigel this subject is of great importance to the class.


 
It's of significant interest to hung over far left activists, which is rather more important right now.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 6, 2013)

Maybe you are the vanguard.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Rumours trickling in on SU that all of the oppositional stuff was defeated, sometimes by small margins, and that the expulsions were confirmed.


Next year, same time. Drongos keep their mouth shuts and lose momentum.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's of significant interest to hung over far left activists, which is rather more important right now.


Not hung over.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not hung over.


 
Lucky dog.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 6, 2013)

If you drink enough, regularly enough then I think hangovers become a thing of the past.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 6, 2013)

Bob from Barnsley has gone over from supporting the CC to the faction. Rumours coming in about Doug from Darlington. Will keep Nigel updated. Dave "the roof" Davidson refusing to comment on twitter.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> If you drink enough, regularly enough then I think hangovers become a thing of the past.


But still hallas turned up an did his talks, carried out his jobs.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 6, 2013)

Hallas??


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2013)

334 to 201 on the vote for the CC. This seems to indicate a pretty solid "oppositional" block of circa 40% of delegates. It also means that quite a few people abstained on the disputes committee vote.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Next year, same time. Drongos keep their mouth shuts and lose momentum.


 
I'm not sure that they can last a year in all the circumstances. Even though the "centralist" faction et al will certainly want to.


----------



## tony.c (Jan 6, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Hallas??


Duncan Hallas - SWP theorist and CC member who died a few years ago. Seemed to be permanently pissed.
But not a bad bloke.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 6, 2013)

Not a bad bloke. Now that's the understatement of the week! I never knew him totally sober but I never met anyone who could, patiently, explain any complex idea better.

Anyhows it looks like people are getting ready for the reprisals. Of my SWP friends on FB three have just removed every post or comment they'd made in the last three days that even vaguely mentioned the debates or factions. Very sad that they feel the need to do that :-(


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 6, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Bob from Barnsley has gone over from supporting the CC to the faction. Rumours coming in about Doug from Darlington. Will keep Nigel updated. Dave "the roof" Davidson refusing to comment on twitter.


 
I thought the Darlington Branch had been wiped out?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I thought the Darlington Branch had been wiped out?


 
They defected to North East Classwar and the WSM.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Anyhows it looks like people are getting ready for the reprisals. Of my SWP friends on FB three have just removed every post or comment they'd made in the last three days that even vaguely mentioned the debates or factions. Very sad that they feel the need to do that :-(


 
Looks like an attempt to avoid immediate expulsion / a conspicuous show of discipline.

I hear that the new CC does not include any of the four "dissidents", both the two the majority wanted to make an example of and the other two.

So now that the conference discussion period is over there's suddenly a couple of hundred people who were actually in formal factions, four just removed CC members and a bunch of people closely involved in a very bitter disciplinary case which split the party down the middle all on the outs with the new leadership in a situation where a third to 45% of the delegates sided against the leadership on a number of questions. And emotions will be running high, given the nature of disputes committee issue. And there are four ex-full timers now on the outside pissing in who have strong personal contact with many of the dissidents.

It will take months before the dust settles enough to get a clear picture.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

Yes interesting times ahead for all seasoned SWP watchers, I'm finding this the first internal dispute in ages from the SWP that it is impossible to guess what will happen next...

I suspect that those who have predicted that there may be a substantial number of the younger activists who will simply quit straight away and dissolve into the ether as far as the far left are concerned are correct.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes interesting times ahead for all seasoned SWP watchers, I'm finding this the first internal dispute in ages from the SWP that it is impossible to guess what will happen next...
> 
> I suspect that those who have predicted that there may be a substantial number of the younger activists who will simply quit straight away and dissolve into the ether as far as the far left are concerned are correct.


 
Yes, the Counterfire lot were always going to end up as a new group.

You are right that this is unpredictable in terms of what will happen. There are lots of people who seem very unlikely to stay in the SWP, but how many and to what degree they will form an organised grouping outside is entirely unclear. A lot depends on how conciliatory / vengeful the new CC play it and how successfully the "calm down, calm down" older dissidents are at controlling the rest of the dissidents.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I had a sausage sarnie with that sweet German mustard for breakfast myself


Wurst things have happened


----------



## discokermit (Jan 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I suspect that those who have predicted that there may be a substantial number of the younger activists who will simply quit straight away and dissolve into the ether as far as the far left are concerned are correct.


someone i know met with some of the younger oppositionists last night and reckoned they were in good spirits then, despite what had happened.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 6, 2013)

tony.c said:


> Duncan Hallas - SWP theorist and CC member who died a few years ago. Seemed to be permanently pissed.
> But not a bad bloke.


That you Cash


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

discokermit said:


> someone i know met with some of the younger oppositionists last night and reckoned they were in good spirits then, despite what had happened.


 
Which would suggest they are naive


----------



## discokermit (Jan 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Which would suggest they are naive


not sure i agree.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

discokermit said:


> not sure i agree.


 
fair enough why do you think they are upbeat?

Do they think the organisational culture of the SWP will change a little towards how they would like to see it?

Or

Do you think they have plans to lauch a coherent break?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> fair enough why do you think they are upbeat?
> 
> Do they think the organisational culture of the SWP will change a little towards how they would like to see it?
> 
> ...


i don't think the first. possibly the second.

they have caused the biggest upset seen at conference yet. i don't think the organisational culture will change to suit them, in fact they'll probably have to weather quite a storm, but at the same time the cc has shown itself to be weak and possibly beatable.

i have no real idea how things will play out but right now i expect the oppositionists will be feeling more confident than the cc.


----------



## tony.c (Jan 6, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> That you Cash


No. You don'y know me. I liked your book though.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 6, 2013)

tony.c said:


> No. You don'y know me. I liked your book though.


OK thanks for that. But so much of what you say and obviously the name/initial made me think.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 6, 2013)

please, tell me it's not a joke book.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 6, 2013)

discokermit said:


> please, tell me it's not a joke book.


 
I think that depends on who you ask


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

I suspect Tony C is here from Socialist "Unity"


----------



## tony.c (Jan 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I suspect Tony C is here from Socialist "Unity"


 
No, I don't belong to anything, except my union. I was in the SWP in the 70's and around the 'squads'.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 6, 2013)




----------



## tony.c (Jan 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


>


 
I think that is from a film where those two pretended to be women to play in a band, can't remember the name.
So what are you implying?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

That you just appeared _here_ today is abit of a lie.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

tony.c said:


> I think that is from a film where those two pretended to be women to play in a band, can't remember the name.
> So what are you implying?


 
tony c stands for Tony Curtis?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, the Counterfire lot were always going to end up as a new group.
> 
> You are right that this is unpredictable in terms of what will happen. There are lots of people who seem very unlikely to stay in the SWP, but how many and to what degree they will form an organised grouping outside is entirely unclear. A lot depends on how conciliatory / vengeful the new CC play it and how successfully the "calm down, calm down" older dissidents are at controlling the rest of the dissidents.


It's entirely predictable. A small group will will disappear. That's it


----------



## Firky (Jan 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> tony c stands for Tony Curtis?


 
I thought I could hear Sparklehorse.


----------



## tony.c (Jan 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That you just appeared _here_ today is abit of a lie.


I
 I didn't say I just appeared here today. I joined this forum 6 years ago, but didn't participate after initially joining.
I've not been involved in politics much, but like to look in occaionally. Just remembered my login password a couple of days ago, and thought I'd see what was going on.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 6, 2013)

tony.c said:


> I think that is from a film where those two pretended to be women to play in a band, can't remember the name.
> So what are you implying?


 
Tony C(urtis). No need to be defensive, just trying to have a laugh with you.

It's some like it hot by the way.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

tony.c said:


> I
> I didn't say I just appeared here today. I joined this forum 6 years ago, but didn't participate after initially joining.
> I've not been involved in politics much, but like to look in occaionally. Just remembered my login password a couple of days ago, and thought I'd see what was going on.


Yep. Welcome back then.


----------



## tony.c (Jan 6, 2013)

OK thanks. Actually I'd forgotten about this forum, but I have just been re-reading Beating the Fascists and googled to see if there was anything about it, and came to the thread on here, which has taken me about a week to read.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 6, 2013)

a likely story


----------



## tony.c (Jan 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> a likely story


 
Well I'm a slow reader.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2013)

tony.c said:


> Well I'm a slow reader.


 
Plus it takes a while after each of bignose's "jokes" to gather together the will to keep on reading, to be fair.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

surprised no-ones commented on this yet:
http://www.socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

_Comrade Alpha from Bristol was expelled from the party for domestic violence. _


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> surprised no-ones commented on this yet:
> http://www.socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> In the ‘reporting back’ session of conference we were told that branches and districts should not be told any details of this discussion – “I would urge everyone not to go into the details of any particular contribution in the report back” – apart from saying “there were some criticisms”, with confidentiality as the excuse. However, as you will see, each speaker was careful to respect confidentiality in their contribution, so circulating it is not problematic in that respect.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

Bloody hell. I don't even know where to start with that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> The seven members who were on that panel, who heard that complaint, were Rhetta M from Manchester, Maxine B from Sheffield, Dave S from Glasgow, Pat S and myself from London. (Candy forgot to name the two CC representatives also on the panel, Esme C and Amy L.) We’re all experienced comrades who are active in the party and a number of us have experience of dealing with people who have experience of rape or abuse.


 
Note: this makes them fine judges of what is rape and whether a rape happened.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

If only the WRP had thought of the "there were some criticisms" line


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Bloody hell.


Yes - people do really need to _read_ this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> Now, she was concerned to preserve her anonymity then and the CC had insisted on that, but people may remember if they were at conference in 2011 that information about this appeared on the internet just before our national conference in January 2011, and as a result of this the CC made a statement to conference about it. And we agreed with the views of those who felt that this conference decision hadn’t been handled well, and we noted that the CC had acknowledged this after conference and subsequently had proposed a new protocol, which ensures that any complaints about CC members now, informal or otherwise, will be referred automatically to the chair of the disputes committee.


 
The jan 2011 statement - what is it? Anyone seen it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> We also heard from Hannah D, Charlie K and Alex C, who are the CC members who had handled the case informally in 2010.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

This is the most damning line IMO:


> she was asked about past and subsequent sexual relationships, and she was pressured -


 
If true, then there's absolutely no question that the whole DC report should've been kicked out.  There's also this barely concealed tension about the "interests of the party" - as though pro-women credentials had to be balanced against other things by experienced cadres


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> surprised no-ones commented on this yet:
> http://www.socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/


 
that was a grim read


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Note: this makes them fine judges of what is rape and whether a rape happened.


 
Probably better than most randomly selected juries in terms of experience. The real problem with the people on the panel is that (a) they are mostly either on the CC or were on the CC and (b) consequently they all knew the accused very well while none of them knew the complainant. I don't see how anyone can think that's a good idea.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> This is the most damning line IMO:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Followed by



> Could I ask you not to go into the detail of what was discussed, because I don’t think that’s relevant and that is one of the ground rules that we agreed.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> > she was asked about past and subsequent sexual relationships, and she was pressured -​


 
That's utterly damning, be interesting to see if Dave S from Glasgow knows the transcipt of the session is on the www.....


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Probably better than most randomly selected juries in terms of experience. The real problem with the people on the panel is that (a) they are mostly either on the CC or were on the CC and (b) consequently they all knew the accused very well while none of them knew the complainant. I don't see how anyone can see that as remotely fair.


It's odd, an panel with 7 judges , all who know the accused. Even bourgeois law doesn't allow this rubbish.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's odd, an panel with 7 judges , all who know the accused. Even bourgeois law doesn't allow this rubbish.


Nor this:



> And I think one of the most distressing things for her was that she was expected to respond immediately to the evidence that Comrade Delta was able to bring – she never got to see it in advance. He had her statement for weeks before she appeared in front of the panel. Some of the issues that were raised were things she had blocked out, and it was an incredibly traumatic experience for her.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

_Leninist discipline _in action.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Probably better than most randomly selected juries in terms of experience. The real problem with the people on the panel is that (a) they are mostly either on the CC or were on the CC and (b) consequently they all knew the accused very well while none of them knew the complainant. *I don't see how anyone can see that as remotely fair*.


 
It is difficult in such circumstances for folk on such a DC not to know the accused, small pond and all that, however that they accept that they all knew 'Delta', some of them having had longstanding working and personal friendships with him but none knew W is frankly remarkable. By any standards of 'natural justice' that's frankly disgraceful.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> Shortly after the hearing Candy referred to, a second woman came forward with an allegation of sexual harassment, and she will speak herself in this session. I think it’s important to say that she’s been moved from her party job following giving that evidence, and that she’s been told her presence at the centre would disrupt the harmony of the office. I think this constitutes punishing her for making a complaint of sexual harassment.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> (Red ‘stop speaking’ light goes on)


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

I wonder if the SWP centre full timer who made a follow up complaint was in a union?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nor this:


 
Actually that second bit is sort of in keeping with how the Courts handle things. The accused gets access to all the evidence against him in advance. The complainant is treated as a witness rather than a party and so does not.

The difference is that in a criminal court case there would also be a prosecution, who would have access to large amounts of evidence, including statements made by the accused to the cops, even though the complainant would not. Even the prosecution though doesn't get an account of the evidence an accused is planning to give unless he's opened his mouth in custody. Here there doesn't seem to have been any "prosecution" party though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Actually that second bit is sort of in keeping with how the Courts handle things. The accused gets access to all the evidence against him in advance. The complainant is treated as a witness rather than a party and so does not.


 
(No it ain't. A cul-de-sac for now though)


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Actually that second bit is sort of in keeping with how the Courts handle things. The accused gets access to all the evidence against him in advance. The complainant is treated as a witness rather than a party and so does not.
> 
> The difference is that in a criminal court case there would also be a prosecution, who would have access to large amounts of evidence, including statements made by the accused to the cops, even though the complainant would not. Even the prosecution though doesn't get an account of the evidence an accused is planning to give unless he's opened his mouth in custody. Here there doesn't seem to have been any "prosecution" party though.


 
Nice of them to follow suit as in many court cases re rape and ask her questions about her sexual conduct too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

The opposition/leninist discipline:



> All I want to say is that it’s very important comrades are clear we are not asking for the disputes committee to re-hear the case. The decision stands.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

if there are other cases in the pipeline though....?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> She was questioned about why she went for a drink with him, her witnesses were repeatedly asked whether she’d been in a relationship with him, and you know, she was asked about (Karen begins to talk over Sadia to warn about providing details) … she was asked about relationships with other comrades including sexual relationships. All this was irrelevant to the case.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

It shows you the degree of distrust there now is in the SWP that some delegate appears to have secretly recorded the session, transcribed it and then sent it to a very hostile and widely read blog.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> if there are other cases in the pipeline though....?


Thing is, the dispute committee recognised that there is one claim forthcoming, that they had been told it would occur _after_ this 'hearing' (presumably to see how seriously they took this stuff) and this was used to suggest that as they had not head naything yet the claims were just hot air and then used back to reinforce the delta verdict.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> To date she hasn’t been told what evidence was presented against her by Comrade Delta and by his witnesses.
> 
> Rita, a comrade who is experienced in working with rape victims and was supporting her in the questioning – she had to actually go back into the room and have a go at the DC for their inappropriate questions.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

This does open questions about the personal and political integrity of the DC members, despite the oppositions repeated statements that it does not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> Finally – (voice breaks) in my opinion the worst part was the nature of some of the questioning. I was asked if it was fair to say I liked to have a drink. That’s all I need to say on the matter.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

Isn't there an independent tribunal they could take the case to - a body with understanding of hearing cases of sexual misconduct (eg in employment contexts) in a fair and non-biased way?  or is this "bourgeois"?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> . But let me repeat that the only people, the only people that have heard all the evidence in this case are the people on the disputes committee.
> 
> Not the bloggers. Not the gossips. Not the people who have attacked anybody else in this case. The only people who have heard it all are the disputes committee.
> 
> And therefore for me, it would have to be a very powerful reason to overturn their verdict. And I say – and I share this with you – _that I would have argued to support the disputes committee report whatever it had said._


 
I loved them brum 6 guilford 4 verdicts. Who else better to judge? Leninist discipline. This is fucking proper bruno-bonkers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Isn't there an independent tribunal they could take the case to - a body with understanding of hearing cases of sexual misconduct (eg in employment contexts) in a fair and non-biased way? or is this "bourgeois"?


Oh shut up.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

Oh i see that's my inner liberalism coming out.  Sorry.   For the people's rank-and-file tribunal of public safety.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh shut up.


You mean a marxist court of honour. These are bog-standard. How will they deal with a rape charge?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You mean a marxist court of honour. These are bog-standard. How will do deal with a rape charge?


 
This is an important point. Small left groups are seriously ill equipped to deal with this sort of allegation, lacking experience, strong procedures, neutral parties, investigative powers, an investigative apparatus, and any adequate sanction.

And that's even where they don't start off by having the adjudicating panel made up of people who know one party and not the other.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> In terms of whether people saw Comrade Delta’s evidence, he didn’t actually provide evidence in advance and that’s why they didn’t, why W didn’t see it.


 
The point isn't that YOU saw the evidence you knobs, but that SHE didn't. FFS. That is basic incompetence that should strike you off participation in the process as you don't know wtf it actually is.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is an important point. Small left groups are seriously ill equipped to deal with this sort of allegation, lacking experience, strong procedures, neutral parties, investigative powers, an investigative apparatus, and any adequate sanction.


This also came up on the LP thread a few months ago about sexual assault and safeguarding but in relation to assaults in anarchist groups.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> In terms of the questions that we asked – I can’t come back and answer some of the things that have been raised because I’m not going to go into the details. I can only assure you that we asked the questions that we did because we felt that we had to ask them to try to establish the issues that we were grappling with.


 
Shudders.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> This also came up on the LP thread a few months ago about sexual assault and safeguarding but in relation to assaults in anarchist groups.


 
I suspect that they'd have even less capacity, given smaller size,less formal organisation and stronger overlap between social "scenes" and group membership.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

Trade unions wouldn't (or at least bloody well shouldn't be allowed to) get away with the leaderships playing judge and jury over their own in questions of sexual misconduct. It would get punted out to an independent tribunal. So why does the left tolerate a lower standard of accountability with its own leadership?


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that they'd have even less capacity, given smaller size,less formal organisation and stronger overlap between social "scenes" and group membership.


I see what you mean about some of those factors. However, size-wise there are employers with workforces far smaller than  some of these groups, that have to be competent to carry out sexual harassment/assault investigations. The issue is with competence/training.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Trade unions wouldn't (or at least bloody well shouldn't be allowed to) get away with the leaderships playing judge and jury over their own in questions of sexual misconduct. It would get punted out to an independent tribunal. So why does the left tolerate a lower standard of accountability with its own leadership?


Are you definitively saying that trade unions outsource internal sexual misconduct investigations?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 7, 2013)

This is all far worse than I had imagined, next time some one calls these people comrades I will do something rash.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> I see what you mean about some of those factors. However, size-wise there are employers with workforces far smaller than some of these groups, that have to be competent to carry out sexual harassment/assault investigations. The issue is with competence/training.


 
Even with training, I don't see how a small political group overlapping heavily with social circles can be in a position to give people a "fair" hearing even by the low standards of the criminal justice system. And what sanction are they going to apply if someone is found to have done something v. serious? "You can't be in a our marginal political grouping any more?"


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> Are you definitively saying that trade unions outsource internal sexual misconduct investigations?


 
I would've thought that any allegation that isn't objectively evidences (eg by CCTV) or multiply corroborated would need to be taken outside.  If it doesn't happen that way, it most certainly should.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I would've thought that any allegation that isn't objectively evidences (eg by CCTV) or multiply corroborated would need to be taken outside.  If it doesn't happen that way, it most certainly should.


Just like a pub argument you mean


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Even with training, I don't see how a small political group overlapping heavily with social circles can be in a position to give people a "fair" hearing even by the low standards of the criminal justice system. And what sanction are they going to apply if someone is found to have done something v. serious? "You can't be in a our marginal political grouping any more?"


I dare say that some of them have already published their stance.


----------



## chilango (Jan 7, 2013)

Nothing worth salvaging from this heap of rubble.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Just like a pub argument you mean


 That's the ASLEF way anyway


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I would've thought that any allegation that isn't objectively evidences (eg by CCTV) or multiply corroborated would need to be taken outside.  If it doesn't happen that way, it most certainly should.


Trade unions, in a similar way to employers, would probably have designated trained people that investigate and provide their findings to the person/s making the decisions with another more senior level to hear any appeal. Together with reporting (or encouraging reporting) to the police for any criminal investigation/sanction. And supporting their members throughout both the internal and if applicable criminal processes.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> I dare say that some of them have already published their stance.


 
What? Some small political groups have already published their stance on how to deal with rape allegations?

Do you have links?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 7, 2013)

Btw Saville should have a SWP member, as he would be perfectly ok under their watch.
We also however thought it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were whether the comrade was monogamous, whether they were having an affair, whether the age differences in their relationahip, because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

I don't think they could do that if it was a full time paid official - especially a member of the executive - who was on the wrong end of allegations.   They would need extraordinarily robust procedures to cope with an investigation like that in-house.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What? Some small political groups have already published their stance on how to deal with rape allegations?
> 
> Do you have links?



For example:

http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/britain-solfed-statement-about-sexual.html?m=1

I imagine they don't provide public access to the processes they use.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 7, 2013)

"I want to move on to how we came to our decisions, and some of the questions that we discussed in advance. So we were asked by the chair to, if any of us felt that we were too close to any of the parties involved, or if we felt that we would be seen to not be objective in any way, to rule ourselves out. One comrade who was from W’s district did do that.

We then discussed the situation that we all knew Comrade Delta. We knew his important role in the party and on the central committee, and none of us knew W or knew her well. We agreed that we would have to be especially careful to take that into account in the way that we dealt with this."
No truck with bourgeois impartiality


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 7, 2013)

The SWP aren't happy
"Charlie Kimber To office@socialistunity.com
Dear Andy Newman,

I am shocked and outraged that you have published a transcript of the Disputes Committee session at the recent SWP conference. It is of course fundamentally an attack on the individuals involved and their right to speak openly about these events. They did so in the belief that what they said was for the people in the room only. You – and whoever sent you this information – have betrayed that trust.

Did it occur to you to contact anyone involved in the case, or any of the people who are readily identifiable from this transcript before you published it?

It is also an assault on the SWP, its democracy, and our attempts to deal with this issue fairly.

Organisations that have to deal with personal cases and allegations of this sort deserve the right to privacy about the details of the proceedings. Do you think that trade unions, for example, should publish transcripts of such cases?

I do not believe you are motivated by any considerations apart from a desire to damage the individuals involved, and the SWP, and to achieve tawdry publicity.

You should never have published the transcript and should take it down immediately.

Charlie Kimber , SWP national secretary"


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2013)

yep saw that, they're trying to make it about what a disgrace andy newman is rather than the fact that what happened in the transcript happened


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

> It is also an assault on the SWP, its democracy, and our attempts to deal with this issue fairly.


 
It is, and it should be.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> For example:
> 
> http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/britain-solfed-statement-about-sexual.html?m=1
> 
> I imagine they don't provide public access to the processes they use.


 
I'm afraid I can't extract anything of substance from that. It's a vague statement of good intentions apart from a (similarly vague) defence of excluding people from "our spaces" (undefined) when allegations have been made.


----------



## rekil (Jan 7, 2013)

Kimber is an old etonian?

edit: you guyz


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 7, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> "I want to move on to how we came to our decisions, and some of the questions that we discussed in advance. So we were asked by the chair to, if any of us felt that we were too close to any of the parties involved, or if we felt that we would be seen to not be objective in any way, to rule ourselves out. One comrade who was from W’s district did do that.
> 
> We then discussed the situation that we all knew Comrade Delta. We knew his important role in the party and on the centralhh committee, and none of us knew W or knew her well. We agreed that we would have to be especially careful to take that into account in the way that we dealt with this."
> No truck with bourgeois impartiality


 
So partiality/impartiality re the alleged victim = bad whereas partiality/impartialty re the accused means they gave to be "especially careful". Fuck me this stinks...


----------



## chilango (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It is, and it should be.



Aye.

Though he's right about this I suspect:

"I do not believe you are motivated by any considerations apart from a desire to damage the individuals involved, and the SWP, and to achieve tawdry publicity."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

copliker said:


> Kimber is an old etonian?


The news is that he's from a banker family. Don't know - shouldn't matter but it might. But as role as industrial organiser..


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

chilango said:


> Aye.
> 
> Though he's right about this I suspect:
> 
> "I do not believe you are motivated by any considerations apart from a desire to damage the individuals involved, and the SWP, and to achieve tawdry publicity."


He's 100% correct in that and i hate people who deny it in the name of something better.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I can't extract anything of substance from that. It's a vague statement of good intentions.


It's a statement that they (for example) have acknowledged that sexual assault can occur within anarchist and activist communities, that they will take allegations seriously, and take steps to deal with it. As I said, the internal steps/processes that they use are not posted publically.


----------



## rekil (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The news is that he's from a banker family. Don't know - shouldn't matter but it might. But as role as industrial organiser..


Oh ok. Anyway. His da.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

copliker said:


> Oh ok. Anyway. His da.


Not being funny but, wrong time (although on reflection, it's exactly right - apols)


----------



## rekil (Jan 7, 2013)

Yep, apols.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's a statement that they (for example) have acknowledged that sexual assault can occur within anarchist and activist communities, that they will take allegations seriously, and take steps to deal with it.


 
Yes, that's what I mean. At that level of abstraction there's nobody at all who would disagree with it. But it doesn't get us very far, precisely because it's so obvious. What do they mean by "activist communities"? What "steps to deal with it"? How? By what means?

It's a statement of vague good intentions, not a framework for dealing with v. serious allegations of wrongdoing. I don't mean to put the boot in and I'm sure that it is well intentioned, but I don't see how it addresses the real problems a small activist group would have in dealing with very serious issues.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

copliker said:


> Yep, apols.


Nah, it does feed into who gets to judge this case and how.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, that's what I mean. At that level of abstraction there's nobody at all who would disagree with it. But it doesn't get us very far, precisely because it's so obvious. What do they mean by "activist communities"? What "steps to deal with it"? How? By what means?
> 
> It's a statement of vague good intentions, not a framework for dealing with v. serious allegations of wrongdoing.



Who is "us" and what do you want to take you further?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

Rotten DC apples. Produced from a  different tree.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 7, 2013)

With CKs dad dead does that make him a baronet now?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> Who is "us" and what do you want to take you further?


 
Us= People who give a shit about allegations of sexual misconduct on the socialist left.

As for taking us further, you linked to that document in response to me saying: "Even with training, I don't see how a small political group overlapping heavily with social circles can be in a position to give people a "fair" hearing even by the low standards of the criminal justice system. And what sanction are they going to apply if someone is found to have done something v. serious? "You can't be in a our marginal political grouping any more?"

The article doesn't address those points in any meaningful way.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Us= People who give a shit about allegations of sexual misconduct on the socialist left.
> 
> As for taking us further, you linked to that document in response to me saying: "Even with training, I don't see how a small political group overlapping heavily with social circles can be in a position to give people a "fair" hearing even by the low standards of the criminal justice system. And what sanction are they going to apply if someone is found to have done something v. serious? "You can't be in a our marginal political grouping any more?"
> 
> The article doesn't address those points in any meaningful way.


Well I'm sorry that it doesn't live up to SP go-to standards, which you'll perhaps furnish us with?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> Well I'm sorry that it doesn't live up to SP go-to standards, which you'll perhaps furnish us with?


 
I have no idea why you seem to be getting defensive about this, or why you think I am singling SolFed out. I made a broad point about the problems which would face any small political group in dealing with very serious allegations of a sexual nature. I didn't exclude the SP from that or anyone else. I am absolutely not trying to score points.

I was genuinely interested when you responded by saying that some groups had addressed these problems recently and so I asked for a link. Unfortunately, at least as far as I can see the link you provided doesn't really address the problems I was talking about in a substantial way, confining itself largely to rather vague statements of good intentions. I don't think that there's anything wrong with stating good intentions, but I don't think that really answers most of the key issues that arise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Oh i see that's my inner liberalism coming out. Sorry. For the people's rank-and-file tribunal of public safety.


 
If there were such a tribunal, you'd have been riding a tumbril long ago, matey!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2013)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/podcasts/january-6-2013-swp-conference-special-report


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I have no idea why you seem to be getting defensive about this, or why you think I am singling SolFed out. I made a broad point about the problems which would face any small political group in dealing with very serious allegations of a sexual nature. I didn't exclude the SP from that or anyone else. I am absolutely not trying to score points.
> 
> I was genuinely interested when you responded by saying that some groups had addressed these problems recently and so I asked for a link. Unfortunately, at least as far as I can see the link you provided doesn't really address the problems I was talking about in a substantial way, confining itself largely to rather vague statements of good intentions. I don't think that there's anything wrong with stating good intentions, but I don't think that really answers most of the key issues that arise.


I'm not defensive, I'm annoyed. There was a much more in depth conversation on the LP thread about sexual assaults and safe guarding and there were a number of links on there. You wanted links again rather than going back to the LP thread so I just picked one at random that was easily searchable. There's far more detail where I originally said there was and I don't see much point repeating it here rather than you going there to see for yourself (if you don't remember).

Further, the statement I linked to goes further than good intentions as I've already pointed out. And also, those intentions have already been put into action cf the tout for example.

In terms of information for small political groups, my point still stands that some of these "small" groups are a damn sight larger than employers who are expected to carry out investigations into sexual harassment and assault and do so. And I have already set out how the basic process should work, which can be adapted according to the relevant organisation.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm not defensive, I'm annoyed. There was a much more in depth conversation on the LP thread about sexual assaults and safe guarding and there were a number of links on there. You wanted links again rather than going back to the LP thread so I just picked one at random that was easily searchable. There's far more detail where I originally said there was and I don't see much point repeating it here rather than you going there to see for yourself (if you don't remember).


 
There are 11,500 posts on the LP thread! Saying that something is discussed there isn't really very useful, you know. I asked for a link because you seemed to know who these groups were and what they were saying. I'm honestly baffled that you think that was some kind of unreasonable imposition.




			
				cesare said:
			
		

> Further, the statement I linked to goes further than good intentions as I've already pointed out.


 
It really doesn't, and I think I've somehow missed you pointing this out.

How does it go beyond good intentions?

It says in a rather vague and long winded way that it supports "community accountability" (undefined), that it supports excluding "perpetrators" (accused people surely?) from "our spaces" (undefined) once an allegation has been made, that it wants to learn from feminist traditions of community accountability (still undefined), that sexual allegations can't be seen in isolation from the sexism of society and that "activist communities" (undefined) perpetuate and reflect this sexism.

Is there something else here that I'm missing? How does any of this address the very real problems facing small left groups where an allegation of serious sexual misconduct has been made? Even if you accept all of it, (and there probably isn't much in it that a member of the SWP DC would balk at!) how does it enable a small group of people, most of whom know one or both of the parties and are involved in overlapping social circles with them, with no investigative powers, experience or apparatus and no sanctions other than exclusion from a marginal political group, to deal with that sort of allegation in a fair and reasonable way?




			
				cesare said:
			
		

> In terms of information for small political groups, my point still stands that some of these "small" groups are a damn sight larger than employers who are expected to carry out investigations into sexual harassment and assault and do so


 
I wouldn't expect a small company, where friendship circles overlap heavily and one or both parties is known to the investigating authority to be able to give reliably fair outcomes either.




			
				cesare said:
			
		

> And I have already set out how the basic process should work, which can be adapted according to the relevant organisation.


 
Where have you set this out?


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2013)

I dont think you can really compare how companies or evenTU's deal with such allegations. For one thing they are pretty much obliged to take matters to law if they become this serious, whereas only politically motivated organisations would really deal with a question of whether a rape actually took place. Not to mention how many of them do have procedures but implement them badly - Owen Oystons still on the board at Blackpool, everyone in ASLEF knew everyone else in the 2004 leadership brawl.

But the SWP _do_ have mechanisms for dealing with such allegations, anyway, and have implemented them in the past. You can see that with the mention of Comrade Alpha. The democratic (ahem) structures within the SWP obviously mean that all members, from top to bottom, face the same rules, which means going before the Disputes Committee. And that committee was obviously _elected_ before charges were raised, so couldnt take into account who might be called before it. So who could change it? Not the Central Committee, obviously, and it shouldn't really be allowed to just nominate it's own replacements. No one outside would consider taking on such a hearing without it also going to law, so what was there option? Less CC and former CC members would help a bit, but only a bit. Any ex-fulltimer would also have known the person involved as well, so...... 

I don't really like to comment much on the transcript, simply because I dont think it should be up there in that detail.  There are people - not Comrade 'Delta' - who want to retain their anonymity for good reasons, and they can be fairly readily indentified from what's in there - to people in the SWP and other lefties in the relevant areas, Newman shouldn't have put it up.


btw - Charlie Kimber isn't related to the banking Kimbers -http://www.thepeerage.com/p49057.htm


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

They all do retain their anonymity.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel, LP thread pages 127 to 130. I set out about how sexual assault/harassment investigations should be handled to articul8 earlier this afternoon on this thread including incorporating reporting to police.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Belboid, harassment's a criminal offence too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> I dont think you can really compare how companies or evenTU's deal with such allegations. For one thing they are pretty much obliged to take matters to law if they become this serious, whereas only politically motivated organisations would really deal with a question of whether a rape actually took place. Not to mention how many of them do have procedures but implement them badly - Owen Oystons still on the board at Blackpool, everyone in ASLEF knew everyone else in the 2004 leadership brawl.
> 
> But the SWP _do_ have mechanisms for dealing with such allegations, anyway, and have implemented them in the past. You can see that with the mention of Comrade Alpha. The democratic (ahem) structures within the SWP obviously mean that all members, from top to bottom, face the same rules, which means going before the Disputes Committee. And that committee was obviously _elected_ before charges were raised, so couldnt take into account who might be called before it. So who could change it? Not the Central Committee, obviously, and it shouldn't really be allowed to just nominate it's own replacements. No one outside would consider taking on such a hearing without it also going to law, so what was there option? Less CC and former CC members would help a bit, but only a bit. Any ex-fulltimer would also have known the person involved as well, so......
> 
> ...


 
Comrade alpha - not CC related. They can do that shit easy. 

Come on belboid, how the hell can any of this being the property of the party help anything at all? This isn't a political faction.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> Nigel, LP thread pages 127 to 130. I set out about how sexual assault/harassment investigations should be handled to articul8 earlier this afternoon on this thread including incorporating reporting to police.


 
Cheers, I'll have a look.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They all do retain their anonymity.


I'm sure a lot of members would be able to identify Comrade X quite easily, and many from Birmingham could indentify Comrade W.



cesare said:


> Belboid, harassment's a criminal offence too.


yes, I know, but I really dont see how that affects anything I wrote - in the first paragraph particularly. Other orgs have ways of dealing with such accusations, but they are crap too. And they are not attempting to be particularly democratically accountable organisations either.



butchersapron said:


> Comrade alpha - not CC related. They can do that shit easy.


I'm simply pointing out that they do have a system for dealing with such accusations and it has to be the same body for all members.



> Come on belboid, how the hell can any of this being the property of the party help anything at all? This isn't a political faction.


so who should it be the property of?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> Less CC and former CC members would help a bit, but only a bit. Any ex-fulltimer would also have known the person involved as well, so......


 
It's worth noting that a disputes committee type structure isn't really designed to deal with allegations of a very serious criminal nature in the first place.

It's also worth noting that most groups which have such a structure have actual rules against people in leadership positions being involved at all, and not just the top leadership either. After all, much of what they are supposed to do is judge disputes between rank and file members and the leadership and I really don't see how they can fulfill that role if they are made up in large part of people who are in the leadership.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> so who should it be the property of?


 
Don't know -  but this, this is horrifying.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'm simply pointing out that they do have a system for dealing with such accusations and it has to be the same body for all members.


 
And it didn't in that case involve someone they all knew. It being the same was the problem.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> yes, I know, but I really dont see how that affects anything I wrote - in the first paragraph particularly. Other orgs have ways of dealing with such accusations, but they are crap too. And they are not attempting to be particularly democratically accountable organisations either.



Like all things, some are crap and some aren't. The larger the organisation, the more likely it is that they'd have a higher number of allegations and therefore a more systematic way of dealing with it. My original comment was that handling allegations of this sort properly comes down to competence and training.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> surprised no-ones commented on this yet:
> http://www.socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/


Absolutely appalling, but sadly not surprising.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Absolutely appalling, but sadly not surprising.


Why not surprising?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> My original comment was that handling allegations of this sort properly comes down to competence and training.


 
Ok, I've had a look back to the earlier thread. While what you were saying there is sensible in so far as it goes, it still seems to me that training someone in investigation to a decent degree of competence still doesn't really deal with the most fundamental problems small groups face in dealing with these sort of allegations:

1) Is the investigator also going to be the adjudicator? Are people going to be trained for each role?
2) In a small group it is highly likely that the investigation/adjudication body will be made up of people who know one or both parties and, worse still, will be part of ongoing circles of friends with one or both. That's inherently a very difficult problem.
3) Even with training, these people will have very limited powers if any at all to actually carry out an investigation and no apparatus to use. It's one thing to investigate a row where someone was violent or abusive at a drunken house party or where someone crossed a picket line, and quite another to investigate something complex, potentially involving non-witness evidence etc.
4) And in the end, when it comes to very serious issues what difference will their investigation really make? What meaningful sanction can they actually impose if they find that someone has done something awful? You can't be in our little group any more? For that matter, what difference will it make if they "acquit" someone anyway? Would the wrongly accused really be able to continue in the group?

I'm not raising any of this to be a cantankerous bollocks, by the way. I just have a lot of difficulty in seeing how small political groups could possibly be equipped to deal with very serious allegations. I'm also a bit concerned that those who try to do so could walk themselves into a lot of trouble. Encouraging the complainant to go to the cops seems like a better starting point to me.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> Like all things, some are crap and some aren't. The larger the organisation, the more likely it is that they'd have a higher number of allegations and therefore a more systematic way of dealing with it. My original comment was that handling allegations of this sort properly comes down to competence and training.


Sure, but the SWP _do_ have that - just not one designed for such a high profile member.

On the LP thread you wrote (specifically then about young people, but I'm guessing the general points still hold):


cesare said:


> In terms of reporting, my thoughts are that they need to set up some kind of accountability process. Identify (at least) one person per group that has responsibility for investigating complaints (and that complaints should be made to them) and that they are properly trained in how to do so. Then the results of the investigation given to (and this is where it gets trickier) an elected person/s who would make a decision about what course of action to take. Possible courses of action could include (but not limited to) expulsion from the group, details of the decision being circulated amongst the wider activist community, encouraging the target to report to the police with active support, etc


And all that is pretty much what the SWP do. There could be fuller seperation of investigation and hearing, that would help, but otherwise, they do the same thing.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> After all, much of what they are supposed to do is judge disputes between rank and file members and the leadership


that's not what the SWP's committee does at all, I think you are thinking of what in the SWP is the Central Control Commission


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

As an aside in Jack Conrad's little talk he mentions the following claimed numbers (not up to date) for signatories to various factional documents:

DC faction: over 160
DO faction: over 100
Pro leadership doc: over 260.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> that's not what the SWP's committee does at all, I think you are thinking of what in the SWP is the Central Control Commission


 
So hang on, the SWP has distinct and separate "court systems" for allegations of "political" and "personal" misbehaviour? Are you sure? I thought that the DC was just a renamed Control Commission?


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So hang on, the SWP has distinct and separate "court systems" for allegations of "political" and "personal" misbehaviour? Are you sure? I thought that the DC was just a renamed Control Commission?


I'm a tad confused, I must admit. But there is no mention of the political expulsions that took place, which implies to me that there must still be different bodies.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> that's not what the SWP's committee does at all, I think you are thinking of what in the SWP is the Central Control Commission


I though the disputes committee replaced the central control commission?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'm a tad confused, I must admit. But there is no mention of the political expulsions that took place, which implies to me that there must still be different bodies.


 
The SWP Constitution is in one of the bulletins. I'll go check.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Thanks Nigel. My reply to articul8 incorporates some of that, at least the structural process and police involvement/supporting the members. Edit: and belboid's just reminded me of what I suggested on the 
LP thread.

 The investigator should never be the adjudicator. The investigator should be properly trained in how to carry out the investigation. There should ideally be an appeal mechanism for any sanction applied. In small organisations, for the investigation there might be an arrangement with an external person, or opposite number in another organisation. Everything comes down to the quality of the investigation.

It is more difficult when people know each other socially, which is why sometimes they prefer to get another competent person to do the investigation.

The sanctions applied would depend on the type of organisation. If they can't come up with sanctions that bite, then that casts doubt on the effectiveness of the organisation imo.

I really don't think that just because groups have a focus on politics rather than business, that it makes them less potentially effective at dealing with these kinds of complaints/situations. They may lack the skills, but they can source those elsewhere or provide training.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 7, 2013)

So much bureaucratic authority for such a marginal sect


----------



## emanymton (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why not surprising?


Two things I guess.

First given my experiences of the SWP the whole thing does not surprise me much, it is more or less how I would expect them to act.

Secondly I know some of the people from the disputes committee and they should not have been allowed anywhere near any kind of dispute let alone one this serious.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'm a tad confused, I must admit. But there is no mention of the political expulsions that took place, which implies to me that there must still be different bodies.


 
I've just read the SWP Constitution and it appears that DC is the old CCC renamed. There's no mention of a Control Commission in the Constitution any more and the section about the DC says that it looks after both issues of dispute between members and into matters of "ordinary party discipline". It also says that the leadership directly appoints (not subjection to election) two of its members.

Quite aside from the kind of issue which arose at this conference, which is way outside what such a body is really designed to deal with, it seems to me to be pretty remarkable to have a body with Central Committee members on it as the body to adjudicate disputes between the CC and rank and file members. I don't see how that can possible inspire confidence in any rank and file member that they'd get a fair hearing if they were in dispute with the CC.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> Sure, but the SWP _do_ have that - just not one designed for such a high profile member.
> 
> On the LP thread you wrote (specifically then about young people, but I'm guessing the general points still hold):
> 
> And all that is pretty much what the SWP do. There could be fuller seperation of investigation and hearing, that would help, but otherwise, they do the same thing.



From what I've read in the transcript, I agree that they didn't fully separate investigation and hearing. I'm also not convinced that the experience that they cited is the same thing as being competent/skills. Some of those questions should never have been asked, for example.

There's no reference to police involvement and whilst I understand (but don't agree) why, this really shouldn't have been an obstacle in enabling the complainant to go to the police.

And yes, the decision makers found it too hard to objectively deal with a peer, and there was no recourse for appeal.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Jan 7, 2013)

All disputes are refered to the disputes committee.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 7, 2013)

tony.c said:


> No, I don't belong to anything, except my union. I was in the SWP in the 70's and around the 'squads'.


So was the Tony I referred to....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> All disputes are refered to the disputes committee.


 
Has anyone every justified the leadership appointing two of its members to a body empowered to adjudicate on disputes between the leadership and other members?

I'm talking here about the "ordinary" business of such a body, not something that seems to me to be massively outside of the range of issues it is designed to deal with at all.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is an important point. Small left groups are seriously ill equipped to deal with this sort of allegation, lacking experience, strong procedures, neutral parties, investigative powers, an investigative apparatus, and any adequate sanction.
> 
> And that's even where they don't start off by having the adjudicating panel made up of people who know one party and not the other.


Thatll never happen


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> *Less* CC and former CC members would help a bit, but only a bit. Any ex-fulltimer would also have known the person involved as well, so......


 
Fewer!!!


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> Sure, but the SWP _do_ have that - just not one designed for such a high profile member.


 
No organisation should have members of its executive on its disputes committee - in fact in most organisations it would be expressly forbidden for, I had thought, obvious reasons. It's deeply unjust to all members.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Two things I guess.
> 
> First given my experiences of the SWP the whole thing does not surprise me much, it is more or less how I would expect them to act.
> 
> Secondly I know some of the people from the disputes committee and they should not have been allowed anywhere near any kind of dispute let alone one this serious.


Why defend that party that produces that for a single second then?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2013)

out of interest, do people think any other left wing group, like say the SP, CPGB, etc, would handle a case like this any better?

seems to me that a lot of the weird secrecy etc may be because of a desire to not "damage" the party (of course its going to be damaged anyway, and even more so if theres a suspected rapist in it with nothing being done) whats depressing is its being dressed up with bullshit about democratic centralism and "political" "principles" by the CC


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've just read the SWP Constitution and it appears that DC is the old CCC renamed. There's no mention of a Control Commission in the Constitution any more and the section about the DC says that it looks after both issues of dispute between members and into matters of "ordinary party discipline". It also says that the leadership directly appoints (not subjection to election) two of its members.
> 
> Quite aside from the kind of issue which arose at this conference, which is way outside what such a body is really designed to deal with, it seems to me to be pretty remarkable to have a body with Central Committee members on it as the body to adjudicate disputes between the CC and rank and file members. I don't see how that can possible inspire confidence in any rank and file member that they'd get a fair hearing if they were in dispute with the CC.


Did they have a separate report on the expulsion of Paris et al? I don't get why that isn't coved in the same session. Nevertheless, in my experience, the commission mainly dealt with matters like pub brawls rather than political issues. Then again, I guess that was much of the political culture, people got expelled for ostensibly non-political reasons. Many of those that did get politically disciplined don't bother appealing either.


cesare said:


> From what I've read in the transcript, I agree that they didn't fully separate investigation and hearing. I'm also not convinced that the experience that they cited is the same thing as being competent/skills. Some of those questions should never have been asked, for example.
> 
> There's no reference to police involvement and whilst I understand (but don't agree) why, this really shouldn't have been an obstacle in enabling the complainant to go to the police.
> 
> And yes, the decision makers found it too hard to objectively deal with a peer, and there was no recourse for appeal.


 Obviously, previous sexual history should never ever play any part in questioning - and the fact no one denies that was asked is shocking. But I don't know how much we can comment on the questions asked beyond that. We have a minuscule amount of detail about the detail of a four day process. She does have an appeal tho - essentially it's conference. 

I really don't think that an agreement with any rival, organisation is at all practical?  Who the hell would agree to do it?  And why should the members - of either organisation - believe they would do so fairly?

The police thing is somewhat separate, I think, as we all know the reasons why women don't report, and the likelihood of getting any kind of prosecution at that stage. But, more to the point, I don't know whether they do encourage women to complain to the police or not. If they do, I couldn't entirely blame them for not publicising the fact.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 7, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> seems to me that a lot of the weird secrecy etc may be because of a desire to not "damage" the party


 
This is inherent in all Leninist parties.

I've just read the last few pages of this thread and, even by the SWP's standards, this is shocking.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> out of interest, do people think any other left wing group, like say the SP, CPGB, etc, would handle a case like this any better?


 
Better, probably. Adequately, I very much doubt it. I just don't think that small activist groups of any kind are really in much of a position to properly and fairly investigate really extremely serious allegations of criminality and they certainly aren't in a position to impose serious sanctions on anyone who is actually found to have committed such an act.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> Did they have a separate report on the expulsion of Paris et al? I don't get why that isn't coved in the same session.


 
I don't understand this either but at least as far as the SWP Constitution is concerned, its the same body that would deal with both.




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> She does have an appeal tho - essentially it's conference


 
I'm not sure that this is correct, at least if some of the contributions in the transcript are accurately reported.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2013)

I'm not sure the SWP conference is the best vehicle for rape allegations to be heard


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not sure the SWP conference is the best vehicle for rape allegations to be heard


 
Something of an understatement.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Belboid, I suppose what I'm saying in a nutshell, is that we shouldn't expect a lower standard of handling sexual harassment/assault allegations from a small left wing organisation than we expect from small employers. And when you factor in that some organisation members are also trade union reps and used to holding employers to account, they should be holding their own organisation to account in the same way.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why defend that party that produces that for a single second then?


I was not aware I was defending them, but anyway there are some people in the SWP I would defend but not the party as a whole. My problem is I still tend to agree with the SWP's formal position on most issues, not democratic centralism as it happens I have given up on that idea.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't understand this either but at least as far as the SWP Constitution is concerned, its the same body that would deal with both.


It almost looks like the 4 expulsions where not refereed to the Disputes committee but handled directly by the CC, but surely not even the SWP CC could get away with that?


Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not sure that this is correct, at least if some of the contributions in the transcript are accurately reported.


It's bizarre, conference can decided not to approve the disputes committee report but not overturn it's decisions. SO if someone gets expelled and conference then refuse to approve the DC  report the expulsion still stands? Maybe they would be allowed to join again? Also I noticed the report as a whole was voted on not each individual case.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2013)

emanymton said:
			
		

> I was not aware I was defending them, but anyway there are some people in the SWP I would defend but not the part as a whole. My problem is I still tend to agree with the SWP's formal position on most issues, not democratic centralism as it happens I have given up on that idea.



Which idea?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which idea?


Democratic centralism


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

I've gotta say I take back some of what I said earlier. This is a fucking madness, I thought this was just some stupid bun fight in an irrelevant far left group, but this is actually really serious.

I think the point that a person came off the commission because they knew W but all the people stayed on who knew Delta is a madness. As is questioning women about how much they drink and who they have slept with.

But more to the point why wasn't the first thing done was to try and convince W to refer this to the police? How can the SWP possibly think that they are qualified to undertake a rape investigation? It's beyond belief. What if forensics were involved, like an old item of clothing that was kept? Are they gonna send a panel member round to do CSI tests? It's just beyond belief that anyone would think it's ok for a political organisation to investigate a rape case. What about a murder case? Would that be ok to look in to as well?

Further to this if there was an investigation by a political group that was totally flawed, could there be the potential for them to face criminal charges in terms of inteferring with a criminal case? The whole thing is beyond belief.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Jan 7, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I'm not sure the SWP conference is the best vehicle for rape allegations to be heard


 
The SWP conference did not hear rape allegations. It was asked to approve a Dispute committee report.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> The SWP conference did not hear rape allegations. It was asked to approve a Dispute committee report.


The only possible form of appeal was via the Conference though.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

It was asked to approve a dispute committee report, but in doing so fairly detailed stuff was talked about in terms of the rape allegation and sexual harassment.

It is beyond bizarre that this kind of thing was talked about to 100s of people while the alleged rape victim was waiting outside the building for people to come and talk to her afterwards. It's just utter madness.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2013)

I'll be honest until I read the transcript I mostly just thought all this pallaver in the SWP was a laugh, I wanted to see them fuck it up and destroy themselves.

But not like this, it's disgusting, and sad, and they only have themselves to blame.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

To be fair, It's entirely up to the complainant whether she reports it to the police or not. But this is one of the issues that's unclear - whether or not part of their investigation process deals with what happens with confidentiality at each stage (they only appear to have addressed the issue of confidentiality at a *very* superficial level, if that).

And she could always change her mind about going to the OB at any point of course ...


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 7, 2013)

btw - Charlie Kimber isn't related to the banking Kimbers -http://[URL='http://www.thepeerage.com/p49057.htm' said:
			
		

> www.thepeerage.com/p49057.htm[/url]


 
Unless he has dropped 'Hugo' and has a birthday on 4 April.

Further down the page is: 
*Children of Timothy Roy Henry Kimber and Antonia Kathleen Brenda Williams*


Rupert Edward Watkin *Kimber*2 b. 20 Jun 1962
Hugo Charles *Kimber*2 b. 4 Apr 1964


----------



## Santiagotalk (Jan 7, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> It was asked to approve a dispute committee report, but in doing so fairly detailed stuff was talked about in terms of the rape allegation and sexual harassment.
> 
> It is beyond bizarre that this kind of thing was talked about to 100s of people while the alleged rape victim was waiting outside the building for people to come and talk to her afterwards. It's just utter madness.


 
The details of what was said by the two parties to the disputes committee was not discussed at all at the conference because it was confidential to protect both parties. How could the conference arrangments committee allow one side of the argument to be presented at the conference in person when the other person was not present? The women who asked to speake to the conference had up to the conference had asked not to be identified.

At least comrade your were at the conference and can give a valid opinion on the situation. There are far too many people on here who are putting forward their opinions without even taking the time to read the Dispute Committee report! You can see that by the some of the confused points being made.

Finally its also evident that there are many people on here who are experts at this sort of thing. Yet for some reason they fail to explain how they would sort out this issue, or they retreat into the usual urban 75 stuff of taking the piss.

Everyone of the 700 people at the SWP conference were noy happy about the situation, but at the end of the day we have to move on. Conference after a two houe session voted to accept the
report and that is the end of the matter.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

Strange the number of first ever posts this thread has attracted


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Strange the number of first ever posts this thread has attracted


Likewise with the LP one.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> The details of what was said by the two parties to the disputes committee was not discussed at all at the conference because it was confidential to protect both parties.


 
What appeal process exists for a party unhappy with the outcome of such an investigation?




			
				Santiagotalk said:
			
		

> There are far too many people on here who are putting forward their opinions without even taking the time to read the Dispute Committee report! You can see that by the some of the confused points being made.


 
What confused points are you referring to?




			
				Santiagotalk said:
			
		

> Finally its also evident that there are many people on here who are experts at this sort of thing. Yet for some reason they fail to explain how they would sort out this issue


 
There has been considerable discussion here of the drastic problems that dealing with any allegation of serious criminality would pose for a small activist group, which I don't see you engaging with at all.




			
				Santiagotalk said:
			
		

> Everyone of the 700 people at the SWP conference were noy happy about the situation, but at the end of the day we have to move on. Conference after a two houe session voted to accept the
> report and that is the end of the matter.


Bloody hell.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

700 SWP members just at the conference. That's not a small organisation.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> that is the end of the matter.


y'reckon?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Everyone of the 700 people at the SWP conference were noy happy about the situation, but at the end of the day we have to move on. Conference after a two houe session voted to accept the
> report and that is the end of the matter.


 
Yes move on and don't discuss the fact that two of your members don't feel their complaints of serious sexual misconduct were taken seriously.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk details clearly were discussed. From how much women drank, to whether they had slept with people, to how they felt. One of the women alleging sexual harassment was talking about her experience. Can't you see how bizarre it was to discuss all this in front of 500 people while the alleged rape victim stood outside, and presumably the alleged rapist sat inside the hall. It's insane.

And so what if the woman who asked to speak to the conference had asked not to be identified up until that point? Can't she change her mind?

I've told you how this should be sorted. It is a serious criminal matter, and if possible should be dealt with by the police. As I said what next, the SWP investigating a murder case? Also if it does end up as a criminal case how can the SWP won't know it won't be done for intefering in a criminal case?

If you think this is the end of the matter you are massively mistaken. Apart from anything else the sexual harassment allegation hasn't even been formally heard yet!


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 7, 2013)

Nice to have some swappies back, are you aware that discussing party conference matters on this forum, even to defend the party, is considered an expellable offence? Ask mk12.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 7, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Santiagotalk details clearly were discussed. From how much women drank, to whether they had slept with people, to how they felt. One of the women alleging sexual harassment was talking about her experience. Can't you see how bizarre it was to discuss all this in front of 500 people while the alleged rape victim stood outside, and presumably the alleged rapist sat inside the hall. It's insane.
> 
> And so what if the woman who asked to speak to the conference had asked not to be identified up until that point? Can't she change her mind?
> 
> ...


The SWP, making the Catholic Church appear open and sympathetic to the victim


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

They seem to have totally lost the plot. Can anyone imagine Labour Party conference discussing a rape allegation, with the woman outside on the pavement? You seriously couldn't make this up. I suspect quite a few SWPers will look back on this in a few years and won't be able to believe that they were part of it.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 7, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I've told you how this should be sorted. It is a serious criminal matter, and if possible should be dealt with by the police.


 
Somebody on SU claims to have spoken to the police about a different matter and having been told that an internal investigation without police involvement might be considered to have corrupted the evidence and could be considered criminal in itself. Does anyone on here with any legal knowledge know if that is hyperbole? It would be really shitty for the women involved if they decided to get the police involved only to discover this charade had fucked it up for them.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

That must be a serious possibility. Something like this could really screw up a criminal investigation. And as said could possibly be a criminal act in and of itself. It's all totally shameful.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Jan 7, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Santiagotalk details clearly were discussed. From how much women drank, to whether they had slept with people, to how they felt. One of the women alleging sexual harassment was talking about her experience. Can't you see how bizarre it was to discuss all this in front of 500 people while the alleged rape victim stood outside, and presumably the alleged rapist sat inside the hall. It's insane.
> 
> And so what if the woman who asked to speak to the conference had asked not to be identified up until that point? Can't she change her mind?
> 
> ...


 
I dont intend to get into an aurgument with you comrade, I voted to reject to Dispute Committee Report. When I said this is the end of the matter I was saying that the case was constitutionally at an end. It is up to the comrade to make up her mind were she goes from here.

The impact of this case as been very great througgout the SWP and I am sure that internally changes will be made. I think we all have had enough of utter maddness.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> I dont intend to get into an aurgument with you comrade, I voted to reject to Dispute Committee Report. When I said this is the end of the matter I was saying that the case was constitutionally at an end. It is up to the comrade to make up her mind were she goes from here.
> 
> The impact of this case as been very great througgout the SWP and I am sure that internally changes will be made. I think we all have had enough of utter maddness.


i think the only way changes will be made is if you force them through.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i think the only way changes will be made is if you force them through.


 
If they try that the CC will wreck the SWP though


----------



## mk12 (Jan 7, 2013)

> Comrades, we have to welcome the fact that we have a disputes committee. We have no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If they try that the CC will wreck the SWP though


 
After all they've made it into a shining model of wonder this past few years.... This decision might go some way to wrecking that frankly rotten organisation.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If they try that the CC will wreck the SWP though


----------



## discokermit (Jan 7, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> that frankly rotten organisation.


i don't completely agree. as can be seen from the transcript, there's still a lot of good amongst the rotten.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Jan 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If they try that the CC will wreck the SWP though


 
No I think a lot of people would like the CC towreck the SWP. Dispite our shortcomings the SWP is not going away we will continue to fight the class war to the best of our ability.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 7, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i don't completely agree. as can be seen from the transcript, there's still a lot of good amongst the rotten.


 
Well if those members who dissented simply carry on with the 'decision' it doesn't say much for them. We shall see.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 7, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Well if those members who dissented simply carry on with the 'decision' it doesn't say much for them. We shall see.


i can't see this going away in a hurry.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

By the way you seem to think I'm in the SWP! I'm not. But all the best in changing your organisation, personally I think anyone wanting change will have to start afresh.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> By the way you seem to think I'm in the SWP! I'm not. But all the best in changing your organisation, personally I think anyone wanting change will have to start afresh.


 
I thought you were in the SWP???

What group are you a member of then, SP?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

I can't see how anyone could stay in an organisation after that. Surely it would make you seriously think what kind of organisation you had got yourself involved in?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Jan 7, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Nice to have some swappies back, are you aware that discussing party conference matters on this forum, even to defend the party, is considered an expellable offence? Ask mk12.


 
O Fuck, well there you go. Lol


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

I'm not in any organisation! Well unless you count my union branch.

I was having a go at the SP earlier in this thread, basically saying the way they operate and their political methodology is little different from the SWP. But I guess they can say they haven't done this circus!


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

Why did everyone seem to think I was in the SWP lol?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 7, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Why did everyone seem to think I was in the SWP lol?


 
just the way you have shown slavish devotion to them since you started posting here


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Why did everyone seem to think I was in the SWP lol?


The only reason that I thought you might be was when you didn't dispute you'd been at the conference. Before that I'm sure I've seen you clearly say that you're not a member of any political group.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> just the way you have shown slavish devotion to them since you started posting here


 
I think you've got the wrong poster. If anything people have said I've had a go at the SWP and SP too much.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 7, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Somebody on SU claims to have spoken to the police about a different matter and having been told that an internal investigation without police involvement might be considered to have corrupted the evidence and could be considered criminal in itself. Does anyone on here with any legal knowledge know if that is hyperbole? It would be really shitty for the women involved if they decided to get the police involved only to discover this charade had fucked it up for them.


In child sexual abuse cases it certainly would be considered as corrupting the evidence. As to criminal charges I don't know although I suppose perverting the course of justice crossed my mind. @agricola will know


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Have you just grassed up the SWP to a serving police officer? By summoning him.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 7, 2013)

looks like


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 7, 2013)

You are aware this is a public forum accessible to people who aren't registered?


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

Yes, and that's a risk that people take. Actively summoning the OB goes beyond that though.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 7, 2013)

He rarely posts out of this forum and is a very long standing poster so forgive me if that strikes me as a touch disingenuous.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 7, 2013)

...plus SWP expulsions has 180,000 google results and this thread is top of the list.


----------



## cesare (Jan 7, 2013)

It's not disingenuous it's completely open challenge. It also puts him potentially in a difficult position, and we have no idea what the complainant's wishes are either.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2013)

cesare said:


> Belboid, I suppose what I'm saying in a nutshell, is that we shouldn't expect a lower standard of handling sexual harassment/assault allegations from a small left wing organisation than we expect from small employers. And when you factor in that some organisation members are also trade union reps and used to holding employers to account, they should be holding their own organisation to account in the same way.


But they actually do - technically at least. There might be some formal room for improvement - fewer leading members, an independent investigator, training in some unspecified theoretical framework for questioning of alleged victims - but do you really think those things would make a fundamental difference in a case like this?

What should be remembered, is the woman did not want to make a complaint to police. We can make no judgement on whether the party encouraged her to do so, because we dont know those details. All we _know_ is she did not do so.  So what should the SWP do then? Refuse to investigate it because its too big?

As to the appeal - it's an _appeal_, not a retrial. As such the question is whether the process was fair or whether there is some new evidence. The SWP process does, just about, fulfill your criteria. It could be improved upon, but I dont honestly dont see what formal structures would particularly improve matters.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 7, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> He rarely posts out of this forum and is a very long standing poster so forgive me if that strikes me as a touch disingenuous.


you might have well blown a little fucking whistle as do that @ shit.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Unless he has dropped 'Hugo' and has a birthday on 4 April.
> 
> Further down the page is:
> *Children of Timothy Roy Henry Kimber and Antonia Kathleen Brenda Williams*
> ...


far too young, CK is 5 years older at the very least.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 7, 2013)

....but it's OK to discuss it all on a high-ish profile public forum. Did the complainant OK that?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 7, 2013)

But where is the limit belboid? If someone said they saw someone in the SWP kill someone, but they didn't want to go to the police, should the disputes committee deal with it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 7, 2013)

I know a couple of people who were delegates there. Gonna keep my gob shut till I've spoken to them but this is an absolute fucking disgrace. If I was still in the SWP I'd definitely have left over this. I'd leave any organization that thought this was OK.

I'm not a fan, otherwise I wouldn't have left, but I'd never have believed they'd have done something like this. This is the kind of thing you hear of abusive cults doing, not political parties.

And fuck blaming this on Leninism - apart from anything else that's excusing them.


----------



## SLK (Jan 7, 2013)

I think I would have left just because of the feeling of rife division and no hope of building a mass organisation.
I'm not sure how else the SWP could have dealt with this significantly better though, other than tinker with the process/ membership of the DC or whatever. It's not that I think it was well dealt with - it's just that I don't really know what else they could have done.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 7, 2013)

Have to say, as someone who hasn't been in the SWP for many years and whose sympathies were with the opposition factions in everything I've heard about the political debates going on inside the party that a) I totally agree with Kimber that Newman was bang out of line publishing this transcript (and I'll be only too happy to tell him that if I see him at a Swindon Labour meeting any time soon). This was a hugely sensitive issue for all concerned and there's no way I or anyone else who isn't in that party should be reading the details of what people we can clearly identify had to say , sometimes in very personal and revealing ways. The SWP has a procedure and nobody had a right to circumvent it. In fact I'd have no objection if I were still a member to seeing the fucker who lleaked this summarily kicked out. they betrayed everyone in that room.

And b) whatever can be said about the procedures followed by the DC and here I think the most telling contribution was Pat Stack, the minority member who clearly thought there had been sexual harassment or at least enough of a suspicion of it to justify disciplinary action, the fact remains that every single one of those people who spoke in favour of the report were clearly bending over backwards to be even handed and sensitive to the women concerned, which is what you'd expect from people with multiple decades between them of fighting for women's liberation. Frankly fuck you to the people using this leaked transcript to attack the personal motives of the comrades concerned. They had a very difficult decision about facts to make and there is nothing in this that proves to me that they acted with anything other than integrity.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 7, 2013)

Just spent some time listening to the cpgb podcast. The analysis of Conrad isn't too far out, though I think he downplays the seriousness of the sexual/ criminal accusations( rightly he does say they should be investigated by the police not a party body).
When he says that the crisis is a crisis of the SWPs political failure, and that it reveals the party's true size of no more than 1000 active members, he's quite right, but this also leaves the cpgb s perspectives right up in the air too. For years they have focused on influencing and adapting themselves to whatever the SWP was doing, the largest revolutionary group in Britain, would in their view provide a large chunk of the cadre for their new unified communist party. That group is now shown to be an addled rump, irreconsiderably split with a leadership willing to absolve serious sexual assault in its determination to remain in power. Where now for Conrad and bridge? A new alignment on workers girder?


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> But where is the limit belboid? If someone said they saw someone in the SWP kill someone, but they didn't want to go to the police, should the disputes committee deal with it?


So, the CC/DC tells the police this woman who doesnt want to make a complaint has made a complaint?  How would that work? The very way the police deal with murder - the evidential basis still extant after four years for one thing - makes those two things very different.  And how far would you go?  Reporting them for nicking from the petty cash tin?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 8, 2013)

Exactly Beloid.

It's depressing reading lefties on this thread who should know better attacking a left wing  org for daring to deal with its own internal affairs in the best way it can rather than just relying on the police and courts. And attacking its relative amateurish is beside the point.

Also depressing that the notion of norms of democratic discipline and confidential discussion about delicate issues should be so surprising to people who should be used to the like from union work etc.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

Actualy bolshiebhoy my main problem with the SWP (and the SP and other left groups), isn't this. This is just bizarre. As I said can you imagine a Labour Party conference discussing the ins and outs of an alleged rape case, while the accused stood outside on the pavement? Whatever way you want to try and portray this, that isn't good. Nor is the fact that the only person on the commission who knew W stepped down but everyone who knew the CC member stayed on it. The fact that the accussed women also thought it had been dealt with very badly, as did nearly half the delegates also suggests there is a problem.

The fact is that I'm not sure the SWP can deal with such a serious matter, full stop. The same as if someone had alleged that someone had murdered someone. For such serious crimes, which are clearly difference from stealling petty cash, I think it probably has to be the police or nothing. To set up some mockery of a court where you can't investigate properly and you can't use any forensics (which could be possible, even after years, such as on clothes that might have been kept), then it just becomes a total and utter farce. It also means that if the woman does want to go to the police in the future that such a process might mean that a criminal trial is no longer possible.

But the main problem is that all these organisations act as semi-cults, with their front organisations all over the place, and ever more detached from the working class. You only have to look at the anti-cuts movement to see how bad the far left is in the way it operates. The SWP is particuarly bad with its ban on organised opposition for nine months of the year, but they all have similar problems.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in marxism/socialism by the way, I just think organisations would have to run totally differently from the current crop if we are to get anywhere.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

Also I can't remember dealing with any sensitive union cases, such as sexual assault and harassment, in front of the whole AGM of the branch. Also if someone reported a rape to me in my trade union branch, I wouldn't even think of suggesting that our branch could deal with such an issue internally! This isn't the SWP dealing with it's "internal affairs" FFS! It's an alleged rape.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

Also what would the SWP do if they had found him guilty of rape at the commission? Would they just throw him out of the SWP and leave it at that?


----------



## SLK (Jan 8, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Also what would the SWP do if they had found him guilty of rape at the commission? Would they just throw him out of the SWP and leave it at that?


 
Yes. 

What do you expect them to do?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

Report them to the police maybe? Or is it enough under the justice of the SWP to find someone guilty of rape and just withdraw their party card? The more I think about this the more insane it seems that the SWP leadership thought it was ok to say that they could do an internal investigation over a rape allegation. I would have thought anyone who was sane would have said that they couldn't deal with such a matter as they weren't equipped to and they think it is a police matter.


----------



## SLK (Jan 8, 2013)

Can't be arsed.


----------



## SLK (Jan 8, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Report them to the police maybe? Or is it enough under the justice of the SWP to find someone guilty of rape and just withdraw their party card? The more I think about this the more insane it seems that the SWP leadership thought it was ok to say that they could do an internal investigation over a rape allegation. I would have thought anyone who was sane would have said that they couldn't deal with such a matter as they weren't equipped to and they think it is a police matter.


 
They don't have the resources to find someone "guilty".


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

No they don't have the resources to carry out a proper investigation over a rape allegation. And by doing so actually put a real trial at risk.


----------



## SLK (Jan 8, 2013)

What trial?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

If the woman decides she does want to go to the police and there is a real trial then this ridiculous investigation by the SWP could put the whole thing in jepordy.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

So,they should refuse to investigate it at all unless she takes it to the police? That is what you are saying if you think it through.


----------



## Firky (Jan 8, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> If the woman decides she does want to go to the police and there is a real trial then this ridiculous investigation by the SWP could put the whole thing in jepordy.


 
I'd read back what you have said if I were you. 

NM, belboid put it better.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I know a couple of people who were delegates there. Gonna keep my gob shut till I've spoken to them but this is an absolute fucking disgrace. If I was still in the SWP I'd definitely have left over this. I'd leave any organization that thought this was OK.
> 
> I'm not a fan, otherwise I wouldn't have left, but I'd never have believed they'd have done something like this. This is the kind of thing you hear of abusive cults doing, not political parties.
> 
> And fuck blaming this on Leninism - apart from anything else that's excusing them.


 
Spoke to someone who works at the SWP centre yesterday - apparently they are being told to take a "loyalty oath" or face the sack. Apparently there's almost certainly going to be a split - just remains to be seen whether it's the orginal DO faction that leaves, both factions, or the near 50% who voted to reject the report. But there's also a fair measure of "it's our party, stay and fight for it" going on. The contact I spoke to is planning to leave but is so disgusted with what's gone on wants to make their views known more widely.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> So,they should refuse to investigate it at all unless she takes it to the police? That is what you are saying if you think it through.


 
I think there's a debate to be had about how left organisations deal with such serious events - I understand the desire to avoid involving the police and state, and appreciate that the woman involved does not wish to involve them (although people change their minds) yet also think you would need an organisation with very different internal politics to the SWP to be able to even attempt that successfully. I also have grave doubts about whether that an internal grievance process is appropriate in cases of such serious allegations at all.

That it looks like they have made such a clueless insensitive hash of it, largely due to their culture and structure is absolutely worthy of criticism. Also I do think revolutionary socialism or no, the organisation should have ensured that the woman had legal advice about any consequences of going down the SWP internal route first before she made her decision. If they didn't do that, that is a fucking shambles.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 8, 2013)

If the function of the disputes commision was solely for the purposes of establishing whether the party’s standards of propriety had been breeched, and didn’t preclude the possibility of the compainant going to the authorities I wouldn’t have so much of a problem. But you can clearly read from that transcript that they are setting themselves up as some sort of alternative judiciary! All those references to the inadequacy of bourgeois courts and the suposed moral authority of persons who have actually engaged in struggle against women’s subjection. It’s totally insane, when all they might do even if they miraculously found in the favour of the complainant is take the guy‘s party card! Is that what passes for revolutionary justice these days? At least if she had gone to the ol bill she wouldn’t have had to face a judge and jury who were drinking buddies of the accused!

And I don’t buy the argument that being active in these issues gives a person some kind of special authority to pronounce on anything. First and formost these people believe that the revolutionary party is the only form of organisation suited to women’s struggle, so it stands to reason that when faced with potential damage to the party‘s reputation they are going to subbordinate the interests and welfare of this particular women to the "greater good“. Makes me sick.


----------



## Random (Jan 8, 2013)

SLK said:


> Yes.
> 
> What do you expect them to do?


If this process is supposed to be better than a bourgeois court, shouldn't it have the same ability to impose sanctions on a guilty person as a court would? The SWP breaks the law to attack fascists in order to break fascism's violent threat. Why not break the law to attack rapists?

I'm not saying this is what they should do, but it's a logical conclusion from the SWP saying that it can do without the courts as it knows better.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 8, 2013)

not sure about that. as has been noted, the girl in question didn't want to go to the police, yet had registered a serious claim against a standing CC member. i don't think there was any option other than to go through disputes to ascertain whether or not 'comrade Delta' was fit to continue being a member (other than to simply ignore the woman's claim) - but that doesn't on any level mean the organisation logically must also entirely compromise itself with vigilante justice.

the problem is, due to the prevailing culture of the organisation and they way we _know_ things run, there is absolutely no way we can trust the verdict of DC _especially_ given the make-up of the panel. this on top of some pretty significant errors in the questioning process (i.e. 'would it be fair to say you liked a drink?')

secondly, that it is the kerfuffle over _this_ dispute which the CC used opportunistically and characteristically to expel most of the leading democracy campaigners within the organisation, further embedding distrust in whether such an organisation can on any level _ever_ be responsible for self-investigation over such serious matters.

i do think that this issue very clearly shows up the lack of accountability for the CC, but not in the structural process carried out r.e. disputes so much as the prevailing culture of the organisation. DC were pretty much unknown to the broader membership before this conference, and there has never been a truly democratic debate or vote on its composition. no surprise it was riddled with friends when this situation came around.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

Random said:


> If this process is supposed to be better than a bourgeois court, shouldn't it have the same ability to impose sanctions on a guilty person as a court would? *The SWP breaks the law to attack fascists in order to break fascism's violent threat.* Why not break the law to attack rapists?
> 
> I'm not saying this is what they should do, but it's a logical conclusion from the SWP saying that it can do without the courts as it knows better.


 
From the transcript you would think this was a conference of a guerrilla army in the mountains with no access to anyone at all except themselves. That everyone they had access to knew accused and accuser. That there was no opportunity to find anyone else. That the justice had to be "revolutionary" i.e. a kneecaping at least. 

There were probably half a dozen things the SWP could have done whilst ensuring the police were kept at bay including:
1 Inviting fellow 4th International Trotskyist revolutionaries to take over the investigations
2 Organising some kind of immediate support for W (note how she isn't even called Comrade W).
3 Alternatively, inviting a group of unknown comrades at random from Holland/France/Ireland (not high up people like Kieran Allen, since that could tend towards not rocking the boat and finding in favour of the higher up) to conduct a fairer investigation with PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THE ACCUSED.
4 Separating out investigators from adjudicators.

Parts of the culture within SWP appear to resemble  some of the worse aspects of closed communities.
False sexual harassment allegations, are very rare 3% according to some statistics, and comparable to levels false allegations of other crimes.

Does anyone seriously buy the line that these Disputes Committee people were somehow more expert because they were in the party longer, in determining a false allegation. That they could act as judge, jury and non-executioner (removal from party as punishment LOL) to an accused that they have been mates with for decades, running a vanguard superior organisation with them.

For those saying we shouldn't read or comment on the transcript. What should we do close our eyes?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

The episode seems to be like a firm's in-house investigation into a complaint of harassment by a manager against a new employee when no one else is around.
Managers conduct the investigation, social pressures against supporters of the new employee are kept up, eventually find nothing can be substantiated, nothing happens.



> Is it right that a young woman has to plan her route to work avoiding paper-sellers, or that she comes away from a meeting crying because people refuse to speak to her? Is it right that _her witnesses are questioned about their commitment to the party because they missed a branch meeting_?


 
That appears dangerous and damaging. Screwing around with witnesses allowing them to be treated in this manner inevitably damages their testimony or the credibility of their testimony in the eyes of the judges  friends of accused Central Committee member.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

The last few posts on this thread are utterly fucking mad, I can't believe they are meant to be serious.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> The last few posts on this thread are utterly fucking mad, I can't believe they are meant to be serious.


 
What parts of it are mad?

This kind of stuff seems mad:



> She was questioned about why she went for a drink with him, her witnesses were repeatedly asked whether she’d been in a relationship with him, and you know, she was asked about (Karen begins to talk over Sadia to warn about providing details) … she was asked about relationships with other comrades including sexual relationships. All this was irrelevant to the case.
> We’ve got a proud tradition in the party of rejecting that line of questioning by the state. This is about consent. To date she hasn’t been told what evidence was presented against her by Comrade Delta and by his witnesses. She felt she was being interrogated and felt they were trying to catch her out in order to make her out to be a liar. She did not accept the line of questioning, saying ‘they think I’m a slut who asked for it’.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> The details of what was said by the two parties to the disputes committee was not discussed at all at the conference because it was confidential to protect both parties.


 
The minutiae wasn't discussed. The general terms were. The general terms plus the gossip-filled environment that comprises SWP membership meant that most people knew the identities of both parties, and thought they knew "the details" long before the conference started. Your attempt to imply otherwise is irrelevant.



> How could the conference arrangments committee allow one side of the argument to be presented at the conference in person when the other person was not present? The women who asked to speake to the conference had up to the conference had asked not to be identified.


 
So, the organisational requirements of conference come before things like equity or justice? _plus ça change..._



> At least comrade your were at the conference and can give a valid opinion on the situation. There are far too many people on here who are putting forward their opinions without even taking the time to read the Dispute Committee report! You can see that by the some of the confused points being made.
> 
> Finally its also evident that there are many people on here who are experts at this sort of thing. Yet for some reason they fail to explain how they would sort out this issue, or they retreat into the usual urban 75 stuff of taking the piss.
> 
> ...


 
Arrogance as well as ignorance. It's hardly "the end of the matter" if comrade W decides to go to the police about comrade Perry. Of course, she'd need to be prepared to be the target of even more shite from some other "comrades", who'll traduce her if it gets them noticed. Same old same old in the SWP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> y'reckon?


 
Yep, they reckon.
You've got to love peremptory demands from Swappites. Not at all in keeping with their commitment to *ahem* democratic process.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Somebody on SU claims to have spoken to the police about a different matter and having been told that an internal investigation without police involvement might be considered to have corrupted the evidence and could be considered criminal in itself. Does anyone on here with any legal knowledge know if that is hyperbole? It would be really shitty for the women involved if they decided to get the police involved only to discover this charade had fucked it up for them.


 
I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that current police interviewing procedure of victims of crime can be badly tainted if the victim or witnesses have been subjected to processes that have caused them to have to recall events, primarily due to the suggestibility factor. Even well-intentioned questioning can cause such problems, which is why witness interviewing nowadays tends to follow a carefully-designed set procedure that doesn't include any "closed" questions (i.e. asking "so the car was yellow, was it?"), just "open" questions (i.e. asking "can you recall what colour the car was?").
While it wouldn't scrub a case as far as the police are concerned, it would enable comrade sportswear's legal representation to argue that any evidence had been tainted through the DC process, and would probably be taken into account by a jury.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> But where is the limit belboid? If someone said they saw someone in the SWP kill someone, but they didn't want to go to the police, should the disputes committee deal with it?


 
It'd give a whole new meaning to "they gave him a seat on the Central Committee because he knew where the bodies were buried".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They had a very difficult decision about facts to make and there is nothing in this that proves to me that they acted with anything other than integrity.


 
For me, there's one question that needs answering that'll tell me whether they acted with integrity or not: Did they take legal counsel as to the legality and admissability of their processes?
Why is that important? Because the answer will tell me whether they prioritised the needs of the plaintiff and defendant, or the needs of the party. If they prioritised the latter, then to hell with them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> So,they should refuse to investigate it at all unless she takes it to the police? That is what you are saying if you think it through.


 
No, they should take legal advice on how best to conduct an investigation in a way that won't prejudice further developments.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 8, 2013)

But they had to conduct SOME kind of investigation. Either that, or just ignore the complaint. As I say, I don't think this is as much of a question about the technical role of the DC so much as the prevailing, awful culture within the SWP generally, which makes it impossible to treat this DC report with anything but suspicion.

Points about having a more sophisticated understanding of the legality are well and good, as are the proposals by the opposition to have a better established protocol in respect to dealing with such complaints - but again, I think the fundamental issue here is that you can't trust the leadership of this organisation to act with scruples when investigating themselves. It goes against everything we know about them and they way they operate.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

God help us if the SWP any got any sort of power.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

Real power I mean.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

I didn't notice that they had put "Comrade" Delta, but just referred to the woman as W. The whole thing stinks the more you look at it.

Sorry but the answer has to be for serious issues that a political organisation can't oversee something as serious as a rape case or a murder. They can offer support such as counselling, but to say that they will investigate such a serious criminal matter is unfair on a number of levels. It potentially wrecks a future criminal trial, it means that if they find the person guilty they can't do anything other then expel them from the organisation and it means that you end up having a totally inadequate investigation on lots of levels, including things such as the inability to have forensics and the lack of impartiality. I think the organisation has to stress in a sensitive way that for such serious matters it would be totally inadequate at best, and negligent at worst, to investigate the case, and that it should be dealt with by the police.

The lack of impartiality in this case is compounded by the fact that the person who knew W removed themselves from the panel where as friends of Comrade Delta stayed on it.

I seriously can't believe that some people can't see the utter insanity of a conference of 500 people discussing a rape case, with the accused sitting in the hall and the alleged rape victim standing outside on the pavement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> But they had to conduct SOME kind of investigation. Either that, or just ignore the complaint. As I say, I don't think this is as much of a question about the technical role of the DC so much as the prevailing, awful culture within the SWP generally, which makes it impossible to treat this DC report with anything but suspicion.


 
It's a quandary. You either go the suspension route: Remove the accused party from circulation until all investigative routes have been exhausted, or the route the CC and DC have taken. Either way you generate problems, irrespective of the process itself being problematic.

What really peed me off was the mutual back-patting about how feminist the DC were, when they were then damned by other speakers mentioning the kind of questioning comrade W and the later complainant had been allegedly subjected to by them.



> Points about having a more sophisticated understanding of the legality are well and good, as are the proposals by the opposition to have a better established protocol in respect to dealing with such complaints - but again, I think the fundamental issue here is that you can't trust the leadership of this organisation to act with scruples when investigating themselves. It goes against everything we know about them and they way they operate.


 
Frankly, I believe that "self-policing" is a bad policy in *any* organisation. That the CC have indicated yet again that what is important to them is the perpetuation of the party, with all other considerations being secondary is horrible, but hardly surprising. Self-interest will out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I didn't notice that they had put "Comrade" Delta, but just referred to the woman as W. The whole thing stinks the more you look at it.
> 
> Sorry but the answer has to be for serious issues that a political organisation can't oversee something as serious as a rape case or a murder. They can offer support such as counselling, but to say that they will investigate such a serious criminal matter is unfair on a number of levels. It potentially wrecks a future criminal trial, it means that if they find the person guilty they can't do anything other then expel them from the organisation and it means that you end up having a totally inadequate investigation on lots of levels, including things such as the inability to have forensics and the lack of impartiality. I think the organisation has to stress in a sensitive way that for such serious matters it would be totally inadequate at best, and negligent at worst, to investigate the case, and that it should be dealt with by the police.
> 
> ...


 
I'm more concerned that comrade Poloshirt was allowed to resign. It leaves the way open for his return once the furore has died down.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

I reckon the standing ovation comrade delta got when this was first mentioned at conference two years ago (?) surely injected some poison into proceedings, and it's poison now working its way out.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What parts of it are mad?


I may be being tetchy (me, tetchy, never??!!) but all of them essentially say the woman didnt know what she was doing - which is actually pretty insulting to her and the people who did support her (including the one from the DC who was explicitly praised by the 'lead' supporter of the complainant in conference). It is apparent that the woman has had support form a range of people, and - from looking at those speaking at conference - I absolutely cannot believe that that will not include people who have had plenty of experience in dealing with cases of sexual harassment at work, and in other arena's. So I think we _must_ assume that the woman knew exactly what she was doing, and that she was taking this course of action because she thought it was the one most likely to gain any kind of justice.

To say more involves taking many guesses from incredibly scanty information, which I am loath to do. All we know is that the events took place in 2008 or 2009. I am sure we can all see why it would be incredibly unlikely that any police prosecution would take place after that time. And would a police investigation (which would undoubtedly be leaked across the webisphere at least, given the accused's prominence) make it more or less likely that she could then take through a fair protest within the party?

Dont forget, the SWP isn't a legal institution, it is a voluntary membership organisation, whose power consists in removing the accused from membership of the party. In this case, that would have serious knock on effects for him, as he would also be removed from the positions he holds within the party's campaigning (ahem) organisations. It would, in reality, become widely known very quickly, as members and non-members start asking 'where the hell did he go to so quickly?' Its not true to say a finding of guilt would have negligible consequences on him.

People are coming to this discussion - hardly surprisingly - solely from the view of their own prejudices about the SWP. And they say 'ther is not a chance in hell they could get this right.' And whilst that is true to some extent - no organisation could really - no one has really come up with any better solutions, given the woman made a choice not to go to the police.

You, sihhi, did at least try and come up with some solutions, but I dont think any of them would be practical, or more than pissing in the river. Separation of investigation and adjudicators? Well, ther's something in that, but its hardly perfect as it often gives a _massive_ amount of power to the investigators (of which there must be fewer than there are adjudicators, thus making them less democratic). An arrangement with another group? Come on, that would just never happen. Would any SP member care to nominate a group with whom they would share accusations of serious sexual improprietry by one of their leading members? I'm not ging to hold my breath awaiting a nomination. Comrades drawn at _random_ from abroad? So they might not have any knowledge about the nature of womens oppression, or about how to question witnesses, etc etc, not to mention the effect that would have on confidentiality. And would these special arrangements be for all DC cases, sexual ones, ones involving CC members, or what? Sorry, I just dont see how such things would work in reality.

Then there's the whole question of some posters (not particularly in the previous couple of posts), with backgrounds in wholly anti-state anarchism or in trot groups who were calling for student and worker militias against police violence not long back, going 'ohhh, you can't do _anything_ apart from let the police handle it.' Well, I think their hypocrisy is obvious.

The woman chose to take matters through this course of action. Posters may think she was wrong to do so, but none have really suggested what would have been a better route to take. In almost any other organisation if she had refused to go to the police, the matter would have been dropped, there would have been no investigation at all. Looking at the report there certainly seem to be things that could have been done better, but that doesnt change the fundamental point that they were right to try to address the matter through internal mechanisms.

I also know of cases where similar charges were heard back in the 1980's - at a time when there were fairly few rape crisis centres, and police treatment of rape victims was absolutely appaling. Again, the complaints were heard internally because that was the _only_ place the woman thought they would get any kind of justice. Was it okay then, but not now? Or should they have gone to the police then as well?



ViolentPanda said:


> No, they should take legal advice on how best to conduct an investigation in a way that won't prejudice further developments.


what further developments? New evidence is not going to be uncovered, and the woman has said (sorry to repeat myself again) that she doesnt want to go the police. As any investigation would - if it became known about, say through some self aggrandising twat putting a transcript up on the internet - prejudice a prosecution, then that means doing nothing. Which isn't good enough.

Sorry, that was all very long and rambling. And whilst I obviously thoroughly understand the annoyance and outrage of people at parts of that transcript, I dont honestly think that anyone has really come up with a particularly, fundametally, better way of dealing with things.


----------



## Dandred (Jan 8, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> I think there's a debate to be had about how left organisations deal with such serious events -


 
No need for a debate, just get the police in to do their job, rape allegations are serious.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

Have we got the make up of the new CC yet, btw?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

Well I'm not being hypocritical, I think that it is insane for anyone to think that the SWP thought they could deal with a rape case. This has nothing to do with the SWP in and of itself. I think the SWP is a joke of an organisation politically, but that's a totally different matter. It's not about saying the woman doesn't knowing what she is doing either, it's about the SWP being honest to her that they are totally the wrong organisation to deal with such a question. Otherwise where do you draw the line, can the SWP look in to murder, rape and any other such serious crimes? It's a judgement call but you have to be out of your mind to think the SWP can look in to a rape case in any adequate way.

This is exemplified by this quote:



> CANDY U of the Control Commission (renamed Disputes Committee – DC):
> 
> _We’re not a law court. We are here to protect the interests of the party_


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Well I'm not being hypocritical,


yes you are, you are being utterly hypocritical.  And you still refuse to say what you would do when the woman _refuses_ to go to the police. You refuse because you have no answer, but until you do answer, your posts have no value.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> what further developments? New evidence is not going to be uncovered, and the woman has said (sorry to repeat myself again) that she doesnt want to go the police. As any investigation would - if it became known about, say through some self aggrandising twat putting a transcript up on the internet - prejudice an prosecution, then that means doing nothing. Which isn't good enough.


 
Further developments =  victim exercising her right to change her mind about going to the police.
As I said in post #645, there's a quandary as to "what should be done". If comrade W's complaint against comrade delta had been reported to the police (the path most employers will take after they've sought legal advice), then comrade w's trust would have been breached, and the CC may have felt obliged to suspend comrade delta. Unfortunately, comrade W's (entirely understandable) wish to avoid reporting the alleged action(s) left the disciplinary/investigative process wide-open to manipulation.



> Sorry, that was all very long and rambling. And whilst I obviously thoroughly understand the annoyance and outrage at parts of that transcript, I dont honestly think that anyone has really come up with a particularly, fundametally, better way of dealing with things.


 
Mostly because liquidation of the CC isn't on the cards.


----------



## Random (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Sorry, that was all very long and rambling. And whilst I obviously thoroughly understand the annoyance and outrage of people at parts of that transcript, I dont honestly think that anyone has really come up with a particularly, fundametally, better way of dealing with things.


 Several people have made very sensible and thoughtful contributions; at least having a good discussion on the possibility of doing it better. And likewise some people who were sympathetic to the SWP have commented that they're shocked by this.

Your decision to simply say that everyone's "mad" makes your post very easy to just dismiss.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

Dandred said:


> No need for a debate, just get the police in to do their job, rape allegations are serious.


 
It should always be the complainant's choice whether or not police assistance/investigation is required. Calling the OB against the complainant's wishes could be as traumatic for her as the original alleged offence.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

The issue isn't really what else could have been done given that W did not want at that time to go to the police. The question surely is, given that fact, why minimal standards of competent investigation were not met i.e how the path that had to be taken at that point was so shitly done, not whether that path was right. And btw that path does not have to entail a simple 7 person body hearing reports/evidence and that it's, sihhi outlined many other options that existed within taking that path that would have gone some way to ensuring those minimal standards were met.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Further developments = victim exercising her right to change her mind about going to the police.


equals no investigation or action talken.  taking _any_ action would prejudice a legal investigatin, so that amounts to 'do nothing'


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jan 8, 2013)

... Like not asking her whether she liked a drink, for starters ...


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

> yes you are, you are being utterly hypocritical. And you still refuse to say what you would do when the woman _refuses_ to go to the police. You refuse because you have no answer, but until you do answer, your posts have no value.


 
In what sense am I being hypocritical? By saying women who get raped should be encouraged to go to the police?

The person who was accused should be suspended by the organisation immediately. That didn't happen as far as I know which in and of itself is disturbing. Then the organisation should try and encourage the person to go to an organisation like Rape Crisis and the police. What answer do you have if someone has said someone has murdered someone but won't go to the police? Have the control commission look in to it?!

Also if the person was found guilty of rape and expelled by the party and then ostracized (which is hardly a big enough punishment in my view), then what next? What stops them doing it again to another person? And do you seriously think the media wouldn't get involved and then the police?

Apart from anything else the SWP, by investigating, are potentially putting any future criminal trial at risk. It's also not true that after four years there couldn't be forensic evidence, there could, and the SWP would have no way of knowing this for sure and wouldn't be equpped to make a decision on this.

We've ended up in a situation where 500 people are discussing a rape case, with the alleged rape case outside on the pavement. And you don't think this is utterly insane?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> yes you are, you are being utterly hypocritical. And you still refuse to say what you would do when the woman _refuses_ to go to the police. You refuse because you have no answer, but until you do answer, your posts have no value.


 
I believe that the only "safe" way for the SWP to investigate a leading member would have been to commission someone outside the party to do a bit of digging around comrade delta's history within the party, to establish whether he had a reputation for being a bit of a pest with female members. We both know how gossip-ridden the SWP is. It's not like it couldn't have been established whether or not the comrade's past history indicated the possibility that he had done what was claimed w/r/t sexual harrassment and assault. This would at least have given the DC a basis on which to suggest to comrade W that this was a matter best resolved by the Old Bill.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2013)

Random said:


> Several people have made very sensible and thoughtful contributions; at least having a good discussion on the possibility of doing it better. And likewise some people who were sympathetic to the SWP have commented that they're shocked by this.
> 
> Your decision to simply say that everyone's "mad" makes your post very easy to just dismiss.


 
You mean you don't dismiss belboid's posts out of hand? 

Sorry belbers, couldn't resist!


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

Random said:


> Several people have made very sensible and thoughtful contributions; at least having a good discussion on the possibility of doing it better. And likewise some people who were sympathetic to the SWP have commented that they're shocked by this.
> 
> Your decision to simply say that everyone's "mad" makes your post very easy to just dismiss.


I didnt say 'everyone' I refered to a few posts.  Only one of which attempted to make any practical suggestions, tho I dont honestly see how they would have made a significant difference if they were implementable at all.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

As I edited my post to above, there is also the issue that if the SWP had found Comrade Delta of rape there is absolutely no chance that this wouldn't be picked up by the media and then the police.


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It should always be the complainant's choice whether or not police assistance/investigation is required. Calling the OB against the complainant's wishes could be as traumatic for her as the original alleged offence.


I agree. However, one of the most important aspects (and expanding further about what I said back <<<< there) is about checking each stage of confidentiality.

We don't know what was said when the complaint of rape was first raised. We don't know if the complainant was fully informed of what to expect, and that at anytime there may have been a requirement to obtain legal advice and/or report to the police. We don't know what range of options she was given (including but not limited to; referring to qualified rape advisor & counselling, support to report to police with accompaniment, undertaking to carry out investigation with proviso of extent of confidentiality/legal requirements etc etc) and if those options were double checked with her at each stage so there were no nasty surprises and feeling left adrift.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 8, 2013)

And to add to above there are two women here who both feel that they have been treated badly by the internal investigation, one of whom not only has not had her case fully heard yet but is also alleging discrimination at work. I wouldn't be 100% confident that the police or a tribunal aren't eventually involved regardless of how people may have felt at the start.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

To go back to something earlier - some reports on sunday night after the DC vote suggested that the majority (i.e those who voted to accpet the DC report) were chanting "liar(s)" at people. I have no idea if this is true, does  anyone? And if so who was it being chanted at and what were they being accused of lying about?


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The issue isn't really what else could have been done given that W did not want at that time to go to the police. The question surely is, given that fact, why minimal standards of competent investigation were not met i.e how the path that had to be taken at that point was so shitly done, not whether that path was right. And btw that path does not have to entail a simple 7 person body hearing reports/evidence and that it's, sihhi outlined many other options that existed within taking that path that would have gone some way to ensuring those minimal standards were met.


sihhi's suggestions would make either a tiny difference or just would not work.  I might be prepared to change my mind on the latter when someone from the SP comes and says who they are going to trade investigation of there serious complaints with, but until then.... Come on, we all know thats  a complete non-starter.

And it omits the basic democracy question - that all party members are subject to the same discipline, no special rules for senior members. That needs dealing with too for the whole process to be fair.  Dont forget, if Delta was expelled, effectively thrown out of his job, he could sue the party if they weren't unscrupulpously fair to him too! A fucking mindfield.


ViolentPanda said:


> I believe that the only "safe" way for the SWP to investigate a leading member would have been to commission someone outside the party to do a bit of digging around comrade delta's history within the party, to establish whether he had a reputation for being a bit of a pest with female members. We both know how gossip-ridden the SWP is.


here is an attempt at a better solution, but not one without its own humungous problems. Who appoints the outsider?  The only fair way to do this is through a special conference, so that it is democratic, or through the existing democratic structures - CC/DC anyone?  None of those are satisfactory, are they? Why would anyone else agree to carry out such a role? An absolutely poisonous one that whoever it was couldn't come out of well. They would be accused of factionalism if they took any strong position, and of uselessness if they didn't. It might make things look a _tiny_ bit better (depending who they were of course), but that'd be it. Also, we dont know what questions were asked around the districts. Its possible they did do those things, we have only a few tiny details of what investigation actually took place. We (seemingly) know some things they asked they shouldn't have but we have no idea what they asked that were sharp and insightful questions, we're just guessing - and making guesses based upon our own existing prejudices.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> In what sense am I being hypocritical? By saying women who get raped should be encouraged to go to the police?


well, by being one of those workers militia lot now sayoing nothing beyond 'go to the police'.  You are STILL refusing to say what you would do when the woman refuses to do so. UNtil you do, nothing you say has any merit.



> The person who was accused should be suspended by the organisation immediately. That didn't happen as far as I know


Yes it did, which just shows you didnt bother to read the report very closely.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> sihhi's suggestions would make either a tiny difference or just would not work. I might be prepared to change my mind on the latter when someone from the SP comes and says who they are going to trade investigation of there serious complaints with, but until then.... Come on, we all know thats a complete non-starter.
> 
> And it omits the basic democracy question - that all party members are subject to the same discipline, no special rules for senior members. That needs dealing with too for the whole process to be fair. Dont forget, if Delta was expelled, effectively thrown out of his job, he could sue the party if they weren't unscrupulpously fair to him too! A fucking mindfield.
> 
> here is an attempt at a better solution, but not one without its own humungous problems. Who appoints the outsider? The only fair way to do this is through a special conference, so that it is democratic, or through the existing democratic structures - CC/DC anyone? None of those are satisfactory, are they? Why would anyone else agree to carry out such a role? An absolutely poisonous one that whoever it was couldn't come out of well. They would be accused of factionalism if they took any strong position, and of uselessness if they didn't. It might make things look a _tiny_ bit better (depending who they were of course), but that'd be it. Also, we dont know what questions were asked around the districts. Its possible they did do those things, we have only a few tiny details of what investigation actually took place. We (seemingly) know some things they asked they shouldn't have but we have no idea what they asked that were sharp and insightful questions, we're just guessing - and making guesses based upon our own existing prejudices.


The quality of the suggestions is not the key here, the key is that the investigation carried out was quite clearly a shambles that served only one group of people. If, as you seem to suggest, the SWP made the best choice to have this investigation (note: not the _result_ of that investigation) as they could in those circumstances at that time, it doesn't follow that you _must_ think that way it was done was even minimally adequate. It wasn't. And again, because you (a general you here) may think the way that it was done was squalid and undermined not only the process but the wider party, it doesn't mean that there were no other options available (even if you reject specific ones). Woods trees situation here bellers and i think you're getting a bit lost in repelling what you see as sectarian attacks and reducing it down to two options - go the police or support the results of this investigation (not the process).


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 8, 2013)

> well, by being one of those workers militia lot now sayoing nothing beyond 'go to the police'. You are STILL refusing to say what you would do when the woman refuses to do so. UNtil you do, nothing you say has any merit.


 
Surely this is blindingly obvious. The DC should have put some clear parameters around the investigation. W should have been told that, clearly, it would be ludicrous for the DC to act as a kangaroo court on a rape charge. She should take that to the proper authorities (and be fully supported to do so). But if she wouldn't, then the DC _could_ hold an investigation into matters of improper behaviour including sexual harassment on party premises / linked to party business including social events. 

The DC would then probably need to appoint a new, more independent team, and take advice from external experts on the best way to proceed with such an investigation. Sexual harassment claims are hardly new - there's plenty of best practice out there on how to go about it. But it appears all that is insignificant compared with upholding the interests of the party. Sheer lunacy, and a glimpse into a seriously twisted little world.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> go the police or support the results of this investigation (not the process).


you have a point butch. Many of the attacks here are based on only the police can deal with this, or the SWP, because of there internal structures/general theory on womens oppression, cannot possibly do so. If those are posters' positions, then everything else being argued about is essentialy irrelevant, as those things cannot be changed, but they were what the complainant chose to do.

e2a: also, altho it sounds rather like I'm defending the SWP#s particular practise, I dont really mean to, I just dont believe anyone else's organisation would do a particularly better job of it.

The alternative to the police isnt just accept the results, but not the process, tho. As said, I am somewhat loath to comment on an investigation we have heard the bare bones of, tho if it is true, as it seems to be, that someone asked about previous sexual history, the result should be thrown out, no more questions asked. Following that, various improvements could be made - including all participants, in _any_ disciplinary case, being told that such a hearing could prejudice any attempt at a later court hearing, if that isnt done already (we dont know), a somewhat differently composed committee, _maybe_ an external investigator. Yup, they'd be a bit better, but they wouldnt mean that no prick would ever ask about previous sexual history, or somehing similarly stupid.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> Surely this is blindingly obvious. The DC should have put some clear parameters around the investigation. W should have been told that, clearly, it would be ludicrous for the DC to act as a kangaroo court on a rape charge. She should take that to the proper authorities (and be fully supported to do so). But if she wouldn't, then the DC _could_ hold an investigation into matters of improper behaviour including sexual harassment on party premises / linked to party business including social events.
> 
> The DC would then probably need to appoint a new, more independent team, and take advice from external experts on the best way to proceed with such an investigation. Sexual harassment claims are hardly new - there's plenty of best practice out there on how to go about it. But it appears all that is insignificant compared with upholding the interests of the party. Sheer lunacy, and a glimpse into a seriously twisted little world.


Sexual harassment claims have been investigated by the party many times, as I've said, I know that various DC members have supported complainants in the party and in their unions, I do believe they know how those processes work.  That isnt the problem, the problem is with it being a comrade they all know so well. And the _DC_ appointing a replacement team wouldn't really be appropriate, would it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> And the _DC_ appointing a replacement team wouldn't really be appropriate, would it?


 
That's what the SWP Constitution appears to allow for though. The DC can coopt members for a particular investigation, and, as seen in the transcript, DC members can withdraw.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's what the SWP Constitution appears to allow for though. The DC can coopt members for a particular investigation, and, as seen in the transcript, DC members can withdraw.


I appreciate that, but would anyone else really be satisfied with that? Trusting a possibly biased person to pick an unbiased replacement?

Btw - could you name an alternative organisation you think the SP would be happy to oversee its internal investigations?


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 8, 2013)

> And the _DC_ appointing a replacement team wouldn't really be appropriate, would it?


 
I'm not sure if you mean that it's not within their power or simply that they are so tainted by association that their appointments couldn't be bias-free. It surely would have been better for them to have attempted to find a team that had little prior contact with Comrade Delta.

Of course, that would probably have meant appointing relatively new members. Who would be less politically educated in the SWP tradition, and therefore less controllable.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Btw - could you name an alternative organisation you think the SP would be happy to oversee its internal investigations?


 
I have no idea what you are talking about here.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> I appreciate that, but would anyone else really be satisfied with that? Trusting a possibly biased person to pick an unbiased replacement?


 
That's a perverse way of looking at it. The issue is would you rather have one party's close associates judging the case while trying to be unbiased, or would you rather have people with little or no connection to either party chosen by those associates trying to be unbiased. The latter isn't perfect, but it would give rise to much less of a reasonable apprehension of prejudice.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> I'm not sure if you mean that it's not within their power or simply that they are so tainted by association that their appointments couldn't be bias-free. It surely would have been better for them to have attempted to find a team that had little prior contact with Comrade Delta.
> 
> Of course, that would probably have meant appointing relatively new members. Who would be less politically educated in the SWP tradition, and therefore less controllable.


less controllable in terms of asking appropriate questions to a victim of sexual harassment, or to a very senior party member who they don't usually get to question at all - as well as less controllable in coming to an appropriate finding.  And would they command the respect and support of the rest of the party in coming to a decision?  If they cant do that....


Nigel Irritable said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about here.


see post 631 (amongst others) - it is a suggestion for a possible alternative way of dealing with such issues, asking another group to do it for you


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's a perverse way of looking at it. The issue is would you rather have one party's close associates judging the case while trying to be unbiased, or would you rather have people with little or no connection to either party chosen by those associates trying to be unbiased. The latter isn't perfect, but it would give rise to much less of a reasonable apprehension of prejudice.


I agree.  But who chooses them?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> I agree. But who chooses them?


 
The DC chooses them.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

And, in similar circumstances, at the next conference they would be accused of picking people who they thought would choose the 'right' answer.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 8, 2013)

Anyone can be accused of anything. So what? It's not ideal for people close to one if the parties to be involved in finding unconnected adjudicators. But it's infinitely better than for people in that situation to be doing the judging themselves.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

An elected body being replaced by a hand picked one is never going to be 'infinitely' better.

E2a: at best, it is a 'least bad' alternative


----------



## Bun (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Real power I mean.


They wont!  > fondles worry beads<


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've just read the SWP Constitution and it appears that DC is the old CCC renamed. There's no mention of a Control Commission in the Constitution any more and *the section about the DC says that it looks after both issues of dispute between members and into matters of "ordinary party discipline". It also says that the leadership directly appoints (not subjection to election) two of its members.*


How many members are there on the DC? (ie what proportion are elected)


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

cesare said:


> How many members are there on the DC? (ie what proportion are elected)


It's either 6 or 8, not all of whom sit on every hearing. There were 5 +2 in this hearing.



In other news, the SWP have been excluded from the Unite United Left for supporting Jerry Hicks for GS. Senior SW bods from both (all) sides of the split play significant roles within the UL, so it'll be interesting to see how that pans out.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

> well, by being one of those workers militia lot now sayoing nothing beyond 'go to the police'. You are STILL refusing to say what you would do when the woman refuses to do so. UNtil you do, nothing you say has any merit.


 
Sorry can you point out where I have been "one of those workers militia lot"? Maybe quote a post? Didn't think so.

You have still refused to say what you would do if someone made a murder accusation? Let the the dispute's committee deal with it? You think that has any merit? You think a conference of 500 people discussing a rape accusation while the alleged rape victims stands outside has any merit? You think that the fact that a guilty verdict by the SWP would inevitably lead to media publicity and a police investigation has any merit by your view? And a not guilty verdict could also do this? Do you think that this kangeroo court, which is there to uphold the party (as quoted), could undermine a subsequent criminal trial has any merit?

There are no perfect answers here but the SWP investigating it seems to be the worst of all worlds, especially as it was such a flawed investigation which left both women feeling shattered by the experience.

There are two different issues here. Firstly the SWP carrying out the investigation, which I think is wrong, and secondly how they carried it out, which seems extremely flawed, which is also the view of the two women who have alleged rape and sexual harassment.

Would a trade union branch carry out a rape investigation? If someone said this was inappropriate is it therefore ok to say that what they say has no merit?


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2013)

So is there a Disputes Committee *and* a Democracy Commission? Or are they the same thing?

Oh! I've just found the constitution! It's at the end of this bulletin: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/PreConf_Bulletin_i_Oct_2012.pdf


----------



## dennisr (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> It's either 6 or 8, not all of whom sit on every hearing. There were 5 +2 in this hearing.
> In other news, the SWP have been excluded from the Unite United Left for supporting Jerry Hicks for GS. Senior SW bods from both (all) sides of the split play significant roles within the UL, so it'll be interesting to see how that pans out.


 
I guess that, in terms of real world politics, this is probably more important than the internal shenagains - what influence does the SWP play in the UL and within the wider union - Unite - though ?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

Not a lot from what I know about people in UNITE, but on this question I think they've got it right. In my view McCluskey's record is very bad.

Also as far as I can see Martin Smith has never been asked to step down as national officer of UAF. If he was suspended (I did miss that one), then why wasn't he asked to step down in the UAF?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

He wasn't asked to step down in anything -the CC explicitly said this would be and effective guilty plea.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

Why didn't they get him suspended from UAF then in that case?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Why didn't they get him suspended from UAF then in that case?


In what case? Have another read of what i said. He was not asked to step down by the CC from anything as this would constitute a guilty.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Sorry can you point out where I have been "one of those workers militia lot"? Maybe quote a post? Didn't think so.


all that time you were in Workers Power and PR.  As you well know.  The rest of your post is irrelevant as you refuse to say what you would do when the woman refused to go to the police. In effect, you have said you would do absolutely nothing.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 8, 2013)

As an aside are there any comments about the process Red Action used in their investigation into the behaviour of Dave Hann?


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I guess that, in terms of real world politics, this is probably more important than the internal shenagains - what influence does the SWP play in the UL and within the wider union - Unite - though ?


Overall, little.  But several members do have important roles in specific locations and sectors, quite possibly enough to get enough nominations for Hicks to be on the ballot paper.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 8, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> DC were pretty much unknown to the broader membership before this conference, and there has never been a truly democratic debate or vote on its composition. no surprise it was riddled with friends when this situation came around.


 
Were they? I've not been a member for a very long time and I've not heard of only 2 of them.

ETA: or did you mean the existence of the DC itself?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> all that time you were in Workers Power and PR. As you well know. The rest of your post is irrelevant as you refuse to say what you would do when the woman refused to go to the police. In effect, you have said you would do absolutely nothing.


Are you sure that you're shouting at the right person here?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Btw - could you name an alternative organisation you think the SP would be happy to oversee its internal investigations?


 
I hear the IBT are available.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

there's always the ICC


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

In addition to what VP and sihhi have said - I do not believe it is realistic to expect an outisde body to carry out an investigation - other than the police.

However if the complainant does not want to involve the police then the organisation should have a menu of options including seeking independent legal advice on how to conduct an internal investigation without opening themselves to challenge or jepordising any future possible police investigation - they should also start working with a specialist rape crisis organisation that can provide advice and support to complianants around this issue - and possible advice to the SWP in how to conduct such investigations and disciplinary procedures.

Also the DC should exist in two halfs - an investigating half and an adjudicating half that do not otherwise meet during the investigation. and of course having them co-opt people for their independence for the specific case is fine - people would have less to moan about afterwards.

It might also make sense to elect the DC for a period of two years to allow for specific training in handling specific types of sensitive case as well to reduce the chances of stupid questions.

Personally I would also bar current or former CC members from sitting on the DC.

However the main issue is more cultural than structural - the interests of the complainent and the accused and justice more broadly should be the only thing under consideration - not 'the party'.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 8, 2013)

On the Unite thing - apparently the SWP Unite fraction actually voted to support McLuskey. But the CC disagreed and determined that since it was a close vote and not all the members were there it should be decided by conference, who voted to support Hicks.

I didn't hear this direct from the SWP but the person who told me is sympathetic and I have no reason to doubt what they told me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

And paid staff of the party should have the right to form their own staff association as well - with a clear and simple industrial relations mechanism, including disciplinary, grievance, and mediation proceedures and specific ones to deal with bullying and harrasment etc.

Or even two associations, one for the CC and one for centre staff and organisers.

Then there could be a sperately elected staffing committee of unpaid activists that meets with the staff associations four times a year in a JCNC type format. And the associations could have a facilities agreement as well.

Smaller organisations than the SWP's claimed size manage this.

Me and Cesere could draw one up for them?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> However the main issue is more cultural than structural - the interests of the complainent and the accused and justice more broadly should be the only thing under consideration - not 'the party'.


The main issue is the cultural expression of a structural problem.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> On the Unite thing - apparently the SWP Unite fraction actually voted to support McLuskey. But the CC disagreed and determined that since it was a close vote and not all the members were there it should be decided by conference, who voted to support Hicks.
> 
> I didn't hear this direct from the SWP but the person who told me is sympathetic and I have no reason to doubt what they told me.


 
I heard this as well and that at least one leading SWP member is threatening to walk over it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 8, 2013)

Also, I'm going to find out what the SP would do in this situation. Not just so I can reply to belboid either - I'd quite like to know so I can settle my own coscience cos I'd be very, very uncomfortable with something like this.

I'm crap with stuff like this so I've not got any brilliant ideas - only thing I can come up with is that if one or other party believes the committee would be biased the committee, or someone like that, should find someone whose impartiality both parties trust and ask them to select one. Fuck knows what you do if they can't find anyone though.

Specific things I'm most uncomfortable about are the questions about drink and (previous) sexual conduct and the fact that the accused was in that meeting while the complainant was left outside. I don't think it's really appropriate for something like that to be aired in front of so many people either but if it's appealed I'm not sure what the alternative is.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

Socialist Appeal could act as a final court of appeal for all the other groups?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I heard this as well and that at least one leading SWP member is threatening to walk over it.


 
Whatever you think about the merits or otherwise of being in the UL, being in it has been the strategy their Unite activists have been pursuing for quite a while. Now they are having the work they have done undone at a stroke. You can see why that would raise a lot of hackles.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 8, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Were they? I've not been a member for a very long time and I've not heard of only 2 of them.
> 
> ETA: or did you mean the existence of the DC itself?


 
well, the entirety of the SWP constitution and internal processes are unknown by most of the membership. and yes, i meant the DC _as_ the DC - not as individuals (who are all relatively well known).

there certainly hasn't been a conference before where the CC's group hasn't been appointed to the role _de facto_ though, which was my other point. i still think that's the most important factor. there were obviously serious problems with the protocol involved in this disputes case, as pointed out by the opposition in the transcription. besmirching the reputations of W and X with questions relating to them 'liking a drink' is the worst example of that - and the issues around the availability of 'Delta's' testimony are also unacceptable - but as has been noted the DC is not a professional judiciary and this is by far the most politically significant case they have had to deal with. on the whole i think that the _practical_ remedies for these issues are laid out pretty well in the document, by the opposition, where they would have laid out clear boundaries on the areas onto which the DC was allowed to tread in terms of questioning, and also dealing with the issue of access to Delta's testimony.

the reason those proposals aren't - in reality - good enough, is that the organisation is still totally undemocratic. again, one of the most damning indictment of the CC's aims in respect to this case is the way they used it to expel the leading members of their internal opposition. not only this, but they have also removed those amongst their number who simply requested some sanity. it is _this_, not the specifics of the investigation (of which we will probably never know the full details) which makes the situation untenable; that there is literally no way that we can actually trust the verdict of the party's organs when relating to assessing the conduct of a member of its ruling faction. how could you trust it. with the best protocol and most reliable structures in the world we would still have to question it - this is why i think all the umming and ahhing about their methods misses the point, which is that a systemic rottenness in the SWP is actually the reason why there could never be a satisfactory conclusion to this case.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> An elected body being replaced by a hand picked one is never going to be 'infinitely' better.
> 
> E2a: at best, it is a 'least bad' alternative


 
I think that you are way off base on this.

Leaving the specifics of this case aside, there are political reasons why we might prefer elected people to coopted people. But in practical terms, appointed people with a distance from both parties are in a drastically, enormously, better position to adjudicate on a serious complaint than a group of people who are close to one party whether elected or appointed. That the judge/jury can't reasonably be associates of one party without giving rise to a serious apprehension of bias is a really fundamental principle.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you sure that you're shouting at the right person here?


 
I'm reasonably sure that he is. This has come up before.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm reasonably sure that he is. This has come up before.


 
hang on one stop is cockers?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> hang on one stop is cockers?


 
  - could be...


----------



## two sheds (Jan 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Specific things I'm most uncomfortable about are the questions about drink and (previous) sexual conduct and the fact that the accused was in that meeting while the complainant was left outside. I don't think it's really appropriate for something like that to be aired in front of so many people either but if it's appealed I'm not sure what the alternative is.


 
Yes, and did they ask the bloke whether he ever drinks, and whether he 'puts it about a bit'? Obvious rapist behaviour.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

Lots more that could be said, but:



> You, sihhi, did at least try and come up with some solutions, but I dont think any of them would be practical, or more than pissing in the river. Separation of investigation and adjudicators? Well, ther's something in that, but its hardly perfect as it often gives a _massive_ amount of power to the investigators (of which there must be fewer than there are adjudicators, thus making them less democratic).


 
Why must there be fewer adjudicators? There could perfectly well be more investigators, investigating different aspects (with a repetition of actions where necessary) and a small-ish number of adjudicators drawn at random from non-prejudiced peers. That's been the case in other legal traditions.




> An arrangement with another group? Come on, that would just never happen. Would any SP member care to nominate a group with whom they would share accusations of serious sexual improprietry by one of their leading members? I'm not ging to hold my breath awaiting a nomination.


 
I mentioned nothing - *zero* - about "another group". I referred to fellow revolutionaries from the same tradition - and that's been turned into 'another party' by later posts. It could be people from the same tradition _from different parties or ex-members of those parties or non-party Trotksyists __-_ to form as un-prejudiced a group as possible in the circumstances. As you sort of hint at later, people from other traditions might be prejudiced towards doing "getting one over the SWP". A single party taking over the internal running of another party isn't what I suggested.



> Comrades drawn at _random_ from abroad? So they might not have _any knowledge about the nature of womens oppression, or about how to question witnesses_, etc etc, not to mention the effect that would have on confidentiality. And would these special arrangements be for all DC cases, sexual ones, ones involving CC members, or what?


 
Using new non-high-up Irish SWP could have been an option. Their ability to withhold from spreading comment until after the process is finished would hopefully be influenced by the fact that they know neither accused nor accuser. Confidentiality is a tool for objectivity, one that needs to be defended, but it's not a catch-all to allow secrecy and stitch-up by investigating powers. Note according to the transcript it's only non-higher ups speaking from the floor that highlight some of the most egregious abuses in the process of the investigation.

Anything that mars the possibility of objectivity/impartiality of the investigating+judging bodies (such as knowing the accused for decades) should mean they rule themselves out of the task. (But they didn't).
If SWP comrades don't know of "the nature of women's oppression", then they should not be full members, but instead be on probation. The level of political education for SWP people, seems to me, weak. I don't know when this started but can give one recent example a full-timer, telling me been so for over year in 2012, HAD NEVER HEARD OF Red Action. University educated SWSS involved in anti-war actions etc. I got the same sense when discussing SWP internal politics, didn't know Chanie Rosenberg (Cliff's wife) was once a teacher, didn't want to/know how to discuss slates for the SWP AGM. (Don't want to reveal more).
They didn't call on comrades from elsewhere to oversee or listen in on their own investigation, and most significantly there has been no proposal to change structures from them. They relied, it seems to me, _on habit _(we've had/done investigations before) and on a self-assurance that can emerge simply from longevity in progressive politics. Everyone can be guilty of this. Something along the lines of 'We've been writing about oppression for 30 years, we know how to behave in an-anti-oppressive manner even though we know the accused'.

The point about "support" was that it would not have been given unless Comrade W and her younger female advocates demanded it. Even that "support" doesn't hold any weight against the structural inequality of the process - Comrade Delta prepping himself for weeks by point by point over the charges in Comrade W's statement. Comrade W being asked questions of behaviour (presumably behaviour that Comrade Delta has asserted in his less-stressed hearing constitutes consent) and expected to answer on the spot.




> I think the most serious for us – because Candy’s absolutely right, nobody as far as I know or as far as the woman has said asked her how she was dressed – but comrades, she was asked about past and subsequent sexual relationships, and she was pressured -
> KAREN (interrupts): Could I ask you not to go into the detail of what was discussed, because I don’t think that’s relevant and that is one of the ground rules that we agreed. (Audience groans.) ...
> 
> VIV: Should I go on? Thank you. My point is that she was asked on the basis of gossip, that had apparently been relayed in a meeting, about a relationship with another male comrade. Now that’s not going into the detail of the case, that was an accusation that was made. I don’t think there is any place in the SWP in respect of procedure for us to question the woman, or anyone else for that matter, about their sexual behaviour in relation to a rape case.
> _She wasn’t offered support – we asked for support._ The woman had to ask the disputes committee if she could have someone in the room with her, she had to ask the panel so that she knew one person in the room. She knew nobody on the disputes committee panel. And I think one of the most distressing things for her was that _she was expected to respond immediately to the evidence that Comrade Delta was able to bring – she never got to see it in advance. He had her statement for weeks before she appeared in front of the panel._ Some of the issues that were raised were things she had blocked out, and it was an incredibly traumatic experience for her. ... when five of the people hearing the case were either current or former CC members, and that all of the people had worked incredibly closely with Comrade Delta, which is going to happen when you’re dealing with a leading comrade, I think you have to acknowledge that it brings an incredibly huge burden to bear. I’ve worked with Comrade Delta for 12 years and it’s an incredibly difficult situation. Shortly after the hearing Candy referred to, a second woman came forward with an allegation of sexual harassment, and she will speak herself in this session. I think it’s important to say that she’s been moved from her party job following giving that evidence, and that she’s been told her presence at the centre would disrupt the harmony of the office. I think this constitutes punishing her for making a complaint of sexual harassment."


 




> The woman chose to take matters through this course of action. Posters may think she was wrong to do so, but none have really suggested what would have been a better route to take. In almost any other organisation if she had refused to go to the police, the matter would have been dropped, there would have been no investigation at all. Looking at the report there certainly seem to be things that could have been done better, but that doesnt change the _fundamental point that they were right to try to address the matter through internal mechanisms._


 
Most posters in fact have not recommended 'visit the police, it's the best thing do'. I have made no judgement of what course of action Comrade X took.



> I also know of cases where similar charges were heard back in the 1980's - at a time when there were fairly few rape crisis centres, and police treatment of rape victims was absolutely appaling. Again, the complaints were heard internally because that was the _only_ place the woman thought they would get any kind of justice. Was it okay then, but not now? Or _should they have gone to the police then as well_?


No one is suggesting this. No one is stating that "the police" offer any kind of solution particularly when we consider that 6.5% of reported rapes result in conviction, whilst 34% of trials result in conviction.

I fully respect the decision whatever motivated it. Only about 1 in 10 rapes are ever reported to the police anyway, or something like it - disputed statistics, therefore this case not being reported is not unexpected or .
It's *wholly wrong* to claim the SWP screwed up while the police could have done better.
(In this kind of case, any police involvement would come laden with its own internalised or whispered preconceptions about "lefties" and "lefty women" as the investigation proceeded, on top of other issues. I stress that we know nothing about Comrade W other than that she is a SWP member and not at the level of Delta et al. We can't know and shouldn't judge)



> Sorry, that was all very long and rambling. And whilst I obviously thoroughly understand the annoyance and outrage of people at parts of that transcript, I dont honestly think that anyone has really come up with a particularly, fundametally, better way of dealing with things.


 
There is no fundamental better way because the root of the problem can not be tackled at a clean stroke, but the serious questions about the culture of the SWP remain.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

Does anyone happen to now the standard of proof that was required for the charges to be substantiated?  Would his guilt have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or just on the balance of probabilities?  The former being the standard in criminal trials; the latter being more common in staff conduct procedures.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you sure that you're shouting at the right person here?



Belboid has got me confused with someone else.

And is ignoring everything. He is advocating a process in which the inevitable result of a guilty verdict would be that the media and police would get involved yet having a go for me saying thats the only option. Also saying that the SWP aren't the right people to investigate a murder or rape case doesn't mean do nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

Athos said:


> Does anyone happen to now the standard of proof that was required for the charges to be substantiated? Would his guilt have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or just on the balance of probabilities? The former being the standard in criminal trials; the latter being more common in staff conduct procedures.


I would suspect that there was no standard of proof outlined and understood by all beforehand.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 8, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Belboid has got me confused with someone else.
> 
> And is ignoring everything. He is advocating a process in which the inevitable result of a guilty verdict would be that the media and police would get involved yet having a go for me saying thats the only option. Also saying that the SWP aren't the right people to investigate a murder or rape case doesn't mean do nothing.


 
what options does it leave?


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I would suspect that there was no standard of proof outlined and understood by all beforehand.


 
I think you're right.  It jumped out at me that nobody referred to that issue anywhere in the transcript.

But surely it's a big issue.  There a massive difference between saying that "we cannot be absolutely certain that he did it", and saying "she's probably lying."  Which is what the difference would ultimately boil down to.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

Athos said:


> I think you're right. It jumped out at me that nobody referred to that issue anywhere in the transcript.
> 
> But surely it's a big issue. There a massive difference between saying that "we cannot be absolutely certain that he did it", and saying "she's probably lying." Which is what the difference would ultimately boil down to.


That specific thing yes, and more as a wider example of the utter incompetence with which this was approached - _if_ this is the case.


----------



## cmdrdeathguts (Jan 8, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Just spent some time listening to the cpgb podcast. The analysis of Conrad isn't too far out, though I think he downplays the seriousness of the sexual/ criminal accusations( rightly he does say they should be investigated by the police not a party body).
> When he says that the crisis is a crisis of the SWPs political failure, and that it reveals the party's true size of no more than 1000 active members, he's quite right, but this also leaves the cpgb s perspectives right up in the air too. For years they have focused on influencing and adapting themselves to whatever the SWP was doing, the largest revolutionary group in Britain, would in their view provide a large chunk of the cadre for their new unified communist party. That group is now shown to be an addled rump, irreconsiderably split with a leadership willing to absolve serious sexual assault in its determination to remain in power. Where now for Conrad and bridge? A new alignment on workers girder?


 
Oh, don't you worry about us, comrade. The world is full of walls to bash one's head against.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

The other thing that jumped out at me is what a farce the whole thing was.  The very idea that those with imputed bias (based on a relationship with one of the parties) should fail to recuse themselves militates against the most basic principles of natural justice.  Never mind what the evidence was, the hearing was clearly procedurally flawed.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> what options does it leave?



There are no easy answers. Spanky Longhorn's post is good above. But as said in a previous post where do you draw the line. Could the SWP investigate a murder? Could a union branch investigate a rape case and the AGM discuss it? The police are obviously terrible on rape but they are the only ones who could give proper sanctions which could result in someone being unable to carry out more attacks. If someone is a rapist there must a fairly high chance they will do it again. An investigation by the SWP, especially without the guidance SL talks about could actually damage the case and with the inevitable result that a guilty finding will result in police intervention anyway.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

Athos said:


> I think you're right. It jumped out at me that nobody referred to that issue anywhere in the transcript.
> 
> But surely it's a big issue. There a massive difference between saying that "we cannot be absolutely certain that he did it", and saying "she's probably lying." Which is what the difference would ultimately boil down to.


 
It might have mentioned had things turned out differently on the day:




> The main concern for us is that two comrades have come forward, with an allegation of rape and an allegation of sexual harassment. I think the response of ‘not proven’ does not explain in any way, in any sufficient way at all, how those sanctions have been applied, particularly given that two years previously the CC had clearly taken some kind of discussion and action.
> The way the CC has dealt with the situation subsequently has very much made the situation worse, by not giving details within the bounds of confidentiality to the NC, for example. And -
> (Red ‘stop speaking’ light goes on)
> 
> ...


 
You get the feeling someone is being given a limited platform.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It might have mentioned had things turned out differently on the day:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I still can't quite believe how it didn't turn out different!  How could a majority of those present endorse such an obviously flawed procedure?  Bonkers.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

The role of the disputes committee is not to judge guilt or innocence but to decide it someone's behavior meets the standard expected of an SWP member (make your own jokes) and therefore whether or not that person should be allowed to remain a member of the SWP. In this case of course the two things are more or less the same as anyone guilty of rape is clearly not fit to be a member of the SWP. The same is not true of all crimes. It is quite conceivable for an SWP member to be found guilty of murder in a court of law while being allowed to retain their membership of the SWP.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

Athos said:


> I still can't quite believe how it didn't turn out different! How could a majority of those present endorse such an obviously flawed procedure? Bonkers.


Because they allow loyalty to their party to take priority over loyalty to their politics. But I think you already know that.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

Athos said:


> I still can't quite believe how it didn't turn out different! How could a majority of those present endorse such an obviously flawed procedure? Bonkers.


 
Because that's how they understood confidentiality:



> To conclude, *we are obviously – the seven of us – the only people who have heard all the evidence* that was brought before us. *Because we can’t go into the details, that means that you will have to take our report and the conclusions that we came to really on trust, that we did this correctly*. All I can say, all I can emphasise really, is how seriously we took this process. We met over a period of four long days. We were as thorough and meticulous as we could be. And I would like to stress that if we had believed that Comrade Delta was guilty of any misconduct, we would have recommended disciplinary sanctions.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Because they allow loyalty to their party to take priority over loyalty to their politics. But I think you already know that.


 
I think it's fair to say that this incident has not shaken my faith in the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The role of the disputes committee is not to judge guilt or innocence but to decide it someone's behavior meets the standard expect of an SWP member (make your own jokes) and therefore whether or not that person should be allowed to remain a member of the SWP. In this case of course the two things are more or less the same as anyone guilty of rape is clearly not fit to be a member of the SWP. The same is not true of all crimes. It is quite conceivable for an SWP member to be found guilty of murder in a court of law while being allowed to retain their membership of the SWP.


They pronounced 'not proven' - they judged his guilt of rape. Or else what was 'not proven? They were not solely judging if he met the waffle standards of party behaviour required. This mixing up of these things (as well as the mixing up of this self selected group as the voice of proletarian justice rather a class court that's been established on that basis) shows just how badly they fucked this up, and how arrogant they are to expect to get away with this -i.e this is how things normally go so let's crack on.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Because that's how they understood confidentiality:


Wrongly, you mean.  

You don't have to hear the evidence to know that a tribunal made up of people who know to one of the parties lacks any credibility.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> shows just how badly they fucked this up, and *how arrogant they are to expect to get away with this* -i.e this is how things normally go so let's crack on.


 
How _won't_ they get away with this? Apart from splitting, can you see anything else coming from of this?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They pronounced 'not proven' - they judged his guilt of rape. Or else what was 'not proven? They were not solely judging if he met the waffle standards of party behaviour required. This mixing up of these things (as well as the mixing up of this self selected group as the voice of proletarian justice rather a class court that's been established on that basis) shows just how badly they fucked this up, and how arrogant they are to expect to get away with this -i.e this is how things normally go so let's crack on.


 
There's a reference to probability here in what Pat Stack says: 


> My disagreement came around the question of sexual harassment, and at the end of the hearing I was very uneasy about that question. After X came forward as a witness, I reached the conclusion that while sexual harassment was still not proven, it was likely that it had occurred. And I also felt that Comrade Delta’s conduct fell short of that that one should expect of a CC member.


 
Is it conclusively stated in there by the other DC there that Delta did not sexually harass?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

mk12 said:


> How _won't_ they get away with this? Apart from splitting, can you see anything else coming from of this?


What else _can_ there be? The death of the party - a potential outcome - is all there can be.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> There's a reference to probability here in what Pat Stack says:
> 
> 
> Is it conclusively stated in there by the other DC there that Delta did not sexually harass?


That was the verdict 6/1 that he did sexually harrass and 7 unanimous that rape was 'not proven'. Which, horrendously, and i mean really really horrendously was described as coming to a _compromise_.

Dave S:



> There were no witnesses to the events, and there was nothing in terms of evidence and detail that would lead us to believe that Comrade Delta – that it was proved that Comrade Delta (inaudible)
> 
> We came to a compromise. The spirit of the ‘not proven’ was that. (inaudible)


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

A response from Scotland

http://www.2ndcouncilhouse.co.uk/blog/2013/01/06/misogynists-and-the-left/

Anyone know anything about:


> a signed statement circulated from women in the party


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That was the verdict 6/1 that he did sexually harrass


 
I don't think that's accurate.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They pronounced 'not proven' - they judged his guilt of rape. Or else what was 'not proven? They were not solely judging if he met the waffle standards of party behaviour required. This mixing up of these things (as well as the mixing up of this self selected group as the voice of proletarian justice rather a class court that's been established on that basis) shows just how badly they fucked this up, and how arrogant they are to expect to get away with this -i.e this is how things normally go so let's crack on.


I don't disagree with any of this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think that's accurate.


Yes, sorry. Wrong way round - pat stack said he did think he was guilty of SH. So 6/1 against.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> There's a reference to probability here in what Pat Stack says:
> 
> 
> Is it conclusively stated in there by the other DC there that Delta did not sexually harass?


 

Still as clear as mud though.  Is he saying that it was more likely than not (i.e. probable) that there was sexual harassment, but that it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt?  Did the panel share that view with regard to the sexual harassment and/or the rape?  If so, it would mean that there's a member of the CC which the DC think is probably a sex offender!  If not, and they believe that he was probably telling the truth, it follows that they believed the woman was probably lying, but they haven't gone so far as to say that.  A shambles all round.


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The role of the disputes committee is not to judge guilt or innocence but to decide it someone's behavior meets the standard expect of an SWP member (make your own jokes) and therefore whether or not that person should be allowed to remain a member of the SWP. In this case of course the two things are more or less the same as anyone guilty of rape is clearly not fit to be a member of the SWP. The same is not true of all crimes. It is quite conceivable for an SWP member to be found guilty of murder in a court of law while being allowed to retain their membership of the SWP.


Well from my link to the constitution, I see that the role of the Disputes Committee is:



> (7) Party discipline and the Disputes Committee
> Occasionally disputes between members and breaches of normal party discipline may occur. The party has a Disputes Committee to investigate and handle these matters in a principled fashion.
> The Disputes Committee’s functions are to maintain and strengthen party unity and principle and to investigate complaints relating to disciplinary matters by its members or units.
> The Disputes Committee consists of not more than 12 members. Conference elects up to ten of these, and the incoming CC nominates two.
> ...



Which is a bit different, to what you think it is.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think that's accurate.


 
As I read, it is either 6-1 that Delta did sexually harass or 6-1 that he didn't. It's one or the other, but 7-0 against any charge of rape.


----------



## past caring (Jan 8, 2013)

Amongst all the understandable attention paid to the 'investigation' of the alleged rape, this seems to have been overlooked...



> Comrade Alpha from Bristol was expelled from the party for domestic violence. *Comrade Beta was suspended for six months for fighting in a nightclub and abusive behaviour,* and because he breached his suspension that was extended for a further six months.


 
Can anyone with more recent experience of the SWP than me (and even when I was in, I didn't ever go to conference) tell me whether delegates/members are provided with any more detail? Because on the face of it this doesn't seem like something the party ought to get involved with, unless there were particular aggravating factors - in which case, you'd think they'd want to say what those aggravating factors _were_.

Or is that the culture of the SWP really has changed to the extent that this kind of thing is now viewed as a disciplinary offence? (i.e. I had a load of 'non-political' fights with blokes in clubs and pubs when I was still a member - quite a few that district organisers etc got to hear about - and there was never any suggestion that I was going to get shown the door for it).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

"The Disputes Committee’s functions are to maintain and strengthen party unity and principle"

Note, this is listed as the first and primary function.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, sorry. Wrong way round - pat stack said he did think he was guilty of SH. So 6/1 against.


Did he actually say that, though? He said it was not proven, but that he thought it likley. Does that mean that whilst he believed it probably happened he could say with sufficient certainty to find Delta 'guilty'?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

past caring said:


> Amongst all the understandable attention paid to the 'investigation' of the alleged rape, this seems to have been overlooked...
> 
> Can anyone with more recent experience of the SWP than me (and even when I was in, I didn't ever go to conference) tell me whether delegates/members are provided with any more detail? Because on the face of it this doesn't seem like something the party ought to get involved with, unless there were particular aggravating factors - in which case, you'd think they'd want to say what those aggravating factors _were_.
> 
> Or is that the culture of the SWP really has changed to the extent that this kind of thing is now viewed as a disciplinary offence? (i.e. I had a load of 'non-political' fights with blokes in clubs and pubs when I was still a member - quite a few that district organisers etc got to hear about - and there was never any suggestion that I was going to get shown the door for it).


 
pc - in the context of Candy discussing chauvinist abuse and DC action against it - it most probably is an aggravating factor of sexist abuse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

past caring said:


> Amongst all the understandable attention paid to the 'investigation' of the alleged rape, this seems to have been overlooked...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...and within a report back that repeatedly emphasised it's distance from bourgeois morals and judgementalism and its refusal to stick its finger in private life.


----------



## past caring (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ..and within a report back that repeatedly emphasised it's distance from bourgeois morals and judgementalism and its refusal to stick its finger in private life.


 
Exactly.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

Athos said:


> Did he actually say that, though? He said it was not proven, but that he thought it likley. Does that mean that whilst he believed it probably happened he could say with sufficient certainty to find Delta 'guilty'?


 


> After X came forward as a witness, I reached the conclusion that while sexual harassment was still not proven, it was likely that it had occurred.


 
Yes -as you say. But, we're drifting into discussing the 'verdict' rather than the 'investigation' right now. Don't think we should be (and i did help move it towards this i know)


----------



## past caring (Jan 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> pc - in the context of Candy discussing chauvinist abuse and DC action against it - it most probably is an aggravating factor of sexist abuse.


 
We're left to guess though, aren't we?

Could just as easily be (and certainly reads as if) he just gave someone a right-hander and called them a cunt.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> "The Disputes Committee’s functions are to maintain and strengthen party unity and principle"
> 
> Note, this is listed as the first and primary function.


Kinda like the approach the catholic church takes to investigating noncery.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes -as you say. But, we're drifting into discussing the 'verdict' rather than the 'investigation' right now. Don't think we should be (and i did help move it towards this i know)


 
You're right. Without knowing the facts, we didn't ought to comment on guilt or innocence. Thought the obvious procedural flaws make it clear that the outcome of the investigation is not sound. Can't see that there's too much more to say about the fact. The more interesting question being why it was allowed to happen?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jan 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> So, the CC/DC tells the police this woman who doesnt want to make a complaint has made a complaint? How would that work? The very way the police deal with murder - the evidential basis still extant after four years for one thing - makes those two things very different. And how far would you go? Reporting them for nicking from the petty cash tin?


If she makes a complaint but doesn't want to take it to have a police investigation or go to court they count it as a solved crime & the name of the perpetrator (alleged) is kept on file & if there is another complaint about them an investigation is triggered.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Jan 8, 2013)

Will the SWP be investigating burglaries from now on?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 8, 2013)

To an outsider it does all smack of scientology meets the Soviet Peoples' Commisariat for Justice.


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2013)

past caring said:


> We're left to guess though, aren't we?
> 
> Could just as easily be (and certainly reads as if) he just gave someone a right-hander and called them a cunt.



Odd way for a self appointed court to function. Taking previous into account before not sentencing.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 8, 2013)

Athos said:


> Kinda like the approach the catholic church takes to investigating noncery.


 
It's slightly different, but look at this article in SW on the cover up in the Catholic Church: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20737



> A 2009 public inquiry into church sexual abuse, found that the church’s motivation was: “The maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets.
> 
> “All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities.”
> 
> But as Eamonn McCann recently commented, “That’s the point. There was no decision involved. They will have acted naturally, instinctively.* It is not that they rejected the idea of reporting the abuse to the secular authorities. The thought will not have occurred to them.*”


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

past caring said:


> We're left to guess though, aren't we?
> 
> Could just as easily be (and certainly reads as if) he just gave someone a right-hander and called them a cunt.


Could be but there's a lot that's unspoken, perhaps there was another reason why B was nabbed for that crime.

After all mk12 got done for doing something that other SWP members had done - and the specific crime - mentioning the names of 3 people who write in the Socialist Worker - was laughable.


Weekly Worker back ages ago had this approach 

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/847/another-one-bites-the-dust



> Perhaps to ensure comrade Smith accepts his humiliating demotion quietly and is not tempted to rebel at conference unpleasant rumours have been circulated. They amount to character assassination. Eg, we at this paper have been sent allegations of sexual harassment and a central committee investigation. Frankly, we are not talking Gerry Healy, but of the kind of thing one hears in any fraught divorce case.


 

In fact just reading through that link makes me think WTF why did I post all I have in this thread:
A group that still tries to impose this stuff onto its new members



			
				SWP said:
			
		

> The Vietnam solidarity protest in October 1968 saw the IS grow by hundreds, while others on the left failed to increase in size. This was down to the sharpness of our message and its concrete application to the movement. Selling Socialist Worker can perform a similar function


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

past caring said:


> Amongst all the understandable attention paid to the 'investigation' of the alleged rape, this seems to have been overlooked...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Presumably there was not more detail because the individual concerned was not contesting it . I did think this one was a bit odd as well, maybe it was who they where fighting with?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Presumably there was not more detail because the individual concerned was not contesting it . I did think this one was a bit odd as well, maybe it was who they where fighting with?


It's not the lack of contestation that's pricking ears up - it's the thing they're 'charged' with.

Who are they not allowed fight with on the weekend now then?


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> ... maybe it was who they where fighting with?


 
His handler?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 8, 2013)

It all makes me wish I had actually hit the bastard with a chair when I had the chance


----------



## mk12 (Jan 8, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> It all makes me wish I had actually hit the bastard with a chair when I had the chance


 
I should have told him to "fuck off" before hanging up on him. Regrets...


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

cesare said:


> Well from my link to the constitution, I see that the role of the Disputes Committee is:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is a bit different, to what you think it is.


I disagree, the full blurb may be a broader sounding. But how does this differ substantially from what I said? 


> the Disputes Committee’s functions are to maintain and strengthen party unity and principle and to investigate complaints relating to disciplinary matters by its members or units


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's not the lack of contestation that's pricking ears up - it's the thing they're 'charged' with.
> 
> Who are they not allowed fight with on the weekend now then?


I thought it was both.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's not the lack of contestation that's pricking ears up - it's the thing they're 'charged' with.
> 
> Who are they not allowed fight with on the weekend now then?


 
Other working-class people, maybe working class women? The fact that the target of the violence or the abuse isn't mentioned is odd.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I thought it was both.


What was both?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 8, 2013)

If the SWP implodes does that mean that Workers' Girder will be able to take over the poster market? Every demonstration from now on could look like a mass Workers' Girder movement


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Other working-class people, maybe working class women? The fact that the target of the violence or the abuse isn't mentioned is odd.


It is, i get that she was talking shorthand and just giving examples to shore up the DC's cred as taking issues seriously  - but even thinking that expelling people for fighting in a club will shore up support is a bit telling to me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I should have told him to "fuck off" before hanging up on him. Regrets...


 
I should have told him to fuck off when I saw him in town recently


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What was both?


I thought Past caring was question both the offense and why more details where not provided.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It is, i get that she was talking shorthand and just giving examples to shore up the DC's cred as taking issues seriously - but even thinking that expelling people for fighting in a club will shore up support is a bit telling to me.


 
whose culture?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I thought Past caring was question both the offense and why more details where not provided.


Yeah, but i was replying to your post. (anyway, i'm off over the road soon so don't take any non-responses to replies as being rude)


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I disagree, the full blurb may be a broader sounding. But how does this differ substantially from what I said?


Because you said its role isn't to judge guilt or innocence, when it appears that it is, and that's what they've done. Well, "not proven".


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> whose culture?


_Their streets_


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

cesare said:


> Because you said its role isn't to judge guilt or innocence, when it appears that it is, and that's what they've done. Well, "not proven".


I also said that in this case it amounts to the same thing. MAybe I should have been clearer, the DC may in some cases have to decided if A did X, but it's primary role is to decided if doing X is a breach of party discipline or not.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, but i was replying to your post. (anyway, i'm off over the road soon so don't take any non-responses to replies as being rude)


I won't i just won't reply, oh Wait.

I agree that case stuck me as odd, unless he decked the chair of the local trades council or something I don't see what business it is of the SWP if he happened to get pissed at the weekend and get into a fight.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I should have told him to fuck off when I saw him in town recently


Was he running?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 8, 2013)

He was probably on a moped.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 8, 2013)

The new socialist worker reports on conference

Issue: 2335 dated: 12 January 2013 News

(Snip)

Women and oppression
Socialist Worker editor Judith Orr introduced a session on the fight for women’s liberation today.

Judith pointed to the death of Savita Halappanavar last year. Savita died in Ireland after being refused a life-saving abortion, and Judith argued, “That is what women’s oppression looks like today.”

Mary from London spoke movingly about her experience of the fate of women in Britain before abortion was legalised.

Judith added that that the SWP could be proud of taking a firm line against sexism over Julian Assange and Respect MP George Galloway.

Many delegates picked up her point that it is important to “argue revolutionary politics” with activists attracted by feminist ideas.

Sue from north London said that because oppression divided workers it is important that women and men are involved in the fight against it.

Julia from Sheffield pointed to the establishment cover-up of the Jimmy Savile case saying it showed that “the ruling class protect their own”. She contrasted it to the racism that has gone along with discussion of the grooming and abuse of young women.

Judith ended the session by stressing that attacks on women’s rights were sparking resistance—and that SWP members must be central to it.

(Snip)

Factions at conference
The conference was marked by a high level of participation. Hundreds of contributions on the conference floor were matched by debates in and around the venue.

In the discussion period that leads up to conference the SWP constitution allows the formation of temporary factions by members who want to change party policy.

This year two such factions were created. They held a number of meetings around the conference venue outside of the main sessions, as did supporters of the Central Committee.

The Democratic Opposition faction formed to oppose the expulsion of four members for organising secretly outside the structures of the organisation. Conference voted to endorse the expulsions.

The Democratic Centralism faction formed to argue for an ongoing examination of the party structures. After a wide-ranging discussion conference passed a commission endorsing the existing party structures.

In part it read, “The fundamental of the democratic centralist way of organising is for there to be a maximum level of debate about the impact the party is having in the working class and how revolutionaries can best shape the class struggle.

“This debate is made by a majority vote. Once that vote has been taken all members fight to implement the decisions in a united way.”

This was passed 239 to 91. An alternative commission from the Democratic Centralism faction was defeated. At the end of conference both factions disbanded.

Leadership elections
There were two alternative slates put forward for central committee (CC), the leading body of the SWP that runs the party on a day-to-day basis.

The following people were elected to the central committee: Weyman Bennett, Mark Bergfeld, Michael Bradley, Alex Callinicos, Joseph Choonara, Charlie Kimber, Amy Leather, Judith Orr, Julie Sherry and Mark L Thomas.

Two trade union activists, whose names have been withheld to protect them from their employers, were also elected to the CC. Delegates also elected a 50-strong national committee."

© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). Lying wankers


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

out of curiosity, does anyone outside the swp seriously believe that  sir jimmy savile obe kscg was a member of the ruling class?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> out of curiosity, does anyone outside the swp seriously believe that sir jimmy savile obe kscg was a member of the ruling class?


He had an OBE what more do you want?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> He had an OBE what more do you want?


like 1001 lollypop women 

i hope you're not going to tell me that helping children across the road means you're on a par with eg charles mountbatten-windsor


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

If I was murdered I can safely say that the SWP would be the last people I would want to investigate my death.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> like 1001 lollypop women
> 
> i hope you're not going to tell me that helping children across the road means you're on a par with eg charles mountbatten-windsor


You do get it was a joke right?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If I was murdered I can safely say that the SWP would be the last people I would want to investigate my death.


 
You've not been involved with the scientologists have you?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If I was murdered I can safely say that the SWP would be the last people I would want to investigate my death.


 
That's a shame because they're about to sign a reciprocal deal with your lot


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

I can't actually tell if this is a joke post or not


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

What about paedophilia? Would the SWP investigate that as well?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You do get it was a joke right?


you say that now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What about paedophilia? Would the SWP investigate that as well?


you know they've a strong social worker contingent, right?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you know they've a strong social worker contingent, right?


 
Yeah, but im not sure Stalincos etc are the right people to be deciding on allegations of noncery


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

I wouldn't trust the SWP to run a bath, never mind a murder investigation.  It'd be like an earnest and slightly shrill bunch of Inspector Clouseau's.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What about paedophilia? Would the SWP investigate that as well?


No they'd outsource the investigation to the Sparts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah, but im not sure Stalincos etc are the right people to be deciding on allegations of noncery


i think their preferred destination for paedos would find favour across the political spectrum


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

Athos said:


> I wouldn't trust the SWP to run a bath, never mind a murder investigation. It'd be like an earnest and slightly shrill bunch of Inspector Clouseau's.


 
It was Charlie in the front group meeting with the paste-table


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> If I was murdered I can safely say that the SWP would be the last people I would want to investigate my death.


Just though that in some ways this is quite sad considering this is the party that once had Paul Foot as a member, shows how little quality there really is in the SWP, and I guess the left as a whole these days.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Just though that in some ways this is quite sad considering this is the party that once had Paul Foot as a member, shows how little quality there really is in the SWP, *and I guess the left as a whole these days.*


 
Not sure about this bit.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

Athos said:


> Not sure about this bit.


yeah your right after all we still have Laurie Penny 

Seriously yes maybe a bit harsh.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 8, 2013)

Read Newman's defence of his publication of the transcript on SU today. amounted to "it would have been published anyway but I edit it to protect identities." Totally apolitical response that didn't answer Kimber's complaints at all.

The problem with this thread now is that you have people who are acting like frightened liberals because the police weren't called rubbing shoulders with people who can see why a left org would want a disputes committee but think the process was flawed rubbing shoulders with people who don't give a damn and just wish they could hit comrade delta next they see him as they've already convicted him. Impossible for anyone to untangle that mess of positions and given they all want to bash the SWP they won't even try to.

Personally I think Pat Stack was closest to the truth even though I find it very difficult to believe such charges of the guy concerned. But if Stack thinks the probability is on the side of some form of harassment then there will be no easy end to this becuase of them all he's the one the old school cadre will trust most. Especially given the way a section of the majority seem to have taken to nasty smears against the antis. Can't end well :-(


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> yeah your right after all we still have Laurie Penny
> 
> Seriously yes maybe a bit harsh.


We need to stay upbeat.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can't end well :-(


 
It can.  Though I suspect we have different ideas about what that might look like.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 8, 2013)

It's all everyone elses fault, we did nothing wrong, don't point the finger at us..... Whaaaaa whaaaa whaaaa......

I did notice that Kimber didn't refute a single word of the damning transcript, but swtill seems to think people finding out what the SWP got upto is worse then the details of what they got upto.....


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

I think Any Newman is a hypocrite and an utter tosser. But I would think it is better for the SWP to have the transcript out there instead of just rumors flying around.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The problem with this thread now is that you have people who are acting like frightened liberals because the police weren't called rubbing shoulders with people who can see why a left org would want a disputes committee but think the process was flawed rubbing shoulders with people who don't give a damn and just wish they could hit comrade delta next they see him as they've already convicted him.


 
It's a message board


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 8, 2013)

wrt to the guy who was kicked out for a fight in a nightclub, i know a bit about that. the individual in question wouldn't get many social votes of solidarity from here, spent much of his time in the SWP waffling on about the 'macho-elitism' of the old squads and also of a hands on approach to UAF activity against a bunch of people who were rallying against the increasing sell-out of that campaign... in fact he also slandered them with accusations of machoism too. but he was fitted up on the issue of his expulsion - or, perhaps, hoist by his own petard. he always took the most 'SWP' line possible on gender issues, and pretty ruthlessly pursued slander based on accusations of sexism and 'machoism' against others in arguments.

however rumours about him being clingy (not abusive, but just a bit insecure and possessive) in a relationship with a former party-member girlfriend got out indirectly, not from his ex but from a particularly obnoxious identity politics twat in the Sheffield branch who actually, without his ex ever being involved in the accusations, roused a bunch of the SWSS group to take him to a disciplinary for aggressive 'macho' behaviour, accused him (falsely) of being a sexual predator amongst the SWSS group, and the fight in the nightclub was just the _piece de resistance_ in their attack confirming his generally 'masculine' (and therefore politically incorrect and threatening) persona. there were actually at least 2 other local members involved in that particular bar fight, who were never penalized.

so the hysterical atmosphere he helped to foster, amidst all the anti-macho rhetoric he spilled out over everyone, came him up a cropper when he faced up with a bureaucratically minded little shit-bag who's only pleasure in life is exerting social influence and wielding punishments out through the medium of a tiny irrelevent sect.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> wrt to the guy who was kicked out for a fight in a nightclub, i know a bit about that. the individual in question wouldn't get many social votes of solidarity from here, spent much of his time in the SWP waffling on about the 'macho-elitism' of the old squads and also of a hands on approach to UAF activity against a bunch of people who were rallying against the increasing sell-out of that campaign... in fact he also slandered them with accusations of machoism too. but he was fitted up on the issue of his expulsion - or, perhaps, hoist by his own petard. he always took the most 'SWP' line possible on gender issues, and pretty ruthlessly pursued slander based on accusations of sexism and 'machoism' against others in arguments.
> 
> however rumours about him being clingy (not abusive, but just a bit insecure and possessive) in a relationship with a former party-member girlfriend got out indirectly, not from his ex but from a particularly obnoxious identity politics twat in the Sheffield branch who actually, without his ex ever being involved in the accusations, roused a bunch of the SWSS group to take him to a disciplinary for aggressive 'macho' behaviour, accused him (falsely) of being a sexual predator amongst the SWSS group, and the fight in the nightclub was just the _piece de resistance_ in their attack confirming his generally 'masculine' (and therefore politically incorrect and threatening) persona. there were actually at least 2 other local members involved in that particular bar fight, who were never penalized.
> 
> so the hysterical atmosphere he helped to foster, amidst all the anti-macho rhetoric he spilled out over everyone, came him up a cropper when he faced up with a bureaucratically minded little shit-bag who's only pleasure in life is exerting social influence and wielding punishments out through the medium of a tiny irrelevent sect.


The SWP sounds much more interesting now than it was in my day .


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2013)

it sounds like a nightmare


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The SWP sounds much more interesting now than it was in my day .


 
In my branch it was very well behaved although a few years before I joined one of the members had allegedlly tried to rob a local AWL member at knife point


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The SWP sounds much more interesting now than it was in my day .


that it was dull in your day and interesting now may lead to speculation on how much of a role you played in keeping it the way it was.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 8, 2013)

not for the better i can tell you


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> In my branch it was very well behaved although a few years before I joined one of the members had allegedlly tried to rob a local AWL member at knife point


Did he know he was an AWL member or did he just happen to pick an AWL member to mug?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 8, 2013)

the other point to make is that it would not have been worthwhile anybody other than 'Comrade Delta' challenging their expulsion in Disputes... for obvious reasons. though to my knowledge the other one accused of domestic abuse was guilty (though going through some kind of general melt-down not that it justifies anything in particular)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> In my branch it was very well behaved although a few years before I joined one of the members had allegedlly tried to rob a local AWL member at knife point


tried? and presumably failed. which would be typical, fucking trot can't  mug someone properly even with a fucking knife.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 8, 2013)

an AWL member at that


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Did he know he was an AWL member or did he just happen to pick an AWL member to mug?


 
I think it was coincidence, it may not have been true it was the AWL who told me... I liked the SWP member in question, but I think he was capable of doing such a thing, I liked him more after hearing that


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think it was coincidence, it may not have been true it was the AWL who told me... I liked the SWP member in question, but I think he was capable of doing such a thing, I liked him more after hearing that


I've never meet him and I like him.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> an AWL member at that


 
to be fair the AWL member was a working class Glaswegian ex Navvy with hands like massive shovels


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> to be fair the AWL member was a working class Glaswegian ex Navvy with hands like massive shovels


the swappie fucked it up then.

i knew it  bunch of useless tossers.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> to be fair the AWL member was a working class Glaswegian ex Navvy with hands like massive shovels


rare!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> rare!


quite, doesn't sound the sort to be in the awl.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the swappie fucked it up then.
> 
> i knew it  bunch of useless tossers.


 
can't investigate crimes, can't carry out crimes, what part of the justice system can they participate in effectively?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> can't investigate crimes, can't carry out crimes, what part of the justice system can they participate in effectively?


victims of crime.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> an AWL member at that


Maybe he started to recite some of Sean Matgamna's poetry at him.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> quite, doesn't sound the sort to be in the awl.


 
He left shortly after telling me this after the local branch imploded


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> victims of crime.


 
fair point


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 8, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> I did notice that Kimber didn't refute a single word of the damning transcript, but swtill seems to think people finding out what the SWP got upto is worse then the details of what they got upto.....


Why the fuck should he? The transcript reveals a fair debate, properly handled between people who share pretty much the same politics but are grappling with a very difficult situation the facts about which they can't agree. Some of the stuff claimed by speakers is shocking if true but the transcript reveals two sets of honourable people doing their best not to destroy each other if at all possible. Stands to their credit. Still think they had every right not to have it published and that the person who did betrayed all of them.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Why the fuck should he? The transcript reveals a fair debate, properly handled between people who share pretty much the same politics but are grappling with a very difficult situation the facts about which they can't agree. Some of the stuff claimed by speakers is shocking if true but the transcript reveals two sets of honourable people doing their best not to destroy each other if at all possible. Stands to their credit. Still think they had every right not to have it published and that the person who did betrayed all of them.


 
did it really need to be discussed in front of 500 people when the alleged victim was standing outside though?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Why the fuck should he? The transcript reveals a fair debate, properly handled between people who share pretty much the same politics but are grappling with a very difficult situation the facts about which they can't agree. Some of the stuff claimed by speakers is shocking if true but the transcript reveals two sets of honourable people doing their best not to destroy each other if at all possible. Stands to their credit. Still think they had every right not to have it published and that the person who did betrayed all of them.


 
Given that one set of the people must be lying to quite an extent about some very serious things I can't see how both sides are honourable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> did it really need to be discussed in front of 500 people when the alleged victim was standing outside though?


if you need to ask the question you already know the answer.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> did it really need to be discussed in front of 500 people when the alleged victim was standing outside though?


The process did not the detail of what happened to her. In fact it was the majority who tried to make sure that happened more than the antis who repeatedly strayed over that line.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Given that one set of the people must be lying to quite an extent about some very serious things I can't see how both sides are honourable.


I didn't read it that way. They had different interpretations of some of the same facts and they both had to repudiate outright lies that on my reading the majority on both sides didn't believe of each other.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Why the fuck should he? The transcript reveals a fair debate, properly handled between people who share pretty much the same politics but are grappling with a very difficult situation the facts about which they can't agree. Some of the stuff claimed by speakers is shocking if true but the transcript reveals two sets of honourable people doing their best not to destroy each other if at all possible. Stands to their credit. Still think they had every right not to have it published and that the person who did betrayed all of them.


 
Honourable people? Questioned a possible victim of rape about her sex life? Had a DC where ALL those on it knew the accused? Spoke about a potential victim but didn't let her in the room? Allowed the accused access to info but not the victim? Your definition of 'honourable' is frankly ludicrous and is in a dictionary that i'd hate to read.....


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Read Newman's defence of his publication of the transcript on SU today. amounted to "it would have been published anyway but I edit it to protect identities." Totally apolitical response that didn't answer Kimber's complaints at all.
> 
> The problem with this thread now is that you have people who are acting like frightened liberals because the police weren't called rubbing shoulders with people who can see why a left org would want a disputes committee but think the process was flawed rubbing shoulders with people who don't give a damn and just wish they could hit comrade delta next they see him as they've already convicted him. Impossible for anyone to untangle that mess of positions and given they all want to bash the SWP they won't even try to.
> 
> Personally I think Pat Stack was closest to the truth even though I find it very difficult to believe such charges of the guy concerned. But if Stack thinks the probability is on the side of some form of harassment then there will be no easy end to this becuase of them all he's the one the old school cadre will trust most. Especially given the way a section of the majority seem to have taken to nasty smears against the antis. Can't end well :-(


 
Newman is a scum bag no doubt.

But it's not good saying those who say the police should be involved are just frightened liberals. As frogwoman says, what would you expect the SWP to do with a charge of peadoephilia or murder? There are some things that a group like that can't and shouldn't handle.

I also think the bit where you say "I find it very difficult to believe such charges of the guy concerned" backs up what was totally flawed about the investigation. All of them knew him, and all of them, understandably as they'd known him as a friend and comrade, would have had this same view. This is, whether someone likes it or not, gonna have a big impact. It is also strange that the only person who knew W, withdrew on that basis.

But more to the point it is a fact that rapists are often repeat offenders. What sanction can a group like the SWP possibily do to stop this if they were guilty? Whatever the flaws of the police and judicial system, they are the only ones who could, short of the SWP knee capping him or bumping him off, which isn't gonna happen.

I also think that while what the woman wants is paramount there are complications around something like rapists, because of the fact that they can do it again. There is duty to try and stop this, as well as being sensitive to what the woman wants to do. The same with domestic violence, where personally I think it is a good thing that other people other than the victim can report it. If someone is getting beaten every night, then in my view it is good if there is intervention, as someone who is being abused by their partner sometimes finds it difficult to come out against it for various reasons.

I still can't get over the fact that 500 people were discussing a rape case, with the alleged perpatrator sitting inside, and the alleged rape victim standing outside. Doesn't this seem a tad bizarre to you to say the least?

As I said earlier I think spanky longhorns posts were good on this in terms of what to do if the victim doesn't want to go to the police. But what has pressing ahead with the investigation done? The two women feel they have been treated very badly. If there had been a guilty verdict what then, and do you seriously think the police wouldn't have got involved at that point anyway, and then the preceeding investigation might make a case more difficult?

I accept this is a very difficult situation, but to present it as if those saying the police should be involved as liberals is ridiculous in my view.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 8, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> not from his ex but from a particularly obnoxious identity politics twat in the Sheffield branch who actually, without his ex ever being involved in the accusations, roused a bunch of the SWSS group to take him to a disciplinary for aggressive 'macho' behaviour, accused him (falsely) of being a sexual predator amongst the SWSS group, and the fight in the nightclub was just the _piece de resistance_ in their attack confirming his generally 'masculine' (and therefore politically incorrect and threatening) persona. there were actually at least 2 other local members involved in that particular bar fight, who were never penalized.


 
Is this MB?

If so, that's the third time I've heard about him falsely accusing someone of an ism in the past couple of months.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

lot of first posts on this thread


----------



## J Ed (Jan 8, 2013)

Sorry, I've been admiring this thread and the Penny thread from afar for months and I just couldn't help myself...


----------



## discokermit (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> lot of first posts on this thread


can only be good.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> lot of first posts on this thread


 
hehe now that you say I read back: like this one in the OP?




Nigel Irritable said:


> The Weekly Worker (as always, caution advised) has an account of four people getting the boot in the run up to SWP conference. There's an amusingly Kafkaesque edge to it too. They were expelled for factionalism, seemingly as a result of facebook messages. But this happened during the "pre-conference period", where for a few months a year, SWP members are supposed by allowed to form factions. The problem is though that to gain factional rights, you need 30 signatories... but to gather those 30 signatories you have to engage in what the Central Committee considers "factionalism". Which is an expellable offence.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2013)

http://www.gizoogle.net/tranzizzle....x.php4?id=854&issue=136&se=Go+Git+Dis+Shiznit


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 8, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Honourable people? Questioned a possible victim of rape about her sex life? Had a DC where ALL those on it knew the accused? Spoke about a potential victim but didn't let her in the room? Allowed the accused access to info but not the victim? Your definition of 'honourable' is frankly ludicrous and is in a dictionary that i'd hate to read.....


Quite a list. It does exclude all the things Candy mentioned that they did differently in this case precisely because they were aware it was different and that the accused being a cc member made it more problematic. Like not allowing him in the room while they heard her evidence, letting her nominate one dc member to ask questions etc. But clearly that was just them covering themselves I guess in your worldview and not genuinely trying to apply their bloody politics to a messed up situation?

Done think your list holds up. The juicy one of course is the asking about her sex life issue. But they made clear why that happened. if they'd only been investigating rape then they wouldn't have asked it. But precisely because he was a cc member they broadened their remit to look at issues of sexual harassment and a relationship that might have had a predatory or abusive nature. And to investigate that they had to ask her about her sex life as it overlapped with him and what the context of the relationship was within her sex life more broadly. That's a difficult area, terribly so, to discuss without being insensitive or making someone feel put on the spot. But I honestly don't see how you can get into the harder to prove issue of harassment or abusive power relations (as opposed to the much simpler in comparison question of rape) without going into some of that uncomfortable area of discussion. But only because they wanted to be clear if this cc guy had been inappropriate in a broader sense beyond straightforward rape.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 9, 2013)

Er they do hold up. The DC members knowing Comrade Delta? They admit it, it holds up.
Spoke in a session re the possible victim whilst not allowing her in, yeah that happened too, ergo it holds up.
Allowed the accused acces to info but not the accuser, they admit it in the transcript, ergo it holds up.

Pretty easy really. Do try a buit harder....

Yeah, there's always an excuse in probing a victims sex life..... Did they ask the ';accused' about his sex life, who he'd slept with?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.gizoogle.net/tranzizzle.php?search=http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=854&issue=136&se=Go Git Dis Shiznit


 
 what the fuck is that?



J Ed said:


> Is this MB?
> 
> If so, that's the third time I've heard about him falsely accusing someone of an ism in the past couple of months.


 
Same thought went through my mind too. Do I know you by any chance?

PS: Might be worth editing that to initials - the person in question strikes me as a classic vanity googler.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

I bloody well hope they did yes. 

You're quite right, didn't answer all your points, got work soon. But neither did you acknowledge the things they did to accommodate her needs given the special circumstances.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> PS: Might be worth editing that to initials - the person in question strikes me as a classic vanity googler.


 
Edited it, as for whether you know me or not, I have no idea 

As far as vanity googling goes, I can only assume he has alerts...


----------



## mk12 (Jan 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.gizoogle.net/tranzizzle.php?search=http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=854&issue=136&se=Go Git Dis Shiznit


 
Haha that website is great.

"A spectre is hustlin Europe — tha spectre of communizzle fo' realz. All tha powerz of oldschool Europe have entered tha fuck into a holy alliizzle to exorcise dis spectre: Pimp n' Tsar, Metternich n' Guizot, French Radicals n' German five-o-spies.
Where is tha jam up in opposizzle dat has not been decried as communistic by its opponents up in power, biatch? Where is tha opposizzle dat has not hurled back tha brandin reproach of communism, against tha mo' advizzled opposition parties, as well as against its erectionary adversaries?"


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2013)

_Da decision by Synaspismos ta launch Syriza was part of a general turn ta tha left under tha influence of tha anti-capitalist n' anti-war movements. For example, while up in 1992 Synaspismos supported tha Maastricht Treaty, by tha time Syriza was formed it had repudiated dis stizzle. It later campaigned against tha European Constipationizzle Treaty, n' joined tha Greek Social Forum up in 2006. It was tha only parliamentary jam ta support tha student rebellions up in 2009, n' played a blingin role alongside Antarsya up in tha “movement of tha squares”. Right back up in yo muthafuckin ass. Synaspismos’s traditionizzle opennizz ta tha hood movements played a blingin role._


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I bloody well hope they did yes.
> 
> You're quite right, didn't answer all your points, got work soon. But neither did you acknowledge the things they did to accommodate her needs given the special circumstances.


 
But there is zero evidence they did is there?
What accomodation? Not allowing her access to the same info they allowed Comrade Delta? How very caring. Talking about her behind her back? How very caring.

By the way, what do you say to the revelation that the SWP tried to deal with the rape allegation informally? Classy that....


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2013)

As tha CGT n' tha CCOO-UGT regroupin five different unions up in Spain called fo' yet another 24-hour ‘general strike’ fo' October 31 n' November 14 respectively, comradez of tha Assembly movement - Indignant n' Self-Organized Alicante Workers - published n' distributed a thugged-out declaration called "_In tha grill of tha 24-hour strikes: What strike do our crazy-ass asses want, biatch? *Da mass strike!*_".


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Is this MB?
> 
> If so, that's the third time I've heard about him falsely accusing someone of an ism in the past couple of months.


 
no actually, not this time! but MB is profligate in that regard. this was another who so far as i know never quite bonded with MB, both of them too much on a personal identity power-politics binge to ever really get on imo


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> as for whether you know me or not, I have no idea


 
I would imagine there are not many people called Spiney in your neck of the woods


----------



## newbie (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> It is also strange that the only person who knew W, withdrew on that basis.


 
not necessarily. for the purposes of purely fact free speculation

there's an assumption running through the thread that the person who withdrew would have otherwise acted as friend and champion of W. There are all sorts of reasons why someone may not wish to take part in a weird quasi-judicial hearing about a friend or acquaintance, most of which do not reflect badly on anyone involved.  The role was  judge, not advocate.

Think it through: would you want to sit in judgement on your mate, or your sisters best friend, or someone on your team at work, or on someone you'd had a massive falling out with, or have a huge crush on?

The point is that all the other members of the DC should have abdicated because they knew the accused, not that the one person who knew the accuser did anything necessarily wrong or suspicious.


----------



## chilango (Jan 9, 2013)

One quick point re "frightened liberals", calling the cops etc.

This might be a valid avenue of criticism if the SWP was  a genuine working class revolutionary org capable of administering "workers justice", and with a mandate from the class to do this.

It's not.

...and neither is anyone else in England.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 9, 2013)

I don't think there's much point in this but.... one of the DC worked a large part of her professional life with victims of rape. As it says in the transcript, she did her phd on rape. My personal opinion is that questions about W's sex life would only have been asked for the reasons that they state and that bolshiebhoy repeats.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2013)

Yes the police and courts may have a disputed conviction rate or whatever but it's a darn site better than anyone on the revolutionary left

ETA: At Chilango

Edited in light of the info below so as not to reinforce negative stereotypes


----------



## cesare (Jan 9, 2013)

On the conviction rate issue, it's worth having a read of this : http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates

As Sihhi said, there are differing statistics around. It's still not great, but not as bad as it was. It's also worth remembering the existence of Sapphire nowadays: http://content.met.police.uk/Site/sapphire


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 9, 2013)

That's interesting, thanks cesare.


----------



## cesare (Jan 9, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> That's interesting, thanks cesare.


I'm still not altogether convinced by that 58% figure. The Guardian piece sources the Telegraph piece as you probably noticed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html

But it's improved so much over the past 30 years. Not just in the prospect of conviction, but also in how victims are treated. For example, There's a recent long post on the Savile thread where someone describes in detail their recent experience of recently reporting sexual abuse from a long time ago, I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: here it is http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-sir-jimmy-savile-obe-thread.300406/page-72#post-11855328


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 9, 2013)

What was needed here was a process in which everyone concerned had confidence. The police cannot provide it, because they would be suspect - with good reason - of wanting to cause harm to an organisation whose members have often clashed with them on marches and over civil rights cases. But what the CC and the DC seem to have had a blind spot for is that being a longstanding member of the SWP is not a qualification for objectivity because of institutional bias. Tony Cliff used to say for similar reasons that the whole judiciary should be scrapped and that he looked forward to the day that a young, black, working class, lesbian presided over court cases. In the same spirit, they should have brought someone who was respected in the labour movement, acceptable to both parties, to conduct proceedings.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

I think a clear political point can be made here about the dangers of assumptions of unique competence (by virtue of filling in a membership form!) and how that is fostered developed and utilised by vanguardist forms of organisation (no matter what open or participatory icing they put on their cake).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2013)

Maybe the SWP should have approached a bar or social centre frequented by young black working class lesbians to source their DC


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

Fire-thingy?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fire-thingy?


 
I'm not sure they would find many at Friebox


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> What was needed here was a process in which everyone concerned had confidence. The police cannot provide it, because they would be suspect - with good reason - of wanting to cause harm to an organisation whose members have often clashed with them on marches and over civil rights cases. But what the CC and the DC seem to have had a blind spot for is that being a longstanding member of the SWP is not a qualification for objectivity because of institutional bias. Tony Cliff used to say for similar reasons that the whole judiciary should be scrapped and that he looked forward to the day that a young, black, working class, lesbian presided over court cases. In the same spirit, they should have brought someone who was respected in the labour movement, acceptable to both parties, to conduct proceedings.


out of curiosity, are young black working class lesbians more likely to be good judges than young black working class straight men? or was this some sort of perviness on tc's part?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2013)

and why not disabled?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> In my branch it was very well behaved although a few years before I joined one of the members had allegedlly tried to rob a local AWL member at knife point


 
No allegations about one former member, around in the 70's, who went out and robbed a bank at gunpoint. Went on to take pot-shots at the police, as he tried to escape and ended up doing serious jail time. There was a TV dramatisation made of it, presented by film director, Michael Winner. Wonder if it ever made it onto YouTube? Interesting decade that.


----------



## cesare (Jan 9, 2013)

Above reference to AWL reminded me that they've stitched together some of this stuff here: http://www.workersliberty.org/story...p-oppositions-documents-and-leaderships-reply


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

audiotech said:


> No allegations about one former member, around in the 70's, who went out and robbed a bank at gunpoint. Went on to take pot-shots at the police, as he tried to escape and ended up doing serious jail time. There was a TV dramatisation made of it, presented by film director, Michael Winner. Wonder if it ever made it onto YouTube? Interesting decade that.


Are you on about Eddy Horner and Paul Sitwell?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 9, 2013)

Don't remember any specific names. The TV dramatisation involved just the one bloke, as I recall, whose character, as you would expect, was filmed attending a branch meeting calling for workers to be armed. How this was to be achieved at the time is anyone's guess. Ask the WRP maybe.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

I think you have to be (talking about them, not armed). Sitwell was an SWP member, they robbed the factory payroll after a pretty violent strike and  a copper was kiled. Eh pleaded guilty to the robbery and to murder  - _guilty and proud to be_ was his famous statement. PS got guilty on robbery and manslaughter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I would suspect that there was no standard of proof outlined and understood by all beforehand.


 
Standards of proof are a _bourgeois_ affectation, comrade. Surely you know this?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> A response from Scotland
> 
> http://www.2ndcouncilhouse.co.uk/blog/2013/01/06/misogynists-and-the-left/
> 
> Anyone know anything about:


 
Mentions rumours about Smith. As I said earlier in this thread, I don't think it's likely any of the Swappie-watchers on Urban haven't heard at least some of them. Obviously we shouldn't judge *anyone* purely on rumour, ut one would have thought that any meaningful DC investigation that was actually looking to establish "truth" would have looked into Smith's past conduct too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> In my branch it was very well behaved although a few years before I joined one of the members had allegedlly tried to rob a local AWL member at knife point


 
Isn't that still a Swappie initiation rite?

E2A:
Actually, that's *finding* an AWL member and then robbing them at knifepoint.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2013)




----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 9, 2013)

Im an ex swp member and Alex Callinicos unfriended  me on FB for disagreeing with his views on the riots. Am I in the right thread?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I would imagine there are not many people called Spiney in your neck of the woods


 
Although there are plenty of Normans, mostly the illegitimate sons of the famed Yorkshireman, sometime comedian and avid cocksman, Norman Collier, all (very egotistically, I might add!) named for their famous dad.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

It's not as if I'm hard to spot either


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think a clear political point can be made here about the dangers of assumptions of unique competence (by virtue of filling in a membership form!) and how that is fostered developed and utilised by vanguardist forms of organisation (no matter what open or participatory icing they put on their cake).


 
A *presumption* of unique competence is a necessary feature of *Vanguardism* _per se_, surely? Why else would there be an automatic assumption on the part of the upper heirarchy of such organisations that they're fit to lead the proletariat?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm not sure they would find many at Friebox


 
The more I think about it, the more Firebox strikes me as gross sexism and chauvinism, the name obviously being about the female generative organ (the "box") and the supposed "hotness" of females for sexual congress "the "fire").
I believe we should picket this sexist outlet, comrades!


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 9, 2013)

The film was an itv one, called wallpaper warrior


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The film was an itv one, called wallpaper warrior


Ah, so was Horner and Sitwell. Ta.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2013)

Oisin123 said:
			
		

> What was needed here was a process in which everyone concerned had confidence. The police cannot provide it, because they would be suspect - with good reason - of wanting to cause harm to an organisation whose members have often clashed with them on marches and over civil rights cases. But what the CC and the DC seem to have had a blind spot for is that being a longstanding member of the SWP is not a qualification for objectivity because of institutional bias. Tony Cliff used to say for similar reasons that the whole judiciary should be scrapped and that he looked forward to the day that a young, black, working class, lesbian presided over court cases. In the same spirit, they should have brought someone who was respected in the labour movement, acceptable to both parties, to conduct proceedings.



I think you've missed the point that anyone sufficiently competent to handle such a matter would want fuck all to do with the SWP.


----------



## Cornetto (Jan 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> and why not disabled?


 and why not unicyclists as long as they check their privallege


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

Athos said:
			
		

> I think you've missed the point that anyone sufficiently competent to handle such a matter would want fuck all to do with the SWP.



I reckon many people in the party could be,  this pathetic committee. No


----------



## kavenism (Jan 9, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the other point to make is that it would not have been worthwhile anybody other than 'Comrade Delta' challenging their expulsion in Disputes... for obvious reasons. though to my knowledge the other one accused of domestic abuse was guilty (though going through some kind of general melt-down not that it justifies anything in particular)


 

Comrade Perry was also involved in the expulsion of comradeJS (I'm not going to name him. If you've been around the SWP over the last three years you'll know who I mean) for his “activities” with another comrade. The expulsion (for only two years I might add) that was agreed to was in order to dissuade the women from going to the police. She had rather less confidence in the SWP’s internal processes. This is from the horse's mouth by the way and not hearsay. That man's conduct has always stunk of something unpleasant.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

No-one who has said don't go to the police and have an internal investigation has said what the result of a guilty verdict would be in terms of punishment. The most that has been said is that he would get expelled from the SWP, people in the SWP wouldn't speak to him and he would lose the funding to stay as a full time activist. Hardly punishment enough for being a rapist?

No-one who thinks it shouldn't be dealt with by the police has come back on the fact that if the SWP did find him guilty then the police would almost inevitably get involved anyway, and there is chance they will if they don't. This would then mean that such an investigation could mess up a criminal trial.

Lastly there is the fact that many rapists reoffend. As a group like the SWP has no power to stop this i.e. it can't send someone to prison, what do they suggest? How would they feel if a person went out and raped someone again and they hadn't done all they could to convince someone to go to the police? Is there an argument in some cases that the police should be told anyway, because a rapist could still pose a danger? With domestic abuse it is now the case that police will take action with domestic violence as soon as they know about, they don't have to be given permission. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Interesting about the 58% conviction rate for rape, I'd always believed the urban myth about it being 6%.


----------



## Cornetto (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think you have to be (talking about them, not armed). Sitwell was an SWP member, they robbed the factory payroll after a pretty violent strike and a copper was kiled. Eh pleaded guilty to the robbery and to murder - _guilty and proud to be_ was his famous statement. PS got guilty on robbery and manslaughter.


 


> BILL SPEED - SWP Dave


 

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/ITVProgs/1992/10/02/T01510001/?s=*


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

Although thinking about it more I can see where the 6% goes from, as that is the total figure. 12% of rapes that are reported end up in court, and 58% of those cases result in a guilty verdict. So that is about 7% of the total. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of rapes are never reported in the first place, so that would mean that less than 3.5% of rapes result in a conviction.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> No-one who has said don't go to the police and have an internal investigation has said what the result of a guilty verdict would be in terms of punishment. The most that has been said is that he would get expelled from the SWP, people in the SWP wouldn't speak to him and he would lose the funding to stay as a full time activist. Hardly punishment enough for being a rapist?
> 
> No-one who thinks it shouldn't be dealt with by the police has come back on the fact that if the SWP did find him guilty then the police would almost inevitably get involved anyway, and there is chance they will if they don't. This would then mean that such an investigation could mess up a criminal trial.
> 
> ...


 
It's not your judgement to make it's the victim's as to whether they go to the police. There are all sorts of issues why someone wouldn't. There's something else going on with your posts. Do you think a court-imposed sentence clears up sexual predation and rape? That's the real question that should be asked of you.


Also, there is no 58% conviction rate. That's a piece by someone who is a barrister bigging themselves up, attacking people who tell the truth about the criminal justice system. If you're lower class or lower migration status and you're a victim of someone white higher up - if you're a striker and have been sworn at and thumped by a strikebreaker - 9 times out of 10, justice will not come. Most studies have around 33% per cent _of those that come to trial_ as ending up with conviction.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

On the conviction rate I put another post to qualifty that.

I didn't say it was my judgement as to whether to go to the police. But it is more complicated that. What if by going to the police you can stop another rape taking place? What about domestic violence cases where people have intervened, can you say that is always wrong, as I don't think it is. The police are now obliged to act if they think there is domestic violence going on, and not just say "it's a domestic". Obviously there are huge flaws with the police and justice system, but what else is there in this society at the moment? Of course a court imposed sentence doesn't stop sexual predation and rape, but at least it takes rapists off the street, and if they do it again they will usually get a heavier sentence again. Surely better than withdrawing someones membership card.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

i don't think anyone has said 'it shouldn't go through the police', but it _didn't_ go through the police and that is just a fact


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

Well someone has posted above that Comrade Perry expelled someone to stop them from going to the police.

And as of yet we have no way of knowing how much support was given to try and persuade the person in question to go to the police. And no-one has said if there are any limits at all on what the SWP would investigate. Murder? Paedoephilia?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Do you think a court-imposed sentence clears up sexual predation and rape? That's the real question that should be asked of you.


 

Do you think a half baked “verdict” pronounced by a farcical quasi court run by Trots with the authority of an unripe banana clears it up?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

who in this thread has said that these things shouldn't go through the police? and what should you do if an allegation of this nature isn't being in some way dealt with externally by the law? if an accusation of paedophilia was made against a party member, and no external arbiting force was involved to legally deal with that issue and yet the accusation remained, i don't think the party would have any choice _not to_ conduct its own investigation. either that or, as has already been said, ignore the accusation completely


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I didn't say it was my judgement as to whether to go to the police. But it is more complicated that. What if by going to the police you can stop another rape taking place? What about domestic violence cases where people have intervened, can you say that is always wrong, as I don't think it is. The police are now obliged to act if they think there is domestic violence going on, and not just say "it's a domestic". Obviously there are huge flaws with the police and justice system, but what else is there in this society at the moment? Of course a court imposed sentence doesn't stop sexual predation and rape, but at least it takes rapists off the street, and if they do it again they will usually get a heavier sentence again. Surely better than withdrawing someones membership card.


 
You say it's not your judgement, and then proceed to give us your judgement that going to the police in this case will stop a rape taking place and that the case should have been taken to the police against the wishes of the person involved.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

The question for me is how much effort was actually made to persuade the woman in question to go to the police. In the case of a paedoephilia allegation there is no way the police would't investigate. Also no-one has said anything about the fact that while the victims views are paramount, there is another issue of stopping another rape from happening by going to the police.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> You say it's not your judgement, and then proceed to give us your judgement that going to the police in this case will stop a rape taking place and that the case should have been taken to the police against the wishes of the person involved.


 
I haven't said that at all. I'm saying that there isn't an absolute. I would go to the police if I thought it would stop a rape, even if a previous victim didn't want me to. What is the alternative, let someone be raped?

There is also the issue that by having an investigation a guilty verdict would almost certainly alert the police who would then take action. So what would you do, nothing?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Do you think a half baked “verdict” pronounced by a farcical quasi court run by Trots with the authority of an unripe banana clears it up?


 
Have you read any of my posts here?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

as has been shown by the stats, rape is an incredibly difficult crime for our court system to prosecute - i think there are a lot of rational reasons why the girl might not have wanted to undergo the stress involved in pursuing a criminal conviction, which have already been listed in detail. at the end of the day, she made a conscious decision not to do so - that much is accepted on all sides. simply encouraging her to go to the police regardless of context is a pretty vague position, even if we can generally accept that a police investigative unit would be a better assessor of the evidence, and a court a better arena for the issue to be dealt with. but at the end of the day, regardless of what we think might be better, it didn't happen. so what does the party do?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Well someone has posted above that Comrade Perry expelled someone to stop them from going to the police.
> 
> And as of yet we have no way of knowing how much support was given to try and persuade the person in question to go to the police. And no-one has said if there are any limits at all on what the SWP would investigate. Murder? Paedoephilia?


 
To clarify; someone was expelled as an attempt to appease another comrade who claimed to have been attacked from going to the police. 

And yeah that is the big question, where does the SWP draw the line as to what it can investigate. I’m all for internal investigations, my workplace has them, as do most. But their mandate and limitations are explicit. An HR department might investigate someone for harassment or sexist behavior or such like, but none would touch a rape claim. And they certainly wouldn’t pat themselves on the back for offering such a venerable alternative to the absolute corruption of the bourgeois court system.

Oh and another thing, the essence of justice is balance, getting expelled from the SWP and thrust back into reality really doesn’t seem to balance out being raped. Unless someone knows whether anything stronger was on the cards? Perhaps imprisonment in a cupboard at their Vauxhall HQ?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2013)

I am not sure anyone is saying that an investigation shouldn't have been carried out but it shouldn't have been done by mates of the accused with the alleged victim standing outside on the pavement


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I am not sure anyone is saying that an investigation shouldn't have been carried out but it shouldn't have been done by mates of the accused with the alleged victim standing outside on the pavement


 one stop shop appears to be arguing that


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> On the conviction rate I put another post to qualifty that.
> 
> I didn't say it was my judgement as to whether to go to the police. But it is more complicated that. What if by going to the police you can stop another rape taking place? What about domestic violence cases where people have intervened, can you say that is always wrong, as I don't think it is. The police are now obliged to act if they think there is domestic violence going on, and not just say "it's a domestic". Obviously there are huge flaws with the police and justice system, but what else is there in this society at the moment? Of course a court imposed sentence doesn't stop sexual predation and rape, but at least it takes rapists off the street, and if they do it again they will usually get a heavier sentence again. Surely better than withdrawing someones membership card.


 
I agree that there are genuine debates to be had over whether rapes should be charged even if the victims doesn't want to press charges. (I think it's probably right that it's up to the victim - I'd certainly not be in favour of any kind of law that said a victim has to testify if they didn't want to but I realize potential future victims could suffer as a result which is obviously also far from ideal).

I'm just not sure how useful it is to have that debate on this thread. British law is what it is and it's in that context that these events took place, and so it's a bit of a moot point really.

I agree with a lot of your more recent posts on this thread though. There are specific elements within this (questions re: sexual past, drinking; disucssing it in front of 500 people; her being left outside while the alleged attacker was allowed to remain inside to hear the debate etc) that I'm very very uncomfortable about to say the least but I'm not keen on saying much more right now because I don't really have any idea how it _should_ have been handled - all I can really say right now is 'not like this.'


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

DU you still haven't commented on the fact that a guilty verdict by the SWP would almost certainly have resulted in a police investigation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> DU you still haven't commented on the fact that a guilty verdict by the SWP would almost certainly have resulted in a police investigation.


you do know that 'something hypothetical might have almost certainly resulted in something else' is not a fact, don't you?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> The question for me is how much effort was actually made to persuade the woman in question to go to the police. In the case of a paedoephilia allegation there is no way the police would't investigate. Also no-one has said anything about the fact that while the victims views are paramount, there is another issue of _stopping another rape from happening by going to the police_.


 
Farcical. You're convinced of your alternative version of events. Going to the police doesn't stop another rape from happening, unless you want low probability to mean certainty. People's vigilance and self-defence about Delta after the first allegations stop it as much as "the police" do.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

so what? that's alright isn't it (unless the victim still refused to prosecute)? the point is that the SWP wouldn't be able to continue functioning properly with an alleged rapist in their midst, and would need to deal with that problem themselves or _de facto_ basically tell the alleged victim to just get on with it or leave

edit: at one stop shop


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> one stop shop appears to be arguing that


 
I haven't said that. I'm saying there are complicated issues, such as preventing future attacks, which can't be ignored.

I'm not at all convinced that the SWP tried to persuade the woman in question to go to the police, while at the same time getting support from an organisation like Rape Crisis. The fact that the investigation was totally abysmal for the reasons Spiney Norman has outlined makes it far worse again.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you do know that 'something hypothetical might have almost certainly resulted in something else' is not a fact, don't you?


 
Which is why I used the word almost.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> The fact that the investigation was totally abysmal for the reasons Spiney Norman has outlined makes it far worse again.


you're very keen on your 'facts' aren't you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Which is why I used the word almost.


but it's not a fucking fact you thick twat.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Farcical. You're convinced of your alternative version of events. Going to the police doesn't stop another rape from happening, unless you want low probability to mean certainty. People's vigilance and self-defence about Delta after the first allegations stop it as much as "the police" do.


 
I'd say this is farcial. What are the SWP gonna do, send out patrols to follow him round? Of course going to the police won't stop another rape from happening, but it's got a lot more chance than withdrawing a membership card.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> DU you still haven't commented on the fact that a guilty verdict by the SWP would almost certainly have resulted in a police investigation.


 
I think this is a fair question. There's loads of contributions on this thread that rely on hypotheticals and they're not being dismissed.

Do we know what the police would do in that situation though? _Can _they investigate a rape if the alleged victim doesn't want to press charges? (honest question, I have no idea)

Edit: My personal view is that, even if this was the case, they had no choice but to investigate for fairly obvious reasons.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

I was wondering this. The police can investigate domestic violence even if the victim doesn't want them to, so it would seem bizarre if they couldn't with rape.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

i don't think they would ever waste the resources even if they're technically able to by the law, they're conviction oriented


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I'd say this is farcial. What are the SWP gonna do, send out patrols to follow him round? Of course going to the police won't stop another rape from happening, but it's got a lot more chance than withdrawing a membership card.


 
im not sure about that. statistics show that people are most likely to be raped by somebody they know. in tightly knit left wing organisations it would be easy for a would be rapist to gain access to victims. if he is shunned from that organisation that is gonna mean that the things which meant he could easily rape people (being trusted by the party, knowing that certain "comrades" would have his back if anything did go on, etc) would not be present any more

of course it's not going to stop him raping somebody outside the party, tho, and this farcical investigation has done a lot more harm than good


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

In this case they probably would, if nothing else because the state would use it to discredit the left.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I'd say this is farcial. What are the SWP gonna do, send out patrols to follow him round? Of course going to the police won't stop another rape from happening, but it's got a lot more chance than withdrawing a membership card.


 
that's not the point, obviously the SWP can't dole out a punishment based on his crime - all they can do is assess whether or not he is suitable for membership of the organisation. it would be unforgivably irresponsible for them not to do that

ETA

and _that_ is the purpose of the investigation, so that the SWP can continue to function - not that it might 'punish' Comrade Delta. such an investigation is actually just logistically necessary in any organisation which both takes such allegations seriously and wishes to be able to move on from them


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I agree that there are genuine debates to be had over whether rapes should be charged even if the victims doesn't want to press charges. (I think it's probably right that it's up to the victim - I'd certainly not be in favour of any kind of law that said a victim has to testify if they didn't want to but I realize potential future victims could suffer as a result which is obviously also far from ideal).


 
This is being argued in the context of some pure anti-rape system in the CPS. Nearly all the evidence shows it doesn't work like that. If the CPS can get a conviction on a 'lesser' charge it will often go for pressing those charges.


Even if you look at its official guidelines 

"The planning of an offence indicates a higher level of culpability than an opportunistic or impulsive offence" means that proving a lower offensive act is planned is more worthwhile than in going for a greater but impulsive act.


The mitigating factors mentioned 
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s3_sexual_assault/

"Where the victim is aged 16 or over
Victim engaged in consensual sexual activity with the offender on the same occasion and immediately before the offence"
also change the CPS approach.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> im not sure about that. statistics show that people are most likely to be raped by somebody they know. in tightly knit left wing organisations it would be easy for a would be rapist to gain access to victims. if he is shunned from that organisation that is gonna mean that the things which meant he could easily rape people (being trusted by the party, knowing that certain "comrades" would have his back if anything did go on, etc) would not be present any more
> 
> of course it's not going to stop him raping somebody outside the party, tho, and this farcical investigation has done a lot more harm than good


 
I think you have a point. But it's not hard for people to manipulate people in other situations outside of the SWP.

I have probably gone off on a few tangents I just can't get over the fact that this was all discussed in front of 500 people with the woman standing outside. It's all really sad on a certain level.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I'd say this is farcial. What are the SWP gonna do, send out patrols to follow him round? Of course going to the police won't stop another rape from happening, but it's got a lot more chance than withdrawing a membership card.


 

As I said it’s about balance, and any outcome of the internal investigation would surely have been seen by many inside and most outside the party as inadequate. In addition there is the very justifiable accusation that the SWP would have been seen equivocating on dealing with rapists. How could they take a stand on the issue in any future struggles if it were known that the best they thought possible under any circumstances was to expel a known rapist from their sect leaving them free to attack others; that they thought the possibility of removing this person from the streets for a while, no matter how inadequate the court system is, simply wasn’t worth considering.

I think it can reasonably be inferred from the transcript that they were happy for their investigation to substitute for a police investigation. If not, why all the back slapping for having a disputes commission in place of “bourgeois justice”.  No legitimacy, no credibility. A Toy Town revolutionary tribunal exhibiting absolute self interest and ignoring all other considerations. If the poor woman involved thought this was preferable to going to the Police then I feel doubly sorry for her.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This is being argued in the context of some pure anti-rape system in the CPS. Nearly all the evidence shows it doesn't work like that. If the CPS can get a conviction on a 'lesser' charge it will often go for pressing those charges.
> 
> 
> Even if you look at its official guidelines
> ...


 
I'm not making any of the assumptions you're projecting onto me though. If the case is investigated, even allowing for all the problems there are with the criminal justice system when applied to cases of rape, there is a chance that the alleged rapist would be locked up. He wouldn't be able to rape any women during his time inside.

As I implied, on balance I think the fact that rapes are not investigated unless the victim wants to press charges is probably for the best - certainly one of the less problematic aspects of British law when it comes to sex crimes. But that doesn't mean it's perfect - there will always be a chance that not prosecuting offers the rapist a chance to reoffend that he wouldn't have had if it had been investigated. I don't think there is a perfect solution to this - sometimes there are no ideal solutions. But just because it's the best solution we have available that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out what its flaws are does it?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I'd say this is farcial. What are the SWP gonna do, send out patrols to follow him round? Of course going to the police won't stop another rape from happening, but it's got a lot more chance than withdrawing a membership card.


 
It's up to the SWP what they do, but SWP contact - I'd have thought all female SWP contact with him would have been blocked off during his suspension.

Again "the police", what do you think "the police" do that stops rapes? I suppose Op. Motorman helped restored the rule of law and stopped rapes?

Many rape suspects are bailed. In fact immigration suspects are bailed less than rape suspects, don't have the link but was in a Liberty paper report.

Why are organised, disciplined leftists unable to do things such as hunt for witnesses over Delta and sort out procedures - up to them not up to us to decide - against Delta at the same time?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> In this case they probably would, if nothing else because the state would use it to discredit the left.


 
_Could_ they though? Is it legally possible? I was under the impression that rape cases can only be investigated at the say so of the alleged victim. I may be completely wrong though, I'm certainly no expert.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

i couldn't see how they could successfully convict someone unless the victim agreed to speak out in court


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> As I implied, on balance I think the fact that rapes are not investigated unless the victim wants to press charges is probably for the best - certainly one of the less problematic aspects of British law when it comes to sex crimes. _But that doesn't mean it's perfect - there will always be a chance that not prosecuting offers the rapist a chance to reoffend that he wouldn't have had if it had been investigated._ I don't think there is a perfect solution to this - sometimes there are no ideal solutions. But just because it's the best solution we have available that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out what its flaws are does it?


 
But because as you say we live in the society we do, bringing a charge of rape can mean the victim is deported or investigated for something else, and nothing happens to the rapist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Op. Motorman


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>




Restablishing "the police" in parts of Belfast.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman I don't know. It would just seem a bit bizarre if the police could investigate domestic violence with the say so of the victim but not rape. Also one form of domestic violence is rape, so it would presumably get a bit blurred if there are differences.

I have some sympathy with what sihhi is saying, but the fact is that the left can't do forensics, doesn't have prisons, and doesn't have the same level of resources to investigate. I think kavenism's post above is very good.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i couldn't see how they could successfully convict someone unless the victim agreed to speak out in court


 
If the victim is over 16, I think what you say is wholly accurate.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But because as you say we live in the society we do, bringing a charge of rape can mean the victim is deported or investigated for something else, and nothing happens to the rapist.


Sorry, not sure what your point is here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Restablishing "the police" in parts of Belfast.


yes, i know what it was (and it was in derry too): i don't really believe that there was anything to do with rapes in it.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

By the way sihhi I don't have any time for the police or the justice system in this country (or any country I can think of). But that is what is in place, and has to be used at times. Their record on rape is appalling. But I would still rather see a rapist banged up than on the streets, as that is the only real option. The working class in the UK is atomised and our organisations weak. Hopefully that will change, but in the meantime I can't see what other option there is. I would feel deeply uncomfortable with my union branch investigating a rape case, and an AGM discussing it given the current situation. And I would feel the same if I was in a left organisation.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Sorry, not sure what your point is here.


 
The point is there might be a raft of reasons why statements are not given to the police about sexual violence. It's not for us to judge unlike the thrust of OSS's approach: 'police have forensics, they're better'.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> By the way sihhi I don't have any time for the police or the justice system in this country (or any country I can think of). But that is what is in place, and has to be used *at times*. Their record on rape is appalling. But I would still rather see a rapist banged up than on the streets, as that is the only real option. The working class in the UK is atomised and our organisations weak. Hopefully that will change, but in the meantime I can't see what other option there is. I would feel deeply uncomfortable with my union branch investigating a rape case, and an AGM discussing it given the current situation. And I would feel the same if I was in a left organisation.


 
Finally we get to it "at times" and neither me, you nor anyone else on this thread can judge in this instance.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The point is there might be a raft of reasons why statements are not given to the police about sexual violence. It's not for us to judge unlike the thrust of OSS's approach: 'police have forensics, they're better'.


 
I think you are totally simplifying and caricaturing what I'm saying though.

But you are right that in such circumstances it might well make it impossible.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, i know what it was (and it was in derry too): i don't really believe that there was anything to do with rapes in it.


 
It's the police being allowed back into those areas the whole "We don’t intend to let part of the United Kingdom default from the rule of law" angle


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Finally we get to it "at times" and neither me, you nor anyone else on this thread can judge in this instance.


 
In a sense you are right. But basically I don't trust the SWP to have handled this investigation, or to have done right by the woman, or to have encouraged her to go to the police if it was appropriate (which in the majority of cases I would think could be the best option, but as you say there are exceptions). Not because they are twisted people but because the organisation has become little better than a semi-cult.

Reading about Operation Motorman on Wikipedia now.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The point is there might be a raft of reasons why statements are not given to the police about sexual violence. It's not for us to judge unlike the thrust of OSS's approach: 'police have forensics, they're better'.


 
Oh right, I agree then. All I'm saying is that having the police investigate a rape certainly _could_ prevent future rapes from happening. It's not a subject I've spent much time thinking about really but I think it's best that the victim gets the final say. But it's still troubling for me that this _could_ mean an attacker who would otherwise be in jail is able to rape again. But that's less troubling than the idea of victims being forced to testify against their will.

What I'm struggling to say is that it's the least flawed of the possible systems I can think of but I still find the flaws troubling.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> In a sense you are right. But basically I don't trust the SWP to have handled this investigation, or to have done right by the woman, or to have encouraged her to go to the police if it was appropriate (which in the majority of cases I would think could be the best option, but as you say there are exceptions). Not because they are twisted people but because the organisation has become little better than a semi-cult.
> 
> Reading about Operation Motorman on Wikipedia now.


 
It's OK you don't have to read about it, that was more in silly anger, for I while I think I got the wrong end of what you were saying, and saying it was police or bust, which you're not.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

When I was a lot younger one of my best mates in the party was expelled from the SWP over a charge of rape. I know for a fact that the experienced comrades who sat in judgement at that time made it their business to make sure that the woman involved knew all her legal options, including going to the police before during and after the party's ruling on her claim. It was her choice and her's alone whether to go to the police and she didn't, largely because she'd had sex with the guy before the rape and wasn't prepared to subject herself to the inevitable police nastiness on that front. She couldnt have had more support from the party. He was told in no uncertain terms never to go near her again, never to go near anyone in the party again. In fact I never saw him again or even spoke to him cause he felt so isolated he went back home to the country he was from. if the woman had gone to the police she'd have been totally within her rights and maybe she should have for the benefit of other women, I don't know, that's a huge dilemma. What I do know is that the party handled it exactly as it should have been. And at least some of the people involved were involved in judging this dispute. Unless they've undergone some massive transformation in the intervening years I'm inclined to believe they approached this case in the same spirit.

Now the huge difference here people say is the fact the bloke is a cc member and not just any cc member. But even allowing for that I'm totally convinced that if the likes of Pat and Candy thought he was guilty of rape they would have said so. yes they know him well, value him etc. But their whole reason for being the committed lifelong socialist revolutionaries they are would be totally undone if they had knowingly let this one slide. I just can't see that happening. But equally what Pat said about the woman not being taken seriously enough initially or people in positions of power seeing her as a problem with some agenda against the party because of her accusations now that is something that anyone in the SWP should be worried about. So is the fact that Pat, who has heard the facts when we haven't, believed the balance of probability was that she had been harassed by the guy concerned. If I was still in the party that would keep me awake at night.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

I'm glad I have read it, very interesting.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

BB your first paragraph is very good and moving. The dilemma of whether a woman should go to the police to protect other women, is often a heartbreaking and difficult one. I know from people I know who are very close to me. The trauma means some women can't, and then the terrible thing is they then feel guilt for not doing so. But I have to say if I could potentially prevent a rapist by going to the police, I think I may do it even if a woman didn't want me to. But that is an extremely hard moral dilemma, and I don't know what I'd do for sure.

What you say about the panel members may be true but it doesn't take away from the point that people who knew him should not have been on a panel, it is totally wrong. And there is something deeply wrong about 500 people discussing it while the alleged rape victim stands outside, and while people inside clap different points of view, it's disturbing. I also agree about the points you make about Pat (but obviously don't know him).


----------



## sihhi (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Now the huge difference here people say is the fact the bloke is a cc member and not just any cc member. But even _allowing for that_ I'm totally convinced that if the likes of Pat and Candy thought he was guilty of rape they would have said so. yes they know him well, value him etc. But their whole reason for being the committed lifelong socialist revolutionaries they are would be totally undone if they had knowingly let this one slide. I just can't see that happening. But equally what Pat said about the woman not being taken seriously enough initially or people in positions of power seeing her as a problem with some agenda against the party because of her accusations now that is something that anyone in the SWP should be worried about. So is the fact that Pat, who has heard the facts when we haven't, believed the balance of probability was that she had been harassed by the guy concerned. If I was still in the party that would keep me awake at night.


 
You do agree that they shouldn't be needing to "allow for that".


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

On a side note. One of my FB friends who is in one of the factions has just deactivated his FB account, having previously deleted all posts that referred to the conference. Hope that's not something he was forced to do.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> BB your first paragraph is very good and moving. The dilemma of whether a woman should go to the police to protect other women, is often a heartbreaking and difficult one. I know from people I know who are very close to me. The trauma means some women can't, and then the terrible thing is they then feel guilt for not doing so. But I have to say if I could potentially prevent a rapist by going to the police, I think I may do it even if a woman didn't want me to. But that is an extremely hard moral dilemma, and I don't know what I'd do for sure.
> 
> What you say about the panel members may be true but it doesn't take away from the point that people who knew him should not have been on a panel, it is totally wrong. And there is something deeply wrong about 500 people discussing it while the alleged rape victim stands outside, and while people inside clap different points of view, it's disturbing. I also agree about the points you make about Pat (but obviously don't know him).


Surely it's ultimately her decision not yours?

The debate wasn't about the guilt or otherwise of the guy, it was about the process followed by the DC and whether the party's consitution had been followed correctly. party delegates had a right to vote on that, harsh as it may sound unless W was a delegate she had no right to attend.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

It's all been very weird round here. People who are usually quite cynical about the leadership talking like party hacks. I suspect a message of some kind has been sent out. But surely they wouldn't get away with telling people to delete their facebook accounts and stuff? If I was told to do that they'd soon be having my membership card surgically removed from a very sensitive part of their anatomy.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> You do agree that they shouldn't be needing to "allow for that".


The only way to do that would be to have some body outside the SWP decide if a party member was guilty of behaviour that would exclude him from membership. There is a very compelling argument to me at least which says only a party body should decide that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> harsh as it may sound unless W was a delegate she had no right to attend.


 
It does sound harsh yes, very harsh. Under normal circumstances sure but this was a bit out of the ordinary to say the least. And even with that being the case I think it would have come across a bit better if the accused wasn't in the room either.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's all been very weird round here. People who are usually quite cynical about the leadership talking like party hacks. I suspect a message of some kind has been sent out. But surely they wouldn't get away with telling people to delete their facebook accounts and stuff? If I was told to do that they'd soon be having my membership card surgically removed from a very sensitive part of their anatomy.


You think? not so sure. Back in the early days of the Internet and the SWP having a relationship a group,of us were told to stop contributing to an online group. me and my mates did within hours. Argued our case at the next branch meeting but did it nonetheless. never underestimate the power of democratic centralism on the mind of a trotskyist and the constant invoking of the Paul Levi case. You can be right but if you're against the party you're still wrong! There was a time Imwould have defended that position all night long!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The only way to do that would be to have some body outside the SWP decide if a party member was guilty of behaviour that would exclude him from membership. There is a very compelling argument to me at least which says only a party body should decide that.


No, it says that there is an argument for an external body or external embers to be involved in the investigation process at least. Stop imagining that the self-selected 7 man DC body of the SWP is a proletarian court of honour. It's not and it spits blood on such past bodies that have come out of periods of struggle to suggest that is it. Which is precisely what this ridiculous attempt at polarisation (police or this, liberals or revolutionaries) rests on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You think? not so sure. Back in the early days of the Internet and the SWP having a relationship a group,of us were told to stop contributing to an online group. me and my mates did within hours. Argued our case at the next branch meeting but did it nonetheless. never underestimate the power of democratic centralism on the mind of a trotskyist and the constant invoking of the Paul Levi case. You can be right but if you're against the party you're still wrong! There was a time Imwould have defended that position all night long!


An example for every case eh comrade


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It does sound harsh yes, very harsh. Under normal circumstances sure but this was a bit out of the ordinary to say the least. And even with that being the case I think it would have come across a bit better if the accused wasn't in the room either.


He's either disciplined or he's not. if not then as long as he's an accredited delegate he has to be in the room. The constitution is enforced or it's not worth having.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You think? not so sure. Back in the early days of the Internet and the SWP having a relationship a group,of us were told to stop contributing to an online group. me and my mates did within hours. Argued our case at the next branch meeting but did it nonetheless. never underestimate the power of democratic centralism on the mind of a trotskyist and the constant invoking of the Paul Levi case. You can be right but if you're against the party you're still wrong! There was a time Imwould have defended that position all night long!


 
I don't think I'd even be able to take them seriously if someone high up in the SP told me to do that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He's either disciplined or he's not. if not then as long as he's an accredited delegate he has to be in the room. The constitution is enforced or it's not worth having.


 
Why does he have to be in the room? Surely he didn't get a vote on this?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> An example for every case eh comrade


I know sorry I do seem to have a habit of that, self indulgent maybe but the same stuff does seem to happen again and again and previous SWP experiences might have some relevance.

But genuinely sorry if I sound like the uncle who starts every sentence with "when I was in the war..." :-(


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, it says that there is an argument for an external body or external embers to be involved in the investigation process at least. Stop imagining that the self-selected 7 man DC body of the SWP is a proletarian court of honour. It's not and it spits blood on such past bodies that have come out of periods of struggle to suggest that is it. Which is precisely what this ridiculous attempt at polarisation (police or this, liberals or revolutionaries) rests on.


For what it's worth when I said frightened liberals I didn't include you butchers, has been clear from your comments so far that your position is more nuanced than that. And I can see the argument for an external, independent group of people being involved. I honestly can. But I'm not sure it would possible in practice to find truely independent people.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

There's no such thing as truly independent people. But there are people who are more independent than 'Comrade Delta's' mates.

Got to admit I'd not really paid any attention to this before now so can anyone explain why it's taken this long? Did it not get reported or was the some botched attempt at a cover-up or something?


----------



## Trendy Trot (Jan 9, 2013)

I'm afraid the SWP have gone through a massive transformation and that explains why they approached a rape complaint by a woman comrade as if it was a put up job to try to discredit a CC member.

They are so riven by factionalism that they did everything they could to dissuade her from taking the complaint forward when she first made it 3 years ago. The CC were involved in the whole Counterfire/Left platform debate and they couldnt afford for their side to be weakened by allegations of sexual assault. 

If the allegations had been against any of the males who subsequently left the CC after that, the cynic in me believes that they would have been dealt with much more severly than  Comrade Delta appears to have been. (as indeed they should have been if there was evidence of abuse)


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I was wondering this. The police can investigate domestic violence even if the victim doesn't want them to, so it would seem bizarre if they couldn't with rape.


 
How could they possibly investigate a rape without the victim's evidence regarding a lack of consent?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

Thanks TT - if that's true (no offence but given that this is your first post I think some skepticism is in order) I think that's where the focus should be - had it been dealt with back then this sorry episode (which does nobody any good - anyone who thinks this will get the SWP out of the way and allow some kind of left rebirth is a fuckwit) might have been avoided. It put them in an impossible situation.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

Athos said:


> How could they possibly investigate a rape without the victims evidence regarding a lack of consent?


 
A very good point and one that ought to have been obvious


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

Who are the fuckwits norm?


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 9, 2013)

What will be the consequences of all this? 

I am barely politically active at all these days, but when I bump into the acquaintances I have who are members of the SWP I'm sure I'll be wanting to know how they can justify being in a party that behaves so disgracefully. I imagine that as this transcript flies around the left and beyond, life will become quite uncomfortable for many. But then I guess you need a thick skin to be a member in the first place. So, mass defections (with or without a split) or a resolute, defensive posture from most?


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> When I was a lot younger one of my best mates in the party was expelled from the SWP over a charge of rape. I know for a fact that the experienced comrades who sat in judgement at that time made it their business to make sure that the woman involved knew all her legal options, including going to the police before during and after the party's ruling on her claim. It was her choice and her's alone whether to go to the police and she didn't, largely because she'd had sex with the guy before the rape and wasn't prepared to subject herself to the inevitable police nastiness on that front. She couldnt have had more support from the party. He was told in no uncertain terms never to go near her again, never to go near anyone in the party again. In fact I never saw him again or even spoke to him cause he felt so isolated he went back home to the country he was from. if the woman had gone to the police she'd have been totally within her rights and maybe she should have for the benefit of other women, I don't know, that's a huge dilemma. What I do know is that the party handled it exactly as it should have been. And at least some of the people involved were involved in judging this dispute. Unless they've undergone some massive transformation in the intervening years I'm inclined to believe they approached this case in the same spirit.
> 
> Now the huge difference here people say is the fact the bloke is a cc member and not just any cc member. But even allowing for that I'm totally convinced that if the likes of Pat and Candy thought he was guilty of rape they would have said so. yes they know him well, value him etc. But their whole reason for being the committed lifelong socialist revolutionaries they are would be totally undone if they had knowingly let this one slide. I just can't see that happening. But equally what Pat said about the woman not being taken seriously enough initially or people in positions of power seeing her as a problem with some agenda against the party because of her accusations now that is something that anyone in the SWP should be worried about. So is the fact that Pat, who has heard the facts when we haven't, believed the balance of probability was that she had been harassed by the guy concerned. If I was still in the party that would keep me awake at night.


 
To some extent, you're missing the point. I don't know whether or not Pat or Candy would have let things slide intentionally. But, even if it wasn't intentional, the fact that they were friends with the accused meant that they could not judge him on the evidence alone. Plus there's the issue of apparent bias, and justice not being seen to have been done.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Who are the fuckwits norm?


 
Anybody who thinks this is somehow a good thing for the left in general - don't know if there's any of them on this thread but I've met people irl who're rubbing their hands together over this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Anybody who thinks this is somehow a good thing for the left in general - don't know if there's any of them on this thread but I've met people irl who're rubbing their hands together over this.


Well, if you spot any on this thread, be sure to point them out.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

Err.. ok.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

They do exist. Don't think most of the folk on this thread are among them. The likes of Newman certainly is. In general this sorry mess is a gift to rightward moving types who regard any far left activity as cult like.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

Athos said:


> To some extent, you're missing the point. I don't know whether or not Pat or Candy would have let things slide intentionally. But, even if it wasn't intentional, the fact that they were friends with the accused meant that they could not judge him on the evidence alone. Plus there's the issue of apparent bias, and justice not being seen to have been done.


 
Another good point - I don't see how it could be possible _not_ to be biased if you're asked it pass judgement on a long-term friend a colleague. Doesn't matter how fair you're trying to be or how principled you might be it's always going to influence your decision.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

One thing about the Counterfire lot. They are remaining totally silent on this, to their credit. I hadn't been following their split away closely enough at the time to know that this was a subtext as others have suggested. But if it was they've never made hay on it. About six months ago I approached Rees to ask why if an old soak like me was getting bored of life in the Labour party should I consider joining his lot vs going back to the SWP. he made some general political points about the party having become schloretic (sp?) but even though he knew I had strong feelings of loyalty to certain people he had broken with he never once even hinted at any of this. With hindsight he gets extra brownie points.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Another good point - I don't see how it could be possible _not_ to be biased if you're asked it pass judgement on a long-term friend a colleague. Doesn't matter how fair you're trying to be or how principled you might be it's always going to influence your decision.


Someone in the transcript gives an example where they had done precisely that in another case despite the cost to them personally and their branch politically. Sorry cant remember who it was exactly. But it rang true, these people will drop you in a moment if they think you have betrayed what is quite a rigid moral code. Anyone who has ever had swpers who were their close friends struggle to treat them as anything but pariahs after they have only had the temerity to leave the org will vouch for that. How much more quickly will they cast aside feelings of a personal nature if they are shown evidence that you've done something as heinous as rape?!


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

Athos said:


> How could they possibly investigate a rape without the victim's evidence regarding a lack of consent?


 
I imagine with great difficulty. But there could be CCTV or witnesses that could maybe make it possible in certain situations.

As for BBs comments about whether it is entirely the victims choice to report a rapist, I don't know if I agree with that 100%. If I thought I could stop a rape by reporting someone, I might do it even if a previous victim didn't want me to. It would be a very difficult situation to be in.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 9, 2013)

Just spent some time in the pub with some people from the SWP. Not got much to add to the thread as most of the conversation was just going over the same ground. The table

One interesting thing I have learnt is that the the 4 people who were expelled are still fighting against their expulsion as their cases were never referred to the disputes committee it was the CC which took the decision to expelling them. So I was wrong earlier in the thread when I said even the SWP CC wouldn't try that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Someone in the transcript gives an example where they had done precisely that in another case despite the cost to them personally and their branch politically. Sorry cant remember who it was exactly. But it rang true, these people will drop you in a moment if they think you have betrayed what is quite a rigid moral code. Anyone who has ever had swpers who were their close friends struggle to treat them as anything but pariahs after they have only had the temerity to leave the org will vouch for that. How much more quickly will they cast aside feelings of a personal nature if they are shown evidence that you've done something as heinous as rape?!


 
Sorry but I don't buy it. The bias comes in when you're working out whether they've actually betrayed the moral code in the first place. If that decision is made for you by the CC or whoever as it is for the 'footsoldiers' as they call them then yeah, I can see that being the case. But not here.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

'explosion'

Not even the cc can arrange that surely


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Someone in the transcript gives an example where they had done precisely that in another case despite the cost to them personally and their branch politically. Sorry cant remember who it was exactly. But it rang true, these people will drop you in a moment if they think you have betrayed what is quite a rigid moral code. Anyone who has ever had swpers who were their close friends struggle to treat them as anything but pariahs after they have only had the temerity to leave the org will vouch for that. How much more quickly will they cast aside feelings of a personal nature if they are shown evidence that you've done something as heinous as rape?!


 
But the point is if they weren't sure a long friendship might well sway them towards giving the benefit of the doubt. I think you have too much faith in them not doing that as if being in the SWP gives you super powers. Anyone would be affected by this.

As you said yourself the bloke called Pat obviously had severe doubts that his behaviour was not good. That in itself should probably have made the others think that expelling him was probably the best option.


----------



## Trendy Trot (Jan 9, 2013)

No offence taken SpineyNorman, I could just be an anti -SWP troll who delights in makin things up about them and watching their members squirm. I'm not though, I'm a saddened ex SWP member who cannot believe a group I gave a substantial part of my youth to help build has degenerated into this state. An earlier post resonated with me from someone saying that when they were around the SWP years ago that allegations of sexual assault (not that there were that many I hasten to add) were treated with much more humanity and nobody ever assumed the woman was making a malicious complaint.

Fast forward 15 years and according to the verbatim conference report, even Pat Stack has been accused of being "out to 
get Comrade Delta" ! The complainants supporters were also harassed in their district. That is not the Party I knew, and I am sure I am not the only person who feels that way. The treatment of both X and W by the SWP was absolutely shameful.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

@ one stop shop

not really in and of itself. Pat shouldn't have been involved in the investigation tbh, along with the rest.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I imagine with great difficulty. But there could be CCTV or witnesses that could maybe make it possible in certain situations.


 
I think that would be a vanishingly small number of cases.  In fact, I'd be amazed if you could point to a single case of a successful prosecution where the victim was alive but did not give evidence regarding a lack of consent.  Especially in a cse such as this where there's no CCTV or forensics etc.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Someone in the transcript gives an example where they had done precisely that in another case despite the cost to them personally and their branch politically. Sorry cant remember who it was exactly. But it rang true, these people will drop you in a moment if they think you have betrayed what is quite a rigid moral code. Anyone who has ever had swpers who were their close friends struggle to treat them as anything but pariahs after they have only had the temerity to leave the org will vouch for that. How much more quickly will they cast aside feelings of a personal nature if they are shown evidence that you've done something as heinous as rape?!


 
It's not a question of whether they would boot out a friend if they though he'd raped someone, but rather that their friendship could prevent them from reaching the conclusion that he had done so, because, subconsciously they view the evidence through the prism of their positive experience of him.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

Athos said:


> I think that would be a vanishingly small number of cases. In fact, I'd be amazed if you could point to a single case of a successful prosecution where the victim was alive but did not give evidence regarding a lack of consent. Especially in a cse such as this where there's no CCTV or forensics etc.


 
I agree it is probably extremely unlikely but maybe not impossible. I actually think in this case though that if the SWP had found that they thought he did it, then the police would intervence because they would want to get the far left and would find some way to do it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2013)

Most of what BB is saying on this thread is sorely mistaken shit frankly - and this sums it up for me -

"Comrade Delta" "W".


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 9, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> @ one stop shop
> 
> not really in and of itself. Pat shouldn't have been involved in the investigation tbh, along with the rest.


 
I agree but the fact that even a mate of Comrade Delta thought he had done something wrong must sound alarms.

In must be an extremely strange experience being in the SWP at the moment. Anyone with any humanity must have been extremely distressed by a potential rape victim standing outside the conference as they discussed the case.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I agree it is probably extremely unlikely but maybe not impossible. I actually think in this case though that if the SWP had found that they thought he did it, then the police would intervence because they would want to get the far left and would find some way to do it.


 
How could they intervene?  What evidence could they gather in this case?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's the police being allowed back into those areas the whole "We don’t intend to let part of the United Kingdom default from the rule of law" angle


and did it work? did people in the bogside and the short strand suddenly see the error of their ways and accept the legitimacy of the ruc?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Most of what BB is saying on this thread is sorely mistaken shit frankly - and this sums it up for me -
> 
> "Comrade Delta" "W".


I _think_ that was Newman's crap attempt at getting rid of names in the transcript that he was sent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> In must be an extremely strange experience being in the SWP at the moment.


it has always been an extremely strange experience being in the swp, from what i'm told.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I _think_ that was Newman's crap attempt at getting rid of names in the transcript that he was sent.


 
I think it was mentioned by the speakers at the beginnning, I think it was their cack handed "confidentiality".

He was "anonymising" lol  the various speakers.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> But the point is if they weren't sure a long friendship might well sway them towards giving the benefit of the doubt. I think you have too much faith in them not doing that as if being in the SWP gives you super powers. Anyone would be affected by this.


You could well be right. And of course the initial reaction will be tainted by personal feelings. I know I laughed out loud when I read this guy had been accused of this shit. Just didn't compute with what I'd seen of him up close admittedly many years ago. But having read it all now I think there probably is a case to answer on the sexual harassment front. And I wouldn't underestimate the injured feelings of a Leninist who thinks a mate has let down the side. There's a reason Lenin always quoted Cromwell and Robespierre as examples of revolutionary morality. There is a certain puritanical streak in Leninism and a willingness to hear the worst about your closest comrades, part of the reason they're such factional, civil war prone buggers. And trots are worse in that respect.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You could well be right. And of course the initial reaction will be tainted by personal feelings. I know I laughed out loud when I read this guy had been accused of this shit. Just didn't compute with what I'd seen of him up close admittedly many years ago. But having read it all now I think there probably is a case to answer on the sexual harassment front. And I wouldn't underestimate the injured feelings of a Leninist who thinks a mate has let down the side. There's a reason Lenin always quoted Cromwell and Robespierre as examples of revolutionary morality. There is a certain puritanical streak in Leninism and a willingness to hear the worst about your closest comrades, part of the reason they're such factional, civil war prone buggers. And trots are worse in that respect.


 
But the focus shouldn't be on whether on not he let the side down.  This shouldn't be about the party; it should be about whether or not he raped her.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It does sound harsh yes, very harsh. Under normal circumstances sure but this was a bit out of the ordinary to say the least. And even with that being the case I think it would have come across a bit better if the accused wasn't in the room either.


The accused was not present at the conference.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

Athos said:


> But the focus shouldn't be on whether on not he let the side down. This shouldn't be about the party; it should be about whether or not he raped her.


That was. Apparently leading SWP members are less likely to have a background empathy, sympathy or be effected by the usual matrix of affectional or other networks of power relating to their long term personal mate, so having 7 mates of his is actually - if you look at it right - a sign of their critical integrity. Anything else, a failing.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 9, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> as has been shown by the stats, rape is an incredibly difficult crime for our court system to prosecute - i think there are a lot of rational reasons why the girl might not have wanted to undergo the stress involved in pursuing a criminal conviction, which have already been listed in detail. at the end of the day, she made a conscious decision not to do so - that much is accepted on all sides. simply encouraging her to go to the police regardless of context is a pretty vague position, even if we can generally accept that a police investigative unit would be a better assessor of the evidence, and a court a better arena for the issue to be dealt with. but at the end of the day, regardless of what we think might be better, it didn't happen. so what does the party do?


DU, I disagree with virtually everything you have written on this subject, but I would feel a little less that you were a mysogenistic cunt mascarading as a revolutionary if you stopped referring to the woman who made this complaint as "the girl".


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The accused was not present at the conference.


They're talking about the investigations of the DC i believe, not conference.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> There's no such thing as truly independent people. But there are people who are more independent than 'Comrade Delta's' mates.
> 
> Got to admit I'd not really paid any attention to this before now so can anyone explain why it's taken this long? Did it not get reported or was the some botched attempt at a cover-up or something?


According to the transcript she decided to make the complaint following the Assange situation as the position the SWP took gave her confidence that her complaint would be taken seriously.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> According to the transcript she decided to make the complaint following the Assange situation as the position the SWP took gave her confidence that her complaint would be taken seriously.


And it goes to suggest that she now doesn't feel like it was - as i read it anyway.



> The hearing as you’ve heard concerned an accusation of rape, an incredibly serious accusation which we think the committee did take very seriously, and Candy mentioned the fact that the woman had come forward a few years previously at a conference. And the CC did handle the case in the way that she asked them to. But I think it’s important to say that she felt she could come forward two years later because she – as she explained it to me when she rang me up and asked me to give evidence on her behalf – she felt able to actually confront the issues that she’d gone through and actually say that she felt she had been raped. She felt the way the party had handled the Assange case gave her confidence that she would get a fair hearing.
> 
> Unfortunately, although Candy’s put a very clear picture of the case, it wasn’t her experience that it went well. She’s incredibly traumatised by the hearing, and I think it’s fair to say that the witnesses are incredibly shocked by some of the things that took place.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The accused was not present at the conference.


 
Oh OK - I took it from a few of the posts on here that he had been - can't be bothered to check back though, might just have been me misreading it


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The accused was not present at the conference.


Crikey.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That was. Apparently leading SWP members are less likely to have a background empathy, sympathy or be effected by the usual matrix of affectional or other networks of power relating to their long term personal mate, so having 7 mates of his is actually - if you look at it right - a sign of their critical integrity. Anything else, a failing.


I have nothing but admiration for their super-human abilities to isolate their subconsciousnesses from their razor-like analysis of the facts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2013)

Athos said:


> I have nothing but admiration for their super-human abilities to isolate their subconsciousnesses from their razor-like analysis of the facts.





bolshiebhoy said:


> Crikey.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 9, 2013)

[ quote="bolshiebhoy, post: 11867025, member: 4331"]'explosion'

Not even the cc can arrange that surely [/quote]
Typing an a tablet with predictive text when dyslexic is not always a wise thing to do. 
Of course if bothered to read the post before pressing send...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> According to the transcript she decided to make the complaint following the Assange situation as the position the SWP took gave her confidence that her complaint would be taken seriously.


 
Is that all the complaints or just the rape? I read somewhere (might even have been on here) that the rape allegation was new but that there had been harassment claims a couple of years ago?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is that all the complaints or just the rape? I read somewhere (might even have been on here) that the rape allegation was new but that there had been harassment claims a couple of years ago?


Transcript says that I think.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 9, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> DU, I disagree with virtually everything you have written on this subject, but I would feel a little less that you were a mysogenistic cunt mascarading as a revolutionary if you stopped referring to the woman who made this complaint as "the girl".


 
who are you you fucking bell end?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> who are you you fucking bell end?


that doesn't sound like a denial that you are in fact a misogynistick cunt masquerading as a revolutionary.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And it goes to suggest that she now doesn't feel like it was - as i read it anyway.


That is how I read it as well, in fact it seems pretty clear.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Oh OK - I took it from a few of the posts on here that he had been - can't be bothered to check back though, might just have been me misreading it


No you are right it has been said before on the thread that he was at conference, I didn't think that was not the case but didn't say anything as I was not sure, but had it confirmed tonight.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 9, 2013)

So if he wasn't there what is his current status?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is that all the complaints or just the rape? I read somewhere (might even have been on here) that the rape allegation was new but that there had been harassment claims a couple of years ago?


 
Yeah I first heard about it back in late 2010 from a Counterfire member. Young Woman, Manchester, Comrade Perry banned from operating there. I was berated by several SWP members for even considering it a possibility.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is that all the complaints or just the rape? I read somewhere (might even have been on here) that the rape allegation was new but that there had been harassment claims a couple of years ago?


I think she had made an 'informal' complaint previously.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think she had made an 'informal' complaint previously.


 
I guess there's several ways that could be interpreted.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So if he wasn't there what is his current status?


Rank and file member I guess. For the record him not being there was a very sensible decision by someone.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 10, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Comrade Perry


could people stop doing this. apart from being a shit joke, there are swp members with this name.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 10, 2013)

I propose comrade running man. Particularly as it gives me the opportunity to ask how he managed to get that nickname.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I guess there's several ways that could be interpreted.


This is from the transcript 


We noted that the complaint concerned incidents that had taken place over a period of about six months in 2008 and 2009, which was three or four years before we met. We also noted that there had been an informal complaint about these incidents from the same woman in July 2010, which hadn’t come to the disputes committee, and at that time she complained of sexual harassment rather than of rape.
We were clear that there were a number of reasons why it might take a period of time for a woman to come forward with a complaint like this. And we also understood that there was a process whereby the woman might change how she perceived these incidents, which W now described to us as an issue of rape. We therefore agreed it was essential to investigate the complaint that was in front of us.
We looked at how the complaint was handled in 2010. She’d raised concerns of harassment, about these same incidents, with the central committee. Central committee members had met with Comrade Delta, who denied them. And at that time W was asked if she wanted to go to the disputes committee, but she confirmed that she didn’t want to do that. She wanted an apology, for her views to be recognised, and for the CC to be made aware of them. An informal resolution was reached which was agreed and accepted by W.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2013)

Incidentally, it has been said several times on this thread that someone stood down from the disputes committee because they knew W but that does not seem to be the case, I can't see any mention of it in the transcript.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Rank and file member I guess. For the record him not being there was a very sensible decision by someone.


Can't argue with that.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2013)

It has occurred to me that those who supported the DC report and who shouted liar at people. Would have been the most ardent opponents of Delta if the CC had taken a line against him. These are people who are incapable of any independent thought who are totally and passionately committed to whatever line the CC gives them, even if it was different the day before. And with the possible exception of Stack it is people like this who made up the DC.


----------



## cesare (Jan 10, 2013)

Whoever said that HR don't deal with rape allegations is misinformed, btw.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It has occurred to me that those who supported the DC report and who shouted liar at people. Would have been the most ardent opponents of Delta if the CC had taken a line against him. These are people who are incapable of any independent thought who are totally and passionately committed to whatever line the CC gives them, even if it was different the day before. And with the possible exception of Stack it is people like this who made up the DC.


 
How do people like this end up in left-wing groups? It confuses me because there are so many of them but it seems to me like they'd be more suited in less counter-cultural groups?


----------



## the button (Jan 10, 2013)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/swp-why-i-am-resigning

SW journo resigns, and does a bit of naming.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> who are you you fucking bell end?


 
FFS, next you'll be asking "do you know who I am, you fucking bell end?".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It has occurred to me that those who supported the DC report and who shouted liar at people. Would have been the most ardent opponents of Delta if the CC had taken a line against him. These are people who are incapable of any independent thought who are totally and passionately committed to whatever line the CC gives them, even if it was different the day before. And with the possible exception of Stack it is people like this who made up the DC.


 
I don't agree that they're incapable.
It's actually far worse than that, insofar as these are people who *willingly* give up the freedom to exercise independent thought. If they merely were incapable/lacked the capacity, you could at least feel sorry for them. As it is, they've willingly ceded their freedom to think critically. That doesn't deserve pity. It deserves a kicking.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 10, 2013)

the button said:


> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/swp-why-i-am-resigning
> 
> SW journo resigns, and does a bit of naming.


this is the guy i was referring to in my post up the thread


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> Whoever said that HR don't deal with rape allegations is misinformed, btw.


 
Although some of them mishandle them. A mate who worked for BT found that he'd been fired when he was accused of rape. After being charged, remanded to a nick, and spending what he called "the worst month of my life" waiting to be tried, the case was dropped, and he came home to no job, and a lot fewer fairweather friends. Fortunately, when he asked around a few solicitors, one spotted that BT had transgressed their own disciplinary procedure *and* manipulated the issue of sacking by using a nebulous bit of phrasing in their "gross misconduct" rules to justify it.  In the end he settled for redundancy-type terms, plus some "damages".


----------



## cesare (Jan 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although some of them mishandle them. A mate who worked for BT found that he'd been fired when he was accused of rape. After being charged, remanded to a nick, and spending what he called "the worst month of my life" waiting to be tried, the case was dropped, and he came home to no job, and a lot fewer fairweather friends. Fortunately, when he asked around a few solicitors, one spotted that BT had transgressed their own disciplinary procedure *and* manipulated the issue of sacking by using a nebulous bit of phrasing in their "gross misconduct" rules to justify it.  In the end he settled for redundancy-type terms, plus some "damages".




Definitely. It's a difficult area to do well, and all too bloody easy to completely fuck it up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2013)

J Ed said:


> How do people like this end up in left-wing groups? It confuses me because there are so many of them but it seems to me like they'd be more suited in less counter-cultural groups?


 
Cart before horse. Some people join political groups (it's not just a disease of the left by any means) and *then* abdicate their freedom to think independently after they've been indoctrinated with the group's ideology.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 10, 2013)

the button said:


> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/swp-why-i-am-resigning
> 
> SW journo resigns, and does a bit of naming.


I did wonder who Comrade Delta was and it did occur to me who it might be based on previous reported alleged incidents. I can't see the SWP in its old form surviving this.

Regrettably this will bring much satisfaction to the right wing politicos and those who who are screwing over the working class. That is, those of them who will ever have heard of the SWP.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't agree that they're incapable.
> It's actually far worse than that, insofar as these are people who *willingly* give up the freedom to exercise independent thought. If they merely were incapable/lacked the capacity, you could at least feel sorry for them. As it is, they've willingly ceded their freedom to think critically. That doesn't deserve pity. It deserves a kicking.


 
And what contributes to this will do you think?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> Whoever said that HR don't deal with rape allegations is misinformed, btw.


 
Don't they do it in conjunction with informing the police though? I honestly don't know.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 10, 2013)

the button said:


> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/swp-why-i-am-resigning
> 
> SW journo resigns, and does a bit of naming.


 
Really excellent letter in my view. Quite sad, but makes some great points, and kind of sums up a lot of the things I was thinking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Really excellent letter in my view. Quite sad, but makes some great points, and kind of sums up a lot of the things I was thinking.


'you're just thinking what others are saying'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> And what contributes to this will do you think?


 
What contributes to people willingly giving up the freedom to exercise independent thought? As I said in post 1029, indoctrination. Add to that a need or desire to "belong" to something greater than yourself, and an urge to "change the world" through political means, and there's a (perhaps significant) minority of people who will willingly buy the dogma and stay the course, and are convinced that adherence to party _diktat_ brings forward the glorious day.


----------



## cesare (Jan 10, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Don't they do it in conjunction with informing the police though? I honestly don't know.


Not necessarily. There's a whole raft of different scenarios, some of which involve the police and some of which don't.


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 10, 2013)

It's incredible what people will do to further the interests of a cause they feel something equivalent to religious fervour about. The AWL (in Socialist Organiser guise) tried to recruit me as a student, and one of the tactics was getting one of their activists (who I fancied) to sleep with me. I realised, during the act, that his heart really wasn't in it. He was doing it for the party. Which put me right off. And he had a strange, bent penis, but I'm sure that's not a general AWL trait.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 10, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Really excellent letter in my view. Quite sad, but makes some great points, and kind of sums up a lot of the things I was thinking.


 
Yeah, very good contribution and a brave guy for doing it knowing the backlash he's now bound to face.I thought this was particularly bang on.




			
				Tom Walker" said:
			
		

> Leftwing parties are institutions that exist within our current society, and they need to put an analysis of gender and power relations at the absolute heart of their structures to avoid replicating that society’s problems. Moreover, a lack of democracy inside left organisations is not just a big political issue, but plays a role in enabling abusive behavior. Having a good record and theory on women’s liberation turns out to be little defence against this.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 10, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> It's incredible what people will do to further the interests of a cause they feel something equivalent to religious fervour about. The AWL (in Socialist Organiser guise) tried to recruit me as a student, and one of the tactics was getting one of their activists (who I fancied) to sleep with me. I realised, during the act, that his heart really wasn't in it. He was doing it for the party. Which put me right off. And he had a strange, bent penis, but I'm sure that's not a general AWL trait.


 
That's a little bit Mark Stone, and a lot of creepy.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 10, 2013)

Funny parallels - I was involved, a while back, in a situation where one member was claiming a prejudice against them from some of the muslim and bme members, as a white convert with jewish roots. The allegations included being warned that they may face reprisal for comments she allegedly made regarding the prophet, and some general accusations of misogyny, anti-semitism and racism towards her. The member provided limited evidence, to the committee at the time, of which they were a member.

The committee decided to refer it up the ladder with regards to complaints that fell within the scope of the group, and strongly encourage the member to take the allegations which could result in criminal charges to go to the police over the issue. It's not for the exec of a political group to investigate potentially criminal activities, especially if it involves members of the exec. That's a bad, bad move.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although some of them mishandle them. A mate who worked for BT found that he'd been fired when he was accused of rape. After being charged, remanded to a nick, and spending what he called "the worst month of my life" waiting to be tried, the case was dropped, and he came home to no job, and a lot fewer fairweather friends. Fortunately, when he asked around a few solicitors, one spotted that BT had transgressed their own disciplinary procedure *and* manipulated the issue of sacking by using a nebulous bit of phrasing in their "gross misconduct" rules to justify it. In the end he settled for redundancy-type terms, plus some "damages".


You haven't got case details(citation for instance) for this?


----------



## Rosa_L (Jan 10, 2013)

I have tried to explain why this sort of thing keeps happening on the left, here:

*http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm*


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2013)

Tom Walker said:
			
		

> What has happened since the SWP conference at the weekend? Despite everything, the CC position is ‘draw a line under it and move on’. The opposition were also told to sign up to this or face expulsion. That applied as of the minute conference ended - and the leadership intends to enforce it.
> The CC is shutting down all debate, on the pretext that it is about the rule that factions must dissolve after conference. Party workers are being spoken to individually, and if they refuse to give a guarantee that they will never so much as mention the case again, they are being told they must leave their party jobs. Some have already gone, others may be going as I write.
> Meanwhile branches are being told that the criticisms of the disputes committee raised in conference will not be reported to them and cannot be discussed by any member, even in outline. At the behest of the CC, the _Socialist Worker_ report of the conference does not even mention the disputes committee session. For one, this means that the reason behind the alternative CC slate is not explained at all.


 
This stuff is key to what happens next. Particularly taken alongside the SWP's apparent decision that Cde Delta will continue to play a prominent role.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2013)

so not with a bang but with a whimper


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2013)

Nigel said:


> You haven't got case details(citation for instance) for this?


 
Nope. All Ican remember is it was heard at Croydon, 1993.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope. All Ican remember is it was heard at Croydon, 1993.


Thanx


----------



## mk12 (Jan 10, 2013)

Rosa_L said:


> I have tried to explain why this sort of thing keeps happening on the left, here:
> 
> *http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm*


 
This reminds me of an article that was recommended to me a while ago (by butchers I think): http://www.left-dis.nl/uk/rackets.htm

Some interesting stuff in there about the nature of political "rackets" which accurately describe (some) Marxist organisations. It's a bit long-winded so here are so snippets:



> Though political rackets seldom attain their goal of state power, their internal organisation mimics statist functions. The membership of the racket is its proletariat, and the leaders constitute a sort of portable mini-state


 


> But joining a racket is usually exhilarating at the beginning, when the new recruit is convinced that his participation will shape history and that he’s joining a collective venture to help humanity. He also feels that he’s found a heroic community of like-minded comrades. Joining a racket has this hidden libidinal dimension, which explains the enormous attachment and zealotry of the members. At the beginning, a recruit is unaware that he’ll be persuaded to lose most of his individuality and free time, and that the false community of the racket will only accentuate his alienation


 


> We can say that modern political rackets have these general characteristics:
> - They gyrate around a guru, a charismatic leader (Weber) or ‘egocrat’ (Perlman). The guru is usually male, though rackets run by female gurus have been known to exist;
> - The guru fosters and controls a centralised and despotic hierarchy. He relies on an inner faction of conspirators, who plot permanently against the racket’s membership. No racket is ruled by consensus or by transparent participatory methods;
> - Rackets have a political platform or programme, usually of a messianic kind. One of the tasks of the guru is to inherit or draft and uphold this platform. Rackets attempt to influence the world around them by publishing regularly (or maintaining a web site). To them influencing others means recruitment, not contributing to an ongoing clarification of consciousness;
> ...


----------



## two sheds (Jan 10, 2013)

Interesting - and yes great similarities to cults. I particularly liked the RCPers carrying round wads of cash because capitalism was fucked so what the hell.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 10, 2013)




----------



## Red Cat (Jan 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What contributes to people willingly giving up the freedom to exercise independent thought? As I said in post 1029, indoctrination. Add to that a need or desire to "belong" to something greater than yourself, and an urge to "change the world" through political means, and there's a (perhaps significant) minority of people who will willingly buy the dogma and stay the course, and are convinced that adherence to party _diktat_ brings forward the glorious day.


 
Surely indoctrination is the result not the cause of the will to give up independent thought.

Isn't all thought social? What is independent thought anyway?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 10, 2013)

I think it's a bit simplistic to say that SWPers even the hardcore cadre give up independent thought.

Of course plenty of the long termers (especially the ones shouting "liars") are basically idiots who were never capable of particularly interesting or original thought - however a large number of even those who will remain committed to the leadership (which is the same as commitment to the organisation) are capable of independent thought it's, just that they have found a community of like minded people who in many cases they have worked alongside through adversity for a long time, building long irreplacable relationships.

It's nice to feel part of something special, part of a gang who are fighting for a better world - and continued membership of the gang means agreeing with the bulk of it's beliefs, which makes it much easier to agree with them, and discourages you from even trying to look for alternative points of view, and it also makes it just as easy to buy into radical changes of direction by the same token.

It's not stupidity, it's not lack of independent thought - it is a desire to belong to something that matters.

Indoctrination happens almost by accident - through working, drinking, discussing, fighting and even fucking together.

That's not to say the CC are not cynical hacks - but they're not a cult.

That's not to say other left groups don't function in a cult like way - but I don't believe the SWP (or SP) do.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 10, 2013)

areas of the SWP do function like cults, even if the organisation as an entirety doesn't


----------



## Firky (Jan 10, 2013)

Apologies for shoving this in here but I thought it may be of interest to some people here (nicked it off some anti-edl FB group):

It's pointless but... ?!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

Don't doubt the courage of this Tom Walker fella but what struck me most about his letter was how low his level of politics was for a supposed marxist journalist. Maybe that says more about the way people are pushed into positions of responsibility in the swp without adequate edcuation in the basics of marxism. But I mean his naive paragraph telling how he didn't know what was coming at conference is quite sad. What sort of trot journo says something as wet as "Though some other party workers were getting involved in a faction, I felt it best to maintain a sort of journalistic distance." Bollox to that, can't see comrade McCann saying that. And in the section where he talks about the way 'feminist' was  a label of abuse in all of this he reveals an almost touchingly naive ignorance about the party's history of ideas when it comes to feminism. "Marxist and feminist theory would surely agree..." no sorry just stop there you should never have been writing articles for a marxist newspaper. I know that's echoing the arguments that will be used by the cc against him but it's also true.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 10, 2013)

Not really the most important thing to focus on in that article though is it?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 10, 2013)

firky said:


> Apologies for shoving this in here but I thought it may be of interest to some people here (nicked it off some anti-edl FB group):
> 
> It's pointless but... ?!


 
Firky, They're far-right and they 'ought to put up or shut up'


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

It is because other than personal disgust I didn't hear a political case in it for closing the doors at swp hq and going home.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 10, 2013)

Isn't personal disgust enough? Or is it OK to carry on like this provided the political line is agreeable?

And isn't there a bit more to this quote that Nigel Irritable posted above than 'just personal disgust'?



> What has happened since the SWP conference at the weekend? Despite everything, the CC position is ‘draw a line under it and move on’. The opposition were also told to sign up to this or face expulsion. That applied as of the minute conference ended - and the leadership intends to enforce it.
> The CC is shutting down all debate, on the pretext that it is about the rule that factions must dissolve after conference. Party workers are being spoken to individually, and if they refuse to give a guarantee that they will never so much as mention the case again, they are being told they must leave their party jobs. Some have already gone, others may be going as I write.
> Meanwhile branches are being told that the criticisms of the disputes committee raised in conference will not be reported to them and cannot be discussed by any member, even in outline. At the behest of the CC, the _Socialist Worker_ report of the conference does not even mention the disputes committee session. For one, this means that the reason behind the alternative CC slate is not explained at all.


 
In fact, looking at the article, I have no idea how you could say it was 'just' personal disgust - as if someone's somehow politically naive if they leave _just_ because they're disgusted with the way this was handled. I'm sorry but you're starting to sound like an apologist.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't agree that they're incapable.
> It's actually far worse than that, insofar as these are people who *willingly* give up the freedom to exercise independent thought. If they merely were incapable/lacked the capacity, you could at least feel sorry for them. As it is, they've willingly ceded their freedom to think critically. That doesn't deserve pity. It deserves a kicking.


Oh, no doubt about it these people are utter bastards.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

For goodness sakes the cc are doing what they've always done, what Tom has probably done at their behest a hundred times. Have the debate in a limited way then force people to shut up and move on. It's the way the party works but Tom acts like he's never heard of democratic centralism before. He may not agree with it now but this anguished hand waving about these horrible tactics is totally apolitical. And not very convincing.

There are good arguments for giving up on the leninist idea but they have to be made not just assumed, especially by someone hoping to convince others to leave. Reads like he was never a committed leninist which is fine but not an argument other more convinced members will listen to.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 10, 2013)

Sorry bb, but you're sounding to me like someone who is still in a cult criticising someone leaving a cult, suggesting that they never believed the cult's tenets in the first place.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 10, 2013)

I don't think you have to be opposed to democratic centralism or Leninism to think that's unacceptable. You really are sounding like an SWP hack now - you're saying exactly what the CC will be saying about him.

And I'm fairly sure the CC have never overseen a botched rape investigation before.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 10, 2013)

One thing Tom Walker said that I thought was fundamental was:



> It is stated that the accuser did not want to go to the police, as is her absolute right if that was truly her decision. However, knowing the culture of the SWP, I doubt that was a decision she made entirely free from pressure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> For goodness sakes the cc are doing what they've always done, what Tom has probably done at their behest a hundred times. Have the debate in a limited way then force people to shut up and move on. It's the way the party works but Tom acts like he's never heard of democratic centralism before. He may not agree with it now but this anguished hand waving about these horrible tactics is totally apolitical. And not very convincing.
> 
> There are good arguments for giving up on the leninist idea but they have to be made not just assumed, especially by someone hoping to convince others to leave. Reads like he was never a committed leninist which is fine but not an argument other more convinced members will listen to.


Few leninists today are committed: bloody care in the community, in't it


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Maybe that says more about the way people are pushed into positions of responsibility in the swp without adequate edcuation in the basics of marxism.


how high did you rise in the party then?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 10, 2013)

two sheds said:


> One thing Tom Walker said that I thought was fundamental was:


 
That's a big accusation one that even the speakers at the Conference didn't make.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That's a big accusation one that even the speakers at the Conference didn't make.


Cause it's nonsense. How does he know what they did, he talks like he isn't even aware the party has ever had these investigations before, is totally outraged that they would have them. Then tells us he knows what they must have been like.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And I'm fairly sure the CC have never overseen a botched rape investigation before.


Without necessarily agreeing with your implicit assumption that they have this time can I ask why would you think that? Course they've made mistakes in other disputes.


----------



## Rosa_L (Jan 10, 2013)

Mk12, thanks for the link, but I try to explain how the theory adopted by Marxists (in particular) has created a completely unique mind set not found anywhere else. I attempt a materialist explanation for this.

For those who find that essay too long, I have summarised some of its main points here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Summary_of_Essay_Nine-Part-02.htm


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Sorry bb, but you're sounding to me like someone who is still in a cult criticising someone leaving a cult, suggesting that they never believed the cult's tenets in the first place.


Well that is another way of closing off discussion. Anyone who disagrees with the ntoion that the swp is a cult is clearly a cultist. I just don't think a lot of the younger folk who have joined from the movements have picked up the core politics in their time in the party. That's not something the cc needs to be proud of by the way.


----------



## Athos (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Without necessarily agreeing with your implicit assumption that they have this time can I ask why would you think that? Course they've made mistakes in other disputes.


 
A crucial part of any tribunal is that justice is seen to be done.  Given that so many in the SWP don't think that justice has been done in this case, then, regardless of the whether or not Smith's friends reached the right verdict in when deciding his case, the process was botched.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Without necessarily agreeing with your implicit assumption that they have this time can I ask why would you think that? Course they've made mistakes in other disputes.


 
OK, let me put it another way - I sincerely _hope_ the SWP haven't overseen a botched rape investigation before. Maybe I'm being too charitable?

It's not an implicit assumption - it's about as explicit as it's possible to be - I came out and said it. And it clearly was botched, you don't divide a party as ideologically narrow as the SWP right down the middle on something like this unless something has gone very wrong.

And this Tom isn't all that old - I remember meeting him when I was in the SWP, which wasn't that long ago - around the time the alleged attack took place in fact, and if I remember correctly he was still a student back then. Or do you mean to suggest that there have probable been more botched rape investigations in the last 5 or so years? Cos if that's the case it seems that _I'm_ the one defending their good name against _you._ Or should he have known about botched rape investigations that took place before he was in the party? Is there some kind of introductory botched rape investigation pamphlet that they forgot to show me?

I really can't believe that you seem to be defending the SWP but criticising _him_ for saying it when he really should know this kind of thing is totally acceptable in the SWP. Or whatever it is you're arguing now.

I strongly suggest you think before posting again because if I wasn't an ex-member myself I would probably be coming to the conclusion that the SWP really is an abusive cult and that its former members require deprograming.

I think what he's done is really quite brave and admirable and that's the case regardless of how politically naive he might me - and I'm certainly not reading any of that as a criticism or abandonment of democratic centralism - unless you define democratic centralism as 'what the SWP's CC does'. People here might have criticisms of democratic centralism, I know I'm not 100% sold on it, but thinking behind the stuff is nigel's quote doesn't contradict it at all. Your attacks on Tom and the justifications you're coming out with when questioned are getting more and more bizarre.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Oh, no doubt about it these people are utter bastards.


This might be a little harsh thinking about it. But it really passes me off that most of those who voted to accept the DC report would also have voted to accept it even if it had reached the opposite conclusion, as long as the CC said so. Also I had suspected that I knew who X is and have now had it confirmed. I know it shouldn't make a difference but it really fucks me of that this shit is happening to someone I knew and quite liked. It passes me of people she used to think of her friends will now be treating her like shit. 


Someone has just mentioned to me that Pat Stack once said that one of the problems with the SWP is that its members fight like lions outside the party but roll over like pussy cats inside it.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2013)

Athos said:


> A crucial part of any tribunal is that justice is seen to be done. Given that so many in the SWP don't think that justice has been done in this case, then, regardless of the whether or not Smith's friends reached the right verdict in when deciding his case, the process was botched.


One thing a lot of people are angry about is this disparity between the treatment given to Delta and the treatment given to the 4 that were expelled.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> One thing a lot of people are angry about is this disparity between the treatment given to Delta and the treatment given to the 4 that were expelled.


 
_comrade_ Delta


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

People need to slow down a little. Everyone has a breaking point, Tom clearly reached his somewhere during the debate on the DC report. Fair enough, good luck to him. And having made his decision then everything he ever believed was acceptable leninst practice (although it sounds like he made a habit of not having an opinion up until now out of journalistic distance whatever that is) is immediately evil and abhorent. Again fair enough and totally understandable. We all go through that when we break with something we've been very involved in. I know I did. Then a few years later you come to realise things weren't as cut and dried as you thought. And that the people you thought were deluded cultists were mostly quite sane stalwarts who you suspect might have been banging their heads against a brick wall (my one remaining excuse for never rejoining) but didn't deserve to be insulted as people needing deprogramming.


----------



## cesare (Jan 10, 2013)

This is getting increasingly bizarre


----------



## two sheds (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well that is another way of closing off discussion. Anyone who disagrees with the ntoion that the swp is a cult is clearly a cultist. I just don't think a lot of the younger folk who have joined from the movements have picked up the core politics in their time in the party. That's not something the cc needs to be proud of by the way.


 
I don't think so. I have no problem of people criticising Tom Watson (the things you criticised him for were what I took issue with, not the fact of you criticising him). The criticisms need to be pertinent. It's for example whether he's accurately reported what happened and what peoples' concerns are - whether he was a committed Leninist should be irrelevant and to me gives the cult edge to what you say.



> Cause it's nonsense. How does he know what they did, he talks like he isn't even aware the party has ever had these investigations before, is totally outraged that they would have them. Then tells us he knows what they must have been like.


 
You just don't know that it was nonsense, and saying that it is another red flag (no pun intended  ). No, Watson doesn't know either but he said that explicitly ("knowing the culture of the SWP, I doubt that was a decision she made entirely free from pressure"). He doubts it - you're saying that you do know. Only one person really knows whether she was pressurised not to go to the police and that is the woman herself. And you'll only be able to find out by having someone who _isn't_ involved with the SWP asking her in a safe environment with no fear of repercussions (which I feel itself would be very difficult to guarantee).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> People need to slow down a little. Everyone has a breaking point, Tom clearly reached his somewhere during the debate on the DC report. Fair enough, good luck to him. And having made his decision then everything he ever believed was acceptable leninst practice (although it sounds like he made a habit of not having an opinion up until now out of journalistic distance whatever that is) is immediately evil and abhorent. Again fair enough and totally understandable. We all go through that when we break with something we've been very involved in. I know I did. Then a few years later you come to realise things weren't as cut and dried as you thought. And that the people you thought were deluded cultists were mostly quite sane stalwarts who you suspect might have been banging their heads against a brick wall (my one remaining excuse for never rejoining) but didn't deserve to be insulted as people needing deprogramming.


 
That's just really odd. I didn't say they needed deprograming - I said that if all I had to go on were your posts rather than direct personal experience then that's a conclusion I might draw.

Your attempts to smear him as some kind of stupid naive kid who doesn't know what he's on about and who has made an ill considered snap decision are becoming increasingly desperate. He's not been around that long and unless the SWP are far, far worse than I thought they were he'll never have seen anything like this before.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 10, 2013)

Just so as not to give the wrong impression when comparing all this to cults, my experience is of scientology and this SWP spat is a beacon of open democratic accountability to what went on inside there. There'd be none of this namby pamby discussing the rights and wrongs of what happened. Any criticism of the church or Hubband and you were up for Ethics punishments until you recanted and made reparations.

There is an interesting separation between criticising Hubbard (Marx/Lenin) and the CoS (SWP), though. If people criticised the CoS it was an implicit criticism of Hubbard which is rapidly heading towards expulsion and being declared a Suppressive Person ('can be tricked, sued or lied to, or destroyed').

BB criticising Watson's Leninian credentials rather than addressing his criticism faintly blurs that separation.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's just really odd. I didn't say they needed deprograming - I said that if all I had to go on were your posts rather than direct personal experience then that's a conclusion I might draw.
> 
> Your attempts to smear him as some kind of stupid naive kid who doesn't know what he's on about and who has made an ill considered snap decision are becoming increasingly desperate. He's not been around that long and unless the SWP are far, far worse than I thought they were he'll never have seen anything like this before.


Really sorry didn't see your "wasn't" above, thought you were saying they did. Clearly a lot on here do though.

Not saying it was a snap decision at all, he clearly has been building to it and this huge mess pushed him over the edge. It's not ill considered it's just not very suprising given he clearly never took some of the core politics to heart. If that's a smear it's not meant to be, just how I read his letter. My point is we all need to slow down a little because there will be many who have less truck with his 'marxism has a basic sexism problem' and will suck this up and move on. Sorry if that sounds cynical.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Really sorry didn't see your "wasn't" above, thought you were saying they did. Clearly a lot on here do though.
> 
> Not saying it was a snap decision at all, he clearly has been building to it and this huge mess pushed him over the edge. It's not ill considered it's just not very suprising given he clearly never took some of the core politics to heart. If that's a smear it's not meant to be, just how I read his letter. My point is we all need to slow down a little because there will be many who have less truck with his 'marxism has a basic sexism problem' and will suck this up and move on. Sorry if that sounds cynical.


 
I'm not sure what you mean by slow down a little.

Precisely which part of the core politics has he not taken to heart? 

Of course there will be many who have no truck whatsoever with what he's saying - and I suspect there'll be a big crossover with the 'liar liar' crowd. Not sure why you thought you'd need to point that out though. And he's really not saying Marxism has a basic sexism problem. In fact at one point he explicitly says the exact opposite.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Really sorry didn't see your "wasn't" above, thought you were saying they did. Clearly a lot on here do though.
> 
> Not saying it was a snap decision at all, he clearly has been building to it and this huge mess pushed him over the edge. It's not ill considered it's just not very suprising given he clearly never took some of the core politics to heart. If that's a smear it's not meant to be, just how I read his letter. My point is we all need to slow down a little because there will be many who have less truck with his 'marxism has a basic sexism problem' and will suck this up and move on. Sorry if that sounds cynical.


 
What you are doing here is the same thing the party hacks say about all who recant, and what they probably said when you left "never took the core politics to heart" FFS


----------



## articul8 (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> . And in the section where he talks about the way 'feminist' was a label of abuse in all of this he reveals an almost touchingly naive ignorance about the party's history of ideas when it comes to feminism. "Marxist and feminist theory would surely agree..." no sorry just stop there you should never have been writing articles for a marxist newspaper. I know that's echoing the arguments that will be used by the cc against him but it's also true.


 
typical Stalinist misrepresentation through half-quote

he said


> Marxist and feminist theory would surely agree, however, *that in a sexist society, sexism is a constant danger in any organisation, no matter what its politics *


 
ie. unless you believe that a specific form of organisation somehow miraculously insulates you from prejudices in the rest of society, then it is at least fair to say that *whatever the potential political differences given between certain articulations of each tradition* both share a recognition that imbalances of gender power are a factor.

At no point does he say that marxism and feminism are the same thing or have identical claims.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

Twice he feels the need to describe the recent recruits from the movement as militant anti-sexists. As opposed to what? The only slightly anti-sexist and maybe suspect old timers in the party? And these militant anti-sexists discovered a generic problem of sexism in the SWP which everyone else had ignored. He tells us he's going to think and write more about how sexism and power and democracy interact. Cool. But wherever that takes him it won't be to a Marxist understanding of women's oppression. Because the starting point for a Marxist approach isn't the abstract question of 'democracy'  or 'power' upon which 'Marxism and feminism would agree'. The fact he starts the sentence that way betrays the desire to merge two completely incompatible ways of thinking. Now many people will agree with him that you can talk about these questions in terms of power structures, democracy etc in the abstract and that these issues cut across lines of class politics. And they have every right to as does he. All I'll keep repeating is that that approach to the question is totally at odds with the basic IS/Cliffite whatever you want to call it approach to these issues that was hammered out in those debates around Women's Voice etc that he regards as weird historical irrelevances. Again that's his right but it does show his lack of understanding of the tradition he's walking away from. If saying that makes me Uncle Joe Stalin himself then pass me the ice pick but it just seems obvious to me.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 10, 2013)

Sounds to me like a disagreement as to whether the bread and wine actually transmute into the body and blood of Christ or not.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What you are doing here is the same thing the party hacks say about all who recant, and what they probably said when you left "never took the core politics to heart" FFS


Nope it's horses for courses. In my case I tried to build a political case for leaving and was rightly laughed at by the non hack guy who tried to stop me going who quite rightly told me I didnt really believe the political differences I was concocting as an excuse. His actual diagnosis was lack of stamina which I translated as an insufficient desire to keep banging my head against a wall for a revolution I didn't think would come.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 10, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Sounds to me like a disagreement as to whether the bread and wine actually transmute into the body and blood of Christ or not.


I'm sure it does. And I know the trend has been for the SWP not to emphasise these 'theological' differences with feminism and other alternatives to Marxism and instead to open the doors and hope you can work them out 'in the struggle that teaches'. But at some point you have to address them and it sounds like a layer of younger members are coming to different conclusions to the old core cadre.  Most people outside the SWP will see that as a good thing which is dandy. But let's not pretend this is some straightforward battle between good and evil with the cc clearly in the evil corner. That reduces serious political differences to a question of who is the nicer person.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm sure it does. And I know the trend has been for the SWP not to emphasise these 'theological' differences with feminism and other alternatives to Marxism and instead to open the doors and hope you can work them out 'in the struggle that teaches'. But at some point you have to address them and it sounds like a layer of younger members are coming to different conclusions to the old core cadre. Most people outside the SWP will see that as a good thing which is dandy. But let's not pretend this is some straightforward battle between good and evil with the cc clearly in the evil corner. That reduces serious political differences to a question of who is the nicer person.


 
Having the discussion is clearly fair enough, but it's a separate discussion to criticising Watson for what he wrote.

Sorry to continue arguing by analogy but it's like the Council of Bishops being criticised for hushing up and mishandling a rape accusation and someone saying about the person criticising them 'ah well he was never really a Catholic you know'.

And they'd have a real reason to hush it up - the SWP is only concerned with the revolutionary struggle - with the Catholic church you're endangering the eternal souls of the whole human race.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm sure it does. And I know the trend has been for the SWP not to emphasise these 'theological' differences with feminism and other alternatives to Marxism and instead to open the doors and hope you can work them out 'in the struggle that teaches'. But at some point you have to address them and it sounds like a layer of younger members are coming to different conclusions to the old core cadre. Most people outside the SWP will see that as a good thing which is dandy. But let's not pretend this is some straightforward battle between good and evil with the cc clearly in the evil corner. That reduces serious political differences to a question of who is the nicer person.


i'm not entirely clear on how feminism is an 'alternative' to marxism in the same way that eg anarchism is an alternative to marxism. what other alternatives to marxism did you have in mind as well?

oh, and being evil doesn't stop someone being nice. you're confused bb.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not entirely clear on how feminism is an 'alternative' to marxism in the same way that eg anarchism is an alternative to marxism.


Feminism jumps from biological determinism to idealism and back again. Whereas Marxism has a materialist analysis of oppression. Totally different worldviews. This stuff used to be bread and butter in the SWP too but I suspect reading Tom's piece that he never came across the argument before. Maybe SW journos aren't encouraged to read the ISJ and he never saw Judith Orr's excellent recent article on Marxism vs Feminism.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Feminism jumps from biological determinism to idealism and back again. Whereas Marxism has a materialist analysis of oppression. Totally different worldviews. This stuff used to be bread and butter in the SWP too but I suspect reading Tom's piece that he never came across the argument before. Maybe SW journos aren't encouraged to read the ISJ and he never saw Judith Orr's excellent recent article on Marxism vs Feminism.


 
So the likes of Sheila Rowbotham are just plain wrong to describe themselves as Marxist feminists then?

And he never said they were the same - he said that on one particular point the two would converge. I agree with him as it goes.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 11, 2013)

For a Cliffite yes Rowbotham is also guilty of idealism. That's common currency for all IS folk, Lindsey German was making that point in an article in 06 and I'm pretty sure she'd still be arguing it now in Counterfire. Again that may sound very doctrinaire of Cliffites - they're effectively saying only they get the way womens oppression works and all other left currents are guilty of idealism - but it's the way the tendency works and blurring these distinctions is what gets you labelled a feminist in Cliffite circles. Tom doesn't understand that which is why I doubt he ever really got the nature of the party he'd joined. That's not a moral judement or an attempt to denigrate him it's just something that's plain as day from his letter.

Every decade or so the IS has these debates again. In the 70's the argument was about separate womens organisation. In the 80's we had it around whether men benefit from patriarchy. This 'militant anti-sexist' wave is the latest attempt to blur the lines between feminism and marxism. The problem for people like Tom and the reason there was a centralist faction at conference who tried to bridge the gap betwen the outright opposition and the cc is that old soaks in the party who've been through these debates before and may have an issue with the internal regime will read his letter and react to it through the prism of previous feminist debates. And they'll agree with the cc when it identifies the ideoloigcal 'error' Tom is making on his way out the door. Whether that outweighs their uneasiness with some of the heavy handedness of the cc will determine how many follow him out.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2013)

(Posting from my phone so sorry for any errors)

Sorry BB but I think you are wrong to cast this issue as some form of dispute between a true Marxist old guard and a new crop who are soft on feminism. You may well be right about Tom, but I don't think the same can be said of all those in opposition. 

The 5 main issues I have with this case our as follows. 

1, A charge of Rape was brought against a senior member of the party and that charge was investigated and judged by a group of people who in their own words considered him a friend. No matter how hard they try to be objective it simply cannot be done. 

2, From reading the transcript and hearing an account of someone who was present at conference it appears that the line of questioning to the two women strayed into territory that the SWP has frequently and rightly condemned in the bourgeois courts. In fact I served on they jury in a rape trial about a year ago and I would say that the woman involved in that case was treated with more sympathy and respect by the court and police than the SWP has shown here.  

3, That the accused was able to see the evidence against him in advance while the woman making the complaint was not allowed to see his reply in advance. 

4, The treatment of the two women involved after making their complaint. Including a least on CC member privately suggestion one or both could be working for the state. 

5, The disparity in the treatment of the CC member compared to the treatment of the 4 accused of factionalism who were summarily expelled by a body (the CC) which doesn't even have the authority to do so. Could it be that the DC only exists to rubber stamp decisions already made by the CC . I would be intrested to hear how this is a feminist concern by the way.       

I would hope that anyone who calls themselves a marxist or a feminist would agree that this not acceptable. Hell I think most people would agree.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 11, 2013)

Yes the debate about feminisim is simply a CC distraction technique.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Feminism jumps from biological determinism to idealism and back again. Whereas Marxism has a materialist analysis of oppression. Totally different worldviews. This stuff used to be bread and butter in the SWP too but I suspect reading Tom's piece that he never came across the argument before. Maybe SW journos aren't encouraged to read the ISJ and he never saw Judith Orr's excellent recent article on Marxism vs Feminism.


I think what you're trying (& failing) to say is that there are an array of authors / thinkers in the field of feminism who do not agree with each other, between whom there are great differences, and who do not produce a coherent whole: whereas marxism as revealed by lenin, trotsky and the late great tony cliff is the answer to human ills.


----------



## Athos (Jan 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes the debate about feminisim is simply a CC distraction technique.


 
Yes, it's an attempt to portray this is an ideological issue, and to paint those who are critical of the party line as having erred politically. Whereas, actually, it is (or should be) about the party's crass mishandling of a very serious allegation made by one of its members. Regardless of your views on marxism or feminism, anyone in their right mind can see the glaring procedural failings in the way this case was handled.

It must be the case that Smith could see them too. I can't help but think that it I was accused of rape, and if I was innocent, I would be keen to have my name cleared by a panel which could be trusted by all parties. I wouldn't want my mates to be the decision makers; I'd be pushing for an independent panel. Obviously, if I was guilty, I'd go with my mates, as there'd be more chance of getting off. ( Not saying he is, though; just making the observation.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

But athos this is proletarian justice at its finest[/bolshiebhoy]


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 11, 2013)

are there many women on the cc?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> are there many women on the cc?


Not any more I expect


----------



## co-op (Jan 11, 2013)

emanymton said:


> 2, From reading the transcript and hearing an account of someone who was present at conference it appears that the line of questioning to the two women strayed into territory that the SWP has frequently and rightly condemned in the *bourgeois courts*. In fact I served on they jury in a rape trial about a year ago and I would say that the woman involved in that case was treated with more sympathy and respect by the court and police than the SWP has shown here..


 
This whole rejection of "bourgeois justice" line is just bullshit though isn't it? In fact to me it smacks of the same sort of idealism that they are accusing everyone else of.

There's nothing _inherently_ wrong with the process of bourgeois justice, e.g. having rules of evidence and disclosure of evidence by both sides, having that evidence heard and evaluated by a jury of your peers (but not anyone who has a personal relationship with you) etc etc etc. In fact theses things are all pretty good ways of helping to untangle events.

What makes bourgeois justice a problem is not the process - but the fact that somehow it is supposed to uphold some grand, objective, "real" Justice when the wider society in which it operates is massively unequal and exploitative and imposes completely different lives on its members. Bourgeois justice fails because it can't deal with any of that - it assumes a completely fictional equality of everyone who comes before it.

This means it also inevitably fails in its attempts to resolve cases - it can't be restorative and reformative and it _has_ to be vindictive and punitive because in the end it's about slapping down the poor, or at the very least, indulging in the fiction that they are presented with the identical choices and problems that the rich are.

But someone who has been the victim of an assault, *properly supported* through the "bourgeois courts" will probably get a fair hearing, as will the alleged perpetrator (although in reality "proper support" will come to you in proportion to your social and economic status).

Slagging off "bourgeois justice" in this case is so crap, I can only see it as having been used to bully the accuser into not going to the police. It just doesn't stand up.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> are there many women on the cc?


 
the very fact you ask that comrade Frogwomyn betrays the bourgeois feminism that resides in your soul


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

It seems to me that if you want to criticise top down justice; it's not a great idea to substitute it with another system of top down justice. Especially when the substituted system is worse than the original.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> the very fact you ask that comrade Frogwomyn betrays the bourgeois feminism that resides in your soul


 
Just wondering though because the SP EC has got quite a lot of women on it. I'm not saying the SP is perfect but it would be interesting to compare the two.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> guilty of idealism


 
Rosa Luxemburg, Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch, CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya amongst many other excellent marxists have been thus described by boneheaded stalinoid orthodoxy.  Probably a badge of honour by now.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 11, 2013)

tagline it


----------



## Athos (Jan 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> But athos this is proletarian justice at its finest[/bolshiebhoy]


The terrifying thing is that I'm sure that some actually believe it!


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> are there many women on the cc?


7 men, 3 women, plus 2 unnamed TU activists


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2013)

co-op said:


> This whole rejection of "bourgeois justice" line is just bullshit though isn't it? In fact to me it smacks of the same sort of idealism that they are accusing everyone else of.
> 
> There's nothing _inherently_ wrong with the process of bourgeois justice, e.g. having rules of evidence and disclosure of evidence by both sides, having that evidence heard and evaluated by a jury of your peers (but not anyone who has a personal relationship with you) etc etc etc. In fact theses things are all pretty good ways of helping to untangle events.
> 
> ...


 
I think this starts off as a very promising post but it gets confused primarily in that bourgeois justice isn't necessarily evaluated by peers, some countries use a tribunal system, others a single magistrate or judge for example, there are panel systems. Equally bourgeois justice can be restorative and reformative and doesn't have to be vindictive and punitive particularly at the 'lower end' of criminal acts . However where you are absolutely right is that it assumes a 'a completely fictional equality of everyone who comes before it.' and it is  mainly a product of property relations within wider society.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 11, 2013)

Somewhat poor taste but if one googles comrade delta's real name into google you get a rather disturbing news headline from the bbc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Somewhat poor taste but if one googles comrade delta's real name into google you get a rather disturbing news headline from the bbc


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2013)

Interesting that one of the proposers of the alternative slate for cc is Roger Cox who was probably the most die hard cc loyalist that I ever met when in my fifteen years in the SWP. He spoke at Cliffs funeral.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Jan 11, 2013)

belboid said:


> 7 men, 3 women, plus 2 unnamed TU activists


 
7 men and 5 women on the new CC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> 7 men and 5 women.


and how many unnamed tu activists?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 11, 2013)

One thing that I keep coming back to is the assertion of the dc
"We also however thought it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were whether the comrade was monogamous, whether they were having an affair, whether the age differences in their relationahip, because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those."
Today the bourgeois legal system releases the results of operation yewtree. How reassuring that such "bourgeois morality" has no relevance within a revolutionary organisation. Starts to explain the spartacists


----------



## articul8 (Jan 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Interesting that one of the proposers of the alternative slate for cc is Roger Cox who was probably the most die hard cc loyalist that I ever met when in my fifteen years in the SWP. He spoke at Cliffs funeral.


 
Apparently Roger's attitude since the conference was "there was an issue, we voted on it, we move on".  At least publically at any rate, what he says inside might be different


----------



## sihhi (Jan 11, 2013)

co-op said:


> Slagging off "bourgeois justice" in this case is so crap,_* I can only see it*_ as having been used to *bully the accuser into not going to the police.* It just doesn't stand up.


 
How on earth can you see that unless you are wilfully changing what happened. None of the backers of the women have mentioned that in the transcript. The behaviour in question was 2008, Comrade W didn't want to go to the police (no one can and no one should speculate why), made the complaint to the Disputes Committee later, explaining she didn't want to go to the police.

Stopping victims who want to from reporting a crime to the police is the work of cults. The SWP is *not* a 'political cult' like the Transcendental Meditation movement or the LaRouche National Labor Federation.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 11, 2013)

The cps has announced that in cases of sexual abuse, extra weight must be given to the word of the victim.
#no confidence in bourgeois courts


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 11, 2013)

W not comrade W


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> W not comrade W


because some people are more equal than others


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Apparently Roger's attitude since the conference was "there was an issue, we voted on it, we move on". At least publically at any rate, what he says inside might be different


 

Must say that although I  had , inevitably , political disagreements  with him I  always found him a very pleasant bloke with a real knowledge of work place organising and he had real credibility at work.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> One thing that I keep coming back to is the assertion of the dc
> "We also however thought it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were whether the comrade was monogamous, whether they were having an affair, whether the age differences in their relationahip, because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those."
> Today the bourgeois legal system releases the results of operation yewtree. How reassuring that such "bourgeois morality" has no relevance within a revolutionary organisation. Starts to explain the spartacists


 
To be fair I  don't think they would say that child sexual exploitation was only bourgeois morality


----------



## articul8 (Jan 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Must say that although I had , inevitably , political disagreements with him I always found him a very pleasant bloke with a real knowledge of work place organising and he had real credibility at work.


He's active in our local anticuts campaign - generally a useful person to have around unless there's some respect-esque zigzag being executed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cause it's nonsense. How does he know what they did...


 
He doesn't. He doesn't claim that he does.



> ...he talks like he isn't even aware the party has ever had these investigations before, is totally outraged that they would have them. Then tells us he knows what they must have been like.


 
Not quite, he presents a theory.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> _comrade_ Delta


 
I'm not sure too many people would now label poloshirt as a comrade, except sarcastically.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It's not ill considered it's just not very suprising given he clearly never took some of the core politics to heart.


 
Frankly, that's a hoary old one trotted out (pardon the pun) by Swappies about just about everyone who leaves or gets expelled, because it's obvious (if you're a part of "the faithful") that anyone who dissents *can't possibly* have been committed to the politics. 

Same old reacharounds.


----------



## co-op (Jan 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I think this starts off as a very promising post but it gets confused


 



Are you going to give me a mark out of hundred?




The39thStep said:


> primarily in that bourgeois justice isn't necessarily evaluated by peers, some countries use a tribunal system, others a single magistrate or judge for example, there are panel systems. Equally bourgeois justice can be restorative and reformative and doesn't have to be vindictive and punitive particularly at the 'lower end' of criminal acts . However where you are absolutely right is that it assumes a 'a completely fictional equality of everyone who comes before it.' and it is mainly a product of property relations within wider society.


 
But I think you missed my point. My point wasn't that all forms of bourgeois justice have to have the process that we happen to have ended up with in the UK (eg trial by jury etc), my point was that bourgeois justice is usually pretty strong on _process_ - because it's based on a view which looks just at the individual, and can't look at the wider social injustices of a society. And I doubt that it can ever really be meaningfully restorative because once you start down that path you're into the wider redistributive justice of a fair society - and bourgeois justice ain't going there.


----------



## co-op (Jan 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How on earth can you see that unless you are wilfully changing what happened. None of the backers of the women have mentioned that in the transcript. The behaviour in question was 2008, Comrade W didn't want to go to the police (no one can and no one should speculate why), made the complaint to the Disputes Committee later, explaining she didn't want to go to the police.
> 
> Stopping victims who want to from reporting a crime to the police is the work of cults. The SWP is *not* a 'political cult' like the Transcendental Meditation movement or the LaRouche National Labor Federation.


 
Because I can't see how on earth any theoretical invocation of "bourgeois justice" as something to be avoided in this case is anything except utter bullshit - it just doesn't make sense to me. But it would make a lot of sense to me if I was the accused and I could organise an alternative form of justice run by my mates. It's as dodgy as fuck.

I'd also disagree that stopping victims reporting crimes to the police is automatically "the work of cults" - all sorts of institutions automatically try and inhibit criticism, especially from within, especially of the powerful by the weak and try and suppress the truth coming out. It's kind of normal. That's why a proper process is essential.

But FWIW I think that by doing what it's done the SWP just took a big step into cult territory since anyone who swallows this crap and "draws a line & moves on" has just become complicit in the whole thing and that's hard to admit to yourself.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> W not comrade W


 
I've looked at the transcript and I don't see any reference to comrade delta apart from in the intro to the transcript.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 11, 2013)

co-op said:


> I'd also disagree that stopping victims reporting crimes to the police is automatically "the work of cults" - all sorts of institutions automatically try and inhibit criticism, especially from within, especially of the powerful by the weak and try and _suppress the truth coming out_. It's kind of normal. That's why a proper process is essential.
> 
> But FWIW I think that by doing what it's done the SWP just took a big step into cult territory since anyone who swallows this crap and "draws a line & moves on" has just become complicit in the whole thing and that's hard to admit to yourself.


 
Just so we're clear, you're suggesting/assuming making a report to the police would mean the truth coming out. Many people on these boards have had to 'police' in groups an individual who has done harassment - without reports being made to the police. If you don't accept how/why some people shouldn't have to report to the police for "the truth to come out", I can't add anything more, so I'm bailing out but again the SWP investigation and adjudication was inadequate.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 11, 2013)

Anyway Laurie Penny is investigating so perhaps there will be more clarity:




> Laurie Penny ‏@PennyRed
> Lots of interesting discussions with SWP members and former members about the alleged rape case today. Article coming soon.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2013)

co-op said:


> Are you going to give me a mark out of hundred?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


The point you missed is the difference between the inner content of bourgeois justice/law and it's appearance.It is the property relationships that normally define the inner content of the legal system hence the differences under feudalism and capitalism. Its form/appearance is variable .Very often the struggle between classes may define that form or the relation of the nation state with others.

Only a minority of offenders are actually dealt with by jury btw.

There are increasingly more examples of the lower end of justice delivering restorative process where local citizens rather than magistrates discuss with offenders and their victims how best to make amends and stop offending.

I would give you a I would give you a promising 65 but recommend you read Evgeny Pashukanis, A Critical Reappraisal_, Michael Head,_Democracy and the Rule of Law : Marx's Critique of the Legal Form _Prof Robert Fine_ ( but take with a pinch of salt his pro EP thompson lens)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I've looked at the transcript and I don't see any reference to comrade delta apart from in the intro to the transcript.


 
Andy Newman clarified the "comrade" issue in a comment on Socialist Unity. The SWP did not award the title "comrade" to the accused party and deny it to the complainant. That was added later when the discussion was being anonymised for publication. There's lots of things the SWP do actually deserve criticism for, but that apparently isn't one of them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

According to someone who used to post here and who has very strong SWP connections on a certain well known discussion list, one fulltimer was sacked yesterday and another was to be sacked today. Also, their Serbian sister group has resigned from the IST. I have to admit that I didn't know they had a Serbian sister group in the first place.


----------



## co-op (Jan 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Just so we're clear, you're suggesting/assuming making a report to the police would mean the truth coming out. Many people on these boards have had to 'police' in groups an individual who has done harassment - without reports being made to the police. If you don't accept how/why some people shouldn't have to report to the police for "the truth to come out", I can't add anything more, so I'm bailing out but again the SWP investigation and adjudication was inadequate.


 
Nope - I'm not suggesting that reporting a sexual assault to the police, the CPS and the courts guarantees the truth coming out - isn't this obvious?

I can see loads of reasons why things like this shouldn't, or don't get reported, of course - obvious too? FWIW I was involved with a really messy expulsion based on a sexual harassment accusation - it was a nightmare but clearly couldn't go to the police without much wider issues blowing open (eg the accused was probably in the UK illegally and therefore would be in all sorts of other shit if the authorities were involved)

What I've said really clearly is that slagging off "bourgeois justice" here is obviously bollocks; if I were the victim here I think a bit of bourgeois justice might be an improvement on what I got. And when people use arguments of such obvious ludicrousness then I suspect their motives - of course.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 11, 2013)

co-op said:


> Because I can't see how on earth any theoretical invocation of "bourgeois justice" as something to be avoided in this case is anything except utter bullshit - it just doesn't make sense to me. But it would make a lot of sense to me if I was the accused and I could organise an alternative form of justice run by my mates. It's as dodgy as fuck.
> 
> I'd also disagree that stopping victims reporting crimes to the police is automatically "the work of cults" - all sorts of institutions automatically try and inhibit criticism, especially from within, especially of the powerful by the weak and try and suppress the truth coming out. It's kind of normal. That's why a proper process is essential.


 
Who said they stopped it? You can't tell that from the transcript. The dc didn't state that. In the transcript the dc refer to how courts and police blame the victim and put the woman on trial. Someone from the floor mentions lack of faith in bourgeois justice. You can't tell from the transcript what has occurred in this respect.

And they're not _all_ his mates. That they know him isn't the same as being a mate. Anyone senior in the organisation is going to _know_ him, anyone junior is unlikely to have the confidence to challenge him.

Obviously both are problematic, so ideally you have an external committee, perhaps from the SWP's sister organisations, but they'll know delta too....and I don't see any other group of people being able to do this from the pov of the SWP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 11, 2013)

At least the Serbian group's exit letter is very political. http://www.socialistunity.com/swps-serbian-section-splits-from-ist/

Sounds like a Counterfiew ally in the making. Wish I could figure out why all these groups who split who attack the swp for not being sufficiently open to the united front in europe are also the ones who attack it for not being critical enough of anti-assad allies in Syria. Is it cause in both cases these splits are in the direction of lashups with stalinists?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 11, 2013)

co-op said:


> Nope - I'm not suggesting that reporting a sexual assault to the police, the CPS and the courts guarantees the truth coming out - isn't this obvious?


 
So why claiming the Central Committee or whatever stopped her from reporting to the police?
That's a big thing to claim, given how that's not even what her supporters claimed.

Responding to the resignation piece I'd agree with this - bourgeois management techniques:



> The fact that a full-time party worker was not allowed to continue in her post for raising similar complaints of sexual harassment against the said CC member speaks volumes, as do the expulsions of comrades who raised their voices against the leadership’s handling of the matter. This is conduct that reflects bourgeois management techniques, not the revolutionary socialist struggle for women’s liberation.


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

Incidentally (for those that might have been privately face palming at my obvious lack of understanding of the nature of Leninist organisations and the SWP in particular) I took myself to re-education camp the other night and now I even have a glimmering about what 4th International and other such terms mean. I'm not sure how long I'll remember it for, but cheers anyway, button


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Andy Newman clarified the "comrade" issue in a comment on Socialist Unity. The SWP did not award the title "comrade" to the accused party and deny it to the complainant. That was added later when the discussion was being anonymised for publication. There's lots of things the SWP do actually deserve criticism for, but that apparently isn't one of them.


 
That was my point.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Anyway Laurie Penny is investigating so perhaps there will be more clarity:


 
YES! You'll be shaking with terror now Comrade Delta!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> That was my point.


 
I know. I was backing up your point.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> At least the Serbian group's exit letter is very political. http://www.socialistunity.com/swps-serbian-section-splits-from-ist/
> 
> Sounds like a Counterfiew ally in the making. Wish I could figure out why all these groups who split who attack the swp for not being sufficiently open to the united front in europe are also the ones who attack it for not being critical enough of anti-assad allies in Syria. Is it cause in both cases these splits are in the direction of lashups with stalinists?


 
  Aren't they carrying on the Cliffite tradition like you are, just no longer SWP members.



> We resign, but we will continue to apply classical Marxism to the realities of our times and build a new left in Serbia, _in the spirit of the IS_. We will work with others on the left, whether or not they are members of the IST, whenever and wherever we believe this will advance the interests of the working class and the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> At least the Serbian group's exit letter is very political. http://www.socialistunity.com/swps-serbian-section-splits-from-ist/


 
I really fundamentally disagree with the idea that discussions of internal democracy (or for that matter discussions of how a rape accusation should or should not be handled) are apolitical.




			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Sounds like a Counterfiew ally in the making. Wish I could figure out why all these groups who split who attack the swp for not being sufficiently open to the united front in europe are also the ones who attack it for not being critical enough of anti-assad allies in Syria. Is it cause in both cases these splits are in the direction of lashups with stalinists?


 
What other group split and attacked the SWP over those two things? My memory is failing me.

I don't think that you need to look very far for explanation if those are the two issues of choice for departing groups though. After all, "anti-imperialism" as the SWP understand it and "the united front" as the SWP understand it were pretty much the totems of SWP politics and practice for well over a decade, right up until a couple of years ago.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Anyway Laurie Penny is investigating so perhaps there will be more clarity:


 
Bloody hell.

Nick Cohen and other former leftist media types have been sniffing about on twitter too.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 11, 2013)

wrong thread


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 11, 2013)

http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-...ng-sex-assault-allegations-tell-us-about-left


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Anyway Laurie Penny is investigating so perhaps there will be more clarity:


 
I just know I'm going to hate that article. It's going to be all about the inherent sexism of the cobweb non-twatter left and how we can't avoid being sexist and that, unlike the trendy commentariat who, thanks to their use of twitter, knowledge of privilege and intersectionality and stuff are immune to it.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Bloody hell.
> 
> Nick Cohen and other former leftist media types have been sniffing about on twitter too.


 
My hunch would be that Nick Cohen uses it to further his argument in _What's Left (2006) _that leftist politics is cult politics.


----------



## SLK (Jan 11, 2013)

belboid said:


> 7 men, 3 women, plus 2 unnamed TU activists


 At least one is female. Not sure who the other one is.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-...ng-sex-assault-allegations-tell-us-about-left


Paging DotCommunist:



> ...The writer China Mieville, a longstanding member of the SWP, told me that, like many members, he is "aghast"...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

Jesus. That's Mieville effectively saying "expel me, I fucking dare you" to the Central Committee.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Jesus. That's Mieville effectively saying "expel me, I fucking dare you" to the Central Committee.



 Always liked him.

LP shouldn't have given it the big 'but what does this say about the LEFT' and focused on a technical knockout of the SWP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think that you need to look very far for explanation if those are the two issues of choice for departing groups though. After all, "anti-imperialism" as the SWP understand it and "the united front" as the SWP understand it were pretty much the totems of SWP politics and practice for well over a decade, right up until a couple of years ago.


Hang on a minute anti imperialism was never about holding back from supporting movements of resistance in 'anti imperialist' countries. There is the minor matter of state capitalist theory and total hostility to local bourgeoisies who dress themselves up as anti imperialist. Hence the agonies Cliffites went through during the Iran - Iraq war about what to say when the USA weighed in. United Front were always temporary in the Cliffite mindset, the Rees, German, Bambery (and now Serbian IST) line was to make them much more permanent.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 11, 2013)

Laurie Penny said:
			
		

> It is precisely to do with the idea that, by virtue of being progressive, by virtue of fighting for equality and social justice, by virtue of, well, virtue, we are somehow above being held personally accountable when it comes to issues of race, gender and sexual violence.


 
Good lord, Laurie and I are on the same page. The article isn't that bad. The Identity politics jibe is clearly directly this way, but the rest I think is OK.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 11, 2013)

I hope editor's going to claim some royalties.


----------



## SLK (Jan 11, 2013)

I think China might have left over this actually.

He was very difficult to recruit when he was doing his PHD but one of the most convincing speakers on complex theoretical questions..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Hang on a minute anti imperialism was never about holding back from supporting movements of resistance in 'anti imperialist' countries. There is the minor matter of state capitalist theory and total hostility to local bourgeoisies who dress themselves up as anti imperialist. Hence the agonies Cliffites went through during the Iran - Iraq war about what to say when the USA weighed in. United Front were always temporary in the Cliffite mindset, the Rees, German, Bambery (and now Serbian IST) line was to make them much more permanent.


 
You are showing your vintage here.

The "Rees, German, Bambery (and now Serbian IST) line" was the line of the entire SWP CC and therefore the entire SWP for more than a decade, right up to the last couple of years, after the Respect fiasco and the scapegoating of Rees triggered a reorientation.

You might regard Harman pointing out that the Vietnamese Stalinists had murdered the local Trotskyists as a high point in your political tradition (I'd even agree), but that was a long, long, time ago. Them parading Sadrists around the place on anti-war platforms and denouncing anyone who criticises them is much more recent.

That's all anyone who joined the IST within the last fifteen years knows. For them that *is* the core politics of the SWP's tradition.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 11, 2013)

She still doesn't understand the difference between a rejection of identity politics and the idea that issues such as sexism and racism don't matter does she? Or at least she's trying desperately to pretend she doesn't.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 11, 2013)

And she's nicked my line about him being brave and principled. Where's my cut?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> She still doesn't understand the difference between a rejection of identity politics and the idea that issues such as sexism and racism does she? Or at least she's trying desperately to pretend she doesn't.


 
That's not unique to her in any way. It's an absolutely standard confusion on the part of advocates of identity politics.


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Good lord, Laurie and I are on the same page. The article isn't that bad. The Identity politics jibe is clearly directly this way, but the rest I think is OK.


She's still completely missing the point about the effects of identity politics though - and in using that ongoing criticism in this context (which she absolutely didn't need to do) wasn't just point scoring but also a demonstration of how divisive it can be.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Incidentally (for those that might have been privately face palming at my obvious lack of understanding of the nature of Leninist organisations and the SWP in particular) I took myself to re-education camp the other night and now I even have a glimmering about what 4th International and other such terms mean. I'm not sure how long I'll remember it for, but cheers anyway, button


 
Its the 5th that you need to get gemmed up on :Cockers lot and ex lot. U R dmpd


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Its the 5th that you need to get gemmed up on :Cockers lot and ex lot. U R dmpd


 
I have a feeling that Cockneyrebel may have moved on from the glorious 5th.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I have a feeling that Cockneyrebel may have moved on from the glorious 5th.


 
Where is there to go?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 11, 2013)

The 7th?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2013)

belboid said:


> 7 men, 3 women, plus 2 unnamed TU activists


edited post was redundent


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> . I have to admit that I didn't know they had a Serbian sister group in the first place.


God your slipping these days.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Andy Newman clarified the "comrade" issue in a comment on Socialist Unity. The SWP did not award the title "comrade" to the accused party and deny it to the complainant. That was added later when the discussion was being anonymised for publication. There's lots of things the SWP do actually deserve criticism for, but that apparently isn't one of them.


 
Fair enough, I withdraw my comments about it then.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I know. I was backing up your point.


 
Sorry 

Thanks


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2013)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Its the 5th that you need to get gemmed up on :Cockers lot and ex lot. U R dmpd


Re-education about dumping by text was possibly one of the best threads ever. I miss Cheadle High St


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html


 
It will do the rounds of the mainstream papers now.


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html


Fucking hell. "Socialist sharia court"

Talk about milking it for all it's worth.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Fucking hell. "Socialist sharia court"
> 
> Talk about milking it for all it's worth.


wait till it's in the mail, sun or telegraph. then you'll see the bile flow.


----------



## Athos (Jan 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Fucking hell. "Socialist sharia court"
> 
> Talk about milking it for all it's worth.


 
If you're convicted of a sex crime they cut off your means of production.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> wait till it's in the mail, sun or telegraph. then you'll see the bile flow.


 
Or when Nick Cohen and his ilk get a go.


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> wait till it's in the mail, sun or telegraph. then you'll see the bile flow.


Andy Newman's the bloke that leaked the initial transcript isn't he? Or have I just made that up?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Andy Newman's the bloke that leaked the initial transcript isn't he? Or have I just made that up?


 
Yes, he's the guy who run the hilariously named socialist unity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Andy Newman's the bloke that leaked the initial transcript isn't he? Or have I just made that up?


no, he's in the labour party. so someone leaked it to him. it's in discokermit's link at the top of the page.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html


 

Can anyone cut and paste that article please? The wankers insist I subscribe before I can view the article.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, he's the guy who run the hilariously named socialist unity.


he didn't leak it. someone leaked it to him. but yes it is much misnamed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Can anyone cut and paste that article please? The wankers insist I subscribe before I can view the article.


*Ranks of the Socialist Workers Party are split over handling of rape allegation*

Trotskyist group exonerated official because it doesn’t believe in ‘bourgeois court system’ to deliver justice
Jerome Taylor
Friday, 11 January 2013
The Socialist Workers Party was engulfed in crisis tonight over allegations that it set up a “socialist sharia court” to investigate rape allegations against a senior member instead of reporting them to the police.
The scandal, which has opened up deep splits within Britain’s largest far-left party, emerged this week when disaffected members leaked minutes of a controversial disciplinary meeting which exonerated the official accused of rape and sexual assault.
The furore has led to the expulsion of key members and multiple resignations.
Today Tom Walker, a journalist at the party’s paper, Socialist Worker, became the most prominent member to quit the party in disgust.
In a devastating critique published on the rival Communist Party of Great Britain’s website, Walker excoriated the SWP’s handling of the rape  accusations, alleging that the hearing as a “kangaroo court” and “amateur justice that was doomed from the start”.
The minutes of the disciplinary meeting, which was held during the party’s December conference, detail how SWP leaders were determined to keep the matter away from the police and official authorities – with one member stating that the party had “no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice”.
The row is just the latest sexism scandal to tarnish the reputation of Britain’s radical left which tends to portray itself as a fierce advocate for women’s rights. In September, the  Respect Party’s former leader, Salma Yaqoob, quit in protest over comments made by its founder, George Galloway, that the accusations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange simply constituted “bad sexual etiquette” and not rape.
The highly detailed minutes, which run to 27 pages, were first published on Socialist Unity, a left wing blog run by Andy Newman, a Swindon-based Labour Party member. He told The Independent that SWP members contacted him anonymously because they were furious about the way the party had handled the rape allegations.
“I believe that the SWP think they’re outside the law,” he said. “It’s quite clear reading their account of what’s going on that they sort of see themselves as an alternative group in society that is not part of mainstream society. They think someone couldn’t or shouldn’t go to the police because it would damage the party.”
Mr Newman likened the SWP’s disciplinary hearing to an extrajudicial “sharia” system or the much criticised investigations by the Roman Catholic church into clerical abuse that bypassed reporting allegations to the authorities.
The minutes detail how the party’s disciplinary committee met to discuss allegations that had been levelled against “Comrade Delta” – a senior member who sat on the party’s central committee.
The allegations came from an unnamed female party member who claimed she was assaulted over a six-month period between 2008 and 2009 but did not want to go to the police. The disciplinary committee exonerated Comrade Delta with six of the seven panel members backing his version of events. However, in an indication of the huge concerns over how the case was handled, the panel’s findings were only narrowly accepted by 231 votes to 209 votes when they were put to party members.
The minutes show how party  activists attacked panel members for admitting that they knew Comrade Delta personally. One panel member conceded: [We] all knew Comrade Delta. We knew his important role in the party and on the central committee and none of us knew W or knew her well.”
In his resignation letter, journalist Tim Walker wrote: “Though I believe they took the case deeply seriously, this was not a jury of his peers, but a jury of his mates.”
According to the minutes, friends of the woman – who was not allowed to attend the meeting – stood up to say she felt betrayed by the party. One supporter said: “She thought that if she put in a complaint to the party it would be dealt with in line with the party’s politics and our proud tradition on women’s liberation. Sadly her experiences were quite the opposite.”
_The Independent_ contacted the SWP head office for comment on the allegations but received no reply.
The party’s national secretary, Charlie Kimber, did not dispute the veracity of the minutes in a letter to Socialist Unity demanding they be taken down from the internet.
“I do not believe you are motivated by any considerations apart from a desire to damage the individuals involved and the SWP and to achieve tawdry publicity,” Mr Kimber wrote.
Mr Newman denied the allegations, saying he deliberately redacted the names of those who spoke to protect their identities. What was said in the disciplinary hearing was of public importance and justified publication.
The SWP, formed in 1977 out of the  International Socialists, describes itself as a “revolutionary socialist party” in the tradition of Leon Trotsky.


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> he didn't leak it. someone leaked it to him. but yes it is much misnamed.


And in amidst all the inevitable and increasing political point scoring, bile, and spin; I wonder who's looking after W.


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

Fucking Labour Party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> And in amidst all the inevitable and increasing political point scoring, bile, and spin; I wonder who's looking after W.


sure the swp: they think they've taken care of her.


----------



## mutley (Jan 11, 2013)

I'm not saying anything else here but just to let people know W is being looked after.


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

mutley said:


> I'm not saying anything else here but just to let people know W is being looked after.


Which hopefully includes no-pressure reminder of bourgeois specialist rape advice/support eg thehavens. Cheers for letting us know.


----------



## SLK (Jan 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html


 
They're done for as a serious party now I think.
The victim must be in bits.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2013)

If the SWP does go into serious decline following this, I really hope than the two women who made the complaints don't blame themselves. Assuming they have some remanning loyalty to the SWP.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 11, 2013)

emanymton said:


> If the SWP does go into serious decline following this, I really hope than the two women who made the complaints don't blame themselves. Assuming they have some remanning loyalty to the SWP.


 
If they're going to pin the blame on individuals I'd expect them to look in comrade delta's direction.


----------



## SLK (Jan 11, 2013)

Yes, I didn't mean she must be in bits because of the SWP being 'done for'. I meant because of the attention and the stirring it up. I also wasn't sure whether to write "victim" or "alleged victim".


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2013)

SLK said:


> Yes, I didn't mean she must be in bits because of the SWP being 'done for'. I meant because of the attention and the stirring it up. I also wasn't sure whether to write "victim" or "alleged victim".


Yes sorry I know what you meant, I was just thinking I hope they don't end up blaming themselves on top of everything else.


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

SLK said:


> They're done for as a serious party now I think.
> The victim must be in bits.


I imagine the SWP may be displaying "victim"hood in the not too distant future. Victim's not a great word - survivor or target is preferable, but I know what you mean.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> If they're going to pin the blame on individuals I'd expect them to look in comrade delta's direction.


We'd hope so but sadly peoples minds don't always work that way. 

ETA: I am sure they do blame him but might blame themselves as well,


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> If they're going to pin the blame on individuals I'd expect them to look in comrade delta's direction.


I hope they don't go down the individual blaming route. There's so much more to be gained by "OK, we might have fucked this up. But fucking up rape investigations is hardly new, and hardly the preserve of the far-left. Our main concern at the moment is making sure that those most closely involved are adequately supported, and revisiting how we do things for the future. In a society where sexual misconduct is rife and only now starting to be reported more, we'd rather learn from this and make sure we can do it better next time. Because there will always be a next time."


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

Seymour goes public too:
http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/crisis-in-swp.html


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 11, 2013)

I'm glad the mainstream media has got hold of it now, it might be a death knell for the whole fetid thing


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Seymour goes public too:
> http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/crisis-in-swp.html


At this rate there will hardly be anyone left to speak at Marxism.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 11, 2013)

emanymton said:


> At this rate there will hardly be anyone left to speak at Marxism.


 
As long as Tariq Ali and Tony Benn are still alive...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 11, 2013)

Young SWPers posting that lenin's tomb article on facebook. Looks like they're breaking cover.

One thing I've been thinking about. In the counterfire split there was an obvious leadership with some credibility (both in terms with relationship to St. Tony of Cliff and in terms of experience etc) in Rees and German. But with this lot there's not really - I'm sure there's very good activists among them but no 'names'. So I wonder if there's any chance of them splitting into one group or whether it might get messy.

I also wonder if that seymour article is in part his way of positioning himself at the top of any future split.


----------



## newbie (Jan 11, 2013)

> There isn't enough bile to conjure up the shame and disgrace of all of this, nor the palpable physical revulsion, nor the visceral contempt building, nor the sense of betrayal and rage, nor the literal physical and emotional shattering of people exposed to the growing madness day in and day out.


blimey


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

That's it. They've gone above ground. The leadership will either have to start mass expulsions or back down, thereby suffering the biggest defeat in the organisation's history.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 11, 2013)

newbie said:


> blimey


 
The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. Or something like that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I also wonder if that seymour article is in part his way of positioning himself at the top of any future split.


 
I doubt if it's that cynical. If Seymour wants to be in the leadership of any group stemming from this row, he would be anyway.

The main reason he's chosen to go public is tactical: Lenin's Tomb is a means of communicating with the membership directly and in large numbers which the leadership can't control or limit. It's pretty much the only site the SWP frequent en masse.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 11, 2013)

Laurie penny gets some brownie points for that article- and so does Seymour,


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 11, 2013)

What do people here think of the idea of a code of conduct regarding acceptable/non-acceptable behaviour regarding racism, sexism, behaviour towards other comrades etc for people in parties like the SWP or SP to sign up to, and to have to sign up to when they join? Obviously it could get abused and used to justify expulsions etc, but it could go some way towards addressing the internal culture of the party, although there would obviously have to be other measures put in place as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What do people here think of the idea of a code of conduct regarding acceptable/non-acceptable behaviour regarding racism, sexism, behaviour towards other comrades etc for people in parties like the SWP or SP to sign up to, and to have to sign up to when they join? Obviously it could get abused and used to justify expulsions etc, but it could go some way towards addressing the internal culture of the party, although there would obviously have to be other measures put in place as well.


it's very fucking simple: do unto others as you would be done to yourself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What do people here think of the idea of a code of conduct regarding acceptable/non-acceptable behaviour regarding racism, sexism, behaviour towards other comrades etc for people in parties like the SWP or SP to sign up to, and to have to sign up to when they join? Obviously it could get abused and used to justify expulsions etc, but it could go some way towards addressing the internal culture of the party, although there would obviously have to be other measures put in place as well.


 
The US section of the CWI has something very similar to that. When I heard about it I can't say I was keen - don't really like the implicit suggestion that any male recruit is a potential sex pest and I think it would make potential recruits think they're immediately under suspicion. Got to say I'm rethinking it now but my view is still that getting people to sign up to some kind of code of conduct won't stop them doing it - after all this stuff is illegal anyway - if they're going to risk prison the loss of their party card is unlikely to stop them. And if that's needed to let people, especially senior members, know harrassment isn't OK then you've got to ask serious questions about the level of political education in the organization.

On balance I still think the best way to deal with this is to ensure the correct procedures are in place to deal with it when it does happen and that people know where to report this and are comfortable that they will be dealt with respectfully.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

_ On balance I still think the best way to deal with this is to ensure the correct procedures are in place to deal with it when it does happen and that people know where to report this and are comfortable that they will be dealt with respectfully. _

yep


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2013)

I had the same reaction as SpineyNorman to the US section of the CWI and their 'contract', but I am beginning to think something similar could be useful... perhaps more with a focus on how to get help if there is a problem.

Anyone know what the two opposition factions are up to? Surely Seymour will be expelled right?


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 12, 2013)

> I had the same reaction as SpineyNorman to the US section of the CWI and their 'contract',


 
But surely a large proportion of employers have policies that relate to racist, sexist, homophobic behaviour etc? What's the difference? I notice Counterfire have something about this in their constitution, although it doesn't really spell out what it means in practice. To be honest I'm surprised that most political parties don't have something like this, even if in reality it is tokenistic.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2013)

When I discussed it with them that was what they said-that you did that when you started a new job, so why not when you join a party? I agree it would be somewhat tokenistic, but at least you're telling members from the start what to do if they have a problem.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 12, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> But surely a large proportion of employers have policies that relate to racist, sexist, homophobic behaviour etc? What's the difference? I notice Counterfire have something about this in their constitution, although it doesn't really spell out what it means in practice. To be honest I'm surprised that most political parties don't have something like this, even if in reality it is tokenistic.


They do. It's best practice, if not an actual requirement legally.


----------



## cesare (Jan 12, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> They do. It's best practice, if not an actual requirement legally.


If they don't have a policy, communicate that policy, and train people about it; the organisation is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees during the course of work. In other words in order to avoid picking up an uncapped tab for the misconduct of its employees, they have to take "reasonable" steps to prevent it.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I had the same reaction as SpineyNorman to the US section of the CWI and their 'contract', but I am beginning to think something similar could be useful... perhaps more with a focus on how to get help if there is a problem.
> 
> Anyone know what the two opposition factions are up to? Surely Seymour will be expelled right?


Maybe, but in theory all disciplinary hearings have to go to the disputes committee (I imagine they are going to get very busy), and that means that in theory no expulsions can be confirmed until next years conference. Bear in mind as well that the 4 who have already been 'expelled' have still to go to the DC, so it is possible that their case may even rumble on until next years conferree. Of course they could just expel people on mass so their is no one left in the SWP to fight the expulsions.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> Re-education about dumping by text was possibly one of the best threads ever. I miss Cheadle High St


 
The problem was the left turned into Cheadle High Street


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

Andy Newman either taken for a ride with Indie journalist or covering his back:



> I had a reasonably long chat with Jerome Taylor, the Independent journalist, and he had a firm grasp of the issues involved, but inevitably in the course of writing a relatively short article for his paper, the complexity cannot be reflected. The quote about Sharia law was to a certain extent “put into my mouth” and I think reflects Jerome Taylor’s own views rather more than mine. Jerome struck me as a good journalist, and I don’t think he did anything wrong, it is just that he probably interpreted our conversation based upon different political assumptions from mine.


 
Newman is effectively arguing that the SWP should have brought the Police in and that Delta should have been befre the Courts:



> “I believe that the SWP think they’re outside the law”


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

emanymton said:


> At this rate there will hardly be anyone left to speak at Marxism.


 
The Black Hand is free to do History and Politics of the Credit Crunch


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Laurie penny gets some brownie points for that article- and so does Seymour,


 
Not sure about that what so ever with regards to LP . All her article is is a vindication of her own identity politics over a cobweb left group.


----------



## cesare (Jan 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Not sure about that what so ever with regards to LP . All her article is is a vindication of her own identity politics over a cobweb left group.


Aye, by including the political point scoring what she did was hijack something that stood alone as a serious issue and turn it into a vindication.

Mind you, people did that with the "tout" issue to have a go at the anarchists too.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What do people here think of the idea of a code of conduct regarding acceptable/non-acceptable behaviour regarding racism, sexism, behaviour towards other comrades etc for people in parties like the SWP or SP to sign up to, and to have to sign up to when they join? Obviously it could get abused and used to justify expulsions etc, but it could go some way towards addressing the internal culture of the party, although there would obviously have to be other measures put in place as well.


 
The central crux of this argument though isn't about sexual violence or sexual harassment but about accountability and party democracy


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> The central crux of this argument though isn't about sexual violence or sexual harassment but about accountability and party democracy


 
Tell us more.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Tell us more.


 
the allegations of rape are a hook on which to stand long-term grievances about how the SWP deals with criticism, internal issues and opponents on the left. It could have been a number of different issues which sparked the current schism.


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm sure W will be delighted to have her ordeal reduced to a secondary concern after the needs of the party. Again.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> the allegations of rape are a hook on which to stand long-term grievances about how the SWP deals with criticism, internal issues and opponents on the left. It could have been a number of different issues which sparked the current schism.


 
That is the theory but what is the evidence? and whose long term grievances? and where did how  the SWP deals with opponents on the left come into it?

Unless if course you are talking about posters on here rather than party members


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

Whose theory?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Whose theory?


 
Divisive Cotton's. If he is talking about some  posters on here who twitch through the curtains every time the SWP is mentioned he might have a point.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

I don't think that's what he meant.

I think he said it quite clearly so I don't know how to reword it to make it clearer.

Surely the evidence is in the crisis itself? I don't believe there would be such a crisis if there weren't these issues bubbling away under the surface.

Why do you think this is happening?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> I'm sure W will be delighted to have her ordeal reduced to a secondary concern after the needs of the party. Again.


 
I don't think people use hooks consciously.

ETA: Sometimes people use hooks consciously. I think in this case the response is too emotional and visceral to be seen in such a way.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 12, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think people use hooks consciously.
> 
> ETA: Sometimes people use hooks consciously. I think in this case the response is too emotional and visceral to be seen in such a way.


 
I agree yeah it's an unintentional hook, but as you noted it's such an touchy subject, and rightly too I'm not stating that these types of issues are unimportant, it's just not what is at the core of this particular debate.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> What do people here think of the idea of a code of conduct regarding acceptable/non-acceptable behaviour regarding racism, sexism, behaviour towards other comrades etc for people in parties like the SWP or SP to sign up to, and to have to sign up to when they join? Obviously it could get abused and used to justify expulsions etc, but it could go some way towards addressing the internal culture of the party, although there would obviously have to be other measures put in place as well.


 
That might be a good idea. Though usually it's fairly implicit that you don't treat other comrades badly, esp in terms of race, gender and so on.

It's my opinion though that the SWP has always been light on rape: from pamphlets of Paul Foot, Cliff's book on Class Struggle and Women's Liberation, through to cases I know of women comrades being actively discouraged from reporting rape.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 12, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it's very fucking simple: do unto others as you would be done to yourself.


 
Agreed, but the problem is that we don't all possess the same "self", eg: you might yourself feel safe walking home at night or going into a pub on your own, but for other people this might not feel safe.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> That might be a good idea. Though usually it's fairly implicit that you don't treat other comrades badly, esp in terms of race, gender and so on.
> 
> It's my opinion though that the SWP has always been light on rape: from pamphlets of Paul Foot, Cliff's book on Class Struggle and Women's Liberation, through to cases I know of women comrades being actively discouraged from reporting rape.


Can you expand on how those works are 'light on rape'?


----------



## rosecore (Jan 12, 2013)

Independent use the offensive term "Socialist Sharia Court" but Andy Newman who was quoted accuses the journalist Jerome Taylor of putting those "words in his mouth".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 12, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> That might be a good idea. Though usually it's fairly implicit that you don't treat other comrades badly, esp in terms of race, gender and so on.


 
Yeah that's the thing - I don't think it would make any difference. I don't believe for a second that anyone who joins a left group (or any pretty much any group except NAMBLA or something for that matter) isn't aware that sexual harassment etc is unacceptable. Nobody thinks they can so that shit and get away with it if caught (let's not forget that comrade delta was found not guilty by the DC so even with this is place he'd not have been expelled).

I don't think it's really anything more than a token gesture.

I think the only way to address this, if you're serious about it, is to put in place proper processes for dealing with it. That means members should know who to go to with complaints, including complaints against the most senior members. It also means doing everything you can to make people confident that these issues will be dealt with like the serious matters they are, not subordinated to 'party interests' and that they will at all times be treated with respect and cared for. One of the worst things about this case is that it's done the opposite - after this who would be confident that if they made a complaint of this kind it would be dealt with properly?


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2013)

electric.avenue said:
			
		

> That might be a good idea. Though usually it's fairly implicit that you don't treat other comrades badly, esp in terms of race, gender and so on.
> 
> It's my opinion though that the SWP has always been light on rape: from pamphlets of Paul Foot, Cliff's book on Class Struggle and Women's Liberation, through to cases I know of women comrades being actively discouraged from reporting rape.



There's two different aspects.

One is the practical response to rape; in respect of which, recent events show the SWP in a bad light - failing to deal with it properly, caused by putting the party first.

The other is a political position with regard to rape. You are suggesting that the SWP is ideologically soft on rape. I find this unconvincing. Unless, of course, you can point to some concrete examples in the works you mentioned?


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can you expand on how those works are 'light on rape'?


 
Will do, but now I'm going to have to dig out the relevant quotes.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I agree yeah it's an unintentional hook, but as you noted it's such an touchy subject, and rightly too I'm not stating that these types of issues are unimportant, it's just not what is at the core of this particular debate.


 
Core of the debate on where? here? LP's article? at the SWP Conference? on Socialist unity? on the CPGB website? the Independent?

I think you might find that there are a number of different agendas.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

rosecore said:


> Independent use the offensive term "Socialist Sharia Court" but Andy Newman who was quoted accuses the journalist Jerome Taylor of putting those "words in his mouth".


 
Yup noted earlier. Newman then goes on to defend Sharia Courts.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You are showing your vintage here.
> 
> The "Rees, German, Bambery (and now Serbian IST) line" was the line of the entire SWP CC and therefore the entire SWP for more than a decade, right up to the last couple of years, after the Respect fiasco and the scapegoating of Rees triggered a reorientation.
> 
> ...


Lol. You're probably right. But doesn't anyone in the SWP read any more? Don't get me wrong I prefer the Counterfire approach to discussion, Rees has been nothing but pleasant to me. But the politics is shit. Wholescale pandering to stalinists. The low point was an article by Bamberys lot in Scotland that referred to Syriza as centrist. Cliff audibly turned in his grave at that one.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Core of the debate on where? here? LP's article? at the SWP Conference? on Socialist unity? on the CPGB website? the Independent?
> 
> I think you might find that there are a number of different agendas.


 
In the debate framed by me. I've read a number of those articles you mentioned and at the core of the best of them is one that centres on accountability and democracy and how they repeatedly sacrifice both for their own gain at the expense of others.

Mike Marqusee writes well in this article: http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?p=1360


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

Divisive Cotton said:


> In the debate framed by me. I've read a number of those articles you mentioned and at the core of the best of them is one that centres on accountability and democracy and how they repeatedly sacrifice both for their own gain at the expense of others.
> 
> Mike Marqusee writes well in this article: http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?p=1360


 
Well lets hear your debate then, in your own words.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Fuck me, Lenins Tomb. Saw this one coming, he was doing his best to be even handed between the Prof and Counterfire over both Syria and Syriza. Never did like the little shit, quite glad he's broken ranks on this. "Old polemics against 'feminism' from the 1980s, always somewhat dogmatic" Q.E. fucking D. The opposition are feminist autonomists and I demand my £10.

And yes clearly Seymour never got the core of the politics either


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

They've lost Mieville too! How will they survive.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 12, 2013)

Feminist autonomists lol


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

BB there appears to be a marked difference between what you think the core of the SWP politics are and what the reality of the situation is today. It seems to the case that the majority of the members in the organisation don't think the core of the SWPs politics are what you imagine them to be.

Also you do seem to be going down the well worn path where leaders of the SWP (and other far left organisations in the UK are all the same at this, look at the vitriol between the SP and Socialist Appeal), where when people are members nothing is said, but as soon as they leave a whole catalogue of crimes come out. They never got the politics, they were feminists, they were autonomists, they had never read anything. Hell, fuck it, lets just call them little shits, that'll do.

Bit strange though that the SWP thought it was ok to have hundreds of these exact same people as members of year after year and promote them to the full timers, the editorial board and the central committee.

Your posts seem to read more and more like some stalinist show trial. Cliff is dead. Long live Cliff.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

You don't get it. There is of course a place in a revolutionary org for centrists like these. Until they challenge for leadership. It's just nice that they're finally revealing the political reasons for their exit. Nobody actually in the swpwill put it like that of course but it's what the people left clinging to the lifeboat will be thinking.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 12, 2013)

A couple of my old comrades from West London quit last night, and made it public on Facebook their dissatisfaction. In fact no-one seems to be adhering to the vow of silence, and there are angry exchanges erupting all over the place.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Someone put this on the Prof's FB wall this morning:

"i am deeply saddened by the conflict in the swp-you really should have a lawyer look at your procedures for making decisions on allegations by comrades against each other-the procedural safeguards for rape victims won in the bourgeois courts over 50 years of struggle are real gains and must form part of any socialist organisation-they were won by women's struggle and not easily granted by male dominated courts please take this comment in the comradely way it is intended ianxx"

Interestingly he hasn't deleted or commented on it.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 12, 2013)

I think we should thank bb for demonstrating the mindset that's got the Swappies into this mess..


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You don't get it. There is of course a place in a revolutionary org for centrists like these. Until they challenge for leadership. It's just nice that they're finally revealing the political reasons for their exit. Nobody actually in the swpwill put it like that of course but it's what the people left clinging to the lifeboat will be thinking.


 
Yes, that's why they dislike the way this woman was treated. Because they're centrists


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Oh please people. Haven't you got a political bone in your bodies. That one sentence from Seymour on Lenin's Tomb proves what this is really about. I just had a long chat with another ex member who had the honesty to say look this is the end of the UK's leading leninist org and that's a good thing. I disagreed with him but at least we had a political chat and it wasn't all about the way the DC handled this mess.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 12, 2013)




----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh please people. Haven't you got a political bone in your bodies. That one sentence from Seymour on Lenin's Tomb proves what this is really about. I just had a long chat with another ex member who had the honesty to say look this is the end of the UK's leading leninist org and that's a good thing. I disagreed with him but at least we had a political chat and it wasn't all about the way the DC handled this mess.


 
You just don't get it, do you?

Scary.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

Surely how the DC handled this mess is political though? Isnt sexism a political issue?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> BB there appears to be a marked difference between what you think the core of the SWP politics are and what the reality of the situation is today. It seems to the case that the majority of the members in the organisation don't think the core of the SWPs politics are what you imagine them to be.
> 
> Also you do seem to be going down the well worn path where leaders of the SWP (and other far left organisations in the UK are all the same at this, look at the vitriol between the SP and Socialist Appeal), where when people are members nothing is said, but as soon as they leave a whole catalogue of crimes come out. They never got the politics, they were feminists, they were autonomists, they had never read anything. Hell, fuck it, lets just call them little shits, that'll do.
> 
> ...


 
cliche alert


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Yes it is and I feel like an utter shit for talking about anything other than the way these women were treated. But you'd have to be totally blind not to see the rest of the picture.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh please people. Haven't you got a political bone in your bodies. That one sentence from Seymour on Lenin's Tomb proves what this is really about. I just had a long chat with another ex member who had the honesty to say look this is the end of the UK's leading leninist org and that's a good thing. I disagreed with him but at least we had a political chat and it wasn't all about the way the DC handled this mess.


 
Fucking hell.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Surely how the DC handled this mess is political though? Isnt sexism a political issue?


 
Exactly. Its has been seen by a considerable minority as a cover up whether or not it is.For LP and other identity handwringers it is seen as some sort of inherent failure of the a theoretically class based  left .


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/the-left-comrades-in-the-swp-rebel

this looks like a good article, can anyone with more knowledge of the swp than i do comment?



> The SWP is utterly directionless. It recruits a thousand or so pseudo-members a year, and transforms a small fraction of those into activists, who are employed strictly to recruit the next contingent. It is not a ‘party’ - indeed, it can barely even be called an organisation. It is a self-perpetuating machine, which sustains itself by keeping its lower cadre quiet and occupied with building the next demonstration or meeting, be it a pseudo-conference of trade union militants or another fruitless turn of the ‘anti-fascist’ gerbil wheel. It lacks even the beginnings of a strategic direction in this period.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

As well as the disgraceful way that a rape allegation has been handled, and which will inevitably cause the most damage, there are also a lot of other political questions from the faction.

The form of democratic centralism that the SWP use and the way they set up fronts and call them united fronts and damage campaigns seem to be two of the central ones that were being brought up by the faction. Of course this all relates back to the far left's total inability in the last 20 or more years to relate to the working class in any meaningful way, or engage the working class or learn from the working class as they largely live in a vanguard bubble ever more detached from reality. The SWP seem to make an art form of this, but all the far left groups suffer from it, at least in this country.

There have been some attempts to engage working class communities, but sadly they have been few and far between. And in the unions I'd be a millionaire if I'd got a pound for every time I'd heard someone on the far left use the term "rank and file", but for all the energy that is put in to speaking about it, almost nothing is done in practical terms. There must be a few hundred people in the far left in UNISON, but not even the basic stepping stones have been built to try and build a grassroots network.

Still it's ok, we've got Martin Smtih to scream out Nazis. "I call 'em Nazis, cos they don't like it, they don't like"...............


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/the-left-comrades-in-the-swp-rebel
> 
> this looks like a good article, can anyone with more knowledge of the swp than i do comment?


 
Well the bit about pseudo conferences of trade union militants is certainly true. The UTR conference I went to was exactly that. In terms of a strategic direction I was left there sitting it's all good and well screaming out general strike but you seem to have no conception of how bad things are in the unions in terms of a total lack of grassroots network/rank and file and you don't seem to have any ideas whatsoever about how to change that, other than keep saying general strike and saying everyone is angry.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You don't get it. There is of course a place in a revolutionary org for centrists like these. Until they challenge for leadership. It's just nice that they're finally revealing the political reasons for their exit. Nobody actually in the swpwill put it like that of course but it's what the people left clinging to the lifeboat will be thinking.


 
So you think that's a good way to build a working class socialist organisation? A load of full timers, most with no attachment to working class communities, with all the knowledge, and then most of the membership a bunch of "centrists" who do what they are told.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Well the bit about pseudo conferences of trade union militants is certainly true. The UAF conference I went to was exactly that. In terms of a strategic direction I was left there sitting it's all good and well screaming out general strike but you seem to have no conception of how bad things are in the unions in terms of a total lack of grassroots network/rank and file and you don't seem to have any ideas whatsoever about how to change that, other than keep saying general strike and saying everyone is angry.


 
me? i do have some idea thanks ...


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

Sorry that meant to say UTR (Unite the Resistance) not UAF. And I was referring to the UTR conference, not you!!


----------



## two sheds (Jan 12, 2013)

Yes interesting article froggy. These couple of paragraphs, if true, are particularly revealing.



> So why should this mummer’s show of legal arbitration have been so unconvincing - and, assuming his innocence (he has not, after all, been proven guilty), why should these allegations against Smith prove so instinctively _believable _among the SWP rank and file? The second question is easier to answer. Whether or not such behaviour is reproduced in the comrade’s personal life, it is undeniable that he is a bully and a thug. It was Smith, for example, who hounded comrade Simon Wells out of the SWP - and later wrestled him to the ground at the SWP’s Marxism festival to confiscate his ticket.4 It was Smith whose phone calls were dreaded by SWP organisers, and resembled the hectoring of the worst kind of shop-floor manager.
> 
> This character, alas, made him ideal material for the role of SWP national organiser - the SWP operating a version of ‘chain of command’ which would be recognisable to any police constable or private. A genuine revolutionary working class organisation would promote capable, thinking leaders who had _earned _the respect and trust of the rank and file. The SWP, with some honourable exceptions, promotes hacks.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh please people. Haven't you got a political bone in your bodies. That one sentence from Seymour on Lenin's Tomb proves what this is really about.


 
Quite apart from the implied utilitarian approach that two women's experience is somehow of no real importance in comparison to maintaining historic perspectives and methods, the political mistake being made is by the dogmatic apologists. Apart from anything else you seem incapable of recognising that "feminism" covers a whole spectrum of different and sometimes mutually incompatible political stances - not all feminism is liberal identity politics.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 12, 2013)

I am sad to say it but I think the CPBG are spot on about the UTR conference pointless rally. Lets get 1000 people in a room and then ... it smacks of desperation a need to do something, anything. Also the CPBG are advertising london seminars with what I think are a lego Marx and Engles. Please CPBG stop doing things that make me warm to you.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Quite apart from the implied utilitarian approach that two women's experience is somehow of no real importance in comparison to maintaining historic perspectives and methods, the political mistake being made is by the dogmatic apologists. Apart from anything else you seem incapable of recognising that "feminism" covers a whole spectrum of different and sometimes mutually incompatible political stances - not all feminism is liberal identity politics.


 
True Louise Mensch for one.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Yes interesting article froggy. These couple of paragraphs, if true, are particularly revealing.


 
You do realise that the only reason the CPGB publish all this is to try and recruit out of it. For all their 'come over here to the land of milk and honey' propganda their own history is full of the same sorts of shenagigans of splits, expulsions and falling outs.

The problem I have with democratic centralism isn't that it isn't some form of proportional representation heaven or endless bouts of consensus based meetings but that it replicates internally the same 'advanced workers/politically conscious' split that all of the Leninist and Trot based groups do with the working class.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Core of the debate on where? here? LP's article? at the SWP Conference? on Socialist unity? on the CPGB website? the Independent?
> 
> I think you might find that there are a number of different agendas.


 
He's talking about the debate in the SWP. 

Isn't he?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> So you think that's a good way to build a working class socialist organisation? A load of full timers, most with no attachment to working class communities, with all the knowledge, and then most of the membership a bunch of "centrists" who do what they are told.


 
He didn't say he was in agreement with the SWP, he gave his analysis of what he thinks has happened.


----------



## rosecore (Jan 12, 2013)

Now the Daily Mail are copying Jerome Taylor.
*Socialist Workers' Party held 'sharia-style court' to exonerate party member accused of raping female 'comrade'*


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

More feminist autonomists:



> Leeds University SWSS Statement:
> 
> Leeds University SWSS condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the recent handling of very serious accusations against a leading member of the SWP Central Committee. We are also extremely disappointed that SWP national conference voted to ratify the decision and process of the Disputes Committee responsible for the investigation.
> 
> ...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Trust the Mail to give an Islamophobic twist to the swp bashing.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> He's talking about the debate in the SWP.
> 
> Isn't he?


 
Are you following the debate within the SWP?


----------



## rosecore (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Trust the Mail to give an Islamophobic twist to the swp bashing.


 
It was Jerome Taylor in the Independent who did it first ironically enough.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

> You do realise that the only reason the CPGB publish all this is to try and recruit out of it. For all their 'come over here to the land of milk and honey' propganda their own history is full of the same sorts of shenagigans of splits, expulsions and falling outs.


 
yep.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Quite apart from the implied utilitarian approach that two women's experience is somehow of no real importance in comparison to maintaining historic perspectives and methods, the political mistake being made is by the dogmatic apologists. Apart from anything else you seem incapable of recognising that "feminism" covers a whole spectrum of different and sometimes mutually incompatible political stances - not all feminism is liberal identity politics.


Eh yes I've heard of socialist feminism. So have Tom Walker and Seymour. That's the point.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Eh yes I've heard of socialist feminism. So have Tom Walker and Seymour. That's the point.


 
So have the Labour Party


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The problem I have with democratic centralism isn't that it isn't some form of proportional representation heaven or endless bouts of consensus based meetings but that it replicates internally the same 'advanced workers/politically conscious' split that all of the Leninist and Trot based groups do with the working class.


 
how do you mean? do you mean that it enforces a differentiation between the full-timers and the rest of the members (and the w/c in general)? just a bit confused here


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> how do you mean? do you mean that it enforces a differentiation between the full-timers and the rest of the members (and the w/c in general)? just a bit confused here


 
That's the tendency. Will explain later if I don't have too many pints but I am off  out to watch the football. Had a busy day actually ; a big shop at Morrison's, went to the allotment, cleaned the chickens out, defrosted the fridge, walked the dog and hoovered downstairs and the stairs. I deserve a pint for all that unpaid domestic labour and dog care.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Are you following the debate within the SWP?


 
No, only what we all know.

I thought the post was referring to issues_ in the SWP_ coming to the fore that have been in the background for a while. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand but maybe I'm being stupid. tbh I don't understand most of the thread, it's like everyone's talking in different languages.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

chickens! nice one


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> So you think that's a good way to build a working class socialist organisation? A load of full timers, most with no attachment to working class communities, with all the knowledge, and then most of the membership a bunch of "centrists" who do what they are told.


Not at all, there'll be centrists at all levels of the organisation. That was true in the Irish party when I first joined it and it'll be true of the SWP today. That's inevitable, some people join and stay with a party because they want to change the world but never agree with its core worldview. Nothing wrong with that at all. The problem is when they get carried away and try to takeover.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

that doesn't mean they're centrists tho or that they're wrong, just because they disagree with the leadership on organisational matters. I'm in the SP because of the work it's done locally and because I think it's probably the organisation on the left that has actually done quite a lot of good in large areas of the country, in unions, etc, as well as internationally with other sections of the cwi. there's loads i disagree with the leadership about though.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

I hope Leeds swss pay copyright to Tom Walker for the use of militant anti sexist.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not at all, there'll be centrists at all levels of the organisation. That was true in the Irish party when I first joined it and it'll be true of the SWP today. That's inevitable, some people join and stay with a party because they want to change the world but never agree with its core worldview. Nothing wrong with that at all. The problem is when they get carried away and try to takeover.


 
So you're basically saying despite all that has happened there isn't really anything wrong with the SWP and all the centrists need to get out so the hardcore can get on with more of the same?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Feminist is an insult to a Cliffite that's what they don't understand.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> that doesn't mean they're centrists tho or that they're wrong, just because they disagree with the leadership on organisational matters. I'm in the SP because of the work it's done locally and because I think it's probably the organisation on the left that has actually done quite a lot of good in large areas of the country, in unions, etc, as well as internationally with other sections of the cwi. there's loads i disagree with the leadership about though.


 
Centrist. Feminist. Autonomist.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> So you're basically saying despite all that has happened there isn't really anything wrong with the SWP and all the centrists need to get out so the hardcore can get on with more of the same?


Sounds about right.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sounds about right.


 
Brilliant. At least you're honest.

I'd rejoin if I was you, they need this kind of backing at a time like this. You'll probably be the only person in the country joining, as people flood out of the exit doors.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

Nothing to see here comrades, move on, move on. No we've got the rabble out of the way the true vanguard can move on to glory. Onwards Tony Cliff. Onwards Martin Smith. Paper sales up. Membership up. Marxism biggest for 200 years.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Centrist. Feminist. Autonomist.


 
Possibly.

I think this could have a massive impact tbh, far beyond the SWP. I think the SP would handle a case like this in a far better way, but I'm sure that a lot of left wing groups are looking at this and wondering about rethinking what "democratic centralism" could mean.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Possibly.
> 
> I think this could have a massive impact tbh, far beyond the SWP.


 
I wasn't being serious.

You are right about impact, it will harm the whole of the left, but the SWP the most. Most people think organisations like the SWP and the Socialist Party are the same organisation, if they know of them at all. The only reason it won't have more impact is because the far left is so marginalised anyway.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Brilliant. At least you're honest.
> 
> I'd rejoin if I was you, they need this kind of backing at a time like this. You'll probably be the only person in the country joining, as people flood out of the exit doors.


I was being ironic.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I wasn't being serious.
> 
> You are right about impact, it will harm the whole of the left, but the SWP the most. Most people think organisations like the SWP and the Socialist Party are the same organisation, if they know of them at all. The only reason it won't have more impact is because the far left is so marginalised anyway.


 
I'm not sure that this incident will harm the left. It was going to emerge what had happened anyway. What has already happened has harmed the left. It could mean that this entire thing causes a re think within left wing organisations about the whole idea of democratic centralism, I don't necessarily mean abandoning it, but just to look more closely at their internal culture.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Trust the Mail to give an Islamophobic twist to the swp bashing.


 
Actually I think it was Andy Newman from SU who was first to that lovely twist.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I was being ironic.


 
In what way? You appear to be saying all the people on the leadership have the right politics and the people against them are a bunch of centrists, feminists and autonomists. And little shits.

So surely the logic would be that the leadership should carry on as they were?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jan 12, 2013)

I've got a close friend who was in the SWP for decades (but not now). He's a good man who is a good judge of character. I mentioned, in isolation, the name of the alleged rapist, and asked if he knew him. His face clouded and he said with vehemence  "He's a thug." I told him about the rape allegation (he'd not heard) and he wasn't in the least surprised. He was pretty appalled at the way it was being dealt with too as being a totally inappropriate response.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Feminist is an insult to a Cliffite that's what they don't understand.


Another good reason not to be a Cliffite then


----------



## cesare (Jan 12, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Actually I think it was Andy Newman from SU who was first to that lovely twist.


He then seems to have backtracked when the Indie journo used it, saying that the words were put in his mouth.

I was quite surprised that the Mail didn't sensationalise it more, tbh.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> He then seems to have backtracked when the Indie journo used it, saying that the words were put in his mouth.


But still refuses to criticise the journo, it all seems very weird.


----------



## cesare (Jan 12, 2013)

emanymton said:


> But still refuses to criticise the journo, it all seems very weird.


Yep. Makes it look like a wriggle.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yep. Makes it look like a wriggle.


 
It is, he said it and he knows it.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm reminded Red Action went through an almost identical thing some time ago.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> I'm reminded Red Action went through an almost identical thing some time ago.


 Did they indeed? How did that pan out?

I agree with FrogWoman; I do hope the SP would do better if the same happened within our own ranks but we should all be looking with a critical eye at our own organisational structures and cultures and ask ourselves whether or not they can be improved. I'm a believer in democratic centralism (though not the sort practised by the SWP) but it's worth remembering that no democratic structure can work if a culture of protecting the leadership from criticism or disciplinary action emerges-it takes an active, informed and conscientious membership to make internal democracy work.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Understandably the swp folk I have as friends on fb are remaining totally silent. Apart from one like from the Prof of a supportive comment on his wall.


----------



## cesare (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Understandably the swp folk I have as friends on fb are remaining totally silent. Apart from one like from the Prof of a supportive comment on his wall.


The silent ones, your friends, understanding and buying into the core beliefs?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2013)

Very little political discussion. No change there then.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Very little political discussion. No change there then.


 
What here or in the SWP?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Understandably the swp folk I have as friends on fb are remaining totally silent. Apart from one like from the Prof of a supportive comment on his wall.


 
Quite a few of them going at it hammer and tongs on certain facebook walls. The "dissidents" are more numerous and louder than the "loyalists", but there are quite a few of the latter too.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What here or in the SWP?


 
Facebook. I've seen one about 'more comrades than usual in their district selling the paper'.

Meanwhile, Laurie Penny's weighed in.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

audiotech said:


> I've seen one about 'more comrades than usual in their district selling the paper'


 
That's so dire it's almost funny.


----------



## mutley (Jan 12, 2013)

Leeds University SWSS Statement:

_'Leeds University SWSS condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the recent handling of very serious accusations against a leading member of the SWP Central Committee. We are also extremely disappointed that SWP national conference voted to ratify the decision and process of the Disputes Committee responsible for the investigation.'_

One stop shop - where did this leeds swss statement come from?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's so dire it's almost funny.


 
Absolutely, and this from someone I know who was heavily involved in feminist politics in the late 70's. "Heartened" by the turn-out it appears.

Edit: Hold the front page! Thought this sounded odd. Turns out it was some increase in a verbal commitment to sell papers, so the actuality of a turn-out I suspect will have been little, or more likely none.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 12, 2013)

And here's the CC 'line':

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-cc-counter-attack

Which contains, among many, many others, this particular gem:



> Secret factions have all the defects of permanent factions, added to which are those of *lack of any accountability to the party at large.*


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

mutley said:


> One stop shop - where did this leeds swss statement come from?


 
It's Leeds SWSS' facebook status.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 12, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> And here's the CC 'line':
> 
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-cc-counter-attack
> 
> Which contains, among many, many others, this particular gem:


 
Thought that was a response they'd only just released until I saw the date - they're surely going to have to release something, internally at least.


----------



## Athos (Jan 12, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> And here's the CC 'line':
> 
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-cc-counter-attack
> 
> Which contains, among many, many others, this particular gem:


 
Making impossible for anyone to parody you (by doing it yourself) is an interesting defensive technique.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> The silent ones, your friends, understanding and buying into the core beliefs?


Some but some of my best friends are centrists


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm a bit baffled by your use of the word "centrist" here, bb. How exactly does disagreeing on some theoretical or organisational point with the CC of the SWP make you a "centrist"?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm a bit baffled by your use of the word "centrist" here, bb. How exactly does disagreeing on some theoretical or organisational point with the CC of the SWP make you a "centrist"?


 
I think you just answered your own question.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 12, 2013)

Athos said:


> Making impossible for anyone to parody you (by doing it yourself) is an interesting defensive technique.


 






'What have the rank and file members ever done for _us_..?'


----------



## kavenism (Jan 12, 2013)

Let’s not waste time with this. Centrist is one of a list of stock terms deployed by SWP hacks to discredit people without having to go into the detail. In themselves these things mean nothing except that the hack in question doesn’t agree with your perspective and/or thinks you have a problem following the party line. The habit tends to rub off on the rank and file to varying degrees. Amongst others the list also includes autonomist, reformist, feminist, and of course liberal!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm a bit baffled by your use of the word "centrist" here, bb. How exactly does disagreeing on some theoretical or organisational point with the CC of the SWP make you a "centrist"?


Depends on the theoretical point surely. If it was something obscure like the theory of deflected permanent revolution I'd agree with you. But feminism and or autonomism deffo count.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Let’s not waste time with this. Centrist is one of a list of stock terms deployed by SWP hacks to discredit people without having to go into the detail. In themselves these things mean nothing except that the hack in question doesn’t agree with your perspective and/or thinks you have a problem following the party line. The habit tends to rub off on the rank and file to varying degrees. Amongst others the list also includes autonomist, reformist, feminist, and of course liberal!


In fairness I think swpers stopped using it widely as a term of abuse sometime in the early 90's, was really more of a 'downturn' phrase. Should only be used in exceptional circumstances and these are rather exceptional.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 12, 2013)

Why don't swpers not like feminists again?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Why don't swpers not like feminists again?


 
What do you mean again?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 12, 2013)

I didn't quite follow the argument when I saw it first time.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Thought that was a response they'd only just released until I saw the date - they're surely going to have to release something, internally at least.


 
They definitely have to make some kind of statement, and they had better make sure every word is true. To do anything else at this point is just throwing oil on the fire.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Depends on the theoretical point surely. If it was something obscure like the theory of deflected permanent revolution I'd agree with you. But feminism and or autonomism deffo count.


 
There are no fucking "autonomists" in Britain. The SWP have adopted that term to mean something entirely idiosyncratic. They probably mean "soft anarchist" or "anarchoid". Please don't adopt this weird bit of in-group language.

As for "feminism", I'm as retrospectively sympathetic to the elements of the early women's movement who rejected the word and preferred "women's liberation" as the next person, but that battle over language was lost decades ago. To most politically interested women, feminism simply means the struggle for women's equality. Using "feminist" as an insult just makes the SWP seem at best somewhat cranky and at worst simply sexist. Are you suggesting that Seymour et al are trying to smuggle "feminist" (in the SWP's meaning of the word, or "radical feminist" in more usual terminology) ideas into the SWP? Which ideas specifically?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> To most politically interested women, feminism simply means the struggle for women's equality. Using "feminist" as an insult just makes the SWP seem at best somewhat cranky and at worst simply sexist.


 
Well that's what I'd sort of thought.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

Centrist does have a definite meaning, same as reformist, reformists are people who think capitalism can be "reformed" or that socialism can come about through reforms as opposed to revolution. I don't see how any of these terms have got anything to do with the CC botching a rape case though.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 12, 2013)

When I was a swappie around 90-93 a member in the Newport branch was expelled at the drop of a hat for a one off incident of sexually harassment. It was done quickly and efficiently (and rightly so) - Im shocked and surprised at these allegations to be fair.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I didn't quite follow the argument when I saw it first time.


 

You’ll probably hear different things from different people. But I think the bottom line is that feminism, at least in its Mackinnon/Dworkin guise, views patriarchy as a kind of trans-historical entity which in all eras is the last instance in the oppression of women, rather than capitalist relations. This poses a problem for any organisation that views capitalist relations as at the root of oppression, and patriarchy merely as an expression of the superstructure. Both positions are old hat to the max in my view.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 12, 2013)

Oho, ta.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

There are lots of different ways of being a feminist though, there are marxist feminists as well. I would say that an understanding of patriarchy (and i dont mean any identity politics bollocks but an understanding of the way that social relations has basically put the role of women, the unpaid labour done by women, rape and the fear of rape as a tool of enforcing a social structure etc) is pretty intrinsic to the idea of being a socialist, it is something that Marx talked about iirc.


----------



## newbie (Jan 12, 2013)

> quote from Chris Harman: “But what then happens when the ‘democracy’ of the party fails to reflect the experiences of the most advanced sections of the class? When the party members have become routinised and cut off from new upsurges of spontaneous struggles, or when they come from milieus which have no real contact with the factories? In such cases ... the party leadership cannot simply sit back and reflect the ‘democratic will’ of a party that is lagging behind the class. It has to campaign vigorously for the sudden turns in the line of the party, if necessary reaching to forces outside the party to pressurise the party members to shift their position.”


 
is this extraordinary statement recent or from some previous spat?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2013)

When Richard Seymour is posting in the comments section of his blog that....



> Conference was lied to. Information was suppressed.


 
...then surely the only possible outcome to this whole debacle is a rump, along the lines of what's left of the WRP?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 12, 2013)

Swp is a minority cult that floggs a newspaper they  are entirely irrelevant.
 Apprantly they are the memory of the proletariat.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> There are lots of different ways of being a feminist though, there are marxist feminists as well. I would say that an understanding of patriarchy (and i dont mean any identity politics bollocks but an understanding of the way that social relations has basically put the role of women, the unpaid labour done by women, rape and the fear of rape as a tool of enforcing a social structure etc) is pretty intrinsic to the idea of being a socialist, it is something that Marx talked about iirc.


 
Indeed he did, but the question is one of lexical priority, i.e. can the social relations which condition towards the oppression of women be overturned without overturning capitalist relations? If you think not then much of the theory of 2nd wave feminism becomes from the perspective of a Leninist party a ‘centrist diversion’, drawing attention away from the real necessary battle.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> In fairness I think swpers stopped using it widely as a term of abuse sometime in the early 90's, was really more of a 'downturn' phrase. Should only be used in exceptional circumstances and these are rather exceptional.


 
That's the stupidest thing I've heard this year. The SWP's response to a growing shitstorm over their botched handling of allegations of rape by a senior party figure is to wheel out 'feminist' as a term of abuse?!


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Did they indeed? How did that pan out?
> 
> I agree with FrogWoman; I do hope the SP would do better if the same happened within our own ranks but we should all be looking with a critical eye at our own organisational structures and cultures and ask ourselves whether or not they can be improved. I'm a believer in democratic centralism (though not the sort practised by the SWP) but it's worth remembering that no democratic structure can work if a culture of protecting the leadership from criticism or disciplinary action emerges-it takes an active, informed and conscientious membership to make internal democracy work.


 
Please will those PM'ing me to leave this alone please pass on the same request to those individuals behind the distorted attacks on Dave Hann, his family and people associated with his anti fascist legacy.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Indeed he did, but the question is one of lexical priority, i.e. can the social relations which condition towards the oppression of women be overturned without overturning capitalist relations? If you think not then much of the theory of 2nd wave feminism becomes from the perspective of a Leninist party a ‘centrist diversion’, drawing attention away from the real necessary battle.


 
in my opinion no it can't. thats why i dont go along with this identity politics bollocks. however at the same time i think that it can't just be ignored and any socialist should have an interest in equality between the sexes?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> in my opinion no it can't. thats why i dont go along with this identity politics bollocks. however at the same time i think that it can't just be ignored and any socialist should have an interest in equality between the sexes?


 
I agree. I don't however see the overturning of oppressive social relations as inexorably tied to the fortunes of a 19th century revolutionary party.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2013)

April 2011.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

kavenism said:


> I agree. I don't however see the overturning of oppressive social relations as inexorably tied to the fortunes of a 19th century revolutionary party.


 
Nor do I to be honest.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> in my opinion no it can't. thats why i dont go along with this identity politics bollocks. however at the same time i think that it can't just be ignored and any socialist should have an interest in equality between the sexes?


 
No frogs, it's liberals who believe in equality between the sexes.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> No frogs, it's liberals who believe in equality between the sexes.


 
You can't want to overturn a class society and end up with a society where half of it are still second class citizens though. This is a completely separate issue to identity politics bullshit and the fact that according to their bollocks margaret thatcher can end up being more oppressed than a miner because she is a woman, you can be a feminist and still be a marxist, still see the economic system the way society is structured, as the root of all of this. It would seem to me that all socialists would be feminists in some way if they are actually serious about their politics.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> Please will those PM'ing me to leave this alone please pass on the same request to those individuals behind the distorted attacks on Dave Hann, his family and people associated with his anti fascist legacy.



I didn't PM you asking you not to say owt, spill.


----------



## cesare (Jan 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> There are lots of different ways of being a feminist though, there are marxist feminists as well. I would say that an understanding of patriarchy (and i dont mean any identity politics bollocks but an understanding of the way that social relations has basically put the role of women, the unpaid labour done by women, rape and the fear of rape as a tool of enforcing a social structure etc) is pretty intrinsic to the idea of being a socialist, it is something that Marx talked about iirc.


It'd be great if someone (not aiming this at you btw) could further educate me on where Marx talked about this.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I've got a close friend who was in the SWP for decades (but not now). He's a good man who is a good judge of character. I mentioned, in isolation, the name of the alleged rapist, and asked if he knew him. His face clouded and he said with vehemence  "He's a thug." I told him about the rape allegation (he'd not heard) and he wasn't in the least surprised. He was pretty appalled at the way it was being dealt with too as being a totally inappropriate response.



Ex SWP member in my union branch said he was always a nasty piece of work.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 12, 2013)

mutley said:


> Leeds University SWSS Statement:
> 
> _'Leeds University SWSS condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the recent handling of very serious accusations against a leading member of the SWP Central Committee. We are also extremely disappointed that SWP national conference voted to ratify the decision and process of the Disputes Committee responsible for the investigation.'_
> 
> One stop shop - where did this leeds swss statement come from?



Saw it on a friends Facebook wall.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

Of course all socialists are opposed to women's oppression but the SWP have a class analysis of it and not a feminist (patriarchy) one. A political critique of feminism does not equate to having no analysis of women's oppression nor to rendering it irrelevant.

Like I said earlier, everyone's talking in different languages.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

but feminism means lots of different things to different people. and when someone says they are "against feminism" ... well


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

Class and patriarchy are unrelated and incommensurable levels of analysis?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

Yes, as someone else pointed out it, it just sounds weird to those who aren't aware of the debate. I would expect active members of the SWP to be aware of it though.

ETA: In reply to froggy.


----------



## past caring (Jan 12, 2013)

newbie said:


> is this extraordinary statement recent or from some previous spat?


 
He's been brown bread for about five years now.....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I didn't PM you asking you not to say owt, spill.


 
No one is PMing him.

And this thread is for the SWP start another if you want to discuss another group.


----------



## newbie (Jan 12, 2013)

ah.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Yes, as someone else pointed out it, it just sounds weird to those who aren't aware of the debate. I would expect active members of the SWP to be aware of it though.


Well that sounds like a totally defective argument.  No more justified that when millies would say homosexuality was a bourgeois deviation.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No more justified that when millies would say homosexuality was a bourgeois deviation.


 
No doubt you'll be able to produce the article, public or internal, where Militant argued that? Right?

I wouldn't want to think that you were peddling stupid left wing urban myths that you have no excuse for believing.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No doubt you'll be able to produce the article, public or internal, where Militant argued that? Right?


Let me guess, the Michael Crick book?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

You dispute Ted grant argued this?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 12, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Of course all socialists are opposed to women's oppression


 
Is that true? I'd understood women were still fairly oppressed in Soviet Russia for example.


----------



## Riklet (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You dispute Ted grant argued this?


 
is that the same as millitant? you are such a muppet.

will the recruitment drive be on soon for your crew to soak up some of the _radical realistic activists_ from this SWP fiasco?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> You dispute Ted grant argued this?


 
I dispute that Militant ever had a position that homosexuality was "a bourgeois deviation". Should I take it from that failure to produce your evidence that you don't in fact have any, and that you were indeed peddling stupid leftist urban myths that you have no excuse for believing?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

He was the key theorist behind militants emergence.  Accordingly, they were slow to defend gay rights


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Class and patriarchy are unrelated and incommensurable levels of analysis?


 
Here is a recent article which explains their position better than I can:

http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=656


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 12, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Very little political discussion. No change there then.


 what is your take on this then?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well that sounds like a totally defective argument. No more justified that when millies would say homosexuality was a bourgeois deviation.


 
What sounds like a defective argument?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He was the key theorist behind militants emergence. Accordingly, they were slow to defend gay rights


 
Look at you trying to weasel out of it.

Militant did not have a position that homosexuality was "a bourgeois deviation". It took no position on gay liberation at all until the 80s, and that was quite bad enough without you peddling stupid lies.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

Soc appeal have continued to make alliances with anti-gay forces in Russia.  Do you deny that others were ahead of the curve on this issue?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Soc appeal have continued to make alliances with anti-gay forces in Russia. Do you deny that others were ahead of the curve on this issue?


 
How many posts are you going to go before you retract your straightforward falsehood?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Look at you trying to weasel out of it.
> 
> Militant did not have a position that homosexuality was "a bourgeois deviation". It took no position on gay liberation at all until the 80s, and that was quite bad enough without you peddling stupid lies.


And why was that?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> And why was that?


 
Fourth post since you've been caught in a falsehood and still you won't retract it. Full marks for idiot perseverance.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well that sounds like a totally defective argument. No more justified that when millies would say homosexuality was a bourgeois deviation.


 
Sorry, my post was in response to frogwoman not you. 

My response to you was a link to an article that explains the position of the SWP and their critique of patriarchy.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Fourth post since you've been caught in a falsehood and still you won't retract it. Full marks for idiot perseverance.


So why the reticence if there werent reservations from the leadership?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 12, 2013)

Articul8 you're full of shit.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> So why the reticence if there werent reservations from the leadership?


 
I've no problem discussing the issue whatsoever, but I'm not going to do so with your lie as a starting point. Five responses from you now. You have made no attempt to justify or provide evidence for your claim. You know it isn't true. Yet you won't admit it. Embarrassing stuff.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 12, 2013)

Ok well the Labour party and Fabian Society "believes in eugenics" because George Bernard Shaw did. Fair enough?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

Ok, French trots in the 40s explicitly argued homosexuality was a bourgeois deviation.  Militant denigrated the importance of the issue until much later than some other left currents.  Is it so unlikely that key theorists of an earlier generation were resistant? Perhaps Nigel can quote from Ted grants support for homosexual rights?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 12, 2013)

Athos said:


> You just don't get it, do you?
> 
> Scary.


And disgusting.


----------



## cesare (Jan 12, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Ok well the Labour party and Fabian Society "believes in eugenics" because George Bernard Shaw did. Fair enough?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

There was a strong body of Fabian opinion interested in eugenics as it goes


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ok, French trots in the 40s explicitly argued homosexuality was a bourgeois deviation. Militant denigrated the importance of the issue until much later than some other left currents. Is it so unlikely that key theorists of an earlier generation were resistant? Perhaps Nigel can quote from Ted grants support for homosexual rights?


 
Yeah that might well be the case, but it still isn't "The Militant believed homosexuality was bourgeois deviation" is it? That's nothing more than a smear, it's no different to me saying The Labour Party supported eugenics because of George Bernard Shaw.

Now a wider discussion, on the history of homophobia in Trot groups, the exclusion of everything non-class, is pretty much going to be impossible because you decided to kick things off with a blatant falsehood. No doubt Militant, Ted Grant, were resistant to issues like gay rights, he in particular had a really exclusionary worldview (He once claimed to Tony Benn that "I am the only man in Europe to have interpreted and followed Trotsky correctly" ffs this is the mindset you're dealing with) but as far as I know at no point did Militant ever have a policy of "homosexuality is a bourgeois deviation" and if you prove otherwise I suggest you do so, rather than trying worm your way out of it by conflating it with other broader issues.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> There was a strong body of Fabian opinion interested in eugenics as it goes


 
That's true, in fact I reckon there was probably more support for eugenics in the Fabian society than there was for homophobia in the Militant and it's successors, but you still couldn't say that "the Labour party believedin eugenics" as a policy it'd be outrageous.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ok, French trots in the 40s explicitly argued homosexuality was a bourgeois deviation. Militant denigrated the importance of the issue until much later than some other left currents. Is it so unlikely that key theorists of an earlier generation were resistant? Perhaps Nigel can quote from Ted grants support for homosexual rights?


Oh fuck off you dishonest cunt. 

Either back up the claim you made or apologise for a disgusting smear.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

You are getting there, and it only took six responses.

Militant did not have a position that homosexuality was "a bourgeois deviation". Many years ago, it did not take any position until a decade or so after most other British left currents had recognised its importance. Because it had no position you would undoubtedly have found people with all kinds of personal views, some of them straightforwardly homophobic, within the organisation and those views would not have been challenged. That situation, which ended in the 80s when gay and lesbian members successfully fought for it to change, was quite bad enough without you making shit up.

I have no idea if Ted Grant was personally homophobic, though it is somewhat suggestive that when the Socialist Appeal split happened, some years after Militant had adopted a pro gay liberation stance, SA immediately went back to the early Militant (non)position of simply saying nothing about gay liberation at all. They maintained that stance up until last year, quite a long time after Grant died though. I generally take the view that singling him out is rather too convenient a narrative and that all of the leading figures of the time have to take their share of blame.

The Socialist Party has a large and very active LGBT group and takes gay liberation very seriously these days. I should note, as an aside, that Militant in Ireland actually had a pro-gay liberation position much earlier than the British Militant for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me.

This isn't really an appropriate thread for this discussion, but feel free to start one about the left's historical positions on gay issues if you like.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> what is your take on this then?


 
Post #1341


----------



## articul8 (Jan 12, 2013)

I may have overstated the case in attributing that view to militant as an organisation.  But I do think it was the view of Grant and his acolytes.  Which meant the organisation was reticent at best on the issue.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

I have heard the "homosexuality is a bourgeois deviation" rumour before and its a relief to see Nigel clarify it. However I heard that Grant did say it, but that it was immediately challenged by others in the organisation? Not sure though.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I may have overstated the case in attributing that view to militant as an organisation.


 
Yeah. No shit.

As for whether Grant personally held that view, it's as least as likely that he just didn't consider the whole thing very important, in the same sort of way that other leftist "dinosaurs" of that generation of the left often didn't. Read for instance the dismissive comments about gay issues in Sullivan's "As Soon As This Pub Closes" to get a sense of the degree to which many otherwise decent socialists simply didn't give a shit. I've heard plenty of people say that they've "heard" Grant thought this, that or the other, but I've never actually heard anyone say that they heard him express that view with their own ears, which, given that all kinds of falsehoods circulate on the left about this (eg your claim about Militant) makes me somewhat dubious. Not that he was incapable of holding some pretty stupid views mind you (his attempt with Woods to refute much of modern physics was to put it mildly rather ill advised). But it's also very easy to say "Oh we were slow on this because of conveniently dead Ted and his old fashioned attitudes. Which even more conveniently he never expressed in print. Nobody else's fault. Honest."


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Ex SWP member in my union branch said he was always a nasty piece of work.


And in my small circle there are three of us ex members who'd say the opposite. Either way kind of irrelevant.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 12, 2013)

kavenism said:


> I agree. I don't however see the overturning of oppressive social relations as inexorably tied to the fortunes of a 19th century revolutionary party.


 
The jacobins?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I didn't PM you asking you not to say owt, spill.


 
It's an old feud going back decades, best left alone on the web at least.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2013)

One long-standing member in ****** has posted on facebook that the papersale went well today. Jeezus!

Edit: Two membership forms taken away!

Absolutely unfuckingbelievable given the situation. This is no wet behind the ears student (apology's to any students ) either, nor someone who in the past would put up with any party hackery.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

What do you want them to do auditech commit mass suicide. Of course they'll carry on as normal.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 12, 2013)

It would be prudent just now for those who have any mettle to be organising a mass revolt against the "leadership" I would have thought.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 12, 2013)

I think you're encouraging factionalism comrade


----------



## emanymton (Jan 12, 2013)

Charlie Kimber, or at least someone using that name has posted a CC response, of sorts, on Lenin's tomb.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I may have overstated the case in attributing that view to militant as an organisation. But I do think it was the view of Grant and his acolytes. Which meant the organisation was reticent at best on the issue.


You didn't overstate anything. You were talking shite.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I wasn't being serious.
> 
> You are right about impact, it will harm the whole of the left, but the SWP the most. Most people think organisations like the SWP and the Socialist Party are the same organisation, if they know of them at all. The only reason it won't have more impact is because the far left is so marginalised anyway.


 
Yes, what worries me, doing searches on Twitter, is that the fash are having a field day.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

If that is Kimber writing on Lenins Tomb he doesn't say much new does he. "As far we are concerned, this case is closed."


----------



## emanymton (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If that is Kimber writing on Lenins Tomb he doesn't say much new does he. "As far we are concerned, this case is closed."


It looks like it is an email that has gone out to all members and may guess is someone has posted it up using his name. And yes it is rather brief, I had settled in for a long read.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

audiotech said:


> One long-standing member in ****** has posted on facebook that the papersale went well today. Jeezus!
> 
> Edit: Two membership forms taken away!
> 
> Absolutely unfuckingbelievable given the situation. This is no wet behind the ears student (apology's to any students ) either, nor someone who in the past would put up with any party hackery.


 
It's an iron law of the universe that any time something goes seriously wrong or there's a major debate underway in a left wing group, some clown somewhere will start talking about how great this weeks stall/branch meeting/other routine task went. It's the socialist equivalent of the patronising dude who tells women "chin up love, it might never happen" except with a little more bathos.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If that is Kimber writing on Lenins Tomb he doesn't say much new does he. "As far we are concerned, this case is closed."


 
Shouldn't you be sneering at the lack of "politics"?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Yes, what worries me, doing searches on Twitter, is that the fash are having a field day.


 
the fash are already known for having lots of sex pests in their ranks, what's more worrying is the damage it will do to the left, and how left-wing organisations might draw all the wrong lessons from it


----------



## sihhi (Jan 12, 2013)

This is the kind of stuff being posted on SWP university branches facebook




> *posted toSwss LeedsUni*
> 
> 7 hours ago
> Solidarity comrades. Reinstate the Facebook Four! Recall conference Now!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Shouldn't you be sneering at the lack of "politics"?


Yes you know you're right actually. Guess it's a holding email until they decide how big this is and how to frame it politically.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What do you want them to do auditech commit mass suicide. Of course they'll carry on as normal.


 
Traditionally Audiotech has been a more loyal external supporter of the SWP than you - the fact he is saying this should make even you pay attention you cloth brained clod.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Why don't swpers not like feminists again?


 
If this is a serious question, two sheds, and you feel like a bit of a read (doesn't take too long), it's all here, in Cliff's 1984 book "Class Struggle and Women's Liberation":

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1984/women/index.htm


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Just read a FB comment by a pro cc guy that made even me flinch "Where is your proof of this rape charge? You are spreading lies. The allegation was sexual harassment not rape." Even if this hack hasn't read the transcript he must be aware others will and know that he's talking shit. People telling themselves lies like this ain't going to help :-(


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 12, 2013)

This does look like the end of the road for the SWP, unless they can somehow lose Comrade Delta. This would thin out the CC as his own supporters leave in sympathy or perhaps shame. Things can never be the same in the party. That would be a good thing. Like many posters on these boards I was a member for a while. It was the authoritative attitude that made me get out though. There are some very good people in the party however.

I notice on this thread which is about the SWP specifically, many posters have done the usual thing of going on about other groups on the left and their respective histories. This is not the place to re-visit those stories. This is a current crisis for the left and in the context of the larger political scene of the rise of the right presents a danger to us on the left.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Jan 12, 2013)

The idea of sex pests in the left is shocking in itself. A contradiction one might say.

Although I am not a member of the SWP it saddens me greatly that it has come to this. I hope that the dissenters are able to get on track and do something about the lack of democracy in the party. My own experience with the SWP, ended abruptly years ago, when, after questioning a particular line, I was first “labeled” and then subjected to what I perceived as Stalinist behavior. I left in disgust. It’s interesting how the explanation for Stalinism is always condensed into a dogmatic answer of how Russia was isolated or backward. The organizational structure of the party is never really questioned and remains essentially the same. Power corrupts, and this for me is a dilemma because I can’t grasp the anarchist mode of organization, at all.
Back then, before I left, I got a clear glimpse of how Stalinism could evolve. One group holds power and sway and questioning them becomes impossible through member complacency, (the unquestioning votes at conference reflect this) loyalty and fear of rocking the boat. The organizational side of things (the culture) also dictates a psychological side, if you know what I mean.  Arse lickers, however hackish and annoying they are, are rewarded, while questioners are put under pressure. This creates an unhealthy body. Now, in theory, the party is democratic and all can be changed at conference, but what really happens? Leadership is a necessity and a reality. The class struggle is also an historical reality. With the coming crisis, other forms of leadership/initiativewill inevitably begin to sprout. In Spain, the Indignados appeared over night and totally eclipsed all the existing groups, so who knows what might come up in the future.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's an old feud going back decades, best left alone on the web at least.


The same people have spent 3 decades employing that end game...why is it so fucking wrong now...its an old feud...how convenient


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 12, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> The same people have spent 3 decades employing that end game...why is it so fucking wrong now...its an old feud...how convenient


Those very same people use/d the web to carry out their attacks on individuals...see RA forum circa 2003...a fine example of reasoned debate and friendly banter...my arse.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

Look Hocus Eye is right. This isn't the thread for excursions about Militant or Red Action or other groups.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 12, 2013)

Here's another pissed off member:

http://socialismartnature.tumblr.co...nternal-committee-exonerates-senior-member-of




> SWPFeminist // Posted 12 January 2013 at 14:30
> 
> I’m in the SWP and I’m not going to try to the defend the disgusting way in which the DC handled themselves and this case. I just want to let you all know that a lot of SWP are absolutely disgusted at the way this has been, _including a CC member being booed out of a meeting_. The CC has made absolutely no effort to submit a statement after all the press attention. The reason so many of us are staying in is because W is staying to fight, which I think is incredibly brave and I feel I can’t really justify leaving if she’s not.
> We’re trying to get a recall conference at the moment so we can tell them all what we think of their stupid kangaroo court and hopefully rid ourselves of these thoroughly unpleasant people who have found themselves in charge. Please _show solidarity with the people in the SWP_ who are making a stand against this awful little clique at the top. I’ll understand if you have no sympathy, I just wanted to let you know that there is a substantial resistance to this.


 
It seems like they want to "take back the Party", however if they lost the vote at the Conference - narrowly but lost nonetheless - I can't see how that would happen unless there's somethng procedural.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Traditionally Audiotech has been a more loyal external supporter of the SWP than you - the fact he is saying this should make even you pay attention you cloth brained clod.


 
Well, many will try and carry on as normal! What d'you expect people who've been in the SWP for 30 years to do? And what's that observation got to do with being loyal or not to the SWP?


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 12, 2013)

audiotech said:


> One long-standing member in ****** has posted on facebook that the papersale went well today. Jeezus!
> 
> Edit: Two membership forms taken away!
> 
> Absolutely unfuckingbelievable given the situation. This is no wet behind the ears student (apology's to any students ) either, nor someone who in the past would put up with any party hackery.


 
Yes, just checked, my fb swp friends seem to be carrying on as normal.   Talking about Sat sales and the like.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/a-reply-to-central-committee.html

got quite a lot of time for Seymour actually.


----------



## chilango (Jan 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There are no fucking "autonomists" in Britain.



There are.

Not many mind, and the SWP wouldn't know them either.


----------



## chilango (Jan 12, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> When I was a swappie around 90-93 a member in the Newport branch was expelled at the drop of a hat for a one off incident of sexually harassment. It was done quickly and efficiently (and rightly so) - Im shocked and surprised at these allegations to be fair.



Hmm.

My memory of this incident is vague. PM me a clue.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 12, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> The same people have spent 3 decades employing that end game...why is it so fucking wrong now...its an old feud...how convenient


 
Nothing to do with me - just think that given your shared history the whole thing's a shame really. Anyway, no point derailing another thread with it.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Just read a FB comment by a pro cc guy that made even me flinch "Where is your proof of this rape charge? You are spreading lies. The allegation was sexual harassment not rape." Even if this hack hasn't read the transcript he must be aware others will and know that he's talking shit. People telling themselves lies like this ain't going to help :-(


 
Perhaps he meant that 1 member of the DC concluded that it was likely sexual harassment had taken place but not rape.

Otherwise, it's just too strange to say something like that when it's all over the media. Although it probably feels mad in the SWP right now, working out what's real.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can you expand on how those works are 'light on rape'?


 
Ok, I've spent pretty much most of the day scouring the web and our collection of pamphlets, and can I hellers like find that Paul Foot one to quote from. But I think it was about the Haiti slave rebellion, and I read it at my then workplace when I was still yoof. What vexed me was that Foot mentioned rapes taking place as part of the rebellion, without labelling them for the unacceptable sexual violence that they were. Ok it was another time and another place, (the context of the rebellion). But it put me off joining the SWP for years, as it inevitably sowed the seed of an idea that some Marxist theoreticians found rape acceptable as an appropriate "punishment".

As for Cliff, 1984 (sorry for the copy and paste-a-thon):

*"Tony Cliff*
*Class Struggle and Women’s Liberation*
*(1984)*
*From the Introduction:*

In the later chapters of this book, we look at the contemporary women’s liberation movements in the United States and Britain. We consider their social composition and their mode of action. We show how these movements have focussed consistently on areas where men and women are at odds – rape, battered women, wages for housework – while ignoring or playing down the important struggles in which women are more likely to win the support of men: strikes, opposition to welfare cuts, equal pay, unionisation, abortion. The contemporary movements idealise women as _victims_ of male supremacy, and not as fighting members of the working class. Instead of concentrating on where women are strongest – in the unions and workplaces – they concentrate on those areas where they are weakest. Hence these women’s movements have been pushed to the margins. They have been caught in a process of disintegration, although their ideas still hold a tremendous sway.

From Chapter 11:
A measure of how the women’s movement distanced itself from the working class is the changes in its platform of demands. As we have seen, the original 1971 demands (equal pay now, equal education and job opportunities, free contraception and abortion on demand and free 24-hour nurseries) suited the needs of working-class women. In 1975, two new demands were added: “Financial and legal independence” and “an end to all discrimination against lesbians and a woman’s right to define her own sexuality”. In 1978, at the last National Women’s Conference, the following demand was added: “Freedom from intimidation by threat or use of violence or sexual coercion, regardless of marital status; and an end to all laws, assumptions and institutions which perpetuate male dominance and men’s aggression towards women.” The original four demands were clear, aimed at changes in the real world and directed towards the state; the added ones largely related to “attitudes” and “assumptions”, to “personal politics”.
"

What this tells me is that, in Cliff's opinion, campaigning for improved support and treatment of rape victims was a bit of a distraction from what he considered to be the really important stuff, and yet what's come out in this discussion is that over the past few decades there really have been significant improvements in the way that rape victims are treated by the police, the courts and by the various support networks. I think that marginal improvements such as these really do make a big difference to people's lives in the here and now, and it gives them more confidence to fight and challenge other things.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

It's strange because one of the criticisms I always saw the SWP gave of the SP was that it was "sexist". Not that the SP is perfect by any means.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Ok, I've spent pretty much most of the day scouring the web and our collection of pamphlets, and can I hellers like find that Paul Foot one to quote from. But I think it was about the Haiti slave rebellion, and I read it at my then workplace when I was still yoof. What vexed me was that Foot mentioned rapes taking place as part of the rebellion, without labelling them for the unacceptable sexual violence that they were. Ok it was another time and another place, (the context of the rebellion). But it put me off joining the SWP for years, as it inevitably sowed the seed of an idea that some Marxist theoreticians found rape acceptable as an appropriate "punishment".
> 
> <snip>


Cheers for that - appreciate the effort. Will have a proper look through tmw. I may have the foot one somewhere here and will look in the morning as well.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Cheers for that - appreciate the effort. Will have a proper look through tmw. I may have the foot one somewhere here and will look in the morning as well.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 12, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> If this is a serious question, two sheds, and you feel like a bit of a read (doesn't take too long), it's all here, in Cliff's 1984 book "Class Struggle and Women's Liberation":
> 
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1984/women/index.htm


 
Ta, I had a quick look at the introduction and will take another look tomorrow. He makes interesting points although I'm not sure I agree with them, but I do also feel a bit uncomfortable about a man telling women that they're the wrong kind of feminist.

To me there's an edge of prosthelitysing - yes we need feminism but it needs to be subsumed under the class struggle, so come and join us and do what we tell you to.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 12, 2013)

Some threads of a response coming out. One ultra loyal but thinking person mentioned to me that she thought Lenins Tomb for example had for some time been heading in a direction that was not part of the IS tradition on the  question of women's oppression. And that wasn't a snap response to his outburst now but something she'd clearly been thinking about before. That said even loyal folk like her know this isn't just going to go away just cause Kimber says its a closed issue.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's an old feud going back decades, best left alone on the web at least.


 
Fair enough, but thought since it was mentioned it might be relevant. I'll find out somehow though, and then maybe I will set up a separate thread...maybe I will...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 13, 2013)

Oh God there are some really bad taste jokes doing the rounds on this now. A mate keeps texting them to me as he gets them from other ex members. He says it's cathartic somehow, gallows humour and all that.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 13, 2013)

BB have to say I find your replies slightly disturbing, it does remind me of stalinist slander. Everyone who is against the leadership is either politically written off (and was probably always that way) and/or personally insulted. Literally every person or group of oppositionists in the SWP has been labelled like this by you. With barely a murmur of criticism about the CC majority. The SWP has been useless as an organisation for years, in almost every respect, but instead you concentrate on academic theory to prove that they are still holding the flag for the one true way. You didn't come back on what I said earlier but you basically seem to be saying nothing much wrong has happened and the leadership is right and good politically and they should just carry on as is, I can't see any other interpretation of your posts.

What is disturbing in the latest reply to the CC from lenins tomb is that it now transpires that at the conference two years ago members were told all that had happened was that comrade delta had had a messy affair but it was ok. They then orchestrated a standing ovation for him that he basked in. When all the time they knew a rape allegation had been made. That is shameful and makes them utter scum in my view.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 13, 2013)

> The first time members of the party heard anything about any allegations was in a conference two years ago. At this conference, members were given to believe that what was involved was a simple case of an affair that was badly ended, with the accused merely hassling the person long beyond the point of propriety. This did not begin to convey the real nature of the allegations at that time. Members were told that the accused was exonerated, that the verdict had been accepted by the complainant, and that he had been at most a bit foolish. Some members heard that there had been a witch hunt against the poor fellow. And all were reminded of his great achievements as an organiser, which - irrespective of how true or false the allegations are - are considerable. The accused, it has to be said, played up to this. An ovation was orchestrated, with some stamping their feet. I know some of the people who were there, who applauded. They feel sick. They feel furious. As who wouldn't? That was the first part of the cover-up.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2013)

I'm not a member of the SWP, but would it possible to hold an extraordinary general meeting (or similar) to disband/unelect the present Central Committee? It seems to me as an outsider that maybe party members have no confidence on the Central Committee given how they handled this matter AND how they are close friends of comrade delta, and perhaps a clean slate is called for.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 13, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I'm not a member of the SWP, but would it possible to hold an extraordinary general meeting (or similar) to disband/unelect the present Central Committee? It seems to me as an outsider that maybe party members have no confidence on the Central Committee given how they handled this matter AND how they are close friends of comrade delta, and perhaps a clean slate is called for.


 
Even proposing something like that would likely see whoever suggested it expelled on some pretext or other. Witness the Matt Kidd incident a few years ago on here when he posted a report from their annual conference without seeking permission and Martin Smith called him personally and expelled him over the phone solely for that.

Bottom line with the Swappies is that if they want to get rid of people then they can and will. Joining the Swappies is like joining the Army in that they have a rule for everything. Unlike the Army (and more like the Mafia) whether or not rules are enforced or overlooked depends on whether or you're not a senior figure, or are well in with those at the top table or know where some bodies are buried. The degree to which a member has either friends at court, information that would damage the party if it went public or a blend of both is usually the degree to which that member can bend or break rules that for others would be an expulsion offence.

It's not that the SWP leadership doesn't enforce discipline. It does, however, enforce it selectively and what's overlooked for one member may well see a different member being shown the door for exactly the same breach of party rules.


----------



## mutley (Jan 13, 2013)

SWP constitution - if 20% of banches call for it there has to be a conference. It's never happened though.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 13, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> BB have to say I find your replies slightly disturbing, it does remind me of stalinist slander. Everyone who is against the leadership is either politically written off (and was probably always that way) and/or personally insulted. Literally every person or group of oppositionists in the SWP has been labelled like this by you. With barely a murmur of criticism about the CC majority. The SWP has been useless as an organisation for years, in almost every respect, but instead you concentrate on academic theory to prove that they are still holding the flag for the one true way. You didn't come back on what I said earlier but you basically seem to be saying nothing much wrong has happened and the leadership is right and good politically and they should just carry on as is, I can't see any other interpretation of your posts.


Ok can see how you'd say that. I've been emphasising the political differences that many of the opposition clearly have with core IS politics because nobody else is admitting them and instead is focussing almost exclusively on the handling of one case. That case is very important but the positions people are taking on it dovetail with broader ideological directions they are taking. Doesn't mean the issues with that case don't need answering, they bloody well do and the biggest mistake the cc is making is to pretend this was closed as an issue by the vote at conference. But nor can the debate only be about this one case. Because the oppo have different strands and some of those are clearly anti Marxist in the sense that old school Cliffites would recognise.

As it goes I think the Dem Cent faction had it about right in terms of a position on all this. The regime is too rigid, probably always has been. The expulsion of the FB 4 for discussing a faction in the one period members are supposed to be allowed to was a mad step. That did cross the line from hard Bolshevik politics over to creeping Stalinist methods. There is more than one way to practice dem cent and the party needs to change. But the Dem Dents are also generally made up of people who recognise that the politics of the Walkers and Seymour's are headed somewhere they don't want to go. I agree with them.

I don't know Tom so could only base criticism on what I thought was clear from his letter. I did insult Seymour but feel no compunction about that because I've been doing it for years even when he was the Profs intellectual ally. he never says anything in two words that can be said in twenty and is far too impressed with his own academic brilliance. And his approach is far to eclectic for my liking. The model for Marxist intellectual for me was Harman, very open to new ideas but always clear about his core methodology. Seymour isn't in that ballpark, far too much of an impressionist, flighty approach. Plus it's been clear from his arguments on all sorts of things where he's been headed for ages.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I'm not a member of the SWP, but would it possible to hold an extraordinary general meeting (or similar) to disband/unelect the present Central Committee? It seems to me as an outsider that maybe party members have no confidence on the Central Committee given how they handled this matter AND how they are close friends of comrade delta, and perhaps a clean slate is called for.


From their constitution.



> A Special Conference may be called by the Central Committee or at the request of 20 percent of the branches. The decisions of a Special Conference are as binding as those of Annual Conference.


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nothing to do with me - just think that given your shared history the whole thing's a shame really. Anyway, no point derailing another thread with it.


Of course its a shame, they were my comrades and friends once but you have to stand up against them. Does it work ..theres times when I think probably not and some good people on here believe I go far too 'weird' on the subject. But really I wouldnt give them the time of the day if they didnt spout such appalling lies about people. Ive been on the receiving end and quite honestly their sloppiness concerning me is laughable....all the Searchlight stuff...NR...But deep down a very malevolent agenda lurks...so swap lazy research for deliberate mis information.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Ok can see how you'd say that. I've been emphasising the political differences that many of the opposition clearly have with core IS politics because nobody else is admitting them and instead is focussing almost exclusively on the handling of one case. That case is very important but the positions people are taking on it dovetail with broader ideological directions they are taking. Doesn't mean the issues with that case don't need answering, they bloody well do and the biggest mistake the cc is making is to pretend this was closed as an issue by the vote at conference. But nor can the debate only be about


I think you are right about the politics of Walker and Seymour, but I don't think it matters. Anyone who calls themselves a Marxist or a Feminist should have pretty much the same reaction to the DC report n my opinion. And you cannot say the same for all those who oppose the DC report. What about the 4 CC members who broke ranks, have they never grasped the core of IS politics? What about Viv S and pat S, both ex CC members, have they never grasped the core of IS politics? The list of people who have must be pretty short?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> What is disturbing in the latest reply to the CC from lenins tomb is that it now transpires that at the conference two years ago members were told all that had happened was that comrade delta had had a messy affair but it was ok. They then orchestrated a standing ovation for him that he basked in. When all the time they knew a rape allegation had been made. That is shameful and makes them utter scum in my view.


This is not true the rape allegation was not made until september 2012, prior to that the allegation was of sexual harassment, which was reported to the SWP conference.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 13, 2013)

Worth saying that even within the IS there have always been different models of dem cent. Dunno what it's like now but in my day the Irish org was practically an anarchist free for all in the eyes of people on the cc over here. Nobody used the terms faction but we pretty much had permanent ones and there was constant discussion between people who could be loosely described as factions, usually in pubs of course as it was pre the social media age. And yet we functioned as a unified org despite that. More than once I remember the look on Kieran Allen's face when we'd be slightly amused shall we say about the latest example of a more rigid approach in the British org. Sometimes he'd even have a bit of a go at cc members about it, ironically enough Bambery is the one springs to mind most readily. I don't think we thought differences of opinion on regime where fundamental or about anything core to the politics. But I doubt any of us imagined how big an issue they would someday become!


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 13, 2013)

emanymton said:


> From their constitution.


 
Though one wonders, given that the CC seems to have already decided its 'line', whether any arm-twisting and vote-begging might go on behind the scenes to ensure that this particular precedent in party history isn't actually set.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 13, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This is not true the rape allegation was not made until september 2012, prior to that the allegation was of sexual harassment, which was reported to the SWP conference.


That's right isn't it, I had to re read Seymour three times on that cause it feels like he's being a bit slippery on this aspect of it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 13, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think you are right about the politics of Walker and Seymour, but I don't think it matters. Anyone who calls themselves a Marxist or a Feminist should have pretty much the same reaction to the DC report n my opinion. And you cannot say the same for all those who oppose the DC report. What about the 4 CC members who broke ranks, have they never grasped the core of IS politics? What about Viv S and pat S, both ex CC members, have they never grasped the core of IS politics? The list of people who have must be pretty short?


No I agree, Viv and Pat seem to have it about right in all this and they're both solid cadre. In some ways Pat has always been the conscience of the party which is why what he says carrys more weight with a whole layer of people. Would he not have been in the Dem Cent camp though rather than the other lot or have I got that wrong? You're closer to the people involved I think so I bow to your understanding of the make up of the different strands.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That's right isn't it, I had to re read Seymour three times on that cause it feels like he's being a bit slippery on this aspect of it.


He's a bit vague, sloppy writing or deliberate obfuscation?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No I agree, Viv and Pat seem to have it about right in all this and they're both solid cadre. In some ways Pat has always been the conscience of the party which is why what he says carrys more weight with a whole layer of people. Would he not have been in the Dem Cent camp though rather than the other lot or have I got that wrong? You're closer to the people involved I think so I bow to your understanding of the make up of the different strands.


I think you are right they would be in the Dem Cent camp if any. The whole thing is in such a mess at the moment it is hard to be clear about anything. X always seemed to have a really good grasp of IS politics, much better than mine has ever been.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2013)

I think I will need to read back over everything to try a pick apart all the different strands, just not sure I can stomach it.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Ok can see how you'd say that. I've been emphasising the political differences that many of the opposition clearly have with core IS politics because nobody else is admitting them and instead is focussing almost exclusively on the handling of one case. That case is very important but the positions people are taking on it dovetail with broader ideological directions they are taking. Doesn't mean the issues with that case don't need answering, they bloody well do and the biggest mistake the cc is making is to pretend this was closed as an issue by the vote at conference. But nor can the debate only be about this one case. Because the oppo have different strands and some of those are clearly anti Marxist in the sense that old school Cliffites would recognise.


 
fwiw bolshiebhoy it was clear to me that's what you were doing. I did point that out (that you were making an analysis) but my post was ignored in the midst of all the moral indignation.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Post #1341


 
is that it?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> What is disturbing in the latest reply to the CC from lenins tomb is that it now transpires that at the conference two years ago members were told all that had happened was that comrade delta had had a messy affair but it was ok. They then orchestrated a standing ovation for him that he basked in. When all the time they knew a rape allegation had been made. That is shameful and makes them utter scum in my view.


 
You're just looking for anything to fuel your outrage. There's no reason for you to believe Seymour's version of events. The opposition didn't argue this. Why believe him and not others? 

I think this thread is a good example of people believing that they want to believe just as the CC and DC are accused.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I think this thread is a good example of people believing that they want to believe just as the CC and DC are accused.


 
The CC taking centre-stage in a witch-hunt?

Surely not.

(Not with them being the witches and burnt at the stake atop a sacrificial blaze of unsold Socialist Workers, anyway...).


----------



## articul8 (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> fwiw bolshiebhoy it was clear to me that's what you were doing. I did point that out (that you were making an analysis) but my post was ignored in the midst of all the moral indignation.


In what sense is anything Seymour or walker have said "anti-marxist"?


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> fwiw bolshiebhoy it was clear to me that's what you were doing. I did point that out (that you were making an analysis) but my post was ignored in the midst of all the moral indignation.



I'm not sure I like my criticisms of how a rape allegation was conducted being badged as "moral indignation" tbh.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> my post was ignored in the midst of all the moral indignation.


 
And another mask slips.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ok, French trots in the 40s explicitly argued homosexuality was a bourgeois deviation. Militant denigrated the importance of the issue until much later than some other left currents. Is it so unlikely that key theorists of an earlier generation were resistant? Perhaps Nigel can quote from Ted grants support for homosexual rights?


 


> They have absorbed all the nonsense of the petty bourgeois – woman’s lib, gay lib, black nationalism, guerillaism – you name it! Not a trace of the old ideas remains.


 
Ted Grant http://www.marxist.com/the-theoreti...on-of-the-fourth-interview-with-ted-grant.htm

I am sure it was out of context.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm not sure I like my criticisms of how a rape allegation was conducted being badged as "moral indignation" tbh.


 
My comment wasn't aimed at every post but those critisising bb's posts as supporting the SWP cc when he wasn't doing that. As I said clearly enough.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And another mask slips.


 
Oh fuck off. This is a very emotional thread and people are getting accused of holding positions they don't have. I'm NOT saying that criticisms of the way in which this was handled are only moral and not political.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And another mask slips.


That is pretty poor. RC was saying something was lost amidst the outrage, not that the outrage was misplaced.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> In what sense is anything Seymour or walker have said "anti-marxist"?


 
Did I say it was anti-marxist?


----------



## past caring (Jan 13, 2013)

bignose1 said:


> Of course its a shame, they were my comrades and friends once but you have to stand up against them. Does it work ..theres times when I think probably not and some good people on here believe I go far too 'weird' on the subject. But really I wouldnt give them the time of the day if they didnt spout such appalling lies about people. Ive been on the receiving end and quite honestly their sloppiness concerning me is laughable....all the Searchlight stuff...NR...But deep down a very malevolent agenda lurks...so swap lazy research for deliberate mis information.


 
To reiterate - this isn't the thread.

But nevertheless, it's worth noting how you bring this up on the thread where it _isn't_ being discussed and where those posters who might be in a position to respond are not contributing (so there's thus much more chance of your allegations slipping under the radar) rather than the BTF thread where you've been roundly trounced. You really are one slimy horrible cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> This does look like the end of the road for the SWP, unless they can somehow lose Comrade Delta. This would thin out the CC as his own supporters leave in sympathy or perhaps shame.


 
I suspect that you're projecting your own fully-developed set of principles onto people with few, Hokey.  What's most likely to happen is that Comrade PoloShirt will be expelled for an "unrelated offence" (something to do with misappropriation of movement funds or property, perhaps), and everything will continue as before.



> Things can never be the same in the party. That would be a good thing. Like many posters on these boards I was a member for a while. It was the authoritative attitude that made me get out though. There are some very good people in the party however.


 
Ain't that the truth. If the party's policies truly reflected the will of the membership, it'd far more likely be a source of good.  As it is, more and more people, inside the SWP and out, are coming to realise that the CC may be nowt more than a racket.



> I notice on this thread which is about the SWP specifically, many posters have done the usual thing of going on about other groups on the left and their respective histories. This is not the place to re-visit those stories. This is a current crisis for the left and in the context of the larger political scene of the rise of the right presents a danger to us on the left.


 
True, but there are quite a few lefties out there who underestimate that danger, usually the same ones that ignore the fact that what kept the BNP from making a decent show at Barking and Dagenham wasn't a natural local anti-fascist tendency, it was a full-scale mobilisation of every leftie (aligned and non-aligned) that could get there, getting out on the doorsteps and blitz-canvassing the fuck out of the constituency in a way that the BNP couldn't match. Even so, the BNP almost doubled their vote.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Oh fuck off. This is a very emotional thread and people are getting accused of holding positions they don't have. I'm NOT saying that criticisms of the way in which this was handled are only moral and not political.





bolshiebhoy said:


> That is pretty poor. RC was saying something was lost amidst the outrage, not that the outrage was misplaced.


 
Sorry but I'm not convinced - the accusations of political impurity seem like a smoke screen from where I'm standing. Have a look back at BB's posts on this thread and tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong. Especially when the comments are made when deltagate specifically is what's being discussed.

I dunno though, maybe I'm just allowing my emotions to combine with my deeply engrained bourgeois morality, resulting in - shock - horror - moral indignation.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman, I am not impressed with your coining of the word "deltagate". Are you a tabloid writer in your day job?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Even proposing something like that would likely see whoever suggested it expelled on some pretext or other. Witness the Matt Kidd incident a few years ago on here when he posted a report from their annual conference without seeking permission and Martin Smith called him personally and expelled him over the phone solely for that.
> 
> Bottom line with the Swappies is that if they want to get rid of people then they can and will. Joining the Swappies is like joining the Army in that they have a rule for everything. Unlike the Army (and more like the Mafia) whether or not rules are enforced or overlooked depends on whether or you're not a senior figure, or are well in with those at the top table or know where some bodies are buried. The degree to which a member has either friends at court, information that would damage the party if it went public or a blend of both is usually the degree to which that member can bend or break rules that for others would be an expulsion offence.
> 
> It's not that the SWP leadership doesn't enforce discipline. It does, however, enforce it selectively and what's overlooked for one member may well see a different member being shown the door for exactly the same breach of party rules.


That sounds pretty corrupt to me, especially given this a party supposedly dedicated to socialism. Some animals are definitely more equal than others


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Sorry but I'm not convinced - the accusations of political impurity seem like a smoke screen from where I'm standing. Have a look back at BB's posts on this thread and tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong. Especially when the comments are made when deltagate specifically is what's being discussed.
> 
> I dunno though, maybe I'm just allowing my emotions to combine with my deeply engrained bourgeois morality, resulting in - shock - horror - moral indignation.


 
You see, I didn't read them as accusations, I saw them as descriptions of positions.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Did I say it was anti-marxist?


Bolshiebhoy did


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2013)

So ask him.


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> You see, I didn't read them as accusations, I saw them as descriptions of positions.


And I perceived it as political criticism (or even indignation) rather than moral.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2013)

Sorry, I don't understand that. Can you explain?

I mean rather than moral. I don't get the moral bit.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 13, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This is not true the rape allegation was not made until september 2012, prior to that the allegation was of sexual harassment, which was reported to the SWP conference.


 
Are you sure? That's not how the reply from Seymour reads to me. It clearly says that people at the conference two years earlier were duped into thinking it was just a messy affair. In which case he is saying that people at the top knew it was far more than this.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> You're just looking for anything to fuel your outrage. There's no reason for you to believe Seymour's version of events. The opposition didn't argue this. Why believe him and not others?
> 
> I think this thread is a good example of people believing that they want to believe just as the CC and DC are accused.


 
Not at all. This person has chosen to make a stand on this because he believes the CC have acted so appallingly. If they have done as he says they have, any many others in the opposition say he has, then what is wrong with moral outrage?

I guess I am more likely to believe the opposition as the central committee have being lying and slandering people for decades.


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Sorry, I don't understand that. Can you explain?
> 
> I mean rather than moral. I don't get the moral bit.


You described posters' reaction to bb's posts as moral indignation. Perhaps you meant political indignation? I don't get where the moral aspect of your description comes from unless it was hyperbole.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Are you sure? That's not how the reply from Seymour reads to me. It clearly says that people at the conference two years earlier were duped into thinking it was just a messy affair. In which case he is saying that people at the top knew it was far more than this.


 
This is a quote from Candy who gave the disputes committee report to conference.



> We noted that the complaint concerned incidents that had taken place over a period of about six months in 2008 and 2009, which was three or four years before we met. We also noted that there had been an informal complaint about these incidents from the same woman in July 2010, which hadn’t come to the disputes committee, and *at that time she complained of sexual harassment rather than of rape*.


 
And this is Viv one of W's supporters.


> The hearing as you’ve heard concerned an accusation of rape, an incredibly serious accusation which we think the committee did take very seriously, and Candy mentioned the fact that the woman had come forward a few years previously at a conference. And the CC did handle the case in the way that she asked them to. But I think it’s important to say that she felt she could come forward two years later because she – as she explained it to me when she rang me up and asked me to give evidence on her behalf – *she felt able to actually confront the issues that she’d gone through and actually say that she felt she had been raped*. She felt the way the party had handled the Assange case gave her confidence that she would get a fair hearing.


 
Assuming Viv reporting accurately then W did not herself come to feel she had bee raped until recently, therefore no one in the SWP leadership could have been aware of a rape allegation. The report to conference says the case was heard in October 2012 I read somewhere else (can't for the life of me remember where now) that the allegation of rape was formally made in September. 

What I think Seymour is getting at is one or more of the following
1, The initial accusation of sexual harassment was more serious than CC lead people to believer.
2, The CC was aware of other possible cases, but as only 2 complaints have been made this could only have been rumor.
3, At the previous conference they said W had accepted their decision, this does not now seem to be the case.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Well, many will try and carry on as normal! What d'you expect people who've been in the SWP for 30 years to do? And what's that observation got to do with being loyal or not to the SWP?


 
This questions demonstrates a lack of understanding of what I said - it is BB who is calling people's loyalty into question, however your subsequent posts demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the issues or people's thoughts about how rape allegations should be handled, so I'm not going to waste my time responding to you in any more depth.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 13, 2013)

So lets get this straight, basicly the real issues underlying all people leaving the SWP is different conceptions of marxism from the CC and that this issue is just an incidental catalyist to that taking place?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jan 13, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> So lets get this straight, basicly the real issues underlying all people leaving the SWP is different conceptions of marxism from the CC and that this issue is just an incidental catalyist to that taking place?


Yes though you will have to admit that this catalyst is a biggie


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 13, 2013)

Its not a position i would hold if i had anything to do with the SWP, it just seems that some of the arguments that have been posted on here seems to imply that that is the case...


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jan 13, 2013)

There have been questions over the last few years regarding party democracy & as feelings run high on both sides of the debate things get to put it mildly rather heated resulting in suspensions & expulsions leading to walkouts by good members


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 13, 2013)

If it was me in the SWP i don't think after seeing how something as serious as that being handled so badly and implicating so many of the main people on the CC id want to have nothing to do with the party. As for whether peeps have got the _true conception of marxism _it does seem strange that so many people who are leaving just now are getting accused of that, some of whom, it seems have been around the party for a long while. Maybe so many people getting it wrong is an outcome of a party that likes to act all things to all people when they are on their recruitment drives.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> This questions demonstrates a lack of understanding of what I said - it is BB who is calling people's loyalty into question, however your subsequent posts demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the issues or people's thoughts about how rape allegations should be handled, so I'm not going to waste my time responding to you in any more depth.


 
Really? My subsequent posts have tried to clarify what I see as bb interpreting what is happening in the SWP using the SWP's own politics. I don't see him as saying that the cc are right morally or politically just that they are acting in accordance with their own politics. If bb was still a member then I'd understand why he was seen as supporting them but he isn't. Anyway, he can speak for himself.

Other posts have been to suggest that we stick to what we know, what has been said. I don't know exactly what happened and neither do any of us on here. 

As for the rape allegations, I'm not sure how it should have been handled, given that w didn't want to go to the police. I really don't know. I never said I thought it was an adequate process.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 13, 2013)

cesare said:


> You described posters' reaction to bb's posts as moral indignation. Perhaps you meant political indignation? I don't get where the moral aspect of your description comes from unless it was hyperbole.


 
Because it seemed to me that he wasn't saying the cc were right. And it seemed to me that anger with him for appearing to be saying this was preventing people from seeing that he wasn't. 

But like I just said, he can speak for himself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> You see, I didn't read them as accusations, I saw them as descriptions of positions.


 
I give up. He was basically saying that the ex socialist worker journo was only critical of the way the case was handled because he was a feminist - it's the usual apologetics - our accusers don't share the one true faith so their claims are invalid.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 13, 2013)

emanymton said:


> What I think Seymour is getting at is one or more of the following
> 
> 1, The initial accusation of sexual harassment was more serious than CC lead people to believer.
> 2, The CC was aware of other possible cases, but as only 2 complaints have been made this could only have been rumor.
> 3, At the previous conference they said W had accepted their decision, this does not now seem to be the case.



That makes sense. I think he is getting at points 1 and 3. If true still appalling and if true delta lapping up a round of applause is sickening.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I give up. He was basically saying that the ex socialist worker journo was only critical of the way the case was handled because he was a feminist - it's the usual apologetics - our accusers don't share the one true faith so their claims are invalid.


No sorry didn't say that and don't believe that. Walker clearly feels passionately that the cc and dc have been up to no good. Thats one thing. He also clearly, at least to anyone reasonably familiar with IS politics and older debates on patriarchy, argued feminist vs Marxist ideas in his letter. That's a different thing. And the same is true of Seymour as I think his one telling remark about 'dogmatic' arguments with feminists in the 80's proves beyond a shadow of a doubt. All I've tried to argue is that we need to respond to those two things, the outrage at one case and the broader ideological position separately. it seemed and still seems to me that for obvious reasons people who hate the SWP want to talk about one but not the other. 

The two are related of course. And Seymour has quite cynically twisted facts about the dc case I believe as part of his bigger agenda. Implying the cc knew there was a rape charge a year ago when the woman herself hadn't actually made it is pretty low.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 13, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> So lets get this straight, basicly the real issues underlying all people leaving the SWP is different conceptions of marxism from the CC and that this issue is just an incidental catalyist to that taking place?


It's not exactly incidental (certainly not for the victims im sure) but I do think it's a catalyst. but I wouldn't say it's the cc's version of Marxism that's being attacked, it's the whole tradition's version. it's pretty horrible and messy of course because in these situations people all claim they're standing in the same tradition and then trade blows.


----------



## Trendy Trot (Jan 13, 2013)

The SWP loyalists, in trying to defend the indefensible, are now striking out against the whistleblowers. Given my experience of their operational methods this is not surprising.

What Seymour is saying is that the standing ovation from 2011 was given on the basis of a lying presentation from Martin Smith.

I was there, Martin Smith said it was a consensual affair that had gone wrong. He then went into a long sob story about how hard it can be when you are attacked from people on the outside.

Next he invoked the spectre of the "sectarian blogs" and their focus on destroying the SWP.

That's when some idiots at the front started chanting, and I kid you not "the workers, united, will never be defeated" and two thirds of the conference stood clapping in adulation.

Seymour's point was that the people giving the ovation did not know they were applauding a man who had been accused of sexual harassment. The CC knew the true nature of the allegations against Smith, an yet they let that continue.

Despicable.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> If it was me in the SWP i don't think after seeing how something as serious as that being handled so badly and implicating so many of the main people on the CC id want to have nothing to do with the party. As for whether peeps have got the _true conception of marxism _it does seem strange that so many people who are leaving just now are getting accused of that, some of whom, it seems have been around the party for a long while. Maybe so many people getting it wrong is an outcome of a party that likes to act all things to all people when they are on their recruitment drives.



Nobody will take your posts seriously in the politics thread if you use the phrase peeps


----------



## kenny g (Jan 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Nobody will take your posts seriously in the politics thread if you use the phrase peeps


 
Pompous , moi?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Nobody will take your posts seriously in the politics thread if you use the phrase peeps


I'm a youthworker, its the way i roll.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 13, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Ta, I had a quick look at the introduction and will take another look tomorrow. He makes interesting points although I'm not sure I agree with them, but I do also feel a bit uncomfortable about a man telling women that they're the wrong kind of feminist.
> 
> To me there's an edge of prosthelitysing - yes we need feminism but it needs to be subsumed under the class struggle, so come and join us and do what we tell you to.


 
Yes, re-reading it I found it full of useful factual information, and I'd like to give it a more thorough read.

But yes, I don't agree with the bits where he tells women what they should be focussing on. People have to respond to the immediate problems as they find them.

One of his critiques of the women's movement was that it was supposedly taken up more by "middle class women" than by "working class women", but I think that in fact the two supposed groups tend to blur into each other anyway. New ideas (eg: use of recreational drugs, living together outside marriage) do tend to be taken up initially by people who have had a chance of extended education, so it was not that surprising that the pursuit of women's rights first started to appeal to women in education, professions, etc. Cliff uses feminism's appeal to the so-called middle class as a way of damning it, when in fact the same could be said of the SWP, ie: that it appeals mainly to people at uni and in the professions such as teaching, social work, media, academia, and so on.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 13, 2013)

mutley said:


> SWP constitution - if 20% of banches call for it there has to be a conference. It's never happened though.


 
The tricky thing with this is: how many "real" branches are there and how many "ghost" branches? Leeds used to have about four branches, as I recall, and may now be down to one - but how many exist on paper?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 13, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Ok, I've spent pretty much most of the day scouring the web and our collection of pamphlets, and can I hellers like find that Paul Foot one to quote from. But I think it was about the Haiti slave rebellion, and I read it at my then workplace when I was still yoof. What vexed me was that Foot mentioned rapes taking place as part of the rebellion, without labelling them for the unacceptable sexual violence that they were. Ok it was another time and another place, (the context of the rebellion). But it put me off joining the SWP for years, as it inevitably sowed the seed of an idea that some Marxist theoreticians found rape acceptable as an appropriate "punishment".
> 
> As for Cliff, 1984 (sorry for the copy and paste-a-thon):
> 
> ...


 
Have to say there is a lot that rings pretty dodgy about Cliffs take on things there. For instance the implication that issues like domestic violence are not really about "changes in the real world" and are are somehow suspect by being "directed towards the state". I'd say being kept in a prison like condition would seem pretty real to someone affected by domestic violence - and that a strike they come upon in the news would seem somewhat remote compared to their immediate circumstances. Also slagging off its appeals to the state does that render all workers struggles for better working conditions or say the very anti cuts campaigns that the swp are a part of as null and void by the fact that they are appeals to the state?

If stuff like that is the philosophical foundation as to why there is a problem with feminism within the swp, no wonder that concerns for abstract notions of "the party" play more importance than the immediate concerns of a rape survivor.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> is that it?


 
Obviously not as there are other posts I've made on this thread, including one about a revolt from below being prudent just now. The bureaucratic degeneracy is complete.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 13, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> I'm a youthworker, its the way i roll.


 
  I'm not even youth and I say peeps - usually when writing online, rather in actual spoken conversation.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 13, 2013)

I'm not youth either, buts its important to know the lingo of the street if you want rhyme to the beat of the revolution...


----------



## two sheds (Jan 13, 2013)

Yo.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 13, 2013)

fwiw i agree with Red Cat that bolshieboy's posts have been completely misinterpreted - and i share with bolshieboy a surprise at the naivety of the likes of Tom Walker's article in light of the IS traditions actual theoretical legacy on issues related to, for example, gender emancipation. electric.light gives some examples of the theory above*. there has been a shift away from IS theory in recent years in the SWP, in particular amongst the youth. this is mainly down to the utterly appalling level of political education within the SWP (which i was moaning about at the start of this thread) and also the leadership's unwillingness to record its own history (members knowing the history of their own organisation is dangerous for an organisation which attempts to control debates through a quasi-theological adherence to an unblemished tradition of theoretical perfection from above). as a result, young SWP members in particular have been moulded by more general political trends on the left (towards identity politics, privilege politics and the rest) which has been fine for the leadership, since it has had no impact what with the SWP not being democratic at all.

the reason this is important to note is that the movement will influence the potential direction of anything that might emerge from the coming fight/split. the AMM and more loosely the Revolutionary History Journal, for a long time, were the focusses around which adherents to the old IS tradition gathered - and it has been through them that most of the gains in terms of reintroducing discussion and debate to the party made in recent years have occurred. the party's history was unearthed, discussed, debated - texts which rest in the SWP's canon (but were very rarely actually brought out into the open) were provocatively posted up in public and debated as an uncomfortable challenge to the leadership to conform to their own, claimed, theoretical legacy. Tony Cliff's biography by Ian Birchall came out last year, a product of the cross-over between these two organisations and the result of their increasing influence (Birchall had for years been completely marginalised by the CC - it was pretty surprising they agreed to publish him). however these developments have effectively been a discussion taking place only within a specific layer of the SWP - as the broader membership and particularly the youth are often of shockingly low quality.

naturally, when accusations of sexual harrassment/rape start coming into the picture, it was the members around these IS circles who mounted the most vocal criticisms of the leadership. the rest is history, and we know at least a bit about it now. when the four were expelled, i hoped that this would be the icing on the cake - that these events would discredit the organisation beyond the point at which this "DO" were prepared to continue ploughing their energies into saving it. what i hadn't anticipated was the readiness of the DO to assimilate the likes of Seymour et al into its campaign. at the moment, it appears that these voices are if anything claiming the limelight - and i have been disappointed to see the original DO members imo opportunistically pushing a line that centres around broad cultural arguments about patriarchal attitudes amongst the left (i.e. Laurie Penny's argument) _AS WELL AS_ the structural issues around the SWP which _actually_ allowed these events to occur, be hushed up, and then hatchet-jobbed through disputes.

there's absolutely nothing in the traditional IS theory which was the cause of the events which occurred between Delta, W and X. it simply isn't the case that there are people arguing that rape shouldn't be taken seriously, that issues of class are incompatible or superior to the question of feminism, or that the issue today is of women making an 'unreasonable' fuss about matters which simply aren't _that_ important (all positions taken from Laurie Penny's article which was widely read and distributed amongst the DO and beyond). the below, glib cartoon has also done the rounds recently on facebook between the dissenters:







i also don't agree that there is an embedded 'rape culture' which has permeated parts of the left, whereby many men think it is acceptable to sexually harrass/assault women. quite the opposite in the SWP, as the case around the expulsion of the night club fighting guy mentioned earlier should demonstrate! even accusations of being 'macho' are enough to have you thrown out. what is the case is that the SWP itself is a shady, hierarchical, undemocratic and more importantly _generally unaccountable_ organisation, and CC members such as Martin Smith are essentially able to act with impunity within its social circles - their personal moral standards not being subject to remotely the same level of scrutiny as anyone else (Bakunin made a good post earlier on the 'Mafiosa' style culture of the SWP in this regard). the unwillingness of some members to take W's allegations seriously wasn't a cultural issue in relation to opinions on women, it was a cultural issue in regards to a complete deference to the party's authority and a product of the SWPs particular internal environment.

on the question of structural accountability, the new identity politickers and Seymour's crowd have found a common ground with the original expellees, but this is an unholy marriage of interests. i hope that the fusion won't drown out the potentially progressive conclusion which could have been reached, but to my mind Seymour's voice appears to be by far the most powerful within the ranks of most of the current dissenters. he has effectively been re-writing the theoretical political education of most SWP members over the past 6-7 years, far more focussed on a post-STW communitarian, multicultural, identity-politics, liberal anti-racist, politically correct line.

*though i think the accusation of being 'soft' on issues of domestic abuse etc does somewhat overlook the more general strategical comment that the most dominant strand of contemporary feminism focusses the vast bulk of its propaganda and attentions onto victimhood as opposed to strength


----------



## bignose1 (Jan 13, 2013)

past caring said:


> To reiterate - this isn't the thread.
> 
> But nevertheless, it's worth noting how you bring this up on the thread where it _isn't_ being discussed and where those posters who might be in a position to respond are not contributing (so there's thus much more chance of your allegations slipping under the radar) rather than the BTF thread where you've been roundly trounced. You really are one slimy horrible cunt.


Slimy horrible cunt...well thats par for the course...trounced ...you prick....its not about fucking point scoring yfa....why are they not responding...gmab


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The two are related of course. And Seymour has quite cynically twisted facts about the dc case I believe as part of his bigger agenda. Implying the cc knew there was a rape charge a year ago when the woman herself hadn't actually made it is pretty low.


 
I think the explanation from emanymton is more likely. He is implying the CC knew it was far more serious than just an affair that got messy. That could well be the case.


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I think the explanation from emanymton is more likely. He is implying the CC knew it was far more serious than just an affair that got messy. That could well be the case.


There's an alternative explanation too. I notice that W resumed her complaint after the SWP clarified their stance on Assange/Galloway. It could well be that W previously hadn't understood the previous complaint to be rape. There's a lot of misunderstanding/myths about rape out there, including but not limited to sex when someone is asleep/passed out and not able to consent.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 13, 2013)

cesare said:


> There's an alternative explanation too. I notice that W resumed her complaint after the SWP clarified their stance on Assange/Galloway. It could well be that W previously hadn't understood the previous complaint to be rape. There's a lot of misunderstanding/myths about rape out there, including but not limited to sex when someone is asleep/passed out and not able to consent.


 
This could well be the case. But Seymour is suggesting that the CC knew that the allegations were far more seriously than a messy affair at the very least. The post above from a delegate who was at the conference seems to suggest that this was the case.

If it turns out that the CC knew that Martin Smith was giving a speech and lapping up a standing ovation and at the same time knew that he had serious allegations against them, they really are low lifes.

As it happens I agree with BB that the political criticisms, although they overlap, are in some ways separate as well. There are some good criticisms about the SWPs interpretation of democratic centralism, their attitude to united fronts, their total isolation from the working class. However there is also an overlap in the fact that these politics have also helped to create a semi-cultish organisation where the leadership is totally unaccountable.

At the very least Martin Smith presumably must have known that he had serious allegations against him. To stand at a conference in that situation and milk up applause must show what kind of person he is.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I am sure it was out of context.


 
Not even slightly out of context no. I can give him a certain amount of slack for that crass statement given that he was in his nineties when he made it. I can't really give Socialist Appeal any fucking slack for printing it without comment though.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not even slightly out of context no. I can give him a certain amount of slack for that crass statement given that he was in his nineties when he made it. I can't really give Socialist Appeal any fucking slack for printing it without comment though.


 
socialist appeal really seem to try to make themselves into a sort of 1950s version of militant imo.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No sorry didn't say that and don't believe that. Walker clearly feels passionately that the cc and dc have been up to no good. Thats one thing. He also clearly, at least to anyone reasonably familiar with IS politics and older debates on patriarchy, argued feminist vs Marxist ideas in his letter. That's a different thing. And the same is true of Seymour as I think his one telling remark about 'dogmatic' arguments with feminists in the 80's proves beyond a shadow of a doubt. All I've tried to argue is that we need to respond to those two things, the outrage at one case and the broader ideological position separately. it seemed and still seems to me that for obvious reasons people who hate the SWP want to talk about one but not the other.
> 
> The two are related of course. And Seymour has quite cynically twisted facts about the dc case I believe as part of his bigger agenda. Implying the cc knew there was a rape charge a year ago when the woman herself hadn't actually made it is pretty low.


 
OK, that's a bit clearer now. I used to read Seymour's blog quite a bit and I know he does take quite an identity politics like line on some of this stuff, I think you may be right about that. But I still don't see anything in that Tom's letter that marks him out as a 'feminist' (in the sense you're using the term) - all he says is that there's a particular point on which Marxists and feminists would agree. I think he's right fwiw.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2013)

thats a very interesting post das uberdog. what would you say the reasons for the low political education in the swp are though? seems to me that it wasn't always like this. and the impression i've got ever since i've been involved in this sort of thing is that the swp have been far more accommodatory towards identity politics etc (dunno if thats the right word) and a lot less "marxist" than the SP for example, are you saying that they're not though and the fact that many members do so is down to poor political education as to their actual views?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

I see that John Molyneux has broken his silence... sort of. Everyone's favourite absolutely tame "oppositionist" emerged blinking from his cave somewhere in Ireland to "like" a comment by a certain "Josh Clarke" on Callinicos' facebook wall. The comment points to the single line about "old dogmas" on feminism in one of Seymour's articles and claims that this is the core politics of the dispute. Molyneux approves of this dismissal.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 13, 2013)

Yeah, DU's post has clarified a few things for me. Some of the stuff I've overheard and picked up from one line comments on facebook and the like now make a lot more sense.

DU - would you agree that if the expelless and the identity politickers can't get the CC to back down/make concessions/whatever they're unlikely to form their own group, or at least if they do it won't last very long given the political differences?

Also in reply to Froggy - I guess with some of the stuff the SWP have done around STW, Respect and UAF a low level of political education has suited the CC. And given that in united front work their practical politics has often been more like identity politics than applied Marxism it's perfectly possible that the identity politickers (great term by the way DU  ) took this as confirmation that _theirs _was the line that truly reflected the IS tradition.

I'm certainly surprised by some of that Cliff stuff - I was never encouraged to read any of that when I was in the SWP, I was given more recently printed stuff, mostly by CC members, that couldn't be considered Marxist in any real sense - more justifications of whatever it was they were doing (eg. Martin Smith on how to defeat the BNP). And since I got into reading more serious Marxist stuff off independent of them I never really touched on Cliff - I went straight to Marx and Engels. I'd always assumed that the identity stuff was their politics - and in terms of what they were actually doing it was and that's a very big part of the reason why I left and joined the SP, who as an unrepentant Marxist were closer to my politics in practice as well as theory.


----------



## Trendy Trot (Jan 13, 2013)

Not only did Martin Smith lie to the conference that year, through his lies he encouraged other comrades to make statements they must be aghast at now.

Because he said it was a consensual affair that had simply gone wrong, and that sometimes in personal relationships we do things we're not proud of, other comrades then got up and said they too had done things they weren't proud of in the personal sphere.

I remember one particularly well respected male UNITE member, naively trying to defend Smith, while agreeing he also had "skeletons in his closet". I doubt they were of the magnitude of those in Smith's.

No wonder so many SWP members are so angry now, they were used by Martin Smith and the CC to inadvertently cover up sexual assault allegations.

As I have posted before, there were/are a lot of great people in the SWP but they treated like idiots by their leadership.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> on the question of structural accountability, the new identity politickers and Seymour's crowd have found a common ground with the original expellees, but this is an unholy marriage of interests. i hope that the fusion won't drown out the potentially progressive conclusion which could have been reached, but to my mind Seymour's voice appears to be by far the most powerful within the ranks of most of the current dissenters. he has effectively been re-writing the theoretical political education of most SWP members over the past 6-7 years, far more focussed on a post-STW communitarian, multicultural, identity-politics, liberal anti-racist, politically correct line.


 
I think that this sets up a false opposition between two clearly delineated trends, where there isn't such an opposition or at least there isn't such clarity. Seymour was in the faction, he was also, as I understand it, one of the people involved in the original discussion that was used to expel the four. And he seems pretty matey with both the expelled and Andy Wilson, at least online. I don't think that these people _see themselves_ as an uncomfortable alliance of "find the lost treasure of Tony Cliff Thought" purists and identity politics types.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 13, 2013)

he has shared some of the democratic criticisms of the Wilson group for a while, but there has been little crossover and he's never been involved actively in any of the circles around AMM or RHJ (the latter in particular are pretty hostile to his politics). as for his involvement in the faction, i don't believe he was one of the initial organisers though he has joined it. there is certainly a delineation between the different circles from what i can see.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:
			
		

> thats a very interesting post das uberdog. what would you say the reasons for the low political education in the swp are though? seems to me that it wasn't always like this. and the impression i've got ever since i've been involved in this sort of thing is that the swp have been far more accommodatory towards identity politics etc (dunno if thats the right word) and a lot less "marxist" than the SP for example, are you saying that they're not though and the fact that many members do so is down to poor political education as to their actual views?




i'd say it was that for a long time, the leadership haven't had any vested interest in maintaining an educated membership... in fact, when members educate themselves, things have often become awkward within the oppressive internal environment of the organisation. for a long while the SWP hasn't been following any coherent long-term strategy, not actively pushing things forward in any cohesive way whatsoever, but simply living off its past successes and _existing_ through various different money-spinning structures like UAF. as i argued at the beginning of the thread, i have come to the conclusion that the leadership (and many branch level hacks) have simply come to the position where they are more concerned with maintaining their 'society' and their way of life than actually achieving anything. an education in some of the core, and quite intelligent arguments of the IS tradition can't help but make you critical of, for example, UAF's claim to the tradition of Cable St. and Lewisham, the SWP's attitude towards Trade Unions (the old IS line even ha it that SWP members were barred from taking top jobs in TUs, and that the focus should always be on politically convincing the grass roots rather than seizing the structures of innately 'reformist' organisations... this 'socialism from below' line is still what's spouted officially as the line though no-one really reads it or pays that much notice)... and everything else.




			
				SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> DU - would you agree that if the expelless and the identity politickers can't get the CC to back down/make concessions/whatever they're unlikely to form their own group, or at least if they do it won't last very long given the political differences?




i think they might even end up getting hoovered up by ACI, counterfire and Bambery's ISG group up North... that or disappear into the aether. tentative predictions, i hope i'm wrong!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> he's never been involved actively in any of the circles around AMM or RHJ (the latter in particular are pretty hostile to his politics).


 
What exactly are you saying are "his politics"? And in what sense are the people around Revolutionary History hostile to them?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 13, 2013)

Trendy Trot said:


> As I have posted before, there were/are a lot of great people in the SWP but they treated like idiots by their leadership.


 
"...great people..."? Steady on.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

Professional bag carrier for Blairism A Very Public Sociologist has a not particularly good new piece up which does however contain the following interesting claim:

"Off the top of my head, Sheffield and Leeds are pretty much solid oppositionists. The local branch here in Stoke are supportive of the rebellion. And the large (in far left terms) Birmingham organisation is said to be on the verge of decamping _en masse_."


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Professional bag carrier for Blairism A Very Public Sociologist has a not particularly good new piece up which does however contain the following interesting claim:
> 
> "Off the top of my head, Sheffield and Leeds are pretty much solid oppositionists. The local branch here in Stoke are supportive of the rebellion. And the large (in far left terms) Birmingham organisation is said to be on the verge of decamping _en masse_."


 
He's definitely wrong about Sheffield so I'd take the rest with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's definitely wrong about Sheffield so I'd take the rest with a pinch of salt.


 
Give us a full report from the Sheffield trenches!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 13, 2013)

I don't know all the ins and outs but judging from facebook it looks like it's split about 50/50, with the dissidents coming almost exclusively from the student groups.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> I'm not youth either, buts its important to know the lingo of the street if you want rhyme to the beat of the revolution...


 
I think you mean yoot daddyo


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What exactly are you saying are "his politics"? And in what sense are the people around Revolutionary History hostile to them?


 
his politics, as i mentioned in the big post above, are multiculturalist, identity politics led, communitarian - as far as i'm concerned it's basically radical liberalism. he's got very little intuitive class identity in anything, and usually uses the term [class] vaguely as a word for something 'good' or that he supports. he's in favour of political correctness, has a hyper-sensitive radar for 'offence' and he would certainly disagree with the Tony Cliff paragraph posted above.

i know of at least one ex Swap around RHJ who gets in periodic fracas with him over these points, and the others i know are far too serious minded Marxist historians to have any time for his new age crap.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable

if this helps clarify anything further, here's an excerpt from an article published in 1987 and written by Ted Crawford, one of the leading figures behind RHJ. read it for yourself and the friction between his and Seymour's positions today are clear.




			
				Ted Crawford said:
			
		

> It is easy to criticise the present day SWP. They have trained a layer since I left, not totally badly. They have an excellent bookshop and a quite outstanding BookMarks club, the like of which the Trotskyist movement in this country has never had before. Their paper is by far the most readable of any, and I would put_Socialist Worker_ rather than anything else into the hands of any contact that I sought to swing leftwards, even if I have occasional criticisms of the line. Together with some dross they have produced some excellent studies such as Callinicos and Harman on _The Changing Working Class_ and Harman on 1968 in _The Fire Last Time_. They are, though, often very sectarian in their behaviour despite the excellence of many (not all) of their theoretical positions. I would argue that since the end of the seventies the SWP had capitulated to different trendiness, sexual life-stylers and some black nationalist careerists, though _not_, after some wavering, to middle class women. These today represented the same class forces as the old Mao-spontaneists of the sixties but most other groups have done far worse than the SWP




http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/pages/newint/Is.html


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2013)

sexual life-stylers?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> sexual life-stylers?


Socialist swingers - big in the seventies, one supposes.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2013)

Yeah Im sure the article is making good points but some of the language used i cant really take seriously


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> if this helps clarify anything further, here's an excerpt from an article published in 1987 and written by Ted Crawford, one of the leading figures behind RHJ. read it for yourself and the friction between his and Seymour's positions today are clear.


 
Well yes, he's about half an inch from the views expressed by a nonagenarian Ted Grant in that awful interview that was posted a few pages back. I very much doubt if that particular line has any particular traction in today's SWP.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 13, 2013)

just an example for you of how the political trends are divergent, that's all


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> just an example for you of how the political trends are divergent, that's all


 
Sure, it's just that I'm a bit dubious that any part of the SWP "revolt" is particularly influenced by the views of a Crawford or an Al Richardson on that sort of question.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Socialist swingers - big in the seventies, one supposes.


 
Yup you would go to an 'educational' and put your Citreon Dyane car keys or if you were a student the key to your bike lock , in a gold fish bowl and then give it to Chris Harman who would say who was the lucky winner.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 13, 2013)

no it's not, which is kind of my point. the nub of the group who have been campaigning for year in the organisation were fleshing out these old IS positions, and those expelled were linked to these groups, but in practice they've been overwhelmed by events and those ideas haven't been important whatsoever.

eta: Nigel Irritable


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well yes, he's about half an inch from the views expressed by a nonagenarian Ted Grant in that awful interview that was posted a few pages back. I very much doubt if that particular line has any particular traction in today's SWP.


 
But it is that half inch that we live and breathe in.

Not sure that Ted Crawfords statement is  part of the IS tradition anyway


----------



## BigTom (Jan 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah Im sure the article is making good points but some of the language used i cant really take seriously


 
I want to know more about these mao-spontaneists.. they appear to be anarchists/autonomists so I'm a bit confused about the mao connection unless it's a French word. Sounds like something PD would come up with just from its name.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't know all the ins and outs but judging from facebook it looks like it's split about 50/50, with the dissidents coming almost exclusively from the student groups.


 
Speaking of which, Liverpool John Moore's University SWSS has come out in support of the Leeds SWSS statement.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

BigTom said:


> I want to know more about these mao-spontaneists.. they appear to be anarchists/autonomists so I'm a bit confused about the mao connection unless it's a French word. Sounds like something PD would come up with just from its name.


 
It was mostly a French thing, marrying the incoherence of Maoism with the incoherence of Anarchism to produce a perfectly incoherent union.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 13, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> no it's not, which is kind of my point. the nub of the group who have been campaigning for year in the organisation were fleshing out these old IS positions, and those expelled were linked to these groups, but in practice they've been overwhelmed by events and those ideas haven't been important whatsoever.


 
That's interesting as a background note, but really, that sort of line was never going to get anywhere, either in the SWP or more generally. There's no audience for it.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 13, 2013)

wrt that specific statement, sure - all that is is one peson's account of the IS. irt to the culture and theorisations of the IS more broadly, i don't necessarily agree - and i actually think that if this most recent conference hadn't been overshadowed by the DC issue, the conference would have actually been subjected to a really vigorous political debate this time around. as i said at the start of the thread, the four expelled had a wide audience and were all a part of these discussions, in particular around AMM, and had made consistent and real progress in improving the internal nature of the organisation.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> sexual life-stylers?


 
not swingers people like us


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> wrt that specific statement, sure - all that is is one peson's account of the IS. irt to the culture and theorisations of the IS more broadly, i don't necessarily agree - and i actually think that if this most recent conference hadn't been overshadowed by the DC issue, the conference would have actually been subjected to a really vigorous political debate this time around. as i said at the start of the thread, the four expelled had a wide audience and were all a part of these discussions, in particular around AMM, and had made consistent and real progress in improving the internal nature of the organisation.


 
I am not sure what the connection is with the notion of 'the IS tradition' and Wilson's  very internal looking 'lets elect the Control Commsion' circa 1994. Tell me more about what you think the political difference is between the IS tradition and the modern day SWP.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 13, 2013)

i think the contrast is twofold, both between the SWP's canon of theory and its practical theory (the Cliff stuff before is an example - compared to say Seymour today) and also organisationally (the IS was conceived of as a discussion/propaganda group in the main, rather than a political party). it would take aeons to go through every position


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 13, 2013)

btw i also don't want to repeat the mistake made earlier in this thread of looking like i want a return to the IS, that's not what i'm saying. this should all be read specifically in the tangent of the issues raised by bolshieboy


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2013)

The IS was never conceived of as just a discussion /propaganda group. I agree that it didn't see itself as a democratic centralist party but the IS  grew out of activity just as much as out of ideas.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 13, 2013)

I don't know what to think of all of this. It's hard _not_ to feel happy about the Party collapsing, especially as a lot of those who have been expelled, or are now in opposition, or who now disagree with the handling of this case, were historically so pro-CC, so intolerant of _any_ opposition or critical voices, and went along with everything the CC did for years and years. Look at John Rees for example. He liked to dish it out but when the tables were turned, suddenly he realised the structures were undemocratic and unfair. A bit like Trotsky in the 1920s too...

I mean, Richard Seymour arguing that the CC "might think about creating more pluralistic party structures, ending the ban on factions outside of conference season and rethinking the way elections take place." Where the hell was Seymour when Molyneux raised these issues in a more nuanced and tamer way about 5-6 years ago? Oh, he voted against Molyneux didn't he?

On the other hand, the DC/rape case debacle is sickening so it's hard to feel happy about any of this.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 13, 2013)

If the opposition is somehow linked with the Association of Musical Marxists  I think you will after watching the video that they are not going to be a pole of attraction for anyone wanting to change the world:


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Wilson's 'lets elect the Control Commsion' circa 1994.


eh?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> If the opposition is somehow linked with the Association of Musical Marxists I think you will after watching the video that they are not going to be a pole of attraction for anyone wanting to change the world:




900 people watched that on youtube!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> If the opposition is somehow linked with the Association of Musical Marxists I think you will after watching the video that they are not going to be a pole of attraction for anyone wanting to change the world:



Is Ian related to Sean?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> thats a very interesting post das uberdog. what would you say the reasons for the low political education in the swp are though? seems to me that it wasn't always like this. and the impression i've got ever since i've been involved in this sort of thing is that the swp have been far more accommodatory towards identity politics etc (dunno if thats the right word) and a lot less "marxist" than the SP for example, are you saying that they're not though and the fact that many members do so is down to poor political education as to their actual views?



I think that whatever you think of them the SWP of the 1970's/early '80's had talent in spades, even though I disagree with their conclusions, so I'd agree it seems things weren't always like that. I've heard explanations as to why they failed to promote talent to replace that leadership involving the rules on factions leading to splits, and the lack of regional structures meaning it was hard to step from local to national positions so maybe that's a factor... But I'd agree, it sometimes shocks me how little SWP members seem to know about their own party, I mean I've met branch organisers who had never heard of TUSC, or weren't sure if they were in or out of the NSSN at the moment. That's worrying because it suggests these people are just running branches freestyle; the papers come in the post every week and they just go sell 'em, without ever talking to the other branches/leadership. Maybe it's just me that finds that odd but I just imagine people going "Whats the line? Fuck it, lets make it up." I find it amazing that different branches sometimes have different political positions. I met two whole branches a couple of years back who wouldn't speak to each other. Communication doesn't seem to happen much, never mind political education. I just don't understand how that could be possible in a world with telephones, trains, and the internet.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think that whatever you think of them the SWP of the 1970's/early '80's had talent in spades, even though I disagree with their conclusions, so I'd agree it seems things weren't always like that. I've heard explanations as to why they failed to promote talent to replace that leadership involving the rules on factions leading to splits, and the lack of regional structures meaning it was hard to step from local to national positions so maybe that's a factor... But I'd agree, it sometimes shocks me how little SWP members seem to know about their own party, I mean I've met branch organisers who had never heard of TUSC, or weren't sure if they were in or out of the NSSN at the moment. That's worrying because it suggests these people are just running branches freestyle; the papers come in the post every week and they just go sell 'em, without ever talking to the other branches/leadership. Maybe it's just me that finds that odd but I just imagine people going "Whats the line? Fuck it, lets make it up." I find it amazing that different branches sometimes have different political positions. I met two whole branches a couple of years back who wouldn't speak to each other. Communication doesn't seem to happen much, never mind political education. I just don't understand how that could be possible in a world with telephones, trains, and the internet.


 
One of the reasons behind this is because Trotskyite sects generally don't like branches to communicate with each other, two branches talking to each other is sign of a secret faction that could threaten the leadership. It's pure paranoia. It's like Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq war, wouldn't allow any 2 of his generals to talk to each other over the phone, because he thought two generals wanting to speak to each other was evidence of a coup. It's paranoia common to any heirachical group. Controlling the means of communicating to the membership is one of the key things needed to maintain an oligarchy.

And in the Socialist Party, although I'm not invovled with them at the moment, this was also a problem. I barely remember any contact with other regional branches. However I get the feeling branches are given a bit more autonomy in the Socialist Party then in the SWP, there's certainly never been any sort of "line" members were expected to follow handed down from the national committee upon high. Paper sales they were like the SWP account, but there was more resistance to it in my branch and I don't think they could've made people sell papers no matter what they do. I think a lot of people's experiences of the SP differ according to what branch your in personally, if you're lucky enough to be a in branch that has a high proportion of normal people who aren't nutty cranks then you'll come away with a better impression than in some other places.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> One of the reasons behind this is because Trotskyite sects generally don't like branches to communicate with each other,...



That was never my experience of the SWP during the late 70's, nor throughout the 1980's.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:
			
		

> It's paranoia common to any heirachical group.


Bollocks. I work like so many other people in a hierarchical organization, and every week I speak to my counterparts in other similar hierarchical organizations. My boss similarly speaks to people elsewhere in the sector and there is a long history of collaborative enterprise among people in my line of work.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Bollocks. I work like so many other people in a hierarchical organization, and every week I speak to my counterparts in other similar hierarchical organizations. My boss similarly speaks to people elsewhere in the sector and there is a long history of collaborative enterprise among people in my line of work.


 
same in mine as well, anyone would think Delroy doesn't know what he's on about.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Bollocks. I work like so many other people in a hierarchical organization, and every week I speak to my counterparts in other similar hierarchical organizations. My boss similarly speaks to people elsewhere in the sector and there is a long history of collaborative enterprise among people in my line of work.


 
Ok you're right, I'll rephrase that, it's common to any sort of heirachical political organisation with undemocratic tendencies. Keeping members from being able to contact each other, keeping members lists in the hands of the clique at the top, keeping e-mail lists secret so that no-one outside the executive committee can access them, controlling the flow of information to the membership via the party newspaper and so on. All part of "democratic" centralism, all part of keeping an oligarchy in power.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> eh?


 
He and some others apparently formed a group called IS Group and wrote a pamphlet arguing that the SWP was bureaucratic centralist rather than democratic centralist and proposed a number of constitutional changes , one of them being the election of the control commission.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Is Ian related to Sean?


 
Hopefully Andy isn't related to Chuck


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Ok you're right, I'll rephrase that, it's common to any sort of heirachical political organisation with undemocratic tendencies. Keeping members from being able to contact each other, keeping members lists in the hands of the clique at the top, keeping e-mail lists secret so that no-one outside the executive committee can access them, controlling the flow of information to the membership via the party newspaper and so on. All part of "democratic" centralism, all part of keeping an oligarchy in power.


 
I left in the mid 90s but I can say that contacting and meeting up with other members was never a problem, neither was information or getting hold of it. Some on the CC were better than others , some full timers were better than others. It was the politics that I left over.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 14, 2013)

audiotech said:


> That was never my experience of the SWP during the late 70's, nor throughout the 1980's.


 
Nor mine in the mid-nineties. The district worked as a district.

However, they did at this time create separate student branches, which didn't make any sense to me. Before that students did SWSS stuff in their colleges but attended non-student branch meetings. I think that was a big mistake re.education.

I also think stopping branch meetings around the time of (before?) the invasion of Afghanistan was catastrophic for them. I actually began to be involved again at this point but couldn't believe that they'd got rid of the very thing that held the party together. I didn't last very long so my analysis may be wrong but that was my impression.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> If the opposition is somehow linked with the Association of Musical Marxists I think you will after watching the video that they are not going to be a pole of attraction for anyone wanting to change the world:




Jesus fuck. I just boked.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Jesus fuck.


I got as far as 1:25 before stopping.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 14, 2013)

Your not wrong stopping the branch meetings was a disaster and they lost a lot of members as people just drifted away. They gradually brought the back, without ever admitting it was a mistake of course.

Eta at Red cat


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> One of the reasons behind this is because Trotskyite sects generally don't like branches to communicate with each other, two branches talking to each other is sign of a secret faction that could threaten the leadership. It's pure paranoia. It's like Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq war, wouldn't allow any 2 of his generals to talk to each other over the phone, because he thought two generals wanting to speak to each other was evidence of a coup. It's paranoia common to any heirachical group. Controlling the means of communicating to the membership is one of the key things needed to maintain an oligarchy.
> 
> And in the Socialist Party, although I'm not invovled with them at the moment, this was also a problem. I barely remember any contact with other regional branches. However I get the feeling branches are given a bit more autonomy in the Socialist Party then in the SWP, there's certainly never been any sort of "line" members were expected to follow handed down from the national committee upon high. Paper sales they were like the SWP account, but there was more resistance to it in my branch and I don't think they could've made people sell papers no matter what they do. I think a lot of people's experiences of the SP differ according to what branch your in personally, if you're lucky enough to be a in branch that has a high proportion of normal people who aren't nutty cranks then you'll come away with a better impression than in some other places.


 
Quite a lot of contact between the branches in my region.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Ok you're right, I'll rephrase that, it's common to any sort of heirachical political organisation with undemocratic tendencies. Keeping members from being able to contact each other, keeping members lists in the hands of the clique at the top, keeping e-mail lists secret so that no-one outside the executive committee can access them, controlling the flow of information to the membership via the party newspaper and so on. All part of "democratic" centralism, all part of keeping an oligarchy in power.


 
That's not really my experience of the SP I have to say. Branches round here cooperate a lot on stuff.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Your not wrong stopping the branch meetings was a disaster and they lost a lot of members as people just drifted away. They gradually brought the back, without ever admitting it was a mistake of course.
> 
> Eta at Red cat


 
Stopping the beer breaks at the branch meetings inn the 1980s was the beginning of the rot.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 14, 2013)

trendy cafes and art spaces are the best places to meet not pubs


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> That's not really my experience of the SP I have to say. Branches round here cooperate a lot on stuff.


 
I guess they've just been running a rogue branch for ages then. They're not even Leninists in Huddersfield, they just do what they want 

I met someone in the Wakefield branch once, who lives only a few miles away from me, and we'd never heard of each other. Probably the one person I actually live nearest to in the whole party, and we never met, for years. No-one ever thought to put us in touch with each other. I thought that was mad at the time and I still do.

And lets look at this SWP thing again. To get a recall conference you need to get 20% of the membership to agree to it. That's a few thousand "members" to organise. How can branches actually go about doing this? What organisation, other than the CC, actually has the ability to pull together that amount of people? It's taken for granted that branches on their own can't actually organise independently amongst themselves 20% of the party, precisely because they don't have the means to do it. It's like an in built self defence mechanism.

That sort of thing is going to become impossible in the future with facebook and twitter people will be able to organised large groups very quickly, but right now that's besides the point these things were put in place for a reason - to secure the people at the top.

A lot of this is theoretical stuff too, ripped off from random anarchoid musings on the failings of Leninism and with a bit of Robert Michels Iron Law of Oligarchy thrown in. So I know in a lot of cases groups at various points will have had a better internal democratic culture


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I guess they've just been running a rogue branch for ages then. They're not even Leninists in Huddersfield, they just do what they want
> 
> I met someone in the Wakefield branch once, who lives only a few miles away from me, and we'd never heard of each other. Probably the one person I actually live nearest to in the whole party, and we never met, for years. No-one ever thought to put us in touch with each other. I thought that was mad at the time and I still do.
> 
> ...


20% of branches. Not membership.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

> And lets look at this SWP thing again. To get a recall conference you need to get 20% of the membership to agree to it.


 
Do you know how many it has to be in the SP?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Do you know how many it has to be in the SP?


 
Haha no, coz once I asked to see a copy of the party constitution and they looked at me like I'd just asked them to hide a gun. They never got back to me on that, funnily enough.



butchersapron said:


> 20% of branches. Not membership.


 
Aah ok. Just out of curiosity is that a figure they'll have difficulty reaching do you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Yes. Can't see it happening.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 14, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> trendy cafes and art spaces are the best places to meet not pubs


A fine legacy of the RCP


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> trendy cafes and art spaces are the best places to meet not pubs


 
Meeting in a pub on a Wednesday or Thursday to discuss politics , have a few beers  was a social highlight for some members.They used to move the branch meetings to libraries on occassions to try and make it more business like,but we would just go to the pub earlier which used to mean people arriving late, and rushing through the meeting to go back to the pub for the real discussion.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 14, 2013)

We stopped having or weekly "Marxist Forums" in a pub because it might deter Muslims from attending. So we moved to another location and then Muslims...continued to stay away.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

mk12 said:


> We stopped having or weekly "Marxist Forums" in a pub because it might deter Muslims from attending. So we moved to another location and then Muslims...continued to stay away.


You thought it was the venue deterring them?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> IThey're not even Leninists in Huddersfield, they just do what they want


 

that made me laugh at my desk.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

mk12 said:


> We stopped having or weekly "Marxist Forums" in a pub because it might deter Muslims from attending. So we moved to another location and then Muslims...continued to stay away.


 
 LOL 
But remember what your man does, if 'Muslims' won't come to you, go to 'Muslims':





John Rees assisting the Egyptian Revolution.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I guess they've just been running a rogue branch for ages then. They're not even Leninists in Huddersfield, they just do what they want
> 
> I met someone in the Wakefield branch once, who lives only a few miles away from me, and we'd never heard of each other. Probably the one person I actually live nearest to in the whole party, and we never met, for years. No-one ever thought to put us in touch with each other. I thought that was mad at the time and I still do.
> 
> ...


Wakefield was the personal fiefdom of Howard and Sheila, whose determination to retain control included the destruction of entire branches (pontefract) and in one case the vicious bullying of a rape victim. Trotskyism's own braddocks


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

When was that?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Quite a lot of contact between the branches in my region.


 
Mine too - I'm far from being a hack but I've gotta say Delroy's being unfair there. We have regional discussion weekends in Yorkshire and we're actively encouraged to debate stuff with people from other branches in the region. Criticise by all means, fuck I'll probably agree with half of it, but this is way off target.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Mine too - I'm far from being a hack but I've gotta say Delroy's being unfair there. We have regional discussion weekends in Yorkshire and we're actively encouraged to debate stuff with people from other branches in the region. Criticise by all means, fuck I'll probably agree with half of it, but this is way off target.


 
That's funny coz I was in the party for about 2-3 years, still paying subs 'til a few months ago, and I never got invited to 'em. Infact the first I heard of it was here, now.

Perhaps the SP's got a wonderful culture of internal democracy and I just happened to miss out on it coz I wasn't paying attention at the meetings?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 14, 2013)

What's a hack by the way? Or are there really that many journos involved with SWP? 

Would the attempt to get a recall conference not count as factionalism by the way?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> That's funny coz I was in the party for about 2-3 years, still paying subs 'til a few months ago, and I never got invited to 'em. Infact the first I heard of it was here, now.
> 
> Perhaps the SP's got a wonderful culture of internal democracy and I just happened to miss out on it coz I wasn't paying attention at the meetings?


 
Maybe.

I'm not trying to make out we've got some amazing internal democracy - there's still a lot more people who uncritically swallow the party line than I'm really comfortable with, but we do have regular regional get togethers, don't know how you missed out. They're usually in Leeds, about 3 or 4 times a year. And people from Huddersfield definitely go to them too.


----------



## ReturnOfElfman (Jan 14, 2013)

mk12 said:


> We stopped having or weekly "Marxist Forums" in a pub because it might deter Muslims from attending. So we moved to another location and then Muslims...continued to stay away.


I can remember this coming up in my branch cos we had a reputation for being a bit too stereotypically working class and liked to drink a bit more than our more middle class and established branch in a city next to us. But when we tried going into the 'Muslim' community and had meetings in a community centre there, fuck all ever came from it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

two sheds said:


> What's a hack by the way? Or are there really that many journos involved with SWP?
> 
> Would the attempt to get a recall conference not count as factionalism by the way?


 
Someone who uncritically accepts the party line and constantly pushes it. Usually the same people who go on about how great everything is and how whatever it is you're currently working on is the next big thing.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Maybe.
> 
> I'm not trying to make out we've got some amazing internal democracy - there's still a lot more people who uncritically swallow the party line than I'm really comfortable with, but we do have regular regional get togethers, don't know how you missed out. They're usually in Leeds, about 3 or 4 times a year. And people from Huddersfield definitely go to them too.


 
There's "regional cadre schools" every now and then, although not 3 or 4 times a year. Never heard them described as discussion weekends. I went once. We had a brief meeting about "how to help build the party through the paper" my contribution was "why not have a regularly updated website that looks modern instead?" That didn't go down well btw

And who from Huddersfield goes? Give me some initials or PM me or something.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

ReturnOfElfman said:


> I can remember this coming up in my branch cos we had a reputation for being a bit too stereotypically working class and liked to drink a bit more than our more middle class and established branch in a city next to us. But when we tried going into the 'Muslim' community and had meetings in a community centre there, fuck all ever came from it.


Judging from the number of Muslims regularly frequenting pubs round here, I suspect that it may not have been the drinking at the heart of why it wasn't attracting Muslims.


----------



## ReturnOfElfman (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's "regional cadre schools" every now and then, although not 3 or 4 times a year. Never heard them described as discussion weekends. I went once. We had a brief meeting about "how to help build the party through the paper" my contribution was "why not have a regularly updated website that looks modern instead?" That didn't go down well btw
> 
> And who from Huddersfield goes? Give me some initials or PM me or something.


 
I've met a fair few of the Hudds SP from when I was knocking around with the anarchists there and I can remember SP people from outside the area coming in to support some stuff. I definitely remember someone from Wakefield being there as I was drinking in the pub with him.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

ReturnOfElfman said:


> I've met a fair few of the Hudds SP from when I was knocking around with the anarchists there and I can remember SP people from outside the area coming in to support some stuff. I definitely remember someone from Wakefield being there as I was drinking in the pub with him.


 
Huddersfield anarchists are brilliant best anarchists anywhere in the country bar none.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)




----------



## mk12 (Jan 14, 2013)

ReturnOfElfman said:


> I can remember this coming up in my branch cos we had a reputation for being a bit too stereotypically working class and liked to drink a bit more than our more middle class and established branch in a city next to us. But when we tried going into the 'Muslim' community and had meetings in a community centre there, fuck all ever came from it.


 
I just don't understand why Muslims didn't want to come to our meeting on Women's Liberation?!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

@DelroyBooth - I'll send you a PM. It was the cadre schools I was talking about, couldn't remember what they called them, in the two years since I joined there's been at least 3 a year, all of them in Leeds for some reason. What we've started doing now is splitting them into workshop kind of things, where someone introduces a topic for 10 minutes or so then you discuss it as a group for an hour or 2. I probably do sound like a hack now but this lack of interaction regionally just doesn't match my experience at all. They're often dead boring, with people saying the same old shit that everyone already knows and doesn't need to hear again, but they do happen.


----------



## ReturnOfElfman (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Huddersfield anarchists are brilliant best anarchists anywhere in the country bar none.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> That's not really my experience of the SP I have to say. Branches round here cooperate a lot on stuff.



I'd agree with this, the organisational norm in the SP is to have elected regional committees, regional conferences/discussion weekends, regional activity etc. It's certainly the case in my area. If anything, members complain about being asked to go to too many regional meetings and at busy periods turn out can be low, which is unfortunate but at least they have the option.

I'm sorry if no one ever invited you to one, that's very bad, but frogwoman and spineynorman are right, it's not normally how it goes. And like spineynorman the hacks are a problem but at least we have spaces to shout at them and disagree.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

Poor Delroy


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

I know, fucking hell everyone's been out there having a great time and not telling me.

Fuck you all I'm joining the CPGB now anyway, I wanna write for the weekly worker.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I know, fucking hell everyone's been out there having a great time and not telling me.
> 
> Fuck you all I'm joining the CPGB now anyway, I wanna write for the weekly worker.


You've probably had a better time by not going 

You could try joining the ICC and go to LOADS of meetings


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

cesare said:


> You've probably had a better time by not going
> 
> You could try joining the ICC and go to LOADS of meetings


 
Will that show 'em? Will they all rue they day they scorned me if I went to it? Will it be full of other bitter dejected fuckups who've been through every party and sect in the country until they finally make it down to the ICC?? If so, sign me up.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Huddersfield anarchists are brilliant best anarchists anywhere in the country bar none.


And it can't be a co-incidence they have the world's best contemporary music festival there too. The AMM should start a branch in Huddersfield


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> The AMM should start a branch in Huddersfield


 
Not if they want to enjoy a long healthy life they shouldn't....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> sexual life-stylers?


 
Disparaging label for gay homosexualist people whose politics are informed by their sexuality. Label used for Tatchell back in the day, too.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Huddersfield anarchists are brilliant best anarchists anywhere in the country bar none.


 
My sister is running a pub in Slaithwaite do the anarchists extend that far or is it AAM/Radfem territory? I will have to go out and investigate.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Disparaging label for gay homosexualist people whose politics are informed by their sexuality. Label used for Tatchell back in the day, too.


 
aren't most homosexualists gay?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> My sister is running a pub in Slaithwaite do the anarchists extend that far or is it AAM/Radfem territory? I will have to go out and investigate.


 
Never heard of Slaithwaite in fact I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist

Oh you mean Slawitt? You should've said! Yes I think that all falls under the remit of Huddersfield Anarchist League


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Not if they want to enjoy a long healthy life they shouldn't....





Delroy Booth said:


> Not if they want to enjoy a long healthy life they shouldn't....


Are you referring to the high levels of background radiation? Or is are the SP/ best anarchists in the world influenced more by dialogue from Westerns than revolutionary theory?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> aren't most homosexualists gay?


 
Yes dear, it's a pisstake.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Or is are the SP/ best anarchists in the world influenced more by dialogue from Westerns than revolutionary theory?


 


Imagine if Ken Loach had directed the first series of Last of the Summer Wine. Then imagine Trevor Griffith's and Clint Eastwood collaborated to write the script. Then you're on the right lines


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Imagine if Ken Loach had directed the first series of Last of the Summer Wine. Then imagine Trevor Griffith's and Clint Eastwood collaborated to write the script. Then you're on the right lines


 
Would have to have a Raven in it


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Rav


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I know, fucking hell everyone's been out there having a great time and not telling me.
> 
> Fuck you all I'm joining the CPGB now anyway, I wanna write for the weekly worker.


You'll regret it, 
Barney_pig: making mistakes so YOU don't have to!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

were you in the CPGB barney? Tell me more?

Would here be a good place to start going on about scurrilous rumours I've been hearing about current ructions in the SWP?? Or should I be sensible and save what little dignity I have?

Oh ok well apparently this group of opposition are never going to get to the 20% threshold, because there's a load of paper branches that have only a nominal membership, that most members don't even realise exist, that they can never win the support of, that'll prevent them from getting to the target. Rotten boroughs, in other words.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> were you in the CPGB barney? Tell me more?
> 
> Would here be a good place to start going on about scurrilous rumours I've been hearing about current ructions in the SWP?? Or should I be sensible and save what little dignity I have?
> 
> Oh ok well apparently this group of opposition are never going to get to the 20% threshold, because there's a load of paper branches that have only a nominal membership, that most members don't even realise exist, that they can never win the support of, that'll prevent them from getting to the target. Rotten boroughs, in other words.


 
Keep 'em coming.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Why aren't Mielville and Seymour out yet? It's nearly monday night.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 14, 2013)

OOPS double post


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why aren't Mielville and Seymour out yet? It's nearly monday night.


 
someone said further up that Mieville is out


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> someone said further up that Mieville is out


That was in the penny piece. And the out bit was, i think, BB, saying that he will now be expelled. No doubt his_ great mate_ SLK will inform us further.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

That they haven't started the mass expulsions is an indication of weakness. Not an indication that the leadership is about to be ousted, but a sign that they are afraid that instant expulsions will only inflame further opposition. I suspect that they were cooped up all day in the bunker scheming, trying to isolate the hard line opposition rather than pushing softer oppositionists into their hands.

And no, neither Seymour nor Mieville are out as of this morning at least.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Delta was publicly fronting UAF stuff this week. 

I think you're wrong - the big heads will go in order to inflame - then lockdown - _under attack_, then CC does what it wants. Like the 80s but in very very very fast motion.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

I must say that i am encourged by the determination of Rosa Lichenstein and her/his web links to anti- dialectic uk. There can't be many web site/comments pages on the left that hasn't had the offer to find out why the far left has stagnated over the past ten years or so  by linking to that web site. Brilliant.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Delta was publicly fronting UAF stuff this week.
> 
> I think you're wrong - the big heads will go in order to inflame - then lockdown - _under attack_, then CC does what it wants. Like the 80s but in very very very fast motion.


 
Oh, I think that they'll boot them out. I just think it's interesting that they haven't done so yet and tend to believe that it's because they are somewhat stunned at the amount of opposition that has erupted and are trying to work out a strategy.

They also have the mainstream media to worry about, which hasn't previously been a concern when they were giving oppositionists the chop. This time though... well precipitous expulsions will get them back in the papers and in the worst possible light.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

Andy Newman,  a man whose passion  for self righteousness and self publicity knows no boundaries known to man,  has moved the SWP conference transcript to the top of the site as apparently people couldn't  find it


----------



## emanymton (Jan 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Oh, I think that they'll boot them out. I just think it's interesting that they haven't done so yet and tend to believe that it's because they are somewhat stunned at the amount of opposition that has erupted and are trying to work out a strategy.


Yep, I think they realise that if they start expelling people on mass they risk hundreds more leaving of their own accord. They are trying to work out how to get rid of the ring leaders without losing a big chunk of the active membership along with them.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Andy Newman, a man whose passion for self righteousness and self publicity knows no boundaries known to man, has moved the SWP conference transcript to the top of the site as apparently people couldn't find it


I have pretty much given up following the discussion on SU, is there anyone who posts there who isn't a total tosser?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Oh, I think that they'll boot them out. I just think it's interesting that they haven't done so yet and tend to believe that it's because they are somewhat stunned at the amount of opposition that has erupted and are trying to work out a strategy.
> 
> They also have the mainstream media to worry about, which hasn't previously been a concern when they were giving oppositionists the chop. This time though... well precipitous expulsions will get them back in the papers and in the worst possible light.


I think they'll do it soon though, the longer this goes on the harder and firmer opposition will become - by simple association. They might be surprised, and maybe panicking - but the whole panoply of trot measures is designed to deal with panic. Old age method - out, demon, out. Close down the party.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I have pretty much given up following the discussion on SU, is there anyone who posts there who isn't a total tosser?


 
No. It's wanker central.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yep, I think they realise that if they start expelling people on mass they risk hundreds more leaving of their own accord. They are trying to work out how to get rid of the ring leaders without losing a big chunk of the active membership along with them.


I think they've decided a whole chunk of people _who never really grasped the IS tradition_ can go. You know, you don't want trouble in the future do you?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think they've decided a whole chunk of people _who never really grasped the IS tradition_ can go. You know, you don't want trouble in the future do you?


 
Well, yes, I certainly think that they are resigned to losing, say a hundred. Which would be a noticeable part of their active membership, but a manageable loss in and of itself (leaving aside the wider problems this mess is going to cause for them). The issue for them is how to lost that hundred in a way that doesn't cause the vacillating and/or thus far passive elements to go apeshit.

Remember, they've still got the whole "centre ground" opposition to deal with too, including recent CC members, etc.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> They might be surprised, and maybe panicking - but the whole panoply of trot measures is designed to deal with panic. Old age method - out, demon, out. Close down the party


 
That's been the SWP's method certainly. Our lot mostly prefer to settle down to an endless exchange of endless documents until whoever's been making a pain in the arse of themselves gets bored and wanders off of their own accord.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 14, 2013)

purgatory is an endless round of internal bulletins about a split that never happens


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

There are no internal bulletins. The SWP does not have them. There are top down party notes which are published _to_ the wider party.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 14, 2013)

> Our lot mostly prefer to settle down to an endless exchange of endless documents until whoever's been making a pain in the arse of themselves gets bored and wanders off of their own accord.


 
Best way to do it.

Talk out your differences


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Best way to do it.
> 
> Talk out your differences


 
And entropy takes care of the rest.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> were you in the CPGB barney? Tell me more?
> 
> Would here be a good place to start going on about scurrilous rumours I've been hearing about current ructions in the SWP?? Or should I be sensible and save what little dignity I have?
> 
> Oh ok well apparently this group of opposition are never going to get to the 20% threshold, because there's a load of paper branches that have only a nominal membership, that most members don't even realise exist, that they can never win the support of, that'll prevent them from getting to the target. Rotten boroughs, in other words.


I joined 
The cpgb shortly after leaving the SWP in 2004, I was a member of their Guildford branch, and had the good fortune to be introduced to to the great Manny N. as well as a number of other good people, I had been attracted to the WW's  criticism of the respect project, but joined just as they decided to enter respect as a part it's trailing of the SWP.
 I went straight into the opposition which manny started, the red platform and found that the vaunted openness of the cpgb was somewhat skin deep. Manny in particular was the subject of pretty despicable attacks from ian Donovan, the 'detached' attack dog of the pcc. In the end the space provided by WW for the platform was withdrawn and this spurred first Mannys and then my departure. A few months later we all met up at an AWL summer school, and in the pub decided to form the red party.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 14, 2013)

The Red Party was probably the finest Marxist Humanist party of the 21st Century


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

<i>"This is the problem with a perspective from the top table: it leads to insularity, a disconnect from the real world. What looks intelligent and hard-headed from the inside simply appears foolish to everyone else."</i>

Seymour put that little jab in his Guardian piece on the Lib Dems today.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 14, 2013)

but there speaks someone who sounds like they fancy a go at the top table


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> He and some others apparently formed a group called IS Group and wrote a pamphlet arguing that the SWP was bureaucratic centralist rather than democratic centralist and proposed a number of constitutional changes , one of them being the election of the control commission.


i know, i was in it. in fact i was membership secretary or recruitment organiser or summat. it was pretty fluid. point is, there was a bit more to it than just an elected control comission.
the link to the i.s. was that we very much looked to the early tradition as something to aspire to. we also published jim higgins' "more years for the locust".


----------



## audiotech (Jan 14, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> And it can't be a co-incidence they have the world's best contemporary music festival there too....


 
Oh yes indeed. Saw Brian Eno perform there some years ago.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 14, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The Red Party was probably the finest Marxist Humanist party of the 21st Century


I am really proud of what we managed to do, even if the only organisational survival is The Commune.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i know, i was in it. in fact i was membership secretary or recruitment organiser or summat. it was pretty fluid. point is, there was a bit more to it than just an elected cc.
> the link to the i.s. was that we very much looked to the early tradition as something to aspire to. we also published jim higgins' "more years for the locust".


 
Really? I'd always assumed that the "IS Group" was just Wilson and a couple of mates. How many of you were there? And how come the SWP let you back in? I'd have thought that involvement in that kind of outfit would have meant marking your cards permanently.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I am really proud of what we managed to do, even if the only organisational survival is The Commune.


 
Does The Commune even survive?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Really? I'd always assumed that the "IS Group" was just Wilson and a couple of mates. How many of you were there? And how come the SWP let you back in? I'd have thought that involvement in that kind of outfit would have meant marking your cards permanently.


four/five in london, eight in wolverhampton, one in southampton, two or three very close to joining in derby, so, between ten and seventeen on any given day. the swp didn't let us back in and went as far as expelling two members just for attending a meeting. one of those expelled, a teacher, was screamed at by a longstanding swp member at work, the longstanding member being head of the department she worked in.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Does The Commune even survive?


 
Has a facebook presence.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Has a facebook presence.


And publishes a monthly mag and sets up loads of events.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Not if they want to enjoy a long healthy life they shouldn't....


i'm pretty sure wilson, despite being a pacifist, could look after himself. even in huddersfield.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think they'll do it soon though, the longer this goes on the harder and firmer opposition will become - by simple association. They might be surprised, and maybe panicking - but the whole panoply of trot measures is designed to deal with panic. Old age method - out, demon, out. Close down the party.


maybe so but i think you are overlooking both the weakness of the leadership faction and the level of dissatisfaction amongst the membership. also, this is the first faction fight in the swp i can think of that has actually come from the membership, all previous ones were top down.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 14, 2013)

The continuity of conformism
"Get along to a meeting
I joined the Socialist Workers Party at Marxism 2012 after reading the paper for a few months. Since then I have been to as many meetings as possible and learned more than in the previous 20 odd years.

I would happily encourage anyone reading this to get to a meeting, listen, learn, speak up, think, ask questions and get involved. You might even get a cup of tea.

Matty, Bradford"

"The Leninist party model is entirely different, and not based on bourgeois democracy but the relationship between ideas, revolutionary goals and its environment. Though aiming to convince the majority class to take control, a revolutionary party is very much a minority, attracting only the most politically advanced to its ranks. They, in turn, seek to act as a vanguard, to win over the reformist majority of the working class. For the minority to do this it must put forward radical arguments, and propose alternative forms of action-in other words to lead. Thus the revolutionary party must aspire to make every member a leader. In that sense the normal definition of leaders/followers breaks down, and it is more accurate to talk about a technical division of labour between a “party centre” and a party rank and file.

The centre may consist of those who have proved their abilities, can bring particular theoretical or practical experience to bear, have the time and opportunity to play a central role in the organisation, and so on. But, in essence, it is not distinct from the rank and file in the way that an MP or union general secretary is. Bourgeois democracy makes a fetish of elections and representation in order to disguise who really rules. The revolutionary party has no use for such a fetish. It does not exist for itself, for the momentary satisfaction individuals might gain from self-expression in a ballot, but for a specific purpose-the transformation of society. Its internal processes are there to assist that process and nothing more.

Revolutionary party members cannot passively wait for the centre to act on their behalf, nor is it in the interest of the centre for the members to be reduced to passivity. The relationship between both must be dynamic and interactive if a party of leaders is to exist. It does not follow that a revolutionary party is automatically immune from bureaucratic degeneration. Protection from that lies not so much in a constitution as in political action. The relationship between internal structure and external context applies here, as elsewhere.

In seeking to engage with those who are at present to its right, a revolutionary party exposes itself to a working class that is majority reformist. So the danger of accommodating to reformism does not disappear just because someone joins. For example, members may hold prominent positions in trade unions; that puts them under pressure from the bureaucracy. Other members might begin with a revolutionary attitude but succumb to bourgeois ideology over time. Revolutionaries must work alongside members of reformist organisations in joint campaigns and may be more influenced by them rather than vice versa.

In this situation the party cannot remain true to its ideal of winning real democracy unless it can prevent this drag to the right. So a primary democratic function of the internal structure is to uphold the revolutionary ideal against pressures on members to accommodate. For this to work all of the party must be accountable for their actions and their politics-both at the centre and in the rank and file. Accountability is absent in reformist parties, because members can hold backward bourgeois ideas, leaders can sell out-and nothing happens. Russia’s Mensheviks were originally in the same party as the Bolsheviks (the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party), but a split occurred precisely over the issue of accountability, which they regarded as unnecessary. When the Bolsheviks achieved their great democratic leap forward, the Mensheviks were in the camp of the Whites, battling through civil war to defeat these gains.

Countering the drag to the right produces an opposite danger-that the party becomes a sect. Till the moment of the revolution itself revolutionaries are constantly swimming against the stream, and so there is a temptation to renounce meaningful interaction with the working class and retreat into a more comfortable isolation. This leaves them preaching at the class from the sidelines rather than trying to lead. This has been the fate of many socialist parties in the past. The internal regime of a sect is sclerotic and tends to lack democratic debate, because all that is required (for both leadership and rank and file) is constant repetition of unchanging general beliefs and strategy. Revolution, which alone can bring real democracy, cannot be achieved if it becomes a sterile belief and is not constantly tested, developed and informed by the struggle for leadership in the working class. So just as the revolutionary party protects itself from the pressure to adapt to its capitalist environment, it must expose itself through intervention.

This requires an internal structure that reflects members’ experience in striving to lead within the working class and decides how to act. It is called “democratic centralism”. It does not prefigure a workers’ state or mass democracy, such as the soviet. Trotsky, whose commitment to proletarian democracy cost him his life at the hands of a Stalinist assassin, was insistent that democratic centralism was not a formal set of constitutional points. There was no:

formula on democratic centralism that “once and for all” would eliminate misunderstandings and false interpretations. A party is an active organism. It develops in the struggle with outside obstacles and inner contradictions… The regime of a party does not fall ready made from the sky but is formed gradually in struggle. A political line predominates over the regime. First of all, it is necessary to define strategic problems and tactical methods correctly in order to solve them. The organisational forms should correspond to the strategy and the tactic.74

Here is a classic expression of this article’s argument. The key to healthy internal relationships within a revolutionary party is the correct political orientation outside the party. Such intervention consists of two elements-the formulation of the strategy and its application. The balance was described by Lenin in these terms:

We must centralise the leadership of the movement. We must also…decentralise responsibility to the party on the part of its individual members, of every participant in its work, and of every circle belonging to or associated with the party. This decentralisation is an essential prerequisite of revolutionary centralisation and an essential corrective to it.75

Democratic centralism is not only a necessity from an internal party point of view. It is an essential counter both at this level, and at the level of the working class as a whole, to the undemocratic centralism of the ruling class.

Whatever democratic figleaf is in place, the capitalist minority of exploiters depend on intense centralism to prevail against the majority. The capitalist state is highly centralised, and most noticeably so in its weapons of coercion-the army and police. Here power is concentrated through a rigid, unelected and unaccountable hierarchy, from privates at the base to generals at the top. But this is mirrored equally in the staggering concentrations represented by giant corporations. For example, in 2007 Walmart, Exxon and Shell were each worth as much as the Greek economy, larger than Denmark, Argentina and South Africa, and so on.

The working class needs to centralise its efforts if it is to stand up against such accumulations of force. As a class this cannot be achieved on an individual basis. It requires the involvement of as many people as possible and so must also be democratic. In both an abstract and a practical sense, democracy and centralism are contradictory and complementary.

It is easy to talk about democratic centralism in a revolutionary party, but harder to practise it. If that party spends all its time in democratic discussions to find the best approach, it ceases to deserve the name and becomes an irrelevant talking shop and sect. If a party spends all its time implementing decisions that have been taken, but never revises them to fit changing circumstances, it will be out of touch with the needs of the moment-again a sect. The correct balance must be struck, although this changes constantly.

Writing on the subject in 1937 Trotsky said:

Democracy and centralism do not at all find themselves in an invariable ratio to one another. Everything depends on the concrete circumstances, on the political situation in the country, on the strength of the party and its experience, on the general level of its members, on the authority the leadership has succeeded in winning. Before a conference, when the problem is one of formulating a political line for the next period, democracy triumphs over centralism.

When the problem is political action, centralism subordinates democracy to itself. Democracy again asserts its rights when the party feels the need to examine critically its own actions. The equilibrium between democracy and centralism establishes itself in the actual struggle; at moments it is violated and then again re-established.76

Democratic centralism in the revolutionary party is the opposite of what occurs under the most free and fair parliamentary system. Here the centralism of the rich and powerful and their state, armies, courts and legislatures work to protect the ruling class, all under the pretence of democracy."


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

Kinell. People actually sit through that sort of thing?


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2013)

People actually write that sort of thing?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

They write it in 1994, they write in in 2001, they are writing it right now - the opposition are tonight recapitulating this tripe.


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2013)

Is that mainstream thought in the SWP? it seems incredible that someone could write it with a straight face...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

killer b said:


> Is that mainstream thought in the SWP? it seems incredible that someone could write it with a straight face...


That's standard across the CC and the opposition.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

As an ex trot I have to say I find debates on democratic centralism ie what it is and how it should be organised as rather fascinating.


----------



## killer b (Jan 14, 2013)

Crikey. No wonder everyone thinks they're cunts.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 14, 2013)

That's Donny Gluckstein yeah?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They write it in 1994, they write in in 2001, they are writing it right now - the opposition are tonight recapitulating this tripe.


cos nothing ever changes. it is what it is, what it has been and what it always will be. yup. insightful.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> cos nothing ever changes. it is what it is, what it has been and what it always will be. yup. insightful.


Why then, is the defence of leninist discipline _always_ the same? Or _our_ version of democratic centralism always the same?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 14, 2013)

The letter comes from this weeks SW, whilst the article is on the featured articles of the ISj, nothing is ever accidental in the vanguard party, especially in the struggle against democratic fetishists


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

killer b said:


> Crikey. No wonder everyone thinks they're cunts.


I just find it amazing that they manage to recruit anyone on the basis of that. Plus say they're the voice of the working class with a straight face.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why then, is the defence of leninist discipline _always_ the same? Of _our_ version of democratic centralism always the same?


because it worked. once.

our version isn't always the same. it's fluid. changing with changing situations. the thing that is constant is the emphasis on democracy, without which the fluidity can't happen.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> because it worked. once.
> 
> our version isn't always the same. it's fluid. changing with changing situations. *the thing that is constant is the emphasis on democracy*, without which the fluidity can't happen.


 
Did you say that with a straight face?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> because it worked. once.
> 
> our version isn't always the same. it's fluid. changing with changing situations. the thing that is constant is the emphasis on democracy, without which the fluidity can't happen.


No, it _says_ it is. It isn't. It's a old historical fetishism that organisational forms cannot change (apart from the good bits which we of course are uniquely adapted to and so change with the times) - allied to an argument that all forms of everything are subject to change (apart from us).


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Did you say that with a straight face?


didn't he say 'our' version? as in oppositionists ('94 etc.)? if so, yes. democracy was at the heart of everything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2013)

*sets up deckchair, gets popcorn*


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> didn't he say 'our' version? as in oppositionists ('94 etc.)? if so, yes. democracy was at the heart of everything.


"our version" just meant the latest in a long line of people commiting themselves to a fight for _proper leninist discipline_, to_ a fight for proper democratic centralism_ - as they are expelled by the result of adopting democratic centralism and leninist discipline. Again, and again, and again.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> because it worked. once


 
Aye, in 1917 in entirely difernt conditions.



discokermit said:


> didn't he say 'our' version? as in oppositionists ('94 etc.)? if so, yes. democracy was at the heart of everything.


 
There is zero evidence though. Even the likes of Molyneux who used to argue similar has reverted to 'type'. As an organisation it has a leadership and cadre incapable of change frankly, it once worked ergo it will again, no ifs no buts.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> "The Leninist party model is entirely different, and not based on bourgeois democracy but the relationship between ideas, revolutionary goals and its environment. Though aiming to convince the majority class to take control, a revolutionary party is very much a minority, attracting only the most politically advanced to its ranks. They, in turn, seek to act as a vanguard, to win over the reformist majority of the working class. For the minority to do this it must put forward radical arguments, and propose alternative forms of action-in other words to lead. Thus the revolutionary party must aspire to make every member a leader. In that sense the normal definition of leaders/followers breaks down, and it is more accurate to talk about a technical division of labour between a “party centre” and a party rank and file.
> 
> The centre may consist of those who have proved their abilities, can bring particular theoretical or practical experience to bear, have the time and opportunity to play a central role in the organisation, and so on. But, in essence, it is not distinct from the rank and file in the way that an MP or union general secretary is. Bourgeois democracy makes a fetish of elections and representation in order to disguise who really rules. The revolutionary party has no use for such a fetish. It does not exist for itself, for the momentary satisfaction individuals might gain from self-expression in a ballot, but for a specific purpose-the transformation of society. Its internal processes are there to assist that process and nothing more.
> 
> ...


 
I can't be the only one who hasn't got a clue what any of that's supposed to mean can I? I mean, I understand what DC is but I definitely have no fucking idea what whoever wrote that is on about.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I can't be the only one who hasn't got a clue what any of that's supposed to mean can I? I mean, I understand what DC is but I definitely have no fucking idea what whoever wrote that is on about.


I don't know if I understand it or not (very likely not) because I only got as far as the first paragraph.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I can't be the only one who hasn't got a clue what any of that's supposed to mean can I? I mean, I understand what DC is but I definitely have no fucking idea what whoever wrote that is on about.


What did you think you joined - a fucking tea party?


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What did you think you joined - a fucking tea party?


Spiney's a member?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, it _says_ it is. It isn't. It's a old historical fetishism that organisational forms cannot change (apart from the good bits which we of course are uniquely adapted to and so change with the times) - allied to an argument that all forms of everything are subject to change (apart from us).


you see, you can't get past looking at the leadership and the big names. the zinovievite lash up of the cc certainly is fetishisation. but that isn't really what democratic centralism is.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> "our version" just meant the latest in a long line of people commiting themselves to a fight for _proper leninist discipline_, to_ a fight for proper democratic centralism_ - as they are expelled by the result of adopting democratic centralism and leninist discipline. Again, and again, and again.


top down. bottom up. first time. can't you see the difference?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 14, 2013)

I have loads of time for Donny but that is the worst, most schematic explanation of dc anyone has ever written. SpineyNorman is right, it doesn't make any sense, it's just a random stream of words.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you see, you can't get past looking at the leadership and the big names. the zinovievite lash up of the cc certainly is fetishisation. but that isn't really what democratic centralism is.


And you can't get past _if only it was done right_, 100 years of it happening over and over globally in all kinds of social and political situations, just done wrong. If only we could get it right! That's ignoring history, that's ignoring all changes.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I have loads of time for Donny but that is the worst, most schematic explanation of dc anyone has ever written. SpineyNorman is right, it doesn't make any sense, it's just a random stream of words.


 
There was an old 'joke' inside the Miliant, I suspect amongst otehr trot groups too, that Democratic Centralism was a bible that has yet to be written. Even within a fairly politically 'homogenous' org like Militant threer was numerous takes on what was/was meant by/is Democratic Centralism'.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Aye, in 1917 in entirely difernt conditions.


undoubtably





> There is zero evidence though. Even the likes of Molyneux who used to argue similar has reverted to 'type'. As an organisation it has a leadership and cadre incapable of change frankly, it once worked ergo it will again, no ifs no buts.


doesn't any of this latest thing seem different to you? no crisis? same old, same old?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> doesn't any of this latest thing seem different to you? no crisis? same old, same old?


 
That remains to be seen, it depends on the 'opposition' and those who voted against accepting the DC report.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

Am I the only one to notice this phrase:



> the Bolsheviks achieved their great democratic leap forward


 
The Russian Great Leap Forward is democratic, comrades.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> undoubtably
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't any of this latest thing seem different to you? no crisis? same old, same old?


If your only pole of relation is the swp then no.  If outside, then it was dead in any post-war year you might choose.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

> Revolution, which alone can bring real democracy, cannot be achieved if it becomes a sterile belief and is not constantly tested, developed and informed by the
> *struggle for leadership in the working class*


 
I guess this means beat the other pretend-leaders!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If your only pole of relation is the swp then no. If outside, then it was dead in any post-war year you might choose.


relation to what?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

To how you view politics.

A changing world that always gives back the same answer is worthless.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> That remains to be seen, it depends on the 'opposition' and those who voted against accepting the DC report.


undoubtedly true.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> To how you view politics.
> 
> A changing world that always gives back the same answer is worthless.


yeh. like i'm some student at freshers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I guess this means beat the other pretend-leaders!


Indeed, the struggle is not to foster and build class struggle but to use class struggle to win the BEST and the MOST MILITANT to you for the real struggle which will happen when the CC says so later on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> yeh. like i'm some student at freshers.


 
You might as well be.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

fuck off. if that's all you've got.


----------



## lazythursday (Jan 14, 2013)

A suicide note from one Emma Rock is now on Leninology:
http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/guest-post-on-crisis.html

Don't imagine that one will convince many loyalists. It does read like she thought she was in an entirely different party to the one she joined.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> fuck off. if that's all you've got.


Seriously, if all you can say is that leninist discipline is right in all conditions and that democratic centralism is right in all conditions, then go onto  have a go at people who suggest that maybe conditions have changed by saying that conditions changed so  leninist discipline is even more right in all conditions , then no you can fuck off. You're the one freezing an organisational form but also saying oh yeah it's full of flexibility and that - after being expelled - after seeing that it's not so flexible. And after seeing it happen again here, and in example after example.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> A suicide note from one Emma Rock is now on Leninology:
> http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/guest-post-on-crisis.html
> 
> Don't imagine that one will convince many loyalists. It does read like she thought she was in an entirely different party to the one she joined.


 
I enjoyed her deployment of the SWP leadership's usual dismissal of those who won't get with their latest big idea, the dreaded "conservative layer", against the CC.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

The argument about "Leninist discipline" and "democratic centralism" is pointless in the abstract, given that either of those terms can be filled with almost any content.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously, if all you can say is that leninist disciple in right in all conditions and that democratic centralism is right in all conditions, then have a go at people who suggest that maybe conditions change by saying that conditions change, then no you can fuck off. You're the one freezing an organisational form but also saying oh yeah it's full of flexibility and that - after being expelled - after seeing that it's not so flexible. And after seeing it happen again here, and in example after example.


you've not read a word i've said.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you've not read a word i've said.


I've read every single word. You've not said much - you said that times change and that this means that the current CC might face a serious challenge. But that all that old shit is still  great. What have i missed?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But that all that old shit is still great.


yeh, i said that. yes indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The argument about "Leninist discipline" and "democratic centralism" is pointless in the abstract, given that either of those terms can be filled with almost any content.


Can they be filled with moon-dust? Can they be filled with the behavior of a party which cleaves to that form of organisation? I think it can't on the former, but can on the latter.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What did you think you joined - a fucking tea party?


 
To be honest when I joined the SWP I didn't have a fucking clue what it was apart from that it was on the left and not labour, which at the time seemed good enough. But I've got no idea what any of that's even supposed to mean - I can't even tell whether I agree with it or not


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

cesare said:


> Spiney's a member?


 
No, was once though - for about a year I think.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> yeh, i said that. yes indeed.


Yep. But, as i said, we'll do it right this next time, it was all the other globally doing it the wrong way over and over, and all them splits that were going to do it the right way who id it wrong. For a marxist to not look at structures is pretty fucking shocking.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, the struggle is not to foster and build class struggle but to use class struggle to win the BEST and the MOST MILITANT to you for the real struggle which will happen when the CC says so later on.


 
Yes, class struggle to win the battle of the vanguards - given that in every Western country there are at least seven separate vanguards all from the same tradition.

As if on cue http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/guest-post-on-crisis.html



> We should become a true hub for the development of new ideas, and not be left lagging behind groups such as UKuncut or Occupy.


 
A part of the SWP believes it is lagging behind UK Uncut (which wasn't even supposed to be an organisation, but a collection of separate events) and Occupy (Green Party people either within it or outside it)
Out-win them!


> For example the slowness and conservativeness with which the party, and much of the movement, engaged with LGB issues in the 1980-90s. Likewise it wasn’t until 2007 that the T was added to LGBT on party documents, and since then it has remained effectively a meaningless gesture, with the party providing little or no political contributions on the issue. This leaves us playing catch up with the other elements of the left when we should be taking the lead. _We are supposed to be the vanguard of the class, and being behind them on important issues is simply not good enough._


 
Admitting "the class" won the race and get off the track? Not a chance.




> While some will argue that this preserves our political tradition, it is becoming more and more clear that this is also hampering our ability to adapt and respond to new ideas. The long running debate on the role of the internet and the party’s use of social media is one such example; another is our lagging behind the rest of the left on issues such as Trans rights.


 
The political problems identified for the SWP:
1 Use the facebook and twitter more. 
2 Transsexualism.

Apart from that carry on just the same. Just vote a new slate.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 14, 2013)

Jesus, Seymour clearly isn't interested in winning over the centre ground if he's going to publish stuff like that. Just dissolve the party into the movements now rather than let him take over.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can they be filled with moon-dust? Can they be filled with the behavior of a party which cleaves to that form of organisation? I think it can't on the former, but can on the latter.


 
It can be filled with the behaviour and proclamations of the parties and groups and individuals who claim it, as numerous as the stars in heaven and as varied as snowflakes.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jesus, Seymour clearly isn't interested in winning over the centre ground if he's going to publish stuff like that. Just dissolve the party into the movements now rather than let him take over.


 
What parts do you agree/disagree with - as a non-ISO party member but ongoing Cliffite?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 14, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> A suicide note from one Emma Rock is now on Leninology:
> http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/guest-post-on-crisis.html
> 
> Don't imagine that one will convince many loyalists. It does read like she thought she was in an entirely different party to the one she joined.


 
She clearly didn't read the ISJ.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be honest when I joined the SWP I didn't have a fucking clue what it was apart from that it was on the left and not labour, which at the time seemed good enough. But I've got no idea what any of that's even supposed to mean - I can't even tell whether I agree with it or not


What it means is that when my partner joined militant she had no idea it was a trotskysist group - she was too working class to be told what was really going on, not proper cadre material. Then after running the bristol anti-poll tax campaign was slowly moved out. Then 20 years later someone who was was about 8 (nigel irritable) at the time asked her about it - when she said she had no idea that she was joining a trot party - if she thought she was joining a tea party. Did you norm? Did you know?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It can be filled with the behaviour and proclamations of the parties and groups and individuals who claim it, as numerous as the stars in heaven and as varied as snowflakes.


Not that many. And we can be quite specific.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jesus, Seymour clearly isn't interested in winning over the centre ground if he's going to publish stuff like that. Just dissolve the party into the movements now rather than let him take over.


What are 'the movements'? Is there a second term involved: 'the party'?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

This is at least more out there than Richard Seymour:

"We need an entirely new leadership, and _we need to comprehensively overhaul all the democratic structures of the party_. _All party forums should be more than just talking shops and should have real teeth to implement new ideas_. Likewise _ideology and the development of our political position should not be left to a handful of theorists but should be engaged in by every comrade in every branch_."

It sounds good but what will it mean in practice if the conference can be recalled will there be a slate defending an alternative ideology-creation structure to slug it out with the CC?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep.


yep. a half joke and something saying the opposite.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not that many. And we can be quite specific.


 
Well then, be specific.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> yep. a half joke and something saying the opposite.


The thing saying the opposite and in defence of Leninist discipline and democratic centralism:



> our version isn't always the same. it's fluid. changing with changing situations. the thing that is constant is the emphasis on democracy, without which the fluidity can't happen.


 
Management speak. Means nothing. Every opposition says that whilst signing up to the very things that make sure it cannot happen - i.e we'll do real proper democratic centralism - whilst _proper _democratic centralism shuts the down and expels them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well then, be specific.


I have been.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It sounds good but what will it mean in practice if the conference can be recalled will there be a slate defending an alternative ideology-creation structure to slug it out with the CC?


 
If there is a recall conference, there will be (at least one) attempt to replace the leadership and (at least one set of) proposals about democratic reform. But that's all getting a bit previous. They are more likely to get the boot than to succeed in recalling their conference.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i know, i was in it. in fact i was membership secretary or recruitment organiser or summat. it was pretty fluid. point is, there was a bit more to it than just an elected control comission.
> the link to the i.s. was that we very much looked to the early tradition as something to aspire to. we also published jim higgins' "more years for the locust".


 
I struggled to get through both the paper on democratic centralism and  the one with all thye constitutional amendments in it. I can see why it didn't get far. Reminded me of the RDG external faction.
There was a time when I thought the IS tradition was something worth re-establishing but then you find that the IS tradition was somewhat of a moving feast. Whilst Higgins pamphlet is highly amusing in parts I do have some sympathy for the view that his view of the organisation would have been different if he had stayed and Cliff had gone. Hallas of course led the biggest faction fight.

What do you make of the AMM? Their YouTube stuff is bizarre.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I have been.


 
I might well have missed that part of the exchange.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If there is a recall conference, there will be (at least one) attempt to replace the leadership and (at least one set of) proposals about democratic reform. But that's all getting a bit previous. They are more likely to get the boot than to succeed in recalling their conference.


 
Right. So is just about everyone agreed that a split will have to happen sooner rather than later - that it won't take until conference 2013 for this to happen.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i'm pretty sure wilson, despite being a pacifist, could look after himself. even in huddersfield.


 
Wasn't their a story about him , post explusion, getting thrown out of Marxism by some women members of the SWP?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Right. So is just about everyone agreed that a split will have to happen sooner rather than later - that it won't take until conference 2013 for this to happen.


 
I think so. I don't see how, for instance the "hard" oppositionists, in particular those who've gone public, and the current top leadership can stay in the same organisation now. The issue is how big the split will be, how long it will take, how organised it will be and if there are further splits to follow.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What it means is that when my partner joined militant she had no idea it was a trotskysist group - she was too working class to be told what was really going on, not proper cadre material. Then after running the bristol anti-poll tax campaign was slowly moved out. Then 20 years later someone who was was about 8 (nigel irritable) at the time asked her about it - when she said she had no idea that she was joining a trot party - if she thought she was joining a tea party. Did you norm? Did you know?


 
I knew the SWP were trots yeah - cos they told me. Didn't have a clue what that meant other than they liked the old dead Russian fella who got ice-picked and not the one who had him ice-picked. Beyond that I didn't have a clue. I was just given Marxism by numbers pamphlets by Martin Smith and Joseph Choonara and when I asked about reading Marx I was told it wasn't worth bothering with anything beyond the manifesto. Don't know if it was cos I was too working class or if it's cos that's how they deal with all new recruits though - I suspect it's the latter to be honest.

Wasn't until after I'd left and started reading serious theory (was determined to read capital after being told it was too 'difficult' and that it would put me off - I actually really enjoyed Vol I) and history that I started to get an idea of what it all really meant.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This is at least more out there than Richard Seymour:
> 
> "We need an entirely new leadership, and _we need to comprehensively overhaul all the democratic structures of the party_. _All party forums should be more than just talking shops and should have real teeth to implement new ideas_. Likewise _ideology and the development of our political position should not be left to a handful of theorists but should be engaged in by every comrade in every branch_."
> 
> It sounds good but what will it mean in practice if the conference can be recalled will there be a slate defending an alternative ideology-creation structure to slug it out with the CC?


What democratic structures does he mean? There are three right? And them being democratic would help? What does he mean by Democratic? That lower votes are compelling on the those above? That those above are strictly limited in their mandate? That lower levels appoint their own full-timers?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Yes, class struggle to win the battle of the vanguards - given that in every Western country there are at least seven separate vanguards all from the same tradition.
> 
> As if on cue http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/guest-post-on-crisis.html
> 
> ...


 
Bamberry came to the same conclusion re social media , in fact said having a paper is pretty much irrelevant.Didn't say anything about transsexuals but perhaps that isn't an issue in Scotland yet.Does make a relevant point about not concentrating on trade unions .

http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/blog/the-future/


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Right. So is just about everyone agreed that a split will have to happen sooner rather than later - that it won't take until conference 2013 for this to happen.


Couldnt agree more. If Seymour and co could keep their true colours under wraps ( and not publish any old shit that gets sent to them) and just focus on the delta stuff they'd maybe have got a hearing among a broad swathe at least to the point where things would carry on for a while. But making their political break with the party and it's traditions so obvious will just make it easier to isolate them sooner. Our 'Lenin' really has allowed his own self importance get the better of him.

I noticed long time fellow traveller Michael Rosen asking him basically what the fuck he thought he was doing by setting up stall outside the party like this. And the question wasn't meant in a moral sense just as in what do you think you are going to achieve you plonker doing things this way. Rosen is right. And digs at the cc's expense from the pages of the Guardian like NI noticed above won't help his cause either.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Bamberry came to the same conclusion re social media , in fact said having a paper is pretty much irrelevant.Didn't say anything about transsexuals but perhaps that isn't an issue in Scotland yet.Does make a relevant point about not concentrating on trade unions .
> 
> http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/blog/the-future/


 


> So we have to fight for unity but that is not helped by those in the left who reduce the working class to those in trade unions, overwhelmingly in the public sector. That means turning your back on swathes of working class people who feel no-one speaks for them. It also means questioning accepted ways of operating. A newspaper is no longer a way of organising as it was in the 1970s or in Lenin’s time. In truth *they are a way of organising the party apparatus, not the class.* Few of those in the room at the weekend buy or read newspapers, news is found online. Selling a paper on the streets makes no sense to them. If the left wants to be relevant it needs to shift from old ideas, old practices and just “defending the tradition.” Marxism is relevant to today but only if it’s applied.


 
He's finally cottoned onto it, shame about all the students trying to hustle in on local events in the last decade to sell Socialist Worker when he was its manager from 2004 on.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

20  years of calling people racists and sexists across all your mags and on here, and now these finger pointers you produced was because they didn't really grasp the perspective, they weren't _really_ in the IS tradition. This shit-heap of identity, you helped build - and and you built it through RESPECT and the way you so lazily so unpolitically and so fucking arseholish threw around accusations of racism.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I struggled to get through both the paper on democratic centralism and the one with all thye constitutional amendments in it. I can see why it didn't get far. Reminded me of the RDG external faction.
> There was a time when I thought the IS tradition was something worth re-establishing but then you find that the IS tradition was somewhat of a moving feast. Whilst Higgins pamphlet is highly amusing in parts I do have some sympathy for the view that his view of the organisation would have been different if he had stayed and Cliff had gone. Hallas of course led the biggest faction fight.
> 
> What do you make of the AMM? Their YouTube stuff is bizarre.


we did other stuff as well, "a taste of honey" pamphlet and an attempt at a paper in wolverhampton. those pamphlets were when we'd just been kicked out and were really an angry reaction against that, aimed mainly at disaffected swp members and the periphery around them. we departed the "external faction" phase fairly quickly when we realised we'd gone as far as we could but found it a bit of a struggle. we tried entrism into the newly formed slp, which was horrible. none of us were cut out for the tactic and we mainly drifted away from any sort of organised stuff, myself concentrating on workplace stuff, the odd demo and taking lots of drugs.

i agree with you about the is tradition but i do think there was a germ of something good there, but it may have been linked to the surge in class struggle at the time.

on the amm, i like andy, he's decent, clever and got good instincts. if he wants to make music that i think sounds cack, and fuck about a bit on the internet, then fairplay. there are too many sour faced cunts in the world to slag somebody of for having a bit of a laugh.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Couldnt agree more. If Seymour and co could keep their true colours under wraps ( and not publish any old shit that gets sent to them) and just focus on the delta stuff they'd maybe have got a hearing among a broad swathe at least to the point where things would carry on for a while. But making their political break with the party and it's traditions so obvious will just make it easier to isolate them sooner. _Our 'Lenin' really has allowed his own self importance get the better of him._
> 
> I noticed long time fellow traveller Michael Rosen asking him basically what the fuck he thought he was doing by setting up stall outside the party like this. And the question wasn't meant in a moral sense just as in what do you think you are going to achieve you plonker doing things this way. Rosen is right. And digs at the cc's expense from the pages of the Guardian like NI noticed above won't help his cause either.


 
You don't think Lenin is purposefully hurrying things on to be near the top of the new body - 'a founder' if you like.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He's finally cottoned onto it, shame about all the students trying to hustle in on local events in the last decade to sell Socialist Worker when he was its manager from 2004 on.


 

He's right that it's a way of organising the party apparatus.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He's finally cottoned onto it, shame about all the students trying to hustle in on local events in the last decade to sell Socialist Worker when he was its manager from 2004 on.


Well if he thinks social media will replace the paper he needs to start doing more interesting things with it than linking to other people stories on his FB page. Funnily enough and more often than not, journalistic stories from print media orgs. Never seen him answer a comment on one of his links either.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And them being democratic would help? What does he mean by Democratic? That lower votes are compelling on the those above? That those above are strictly limited in their mandate? That lower levels appoint their own full-timers?


 
That they do more listening to those below?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

> I noticed long time fellow traveller Michael Rosen asking him basically what the fuck he thought he was doing by setting up stall outside the party like this.


This is why it's all middle class karaoke. You play Rosa, i'll play...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That they do more listening to those below?


Oh great the same party with more listening to those below. However, those demanding from below want leninist discipline and democratic centralism. The thing that has led to them protesting.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He's finally cottoned onto it, shame about all the students trying to hustle in on local events in the last decade to sell Socialist Worker when he was its manager from 2004 on.


 
Better than the Counterfire analysis which pretty much concludes we need to jazz Marxism up a bit.

Re reading that 'guest' SWPer on Seymours rag- I am all for that tribune of the people bit but is missing the T off LBG really the biggest issue facing the SWP?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh great the same party with more listening to those below. However, _those demanding from below want leninist discipline and democratic centralism. The thing that has led to them protesting_.


 
Well yes I agree with this point. If the structures were set up in 1970s are no longer fit for purpose, then the structures set up today aping the principles (but not the form of the 1970s) will on balance of probabilities be expected to collapse in a heap around 2040 or 2050.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Better than the Counterfire analysis which pretty much concludes we need to jazz Marxism up a bit.
> 
> Re reading that 'guest' SWPer on Seymours rag- I am all for that tribune of the people bit but is missing the T off LBG really the biggest issue facing the SWP?


 
Actually it's even worse than she thinks - there's a T and a Q to be added on now


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> we did other stuff as well, "a taste of honey" pamphlet and an attempt at a paper in wolverhampton. those pamphlets were when we'd just been kicked out and were really an angry reaction against that, aimed mainly at disaffected swp members and the periphery around them. we departed the "external faction" phase fairly quickly when we realised we'd gone as far as we could but found it a bit of a struggle. we tried entrism into the newly formed slp, which was horrible. none of us were cut out for the tactic and we mainly drifted away from any sort of organised stuff, myself concentrating on workplace stuff, the odd demo and taking lots of drugs.
> 
> i agree with you about the is tradition but i do think there was a germ of something good there, but it may have been linked to the surge in class struggle at the time.
> 
> on the amm, i like andy, he's decent, clever and got good instincts. if he wants to make music that i think is cack, and fuck about a bit on the internet, then fairplay. there are too many sour faced cunts in the world to slag somebody of for having a bit of a laugh.


 
The germ was great at the time, quite infectious: 'socialism from below',  a belief that the working class was the motor of change and therefore an orientation to the working class , some very refreshing ( if at times dubious) and innovative theory and  publishing, am emphasis on self education and debate ,a great slogan 'neither Washington nor Moscow,  and loads of activity.

Pity the IWCA didn't do better.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

> Better than the Counterfire analysis which pretty much concludes we need to jazz Marxism up a bit.


It is, and I do support Bambery's efforts to 'lead' the Scottish working-class - using their language.
I just hope it doesn't end up as John Rees Mark 2










The39thStep said:


> Re reading that 'guest' SWPer on Seymours rag- I am all for that tribune of the people bit but is missing the T off LBG really the biggest issue facing the SWP?


 
No, it's not and as a commenter pointed out the T part has been addressed: ""Likewise it wasn’t until 2007 that the T was added to LGBT on party documents, and since then it has remained effectively a meaningless gesture, with the party providing little or no political contributions on the issue." - Apart, of course, from publishing a book and sending the author on a speaking tour. Oh, and establishing an LGBT fraction and organizing last year LGBT day schools across the country."
If working-class non-heterosexuals aren't "joining the party", it might not be the LGBT part that's necessarily at fault.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Wasn't their a story about him , post explusion, getting thrown out of Marxism by some women members of the SWP?


it rings a bell. it was all nearly twenty years ago now and i'm not sure. it sounds like them though, hoping you'll hit out so they can shout about you.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It is, and I do support Bambery's efforts to 'lead' the Scottish working-class - using their language.
> I just hope it doesn't end up as John Rees Mark 2
> .


 
Are you joking I can't tell any more?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It is, and I do support Bambery's efforts to 'lead' the Scottish working-class - using their language.
> I just hope it doesn't end up as John Rees Mark 2


 
The ISG are essentially very very annoyingly enthusiastic rather middle class trots, the two worst stereotypes of trot parties all in one group. They certainly have Bambery's view re new media with an eye to 'communiques' on the web and meetings in contemporary art centres....

As for Bambery i'm reminded of a retort from an old SWPer up here on being told he had taken all the younger activists with him, the reply was along the lines of yes, those who've known him a long time didn't go with him....


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What it means is that when my partner joined militant she had no idea it was a trotskysist group - she was too working class to be told what was really going on, not proper cadre material. Then after running the bristol anti-poll tax campaign was slowly moved out. Then 20 years later someone who was was about 8 (nigel irritable) at the time asked her about it - when she said she had no idea that she was joining a trot party - if she thought she was joining a tea party. Did you norm? Did you know?


 
To be honest when I first joined the SP I didn't know they were trots either. I found out that they were pretty quickly though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest when I first joined the SP I didn't know they were trots either. I found out that they were pretty quickly though.


I guess you're on the fast track then.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> The ISG are essentially very very annoyingly enthusiastic rather middle class trots, the two worst stereotypes of trot parties all in one group. They certainly have Bambery's view re new media with an eye to 'communiques' on the web and meetings in contemporary art centres....
> 
> As for Bambery i'm reminded of a retort from an old SWPer up here on being told he had taken all the younger activists with him, the reply was along the lines of yes, those who've known him a long time didn't go with him....


 
In fairness they've done some good work round the 'Coalition of Resistance' up here and certainly did a job on the radical Independence Convention. Their work on CoR certainly pissed off their erstwhile SWP comrades in RTW up here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest when I first joined the SP I didn't know they were trots either. I found out that they were pretty quickly though.


i didn't realise it was a secret


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest when I first joined the SP I didn't know they were trots either. I found out that they were pretty quickly though.





butchersapron said:


> I guess you're on the fast track then.


 
To what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> To what?


you'll know when you get there


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> The ISG are essentially very very annoyingly enthusiastic rather middle class trots, the two worst stereotypes of trot parites all in one group. They certainly have Bambery's view re new media with an eye to 'communiques' on the web and meetings in contemporary art centres....
> 
> As for Bambery i'm reminded of a retort from an old SWPer up here on being told he had taken all the younger activists with him, the reply was along the lines of yes, those who've known hoim a long time didn't go with him....


 

Are you refering to people like Martin Smith: "At the special CC held on Friday 8 April I was told by Martin Smith I played a 'filthy' and 'disgraceful' role in the party, a 'foul role in Scotland' and despite the CC 'fighting hard' to integrate me I had 'spent the last year and a half organising against the CC.'"

His project had not done well enough in bringing recruits "Right To Work was initiated in bizarre circumstances (I learned the news from Party Notes) and the CC as a whole has never applied systematic pressure to push the formal position through the party."

Where do the real Scottish left celebrities like Rosie Kane stand in relation to the ISG and Bambery?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 14, 2013)

Have they told you about the RSL yet frogwoman?
55
They're like the equivelant of the Royal Arch, I believe Nigel Irritiable is an "Entered Magician"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Are you refering to people like Martin Smith: "At the special CC held on Friday 8 April I was told by Martin Smith I played a 'filthy' and 'disgraceful' role in the party, a 'foul role in Scotland' and despite the CC 'fighting hard' to integrate me I had 'spent the last year and a half organising against the CC.'"
> 
> His project had not done well enough in bringing recruits "Right To Work was initiated in bizarre circumstances (I learned the news from Party Notes) and the CC as a whole has never applied systematic pressure to push the formal position through the party."
> 
> Where do the real Scottish left celebrities like Rosie Kane stand in relation to the ISG and Bambery?


 
as far away as they can


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> To what?


Not being used as a donkey, someone they can talk _real_ politics to.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Have they told you about the RSL yet frogwoman?
> 55
> They're like the equivelant of the Royal Arch, I believe Nigel Irritiable is an "Entered Magician"


 
Didn't know that the RSL still existed.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 14, 2013)

When do most SWP branch meetings take place, Wednesday, Thursday nights? So I guess it's not until then that we'll get a real indication of the extent of the revolt and whether it has a chance. I hope at least a few of those attending will keep us updated.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Are you refering to people like Martin Smith: "At the special CC held on Friday 8 April I was told by Martin Smith I played a 'filthy' and 'disgraceful' role in the party, a 'foul role in Scotland' and despite the CC 'fighting hard' to integrate me I had 'spent the last year and a half organising against the CC.'"
> 
> His project had not done well enough in bringing recruits "Right To Work was initiated in bizarre circumstances (I learned the news from Party Notes) and the CC as a whole has never applied systematic pressure to push the formal position through the party."
> 
> Where do the real Scottish left celebrities like Rosie Kane stand in relation to the ISG and Bambery?


 
This is a joke surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Didn't know that the RSL still existed.


Course you don't.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 14, 2013)

RSL still exists?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not being used as a donkey, someone they can talk _real_ politics to.


 
Dunno.To be honest I've not been very active the last couple of months. I doubt they would have me on any committees or anything like that though!

I've been to the CWI school once and the conference a couple of times. I've got to say that I hope that this SWP debacle produces a bit more of a debate in the left about democratic centralism, what it is, etc. The SP is pretty democratic tbh, stuff does get voted on and the people who disagree or vote against it don't get booted out, and I doubt they'd handle something as serious as a case like this in the way the SWP has. However it's within the limitations of a "slate system" etc, something that I have never been 100% sure about.

I don't agree with that vanguard of the class stuff. I never have. I can see how a party might be needed as a form of organisation to organise a revolution but I am not sure that the CWI is that party although it is certainly one of the best out there, and I don't think that people are incapable of being anything but "reformist" without joining a trotskyist party, because I know that I was a marxist long before I joined the SP, and there are lots of people on here for example who are far more knowledgeable about Marxism and probably with a better grasp on theory etc and less "reformist" than I am, who have never been members of trotskyist parties.

I think the argument in that article does go against marxism, the idea that the revolutionary party members are above the working class and are more theoretically advanced, when the whole idea of marxism is to abolish class society and not reinforce it.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I knew the SWP were trots yeah - cos they told me. Didn't have a clue what that meant other than they liked the old dead Russian fella who got ice-picked and not the one who had him ice-picked. Beyond that I didn't have a clue. I was just given Marxism by numbers pamphlets by Martin Smith and Joseph Choonara and when I asked about reading Marx I was told it wasn't worth bothering with anything beyond the manifesto. Don't know if it was cos I was too working class or if it's cos that's how they deal with all new recruits though - I suspect it's the latter to be honest.
> 
> Wasn't until after I'd left and started reading serious theory (was determined to read capital after being told it was too 'difficult' and that it would put me off - I actually really enjoyed Vol I) and history that I started to get an idea of what it all really meant.


 
Sounds like the catholic church prior to erasmus, luther, muntzer etc about not allowing people to go near the texts and get their own interpretation happening.


----------



## Before Theory (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> As for Bambery i'm reminded of a retort from an old SWPer up here on being told he had taken all the younger activists with him, the reply was along the lines of yes, those who've known him a long time didn't go with him....



The old boys (and girl) weren't invited, they just woke up one day to find there were only 30 of them left in Glasgow SWP, all over the age of 50 with noone to sell their papers. They really haven't recovers since. Recent developments will drive them further to the margins.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Dunno.To be honest I've not been very active the last couple of months. I doubt they would have me on any committees or anything like that though!
> 
> I've been to the CWI school once and the conference a couple of times. I've got to say that I hope that this SWP debacle produces a bit more of a debate in the left about democratic centralism, what it is, etc. The SP is pretty democratic tbh, stuff does get voted on and the people who disagree or vote against it don't get booted out, and I doubt they'd handle something as serious as a case like this in the way the SWP has. However it's within the limitations of a "slate system" etc, something that I have never been 100% sure about.
> 
> ...


Your party is leninist. That _is_ the vanguard of the class stuff.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> This is a joke surely?


 
Which part? 

Also if anyone knows whether Bambery is literate in Arabic whilst being a Middle East expert? He wrote a good document on 20th century Bahrain but it referred only to documents in English.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> RSL still exists?


Depends who you're talking to.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Your party is leninist. That _is_ the vanguard of the class stuff.


 
Yeah I know but I suspect most SP members don't believe that they are better or more advanced than other working class people. In which case they are probably not believing in leninism in the way lenin intended.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

Nobody's ever mentioned RSL to me except as an organisation that _once_ existed and I've been a member almost 3 years.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> The old boys (and girl) weren't invited, they just woke up one day to find there were only 30 of them left in Glasgow SWP, all over the age of 50 with noone to sell their papers. They really haven't recovers since. Recent developments will drive them further to the margins.


 
This sounds so odd - Chris Bambery like some kind of 'Pied Piper of Hamlyn leading away the Glaswegian SWP youth so the older SWP are left at the margins of Glasgow, unable to sell newspapers, just holding Marxist forums in Paisley.
.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah I know but I suspect most SP members don't believe that they are better or more advanced than other working class people. In which case they are probably not believing in leninism in the way lenin intended.


What then is the point of your parties central ideological perspective? Yeah i note, it was_ the other lenin,_ the one that ignorant people like me know zip about but the SP do.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

It took me after lots of failed attempts, till i was 33 to finally read capital volume 1. Id definately like to be more active, but its kinda depressing that one would have to read all about stuff that took place in russia and various parties interpretations thereof to pick the right party.... Being serious, how many people in any given party is fully aquainted with all the subtle theoretical differences they hold vis a vis other parties?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Nobody's ever mentioned RSL to me except as an organisation that _once_ existed and I've been a member almost 3 years.


 
You have to wait until you are made a third degree initiate.

(Or alternatively, the RSL is the Socialist Party. It's just an old name in use before Militant).


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah I know but I suspect most SP members don't believe that they are better or more advanced than other working class people. In which case they are probably not believing in leninism in the way lenin intended.


the working class contains some right backwards, arsehole crawling, cowardly twats, it has to be said.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What then is the point of your parties central ideological perspective? Yeah i note, it was_ the other lenin,_ the one that ignorant people like me know zip about but the SP do.


 
yeah ive never been 100% convinced on this stuff tbh and to be honest I really hope that this horrible SWP case means the whole idea of democratic centralism is looked at again, not necessarily to get rid of it but to change it a bit. I joined the SP because of the fact that they do good work and are the party closest to my views. I don't even think many of the full-timers buy into the idea that being in a trotskyist party means they know more than everyone in the working class, I can't imagine it of many of the people I know.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What then is the point of your parties central ideological perspective? Yeah i note, it was_ the other lenin,_ the one that ignorant people like me know zip about but the SP do.


 
If anyone cares this is what today's Taaffeite SP consider a healthy and unhealthy regime with respect to Lenin:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Marxism/Lenin/15973/14-01-2013/party-amp-internal-regime

"Of course, permanent 'factions' - on the pattern of the LCR in France - are not a 'good thing' in a revolutionary organisation. They were certainly not the 'norm' in the Bolshevik party, with trends, tendencies and even 'factions' occasionally developing but then dissolving when the issues under discussion were resolved by the march of events or some left the ranks of the Bolshevik party for either opportunistic or ultra-left reasons. It is true that, at the Tenth Party Congress in the exceptional conditions of civil war, Lenin proposed a temporary ban on factions. However, it was then and remains today, a highly contentious issue. This action of Lenin undoubtedly became a starting point from an 'organisational' point of view for Stalin and the rising bureaucracy to legitimise later its lasting and formal ban on all 'factions'. But the burgeoning Stalinist bureaucratic counter-revolution utilised this 'precedent' - in a completely dishonest and disloyal fashion - to not only ban factions but stamp on all dissent, particularly of the Left Opposition, within the 'party'. Lenin believed that this temporary measure of 'banning' factions would be lifted as soon as the immediate danger of the civil war had passed.
To be sure, the existence of 'permanent factions' is not a reflection of a 'healthy regime', à la Lenin and Trotsky, as some in the Mandelite USFI believe. In fact, it denotes a lack of confidence in the leadership, an inability once the immediate issues under dispute recede, to then reunite the party. If you are in 'permanent opposition', which is what a 'permanent faction' means, why then remain within a party? Sometimes, it is better for a separation to take place in order that different ideas, programmes and tactics can be tested out before audiences of workers and young people. This, of course, then presupposes collaboration, an element of the united front discussed previously, is employed by separate organisations. Trotsky pointed out that the French social democracy was quite willing to tolerate tame 'permanent factions' because it gave the false impression that it was 'democratic'. However, as soon as a serious organised political oppositional current developed from the left, it was invariably shown the door."

CWI is politically confident:


"A politically confident leadership always acts in the fashion that the CWI has done. Lenin never resorted to disciplinary measures in the first instance nor did Trotsky advocate such a course in the International Left Opposition in the 1930s, for instance."


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> It took me after lots of failed attempts, till i was 33 to finally read capital volume 1. Id definately like to be more active, but its kinda depressing that one would have to read all about stuff that took place in russia and various parties interpretations thereof to pick the right party.... Being serious, how many people in any given party is fully aquainted with all the subtle theoretical differences they hold vis a vis other parties?


 
Not that many I'd wager - and the vast majority of the time it doesn't even fucking matter.



butchersapron said:


> What then is the point of your parties central ideological perspective? Yeah i note, it was_ the other lenin,_ the one that ignorant people like me know zip about but the SP do.


 
I think she's saying the opposite actually - that _they _don't really understand Leninism.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Which part?
> 
> Also if anyone knows whether Bambery is literate in Arabic whilst being a Middle East expert? He wrote a good document on 20th century Bahrain but it referred only to documents in English.


 
The whole defending Bambery schtick. And snides about left Scottish 'celebs'.


----------



## Before Theory (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This sounds so odd - Chris Bambery like some kind of 'Pied Piper of Hamlyn leading away the Glaswegian SWP youth so the older SWP are left at the margins of Glasgow, unable to sell newspapers, just holding Marxist forums in Paisley.
> .



Well, they have been spotted loitering around some of the colleges, trying to get down with the stoodents. So maybe all is not lost.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> The old boys (and girl) weren't invited, they just woke up one day to find there were only 30 of them left in Glasgow SWP, all over the age of 50 with noone to sell their papers. They really haven't recovers since. Recent developments will drive them further to the margins.


 

OOhhh we have an ISGer do we?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Well, they have been spotted loitering around some of the colleges, trying to get down with the stoodents. So maybe all is not lost.


 
As opposed to some of the more middle-class ISGers going to workplace picketlines and trying to get down with the workers?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not that many I'd wager - and the vast majority of the time it doesn't even fucking matter.


 
Exactly, i mean one has to have core principles/analysises which i think all marxists must share (surely) without letting subtle theoretical points getting in the way of action - especially since it seems that most of the disputations are about stuff that happened in russia rather than anything marx said.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> yeah ive never been 100% convinced on this stuff tbh and to be honest I really hope that this horrible SWP case means the whole idea of democratic centralism is looked at again, not necessarily to get rid of it but to change it a bit. I joined the SP because of the fact that they do good work and are the party closest to my views. I don't even think many of the full-timers buy into the idea that being in a trotskyist party means they know more than everyone in the working class, I can't imagine it of many of the people I know.


the idea of the vanguard party is to recruit all those members of the working class who stick two fingers up at management, all the fighters, all the mouthy cunts who fight their bosses whenever they get the chance. why would they think they know more than everyone in the class when these are the people they work with every day, the people they know best, the people they spend most of their life with?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Well, they have been spotted loitering around some of the colleges, trying to get down with the stoodents. So maybe all is not lost.


 
they seem a pretty big presence around glasgow uni and they seem nice enough... was reading somewhere that their membership is up to 180 odd, that seems quite a jump from 39...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> Not that many I'd wager - and the vast majority of the time it doesn't even fucking matter.
> 
> I think she's saying the opposite actually - that they don't really understand Leninism.



Yep. Leninism done wrong again. Again.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> The who, defending Bambery schtick.


 
I'm not defending him - if the ISG is what you say with "meetings in contemporary art centres" then its aims
will be hard to achieve.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

discokermit said:
			
		

> the idea of the vanguard party is to recruit all those members of the working class who stick two fingers up at management, all the fighters, all the mouthy cunts who fight their bosses whenever they get the chance. why would they think they know more than everyone in the class when these are the people they work with every day, the people they know best, the people they spend most of their life with?



To what? Why?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Exactly, i mean one has to have core principles/analysises which i think all marxists must share (surely) without letting subtle theoretical points getting in the way of action - especially since it seems that most of the disputations are about stuff that happened in russia rather than anything marx said.


 
I do think the whole Russia obsession is a pain in the arse to be honest - it's important because of some of the historical lessons it offers but the 1917 reenactment stuff gets right on my tits. As far as I'm concerned the most important thing is whether you agree with what they're doing and how they're doing it, especially at a local level. The rest is angels and pin heads most of the time.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I'm not defending him - if the ISG is what you say with "meetings in contemporary art centres" then its aims
> will be hard to achieve.


 
Did they not put on that radical independance conference?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

I don't think they behave in a 100% "leninist" way no, I think especially since the open turn they have put quite a big emphasis on democratic accountability. And I think that this is probably a good thing because to be honest I'm quite dubious about following 100% the letter of lenin and trotsky as if nothing has changed since 1917, if nothing else, i am sure if they were alive today they would want things to be adapted to the conditions and not just done in the way that things were always done.

i don't know how things would become different if there was a real crisis in the SP though, I do hope that they would handle it better than the SWP.

there are different regimes of democratic centralism though. Like I think the SP's internal regime is very different to something like the sparts ...


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I'm not defending him - if the ISG is what you say with "meetings in contemporary art centres" then its aims
> will be hard to achieve.


 
They are flashy, bright, enthusiastic, full colour A3 trots. Happy to have the big grandstand meetings/conventions but get them to go into working-class communities......


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. Leninism done wrong again. Again.


 
Sorry, no idea what that means.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Did they not put on that radical independance conference?


 
Yes, in one of the most expensive hotels in the city centre. As with their previous incarnations inviting big players on the left/nationalist left, but their orientation was and remains sadly to the shrinking base that is already being fought over.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> To what? Why?


to whit? to woo?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> I do think the whole Russia obsession is a pain in the arse to be honest - it's important because of some of the historical lessons it offers but the 1917 reenactment stuff gets right on my tits. As far as I'm concerned the most important thing is whether you agree with what they're doing and how they're doing it, especially at a local level. The rest is angels and pin heads most of the time.



Classic sp economism. Theory is for my betters. Sir.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I do think the whole Russia obsession is a pain in the arse to be honest - it's important because of some of the historical lessons it offers but the 1917 reenactment stuff gets right on my tits. As far as I'm concerned the most important thing is whether you agree with what they're doing and how they're doing it, especially at a local level. The rest is angels and pin heads most of the time.


 
Agreed - it is difficult to steer the right course between dealing with shit as it comes and ensuring that ones action is directed towards a real meaningful change that isn't saddled with the same shit that created the problem for one to fight against in the first place. Like, ive worked in community work for the last few years and what i liked about it was that there was less talking about stuff and people were actually going into the communities and trying to organise stuff. But then as i learned more about the policy frameworks that drive such projects and the rather uncritical assumptions that a lot of the practitioners hold (including myself!) i realised that one does need to dabble in a bit of theory. So theres my back story to reading capital ha!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Classic sp economism. Theory is for my betters. Sir.


 
You're being really fucking weird tonight. Again I've got no clue what you're on about. In fact it's precisely because I like to think things through for myself that for me the most important thing is whether I agree with what we're doing locally and how - and what informs my decision on that is my own engagement with theory and my own political perspectives.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> They are flashy, bright, enthusiastic, full colour A3 trots. Happy to have the big grandstand meetings/conventions but get them to _go into working-class communities_......


 
Which is why Rosie Kane doing... a one woman show seems counter to that - best left off this thread though.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Yes, in one of the most expensive hotels in the city centre. As with their previous incarnations inviting big players on the left/nationalist left, but their orientation was and remains sadly to the shrinking base that is already being fought over.


 
Aye definately... ive spoken to one or two of them a couple of times and they do seem really enthusiasitic and energetic despite the problems of which sectors of society they engage with. Was thinking that maybe its because they are a new group that they have all this energy and enthusiasm - maybe thats what the purpose of splits really are - to get people excited about things again haha

Although i did feel like a bit of an old and useless bastard when reading somewhere them boasting about their membership being almost exclusivly under 30...


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

To be honest I think there's a lot that needs to change in most trotskyist groups, and I'd include the SP in that. The SP doesn't demand that everyone believes what it says exactly although to be honest I have probably got too many disagreements to be asked to be on a committee or anything like that lol. However they haven't expelled me or anything like that and I doubt they would. I could be wrong but I can't really see it.

I do think the whole idea of the slate system to elect the leadership does need to be looked at again though. I don't see how it could make the party reformist or anything like that to elect the leadership in a different way when I would imagine the majority of people in the SP are all marxists.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:
			
		

> To be honest I think there's a lot that needs to change in most trotskyist groups, and I'd include the SP in that. The SP doesn't demand that everyone believes what it says exactly although to be honest I have probably got too many disagreements to be asked to be on a committee or anything like that lol. However they haven't expelled me or anything like that and I doubt they would. I could be wrong but I can't really see it.
> 
> I do think the whole idea of the slate system to elect the leadership does need to be looked at again though. I don't see how it could make the party reformist or anything like that to elect the leadership in a different way when I would imagine the majority of people in the SP are all marxists.


No they're not. And you've just seen what self declared marxists can do.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I do think the whole idea of the slate system to elect the leadership does need to be looked at again though.


 
Not all CWI sections use the slate system.


----------



## Before Theory (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> OOhhh we have an ISGer do we?



Ha ha - no, I doubt they'd have me, but it is interesting to watch new forces coming onto the stage. We need to replace the old farts like me who can't do all that activity any more without grumbling about our knees hurting.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not all CWI sections use the slate system.


 

Really?? I didn't know that!

What does the Irish SP do?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Ha ha - no, I doubt they'd have me, but it is interesting to watch new forces coming onto the stage. We need to replace the old farts like me who can't do all that activity any more without grumbling about our knees hurting.


 
are they swallowing up a lot of ssp people or people that wouldve been drawn towards them before all the tommy sheridan stuff?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> yeah ive never been 100% convinced on this stuff tbh and to be honest I really hope that this horrible SWP case means the whole idea of democratic centralism is looked at again, not necessarily to get rid of it but to change it a bit. I joined the SP because of the fact that they do good work and are the party closest to my views. I don't even think many of the full-timers buy into the idea that being in a trotskyist party means they know more than everyone in the working class, I can't imagine it of many of the people I know.


 
Isn't saying this type of thing, on a public message board, dangerous for a member of a Leninist party? Or is the SP really more tolerant and less genuinely Leninist than I thought?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> are they swallowing up a lot of ssp people or people that wouldve been drawn towards them before all the tommy sheridan stuff?


 
There's certainly some of the younger SSP/SSY ex/current members in and around ISG/CoR.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Isn't saying this type of thing, on a public message board, dangerous for a member of a Leninist party? Or is the SP really more tolerant and less genuinely Leninist than I thought?


 
Got no idea, there's a few people I wouldn't necessarily want reading this, but I can't imagine I'd get in trouble for saying this stuff when lots of people in the party think the same thing and I've seen people with even more divergent positions (lol) on facebook and so on.

And I would also add that I would imagine that this SWP bullshit will probably trigger quite a big debate in organisations like the SP about this issue, at least I really hope so. It might be that it turns out that the general consensus is that there is nothing wrong and everything is fine but it still needs to be talked about.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> There's certainly some of the younger SSP/SSY ex/current members in and around ISG/CoR.


 
i guess that explains going from 39 to 180 odd members.. fair play to them, but probably just a sign of repackaged same old same old in glasgow...


----------



## mk12 (Jan 14, 2013)

frogwoman

OK, just be careful. Lenin wouldn't have had any of it though!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

I will do yeah.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 14, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> i guess that explains going from 39 to 180 odd members.. fair play to them, but probably just a sign of repackaged same old same old in glasgow...


 
No, it wouldn't explain such a rise alone. They certainly recruited amongst some of those involved with the occupation at glasgow Uni a few years ago. They've lost members already too. One of their-I think-leading members works in my office.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 14, 2013)

i guess if its so student-centric their membership is going to be affected a lot whenever members finish their degrees..


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2013)

How do the ICC do things btw? I know they are a bit mental with their idea about the "theses on parasitism" etc and from what I can see from their website about this issue they are pretty paranoid about splits and the like, but they are not trots are they? Are they still leninist though or what?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Isn't saying this type of thing, on a public message board, dangerous for a member of a Leninist party? Or is the SP really more tolerant and less genuinely Leninist than I thought?


 
If it is then they'd best boot me out now - I'm not censoring myself for anyone.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Really?? I didn't know that!
> 
> What does the Irish SP do?


 
It varies. No system is prescribed. Last time I can recall we first voted on the number of leadership slots then voted by individual nominee. You could nominate an individual, a part of a slate or a full slate.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 15, 2013)

frogwoman

Left Communists, not Trots, or council communists. Critical of a number of early Bolshevik policies and sympathetic to Bukharin and those opposed to signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty, iirc.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How do the ICC do things btw? I know they are a bit mental with their idea about the "theses on parasitism" etc and from what I can see from their website about this issue they are pretty paranoid about splits and the like, but they are not trots are they? Are they still leninist though or what?


 
I thought they were left communists aren't they? Pretty sure they're not Leninists anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> If it is then they'd best boot me out now - I'm not censoring myself for anyone.



Hudds anarchists for you


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> frogwoman
> 
> Left Communists, not Trots, or council communists. Critical of a number of early Bolshevik policies and sympathetic to Bukharin and those opposed to signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty, iirc.


 
That's what I thought. But they seem to have a pretty unhealthy internal regime as well with their parasitic milieu stuff. Are they still democratic centralist then?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> I thought they were left communists aren't they? Pretty sure they're not Leninists anyway.



They're proper leninists. What is wrong with you people?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

I reckon if I got kicked out I'd try and set up the first functioning branch of Proletarian Democracy.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Isn't saying this type of thing, on a public message board, dangerous for a member of a Leninist party? Or is the SP really more tolerant and less genuinely Leninist than I thought?


 
As much as I have my disagreements with the CWI they were never censorious in the way/extent the SWP were/are. before the 'open turn' they were very secretive but even then dissent, disagreement and even open criticism never seemed to get much administrative reaction. Disagreement was there and rather well tolerated.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:
			
		

> That's what I thought. But they seem to have a pretty unhealthy internal regime as well with their parasitic milieu stuff. Are they still democratic centralist then?



Why are you obsessed by them? The parasite stuff was finished ten years ago.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Isn't saying this type of thing, on a public message board, dangerous for a member of a Leninist party? Or is the SP really more tolerant and less genuinely Leninist than I thought?


 
The assumption that being "intolerant" is a feature of being "genuinely Leninist" isn't one that most Socialist Party members would share with you. The SP doesn't make a habit of booting people out for ideological disagreement or for saying that they don't agree with this or that in public. (WIthin reason. If someone was to actually go out and try to actively undermine some recent decision they might get a different response.)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They're proper leninists. What is wrong with you people?


 
To be honest the only time I've ever come across any of them was when I was trolling revleft a couple of years back and I got the distinct impression that they were anti-Lenin. Then again they're all mental on there.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 15, 2013)

That's good, if true. But if the SP tolerates ideological disagreement within its ranks, how can it be described as a Leninist/Trotskyist party?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be honest the only time I've ever come across any of them was when I was trolling revleft a couple of years back and I got the distinct impression that they were anti-Lenin. Then again they're all mental on there.


 
I think they like _Lenin_, although they think he made some errors of judgment at certain points. I guess their stress on _the Party_ makes them Leninist to some extent.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> The assumption that being "intolerant" is a feature of being "genuinely Leninist" isn't one that most Socialist Party members would share with you. The SP doesn't make a habit of booting people out for ideological disagreement or for saying that they don't agree with this or that in public. (WIthin reason. If someone was to actually go out and try to actively undermine some recent decision they might get a different response.)



So non trots and people who don't believe in that Lenin shit, yeah let them all in.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2013)

fair enough, tho some of the things ive seen about it when i read their website were a lot more recent than that


----------



## sihhi (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be honest the only time I've ever come across any of them was when I was trolling revleft a couple of years back and I got the distinct impression that they were anti-Lenin. Then again they're all mental on there.


 
They are in *no* way anti-Lenin:



> What remains essential is that during the rising tide of the revolution in Russia, the Lenin of the April Theses was never an isolated prophet, nor was he holding himself above the vulgar masses, but *he was the clearest voice of the most revolutionary tendency within the proletariat*, a voice which showed the way which lead to the victory of October 1917.


 
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/303/April-theses

One google from their website is all it takes


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

Fair enough. Maybe I've got them mixed up with someone else.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> That's good, if true. But if the SP tolerates ideological disagreement within its ranks, how can it be described as a Leninist/Trotskyist party?


 
Look, I genuinely don't like arguments which start "Well, a Grand Old Beard said...", but your question sort of presupposes that sort of response, so forgive me in advance.

The parties led by Lenin and Trotsky all contained ideological differences within their ranks. In fact, they contained rather wider disagreements than the Socialist Party does. The notion that the party must be politically homogenous and must not tolerate dissent outside the ranks and/or must not tolerate organised internal dissent is something that stems from the 1921 ban on factions and then further innovations by, amongst others, Zinoviev and then Stalin.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Look, I genuinely don't like arguments which start "Well, a Grand Old Beard said...", but your question sort of presupposes that sort of response, so forgive me in advance.
> 
> The parties led by Lenin and Trotsky all contained ideological differences within their ranks. In fact, they contained rather wider disagreements than the Socialist Party does. The notion that the party must be politically homogenous and must not tolerate dissent outside the ranks and/or must not tolerate organised internal dissent is something that stems from the 1921 ban on factions and then further innovations by, amongst others, Zinoviev and then Stalin.


 
I agree that these parties contained different perspectives on a number of issues, but did they really tolerate members who openly disagreed with central principles such as democratic centralism?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So non trots and people who don't believe in that Lenin shit, yeah let them all in.


 
If they agree with the main thrust of our policies and perspectives, I don't really care what they think about Lenin or Trotsky.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I agree that these parties contained different perspectives on a number of issues, but did they really tolerate members who openly disagreed with central principles such as democratic centralism?


 
They didn't have these discussions using terms like "democratic centralism" for most of the period, but yes, they certainly involved people who had and expressed different views about party organisation. Remember, both the RSDLP and the Bolsheviks had at various times minority factions with their own public large circulation newspapers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> If they agree with our policies and perspectives, I don't really care what they think about Lenin or Trotsky.



You used to. You don't care if they somehow disagree with Lenin and the way that you organize your party as long as they join and don't get told they now agree with all this Lenin shit


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Look, I genuinely don't like arguments which start "Well, a Grand Old Beard said...", but your question sort of presupposes that sort of response, so forgive me in advance.
> 
> The parties led by Lenin and Trotsky all contained ideological differences within their ranks. In fact, they contained rather wider disagreements than the Socialist Party does. The notion that the party must be politically homogenous and must not tolerate dissent outside the ranks and/or must not tolerate organised internal dissent is something that stems from the 1921 ban on factions and then further innovations by, amongst others, Zinoviev and then Stalin.



Whose 1921 innovation?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You used to. You don't care if they somehow disagree with Lenin and the way that you organize your party as long as they join and don't get told they now agree with all this Lenin shit


 
I don't follow that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Whose 1921 innovation?


 
Lenin's 1921 innovation (or more precisely an innovation which Lenin was one of a number of leaders to argue for), pushed for as a temporary measure and then effectively adopted in perpetuity. Do you think I believe that was a good idea?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If they agree with the main thrust of our policies and perspectives, I don't really care what they think about Lenin or Trotsky.


 
Then why not abolish yourselves and join other people in anti-cuts groups who also don't care what people think about Lenin and Trotsky.

Do you care about Connolly?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Then why not abolish yourselves and join other people in anti-cuts groups who also don't care what people think about Lenin and Trotsky?


 
That's a rather bizarre jump. Saying that Socialist Party membership is about agreement with the broad thrust of our policies and perspectives rather than verdicts on historical figures is quite some distance from saying that I don't believe in the utility of socialist organisation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I don't follow that.



Of course you don't. A few years back it was laughing at people who joined the party not knowing it was trotskyist, now it doesn't matter, let 'em all in (note, means you agree that you are really a trot).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

Aaaanyway - fascinating as this I'm sure this debate must be, do we think a very big split in the SWP is now inevitable? What do we think will come out of it?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you obsessed by them? The parasite stuff was finished ten years ago.


 
im not obsessed, although i can see why itr comes across that way lol, im just amused by that parasite stuff. As it happens i do agree with them on some things and it's quite interesting what they say about how the state was starting to "degenerate" a few years before lenin died.

ETA: their arguments about the unions are also quite interesting and i'd also share some of their criticisms. I guess I'm interested because I do agree with a lot of it and find it interesting and its a shame that the organisation itself seems to be so mental.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course you don't. A few years back it was laughing at people who joined the party not knowing it was trotskyist, now it doesn't matter, let 'em all in (note, means you agree that you areas trot).


 
I really don't remember the conversation you apparently recall so vividly, but I'll take your word that I was dismissive. I still find it rather odd to think that anyone could have been in Militant for any period of time without noticing Trotsky's name, picture and writings all over the place. It's not exactly something that it kept quiet about. But then and now, I've no problem with people being in the organisation who don't agree with Lenin or Trotsky on this or that issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Lenin's 1921 innovation (or more precisely an innovation which Lenin was one of a number of leaders to argue for), pushed for as a temporary measure and then effectively adopted in perpetuity. Do you think I believe that was a good idea?



I do not. Because that was the bad Lenin right?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I really don't remember the conversation you apparently recall so vividly, but I'll take your word that I was dismissive. I still find it rather odd to think that anyone could have been in Militant for any period of time without noticing Trotsky's name, picture and writings all over the place. It's not exactly something that it kept quiet about. But then and now, I've no problem with people being in the organisation who don't agree with Lenin or Trotsky on this or that issue.



Let the hordes in. I shall educate them later


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 15, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> *Was thinking that maybe its because they are a new group that they have all this energy and enthusiasm - maybe thats what the purpose of splits really are - to get people excited about things again haha*


 
I think you hit the nail on the head with that aside.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I do not. Because that was the bad Lenin right?


 
Not sure I follow this - what's wrong with thinking Lenin did some stuff right and other stuff wrong?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I do not. Because that was the bad Lenin right?


 
No, that was the same Lenin pushing for a wrong decision in a difficult situation, with important consequences.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> Not sure I follow this - what's wrong with thinking Lenin did some stuff right and other stuff wrong?



I'd love to know what sp members think that he did wrong. Will you start norm?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Let the hordes in. I shall educate them later


 
Ok, since we're just getting down to snideness now, I'll leave this alone till the morning. If you want to continue this discussion then, perhaps another thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> No, that was the same Lenin pushing for a wrong decision in a difficult situation, with important consequences.



Ah. It was the good Lenin, thought so.


----------



## Firky (Jan 15, 2013)

The boss has been on the pop since this afternoon, picking fights on forums, political heavyweight.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

firky said:


> The boss has been on the pop since this afternoon, picking fights on forums, political heavyweight.


What forums?


----------



## Firky (Jan 15, 2013)

The ones on here. 

Anyway...


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

WTF. No digression, pretty please.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'd love to know what sp members think that he did wrong. Will you start norm?


 
Yeah sure. The goatee was a definite fuck up. Think he was a bit shit during the July days too. That do for now?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

firky said:


> The boss has been on the pop since this afternoon, picking fights on forums, political heavyweight.


Ah, by the Boss you mean Butchers, get you now


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

There's another "guest post" up on Lenin's Tomb: http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/guest-post-on-crisis-ii.html


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

Ah that's why I've had to decypher his posts like a fucking enigma machine - assumed they were just cryptic.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Ah that's why I've had to decypher his posts like a fucking enigma machine - assumed they were just cryptic.


It's just his way of proving how much smarter he is than the rest of us.


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's another "guest post" up on Lenin's Tomb: http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/guest-post-on-crisis-ii.html


Another calling for an emergency conference


----------



## discokermit (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not sure I follow this - what's wrong with thinking Lenin did some stuff right and other stuff wrong?


if lenin kicked his dog, you must believe in kicking dogs. you dirty leninist dog kicking bastard.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

I don't get why they want an emergency conference? so they can lose the votes all over again?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

What I'm wondering is how the CC can continue to ignore this. Cos if they do the whole think looks like falling apart. But how can they back down without losing all credibility? The whole justification for the way they operate is that they need to prevent their members from being seduced by reformism after too much contact with stupid proles. If they now give in to demands for 'liberal feminism' what does that say?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> If anyone cares this is what today's Taaffeite SP consider a healthy and unhealthy regime with respect to Lenin:
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/keyword/Marxism/Lenin/15973/14-01-2013/party-amp-internal-regime
> 
> ...


 
How does this even make sense in terms of "They were certainly not the 'norm' in the Bolshevik party". The Bolsheviks were a permenant faction within the RDSLP.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The whole justification for the way they operate is that they need to prevent their members from being seduced by reformism after too much contact with stupid proles.


no it isn't. you're being silly.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no it isn't. you're being silly.


 
Really? Take another look at the CC's reply to Paris's contribution to the preconference IB. They pretty much come right out and say it.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Really? Take another look at the CC's reply to Paris's contribution to the preconference IB. They pretty much come right out and say it.


i'm sick of reading the shit, to be honest.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

Seriously - obviously I've caricatured the argument a tad but that's basically what they say. So they'd look a bit daft if they now backed down.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2013)

there are a few reformists in trotskyist parties tho, ive met them. actual reformists who just want a social democratic version of capitalism. i don't see how talking to people in the same party who may or may not be reformists is any less corrupting than talking to people outside the party who are. in either case it does not betray the fact that the cc has a great confidence in their ideas if the so-called vanguard of the class can be brainwashed into reformism by people. And just because someone has reformist politics doesn't mean that, say their sexual politics aren't a lot better than the CC


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

I think we call agree that the CC can't just back down.


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I don't get why they want an emergency conference? so they can lose the votes all over again?


They didn't lose by many and lots of adverse publicity since


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> They didn't lose by many and lots of adverse publicity since


The only really close vote was on the disputes committee and that would not come up again at an emergency conference.
But even if they win, what the? Are hey planning to kick Callincos of the CC, the rest of them are pretty lightweight anyway


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there are a few reformists in trotskyist parties tho, ive met them. actual reformists who just want a social democratic version of capitalism. i don't see how talking to people in the same party who may or may not be reformists is any less corrupting than talking to people outside the party who are. in either case it does not betray the fact that the cc has a great confidence in their ideas if the so-called vanguard of the class can be brainwashed into reformism by people. And just because someone has reformist politics doesn't mean that, say their sexual politics aren't a lot better than the CC


 
Oh I know - I don't agree with them obviously. But I think they may have painted themselves into a bit of a corner by arguing in that way. I just can't see how they can back down now in any way without losing all credibility - but the bugger is that they're losing credibility by not doing too.

Can you imagine what it must be like for their members in union meetings and stuff? The kind of questions they must be having to answer? Jesus.


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The only really close vote was on the disputes committee and that would not come up again at an emergency conference.
> But even if they win, what the? Are hey planning to kick Callinicos of the CC, the rest of them are pretty lightweight anyway


Completely new CC?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The only really close vote was on the disputes committee and that would not come up again at an emergency conference.


well, considering how rigged it was and the lack of any preparation time, i think they did pretty well. the opposition weren't even allowed a speaker at the expulsions meeting.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> Completely new CC?


Composed of who? i just don't get what there fighting for, all this it's our party lets fight for it nonsense. It never was their party. The only thing worth saving from the SWP is some of the people, and as any new leadership will end up just like the old the most likely outcome would be less people in the SWP worth saving. I am really tired and should go to bed so this is probably a bit incoherent.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

discokermit said:


> well, considering how rigged it was and the lack of any preparation time, i think they did pretty well. the opposition weren't even allowed a speaker at the expulsions meeting.


Yeah but I'm cynical and pessimistic.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> this is probably a but incoherent.


only a but.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I don't get why they want an emergency conference? so they can lose the votes all over again?


 
They don't think they'll lose the vote if it goes to delegate selection now.


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

Are they restricted, constitutionally, in what they can table for discussion and voting at an emergency conference?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Isn't saying this type of thing, on a public message board, dangerous for a member of a Leninist party? Or is the SP really more tolerant and less genuinely Leninist than I thought?


 
I doubt it, I've said far worse than that at meetings and no-one ever threatened to kick me out. I've gone to meetings and said to them, straight up, I'm not Leninist of any complexion, I think democratic centralism is stupid, I have no interest in selling the paper or party building, and whilst they don't like it they never stopped being anything other than decent and polite and accommodating towards me. Far more accommodating than I ever deserved in all honesty.

I think you get a lot more scope for criticism of the leadership, and more debate, within the SP compared to the SWP, but I put that down to the SP leadership being a lot more pragmatic than the SWP, not coz of a huge difference in outlook and ideology. They know it's in their interests to allow some degree of internal criticism, and to have a more relaxed attitude in general, rather than being in a position where they have to to go mad kicking people out left right and centre. I would't say it's coz they believe in something drastically different from the SWP's type of Leninism, I just think they're better at strategically coping with discontent.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 15, 2013)

The push for an emergency conference might be a honest wish to "reclaim the party" but it would also be a necessary step for anyone seeking to legitimise a split which would lay claim to be the true continuer of "the real IS tradition"; " we played by the rules, those ossified bureaucrats betrayed Cliffism, we are not the splitters, they are."


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I doubt it, I've said far worse than that at meetings and no-one ever threatened to kick me out. I've gone to meetings and said to them, straight up, I'm not Leninist of any complexion, I think democratic centralism is stupid, I have no interest in selling the paper or party building, and whilst they don't like it they never stopped being anything other than decent and polite and accommodating towards me. Far more accommodating than I ever deserved in all honesty.
> 
> I think you get a lot more scope for criticism of the leadership, and more debate, within the SP compared to the SWP, but I put that down to the SP leadership being a lot more pragmatic than the SWP, not coz of a huge difference in outlook and ideology. They know it's in their interests to allow some degree of internal criticism, and to have a more relaxed attitude in general, rather than being in a position where they have to to go mad kicking people out left right and centre. I would't say it's coz they believe in something drastically different from the SWP's type of Leninism, I just think they're better at strategically coping with discontent.


It's obviously quite effective, both for leadership and members, you get to feel that you have freedom to voice your criticisms, Peter taafe gets to be leader in perpetuity.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 15, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The push for an emergency conference might be a honest wish to "reclaim the party" but it would also be a necessary step for anyone seeking to legitimise a split which would lay claim to be the true continuer of "the real IS tradition"; " we played by the rules, those ossified bureaucrats betrayed Cliffism, we are not the splitters, they are."


And that's why many of the undecided centre ground will vote against it and say slow down fellas let's not throw the baby out as well. The latest guest post on LT hinted at this when it said "For those who argue for a long term solution ..." Even people who think this incident could have been handled better (but don't share the belief that it was all a conspiracy by a sexist leadership or some such shit peddled by the Seymour identity faction) will rightly see the call for an emergency conference as a political move by a group who are on the way out anyway.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I doubt it, I've said far worse than that at meetings and no-one ever threatened to kick me out. I've gone to meetings and said to them, straight up, I'm not Leninist of any complexion, I think democratic centralism is stupid, I have no interest in selling the paper or party building, and whilst they don't like it they never stopped being anything other than decent and polite and accommodating towards me. Far more accommodating than I ever deserved in all honesty.
> 
> I think you get a lot more scope for criticism of the leadership, and more debate, within the SP compared to the SWP, but I put that down to the SP leadership being a lot more pragmatic than the SWP, not coz of a huge difference in outlook and ideology. They know it's in their interests to allow some degree of internal criticism, and to have a more relaxed attitude in general, rather than being in a position where they have to to go mad kicking people out left right and centre. I would't say it's coz they believe in something drastically different from the SWP's type of Leninism, I just think they're better at strategically coping with discontent.


To be honest I think you could get away with that in the SWP as well as long as you were not being actively disruptive. You might get more people arguing it with you but you would not get expelled unless you actually did something to justify it. Thats justify it in SWP terms


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> It's obviously quite effective, both for leadership and members, you get to feel that you have freedom to voice your criticisms, Peter taafe gets to be leader in perpetuity.


 
What like Allan Woods and Ted Grant did? Ohh, hang on....

How many time do folk have to insinuate the same tiresome (and still false...) point before it becomes "the truth"

Why not come out and say it? - stop pissing in the corners.

I'll wait for a 'knowing' slightly paranoid cryptic snide from Butchers to correct me.


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

Are people trying to say that the SP are SWP-lite or something?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> Are people trying to say that the SP are SWP-lite or something?


 
No.

Some people are saying that there is a problem inherent in all Leninist organisations to some extent, and that the SP are Leninists.


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No.
> 
> Some people are saying that there is a problem inherent in all Leninist organisations to some extent, and that the SP are Leninists.


Cheers.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> Are people trying to say that the SP are SWP-lite or something?


 
I don't really want it to come accross that way, but I honestly reckon the SP isn't anything like as dysfunctional internally as the SWP is. That's the opinion of a lot of people I've met who were in the SWP too as it happens. I think they're less sectarian too, but then again I reckon the SWP has got worse for that over the years whereas the SP is slowly getting better. Christ it's a measure of how bad has the SWP has degenerated into a sect when they compared unfavourably to Militant ffs, I mean back in the day Militant were super-sectarian, and even today still capable of mind-blowing moments of sectarian nuttiness (NSSN anyone?)

But ultimately they're all tied to Leninism, and this is the root of the problem, so comparing one against the other looking for marginal differences between the two is a bit of waste of time.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Leninism, and this is the root of the problem


 
Explain how "leninism" - by which you mean "democratic centralism" is the root of the SWPs present problems.

I thought a leading member of a small group of politically isolated and desperate caricatures of democratic centralism had been accused of raping a woman and that this had then been covered up, partially by using this organisational caricature - the end result being the collapse of the illusions held by many previously 'loyal' followers/members through the exposure of these hyporites? Looks to me like the culture and delusions of these individuals is the cause of their downfall - the organisational structure is just a means.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Explain how "leninism" - by which you mean "democratic centralism" is the root of the SWPs present problems


 
Isn't there a danger that once you posit yourselves as "expert revolutionaries" in relation to the class (ie. a vanguard) that the leadership of said vanguard also takes itself in turn to be more expert than the comrades who are just the "led"? And that the best interests of the class and the party become identical, and identical with the leadership of the party continuing to demonstrate and perpetuate its authority?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Explain how "leninism" - by which you mean "democratic centralism" is the root of the SWPs present problems


 
Well, that's a pretty big question tbh I'd have go away and gather my thoughts properly to answer it, but just quickly in regards to the SWP no other political tendency I know of would expel 4 people for having a private facebook conversation on the grounds of it constituting a "secret faction" I think that's nuts, and it's directly linked to the democratic centralism. In fact it was justified by the SWP as a violation of democratic centralism.

Now I anticipate the reply will be something like "Oh their type of Leninism/Democratic centralism is the wrong type, _proper_ democratic centralism wouldn't allow for this" but to be honest I'm not convinced by that, there's decades worth of examples of Leninist groups behaving like sectarian nutters and I'm not sure you can always write off groups as individual examples, bad apples, I think it's an observable tendency.

And if you're asking me for a comprehensive criticism of Leninism then sorry I'm not spending all day doing that, there's plenty of others here who could do a better of job of that than I possibly could and besides it's quite a broad topic and it'd take me ages and I've got other things on.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Isn't there a danger that once you posit yourselves as "expert revolutionaries" in relation to the class (ie. a vanguard) that the leadership of said vanguard also takes itself in turn to be more expert than the comrades who are just the "led"? And that the best interests of the class and the party become identical, and identical with the leadership of the party continuing to demonstrate and perpetuate its authority?


 
This is roughly the point I was making to Frogwoman.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Isn't there a danger that once you posit yourselves as "expert revolutionaries" in relation to the class (ie. a vanguard) that the leadership of said vanguard also takes itself in turn to be more expert than the comrades who are just the "led"? And that the best interests of the class and the party become identical, and identical with the leadership of the party continuing to demonstrate and perpetuate its authority?


 
Of course - but what has that got to do with democratic centralism? - You see my point?. I do not see how any organisational form would have made the slightest bit of difference to the puffed up illusions of these idiots/caricatures.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I thought a leading member of a small group of politically isolated and desperate caricatures of democratic centralism had been accused of raping a woman and that this had then been covered up, partially by using this organisational caricature - the end result being the collapse of the illusions held by many previously 'loyal' followers/members through the exposure of these hyporites? Looks to me like the culture and delusions of these individuals is the cause of their downfall - the organisational structure is just a means.


 If an anarchist group had failed to deal with an accused rapist, and failed because of the use of consensus decision making and lack of structure, you'd be justified in saying that this was a failure of anarchist theory and method. Likewise this is a failure of Leninist theory and method.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well, that's a pretty big question tbh I'd have go away and gather my thoughts properly to answer it, but just quickly in regards to the SWP no other political tendency I know of would expel 4 people for having a private facebook conversation on the grounds of it constituting a "secret faction" I think that's nuts, and it's directly linked to the democratic centralism. In fact it was justified by the SWP as a violation of democratic centralism.
> 
> Now I anticipate the reply will be something like "Oh their type of Leninism/Democratic centralism is the wrong type, _proper_ democratic centralism wouldn't allow for this" but to be honest I'm not convinced by that, there's decades worth of examples of Leninist groups behaving like sectarian nutters and I'm not sure you can always write off groups as individual examples, bad apples, I think it's an observable tendency.
> 
> And if you're asking me for a comprehensive criticism of Leninism then sorry I'm not spending all day doing that, there's plenty of others here who could do a better of job of that than I possibly could and besides it's quite a broad topic and it'd take me ages and I've got other things on.


 
I am not counter-posing 'our democratic centralism' to 'their democratic centralism' as some sort of solution. It is an organisational form - with both limitations and advantages, dependant on the culture, understanding of those supporting that organisation.
I am arguing that the organisational form is not the cause of the SWP "leaderships" problems.


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

But if the problem is just the leadership; the organisational form will provide (in practice as well as theory) for the leadership to be replaced without damaging the organisation.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I am not counter-posing 'our democratic centralism' to 'their democratic centralism' as some sort of solution. It is an organisational form - with both limitations and advantages, dependant on the culture, understanding of those supporting that organisation.
> I am arguing that the organisational form is not the cause of the SWP "leaderships" problems.


 
It might not be the sole cause, I think the main cause is clearly the rape accusation, but I think the organisational form is one of the reasons why this particular accusation wasn't dealt with.

And if you accept that the expulsion of those 4 members is one of the causes of this crisis, and it was clearly one the triggers that led to the full-blown crisis they're now in, then that was something that the SWP justified on the grounds of democratic centralism.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> And if you accept that the expulsion of those 4 members is one of the causes of this crisis, and it was clearly one the triggers that led to the full-blown crisis they're now in, then that was something that the SWP justified on the grounds of democratic centralism.


 And the SWP leadership now say "we've voted on it, we have to now move on". That's democratic centralism, again.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> And the SWP leadership now say "we've voted on it, we have to now move on". That's democratic centralism, again.


 
Exactly, this attempt to go "move on, nothing to see here" by the SWP leadership is being carrried out under the guise of adhering to democratic centralism. Now you can argue that this represents a betrayal of _proper_ democratic centralism, which is kind of what I was anticipating, but dennis has already said he doesn't want to go down this route.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

Can't remember where I read this, but one blogger that I read seemed to get to the crux of the issue by posing the simple question of what would the party done if the alleged had been found 'guilty'?
An examination of that (hypothetical) scenario is one that challenges the very notion of Leninism as a legitimate revolutionary means to depose capitalism. The decision not to engage with the capitalist justice system demonstrates that the CC perceive themselves as a legitimate alternative, but their ability to discharge justice does not even appear legitimate to their membership, let alone 'ordinary' working people.
If revolutionaries propose to replace the existing state with another, an almost complete lack of legitimacy shows how a revolution would be lost.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> If an anarchist group had failed to deal with an accused rapist, and failed because of the use of consensus decision making and lack of structure, you'd be justified in saying that this was a failure of anarchist theory and method. Likewise this is a failure of Leninist theory and method.


Its an exampIe of the problem with the arguement above - To continue your example: I should not be using the failure of the group to deal with the situation as a stick to attack the organisational form it takes - or that groups particular caricature of the the organisational form (if we are continuing the analogy here) - because that would not get to the root cause of the problem.

Would a small isolated anarchist group facing the same problem be in a better position because it does not organise using a democratic centralist form?

if any thing the SWP leadership seem to have doubly shot themselves in the foot by trying to use bureaucratic attempts to stifle genuine discussion to reach a genuine agreed resolution


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Exactly, this attempt to go "move on, nothing to see here" by the SWP leadership is being carrried out under the guise of adhering to democratic centralism. Now you can argue that this represents a betrayal of _proper_ democratic centralism, which is kind of what I was anticipating, but dennis has already said he doesn't want to go down this route.


 
Remind me how well this particular joke version of 'democratic centralism' worked for the SWP 'leadership" ? - I had the impression it has completely blown up in their faces. 
But, again, my thought is that the organisational tactics they tried to use was not the cause of their problem.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Remind me how well this particular joke version of 'democratic centralism' worked for the SWP 'leadership" ? - I had the impression it has completely blown up in their faces.
> But, again, my thought is that the organisational tactics they tried to use was not the cause of their problem.


 
So ultimately you are saying it's the wrong type of democratic centralism, a "joke" version of democratic centralism? In which case I refer you back to that post where I addressed that a few replies ago.

Ok here's another example - frogwoman was actually asking on this thread only yesterday whether or not she'd get into trouble for saying what she's said. Now when you've got members looking over their shoulder, worried that a bit of sincere and thoughtul criticism of their own party on the internet could get them in trouble, then I think that's a sign there's a definite problem within the organisation. That's not healthy y'know, people shouldn't be scared to criticise their own party, and especially not someone whose criticism has been thoughtful and considered.

I think these problems come from democratic centralism, it's an inheritance from some of the worst aspects of the Bolshevik party that have been fetishized and should've been abandoned years ago.

And I happily concede the SP isn't actually that bad for this, at least compared to other left groups, but it's hardly perfect, is it now? This shouldn't be happening at all in my opinion.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> But if the problem is just the leadership; the organisational form will provide (in practice as well as theory) for the leadership to be replaced without damaging the organisation.


I'd agree with that. I do think their organisational form is a problem. It is not the cause.

The way the "leadership" have used their joke version of democratic centralism to try and cover themselves has exposed the failings in the SWPs structure - to the SWPs membership and it is damaging the standing of and trust in this organisation more than any of these leaders could ever have imagined.

Is this nightmare a useful addition to a fundamental crtique of leninist organisation forms though? - Not really


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I'd agree with that. I do think their organisational form is a problem. It is not the cause.


 If it's a problem, then it's probably one of the causes. Your argument right now seems to be saying that guns don't kill people, only guns used by the wrong people. The methods used to cause the damage we're talking about now are Leninist methods. 

Saying that the SWP aren't real Leninists because they're isolated and authoritarian is ignoring the fact that Leninism is all about creating a party that sees itself as an elite body that has better consciousness than the class. leninism is also about creating tightly knit parties that can act as underground conspiracies. Isolation and authoritarianism are what bolshevism are about.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Its an exampIe of the problem with the arguement above - To continue your example: I should not be using the failure of the group to deal with the situation as a stick to attack the organisational form it takes - or that groups particular caricature of the the organisational form (if we are continuing the analogy here) - because that would not get to the root cause of the problem.


 No, to continue my example, you SHOULD be using the failure of the group as a stick to attack the organisational form. 

Maybe you missed out a word, when you read my post?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I'd agree with that. I do think their organisational form is a problem. It is not the cause.
> 
> The way the "leadership" have used their joke version of democratic centralism to try and cover themselves has exposed the failings in the SWPs structure - to the SWPs membership and it is damaging the standing of and trust in this organisation more than any of these leaders could ever have imagined.
> 
> Is this nightmare a useful addition to a fundamental crtique of leninist organisation forms though? - Not really


 
But the inability to act as 'a state within a state', with any legitimacy (even within the vanguard), must undermine credibility of the capability of the organisation to effect a better state.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Ok here's another example - frogwoman was actually asking on this thread only yesterday whether or not she'd get into trouble for saying what she's said. Now when you've got members looking over their shoulder, worried that a bit of sincere and thoughtul criticism of their own party on the internet could get them in trouble, then I think that's a sign there's a definite problem within the organisation. That's not healthy y'know, people shouldn't be scared to criticise their own party, and especially not someone whose criticism has been thoughtful and considered.


 
She wasn't Delroy - someone else was asking her if she'd be in trouble for it. Not really the same thing.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> So ultimately you are saying it's the wrong type of democratic centralism, a "joke" version of democratic centralism? In which case I refer you back to that post where I addressed that a few replies ago.
> 
> Ok here's another example - frogwoman was actually asking on this thread only yesterday whether or not she'd get into trouble for saying what she's said. Now when you've got members looking over their shoulder, worried that a bit of sincere and thoughtul criticism of their own party on the internet could get them in trouble, then I think that's a sign there's a definite problem within the organisation. That's not healthy y'know, people shouldn't be scared to criticise their own party, and especially not someone whose criticism has been thoughtful and considered.
> 
> ...


 
I refer you back to post 1894. No.

Frogwoman was asking questions in response to the "advice" and insinuations over a series of posts of a number of posters trying to push their view of what the organisational form means (along with various ridiculous insinuations about 'secret' agendas and 'organisations within organisations' and particularly nasty insinustions of 'members' being gulible sheep who are being contolled and following leaders uncritically). No, of course she would not "get into trouble". That is a complete caricature - you know that, I know that and I hope that she is confident enough to see that.

I could give you plenty of examples - one comrade in particular who, frankly, I think should be chucked out of the SP - has spouted shite for years online, alienating just about everybody he pontificates at. If ever you wanted to know the party line on a particular situation you only have to read his latest meanderings to know what it definately is not  - He is still a member of the SP (feck knows why he remains . On the other hand we have serious leading trade unionists who have joined the SP who still have very different views to the majority of the CWI on, for instance, the situation in Northern Ireland. It is not a problem - do anarchist organisations in the UK demand everyone agrees on every dot and comma of their collective programme before they are allowed to sign up? Of course not.

The SP has had plenty of discussion on - and questioning of - 'democratic centralism' - there is material available online - what does the terms actually mean, questioning relevance in what are very different circumstances to Russia in 1917, balance of democracy/central organisation, terminology even.

What is happening is that a bunch of pretend "revolutionary leaders" have pulled an organisational form out of their arse - disguised in pseudo-leninist terminology - to try and cover and legitimise their failings. It has completely backfired.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> But the inability to act as 'a state within a state', with any legitimacy (even within the vanguard), must undermine credibility of the capability of the organisation to effect a better state.


 
Maybe that organisation should be a wee bit more realistic about what actually exists rather than what it wishes to exist - especially in a serious situation with such serious accusations? The credibility of the organisation is undermined by its delusions/illusions rather than a realistic appraisal of what actually exists.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I could give you plenty of examples - one comrade in particular who, frankly, I think should be chucked out of the SP - has spouted shite for years online, alienating just about everybody he pontificates at. If ever you wanted to know the party line on a patticular situation you only have t oread his latest meanderings to know what it definately is not  - He is still a member of the SP (feck knows why he remains .


 
Who's that then? Don't be shy, name names.

And apologies if I mis-read the nature of Frogwoman's post.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Who's that then? Don't be shy, name names.


 
Just go on any leftie trainspotting site and you will find his rantings - it would take you a long while to realise he is actually a member of the SP


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

Is it that fella from Gloucester?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> Leninism is all about creating a party that sees itself as an elite body that has better consciousness than the class. leninism is also about creating tightly knit parties that can act as underground conspiracies. Isolation and authoritarianism are what bolshevism are about.


 
Yes, that is one of the caricatures.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I refer you back to post 1894. No.
> 
> Frogwoman was asking questions in response to the "advice" and insinuations over a series of posts of a number of posters trying to push their view of what the organisational form means (along with various ridiculous insinuations about 'secret' agendas and 'organisations within organisations' and particularly nasty insinustions of 'members' being gulible sheep who are being contolled and following leaders uncritically). No, of course she would not "get into trouble". That is a complete caricature - you know that, I know that and I hope that she is confident enough to see that.


 
As someone who was disciplined by a Leninist party (and told off by other members via PM just for airing some of my views) I was just giving Frogwoman some advice. It seems that the SP, as well as SP members on here, are far more tolerant of this sort of thing so that's good. I haven't tried to push any views on her at all, and I don't think others have either.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Maybe that organisation should be a wee bit more realistic about what actually exists rather than what it wishes to exist - especially in a serious situation with such serious accusations? The credibility of the organisation is undermined by its delusions/illusions rather than a realistic appraisal of what actually exists.


 
Delusional about its own particular potential, or delusional about the notion of revolution via a workers state?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> And the SWP leadership now say "we've voted on it, we have to now move on". That's democratic centralism, again.


 
Which shows the delusional views of both the SWP (in their own very special way), and yourself (in your own very special way) in this organisational form. 

Look what happened as a result of their idiocy. its what this thread is about.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> As someone who was disciplined by a Leninist party (and told off by other members via PM just for airing some of my views) I was just giving Frogwoman some advice. It seems that the SP, as well as SP members on here, are far more tolerant of this sort of thing so that's good. I haven't tried to push any views on her at all, and I don't think others have either.


 
No, you were, unfortunately, 'disciplined' by the SWP. At least you will be able to dine out on that momentous event for years


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Which shows the delusional views of both the SWP (in their own very special way), and yourself (in your own very special way) in this organisational form.
> 
> Look what happened as a result of their idiocy. its what this thread is about.


 
you say "as a result of their idiocy" but they may be idiots, but they're idiots acting in accordance with a set of theories called Leninism and/or democratic centralism. It's all blown up in their faces because they expelled 4 members of the party for forming a "secret faction" by having a private facebook conversation ffs dennis, a more perfect example of the failings of democratic centralism you'd struggle to find.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Delusional about its own particular potential, or delusional about the notion of revolution via a workers state?


That it can/has already replaced bourg. courts and systems. Weather it ever could is another matter.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr

Yes, a Leninist organisation. But, judging by posts on here, the SP is far more tolerant so Frogwoman needn't take that advice.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> you say "as a result of their idiocy" but they may be idiots, but they're idiots acting in accordance with a set of theories called Leninism and/or democratic centralism. It's all blown up in their faces because they expelled 4 members of the party for forming a "secret faction" by having a private facebook conversation ffs dennis, a more perfect example of the failings of democratic centralism you'd struggle to find.


Its a perfect example of the failing of the SWP's version of a set of theories. I struggle to find what it has to do with what may or may not be learnt from the organisational forms the bolshevik party took in early 19th century russia - beyond similar terminology


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

I'm glad we're finally having a debate about the pros and cons of Leninism on these boards.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 15, 2013)

How long before the K word is mentioned?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm glad we're finally having a debate about the pros and cons of Leninism on these boards.


Some hope of that


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm glad we're finally having a debate about the pros and cons of Leninism on these boards.


 
yeh, its quite a new topic.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

To be serious though, I'm not sure how helpful the term 'Leninism' even is in this context. While I'd rather avoid drawing up a division between 'good' and 'bad' Leninism it's clear to see that what's called 'Leninism' in one group isn't necessarily the same as that of another.

So surely it's better to look at the organizational forms employed by the specific groups rather than seeing problems with those employed by one group as being by definition transferable to any group that calls itself Leninist?

There are clearly some things that the SWP and SP share in terms of the way we're structured. But there are also plenty that we don't. What might be more useful would be to try and work out which of these was the problem. Cos I'd say one of the things that's at the very least helped things brew and degenerate as much as they have has been the ban on factions - something the SP doesn't have.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Its a perfect example of the failing of the SWP's version of a set of theories. I struggle to find what it has to do with what may or may not be learnt from the organisational forms the bolshevik party took in early 19th century russia - beyond similar terminology


 
This is what I mean, it's never a problem with democratic centralism, it's always a problem with "[INSERT RIVAL SECT]'s version of democratic centralism" well I'm sorry I don't buy it. Democratic centralism is the reason the SWP felt like it could expell 4 people for having a facebook converstion and get away with it, and democratic centralism is the means by which the CC of the SWP is trying to get out of the very messy situation they've got themselves into.

And I think the obsession over secret factions can be traced back to the banning of factions in the Bolshevik/Communist Party, which I think was in 1923, although I don't want to get into a "who knows the most about the Russian Revolution" competition with you coz I think I'd probably lose.

Perhaps one day when something like this happens in the Socialist Party (and I don't mean rape I mean the arbritrary expulsion of members on the grounds of democratic centralism by an out of touch leadership) you'll change your tune but until then we're stuck on this merry-go-round.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I struggle to find what it has to do with what may or may not be learnt from the organisational forms the bolshevik party took in early 19th century russia - beyond similar terminology


 That's because you're a leninist


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> How long before the K word is mentioned?


 
Kyriarchy?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

Ketamine?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> This is what I mean, it's never a problem with democratic centralism, it's always a problem with "[INSERT RIVAL SECT]'s version of democratic centralism" well I'm sorry I don't buy it. Democratic centralism is the reason the SWP felt like it could expell 4 people for having a facebook converstion and get away with it, and democratic centralism is the means by which the CC of the SWP is trying to get out of the very messy situation they've got themselves into.
> 
> And I think the obsession over secret factions can be traced back to the banning of factions in the Bolshevik/Communist Party, which I think was in 1923, although I don't want to get into a "who knows the most about the Russian Revolution" competition with you coz I think I'd probably lose.
> 
> Perhaps one day when something like this happens in the Socialist Party (and I don't mean rape I mean the arbritrary expulsion of members on the grounds of democratic centralism by an out of touch leadership) you'll change your tune but until then we're stuck on this merry-go-round.


 
Yeah but now you've got the opposite problem to the one you're saying dennis has - how do you explain why nothing remotely like this has ever happened in the SP? I mean, if it's all down to Leninism surely it should have done by now?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Cos I'd say one of the things that's at the very least helped things brew and degenerate as much as they have has been the ban on factions - something the SP doesn't have.


 
This I agree with. And the fact there's no ban on factions in the SP is probably one of the reasons why it's better than the SWP to some extent.

But here's a question, perhaps dennis could help me out, what is the procedure for starting a faction in the Socialist Party? Has it ever happened in recent history? I never saw a copy of the party constitution the whole time I was a member, and I asked more than once. And I remember being taken down to Socialism 2010 in a minibus and I asked (coz I had a fairly senior Huddersfield based member captive for a few hours so I thought I'd grill him a bit)  "what would be the procedure if someone had a complaint agaisnt a full-timer and say a branch (or a few branches) wanted to remove them" and I don't remember getting a straight answer, but the answer definitely involved factions.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah but now you've got the opposite problem to the one you're saying dennis has - how do you explain why nothing remotely like this has ever happened in the SP? I mean, if it's all down to Leninism surely it should have done by now?


 
Well we've come full circle coz that's kind of what I was talking about earlier in the thread, I think the differences are marginal and that it's not about organisational forms but a conscious attempt to be a bit more relaxed and less sectarian, partially out of a self-preservation instinct - The Socialist Party will outlive everything on the left they'll survive the Posadist nuclear holocaust and be stood outside your fallout shelter demanding to nationalise the top 300 monopolies (compensation only on the basis of proven need) the moment you get out.

And y'know what in all seriousness I suspect it's only a matter of time before something like this does happen in the SP, it might take a longer but it will happen. It's an inadaquet organisational method and it needs to be changed into something more democratic, sooner or later something will come along to expose that inadaquecy.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah but now you've got the opposite problem to the one you're saying dennis has - how do you explain why nothing remotely like this has ever happened in the SP? I mean, if it's all down to Leninism surely it should have done by now?


How come the Socialist party leadership has never used the party organisation to get its own way, including suppressing dissent, all in the name of revolution? I'm no expert, but I'd guess that it has, for example around the end of the Poll Tax years I know very many members left in disgust.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> This I agree with. And the fact there's no ban on factions in the SP is probably one of the reasons why it's better than the SWP to some extent.
> 
> But here's a question, perhaps dennis could help me out, what is the procedure for starting a faction in the Socialist Party? Has it ever happened in recent history? I never saw a copy of the party constitution the whole time I was a member, and I asked more than once. And I remember being taken down to Socialism 2010 in a minibus and I asked (coz I had a fairly senior Huddersfield based member captive for a few hours so I thought I'd grill him a bit) "what would be the procedure if someone had a complaint agaisnt a full-timer and say a branch (or a few branches) wanted to remove them" and I don't remember getting a straight answer, but the answer definitely involved factions.


 
I'll find out if Denis doesn't know - be interested in that myself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> And y'know what in all seriousness I suspect it's only a matter of time before something like this does happen in the SP, it might take a longer but it will happen. It's an inadaquet organisational method and it needs to be changed into something more democratic, sooner or later something will come along to expose that inadaquecy.


 
Not being funny but I've got no idea what you mean - can you be more specific? Where is the democratic deficit and how should it be remedied?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> How long before the K word is mentioned?


If people want to talk about Russia fine, I don't.

I'm interested in the SWP but also how the SP operates, why a SP operative can tell me, even though I wan't interested in the conversation: 'People who call themselves socialists usually join a party at some point after reading the different newspapers. It's how socialists get things done.'

I suppose I am considered biased because of disagreement with number of SP things in the present/past (CNWP, NO2EU, NSSN, aspects of TUSC, SPNI position over the loyalist flag agitation). I am _still_ unclear about what parts of the various accounts of how the Socialist Alliance in 1999-2000-2001 caved in on itself - you get a different account if you are SWP, SP or non-aligned socialist (like Alan Woodward RIP).


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not being funny but I've got no idea what you mean - can you be more specific? Where is the democratic deficit and how should it be remedied?


 
There's a number of things, but the problem is I don't know enough about the functioning of the party on a national level to really put forward a considerd, detailed and informed critique. The fact I was a member for nearly 3 years and remained so ignorant of the party's structures is itself pretty damning i'd have thought. The flow of information to the members is often very restricted in my experience. But again we're getting bogged down in trottery here, I'm not sure I want to be the person to make this critique.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> How come the Socialist party leadership has never used the party organisation to get its own way, including suppressing dissent, all in the name of revolution? I'm no expert, but I'd guess that it has, for example around the end of the Poll Tax years I know very many members left in disgust.


 
Can't really comment on that because I don't know about it. And that was before the open turn, when things were a lot more secretive wasn't it?

I just think think the term Leninism is of limited utility. Better to examine the actual structures in the different parties.

You see - and I'm not just saying this cos I'm a member, I'd say it even if I'd left - the relative openness within the SP has helped foster a culture where people _do _question the party line and the leadership. There's plenty of boring hacks obviously but they don't dominate in the same way as they do in the SWP (I speak with experience in both parties here). I just don't think the leadership would get away with it if they suddenly tried to change that - they'd lose half the membership. So I don't see how it could ever be in their interests to do that - not unless things changed a hell of a lot anyway.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> How come the Socialist party leadership has never used the party organisation to get its own way, including suppressing dissent, all in the name of revolution? I'm no expert, but I'd guess that it has, for example around the end of the Poll Tax years I know very many members left in disgust.


 
A leading section of the previous party leadership - primarily our then great-leader - the unbroken ted - did use the structure of the party to try and impose its own way - its just the majority of the membership did not go with it. This went up to an international level with involvement of all sections. Because of the nature of the organisation - the culture within the organisaton as much as the democratic structures available - the result of this spat was the leaving of Ted Grant, Allan Woods and a section of the old leadership. i think that's a sign of a reasonably healthy organisation - despite the limitations imposed by the witchhunt in the LP and a couple of unions around the time. it is something i have repeated quite a few times on these boards - that the organisational set up is only as good as the involvement, self-education and experience of that organisations membership.

This was the major dispute at the end of the poll tax. Unfortunately 2 years of tearing ourselves apart resulted in losing all of the gains - the many people interested in the then Militant - that were a result of the poll tax campaign. Most folk who were vaguely interested thought (fully understandably...) feck that - this lot are as nuts as we have been warned they were 

I would say more folk simply dropped out of activity than joined either faction.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 15, 2013)

i think the term democratic centralism has historically been used to describe so many different forms of organisation that as a term in itself it doesn't really mean a lot. if the core principle is that members are expected to carry out the democratically agreed upon practical strategies of the organisation, then i'm still not opposed to the idea (why be in an organisation otherwise?) - but i would always say as a caveat that being expected to carry out a practical strategy should not entail also being expected to _argue_ for things which one doesn't agree with, or otherwise adapt ones own _ideas_ to that of the organisation. the realm of your own opinion has to stay your own.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> An leading section of the previous party leadership did use the structure of the party to try and impose its own way. This went up to an international level with involvement of all sections. Because of the nature of the organisation - the culture within the organisaton as much as the democratic structures available - the result of this spat was the leaving of Ted Grant, Allan Woods and a section of the old leadership.
> 
> This was the major dispute at the end of the poll tax. Unfortunately 2 years of tearing ourselves apart resulted in losing all of the gains - the many people interested in the then Militant - that were a result of the poll tax campaign. Most folk who were vaguely interested thought (fully understandably...) feck that - this lot are as nuts as we have been warned they were
> 
> I would say more folk simply dropped out of activity than joined either faction.


Thanks for that. Sounds to me that this was also a problem associated with the leninist mode of organising in modern Europe. Isn't it quite common for these parties to react to success by either splitting and dump their gains, like happened with Militant, or dissolving into a wider and non-leninist grouping, like the trots in Syrizia.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i think the term democratic centralism has historically been used to describe so many different forms of organisation that as a term in itself it doesn't really mean a lot.


 But leninist parties say that  DC is one of the qualities that raise them above other parties. They define themselves by the fact that they have this organisational tradition.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> But leninist parties say that DC is one of the qualities that raise them above other parties. They define themselves by the fact that they have this organisational tradition.


 
what do _you_ think they mean by DC btw? another problem with this debate, i think, is that the term isn't really being defined by _either_ side.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> what do _you_ think they mean by DC btw?


 TBH it doesn't really matter what I define it as. What is clear is that DC is very often a good tool for the use of an authoritarian group elite. The same is true of lots of party structures, though, not just the leninist version.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> Thanks for that. Sounds to me that this was also a problem associated with the leninist mode of organising in modern Europe. Isn't it quite common for these parties to react to success by either splitting and dump their gains, like happened with Militant, or dissolving into a wider and non-leninist grouping, like the trots in Syrizia.


 
It wasn't a reaction to success it was a reaction to the increasing lack of success in the Labour Party - a discussion on how we should react to the witchhunt and changing nature of the Labour Party - our remaining two MPs had been expelled, members were being expelled, the entire Liverpool LP was shut down (most not even supporters of the militant) etc etc etc. The very successes (partial though they were...) of the poll tax and liverpool meant we were going to be fucked over bigtime  - a question of how do 'we' gain long-term (inside or outside the LP for example)

But yes, different groups have tried lots of different ways of getting around the practical problems they face - including by organisational means. Not just "leninist" groupings. I could be cheeky and argue that there seems to be a tendency for anarchist groupings to split once they reach over 15 members - but that would be trite.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> TBH it doesn't really matter what I define it as. What is clear is that DC is very often a good tool for the use of an authoritarian group elite. The same is true of lots of party structures, though, not just the leninist version.


 
Quite.
Maintaining obedience to the will of the nascent workers state appears problematic amongst the 'vanguardists', let alone 'ordinary' working people.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 15, 2013)

Random

out of interest, do you have any specific disagreements with the following re-quoted excerpt from my post above?




			
				me said:
			
		

> [...] the core principle is that members are expected to carry out the democratically agreed upon practical strategies of the organisation [...] but i would always say as a caveat that being expected to carry out a practical strategy should not entail also being expected to _argue_ for things which one doesn't agree with, or otherwise adapt ones own _ideas_ to that of the organisation. the realm of your own opinion has to stay your own.




if not then i think the phantom ghost of DC you're angling at is just that, a phantom. as you say, the problems facing the SWP now aren't singularly related to organisations tying themselves to ideas of democratic centralism, though in the case of the SWP today DC is one of the theoretical tenets which they have used to create their undemocratic atmosphere.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well we've come full circle coz that's kind of what I was talking about earlier in the thread, I think the differences are marginal and that it's not about organisational forms but a conscious attempt to be a bit more relaxed and less sectarian, partially out of a self-preservation instinct


 
I guess you could argue that there is 'self-presevation' in that - if the leadership just told the rest of the members of that organisation what to do and what to think those members would simply walk away - there would be no organisation left to lead 

That's the thing about my own take on leninist organisation - it depends on a culture of trust and understanding to work - or it all goes pear-shaped
I don't think is is a concious attempt to be "a bit more relaxed" it is one of the basic pointers that the beardy old men in russia made - a concious culture of education, discussion, gaining experience and self-education - to develop critical thinking and self-suficency. Firstly this, for me _over_ the organisational structures in which those matters can be nurtured. After all there is little point in a revolutionary who has to call up the leadership to find out what they should be doing when the 'revolution' rears its confused little head (especially given that leadership will already be banged up or have gone into hiding).

All this is, of course, with the exception of Huddersfield ;-0 )


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> if not then i think the phantom ghost of DC you're angling at is just that, a phantom. as you say, the problems facing the SWP now aren't singularly related to organisations tying themselves to ideas of democratic centralism, though in the case of the SWP today DC is one of the theoretical tenets which they have used to create their undemocratic atmosphere.


 It's not a phantom, it's a shibboleth. Leninists aren't the only parties that develop an authoritarian leadership, but a leninist party, by definition, must have a leadership that is endowed with authority over the membership.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> TBH it doesn't really matter what I define it as. What is clear is that DC is very often a good tool for the use of an authoritarian group elite. The same is true of lots of party structures, though, not just the leninist version.


 
Yeah but so is 'freedom', 'democracy' etc. Groups will appeal to the values their members hold when justifying things. Not sure how much you can really read into that though.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> It's not a phantom, it's a shibboleth. Leninists aren't the only parties that develop an authoritarian leadership, but a leninist party, by definition, must have a leadership that is endowed with authority over the membership.


DC, ideally, funnels legitimacy from bottom to top and then back down in a disciplined, organised manner. there's nothing innately wrong with that imo, so long as legitimacy genuinely does come from below initially - that is premised upon there being genuinely accountable and democratic structures. when you say 'Leninism' or 'DC' here though, none of that has been accounted for, and the terms really don't mean anything without further specification


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah but so is 'freedom', 'democracy' etc. Groups will appeal to the values their members hold when justifying things. Not sure how much you can really read into that though.


But leninism is the reverse. They recruit people who "hate the tories" and who know very little on leninism, and then try to then educate them/instill respect for their own shibboleths.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> But leninism is the reverse. They recruit people who "hate the tories" and who know very little on leninism, and then try to then educate them/instill respect for their own shibboleths.


that's what the SWP do. i'd agree with the SP posters on here though, who argue that the internal environment of the SP is a very different kettle of fish and not really comparable.

i know people who've had problems in the SP, but on a whole other level to my experiences in the SWP


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i think the term democratic centralism has historically been used to describe so many different forms of organisation that as a term in itself it doesn't really mean a lot. if the core principle is that members are expected to carry out the democratically agreed upon practical strategies of the organisation, then i'm still not opposed to the idea (why be in an organisation otherwise?) - but i would always say as a caveat that being expected to carry out a practical strategy should not entail also being expected to _argue_ for things which one doesn't agree with, or otherwise adapt ones own _ideas_ to that of the organisation. the realm of your own opinion has to stay your own.



I guess - for tactical reasons in particular circumstances - there is a point where - once a tactic has been hammered out and agreed by a majority - the individual member may be asked to carry out a tactic they did not agree with in the earlier discussion - but that loyalty to an organisation is only going to remain if you agree with the vast majority of that organisations collective views. Ultimately, if people disagree, they walk - or refuse to act in the manner they are asked to. I can understand the 'centralist' bit in a war situation but not in everyday healthy 'democratic' life in any organisation. That just makes for leaders, clone/drones and followers - no good.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> But leninism is the reverse. They recruit people who "hate the tories" and who know very little on leninism, and then try to then educate them/instill respect for their own shibboleths.


which no anarchist has ever done. they only accept fully-fledged revolutionaries. Of course.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> It's not a phantom, it's a shibboleth. Leninists aren't the only parties that develop an authoritarian leadership, but a leninist party, by definition, must have a leadership that is endowed with authority over the membership.


 
An 'authority' that is agreed, accountable and has to be maintained by both parties.

That is not necessarily an 'authoritarian leadership'. In reality it is very much the opposite.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I guess - for tactical reasons in particular circumstances - there is a point where - once a tactic has been hammered out and agreed by a majority - the individual member may be asked to carry out a tactic they did not agree with in the earlier discussion - but that loyalty to an organisation is only going to remain if you agree with the vast majority of that organisations collective views. Ultimately, if people disagree, they walk - or refuse to act in the manner they are asked to. I can understand the 'centralist' bit in a war situation but not in everyday healthy 'democratic' life in any organisation. That just makes for leaders, clone/drones and followers - no good.


the thing is, leninism was hammered out in a war situation. It is designed for an underground militarised party. That's why an undemocratic leadership, and its supporters, can find so much chapter and verse to defend their actions. Sounds to me that what makes the SP a better party is the extent to which it has now broken with leninism, since it took the rare move of kicking out a lot of leaders and still holding together.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 15, 2013)

usually in a healthy environment, i think that the discussion beforehand should give enough legitimacy to the decision to carry it through even with members who have some misgivings... thankfully on most issues, practical debates within such organisations don't focus around two totally polarised ideas of what to do but in less clearly demarcated shades of grey. when they do though, it is fraught.

i think that some people being excluded in one way or another is simply an inevitable by-product of DC - an unfortunate one, but not the end of the world. and i think that the results in terms of practical efficacy can be worth it if it's pursued properly.

that said, for me it's not an absolute principle which i'd insist on being put in place in every organisation (a shibboleth, as Random might say). i think DC can be used effectively in certain organisations in certain periods.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> which no anarchist has ever done. they only accept fully-fledged revolutionaries. Of course.


Modern european anarchism deals with the same problem in a differently wrong way - it refuses to recruit people at all. Get it right!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 15, 2013)




----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

I think I've said all I can usefully say on this. Is it OK if I just leave it now? Otherwise I think it'll just go round in predictable circles.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> Sounds to me that what makes the SP a better party is the extent to which it has now broken with leninism, since it took the rare move of kicking out a lot of leaders and still holding together.



The SP would argue they have broken with the "caricature of leninism" without throwing out the "spirit of leninism"

We all agree that there will be a point when a successful socialist/marxist/communist/anarchist (delete as appropriate) organisation will be under attack or attacked while on the offensive - then some of the experience passed on by the bolsheviks - I guess what is called 'leninism' - could still prove useful (including the advantage of knowing more of their mistakes in retrospect)


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> I think I've said all I can usefully say on this. Is it OK if I just leave it now? Otherwise I think it'll just go round in predictable circles.


 
Yep, me too


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

I think it could be an interesting related question - "what structures would the ideal successful party/organisation have?" But TBH the answer is probably simple and boring and difficult: the organisations that have constant contact with class struggle will flourish. From reading posts on here the healthiest bits of the SWP seem to be the vintage that dates back to the ANL mk1 and industrial struggles at the same time.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 15, 2013)

Isn't the 'centralism' the main problem? If they were just 'democratic' then you wouldn't have to explain a new concept, and one that actually looks quite authoritarian so is full of traps for people who adopt it.

I do find that the left seems good at this - using words for no real purpose that only a very few people actually understand which then alienate the rest of the population. And calling the democracy we have 'bourgeouis democracy' does also have the hint of 'we are superior to all you plebs so what you really want is democratic centralism'. What we actually want is some form of democracy that works, and indeed is not skewed by funding from rich people big business. No reason to call it anything other than 'democracy' though.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Oh I know - I don't agree with them obviously. But I think they may have painted themselves into a bit of a corner by arguing in that way. I just can't see how they can back down now in any way without losing all credibility - but the bugger is that they're losing credibility by not doing too.
> 
> Can you imagine what it must be like for their members in union meetings and stuff? The kind of questions they must be having to answer? Jesus.


 
I very much doubt that this will be brought up in the vast majority of union branches that SWP members are in. Most members and stewards will be totally unaware that this has happened or even that the SWP even exists. My union branch probably has more lefties than the vast majority of union branches in the country and I haven't heard anyone mention it in our branch committee or in our stewards meetings or even outside those meetings. I'm sure stewards in left groups are discussing it between themselves but they won't talk to the SWP stewards about it.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 15, 2013)

Yes, the story has as much relevance to most people as a coup in the Brighton & Hove Albion stamp club.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> The SP would argue they have broken with the "caricature of leninism" without throwing out the "spirit of leninism"
> 
> We all agree that there will be a point when a successful socialist/marxist/communist/anarchist (delete as appropriate) organisation will be under attack or attacked while on the offensive - then some of the experience passed on by the bolsheviks - I guess what is called 'leninism' - could still prove useful (including the advantage of knowing more of their mistakes in retrospect)


 
Any chance I could get hold of a copy of the Socialist Party consitution Dennis?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Any chance I could get hold of a copy of the Socialist Party consitution Dennis?


 
see Taaffe, Peter (whims of)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Have they told you about the RSL yet frogwoman?
> 55
> They're like the equivelant of the Royal Arch, I believe Nigel Irritiable is an "Entered Magician"


 
So he kissed the cow's bum and did the ritual of the blunt knife? Wow, I'm impressed!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> see Taaffe, Peter (whims of)


 
Out of interest articul8 iirc you were a member at one point. if you dont mind me asking why did you leave?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 15, 2013)

The Socialist Party may well operate in a better way than the SWP, I have no real way of knowing. But my dealings of the Socialist Party in the NSSN was very little difference than dealing with the SWP in the Coalition of the Resistance. There did tend to be this incredible defensiveness about any criticisms of the SP, just as with the SWP.

Also doesn't anyone find it odd in the SP that many of your leading figures have been in place for decades? The leader (general secretary?), Taffe has been a leader since the 1950s as far as I know. Surely people being in leadership for that amount of time can't be healthy? Surely someone who is younger has come along who could do the job just as well?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Any chance I could get hold of a copy of the Socialist Party consitution Dennis?


 
Surely the constitution of the Socialist Party is on their website? If not, I don't understand why, is it a secret. Aren't members given a copy when they join? I would have thought that would be a pretty fundamental thing to do in terms of democracy?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Sorry, no idea what that means.


 
He's commenting on the fact that the failure to bring about revolution is forever laid at the door of left parties "doing Leninism wrong" (or misreading other pieces of ideology), when the fault almost certainly doesn't lie with it being done wrong or with misreading the meaning of ideology, but that it's still being done at all after 95+ years of not working post the October Revolution.
In my humble opinion.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> A leading section of the previous party leadership - primarily our then great-leader - the unbroken ted - did use the structure of the party to try and impose its own way - its just the majority of the membership did not go with it. This went up to an international level with involvement of all sections. Because of the nature of the organisation - the culture within the organisaton as much as the democratic structures available - the result of this spat was the leaving of Ted Grant, Allan Woods and a section of the old leadership. i think that's a sign of a reasonably healthy organisation - despite the limitations imposed by the witchhunt in the LP and a couple of unions around the time. it is something i have repeated quite a few times on these boards - that the organisational set up is only as good as the involvement, self-education and experience of that organisations membership.
> 
> This was the major dispute at the end of the poll tax. Unfortunately 2 years of tearing ourselves apart resulted in losing all of the gains - the many people interested in the then Militant - that were a result of the poll tax campaign. Most folk who were vaguely interested thought (fully understandably...) feck that - this lot are as nuts as we have been warned they were
> 
> I would say more folk simply dropped out of activity than joined either faction.


 
I would agree with that. However I think a fair bit of the disillusionment was felt with the collapse of Stalinism and all that entailed. Ie the whole idea of a socialist project' being viable was massively in retreat. Tie that in with the rather risible 'Forward to the Red 90s' guff then it starts to give a bit more of a flavour of how and why disillusionment kicked in. After all as you say the faction fight with the now IMT was bad enough but to a layer the completely inaccurate Red 90s idea added to the sense of disillusionment with the 'idea' of socialism. Added to that you had a 'rejection' of the organisation that coined the phrase and argued the position which was day and daily shown to be wildly inaccurate. The two 'mixed' together certainly helped 'push' some away from both the organisation and active politics for differning lengths of time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2013)

discokermit said:


> to whit? to woo?


To whittle to-wotsky.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Surely the constitution of the Socialist Party is on their website? If not, I don't understand why, is it a secret. Aren't members given a copy when they join? I would have thought that would be a pretty fundamental thing to do in terms of democracy?


 
I've just had another quick look on the website and I can't find it. either I'm a total noob or it's a secret.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> But leninism is the reverse. They recruit people who "hate the tories" and who know very little on leninism, and then try to then educate them/instill respect for their own shibboleths.


 
As if giving people a political education-irrespective of which leftist variant-is in some way a de facto bad idea?


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> As if giving people a political education-irrespective of which leftist variant-is in some way a de facto bad idea?


My point was directed against the person who said that parties' support for DC simply reflected the views of the members, and is limited only to that.


----------



## Random (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I've just had another quick look on the website and I can't find it. either I'm a total noob or it's a secret.


Can't find it either


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's commenting on the fact that the failure to bring about revolution is forever laid at the door of left parties "doing Leninism wrong" (or misreading other pieces of ideology), when the fault almost certainly doesn't lie with it being done wrong or with misreading the meaning of ideology, but that it's still being done at all after 95+ years of not working post the October Revolution.
> In my humble opinion.


 
I think you have to look beyond the failings (frequent though they may be) of left groups to understand why we've not had a revolution.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 15, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Surely the constitution of the Socialist Party is on their website? If not, I don't understand why, is it a secret. Aren't members given a copy when they join? I would have thought that would be a pretty fundamental thing to do in terms of democracy?


 
In the 70s I had to join Tass (the union rather than the Soviet newspaper) and on the application form was 'I agree to abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Union' so I asked if I could see them and was told 'No, only members can see a copy'.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> Can't find it either


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> My point was directed against the person who said that parties' support for DC simply reflected the views of the members, and is limited only to that.


 
who said this?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Out of interest articul8 iirc you were a member at one point. if you dont mind me asking why did you leave?


 
Yes, even a centre full-timer for a briefish period - it was a mixture of personal and political issues really which it took me a while to process and acknowledge - I just went into a depressive episode and left very abruptly without every really clarifying why.

I can see there was a few things on the political level that I was avoiding saying straight out:
1) I didn't see the new workers party as a realistic strategy in the short term given the electoral system - I was conscious that the Labour party had deeper roots than the SP was acknowledging
2) a failure to critically reflect on the limits of "socialism" as envisage EITHER by the old Labour (nationalise the top 250 monopolies) or by the Soviet model. Forumula like "democratic workers control and ownership" were used to paper over what was basically a top-down statist model of how things would work - with some structures to relay messages back and forth to factory committees.
3) a sectarian approach to other just about everyone - "only our tendency" - Taaffe once even remarked that they should have nicked "ourselves alone" as a motto from Sinn Fein

There's a lot in the SP that is healthy and valuable too though - I'm not suggesting otherwise. In fact I'm still in touch with a number of SPers - and work with them perfectly happily for the most part at a local level (except when they are on about having to stand TUSC candidates). I can see myself being in a broad left party/coalition with them in the future, no probs.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 15, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I very much doubt that this will be brought up in the vast majority of union branches that SWP members are in. Most members and stewards will be totally unaware that this has happened or even that the SWP even exists. My union branch probably has more lefties than the vast majority of union branches in the country and I haven't heard anyone mention it in our branch committee or in our stewards meetings or even outside those meetings. I'm sure stewards in left groups are discussing it between themselves but they won't talk to the SWP stewards about it.


 
Yeah you're probably right to be fair. I based that post on comments I've seen from swappies on blogs where they're saying people have been calling them rape apologists at meetings writing rapist on their placards at demos - but thinking about it I probably should have been more skeptical - after all the dissidents have good reason to make shit like that up.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 15, 2013)

Breaking news: a coup has taken place in the Brighton and Hove Albion Stamp Collecting Society. 'It wasn't just that the Executive Committee monopolised the 2d 'blues', said well known blogger Sam Game. 'It was the arrogance with which they addressed our recent AGM. They lied to us about member Delta's theft of a rare issue. It goes against all the history, traditions and dialectical practice of stamp collecting. So we petitioned for an EGM and thre them all out.'


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

I bet members of the Brighton and Hove Stamp Collecting Society get to see its constitution.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I bet members of the Brighton and Hove Stamp Collecting Society get to see its constitution.


 
only if they attach an SAE


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

So Delroy, the SP didn't invite you to their regional meetings and wouldn't let you see a copy of the constitution, do you think maybe they just didn't like you?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah you're probably right to be fair. I based that post on comments I've seen from swappies on blogs where they're saying people have been calling them rape apologists at meetings writing rapist on their placards at demos - but thinking about it I probably should have been more skeptical - after all the dissidents have good reason to make shit like that up.


To be fair, I was looking forward to doing this at the next demo.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> So Delroy, the SP didn't invite you to their regional meetings and wouldn't let you see a copy of the constitution, do you think maybe they just didn't like you?


 
Don't be mean.

I'll fucking show 'em, just you wait 'til I've joined the CPGB, then you'll see.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2013)

Random said:


> If an anarchist group had failed to deal with an accused rapist, and failed because of the use of consensus decision making and lack of structure, you'd be justified in saying that this was a failure of anarchist theory and method. Likewise this is a failure of Leninist theory and method.


 
That assumes that an anarchist group or a Leninist group, in modern-day Britain where such organisations can operate out in the open, should be "dealing" with an accused rapist. It's got nothing to do with the failures of organisational structures and far more to do with being unrealistic about the goals and purposes of said organisations. 'Dem Cent' is a way of discussing and putting into action debates about politics and organisation, and it's pretty reliant on the membership knowing what the fuck is going on. It's not a "method" for dealing with rape accusations. dennisr makes a few good points on this.

I personally don't moderate what I say to people because I'm in a Leninist party. That's not part of the model for me; I can make any argument I like and I won't be expelled. Now if I do something that is totally out of keeping with the party, like racially abuse someone or go out canvassing for Labour instead of for a TUSC candidate, then I might expect some kind of "disciplinary action", sure, but that isn't a problem for me.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Don't be mean.
> 
> I'll fucking show 'em, just you wait 'til I've joined the CPGB, then you'll see.


 
Join the CPGB? This is the best revenge plan I've ever heard of. Do it Delroy!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Who's that then? Don't be shy, name names.
> 
> And apologies if I mis-read the nature of Frogwoman's post.


 
Can think of one or two potential candidates...whoever it is, I think it just demonstrates that we're not so intolerant as to kick someone out for not being very good at arguing the line. They're trying after all.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> How long before the K word is mentioned?


 
I'M GLAD KRONSTADT HAPPENED.

(Disclaimer: probably)


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> That assumes that an anarchist group or a Leninist group, in modern-day Britain where such organisations can operate out in the open, should be "dealing" with an accused rapist. *It's got nothing to do with the failures of organisational structures and far more to do with being unrealistic about the goals and purposes of said organisations.* 'Dem Cent' is a way of discussing and putting into action debates about politics and organisation, and it's pretty reliant on the membership knowing what the fuck is going on. It's not a "method" for dealing with rape accusations. dennisr makes a few good points on this.
> 
> I personally don't moderate what I say to people because I'm in a Leninist party. That's not part of the model for me; I can make any argument I like and I won't be expelled. Now if I do something that is totally out of keeping with the party, like racially abuse someone or go out canvassing for Labour instead of for a TUSC candidate, then I might expect some kind of "disciplinary action", sure, but that isn't a problem for me.


 
But when the organisational structure of the organisation determines that there can be no interface with the capitalist justice system and then fails to achieve justice, that is an organisational failing.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Join the CPGB? This is the best revenge plan I've ever heard of. Do it Delroy!


 
If I could wangle a job sitting on my arse and writing about trotskyite in-fighting in the Weekly Worker by pretending to like Stalinism I'd be happier than a pig in shit



SpackleFrog said:


> Can think of one or two potential candidates...whoever it is, I think it just demonstrates that we're not so intolerant as to kick someone out for not being very good at arguing the line. They're trying after all.


 
agree


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> But when the organisational structure of the organisation determines that there can be no interface with the capitalist justice system and then fails to achieve justice, that is an organisational failing.


 
I don't think there ever was a discussion at the SWP's congress about how they would handle a rape allegation, so again doesn't really link back to 'dem cent'. The correct response really would have been "Shit, we can't really handle this".

I'm not being clear here... What I mean is, that if there had been a democratic vote in the SWP in the past, agreeing that the Party should investigate serious crimes, then that would be democratically agreed process which party members would have to abide by. And even if that happened, it wouldn't negate dem cent so much as the membership that decided that.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't think there ever was a discussion at the SWP's congress about how they would handle a rape allegation, so again doesn't really link back to 'dem cent'. The correct response really would have been "Shit, we can't really handle this".


 
Surely the members of a party that declares clearly that it is not an institution of capitalist society would be aware of its praxis of not engaging with the bourgeois criminal justice system? In this instance, the alternative, (revolutionary?), justice offered by the 'Den Cent' organisation, appears not to have satisfied a significant proportion of the membership. If they do not give legitimacy to the justice dispensed, what chance that such a nascent workers state could convince 'ordinary' workers that they offer a credible alternative state?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 15, 2013)

the latest from AMM...


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> As someone who was disciplined by a Leninist party (and told off by other members via PM just for airing some of my views) I was just giving Frogwoman some advice. It seems that the SP, as well as SP members on here, are far more tolerant of this sort of thing so that's good. I haven't tried to push any views on her at all, and I don't think others have either.


 
To be fair Matt no SP members have tried  giving a live  commentary from their conference on Urban


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Surely the members of a party that declares clearly that it is not an institution of capitalist society would be aware of its praxis of not engaging with the bourgeois criminal justice system? In this instance, the alternative, (revolutionary?), justice offered by the 'Den Cent' organisation, appears not to have satisfied a significant proportion of the membership. If they do not give legitimacy to the justice dispensed, what chance that such a nascent workers state could convince 'ordinary' workers that they offer a credible alternative state?


 
There's a big difference between claiming not to be a capitalist institution and dealing with serious criminal allegations in-house. If you care to go through all the pre-conference docs for example, you'll see that two members of the SWP were expelled this year because they were convicted of crimes reported to the police. They also have called (rightly IMO) for Assange to be tried in a bourgeois court.

In any case, even if declaring your party isn't a capitalist institution were to make it ok to deal with serious criminal allegations, that still wouldn't be the logical conclusion of democratic centralism; that's the method of decision making, not the decision itself.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Surely the members of a party that declares clearly that it is not an institution of capitalist society would be aware of its praxis of not engaging with the bourgeois criminal justice system? In this instance, the alternative, (revolutionary?), justice offered by the 'Den Cent' organisation, appears not to have satisfied a significant proportion of the membership. If they do not give legitimacy to the justice dispensed, what chance that such a nascent workers state could convince 'ordinary' workers that they offer a credible alternative state?


 
could you possibly repeat the question again?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Surely the members of a party that declares clearly that it is not an institution of capitalist society would be aware of its praxis of not engaging with the bourgeois criminal justice system? In this instance, the alternative, (revolutionary?), justice offered by the 'Den Cent' organisation, appears not to have satisfied a significant proportion of the membership. If they do not give legitimacy to the justice dispensed, what chance that such a nascent workers state could convince 'ordinary' workers that they offer a credible alternative state?


the impression i have is that any ordinary workers who would know about the shenanegans going on at the moment are more appalled that a group tried to act as though it could be judge and jury in this instance.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'M GLAD KRONSTADT HAPPENED.
> 
> (Disclaimer: probably)


troll ;-)


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 15, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the latest from AMM...


 
Is it just me or does Kimber look like the Emperor from Star Wars......






And Callinicos like the toad fancier from The League of Gentlemen?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 15, 2013)

it's not just you


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> the impression i have is that any ordinary workers who would know about the shenanegans going on at the moment are more appalled that a group tried to act as though it could be judge and jury in this instance.


Exactly. Which undermines the premise of rejecting bourgeois legal systems (which I think was Brogdale's point).


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> could you possibly repeat the question again?





cesare said:


> Exactly. Which undermines the premise of rejecting bourgeois legal systems (which I think was Brogdale's point).


 
Yep, and I am interested to know what the organisation would have done in the (unlikely?) event that the comrade had been found guilty? I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that serious sexual assults usually warrant custodial sentances, rather than mere expulsion from the party. Would they seriously propose imprisoning him in a peoples prison? If not, why not?


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep, and I am interested to know what the organisation would have done in the (unlikely?) event that the comrade had been found guilty? I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that serious sexual assults usually warrant custodial sentances, rather than mere expulsion from the party. Would they seriously propose imprisoning him in a peoples prison? If not, why not?


Taken out and quietly disposed of by the Cheka.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep, and I am interested to know what the organisation would have done in the (unlikely?) event that the comrade had been found guilty? I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that serious sexual assults usually warrant custodial sentances, rather than mere expulsion from the party. Would they seriously propose imprisoning him in a peoples prison? If not, why not?


 
A one way cab ride to a farmer's field in Armagh.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep, and I am interested to know what the organisation would have done in the (unlikely?) event that the comrade had been found guilty? I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that serious sexual assults usually warrant custodial sentances, rather than mere expulsion from the party. Would they seriously propose imprisoning him in a peoples prison? If not, why not?


Agreed - its bonkers to think they could.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> There's a big difference between claiming not to be a capitalist institution and dealing with serious criminal allegations in-house. If you care to go through all the pre-conference docs for example, you'll see that two members of the SWP were expelled this year because they were convicted of crimes reported to the police. They also have called (rightly IMO) for Assange to be tried in a bourgeois court.
> 
> In any case, even if declaring your party isn't a capitalist institution were to make it ok to deal with serious criminal allegations, that still wouldn't be the logical conclusion of democratic centralism; that's the method of decision making, not the decision itself.


 
I'm assuming that 'Dem Cent' as a method of decision making results in policy/praxis that it the settled will of the majority of the party membership? That given, the decision of the CC to try this member 'in-house', on the basis of disengagement with the capitalist justice system, would appear to be intrinsic to the Leninist organisation model?
The other instances of expulsion appear inconsistent with the party's founding principle of not engaging with the criminal justice system; were they just politically convenient?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> a peoples prison....


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)




----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep, and I am interested to know what the organisation would have done in the (unlikely?) event that the comrade had been found guilty? I'm no expert, but I'm under the impression that serious sexual assults usually warrant custodial sentances, rather than mere expulsion from the party. Would they seriously propose imprisoning him in a peoples prison? If not, why not?


 
all they would have done would be to exclude him from membership, having established that he had behaved in a way which couldn't be reconciled with the party's beliefs. i don't think anyone has suggested the SWP were trying to set up an entirely independent 'justice system', including prisons and executions tbf.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

Would you rather be imprisoned there, or do hard labour in the siberian iron mines?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm assuming that 'Dem Cent' as a method of decision making results in policy/praxis that it the settled will of the majority of the party membership? That given, the decision of the CC to try this member 'in-house', on the basis of disengagement with the capitalist justice system, would appear to be intrinsic to the Leninist organisation model?
> The other instances of expulsion appear inconsistent with the party's founding principle of not engaging with the criminal justice system; were they just politically convenient?


Much as I have my differences with SWP members - I don't think it would be right to say that this farce playing out is in any way the will of the majority of their membership! 

Yep, it's all about political convenience for the CC but nowt to do with the fig leaf of whatever 'model' they try to cover their mistakes with


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Much as I have my differences with SWP members - I don't think it would be right to say that this farce playing out is in any way the will of the majority of their membership!
> 
> Yep, it's all about political convenience for the CC but nowt to do with the fig leaf of whatever 'model' they try to cover their mistakes with


I suppose it depends on whether rejection of the capitalist bourgeois legal justice system underpins Leninist organisations, really.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> all they would have done would be to exclude him from membership, having established that he had behaved in a way which couldn't be reconciled with the party's beliefs. i don't think anyone has suggested the SWP were trying to set up an entirely independent 'justice system', including prisons and executions tbf.


 
Yep, I'm sure that you're right; that's the only realistic sort of outcome. But it does raise some other questions like...would they then have been happy to leave it at that, or cooperate with any subsequent judicial proceedings? Would they withold evidence that they nay have gathered? And what does this tell us about any future state aapartus that the SWP might effect? Does mere expulsion from the party suggest that the transitional workers state would operate without a judicial system?
Hmmm


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> I suppose it depends on whether rejection of the capitalist bourgeois legal justice system underpins Leninist organisations, really.


true enough - but we all know that the actions of the present SWPCC at are not based on some golden principle - they need to invent that bit


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> And what does this tell us


 
Not a lot really


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> That given, the decision of the CC to try this member 'in-house', on the basis of disengagement with the capitalist justice system, would appear to be intrinsic to the Leninist organisation model?


 
I don't think they _did_ decide to on this basis. There's no evidence to support that. Only one member who spoke from the floor during conference talked about bourgeois justice.

Disclaimer: I do not therefore think that this process was adequate.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Much as I have my differences with SWP members - *I don't think it would be right to say that this farce playing out is in any way the will of the majority of their membership!*
> 
> Yep, it's all about political convenience for the CC but nowt to do with the fig leaf of whatever 'model' they try to cover their mistakes with


 
Actually, I think the logic of 'Dem Cent' is precisely that the praxis of the CC* is* the settled will of the membership.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think they _did_ decide to on this basis. There's no evidence to support that. Only one member who spoke from the floor during conference talked about bourgeois justice.
> 
> Disclaimer: I do not therefore think that this process was adequate.


 
Who is 'they'?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Actually, I think the logic of 'Dem Cent' is precisely that the praxis of the CC* is* the settled will of the membership.


nope - that your logic


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> nope - that your logic


 
Like...once a majoritarian decision is made, all members of the party are required to hold that position?
I thought that was the whole Leninist thang....no?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

This is quite funny:
*Grumpy Old Trot* - Hubris
http://grumpyoldtrot.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/hubris

_Members of the Sealed Knot who meet to re-enact the battles of the English Civil War in full regalia have one key advantage over the SWP Central Committee – they know they’re just role-playing. The SWP may well pay a high price for the inability of its leaders to distinguish between fantasy and reality._


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Who is 'they'?


 
They being the CC and the DC. Those held responsible.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> They being the CC and the DC. Those held responsible.


 
I dunno; if this piece from Mr Kimber is genuine, it does look very much like a deliberate party decision based upon its founding principles, and enacted with the will of conference?



> _This was an internal matter and we had promised full confidentiality to all involved..._
> 
> _....our internal structures seek to promote women to leading roles and deal rigorously with any action by any member that is harmful or disrespectful of women....._
> 
> ...


----------



## discokermit (Jan 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'M GLAD K******** HAPPENED.
> 
> (Disclaimer: probably)


sharing a board with anarchists needs a bit of give and take. it's probably best not to mention the k word. i did it once but i think i got away with it...


----------



## Athos (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Yep, it's all about political convenience for the CC but nowt to do with the fig leaf of whatever 'model' they try to cover their mistakes with


 
But surely the extent to which a model more readily lends itself to abuse it basis for criticism of it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2013)

discokermit said:


> sharing a board with anarchists needs a bit of give and take. it's probably best not to mention the k word. i did it once but i think i got away with it...


cunt


----------



## discokermit (Jan 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> cunt


not get the fawlty towers reference?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I dunno; if this piece from Mr Kimber is genuine, it does look very much like a deliberate party decision based upon its founding principles, and enacted with the will of conference?


 
It looks like a decision made by the complainant to not go to the police and then the process justified by the politics to me. I know, knew, one of the DC and I find it hard to believe that she would have seen it as a choice between bourgeois justice and that of the party. But we can only go on what 'they' say in that respect and I'd agree that Kimber's statement makes it less clear (or more, depending on your perspective).


----------



## dennisr (Jan 15, 2013)

Athos said:


> But surely the extent to which a model more readily lends itself to abuse it basis for criticism of it?


 
que? (thats the only faulty towers reference i know..)


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> It looks like a decision made by the complainant to not go to the police and then the process justified by the politics to me. I know, knew, one of the DC and I find it hard to believe that she would have seen it as a choice between bourgeois justice and that of the party. But we can only go on what 'they' say in that respect and I'd agree that Kimber's statement makes it less clear (or more, depending on your perspective).


 
Setting aside the claims made about the wishes of the complainant, I really don't get the idea of the process being "justified by the politics". According to kimber it was justified on the basis of the organisation's founding principles and based upon the legitimacy derived from iis 'Dem Cent' processes.
Any member sitting on the DC would have to have been well aware that they were acting ideologically as a deliberate alternative to the capitalist criminal justice system, and as a court of the putative workers state.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2013)

discokermit said:


> not get the fawlty towers reference?


What's that Fawlty?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What's that Fawlty?


i'm more faulty than fawlty.


----------



## Athos (Jan 15, 2013)

dennisr said:


> que? (thats the only faulty towers reference i know..)


 
I was trying to make the point that it's not as simple as saying that the problem with the SWP's handling of the rape allegation was caused by the interests of the leadership, and that democratic centralism was merely an expedient tool to further those interests (which implies that other models of organisation could/would have been used in similar ways).

Isn't the ease with which democratic centralism can perverted by leaderships an argument against ever organising on that basis?

Surely history shows us that it is a form of organisation open to abuse. And, as a matter of logic, giving a leadership the responsibility for instilling discipline (coercing dissenters to act against their own wishes) is concentrating power in the hands of a minority which has different interests to the majority. Opportunity and motive.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Setting aside the claims made about the wishes of the complainant, I really don't get the idea of the process being "justified by the politics". According to kimber it was justified on the basis of the organisation's founding principles and based upon the legitimacy derived from iis 'Dem Cent' processes.
> Any member sitting on the DC would have to have been well aware that they were acting ideologically as a deliberate alternative to the capitalist criminal justice system, and as a court of the putative workers state.


 
Where does it say it was justified by their founding principles?

Founding principles/ideology or however you like to phrase it is what I meant by 'the politics'. And I meant justified by the CC not that I think it was justified, just in case that's not clear.

ETA: Actually, I don't think that's clear at all but I can't be arsed making it clearer. I look after my 2 kids all day and my head is frazzled. Sorry!


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Setting aside the claims made about the wishes of the complainant, I really don't get the idea of the process being "justified by the politics". According to kimber it was justified on the basis of the organisation's founding principles and based upon the legitimacy derived from iis 'Dem Cent' processes.
> Any member sitting on the DC would have to have been well aware that they were acting ideologically as a deliberate alternative to the capitalist criminal justice system, and as a court of the putative workers state.


 
It certainly invites that comparison when their chat was like "slagging off bourgiouse justice - now onto the proceedings..."


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 15, 2013)

The opening to the proceedings from one the DC says this:

'We know how the courts and the police make women, you know, try to blame women, how few rapes are reported and how few of them are successfully prosecuted. And we understood how personally difficult it was for someone to come forward with a complaint like this.'

It is only later that a member speaks from the floor about bourgeois justice.

Anyway, I don't know.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 15, 2013)

Ok so im paraphrasing a lot but there was chat about bourgiouse justice and its failings and a tone of almost back patting about how they well or how proud of themselves they were to get through it. I cant be bothered reading it again but was there not a bit where someone was like "we spent x amount of days going over the details" as if taht was supposed to be impressive...


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

discokermit said:


> sharing a board with anarchists needs a bit of give and take. it's probably best not to mention the k word. i did it once but i think i got away with it...


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> cunt


----------



## BigTom (Jan 15, 2013)

Has this longer SWP response from yesterday been posted up yet?

http://www.swp.org.uk/14/01/2013/response-attacks-swp

I kind of assumed it had been and I'd just missed it but a comment a page or two back about if that short comment was from Kimber made me think it hadn't been.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 15, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Ok so im paraphrasing a lot but there was chat about bourgiouse justice and its failings and a tone of almost back patting about how they well or how proud of themselves they were to get through it. I cant be bothered reading it again but was there not a bit where someone was like "we spent x amount of days going over the details" as if taht was supposed to be impressive...


 
I can't be bothered to do over it again either but I did go over it several times a few days ago and there are two references from the DC to how the police treat women making rape allegations. Later there are two references from the floor about bourgeois courts and justice.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 15, 2013)

While we are marking time, waiting for the branch meetings to take place, it occurs to me to wonder what Julie Waterson would have made of this. Some of the SWP's leading women campaigners have wrecked themselves in this crash, but from what I knew of her, I've a sense JW might have told it straight: and used appropriately vigorous language.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 15, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> While we are marking time, waiting for the branch meetings to take place, it occurs to me to wonder what Julie Waterson would have made of this. Some of the SWP's leading women campaigners have wrecked themselves in this crash, but from what I knew of her, I've a sense JW might have told it straight: and used appropriately vigorous language.


I would like to think this was true, but I am aware of just how much a comrade is expected to swallow in the name of the party.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2013)

I've got a female SWP member on facebook who's put literally NOTHING about this at all but quite a bit of stuff about the indian gang-rape etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I've got a female SWP member on facebook who's put literally NOTHING about this at all but quite a bit of stuff about the indian gang-rape etc


In the famous tradition of supporting things more vigorously the further away they are


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2013)

she is a bit of a hack though, to put it mildly


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> she is a bit of a hack though, to put it mildly


When you say you've got a female swp member on facebook, what exactly do you mean?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> she is a bit of a hack though, to put it mildly


 
That explains your previous post


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> When you say you've got a female swp member on facebook, what exactly do you mean?


 
i mean that i've done sone anti-cuts stuff with her in the past and i have her on facebook. It's very strange as the SWP don't seem to be saying anything about it and a lot of them just seem to be doing stalls and selling papers as usual.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2013)

Having someone on facebook sounds a bit euphemistick


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2013)

i suppose it does


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 15, 2013)

The SWP are saying plenty about it to each other, they're just not generally doing it in front of an audience of anarchists and sp members. The sensible ones aren't anyway.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The SWP are saying plenty about it to each other, they're just not generally doing it in front of an audience of anarchists and sp members. The sensible ones aren't anyway.


 
But presumably they're saying it in front of Labour party members who gossip widely about politics with Tories in pubs and anarchos and SPers on message boards then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The SWP are saying plenty about it to each other, they're just not generally doing it in front of an audience of anarchists and sp members. The sensible ones aren't anyway.


You mean they're talking about it behind the cc's back despite the insistence everyone move on.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 15, 2013)

This link just popped up on Facebook:

SWP Opposition


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> This link just popped up on Facebook:
> 
> SWP Opposition


 
Do people think its real or a wind up?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> But presumably they're saying it in front of Labour party members who gossip widely about politics with Tories in pubs and anarchos and SPers on message boards then?


Like most ex memebrs I'm highly interested in the outcome of this and one or two dissident members seem happy to share the discussions with sympathetic ex members 99% of which shouldn't be passed on to people who would only want to use it to hurt them and their comrades. But to be honest I have more respect for the majority who rightly don't want to tell folk like me anything. And I wouldn't dream of asking them, it's their crisis to resolve and I hope they can. Said before, the transcript should never have been published.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Like most ex memebrs I'm highly interested in the outcome of this and one or two dissident members seem happy to share the discussions with sympathetic ex members 99% of which shouldn't be passed on to people who would only want to use it to hurt them and their comrades. But to be honest I have more respect for the majority who rightly don't want to tell folk like me anything. And I wouldn't dream of asking them, it's their crisis to resolve and I hope they can. Said before, the transcript should never have been published.


 
Have you told the people confiding their fears and concerns in you that you respect the people who aren't talking to you more?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Do people think its real or a wind up?


 
That did cross my mind. On the right hand column it states:



> Because of the climate of fear and intimidation within the party, comrades wishing to join the faction can do so anonymously by emailing us just your email address to swpopposition@gmail.com


 
It'd be funny if it turns out the blog had been set up by Charlie Kimber, and some wannabe oppositionist had just emailed him his or her details. Funny in a gallow sense of humour way.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Do people think its real or a wind up?


 
I'm a bit dubious. There's a couple of uses of language that seem very slightly off to me. We'll see soon enough.

eta: Also there's not enough stuff on it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Have you told the people confiding their fears and concerns in you that you respect the people who aren't talking to you more?


Sure have. I think the dissidents are slightly surprised at the number of ex members who are siding with the calmer voices and not impressed by the Seymour bandwagon.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sure have. I think the dissidents are slightly surprised at the number of ex members who are siding with the calmer voices and not impressed by the Seymour bandwagon.


 
By "calmer voices", do you mean the the "moderate" opposition or the supporters of the CC?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> By "calmer voices", do you mean the the "moderate" opposition or the supporters of the CC?


Both. They have more in common than either do with the people who already have one foot outside the door.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm a bit dubious. There's a couple of uses of language that seem very slightly off to me. We'll see soon enough.
> 
> eta: Also there's not enough stuff on it.


Isn't it just the faction statements put out before the conference with a bit of extra blurb at the top. I think the email matches the one given previously for the DO faction. I'd check if I could remember where i saw it.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Isn't it just the faction statements put out before the conference with a bit of extra blurb at the top. I think the email matches the one given previously for the DO faction. I'd check if I could remember where i saw it.


Nope I'm wrong the email addresses are different.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Both. They have more in common than either do with the people who already have one foot outside the door.


 
In the sense that they both place priority on a doomed attempt to keep something in the family that can't be?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Nope I'm wrong the email addresses are different.


 
It's not impossible that it's genuine, but it looks more likely be someone messing around or fishing for info.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not impossible that it's genuine, but it looks more likely be someone messing around or fishing for info.


 
could be the CPGB and their spies


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2013)

page views have gone up from 94 when I first looked it a few minutes ago to 168 now. The power of Urban?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 15, 2013)

Whoever runs the Duncan Hallas page on FB has just managed to really rub the moderates up the wrong way by using it to reprint Charlie Kimber's article. The likes of Renton who has been doing his best not to throw the baby out is furious. Does seem a bit silly to use the old chap's memory in this way in a factional dispute. By all means use his arguments for dem cent against the Seymour gang but don't use a page in his memory to reprint a statement on a controversial, disciplinary matter.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In the sense that they both place priority on a doomed attempt to keep something in the family that can't be?


In the sense that they both want to keep the family under the same roof if at all possible. The other shower are busy burning the house down.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> In the sense that they both want to keep the family under the same roof if at all possible. The other shower are busy burning the house down.


Didn't you say you were in the Labour party?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 15, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Didn't you say you were in the Labour party?


Yup. Which doesn't prevent me wanting to see the SWP survive this mess. We need them now more than ever.


----------



## cesare (Jan 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yup. Which doesn't prevent me wanting to see the SWP survive this mess. We need them now more than ever.


Need them to do what?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> That did cross my mind. On the right hand column it states:
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be funny if it turns out the blog had been set up by Charlie Kimber, and some wannabe oppositionist had just emailed him his or her details. Funny in a gallow sense of humour way.


 
We always used to put a notice up at Marxism and Skegness for a fake meeting for 'Those who are concerned about the most recent expulsions' . Always used to attract someone from the party hierarchy


----------



## discokermit (Jan 16, 2013)

i miss skeggy.


----------



## Trendy Trot (Jan 16, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> While we are marking time, waiting for the branch meetings to take place, it occurs to me to wonder what Julie Waterson would have made of this. Some of the SWP's leading women campaigners have wrecked themselves in this crash, but from what I knew of her, I've a sense JW might have told it straight: and used appropriately vigorous language.



I hate to burst your bubble of fond memories of Julie Waterson, but after Martin Smith told conference in 2011 a pack of self serving lies about a consensual affair that had gone wrong,  and was in the middle of his undeserved standing ovation,  she went up to the front and kissed him on the cheek.

It really was the most nauseating spectacle, and I can only hope that she, like so many others in the SWP at the time, didn't know the true nature of the allegations against him.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> In the sense that they both want to keep the family under the same roof if at all possible. The other shower are busy burning the house down.


 
How exactly are they "burning the house down"? Is it simply their decision to talk in public, after the issue had already been become public, that's your core objection?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 16, 2013)

How could Julie or anyone else know the 'true' allegations then when they weren't made until some time later?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2013)

Roobin from "Through the Scary Door", the much less widely read but quite long running SWP blog, has a piece up on Lenin's Tomb which raises some more basic questions about the SWP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How exactly are they "burning the house down"? Is it simply their decision to talk in public, after the issue had already been become public, that's your core objection?


No it's not. My core objection is to people who have clearly broken with the politics claiming to want to rescue it. Seymour has declared war on the SWP and the sooner the Rentons realise that the better.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Roobin from "Through the Scary Door", the much less widely read but quite long running SWP blog, has a piece up on Lenin's Tomb which raises some more basic questions about the SWP.


Aye he wants to rededicate the party to IS style theoretical innovation by...asking can we have a British Syriza. The theoretical innovation no doubt being the Counterfire line that Syriza are left centrists and not reformists. Which Seymour has been edging towards for months. Sorry but sometimes old labels fit and these guys are simple liquidationists.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No it's not. My core objection is to people who have clearly broken with the politics claiming to want to rescue it. Seymour has declared war on the SWP and the sooner the Rentons realise that the better.


 
Rentons?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2013)

It's as if you'd prefer them to be some dreadful right wing menace looking to destroy the SWP from within. You certainly don't have much solid evidence for the proposition.

Although I do think that the line about SYRIZA is a bit strange. Yes, sure, you can have a British SYRIZA, why don't you start by finding the rock your local semi-mass Left Eurocommunist party has been hiding under first?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

Are you sure they're not also lizards bb?


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yup. Which doesn't prevent me wanting to see the SWP survive this mess. We need them now more than ever.


Labour Party huh? I'm probably not the only one who doubts this. And if you really want the SWP to survive you have lost your political compass. How will the SWP find allies to work with - especially on issues concerning women's rights - with this hanging over them. Only if there is a drastic revolt against what has just happened will they be able to renew their image.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 16, 2013)

Trendy Trot said:


> I hate to burst your bubble of fond memories of Julie Waterson, but after Martin Smith told conference in 2011 a pack of self serving lies about a consensual affair that had gone wrong,  and was in the middle of his undeserved standing ovation,  she went up to the front and kissed him on the cheek.
> 
> It really was the most nauseating spectacle, and I can only hope that she, like so many others in the SWP at the time, didn't know the true nature of the allegations against him.


Oh dear oh dear. Pop!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

That opposition site looks well dodgy. Seymour has suggested it is as well.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

What are you thinking butchers? A way for the CC to identify the opposition or something else (far right or something?)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That opposition site looks well dodgy. Seymour has suggested it is as well.


 
Yes. Wouldn't it have been announced on LT if it was a real thing?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> What are you thinking butchers? A way for the CC to identify the opposition or something else (far right or something?)



Not sure they'd be that crude,  maybe an enthusiastic supporter might be though. Someone taking the piss surely wouldn't give a shit about collecting emails would they.?


----------



## Riklet (Jan 16, 2013)

a cunning plan to make a quick purging list for future reference CTR?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 16, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Labour Party huh? I'm probably not the only one who doubts this. And if you really want the SWP to survive you have lost your political compass. How will the SWP find allies to work with - especially on issues concerning women's rights - with this hanging over them. Only if there is a drastic revolt against what has just happened will they be able to renew their image.


Same Labour party as Andy Newman, here in Swindon. We were both at the count at the last council elections where he failed to win a seat.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are you sure they're not also lizards bb?


There's no need to invent conspiracies when the folk involved are openly making their play. I know NI says the evidence is meagre but the political faultlines have been there on LT for months. And his less subtle allies aren't even hiding the agenda.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 16, 2013)

Some very prickly exchanges happening between the LT fans and Counterfire.  This from FB:

[Lindsey German] What bad faith?
[Seymour fan] Rebranding oneself as a "feminist" after decades of opposing the idea without any detailed self-criticism; rebranding oneself as a supporter of organisational democracy after years of having opposed its actualisation in the SWP without the slightest self-criticism or reflexivity. How about that for starters?
[Lindsey German] Better than defending a catastrophically worse still regime until the very last moment....Do send me your list of publications that spell out the Marxist position on women's oppression.
[Seymour fan] I am not defending anyone Lindsey German - I support the opposition and Richard Seymour. However, decency if not deontology should dictate that you and John engage in a bout of explicit and searching self-criticism about your roles in creating the bureaucratism in the organisation for many years, before offering commentary or proposing yourselves as an alternative to the dissident members. If such an exercise were carried out in good faith, perhaps you could be taken more seriously in your current forms of appearance...
[Lindsey German] The same regime is in place which got rid of us. In my 37 years in the SWP there has never been a charge like this against any member of the leadership, nor the pathetic defence of it. What you describe as our rebranding has actually been an attempt to build a socialist alternative which learns from the mistakes which all of us have made and some continue to make. If people in the SWP are looking to us it's because of that and we're willing to talk seriously to any of them. On self criticism, maybe a bit from yourself? After all you're still telling people to stay in a discredited organisation, unlike Tom Walker. If you want to debate, cut out the insults and Biblical references and then we can all start behaving like grown ups

Reads like the Seymourites think Rees et al haven't gone far enough in jettisoning the IS worldview. Which does kind of back up what some of us have been saying about the nature of the LT game.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2013)

I've now read the name lenin so many times on this thread it has ceased to have any meaning


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Some very prickly exchanges happening between the LT fans and Counterfire. This from FB:
> 
> 
> [Lindsey German] The same regime is in place which got rid of us. In my 37 years in the SWP there has never been a charge like this against any member of the leadership, nor the pathetic defence of it.


 
Andy Wilson posted the following contribution on his Facebook yesterday:



> _I remember when an SWP Central Committee member sexually assaulted one of my friends (this was not a matter of an 'unproven allegation', since the person admitted his guilt at great length to me, putting it down to his heavy drinking). The assault involved an attack on a party member in which he tried to tear her clothes from her. She fought back, and eventually stopped him in his tracks with a kick in the balls (she told me that she said "fuck off, you old hippy"). The woman didn't want to pursue the matter in any way and, not surprisingly, dropped out of the SWP shortly afterwards. As an SWP district organiser I raised this with the CC, asking that the person be disciplined even though there was no complaint as such, but it was explained to me that "this sort of thing happens under capitalism", and nothing could be done about it. Obviously, not being a moron, I didn't think that was in any way an adequate response, but I couldn't think of anything else to do about it. Shortly afterwards I was sacked as an organiser. Then, shortly after that, I was expelled from the SWP 'for life' for wanting to produce a cultural magazine (as it happens, I don't believe they expelled me because of my knowledge of this incident). I perhaps should have done more about this, but at the time - over 20 years ago - I didn't know what else I could do. _
> 
> _I mention all this only because_
> 
> ...


 
In light of Wilson's post, I wonder if German is being a bit disingenuous in the quote above?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Andy Wilson posted the following contribution on his Facebook yesterday:
> 
> 
> 
> In light of Wilson's post, I wonder if German is being a bit disingenuous in the quote above?


 


> _but I couldn't think of anything else to do about it_


 Sounds like Wilson has his own issues here never mind hos own agenda.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 16, 2013)

I set up a blogspot over 6 years ago for "the Democratic Platform of the SWP" or summat as a wind up - it included an email address for people to contact, the only people who fell for it were the likes of cliffite off here who entered into a long debate defending the CC and line etc.

I got bored after about two weeks though.

I think on balance this blog is a fake but god knows who is behind it, and because of the ludicrous atmosphere and rules of the SWP it will be very difficult for the real internal opposition to disavow it.


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

Anyone know which faction Rebel Warrior is in?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 16, 2013)

I think he can still be found walking aimlessly around North London, looking for that elusive "Dual Power situation".


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 16, 2013)

What to people make of this, posted on Ian Bone's blog - http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/




> Here are some suggestions from Andrew Burgin/Kate Hudson of the November 14th Movement for Left Unity. Engage. I have missed off the preamble on the crisis we face in the interests of brevity.
> 
> On what basis can this discussion begin?
> 
> ...


----------



## articul8 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes. Wouldn't it have been announced on LT if it was a real thing?


what's LT? (edit -sorry Lenin's Tomb - answering my own questions now)


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What to people make of this, posted on Ian Bone's blog - http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/


At a time when the electoral right is splitting, I'm delighted to see that these proposals explicitly rule out an electoral coalition of the left.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 16, 2013)

Lenin's Tomb


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2013)

Trendy Trot said:


> I hate to burst your bubble of fond memories of Julie Waterson, but after Martin Smith told conference in 2011 a pack of self serving lies about a consensual affair that had gone wrong, and was in the middle of his undeserved standing ovation, she went up to the front and kissed him on the cheek.


 
Can you tell me how this came about? Why was he speaking about it at conference? I thought an informal complaint had been made to the CC at this point. Have I missed something?


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What to people make of this, posted on Ian Bone's blog - http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/



It's an interesting discussion to have, but based on the principles posted there it's almost certain to result in yet another tiny group once again positioning itself as a unity grouping.



> Steps for facilitating this discussion:
> 
> 1. Setting up a website to pose such a united left option; publishing and commissioning broadly representative articles and debate pieces to explore willingness to take a new approach.
> 
> ...



Like I keep on saying, class struggle has to come first. A unity group that exists for its own sake is not going to convince many people that it is useful to their lives. It will simply be dipping into the ever-shrinking pool of left activists.

Edit: some sort of clear-headed organising has to happen at the same time as the activity, though, otherwise you just end up with groupings that only last as long as the wave of energy motivates people. But look at UKUncut for an example of how even a bad campaign group is still more successful than various careful lefty attempts to organise a new political grouping.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 16, 2013)

It's even made it to the Swindon Advertiser!

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...og_sparks_crisis_in_Socialist_Workers__Party/


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Can you tell me how this came about? Why was he speaking about it at conference? I thought an informal complaint had been made to the CC at this point. Have I missed something?


The woman who made the rape accusation made an accusation of sexual harassment against the same person in 2010. The CC decided that it was fit to oversee this complaint at this point  (though she was given the option of going to DC) and passed a resolution that cleared him of it (apparently on the basis of asking him if he had done it). They made a statement about it at the 2011 conference. Smith spoke about it and was given a standing ovation.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The woman who made the rape accusation made an accusation of sexual harassment against the same person in 2010. The CC decided that it was fit to oversee this complaint at this point (though she was given the option of going to DC) and passed a resolution that cleared him of it (apparently on the basis of asking him if he had done it). They made a statement about it at the 2011 conference. Smith spoke about it and was given a standing ovation.


 
It was because it didn't go to the DC that I thought it was 'informal' or perhaps I read that word earlier in the thread and it stuck. I couldn't make the link between an informal complaint and Smith talking about it at conference. Thanks for clarifying that for me.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What to people make of this, posted on Ian Bone's blog - http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/


It's well-meaning, but missing some important ingredients.  Where is the mention of class?  What would be the role of communities?  How would this organisation support community autonomy?  Or is it just going to be another solution imposed from the top?  

And this:  "looking for common ground, such as: attitude towards Labour Party".  If the Labour Party is still not seen for what it is, to the extent that there still needs to be a "search for attitude" towards it, then this is going nowhere.

I wish them well, though.  Maybe it'll be a force for good.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

The thing is, i reckon loads of people are more than willing to put aside past differences and grievances in the name of common defence, whether in limited united front or something similar, once the issues that have prevented them developing in the past have been dealt with - they haven't been though, and they won't be by people either ignoring or forcing themselves to forget them - the issues of internal democracy, attempts to dominate, tradition squabbling, certain groups or people treating it as their personal plaything and so on can not be got rid of by just willing them away in a pub beforehand. I agree with Ian that people outside of the normal left-channels should get involved and try to impose themselves so all that shit doesn't happen (i argued the same as regards anarchist engagement with the STWC and ended up practically on my own though).


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> And this:  "looking for common ground, such as: attitude towards Labour Party".  If the Labour Party is still not seen for what it is, to the extent that there still needs to be a "search for attitude" towards it, then this is going nowhere.


 Yes, I think any new left group that is sentimental about the LP is going to be hobbled from the start. But I also can't stand the idea of all the endless meetings that would be needed to agree a line on the LP.

So I think the best way would be for the new grouping to be grounded in practical pro-working class activity that goes beyond what Labour wants, that involves social change that the LP cannot accommodate. Thenthere would be little risk in pro-Labour people being involved. The reverse, imo. The activity will create a move away from Labour.


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> (i argued the same as regards anarchist engagement with the STWC and ended up practically on my own though).


 What did you argue? I was one of the very few anarchist involved with STWC in an organised way. Lots of Manchester anarchoes I knew just treated the SWP/MAB like kryptonite.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Random said:


> Yes, I think any new left group that is sentimental about the LP is going to be hobbled from the start. But I also can't stand the idea of all the endless meetings that would be needed to agree a line on the LP.
> 
> So I think the best way would be for the new grouping to be grounded in practical pro-working class activity that goes beyond what Labour wants, that involves social change that the LP cannot accommodate. Thenthere would be little risk in pro-Labour people being involved. The reverse, imo. The activity will create a move away from Labour.


Yes, not an organisation cobbled together from the usual elements by specialists but one that grew out of a common _activity_.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Random said:


> What did you argue? I was one of the very few anarchist involved with STWC in an organised way. Lots of Manchester anarchoes I knew just treated the SWP/MAB like kryptonite.


 
For local anarchist involvement and input in order to challenge the stitch-ups, the lifelessness the timidity and so on - but once the first thing went against them they stormed off.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Andy Wilson posted the following contribution on his Facebook yesterday:
> 
> 
> 
> In light of Wilson's post, I wonder if German is being a bit disingenuous in the quote above?


I would guess the CC member involved here was Harman there are quite a number of stories about him on the SU site. I have no idea if there is any truth to them but the number of them suggests something.


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> For local anarchist involvement and input in order to challenge the stitch-ups, the lifelessness the timidity and so on - but once the first thing went against them they stormed off.


That was my line!  

It was a very odd sight to see loads of anarchists, who'd rather lock on and get arrested than eat their dinner, shying away from enduring a few meetings and speaking their mind to all the SWP hacks. Only the CND "anarchists" were with me, and they have a long history of accommodating leninists and didn't rock the boat.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 16, 2013)

Random said:


> What did you argue? I was one of the very few anarchist involved with STWC in an organised way. Lots of Manchester anarchoes I knew just treated the SWP/MAB like kryptonite.


Arrg. The K - word.


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

If the Argentines are to get the Falklands then the Swedes should at least get Krondstadt back


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm assuming that 'Dem Cent' as a method of decision making results in policy/praxis that it the settled will of the majority of the party membership? That given, the decision of the CC to try this member 'in-house', on the basis of disengagement with the capitalist justice system, would appear to be intrinsic to the Leninist organisation model?
> The other instances of expulsion appear inconsistent with the party's founding principle of not engaging with the criminal justice system; were they just politically convenient?


 
No, I'm saying SPECIFICALLY that it's got nothing to do with setting up a parallel legal system or what has taken place inside the SWP. For dem cent to work the membership must know what they are discussing and voting on, and they must be able to attend conference (hard when dissenters are expelled for thinking about dissent. This issue has rumbled on for 2 years but it's only in the last few weeks that most people have found out that this was an allegation of rape as opposed to an affair that got a bit messy. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT THE MEMBERSHIP WERE TOLD. All Dem Cent requires is wide ranging democratic discussion at branch, regional and national level, in order to arrive at decisions that members are then expected to abide by, but most swp members knew nothing of this. Whether you think Leninism by definition means that you must disengage from the criminal justice system is up for debate, but personally I would say not. Lenin famously said that revolutionaries should work within bourgeois parliaments, however corrupt, for as long as they were recognised as legitimate by the vast majority of the working class. I would apply exactly the same attitude to the bourgeois justice system, as a Leninist. Many SWP members would perhaps argue that I'm not a Leninist, as it goes, but they're just fucking wrong, so there.

Re the other expulsions: I don't think these were politically convenient, that's just the norm. If memory serves, the crimes were possession and GBH respectively. Like I say, I don't think there's any suggestion that this is the normal way that the SWP would deal with criminal allegations.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I've got a female SWP member on facebook who's put literally NOTHING about this at all but quite a bit of stuff about the indian gang-rape etc


 Me too! Wonder if its the same one?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

For those of you who know Vauxhall well, you'll see that the SWPs week just got even worse.​​​


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 16, 2013)

Was it Richard Seymour in a kamikaze attack?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Was it Richard Seymour in a kamikaze attack?


 
Now there's one for Icke's forum! It looks pretty hairy. As much as I dislike them I sincerely hope no one from their HQ is hurt.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> No, I'm saying SPECIFICALLY that it's got nothing to do with setting up a parallel legal system or what has taken place inside the SWP. For dem cent to work the membership must know what they are discussing and voting on, and they must be able to attend conference (hard when dissenters are expelled for thinking about dissent. This issue has rumbled on for 2 years but it's only in the last few weeks that most people have found out that this was an allegation of rape as opposed to an affair that got a bit messy. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT THE MEMBERSHIP WERE TOLD. All Dem Cent requires is wide ranging democratic discussion at branch, regional and national level, in order to arrive at decisions that members are then expected to abide by, but most swp members knew nothing of this. Whether you think Leninism by definition means that you must disengage from the criminal justice system is up for debate, but personally I would say not. Lenin famously said that revolutionaries should work within bourgeois parliaments, however corrupt, for as long as they were recognised as legitimate by the vast majority of the working class. I would apply exactly the same attitude to the bourgeois justice system, as a Leninist. Many SWP members would perhaps argue that I'm not a Leninist, as it goes, but they're just fucking wrong, so there.
> 
> Re the other expulsions: I don't think these were politically convenient, that's just the norm. If memory serves, the crimes were possession and GBH respectively. Like I say, I don't think there's any suggestion that this is the normal way that the SWP would deal with criminal allegations.


I bow to your more direct experience, but wrt disengagement from the criminal justice system, have you read the party's official, published response?
It contains some comments that would appear to confirm that your interpretation of Leninist engagement is indeed at odds with that of the SWP:-


> _"This was an internal matter..."_
> _"... our internal structures seek to promote women to leading roles and deal rigorously with any action by any member that is harmful or disrespectful of women."_
> _"The case was discussed at length at a session of our conference, which voted to accept the report and overwhelmingly re-elected the Disputes Committee."_



http://www.swp.org.uk/14/01/2013/response-attacks-swp


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2013)

kavenism said:


> For those of you who know Vauxhall well, you'll see that the SWPs week just got even worse.​​​


 
What the fuck is that?


----------



## Random (Jan 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What the fuck is that?


The helicopter crash


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 16, 2013)

It's in the news and everything.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> This issue has rumbled on for 2 years but it's only in the last few weeks that most people have found out that this was an allegation of rape as opposed to an affair that got a bit messy. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT THE MEMBERSHIP WERE TOLD.


Ok I am starting to get tired of saying this, but the rape allegation was not made until September 2012.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

My god, i had no idea things had got this bad:



> At its most extreme, the sycophancy appears cult-like. A number of CC members are big fans of _jazz_ music. Under their leadership over the past few years, the party has organised a number of (mostly loss-making) jazz gigs as fundraising events. _Regardless of their own musical tastes, comrades were told they were disloyal if they didn't purchase tickets._ This elevates the cultural tastes of the official leadership to a point of political principle; and clearly is not in any way a healthy state of affairs.


 
Being forced to buy tickets to jazz festivals. *shudders*


----------



## articul8 (Jan 16, 2013)

Looking forward to the AMM response to this turn to compulsory jazz


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I bow to your more direct experience, but wrt disengagement from the criminal justice system, have you read the party's official, published response?
> It contains some comments that would appear to confirm that your interpretation of Leninist engagement is indeed at odds with that of the SWP:-
> 
> 
> http://www.swp.org.uk/14/01/2013/response-attacks-swp


 
Oh, I know I disagree with the SWP, but I think you'd be hard pushed to defend their definition-it's more of a cover for centralised command. Bit like how Stalin invoked Lenin in order to do bad stuff...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> It's in the news and everything.


 
Serious? What channel?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> My god, i had no idea things had got this bad:
> 
> 
> 
> Being forced to buy tickets to jazz festivals. *shudders*


Indeed the SWP CC are truly Devils in human guise. 


Actually I quite like Jazz.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Indeed the SWP CC are truly Devils in human guise.
> 
> 
> Actually I quite like Jazz.


 
Clearly those who reject Jazz are outside the Leninist tradition.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I bow to your more direct experience, but wrt disengagement from the criminal justice system, have you read the party's official, published response?
> It contains some comments that would appear to confirm that your interpretation of Leninist engagement is indeed at odds with that of the SWP:-
> 
> 
> http://www.swp.org.uk/14/01/2013/response-attacks-swp


 
Think you're reading way too much into the thing about it being an internal matter. We're told that the alleged victim didn't want to go to the police and in the absence of evidence otherwise we must assume that's true. They couldn't really force her could they?

So they're left with a choice - either do nothing, which means you potentially have a sex case as your national secretary. Or you could just kick him out without any kind of investigation. Or you can have an investigation, as they did.

This isn't instead of a court case, though some of the daft comments in the transcript make it look that way. It was an internal investigation to find out whether he had done things that make him unfit for his position/membership of the party. Think of it as being more like the kind of thing HR departments do when a manager is accused of harassment or summat but the alleged victim doesn't want to take it further.

After thinking it through I don't think they had any choice but to do some kind of investigation. It's the way it was carried out that's a problem.

If you disagree what would you suggest as an alternative course of action?


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2013)

the concept of having a jazz concert as a fund raising event is a novel one, has to be said.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> My god, i had no idea things had got this bad:
> 
> 
> 
> Being forced to buy tickets to jazz festivals. *shudders*


 
I went to a Jazz gig at Marxism 2009. It was shit.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> My god, i had no idea things had got this bad:
> 
> 
> 
> Being forced to buy tickets to jazz festivals. *shudders*


----------



## sihhi (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> My god, i had no idea things had got this bad:
> 
> Being forced to buy tickets to jazz festivals. *shudders*


 

This final line:



> the SWP remains, for all I've said, the best thing the British working class has at its disposal


 
in what way is the SWP at your disposal?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This final line:
> 
> 
> 
> in what way is the SWP at your disposal?


That sort of thing (and this one: "The entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP") is why i'm not that optimistic this new lot calling for a cleaning out of the stables are that different in their political conceptions.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Looking forward to the AMM response to this turn to compulsory jazz


 
I am fully behind (((((compulsory jazz )))))


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 16, 2013)

you need to clean the stables out every few months so you can fill them with shit again


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Think you're reading way too much into the thing about it being an internal matter. We're told that the alleged victim didn't want to go to the police and in the absence of evidence otherwise we must assume that's true. They couldn't really force her could they?
> 
> So they're left with a choice - either do nothing, which means you potentially have a sex case as your national secretary. Or you could just kick him out without any kind of investigation. Or you can have an investigation, as they did.
> 
> ...


 
Impossible to know for sure of course, but I've heard from a few places that 'W' was persuaded that going to the police would be used against the party. I've even heard that 'W' is still a member of the party from one excitable Swiz kid.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

I have it on good authority that she is still a member. No way of knowing how true the stuff about them forcing it is though - plenty of people with personal reasons to make that up. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me, not necessarily from the leadership but from some of their more excitable ACAB members.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That sort of thing (and this one: "The entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP") is why i'm not that optimistic this new lot calling for a cleaning out of the stables are that different in their political conceptions.


 
There is this line in the contribution from Emma Rock as well.



> Demonstrating that we are an organisation that can take on board its failures and change to remedy them, is the only way I believe we will restore our reputation in the eyes of the class


 
I hate to break it to her but most of 'the class' doesn't have a clue that the SWP exists let alone that it is crises, and they care even less.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Think you're reading way too much into the thing about it being an internal matter. We're told that the alleged victim didn't want to go to the police and in the absence of evidence otherwise we must assume that's true. They couldn't really force her could they?
> 
> So they're left with a choice - either do nothing, which means you potentially have a sex case as your national secretary. Or you could just kick him out without any kind of investigation. Or you can have an investigation, as they did.
> 
> ...


 
Glad you've got the patience to write it out like that. That was what I was trying to say and clearly failed.

ETA because I think it's worth underlining: Red Cat - not a complete fucking idiot after all.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 16, 2013)

the other thing about that Jazz malarky was Delta's penchant for having himself up on stage DJing alongside the likes of Miss Dynamite and Pete Doherty at LMHR gigs... lol? like some fucking music afficionado


----------



## two sheds (Jan 16, 2013)

Shows how far these so-called socialists today have come from their pure Marxist/Leninist roots, where jazz is rightly seen as just a decadent import from bourgeois America. 

They should be lumped in with New Labour and all the other neo-socialist cunts .


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What to people make of this, posted on Ian Bone's blog - http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/towards-a-new-movement-on-what-basis-do-discussions-begin/


 
Completely abstains on the LGBT question


----------



## articul8 (Jan 16, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> having himself up on stage DJing alongside the likes of Miss Dynamite and Pete Doherty at LMHR gigs... lol? like some fucking music afficionado


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Completely abstains on the LGBT question


 
It's LGBTQ these days you big homophobe


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's LGBTQ these days you big homophobe


 
You're all homophobes, it's LGBTQI now.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 16, 2013)

Actually the latest acronym is QUILTBAG.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 16, 2013)

don't like the word queer i've got to say because i associate it with a homophobic insult.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> don't like the word queer i've got to say because i associate it with a homophobic insult.


your loss.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 16, 2013)

L(esbian)G(ay)B(i)T(ransgender)Q(ueer)P(olyromantic)O(therkin)A(sexual)

LBGTQPOA

i see i'm the most advanced socialist in the room...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

Yeah but now you've got advanced socialist privilege so you're oppressing us


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 16, 2013)

you forgot about your oppression privilege, oppressed-kin using their privilege check privileges is a privilege i will never know of - in other words, privilege check-MATE


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> don't like the word queer i've got to say because i associate it with a homophobic insult.


 
From what I can gather it's partly about reclaiming the term (like blacks did with nigger) and it's partly about queer theory, which argues (I think - never read any of it so this is second hand) that people have multiple sexual and gender identities so it's pointless using terms like gay, bisexual etc. and instead queer is used to describe anyone who's not heterosexual.

I reckon they're nearly there - that we shouldn't identify by our gender, sexuality or whatever but just as people and judge eachother according to their opinions and actions - what they do rather than what they are. That's what gets me about some of this identity stuff - it's almost like some of them are demanding that you give a shit whether they're gay or whatever, when surely it should be the opposite?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Think you're reading way too much into the thing about it being an internal matter. We're told that the alleged victim didn't want to go to the police and in the absence of evidence otherwise we must assume that's true. They couldn't really force her could they?
> 
> So they're left with a choice - either do nothing, which means you potentially have a sex case as your national secretary. Or you could just kick him out without any kind of investigation. Or you can have an investigation, as they did.
> 
> ...





SpineyNorman said:


> Think you're reading way too much into the thing about it being an internal matter. We're told that the alleged victim didn't want to go to the police and in the absence of evidence otherwise we must assume that's true. They couldn't really force her could they?
> 
> So they're left with a choice - either do nothing, which means you potentially have a sex case as your national secretary. Or you could just kick him out without any kind of investigation. Or you can have an investigation, as they did.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure about the HR deals with manager analogy.
I really can't imagine that other organisations would, at worst, encourage/coerce a member(employee) not to take the accusation to the police. Or, at best, offer the impression that an internal investigation could in any way bring about a just outcome.
I think this very unsatisfactory situation derives from the fact that the organistion concerned has acted in an authoritarian manner to contain the accusations, protect the organisation and presume to take on the role of the state.
An alternative course of action would depend upon the SWP being none of those things.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm not sure about the HR deals with manager analogy.
> I really can't imagine that other organisations would, at worst, encourage/coerce a member(employee) not to take the accusation to the police. Or, at best, offer the impression that an internal investigation could in any way bring about a just outcome.
> I think this very unsatisfactory situation derives from the fact that the organistion concerned has acted in an authoritarian manner to contain the accusations, protect the organisation and presume to take on the role of the state.
> An alternative course of action would depend upon the SWP being none of those things.


 
I agree. But it really wasn't intended to be an alternative to criminal charges.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 16, 2013)

oppression privilege works in a similar way to working-class privilege, i.e. working class-kin who fail to see how their class gives them so much extra credibility in leftwing circles that they unfairly oppress middle-class polyromantics, A-sexuals and fashion-punks. serious privilege checks in order.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 16, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> L(esbian)G(ay)B(i)T(ransgender)Q(ueer)P(olyromantic)O(therkin)A(sexual)
> 
> 
> LBGTQPOA
> ...


 

It's normally LGBTPQIA​​lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, polyamorous, questioning, intersex, asexual. 
I don't know how the O comes in.

​https://millersville.collegiatelink.net/organization/thegsaatmu/calendar/details/135176


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

Please tell me you just made working class privilege up, I don't want to live in a world where people argue that kind of shit.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I agree. But it really wasn't intended to be an alternative to criminal charges.


 
Is it impolite to ask how you know that to be so?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 16, 2013)

some of the more nutty blogs aren't too far away from it but yeah, i made it up...

sihhi

i duly hang my head in ignorant, bigotted shame..


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Is it impolite to ask how you know that to be so?


 
Jesus christ. I give up.


----------



## Trendy Trot (Jan 16, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Can you tell me how this came about? Why was he speaking about it at conference? I thought an informal complaint had been made to the CC at this point. Have I missed something?



 Some CC members had gone up to the woman's district to talk to her about the it and to "persuade" her not to make an official complaint. There was a lot of chatter on the blogs and around the student groups nationally, so Smith was forced to address it, hence the speech to conference in 2011. 

Don't know how many of the people who made the grovelling speeches and gave him the standing ovation knew the whole story though,  can't believe it was too many of them.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I would guess the CC member involved here was Harman there are quite a number of stories about him on the SU site. I have no idea if there is any truth to them but the number of them suggests something.


 
An Inspecter calls

http://cominform.blogspot.co.uk/2004/06/show-trial-6-chris-harman.html


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> From what I can gather it's partly about reclaiming the term (like blacks did with nigger) and it's partly about queer theory, which argues (I think - never read any of it so this is second hand) that people have multiple sexual and gender identities so it's pointless using terms like gay, bisexual etc. and instead queer is used to describe anyone who's not heterosexual.
> 
> I reckon they're nearly there - that we shouldn't identify by our gender, sexuality or whatever but just as people and judge eachother according to their opinions and actions - what they do rather than what they are. That's what gets me about some of this identity stuff - it's almost like some of them are demanding that you give a shit whether they're gay or whatever, when surely it should be the opposite?


 
That used to be called being colourblind. Wasn't good enough apparantly you had to be able to *promote* diversity.


----------



## Trendy Trot (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The woman who made the rape accusation made an accusation of sexual harassment against the same person in 2010. The CC decided that it was fit to oversee this complaint at this point  (though she was given the option of going to DC) and passed a resolution that cleared him of it (apparently on the basis of asking him if he had done it). They made a statement about it at the 2011 conference. Smith spoke about it and was given a standing ovation.



Slight correction there butchersapron, the CC didn't clear him of the allegations, that's why he resigned as National Secretary. They made him do that, despite his protestations that he was going to love having the opportunity to work full time in the Industrial Department. It's the same tactic as bourgeois politicians who declare they are standing down in order to "spend more time with their family". And evokes the same scepticism amongst those listening.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> L(esbian)G(ay)B(i)T(ransgender)Q(ueer)P(olyromantic)O(therkin)A(sexual)
> 
> LBGTQPOA
> 
> i see i'm the most advanced socialist in the room...


 
Otherkin should *always* be oppressed, preferably with cast iron blocks in the face.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Please tell me you just made working class privilege up, I don't want to live in a world where people argue that kind of shit.


 
I bet Dave does, though.


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

Spiney re HR investigating: as I've said a couple of times now, you check at each stage re confidentiality. From the outset of the complaint you make it clear that confidentiality has the proviso that the organisation at some point may have to breach confidentiality to the complainant if there's a duty to report to the police. 

So as matters unfold, it may well be that the complainant has to be told that the organisation is reporting to the OB even if they won't. Then the OB decide whether to take it up with complainant (who can then tell OB that they don't want to pursue it, if applicable) but the organisation has covered its back.

 Then the organisation carries on with the investigation, and makes an employment decision based on balance of probabilities. And the OB (if applicable) pursue separately and maybe prosecute, and then any conviction is made on higher criminal burden of proof. So the alleged abuser could be sacked (or whatever sanction) but still be not prosecuted, or prosecuted and found not guilty.

And there's all sorts of variations on the above - that's just a summary.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I bet Dave does, though.


 
Comes very fucking close when she talks about the soi-disant left not listening to anyone who's not white, male and working class doesn't she?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's normally
> LGBTPQIA​​lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, polyamorous, questioning, intersex, asexual.
> I don't know how the O comes in.
> 
> ​https://millersville.collegiatelink.net/organization/thegsaatmu/calendar/details/135176


 

Is there a section 'can't be arsed unless a number of completley random ,highly complex and unlikley set of factors happen to be present and even then I am liklely to change my mind and go home' ?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> some of the more nutty blogs aren't too far away from it but yeah, i made it up...
> 
> sihhi
> 
> i duly hang my head in ignorant, bigotted shame..


Bet there is an article about it in the New Statsmen within a week.


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Comes very fucking close when she talks about the soi-disant left not listening to anyone who's not white, male and working class doesn't she?


Was that in response to my post above yours?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 16, 2013)

working classes have been arrogantly flaunting their backgrounds in left wing circles for far too long


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> Spiney re HR investigating: as I've said a couple of times now, you check at each stage re confidentiality. From the outset of the complaint you make it clear that confidentiality has the proviso that the organisation at some point may have to breach confidentiality to the complainant if there's a duty to report to the police.
> 
> So as matters unfold, it may well be that the complainant has to be told that the organisation is reporting to the OB even if they won't. Then the OB decide whether to take it up with complainant (who can then tell OB that they don't want to pursue it, if applicable) but the organisation has covered its back.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah they've not done the investigation properly - I certainly don't think they've taken the steps they should have taken - the whole thing has been a massive fuck up from start to finish. But it's not right to say this was intended to be the equivalent to a criminal investigation - the woman didn't want to take it to the police and the 'punishment' wouldn't and couldn't have been any more severe than getting the boot from the party (which some might argue is more reward than punishment).

I just think that what they've done is bad enough without adding stuff about them running their own parallel criminal justice system.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> Was that in response to my post above yours?


 
No, was a reply to VP - you must have got your post in before I pressed reply. Sorry.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 16, 2013)

Is the apex of privilege having the left listen to you then? nothing else matters like housing, income etc? (which will mean the left is more likely to listen to you anyway, well large sections of it)


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 16, 2013)

otherkin isn't a real sexuality ffs. Its just made up shit on the internet.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah they've not done the investigation properly - I certainly don't think they've taken the steps they should have taken - the whole thing has been a massive fuck up from start to finish. But it's not right to say this was intended to be the equivalent to a criminal investigation - the woman didn't want to take it to the police and the 'punishment' wouldn't and couldn't have been any more severe than getting the boot from the party (which some might argue is more reward than punishment).
> 
> I just think that what they've done is bad enough without adding stuff about them running their own parallel criminal justice system.


Even if it had been reported to the police and no matter what the outcome was the SWP would have still needed to have their own hearing.


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah they've not done the investigation properly - I certainly don't think they've taken the steps they should have taken - the whole thing has been a massive fuck up from start to finish. But it's not right to say this was intended to be the equivalent to a criminal investigation - the woman didn't want to take it to the police and the 'punishment' wouldn't and couldn't have been any more severe than getting the boot from the party (which some might argue is more reward than punishment).
> 
> I just think that what they've done is bad enough without adding stuff about them running their own parallel criminal justice system.


Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here. But I thought you said that it was akin to someone from HR investigating a manager where the complainant didn't want to take it to the police.

All I'm saying is that HR/the organisation might have to take it to the police whether or not the complainant wanted to do so herself, so you can't really draw that parallel.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Comes very fucking close when she talks about the soi-disant left not listening to anyone who's not white, male and working class doesn't she?


 
Well quite, mate. "Don't oppress me with your experience-based facts when I'm pontificating about your lives, plebs" has been her approach in her contributions on this thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> working classes have been arrogantly flaunting their backgrounds in left wing circles for far too long


 
Dirty proletarian scum who don't know their place!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here. But I thought you said that it was akin to someone from HR investigating a manager where the complainant didn't want to take it to the police.
> 
> All I'm saying is that HR/the organisation might have to take it to the police whether or not the complainant wanted to do so herself, so you can't really draw that parallel.


 
Yeah I get your point - but I reckon what the SWP did was at least _supposed_ to be the equivalent to something like that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Reads like the Seymourites think Rees et al haven't gone far enough in jettisoning the IS worldview. Which does kind of back up what some of us have been saying about the nature of the LT game.


 
You have a narrative, which may or may not have some truth to it, but you are forcing just about everything to fit it, even when there's nothing there. That particular exchange illustrates nothing other than that at least some of the animals who are in revolt against the pigs are shrewd enough not to believe the deposed farmers when they claim that they want to run a much nicer operation now.

I mean, German of all people to be going on about the regime inside the SWP. The "Seymourite" was perfectly reasonable in asking her for an explanation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> otherkin isn't a real sexuality ffs. Its just made up shit on the internet.


 
Unfortunately, there are a number (ever-growing, ffs!  ) of strange folk who believe they're actually elves, vampires and other mystical beasties, and while I don't know about their sexualities (although I hear that male elves are hung like pit ponies and only have eyes for each other), they're certainly attempting to create a culture/subculture.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Even if it had been reported to the police and no matter what the outcome was the SWP would have still needed to have their own hearing.


 
True - but if I were them I'd have been tempted to just suspend him till the criminal case was over with then think about the investigation - cos if he's found guilty by the courts your job's pretty much done for you - got to give him the boot then.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here. But I thought you said that it was akin to someone from HR investigating a manager where the complainant didn't want to take it to the police.
> 
> All I'm saying is that HR/the organisation might have to take it to the police whether or not the complainant wanted to do so herself, so you can't really draw that parallel.


I think this was discussed earlier in the thread and it was pointe out that apart from anything else their really is no point reporting a rape to the police if the victim does not want to, as it would be virtually impossible to prosecute without her support.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, there are a number (ever-growing, ffs!  ) of strange folk who believe they're actually elves, vampires and other mystical beasties, and while I don't know about their sexualities (although I hear that male elves are hung like pit ponies and only have eyes for each other), they're certainly attempting to create a culture/subculture.


 
well for fucks sake if somebody actually believes they're an elf or whatever they probably have a psychiatric problem and need help,and i say that not in a disparaging way because i've got mental health problems myself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, there are a number (ever-growing, ffs!  ) of strange folk who believe they're actually elves, vampires and other mystical beasties, and while I don't know about their sexualities (although I hear that male elves are hung like pit ponies and only have eyes for each other), they're certainly attempting to create a culture/subculture.


 
You're shitting me? If I'm supposed to respect that shit they might as well put my name on the bigot list and have done with it. If anything these people need psychiatric help, not for us to respect their fantasies.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 16, 2013)

non-vampire privilege rears it's ugly head


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 16, 2013)

Their issues certainly dont deserve to be given the same consideration as things like racism, homophobia, transphobia etc because there is no such thing as elves, apart from ensuring they have access to the appropriate psychological treatment and aren't discriminated because of that. sorry to sound like a cunt but if you actually think you're an elf then you need fucking help.


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah I get your point - but I reckon what the SWP did was at least _supposed_ to be the equivalent to something like that.


Well, it might have been - we just don't know enough to say one way or the other. 

But what we *do* know is that there's an assumption/allegation that the SWP don't have recourse to bourgeois capitalist legal justice systems, and therefore they might only see internal discipline/sanction as the possible outcome if the complainant won't report to the police (for whatever reason). Which is taking the law into their own hands.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's normally
> LGBTPQIA​​lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, polyamorous, questioning, intersex, asexual.
> I don't know how the O comes in.
> 
> ​https://millersville.collegiatelink.net/organization/thegsaatmu/calendar/details/135176


 

Questioning? Is all it takes to be a minority theses days a bit of doubt? Spare a thought for the questioning masses for they know not what they do. And I'm not at all convinced of the inclusion of Polyamorous folk. I think there we begin to move from identity into pure lifestyle politics.

<awaits the hate>


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> True - but if I were them I'd have been tempted to just suspend him till the criminal case was over with then think about the investigation - cos if he's found guilty by the courts your job's pretty much done for you - got to give him the boot then.


Absolutely, the only possible justification for not expelling him if found guilty would be if there was a serious possibility he was framed by the state. And since there is in reality almost no chance of that happening he would need to be expelled. The same is not necessarily true of other crimes of course.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Their issues certainly dont deserve to be given the same consideration as things like racism, homophobia, transphobia etc because there is no such thing as elves, apart from ensuring they have access to the appropriate psychological treatment and aren't discriminated because of that. sorry to sound like a cunt but if you actually think you're an elf then you need fucking help.


 
Exactly - I've known people who've indulged the paranoia of paranoid schizophrenics, thinking that they were being their friends. It really doesn't help to confirm these delusions in that way - though I suspect most of them know full well that it's bollocks but just think it's a bit of fun/opportunity to pretend to be oppressed.


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think this was discussed earlier in the thread and it was pointe out that apart from anything else their really is no point reporting a rape to the police if the victim does not want to, as it would be virtually impossible to prosecute without her support.


But (a) she could change her mind at any point, even now; and (b) there may be a legal duty to report.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Trendy Trot said:


> Slight correction there butchersapron, the CC didn't clear him of the allegations, that's why he resigned as National Secretary. They made him do that, despite his protestations that he was going to love having the opportunity to work full time in the Industrial Department. It's the same tactic as bourgeois politicians who declare they are standing down in order to "spend more time with their family". And evokes the same scepticism amongst those listening.


 
Happy to take your word on this. From my reading of the Dispute committees report of what happened regarding the original allegations of sexual harassment was that the CC asked some basic questions of 'delta' then "An informal resolution was reached which was agreed and accepted by W.". Now, it's unclear in what sense resolution is intended here - resolution in that the dispute had been resolved (which clearly it hasn't proved to be) or that they had _passed a resolution_. If the latter, that could _only_ be a resolution clearing him (at least formally) of the charge of sexual harassment or else he would have faced formal sanction, which as we know, he didn't. The informal sanction you talk about clearly did happen, but to me that could only be necessary if he had been cleared by the CC's investigation. Or there simply would be no need for it. But, as i said above, resolution could just mean resolved (in their eyes at that point). One of those minor points that could actually prove to be important i think (or utterly irrelevant).


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> But (a) she could change her mind at any point, even now; and (b) there may be a legal duty to report.


A, Absoutly but that is her choice.

B, Speaking personally, I could not give a shit about a legal duty. No way would I force a rape victim to go to the police if she didn't want to. The more compelling argument would be the moral duty to protect other women. I may be wrong but sorry I still would not force her to go to the police I just couldn't do it, and I don't think anyone else should either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> But (a) she could change her mind at any point, even now; and (b) there may be a legal duty to report.


Sometimes we're told the police have a legal duty to investigate reports of crimes. But if you report a stolen cycle or a mugging they do fuck all. Even for a burglary you don't get much these days. So if they don't give a toss about their legal duty, people who don't want to report a crime shouldn't think they're under any onus to do so


----------



## sihhi (Jan 16, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Questioning? Is all it takes to be a minority theses days a bit of doubt? Spare a thought for the questioning masses for they know not what they do. And I'm not at all convinced of the inclusion of Polyamorous folk. I think there we begin to move from identity into pure lifestyle politics.
> 
> <awaits the hate>



The inclusion for what, why - what are the aims? how is it unifying solid class politics and banishing chauvanism? - 90% of it is garbage - not a pop at you.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The inclusion for what, why - what are the aims? how is it unifying solid class politics and banishing chauvanism? - 90% of it is garbage - not a pop at you.


 
I don't disagree.


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> A, Absoutly but that is her choice.
> 
> B, Speaking personally, I could not give a shit about a legal duty. No way would I force a rape victim to go to the police if she didn't want to. The more compelling argument would be the moral duty to protect other women. I may be wrong but sorry I still would not force her to go to the police I just couldn't do it, and I don't think anyone else should either.


You *don't* force her to go. The organisation reports to the police (if appropriate, and her knowing from the outset that this might be a possibility) and then the police take it up with her (if they want to) and she can tell them to do one (if she wants to). The organisation's covered, the onus is off the complainant for reporting, and if she really doesn't want to pursue it she doesn't have to. And the organisation's hands aren't tied from pursuing internally.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

Lenin would be turning in his tomb....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/16/lenin-body-poll-moving-mausoleum


...or grave?


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Sometimes we're told the police have a legal duty to investigate reports of crimes. But if you report a stolen cycle or a mugging they do fuck all. Even for a burglary you don't get much these days. So if they don't give a toss about their legal duty, people who don't want to report a crime shouldn't think they're under any onus to do so


People - as in individuals - don't have to. Organisations might.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> You *don't* force her to go. The organisation reports to the police (if appropriate, and her knowing from the outset that this might be a possibility) and then the police take it up with her (if they want to) and she can tell them to do one (if she wants to). The organisation's covered, the onus is off the complainant for reporting, and if she really doesn't want to pursue it she doesn't have to. And the organisation's hands aren't tied from pursuing internally.


 
As you might expect...unless the organisation delusionally beleives itself to be some sort of paralell workers state!


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> But (a) she could change her mind at any point, even now; and (b) there may be a legal duty to report.


 
Does that apply to rape? If the woman (or man) didn't want to go to the police?

ETA: Sorry, I see you've already answered that.


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Does that apply to rape? If the woman (or man) didn't want to go to the police?


Yes.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> You *don't* force her to go. The organisation reports to the police (if appropriate, and her knowing from the outset that this might be a possibility) and then the police take it up with her (if they want to) and she can tell them to do one (if she wants to). The organisation's covered, the onus is off the complainant for reporting, and if she really doesn't want to pursue it she doesn't have to. And the organisation's hands aren't tied from pursuing internally.


I don't see a distinction between forcing her to go to the police and reporting it to the police who then take it up with her. It amounts to the same thins either way she is being made to talk to the police when she doesn't want to.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> As you might expect...unless the organisation delusionally beleives itself to be some sort of paralell workers state!


 
It doesn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> People - as in individuals - don't have to. Organisations might.


No, they don't.


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I don't see a distinction between forcing her to go to the police and reporting it to the police who then take it up with her. It amounts to the same thins either way she is being made to talk to the police when she doesn't want to.


There is a distinction, in that the organisation has dual responsibility. To the complainant and to itself/members. If someone makes a serious allegation, in this case rape but it could be any serious crime, the organisation can't just decide for itself and become judge and jury.


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> No, they don't.


They might if they don't want to face potential criminal and/or civil proceedings.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> As you might expect...unless the organisation delusionally beleives itself to be some sort of paralell workers state!


 
giving "dual power" a whole new meaning


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 16, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the other thing about that Jazz malarky was Delta's penchant for having himself up on stage DJing alongside the likes of Miss Dynamite and Pete Doherty at LMHR gigs... lol? like some fucking music afficionado





Das Uberdog said:


> the other thing about that Jazz malarky was Delta's penchant for having himself up on stage DJing alongside the likes of Miss Dynamite and Pete Doherty at LMHR gigs... lol? like some fucking music afficionado


I wasn't a fan of his, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt until an ANL concert in Brixton in 1991. He - and Gary McFarlane - clearly lost the run of themselves while MCing between acts. I was an SWP member at the time and the sight of their giddy prancing and breathless exhortations to the crowd really made me cringe.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> It doesn't.


 
By definition, that's exactly what a Leninist vanguard party elite believes itself to be; uniquely placed to lead the proletariat in the formation of the workers state. No?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> Well, it might have been - we just don't know enough to say one way or the other.
> 
> But what we *do* know is that there's an assumption/allegation that the SWP don't have recourse to bourgeois capitalist legal justice systems


 
I honestly don't think this is the position of the SWP.


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I honestly don't think this is the position of the SWP.



You might not, but it was an allegation voiced at the conference. Personally, I have no idea and think there just isn't enough information to speculate one way or the other.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Otherkin should *always* be oppressed, preferably with cast iron blocks in the face.


But I'm a dwagon! And a tiger! A dragon-tiger! Stop oppressing me, man. Whaddya mean I'm into bestiality?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> By definition, that's exactly what a Leninist vanguard party elite believes itself to be; uniquely placed to lead the proletariat in the formation of the workers state. No?


 
That's not the same as believing itself to already _be _a parallel state, which is what you're implying.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> By definition, that's exactly what a Leninist vanguard party elite believes itself to be; uniquely placed to lead the proletariat in the formation of the workers state. No?


 
It's not a workers state.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> It's not a workers state.


 
Is 'dictatorship of the proletariat' the preferred SWP term?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's not the same as believing itself to already _be _a parallel state, which is what you're implying.


 
Maybe, but who know's what's going on in the heads of people who believe themselves uniquely placed or qualified to lead the revolution?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Is 'dictatorship of the proletariat' the preferred SWP term?


 
Look, you are talking bollocks. Stop wasting everyone's time.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 16, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> It's not a workers state.


It is a very naughty boy


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2013)

Are otherkin furries and the like?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> Are otherkin furries and the like?


It's racists like you who'd have cold-blooded otherkins sitting at the back of the zoo bus


----------



## Athos (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> You're shitting me? If I'm supposed to respect that shit they might as well put my name on the bigot list and have done with it.



Laurie was right!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Look, you are talking bollocks. Stop wasting everyone's time.


 
I honestly thought that's what Leninists desired?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> You might not, but it was an allegation voiced at the conference. Personally, I have no idea and think there just isn't enough information to speculate one way or the other.


 

I don't recall such a position from when I was a member.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Is 'dictatorship of the proletariat' the preferred SWP term?


 
That's a _Marxist _term and you clearly have no idea what it means.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's a _Marxist _term and you clearly have no idea what it means.


The preferred term by _some_ marxists.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> Are otherkin furries and the like?


Yup.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The preferred term by _some_ marxists.


 
My point is that a) it's not exclusive to the SWP or Leninists (it's a term Marx himself used) and b) it doesn't mean what brogdale seems to think it means.


----------



## Firky (Jan 16, 2013)

This is one of the best threads on here, learned loads by reading / following it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> My point is that a) it's not exclusive to the SWP or Leninists and b) it doesn't mean what brogdale seems to think it means.


Can't think of any non-leninists who use it, who make it a central part of their approach. To be honest, i don't want to get into this now, just couldn't help myself responding though


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 16, 2013)

back on the 'should they/shouldn't they have investigated' issue, in light of W's unwillingness to take the matter to court, what option would the SWP have other than to conduct its own investigation? so far as i can see, it's either expel Delta at W's say-so without any investigation, or ignore the accusations altogether. 

the remit of the investigation could not on any level have been to 'convict' Delta of a crime; the furthest it could go would be to ascertain whether or not Delta was still suitable for continued membership. as i argued earlier in the thread, any organisation which failed to ascertain this fact would be acting gravely irresponsibly. so, the investigation wouldn't have to prove either way that Delta was a rapist or not, simply explore whether or not the allegations provided evidence of unacceptable behaviour _in any regard_. that's not the same of being convicted of committing a crime.

again, i don't think the problem is with the idea of conducting an investigation, but in the remit such an investigation allows itself and also the processes which are involved. in this instance i cannot personally believe the results of Disputes, i think that Delta is at _the very least_ guilty of harassment and i do not believe Disputes was ever realistically going to expel him.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can't think of any non-leninists who use it, who make it a central part of their approach. To be honest, i don't want to get into this now, just couldn't help myself responding though


 
I don't particularly want a long drawn out debate on it either but Marx seemed to think it was quite important.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately, there are a number (ever-growing, ffs!  ) of strange folk who believe they're actually elves, *vampires* and other mystical beasties


 
I bet they'd suddenly stop believing that bollocks if I went at them with a stake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I bet they'd suddenly stop believing that bollocks if I went at them with a stake.


or turned them into steaks


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't particularly want a long drawn out debate on it either but Marx seemed to think it was quite important.


Not really (oops done it again ).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I bet they'd suddenly stop believing that bollocks if I went at them with a stake.


 
We should fucking bury them alive (or at least undead) in soil from their native lands before sunrise so they don't burn into nothingness (like that Dracula fella off the telly). It's the only way to properly respect them and their chosen identity.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 16, 2013)

can't believe all this unrepentent vampire hate. thought we'd left these attitudes back in the middle ages


----------



## cesare (Jan 16, 2013)

Does anyone know whether the CC are employed by the SWP or get a stipend or nothing? I think I saw mention of £15K pa somewhere but can't remember exactly.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 16, 2013)

they get paid the party wage, which i think is around 15k (don't know the precise number, but it's supposedly a flat wage throughout the office and districts)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not really (oops done it again ).


 




			
				Marx said:
			
		

> 'Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also the political transition period in which the state can be nothing but _the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.'_


 

Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875






			
				Marx said:
			
		

> 'This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the _class dictatorship of the proletariat_ as the necessary transit point to the abolition of all classes generally and to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.'


 
Class struggles in France, 1850.

Me too


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You have a narrative, which may or may not have some truth to it, but you are forcing just about everything to fit it, even when there's nothing there. That particular exchange illustrates nothing other than that at least some of the animals who are in revolt against the pigs are shrewd enough not to believe the deposed farmers when they claim that they want to run a much nicer operation now.


Love it! I don't agree but the analogy is so cool I can't bring myself to attack you


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

where's revol68?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't particularly want a long drawn out debate on it either but Marx seemed to think it was quite important.


 
He wrote about communists being the most advanced section of working class parties but I can't think of much more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> He wrote about communists being the most advanced section of working class parties but I can't think of much more.


he would say that wouldn't he


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> He wrote about communists being the most advanced section of working class parties but I can't think of much more.


 
See my post above.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 16, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> It's even made it to the Swindon Advertiser!
> http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...alist_Workers__Party/[/quote]I did notice the


 
I did notice the number 15a Swindon bus home was full of people reading the Advert article this evening. Vital issue for the class we all agreed. What a cock he is


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> See my post above.


But that's it - well, one other example from after crushing of the commune. Nothing else, of the tens of millions of words he wrote such a central part would surely have been touched on a tad more don't you think? Rather than the total lack of theoretical development of the concept, the total lack of repeated emphasis, the sparing use of the term and so on. The example that will undoubtedly be offered is the Paris Commune, The commune of which marx said “the Commune was by no means socialist and could not have been socialist” No, this DOP stuff today comes from State and Revolution, not Marx.

*drags self away, tea and football call*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I bet they'd suddenly stop believing that bollocks if I went at them with a stake.


 
Stop oppressing them with your human-centric ideals, you crypto-xenophobe!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> We should fucking bury them alive (or at least undead) in soil from their native lands before sunrise so they don't burn into nothingness (like that Dracula fella off the telly). It's the only way to properly respect them and their chosen identity.


 
Have you googled "otherkin" yet? Laugh a fucking minute!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But that's it - well, one other example from after crushing of the commune. Nothing else, of the tens of millions of words he wrote such a central part would surely have been touched on a tad more don't you think? Rather than the total lack of theoretical development of the concept, the total lack of repeated emphasis, the sparing use of the term and so on. The example that will undoubtedly be offered is the Paris Commune, The commune of which marx said “the Commune was by no means socialist and could not have been socialist” No, this DOP stuff today comes from State and Revolution, not Marx.
> 
> *drags self away, tea and football call*


 
Is that the one from his speech on the 7th anniversary of the international? I was saving that one 

Well he didn't really talk all that much about what he foresaw either in the transitionary period or after so it's hard to tell.

All the dictatorship of the proletariat means as far as I'm concerned is full executive power in the hands of a state under proletarian control. He refers to it (without using the term DoP) in the manifesto too. Dictatorship _by _the proletariat rather than a dictatorship _over _the proletariat.

As far as I'm concerned that never really existed in the USSR (for reasons partly beyond the Bolsheviks' control but that's another matter entirely).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have you googled "otherkin" yet? Laugh a fucking minute!


From wiki:


> *Otherkin* are a community of people who see themselves as partially or entirely non-human.


 
So the universal declaration of human rights and all that jazz doesn't apply to them then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> From wiki:
> 
> 
> So the universal declaration of human rights and all that jazz doesn't apply to them then?


 
I think it must do.

Lets load up on ammo and cheap whisky!!!


----------



## two sheds (Jan 16, 2013)

This seems a good point to say that a mate told me that when Marx first came to London, he and some friends booked a room above a pub for a meeting. The British Secret Service decided they ought to find out what they were talking about, so sent an agent who hid himself in the dumb waiter.

Unfortunately, they were all talking in German so the agent spent a cramped evening listening to a bunch of Germans he didn't understand getting progressively more pissed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

I reckon Marx would have been a right laugh to go out on the piss with but I bet you'd have had to buy all the drinks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I reckon Marx would have been a right laugh to go out on the piss with but I bet you'd have had to buy all the drinks.


 

get engels to get the rounds in


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is that the one from his speech on the 7th anniversary of the international? I was saving that one
> 
> Well he didn't really talk all that much about what he foresaw either in the transitionary period or after so it's hard to tell.
> 
> ...


 
What’s more important to realise I think is that  DOP is not just executive but also legislative power in the hands of the representatives of the proletariat. Contemporary theory (Agamben in particular) names this explicitly as The State of Exception. Zizek's mashed up all the nuance of this idea in his recent work but the bit which I think is most essential is the idea that under such conditions the norm of the Law is suspended but with the Law still in force. Formally speaking it renders the authority as quasi divine and unquestionable, the knife edge which historically has tended to end in revolutions falling into totalitarianism.

There’s a lot of very good, very important work being done in this area at the moment, and I think in all honesty despite how removed such an idea seems for contemporary struggle the status of DOP and such situations remains the great issue of all revolutionary politics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

kavenism said:


> What’s more important to realise I think is that DOP is not just executive but also legislative power in the hands of the representatives of the proletariat. Contemporary theory (Agamben in particular) names this explicitly as The State of Exception. Zizek's mashed up all the nuance of this idea in his recent work but the bit which I think is most essential is the idea that under such conditions the norm of the Law is suspended but with the Law still in force. Formally speaking it renders the authority as quasi divine and unquestionable, the knife edge which historically has tended to end in revolutions falling into totalitarianism.
> 
> There’s a lot of very good, very important work being done in this area at the moment, and I think in all honesty despite how removed such an idea seems for contemporary struggle the status of DOP and such situations remains the great issue of all revolutionary politics.


is it fuck. let's learn to walk the revolutionary walk before getting all pedantick on the revolutionary talk.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Look, you are talking bollocks.


 
Really?
I thought the SWP's theory was that successful revolution was dependent upon the creation of a genuine, (not degenerate) workers state?
I'm not sure why you think I'm talking bollocks.
The CC of the SWP do regard themselves as the vanguards of such a revolution, don't they?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> is it fuck. let's learn to walk the revolutionary walk before getting all pedantick on the revolutionary talk.


 

And in the meantime they will continue to try and cease a power they do not fully understand and have no hope of controlling.  _Auctoritas non veritas facit legem_. Hegel was wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Interesting use of the the legal philosopher of fascism!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

kavenism said:


> And in the meantime they will continue to try and cease a power they do not fully understand and have no hope of controlling. _Auctoritas non veritas facit legem_. Hegel was wrong.


another example of something remote being more attractive than something near at hand.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

Not at all. What is near at hand is the SWPs recent conduct, within which I see verification of what I’ve just said, albeit in parochial form.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting use of the the legal philosopher of fascism!


Are you referring to Hobbes or Schmitt? The original comment is from the former although the latter makes a big deal of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Schmitt, and yes, rather an understatement to say he made rather a big deal of the the concept of exceptionalism!


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

Would you not agree the the DOP is just such an exceptional situation? and if so then the Left should give it the degree of attention Schmitt, Agamben et al are doing? I don't think exceptionalism is the preserve of fascism or Right political theory in general. I'm convinced it's at the heart of all radically transformative politics of any strain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Would you not agree the the DOP is just such an exceptional situation? and if so then the Left should give it the degree of attention Schmitt, Agamben et al are doing? I don't think exceptionalism is the preserve of fascism or Right political theory in general. I'm convinced it's at the heart of all radically transformative politics of any strain.


perhaps the left should give getting to that happy position the attention you think the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' deserves.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Would you not agree the the DOP is just such an exceptional situation? and if so then the Left should give it the degree of attention Schmitt, Agamben et al are doing? I don't think exceptionalism is the preserve of fascism or Right political theory in general. I'm convinced it's at the heart of all radically transformative politics of any strain.


Isn't that just a way of saying that things can be constituted (and Negri's constituent power might be another example now i think of it) beyond classical forms of universal legality or something though isn't it? Of course that's a useful thing to understand but it needs to be translated into a political common sense - actually on brief reflection, is it that important politically to _understand_ this? Have people who've historically put _good exceptionalism_ into practice understood it in these terms?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Isn't that just a way of saying that things can be constituted (and Negri's constituent power might be another example now i think of it) beyond classical forms of universal legality or something though isn't it? Of course that's a useful thing to understand but it needs to be translated into a political common sense - actually on brief reflection, is it that important politically to _understand_ this? Have people who've historically put _good exceptionalism_ into practice understood it in these terms?


the minute you start bringing zizek or negri into your discourse you've lost 99% of your audience


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps the left should give getting to that happy position the attention you think the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' deserves.


 

The lesson of actually existing socialism tells me they should have been dealing with this a long time ago. Socialism has no theory of government. It relies on a totalising economic and historical perspective that they think will give them the answers if and when they come to power. They are wrong. Without a positive theory of power and government all revolutions that make that break into an exceptional situation are just as likely to see the exception become the rule i.e. totalitarian dictatorship. In taking over the apparatus the liberal capitalist state fails to wither away and instead is transforms into a hyper administrative, hyper bureaucratic state.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

kavenism said:


> The lesson of actually existing socialism tells me they should have been dealing with this a long time ago. Socialism has no theory of government. It relies on a totalising economic and historical perspective that they think will give them the answers if and when they come to power. They are wrong. Without a positive theory of power and government all revolutions that make that break into an exceptional situation are just as likely to see the exception become the rule i.e. totalitarian dictatorship. In taking over the apparatus the liberal capitalist state fails to wither away and instead is transforms into a hyper administrative, hyper bureaucratic state.


yes: but how are we to get from here to the day before the dictatorship of the proletariat?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course that's a useful thing to understand but it needs to be translated into a political common sense - actually on brief reflection, is it that important politically to _understand_ this? Have people who've historically put _good exceptionalism_ into practice understood it in these terms?


 
I doubt they have, but it's an interesting point. This is what I'm researching at the moment. The possibility of an ethics of exception. Who is this figure who decides in the state of excpetion, what are their qualities, is there a possible norm? If the answer is no then revolution might as well be seen as it was according to its mythology, as Leviathan, pure chaos and destruction, which opens up a new space for action but in itself has no rule.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes: but how are we to get from here to the day before the dictatorship of the proletariat?


You think that's more important than what you are going to do on that day? It's like asking how to get to the day before the Last Judgement. The point is to think about the Last Judgement not what happens the day before. Sorry, I've been reading too much William Blake this week.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2013)

kavenism said:


> You think that's more important than what you are going to do on that day? It's like asking how to get to the day before the Last Judgement. The point is to think about the Last Judgement not what happens the day before. Sorry, I've been reading too much William Blake this week.


you're coming over, perhaps unintentionally, as something of a pointy-head (i mean all this bit about schmitt etc, not blake)


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

Schmitt's interesting, he's worth a read, particularly his book on Hobbes and on the Concept of the Political. His problem is to try and bring exceptionalism back into the field of state Law and in this he remains very much of the Right. But he diagnosed the problem correctly and he takes it a lot more seriously than the Left do.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

kavenism said:


> What’s more important to realise I think is that DOP is not just executive but also legislative power in the hands of the representatives of the proletariat. Contemporary theory (Agamben in particular) names this explicitly as The State of Exception. Zizek's mashed up all the nuance of this idea in his recent work but the bit which I think is most essential is the idea that under such conditions the norm of the Law is suspended but with the Law still in force. Formally speaking it renders the authority as quasi divine and unquestionable, the knife edge which historically has tended to end in revolutions falling into totalitarianism.
> 
> There’s a lot of very good, very important work being done in this area at the moment, and I think in all honesty despite how removed such an idea seems for contemporary struggle the status of DOP and such situations remains the great issue of all revolutionary politics.


 
Full executive power implies that there's no separation of executive and legislative functions anyway though. What on earth does that other stuff mean?


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 16, 2013)

Has anyone come in from an SWP meeting tonight? How did it go?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2013)

Well, it's there now for the CC to use: 
*SWP and women's liberation*


(Note also, another one of those attitude things that me and sihhi pointed out earlier: "Firstly, despite this crisis, the SWP remains the best potential mechanism through which sexism and oppression of all types can be meaningfully fought in the interests of everyone.")


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

I doubt you'll get any current members of the SWP posting on this thread. But if it's anything like it was when I was a member the branches all meet on different nights anyway, mine used to be wednesdays then tuesdays when I moved.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 16, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Has anyone come in from an SWP meeting tonight? How did it go?


 
It seems the CC have voted to allow Otherkin members to form a fraction.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> "Firstly, despite this crisis, the SWP remains the best potential mechanism through which sexism and oppression of all types can be meaningfully fought in the interests of everyone.")


 
I really need to get myself some of those blinkers.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 16, 2013)

Not sure Nora really means it. "I fear it is our tradition which has become abstracted, ossified, and increasingly obstructive.The impact is not just theoretical; if our backwardness impacts our analysis, it must inevitably affect our activity." These folks aren't looking to stick around long.


----------



## mutley (Jan 16, 2013)

Edinburgh swp branch have passed a motion calling for an emergency conference, in accordance with the swp constitution.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 16, 2013)

Someone in my branch went to a Unite the Resistance meeting tonight, which was nearly all SWP members. They said they were just carrying on as if nothing had happened, and actually had their SWP branch meeting after the UTR meeting had finished. Makes me think this is no WRP meltdown, they will just lose a few members and carry on as before, but even more useless, inward looking and politically in a dead end.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 16, 2013)

Anyone found the Socialist Party constitution yet?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Anyone found the Socialist Party constitution yet?


 
I've a copy of the Irish SP's constitution around here somewhere. It's not very interesting.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well, it's there now for the CC to use:
> *SWP and women's liberation*
> 
> 
> (Note also, another one of those attitude things that me and sihhi pointed out earlier: "Firstly, despite this crisis, the SWP remains the best potential mechanism through which sexism and oppression of all types can be meaningfully fought in the interests of everyone.")


this is probably the first time most of the oppositionists have come into conflict with the party, which is why so many of them still use the language of the party. as they start casting round for new ideas it won't be surprising that they turn to trendy fads or come up with some odd ideass of their own.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2013)

post it up. I have a copy of our Allotments constitution in exchange.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2013)

discokermit said:


> this is probably the first time most of the oppositionists have come into conflict with the party, which is why so many of them still use the language of the party. as they start casting round for new ideas it won't be surprising that they turn to trendy fads or come up with some odd ideass of their own.


 
or start taking drugs heavily


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 16, 2013)

A young woman in my branch chaired a UTR conference and was given a tour of Friends Meeting House by Comrade Delta, including showing her the basement. She said she thought it was quite odd at the time. I wonder if it had been an old bloke if the tour would have still gone ahead.

Also the thought of Comrade Delta as a DJ on stage is classic. Can anyone mock up a picture of him behind a DJ set, with a foghorn and a whistle?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 16, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> or start taking drugs heavily


possibly. vacuum to be filled an all that.

even off my head i still managed to take part in unionising the foundry where i worked though.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 16, 2013)

discokermit said:


> possibly. vacuum to be filled an all that.
> 
> even off my head i still managed to take part in unionising the foundry where i worked though.


 
Good man.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Anyone found the Socialist Party constitution yet?


 
I've been meaning to ask for it but keep forgetting. I'm not fucking showing it you when I get it though


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've been meaning to ask for it but keep forgetting. I'm not fucking showing it you when I get it though


 
Too right


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 16, 2013)

Just had a bit more back from the UTR meeting. Apparently some other lefty chipped in at one point and said something along the lines of "not sure you lot can talk about unity after what's been going on for the last 2-3 weeks". Some sour faces round the table after that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Also the thought of Comrade Delta as a DJ on stage is classic. Can anyone mock up a picture of him behind a DJ set, with a foghorn and a whistle?


Not that it matters much but he was in the past paid to work as a DJ no? Music was always his second passion after politics when I knew him. I get why people who hate his politics want to paint him as some seedy oddball trying too hard to be trendy but that's so not the bloke many of us know.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I get why people who hate his politics want to paint him as some seedy oddball trying too hard to be trendy but that's so not the bloke many of us know.


every rapist can be detected by their seedy oddballness


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> every rapist can be detected by their seedy oddballness


 
If only


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> every rapist can be detected by their seedy oddballness


No wonder you're in the labour party if you believe such claptrap


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2013)

that was sarcasm


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> that was sarcasm


no, I know when i'm being sarcastick


----------



## cesare (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> no, I know when i'm being sarcastick


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> how droll


Your original response was better, why the edit?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Your original response was better, why the edit?


----------



## cesare (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> no, I know when i'm being sarcastick


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not that it matters much but he was in the past paid to work as a DJ no? Music was always his second passion after politics when I knew him. I get why people who hate his politics want to paint him as some seedy oddball trying too hard to be trendy but that's so not the bloke many of us know.


Formally, I share his politics, in the sense that I think Russia was State Cap etc. and I would never be a member of the Labour Party, let alone Swindon Branch! But spiritually, you and he seem much closer and that is consistent with what you've been arguing on this thread. He is a 'bloke' isn't he, well put. And he is so bloke-ish that I find it hard to attribute to him a deep soulful connection to - say - John Coltrane. You knew him, I only saw him from afar, so I don't rush to judge. But nor could I be bothered to read his book to test this contention. Perhaps someone else here has read it? My guess is the book argues that Coltrane is great because he plays the music of the oppressed (and that Coltrane was practically a revolutionary and if he had heard of the SWP he would have joined them). In other words it will be linear, reductinist, and lightly-researched. For what it's worth, I visited the Church of John Coltrane in San Francisco in a slightly flippant state of mind, I have to admit. But I was very impressed by the reverence with which his followers treated him: that and the fact that we were all given instruments to join in with 'A Love Supreme'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

If john coltrane had known of the swp he'd have derided them in song and verse


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 17, 2013)

The Guatemala Times:

http://www.guatemala-times.com/opin...ual-violence-dont-let-them-off-the-hook-.html

Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal:

http://links.org.au/node/3183


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 17, 2013)

Incidentally, on left-ish books about jazz, Chris Searle's "_Forward Groove: Jazz and the Real World from Louis Armstrong to Gilad Atzmon_" disappoints on almost every level - his understanding of the music is poor, his understanding of the politics of jazz music and musicians is superficial and misses much, and his writing is repetitive and formulaic.  

(He's the jazz correspondent for the Morning Star).


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 17, 2013)

This is new too:

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/01/16/how-i-was-expelled-swp


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2013)

Stalinist jazz sounds a very bad idea


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> we were all given instruments to join in with 'A Love Supreme'.


this sounds awesome.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2013)

shall we go danny la rouge?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> Incidentally, on left-ish books about jazz, Chris Searle's "_Forward Groove: Jazz and the Real World from Louis Armstrong to Gilad Atzmon_" disappoints on almost every level - his understanding of the music is poor, his understanding of the politics of jazz music and musicians is superficial and misses much, and his writing is repetitive and formulaic.
> 
> (He's the jazz correspondent for the Morning Star).


Is that expelled teacher Searle?

And why Does Communist Robert Wyatt work with Atzmon?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> Incidentally, on left-ish books about jazz, Chris Searle's "_Forward Groove: Jazz and the Real World from Louis Armstrong to Gilad Atzmon_" disappoints on almost every level - his understanding of the music is poor, his understanding of the politics of jazz music and musicians is superficial and misses much, and his writing is repetitive and formulaic.
> 
> (He's the jazz correspondent for the Morning Star).


 
There is  a series of short articles in a Hobsbawm book _Uncommon People: resistance, rebellion and jazz_ on jazz which I really enjoyed


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is that expelled teacher Searle?


The very one.



> And why Does Communist Robert Wyatt work with Atzmon?


You won't find out by reading Searle's book.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> no, I know when i'm being sarcastick


Much better


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> shall we go danny la rouge?


 If I was nearby, I'd go for the laugh.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> There is a series of short articles in a Hobsbawm book _Uncommon People: resistance, rebellion and jazz_ on jazz which I really enjoyed


Not by Francis Newton?  That was the name he normally used when writing about jazz.

Me sister mentioned a case to me last night that you might remember as well.  Very early nineties, the party recruited a 'leading' black nationalist, who was rapidly promoted, frequent SW contributor, speaker at Marxism, National Council (I think) - all set for the big time. And then he raped a comrade - again in circumstances with no witnesses or other evidential 'proof'.  He was expelled after an internal hearing, and then the _facts_ were reported to conference.  There was no 'we cant tell you cos its all confidential' - the basic details of what had happened, without names, was relayed, and conference accepted what they were told (although there were a few unconvinced).  Why they didn't do so in this case.....it wouldn't have stopped all the arguments, obviously, but it would at least be a little more transparent.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> This is new too:
> 
> http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/01/16/how-i-was-expelled-swp


naah, its forty years old, and from a source less reliable than the Disputes Committee.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> This is new too:
> 
> http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/01/16/how-i-was-expelled-swp


 
LOL! Why I left the SWP 40 years ago. Cutting edge stuff.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Not by Francis Newton? That was the name he normally used when writing about jazz.


Usually, but not this time.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not that it matters much but he was in the past paid to work as a DJ no? Music was always his second passion after politics when I knew him. I get why people who hate his politics want to paint him as some seedy oddball trying too hard to be trendy but that's so not the bloke many of us know.


 
As I said earlier, people obviously have different impressions. The ex SWPers I have spoken to didn't like him and described him as a wanna be thug. But I think the main problem is how the SWP have dealt with such a serious issue, which personally I think stems from their terrible way of operating and their political methods, which have led them to become more and more isolated from the working class (while proclaiming to be the vanguard of the class) and ever more like a cult.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Not by Francis Newton? That was the name he normally used when writing about jazz.
> 
> Me sister mentioned a case to me last night that you might remember as well. Very early nineties, the party recruited a 'leading' black nationalist, who was rapidly promoted, frequent SW contributor, speaker at Marxism, National Council (I think) - all set for the big time. And then he raped a comrade - again in circumstances with no witnesses or other evidential 'proof'. He was expelled after an internal hearing, and then the _facts_ were reported to conference. There was no 'we cant tell you cos its all confidential' - the basic details of what had happened, without names, was relayed, and conference accepted what they were told (although there were a few unconvinced). Why they didn't do so in this case.....it wouldn't have stopped all the arguments, obviously, but it would at least be a little more transparent.


 
No but the articles are reprints as the book is a collection of previous works as it were. Really enjoyed the whole book , can't remember what i did with it now.

Don't recall that incident pm me his name if you remember. What I can't work out is how Delta escaped any sanction per se .


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> Incidentally, on left-ish books about jazz, Chris Searle's "_Forward Groove: Jazz and the Real World from Louis Armstrong to Gilad Atzmon_" disappoints on almost every level...(He's the jazz correspondent for the Morning Star).


 
For a minute there I thought that you were saying privately educated Old Cliftonian Chris Serle was a _Morning Star_ correspondent - I nearly gagged on my proletarian cereal. Then my eyes refocused and I saw your 'a' and realised it was the other chap. I found his _Grenada: The Struggle Against Destabilisation_ quite interesting (if somewhat undermined by actual events overtaking publication schedules).


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> The Guatemala Times:
> 
> http://www.guatemala-times.com/opin...ual-violence-dont-let-them-off-the-hook-.html
> 
> ...


 
all that well meaning article says is that cases should be investigated and appropriate measures taken if found that there is a case.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> As I said earlier, people obviously have different impressions. The ex SWPers I have spoken to didn't like him and described him as a wanna be thug. But I think the main problem is how the SWP have dealt with such a serious issue, which personally I think stems from their terrible way of operating and their political methods, which have led them to become more and more isolated from the working class (while proclaiming to be the vanguard of the class) and ever more like a cult.


 
To describe Smith as a wannabe thug is to devalue the status of thug. As someone once said about someone 'He acted like a gangster in the student bar and like a student in the gangster bar'


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Not by Francis Newton? That was the name he normally used when writing about jazz.


Not as good as Adorno's pseudonym - Hektor Rottweiler


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 17, 2013)

I wonder who Donny Mayo is?

http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...y-i-resigned-from-socialist-workers-party-swp


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> I wonder who Donny Mayo is?
> 
> http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...y-i-resigned-from-socialist-workers-party-swp


Gee it isn't like his made up name is remotely similar to an ex-cc members is it.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> I wonder who Donny Mayo is?
> 
> http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...y-i-resigned-from-socialist-workers-party-swp


 
Quite remarkably joined the SWP in the early 90s and believes that ' that the International Socialists were the best organisation on the British left in the 60s and 70s'. He wouldn't have been even born then. 'Nostalgia' as X. Moore  once said 'never remembers'


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Quite remarkably joined the SWP in the early 90s and believes that ' that the International Socialists were the best organisation on the British left in the 60s and 70s'. He wouldn't have been even born then. 'Nostalgia' as X. Moore once said 'never remembers'


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Quite remarkably joined the SWP in the early 90s and believes that ' that the International Socialists were the best organisation on the British left in the 60s and 70s'. He wouldn't have been even born then. 'Nostalgia' as X. Moore once said 'never remembers'


Early 90s? He joined around 2001. Considering he was the CC member with responsibility for Marxism, the whole thing reads rather like the work of a sulky teenager. But if he is right it is interesting that the CC downplayed Marxism. The figures he gives for retention of members are interesting to.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Early 90s? He joined around 2001. Considering he was the CC member with responsibility for Marxism, the whole thing reads rather like the work of a sulky teenager. But if he is right it is interesting that the CC downplayed Marxism. The figures he gives for retention of members are interesting to.


 
Maths has never been my strong point.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

> “The Opposition has been banned. Opposition leaders expelled. Throughout the country a purge is taking place against Opposition comrades, with branch committees being called as kangaroo courts. Using the methods of McCarthy, comrades are being asked to choose: the Opposition or the Tendency. Opposition branches are being systematically closed down and “reorganised” by Full Timers. This witch-hunt is the culmination of the neo-Stalinist campaign that has been waged against the Opposition since its formation. By these actions the majority faction has engineered a split – despite the protests of the Opposition – and, true to form, immediately publicised it in the pages of the capitalist press, before the ranks had any chance to comment.”


 
Guess which organisation?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> I wonder who Donny Mayo is?
> 
> http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...y-i-resigned-from-socialist-workers-party-swp


Every new wave of resigners has a particular moment when their party was the true voice of the proletariat, and a particular moment when it degenerated into a toxic cult.
 They never ask themselves whether the entire model was broken from the beginning


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Guess which organisation?


Workers Power, 2007


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Workers Power, 2007


 
but no.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

I always thought Andy Newman would not look like this but it does add weight to the ugly = politics theory that someone had on here


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I always thought Andy Newman would not look like this but it does add weight to the ugly = politics theory that someone had on here


 someone should do something nasty to the photographer too


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I always thought Andy Newman would not look like this but it does add weight to the ugly = politics theory that someone had on here


I do like how he's got his lippy to match his blusher so well, tho


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> someone should do something nasty to the photographer too


Wasn't having to photograph Newman bad enough?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Wasn't having to photograph Newman bad enough?


 it could have been better composed. much better composed.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2013)

check your attractiveness privilege


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Every new wave of resigners has a particular moment when their party was the true voice of the proletariat, and a particular moment when it degenerated into a toxic cult.
> They never ask themselves whether the entire model was broken from the beginning


 
"I believe that the International Socialists were the best organisation on the British left in the 60s and 70s. I believe that the SWP had many things going for it. I think things possibly were salvageable. There was a conscious effort to 'modernise' the SWP after Seattle and the mass anti-war demonstrations. But then, for whatever reason, the leadership (including those who have since split) retreated from these attempts. After the failure of Respect though, the retreat became a full-on rout. Modernisation was consciously reversed. And in the context of the gravest capitalist crisis since at least the 1930s, the Arab Spring and the European Autumn, this was not the time to retreat from the outside world.
And so it became the case that the SWP suffered the same problems that had haunted the rest of the Trotskyist-left. Splits along essentially generational lines, brittleness to the point of absurdity (treating criticism of "comrade delta" as the abandonment of classical Marxism) and sectarian retreat and isolation."

This is fucking classic - he/she claims that the SWP has only recently fallen to the problems of the rest of the Trotskyist left, despite the fact that every single 'trotskyist' split save one in the last 50 years in Britain has been a split within the SWP.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> check your attractiveness privilege


 
I used to be a child model in the Birds Eye Cod in batter advert, knitting patterns and catalogues. I know how that industry exploits attractive privilege, I have been a victim.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 17, 2013)

kavenism said:


> The lesson of actually existing socialism tells me they should have been dealing with this a long time ago. Socialism has no theory of government. It relies on a totalising economic and historical perspective that they think will give them the answers if and when they come to power. They are wrong. Without a positive theory of power and government all revolutions that make that break into an exceptional situation are just as likely to see the exception become the rule i.e. totalitarian dictatorship. In taking over the apparatus the liberal capitalist state fails to wither away and instead is transforms into a hyper administrative, hyper bureaucratic state.


 surely the point was, there is no positive theory of the state. The state is like a gun, you can choose to leave it in the hands of a psychopath, or you can choose to take it from them, to disarm them. The lessons of Spain, lean me to the latter.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> "I believe that the International Socialists were the best organisation on the British left in the 60s and 70s. I believe that the SWP had many things going for it. I think things possibly were salvageable. There was a conscious effort to 'modernise' the SWP after Seattle and the mass anti-war demonstrations. But then, for whatever reason, the leadership (including those who have since split) retreated from these attempts. After the failure of Respect though, the retreat became a full-on rout. Modernisation was consciously reversed. And in the context of the gravest capitalist crisis since at least the 1930s, the Arab Spring and the European Autumn, this was not the time to retreat from the outside world.
> And so it became the case that the SWP suffered the same problems that had haunted the rest of the Trotskyist-left. Splits along essentially generational lines, brittleness to the point of absurdity (treating criticism of "comrade delta" as the abandonment of classical Marxism) and sectarian retreat and isolation."
> 
> This is fucking classic - he/she claims that the SWP has only recently fallen to the problems of the rest of the Trotskyist left, despite the fact that *every single 'trotskyist' split save one in the last 50 years in Britain has been a split within the SWP*.


 
Not true


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> "I believe that the International Socialists were the best organisation on the British left in the 60s and 70s. I believe that the SWP had many things going for it. I think things possibly were salvageable. There was a conscious effort to 'modernise' the SWP after Seattle and the mass anti-war demonstrations. But then, for whatever reason, the leadership (including those who have since split) retreated from these attempts. After the failure of Respect though, the retreat became a full-on rout. Modernisation was consciously reversed. And in the context of the gravest capitalist crisis since at least the 1930s, the Arab Spring and the European Autumn, this was not the time to retreat from the outside world.
> And so it became the case that the SWP suffered the same problems that had haunted the rest of the Trotskyist-left. Splits along essentially generational lines, brittleness to the point of absurdity (treating criticism of "comrade delta" as the abandonment of classical Marxism) and sectarian retreat and isolation."
> 
> This is fucking classic - he/she claims that the SWP has only recently fallen to the problems of the rest of the Trotskyist left, despite the fact that every single 'trotskyist' split save one in the last 50 years in Britain has been a split within the SWP.


 is it? socialist appeal split off militant; and there were fuck loads of groups split out of the wrp. and i'm sure i'm missing a few.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> every single 'trotskyist' split save one in the last 50 years in Britain has been a split within the SWP.


uhhh, no. Militant, WRP (and then several of the splitting organisations), SSP, CPGB, Workers Power, etc etc.  Up until ten years ago the SWP was the organisation that had split the least


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> To describe Smith as a wannabe thug is to devalue the status of thug. As someone once said about someone 'He acted like a gangster in the student bar and like a student in the gangster bar'


 
Brilliant quote, that is fantastic. I did deliberately put he word "wannabe" in front, because I don't believe for a minute he is a real thug, which would at least have been of use in certain situations. If you're not a thug, and say you are, then it can lead to some bad situations, better to be honest. Just use a cliche like "I'm a lover, not a fighter". Although obviously that wouldn't be appropriate for Martin Smith.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Up until ten years ago the SWP was the organisation that had split the least


 
How's that - Militant only split once?


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> How's that - Militant only split once?


and the SWP hadn't really split at all. A couple of expulsions doesnt really amount to a split, and that's all it was with Matgamna.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> and the SWP hadn't really split at all. A couple of expulsions doesnt really amount to a split, and that's all it was with Matgamna.


when did Workers Power split from the SWP?


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

'73.  That's about the only one that you could count as a split, imo


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

Workers Power/PR split
and the last WP split


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Every new wave of resigners has a particular moment when their party was the true voice of the proletariat, and a particular moment when it degenerated into a toxic cult.
> They never ask themselves whether the entire model was broken from the beginning


 
I think that's partly to do with the political education in the SWP; there's a lot of emphasis on 'moments'. Scratching my head trying to remember, I'm assuming this is to do with theories about quantitative and qualitative change.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I think that's partly to do with the political education in the SWP; there's a lot of emphasis on 'moments'. Scratching my head trying to remember, I'm assuming this is to do with theories about quantitative and qualitative change.


not so sure. Those 'moments' are usually the sixties and seventies when the SWP was incredibly unusual in being unorthodox trots - they would question _some_ aspects of 'mainstream' trot theory, could take the piss out of themselves, had a different organisational structure, and even had a decent working class base for a while. It al changed either with the move to DC in the late sixties, or with the switch from IS to SWP, depending on who you talk to.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> not so sure. Those 'moments' are usually the sixties and seventies when the SWP was incredibly unusual in being unorthodox trots - they would question _some_ aspects of 'mainstream' trot theory, could take the piss out of themselves, had a different organisational structure, and even had a decent working class base for a while. It al changed either with the move to DC in the late sixties, or with the switch from IS to SWP, depending on who you talk to.


i thought they were still unorthodox trots though?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2013)

What did they have before they had DC?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Not true



I did say Trotskyist left to give me my due, so not the SSP or CPGB (although I could see a case for including the SSP). I also said save one, and I meant the Militant/Socialist Appeal split. Workers Power split from the SWP. And I totally forgot about the WRP, so I'll consider myself suitably admonished and embarrassed.

The thrust of my point though is that the following groups all originated from the IS/SWP/IST (in no particular order):

Socialist Organiser/AWL
RCG
RCP
The Discussion Group
Counterfire
ISG
Workers Power
Permanent Revolution
Red Action

I've probably missed some. I'm pretty sure the Sparts came from the US SWP (no relation) but could be wrong.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i thought they were still unorthodox trots though?


yeah, but they're (almost) the only far left game on town tho, so they're not that unusual.



frogwoman said:


> What did they have before they had DC?


they (well, Cliff) took on Luxemburg's criticism of DC, not exactly sure what they'd call the system they did use tho


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I did say Trotskyist left to give me my due, so not the SSP or CPGB (although I could see a case for including the SSP). I also said save one, and I meant the Militant/Socialist Appeal split. Workers Power split from the SWP. And I totally forgot about the WRP, so I'll consider myself suitably admonished and embarrassed.
> 
> The thrust of my point though is that the following groups all originated from the IS/SWP/IST (in no particular order):
> 
> ...


Soggies were expelled, rather than splitting. RCG/RCP came from the Discussion Group, rather than the SWP.  ISG was never in the SWP. PR were a split from WP, not the SWP.  Which leaves you with WP and Red Action, until recently.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2013)

On one of the many threads of this kind someone said they were gonna do a trot family tree so we could see where everyone came from - did that ever happen?

Cos I can see why you might argue that PR was a SWP split, since it split from an org that split from the SWP.

Why doesn't it count if they're expelled by the way? Weren't red action expelled too?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Soggies were expelled, rather than splitting. RCG/RCP came from the Discussion Group, rather than the SWP. ISG was never in the SWP. PR were a split from WP, not the SWP. Which leaves you with WP and Red Action, until recently.



Fair enough, I apologise for the first comment which wasn't accurate; it's more accurate to say that all these groups originated from the SWP. The 'soggies' were a faction in the SWP called the Trotskyist Tendency so I think it's fair enough to count as a split, but fine, be pedantic. ISG is the Bambery group in Scotland ie a hefty chunk of the SWP in Scotland (I think-too many acronyms).


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> On one of the many threads of this kind someone said they were gonna do a trot family tree so we could see where everyone came from - did that ever happen?
> 
> Cos I can see why you might argue that PR was a SWP split, since it split from an org that split from the SWP.
> 
> Why doesn't it count if they're expelled by the way? Weren't red action expelled too?


 
I think it counts. I think they all count. And someone should def make that tree. But not me.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2013)

I'm currently writing a murder mystery set in a future Britain run by trots and schoolchildren have to learn about the history of all the splits in the 4th International when they are at school


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2013)

There is also an ice rink named after Trotsky in the story who everyone seems to think was killed on one


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> On one of the many threads of this kind someone said they were gonna do a trot family tree so we could see where everyone came from - did that ever happen?
> 
> Cos I can see why you might argue that PR was a SWP split, since it split from an org that split from the SWP.
> 
> Why doesn't it count if they're expelled by the way? Weren't red action expelled too?


 
i made this about an earlier period a few years ago... but nothing more modern


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I'm currently writing a murder mystery set in a future Britain run by trots and schoolchildren have to learn about the history of all the splits in the 4th International when they are at school


 
Don't expect a massive advance, but good luck with it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Don't expect a massive advance, but good luck with it.


 
cheers, i'm really enjoying writing it actually


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why doesn't it count if they're expelled by the way? Weren't red action expelled too?


yeah,. you're probably right really. But I still dont count Matgamna cos he was only drafted in to help make the change to DC, and was then rapidly kicked out. i dont think he, or his small band of followers, were ever _really_ members of the party, or within its tradition.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2013)

Ace thread this by the way, a little bit of all the things that make urban great


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> yeah,. you're probably right really. But I still dont count Matgamna cos he was only drafted in to help make the change to DC, and was then rapidly kicked out. i dont think he, or his small band of followers, were ever _really_ members of the party, or within its tradition.


 
so kind of like management consultants for trots?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Counterfire break silence on this by publishing an swper's resignation article wherein he announces he's joining them.

http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...y-i-resigned-from-socialist-workers-party-swp


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Counterfire break silence on this by publishing an swper's resignation article wherein he announces he's joining them.
> 
> http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...y-i-resigned-from-socialist-workers-party-swp


Now we are in a loop


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2013)

I wish they'd hurry up and have a purge, I can't resist searching the web for updates every half hour (yes, I'm that sad) and it's making me waste time I really can't spare - need to get it over with now


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Counterfire break silence on this by publishing an swper's resignation article wherein he announces he's joining them.
> 
> http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...y-i-resigned-from-socialist-workers-party-swp


does he say that?  He says that critics should be "working with" them but I'm not sure he explicitly says he's joining


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I wish they'd hurry up and have a purge, I can't resist searching the web for updates every half hour (yes, I'm that sad) and it's making me waste time I really can't spare - need to get it over with now


a *proper* purge


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2013)

the market the weeklyworker podcasts were designed for


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I wish they'd hurry up and have a purge, I can't resist searching the web for updates every half hour (yes, I'm that sad) and it's making me waste time I really can't spare - need to get it over with now


Totally agree, I have been off work all week and have gone none of the things I had planned done. Which is clearly the fault of the SWP and has nothing to do with me being lazy and a terrible procrastinator.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

I guess Counterfire were always gonna chip in eventually but I thought they'd done well so far in their short life at not engaging in slagging matches with their erstwhile comrades. Bambery knows the reaction this will get cause he's just posted on FB a plea for people not to over react.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Bambery knows the reaction this will get cause he's just posted on FB a plea for proletariat not to over react.


 
lol seriously?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2013)

the entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP don't you know?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I guess Counterfire were always gonna chip in eventually but I thought they'd done well so far in their short life at not engaging in slagging matches with their erstwhile comrades. Bambery knows the reaction this will get cause he's just posted on FB a plea for proletariat not to over react.


Really? Cos yeah the proletariat are up in arms over this, I am sure if I had been in work everyone would have been talking about it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP don't you know?


I know.  Sadly, I'm not sure the working-class do


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP don't you know?


specially if it collapses. there will be a party down lambeth way perhaps even larger than the one to celebrate thatcher's demise.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> I wonder who Donny Mayo is?
> 
> http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...y-i-resigned-from-socialist-workers-party-swp


Hard as glass clear as steel:



> This wasn't without reason. When the euro-communists said the working class had changed they were shifting to the right. But the problem is the working class had changed. When people talk about financialisation they often are talking about a shift towards a reformist variant of Keynesianism. But the problem is financialisation has happened.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Sorry my phone turned people into proletariat. Bambo not that mad!


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry my phone turned people into proletariat. Bambo not that mad!


You have a marxist phone


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I propose comrade running man. Particularly as it gives me the opportunity to ask how he managed to get that nickname.


2009-2010 saw a spate of youtube vids of this man running behind groups of asian lads at anti-edl demos - you often saw his panting frame hove into view behind the same during interviews or static shots. Like _a trot child-catcher _as the lustbather formulation had it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You have a marxist phone


He has a liberals phone, it'll try and disguise bourgeois dictatorship as law and rights next.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> not so sure. Those 'moments' are usually the sixties and seventies when the SWP was incredibly unusual in being unorthodox trots - they would question _some_ aspects of 'mainstream' trot theory, could take the piss out of themselves, had a different organisational structure, and even had a decent working class base for a while. It al changed either with the move to DC in the late sixties, or with the switch from IS to SWP, depending on who you talk to.


 

I don't mean that there wasn't a better time for the IS/SWP; not having been there, I find the descriptions convincing. I mean there's an interpretation of the past, present, a fantasy about the future, that turn on 'moments', moments caught, moments missed, in this case the moment at which the good turned to bad.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

what butchers said


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I don't mean that there wasn't a better time for the IS/SWP; not having been there, I find the descriptions convincing. I mean there's an interpretation of the past, present, a fantasy about the future, that turn on 'moments', moments caught, moments missed, in this case the moment at which the good turned to bad.


In these cases it just seems to mean after i'd had enough of building and participating in that sort of thing.

edit: And of course, what follows is the myth of what the party was, what it did and what it represented when _they_ joined.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2013)

http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/letter-to-central-committee.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

He/they are really keeping the public pressure up. There is a gap here - the wider purge (of wider memberhip, they can lop seymour etc now if they think it's worth it) won't come till they know which branches go for recall. They need to expand this off the lenin blog though, need to broaden it. And keep it public.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He/they are really keeping the public pressure up. There is a gap here - the wider purge (of wider memberhip, they can lop seymour etc now if they think it's worth it) won't come till they know which branches go for recall. They need to expand this off the lenin blog though, need to broaden it. And keep it public.


 
It says how irrelevant the main stream press and ruling class think the far left is that they have given this so little coverage.

In a different way I think the attacks on the police also show how unconcerned the government is about a significant fight back against the cuts.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 17, 2013)

You can hear Kimber already denouncing this one as a neo-Bamberryite autonomist feminist


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> It says how irrelevant the main stream press and ruling class think the far left is that they have given this so little coverage.


 
But who cares - beyond people using the line of we are under attack by the capitalist press - it doesn't matter. Who cares if they care? For people concerned with this there still might be room for a reconfiguration of the classic activist left beyond trotskyism/leninisn/vanguardism as a result of this. I'm not that optimisitic, but at least the question is out there amongst people who may not have thought about it before or kept their mouth shut. In terms of challenging current conditions, of course it's meaningless.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He has a liberals phone, it'll try and disguise bourgeois dictatorship as law and rights next.


Like it! Actually as it's my Tory wife's old phone I'm amazed it knew proletariat. I would have expected it to translate people as Anglo Saxon.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 17, 2013)

I can’t believe they seriously think the whole DC and CC are going to resign. Some of these people have clung onto their positions for decades and they’re not going to go without (as Mr Mayo pointed out) being overthrown. I made this point (perhaps a little too explicitly) on Seymour’s FB page and the fucker deleted the post! No matter how much pressure they keep putting on them it’s still a choice between leaving and forcibly overthrowing the CC, and they ultimately still have the keys to the van.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

So seymour isn't allowing content that suggest such a  thing or just that the way you said it was a bit daft?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So seymour isn't allowing content that suggest such a thing or just that the way you said it was a bit daft?


 
I don't think it was that daft. He's maintaining the stance of using his platform as leverage for party reform using their structures. He clearly didn’t want any suggestion that perhaps that wasn’t a viable option and an all-out fight was the only way to get hold of the party machine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

So the opposition is censoring the expression of views they don't like already. Roll on the new open democracy.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So the opposition is censoring the expression of views they don't like already. Roll on the new open democracy.


 
Yeah but I'm not in the party so I don't blame him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Yeah but I'm not in the party so I don't blame him.


One of their lines is that it's not all about the party - it's about wider class issues. Is it then, when they act like this? And what does acting like this reveal?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Amazing thing is - the lack of places for them to discuss stuff. No internal forum. Nothing.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

i imagine there's internal forums, fb threads etc happening


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i imagine there's internal forums, fb threads etc happening


Imagine?

edit: and to be clear, i mean one run by the SWP.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

i'm sure there are


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i'm sure there are


You're _sure_ or you _know_ there are?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i'm sure there are


can you say something more concrete?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

i know there are. and i can't say anything more as i'm not privy to the details


----------



## kavenism (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> One of their lines is that it's not all about the party - it's about wider class issues. Is it then, when they act like this? And what does acting like this reveal?


 
Seymour may have an idea of where he wants this to go, but I’m beginning to think that he’s an increasingly moderate voice, particularly after Mayo’s Counterstrike. What’s the end game of giving a forum for all those member’s letters? The CC can just ignore it and him and wait for those who want to leave to do so, then reassess in terms of what can be done. I don’t think they’re feeling rushed at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i know there are. and i can't say anything more as i'm not privy to the details


so you understand there to be but you can't say any more than that because you don't know more than that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i know there are. and i can't say anything more as i'm not privy to the details


No worries, take your word on it.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> so you understand there to be but you can't say any more than that because you don't know more than that.


oui


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Seymour may have an idea of where he wants this to go, but I’m beginning to think that he’s an increasingly moderate voice, particularly after Mayo’s Counterstrike. What’s the end game of giving a forum for all those member’s letters? The CC can just ignore it and him and wait for those who want to leave to do so, then reassess in terms of what can be done. I don’t think they’re feeling rushed at all.


The endgame is exactly what he said. Recall conference. He's got stuff he can publish everyday for weeks yet. The hard grit of_ getting on the motorbike_ like cliff may be happening, i don't know.

I think the CC now have the option of _all these cunts_ we attracted and used as a sign of our success, well they were the_ wrong sort of cunt_( either due to the party being flooded due to the high level of class struggle or drained due to the low level of class struggle).


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

reality bites


----------



## kavenism (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think the CC now have the option of _all these cunts_ we attracted and used as a sign of our success, well they were the_ wrong sort of cunt_( either due to the party being flooded due to the high level of class struggle or drained due to the low level of class struggle).


 
Well it's nice to have options


----------



## cesare (Jan 17, 2013)

_Wrong sort of cunt_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> reality bites


What's that mean DU?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

the reality of their shoddy recruitment practices coming home to roost, is shit

ETA

for them


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the reality of their shoddy recruitment practices coming home to roost, is shit


Ok gotcha.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the reality of their shoddy recruitment practices coming home to roost, is shit
> 
> ETA
> 
> for them


 
In my personal tale of SWP woe the turning point was when I recruited this enthusiastic StWC supporter on a Saturday paper sale and felt guilty about it for the rest of the day. Knew it was time to go after that!


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 17, 2013)

Just as an empty pitcher rings loudest voices such as seymour's receive more attention on the Internet, however I would guess that for every adherent to the "fight on in the party/ true to the traditions of the IS" (perhaps in itself a signal of the conservative nature of the opposition discourses) there are a dozen or more ordinary party members who are quietly tearing up their membership and putting their phones on to ignore when the comrades call.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Just as an empty pitcher rings loudest voices such as seymour's receive more attention on the Internet, however I would guess that for every adherent to the "fight on in the party/ true to the traditions of the IS" (perhaps in itself a signal of the conservative nature of the opposition discourses) there are a dozen or more ordinary party members who are quietly tearing up their membership and putting their phones on to ignore when the comrades call.


and quite a few more who haven't joined thanking their lucky stars they avoided this car crash


----------



## kavenism (Jan 17, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> surely the point was, there is no positive theory of the state. The state is like a gun, you can choose to leave it in the hands of a psychopath, or you can choose to take it from them, to disarm them. The lessons of Spain, lean me to the latter.


 
 If that were true would you not want to take shooting lessons?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

And it's not like a gun. I have no idea what "there is no positive theory of the state" could even begin to mean.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> yeah,. you're probably right really. But I still dont count Matgamna cos he was only drafted in to help make the change to DC, and was then rapidly kicked out. i dont think he, or his small band of followers, were ever _really_ members of the party, or within its tradition.


 
I think from what I've read, it seems that Workers Fight actually came away with quite a few more members than they went in with, including Martin Thomas for example, whose article was posted earlier in the thread and has been one of their leading lights for a good while now. Worth baring in mind as well that they then merged with Workers Power, also a split from the IS, to form the ICL, and that for the last 30 years they've definitely consistently espoused the state capitalist formula, which puts them fairly squarely in the IS tradition, IMO.

Of course, to be fair I should admit I've just remembered Workers Fight was formed by Matgamna and a handful of renegades from the RSL (later Militant)...which kind of further undermines my original point... But still, what I mean is, it's bloody rich for 'Donny Mayo' to suggest that it's only recently that the SWP have begun to have problems with splits.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i imagine there's internal forums, fb threads etc happening


 
I think proletarian democracy should release a statement on the situation then offer our blog as a discussion forum.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> for the last 30 years they've definitely consistently espoused the state capitalist formula, which puts them fairly squarely in the IS tradition, IMO.


 
eh? They're Shachtmanite bureaucratic centralists, explicitly opposing State Cap


----------



## two sheds (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i imagine there's internal forums, fb threads etc happening


 
Again, though, aren't they effectively banning themselves by becoming factions? Dissent seems to be ruled out by definition.

I still don't understand why they come up with something like "Democratic Centralism", by definition democracy is people vote and the losers are supposed to fall in with the winners. The 'centralism' bit just seems to try to stifle dissent.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> eh? They're Shachtmanite bureaucratic centralists, explicitly opposing State Cap


Yep.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think proletarian democracy should release a statement on the situation then offer our blog as a discussion forum.


 
Get on with it then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Let's just get this right -there is no internal forum for SWP members debate/discussion?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Get on with it then.


Don't whack the tail you may not like in the end to shoW people up and that


----------



## kavenism (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And it's not like a gun. I have no idea what "there is no positive theory of the state" could even begin to mean.


 
I'm a lot more convinced by the theory of the liberal state that sees it as having more of a productive/destructive relationship to liberty. Seeing every area of life that has state involvement in the binary terms of freedom and oppression is one of the most irritating hangovers from the Leninist theory of the state. It flows straight into these people on twitter talking about being oppressed because some daft cunt wrote an op-ed piece with a shite joke about transsexuals in it. And I doubt any of them even identify with Leninism!


----------



## two sheds (Jan 17, 2013)

They do again seem to remind me of the catholics: "Everything is forbidden except for what's allowed, and that's compulsory."


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Let's just get this right -there is no internal forum for SWP members debate/discussion?


As far as I know there is nothing formal run by the SWP, but obviously they do discus things on Facebook. But das uberdog my know otherwise.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep.


 
Fair enough, I bow to your expertise, particularly after reading this:

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3771

Note to SpineyNorman: this article contains the phrase 'war communism'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> As far as I know there is nothing formal run by the SWP, but obviously they do discus things on Facebook. But das uberdog my know otherwise.


How long ago were you  member emy~?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough, I bow to your expertise, particularly after reading this:
> 
> http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3771
> 
> Note to SpineyNorman: this article contains the phrase 'war communism'.


To much Martin Thomas in one day. nosferatau warned about this.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Get on with it then.


 
We're still consulting with the global working class on what line to take. Have patience, the one true party of the proletariat will not be rushed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough, I bow to your expertise, particularly after reading this:
> 
> http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3771
> 
> Note to SpineyNorman: this article contains the phrase 'war communism'.


 
If the splitters are forming a war communist group they can definitely count me in.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But who cares - beyond people using the line of we are under attack by the capitalist press - it doesn't matter. Who cares if they care? For people concerned with this there still might be room for a reconfiguration of the classic activist left beyond trotskyism/leninisn/vanguardism as a result of this. I'm not that optimisitic, but at least the question is out there amongst people who may not have thought about it before or kept their mouth shut. In terms of challenging current conditions, of course it's meaningless.


 
I agree with this, I was just commenting on why the press haven't covered it much.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I agree with this, I was just commenting on why the press haven't covered it much.


 
I think if they thought that the SWP was providing a pole of attraction to those dissatisfied with austerity, and thus growing rapidly, it would. But given that there's very little awareness that the SWP and the broader revolutionary left amongst the public as a whole, there's not much scope in them engaging with it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Don't whack the tail you may not like in the end to shoW people up and that



Eh?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How long ago were you member emy~?


Terrifyingly it was about 7 years ago now. But have just checked with my housemate who is a member (although not hugely involved at the moment) and he is not aware of anything.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> As far as I know there is nothing formal run by the SWP, but obviously they do discus things on Facebook. But das uberdog my know otherwise.


 
the IB is the only 'formal' forum for members to discuss party issues, and has obvious deficiencies.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Terrifying it was about 7 years ago now. But have just checked with my housemate who is a member (although not hugely involved at the moment) and he is not aware of anything.


That second part is more 'terrifying'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the IB is the only 'formal' forum for members to discuss party issues, and has obvious deficiencies.


What is the IB?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

the Internal Bulletin - the articles criticising internal democracy written by Paris Thompson, posted at the beginning of this thread, were posted in the IB for example.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That second part is more 'terrifying'.



He's ok, but has been stubbornly silent about this whole mess, unlike most of the SWP members I know who are furious.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the Internal Bulletin - the articles criticising internal democracy written by Paris Thompson, posted at the beginning of this thread, were posted in the IB for example.


IB to me means a regularly produced (monthly say) forum for the members to talk about the group. Not something the CC punts out to the members written by itself. Party notes isn't this sort of IB.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

i think the IB is produced more regularly than when i was in the party - at the very least it's taken far more seriously and distributed better (when i was still a member it took months and months of persistent calling for me even to be included in the Party Notes e-mail list - Party Notes is now published on the website publically). they have also been allowing critical articles such as those from Paris; but Paris was a very well known and well liked member who had formally worked at the centre, and knew how to get himself printed. for most members it would be an impossibility.

ETA - should make clear that the IB is distinct from Party Notes


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Anymore info on this IB?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Again, though, aren't they effectively banning themselves by becoming factions? Dissent seems to be ruled out by definition.


 
technically, _by the book_, the SWP can pretty much expel or exclude you at any time for any particular reason they wish. things like 'factions', despite playing such a prominent role in the SWP's disciplinary code, remain undefined and so can be applied to anything. the point being made right now is that having recognised the ridiculousness of this situation, the opposition have finally just come into the open and are basically challenging the leadership to expel them en masse (which would cripple the organisation).

they're safe so long as they maintain the discussion, pressure and momentum. as soon as that's gone the leadership will be able to pick off individuals again


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i think the IB is produced more regularly than when i was in the party - at the very least it's taken far more seriously and distributed better (when i was still a member it took months and months of persistent calling for me even to be included in the Party Notes e-mail list - Party Notes is now published on the website publically). they have also been allowing critical articles such as those from Paris; but Paris was a very well known and well liked member who had formally worked at the centre, and knew how to get himself printed. for most members it would be an impossibility.


Interestingly the last party notes on their website is from 10 Dec, I wonder why that might be?
As for the internal bulletins there are still only 3 a year 1 a month for the 3 months leading up to conference. Noting has changed in that regard and it has always been the case that any member can submit any contribution they want. What has changed is it is now sent by email rather than in print format. Which might make it easier for people without regular contact to get hold of a copy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> technically, _by the book_, the SWP can pretty much expel or exclude you at any time for any particular reason they wish. things like 'factions', despite playing such a prominent role in the SWP's disciplinary code, remain undefined and so can be applied to anything. the point being made right now is that having recognised the ridiculousness of this situation, the opposition have finally just come into the open and are basically challenging the leadership to expel them en masse (which would cripple the organisation).
> 
> they're safe so long as they maintain the discussion, pressure and momentum. as soon as that's gone the leadership will be able to pick off individuals again


They haven't come out in the open. Do they really exist?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 17, 2013)

their online personas are individually in the open, and most of them are openly known to the leadership. i don't know if that's enough but they do exist.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 17, 2013)

It's gonna be a long hard winter for any of the poor souls in the SWP who think they are going to reform anything at all, let alone make any radical changes.

At the Unite the Resistance meeting I was talking about yesterday the SWPers were apparently just carrying on in exactly the same way. The sectarianism, maneuvering and dishonesty was in its usual full flow, and if anything was even worse according to the person I know who was there. A couple of people asked if the next meeting could be held jointly with NSSN, COR and any decent trade's councils and this was met with contempt by most of the SWPers there, with the usual lines that what UTR had done was brilliant and vital to "the class" and several statements about how important it was to keep people on board like Kevin Courtney (deputy general secretary of the NUT), even though he had sold the pensions dispute down the river. When asked what UTR had actually done in practical terms there wasn't an answer.

There were people at the meeting in the "moderate" faction as well. I can't see anything changing. They will lose some members and carry on as before, but even more inward looking and even more isolated.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> eh? They're Shachtmanite bureaucratic centralists, explicitly opposing State Cap


 
Martin Thomas is a state capper.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 17, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> LOL! Why I left the SWP 40 years ago. Cutting edge stuff.



New in the sense that it was a new article that turned up in my newsfeed. I'm not making any value judgements about the newness of the ideas contained therein.


----------



## electric.avenue (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Gee it isn't like his made up name is remotely similar to an ex-cc members is it.



?  Hint ?

I don't think you mean another Donny?


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> ?  Hint ?
> 
> I don't think you mean another Donny?


Mr Gluckstein, do you mean?  No - someone who was on the CC last year, with a very similar name. Changed just enough (I presume) so that he could deny it is him to prospective employers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Who then?


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Martin Thomas is a state capper.


Is he still?  I know he was, but kinda assumed he'd given up on it after losing the argument within the group.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Martin Thomas is a state capper.


 
That was what I'd assumed but based on the article by him I posted above it appears he doesn't view himself as such and definitely differs from the SWP's version. That said, I don't think his views are radically different to theirs.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Is he still? I know he was, but kinda assumed he'd given up on it after losing the argument within the group.


 
I won't pretend I've kept up to speed with these things but he was a State Capper as late as the late nineties, and that was long after the AWL had transformed itself from the uber-Cannonites to the uber-Shachtmanites that everyone loves today. I guess because of his standing within the organisation he could get away with that particular heresy.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They haven't come out in the open. Do they really exist?


They're all over FB like a rash, posting on each others pages. Some very full and frank exchanges going on between the different wings of dissent. It's the loyalists keeping quiet, generally.


----------



## cesare (Jan 17, 2013)

What's a state capper?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> What's a state capper?


 
Someone who believes the former Soviet Union was state capitalist.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 17, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Someone who believes the former Soviet Union was state capitalist.


 
What are the other options?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 17, 2013)

two sheds said:


> What are the other options?


 
none plausible


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 17, 2013)

Is the ISO-US starting to sniff around?
http://theredplebeian.wordpress.com...risis-in-the-british-socialist-workers-party/


----------



## two sheds (Jan 17, 2013)

That must mean i'm a state capper too


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Is the ISO-US starting to sniff around?
> http://theredplebeian.wordpress.com...risis-in-the-british-socialist-workers-party/


They can sniff around all they like but that terrible article won't help anyone i think.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

two sheds said:


> What are the other options?


That you have a look and make an analysis.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 17, 2013)

two sheds said:


> What are the other options?


 
Actually existing socialism


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

two sheds said:


> That must mean i'm a state capper too


Only if you think it didn't exist pre 1928, copyright Tony Cliff.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They can sniff around all they like but that terrible article won't help anyone i think.


It is awful true enough. Their Dallas branch had a whole meeting on it this week, something that caused a huge debate on FB between the different wings of the opposition. Good old Colin Barker had some very dry remarks about why the ISO would be inetersted in 'helping' on this issue but the Seymourites see it all as grist to the mill.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It is awful true enough. Their Dallas branch had a whole meeting on it this week, something that caused a huge debate on FB between the different wings of the opposition. Good old Colin Barker had some very dry remarks about why the ISO would be inetersted in 'helping' on this issue but the Seymourites see it all as grist to the mill.


According to that Fb page, most of the attendees at that meeting came straight from the UK! 

I see, on the Leeds SWSS statement linkde to, Elane Heffernan comes out in support of the critics.  Bit surprising.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Formally, I share his politics, in the sense that I think Russia was State Cap etc. and I would never be a member of the Labour Party, let alone Swindon Branch! But spiritually, you and he seem much closer and that is consistent with what you've been arguing on this thread. He is a 'bloke' isn't he, well put. And he is so bloke-ish that I find it hard to attribute to him a deep soulful connection to - say - John Coltrane. You knew him, I only saw him from afar, so I don't rush to judge. But nor could I be bothered to read his book to test this contention. Perhaps someone else here has read it? My guess is the book argues that Coltrane is great because he plays the music of the oppressed (and that Coltrane was practically a revolutionary and if he had heard of the SWP he would have joined them). In other words it will be linear, reductinist, and lightly-researched. For what it's worth, I visited the Church of John Coltrane in San Francisco in a slightly flippant state of mind, I have to admit. But I was very impressed by the reverence with which his followers treated him: that and the fact that we were all given instruments to join in with 'A Love Supreme'.


Andy Wilson hated it and described it pretty much as you just have. I really enjoyed it so I must be a bloke too.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> ? Hint ?
> 
> I don't think you mean another Donny?


Assuming I am right.
Posh
Went to Cambridge
I never liked him (not that it helps just thought I would chuck it in)
Former CC member who dispersed of the CC mysteriously and who had been responsible for organising Marxism.

Sod it while I don't want to name the chap if he wants to keep it secret, I guess I could give you this link to last year's Marxism timetable and suggest you look at the speakers for the course on 'a rough guide to the Marxist method'.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> According to that Fb page, most of the attendees at that meeting came straight from the UK!
> 
> I see, on the Leeds SWSS statement linkde to, Elane Heffernan comes out in support of the critics. Bit surprising.


Did she? Wow wouldn't have called that one.

Yeah the only ISO guy discussing it did kind of admit they had about two members in that branch.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Assuming I am right.
> Posh
> Went to Cambridge
> I never liked him (not that it helps just thought I would chuck it in)
> ...


Why not just name him if you're going to do that? I note the thing next to him:

_Course: a rough guide to the Marxist method_
*Labour & alienation*
Dan Swain
*Philosophy* -*Working class*


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> According to that Fb page, most of the attendees at that meeting came straight from the UK!
> 
> I see, on the Leeds SWSS statement linkde to, Elane Heffernan comes out in support of the critics. Bit surprising.


Wow, gobsmacking!! 

I am starting to regret not really being into Facebook.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why not just name him if you're going to do that?


Because if some one searches for his name this thread will not show up, I assume that is why he is using a false name.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Start of last year Donnie fucking darko was_ looking after appeals ._

_Come 2013 he's sporting the _



> How does the first generation of leaders loosen its grip and let a new generation lead? How, when so much of the organisational life has *orbited around defending obscure interpretations of irrelevant theoretical arguments*


 
Look.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Is the ISO-US starting to sniff around?
> http://theredplebeian.wordpress.com...risis-in-the-british-socialist-workers-party/


 
My God what a load a crap.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Assuming I am right.
> Posh
> Went to Cambridge
> I never liked him (not that it helps just thought I would chuck it in)
> ...


 
Is he in his mid 20s now?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That you have a look and make an analysis.


 
I'd sort of assumed Soviet Russia was state capitalism, it was just the way that state capper sounded like it was being used in a derogatory way.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Because if some one searches for his name this thread will not show up, I assume that is why he is using a false name.


Although he seems to be a long way down the in the Google search results anyway 10 pages in and no sign if him.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Is he in his mid 20s now?


I would guess very late 20s or early 30s. He was a member for 11 years and joined as a student.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 17, 2013)

Yeah I know him. Not a fan.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I would guess very late 20s or early 30s. He was a member for 11 years and joined as a student.


And a oxbridge lad went straight to top table at such a young age and after such short membership. This i find hard to believe.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And a oxbridge lad went straight to top table at such a young age and after such short membership. This i find hard to believe.


Fucking oxbridge. In the 60's it was my beloved Alma Mater got all the best cc seats.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> none plausible


 
None entirely convincing, but none less convincing than applying the term "capitalism" to mean "anything we don't like". But that's for another thread.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron

When I was in the Party he was head of SWSS. He became a CC member a few years (2008-9?) after I left, but he can only be about 28 now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Fucking oxbridge. In the 60's it was my beloved Alma Mater got all the best cc seats.


Wolves poly?


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> None entirely convincing, but none less convincing than applying the term "capitalism" to mean "anything we don't like". But that's for another thread.


If that is your understanding of the theory nigel, then the education within the SP and the SP(I) is even worse than I thought!


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And a oxbridge lad went straight to top table at such a young age and after such short membership. This i find hard to believe.


Shocking isn't it.

Jo C was similar but I quite like him. He even had a proper job for a couple of months at one point.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> None entirely convincing, but none less convincing than applying the term "capitalism" to mean "anything we don't like". But that's for another thread.


 
Yes, true - that's normally what's done with the term "liberal". Believe in womens' rights, free speech, racial equality, equality of opportunity? Liberal cunt.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

mk12 said:


> butchersapron
> 
> When I was in the Party he was head of SWSS. He became a CC member a few years (2008-9?) after I left, but he can only be about 28 now.


Yeah that sounds about right, time wise.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Shocking isn't it.
> 
> Jo C was similar but I quite like him. He even had a proper job for a couple of months at one point.


Oxbridge as well is he?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I am starting to regret not really being into Facebook.


Too right. You just missed John Rees describe this episode as "the single biggest implosion of the revolutionary left since the Italian left meltdown of the mid 1970s"


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Too right. You just missed John Rees describe this episode as "the single biggest implosion of the revolutionary left since the Italian left meltdown of the mid 1970s"


The implosion that didn't happen.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> If that is your understanding of the theory nigel, then the education within the SP and the SP(I) is even worse than I thought!


This isn't the right thread of course as NI says but that's a cracking comment belboid, bang on the money. Just the sort of crass description of state cap that the Millies used to feed their younger members. Anyway enough of this it's indulgent of us all!


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oxbridge as well is he?


Cambridge, got a first in physics.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> If that is your understanding of the theory nigel, then the education within the SP and the SP(I) is even worse than I thought!


 
No, I'm quite familiar with Cliff's "theory", and its revisions, and a number of other "state capitalist" theories, some predating his, and find none of them even slightly convincing. Trotsky, Shachtman, Ticktin, etc have all produced theoretical frameworks with more explanatory power. However, while I broadly lean towards Trotsky's view, as expanded into "Proletarian Bonapartism", I don't find any of the main theories entirely convincing on every issue and aspect, and tend to agree with Jim Higgins' observation that all of the various "theories" of Stalinism have generally been better at pointing out the flaws in other theories than they have at providing their own unassailable accounts.

I've always found that the mark of the very stupidest SWP members has been a conviction that "State Capitalism" has provided their organisation with the secret keys to the universe. It's almost always accompanied by a broad ignorance of the detail of Cliff's (contradictory) theories and a near total ignorance of any other theory.

But as I've said above, this is really something for another thread as it's the kind of classic set piece argument that could go on for thirty pages here with nobody changing their minds.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Cambridge, got a first in physics.


And the young one?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And the young one?


Just know he went to Cambridge.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The implosion that didn't happen.


That's terribly undialectical of you fella I'm sure John would say. The implosion is a process, only a hopeless empiricist would take the lack of an implosion so far as evidence of no impending implosion.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Too right. You just missed John Rees describe this episode as "the single biggest implosion of the revolutionary left since the Italian left meltdown of the mid 1970s"


So not just the biggest on the British left but the world wide left.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That's terribly undialectical of you fella I'm sure John would say. The implosion is a process, only a hopeless empiricist would take the lack of an implosion so far as evidence of no impending implosion.


 
You're getting a bit Zhou Enlai and the French Revolution here. He's talking about the Italian left "implosion" of the 70s.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

Someone who was on the CC just a year ago is a pretty big "scalp" for Counterfire. But he clearly hasn't brought a group with him or they'd be advertising the fact.

I note also that a certain SWP-sympathising academic's insistence on calling Rees and German "Lord and Lady MacBeth" on Facebook seems to drive the Counterfire people absolutely nuts.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That's terribly undialectical of you fella I'm sure John would say. The implosion is a process, only a hopeless empiricist would take the lack of an implosion so far as evidence of no impending implosion.


Like trotsky and ww3 - he's not wrong, it's just that it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You're getting a bit Zhou Enlai and the French Revolution here. He's talking about the Italian left "implosion" of the 70s.


Oh feck was he, of course yeah I see now why he'd say that, my bad.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, I'm quite familiar with Cliff's "theory", and its revisions, and a number of other "state capitalist" theories, some predating his, and find none of them even slightly convincing. Trotsky, Shachtman, Ticktin, etc have all produced theoretical frameworks with more explanatory power. However, while I broadly lean towards Trotsky's view, as expanded into "Proletarian Bonapartism", I don't find any of the main theories entirely convincing on every issue and aspect, and tend to agree with Jim Higgins' observation that all of the various "theories" of Stalinism have generally been better at pointing out the flaws in other theories than they have at providing their own unassailable accounts.
> 
> I've always found that the mark of the very stupidest SWP members has been a conviction that "State Capitalism" has provided their organisation with the secret keys to the universe. It's almost always accompanied by a broad ignorance of the detail of Cliff's (contradictory) theories and a near total ignorance of any other theory.
> 
> But as I've said above, this is really something for another thread as it's the kind of classic set piece argument that could go on for thirty pages here with nobody changing their minds.


none of which is really consistent with what you said before, but, yeah, another time, another thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You're getting a bit Zhou Enlai and the French Revolution here. He's talking about the Italian left "implosion" of the 70s.


What/which implosion?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What/which implosion?


 
Exactly.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> So not just the biggest on the British left but the world wide left.


Well yeah I thought it telling that he sees the swp as THAT important.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well yeah I thought it telling that he sees the swp as THAT important.


That's what they taught him. It's what they taught you. What party are you both in?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well yeah I thought it telling that he sees the swp as THAT important.


Stuck in a bubble the lot of them and that include the opposition.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> none of which is really consistent with what you said before, but, yeah, another time, another thread.


 
I just started a response to this explaining precisely why it's consistent, and then had to restrain myself. It's one of those topics that exercises a kind of magnetic pull towards endless polemical exchanges. Even now that it doesn't really fucking matter very much.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Even now that it doesn't really fucking matter very much.


Ohhh, but it does, because.......

No, no, I'll stop it now.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's what they taught him. It's what they taught you. What party are you both in?


It is a little like Joyce and his obsession with the Catholic Church he'd 'left' I grant you.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I note also that a certain SWP-sympathising academic's insistence on calling Rees and German "Lord and Lady MacBeth" on Facebook seems to drive the Counterfire people absolutely nuts.


 
Sorry to respond to myself, but to expand on this slightly, there seems to be pretty much unanimous _loathing_ for the Counterfire leadership amongst the more prominent oppositionists. When Seymour pours scorn on their heads, mocking them for posing as "democratic" critics of the SWP without explaining their own past role, he gets support from everyone from Renton to Wilson.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Sorry to respond to myself, but to expand on this slightly, there seems to be pretty much unanimous _loathing_ for the Counterfire leadership amongst the more prominent oppositionists. When Seymour pours scorn on their heads, mocking them for posing as "democratic" critics of the SWP without explaining their own past role, he gets support from everyone from Renton to Wilson.


Which opens him up to 'what about you richard'?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Sorry to respond to myself, but to expand on this slightly, there seems to be pretty much unanimous _loathing_ for the Counterfire leadership amongst the more prominent oppositionists. When Seymour pours scorn on their heads, mocking them for posing as "democratic" critics of the SWP without explaining their own past role, he gets support from everyone from Renton to Wilson.


Yes he does. They despise them which I must admit suprises me. God knows Counterfire seem very open and experimental and all that stuff the dissidents crave.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which opens him up to 'what about you richard'?


 
Apparently it doesn't really.

1) He was never in the leadership.
2) According to some snide loyalists (who meant this as a dismissal), he'd moved various democratic resolutions repeatedly in the past.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> 1) He was never in the leadership.


Envy of Rees et al it is then.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Like trotsky and ww3 - he's not wrong, it's just that it hasn't happened yet.


 
I remember reading that a group of trots - might have been the US SWP but not sure - claimed after WW2 had ended that since Trotsky had said Stalinism wouldn't survive WW2 and Stalinism was still alive and kicking the war obviously hadn't really ended. I might have read that in something Tony Cliff wrote come to think of it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Envy of Rees et al it is then.


 
I doubt it. If he'd been willing to be an "enthusiast", and really wanted to, they'd have put him on the CC as an adornment pretty quickly.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently it doesn't really.
> 
> 1) He was never in the leadership.
> 2) According to some snide loyalists (who meant this as a dismissal), he'd moved various democratic resolutions repeatedly in the past.


I note the _apparently_. 

He set the public tone for the middle-leadership - he did this year after year when the things he now condemns were happening. We all saw him twist and turn as demanded , we all saw him defend the organisation.

I don't buy 2). I've seen how happy he was in that environment he now condemns. (and i don't doubt for a second that his outrage is genuine - it's just telling that it took this to bring it to the boil)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

Interesting revelation that Rees and Callinicos tried to force the SWP people involved in the early Historical Materialism to shut it down.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I doubt it. If he'd been willing to be an "enthusiast", and really wanted to, they'd have put him on the CC as an adornment pretty quickly.


You're sounding like you admire him for his moral courage. Personally I just think he was too bright to be entusiastic about politics he didn't share - but then I would.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I note the _apparently_.
> 
> He set the public tone for the middle-leadership - he did this year after year when the things he now condemns were happening. We all saw him twist and turn as demanded , we all saw him defend the organisation.
> 
> I don't buy 2). I've seen how happy he was in that environment he now condemns. (and i don't doubt for a second that his outrage is genuine - it's just telling that it took this to bring it to the boil)


 
From the point of view of the SWPer that was simply a good show of discipline. Make your criticisms internally, defend the stance externally. In fact, whatever it may look like to those outside, it gives him more rather than less authority to other SWPers when he claims that this row has to go public now because he has a record of "loyal" dissent previously.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Interesting revelation that Rees and Callinicos tried to force the SWP people involved in the early Historical Materialism to shut it down.


Any more info on that?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> From the point of view of the SWPer that was simply a good show of discipline. Make your criticisms internally, defend the stance externally. In fact, whatever it may look like to those outside, it gives him more rather than less authority to other SWPers when he claims that this row has to go public now because he has a record of "loyal" dissent previously.


I'm suggesting that it never happened though.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You're sounding like you admire him for his moral courage.


 
No, I'm defending him against what seem to be rather unfair dismissals of his motives. You can be critical of his politics without adding in base motives with little evidence to support them.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It is awful true enough. Their Dallas branch had a whole meeting on it this week, something that caused a huge debate on FB between the different wings of the opposition. Good old Colin Barker had some very dry remarks about why the ISO would be inetersted in 'helping' on this issue but the Seymourites see it all as grist to the mill.


 
What does Colin Barker say?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm suggesting that it never happened though.


 
I'm only going on the hostile comments from loyalists sneering at him turning up with his stupid little democracy criticisms at conference every year. And note, nobody has responded to him with "well why did you never say anything before/why did you hide your differences/etc", which we would expect if he was a sudden convert.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm only going on the hostile comments from loyalists sneering at him turning up with his stupid little democracy criticisms at conference every year.


Get that nige, no probs. That would make him a target - but, i don't think he was a target, he was encouraged if anything.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Any more info on that?


 
Not really, just that Callinicos has since accepted that he was wrong, while Rees hasn't (although presumably nobody has asked him about it in a long time). I can only guess that it was fear of it undermining the ISJ.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not really, just that Callinicos has since accepted that he was wrong, while Rees hasn't (although presumably nobody has asked him about it in a long time). I can only guess that it was fear of it undermining the ISJ.


Well luckily HM has spun off into being a really great but pointless journal that only academic libraries can afford.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Get that nige, no probs. That would make him a target - but, i don't think he was a target, he was encouraged if anything.


 
My reading of it is that they were cultivating him as John Molyneux for a new generation. A loyal, safe, critic with the emphasis on loyal. Who would occasionally demonstrate internally that there was room for dissent, but would be entirely harmless.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, I'm defending him against what seem to be rather unfair dismissals of his motives. You can be critical of his politics without adding in base motives with little evidence to support them.


Well he'd be the only swper never accused of base motives on here if so. As it goes I don't think he was ambitious within the swp (knew his limits) but I think he'd happily lead a breakaway now. Which would be harder if he just jumped to Counterfire.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> What does Colin Barker say?


Not a lot but he shall we say he doubted the motives of people outside the swp having meetings dedicated to this crisis.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not a lot but he shall we say he doubted the motives of people outside the swp having meetings dedicated to this crisis.


 
Fair enough, really.

The Weekly Worker this week actually had a pop at the Socialist Party for not acting like priapic scavengers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well he'd be the only swper never accused of base motives on here if so. As it goes I don't think he was ambitious within the swp (knew his limits) but I think he'd happily lead a breakaway now. Which would be harder if he just jumped to Counterfire.


I don't think he has base motives, i think he is in a hitchens like dalliance (which, on reflection might be pretty base). After this he will revert to commentating.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I remember reading that a group of trots - might have been the US SWP but not sure - claimed after WW2 had ended that since Trotsky had said Stalinism wouldn't survive WW2 and Stalinism was still alive and kicking the war obviously hadn't really ended. I might have read that in something Tony Cliff wrote come to think of it.


Yeah James P Cannon. I read it in Hallas: "[Cannon wrote] 'Trotsky predicted that the fate of the Soviet Union would be decided in the war. _That remains our firm conviction._ Only we disagree with some people who carelessly think the war is over ... The war is not over, and the revolution which we said would issue from the war in Europe is not taken off the agenda.' Thus Trotsky’s predictions were elevated to the status of sacred writings, of gospel; and if there was a contradiction between gospel and reality, so much the worse for reality." God I miss Hallas.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 17, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> My God what a load a crap.


Some good tips for a tiny belly though!


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well luckily HM has spun off into being a really great but pointless journal that only academic libraries can afford.


I had believed that HM was begun after the failure of the journal of Trotsky studies as a vehicle to undermine revolutionary history during its Richardson period, but now that that is also a pseudo academic journal with a price to match and dominated by the same bunch, this is a somewhat crowded and very narrow niche.


----------



## SLK (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Shocking isn't it.
> 
> Jo C was similar but I quite like him. He even had a proper job for a couple of months at one point.



?????

Jo C is female!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

SLK said:


> ?????
> 
> Jo C is female!


Fuck off weirdo. Trotsky talks about this.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck off weirdo. Trotsky talks about this.


Whoah what did SLK do to deserve that?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Whoah what did SLK do to deserve that?


There are stuff only the CC knows about. This matter is now closed.


----------



## cesare (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There are stuff only the CC knows about. This matter is now closed.





You said earlyish in the thread that you'd sussed who they were?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Whoah what did SLK do to deserve that?


 
Where to start?!


----------



## emanymton (Jan 17, 2013)

SLK said:


> ?????
> 
> Jo C is female!


No he's not, I should have spelt it with an E on the end though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

New one? Bit rubbish.


----------



## SLK (Jan 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> No he's not, I should have spelt it with an E on the end though.


 
Different one. The one without an e, who is also on the CC, is female!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

SLK said:


> Different one. The one without an e, who is also on the CC, is female!


...and who has diff name!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> You said earlyish in the thread that you'd sussed who they were?


I did and i have. Let it ride for now.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bit rubbish.


You think? I know I should be sneering at the lack of politics but it was actually the most moving one I've read yet, simple but humbling. Nobody in the swp can be glad he is leaving. This shit is all getting very depressing.


----------



## SLK (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> ...and who has diff name!


 
Jo Cardwell? Not important of course. Just clarifying who I meant.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You think? I know I should be sneering at the lack of politics but it was actually the most moving one I've read yet, simple but humbling. Nobody in the swp can be glad he is leaving. This shit is all getting very depressing.


You know, i think i should be agreeing with you, but i actually think that you're making it up to look like you do really care.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2013)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-...osition-emboldened-as-demand-for-recall-grows


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> shall we go danny la rouge?


Past caring went all the way to virginia to see Dr Ralph Stanley - make an effort danny. Whilst you can.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You know, i think i should be agreeing with you, but i actually think that you're making it up to look like you do really care.


I was about to ask you not to be an arse but fair enough I can see you might think that, I certainly can sound hackish at times. But that's a level of Machiavellian I'm not capable of, his letter genuinely depressed me, simple and heartfelt. I can just about remember being as uncomplicatedly passionate about changing the world as the author of this letter sounds.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 17, 2013)

SLK said:


> Jo Cardwell? Not important of course. Just clarifying who I meant.


 
Shouldn't you be drinking and playng online poker or summat?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I was about to ask you not to be an arse but fair enough I can see you might think that, I certainly can sound hackish at times. But that's a level of Machiavellian I'm not capable of, his letter genuinely depressed me, simple and heartfelt. I can just about remember being as uncomplicatedly passionate about changing the world as the author of this letter sounds.


Ok , i will take that as it's offered. If that's as you say, fair dos.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 17, 2013)

I must admit as much as he defends the indefensible I think Bolshibhoy is a nice guy who means well and is on the right side


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> What's a state capper?


 
After all these years?


----------



## cesare (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> After all these years?


Well, you know what I'm like. I don't use all these terms and words irl, so tend to just ask rather than trying to commit them all to memory.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> According to that Fb page, most of the attendees at that meeting came straight from the UK!
> 
> I see, on the Leeds SWSS statement linkde to, Elane Heffernan comes out in support of the critics. Bit surprising.


 
Any thing Elaine Hefferman is for I am against


----------



## discokermit (Jan 17, 2013)

little bit irrelevant but does anyone know if old swp pre conference bulletins are published anywhere online? early nineties, to be specific. '90 - '93, to be even more specific. ta.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Well, you know what I'm like. I don't use all these terms and words irl, so tend to just ask rather than trying to commit them all to memory.


 
We all have our flaws. I can forgive.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Too right. You just missed John Rees describe this episode as "the single biggest implosion of the revolutionary left since the Italian left meltdown of the mid 1970s"


 
Me and Butchers know the analogy but who the fuck else does?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Interesting revelation that Rees and Callinicos tried to force the SWP people involved in the early Historical Materialism to shut it down.


 
a nation mourns


----------



## cesare (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> We all have our flaws. I can forgive.


So sorry


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You think? I know I should be sneering at the lack of politics but it was actually the most moving one I've read yet, simple but humbling. Nobody in the swp can be glad he is leaving. This shit is all getting very depressing.


 
I'm finding it all increasingly disturbing and distressing. I wanted to think well of the SWP (not the CC) because I had good friends and comrades in it and that's my tendency . I don't have a head for political machinations and can't see it in others (I always have to ask Blagsta what's going on in political thrillers  ). It's all a real head fuck.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Me and Butchers know the analogy but who the fuck else does?


Lol fair point! He was addressing me personally at the time so I guess he thought I did. Probably mistook me for some other Irish comrade he remembers from happier days who was better read.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> So sorry


 
Forgiven.


----------



## Kidda (Jan 17, 2013)

I have to admit to being a bit lost with all this. 

Has the accused been charged with anything by the police? 

From what i'm hearing theres a bloke being accused of rape and a very distressed woman having to go through a load of ''did he, didn't he? is she lying?'' chattering.

Even by the SWP's standard this is all very horrible and fucked up.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ok , i will take that as it's offered. If that's as you say, fair dos.


Thanks for that, big hugs all round then


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Kidda said:


> I have to admit to being a bit lost with all this.
> 
> Has the accused been charged with anything by the police?
> 
> ...


Not being funny but you need to go back to the start with this - there is no start i can point to, so the transcript of the DC reportmight do. Do that first.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thanks for that.


Fuck off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

Kidda said:


> I have to admit to being a bit lost with all this.
> 
> Has the accused been charged with anything by the police?
> 
> ...


"the accused"? that's the punchline from the auld scouse joke in't it?


----------



## cesare (Jan 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Forgiven.


Button re-education camp again for me


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Button re-education camp again for me


they call it a camp but there's no tents or anything. you need to construct shelters yourself.


----------



## cesare (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> they call it a camp but there's no tents or anything. you need to construct shelters yourself.


Siberian winter


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> "the accused"? that's the punchline from the auld scouse joke in't it?


I had a job interview today, new suit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I had a job interview today, new suit.


i hope it went well


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i hope it went well


Ta! Only so many ways that _can you clean shit off diggers with a high pressure hose_ can go. The next test is_ do you live near here_. Not sure they bought my lie that i did.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not being funny but you need to go back to the start with this  - there is no start i can point to, so the transcript of the DC report might do. Do that first.



Also not being funny, but that link doesn't work for me...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I'm finding it all increasingly disturbing and distressing. I wanted to think well of the SWP (not the CC) because I had good friends and comrades in it and that's my tendency . I don't have a head for political machinations and can't see it in others (I always have to ask Blagsta what's going on in political thrillers  ). It's all a real head fuck.


Too right. Could be worse, we could be having to sit in branch meetings tonight trying to make sense of it all and find an answer that doesn't mean spitting on people you have respect for, whatever you decide to do!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck off.


Haha thats more like it! But you'd miss me if I left and vice versa.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Haha thats more like it! But you'd miss me if I left and vice versa.


not really, if truth be told


----------



## Kidda (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not being funny but you need to go back to the start with this - there is no start i can point to, so the transcript of the DC report might do. Do that first.


 
Cheers butchers, will do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Also not being funny, but that link doesn't work for me...


Any better?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Any better?



Yep! Ta. 

On reflection I might read something cheerier now and dig into that tomorrow tho...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> not really, if truth be told


Ach come here and give us a kiss you big anarchist tosser! 

So anyway, where were we.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

Kidda said:


> Cheers butchers, will do.


 
See also for better link - sorry for hassle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Ach come here and give us a kiss you big anarchist tosser!
> 
> So anyway, where were we.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 17, 2013)

"No wonder she was nationalised!" Brilliant thanks Pickman. Though Imjustbhad to explain to the missus why I was listening to the MR while she's trying to sleep.

People know this guy? http://derekthomas2010.wordpress.com/

Not sure the cc needs friends like that. And women certainly don't. Does say some pertinent things about Seymour mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "No wonder she was nationalised!" Brilliant thanks Pickman. Though Imjustbhad to explain to the missus why I was listening to the MR while she's trying to sleep.
> 
> People know this guy? http://derekthomas2010.wordpress.com/
> 
> Not sure the cc needs friends like that. And women certainly don't. Does say some pertinent things about Seymour mind.


Not sure the party needs him/her never mind the CC. What seymour bits are pertinent?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure the party needs him/her never mind the CC. What seymour bits are pertinent?


Proper weird blog true enough. I hadn't heard the term Seymourectomy before but you're right there actually isn't much of real pertinence behind the raving, even if I do agree that Seymour is a Trojan Horse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

What happens when we lose? Seymours lot should be on this now. Because this is what will happen.
What happen when we win? Write it down exactly.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2013)

Mieville has a piece up on Lenin's Tomb. Limited mostly to issues of democracy but pretty decent on that.

They are starting to write down "what happens we win", but to a certain extent it's in their interests to not get too prescriptive and let everyone project their own desire onto the new more democratic SWP.

They won't be publicising what to do when they lose, right up until the point where they get expelled or give up, because it would be seen as a concession of defeat. I'd bet that some of them are discussing that behind the scenes though, because, as you say, that's what's likely to happen. But they can't put out plans because that would be immediately portrayed as "preparing for a split".


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> People know this guy? http://derekthomas2010.wordpress.com/


 
That's written by Tom Delargy i'm sure. He's got a very tenuous grip on reality at the best of times.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 18, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> That's written by Tom Delargy i'm sure. He's got a very tenuous grip on reality at the best of times.


Expelled by bambi, shows that even a complete dick can get it right occasionally


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2013)

Fair enough on the Delargy fella.

Mieville's tone was very measured. Gave the game away with the footnote on feminism mind.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2013)

Don't tell me he never really understood the politics too?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2013)

So the ISG would seem to have far less qualms about adopting the identity politics critique of leninism than Counterfire

http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2013/01/comment-on-the-swp-crisis-sexism-the-left/


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Don't tell me he never really understood the politics too?


After a close textual analysis of The City and The City yes that's my conclusion! No course it's not. Dunno, never knew him at all and rarely seen him writepolitically so can't judge. Think I can see where he's headed now mind.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So the ISG would seem to have far less qualms about adopting the identity politics critique of leninism than Counterfire
> 
> http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2013/01/comment-on-the-swp-crisis-sexism-the-left/


 
That's not a pitch to an organised opposition. It's a pitch to individual stragglers with a more feminist bent.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Haha thats more like it! But you'd miss me if I left and vice versa.


 
So thinking you're a cunt on here goes way back bb? If only I'd known!


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Too right. Could be worse, we could be having to sit in branch meetings tonight trying to make sense of it all and find an answer that doesn't mean spitting on people you have respect for, whatever you decide to do!


 
Indeed. I know a lot of members who will have great difficulty believing that a certain member of the DC behaved dishonourably. I'm having real problems with that.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 18, 2013)

I am a little confused, are the isg the same former swpers who boasted of lying for tommy and denigrated the 'shrill feminists' of the ssp? Or were they different swpers?


----------



## manny-p (Jan 18, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I must admit as much as he defends the indefensible I think Bolshibhoy is a nice guy who means well and is on the right side


He's in the fucking labour party.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2013)

So?


----------



## manny-p (Jan 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> So?


Hardly revolutionary.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Hardly revolutionary.


 
To be honest I an not sure that I am revolutionary


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> To be honest I an not sure that I am revolutionary


 
the workers bomb needs you though


----------



## cesare (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> To be honest I an not sure that I am revolutionary



I'm pretty sure that I can be revolting on the other hand.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm pretty sure that I can be revolting on the other hand.


 
There is a sense of dialectics between me and you


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 18, 2013)

http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...list-workers-party-and-the-future-of-the-left

"Comrade Delta"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2013)

manny-p said:


> He's in the fucking labour party.


i get the impression that, of all the fucking that goes on in the labour party, articul8 isn't getting any.


----------



## SLK (Jan 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> After a close textual analysis of The City and The City yes that's my conclusion! No course it's not. Dunno, never knew him at all and rarely seen him writepolitically so can't judge. Think I can see where he's headed now mind.


 
He was around HM before joining - never got involved with SWSS at LSE - even less than you.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...list-workers-party-and-the-future-of-the-left
> 
> "Comrade Delta"


 
another group talking about the IS tradition. The IS tradition is worth some reevaluation as it means anything to anyone

How is organising the Firebox staff btw


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 18, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...list-workers-party-and-the-future-of-the-left
> 
> "Comrade Delta"


 
I like one of the comments on F/B about the Counterfire statement:



> _*Executive summary: everything was fine and dandy when JR and Sue Ellen ruled the roost, but then there was the "retreat from the movement". Avanti! Back to the future! Not a line of self-criticism or reflexivity. Pitiful*_.


 
I think I prefer that to the previous references to Rees and German as Lord and Lady MacBeth.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...list-workers-party-and-the-future-of-the-left
> 
> "Comrade Delta"


Eh? Is this the first that you've heard of this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I like one of the comments on F/B about the Counterfire statement:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I prefer that to the previous references to Rees and German as Lord and Lady MacBeth.


For 37 years it was all dandy, then _somehow_ the next, it wasn't.


----------



## cesare (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> There is a sense of dialectics between me and you


You say Hegel, I say haggle ...


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> For 37 years it was all dandy, then _somehow_ the next, it wasn't.


 
Another moment.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Another moment.


Indeed, and german pretty much said exactly that the other day. I've not yet read the long counterfire piece but i can sense lots of _moments_ there too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, and german pretty much said exactly that the other day. I've not yet read the long counterfire piece but i can sense lots of _moments_ there too.


i don't think anyone has read the long counterfire piece


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> You say Hegel, I say haggle ...


and you say bagel and i say baggle


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 18, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I like one of the comments on F/B about the Counterfire statement:
> 
> _*Executive summary: everything was fine and dandy when JR and Sue Ellen ruled the roost, but then there was the "retreat from the movement". Avanti! Back to the future! Not a line of self-criticism or reflexivity. Pitiful*_


 

I haven't read it all but I can't imagine any former members of the CC having argued for people outside the party to assist with this case; I just can't imagine them handling this any differently because the only appropriate response was that.

ETA: Not that I'm in a position to suggest who they would be. I still don't think there were easy solutions even if there must have been a better one.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Hardly revolutionary.


You been to Wiltshire?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think anyone has read the long counterfire piece


 
You're not missing out on much....apart from the phrase "permanent factional paroxysm".


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2013)

I quite enjoyed it. Never have understood eaxctly what Counterfire's analysis was. Plenty to think about in it.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 18, 2013)

Harrys place have found that comrade delta has the support of altzmon, apparently all a Jewish plot!


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Harrys place have found that comrade delta has the support of altzmon, apparently all a Jewish plot!


Jesus, I thought you might be joking, but no.....

I suppose Delta made a bit of money for Atzmon through his jazz promotions


----------



## manny-p (Jan 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You been to Wiltshire?


No.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

> Discussions on building a new left will continue. The precise organisational forms it will take have not been settled, and nor is there an obvious blueprint.


Course there is!


----------



## Kidda (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> See also for better link - sorry for hassle.


 
No worries  

It makes for a very disturbing read, the worst part being these people actually think this kangaroo court is an acceptable way to treat an accusation of rape.

Fucking knobbers the lot of um.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 18, 2013)

Kidda said:


> No worries
> 
> It makes for a very disturbing read, the worst part being these people actually think this kangaroo court is an acceptable way to treat an accusation of rape.
> 
> Fucking knobbers the lot of um.


5 words summing up 90 pages well.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Harrys place have found that comrade delta has the support of altzmon, apparently all a Jewish plot!


 
What a fucking surprise that a dodgy cunt has dodgy views on other shit as well 

i thought the SWP disowned him in the end tho? Atzmon that is


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 18, 2013)

He's a scumbag. I didn't know anything about this particular sordid affair until it broke, but I knew Comrade Delta was a gobshite along time ago.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 18, 2013)

He is a cunt but my family went to see a concert of his when i was 15 or so before we knew what his views were


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 18, 2013)

"However, it didn’t take long to realise that Martin Smith was not being pursued because he is a ‘sex offender’ – he surely isn’t – no, our so-called ‘progressive’ tribals chase Smith because he is a Jazz lover and an enthusiastic fan of my music. They harass him because he gave me a platform in spite of the Jewish demand to ban me. They want to bring Martin Smith down simply because he didn’t obey his tribal masters. So If anything, it is Martin who is the rape victim in this saga – he is punished because he refused to bow down to the tribal junta. "


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> "However, it didn’t take long to realise that Martin Smith was not being pursued because he is a ‘sex offender’ – he surely isn’t – no, our so-called ‘progressive’ tribals chase Smith because he is a Jazz lover and an enthusiastic fan of my music. They harass him because he gave me a platform in spite of the Jewish demand to ban me. They want to bring Martin Smith down simply because he didn’t obey his tribal masters. So If anything, it is Martin who is the rape victim in this saga – he is punished because he refused to bow down to the tribal junta. "


 
So it's the Jews' fault?  I wondered how long it would take for somebody to bring in anti-semitism


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> "However, it didn’t take long to realise that Martin Smith was not being pursued because he is a ‘sex offender’ – he surely isn’t – no, our so-called ‘progressive’ tribals chase Smith because he is a Jazz lover and an enthusiastic fan of my music. They harass him because he gave me a platform in spite of the Jewish demand to ban me. They want to bring Martin Smith down simply because he didn’t obey his tribal masters. So If anything, it is Martin who is the rape victim in this saga – he is punished because he refused to bow down to the tribal junta. "


 
That is one of the most mental things I have ever read.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I wondered how long it would take for somebody to bring in anti-semitism


did you? "martin smith is being attacked because of the jews" is a pretty long stretch of the imagination.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 18, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> That is one of the most mental things I have ever read.


http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/sax-offender-vs-progressive-rapists.html


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/sax-offender-vs-progressive-rapists.html


 
I like his scarf.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2013)

The Atzmon shit matters cause Martin backed him.  I do wish this anti Semitic arse would just back off though. Martin's defence of him was based on the best motives. This guys defence of Martin is just shit.


----------



## cesare (Jan 18, 2013)

Comrade Delta running man copyright lusty  I'd forgotten about that 

In other news Liverpool Solfed have occupied Liverpool council chamber


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Comrade Delta running man copyright lusty  I'd forgotten about that
> 
> In other news Liverpool Solfed have occupied Liverpool council chamber


 
I didn't think the elections were till May? well can't hold the masses back.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2013)

manny-p said:


> No.


Fair enough but if you had been you'd know Labour are far left in this god forsaken county


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 18, 2013)

For anyone reading the thread who wants to quick reference point to all the online articles. etc, Green blogger, Jim Jepps, has provided a nice timeline on his blog:

http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=273


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> In other news Liverpool Solfed have occupied Liverpool council chamber


is this at the council cuts 'summit'?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2013)

Surprised there's been mention of Larry o'haras claim that delta used anti-semetic terms to attack Gerry gable at a semi-public meeting?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> For anyone reading the thread who wants to quick reference point to all the online articles. etc, Green blogger, Jim Jepps, has provided a nice timeline on his blog:
> 
> http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=273


blimey, when did he become a Green??!!


----------



## cesare (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I didn't think the elections were till May? well can't hold the masses back.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Surprised there's been mention of Larry o'haras claim that delta used anti-semetic terms to attack Gerry gable at a semi-public meeting?


Why and where have you now brought this up? When were you first aware of this claim?


----------



## cesare (Jan 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> is this at the council cuts 'summit'?


S'pose it must be. The summit called by the Bishop of Liverpool?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> is this at the council cuts 'summit'?



Yes and no, the summit was in a conference centre, went to the town hall after the snow and cold drove us away from outside the conference centre.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Fair enough but if you had been you'd know Labour are far left in this god forsaken county


Compared to everyone else eh. Ok mate.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2013)

In context of Smith and anti-semitism.  Birds of a feather?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> blimey, when did he become a Green??!!


 
2004 by the looks of it.


----------



## cesare (Jan 18, 2013)

BigTom said:


> Yes and no, the summit was in a conference centre, went to the town hall after the snow and cold drove us away from outside the conference centre.


Standing inside instead of standing outside


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

BigTom said:


> Yes and no, the summit was in a conference centre, went to the town hall after the snow and cold drove us away from outside the conference centre.


 
any one apart form Solfed involved?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> In context of Smith and anti-semitism. Birds of a feather?


I asked: Why and where have you now brought this up? When were you first aware of this claim? I'll also ask what the claim _actually is_ and where it was made as you seem resistant to publishing it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> In context of Smith and anti-semitism.  Birds of a feather?


Fuck off. You ever stood with that cunt in brick lane against the anti Semites?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 18, 2013)

Gilad:



> Once again leading UK AZZs , their Sabbath Goyim (Laurie Penny and Richard Seymour) and Islamophobic Hasbara outlet Harry’s Place have been caught together in bed. The exact same Judeocentric tribal coalition that, a year and a half ago, was formed to wreck my career (and failed) is now pursuing Martin Smith AKA _Comrade Delta_, former secretary of the UK SWP (Socialist Workers Party) who, they insist, is a ‘sex offender’.


 
Say it sister!


----------



## manny-p (Jan 18, 2013)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Gilad:
> 
> 
> 
> Say it sister!


jeez


----------



## cesare (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> any one apart form Solfed involved?


http://infantile-disorder.blogspot....ainst-cuts-occupy-town-hall.html?spref=tw&m=1


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

Do you think there is any chance that Richard Seymour could go out with Laurie Penny? A bit like Kylie and  Jason?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/sax-offender-vs-progressive-rapists.html


It's all become clear to me now the civil war currently waging within the SWP is nothing to do with democracy or the appalling treatment of women making accusations of sexual harassment and rape. No the truth is that this is a war being fought between those who like Jazz and those who do not, all the rest is mere pretense.

We should all have seen this days ago when the mask first slipped and the following appeared on Lenin's Tomb 



> At its most extreme, the sycophancy appears cult-like.  A number of CC members are big fans of jazz music.  Under their leadership over the past few years, the party has organised a number of (mostly loss-making) jazz gigs as fundraising events.  Regardless of their own musical tastes, comrades were told they were disloyal if they didn't purchase tickets.  This elevates the cultural tastes of the official leadership to a point of political principle; and clearly is not in any way a healthy state of affairs.


But instead of seeing the truth we simply scoffed.

We can seen just how deep rooted this conflict is within the SWP when we consider that one of the leading dissidents is no other than China Mieville (if that is in fact his real name, I question the fact that any parent would call their child China), a man who's first novel to make it big was _Perdido street station. _

Perdido also of course being the name of a jazz song famously performed by Duke Elliington. Coincidence? I think not!

A naive person my think that the title of Mieville's book was a result of his own love of Jazz. However I think the real story is now clear. The fact of the matter is that in the book the station is closing tired the the oppressive and brutal regime that rule over New Crobuzon, the city where the story takes place. The whole Novel therefore is nothing less than an attack on the SWP CC and their love of Jazz.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> http://infantile-disorder.blogspot....ainst-cuts-occupy-town-hall.html?spref=tw&m=1


 
That's a no then


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I asked: Why and where have you now brought this up? When were you first aware of this claim? I'll also ask what the claim _actually is_ and where it was made as you seem resistant to publishing it.


The claim is in the latest NFB and not online.  I have no idea whether it is or isn't true.  I do know that "jewboy" is not the language you would expect from an anti-fascist.


----------



## cesare (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> That's a no then


What, apart from Brum Against Cuts, and called by Liverpool Against Cuts, you mean?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> any one apart form Solfed involved?



Two of us from Birmingham and Liverpool against the cuts people, don't know how many of them were solfed as well. Others who'd come from Newcastle and Manchester had to leave before we went to the council house


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The claim is in the latest NFB and not online. I have no idea whether it is or isn't true. I do know that "jewboy" is not the language you would expect from an anti-fascist.


Type the claim out.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> blimey, when did he become a Green??!!


I was thinking that I remember him when he was in the SWP.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> What, apart from Brum Against Cuts, and called by Liverpool Against Cuts, you mean?


 
I counted six in the picture which included two taking pictures.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Type the claim out.


 
Say 'please'.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Type the claim out.


From memory it was to the effect that MS had referred to Gable as "that jewboy" at a meeting gable had recently vacated.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> From memory it was to the effect that MS had referred to Gable as "that jewboy" at a meeting gable had recently vacated.


Got to be better than that ffs.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2013)

I don't remember beyond that, but I remember being shocked that kind of term being used


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It's all become clear to me now the civil war currently waging within the SWP is nothing to do with democracy or the appalling treatment of women making accusations of sexual harassment and rape. No the truth is that this is a war being fought between those who like Jazz and those who do not, all the rest is mere pretense.
> 
> We should all have seen this days ago when the mask first slipped and the following appeared on Lenin's Tomb
> 
> ...


 
SolFed's music review of the year doesn't seem to have any jazz in it at all. its almost like jazz has been written out of history

http://infantile-disorder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/2012-in-music-disappointment-and-promise.html?m=1


----------



## cesare (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> SolFed's music review of the year doesn't seem to have any jazz in it at all. its almost like jazz has been written out of history
> 
> http://infantile-disorder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/2012-in-music-disappointment-and-promise.html?m=1



Not Solfed btw


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I don't remember beyond that, but I remember being shocked that kind of term being used


Well back it up. Don't just throw it out there.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2013)

Hard to do as I don't have the original context to refer to, and in any case its an allegation about an off-the-cuff remark.  Just wondering why he's not kicked off about it.  He either doesn't know the claim was made (quite possible) or its true.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Not Solfed btw


 
whose site is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Hard to do as I don't have the original context to refer to, and in any case its an allegation about an off-the-cuff remark. Just wondering why he's not kicked off about it. He either doesn't know the claim was made (quite possible) or its true.


When you get home type up what was said.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I counted six in the picture which included two taking pictures.



12 to 15 people i think. Didn't count though, but definitely more than 6.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 18, 2013)

I am just off out - haven't kept the nfb though


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 18, 2013)

BigTom said:


> 12 to 15 people i think. Didn't count though, but definitely more than 6.


 
Photo obviously doesn't do the protest justice.


----------



## cesare (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> whose site is it?


One of the other people involved (which was what you asked). I don't know who it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I am just off out - haven't kept the nfb though


So this is like 6th hand?


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> whose site is it?


I think he's now unaffiliated, but was in one of the smaller trot groups.  Now more of a syndicalist, but not in SolFed


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 18, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Don't expect a massive advance, but good luck with it.


 
In the story the country is ruled by a group who originated as a split from the SP, trying not to make it too obvious though


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 18, 2013)

"Stronger SWP branches

Alongside all our work we want to continue to strengthen our branches as places for members and contacts to come to discuss political ideas and our strategy in the local area.

Every branch meeting should be built by having leaflets on stalls, ensuring members have plenty of notice (by text, email and phone) and inviting non-members. In addition every month to six weeks we should plan public meetings where the whole meeting is given over to the political topic and we advertise more widely with plenty of time.

These are events to show-case the party in the local area. In some areas it is appropriate to do these as districts rather than branches and joint with student groups.

Branches and districts should make a plan for the coming months with this in mind Below are some suggested branch meeting titles. If branches move quickly they can set up public meetings at the beginning of February either for LGBT history month or the anniversary of the Egyptian revolution.

We should have branch meetings on these topics anyway. We also want to start planning now for events for International Women’s Day on 8 March."   SWP party notes. The art of irony is not dead


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

Members should know that there are meetings! A step too far.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

> Every branch meeting should be built by having leaflets on stalls, ensuring members have plenty of notice (by text, email and phone) and inviting non-members. In addition every month to six weeks we should plan public meetings where the whole meeting is given over to the political topic and we advertise more widely with plenty of time.


 
I'm in. Now what?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2013)

The Counterfire piece is shameless and hilarious, although so long that the humour eventually wears thin. The closest thing to a self-criticism in it is its contention that back in 2005 or so Lord and Lady Macbeth should have gone in harder on the "conservative elements". I'm not surprised that bolshiebhoy likes it, as he's always had a masochistic love of the smack of firm leadership.

I don't think it will do them many favours with the SWP dissidents. If they had any sense they'd have combined the "outward looking" stuff with a bit of mild mea culpaing over the mistakes "we've all" made in terms of leadership style and then gone on to push how innovative and open they allegedly are. But even now, arrogance requires otherwise. They can't do remorse. It isn't in their range. Even when it's in their interests.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm in. Now what?


 
Yes, no direction, no strategy, nothing. They don't know what to do.

I'm genuinely surprised that they haven't come up with some "most important thing ever" wheeze to mobilise the troops around and contrast with "inward looking" oppositionists. This lot aren't even competent CC autocrats. Cliff would be ashamed of them.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 18, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It's all become clear to me now the civil war currently waging within the SWP is nothing to do with democracy or the appalling treatment of women making accusations of sexual harassment and rape. No the truth is that this is a war being fought between those who like Jazz and those who do not, all the rest is mere pretense.
> 
> We should all have seen this days ago when the mask first slipped and the following appeared on Lenin's Tomb
> 
> ...


jazz wars!


----------



## SLK (Jan 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> blimey, when did he become a Green??!!


2004 according to "my democracy" in his webpage thing.


----------



## X-77 (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So the opposition is censoring the expression of views they don't like already. Roll on the new open democracy.


 
If 'Kavenism' is who I think it is, then he is being very disingenuous about what he said and why he was deleted. His comment (if he is who I think he is) was this:

"If you could get 30 or so dissenters down to Vauxhall with baseball bats, clear out the filth and change the locks you might have a chance, anything less and you may as well jump ship."

Seymour is not deleting comments willy-nilly.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 18, 2013)

X-77 said:


> "If you could get 30 or so dissenters down to Vauxhall with baseball bats, clear out the filth and change the locks you might have a chance, anything less and you may as well jump ship."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

X-77 said:


> If 'Kavenism' is who I think it is, then he is being very disingenuous about what he said and why he was deleted. His comment (if he is who I think he is) was this:
> 
> "If you could get 30 or so dissenters down to Vauxhall with baseball bats, clear out the filth and change the locks you might have a chance, anything less and you may as well jump ship."
> 
> Seymour is not deleting comments willy-nilly.


 
What's your basis for thinking that he is who you think he is?


----------



## X-77 (Jan 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


>


 
agree, it was just that Kavenism was making out that he got deleted for simply disagreeing with a point of view, which was horseshit.


----------



## X-77 (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What's your basis for thinking that he is who you think he is?


 
I'm friends with Seymour on fb and know that he doesn't tend to delete comments just because he disagrees with something. This is perhaps the only comment that has been deleted on this subject and it fitted in with what Kavenism was describing to you (in a very disingenuous way).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

X-77 said:


> I'm friends with Seymour on fb and know that he doesn't tend to delete comments just because he disagrees with something. This is perhaps the only comment that has been deleted on this subject and it fitted in with what Kavenism was describing to you (in a very disingenuous way).


So, nothing.

You know what you can do with your _perhaps_ don't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

This is the opposition._ It really really really is._


----------



## X-77 (Jan 18, 2013)

whatever - ask Kavenism if I'm right. Bet I am.


----------



## X-77 (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is the opposition._ It really really really is._


 is this aimed at me? what does it mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

X-77 said:


> is this aimed at me? what does it mean?


That you, you who are _seymour's friend _(and there is a simpsons/visual allusion in there but never mind) are pretty shit. That if this is the opposition, you wilbe routed and ran down.


----------



## X-77 (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That you, you who are _seymour's friend _(and there is a simpsons/visual allusion in there but never mind) are pretty shit. That if this is the opposition, you wilbe routed and ran down.


why thank you kind sir - all I did was call someone out on their bullshit. You're more into this than I am by the sound of it. (not in the SWP btw, but obviously think the CC have behaved attrociously)


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 18, 2013)

kavenism said:


> If that were true would you not want to take shooting lessons?
> 
> 
> butchersapron said:
> ...


  the state IS a weapon, of which the bourgeoisie in a revolutionary situation should be disarmed.

Socialists aim, stated aim, is the withering away of the state. An end to the state. A state is part of the problem, not THE solution. The aim is to replace the state, with democracy. So why would you want lessons in using something, you want to get rid of?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 18, 2013)

Democracy is a form of state power, not the negation of the state.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Democracy is a form of state power, not the negation of the state.


 

I recall reading about how uncle joe managed to win democratic votes in baku by stuffing the places with semi-literate muslim workers his fellow revos wouldn'teven look at.


subverting process ftw


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> In context of Smith and anti-semitism.  Birds of a feather?


I'm not letting this stand. The man has been caused of rape. fair enough, but not proven. How dare you accuse him of anti semitism. You need to defend that claim you really do. otherwise shut up.


----------



## love detective (Jan 18, 2013)

Supposedly Larry O'Hara has him (Gable) on tape recounting the story about how an unamed 'gentlemen' from the SWP had arrived at a meeting shortly after Gable and and Steve Silver left, and said person said something along the lines of 'where's that jew-boy, i'm going to give him a kicking' in reference to Silver

Although Smith wasn't named directly by Gable in the claim, the various other stuff said in relation to this person clearly refers to Smith

I think most here would agree that Gable is bullshitting/stirring


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2013)

SWP blogger "Snowball", who I believe may once have been a much loved poster here under a different name, adds some jibes aimed at Seymour to the debate. I believe that "Snowball" may be the only SWP blogger who is supporting the CC:
http://histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lenins-tomb-in-urgent-need-of-repair.html


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 19, 2013)

http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/art.php?id=30346
They really have no shame


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 19, 2013)

"There are still many questions unanswered.

What sort of society treats some of its most vulnerable young people in state institutions as if their lives have no value?

How can the police claim that things are different now?

Officers in the specialist Sapphire unit set up to investigate sex crimes have recently been charged with falsifying records.

That meant that allegations of rape and abuse were not properly investigated.

Politicians have responded to the Savile abuse revelations with much handwringing.

But none of this addresses the roots of the problem of child abuse.

Nor does it address the extent the ruling class will go to in order to protect one of their own—whatever horrendous crimes they are committing."


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> SWP blogger "Snowball", who I believe may once have been a much loved poster here under a different name, adds some jibes aimed at Seymour to the debate. I believe that "Snowball" may be the only SWP blogger who is supporting the CC:
> http://histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lenins-tomb-in-urgent-need-of-repair.html


 
So that answers a question asked higher up the thread

also I clicked on a link on that blog which led through to the idiot Cliffite's blog - the last article on it from 2008 is worth a read if you like a laugh at a short polemical oiece that gets almost every fact wrong in the first two paragraphs.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 19, 2013)

SLK said:


> 2004 according to "my democracy" in his webpage thing.



He recently resigned from the party shortly after his partner, Natalie Bennett, became party leader. He's still a sympathetic fellow traveller.


----------



## cesare (Jan 19, 2013)

Documents found in Liverpool's council chamber prove Liverpool council has money to spend: http://infantile-disorder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/documents-prove-liverpool-council-has.html?m=1


----------



## cesare (Jan 19, 2013)

Universal job match: http://universaljobmatch.eu/

The government omitted to register all the domains.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 19, 2013)

The internet is the real world

http://throughthescarydoor.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/get-on-tinternet.html


----------



## newbie (Jan 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> So that answers a question asked higher up the thread
> 
> also I clicked on a link on that blog which led through to the idiot Cliffite's blog - the last article on it from 2008 is worth a read if you like a laugh at a short polemical oiece that gets almost every fact wrong in the first two paragraphs.


I thought the cliffite that sometimes come here is a Londoner, possibly even a Brixton local


----------



## Random (Jan 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> So that answers a question asked higher up the thread


 He's a born follower.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> That is one of the most mental things I have ever read.


 
It's Gilad Atzmon. He comes out with a dozen things like that before breakfast every day, the fruitbat.

He's the only *real* example of a self-hating Jew that I've ever met.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So this is like 6th hand?


 
Anyone would think that you suspect articul8 of disseminating black propaganda!


----------



## Random (Jan 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's Gilad Atzmon. He comes out with a dozen things like that before breakfast every day, the fruitbat.
> 
> He's the only *real* example of a self-hating Jew that I've ever met.


He's the exception that proves the rule. If everyone accused of being a self-hating Jew really was one, there'd be a lot more madness involved with Jewish criticism of zionism. And more jazz.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2013)

there are plenty of self hating jews about.


----------



## Random (Jan 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there are plenty of self hating jews about.









 "We worship Haman"


----------



## emanymton (Jan 19, 2013)

newbie said:


> I thought the cliffite that sometimes come here is a Londoner, possibly even a Brixton local


From London, went to Uni in Manchester then back to london. Was in the DC faction I think.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2013)

IIRC he left the SWP though?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there are plenty of self hating jews about.


 
Where?
According to the monthly newsletter of some of the shuls in Stamford Hill, kids complaining about visiting relatives on Jewish holidays is a form of self-hating Judaism - they have to be read to be believed.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> IIRC he left the SWP though?


Really, I haven't heard anything but it is possible. I was just going off the list of names attached to the DC statement, but as it only gives a second initial it could be someone else with the same first name. He was a speaker at Marxism 2011 but not 2012 so I guess he could have left in the last year or so.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Where?


 
In my family. My grandma once said she thought david irving might have a point


----------



## sihhi (Jan 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> In my family. My grandma once said she thought david irving might have a point


 
Was that before or after the libel trial against Lipstadt failed?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Was that before or after the libel trial against Lipstadt failed?


 
It was a few years ago, when i was still at school, don't remember precisely.  I remember being shocked to say the least


----------



## audiotech (Jan 19, 2013)

Blimey, looks as though the leadership have pulled out all the stops to get members old and new out on the streets for the solidarity with Greece UAF picket. I've seen photos (Edit: Not just the Greek Embassy either). Reminds me of the Sun headline from 1979: Crisis? What Crisis?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 19, 2013)

FB full of pics from the embassy demo from all wings of the party. Nothing like a Benn speech to bring everyone together.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2013)

Sussex SWSS the latest group to put out a statement denouncing the CC. Makes references to the leadership sacking fulltimers and putting a new lider maximo in charge of the student work.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> FB full of pics from the embassy demo from all wings of the party. Nothing like a Benn speech to bring everyone together.


 
Don't be silly. It's interesting that there's been a big mobilisation though: the leadership giving the troops something inconsequential to mobilise for, and the opposition not wanting to be outflanked on the issue of party loyalty.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 19, 2013)

Was in Bookmarks earlier.  Was tempted to ask if Seymour's book on Hitchens was out yet, all naive like.  But since I found a bargain by Carlo Ginzburg I didn't bother


----------



## audiotech (Jan 19, 2013)

Nigel has it in one.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2013)

Bonkers Bruno


----------



## kavenism (Jan 19, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Was in Bookmarks earlier. Was tempted to ask if Seymour's book on Hitchens was out yet, all naive like. But since I found a bargain by Carlo Ginzburg I didn't bother


 
My mate (who works there) told me that Bookmarks is where the bad comrades go!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2013)

kavenism said:


> My mate (who works there) told me that Bookmarks is where the bad comrades go!


 
That Sasha is dead canny


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I'm currently writing a murder mystery set in a future Britain run by trots and schoolchildren have to learn about the history of all the splits in the 4th International when they are at school


 
Btw I've got about 10-15k left to write on this, let me know if you're interested in reading it


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Btw I've got about 10-15k left to write on this, let me know if you're interested in reading it


 
nah you're alright mate


----------



## cesare (Jan 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> nah you're alright mate



Bad Spanky


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Btw I've got about 10-15k left to write on this, let me know if you're interested in reading it


 
Write me into the story and I'll read it.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 19, 2013)

There was an SWP paper seller stood outside the main entrance to the Luddites memorial meeting at York guildhall today. I said to him "don't you feel ashamed of yourself selling that, considering all that's been going on" and he said "No, not at all" before mumbling something about how conference had decided and how it's all behind them.

He didn't sell a single copy, or even bother to come to the meeting itself and pay his respect to those who were hung.

I'm absolutely convinced that fuckers like that would still be selling their papers no matter what the leadership do. If it came out tomorrow that the entire CC were a peadophile ring masquerading as a political party then I don't think people like that would give any more of a shit.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'm absolutely convinced that fuckers like that would still be selling their papers no matter what the leadership do. If it came out tomorrow that the entire CC were a peadophile ring masquerading as a political party then I don't think people that would give any more of a shit.


 
Can't respond properly, but that's a gross slur.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> There was an SWP paper seller stood outside the main entrance to the Luddites memorial meeting at York guildhall today. I said to him "don't you feel ashamed of yourself selling that, considering all that's been going on" and he said "No, not at all" before mumbling something about how conference had decided and how it's all behind them.
> 
> He didn't sell a single copy, or even bother to come to the meeting itself and pay his respect to those who were hung.
> 
> I'm absolutely convinced that fuckers like that would still be selling their papers no matter what the leadership do. If it came out tomorrow that the entire CC were a peadophile ring masquerading as a political party then I don't think people that would give any more of a shit.


 
Sometimes I think you're a mentalist.

Sometimes you don't do much to challenge that view either.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Btw I've got about 10-15k left to write on this, let me know if you're interested in reading it


 
Don't listen to 'em - set of bastards! I'll read it, but like Delroy I'd enjoy it more if you could somehow shoehorn me into it


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Can't respond properly, but that's a gross slur.


 
Well hang on if you're totally prepared to take the CC's word on an issue like this, and unreflectively just carry on flogging papers as if nothing happened, then what exactly would it take to get you to stop?

If their willing to accept all the shit that has gone on so far then what exactly would it take for them leave?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'm absolutely convinced that fuckers like that would still be selling their papers no matter what the leadership do. If it came out tomorrow that the entire CC were a peadophile ring masquerading as a political party then I don't think people that would give any more of a shit.


 
No disrespect but that's complete and utter bollocks. What has happened (botched rape investigation etc) is bad enough but I know loads of people in the SWP, many of them the worst kind of hacks, and annoying and dogmatic as they might be I don't believe for a second that they'd turn a blind eye to something like that.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 19, 2013)

until a few weeks ago I didn't think they'd turn a blind eye to a botched rape investigation either, but here we are.

What exactly _would_ it take for that sort of absolute mega-loyalist to question their allegience I wonder?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No disrespect but that's complete and utter bollocks. What has happened (botched rape investigation etc) is bad enough but I know loads of people in the SWP, many of them the worst kind of hacks, and annoying and dogmatic as they might be I don't believe for a second that they'd turn a blind eye to something like that.


 
Oh yeah and by the way I suspect that in reality if it did turn out the SWP CC was a load of nonces* there'd be no-one left defending them, at least I hope to god there wouldn't be, but this whole episode has confirmed to me that there's some really unhealthy cult-like tendencies in that party, and that because they're the "proletarian leadership" or whatever that they can pretty much do whatever the fuck they want in the eyes of some.

Fucks sake there's people in the CPGB-ML who defend North Korea and walk around at demo's with Stalin banners, some people can justify defending all that, as inhumae and inexplicable as it might be to me or you. So how far will people with that mentality go?

* probably a bad choice of hypothetical action on reflection, lets say one of the CC killed someone or something. Would they still carry on selling papers do you think?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2013)

Depend who they killed I suppose


----------



## cesare (Jan 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Sometimes I think you're a mentalist.
> 
> Sometimes you don't do much to challenge that view either.


Don't diss the mentalists, maaaaan


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Depend who they killed I suppose


 
Douglas Murray?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 19, 2013)

The remnants of the WRP still worship the rape toad Healy. The spartacists defend paedophilia. The ICP is bankrolled by union busting asset strippers. Convince some comrades that it is a attack on the party, and there are people who will still stay loyal whatever happens. There is nothing, it seems, Galloway can do that puts off some people.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> Don't diss the mentalists, maaaaan


 
check your sanity privilege


----------



## two sheds (Jan 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Fucks sake there's people in the CPGB-ML who defend North Korea and walk around at demo's with Stalin banners


 
Maoists confuse me, too. Why would you choose politics where your second statement on meeting someone has to be "No, I don't really support killing 50 million people, but let me outline some of the points he made on political philosophy ...'


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 19, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The remnants of the WRP still worship the rape toad Healy. The spartacists defend paedophilia. The ICP is bankrolled by union busting asset strippers. Convince some comrades that it is a attack on the party, and there are people who will still stay loyal whatever happens. There is nothing, it seems, Galloway can do that puts off some people.


 
Which one is the ICP? the only union buster i can think of is the one in charge of the healyite sect that runs the WSWS website


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 19, 2013)




----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 19, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The remnants of the WRP still worship the rape toad Healy. The spartacists defend paedophilia. The ICP is bankrolled by union busting asset strippers. Convince some comrades that it is a attack on the party, and there are people who will still stay loyal whatever happens. There is nothing, it seems, Galloway can do that puts off some people.


 
Exactly. People might jump down my throat coz I perhaps picked an example of something so outlandish and vile that even thinking that any individual could turn a blind eye to it is a gross slur, but there's people out there to this day who defend Gerry Healy to the hilt. There's people who'll defend mass murder because their particular sect requires it of them. Even in cases where something truly awful has gone on, you can pretty much guarentee there'll be some be some brainwashed remnant of hardcore loyalists to the Party who'd be able to justify the most heinous acts. Maybe the vast bulk of people would leave, but there's some who just don't give a fuck.

That's the impression I got from that paper seller today - he knew about the internal struggles going on and the rape accusations, but just couldn't give a fuck either way. I tried being fairly polite to him at first to see what he had to say on the topic, but he was just totally belligerent, refused to even countenence that the SWP leadership might've done something wrong in any way. Blew my mind. I'd like to think that the vast majority of SWP members aren't quite so slavishly loyal and uncritical, I suspect they're probably not, but some of 'em most certainly are.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

While DB might not have used the best example I think he has a point. It is scary the way certain people can defend almost anything given the right circumstances. I think that is a real challenge for democratic centralism.

At my local anti-cuts group this week the SWP turned up, which they often don't do as they don't control it. I have never seem them sell the socialist worker there, but this time they were, holding it front of them at the end of the meeting like a badge of honour. Now I know the central committee would have said come out all guns blazing to show we are still going strong, but in the circumstances wouldn't any person with any decent values think that they should have some humility, at least until this runs its course. The SWP are standing against people I know in our AGM. In fact they've chosen to stand against other left candidates, instead of right candidates. It does make me pretty sick that our members won't know that they are being asked to vote for someone who represents an organisation that has carried out this kind of thing. Anyone in the SWP who doesn't realise that carrying out a rape investigation with a panel of seven people who were mates of the accused has something seriously wrong with them.


----------



## mutley (Jan 19, 2013)

There is a whole lot going on inside the swp that isn't visible. Some of it will probably never be visible.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

mutley said:


> There is a whole lot going on inside the swp that isn't visible. Some of it will probably never be visible.


 
That's part of the problem, and part of the problem with a certain view of democratic centralism. Something very wrong has happened, yet an organisation which says it wants to lead the working class thinks that no-one else has any right to know what has gone on. It really is wrong that SWP members are standing for union positions all around the country with union members having no idea about who or what they are voting for in the light of what has happened. The same goes for anti-cuts groups, community groups etc

Our branch members should know that if they are voting for SWP members then they are people who aren't putting up with what has gone one, yet we have no idea. I have no idea if the person I am being asked to vote for has taken a principled stand or not. As it happens I wouldn't vote for them as they have taken the totally sectarian position of standing against very good socialist candidates rather than right wing candidates. But the principle is still the same.

On a certain level, given what has happened, they make me sick.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'd like to think that the vast majority of SWP members aren't quite so slavishly loyal and uncritical, I suspect they're probably not, but some of 'em most certainly are.


 
Yup, but by definition of their membership, they are a self-selecting cohort of people who feel comfortable in an organisation which reproduces the authoritarian relationships of power that are dominant in capitalism. Crossing that rubicon who knows what they might be prepared to accept?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

The main point for me is that how can SWP members expect people to vote for them in unions or community groups if they haven't told us what their view is on this? How can they expect members to decide whether we should vote for them if we don't even know if they have backed the totally unacceptable behaviour of the SWP central committee?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> The main point for me is that how can SWP members expect people to vote for them in unions or community groups if they haven't told us what their view is on this? How can they expect members to decide whether we should vote for them if we don't even know if they have backed the totally unacceptable behaviour of the SWP central committee?


 
But in a Leninist DC party their view counts for nothing anyway. All you need to know about them is that they are members of a party in which the conference has backed the CC....like they always have to.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> But in a Leninist DC party their view counts for nothing anyway. All you need to know about them is that they are members of a party in which the conference has backed the CC....like they always have to.


 
I don't think that is true. Lots of revolutionary socialist organisations that have or have had democratic centralism have allowed members to take a public position against the leadership. That was the irony of the Socialist Party quote earlier in the thread that said that the bolsheviks rarely had permanent factions, while omitting the fact that the bolsheviks were themselves a permanent faction!

But regardless of that if I'm asked to vote for someone to lead our branch I want to know if they are happy with what the central committee in the SWP has done. What do SWP members on here suggest should be done? Are they ok with our union branch members being kept totally in the dark?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yup, but by definition of their membership, they are a self-selecting cohort of people who feel comfortable in an organisation which reproduces the authoritarian relationships of power that are dominant in capitalism. Crossing that rubicon who knows what they might be prepared to accept?


this is just gibberish.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> this is just gibberish.


 
But what about the points I'm making? Are you in the SWP?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> But what about the points I'm making? Are you in the SWP?


bit shrill and over the top.

no.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> this is just gibberish.


 
Oh really?
You think that the relationship between a party member and the CC in the centralised command structure of Leninist organisations is any different from that of a worker and the owner(s) of the capital?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 19, 2013)

You've got him there, brogdale!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2013)

submit! submit! have mercy guvnor!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Oh really?
> You think that the relationship between a party member and the CC in the centralised command structure of Leninist organisations is any different from that of a worker and the owner(s) of the capital?


so, everyone who works has crossed the very same rubicon?


----------



## killer b (Jan 19, 2013)

I cross that damn rubicon every morning, 9 am sharp.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

Maybe it is shrill, but don't you think trade union members deserve to know who they are voting for and what they stand for?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> so, everyone who works has crossed the very same rubicon?


 
Everyone who works does so to survive. Everyone who joins a avowedly leninist organisation subjects themselves to another level of control and use. The labour movement was always meant to be democratic.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Oh really?
> You think that the relationship between a party member and the CC in the centralised command structure of Leninist organisations is any different from that of a worker and the owner(s) of the capital?


 
Of course it fucking is you silly sod. 

Even if we assume you're right (and to an extent I think you are, though you're making massive student annakissed style exaggerations) in that the CC has such power over its members, that doesn't mean it's the same relationship as that between worker and capitalist. The relationship between wage labour and capital is a very specific one. It's not the same as that between a serf and a feudal lord and it's not the same as that between a comrade paper seller and a comrade delta.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2013)

killer b said:


> I cross that damn rubicon every morning, 9 am sharp.


 
I got a rubicon for Christmas once, never did manage to get the colours to match on all sides of the cube


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Oh really?
> You think that the relationship between a party member and the CC in the centralised command structure of Leninist organisations is any different from that of a worker and the owner(s) of the capital?


No comparison. Thanks for posing the question like this, because it makes the difference clear. A worker generally accepts commands that are exploitative and bullying because they fear for their job and not because they are so loyal to the company they will put up with this. A member of a political party (of any sort, right or left) is there by choice and unless their material interests are affected (e.g. they are being paid by the party) can - and do - walk away much more easily. Just because someone joins a 'Leninist' party doesn't mean they surrender their personality. Having said that, it is a fascinating and disturbing and more subtle question to ask how does it arise that someone who - let's say - genuinely sets out to fight for complete freedom and emancipation ends up defending the indefensible.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I got a rubicon for Christmas once, never did manage to get the colours to match on all sides of the cube


 
That's because you work for The Man.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Of course it fucking is you silly sod.
> 
> Even if we assume you're right (and to an extent I think you are, though you're making massive student annakissed style exaggerations) in that the CC has such power over its members, that doesn't mean it's the same relationship as that between worker and capitalist. The relationship between wage labour and capital is a very specific one. It's not the same as that between a serf and a feudal lord and it's not the same as that between a comrade paper seller and a comrade delta.



Well yes, but...
when it comes to membership of the SWP we are dealing with folk who have happily signed up to an organistion which uncannily mirrors the control structure of capital controlled as it is by a self-perpetuating, unaccountable oligarchy of paid officials.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Well yes, but...
> when it comes to membership of the SWP we are dealing with folk who have happily signed up to an organistion which uncannily mirrors the control structure of capital controlled as it is by a self-perpetuating, unaccountable oligarchy of paid officials.


 
Again, no it doesn't. Not at all. I believe members of the CC earn in the region of £15k a year. That doesn't sound much like oligarchy to me.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Again, no it doesn't. Not at all. I believe members of the CC earn in the region of £15k a year. That doesn't sound much like oligarchy to me.


 
The party member has much effective democratic control over policy/practice as does the average worker over corporate governance.
And Oligarchy relates to the restricted number of those wielding power in a social structure (party), not necessarily or just what formal remuneration they derive from that power.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Again, no it doesn't. Not at all. I believe members of the CC earn in the region of £15k a year. That doesn't sound much like oligarchy to me.


 
While I don't agree with brogdale, it's clearly not just about the money. It's about the social life, ego boost, fact that if they stopped they would find it very hard to get a job etc Often these sad sacks would have no status whatsoever in real life.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> While I don't agree with brogdale, it's clearly not just about the money. It's about the social life, ego boost, fact that if they stopped they would find it very hard to get a job etc Often these sad sacks would have no status whatsoever in real life.


callinicos is a professor.


----------



## love detective (Jan 19, 2013)

_no status whatsoever in real life_


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> callinicos is a professor.


 
You have picked out possibily the only person who has a job on the central committee. Also I'm not saying it affects everyone in the same way, I'm just saying that clearly money is not the only incentive.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> You have picked out possibily the only person who has a job on the central committee. Also I'm not saying it affects everyone in the same way, I'm just saying that clearly money is not the only incentive.


you'll like this, http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/call-on-swss-essex-to-make-a-public-statement/


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> The party member has much effective democratic control over policy/practice as does the average worker over corporate governance.
> And Oligarchy relates to the restricted number of those wielding power in a social structure (party), not necessarily or just what formal remuneration they derive from that power.


 
Right - so you've just invented your own definition for the term 'oligarchy' then. And yes, they do have more power in their role as member than workers do in their roles as workers. They can, if they so wish, do fuck all and there's no way, beyond grunts of disaproval, that they can be effectively sanctioned - I know this because I did it myself when I was a member. Second, there are formal democratic structures that don't exist in the workplace. The membership can throw the CC out - it would be that easy if enough of them decided to do so. The control the CC have over the membership of the SWP is dependent on consent. Third, you can just leave the SWP if you want and beyond disaproval from other members you've got nothing to worry about in doing so.

It's just not a good comparison at all.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> While I don't agree with brogdale, it's clearly not just about the money. It's about the social life, ego boost, fact that if they stopped they would find it very hard to get a job etc Often these sad sacks would have no status whatsoever in real life.


 
Of course - and that's why they're so desperate to cling on to power.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you'll like this, http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/call-on-swss-essex-to-make-a-public-statement/


Not the way to assist those wanting change in the SWP, in my opinion. I haven't thought this through, so don't start calling me a bollix but ... It seems to me if a campaigning group on the left, especially one concerned with women's rights, asked the SWP to leave the campaign until they had changed their approach to this rape allegation, that would be one thing. But to invite a wide public to condemn the SWP, well, it opens the door to the right to de-recognise SWSS groups. And if I was in Essex SWSS and pushing for a recall conference, I might now find this harder due to other members becoming angry at those circulating the petition.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's just not a good comparison at all.


 
At heart, it is.
At work you're told what to do by 'leaders'. Same as being in a Leninist outfit.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Not the way to assist those wanting change in the SWP, in my opinion. I haven't thought this through, so don't start calling me a bollix but ... It seems to me if a campaigning group on the left, especially one concerned with women's rights, asked the SWP to leave the campaign until they had changed their approach to this rape allegation, that would be one thing. But to invite a wide public to condemn the SWP, well, it opens the door to the right to de-recognise SWSS groups. And if I was in Essex SWSS and pushing for a recall conference, I might now find this harder due to other members becoming angry at those circulating the petition.


possibly. though it does show the concerns of one_stop_shop aren't limited to him/her.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> possibly. though it does show the concerns of one_stop_shop aren't limited to him/her.


 
It's not the same thing either. There are immediate elections in union branches as many have their AGMs this time of year. Is it really fair if members don't know who they are voting for on a serious question? The vast majority of members in my branch wouldn't know who the SWP are but I suspect they'd be disgusted at the details of the rape investigation.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 19, 2013)

if you get any more shrill, only dogs will hear you.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 19, 2013)

I've got a whistle and plarcard ready. And I've starred out the swear words.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 19, 2013)

brogdale said:


> At heart, it is.
> At work you're told what to do by 'leaders'. Same as being in a Leninist outfit.


 
No, you're really not. You're asked to do stuff and can refuse without any comeback.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 20, 2013)

No comparison between being in a job and being in a Leninist outfit. Workers get something from being in a job.


----------



## mutley (Jan 20, 2013)

The Essex petition isn't helpful, because its being portrayed as a witchhunt. Its kind of understandable though.


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Right - so you've just invented your own definition for the term 'oligarchy' then.


 sounds like the standard definition of an oligarchy.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, you're really not. You're asked to do stuff and can refuse without any comeback.


Until after the revolution at least.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

The admin of the UAF page on FB caused a bit of a stir by explicitly mentioning how well Martin was received at the demo in Greece when he spoke. As you'd expect the comments then all revolved around one individual rather than the success of the event. This isn't really sustainable. Even people who haven't got an axe to grind with the SWP cc can see that acting as if Martin can just carry on as normal is dotty. At the very least UAF needs to explain its position rather than just go 'what you all on about?' which isn't convincing anyone. This is damaging the ability of UAF to function properly :-(


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> Until after the revolution at least.


Quite true and something Lenin for one was totally aware of. Hence his argument that in a workers state workers still need to defend themselves through their TUs against their own state. And his warning that history knows all types of bureaucratic transformations.

But this side of a revolution the relationship between a cc member and a rank and file member is closer to that between a worker and their union officials. How healthy the dem cent is determines if it's closer to the relationship with a shop steward or an untouchable union gen sec.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> <snip>
> 
> But this side of a revolution the relationship between a cc member and a rank and file member is closer to that between a worker and their union officials. How healthy the dem cent is determines if it's closer to the relationship with a shop steward or an untouchable union gen sec.



That's a very good way of describing it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> This is damaging the ability of UAF to function properly :-(


 
It's insanity. I thought they'd have more sense then that.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Quite true and something Lenin for one was totally aware of. Hence his argument that in a workers state workers still need to defend themselves through their TUs against their own state. And his warning that history knows all types of bureaucratic transformations.
> 
> But this side of a revolution the relationship between a cc member and a rank and file member is closer to that between a worker and their union officials. How healthy the dem cent is determines if it's closer to the relationship with a shop steward or an untouchable union gen sec.



More like the relationship between a worker and an employer who wants to keep that worker sweet whilst he's useful to the employer. But, as soon as there's a hint that he'll do anything anathema to the employer's interest, the mask will slip, and the true nature of the relationship becomes clear.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> More like the relationship between a worker and an employer who wants to keep that worker sweet whilst he's useful to the employer. But, as soon as there's a hint that he'll do anything anathema to the employer's interest, the mask will slip, and the true nature of the relationship becomes clear.



That implies a labour power relationship though? Like a newsagent ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

Teacher and pupil.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

Masochist and Sadist.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

Turner and Hooch.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> More like the relationship between a worker and an employer who wants to keep that worker sweet whilst he's useful to the employer. But, as soon as there's a hint that he'll do anything anathema to the employer's interest, the mask will slip, and the true nature of the relationship becomes clear.


Unless you see the swp as a ruling class conspiracy and part of capitalist relations of exploitation that analogy is useless. Granted I'm sure plenty on here do but for the rest of us this is a debate between people on the same side against the bosses discussing how best our side can organise. It's funny how demonising of the swp can sound so like old school Tanky shit about Trotsky-Fascism :-(


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

Lions and Donkeys.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, you're really not. You're asked to do stuff and can refuse without any comeback.


 
Why join the party then?
What was the point?


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Unless you see the swp as a ruling class conspiracy and part of capitalist relations of exploitation that analogy is useless. Granted I'm sure plenty on here do but for the rest of us this is a debate between people on the same side against the bosses discussing how best our side can organise. It's funny how demonising of the swp can sound so like old school Tanky shit about Trotsky-Fascism :-(



How we organise now will have consequences now and later.

As well as being doubtful of the efficacy of such organisation in the immediate term, I see a post-revolution Leninist elite in which the workers' power has become concentrated, and which is willing to wield that power against workers (for its own interest, but under the guise of defending the gains of the revolution) as a ruling class with the motive and opportunity to be every bit as anathema to workers' interests as capitalism.


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Unless you see the swp as a ruling class conspiracy and part of capitalist relations of exploitation that analogy is useless.


If the SWP, or any other party or group, is paying for someone's labour then of course that is part of "capitalist relations", how can it not be?


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> If the SWP, or any other party or group, is paying for someone's labour then of course that is part of "capitalist relations", how can it not be?


That's (one of the reasons) why I asked earlier if the CC etc are waged.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> I see a post-revolution Leninist elite in which the workers' power has become concentrated, and which is willing to wield that power against workers (for its own interest, but under the guise of defending the gains of the revolution) as a ruling class with the motive and opportunity to be every bit as anathema to workers' interests as capitalism.


 
Quite.
The prefigurative clues are there for all to see.
It seems curious for an organisation to simultaneously recognise the degenerate nature of previous workers' states and adopt similar pre-revolutionary structures and processes.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> How we organise now will have consequences now and later.
> 
> As well as being doubtful of the efficacy of such organisation in the immediate term, I see a post-revolution Leninist elite in which the workers' power has become concentrated, and which is willing to wield that power against workers (for its own interest, but under the guise of defending the gains of the revolution) as a ruling class with the motive and opportunity to be every bit as anathema to workers' interests as capitalism.


 
A bit like Soviet Russia, perhaps?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> If the SWP, or any other party or group, is paying for someone's labour then of course that is part of "capitalist relations", how can it not be?


Jesus wept. So TUs are capitalist bodies too then. By your logic Martin is an exploited worker who if the dc had removed him should fight against wrongful dismissal. Do TUS or left parties exist primarily to extract surplus value from their employees or to fight for workers rights (however badly!)? If the asnwer is the former then we're all fucked.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:
			
		

> Quite.
> The prefigurative clues are there for all to see.
> It seems curious for an organisation to simultaneously recognise the degenerate nature of previous workers' states and adopting their pre-revolutionary structures and processes.



Only curious if you overlook their own motives.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> Only curious if you overlook their own motives.


 
True.
Scratch 'curious' for 'completely contradictory'.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jesus wept. So TUs are capitalist bodies too then. By your logic Martin is an exploited worker who if the dc had removed him should fight against wrongful dismissal. Do TUS or left parties exist primarily to extract surplus value from their employees or to fight for workers rights (however badly!)? If the asnwer is the former then we're all fucked.


If he's an employee, it's entirely possible to bring an employment claim. Happens to the TUs quite a lot.


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jesus wept. So TUs are capitalist bodies too then. By your logic Martin is an exploited worker who if the dc had removed him should fight against wrongful dismissal. Do TUS or left parties exist primarily to extract surplus value from their employees or to fight for workers rights (however badly!)? If the asnwer is the former then we're all fucked.


 And yet it moves

Edit, funny how you sound like a tanky defending against state cap


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jesus wept. So TUs are capitalist bodies too then. By your logic Martin is an exploited worker who if the dc had removed him should fight against wrongful dismissal. Do TUS or left parties exist primarily to extract surplus value from their employees or to fight for workers rights (however badly!)? If the asnwer is the former then we're all fucked.


 
Depends on the situation and what the trade union is doing. Most people who work for a trade union are members of another trade union and there have been disputes before. Didn't Lenin describe trade union leaders as the labour lieutentant's of capital or something (as my branch secretary said though most of the current bunch wouldn't even make seargent let alone lieutenant)?

As it happens with trade unions like UNISON who employ an army of very well paid officials (mostly unelected) I think the trade union has partly become a vehicle to keep the well paid bureaucrats in their standard of living.

I'd also think that workers in call centres who work for trade unions are obviously exploited.

In terms of the SWP my mate told me they employ somewhere between 50 and 100 full timers. Obviously for them to speak out does cause a totally different power relationship as they will lose their job. If they have been in the post a long time, especially at a time of high employment, that pressure must be substantial.

However I agree with your analysis earlier for normal members of a political organsiation. And agree that the worse it is, the more it is like an unaccoutable general secretary, and would say that is the case in the SWP. I remember talking to one SWP full timer, and he was discussing how they behave in a bullying way (was talking about Smith and Bambery in particular). His answer was that it was ok because they were elected, and he wasn't as a full timer, so they could speak to him how they liked!! (actually the issue that the SWP, SP and all the other groups don't elect their fulltimers I think is a real issue).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> sounds like the standard definition of an oligarchy.


 
Not really - oligarchy isn't a very useful concept if it can be applied to regimes that depend on consent to the degree they do.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 20, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> While DB might not have used the best example I think he has a point. *It is scary the way certain people can defend almost anything given the right circumstances.* I think that is a real challenge for democratic centralism.
> 
> At my local anti-cuts group this week the SWP turned up, which they often don't do as they don't control it. I have never seem them sell the socialist worker there, but this time they were, holding it front of them at the end of the meeting like a badge of honour. Now I know the central committee would have said come out all guns blazing to show we are still going strong, but in the circumstances wouldn't any person with any decent values think that they should have some humility, at least until this runs its course. The SWP are standing against people I know in our AGM. In fact they've chosen to stand against other left candidates, instead of right candidates. It does make me pretty sick that our members won't know that they are being asked to vote for someone who represents an organisation that has carried out this kind of thing. Anyone in the SWP who doesn't realise that carrying out a rape investigation with a panel of seven people who were mates of the accused has something seriously wrong with them.


 
I am afraid that isn't limited to democratic centralism, look at the nuttier anarchist/animal libbers scene


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I am afraid that isn't limited to democratic centralism, look at the nuttier anarchist/animal libbers scene


 
I agree but think that some forms of democratic centralism can make it worse.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> Edit, funny how you sound like a tanky defending against state cap


Not at all. A workers state would have state capitalist relations of production for a period. That's part of the transition. But we really are getting into a different thread now


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> Until after the revolution at least.


 
Which is something I wouldn't worry about too much if I were you, not with the SWP (or any other British left group).


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

Seymour's latest plea to the members: http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/more-dispatches-from-real-world.html

"we are rapidly becoming toxic"


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not really - oligarchy isn't a very useful concept if it can be applied to regimes that depend on consent to the degree they do.


Whether or not the SWP match that earlier description is one thing. But rule by a small group of powerful people is an oligarchy. There are degrees. It is arguable that the USA is ssomething of an oligarchy, til ex


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Why join the party then?
> What was the point?


 
I ask myself that every day


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 20, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I agree but think that some forms of democratic centralism can make it worse.


 
Anything _can_ make it worse. My view is that the rubicon for most is 'is their life after the party' syndrome. Most political organisations especially those based on activism provide more than just a purely political environment. That is the reinforcement .


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not at all. A workers state would have state capitalist relations of production for a period. That's part of the transition. But we really are getting into a different thread now


You seem to be having a knee jerk reaction to being told that capitalist relations exist in the SWP. But theyeexist, whether you like it or not. This isn't the  ame as saying that the SWP are a party that campaigns in favour of capitalist relations, although the two issues are related.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Seymour's latest plea to the members: http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/more-dispatches-from-real-world.html
> 
> "we are rapidly becoming toxic"


 
Toxic must be the most overused phrase of the past two years.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:
			
		

> I am afraid that isn't limited to democratic centralism, look at the nuttier anarchist/animal libbers scene



A fair point. But, isn't there a difference between an ideology in which the concentration of power is guiding principle, and one in which such concentration isn't widely regarded as legitimate, albeit that, in practice, it occurs more often than it should?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> If the SWP, or any other party or group, is paying for someone's labour then of course that is part of "capitalist relations", how can it not be?


 
That makes a lot more sense but brogdale was talking about the relationship between the membership and the CC, whereas this is about the relationship between fulltimers (some of whom are _on _the CC) and the party as a whole.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> Whether or not the SWP match that earlier description is one thing. But rule by a small group of powerful people is an oligarchy. There are degrees. It is arguable that the USA is ssomething of an oligarchy, til ex


 
Yes, but members of the SWP can leave - the CC really isn't that powerful. The whole reason why they're in this mess is, at least partly, down to them overstretching themselves. To apply that term to the SWP's CC you'd have to redefine it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Not at all. A workers state would have state capitalist relations of production for a period. That's part of the transition.



Yeah, that's the way it usually pans out.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> Which is something I wouldn't worry about too much if I were you, not with the SWP (or any other British left group).



But let's not let that put us off doing the same things again and again in the hope of different results!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> Yeah, that's the way it usually pans out.


Not sure 'usually' works with a statistical sample of one.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> But let's not let that put us off doing the same things again and again in the hope of different results!


 
The same result would be an improvement on what's been managed so far tbh


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> A fair point. But, isn't there a difference between an ideology in which the concentration of power is guiding principle, and one in which such concentration isn't widely regarded as legitimate, albeit that, in practice, it occurs more often than it should?


 
Not in terms of what we were discussing.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> You seem to be having a knee jerk reaction to being told that capitalist relations exist in the SWP. But theyeexist, whether you like it or not. This isn't the ame as saying that the SWP are a party that campaigns in favour of capitalist relations, although the two issues are related.


Have no objection to the brilliant observation that wage labour exists in the swp like any other org that employs people in a capitalist society. Just not sure it is useful as a socioloigcal analysis of the party for precisely that reason that it's true of every org in a capitalist society. The point is whether those relations are dominant and unless someone is arguing that the cc are a ruling class dependent on the surplus value extracted from that wage labour we're not getting much from this brilliant observation.


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, but members of the SWP can leave - the CC really isn't that powerful. The whole reason why they're in this mess is, at least partly, down to them overstretching themselves. To apply that term to the SWP's CC you'd have to redefine it.


 a weak oligarchy is still an oligarchy.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Not in terms of what we were discussing.


 
You don't think the ideological significance of a leadership is central to the issue of members' defence of the actions of leaders?


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not sure 'usually' works with a statistical sample of one.


It was slightly tounge-in-cheek.


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> . Just not sure it is useful as a socioloigcal analysis of the party for precisely that reason that it's true of every org in a capitalist society. The point is whether those relations are dominant and unless someone is arguing that the cc are a ruling class dependent on the surplus value extracted from that wage labour we're not getting much from this brilliant observation.


 Not every organisation employs paid staff. Hence the old syndicalist objection to union full timers. And on yr second point, the existence and reproduction of the SWP depends partly on the labour of the group's paid staff. No, not an amazing or new observation, only worth making because you seem to be denying it


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The same result would be an improvement on what's been managed so far tbh


 
It's a false dichotomy, though.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 20, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> While DB might not have used the best example I think he has a point. It is scary the way certain people can defend almost anything given the right circumstances. I think that is a real challenge for democratic centralism.


 
Is it only certain people or is at all of us in certain circumstances?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> a weak oligarchy is still an oligarchy.


 
It's not even a weak oligarchy though is it? They have to be elected once a year. Not sure this is a particularly productive line of debate though.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> It's a false dichotomy, though.


 
What is?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Have no objection to the brilliant observation that wage labour exists in the swp like any other org that employs people in a capitalist society. Just not sure it is useful as a socioloigcal analysis of the party for precisely that reason that it's true of every org in a capitalist society. The point is whether those relations are dominant and unless someone is arguing that the cc are a ruling class dependent on the surplus value extracted from that wage labour we're not getting much from this brilliant observation.


 
But the observation was an _analogy_ between worker/capitalist power relations and those experienced by rank & file members of Leninist (DC) organisations and their leadership, so literal examination of inevitable capitalist forms in the organisation is to tilt at windmills.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

link to anarachist FAQ coming in 5,4,3...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> But the observation was an _analogy_ between worker/capitalist power relations and those experienced by rank & file members of Leninist (DC) organisations and their leadership, so literal examination of inevitable capitalist forms in the organisation is to tilt at windmills.


 
It wasn't an analogy - you said it was the same. And you were talking bollocks. Just give it up.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> link to anarachist FAQ coming in 5,4,3...


Well, where is it then?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> You don't think the ideological significance of a leadership is central to the issue of members' defence of the actions of leaders?


 
nope


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, but members of the SWP can leave - the CC really isn't that powerful. The whole reason why they're in this mess is, at least partly, down to them overstretching themselves. To apply that term to the SWP's CC you'd have to redefine it.


 
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think 39th step makes a good point in terms of "life after the party". A lot of members end up having their whole social life, and even their whole purpose in life, wrapped up in their membership. I've heard people describing leaving the SWP or SP (or whoever) as like breaking up with someone. I've also seen people marginalise their pre-existing social life more and more after they join and then their life becomes absorbed into the organisation. In those circumstances I imagine leaving is quite difficult on a psychological level.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> nope


Ok.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think 39th step makes a good point in terms of "life after the party". A lot of members end up having their whole social life, and even their whole purpose in life, wrapped up in their membership. I've heard people describing leaving the SWP or SP (or whoever) as like breaking up with someone. I've also seen people marginalise their pre-existing social life more and more after they join and then their life becomes absorbed into the organisation. In those circumstances I imagine leaving is quite difficult on a psychological level.


 
there is NO LIFE outside the party!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> Not every organisation employs paid staff. Hence the old syndicalist objection to union full timers. And on yr second point, the existence and reproduction of the SWP depends partly on the labour of the group's paid staff. No, not an amazing or new observation, only worth making because you seem to be denying it


Well you chopped off my first sentence where I made it clear I meant orgs that did employ paid staff. There is of course an inherent danger of conservatism in any org that has something to lose and that's much more true of TUs than it is of a party like the swp. Which is part of the explanation for the behavious of TU bureaucrats. The wage labour exists, no dispute there. The point is whether anyone seriously believes the maintenance of that setup is what explains any of the problems in the swp. Personally I don't think it does, structures and ideas are much more important here than material interests. I've rarely known a fulltimer in the swp who wouldn't be much better off getting a job outside the party!


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What is?


 
I thought your remark implied that it was a Leninism or nothing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I think 39th step makes a good point in terms of "life after the party". A lot of members end up having their whole social life, and even their whole purpose in life, wrapped up in their membership. I've heard people describing leaving the SWP or SP (or whoever) as like breaking up with someone. I've also seen people marginalise their pre-existing social life more and more after they join and then their life becomes absorbed into the organisation. In those circumstances I imagine leaving is quite difficult on a psychological level.


 
Yes but all those things imply a degree of consent that's simply not necessary for the worker/boss relationship.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Have no objection to the brilliant observation that wage labour exists in the swp like any other org that employs people in a capitalist society. Just not sure it is useful as a socioloigcal analysis of the party for precisely that reason that it's true of every org in a capitalist society. The point is whether those relations are dominant and unless someone is arguing that the cc are a ruling class dependent on the surplus value extracted from that wage labour we're not getting much from this brilliant observation.


 
They are dependent to some extent, surely? If all the members left who would pay the big majority of the CCs wages? I agree with you that you have to be careful not to read too much in to that, and the idea that they are a ruling class!!! But I think it could have some impact, especially as an organisation gets ever more removed from the working class, works in a bubble but sees itself as the vanguard.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Is it only certain people or is at all of us in certain circumstances?


 
I think some people are more likely to do it than others because of their psychological make up, but for sure I think it can affect anyone to one degree or another. I think that if you keep a life going independent of a political organisation that must help a lot.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> They are dependent to some extent, surely? If all the members left who would pay the big majority of the CCs wages? I agree with you that you have to be careful not to read too much in to that, and the idea that they are a ruling class!!! But I think it could have some impact, especially as an organisation gets ever more removed from the working class, works in a bubble but sees itself as the vanguard.


 
i think it will simply collapse tbh


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there is NO LIFE outside the party!


 
Outside the Party there is no salvation


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It wasn't an analogy - you said it was the same. And you were talking bollocks. Just give it up.


 
Arguing is one thing, but telling someone to give up sounds a little harsh. I think it is valuable to examine the fundamental flaw of DC, don't you?

The degree of control, input, influence that the SWP member 'enjoys' wrt to the official agenda of the Central Committee looks to me very similar to that enjoyed by workers wrt to corporate decision making.

If you think that's wrong it might be more productive for you to explain exactly what influnence as a SWP member you had on the CC agenda.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes but all those things imply a degree of consent that's simply not necessary for the worker/boss relationship.


 
I agree but I think it becomes quite complicated in terms of people's reasons for staying round and I think material reasons do have a significant factor in some cases.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> I thought your remark implied that it was a Leninism or nothing.


 
No, my suspicion is that it's probably capitalism or nothing. I do think its overthrow, if possible at all, would require centralised organisation that anarchists wouldn't like but that doesn't necessarily mean Leninism. I also completely disagree with the implication that doing the same thing always returns the same results but I don't think this thread is really the place for it.

There are currently 99,467,859,748 threads on this board where we've discussed the pros and cons of Leninism and anarchism so I suggest we leave it on this thread so we can talk about the shitstorm in the SWP.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well you chopped off my first sentence where I made it clear I meant orgs that did employ paid staff. There is of course an inherent danger of conservatism in any org that has something to lose and that's much more true of TUs than it is of a party like the swp. Which is part of the explanation for the behavious of TU bureaucrats. The wage labour exists, no dispute there. The point is whether anyone seriously believes the maintenance of that setup is what explains any of the problems in the swp. Personally I don't think it does, structures and ideas are much more important here than material interests. I've rarely known a fulltimer in the swp who wouldn't be much better off getting a job outside the party!


 
I agree to some extent but you can't write off psychological and material interests (not money but ego, social life etc). If this isn't the case why do the leaderships of these groups stay unchanging? Why was Cliff there for decades, why has Taffe been the leader for 50 years? Do they really, in all those years, see no-one coming through who would do as good a job as them, and then have a far more healthy situation where you don't have the same people in place year after year and decade after decade.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i think it will simply collapse tbh


 
But if it collapsed they would all lose their jobs, that must come in to their thinking to some degree.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, my suspicion is that it's probably capitalism or nothing. I do think its overthrow, if possible at all, would require centralised organisation that anarchists wouldn't like but that doesn't necessarily mean Leninism. I also completely disagree with the implication that doing the same thing always returns the same results but I don't think this thread is really the place for it.
> 
> There are currently 99,467,859,748 threads on this board where we've discussed the pros and cons of Leninism and anarchism so I suggest we leave it on this thread so we can talk about the shitstorm in the SWP.


 
All good points.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> the fundamental flaw of DC


 
You are not arguing about any 'fundamental flaw' you are simply making shit up to reinforce your own preconceptions. The problem is these artificial leaps of thought/faith that you offer are not linked in practice.

Imposing one's preconceptions over lived practice is what you are doing - the same as those you are attempting to critisise. Abstract theories are no substitute for lived practice.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> They are dependent to some extent, surely? If all the members left who would pay the big majority of the CCs wages? I agree with you that you have to be careful not to read too much in to that, and the idea that they are a ruling class!!! But I think it could have some impact, especially as an organisation gets ever more removed from the working class, works in a bubble but sees itself as the vanguard.


I just don't buy it sorry. These people have given most of their adult lives to their political ideas (whatever you think of those ideas). They could almost all have easier, more relaxed and financially more comfortable lives if they didn't eat and drink marxist politics and activism. In material terms the membership would be doing them all a favour by forcing them to 'spend more time with their family'.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Arguing is one thing, but telling someone to give up sounds a little harsh. I think it is valuable to examine the fundamental flaw of DC, don't you?


 

Examine perceived flaws of DC by all means. You don't need to start talking like Rik Mayall and calling everyone capitalists to do that.



brogdale said:


> The degree of control, input, influence that the SWP member 'enjoys' wrt to the official agenda of the Central Committee looks to me very similar to that enjoyed by workers wrt to corporate decision making.


 
That's just silly.



brogdale said:


> If you think that's wrong it might be more productive for you to explain exactly what influnence as a SWP member you had on the CC agenda.


 
And this is why. I had a vote at conference. Now, on its own that doesn't do much to make a difference unless others want to as well. But then that's the same in any organisation. But here's the big difference - you depend on your job to make a living. If you leave you lose your wage. I've tolerated all kinds of shit from bosses that I'd never put up with from a voluntary organisation like the SWP or any other party - most of us have. But when I disagreed with the SWP I left and lost nothing in doing so.

And of course the flip side of that is the question of how much influence the CC has on the local SWP branch agenda. It's far from absolute and far weaker than the control the boss has over the worker - precisely because it depends on consent.

These, like it or not, are very real differences.


----------



## love detective (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> In material terms the membership would be doing them all a favour by forcing them to 'spend more time with their family'.



Not if your John Rees they wouldn't


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I just don't buy it sorry. These people have given most of their adult lives to their political ideas (whatever you think of those ideas). They could almost all have easier, more relaxed and financially more comfortable lives if they didn't eat and drink marxist politics and activism. In material terms the membership would be doing them all a favour by forcing them to 'spend more time with their family'.


 
I can see what you are saying but if your social left, ego and even a big chunk of the point of your existance is all wrapped up in this, then I don't think it would be easy and I think it will impact psychologically, indeed I can't see how it couldn't. That's why you get people leaving describing it as being like a break up and talking about it in such emotional terms.

Also why do leaders such as Cliff, Callinicos, Taffe etc all think it's ok that they stay in place for not just years, but decades? Is no-one else at all as good as them?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

dennisr said:


> You are not arguing about any 'fundamental flaw' you are simply making shit up to reinforce your own preconceptions. The problem is these artificial leaps of thought/faith that you offer are not linked in practice.
> 
> Imposing one's preconceptions over lived practice is what you are doing - the same as those you are attempting to critisise. Abstract theories are no substitute for lived practice.


 
Precisely why I invited an account of persoanl experience from someone who had been a member. I've never been a member myself, but I don't think that should mean that any external criticism of structure or process should be written off as abstract theory.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I can see what you are saying but if your social left, ego and even a big chunk of the point of your existance is all wrapped up in this, then I don't think it would be easy and I think it will impact psychologically, indeed I can't see how it couldn't. That's why you get people leaving describing it as being like a break up and talking about it in such emotional terms.
> 
> Also why do leaders such as Cliff, Callinicos, Taffe etc all think it's ok that they stay in place for not just years, but decades? Is no-one else at all as good as them?


 
think it may be the case that the members think nobody's as good as them from the CC


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

love detective said:


> Not if your John Rees they wouldn't


You think? Rees, Harman, German they are all very talented people. They could have made very comfortable lives for themselves outside of revolutionary politics. The media and think tanks are full of ex revolutionaries who chose the easy option and made a killing. I really do think all this chatter about the material benefits accruing to the cc is just silly and distracts from a proper political discussion.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 20, 2013)

Big fish never want to stop being big fish, however small the pond.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You think? Rees, Harman, German they are all very talented people. They could have made very comfortable lives for themselves outside of revolutionary politics. The media and think tanks are full of ex revolutionaries who chose the easy option and made a killing. I really do think all this chatter about the material benefits accruing to the cc is just silly and distracts from a proper political discussion.


"Proper political discussion" appears to equal political conversation around points that you agree with.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You think? Rees, Harman, German they are all very talented people. They could have made very comfortable lives for themselves outside of revolutionary politics. The media and think tanks are full of ex revolutionaries who chose the easy option and made a killing. I really do think all this chatter about the material benefits accruing to the cc is just silly and distracts from a proper political discussion.


 
They're full of people who were radical for ten minutes in their youth, it would be a whole different kettle of fish trying to start a new career after decades as a leading member of a tiny political party.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2013)

there are mechanisms for replacing the cc in a democratic centralist party though. there are alternative slates put forward. it may not be very easy (which is why ive said i think it should be changed). however you can still do it it may be the case that people are content enough with the leadership not to want to rock the boat (or at least not see any reason why it should be changed immediately)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I can see what you are saying but if your social left, ego and even a big chunk of the point of your existance is all wrapped up in this, then I don't think it would be easy and I think it will impact psychologically, indeed I can't see how it couldn't. That's why you get people leaving describing it as being like a break up and talking about it in such emotional terms.
> 
> Also why do leaders such as Cliff, Callinicos, Taffe etc all think it's ok that they stay in place for not just years, but decades? Is no-one else at all as good as them?


 
In my experience, though, it's the ones in the more 'powerful' positions who have the most to lose in leaving, not the ordinary members.


----------



## love detective (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You think? Rees, Harman, German they are all very talented people. They could have made very comfortable lives for themselves outside of revolutionary politics. The media and think tanks are full of ex revolutionaries who chose the easy option and made a killing. I really do think all this chatter about the material benefits accruing to the cc is just silly and distracts from a proper political discussion.


 
it was a joke about who his 'family' is


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Examine perceived flaws of DC by all means. You don't need to start talking like Rik Mayall and calling everyone capitalists to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes, many (labour) organisations undertake voting at conference but there is a crucial distinction between those founded upon democratic principles of mandated delgation to decide upon competing branch resolutions and those in which the bulk resolutions are determined by the self-perpetuating oligrachy of leaders on the CC. Is not also the case that the outgoing CC nominate the candidates for the incoming committee?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale's arguments, from their very first post in this thread (where he/she believed that the very hypothetical premise of the SWP's internal investigation represented an attempt to replace the entire judiciary and justice system in toto) seem to be based in a common anarchist misunderstanding; that for most socialists the organisations one builds to further their political aims aren't a microcosm of the society we wish to see in the future, and them replicating 'utopian' ambitions in their own structures isn't anywhere near as important as whether or not they make an effective strategical contribution to 'the cause'.

a lot of the different anarchist groupings today operate by simply seeking to 'build communism' in their own little space, a squatted social centre, their internal processes etc. that is fundamentally not what the SWP or most socialists are trying to do. this is why you can sometimes get the disconnect, where things like the 'centralism' in democratic centralism can be commanded in a voluntary organisation where they wouldn't be demanded in, say, a Soviet.

for the SWP (and most other socialist orgs) their self-defined role is to _influence_ working class organisations (such as Soviets) not to _be_ those organisations.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yes, many (labour) organisations undertake voting at conference but there is a crucial distinction between those founded upon democratic principles of mandated delgation to decide upon competing branch resolutions and those in which the bulk resolutions are determined by the self-perpetuating oligrachy of leaders on the CC. Is not also the case that the outgoing CC nominate the candidates for the incoming committee?


 
The CC propose a slate. Anyone else can propose a slate too if they do wish. Anyone can propose a resolution. And simply reasserting the claim that they're an oligarchy doesn't make it so.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

love detective said:


> Not if your John Rees they wouldn't


They certainly wouldn't be doing his family any favours.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Anyone else can propose a slate too if they do wish. Anyone can propose a resolution.


 
Do they?
And what happens to them if they do?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> think it may be the case that the members think nobody's as good as them from the CC


 
Surely that is a problem. No-one could be as  good in 50 years of Taffe being there? There has to have been some very talented people in the SP in that time, and it can't be right having someone as the leadership for all that time.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Do they?
> And what happens to them if they do?


 
nothing.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Surely that is a problem. No-one could be as good in 50 years of Taffe being there? There has to have been some very talented people in the SP in that time, and it can't be right having someone as the leadership for all that time.


 
I didnt say i agreed with it its just that that might be one of the reasons why he hasn't been replaced yet.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Do they?
> And what happens to them if they do?


Look, speaking as someone who has been in the SWP and as someone who has a job. The two things are completely and utterly different.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 20, 2013)

That UAF Facebook page is now just a ding dong of people posting stuff up and it getting deleted. Latest is:



> so, first there were concerns over celebrating galloway's support and failing to criticise him. then uaf went one better and continued to hail a suspected rapist as a leading figure of the organisation. the fascinating thing is, there are a number of individuals who have not been accused of rape, who are anti fascist who would no doubt speak in his place. i can't see any reason for him speaking and the subsequent conscious 'martin smith was well received' unless it was a direct demonstration to support him.
> 
> now watch as uaf's reputation plummets, and the rest of the left get a bad misogynist name.
> 
> you cannot fight fascism with sexism or classism. simple.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2013)

there are people in trot organisations who seem to think that not selling papers etc is a crime against the party but what are they going to do if you don't sell any papers? you pay their wages after all. expel you?


----------



## Kidda (Jan 20, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there are people in trot organisations who seem to think that not selling papers etc is a crime against the party but what are they going to do if you don't sell any papers? you pay their wages after all. expel you?


 
I really can't get my head round intelligent people who come to a realisation that capitalism is fucking them over; who then go on to give further control of their lives over to spotty Lenin wannabes who degrade them by making them sell shit papers, full of irrelevant crap to people who will just use it to line their cats litter tray. 

Then when something big happens to shake their political core they hold on to these arseholes like rats refusing to leave a sinking ship. 

There was a choice comment made by some Swappie on the minutes of their little conference, where she basically said that if the disputes muppets had found Delta guilty she wouldn't just have called for his removal from the CC but from the party as a whole. Like that was a justified and well thought out response. 

So i hope the next time someone gets kicked out of the party for paper sales being down they realise they are most probably on par with rape in the eyes of their glorious leaders.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Look, speaking as someone who has been in the SWP and as someone who has a job. The two things are completely and utterly different.


 
Yes they are different, but that's how analogies work.
The point being the similar level of powerlessness experienced by 'ordinary' members of the SWP and workers in capitalist businesses.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yes they are different, but that's how analogies work.
> The point being the similar level of powerlessness experienced by 'ordinary' members of the SWP and workers in capitalist businesses.


No there isn't your talking bollocks.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> No there isn't your talking bollocks.


 
Care to explain?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> brogdale's arguments seem to be based in a common anarchist misunderstanding; that for most socialists the organisations one builds to further their political aims aren't a microcosm of the society we wish to see in the future,
> 
> for the SWP (and most other socialist orgs) their self-defined role is to _influence_ working class organisations (such as Soviets) not to _be_ those organisations.


 
So the SWP believe that a centralised, professional vanguard of non-proletarian revolutionaries are the essential pre-requisite of a post revolutionary socialist society of democratic, decentralised proletarian control.

No leap of faith needed, then?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Do they?
> And what happens to them if they do?


 
Show trial, followed by a lifetime down the saltmines.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Kidda said:


> someone gets kicked out of the party for paper sales being down


 
That's never actually happened has it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Care to explain?


 
He's right - I get that you don't want to back down on this but you're talking utter shite. And you didn't present it as an analogy - you claimed the two were 'no different'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 20, 2013)

Kidda said:


> I really can't get my head round intelligent people who come to a realisation that capitalism is fucking them over; who then go on to give further control of their lives over to spotty Lenin wannabes who degrade them by making them sell shit papers, full of irrelevant crap to people who will just use it to line their cats litter tray.


 

pretty sure you voted liberal democunt so log/own eye


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Show trial, followed by a lifetime down the saltmines.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yes they are different, but that's how analogies work.
> The point being the similar level of powerlessness experienced by 'ordinary' members of the SWP and workers in capitalist businesses.


 
1) it wasn't an analogy - you said they were 'no different'

2) there really isn't a similar level of 'powerlessness'. How often have you been able to vote for your boss? (assuming you don't work for some vegan coop, which is a distinct possibility I guess). Can you leave your job without serious financial consequences? And, again, the CC really doesn't have much control at all over what happens at branch level.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> So the SWP believe that a centralised, professional vanguard of non-proletarian revolutionaries are the essential pre-requisite of a post revolutionary socialist society of democratic, decentralised proletarian control.
> 
> No leap of faith needed, then?


 
Who says they are non proletarian


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

The SWP, in theory at least, believe that the vanguard _has to be_ proletarian. Just ask RMP3 - the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class etc.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Care to explain?


Other than my experience of being in the SWP (which you never have been) and of having a job (what work do you do?)?

Others already have but I will add one thing, motivation. Everything I did when in the SWP I did because I believed it to be the right thing to do. I didn't go wandering around street in the middle of freezing cold nights sticking up posters because it was fun, or because i felt compiled to do it, but because I believed in promoting a cause. Quick tip when going fly posting use hot walter in the paste bucket rather than cold. I go to work because I need to eat and pay my rent, end of.

The fact that you cannot see the differences leeds me to suspect that you really don't get the nature of labour under capitalism or the position the working class finds itself in.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Which is why, I assume, I once had a student SWP member tell me that Calinicos was working class because he sells his labour to the university he works for lol


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Which is why, I assume, I once had a student SWP member tell me that Calinicos was working class because he sells his labour to the university he works for lol


 
Well technically he is but that's ignoring investments, inheritances etc ...


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Which is why, I assume, I once had a student SWP member tell me that Calinicos was working class because he sells his labour to the university he works for lol


I think Calinicos himself would say he occupies a contradictory class position.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

What, like the fact he's a descendent of Lord Acton? 

But I also think that to be proletarian there has to be a certain degree of alienation, lack of control over the labour process etc.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think Calinicos himself would say he occupies a contradictory class position.


Here you go



> even though such employees work for the self-expansion of capital and even though they have lost the legal status of being self-employed, they can still be viewed as occupying residual islands of petty-bourgeois relations of production within the capitalist mode of production. In their immediate work environment, they maintain the work-process of the independent artisan while still being employed by capital as wage-labourers. They control how they do the work, and have at least some control over what they produce. A good example of this is a researcher in a laboratory or a professor in an elite university.58 Wright emphasised that those in contradictory class locations are a comparatively small group:


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

The distinction between formal and real domination of capital innit


----------



## Kidda (Jan 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> pretty sure you voted liberal democunt so log/own eye


 
errm, no i didn't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 20, 2013)

Kidda said:


> errm, no i didn't.


 
then i apologise for that vile slur. must have you mixed up with someone else


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

Anyway ... back on topic.

Who was it suggested any split from the SWP wold call itself, international socialism? 

Lenin's Tomb

New Blog

P.S. Is anyone else having problems reading comments on LT or is it just my computer being shit?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 20, 2013)

M Desplechin said:


> The more usual path is to be politically active in your youth, get fed up with it for one reason or another, and then drift around aimlessly for the rest of your days while occasionally paying lip-service to those youthful ideals.


Or drifting aimlessly for the rest of your days making the occasional cynical comment about how 'hopelessit all is'  - copywrite LETTSA


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 20, 2013)

After I left the party I remember discussing many of these points with an old friend who had left before me but was still ostensibly loyal to the party. Why wouldn't he fully make the break? To do so he explained would mean that all he had struggled for, had sacrificed for ( and though he had a phd. He and his family lived in the most precarious fashion, scratching an existence working less than 5 hours a week- hough later he got a job on the underground) would have been for nothing.
In the red party we had a discussion about the conservative nature of the revolutionary bureaucracy. Even though there is an enormous differential materially between the potential earnings of the brightest kids from clever schools who become the leaders of such groups. In particular we discussed the position of Sean matgamma, a full time revolutionary for over 40 years.
the tiny group of the awl, whilst generally despised by other trots, presents a fairly open face to the wider movement, and by all accounts is a fairly open internal structure, and yet SM has remained at the summit of that group without challenge since the 1970s. The awl doesn't have the financial resources of the SWP, and SM apparently lives a frugal existence, and yet his life is greatly different and privileged compared with the mass of awl members, let alone working class people. He is free to write and speak about what impassions him, to travel and mix with others who share his views and treat him with a certain deference. Inside his small world he can live a life free from alienation. Even a minor questioning of this situation, which depends upon the voluntary contributions, both financial and physical, of the party rank & file, has the potential to threaten the whole edifice.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The SWP, in theory at least, believe that the vanguard _has to be_ proletarian. Just ask RMP3 - the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class etc.


 
Time to kick Callinicos off the CC then.

EDIT: I see you mentioned the Prof


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> 1) it wasn't an analogy - you said they were 'no different'
> 
> 2) there really isn't a similar level of 'powerlessness'. How often have you been able to vote for your boss? (assuming you don't work for some vegan coop, which is a distinct possibility I guess). Can you leave your job without serious financial consequences? And, again, the CC really doesn't have much control at all over what happens at branch level.


 
Analogy 'debate' aside, no I've never had the opportunity to vote for my boss, but then again...has the membership of SWP had the opportunity to replace the CC?
My understanding was that the outgoing CC nominated the incoming with (congress) conference given the opportunity to agree their decisions.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> then i apologise for that vile slur. must have you mixed up with someone else


You're thinking kippa not kidda.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Analogy 'debate' aside, no I've never had the opportunity to vote for my boss, but then again...has the membership of SWP had the opportunity to replace the CC?


 
Yes. Every year at conference. And if enough branches agree to it they don't have to wait for that - they can call an emergency conference.



brogdale said:


> My understanding was that the outgoing CC nominated the incoming with (congress) conference given the opportunity to agree their decisions.


 
Your understanding is wrong then - conference elects the CC. There's a slate system, and the CC will propose a slate, but any delegate can propose their own alternative slate if they so wish.

I have no desire to defend the SWP's internal regime, I just think criticism, if it's to be any use, should be accurate.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

How long serving are the current CC?

And how many emergency conferences have been called in the past, say, 20 years?


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes. Every year at conference. And if enough branches agree to it they don't have to wait for that - they can call an emergency conference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't it true that the branches and members have no way of organising or sharing info, apart from comms controlled by the CC? No personal exp or info on this tbh


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> How long serving are the current CC?
> 
> And how many emergency conferences have been called in the past, say, 20 years?


 
Not that long serving - the makeup of the CC has changed quite a lot over the last decade.

As far as I know no emergency conferences have ever been called.

I'm not trying to say that the SWP is especially democratic - it's not. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of comparing the SWP to a business, with the CC in the role of capitalist. It's simplistic and unhelpful.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> Isn't it true that the branches and members have no way of organising or sharing info, apart from comms controlled by the CC? No personal exp or info on this tbh


 
Yeah pretty much - just to reiterate the SWP has enormous problems with internal democracy. But the suggestion that the membership have no means of removing the CC is simply wrong.

And of course recent events show that if the leadership tries to press too far members will open up lines of communication that the CC cannot control, much as they might try.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not that long serving - the makeup of the CC has changed quite a lot over the last decade.
> 
> As far as I know no emergency conferences have ever been called.
> 
> I'm not trying to say that the SWP is especially democratic - it's not. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of comparing the SWP to a business, with the CC in the role of capitalist. It's simplistic and unhelpful.


But no CC slate has ever been rejected has it? And the number of competing slates since the 70s is around 4 i think. So in effect it's the same CC. (It's 5 delegates needed to offer a competing slate btw not one)


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

I wonder whether any of the DC will be on the next CC endorsed slate?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm not 100% sure on that to be honest, might possibly have been around the Respect thing but that's before my time.

But my point is that the CC does need consent, active or passive approval, to stay in place - which makes them very different from a boss. I think in order to understand how they remain in place for so long we're best looking at how that consent is manufactured and maintained, which means looking at the kind of stuff Random was hinting at above.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

This issue of whether the theory of internal democracy works in practice is a bit contentious, eh?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> I wonder whether any of the DC will be on the next CC endorsed slate?


 
At least two of them are almost guaranteed to be, since they're already CC members.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> This issue of whether the theory of internal democracy works in practice is a bit contentious, eh?


 
Not for me it isn't - it clearly doesn't work in practice. But I'd prefer to be accurate in explaining _how _it doesn't work in practice,


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not for me it isn't - it clearly doesn't work in practice. But I'd prefer to be accurate in explaining _how _it doesn't work in practice,


Although, to be fair, bosses eg managers are demoted (or promoted out of direct harm's reach) or sacked if there're problems with the workforce. Too many grievances, drops in productivity, labour turnover, increased absenteeism etc; are all measures by which managers' effectiveness is measured. So there may not be a "democratic" election system but the outcome is similar.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But no CC slate has ever been rejected has it? And the number of competing slates since the 70s is around 4 i think. So in effect it's the same CC. (It's 5 delegates needed to offer a competing slate btw not one)


 
Just to come back to this one - I think the fact that the slate has to be voted on makes a difference to what slate the CC proposes, and that if they didn't have to be voted on I think there would probably have been even less change. Cos although the changes have been proposed by the CC itself some of them strike me as being forced because they knew if they took the piss too much they risked not getting the slate through. The removal of Delta from the CC for example, possibly Rees and German too - I know they were scapegoats for something they were all complicit in but the fact they saw the need for a scapegoat says something I'd have thought.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Although, to be fair, bosses eg managers are demoted (or promoted out of direct harm's reach) or sacked if there're problems with the workforce. Too many grievances, drops in productivity, labour turnover, increased absenteeism etc; are all measures by which managers' effectiveness is measured. So there may not be a "democratic" election system but the outcome is similar.


 
But then we're getting down to the kind of position that says all organisations where you have positions of authority are the same - I don't think that really gets you anywhere. And, as I've already said, a boss has far greater ability to sanction employees. And since the SWP depends on its members for its existence, and unlike a business there aren't unemployed people waiting to take their place, the members have greater ability to sanction the party/CC than an employee does his or her boss.

Anyway, any more news on this faction business?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just to come back to this one - I think the fact that the slate has to be voted on makes a difference to what slate the CC proposes, and that if they didn't have to be voted on I think there would probably have been even less change. Cos although the changes have been proposed by the CC itself some of them strike me as being forced because they knew if they took the piss too much they risked not getting the slate through. The removal of Delta from the CC for example, possibly Rees and German too - I know they were scapegoats for something they were all complicit in but the fact they saw the need for a scapegoat says something I'd have thought.


But if they had been put on the slate they'd have been voted in. They would still be on the CC. Because - simply - the CC slate is what gets elected. That's the power of CC - and it's all formally democratic.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

I don't think that's true - the CC slate gets elected in part because they _don't _take the piss too much with their selections. SWP members aren't _that _cult-like.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> But then we're getting down to the kind of position that says all organisations where you have positions of authority are the same - I don't think that really gets you anywhere. And, as I've already said, a boss has far greater ability to sanction employees. And since the SWP depends on its members for its existence, and unlike a business there aren't unemployed people waiting to take their place, the members have greater ability to sanction the party/CC than an employee does his or her boss.
> 
> Anyway, any more news on this faction business?



You seem to be thinking in purely economic terms wrt to sanctions ie dismissal and loss of pay is worse than expulsion.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think that's true - the CC slate gets elected in part because they _don't _take the piss too much with their selections. SWP members aren't _that _cult-like.


Perfect, the system works then! 40 years of CC slates being elected shows this. Or, if there was popular anger at Rees inclusion for example the whole CC slate would have been rejected wouldn't it? But how with no competing slate existing? With no competing slates how can any opposition make itself known?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

One of the ways the CC can make sure their slate goes through is using the fact that there are some members of the CC who the vast majority of the membership think have to be on there. Callinicos for example, and when he was alive TC even more so. If they say they won't serve on a CC if the alternative slate wins they effectively kill it.

Most of these 'important' CC members get this credibility from the relationship they had with Cliff. But with Harman dead, Rees and German out of the way and so on there's only really the prof left with that kind of credibility. The authority those who served on the CC with TC wield is quite significant.

So I'm wondering if the fact that there is now only one of them left has in some way helped the opposition, since criticism of the CC doesn't look quite so much like criticism of the messiah. It's certainly increased the amount of power the prof has - he's the only one left who can swing a debate just by taking one side or the other as far as I can see.

This might be utter bollocks mind you, not really spent very long thinking about it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

A great system of checks and balances.  The DC clears a member of the CC, then members of the DC are on the CC endorsed slate, which, if history is anything to go by is pretty much a shoo-in.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Perfect, the system works then! 40 years of CC slates being elected shows this. Or, if there was popular anger at Rees inclusion for example the whole CC slate would have been rejected wouldn't it? But how with no competing slate existing? With no competing slates how can any opposition make itself known?



There's a very very narrow timeframe for a slate not to be a secret faction, isn't there? Or have I misunderstood?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Perfect, the system works then! 40 years of CC slates being elected shows this. Or, if there was popular anger at Rees inclusion for example the whole CC slate would have been rejected wouldn't it? But how with no competing slate existing? With no competing slates how can any opposition make itself known?


 
I don't think the system works. That's not my point at all. Quite the opposite - I think it doesn't work. I just disagree on _how _it doesn't work. 

I agree that the CC has far too much control over the SWP. My point is that it's worth looking at _how _they exert this control. And they do that by setting the terms of debate and where possible restricting it, and also by doing whatever they need to do to get themselves re-elected - if necessary sacrificing one of their own.

And if we're looking at a counterfactual I don't see why we can't assume that an opposing slate would have been proposed if the CC had selected R&G.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> There's a very very narrow timeframe for a slate not to be a secret faction, isn't there? Or have I misunderstood?


 
That's the rules on factions rather than slates. As far as I know provided it's discussed openly they can't do anything about alternative slates (formally at least).


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2013)

i don't think spiny is by any means praising the democracy of the swp. he's saying it's different to the workplace, which it patently is to anyone but an idiot.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> There's a very very narrow timeframe for a slate not to be a secret faction, isn't there? Or have I misunderstood?


Factions get a 3 month gap in which they are allowed to exist - in reality it's much less as the practical work takes times and can be hindered by the actions of the centre in terms of distribution of material, access to members (and and they need at least 30 members prepared to face the CCs wrath) and so on - no to mention that if you _uncovered_ trying to make the tiniest of (trotsky-fascist no doubt!) plans to even talk about factions outside of this period then you - as the facebook four found out - are out on your ear pronto. Slates can be proposed at conference by any delegate  with the support of five total - they don't necessarily have to be tied to a faction. The SWP constitution as adopted in 2009 after  _very deep revision and scrutiny _is here.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think the system works. That's not my point at all. Quite the opposite - I think it doesn't work. I just disagree on _how _it doesn't work.
> 
> I agree that the CC has far too much control over the SWP. My point is that it's worth looking at _how _they exert this control. And they do that by setting the terms of debate and where possible restricting it, and also by doing whatever they need to do to get themselves re-elected - if necessary sacrificing one of their own.
> 
> And if we're looking at a counterfactual I don't see why we can't assume that an opposing slate would have been proposed if the CC had selected R&G.


I think the history of 40+ years of undefeated CC slates even at times of past tension and of internal disputes puts us on pretty safe ground in making the assumption that it would have happened even with those two on the CC approved slate. The other option is basically (and the CC knows and plays on this) is to effectively pass a vote of no confidence in the entire party, the parties perspective and the parties actions and initiative entire.

Part of how the CC manages to get itself in the position to do this is the informal ways that they use the formal power democratically handed to them. It's the stuff in the cracks, the stuff that random mentions and that you think we should be concentrating on - but it is _also_ this formal democratic stuff that i've mentioned. To only see one side of that is to offer a partial picture - it's not all about behind the scenes pressure, bullying and enticement.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

The only explanation for the ban on factions that makes any kind of sense is that it's designed to make it as difficult as possible to effectively oppose the CC. Looks to me like it's intentionally designed to make it as difficult as possible to organise one, and the ban on 'secret' factions, as it is, arguably makes it impossible to set up an official one in the first place.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

All of which adds up to a situation in which is hard to challenge the CC, and where you're likely to suffer if you challenge and fail.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Factions get a 3 month gap in which they are allowed to exist - in reality it's much less as the practical work takes times and can be hindered by the actions of the centre in terms of distribution of material, access to members (and and they need at least 30 members prepared to face the CCs wrath) and so on - no to mention that if you _uncovered_ trying to make the tiniest of (trotsky-fascist no doubt!) plans to even talk about factions outside of this period then you - as the facebook four found out - are out on your ear pronto. Slates can be proposed at conference by any delegate with the support of five total - they don't necessarily have to be tied to a faction. The SWP constitution as adopted in 2009 after _very deep revision and scrutiny _is here.


This 3 moth thing seems to be a myth, I believed that was the case but someone on Lenin's tomb said it wasn't in the constitution, and I have checked and they seem to be right. A faction can form at any point between one conference and the next, but the only real discussion period is in the 3 months before conference.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

This is worth a read: The Origin of the ‘Slate System’


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think the history of 40+ years of undefeated CC slates even at times of past tension and of internal disputes puts us on pretty safe ground in making the assumption that it would have happened even with those two on the CC approved slate. The other option is basically (and the CC knows and plays on this) is to effectively pass a vote of no confidence in the entire party, the parties perspective and the parties actions and initiative entire.


 
Still not completely with you on this - part of the reason why there's been 40 years of undefeated slates is that they've made concessions where necessary. I don't see how either of us could prove what we're saying is true without a time machine though. And the second sentence is only true if there's no alternative slate proposed, surely?



butchersapron said:


> Part of how the CC manages to get itself in the position to do this is the informal ways that they use the formal power democratically handed to them. It's the stuff in the cracks, the stuff that random mentions and that you think we should be concentrating on - but it is _also_ this formal democratic stuff that i've mentioned. To only see one side of that is to offer a partial picture - it's not all about behind the scenes pressure, bullying and enticement.


 
I agree - and the ban on factions outside the conference period is a big part of this. But brogdale seemed to be suggesting that all this stuff stems directly from their formal powers, which is just plain wrong. 

The thing is, anyone who's ever paid any attention to the SWP knows about the constitutional issues. It's been gone over so many times that people on both sides of the debate could easily predict what the other side will say. The 'stuff in the cracks' is interesting because it's not been the object of as much scrutiny and because it changes over time in a way that the constitution doesn't.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> All of which adds up to a situation in which is hard to challenge the CC, and where you're likely to suffer if you challenge and fail.


 
Of course. It's still nothing like the relationship between worker and boss though, which is what I was originally responding to.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> One of the ways the CC can make sure their slate goes through is using the fact that there are some members of the CC who the vast majority of the membership think have to be on there. Callinicos for example, and when he was alive TC even more so. If they say they won't serve on a CC if the alternative slate wins they effectively kill it.
> 
> Most of these 'important' CC members get this credibility from the relationship they had with Cliff. But with Harman dead, Rees and German out of the way and so on there's only really the prof left with that kind of credibility. The authority those who served on the CC with TC wield is quite significant.
> 
> ...


No I think your right. Also while I may have had rose tinted specs at the time I don't feel the current CC has as much quality on it as it did 10 years ago and I think most of the membership knows it. With Cliff, Harman, Rees and German gone there is really only Callinicos left who has much intellectual authority (if that's a viable concept) left.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This 3 moth thing seems to be a myth, I believed that was the case but someone on Lenin's tomb said it wasn't in the constitution, and I have checked and they seem to be right. A faction can form at any point between one conference and the next, but the only real discussion period is in the 3 months before conference.


 
I don't think that's true. Factions are definitely ordered to dissolve themselves after conference and when I've talked to people in the SWP they've defending it rather than denied it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This 3 moth thing seems to be a myth, I believed that was the case but someone on Lenin's tomb said it wasn't in the constitution, and I have checked and they seem to be right. A faction can form at any point between one conference and the next, but the only real discussion period is in the 3 months before conference.


Surely they are only allowed in that 3 month pre-conference discussion period? Or else why were the F4 expelled for the crime of secret factionalising outside of that period - and why was it justified on the grounds that they had breached the constitution?


> Permanent or secret factions are not allowed.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> Of course. It's still nothing like the relationship between worker and boss though, which is what I was originally responding to.



It's not an identical relationship. But neither is it entirely dissimilar. Both embody an imbalance of power.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

Factions have to dissolve after conference but from what I can see in the constitution is nothing to prevent a faction forming the day after a conference finishes, it will just have to dissolve after the next one, so would not be permanent.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Still not completely with you on this - part of the reason why there's been 40 years of undefeated slates is that they've made concessions where necessary. I don't see how either of us could prove what we're saying is true without a time machine though. And the second sentence is only true if there's no alternative slate proposed, surely?


 
And there isn't another slate 90% of the time. I can think of reasons why this might be case other than this is due to skillful manouvering of the CC - the 'in the cracks' stuff that you want to examine being pretty high on the list.



> I agree - and the ban on factions outside the conference period is a big part of this. But brogdale seemed to be suggesting that all this stuff stems directly from their formal powers, which is just plain wrong.
> 
> The thing is, anyone who's ever paid any attention to the SWP knows about the constitutional issues. It's been gone over so many times that people on both sides of the debate could easily predict what the other side will say. The 'stuff in the cracks' is interesting because it's not been the object of as much scrutiny and because it changes over time in a way that the constitution doesn't.


 
Maybe then this is a matter of what your experience of criticisms of this form of organisation is and what direction you're coming at them from - because to me, the stuff 'in the cracks' has not only been gone over as much as the formal stuff but cannot be understood without it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Factions have to dissolve after conference but from what I can see in the constitution is nothing to prevent a faction forming the day after a conference finishes, it will just have to dissolve after the next one, so would not be permanent.


It wouldn't be permanent, it would just exist 364 days of the year. Yeah, i can well see the CC buying that.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Factions have to dissolve after conference but from what I can see in the constitution is nothing to prevent a faction forming the day after a conference finishes, it will just have to dissolve after the next one, so would not be permanent.


Here is everything said about factions in the SWP constitution. Nothing about when they can be formed just that it needs 30 members




> (10) Factions
> If a group of party members disagrees with
> a specific party policy, or a decision taken
> by a leading committee of the party, they
> ...


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It wouldn't be permanent, it would just exist 364 days of the year. Yeah, i can well see the CC buying that.


Well if you tried to form a new faction over the same issue I am sure they would deem it a permeant faction.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> It's not an identical relationship. But neither is it entirely dissimilar. Both embody an imbalance of power.


 
So does pretty much every social relationship, so it doesn't get you very far at all.


----------



## cesare (Jan 20, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i don't think spiny is by any means praising the democracy of the swp. he's saying it's different to the workplace, which it patently is to anyone but an idiot.


He clearly isn't. But he's willing to post rather than just a couple of one-liners here n there, which makes it easier to have a conversation with him. For myself, I don't think he's defending the SWP but maybe an insight into Leninist organisations. So it's interesting and I hope he doesn't take my questions/observations as some sort of personal attack on him because they're not.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> So does pretty much every social relationship, so it doesn't get you very far at all.



To a greater or lesser extent.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And there isn't another slate 90% of the time. I can think of reasons why this might be case other than this is due to skillful manouvering of the CC - the 'in the cracks' stuff that you want to examine being pretty high on the list.


 
Sure, it's not the only conceivable reason. But it's one of them - and a very plausible one IMO





butchersapron said:


> Maybe then this is a matter of what your experience of criticisms of this form of organisation is and what direction you're coming at them from - because to me, the stuff 'in the cracks' has not only been gone over as much as the formal stuff but cannot be understood without it.


 
Maybe - but since the formal stuff is already so well understood I think we can safely move on to the cracks. It's particularly interesting for me because I think some of what exists in those cracks has been changing quite a lot in the last few years.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> He clearly isn't. But he's willing to post rather than just a couple of one-liners here n there, which makes it easier to have a conversation with him. For myself, I don't think he's defending the SWP but maybe an insight into Leninist organisations. So it's interesting and I hope he doesn't take my questions/observations as some sort of personal attack on him because they're not.


 
Not at all


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> One of the ways the CC can make sure their slate goes through is using the fact that there are some members of the CC who the vast majority of the membership think have to be on there. Callinicos for example, and when he was alive TC even more so. If they say they won't serve on a CC if the alternative slate wins they effectively kill it.


 how do they square that with democratic centralist decision making? Basically saying they will not abide by a majority decision.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

love detective said:


> it was a joke about who his 'family' is


Oh fuck so it was, sorry.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Factions have to dissolve after conference but from what I can see in the constitution is nothing to prevent a faction forming the day after a conference finishes, it will just have to dissolve after the next one, so would not be permanent.


 
SWP members certainly _believe _they're only allowed to form factions in the 3 months - and I can't see there being much point in them making you dissolve if you can just set it up again the next day.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Or else why were the F4 expelled for the crime of secret factionalising outside of that period - and why was it justified on the grounds that they had breached the constitution?


the four expelled were the ones arguing against forming a faction. this was taken as evidence that they were organising a secret faction instead.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> how do they square that with democratic centralist decision making? Basically saying they will not abide by a majority decision.


 
No idea - I'm sure they'd manage it though. I believe this happened at the last conference, where 2 of the 4 dissenting CC members were removed from the slate and the other two said they wouldn't serve with the current CC.What happened then was that the CC amended their slate to remove them.

In practice I suspect the same would happen with an alternative slate. They'd announce their unwillingness to serve before the vote was made, in which case people would bear that in mind when voting and the people proposing the alternative slate may well take them off in order to not be presenting an unworkable slate. Would be interesting to see what would happen if they were left on and elected against their will though.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Here is everything said about factions in the SWP constitution. Nothing about when they can be formed just that it needs 30 members


 
That's interesting.
So no recourse to a vote for the entire membership? Only the non delegated branch reps get to attend the conference vote, then?
How very centralised.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

SWP members aren't even sure they can set up a faction now to discuss this mess. You wouldn't  believe the hoops loyal but dissident members are going through to explain themselves today. I do feel for them. even collecting a list of branches who have passed motions critical of the cc is proving a huge issue for one comrade on FB today. he did give the numbers by the way but not my place to share it.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is worth a read: The Origin of the ‘Slate System’


i see gerry healey get's a mention. both cliff and grant went through "the group".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> To a greater or lesser extent.


 
Yes, and there is a smaller imbalance of power between the CC and the rest of the CC than there is between boss and worker in most industries. And since power in a company is functions in a completely different way I really don't think it's useful.

I can see why it might be attractive - if you can claim the SWP, or Leninist organizations or whatever are the same as capitalist enterprises that has some emotional impact. But it's not a serious point, any more than saying it's the same as the relationship between a dominatrix and her gimp, parent and child or landlord and serf.

As I've said before there are legitimate questions to be asked but I don't think that particular comparison addresses any of them.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Only the non delegated branch reps get to attend the conference vote, then?


no, voted on, in my day.

again, using the slate system, so problematic to say the least.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> That's interesting.
> So no recourse to a vote for the entire membership? Only the non delegated branch reps get to attend the conference vote, then?
> How very centralised.


 
Well it's not called democratic _centralism_ for nothing you know.

And delegates are elected by their branches so the whole membership gets a say, albeit indirectly.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> Yes, and there is a smaller imbalance of power between the CC and the rest of the CC than there is between boss and worker in most industries. And since power in a company is functions in a completely different way I really don't think it's useful.
> 
> I can see why it might be attractive - if you can claim the SWP, or Leninist organizations or whatever are the same as capitalist enterprises that has some emotional impact. But it's not a serious point, any more than saying it's the same as the relationship between a dominatrix and her gimp, parent and child or landlord and serf.
> 
> As I've said before there are legitimate questions to be asked but I don't think that particular comparison addresses any of them.



Yes, there's less imbalance than in the SWP internal relationships than there is in a worker/employer relationship, but more than there ought to be!

And the reason that comparison has more to commend it than some of the other ones you mentioned (which I accept are equally applicable) its capacity to highlight hypocrisy.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 20, 2013)

M Desplechin said:


> Where in my post did I say anything was hopeless?
> 
> Are you denying that this is the way it usually goes for former low-level activists?


I'm not saying you did (note the copywrite)


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> Yes, there's less imbalance than in the SWP internal relationships than there is in a worker/employer relationship, but more than there ought to be!


who's arguing otherwise? except maybe your cleaner?


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

discokermit said:
			
		

> who's arguing otherwise? except maybe your cleaner?



My point was that the analogy wasn't as without value as Spiney seems to suggest.

She is no more, by the way. I reexamined my conscience and realised that, whilst I could cobble together a justification, deep down I knew it was wrong.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> it's the same as the relationship between a dominatrix and her gimp


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Its value is purely polemical though. It doesn't tell you anything about the way the SWP operates, which is what's important.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> My point was that the analogy wasn't as without value as Spiney seems to suggest.
> 
> She is no more, by the way. I reexamined my conscience and realised that, whilst I could cobble together a justification, deep down I knew it was wrong.


 
These are quite reliable http://www.merrymaids.co.uk/


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> Its value is purely polemical though. It doesn't tell you anything about the way the SWP operates, which is what's important.



It highlights it.  But I can see we're not going to agree.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> SWP members certainly _believe _they're only allowed to form factions in the 3 months - and I can't see there being much point in them making you dissolve if you can just set it up again the next day.


You Couldn't set up again on the next day that would be a permanent faction, but in theory a faction could exist for a a whole year between two conferences. But yes the 3 month thing is commonly believed.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:
			
		

> These are quite reliable http://www.merrymaids.co.uk/



It wasn't a question of reliability, but of politics. And one in respect of which I erred.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Someone needs to join the SWP and try to set up a faction - it's the only way we'll settle this one. I doubt they'd have me back so someone else had better do it


----------



## emanymton (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Someone needs to join the SWP and try to set up a faction - it's the only way we'll settle this one. I doubt they'd have me back so someone else had better do it


Sod that, I'll just concede the argument. You win. But it was a dirty trick


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 20, 2013)

Athos said:


> It wasn't a question of reliability, but of politics. And one in respect of which I erred.


 
Don't know what their politics are tbh but I know a couple of people who work for them , one's labour and the other ones partners used to vote BNP but he is a UKIP supporter. I am not sure that you get a lot of anarchist types as cleaners.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Don't know what their politics are tbh but I know a couple of people who work for them , one's labour and the other ones partners used to vote BNP but he is a UKIP supporter. I am not sure that you get a lot of anarchist types as cleaners.


Not their's, mine.  But I think you knew that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

Can the Anarcho-bore who is determined to turn this entire thread into a particularly tedious and stupid variant of the Anarchist FAQ please fuck off and die under a rock somewhere? Nobody is fucking interested.


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Can the Anarcho-bore who is determined to turn this entire thread into a particularly tedious and stupid variant of the Anarchist FAQ please fuck off and die under a rock somewhere? Nobody is fucking interested.


Now we see the violence inherent in the system


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You Couldn't set up again on the next day that would be a permanent faction, but in theory a faction could exist for a a whole year between two conferences. But yes the 3 month thing is commonly believed.


 
How depressing that folk with revolutionary desires should submit themselves to such oppressive and petty bureaucracy.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 20, 2013)

In a Leeds branch the question of who goes to conference was decided democratically, with a young woman comrade delegated to go, unfortunately, the district treasurer was also in the branch and was defeated. Within three weeks the young woman and her husband had been expelled for 'secret factionalising', and the district treasurer was free to go to conference


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> How depressing that folk with revolutionary desires should submit themselves to such oppressive and petty bureaucracy.


Pompous clown.


----------



## Athos (Jan 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Pompous clown.


 
Of all the adjectives to describe a clown, pompous is one of the least obvious.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 20, 2013)

M Desplechin said:


> Did he enjoy it?


She


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Pompous clown.



Not very conducive to meaningful discussion, and somewhat oxymoronic.

You seem anxious to close down examination of SWP structural and ideological weakness; why so?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

I see by the way that everyone's favourite dog on a string collective the CNT-Vignoles has just split down the middle, with much yelling and screaming about thieving and the like. A shining example of the superiority of Anarchist organisational methods I'm sure we can all agree.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Can the Anarcho-bore who is determined to turn this entire thread into a particularly tedious and stupid variant of the Anarchist FAQ please fuck off and die under a rock somewhere? Nobody is fucking interested.


 
I am, and I'm not an anarchist.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Not very conducive to meaningful discussion, and somewhat oxymoronic


 
You are a boring prick.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 20, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> She


 
SK was it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> How depressing that folk with revolutionary desires should submit themselves to such oppressive and petty bureaucracy.


 
lol you're such an annakissed


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

What NI said!

I can see I'm gonna have to name the branches who voted for recall to stop this.


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> lol you're such an annakissed


You can't say that, that's one of our words.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What NI said!
> 
> I can see I'm gonna have to name the branches who voted for recall to stop this.


 
DO IT!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> You can't say that, that's one of our words.


 
That's not very annakissed of you, oppressing me in my use of language and that


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What NI said!
> 
> I can see I'm gonna have to name the branches who voted for recall to stop this.


 
Let me encourage you to do this. Actually, while it wouldn't be as amusing, the number alone would be of interest.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

5


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> 5


 
Actually more than I thought there'd be at this point. The real issue is whether that's a start or the end.

I wonder how many branches have discussed and voted against motions on this.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> lol you're such an annakissed


 
You left the party, right?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What NI said!
> 
> I can see I'm gonna have to name the branches who voted for recall to stop this.


go on then.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> 5


does that include swss branches?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> You left the party, right?


 
he did yeah


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> You left the party, right?


 
Yes. I somehow managed to do that without turning into the peasant bloke off the holy grail.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

You are only encouraging him.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes. I somehow managed to do that without turning into the peasant bloke off the holy grail.



but not to join another, then?


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see by the way that everyone's favourite dog on a string collective the CNT-Vignoles has just split down the middle, with much yelling and screaming about thieving and the like. A shining example of the superiority of Anarchist organisational methods I'm sure we can all agree.


Start a thread with more info. My trainspotting knows no national or ideological borders


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Actually more than I thought there'd be at this point. The real issue is whether that's a start or the end.
> 
> I wonder how many branches have discussed and voted against motions on this.


6 now.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

But the sad ting is they have to ask each other on FB to find out. What century are we in?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> but not to join another, then?


 
I did eventually but that wasn't why I left, I spent a couple of years desperately trying to avoid even thinking about political engagement.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But the sad ting is they have to ask each other on FB to find out. What century are we in?


Not the same one as the Leninists.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But the sad ting is they have to ask each other on FB to find out. What century are we in?


 
The facebook part is a bit of a giveaway


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Not the same one as the Leninists.


 
Nor the same planet as you it appears.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I did eventually but that wasn't why I left, I spent a couple of years desperately trying to avoid even thinking about political engagement.


 
Oh...doesn't sound good.
Apart from youthful daliance with Labour, I've never joined a party. there have been times when I've envied those who have the 'faith' to join...but, looking back, I'm now glad that I didn't go through that experience. I'm not sure I'd have any optimism left if I had.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

Random said:


> Start a thread with more info. My trainspotting knows no national or ideological borders


 
I doubt if there'll be too much interest in a major split in what was, after all, merely the largest anarchoid grouping in France and thus not something of any great importance.

Also, I don't really have all the details. As I understand it though, it's mostly a split between the semi-functional mini-union bit of the CNT and the ideological anarchoids. More than half of the members have left to form the new CNT-Solidarite Ouvriere, which takes its place at the head of the massed ranks of CNTs (I believe they are up to four by now). There are accusations of financial shenanigans and theft flying around and members have apparently taking to swiping books off each others stalls.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 20, 2013)

An understanding of class forces 





brogdale said:


> Oh...doesn't sound good.
> Apart from youthful daliance with Labour, I've never joined a party. there have been times when I've envied those who have the 'faith' to join...but, looking back, I'm now glad that I didn't go through that experience. I'm not sure I'd have any optimism left if I had.


 
Optimism has nothing to do with political hackery and everything to do with class.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

audiotech said:


> An understanding of class forces
> 
> Optimism has nothing to do with political hackery and everything to do with class.


 
Sometimes I'm more optimistic than others.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 20, 2013)

Sometimes 





brogdale said:


> Sometimes I'm more optimistic than others.


 
Do you sometimes make sense?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Sometimes
> 
> Do you sometimes make sense?


Sometimes.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 20, 2013)

Banalities are clearly your watch-word.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 20, 2013)

Battle of the Giants


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Banalities are clearly your watch-word.


 
Sorry if the repartee disappoints, but I'd never before considered that a psychological disposition to expect best possible outcomes was determined by class.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 20, 2013)

A master of polemic? Comic?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 20, 2013)

Oh god, psychobabble.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Oh god, psychobabble.


 
You did say....


> Optimism has nothing to do with political hackery and everything to do with class.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 20, 2013)

So there are 67 branches on this list: http://www.swp.org.uk/meetingsandevents and we can assume a lot of branches haven't got their act together to advertise their next meeting. Shall we go for 100 branches in total? Ball park figure, for easy maths and probably an overestimate, which is the right direction to err in for assessing the question of a recall. This means the opposition needs 20. It's very hard to assess the significance of 6 at this stage. If that's 6 after lots of branches have discussed the question, then it's poor. My guess is, however, that as the loyalist line is 'carry on regardless', they won't have had the discussion in the vast majority of branches and thus the opposition are in fact off to a reasonable start.

If any of the 6 are SWSS branches, that's a probably a weakness, although I'm not sure of the relationship between SWSS and the SWP proper these days. I say this because I think the centre will be rule that SWSS branches don't count for this purpose. Morally, they would be wrong in doing so, but I don't think the constitution says anything about SWSS branches, which might provide an excuse.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> You did say....


 
Doesn't surprise me that you're confused. Conflating psychological mumbo-jumbo with class. How does that work?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 20, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Doesn't surprise me that you're confused. Conflating psychological mumbo-jumbo with class. How does that work?


 
Is that you saying it was a joke?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 20, 2013)

audiotech said:


> SK was it?


Yes


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> So there are 67 branches on this list: http://www.swp.org.uk/meetingsandevents and we can assume a lot of branches haven't got their act together to advertise their next meeting. Shall we go for 100 branches in total? Ball park figure, for easy maths and probably an overestimate, which is the right direction to err in for assessing the question of a recall. This means the opposition needs 20. It's very hard to assess the significance of 6 at this stage. If that's 6 after lots of branches have discussed the question, then it's poor. My guess is, however, that as the loyalist line is 'carry on regardless', they won't have had the discussion in the vast majority of branches and thus the opposition are in fact off to a reasonable start.
> 
> If any of the 6 are SWSS branches, that's a probably a weakness, although I'm not sure of the relationship between SWSS and the SWP proper these days. I say this because I think the centre will be rule that SWSS branches don't count for this purpose. Morally, they would be wrong in doing so, but I don't think the constitution says anything about SWSS branches, which might provide an excuse.


 
I would tend to expect the CC to interpret each and every rule in a manner that's as unfavourable to the opposition as they can arrange. So we'll likely see defunct branches counted for these purposes and probably not SWSS branches.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

discokermit said:


> does that include swss branches?


no


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Doesn't surprise me that you're confused. Conflating psychological mumbo-jumbo with class. How does that work?


 
Got to say that didn't make too much sense to me either. Of course the way we see things is heavily influenced by our class background but in my experience people of all classes can be victims of both naive optimism and debilitating pessimism. The forms that optimism and pessimism take (eg. to make a generalisation m/c students seem to be very optimistic about the ability of mankind to emancipate itself without the need for messy things like structural change) to vary across the classes but their existence is universal.

Personally I'm a left wing working class pessimist - I'm especially pessimistic when it comes to liberal structures - I think if we try and sustain them it will kill us all. I also have grave doubts about our capacity to transform those structures into something better but I don't think that's any reason not to try.

To rob a phrase from a famous Italian shortarse, pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 20, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Doesn't surprise me that you're confused. Conflating psychological mumbo-jumbo with class. How does that work?


 
OK, now I have no idea what you're talking about and I suspect neither do you.


----------



## SLK (Jan 20, 2013)

Belushi said:


> They're full of people who were radical for ten minutes in their youth, it would be a whole different kettle of fish trying to start a new career after decades as a leading member of a tiny political party.


 
Nicolai Gentchev was in the SWP for years, worked for them - now edits or produces Question Time (and was a financial journalist before that).
Seth Harman, so of Chris, earns a fuckload in IT.

Fair enough, bolshie is slightly wrong - loads of ex-full timers or even CCers become teachers - but they're materially better off than the CC of the SWP. The professor used to donate more than 90% of his salary to the SWP (that may have changed; I don't know).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> no


 
Interesting.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2013)

SLK said:


> Seth Harman


i really disliked this cunt when i was a member.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 20, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i really disliked this cunt when i was a member.


 
He turned up as a full timer in Manchester. Utterly dire.


----------



## SLK (Jan 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> No I think your right. Also while I may have had rose tinted specs at the time I don't feel the current CC has as much quality on it as it did 10 years ago and I think most of the membership knows it. With Cliff, Harman, Rees and German gone there is really only Callinicos left who has much intellectual authority (if that's a viable concept) as it did previously.


Said the same thing to bolshiebhoy the other day.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i really disliked this cunt when i was a member.


Meet your brother. I fell off a table once laughing with someone who is now an ultra loyalist on the current debacle at how awful a creature he was. ironically comrade delta walked past and asked what we were so amused about and we couldnt tell him cause we we laughing so much and we knew he'd have to agree with us which would have made him feel awkward. Loathsome creature.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

SLK said:


> Said the same thing to bolshiebhoy the other day.


Yes and I agreed. but you know what it's a a shit political argument we're all making. at some stage a new generation has to overtake the original LSE IS crew.


----------



## SLK (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Meet your brother. I fell off a table once laughing with someone who is now an ultra loyalist on the current debacle at how awful a creature he was. ironically comrade delta walked past and asked what we were so amused about and we couldnt tell him cause we we laughing so much and we knew he'd have to agree with us which would have made him feel awkward. Loathsome creature.


 
Did you fall of a table with KM, or someone else? 

Also on Seth Harman, I hated him because he just didn't appear human. I know lots of SWP members didn't appear human to the outside world, but he didn't to us! No personality. Also when I was 18, I got into a relationship (that started on a night I was flyposting with bolshiebhoy) with my district organiser, who was his ex. Oh, it goes on. Anyway.


----------



## SLK (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yes and I agreed. but you know what it's a a shit political argument we're all making. at some stage a new generation has to overtake the original LSE IS crew.


 
I laughed.


----------



## SLK (Jan 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> He turned up as a full timer in Manchester. Utterly dire.


 
Yes; the person I refer to met him as she was a student at Manchester University before later being a full-timer in London.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 20, 2013)

SLK said:


> Did you fall of a table with KM, or someone else?
> 
> Also on Seth Harman, I hated him because he just didn't appear human. I know lots of SWP members didn't appear human to the outside world, but he didn't to us! No personality. Also when I was 18, I got into a relationship (that started on a night I was flyposting with bolshiebhoy) with my district organiser, who was his ex. Oh, it goes on. Anyway.


No someone close to KM but not him. See I was so worried about the quality of our fly posting I didn't sense the imminent shenanigans going on. But then I never quite understood the sexual dynamics of the party, probably why I married a Tory.


----------



## SLK (Jan 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No someone close to KM but not him. See I was so worried about the quality of our fly posting I didn't sense the imminent shenanigans going on. But then I never quite understood the sexual dynamics of the party, probably why I married a Tory.


 
Except you asked me the very next day why I went the wrong way on the Central Line!!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 20, 2013)

a member of the national committee told me to stub out a fag on the back of seth harman's neck in the middle of a meeting, for a laugh, due to him talking such shit. i didn't but looking back i wish i had.


----------



## SLK (Jan 20, 2013)

I don't think the national committee existed in my day. I remember being at NUS conference and about to speak and Seth Harman is telling SWSS delegates about our strategy - we're asleep - and after 15 minutes Pat Stack cuts in and says "this means..." and nails it in 2 minutes. Without exaggeration, Seth thinks HE nailed it given his attitude after a few drinks.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 20, 2013)

I was on the national  committee in the 80s!


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 21, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> then i apologise for that vile slur. must have you mixed up with someone else


There's an idiot called Kippa who is, still, a LibDem turd.


----------



## JimW (Jan 21, 2013)

It's the SWSS role that really takes the cake, however you slice it. Argh.


----------



## Random (Jan 21, 2013)

Promise you always Will Tell the truth to the class, though


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 21, 2013)

This is quite readable from Ben Watson/AMM: http://www.unkant.com/2013/01/ben-watson-where-did-swp-go-wrong.html

But still stuck with the whole _let's fix it and do the SWP properly_ vibe.

Also this from Richard Seymour and others: http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This is quite readable from Ben Watson/AMM: http://www.unkant.com/2013/01/ben-watson-where-did-swp-go-wrong.html
> 
> But still stuck with the whole _let's fix it and do the SWP properly_ vibe.
> 
> Also this from Richard Seymour and others: http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/


Odd piece - wrong on a number of factual things - the NF didn't win elections and the bits about Dunayevskaya are well off base - she was by all accounts as bureaucratic and domineering as Cliff or others, and as for "Back in the day, Cliff said he’s do the economics, Raya Dunayevskaya could do the philosophy" the economics that Cliff based his state capitalism on came direct from Dunayevskaya's economic work! The tone, for something that's supposed to have been (along with revolutionary history!) a key centre of spiraling anti-CC activity is pretty...well nothing, it's just a gossipy ramble ( i like gossipy rambles though) - as is their silence over the last 3 or 4 weeks. Years of attacks then when other people attack...not very much. Maybe that's a tactical thing, but that in itself would be some sort of capitulation wouldn't it?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This is quite readable from Ben Watson/AMM: http://www.unkant.com/2013/01/ben-watson-where-did-swp-go-wrong.html


 
nonetheless an entertaining read
All culture is bourgeois!” she told me “The working-class only have politics.”


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 21, 2013)

Do those who were around at the time think he's right about the reasons why the squads were expelled? (He says the CC was protecting itself against rival charismatic leaders) I'd always thought it was more about 'respectability' - that they were seen to be putting off the kind of people the SWP was starting to try and recruit.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 21, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This is quite readable from Ben Watson/AMM: http://www.unkant.com/2013/01/ben-watson-where-did-swp-go-wrong.html


 
I agree with you it's readable but 




> Since reading an article in Rosetta Brooks’ ZG magazine in 1983, I was an avid reader of Pat Califia, the radical S&M lesbian from San Francisco. In 1989, I bought her book Macho Sluts. It included a badge with the title on it. When I wore it to a SWP branch meeting, I was told to take it off because 'sluts' was an abusive word for women. I tried to explain that wearing such a badge on a leather jacket when you were attending punk gigs was about psychic and sexual liberation, but I lost the argument. Many of criticisms of the SWP in the press at the minute ('misogyny', 'use feminist as a word of abuse', 'male-dominated', etc) fail to tell the full story, which is that, in politics, ideologies can become their own opposites. ....
> Likewise, Lindsey German and Sheila McGregor brought a brand of 'feminism' into the party which was the opposite of Sheila Rowbotham’s. It was moralistic and oppressive. It fostered authority rather than subverting it. It demanded an eternal vigilance about 'sexism' on the part of male comrades which actually enforced a humourless respectability. It wasn’t liberation, it was a front on hypocrisy. Manipulative humbug. It had no inkling of a radical sexual politics, and could tell you nothing about your dreams and urges. If you talked about sex in this context it was 'sexist'. It droned on about 'farzends and farzends of working-class _wimmin_' in strangely-unlocatable 'working-class' accents, but it didn’t actually allow the oppressed to speak. We were being lectured.


 
It's so rambly, I don't actually get its point about sexual politics. The SWP never - not Cliff nor MacGregor nor German nor anyone - referred to women as wimmin.
I also suspect the idea that 'if you talked about sex in this context it was 'sexist'' is a massive exaggeration/lie.

I'd say Rowbotham's politics is _more oppressive_, by the early 90s it is celebrating the achievements of Olga Maitland as a woman in politics.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 21, 2013)

ska invita said:


> All culture is bourgeois!” she told me “The working-class only have politics.”


 
_except jazz_


----------



## belboid (Jan 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I also suspect the idea that 'if you talked about sex in this context it was 'sexist'' is a massive exaggeration/lie.


That bit is certainly utter nonsense.  I can recall various discussion held in the branch meeting around sex, how capitalism made it shit, and how much better it would be in a socialist society. In fact, Watson seems to be iterating the views espoused by the people McGregor etc were explicitly arguing against.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> That bit is certainly utter nonsense. I can recall various discussion held in the branch meeting around sex, how capitalism made it shit, and how much better it would be in a socialist society. In fact, Watson seems to be iterating the views espoused by the people McGregor etc were explicitly arguing against.


That was what i thought on reading that - i think he may have got confused with _passing through_ members having those views as part of the then standard lefty armour and deriving from outside of the parties dogma, not German or Macgregor surely?


----------



## belboid (Jan 21, 2013)

The meeting (introduced by Judy Cox) on sex in socialism was one of the funniest SWP meetings I ever went to, with lots of requests for further detail.  The only funnier one was one where half of it was spent taking the piss out of Seth Harman.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2013)

sihhi said:


> _except jazz_


as far as I understand Bolsheviks hated jazz for its individualism (i would expect the SWP to have parroted a similar line) - was banned in Communist China for a time, and in disrepute after the official ban (flourishing today supposedly)


----------



## sihhi (Jan 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That was what i thought on reading that - i think he may have got confused with _passing through_ members having those views as part of the then standard lefty armour and deriving from outside of the parties dogma, not German or Macgregor surely?


 
Even then it's a heavy claim that SWP members stuck to an 'all discussion of sex is sexist' (if I'm reading it right) line.

His only real evidence is:


> In 1989, I bought her book Macho Sluts. It included a badge with the title on it. When I wore it to a SWP branch meeting, I was told to take it off because 'sluts' was an abusive word for women.


I can fully understand why SWP women or men would not want a man wearing a badge saying that at a political meeting (ie one that advertises the SWP internally and externally). It's paper thin.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

ska invita said:


> as far as I understand Bolsheviks hated jazz for its individualism (i would expect the SWP to have parroted a similar line) - was banned in Communist China for a time, and in disrepute after the official ban (flourishing today supposedly)



Bit simplistic that - Jazz went through various phases of official reception in the USSR from the early 20s onwards (was always popular in the cities) from official endorsement to being illegal (well foreign stuff anyway). And it must be remembered that jazz was a flag around which the KPD managed to organise amongst anti-fascist middle class youth in weimar and nazi germany.


----------



## belboid (Jan 21, 2013)

ska invita said:


> as far as I understand Bolsheviks hated jazz for its individualism


not at all. It was originally -we're talking 1920 - seen as borgeois, and more damningly is in the style of Italian Futurism. But within a few years was more positivly looked upon - especially after tours by black jazz combos, where they were seen as a valiant _proletarian jazz_ against the earlier bourgeois variety.  By the thirties jazz was positively patronised by the state (tho Maxi mGorky still wasnt keen)


----------



## audiotech (Jan 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> OK, now I have no idea what you're talking about and I suspect neither do you.


 
I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. I've come across some academic gobbledygook in a post and asked how that could be conflated with class.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 21, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i really disliked this cunt when i was a member.


 
You weren't the only one. There was a failed attempt to strangle him once with a Leeds United scarf.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Do those who were around at the time think he's right about the reasons why the squads were expelled? (He says the CC was protecting itself against rival charismatic leaders) I'd always thought it was more about 'respectability' - that they were seen to be putting off the kind of people the SWP was starting to try and recruit.


 
Don't think that the squaddists saw themselves as an alternative leadership, but who knows how the CC at the time saw them?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 21, 2013)

Ive read in the past that the era free and improvised jazz of the late 40s up to the 70s (i.e. the good stuff) was not approved by the party, and outright banned for a period (47-52 under the anti-cosmopolitanism orders), primarily due to the expression of individualism and 'freedom' and other western bujwah values. Burbecks story of allowing shows to go ahead with the intent of then marking the cards of anyone who attended sounds right to me (though might be false). Point taken that its a more complex picture.

Apologies for derail


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 21, 2013)

Loads of "SWP forever" posts on Facebook. What is the matter with these people?

Two people in my union branch (both independent socialists) are standing for joint assistant branch secretary against an SWPer this week. The SWPer chose to stand at the last minute, and chose to stand against them instead of a right winger. I think it's part of their drive to get out there and show the SWP aren't ashamed and wanting to make a mark. Pathetic really.

Most of our members won't have a clue what has gone on in the SWP though. Imagine she wouldn't get many votes if they did.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 21, 2013)

> I can recall various discussion held in the branch meeting around sex, how capitalism made it shit, and how much better it would be in a socialist society.


 
Sounds like an excuse about why they were rubbish in bed to me 

"sorry I wasn't up to much that time, wait until socialism and I'll be brilliant".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 21, 2013)

audiotech said:


> I know perfectly well what I'm talking about. I've come across some academic gobbledygook in a post and asked how that could be conflated with class.


 
It wasn't academic gobbledygook - you said optimism is down to class and he asked how 'a psychological disposition to expect best possible outcomes' (ie. optimism) could be determined by class. It was probably his least stupid post on this thread and if anyone was conflating 'academic gobbledygook' with class it was you.

Just really really odd.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 21, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Sounds like an excuse about why they were rubbish in bed to me
> 
> "sorry I wasn't up to much that time, wait until socialism and I'll be brilliant".


 
Well it's certainly more creative than 'sorry love, had a few too many tonight'


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 21, 2013)

Owen jones gets his oar in
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...sms-crisis-8459099.html?origin=internalSearch


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Do those who were around at the time think he's right about the reasons why the squads were expelled? (He says the CC was protecting itself against rival charismatic leaders) I'd always thought it was more about 'respectability' - that they were seen to be putting off the kind of people the SWP was starting to try and recruit.


 
Some time ago ( probably about four years ago) I tried to explain to Joe Reilly my take on this. I don't think it was entirely about respectability, yes , there was always a problem with how far violence would piss off the likes of Brian Clough etc but the key for me was the sheer enthusiasm and vibrancy that the new recruits from the ANL/Right To work stuff brought into the organisation that was the threat. Most of whom had not been in left groups but wanted to do something and to do it quickly and very often were self starters not waiting for the party to tell them what the line was or what to do. I think i would describe it as being more  loyal to the ideas of the party than they were to the party.

The squads , at least in London, were initially encouraged and supported by cc members, Deason and Hollborrow. Pete Alexandre in West London , the full timer even went out with us on a number of occasions but by and large we were left to get on with it.Andy Zebrowski who was involved in the squads was actually promoted to full timer partly because he was seen as having the support of members who supported the physical anti fascism line but who hadn't been expelled.

Not sure about 'rival charismatic leaders' but there was an informal loose network of those who disagreed with the expulsions and the the winding up of the rank and file groups that spread across branches both in London and elsewhere that existed for some time, some of whom kept up 'comradely' relations with both RA and those around them. AFA very often stewarded the Redskins gigs for example.

In Manchester it was Strouthous who was brought in to wield the axe  and when i moved up here ( he had been a full timer in North and North west London referring to members in my branch as 'thugs') it was clear that he had pretty much cleansed it . But Phil Pyatt , who had been one of those jailed in Manchester, was still a member for example and I was introduced to Steve Tilzey through Mark Edwards an SWP member .

In short it was the fact that they didn't want 'socialism from below' in an organisation that said it believed in 'socialism from below', that didn't fit in with the Bolshevisation of the party agenda.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Owen jones gets his oar in
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...sms-crisis-8459099.html?origin=internalSearch


 
Really fucking dismal.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The tone, for something that's supposed to have been (along with revolutionary history!) a key centre of spiraling anti-CC activity is pretty


 
It's not even just the tone. There's fuck all content to it. It's about as substantive as the flimsier "guest posts" on Seymour's blog.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 21, 2013)

Those who have stuck with the SWP up to now have happily accepted a whole raft of breaks with what might be described as the IS tradition. This makes their ability to criticise the actions or degeneration of the party, as they are all complicit


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Those who have stuck with the SWP up to now have happily accepted a whole raft of breaks with what might be described as the IS tradition. This makes their ability to criticise the actions or degeneration of the party, as they are all complicit


 
Even this assumes, as almost all of them do (or at least affect to do for polemical purposes) that there is an "IS Tradition" in the first place. Only one of the SWP rebels* seems to have even got as far as pointing out that the three core distinctive IS theories were wrong all along / no longer particularly relevant / not unique to the IS in the first place. What exactly constitutes an "IS Tradition" other than having to bow in the direction of Tony Cliff five times a day? And refusing to develop either a programme or a long term strategy in case either limits the leadership's ability to pursue get rich quick schemes?

To be fair to the other couple of old lags in the AMM, they do at least backdate their criticisms of the SWP to Cliff himself, even if that leaves them in an even odder position as the marginalised true acolytes of Tony Cliff Thought.

*Roobin here: http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.com/2013/01/some-thoughts-on-is-theory.html


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 21, 2013)

> I think i would describe it as being more loyal to the ideas of the party than they were to the party.


 
Which is exactly how it should be.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2013)

The cc have issued their first proper political response and cleared up their take on constitutional situation. In party notes.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Even this assumes, as almost all of them do (or at least affect to do for polemical purposes) that there is an "IS Tradition" in the first place.


 
Just to be clear, I'm not particularly picking on the SWP there. I'd think it a bit pompous to talk about a "Militant tradition" in that sense either. Or a "SolFed tradition" or whatever.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The cc have issued their first proper political response and cleared up their take on constitutional situation. In party notes.


 
I presume this is the internal (until its leaked in 10 minutes time) version rather than the bowdlerised one?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not even just the tone. There's fuck all content to it. It's about as substantive as the flimsier "guest posts" on Seymour's blog.


He's getting around a bit ain't he?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 21, 2013)

Where is the response?

By the way is Steve Hedley (RMT assistant general secretary) in the Socialist Party? I was told he was. Either way some extremely serious allegations have been made against him by his ex. It's public on facebook so not breaching confidentiality by saying this.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> By the way is Steve Hedley (RMT assistant general secretary) in the Socialist Party?


 
I believe he joined a couple of months ago.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 21, 2013)

> I believe he joined a couple of months ago.


 
Looks like the SP will have to carry out an investigation as well then, the allegations are appalling.

Have to say a mate in my branch showed me some comments that he made on facebook (on an open page) a few weeks ago where he compared a young woman to a "bulldog that had been stung by a wasp", belittled her mental health issues and mocked her for not having a partner. I'm surprised the SP have let him be a member when he is doing stuff like that, regardless of the other allegations. Unless the SP are totally unaware of what he is like. But to do that openly on facebook must show a certain mindset.

Also disgusting that an assistant branch secretary of the RMT is saying these things. I know he made these comments as my mate forwarded me the screen shot from facebook.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Even this assumes, as almost all of them do (or at least affect to do for polemical purposes) that there is an "IS Tradition" in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> [/url]


I agree with you, that's why I hedged the term, however, it is clear that the SWP members, and especially the dissidents believe there is, and much of what they would define as such; deformed permanent revolution, the permanent arms economy, state capitalism, etc. has been left behind in recent years.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Looks like the SP will have to carry out an investigation as well then, the allegations are appalling.


 
I have no idea what you are talking about and don't actually know for sure that he's a member. If he's accused of serious misbehaviour and if he is a member, I'm sure it will be looked into (although I suspect that the RMT or the cops will probably take the lead on that if there are serious allegations against him).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 21, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Looks like the SP will have to carry out an investigation as well then, the allegations are appalling.
> 
> Have to say a mate in my branch showed me some comments that he made on facebook (on an open page) a few weeks ago where he compared a young woman to a "bulldog that had been stung by a wasp", belittled her mental health issues and mocked her for not having a partner. I'm surprised the SP have let him be a member when he is doing stuff like that, regardless of the other allegations. Unless the SP are totally unaware of what he is like. But to do that openly on facebook must show a certain mindset.


 
Probably not aware of what he's saying - and that's not necessarily a bad thing - I don't think I'd want to be a member of a group that monitors its members internet activity tbh. Hard to comment as I no nothing of the accusations or whether they're true but if they're as serious as you say then yeah there'll have to be an investigation.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about and don't actually know for sure that he's a member. If he's accused of serious misbehaviour and if he is a member, I'm sure it will be looked into (although I suspect that the RMT or the cops will probably take the lead on that if there are serious allegations against him).


 
He's definitely a member


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Even this assumes, as almost all of them do (or at least affect to do for polemical purposes) that there is an "IS Tradition" in the first place. Only one of the SWP rebels* seems to have even got as far as pointing out that the three core distinctive IS theories were wrong all along / no longer particularly relevant / not unique to the IS in the first place. What exactly constitutes an "IS Tradition" other than having to bow in the direction of Tony Cliff five times a day? And refusing to develop either a programme or a long term strategy in case either limits the leadership's ability to pursue get rich quick schemes?
> 
> To be fair to the other couple of old lags in the AMM, they do at least backdate their criticisms of the SWP to Cliff himself, even if that leaves them in an even odder position as the marginalised true acolytes of Tony Cliff Thought.
> 
> *Roobin here: http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.com/2013/01/some-thoughts-on-is-theory.html


 
I keep on asking exactly what this IS tradition is . Is it political, structural, cultural and at what point was it established, matured, ended? We can all look starry eyed at happenings over 40 years ago but would any of the versions of IS fit now ?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> He's definitely a member


 
Then, if there are allegations against him they will be investigated. Although, it should be said that if someone is making serious allegations against him in public, they are probably primarily interested in having the cops or his employer investigate rather than the small political group he's a member of.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I agree with you, that's why I hedged the term, however, it is clear that the SWP members, and especially the dissidents believe there is, and much of what they would define as such; deformed permanent revolution, the permanent arms economy, state capitalism, etc. has been left behind in recent years.


 
sorry didn't see this before I posted. what significance would a resurgence in these theories have on political practise?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> sorry didn't see this before I posted. what significance would a resurgence in these theories have on political practise?


 
More to the point, how could there be a resurgence in those theories without rewinding world politics to the period those theories sought to explain?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The cc have issued their first proper political response and cleared up their take on constitutional situation. In party notes.


 
What do they actually argue?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> More to the point, how could there be a resurgence in those theories without rewinding world politics to the period those theories sought to explain?


 
That's the easy bit. After all Cockers thought we were in a pre revolutionary period


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> More to the point, how could there be a resurgence in those theories without rewinding world politics to the period those theories sought to explain?


 
there can't really. it's frustrating, because so far as i'm concerned many of the discussions were halted short and have simply stagnated and become forgotten over the past 30 years.

the only thing that could be revived would be the manner of approach as opposed to the specific content of the theories themselves. that is, an open discussion and frank discussion which took Marxist theory - broadly - without dogma, and constantly sought to introduce new ideas and concepts into its framework.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the only thing that could be revived would be the manner of approach as opposed to the specific content of the theories themselves. that is, an open discussion and frank discussion which took Marxist theory - broadly - without dogma, and constantly sought to introduce new ideas and concepts into its framework.


 
Sure, that would be desirable, but there's nothing particular to the "International Socialist Tradition" about that at all.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 21, 2013)

no there's not. but for a while i think they achieved it quite well, and were a dynamic force for good


----------



## discokermit (Jan 21, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I keep on asking exactly what this IS tradition is . Is it political, structural, cultural and at what point was it established, matured, ended? We can all look starry eyed at happenings over 40 years ago but would any of the versions of IS fit now ?


the is tradition is - _before it went shit._

you've spent time in the swp which you generally agree with stuff politically but think it's organisationally shit. so you look back to when it wasn't. first you think "it was when is became swp", but you read a bit more and think it over. if you don't think too much you might settle somewhere in the early seventies, lot's of working class cadre, factory branches, lipservice to luxembourg, before the factions, expulsions, blatant cliff manouvring, etc.

start thinking too much and you could end up anywhere.

personally, i'm looking back to the w.i.l. tradition (pre fourth international) but that's tainted by healey. by next week i could be talking militant group or the balham group or fuck knows what.


one thing i do know, we need more people with names like jock and denzel.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> no there's not. but for a while i think they achieved it quite well, and were a dynamic force for good


 
Possibly so, but there's a rather disingenuous core to the retrospective image of the SRG and IS as unique homes of creative Marxist thinking in the decades after the war. This usually starts by parodying the ideas of other people in the revolutionary movement and arguing that everyone bar the proto-IS were stuck with pre War dogmas and were unable or unwilling to grapple with a new situation.

That's a very useful story (and a version of it sometimes appeared in Militant's historiography too, although with different heroes!) but the problem is that it just isn't true. There were people, of course, who tried to bash the square peg of reality into the round hole of Trotsky's pre-war perspective, but there were people all over the world trying to reassess things in a creative way, with varying levels of coherence and success.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 21, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Where is the response?
> 
> By the way is Steve Hedley (RMT assistant general secretary) in the Socialist Party? I was told he was. Either way some extremely serious allegations have been made against him by his ex. It's public on facebook so not breaching confidentiality by saying this.


 
They are extremely serious - shocking in fact - and yes, the SP leadership does now know of them (as of this afternoon) not that this is a particularly relevant or important aspect of what is alleged.
The ex has already gone to the police from what I am told. I am guessing, as an activist herself, she will have a well-informed understanding of what she has to now go through.
If true - it is a tragedy, primarily for the lass - but also for the destruction of all of his previous very sound union and other work and for the families involved.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2013)

From Party Notes

The party has seen a lot of discussion and argument since conference. And these issues will no doubt be raised at the National Committee (NC) meeting on 3 February. The 50 comrades elected by our recent conference will want to have their say.

The NC is an important political body whose task is to question, advise, guide and assist the CC. There will be report-backs from the 3 February NC to branches.

Comrades have complained about some of the material that has appeared on blogs, Facebook etc. People are tired of slurs, lies and unsubstantiated allegations. Such matters, and what action to take, will also be discussed at the NC.

We need to make sure we are not paralysed and do not become unable to intervene in the class struggle.

We are moving ahead with the perspectives we agreed at conference. These were sent out last week in the post-conference bulletin. This is what our democracy looks like – debate, votes and elections involving all delegates and then carrying out the decisions in a united way.

We are not going to overturn the decisions made two weeks ago by a very open conference, the highest level of our democracy.

That is why the CC opposes the call for a recall conference, a demand that emerged even before the decisions of the 4-6 January conference had been sent to every member and which seeks to brush aside the decisions just made by the delegates.

It is also clear that as part of the discussions some people are raising a wider debate about the direction of the party. This does not mean that everyone who has raised issues about the recent events is attacking our political tradition. But some are seeking to overturn important parts of what we stand for – and the politics we reaffirmed at conference.

There are some people who want to replace a Marxist analysis of women’s liberation with one centred on patriarchy theory. Others believe that changes in capitalism have altered the structure of the working class so fundamentally that it is no longer the key element in the battle for socialism.

Others, outside the party, are making attacks on the SWP as a way to buttress Labour.

And in his article on why he is leaving the SWP, “Donny Mayo” attacks the party over recent events but then goes on to attack its attitude to Syriza and its failure to back Len McCluskey for Unite general secretary. He then delves deeper and claims there is a “global crisis of old-style Trotskyist Leninism” and that the SWP is an example of a “historically outdated model” and that democratic centralism has become an “increasingly cultish mantra”.

We need to win people to our analysis of exploitation and oppression, Leninism today, and the revolutionary party.

Please note that if branches are going to discuss motions they should be circulated to all branch members in good time in advance. This is to ensure that comrades have a democratic right to take part in the discussion. After consultation with the chair of the Conference Arrangements Committee, any motions for a recall conference have to be in by 5pm on Friday 1 February. This is to make the NC aware of them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Comrades have complained about some of the material that has appeared on blogs, Facebook etc. People are tired of slurs, lies and unsubstantiated allegations. Such matters, and what action to take, will also be discussed at the NC.


 
So that's when the are planning to start the purging.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There are some people who want to replace a Marxist analysis of women’s liberation with one centred on patriarchy theory. Others believe that changes in capitalism have altered the structure of the working class so fundamentally that it is no longer the key element in the battle for socialism.


 
I would guess the first is aimed mainly at Seymour, any idea who the second is aimed at?


----------



## cesare (Jan 21, 2013)

What's the point of having a discussion, if they've decided in advance that they're not going to change their minds?


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 21, 2013)

audiotech said:


> You weren't the only one. There was a failed attempt to strangle him once with a Leeds United scarf.


Well, that's your mistake right there. You should have used the scarf of a club with a less reactionary fan base.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I would guess the first is aimed mainly at Seymour, any idea who the second is aimed at?


Our Counterfire friends and the fella who jumped to them.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> What's the point of having a discussion, if they've decided in advance that they're not going to change their minds?


if there's enough recal conference motions go in they'll have their minds changed for them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Our Counterfire friends and the fella who jumped to them.


 
Did he actually say anything along those lines at all though? It seems like a bit of a smear response.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Our Counterfire friends and the fella who jumped to them.


I though it might be, but has Nigel says it is well over the top as a response.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 21, 2013)

> We  need to make sure we are not paralysed and do not become unable to intervene in the class struggle


 
God forbid that should happen


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So that's when the are planning to start the purging.


 
Looks that way doesn't it?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Did he actually say anything along those lines at all though? It seems like a bit of a smear response.


I think it's spot on but hey ho.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2013)

"This does not mean that everyone who has raised issues about the recent events is attacking our political tradition." crucial olive branch to the middle ground.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I think it's spot on but hey ho.


 
Is this because you've used your psychic powers to detect his real thoughts? Or did he actually say it?

I hold no brief for Counterfire, but it's a bit cheeky and dishonest to just assign views to them that they haven't argued. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's fun to argue against the things we think people should have said, but it isn't really playing fair.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is this because you've used your psychic powers to detect his real thoughts? Or did he actually say it?


 
I would guess it is passages like this one they are referring to, I can see why they would say that but think it is over top. Also this person was on the SWP CC until a few moths ago, have his views suddenly changed or did he think this back then? In which case why was he on the CC, or was he hiding his real views for some unknown reason?




> Instead, something unusual took place. The forms of working class organisation and resistance that shaped our own history have not been the most powerful forms of resistance in Britain in the recent past. Strike days stuck at their record lows. Yet mass movements appeared with the growth of the anti-capitalist movement, and then – more spectacularly – with the anti-war upsurge from late 2001. New layers of activists, mostly young, largely themselves part of the new working class, often in precarious employment, came forward. They helped shape and lead the anti-war movement, driving some of the biggest demonstrations in British history – alongside, it should be remembered, walkouts from schools, limited workplace action, occupations of colleges, blockades of roads and other forms of direct action.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is this because you've used your psychic powers to detect his real thoughts? Or did he actually say it?
> 
> I hold no brief for Counterfire, but it's a bit cheeky and dishonest to just assign views to them that they haven't argued.


 
To be fair some of them have been saying that they need to go back to the respect way of working (meaning going beyond class and looking at identity groups etc) but I can't remember where I read it - the CC (and bb) are no doubt exaggerating this element but unfortunately it most certainly does exist - it's not a complete fabrication.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I would guess it is passages like this one they are referring to, I can see why they would say that but think it is over top.


 
That passage doesn't say what the SWP seem to be implying it does. In fact, bar some exaggeration of the strength of the "anti-capitalist" movement and also of the anti-war movement, it really isn't something that should be particularly controversial. I mean, he's right, we have seen various protest movements without seeing a big move towards industrial action.

Now it may be that he's drawing conclusions from that fact that don't necessary flow from it, and which may be more controversial, but really the SWP leadership should be engaging with his argument properly rather than caricaturing it and then using that caricature to imply that the opposition represent an existential threat to the SWP's version of Marxism.




			
				emanymton said:
			
		

> Also this person was on the SWP CC until a few moths ago, have his views suddenly changed or did he think this back then? In which case why was he on the CC, or was he hiding his real views for some unknown reason?


 
Developing heterodox views may explain why he was removed from the CC. He has apparently been arguing along those lines for at least a while though, judging by Seymour's response to his letter.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 21, 2013)

I think the SP will have to suspend him immediately. I do wonder if the bravery of what the women in the SWP have done has given Hedley's ex the confidence to come forward. It is tragic for her, and another blow for the left, and in this case the RMT.

His general behaviour on facebook is appalling. I agree with what SN has said about groups not snooping on people, but he is so openly vile and sexist on facebook I'm surprised no-one has ever noticed, including the RMT.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be fair some of them have been saying that they need to go back to the respect way of working (meaning going beyond class and looking at identity groups etc) but I can't remember where I read it - the CC (and bb) are no doubt exaggerating this element but unfortunately it most certainly does exist - it's not a complete fabrication.


Actually as I read over his statement again I am beginning to think BB and the CC might have more of a point than I thought a first.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2013)

Yeah what emanymton and SpineyNorman said.

Plus Counterfire piece on the swp said this "Underlying this conception, although not adequately formulated in Party debates at the end of the last decade, was a recognition that both the British working class had changed, and that our own forms of organisation needed to adapt with and to it. Trade unions were essential as the bedrock working class institution, but could not be the only game in town for socialists. Their recent strength has been in their contribution to movements of political protest, which include one day strikes, rather than in prolonged industrial action. None of this implies for an instant a retreat from the principle that the working class is the key agent of change in capitalist society. " Not for an instant!


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 21, 2013)

The bit about making sure that motions need to be made available in good time for all comrades, and then all recall motions need to be in before feb. 1st seem at odds with normal SWP practice. Mind you the passing of any resolution  at a SWP meeting would be counter to normal SWP practice.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 21, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I think the SP will have to suspend him immediately. I do wonder if *the bravery of what the women in the SWP have done has given Hedley's ex the confidence to come forward.* It is tragic for her, and another blow for the left, and in this case the RMT.
> 
> Sadly I'm not even that surprised as my friend knows another ex of his, and his general behaviour on facebook is appalling. I agree with what SN has said about groups not snooping on people, but he is so openly vile and sexist on facebook I'm surprised no-one has ever noticed, including the RMT.


 
every cloud etc etc


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Actually as I read over his statement again I am beginning to think BB and the CC might have more of a point than I thought a first.


 
Thing is, I don't think this opposition is especially coherent - it's people who oppose the CC for various reasons. Some of them because they want to go back to the 'united front of a special kind' approach, but others will be doing it for other reasons. It's convenient for the CC and the more hackish elements because they can use it to smear those with other criticisms and it means they can smear them without relying on outright lies.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Thing is, I don't think this opposition is especially coherent - it's people who oppose the CC for various reasons. Some of them because they want to go back to the 'united front of a special kind' approach, but others will be doing it for other reasons. It's convenient for the CC and the more hackish elements because they can use it to smear those with other criticisms and it means they can smear them without relying on outright lies.


 
Well yes, you can see straight away that the CC have seized on the more "heterodox" ideas raised by anyone who is oppositional and want to have the debate on those grounds rather than on the core issues at stake.

This "political" ((c) bolshiebhoy) response doesn't actually engage with any of the main opposition arguments at all, which strikes me as a bit strange.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeah what emanymton and SpineyNorman said.
> 
> Plus Counterfire piece on the swp said this "Underlying this conception, although not adequately formulated in Party debates at the end of the last decade, was a recognition that both the British working class had changed, and that our own forms of organisation needed to adapt with and to it. Trade unions were essential as the bedrock working class institution, but could not be the only game in town for socialists. Their recent strength has been in their contribution to movements of political protest, which include one day strikes, rather than in prolonged industrial action. None of this implies for an instant a retreat from the principle that the working class is the key agent of change in capitalist society. " Not for an instant!


Yeah this was the main bit that made me reconsider. I still think this is 'very SWP' though. He identity's the problem as a lack of significant working class militancy, but instead of formulating a realistic perspective because of this, he jumps to the 'get rich quick scheme' of a turn to the movements.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yeah this was the main bit that made me reconsider. I still think this is 'very SWP' though. He identity's the problem as a lack of significant working class militancy, but instead of formulating a realistic perspective because of this, he jumps to the 'get rich quick scheme' of a turn to the movements.


 
I don't really agree with his argument, or with what you correctly identify as a "very SWP" get rich quick conclusion, but the central point he's basing his argument on - that the unions have done very little in recent times and that an overwhelming orientation towards union work promises little in the way of quick results - is correct and shouldn't really be all that controversial. And I say that as a member of the Socialist Party which (in Britain and the North of Ireland more than in the South) does have a very strong orientation towards long term work in the unions and workplaces.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 21, 2013)

I think he is asking the right questions but comming up with the wrong answers.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think he is askinh the right questions but comming up with the wrong answers.


 
Well in fairness, I'd be astonished if someone who was on the SWP CC as recently as a year ago had any answer to any question of strategy that didn't amount to a get rich quick scheme.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well in fairness, I'd be astonished if someone who was on the SWP CC as recently as a year ago had any answer to any question of strategy that didn't amount to a get rich quick scheme.


 
Indeed. Unite the Resistance is a classic example of this.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2013)

From the initial discussions on FB and elsewhere this intervention by the cc has succeeded in driving a wedge between the out and out Seymourites and the middle ground IS loyalists. It's political tone has pissed off the people who know they're being called feminists/autonomists but it's promise that there can be a proper debate (with a definite end date) has made the middle ground feel vindicated. Sorry to quote it again but this sentence is what's driving the wedge "This does not mean that everyone who has raised issues about the recent events is attacking our political tradition." They've pitched their response just about perfectly to win over those who can be and set the rest up for a fall.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> From the initial discussions on FB and elsewhere this intervention by the cc has succeeded in driving a wedge between the out and out Seymourites and the middle ground IS loyalists. It's political tone has pissed off the people who know they're being called feminists/autonomists but it's promise that there can be a proper debate (with a definite end date) has made the middle ground feel vindicated. Sorry to quote it again but this sentence is what's driving the wedge "This does not mean that everyone who has raised issues about the recent events is attacking our political tradition." They've pitched their response just about perfectly to win over those who can be and set the rest up for a fall.


 
Which is exactly their goal now - force out the Seymourites, with the NC's backing and that of the Inbetweeners half of whom were probably really pro-CCers flying under false colours anyway.

ETA: did any Seymourites get onto the NC?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> From the initial discussions on FB and elsewhere this intervention by the cc has succeeded in driving a wedge between the out and out Seymourites and the middle ground IS loyalists. It's political tone has pissed off the people who know they're being called feminists/autonomists but it's promise that there can be a proper debate (with a definite end date) has made the middle ground feel vindicated. Sorry to quote it again but this sentence is what's driving the wedge "This does not mean that everyone who has raised issues about the recent events is attacking our political tradition." They've pitched their response just about perfectly to win over those who can be and set the rest up for a fall.


 
Yeap. And then they can carry on being a total irrelevance and trying to build total rubbish like Unite the Resistance. Collapse, don't collapse, actually makes sod all difference.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> From the initial discussions on FB and elsewhere this intervention by the cc has succeeded in driving a wedge between the out and out Seymourites and the middle ground IS loyalists. It's political tone has pissed off the people who know they're being called feminists/autonomists but it's promise that there can be a proper debate (with a definite end date) has made the middle ground feel vindicated. Sorry to quote it again but this sentence is what's driving the wedge "This does not mean that everyone who has raised issues about the recent events is attacking our political tradition." They've pitched their response just about perfectly to win over those who can be and set the rest up for a fall.


 
I think that's much too optimistic.

It's been clear from the start that the CC's approach has been to try and separate the "hard" and "soft" critics and then get rid of the "hard" while keeping the more vacillating elements on board. The problem is that for all that they will want to concentrate on discussing the terrible dangers posed by the willingness of some of the harder critics to call some established SWP verities into question, they will still have to have the actual debate with the "middle ground" opposition. They are having to concede a willingness to do that, after first trying to shut things down. But they can't concede anything significant to them beyond that.

Which means that _the best case scenario_ is a first purge of or split with the harder oppositionists. Which will in and of itself annoy some of the middle ground, and will also result in more opprobrium from people the SWP interact with and the media. Which will lead to more demoralisation. And which still leaves them with a built in opposition still there, something they've never been able to cope with, ever. Like a larger scale version of them getting Rees and German out the door but being stuck with Bambery.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Which is exactly their goal now - force out the Seymourites, with the NC's backing and that of the Inbetweeners half of whom were probably really pro-CCers flying under false colours anyway.
> 
> ETA: did any Seymourites get onto the NC?


 
I think the middle faction was probably at least in part a set up. I know some of the people in it, like Rob Owen, who is a dyed in the wool, totally unthinking hack.

That's what makes me laugh about the view that the pro-cc lot know the real tradition of the IS, which has so many zig zags it's hard to know exactly what that is. Most of them like him wouldn't know the working class if it hit them in the face, and are politically clueless puppets.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 21, 2013)

would it be concievable they give smith the elbow, as a sop to the moderates? or are they too entrenched to do that? what do people think?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 21, 2013)

discokermit said:


> would it be concievable they give smith the elbow, as a sop to the moderates? or are they too entrenched to do that? what do people think?


The Uaf thing was a pretty full on slap at the opposition, but delta will be dropped like hot shit if the prof thinks he's a liability.


----------



## Urbanblues (Jan 21, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Yeap. And then they can carry on being a total irrelevance and trying to build total rubbish like Unite the Resistance. Collapse, don't collapse, actually makes sod all difference.


Agree.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 21, 2013)

He's already off the CC so it just seems to be UAF now, but presumably the SWP is still paying him a salary either directly or through UAF? There is a UAF conference in early MArch so that could be interesting.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 21, 2013)

you could still be a full-timer (ie doing regional organising or being in one of the front groups lol) and not be on the CC though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> you could still be a full-timer (ie doing regional organising or being in one of the front groups lol) and not be on the CC though.


 
yes he will be getting paid to do the UAF work no question, and why not? They found him innocent... (obvs not defending the process or outcome but once they've had it...)


----------



## emanymton (Jan 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Our Counterfire friends and the fella who jumped to them.


Seymour seems to think that the part about the working class no longer being the key element is directed at Neil Davidson?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

How odd then that that Prof managed to entirely miss this in his long and highly complimentary review of ND's new book in the latest ISJ. Only a cynic would suggest that this was because it was written before he knew Davidson had crossed over to the dark side.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

When did Davidson join the centrist faction? Sometime in December, was it? So yes, probably after Callinicos' review. Although, to be fair to the Prof, Davidson was a well known long term loyal oppositionist before that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 21, 2013)

It will never cease to me amaze me how many people make their facebook walls public.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 21, 2013)

Why what has gone on now?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Why what has gone on now?


 
Nothing new. Just a general comment flowing from this whole thing.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 22, 2013)

Talking of open facebook posts. Here are some of the comments from Steve Hedley. Deputy General Secretary RMT, Socialist Party member and self-proclaimed anti-sexist. All directed at a young woman.



> I would suggest you find a partner of some description but then I looked at your profile I can see why you have issues


 


> I'm sure there's someone out there for you who likes the bulldog who swamped a wasp look


 


> couldn't really tell that you were a woman from your picture


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2013)

Jesus wept and people say the swp has problems! What a dick.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How odd then that that Prof managed to entirely miss this in his long and highly complimentary review of ND's new book in the latest ISJ. Only a cynic would suggest that this was because it was written before he knew Davidson had crossed over to the dark side.


Actually that does explain two things in the Prof's review I hadn't really understood when I read it.

One is this "Neil offers Political Marxists a huge hostage to fortune when he endorses Marcel van der Linden’s proposal to submerge wage workers in the much broader category of 'subaltern workers'." Clearly relevant to the current debates about the working class as agent of change.

And the other on permanent revolution where he chastises Neil for having too rigid a line between political and social revolutions: " Neil’s unwillingness to see the potential for permanent revolution that may be present in political upheavals in capitalist states ". Again you can see how this could lead to the Counterfire stuff about political upheavels taking precedence over economic ones.

I'd love an excuse not to read the rest of Davidson's excellent book. Got it yesterday in the post as there's no digital version and the bloody print is tiny even with my old man's glasses on.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2013)

One thing about Seymour's reply to the cc. His tone really is that of someone who knows he's not going to be around in the party long.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jesus wept and people say the swp has problems! What a dick.


Perhaps you could explain how those comments, unpleasant though they are, compare to a senior swp member allegedly raping a woman and then apparently attempting to cover it up through a kangaroo court?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps you could explain how those comments, unpleasant though they are, compare to a senior swp member allegedly raping a woman and then apparently attempting to cover it up through a kangaroo court?


 
how has Delta been 


> apparently attempting to cover it up through a kangaroo court?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jesus wept and people say the swp has problems! What a dick.


 
A dick, yes.
But this separate instance of misogyny from the 'left' does nothing to diminish the problems that the SWP have evidently created for themselves wrt 'Delta'.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Talking of open facebook posts. Here are some of the comments from Steve Hedley. Deputy General Secretary RMT, Socialist Party member and self-proclaimed anti-sexist. All directed at a young woman.


Not going to go into it on here, but there's far worse allegations than that being made about him on FBook re behaviour to a young woman.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Not going to go into it on here, but there's far worse allegations than that being made about him on FBook re behaviour to a young woman.


 already mentioned further up the thread


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

Oh yes sorry - hard to keep up sometimes.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 22, 2013)

Agree that the allegations are far worse.

But these comments are on a thread that is either open or accessible by well over 1000 people, many of who are left activists. A leader of the RMT and member of the Socialist Party goes around posting stuff like this. Indeed he must have posted these comments at almost exactly the same time he joined the SP. It could well be the case that the SP are unaware but given his frequent tirades on FB I'm surprised no-one in the RMT or SP has ever noticed.


----------



## chilango (Jan 22, 2013)

I'm glad I don't have internet at home at the moment.

Fingers crossed it'll all be over when I do.

This is how it ends eh? Not with bang but with a......?



Are the SP the last Trots standing now?

The field is clear, there is a vacuum to be filled. Whose up for it?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 22, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Agree that the allegations are far worse.
> 
> But these comments are on a thread that is either open or accessible by well over 1000 people, many of who are left activists. A leader of the RMT and member of the Socialist Party goes around posting stuff like this. Indeed he must have posted these comments at almost exactly the same time he joined the SP. It could well be the case that the SP are unaware but given his frequent tirades on FB I'm surprised no-one in the RMT or SP has ever noticed.


 
That's the third time you have tried to smear the SP by association OSS - anyone would think you are secretly crowing about the allegations regarding SH. Maybe you should wait until more comes out into the open (given police involvement). Maybe the people involved do not need their personal horrors being used to - rather transparently - smear an organisation? Maybe it is best to leave the public online disclosure of these matters so as to avoid effecting the outcome of possible court trials etc etc?

Please don't reply trying to tell me its "just because you care".


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Please don't reply trying to tell me its "just because you care".


It's a vital matter that must be put before the Lambeth Workers Council _immediately_, comrade. They have the right to know...uhhh, something.


----------



## co-op (Jan 22, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Agree that the allegations are far worse.
> 
> But these comments are on a thread that is either open or accessible by well over 1000 people, many of who are left activists. A leader of the RMT and member of the Socialist Party goes around posting stuff like this. Indeed he must have posted these comments at almost exactly the same time he joined the SP. It could well be the case that the SP are unaware but given his frequent tirades on FB I'm surprised no-one in the RMT or SP has ever noticed.


 


I'm thinking of joining the SP just so I can tear up my membership card in disgust.


----------



## chilango (Jan 22, 2013)

Anyways. The SWP split yet?

Will they fight over the name using their papers to differentiate?

eg SWP (Socialist Worker) and SWP (International Socialism) ?

What about Counterfire? Bamberry's ISG? all the other sad little external factions?

Will a zombie/phoenix group following the IS tradition rise from the grave/ashes?

...and who gets to keep the bust of Cliff?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 22, 2013)

Just as an aside (too early for any discussion) Steve Hedley says he has instigated legal proceedings against a couple of people for libel apparently, and says that nobody has instigated any legal proceedings against him.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 22, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Just as an aside (too early for any discussion) Steve Hedley says he has instigated legal proceedings against a couple of people for libel apparently...quote]


 
One_Stop_Shop?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 22, 2013)

chilango said:


> I'm glad I don't have internet at home at the moment.
> 
> Fingers crossed it'll all be over when I do.
> 
> ...


Combabes! A crisis threatens  the largest truly proletarian mass party in the world!
From the scratch of opportunism to the gangrene of parasitism!
Calls to open up the party and relax the requirements of the entry exam have been advanced by certain elements within PD. these combabes, who it seems have never truly understood the historical duty which posterity has rested upon the shoulders of the advanced ranks of the proletariat united under the banner of Posadist- Juche thought, wish to take advantage of the collapse into confusion which has befallen the parasitic elements as the internal contradictions inherent within aristocratic-trotskyiteism. Now is the time to (wo)man the ramparts of the party! The enemy are at the gates!
Central control and bunga-bunga commission proletarian Democracy


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Just as an aside (too early for any discussion) Steve Hedley says he has instigated legal proceedings against a couple of people for libel apparently, and says that nobody has instigated any legal proceedings against him.


 
One of my facebook friends (who made the original allegation) says she has gone to the police - may yet result in charges.  Looks like either way it will go through the courts.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 22, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Just as an aside (too early for any discussion) Steve Hedley says he has instigated legal proceedings against a couple of people for libel apparently, and says that nobody has instigated any legal proceedings against him.


 
It could be as true - so could the previous facebook posters claim to have contacted the police (and allegations of very serious assault) and instigated an investigation.
Its one word against another at the moment - so it is better for us not to play judge and jury (that is, surely, one key aspect of the sort of thing people have been critisising the SWP CC for?)

The thing is - we simply do not know - I am not pretending I do - I do know the allegations must be take seriously (and not used for cheap, false unrelated cracks).


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 22, 2013)

dennisr said:


> It could be as true - so could the previous facebook posters claim to have contacted the police (and allegations of very serious assault) and instigated an investigation.
> Its one word against another at the moment - so it is better for us not to play judge and jury (that is, surely, one key aspect of the sort of thing people have been critisising the SWP CC for?)
> 
> The thing is - we simply do not know - I am not pretending I do - I do know the allegations must be take seriously (and not used for cheap, false unrelated cracks).



Indeed, seems best. Incidentally I'm not sure if anyone was that specific about what Steve Hedley is alleged to have done. By bringing up the allegations in a thread about the rape allegations in the SWP, it could be construed that people are implying that Steve is a rapist. Perhaps if thats not what people meant then they should be clearer (but not too clear lest people get all litigious.)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

I propose we all shut up about it _now_ then.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 22, 2013)

in other news, Seymour is claiming 45,000 page views for the new IS blog.

does bolshiebhoy have any further knowledge on how many branches have signed up to recall conference?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 22, 2013)

dennisr said:


> That's the third time you have tried to smear the SP by association OSS - anyone would think you are secretly crowing about the allegations regarding SH. Maybe you should wait until more comes out into the open (given police involvement). Maybe the people involved do not need their personal horrors being used to - rather transparently - smear an organisation? Maybe it is best to leave the public online disclosure of these matters so as to avoid effecting the outcome of possible court trials etc etc?
> 
> Please don't reply trying to tell me its "just because you care".


 
I know people involved, which is why it concerns me, but there you. Also it's a bit much that you are ok with SP members on here trawling over the details of the SWP case, but are defensive about this.

Obviously there has to be an investigation, and I haven't commented on the details and agree people shouldn't, which is why I didn't copy the quotes with the details that are going round on facebook.

But the quotes he put on facebook aren't in any doubt and are a seperate matter. Those alone would warrant suspension from a left organisation in my view. It's hardly smearing the SP by association, he is an SP member and has made those comments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> how has Delta been


I think this has already been sufficiently considered


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I know people involved, which is why it concerns me, but there you. Also it's a bit much that you are ok with SP members on here trawling over the details of the SWP case, but are defensive about this.


 
The details have not been mentioned on here, never mind trawled over.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 22, 2013)

Just to be clear given the response from dennisr. These quotes from facebook:



> I would suggest you find a partner of some description but then I looked at your profile I can see why you have issues​I'm sure there's someone out there for you who likes the bulldog who swamped a wasp look​couldn't really tell that you were a woman from your picture​


 
Were made on facebook by Steve Hedley and have no connection to the current investigation going on. As they were made on a thread open to over 1000 people I don't see any reason for it not to be public.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> in other news, Seymour is claiming 45,000 page views for the new IS blog


He must be sick of hitting the refresh button


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Just to be clear given the response from dennisr. These quotes from facebook:
> 
> Were made on facebook by Steve Hedley and have no connection to the current investigation going on. As they were made on a thread open to over 1000 people I don't see any reason for it not to be public.


& obviously it should be made publick on this thread


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> & obviously it should be made publick on this thread


 
Why not? If someone has made sexist comments like this on a facebook thread, why shouldn't people know about it? Especially if they are deputy general secretary of a trade union.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The details have not been mentioned on here, never mind trawled over.


 
I didn't mean the details in that sense, I meant details of how it was handled. Apologies if that came across badly.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 22, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> in other news, Seymour is claiming 45,000 page views for the new IS blog.
> 
> does bolshiebhoy have any further knowledge on how many branches have signed up to recall conference?


The SWP became notorious for its ever increasing estimate of numbers of ever decreasing demonstrations; nice to see Seymour is continuing this particular IS tradition


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2013)

He's still only got just over half the page views of this thread,


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Not going to go into it on here, but there's far worse allegations than that being made about him on FBook re behaviour to a young woman.


 
That's LP's next article researched, wonder if it will 'inspire' others to leave and purge their souls


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 22, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> in other news, Seymour is claiming 45,000 page views for the new IS blog.


 



The key milestone will be the launching of an IS app


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> That's LP's next article researched, wonder if it will 'inspire' others to leave and purge their souls


 
I am not using it as a stick to bait the SP with - I think this episode is sad for all concerned, irrespective of how it plays out.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2013)

I see that Seymour has now posted Davidson's piece from the pre-conference bulletin a few years ago. It's a lot more substantial than most of the other articles on the new blog, but the (probably tactically necessary given the audience and context) ridiculous talking up of the SWP in the first part of it makes my teeth hurt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Actually that does explain two things in the Prof's review I hadn't really understood when I read it.
> 
> One is this "Neil offers Political Marxists a huge hostage to fortune when he endorses Marcel van der Linden’s proposal to submerge wage workers in the much broader category of 'subaltern workers'." Clearly relevant to the current debates about the working class as agent of change.
> 
> ...


Hidden in notes (and did you see the german barb?) - got lots to say about this weasel of a piece, but not relevant to thread


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 22, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I know people involved, which is why it concerns me, but there you. Also it's a bit much that you are ok with SP members on here trawling over the details of the SWP case, but are defensive about this.
> 
> Obviously there has to be an investigation, and I haven't commented on the details and agree people shouldn't, which is why I didn't copy the quotes with the details that are going round on facebook.
> 
> But the quotes he put on facebook aren't in any doubt and are a seperate matter. Those alone would warrant suspension from a left organisation in my view. It's hardly smearing the SP by association, he is an SP member and has made those comments.


 
The difference is that this has apparently been reported to the police and so any comments we make could potentially affect an investigation. There were no criminal or legal procedings wrt delta. And we didn't start commenting on comrade delta until _after_ the SWP completed a botched investigation into the case. If there really is a police investigation going on there's not much the SP or the RMT can do until that's been sorted.

Anyway, I really don't think we should be discussing it on here - I don't see what possible good it could do, regardless of what you think about the SP or RMT.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 22, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The difference is that this has apparently been reported to the police and so any comments we make could potentially affect an investigation. There were no criminal or legal procedings wrt delta. And we didn't start commenting on comrade delta until _after_ the SWP completed a botched investigation into the case. If there really is a police investigation going on there's not much the SP or the RMT can do until that's been sorted.
> 
> Anyway, I really don't think we should be discussing it on here - I don't see what possible good it could do, regardless of what you think about the SP or RMT.


 
Fair enough, and I have clearly said people shouldn't discuss the details, and I agree for now there it is better not to discuss it at all. When I saw it I was angry as I know some history, but it should be left to the police.

But the comments I posted from facebook, as said above, are an entirely different thing. They have been made in public and aren't in any way related to the police investigation. People have had a go (in a PM) for raising that in this thread, but other people have raised the general issue of sexism and how the left deals with it (and I can imagine the response if I'd done a whole new thread on it). Personally I think those comments alone are enough for political organisation or union to suspend someone and have an investigation. If someone said that to a woman in work I imagine they would be facing a gross misconduct charge. There is no reason why SP members can't comment on that or it shouldn't be talked about.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Fair enough, and I have clearly said people shouldn't discuss the details, and I agree for now there it is better not to discuss it at all. When I saw it I was angry as I know some history, but it should be left to the police.
> 
> But the comments I posted from facebook, as said above, are an entirely different thing. They have been made in public and aren't in any way related to the police investigation. People have had a go (in a PM) for raising that in this thread, but other people have raised the general issue of sexism and how the left deals with it. Personally I think those comments alone are enough for political organisation or union to suspend someone and have an investigation. If someone said that to a woman in work I imagine they would be facing a gross misconduct charge. There is no reason why SP members can't comment on that or it shouldn't be talked about.


Stop now.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 22, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Fair enough, and I have clearly said people shouldn't discuss the details, and I agree for now there it is better not to discuss it at all. When I saw it I was angry as I know some history, but it should be left to the police.
> 
> But the comments I posted from facebook, as said above, are an entirely different thing. They have been made in public and aren't in any way related to the police investigation. People have had a go (in a PM) for raising that in this thread, but other people have raised the general issue of sexism and how the left deals with it. Personally I think those comments alone are enough for political organisation or union to suspend someone and have an investigation. If someone said that to a woman in work I imagine they would be facing a gross misconduct charge. There is no reason why SP members can't comment on that or it shouldn't be talked about.


 
It is really not appropriate to discuss it right now though - or on this thread which is about the SWP.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jan 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It is really not appropriate to discuss it right now though - or on this thread which is about the SWP.


 
Fair enough, I don't agree, but that's what most people seem to think. I'll leave it.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 22, 2013)

Irish ex-SWP member (it seems, or maybe ex-full timer, still a member?) blog: http://jghuyt.blogspot.ie/2013/01/behind-iron-curtain-crisis-and-swp.html


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Irish ex-SWP member (it seems, or maybe ex-full timer, still a member?) blog: http://jghuyt.blogspot.ie/2013/01/behind-iron-curtain-crisis-and-swp.html


 
He was a fulltimer up until a few weeks when he resigned from the party. An ex-anarchist (WSM). He's likely to have a fair grasp of what the Irish SWP is like.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2013)

That blog post now has a comment from Conor Kostick, a former part of the leadership of the Irish SWP, now as he says in his post "hardly the most active member". Kostick basically agrees with the British opposition but wants to know if the stuff about Ireland is supposition or based on actual knowledge.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2013)

oh christ


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> oh christ


 
I don't actually think that the Irish group has had ructions at branch level as of yet. It will definitely lose some individuals though.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 22, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That blog post now has a comment from Conor Kostick, a former part of the leadership of the Irish SWP, now as he says in his post "hardly the most active member". Kostick basically agrees with the British opposition but wants to know if the stuff about Ireland is supposition or based on actual knowledge.


conor is great.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2013)

Unfair questuion but needs to be asked, this ex anarchist fella. Has he by any chance returned to anarchism?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Unfair questuion but needs to be asked, this ex anarchist fella. Has he by any chance returned to anarchism?


Needs to be asked? Why? So you can whack others with the stick?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Needs to be asked? Why? So you can whack others with the stick?


I'm curious as to why Kostick is wary given his clear sympathy for the opposition of a moderate variety.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm curious as to why Kostick is wary given his clear sympathy for the opposition of a moderate variety.


I'm on about kostick - but he'll get the treatment the same.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Unfair questuion but needs to be asked, this ex anarchist fella. Has he by any chance returned to anarchism?


 
No, I don't think so. I believe he's in the ULA.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, I don't think so. I believe he's in the ULA.


Never one of us. Same for everyone. Loads of people we produced. People we then sold as us. Never one of us.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2013)

yes he will not be loved for responding to a 'sectarian blog' rather than going to a branch meeting and asking the same questions I'd imagine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> yes he will not be loved for responding to a 'sectarian blog' rather than going to a branch meeting and asking the same questions I'd imagine.


Maybe he has done that as well? _This is our business._


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe he has done that as well? _This is our business._


Doesn't sound like it. " I'm not the most active of members, but I am a member and I see the -fairly public- weekly bulletin. I've also contacted three prominent members of the party about this matter. I've seen or heard nothing of this sort."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Doesn't sound like it. " I'm not the most active of members, but I am a member and I see the -fairly public- weekly bulletin. I've also contacted three prominent members of the party about this matter. I've seen or heard nothing of this sort."


I meant your response to him.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> yes he will not be loved for responding to a 'sectarian blog' rather than going to a branch meeting and asking the same questions I'd imagine.


 
Does it really count as a "sectarian blog" if its by someone whose only political organisation is one that the SWP are in too?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 22, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Well, that's your mistake right there. You should have used the scarf of a club with a less reactionary fan base.


 
Most of the _squad_ based in Leeds were hard-core Leeds fans as it happens, one who previously ended up on the front page of _The Sun_ newspaper, after a _riot_ of Leeds fans in Paris, which in reality was a reaction to thuggery from French riot police. Another had been locked up in Long Kesh, after the RUC had behaved in a similar fashion towards a group from a local pub on a fishing trip. Not all Leeds fans were/are "reactionary" in the way that you suggest.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Does it really count as a "sectarian blog" if its by someone whose only political organisation is one that the SWP are in too?


Depends what is said.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 22, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Does it really count as a "sectarian blog" if its by someone whose only political organisation is one that the SWP are in too?


I think it depends on if it is supporting or attacking the SWP leadership.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

...and by who.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 22, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It wasn't academic gobbledygook - you said optimism is down to class and he asked how 'a psychological disposition to expect best possible outcomes' (ie. optimism) could be determined by class. It was probably his least stupid post on this thread and if anyone was conflating 'academic gobbledygook' with class it was you.


 
Whether you say, 'a psychological disposition to expect best possible outcomes' is not academic gobbledygook is irrelevant, as it is to me.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 22, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Most of the _squad_ based in Leeds were hard-core Leeds fans as it happens, one who previously ended up on the front page of _The Sun_ newspaper, after a _riot_ of Leeds fans in Paris, which in reality was a reaction to thuggery from French riot police. Another had been locked up in Long Kesh, after the RUC had behaved in a similar fashion towards a group from a local pub on a fishing trip. Not all Leeds fans were/are "reactionary" in the way that you suggest.


 
Is anyone writing a book on this? If not drop mal a few paras


----------



## audiotech (Jan 22, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> ...If not drop mal a few paras


 
I have already.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2013)

I did put sectarian blog in quotes as that's what will be said. I don't know the guy well enough to judge.

In fairness I haven't seen a single mention of this by WSM acquaintances on FB so it didn't seem like there was a feeding frenzy among the rest of the Irish left yet.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 22, 2013)

audiotech said:


> I have already.



Lets have a peak?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 22, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Lets have a peak?


 
No, you'll have to buy the book.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I did put sectarian blog in quotes as that's what will be said. I don't know the guy well enough to judge.
> 
> In fairness I haven't seen a single mention of this by WSM acquaintances on FB so it didn't seem like there was a feeding frenzy among the rest of the Irish left yet.


Always surprised that the wsm didn't do better on the mainland


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Always surprised that the wsm didn't do better on the mainland


Probably cause of their decent anti-imperialism


----------



## past caring (Jan 22, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Most of the _squad_ based in Leeds were hard-core Leeds fans as it happens, one who previously ended up on the front page of _The Sun_ newspaper, after a _riot_ of Leeds fans in Paris, which in reality was a reaction to thuggery from French riot police. Another had been locked up in Long Kesh, after the RUC had behaved in a similar fashion towards a group from a local pub on a fishing trip. Not all Leeds fans were/are "reactionary" in the way that you suggest.


 
All fucking northern monkeys though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Most of the _squad_ based in Leeds were hard-core Leeds fans as it happens, one who previously ended up on the front page of _The Sun_ newspaper, after a _riot_ of Leeds fans in Paris, which in reality was a reaction to thuggery from French riot police. Another had been locked up in Long Kesh, after the RUC had behaved in a similar fashion towards a group from a local pub on a fishing trip. Not all Leeds fans were/are "reactionary" in the way that you suggest.


75 eh?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 22, 2013)

Two dead. Another 4 heart attacks. Funny eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

Oh god.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Kostick, his clear sympathy for the opposition of a moderate variety.


why "moderate"? where did you get that from?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The whole Novel therefore is nothing less than an attack on the SWP CC and their love of Jazz.


My interest was piqued, so I searched out a place called We Are Many dot org, and found a podcast by Martin Smith called _John Coltane: Jazz, racism, and resistance_ http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/john-coltane .

Now, I don't think it necessary to know anything about music theory to enjoy jazz, but I do think it necessary to understand a little about music theory before you start giving lectures in music theory.

Smith makes a complete twat of himself (quite apart from the toe-curling trendy vicar endorsement of LSD) by not knowing the first thing about music theory. For example, he talks about Coltrane's period with Monk, saying Monk used his percussive technique to “strike many chords at the same time”. First, Monk was a logician, and a master of precision; that's what Coltrane got from Monk. Monk's percussive playing was about articulation, not about note selection. Secondly, the sentence doesn't really make sense: a number of notes played at once is a chord. Two chords played at once is ... a bigger chord. Monk's chords were derived from his understanding of stride piano, not hitting random notes on a piano. In fact, Monk learned theory by dissecting piano rolls - and sheet music - of the old stride players. John Coltrane did not derive from this a “a system of playing chords on top of one another”, whatever that might mean. (Especially given that saxophone is a single-note-at-a-time instrument).

Smith then goes on to briefly talk nonsense about modal jazz, before saying _Giant Steps_ was "the first time he [Coltrane] recorded openly in the sheets of sound thing". No it wasn't. "Sheets of sound" was Ira Gitler's description of Coltrane's playing on the song _Russian Lullaby_ on the _Soultrane_ album, released in 1958, two years before _Giant Steps_, by which time he had pretty much abandoned the style. (Which consisted of a bank of ultra-rehearsed rapid runs).

_Giant Steps_ isn't about "sheets of sound", (nor is it about "playing chords on top of one another"); it's about a very logical sequence of chords following a rapid descending major third step pattern, meaning the key centre changes three times within four bars; Coltrane was exploring the technique needed by soloists to negotiate those "giant steps" (hence the name!). (This chord pattern is known as the Trane Changes, or Coltrane Changes, and could have been explained to Smith by any jazz musician, including Gilad Atzmon, had he but asked).

Non musos take heart: my diatribe is over. If your eyes glazed over, take at least this from it - Martin Smith is a gobshite. His love of jazz is, I have no doubt, sincere, but his understanding of music theory is dire.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

_15 quid for that and some racist stuff on top. OK then, give me ten. I'll obviously have the strength of character to challenge then overthrow an entrenched old fart bureaucracy._


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _15 quid for that and some racist stuff on top. OK then, give me ten. I'll obviously have the strength of character to challenge then overthrow an entrenched old fart bureaucracy._


Indeed.  It resembles a David Brent business seminar pitch.  No actual knowledge required.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 22, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> My interest was piqued, so I searched out a place called We Are Many dot org, and found a podcast by Martin Smith called _John Coltane: Jazz, racism, and resistance_ http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/john-coltane .
> 
> Now, I don't think it necessary to know anything about music theory to enjoy jazz, but I do think it necessary to understand a little about music theory before you start giving lectures in music theory.
> 
> ...


 
I don't understand a word of that but I 'liked' it because it sounds impressive and I don't like Martin Smith so anything that exposes him as a fake is good as far as I'm concerned


----------



## two sheds (Jan 22, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> For example, he talks about Coltrane's period with Monk, saying Monk used his percussive technique to “strike many chords at the same time”.


 
I think you're wrong there, though. Last time i tried playing piano I'll swear i was striking many chords at the same time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 22, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I think you're wrong there, though. Last time i tried playing piano I'll swear i was striking many chords at the same time.


How many?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 22, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't understand a word of that but I 'liked' it because it sounds impressive and I don't like Martin Smith so anything that exposes him as a fake is good as far as I'm concerned


Aye my knowledge of musical theory is about as good as Smiths but that was a great post danny.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> How many?


 
Several and not just in a major chord


----------



## killer b (Jan 22, 2013)

Danny: you obviously like talking about it, so any chance of a dedicated jazz music theory lecture thread with illustrative YouTube links? Id find it interesting and im sure many others would.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 22, 2013)

Seconded. I've discovered some amazing records over the years thanks to Danny's recommendations, and I'd love to learn more about the theory behind Jazz, of which I know nothing.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 22, 2013)

^ Aye that would be great.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 22, 2013)

fighting jazz with jazz.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

Atzmon: fighting jews with jews


----------



## past caring (Jan 22, 2013)

killer b said:


> Danny: you obviously like talking about it, so any chance of a dedicated jazz music theory lecture thread with illustrative YouTube links? Id find it interesting and im sure many others would.


 
Yeah, all the noggins on here.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 23, 2013)

John Molyneux posted a preface today on his blog to the Korean edition of his Marxism and the Party book. Some general remarks are interesting enough but the crucial bit in the current context is the last part of the preface where he talks about the prevailing 'anti Leninist' mood and the wave of excitement about projects like Syriza as opposed to growing disdain for small Bolshevik orgs. I did enjoy the bit where he says it's not so much anarchism or autonomism at work but instead a "
radicalised version of neo-liberal individualism which developed a very strong hold on youth consciousness over the past couple of decades"

http://johnmolyneux.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/preface-to-marxism-and-party-korean.html?m=1

Safe to say that he's not joining the dissidents any time soon.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 23, 2013)

discokermit said:


> why "moderate"? where did you get that from?


Mainly cause he at least questioned what the guy was up to. The more trenchant seymourites are just seizing any bit of dirt they can written by anyone without much caring where it's come from. As when Seymour goes all mushy over Owen Jones article without really reckoning with the fact he wants everyone to join Labour.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Mainly cause he at least questioned what the guy was up to. The more trenchant seymourites are just seizing any bit of dirt they can written by anyone without much caring where it's come from. As when Seymour goes all mushy over Owen Jones article without really reckoning with the fact he wants everyone to join Labour.


you see, your description of the "trenchant seymourites" doesn't fit with what i know about conor, whatever level his opposition.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 23, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you see, your description of the "trenchant seymourites" doesn't fit with what i know about conor, whatever level his opposition.


Which is why I'd say he's more of the moderate variety but I haven't talked to him in about oh 20 years so should really not hazard a proper guess!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Which is why I'd say he's more of the moderate variety but I haven't talked to him in about oh 20 years so should really not hazard a proper guess!


what i'm saying is, if he weren't a moderate, he'd still be saying the same things. if his experience differs from what that feller says, he's gonna say so.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 23, 2013)

past caring said:


> Yeah, all the noggins on here.


On the subject of music, you seen that the Rockingbirds are going to release a new album?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Mainly cause he at least questioned what the guy was up to. The more trenchant seymourites are just seizing any bit of dirt they can written by anyone without much caring where it's come from. As when Seymour goes all mushy over Owen Jones article without really reckoning with the fact he wants everyone to join Labour.


Seymour isn't alone, his mirrors over on harrys place are also throthing at Owen jones' apostasy


----------



## Bun (Jan 23, 2013)

Posted on SU...... WTF!


I’m not feeling too understanding about the SWP – I’ve seen this kind of shit covered up before and anyone who asked awkward questions was silenced pronto. Does anyone want to know about J*** S**** ex Sheffield organiser, and National Marxism office worker ? He attacked 3 women and was suspended for 2 years – no disputes committee involvement, so he just disappeared and Sheffield loyalists “forgot” all about it. The women bloody didn’t. That’s the organisation Seymour and Meiville are fighting to reconstruct. Give it up guys, you can’t reform a malignancy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Which is why I'd say he's more of the moderate variety but I haven't talked to him in about oh 20 years so should really not hazard a proper guess!


He might say you'd not been speaking for about 20 years


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 23, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I think you're wrong there, though. Last time i tried playing piano I'll swear i was striking many chords at the same time.


  Yes, well, a chord is two or more notes played at once.  What you did may have been what we call a _bad_ chord.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, well, a chord is two or more notes played at once.  What you did may have been what we call a _bad_ chord.


A cacaphony, in technojargon; a chord is the notes of an arpeggio played simultaneously. What yer man did was make a fist and bash the keyboard.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> Danny: you obviously like talking about it, so any chance of a dedicated jazz music theory lecture thread with illustrative YouTube links? Id find it interesting and im sure many others would.


I'll do a bit on racism, too.  And say something edgy about LSD.


----------



## JimW (Jan 23, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> I'll do a bit on racism, too. And say something edgy about LSD.


Or better still, do it on LSD and veer into some weird racism about Inuit people.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 23, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> I'll do a bit on racism, too. And *say something edgy about LSD*.


 
Something like this...it was better than decimalisation; that bureaucratic import which played no small part in undermining working class culture, identity and solidarity. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (Jan 23, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, well, a chord is two or more notes played at once. What you did may have been what we call a _bad_ chord.


 


It had black notes in there, too.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2013)

Bun said:


> Posted on SU...... WTF!
> 
> 
> I’m not feeling too understanding about the SWP – I’ve seen this kind of shit covered up before and anyone who asked awkward questions was silenced pronto. Does anyone want to know about J*** S**** ex Sheffield organiser, and National Marxism office worker ? He attacked 3 women and was suspended for 2 years – no disputes committee involvement, so he just disappeared and Sheffield loyalists “forgot” all about it. The women bloody didn’t. That’s the organisation Seymour and Meiville are fighting to reconstruct. Give it up guys, you can’t reform a malignancy.


 
From what I can gather about this the person who posted that doesn't quite have it right. It was one woman, not two, and she never complained about anything - the complaints came from two female members of the SWP who had nothing to do with it and had a bit of a grudge against him (nowt wrong with that by the way, I'm a big fan of grudges, me, and always try to hold as many as possible at any one time). Doesn't necessarily mean it's not true I guess but whoever is posting that either has the wrong end of the stick or is being deliberately dishonest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

two sheds said:


> It had black notes in there, too.


black and white unite and fight, cacaphony now!


----------



## Bun (Jan 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> From what I can gather about this the person who posted that doesn't quite have it right. It was one woman, not two, and she never complained about anything - the complaints came from two female members of the SWP who had nothing to do with it and had a bit of a grudge against him (nowt wrong with that by the way, I'm a big fan of grudges, me, and always try to hold as many as possible at any one time). Doesn't necessarily mean it's not true I guess but whoever is posting that either has the wrong end of the stick or is being deliberately dishonest.


 
Ah, OK. The bloke posting made it sound like the return of jack the ripper.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

Bun said:


> Posted on SU...... WTF!
> 
> 
> I’m not feeling too understanding about the SWP – I’ve seen this kind of shit covered up before and anyone who asked awkward questions was silenced pronto. Does anyone want to know about J*** S**** ex Sheffield organiser, and National Marxism office worker ? He attacked 3 women and was suspended for 2 years – no disputes committee involvement, so he just disappeared and Sheffield loyalists “forgot” all about it. The women bloody didn’t. That’s the organisation Seymour and Meiville are fighting to reconstruct. Give it up guys, you can’t reform a malignancy.


disappeared? proper disappeared like?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

Bun said:


> the return of jack the ripper.


first time as tragedy, second time as farce


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 23, 2013)

The AMM call for:

"open revolt"  

in order to:

"restore democracy in the SWP"  

http://www.unkant.com/2013/01/time-to-fight-crisis-in-swp.html

But also:

immediately remove Martin Smith from all positions of responsibility until further notice
overturn the DC report and instigate a full inquiry into the handling of the previous investigation
censure the entire Central Committee and move to replace them all
reinstate those members expelled for opposing the DC report
abolish the slate system for electing the CC
institute the elective principle throughout the entire party - all full-timers to be recallable and fully accountable
full rights to factions, including the right to publish and to organise
full rights for members to communicate directly with one another


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

But what do they think should happen as regards the allegations. That's a pretty important question that needs to be faced up to by all opposing the CC. And that is not just a question of overturning the DC's report and re-election.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

They also need to say what 'open revolt' means - in immediate practical terms. And given that they word their defence of the opposition in terms of them representing the real democratic centralism then they have a pretty big task to make the violent rhetoric of 'open revolt' match the requirements of DC to go through the proper party structures. Which they say are not worth the paper they're written on. I don't mean to be harsh but i think they've found themselves in a position where all the things they wanted to happen are starting to happen and they don't know what to do or how to respond.

Btw, does Seymour work? Or is writing his work? I don't ask to make a point about 'real work' etc but about the time-based resources the opposition have at their disposal. i.e is he zipping around the country on the back of China's harley as cliff was?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 23, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> The AMM call for:
> 
> "open revolt"
> 
> ...


 
No calls to reinstate those who were happy to be full timers in the SWP but who have been expelled for wanting to set up a culture magazine?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 23, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> No calls to reinstate those who were happy to be full timers in the SWP but who have been expelled for wanting to set up a culture magazine?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But what do they think should happen as regards the allegations. That's a pretty important question that needs to be faced up to by all opposing the CC. And that is not just a question of overturning the DC's report and re-election.


 
Not sure if this helps:

"The precise platform of this opposition grouping remains to be seen, but at a minimum it will be calling for a recall SWP conference to be held to reject the DC report and review the treatment of the allegations against Smith."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Not sure if this helps:
> 
> "The precise platform of this opposition grouping remains to be seen, but at a minimum it will be calling for a recall SWP conference to be held to reject the DC report and review the treatment of the allegations against Smith."


Note it's the way the allegations were treated by the party, the CC and the DC, not the allegations themselves. That just sort of dissapears. I suppose they could argue that what would come out of the review will determine that but on a tactical level i think oppositionists need to say a damn sight more than that - even if to only say they would repeat the process but do it properly.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 23, 2013)

Interesting article in _Red Pepper_ by former IS member, John Palmer - Facing reality - after the crisis in the SWP.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2013)

Went to do some leafleting outside the town hall for a campaign against childrens centre cuts in Sheffield today. SWP had a stall there and JC (the incoming CC member, not the other one) was there. Got to wonder if she was there to try and get a feel for what the opposition is like round here.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 23, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Interesting article in _Red Pepper_ by former IS member, John Palmer - Facing reality - after the crisis in the SWP.


 
Pretty much a rehash with hindsight of his article on Cliff some years ago.
"It isn't 1917 or indeed 1968 ,the organisation was better when I was in it,  the world has changed to the extent that class is now only one of many things that a broader and more pluralistic party  has to consider.Realign the liberal left.Lets have another go at building some sort of Socialist Alliance based on the experience of where at any time abroad this sort of thing has developed like Syriza."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> the organisation was better when I was in it


he would say that, wouldn't he


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> he would say that, wouldn't he


 
He doesn't actually but it is a reoccurring feeling that you get form these ex members. Easily done I sometimes come over a bit like that.Give him his due he will have lost 99% of his audience by referencing the debate about Rosa Luxemburg type organisations.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 23, 2013)

Funnily enough having been plagued by the current debate about defending the IS tradition, I went back and looked at the platform of  the IS Opposition which Higgins, Palmer  et al  were involved in. Their position was


> Democratic centralism is not a luxury but an indispensable principle of internal organisation in the struggle to build a revolutionary socialist organisation


 
but then went on to describe democratic centralism but not as we know it in the IS/SWP


----------



## past caring (Jan 23, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> On the subject of music, you seen that the Rockingbirds are going to release a new album?


 
Touring too.

Mekons dates later this year also.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 23, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> He doesn't actually but it is a reoccurring feeling that you get form these ex members. Easily done I sometimes come over a bit like that.Give him his due he will have lost 99% of his audience by referencing the debate about Rosa Luxemburg type organisations.


The failure of the German revolution is part of the pre-history of the origins of IS and the SWP. Members of the SWP know who Rosa Luxemburg was.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The failure of the German revolution is part of the pre-history of the origins of IS and the SWP. Members of the SWP know who Rosa Luxemburg was.


some of them anyway


----------



## tony collins (Jan 23, 2013)

Hi everyone

This is only a small thing, but I was reading through the thread and someone asked if a "Tony C" was me from Socialist Unity. It wasn't - the reason I'm posting is cos of what I say when I post on SU: I only post using my full name, and I never lie about who I am. As poncy as that sounds, it's something that I stick to. So, no, that guy wasn't me.

And anyway, I'm mortally wounded by the idea that I was in the SWP in the 1970s! I joined in 2002 and was auto-expelled in 2007 (by Martin Smith, who told me that according to their records, I had never been a member... just after they realised that I was opposed to their actions over Respect). I'm only in my early 40s, but possibly have consumed the same number of pies as a normal man would by the time he reaches his 60s.

Anyway, great thread. I've never posted before, and I dunno whether to be embarrassed about the fact that my first post is about something so lame as whether I was stirring up-thread or not. I've not got much to say on the main subject that I haven't already said over on SU.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 23, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The failure of the German revolution is part of the pre-history of the origins of IS and the SWP. Members of the SWP know who Rosa Luxemburg was.



You suggesting that palmer thinks a) swp members are the audience and/or b) the best way to do this is through an article in red pepper?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

tony collins said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> This is only a small thing, but I was reading through the thread and someone asked if a "Tony C" was me from Socialist Unity. It wasn't - the reason I'm posting is cos of what I say when I post on SU: I only post using my full name, and I never lie about who I am. As poncy as that sounds, it's something that I stick to. So, no, that guy wasn't me.
> 
> ...


don't fuss if you get any personal abuse, it's just an initiation rite.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> don't fuss if you get any personal abuse, it's just an initiation rite.


 
Why'd you have to go and warn the cunt?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Went to do some leafleting outside the town hall for a campaign against childrens centre cuts in Sheffield today. SWP had a stall there and JC (the incoming CC member, not the other one) was there. Got to wonder if she was there to try and get a feel for what the opposition is like round here.


 
Jesus has joined the central committee?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 23, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Jesus has joined the central committee?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 23, 2013)

tony collins said:


> I'm only in my early 40s, but possibly have consumed the same number of pies as a normal man would by the time he reaches his 60s.


I hear you, comrade.  I hear you.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

pies, they are in you


----------



## kavenism (Jan 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> From what I can gather about this the person who posted that doesn't quite have it right. It was one woman, not two, and she never complained about anything - the complaints came from two female members of the SWP who had nothing to do with it and had a bit of a grudge against him (nowt wrong with that by the way, I'm a big fan of grudges, me, and always try to hold as many as possible at any one time). Doesn't necessarily mean it's not true I guess but whoever is posting that either has the wrong end of the stick or is being deliberately dishonest.


 
The person he raped was my ex. And the story was true, expelled for two years without fuss and only that in exchange for her not going to the police. I never asked her the details of why she didn't go. She keeps a very low online profile now, blocked all her former political friends on FB.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2013)

kavenism said:


> The person he raped was my ex. And the story was true, expelled for two years without fuss and only that in exchange for her not going to the police. I never asked her the details of why she didn't go. She keeps a very low online profile now, blocked all her former political friends on FB.


 
Fair enough - someone's been telling me some dodgy stories then


----------



## kavenism (Jan 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fair enough - someone's been telling me some dodgy stories then


 

He was an utter shit. In 2010 at some birthday event for a prominent SWP member (I don’t remember which) held at a venue on Brick lane he started shoving her around in front of everyone. I lost two hubcaps driving from west London to pick her up. Suffice to say he wasn’t best disposed towards me. Now all I do is occasionally wind him up using my sock puppets. Not much justice really.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 24, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Jesus has joined the central committee?


 
He is five foot nine
He is divine
He plays left back for Palestine
Has anybody here seen JC?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 24, 2013)

kavenism said:


> The person he raped was my ex. And the story was true, expelled for two years without fuss and only that in exchange for her not going to the police. I never asked her the details of why she didn't go. She keeps a very low online profile now, blocked all her former political friends on FB.


 
So, let's get this right. Andy Wilson gets "expelled for life" 20 years ago for wanting to set up an independent culture magazine and someone gets expelled for two years for rape? Toxic, totally effing toxic organisation.

There will be journalists reading this thread rubbing their hands.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 24, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> So, let's get this right. Andy Wilson gets "expelled for life" 20 years ago for wanting to set up an independent culture magazine and someone gets expelled for two years for rape? Toxic, totally effing toxic organisation.
> 
> There will be journalists reading this thread rubbing their hands.


 
What journalists? Does anyone outside the far left and their miniscule number of watchers even give a shit? After all, when the majority of of people associate Marxism-Leninism with an outdated political ideology associated with the deaths of millions in Russia, would the reporting of a dodgy sexist/rape culture in one of these parties not seem like small beer, or at least acting according to form?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 24, 2013)

kavenism said:


> What journalists?


 
Do you think Laurie Penny would have written that original article for New Statesman if she hadn't already been on Urban checking out her thread?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 24, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Do you think Laurie Penny would have written that original article for New Statesman if she hadn't already been on Urban checking out her thread?


 
It was all over FB and Twitter too. There's no reason to think she saw it here first. Besides it's only "journalists" like her who labour under the curious premise that "the SWP matters" (like really matters, like serious stuff matters) who are likely to write anything. She seems to be bored of it now anyway.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 24, 2013)

kavenism said:


> It was all over FB and Twitter too. There's no reason to think she saw it here first. Besides it's only "journalists" like her who labour under the curious premise that "the SWP matters" (like really matters, like serious stuff matters) who are likely to write anything. She seems to be bored of it now anyway.


 
Daily Mail and Independent have reported it already as far as I remember - don't forget there will be at least one journo on each paper who is a far-right/far-left trainspotter geek like most of us.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 24, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> So, let's get this right. Andy Wilson gets "expelled for life" 20 years ago for wanting to set up an independent culture magazine and someone gets expelled for two years for rape? Toxic, totally effing toxic organisation.
> 
> There will be journalists reading this thread rubbing their hands.


 
Didn't Wilson have a AMM stall at Marxism the other year?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

kavenism said:


> What journalists? Does anyone outside the far left and their miniscule number of watchers even give a shit? After all, when the majority of of people associate Marxism-Leninism with an outdated political ideology associated with the deaths of millions in Russia, would the reporting of a dodgy sexist/rape culture in one of these parties not seem like small beer, or at least acting according to form?


 
there are also a few right wing journos looking to "discredit" the far left as well (not that it seems to need much at the mo  )


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 24, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Didn't Wilson have a AMM stall at Marxism the other year?


 
no idea. it's been a few years since I've attended the annual Recruitathon.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

i've never been, is it even gonna go ahead this year? how can they go ahead with it "at a time like this"?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i've never been, is it even gonna go ahead this year? how can they go ahead with it "at a time like this"?


 
You do know that not only there will 'never have been a better time to attend Marxism', but also the quality of presentation and debate from SWP comrades will be of an exceptionally high standard now that they have purged the centrists and been tested in the fire of bourgeois media attacks. It will be a place of strength to build on; a signal of great times ahead.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You do know that not only there will 'never have been a better time to attend Marxism', but also the quality of presentation and debate from SWP comrades will be of an exceptionally high standard now that they have purged the centrists and been tested in the fire of bourgeois media attacks. It will be a place of strength to build on; a signal of great times ahead.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
but can they seriously go ahead of it in the middle of a massive split over a botched rape case? surely anyone interested in joining the SWP is going to find out about this rape case business after the most rudimentary bit of research? I bet it will be a damp squib and nobody will turn up except for "delta" and the sparts


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2013)

Judith Orr was speaking at UEA's  Feminist society’s discussion forum on Marxism, Feminism, and Women’s Liberation:



> After giving her intended talk on women’s liberation at the meeting, Orr opened up the floor to questions. Several audience members expressed concern at the SWP’s handling of such serious allegations.
> 
> It was questioned whether it was fair of the SWP to deal with the matter internally instead of going through the court system, and whether an internal body could effectively punish such a serious offence if the party member had been found guilty.
> 
> ...


 
(Cheers to Paul for the spot)


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i've never been, is it even gonna go ahead this year? how can they go ahead with it "at a time like this"?


 
Of course it's still on. They've already printed up  the posters for the cadre:


----------



## cesare (Jan 24, 2013)

Jesus wept.

Although, "rape victim" isn't a term I'm comfortable with. There are allegations of rape and it hasn't been investigated properly. Until it has been, I prefer "complainant".


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2013)

Why didn't the swp get taken apart via #CreepingFeminism in the way the edl did over #CreepingSharia  - missed opp there.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but can they seriously go ahead of it in the middle of a massive split over a botched rape case? surely anyone interested in joining the SWP is going to find out about this rape case business after the most rudimentary bit of research? I bet it will be a damp squib and nobody will turn up except for "delta" and the sparts


 
It will certainly be interesting if other groups have stalls outside as per usual.


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but can they seriously go ahead of it in the middle of a massive split over a botched rape case? surely anyone interested in joining the SWP is going to find out about this rape case business after the most rudimentary bit of research? I bet it will be a damp squib and nobody will turn up except for "delta" and the sparts


It will be interesting to see if any of their celeb fellow travellers star attractions avoid it this year. Butit seems to me that some lefty writers, etc see the SWP's conference as one of their biggest "radical" platforms


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Judith Orr was speaking at UEA's Feminist society’s discussion forum on Marxism, Feminism, and Women’s Liberation:
> 
> 
> 
> (Cheers to Paul for the spot)


 


> Orr maintained that the SWP were “more accountable than any other organisation,” being entirely intolerant of sexism, racism, homophobia, or any other hateful prejudices within their party.


 
this is bullshit how can anyone be "entirely free" of prejudice in a capitalist society.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

Random said:


> It will be interesting to see if any of their celeb fellow travellers star attractions avoid it this year. Butit seems to me that some lefty writers, etc see the SWP's conference as one of their biggest "radical" platforms


 
I agree but that was before this rape case. Will the careerists of the commentariat touch it with a bargepole this year?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

Maybe julian assange might put an appearance in lol


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 24, 2013)

live video conference from the embassy


----------



## cesare (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is bullshit how can anyone be "entirely free" of prejudice in a capitalist society.


How can anyone be "entirely free" of prejudice, full stop.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> this is bullshit how can anyone be "entirely free" of prejudice in a capitalist society.


 
"entirely intolerant" is different to "entirely free".

Any half decent employer or membership organisations would claim that they were "entirely intolerant" of sexism, racism and homophobia. _"We've got policies!"_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:
			
		

> live video conference from the embassy



That's exactly what oxford student union are doing with him.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's exactly what oxford student union are doing with him.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Maybe julian assange might put an appearance in lol


 
Talking of whom, marvellous they snared posh-knocking victim Old Harrovian Cumberbatch to play him. It's like 3D privilege chess.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but can they seriously go ahead of it in the middle of a massive split over a botched rape case? surely anyone interested in joining the SWP is going to find out about this rape case business after the most rudimentary bit of research? I bet it will be a damp squib and nobody will turn up except for "delta" and the sparts


 
It will definitely be interesting to see how they deal with non-members who try and raise this from the floor, especially in debates on womens liberation - and it will happen, unless they make it members only which is unlikely since it's seen as a recruitment tool.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It will definitely be interesting to see how they deal with non-members who try and raise this from the floor, especially in debates on womens liberation - and it will happen, unless they make it members only which is unlikely since it's seen as a recruitment tool.


 
It would presumably be quite easy to fill contentious meetings and only select 'trusted' speakers from the floor. It's not as if that doesn't happen a lot and not just with the SWP.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> It would presumably be quite easy to fill contentious meetings and only select 'trusted' speakers from the floor. It's not as if that doesn't happen a lot and not just with the SWP.


True, it but it would seem fairly extraordinary if they tried to stitch up a meeting on women that didn't see any mention made of the rape investigation.  there would be uproar


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

maybe the International Bolshevik tendency will hold fringe meetings like they do at socailism with the title "is the socialist workers' party really socialist"

they'll probably have more members than the SWP by the end of this


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> oh christ


 
Fucking Christianist-Trotskyite!!!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

One good thing about this though (possibly) is the idea that it might cause a re-evaluation of democratic centralism in left-wing parties. i reckon it probably will tbh, cant imagine there are many groups apart from sparts and shit who will ignorei it completely


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fucking Christianist-Trotskyite!!!


 
Deutscher:


> 'In his late years, Trotsky often compared Marxism with Calvinism: the determinism of the one and the doctrine of predestination of the other, far from weakening or 'denying' the human will, strengthened it. The conviction that his action is in harmony with a higher necessity inspires the Marxist as well as the Calvinist to the highest exertion and sacrifice'


 
Bad theology and bad politics


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 24, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> My interest was piqued, so I searched out a place called We Are Many dot org, and found a podcast by Martin Smith called _John Coltane: Jazz, racism, and resistance_ http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/john-coltane .
> 
> Now, I don't think it necessary to know anything about music theory to enjoy jazz, but I do think it necessary to understand a little about music theory before you start giving lectures in music theory.
> 
> Smith makes a complete twat of himself (quite apart from the toe-curling trendy vicar endorsement of LSD) by not knowing the first thing about music theory. For example, he talks about Coltrane's period with Monk, saying Monk used his percussive technique to “strike many chords at the same time”. First, Monk was a logician, and a master of precision; that's what Coltrane got from Monk. Monk's percussive playing was about articulation, not about note selection. Secondly, the sentence doesn't really make sense: a number of notes played at once is a chord. Two chords played at once is ... a bigger chord. Monk's chords were derived from his understanding of stride piano, not hitting random notes on a piano. In fact, Monk learned theory by dissecting piano rolls - and sheet music - of the old stride players. John Coltrane did not derive from this a “a system of playing chords on top of one another”, whatever that might mean. (Especially given that saxophone is a single-note-at-a-time instrument).


 
AKA monophonic (single-voiced)



> Smith then goes on to briefly talk nonsense about modal jazz, before saying _Giant Steps_ was "the first time he [Coltrane] recorded openly in the sheets of sound thing". No it wasn't. "Sheets of sound" was Ira Gitler's description of Coltrane's playing on the song _Russian Lullaby_ on the _Soultrane_ album, released in 1958, two years before _Giant Steps_, by which time he had pretty much abandoned the style. (Which consisted of a bank of ultra-rehearsed rapid runs).
> 
> _Giant Steps_ isn't about "sheets of sound", (nor is it about "playing chords on top of one another"); it's about a very logical sequence of chords following a rapid descending major third step pattern, meaning the key centre changes three times within four bars; Coltrane was exploring the technique needed by soloists to negotiate those "giant steps" (hence the name!). (This chord pattern is known as the Trane Changes, or Coltrane Changes, and could have been explained to Smith by any jazz musician, including Gilad Atzmon, had he but asked).
> 
> Non musos take heart: my diatribe is over. If your eyes glazed over, take at least this from it - Martin Smith is a gobshite. His love of jazz is, I have no doubt, sincere, but his understanding of music theory is dire.


 
So is mine, but as I understood what you were talking about, my understanding is presumably better than Martin Smith's!


----------



## audiotech (Jan 24, 2013)

Noticed that the Prof had posted on fb a pic of two memorials to Foot and Harman that have been placed in Highgate cemetery. A current member, who I've some respect for, posted a comment, 'turning in their graves'. No surprise to see that this didn't go down well with some of the party loyalists.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2013)

The Prof is an unbearably pretentious smug c*nt


----------



## audiotech (Jan 24, 2013)

I'm not that interested in personal traits.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2013)

N





frogwoman said:


> One good thing about this though (possibly) is the idea that it might cause a re-evaluation of democratic centralism in left-wing parties. i reckon it probably will tbh, cant imagine there are many groups apart from sparts and shit who will ignorei it completely



Nah.

Apart from your good selves there won't be any left wing parties left to dscuss it. 
This pretty much marks the end of the Trot tradition in the UK. Be interesting to see where the SP take things freed from the shackles of competing with rival Trot franchises.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

chilango said:


> N
> 
> Nah.
> 
> ...


 
You think so? what makes you say that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> You think so? what makes you say that?





chilango said:


> N
> 
> Nah.


 
bit of a stutter if you ask me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2013)

audiotech said:


> I'm not that interested in personal traits.


so you're not interested in people.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Prof is an unbearably pretentious smug c*nt


I don't think he is at all, just thoughtful and confident in himself.


chilango said:


> N
> 
> Nah.
> 
> ...


 
I don't think it "marks the end" of anything really. The SWP is seriously damaged, yes, but they will carry on with their project with reduced membership. They have advertised this year's Marxism on their website. It will be interesting to see how big it is this year. Last year's was very big and they even deliberately downplayed it according to what I have read.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

chilango

do you think there is a chance that in a few years we might not be recognisable as "trots"?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

The other trots don't think we are real trots anyway ...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The other trots don't think we are real trots anyway ...


 
There are only two 'real trots'; they are both called Phil and they are (or were) the oxymoronic TUG.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2013)

There were/are two groups of people who use the term "Trots" as derogatory. That is the Stalinists and the Anarchists, both for well known historical reasons. Among the SWP members I have known, while they support Trotsky and read his works, they mostly identify as Leninists.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2013)

audiotech said:


> I'm not that interested in personal traits.


 also political traits


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> There were/are two groups of people who use the term "Trots" as derogatory. That is the Stalinists and the Anarchists, both for well known historical reasons. Among the SWP members I have known, while they support Trotsky and read his works, they mostly identify as Leninists.


 you forgot the Labour right/NOLS crowd who see anyone to the left of Peter Hain as "the trots"


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2013)

And trots.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2013)

articul8 said:


> you forgot the Labour right/NOLS crowd who see anyone to the left of Peter Hain as "the trots"


No I didn't. This thread is not about parliamentary politics and I have no idea who NOLS are.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2013)

National Organisation of Labour Students (as was) that fought the (Trotskyist dominated) LPYS


----------



## audiotech (Jan 24, 2013)

..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2013)

The dissidents have seized on the obviously factional stuff in Party Notes about Judith Orr's "well recieved" talk about women's liberation at the University of East Anglia. Bit of a silly hostage to fortune for the CC to give there:

http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/letter-to-national-secretary.html


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2013)

articul8 said:


> National Organisation of Labour Students (as was) that fought the (Trotskyist dominated) LPYS


What has this got to do this thread on the SWP? Go back and talk to your parliamentary party buddies about something else. You are an unwanted passenger here.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2013)

yes, it was only when Trotskyism counted for anything...not like it's relevant to a discussion on the SWP...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2013)

articul8 said:


> yes, it was only when Trotskyism counted for anything...not like it's relevant to a discussion on the SWP...


Tickets please!


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2013)

jumped up little hitler


----------



## audiotech (Jan 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> so you're not interested in people.


 
Popular frontist!


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> You think so? what makes you say that?


The Trots in the UK had largely monopolised visible, organised, "branded" lefty politics for several generations. Unlike other coutries where the CP, Maoists, Autonomists and Anarchists etc. swamped the Trots to the periphery/historcal footnote, for some reason here they were the first (and usually last) port of call for people wanting to get involved in a lefty group.  Since WW2 the scene was dominated by the dynastic tendencies ( plus the upstsrt IMG) in their various incarnations. But they're all gone now

WRP - all gone.

IMG - all gone.

SWP - going, going , gone.

None og the little grouplets left have anything like the visibilty or influencr their parent orgs had. And memberships can be couted in their dozens.

The SWP ten years ago wrre "big". They ain't now. And a WRP style splintering will finish them as a meaningful  force. They simply don't have the numbers to survive it.

Will the SP move on from the Trot brand?  I'd guess so. But it's up to youse, no?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 24, 2013)

What was the SWP membership 10 years ago versus today?


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2013)

I'd guess in the thousands. They claimed 10k in the 90s. They eon't have had that many, but it essn't too stupid an exaggeration. They'd have held rekatvely steady in the post Seattle years and the started to really decline around the time f the Respect debacle. Id be surprised if they had much more than a thousand real members left.


----------



## Random (Jan 24, 2013)

Ten - fifteen years ago even remote suburbs of London and small towns had plenty of SWP flyposters and Saturday paper sellers.


----------



## chilango (Jan 24, 2013)

A whole generation of kids is growing up who've never even seen a "Saturday sale"...


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but can they seriously go ahead of it in the middle of a massive split over a botched rape case? surely anyone interested in joining the SWP is going to find out about this rape case business after the most rudimentary bit of research? I bet it will be a damp squib and nobody will turn up except for "delta" and the sparts


Why wait for MArxism to find out?

So any volunteers to go along to the one of the Marxism and Feminism meetings and give a report back?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I don't think he is at all, just thoughtful and confident in himself.
> 
> 
> I don't think it "marks the end" of anything really. The SWP is seriously damaged, yes, but they will carry on with their project with reduced membership. They have advertised this year's Marxism on their website. It will be interesting to see how big it is this year. Last year's was very big and they even deliberately downplayed it according to what I have read.


I keep changing my mind over just how damaging to the SWP this is likely to be? 

At the moment I agree with you it will lost a lot of members including a few of the bigger names, but it will pretty much just keep plodding on as it has for years.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> So any volunteers to go along to the one of the Marxism and Feminism meetings and give a report back?


_both_ Sheffield branches having The Politics of Feminism as their branch meeting mext week. Almost tempting....but not quite.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2013)

belboid said:


> _both_ Sheffield branches having The Politics of Feminism as their branch meeting mext week.


Sort of like a suicide pact


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 24, 2013)

belboid said:


> _both_ Sheffield branches having The Politics of Feminism as their branch meeting mext week. Almost tempting....but not quite.


The branch meetings are based on themes provided on a list by the cc, I expect that title is at the head of the list. They will want to cauterize the wound asap.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The branch meetings are based on themes provided on a list by the cc, I expect that title is at the head of the list. They will want to cauterize the wound asap.


Not sure about that.  No other branches are having that meeting this week or next. Sheffield is home to one of the Disputes Commitee, and there is the events surrounding the ex-fulltimer discussed a day or two back as well.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 24, 2013)

chilango said:


> The Trots in the UK had largely monopolised visible, organised, "branded" lefty politics for several generations. Unlike other coutries where the CP, Maoists, Autonomists and Anarchists etc. swamped the Trots to the periphery/historcal footnote, *for some reason here they were the first (and usually last) port of call for people wanting to get involved in a lefty group.* Since WW2 the scene was dominated by the dynastic tendencies ( plus the upstsrt IMG) in their various incarnations. But they're all gone now
> 
> WRP - all gone.
> 
> ...


 
surely there were a lot of  pretty obvious reasons that right thinking folk might have been swerving Maoists/CP Stalinists from the60's onwards, ie : the ever more apparent/widely accepted obscenities of Mao / Sov Union totalitarianism - it's more baffling why so many *weren't* opting for Trotskyism instead, at least there was some degree of ideological credibility remaining there, even if the Trot parties themselves  were heading inevitably up the same old democratic centralist cul de sacs.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 24, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Noticed that the Prof had posted on fb a pic of two memorials to Foot and Harman that have been placed in Highgate cemetery. A current member, who I've some respect for, posted a comment, 'turning in their graves'. No surprise to see that this didn't go down well with some of the party loyalists.


Did that get deleted cause i can't see it? One guy has  a pop at the alleged hero worship involved but that's clearly not a reference to any of this stuff.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 24, 2013)

Dunno when this letter was sent but it clearly needs a reply :-(

http://internationalsocialismuk.blo...1/anonymous-letter-to-national-secretary.html


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

I have to say that this thread and the whole debate around it has been very informative and it has started me off getting to look a lot more closely than I have done about a lot of the stuff to do with Leninism and democratic centralism as well as some articles about the Russian revolution which are very critical of Lenin, I am fast coming to the conclusion that while his leadership might hve been necessary in that situation he was actually a bit of a prick in many ways and that the Bolshevik party actually held back the revolution in some areas of Russia. I've learnt a lot from this thread tbh.

That isn't to say that I don't think that leninist parties like the SP don't do quite a lot of good and I knoiw because I have been part of some quite successful campaigns but I think the mode of organisation needs to be looked at again if things are going to progress further.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

And by that I am quite happy to still be a member of the SP because of the good work that we have done locally and nationally as well as internationally, such as the Lindsey oil refinery strike etc, but I am not sure that I am a leninist at all, in fact i am probably not, I would say that I was a marxist rather than a leninist.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> And by that I am quite happy to still be a member of the SP because of the good work that we have done locally and nationally as well as internationally, such as the Lindsey oil refinery strike etc, but I am not sure that I am a leninist at all, in fact i am probably not, I would say that I was a marxist rather than a leninist.


 
That's always been my stance too - there's plenty of useful stuff that's been written by the major 20th century Marxists (Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Gramsci etc) but IMO even if they got it right (which obviously they didn't always) they got it right for a specific time and place, and so the analysis isn't necessarily transferable.

Marx was the fucking man though.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2013)

Quite literally sometimes - just ask his maid


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> And by that I am quite happy to still be a member of the SP because of the good work that we have done locally and nationally as well as internationally, such as the Lindsey oil refinery strike etc, but I am not sure that I am a leninist at all, in fact i am probably not, I would say that I was a marxist rather than a leninist.


You know I imagine there are lots of people in the SWP saying very similar things to themselves at the moment.

Well maybe not the last bit, but lots of I know the SWP isn't perfect but their are lots of good people in it and it does really important work.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Quite literally sometimes - just ask his maid


You know the first time I heard about this my reaction was 'hang on never mind the pregnancy bit, he had a fucking maid!'


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Dunno when this letter was sent but it clearly needs a reply :-(
> 
> http://internationalsocialismuk.blo...1/anonymous-letter-to-national-secretary.html


 
Oh dear.
It's hard to imagine a reply that wouldn't include advice to take it to the (capitalists) police.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2013)

So would I if I could afford one tbf - although I'd employ a bloke to do it so as not to be accused of misogyny and that. I'd pay him well though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You know the first time I heard about this my reaction was 'hang on never mind the pregnancy bit, he had a fucking maid!'


He didn't. His wife did.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> And by that I am quite happy to still be a member of the SP because of the good work that we have done locally and nationally as well as internationally, such as the Lindsey oil refinery strike etc, but I am not sure that I am a leninist at all, in fact i am probably not, I would say that I was a marxist rather than a leninist.


 
The Kazakhstan and Tamil solidarity stuff definitely deserves an honourable mention along with Lindsey IMO.

My mate (you know him too) was the one sent down to Lyndsay when it first kicked off (though it turned out that there was a member in the workforce but he didn't know that when he went down) and he's got some good stories to tell about it. When he got back someone from the SWP had a go at him for getting involved in, and supporting, a 'nationalist strike'.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2013)

And the chinese stuff.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He didn't. His wife did.


Yeah, I know that *now.*


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 24, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Oh dear.
> It's hard to imagine a reply that wouldn't include advice to take it to the (capitalists) police.


I think the point of the letter is she'd rather not but...


----------



## brogdale (Jan 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I think the point of the letter is she'd rather not but...


 
Yeah, and hasn't apparently.
Just saying...quite a difficult call, really.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The dissidents have seized on the obviously factional stuff in Party Notes about Judith Orr's "well recieved" talk about women's liberation at the University of East Anglia. Bit of a silly hostage to fortune for the CC to give there:
> 
> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/letter-to-national-secretary.html


 
That site is about as fascinating as the minutes from the AGM of my local allotments.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 25, 2013)

past caring said:


> Mekons dates later this year also.


Oh! You know if they are going to tour down under?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 25, 2013)

swss statements flooding in now. LSE SWSS too :-(


----------



## Random (Jan 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> swss statements flooding in now. LSE SWSS too :-(


Statements for the national council?


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2013)

our local swss is doing a meeting on the revolutionary teachings of leon trotsky, according to a load of flyposters i saw this morning. one not to miss.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

killer b said:


> our local swss is doing a meeting on the revolutionary teachings of leon trotsky, according to a load of flyposters i saw this morning. one not to miss.


and increasingly relevant to trotskyism in britain today


----------



## mk12 (Jan 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> swss statements flooding in now. LSE SWSS too :-(


 
This _is_ important for the SWP's future development, as students make up such an important part of their yearly recruits.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 25, 2013)

true


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 25, 2013)

chilango said:


> The Trots in the UK had largely monopolised visible, organised, "branded" lefty politics for several generations. Unlike other coutries where the CP, Maoists, Autonomists and Anarchists etc. swamped the Trots to the periphery/historcal footnote, for some reason here they were the first (and usually last) port of call for people wanting to get involved in a lefty group. Since WW2 the scene was dominated by the dynastic tendencies ( plus the upstsrt IMG) in their various incarnations. But they're all gone now
> 
> WRP - all gone.
> 
> ...


 
The WRP are still going through a series of tiny grouplets - saw a Newsline seller just the other day. The IMG also still exist, but they're called "Student Broad Left" now. I have to say I don't think we'll be the only 'trots' left standing.


----------



## chilango (Jan 25, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> The WRP are still going through a series of tiny grouplets - saw a Newsline seller just the other day. The IMG also still exist, but they're called "Student Broad Left" now. I have to say I don't think we'll be the only 'trots' left standing.



Yeah. There are little clubs of old believers dotted about. But in real terms the SWP and SP wete the only Trots that people might actually encounter engaged in actual activity.

I suspect that whatever fragments come ou of a shattered SWP will join the ranks of the tiny little grouplets with a name and a lineage and a membership in double figures. Utterly irrelevent except to trainspotters like us.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Did that get deleted cause i can't see it?


 
With what you state I can only assume it has?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The Kazakhstan and Tamil solidarity stuff definitely deserves an honourable mention along with Lindsey IMO.
> 
> My mate (you know him too) was the one sent down to Lyndsay when it first kicked off (though it turned out that there was a member in the workforce but he didn't know that when he went down) and he's got some good stories to tell about it. When he got back someone from the SWP had a go at him for getting involved in, and *supporting, a 'nationalist strike'*.


 
That sort of bollocks was spouted on here too.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 25, 2013)

killer b said:


> our local swss is doing a meeting on the revolutionary teachings of leon trotsky, according to a load of flyposters i saw this morning. one not to miss.


 
Is there a bar, if so I might go with you.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> That sort of bollocks was spouted on here too.


Very telling thread. Worth a read still.


----------



## cesare (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Very telling thread. Worth a read still.


63 pages


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

cesare said:


> 63 pages


First 20 pages should give you the flavour 

Very telling in that those who had the right instincts were the SP and the anarchists - the ones it's been suggested place individual rather than class struggle at the centre of their analysis - and the ones who didn't were the SWP and the _harder trots_, the ones constantly going on about placing collective class struggle at the centre (unlike those creeping feminists, autonomists anarchists other marxists who are too tied up in union bureaucracy to see the real living class movement).

edit: on 2nd thoughts, i think i maybe should have left this alone


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

teuchter in early on the loathesome prick


----------



## cesare (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> First 20 pages should give you the flavour



I'll add it to my list 

Edit: as it happens I had read at least the first 20 pages anyway, but it was useful rereading it from the pov of looking at the hard trot position, ta


----------



## cesare (Jan 25, 2013)

I also have to listen to that radio interview and read about the origins of the slate system. I'm falling behind


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

cesare said:


> I also have to listen to that radio interview and read about the origins of the slate system. I'm falling behind


You'll never get your _at least 75% class conscious_ badge at this rate.


----------



## cesare (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You'll never get your _at least 75% class conscious_ badge at this rate.


The problem with autodidacticism is that you never properly feel as if you've caught up.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Is there a bar, if so I might go with you.


Probably. If not we could just go to the pub.

We could just skip the trots and go straight to the pub tbf.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You'll never get your _at least 75% class conscious_ badge at this rate.


 
its dubious whether you can even claim to have trade union consciousness if you don't remember when and why the slate system was first used, in fact you might not be working class at all


----------



## cesare (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> its dubious whether you can even claim to have trade union consciousness if you don't remember when and why the slate system was first used, in fact you might not be working class at all


I bet Laurie Penny learnt all about the slate system during her expensive education  PFWC


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

cesare said:


> I bet Laurie Penny learnt all about the slate system during her expensive education  PFWC


 
you're not working class until you've heard of a man called trotsky


----------



## cesare (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> you're not working class until you've heard of a man called trotsky


You're not working class unless you know who the SWP are and why they speak for you


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

cesare said:


> You're not working class unless you know who the SWP are and why they speak for you


 
the entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP, if you're not interested in the SWP you're not working class


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

General debacle now!


----------



## cesare (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP, if you're not interested in the SWP you're not working class



There's an entire class of pretenders, getting away with it


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP, if you're not interested in the SWP you're not working class


comrade, comrade, you are failing to understand the dialectic in operation here. It is, of course, wholly right that the class has an interest in the SWP, but this is actually reflected, in day-to-day life, in the complete lack of interest the class shows in the party. Thus proving beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they are the only true party of the class.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> comrade, comrade, you are failing to understand the dialectic in operation here. It is, of course, wholly right that the class has an interest in the SWP, but this is actually reflected, in day-to-day life, in the complete lack of interest the class shows in the party.* Thus proving beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they are the only true party of the class*.


 
Quite right....apart from all the other revolutionary parties that the working class has a complete lack of interest in.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the entire working class has an interest in what happens in the SWP, if you're not interested in the SWP you're not working class


 
 the entire working class has an interest in what happens in the LEFT :-(


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

cesare said:


> There's an entire class of pretenders, getting away with it


 
Conveniently....'tis their false consciousness that justifies the centralised control of the vanguard.


----------



## cesare (Jan 25, 2013)

Millions of deluded working class people


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> comrade, comrade, you are failing to understand the dialectic in operation here. It is, of course, wholly right that the class has an interest in the SWP, but this is actually reflected, in day-to-day life, in the complete lack of interest the class shows in the party. Thus proving beyond any shadow of a doubt, that they are the only true party of the class.


 
echoes of Cockneyrebel and the dialectics of irrelevancy


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> swss statements flooding in now. LSE SWSS too :-(



10 up so far and apparently still coming. I hear on Facebook that Kings and Oxford are the only large SWSS groups that haven't yet openly taken sides with the opposition.

This explains to some extent why the CC have been so weak in their response. It also would appear to rule out a "suuccessful" purge of Seymour and the rest of the "hard" opposition without losing the whole student cadre with them.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

is there no possibility of people inside far-left groups having a false consciousness as well?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

cesare said:


> Millions of deluded working class people


Historic bloc?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

cesare said:


> There's an entire class of pretenders, getting away with it


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> is there no possibility of people inside far-left groups having a false consciousness as well?


 that is precisely why the SW argued against prescribing what communism will be like, and agreed with the Marxist historians analysis "there is no such thing as working class culture." I think.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> echoes of Cockneyrebel and the dialectics of irrelevancy


 
cockneyrebel was a bit before my time i think (before i started being interested in politics) but he has surely left a lasting impact on the massed ranks of the proletariat on here


----------



## mk12 (Jan 25, 2013)

Oh he is still very much among us.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2013)

We should start a fund aimed at erecting a statue to his immortal memory. On Cheadle High Street of course.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> We should start a fund aimed at erecting a statue to his immortal memory. On Cheadle High Street of course.


 
with Ginger, Douglas, Henry and Violet Elisabeth raising their flags to heaven


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> First 20 pages should give you the flavour
> 
> Very telling in that those who had the right instincts were the SP and the anarchists - the ones it's been suggested place individual rather than class struggle at the centre of their analysis - and the ones who didn't were the SWP and the _harder trots_, the ones constantly going on about placing collective class struggle at the centre (unlike those creeping feminists, autonomists anarchists other marxists who are too tied up in union bureaucracy to see the real living class movement).


 
As the one who suggested that anarchists place individual rather than class struggle at the centre of their analysis Can I just say that on both here and on the other board my instincts were right on this dispute as well


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2013)

Now up to 12 SWSS statements today, with more apparently still coming. This speaks of a very high level of national coordination, given that the CC control the usual means of communication. I wonder to what degree the "dissident" CC people and/or sacked student full timers are responsible for getting this
moving?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Now up to 12 SWSS statements today, with more apparently still coming. This speaks of a very high level of national coordination, given that the CC control the usual means of communication. I wonder to what degree the "dissident" CC people and/or sacked student full timers are responsible for getting this
> moving?


The students are the generation that uses Facebook and Twitter et al, as a first line of communication. The SWP CC can not compete with that. I think it is a healthy thing.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 25, 2013)

It is the SWP Spring. First Mubarak now Comrade Delta. Charlie Kimber may prove to be more like Assad though.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 25, 2013)

I think that's probably right.* Every member of the SWP that wants to can read Lenin's Tomb and the Internationalsocialism blog. The CC can't use the paper to control the flow of information to the members and manage dissent in the way it is used to.

What assetts does the Party own, and maybe more importantly in whose name are they in? Just thinking back to the implosion of the Communist Party, and the way resources were fought over and lost, will something similar happen to the SWP? Will the current central committee continue to "own" the name and brand and assetts even if the party completely breaks down.

* EDIT: The students on twitter thing, not the SWP Spring thing


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The students are the generation that uses Facebook and Twitter et al, as a first line of communication. The SWP CC can not compete with that. I think it is a healthy thing.



Of course (although more Facebook than twitter). But this simultaneous burst of statements doesn't look like something spontaneous, or like a series of groups learning from each other. It was clearly planned and coordinated behind the scenes (through Facebook and email and almost certainly by telephone). The question is if the people who had been runnIng SWSS were involved in that coordination, because that will tell us to what degree the "hard" and "soft" oppositionists have coalesced.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What assetts does the Party own, and maybe more importantly in whose name are they in? Just thinking back to the implosion of the Communist Party, and the way resources were fought over and lost, will something similar happen to the SWP?


 
Doubt it and as for the assets being "fought over" after the winding-up of the old CPGB? Some prime real estate had already been sold, nevertheless, the issue remains the subject of controversy.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 25, 2013)

mk12 said:


> This _is_ important for the SWP's future development, as students make up such an important part of their yearly recruits.


 
It also has a symbolic "IS tradition" thing about it.

IS breaking with from Labour Party entrism as suggested by LSE IS students in 1966-7 ending with the LSE "events" where a genuinely large body of students participated in significant struggle (Chris Harman was a big spokesperson). Then LSE students taking the struggle straight into student-work rank and file struggle against the Wilson government.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> What assetts does the Party own, and maybe more importantly in whose name are they in? Just thinking back to the implosion of the Communist Party, and the way resources were fought over and lost, will something similar happen to the SWP?



I suspect that there is nothing like the old CP's asset base to fight over. As I recall, they sold their commercial printing operation a few years back. I don't know if they own their offices, or what liquid assets they have.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Of course (although more Facebook than twitter). But this simultaneous burst of statements doesn't look like something spontaneous, or like a series of groups learning from each other. It was clearly planned and coordinated behind the scenes (through Facebook and email and almost certainly by telephone). The question is if the people who had been runnIng SWSS were involved in that coordination, because that will tell us to what degree the "hard" and "soft" oppositionists have coalesced.


Having skim read through a lot of the letters to the CC from the individual SWSS branches I notice the repetition in some of them of the same phrases and sentences but not too slavishly. This suggests to me that a standard letter template was created for the various branches to use as a starting point for their particular expressions of disagreement with the CC. That is of course co-ordination or perhaps their own rival form of 'centralism'.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I think that's probably right.* Every member of the SWP that wants to can read Lenin's Tomb and the Internationalsocialism blog. The CC can't use the paper to control the flow of information to the members and manage dissent in the way it is used to.
> 
> What assetts does the Party own, and maybe more importantly in whose name are they in? Just thinking back to the implosion of the Communist Party, and the way resources were fought over and lost, will something similar happen to the SWP? Will the current central committee continue to "own" the name and brand and assetts even if the party completely breaks down.
> 
> * EDIT: The students on twitter thing, not the SWP Spring thing


 

I have some back copies of Womens Voice that I failed to sell at the St Helens/ Castlefield final in 1982


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that there is nothing like the old CP's asset base to fight over. As I recall, they sold their commercial printing operation a few years back. I don't know if they own their offices, or what liquid assets they have.


 
Surely one of the reasons this group is fighting for a recall conference, and to expell the CC, is that there's something worth fighting over other than the husk of a party and a toxic "SWP" brand. Why would you want to fight to rescue that? Bollocks to the "IS tradition" stuff there must be more to it than that.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Surely one of the reasons this group is fighting for a recall conference, and to expell the CC, is that there's something worth fighting over other than the husk of a party and a toxic "SWP" brand. Why would you want to fight to rescue that? Bollocks to the "IS tradition" stuff there must be more to it than that.


That level of cynicism isn't needed. There has been tension in the SWP for years over its democratic structure. These people do not see the SWP as a 'toxic brand' - they are part of it and just want to change it for the better.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Surely one of the reasons this group is fighting for a recall conference, and to expell the CC, is that there's something worth fighting over other than the husk of a party and a toxic "SWP" brand. Why would you want to fight to rescue that? Bollocks to the "IS tradition" stuff there must be more to it than that.


 
You're getting it wrong. The longer you stay and fight the more bees you are going to attract to your honey stick. If the branch left it would be described as autonomist end of discussion and few would follow.
When Lindsey German left in 2010 - classic letters 

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/lindsey-german-resigns-from-swp.html

Only Doncaster SWP followed.

Here they are fighting only to win as many of the undecideds/swayers as possible.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 25, 2013)

When dealing with the SWP all levels of cynicism are needed. And these people, many of them, are reporting on how the SWP is becoming a toxic brand in their own blog. The fact it's been a toxic brand for much of the British general public, and even on the left for as long as I've been able to remember, surely can't have escaped their attention. It might be cynical, but ownership of the three letters SWP alone doesn't explain why they're fighting tooth and nail to remove the CC - I'd suspect most people would just leave the organisation not fight to claim it.

Maybe they are just really really keen on Tony Cliff and state capitalism and I'm just speculating wildly as usual.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 25, 2013)

Yes you are. This is not about money.

When the split happens there may be rows about money. But money is not the issue motivating the oppositionists.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> reporting on how the SWP is becoming a toxic brand in their own blog.


 
I'd guess that's something to do with the liberal students cold-shouldering the SWP on the basis of trying to leap-frog them in 'student politics' by spreading a 'OMG they rape people in the SWP'/'They don't let women report rapes to the police' line.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

I have been looking a lot into critiques of Leninism in the last few days and I agree with a lot of what I have read although I think that some of the authors of these criticisms underestimate the fact that leninist parties like the SP and SWP, because they are the most visible and most organised, are able to assist in struggles most effectively and help to organise people, a lot of their members also don't obey the principles of Leninism or suspend them in certain situations, not all (or even most!!) of the SPs members for example aim to take over a movement most of the time when I've been involved in stuff we have done so because we wanted to offer people practical assistance not because we wanted to convert people to trotskyism. I've come across some people in trotskyist organisations who are basically reformists who want to create a better version of capitalism, I do not say so to criticise them but I think they are often very clever and very intelligent people.I don't think it is a bad thing that they are there at all, since it may be that their experiences and things they learn in the party etc will lead them to think that capitalism should be abolished and to investigate further and make their own conclusions and even if they don't and they are still gaining confidence in how to help themselves/others in struggles etc thats still a good thing. Equally there are quite a few people in the party that would go a lot further than its current leadership in terms of their view of capitalism. The point is that many people in trotskyist organisations don't agree with Lenin and would not do things the way that Lenin did.

The problem with the whole thing is that democratic centralism as it's practiced by most (and probably all) trotskyist parties is clearly not a good basis for running a revolutionary organisation which aims to replace capitalism with socialism from the bottom up. However leninist parties at least in the UK have been the most successful form of organisation on the left and they have often achieved a lot of good things as well as bad, they help people get confident and organise in the workplace. I do think that the point about leninist parties sometimes seeming to hold back and go through "organised" channels such as trade unions, when people who supposedly just have a "trade unionist consciousness" want to go further, is a valid one. The thing is tho what do you do? And I don't know if I have an answer to that. I would also say that a lot of anarchist organisations also suffer from a similar problem to leninism in that they want to be a vanguard and there are some people who become self appointed leaders etc.

i have read some articles etc about lenin and the whole principle of democratic centralism tho and suffice to say that the facts are very different from anything i have heard from trotskyist organisations. I am probably not the first person to mention the K-word on the thread but I have been looking into that as well and I can say that what happened in 1921 was terrible. I would say that democratic centralism in its current form needs to be changed at the very least and also that trotsky and lenin are probably not adequate figures to base a frame of reference around or to copy the mode of organising of. But what is? In some ways leninism has worked quite well and I really really dont have an answer to this. To be honest I would think that if Lenin and Trotsky were alive today many of the people I know in the SP, perhaps most would oppose what they were doing. I think we do need to move away from Lenin but I don't know what the alternative is.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes you are. This is not about money.
> 
> When the split happens there may be rows about money. But money is not the issue motivating the oppositionists.


 
I'd be surprised if it played no role at all, but happily concede the rest is just bad minded speculation.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 25, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I have some back copies of Womens Voice that I failed to sell at the St Helens/ Castlefield final in 1982


 
Castleford.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I have been looking a lot into critiques of Leninism in the last few days and I agree with a lot of what I have read although I think that some of the authors of these criticisms underestimate the fact that leninist parties like the SP and SWP, because they are the most visible and most organised, are able to assist in struggles most effectively and help to organise people, a lot of their members also don't obey the principles of Leninism or suspend them in certain situations, not all the SPs members for example aim to take over a movement most of the time when I've been involved in stuff we have done so because we wanted to offer people practical assistance not because we wanted to convert people to trotskyism. I've come across some people in trotskyist organisations who are basically reformists who want to create a better version of capitalism, I do not say so to criticise them but I think they are often very clever and very intelligent people.I don't think it is a bad thing that they are there at all, since it may be that their experiences and things they learn in the party etc will lead them to think that capitalism should be abolished and to investigate further and make their own conclusions and even if they don't and they are still gaining confidence in how to help themselves/others in struggles etc thats still a good thing. Equally there are quite a few people in the party that would go a lot further than its current leadership in terms of their view of capitalism.
> 
> The problem with the whole thing is that democratic centralism as it's practiced by most (and probably all) trotskyist parties is clearly not a good basis for running a revolutionary organisation which aims to replace capitalism with socialism from the bottom up. However leninist parties at least in the UK have been the most successful form of organisation on the left and they have often achieved a lot of good things as well as bad, they help people get confident and organise in the workplace. I do think that the point about leninist parties sometimes seeming to hold back and go through "organised" channels such as trade unions, when people who supposedly just have a "trade unionist consciousness" want to go further, is a valid one. The thing is tho what do you do? And I don't know if I have an answer to that. I would also say that a lot of anarchist organisations also suffer from a similar problem to leninism in that they want to be a vanguard and there are some people who become self appointed leaders etc.
> 
> i have read some articles etc about lenin and the whole principle of democratic centralism tho and suffice to say that the facts are very different from anything i have heard from trotskyist organisations. I am probably not the first person to mention the K-word on the thread but I have been looking into that as well and I can say that what happened in 1921 was terrible. I would say that democratic centralism in its current form needs to be changed at the very least and also that trotsky and lenin are probably not adequate figures to base a frame of reference around or to copy the mode of organising of. But what is? In some ways leninism has worked quite well and I really really dont have an answer to this. To be honest I would think that if Lenin and Trotsky were alive today many of the people I know in the SP, perhaps most would oppose what they were doing. I think we do need to move away from Lenin but I don't know what the alternative is.


if lenin and trotsky were alive today i don't think anyone would care much about what they were doing, which would be vegetating on respirators in some hospital somewhere.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman I think that's a very thoughtful response, the only thing I'd add is that to be honest I think you might be being a bit harsh on democratic centralism as practiced on the British left. I mean as a method of creating a truly revolutionary party with mass working class backing in the year 2013, blatantly it's inadaquet, but these organisations have survived long after the politics of Trotskyism/Leninism was old and anachronistic. The fact the SWP and SP have survived this long is a testament to how resilient those small democratic centralist parties can be. But things that can't last forever, don't, some may last longer than others but they're all heading the same way in the end.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> frogwoman I think that's a very thoughtful response, the only thing I'd add is that to be honest I think you might be being a bit harsh on democratic centralism as practiced on the British left. I mean as a method of creating a truly revolutionary party with mass working class backing in the year 2013, blatantly it's inadaquet, but these organisations have survived long after the politics of Trotskyism/Leninism was old and anachronistic. The fact the SWP and SP have survived this long is a testament to how resilient those small democratic centralist parties can be. But things that can't last forever, don't, some may last longer than others but they're all heading the same way in the end.


 

Yeah I agree. But perhaps as somebody said earlier the strength could be to do with the extent to which they've abandoned leninism? Which is what I'm getting at. The SP certainly isn't an organisation with a homogenous political line and IMO that's a good thing, not a bad thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> frogwoman I think that's a very thoughtful response, the only thing I'd add is that to be honest I think you might be being a bit harsh on democratic centralism as practiced on the British left. I mean as a method of creating a truly revolutionary party with mass working class backing in the year 2013, blatantly it's inadaquet, but these organisations have survived long after the politics of Trotskyism/Leninism was old and anachronistic. The fact the SWP and SP have survived this long is a testament to how resilient those small democratic centralist parties can be. But things that can't last forever, don't, some may last longer than others but they're all heading the same way in the end.


that the swp and sp have lasted so long is a monument to the tolerance of the left


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

The SP isn;'t an organisation with a homogenous political line among its membership - I wasn't saying this to be harsh on them.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> In some ways leninism has worked quite well and I really really dont have an answer to this. To be honest I would think that if Lenin and Trotsky were alive today many of the people I know in the SP, perhaps most would oppose what they were doing. I think we do need to move away from Lenin but I don't know what the alternative is.


 
This sort of makes sense, but where is the move to?  
I don't have an answer for anyone.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> .* I think we do need to move away from Lenin* but I don't know what the alternative is.


 

has he farted?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This sort of makes sense, but where is the move to?
> I don't have an answer for anyone.


 
I don't know.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think we do need to move away from Lenin but I don't know what the alternative is.


 
Trotsky.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 25, 2013)

Who's got the Trotksy Death Mask at this point in time? It's like the one ring, soon as Peter Taafee gets his hands on it he'll reign over a new era of darkness that will encompass the whole of Middle-Earth.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

God I am completely conflicted now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Who's got the Trotksy Death Mask at this point in time? It's like the one ring, soon as Peter Taafee gets his hands on it he'll reign over a new era of darkness that will encompass the whole of Middle-Earth.


Andy de la tour does, and he is to be buried wearing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

There's been a whole host of minorly prominent people coming out of leninist or trot groups recently and arguing that what is needed is a regroupment around a broad pluralist party that allows free discussion, fractions and all that - yet most of them, as far as i can see anyway, have got no further in their re-appraisal than reading Lars Lih's Rediscovering Lenin then arguing that the bolsheviks pre-1917 are the best example of this wonderful new creature that's needed today, in fact the examplar.

Exhibit #1


----------



## audiotech (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think we do need to move away from Lenin but I don't know what the alternative is.


 
Move away from organising those workers into a party who want to overthrow the existing order of class rule and exploitation you mean? The only alternative I can see to that is reformist, or worse, some conspiratorial group, substituting itself for workers self-activity.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I have been looking a lot into critiques of Leninism in the last few days and I agree with a lot of what I have read although I think that some of the authors of these criticisms underestimate the fact that leninist parties like the SP and SWP, because they are the most visible and most organised, are able to assist in struggles most effectively and help to organise people, a lot of their members also don't obey the principles of Leninism or suspend them in certain situations, not all (or even most!!) of the SPs members for example aim to take over a movement most of the time when I've been involved in stuff we have done so because we wanted to offer people practical assistance not because we wanted to convert people to trotskyism. I've come across some people in trotskyist organisations who are basically reformists who want to create a better version of capitalism, I do not say so to criticise them but I think they are often very clever and very intelligent people.I don't think it is a bad thing that they are there at all, since it may be that their experiences and things they learn in the party etc will lead them to think that capitalism should be abolished and to investigate further and make their own conclusions and even if they don't and they are still gaining confidence in how to help themselves/others in struggles etc thats still a good thing. Equally there are quite a few people in the party that would go a lot further than its current leadership in terms of their view of capitalism. The point is that many people in trotskyist organisations don't agree with Lenin and would not do things the way that Lenin did.
> 
> The problem with the whole thing is that democratic centralism as it's practiced by most (and probably all) trotskyist parties is clearly not a good basis for running a revolutionary organisation which aims to replace capitalism with socialism from the bottom up. However leninist parties at least in the UK have been the most successful form of organisation on the left and they have often achieved a lot of good things as well as bad, they help people get confident and organise in the workplace. I do think that the point about leninist parties sometimes seeming to hold back and go through "organised" channels such as trade unions, when people who supposedly just have a "trade unionist consciousness" want to go further, is a valid one. The thing is tho what do you do? And I don't know if I have an answer to that. I would also say that a lot of anarchist organisations also suffer from a similar problem to leninism in that they want to be a vanguard and there are some people who become self appointed leaders etc.
> 
> i have read some articles etc about lenin and the whole principle of democratic centralism tho and suffice to say that the facts are very different from anything i have heard from trotskyist organisations. I am probably not the first person to mention the K-word on the thread but I have been looking into that as well and I can say that what happened in 1921 was terrible. I would say that democratic centralism in its current form needs to be changed at the very least and also that trotsky and lenin are probably not adequate figures to base a frame of reference around or to copy the mode of organising of. But what is? In some ways leninism has worked quite well and I really really dont have an answer to this. To be honest I would think that if Lenin and Trotsky were alive today many of the people I know in the SP, perhaps most would oppose what they were doing. I think we do need to move away from Lenin but I don't know what the alternative is.


 
Don't the SPGB do things rather differently?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Don't the SPGB do things rather differently?


out of contrariness.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Move away from organising those workers into a party who want to overthrow the existing order of class rule and exploitation you mean? The only alternative I can see to that is reformist, or worse, some conspiratorial group, substituting itself for workers self-activity.


 
yeah i'm not saying i've got an answer. i dunno.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Don't the SPGB do things rather differently?


 
Yeah but they've never won any gains, they've still been saying the same thing for 100 years or something, but leninist parties have, regardless of what you think of their internal structures.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Move away from organising those workers into a party who want to overthrow the existing order of class rule and exploitation you mean? The only alternative I can see to that is reformist, or worse, some conspiratorial group, substituting itself for workers self-activity.


Are you suggesting that there is only one method of organising - and that any form other than traditional democratic centralism necessarily leads to either substitutionism or reformism? If so, why does this happen? And how? if not, what exactly are you saying?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah but they've never won any gains, they've still been saying the same thing for 100 years or something, but leninist parties have, regardless of what you think of their internal structures.


what sort of gains have british leninist parties seen? seems to me they're rather fucked, pardon my french.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> out of contrariness.


 
I'm not totally clued up on their motivation(s), but Frogwoman did kind of ask if they might be another way.

Just a thought, that's all.



> _*Who is your leader?*_
> _The World Socialist Movement doesn't have a leader, and nor do any of the Companion Parties, because leadership is undemocratic. If there are leaders, there must be followers: people who just do what they are told._
> _In the World Socialist Movement, every individual member has an equal say, and nobody tells the rest what to do. Decisions are made democratically by the whole membership, and by representatives or delegates. If the membership doesn't like the decisions of those it elects, those administrators can be removed from office and their decisions overridden._
> _Only when people have real, democratic control over their own lives will they have the freedom that is socialism._




Sounds quite nice to me.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what sort of gains have british leninist parties seen? seems to me they're rather fucked, pardon my french.


 
erm at risk of sounding like a hack there was liverpool council, and a few others especially overseas such as in places like Kazakhstan etc, most of them in the UK have probably been workplace gains made with the assistance/involvement of people in the party though rather than a "victory" for the party as a whole.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> erm at risk of sounding like a hack there was liverpool council, and a few others especially overseas such as in places like Kazakhstan etc, most of them in the UK have probably been workplace gains made with the assistance/involvement of people in the party though rather than a "victory" for the party as a whole.


at the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious, didn't the entire liverpool thing end as something of a fiasco, delivering redundancy notices by cab. and auld degsy's not one of the comrades now, is he?

and what the bloody fuck have british leninists got to do with kazakhstan?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> erm at risk of sounding like a hack there was liverpool council, and a few others especially overseas such as in places like Kazakhstan etc, most of them in the UK have probably been workplace gains made with the assistance/involvement of people in the party though rather than a "victory" for the party as a whole.


 
Fine line between raising class consciousness and reformist gains, though?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

I was looking at some stuff about "council communists" earlier and some of that looked quite interesting. But I don't know whether it would work or what that type of organisation has achieved in practice, especially in the last 50 years or so.

Dunno.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 25, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> at the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious, didn't the entire liverpool thing end as something of a fiasco, delivering redundancy notices by cab. and auld degsy's not one of the comrades now, is he?


 
I don't think they did issue redundancy notices by cab did they? iirc that was a myth


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah but they've never won any gains, they've still been saying the same thing for 100 years or something, but leninist parties have, regardless of what you think of their internal structures.


 
I _think_ they'd argue that for revolutionaries there can only be one (big) 'gain'. The rest is reformist.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you suggesting that there is only one method of organising - and that any form other than traditional democratic centralism necessarily leads to either substitutionism or reformism? If so, why does this happen? And how? if not, what exactly are you saying?


 
No to the former. I do understand that workers councils have been set-up in the past. I'm open to suggestions?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I don't think they did issue redundancy notices by cab did they? iirc that was a myth


not according to the guardian

The Guardian (London)
October 1, 1985

Walk-out foils attempt to issue 90-day notices / Nalgo members protest Liverpool City Council action on budget crisis

*BYLINE:* By ALAN DUNN

*LENGTH:* 412 words

Attempts by officers of Liverpool City Council to deliver 90-day redundancynotices to 31,000 staff were thwarted yesterday - mostly by white collar unions opposed to the action.
About 3,000 Nalgo members took the day off and marched through the city streets in a 'spontaneous demonstration of their strength of feeling,' according to Mr Graham Burgess, the branch chairman. Nalgo is advising its members not to accept or process the notices.




Labour leaders of the council believe that the notices had to be distributed yesterday to clear the way for the council to resume its borrowing powers to see out the year. Members of the main manual union, the General and Municipal, who have agreed to accept the notices, booed the marching Nalgo workers.
Council officers used a fleet of taxis to try to distribute notices to more than 5,000 teachers at about 300 schools. Head teachers had earlier refused to cross a picket line of teachers at University School, where they were due to be handed batches of the notices.
A spokesman for the National Union of Teachers said: 'In some cases the notices were thrown through windows and in others they have been left in playgrounds.
'It was a rather unorthodox method of delivering such important mail, but then things in Liverpool are rather unorthodox at the moment.'
The 2,500 Liverpool members of the NUT had been advised not to accept or sign any form indicating acceptance or refusal of the notices. Over 1,000 NUT members at a meeting last night voted unanimously to endorse their leaders' application in the High Court in London tomorrow for an injunction to restrain the council from issuing the notices.
Similar advice not to sign for anything has been given to the 2,500 members of the National Association of School-masters/Union of Women Teachers, while the union awaits legal advice. Head teachers have accepted the notices, noted their contents and sent them to the National Association of Head Teachers, which is also considering court action.
The only peace move of the day came when Mr Ian Lowes, chairman of the joint shop stewards' committee and a member of the General and Municipal, was allowed to address a meeting of Nalgo's local executive.
'I explained the stewards' position and pointed out that the notices were merely a tactic to win wages for three months,' he said. 'We will call a strike in December because we will never accept members being made redundant.'


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

audiotech said:


> No to the former. I do understand that workers councils have been set-up in the past. I'm open to suggestions?


 
Bu that's what you actually said.

You think the time has come for setting up workers councils?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah but they've never won any gains, they've still been saying the same thing for 100 years or something, but leninist parties have, regardless of what you think of their internal structures.


 
Working-class people have won gains not leninist parties - unless you count FIAT plants named after Lenin working-class gains.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

I have found some #CreepingAutonomism in the lastest issue of ISJ: 3 laudatory passages on the the operaists use of workers inquiry in this article.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bu that's what you actually said.
> 
> You think the time has come for setting up workers councils?


 
Clearly not.

My question was meant as an open one.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I have found some #CreepingAutonomism in the lastest issue of ISJ: 3 laudatory passages on the the operaists use of workers inquiry in this article.


 
I don't know what's wrong with me, life is getting to my brain, but when I see something with a subtitle:
'Militant intellectuality today' I want to start laughing like a hyena.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Jan 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> erm at risk of sounding like a hack there was liverpool council, and a few others especially overseas such as in places like Kazakhstan etc, most of them in the UK have probably been workplace gains made with the assistance/involvement of people in the party though rather than a "victory" for the party as a whole.



So fuck all then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

Cohen is pimping this around: Nice Guys of the SWP. Some long term posters might remember this: SWP/novelist- call for feedback.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Cohen is pimping this around: Nice Guys of the SWP. Some long term posters might remember this: SWP/novelist- call for feedback.


 
Hmmm....but he's right about not being able to 'sell this brand' any more to the students currently at university.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2013)

Oh, i've not read it or anything like that.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Cohen is pimping this around: Nice Guys of the SWP. Some long term posters might remember this: SWP/novelist- call for feedback.


 
How the hell do you remember that?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh, i've not read it or anything like that.


Ok, 'it's right' not 'he's'


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How the hell do you remember that?


it's all in the files. and you thought we were joking.


----------



## killer b (Jan 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How the hell do you remember that?


He's got it all cross referenced on index cards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 25, 2013)

killer b said:


> He's got it all cross referenced on index cards.




it's not on index cards, that's auld hat

it's on punch cards and butchers uses an auld hollerith machine.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 25, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it's all in the files. and you thought we were joking.


 
Ignore everything he says. Cohen has a reason why he's doing that 

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2009/02/the-normblog-profile-282-max-dunbar.html

"Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major and lasting influence on how you think about the world? > What's Left by Nick Cohen – I think Cohen taught me the value of intellectual honesty."

"Can you name a major moral, political or intellectual issue on which you've ever changed your mind? > My mind's always been torn in two about the Iraq war."

"Who are your cultural heroes? > Irvine Welsh, _Salman Rushdie_, Stephen King."
"Who are your intellectual heroes? > Christopher Hitchens, Aayan Hirsi Ali, George Orwell."

"If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be? > Christopher Hitchens, Kim Cattrall, Marjane Satrapi."


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 26, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How the hell do you remember that?


 
well it was Butchers first (and probably last) lol.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I don't think they did issue redundancy notices by cab did they? iirc that was a myth


I think they did, but there was a sound reason for it. The government was about to pull the plug on the finances for Liverpool Council because it was refusing to impose cuts. By issuing the redundancy notices before that happened it meant that the sacked workers would at least be entitled to redundancy pay and the government would have to finance it. Not a great result however but a last throw at the government.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 26, 2013)

They werent redundancy notices they were giving out but 90 day notices, but it was a tactical disaster.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 26, 2013)

Do the SP regard their brief control of Liverpool as an inspiring model then? I don't think history has been kind to the hyperbole about that period that was in 'Liverpool: A City that Dared to Fight'. Anyone remember Degsy? The coming Lenin according to that book. Where is he now? Sorry to drift off topic but it's the quiet hour and run of SWSS protest letters have probably ceased for the weekend.


----------



## cesare (Jan 26, 2013)

Belushi said:


> They werent redundancy notices they were giving out but 90 day notices, but it was a tactical disaster.


90 day consultation period. Which, incidentally, the government are getting rid of ostensibly because it's perceived to be unnecessary and burdensome for businesses but in reality because it provides sufficient time for workers to organise.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 26, 2013)

Belushi said:


> They werent redundancy notices they were giving out but 90 day notices, but it was a tactical disaster.


Yes I know the difference between the Section 188 notices which is what were delivered by taxi, and the final redundancy notice which gets issued after the 90 day consultation period. Essentially the process once begun goes through to completion and the consultation only allows the details of the redundancy to be worked out with the unions. As for a tactical disaster, the war was already lost by then.

I have read about how Liverpool Council was run by Militant and if you ignore the character assassination of some of the leaders in the gutter press (Hatton was not as pure as the driven snow to be fair) the decisions on spending priorities were in support of the working people of the city.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 26, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Yes I know the difference between the Section 188 notices which is what were delivered by taxi, and the final redundancy notice which gets issued after the 90 day consultation period. Essentially the process once begun goes through to completion and the consultation only allows the details of the redundancy to be worked out with the unions. As for a tactical disaster, the war was already lost by then.
> 
> I have read about how Liverpool Council was run by Militant and if you ignore the character assassination of some of the leaders in the gutter press (Hatton was not as pure as the driven snow to be fair) the decisions on spending priorities were in support of the working people of the city.


 
The real point is whether Militant were cunts and wrong or trying their best for the workers and wrong - I go with the second option: Liverpool was a brave attempt to build a working class fight back in one city and the experience demonstrated it doesn't work.

Indeed something I presume the SP agree with as I don't think they seriously argue for the capture of city councils by them and allies any more?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 26, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> the experience demonstrated it doesn't work.


 
*    6,300 families rehoused from tenements, flats and maisonettes

    2, 873 tenement flats demolished
    1,315 walk-up flats demolished
    2,086 flats/maisonettes demolished
    4,800 houses and bungalows built
    7,400 houses and flats improved
    600 houses/bungalows created by ‘top-downing’ 1,315 walk-up flats
    25 new Housing Action Areas being developed
    6 new nursery classes built and open
    17 Community Comprehensive Schools established following a massive re-organisation
    £10million spent on school improvements
    Five new sports centres, one with a leisure pool attached, built and open
    Two thousand additional jobs provided for in Liverpool City Council Budget
    Ten thousand people per year employed on Council’s Capital Programme

    Three new parks built*


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 26, 2013)

articul8 said:


> *    6,300 families rehoused from tenements, flats and maisonettes
> 
> 2, 873 tenement flats demolished
> 1,315 walk-up flats demolished
> ...


Are you saying 'pathfinder' was a great success?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There's been a whole host of minorly prominent people coming out of leninist or trot groups recently and arguing that what is needed is a regroupment around a broad pluralist party that allows free discussion, fractions and all that - yet most of them, as far as i can see anyway, have got no further in their re-appraisal than reading Lars Lih's Rediscovering Lenin then arguing that the bolsheviks pre-1917 are the best example of this wonderful new creature that's needed today, in fact the examplar.
> 
> Exhibit #1


 
Simon Hardy! We would be better off with Laurel and Hardy


----------



## dennisr (Jan 26, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Do the SP regard their brief control of Liverpool as an inspiring model then? I don't think history has been kind to the hyperbole about that period that was in 'Liverpool: A City that Dared to Fight'. Anyone remember Degsy? The coming Lenin according to that book. Where is he now? Sorry to drift off topic but it's the quiet hour and run of SWSS protest letters have probably ceased for the weekend.


So you haven't read the book then


----------



## dennisr (Jan 26, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The real point is whether Militant were cunts and wrong or trying their best for the workers and wrong - I go with the second option: Liverpool was a brave attempt to build a working class fight back in one city and the experience demonstrated it doesn't work.
> 
> Indeed something I presume the SP agree with as I don't think they seriously argue for the capture of city councils by them and allies any more?


We didn't then either


----------



## dennisr (Jan 26, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think they did, but there was a sound reason for it. The government was about to pull the plug on the finances for Liverpool Council because it was refusing to impose cuts. By issuing the redundancy notices before that happened it meant that the sacked workers would at least be entitled to redundancy pay and the government would have to finance it. Not a great result however but a last throw at the government.


It meant getting two months money for the council workers if they had gone ahead with their plans (they were balloting for all out city wide general strike). Liverpool was isolated and then defeated by the Labour and Trade Union bureaucracy not by the Troy government.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 26, 2013)

For those ,like the author of this blog ,who have nothing better to do with their lives:http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=273


----------



## mk12 (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i have read some articles etc about lenin and the whole principle of democratic centralism tho and suffice to say that the facts are very different from anything i have heard from trotskyist organisations.


 
Yes, that was a deal clincher for me too.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He didn't. His wife did.


 
I can see the advertising jingle now, complete with politically-correct picture of bloke doing the domestic chores:

'He does the the Snake'n'Vac, before the wife gets back...'

***Does jazz hands***

'Thank you, that'll be 20,000 payable to Proletarian Advertising Service (Cayman Islands Division), please...'


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 26, 2013)

dennisr said:


> So you haven't read the book then


I have it still. If you want to argue about Militant's building up of Hatton as a great labour leader I'll dig out some quotes when I get home. But it's not the SP's finest moment.  Incidentally, I had the pleasure of being on Hatton's TV show long after he turned celebrity lefty.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 26, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Castleford.


 
no wonder there were few takers.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 26, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I have it still. If you want to argue about Militant's building up of Hatton as a great labour leader I'll dig out some quotes when I get home. But it's not the SP's finest moment. Incidentally, I had the pleasure of being on Hatton's TV show long after he turned celebrity lefty.


 
Must have been the kiss of death


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> However leninist parties at least in the UK have been the most successful form of organisation on the left and they have often achieved a lot of good things as well as bad, they help people get confident and organise in the workplace. I do think that the point about leninist parties sometimes seeming to hold back and go through "organised" channels such as trade unions, when people who supposedly just have a "trade unionist consciousness" want to go further, is a valid one. The thing is tho what do you do? And I don't know if I have an answer to that. I would also say that a lot of anarchist organisations also suffer from a similar problem to leninism in that they want to be a vanguard and there are some people who become self appointed leaders etc.


Right now I can't see any movement that's ready to replace Leninism as an organised left wing movement in Europe. Part of the reason is that Leninist groups, and other Social Democratic parties have been very good at squashing their rivals to the left. But now that the Trotskyist Leninists are falling apart, and the Communist Parties have stopped pretending to be anticapitalist, there's no other movement that's near to being coherent enough to grow in their place.

My instinct is that the reason the Trotskyist parties have done so well in the UK, compared to other groups, is that they come from a sectarian and semi-militarised Leninist tradition, and so they're able to hold themselves together despite the hostility of the mainstream labour movement. In other parts of Europe there's bigger radical labour and social democratic traditions for revolutionaries to be a part of, but in the UK the unions and the labour party have been very right wing for a long time.

You can see an even more extreme version in the USA - even worse unions, no socialist movement to speak of - leading to Maoist groups to be some of the more successful far-leftists.

Plus there's the fact that in the last 20 years of extreme neo-liberalism general solidarity and community has been undermined. So the groups that keep the flame alive in this environment tend to be ever more inward-looking and cultish. My experience of anarchist and eco-activist groups is that they all had a very strong in-group feeling, that helped people involved to feel righteous, despite the fact that wider society was often hostile or couldn't care less.

So my fear for the future, is that in this increasingly alienated world, what will organise radicals in the future will be some even more cultish form of group. Some kind of Anonymous on steroids, based on loopy conspiracy theories and a general disdain for wider society.

So you may say - why do we need these kind of cultish radical groups anyway? Well like it or not, it was trotskyists who put a lot of the work into getting the antiwar protests going, just like it was trots who pushed forward other campaigns, like the original ANL, and anarchists have been the driving force in various other campaigns. And many of these campaigns have resulted in the world today being a better place. So I'd say that,e ven if they don't make revolution, revolutionary groups are still a healthy thing for our society. 

What I cannot understand, though, is anarchist and trotskyist groups' failure to grow during times of genuine mass mobilisation, like during the anti-war protests, when the extreme radicals (and the Muslim Brotherhood!) were some of the only groups articulating what the majority of the UK felt. And this thing that I can't understand is also something that makes me hopeful. Because it basically hints that what is holding the far left back is something inside the far left. And so groups need to own up that they have no real answers, that they've got it wrong and they're failing to connect with what people want.

Then we need to be open to learning, and trying to help some kind of genuine popular working class radical movement take shape. Myself I'd like to see a mass "union" movement rooted in workplaces and communities, which wins basic working class victories and that offers a home for all sorts of political groups, all arguing and talking over their politics, but which is also based in direct action and is strong enough to resist any political party's attempt to take it over, or an attempt by the state to domesticate it.

But that's just me. I have to admit that the future will look very different, and I'll probably not like it!


----------



## Random (Jan 26, 2013)

<fingers crossed> just not eco-fascism. Please, not eco-fascism. I can see it working so well. <legs crossed>


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 26, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The real point is whether Militant were cunts and wrong or trying their best for the workers and wrong - I go with the second option: Liverpool was a brave attempt to build a working class fight back in one city and the experience demonstrated it doesn't work.
> 
> Indeed something I presume the SP agree with as I don't think they seriously argue for the capture of city councils by them and allies any more?


 
I think it's a good example of the limits of a localist strategy, local councils (especially these days) are not a really effective platform for challenging the political consensus on a national level. It's the number of seats in the House of Commons that matter in the system we've got, that's the bottom line.

People should also remember that the City of Liverpool in the early 80's was being earmarked for "managed decline" and on the recieving end of Thatcher's wrath, they were being systematically attacked by the govt, in such a situation I think Militant deserve some credit for actually organising to fight back, even if it was ultimately doomed.


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I was looking at some stuff about "council communists" earlier and some of that looked quite interesting. But I don't know whether it would work or what that type of organisation has achieved in practice, especially in the last 50 years or so.
> 
> Dunno.



Council communist stuff is interesting. As is a lot of the non-Leninist, libertarian communist stuff (the Sits, autonomists, etc etc. others are better placed than me to make suggestions though..). Not a blueprint or answer by any stretch of the imagination, but at its best good food for thought. But equally plenty of dull, irrelevant, inaccessible dogma too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 26, 2013)

cesare said:


> The problem with autodidacticism is that you never properly feel as if you've caught up.


 
That's not a problem, it's generally a benefit IME. You're somewhat less likely to think you "know it all" and to go beyond the "official narrative" of a subject as an autodidact.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2013)

I see that Seymour's latest gives us the state of play:

1) 8 branches have so far passed special conference
Motions.
2) 7 other branches have passed critical motions.
3) Apparently there are 93 official branches. Incidentally this means that the SWP officially claim to have an average of about 85 members per branch!
4) SWSS is overwhelmingly oppositional, but if you read the various statements, there still seems to be harder and softer wings. Oxford is the only large SWSS group now without an oppositional statement out.

The opposition are making a decent fist of this so far. The CC counteroffensive, now that they've resestablished control over the apparatus behind the scenes, looks likely to swing into higher gear around the forthcoming NC.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see that Seymour's latest gives us the state of play:
> 
> 1) 8 branches have so far passed special conference
> Motions.
> ...


 
Has either of the two Sheffield SWSS's released one yet?


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> 1) 8 branches have so far passed special conference
> Motions.


bolshiebhoy said there were eight confrence motions passed before the latest set of branch meetings - so this would imply they haven't received any news ones


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see that Seymour's latest gives us the state of play:
> 
> 1) 8 branches have so far passed special conference
> Motions.
> ...


I think someone forgot to insert the decimal point in the claim of 85 members per branch.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2013)

Random said:
			
		

> Right now I can't see any movement that's ready to replace Leninism as an organised left wing movement in Europe. Part of the reason is that Leninist groups, and other Social Democratic parties have been very good at squashing their rivals to the left. But now that the Trotskyist Leninists are falling apart, and the Communist Parties have stopped pretending to be anticapitalist, there's no other movement that's near to being coherent enough to grow in their place.


 
It has nothing to do with "squashing rivals to the left" and everything to do with the "rivals to the left" being essentially irrelevant incompetents married to essentially ineffectual and self-defeating ideas and strategies. If the Trotskyist parties were to seriously decline across Europe (and there really isn't much evidence to suggest this is happening), it will not lead to a growth in serious anarchist organisation, or Left Communism, or Councilism, or anything remotely similar. It will simply mean the end of class struggle Marxist organisation on a scale large enough to be noticeable.

We would not be talking about these parties being superceded by something better, but about a retreat. Just as the fall of the CPs did not herald the breakthroughs that some Trotskyists imagined were on the cards.




			
				Random said:
			
		

> My instinct is that the reason the Trotskyist parties have done so well in the UK, compared to other groups, is that they come from a sectarian and semi-militarised Leninist tradition, and so they're able to hold themselves together despite the hostility of the mainstream labour movement


 
There's an element of truth to this, but you are coming at it from the wrong angle.

There are a couple of exceptional European states where some broader factor, historical or political, creates conditions where Anarchists can have a little prominence on the far left. So for instance, the deep historical roots of the CNT allow its degenerate grandchildren to continue to play in its ruins. Or the general strength of the left in Greece means that, while they are a minor factor compared to the KKE and its spin offs, there are by the standards of the rest of the world a lot of Anarchists around (albeit they are mostly complete head cases). But those countries are extremely unusual. The norm, overwhelmingly, is for organised class struggle Anarchists to be irrelevant even by the low, low standards of the far left, and for other "ultra left" traditions to be irrelevant even by the low, low, low standards of class struggle Anarchists. Britain is rather run of the mill in that regard.

Currents "to the left" of Trotskyism have for decades in almost every country existed primarily in the form of a moralist's critique of larger left organisations. That's not a  way of saying "don't listen to what they say". Sometimes their criticisms can be insightful and worth hearing. But they have absolutely no strategic vision and the idea of turning to any of them for positive ideas about a path towards changing the world is nuts.




			
				Random said:
			
		

> What I cannot understand, though, is anarchist and trotskyist groups' failure to grow during times of genuine mass mobilisation, like during the anti-war protests, when the extreme radicals (and the Muslim Brotherhood!) were some of the only groups articulating what the majority of the UK felt.


 
The core issue with the anti-war movement was that the radicalisation it involved was a mile wide and an inch deep, and by and large the left didn't really understand that. And even the bits which did understand that still tended to lapse into strategies and approaches which assumed a deeper radicalisation. Plus with the general retreat of a socialist outlook over the last period, what deeper radicalisation there was didn't automatically lead to people getting involved in socialist activism.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2013)

belboid said:


> bolshiebhoy said there were eight confrence motions passed before the latest set of branch meetings - so this would imply they haven't received any news ones


 
It certainly doesn't look like they will have the 19 by Feb 1st, which would explain why they make such a point of rejecting that "arbitrary" and "unconstitutional" deadline. Still though, yesterday's display of complete dominance in SWSS will help them in terms of momentum.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Has either of the two Sheffield SWSS's released one yet?


don't think so.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 26, 2013)

I thought I'd add this here. Nick Wrack's Independent Socialist Network comments on the left's actions at the save Lewisham A&E demo today

http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=1842



> by Nick Wrack
> I went on the ‘Save Lewisham A&E’ demo today. There was a fantastic turnout of around 20 – 25,000. The area was bedecked with campaign posters. It seemed as though every passing car honked its horn in solidarity. It was a really significant development in the anti-cuts movement to get such a response for a local demo.
> There should have been a serious attempt by TUSC to raise its profile at today’s event, showing solidarity and offering help.
> Any anti-cuts electoral challenge would have to engage with such an event. Everyone of the 20,000 + people on the demo should have seen TUSC activists and gone home with TUSC literature. TUSC should have been seen as having something to say about the NHS and this threatened closure.
> ...


 
What's this Indepedent Socialist Network anyway?. It was called the TUSC Independent Socialist Network last time I checked, I notice that's been dropped.


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It has nothing to do with "squashing rivals to the left" and everything to do with the "rivals to the left" being essentially irrelevant incompetents married to essentially ineffectual and self-defeating ideas and strategies. If the Trotskyist parties were to seriously decline across Europe (and there really isn't much evidence to suggest this is happening), it will not lead to a growth in serious anarchist organisation, or Left Communism, or Councilism, or anything remotely similar. It will simply mean the end of class struggle Marxist organisation on a scale large enough to be noticeable.
> 
> We would not be talking about these parties being superceded by something better, but about a retreat. Just as the fall of the CPs did not herald the breakthroughs that some Trotskyists imagined were on the cards.
> 
> ...



I'd disagree with much of this.

I've lived in France, Portugal and Italy and the only one of those with a notable Trot presence (ime) was France. 

In Portugal leftovers from th parties involved in the revolution were the most prominent -including Maoists, Guevarist-ish type groups etc. Though he Trots did gain influence via the Left Bloc.

In Italy, I never, ever saw Trots. Anarchos (both IWA tradition and insurrectionist types) and Autonomists dominated the scene outside of the the various CPI splinters.

Then you've got Greece and Dpain that you mention. Germany, Netherlands etc. with he their big Autonome squatter scenes. 

None of this is to say that these tendencies are "better" or anything than he Trots but that in much/most of Europe (and further afield) other traditions take up much or all of the visibility that the Trots had in the UK.

If I was to hazard a guess about why? Perhaps occupation and resistance or fascist dictatorships lead to a somewhat different attitude towards the style of leftie politics than a relatively stable parliamentary democracy with a two party system entrenched.

But that's just thinking out loud.

I do agree however that the end of the Trot tradition in the UK would not lead to the growth of other left currents. Far from it. Many act in as parasitical way to the Trots as the Trots themselves have to Labour (and in he old days the CP).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2013)

chilango said:


> I'd disagree with much of this.
> 
> I've lived in France, Portugal and Italy and the only one of those with a notable Trot presence (ime) was France.


 
In all three of those countries, the far left is and has been dominated by parties of a self-described "Leninist" bent and their offspring. In France, it's Trotskyists, in Portugal it's Maoists (and to a lesser extent Trotskyists), in Italy, well it's a bit more complicated. The role of Maoists and other "Anti-Revisionists" as "substitute Trotskyists" in a few countries (Norway, Belgium, etc) is an interesting side issue, as is the gradual and uneven tendency for Trotskyism to replace Maoism, but neither is really relevant to the main point I was making. Being marginalised by Maoism isn't any better than being marginal compared to Trotskyism.

The whole "ultra left" is a total disaster area when it comes to strategic sense. It's a place to go to for more or less tendentious critiques of "Leninism", not a place to find any better ideas about, ahem, what is to be done. Not in the UK and not anywhere else.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 26, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I thought I'd add this here. Nick Wrack's Independent Socialist Network comments on the left's actions at the save Lewisham A&E demo today
> 
> http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=1842
> 
> ...


 
They used to be in TUSC and as far as I know still are - from what I can gather it's basically just him that's really active in it. Seemed like an OK bloke when I spoke to him at a national TUSC thing I got roped into going to.

I also completely agree with him, in that if we're going to use TUSC as an electoral platform then we need to be doing everyday campaigning as TUSC too, otherwise we'll get nowhere.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 26, 2013)

Yeah I met him once or twice before, first time at the Convention of the Left in Manchester about 2007-ish. I think he was in Respect (coz he got me to write an article for the Respect paper for him) and at that occasion I think there was some Campaign for a New Workers Party people he was with. He seemed like a nice guy.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There's been a whole host of minorly prominent people coming out of leninist or trot groups recently and arguing that what is needed is a regroupment around a broad pluralist party that allows free discussion, fractions and all that - yet most of them, as far as i can see anyway, have got no further in their re-appraisal than reading Lars Lih's Rediscovering Lenin then arguing that the bolsheviks pre-1917 are the best example of this wonderful new creature that's needed today, in fact the examplar.


 
For a lot of them it's about "rediscovering" Lenin as prophet of SYRIZA and recasting the Bolsheviks as precursors to it.


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In all three of those countries, the far left is and has been dominated by parties of a self-described "Leninist" bent and their offspring. In France, it's Trotskyists, in Portugal it's Maoists (and to a lesser extent Trotskyists), in Italy, well it's a bit more complicated. The role of Maoists and other "Anti-Revisionists" as "substitute Trotskyists" in a few countries (Norway, Belgium, etc) is an interesting side issue, as is the gradual and uneven tendency for Trotskyism to replace Maoism, but neither is really relevant to the main point I was making. Being marginalised by Maoism isn't any better than being marginal compared to Trotskyism.
> 
> The whole "ultra left" is a total disaster area when it comes to strategic sense. It's a place to go to for more or less tendentious critiques of "Leninism", not a place to find any better ideas about, ahem, what is to be done. Not in the UK and not anywhere else.



Yeah.

Like I said, I'm not aiming to make a political point here, more an observation on (as you say) an interesting side issue. 

I do find it interesting that the UK left has a far, far greater dominance by the Trots than pretty much anywhere else. An that none of the competitors (Maoists, Guevarists, Anarchists, Autonomist, Ultra-Lefts, CP inheritors etc etc.) have anything like the influence (on the far-left scene, we're not talking about the class here!) that they do elsewhere.

Whereas in the rest of Europe the Trots are, at best, one of several competing traditions, at worst largely absent.

The strategic sense, or otherwise, of the ultra-lefts is a different argument entirely. I think we're getting our wires crossed here..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2013)

chilango said:


> I do find it interesting that the UK left has a far, far greater dominance by the Trots than pretty much anywhere else. An that none of the competitors (Maoists, Guevarists, Anarchists, Autonomist, Ultra-Lefts, CP inheritors etc etc.) have anything like the influence (on the far-left scene, we're not talking about the class here!) that they do elsewhere.


 
It's not really that diverse. Pretty much everywhere, the space to the left of the CP or Social Democracy is dominated by "Leninist" party-building trends, almost always either Trotskyist or Maoist/Anti-Rev. Whether it's the Trotskyists or the Maoists in any given country is a bit random, and depends largely on when exactly their far left happens to have made its first breakthrough, with a tendency for Trotskyism to overtake Maoism over time.

Every other brand of organisation is irrelevant everywhere even by the low standards of the far left, with a couple of local exceptions.


----------



## chilango (Jan 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not really that diverse. Pretty much everywhere, the space to the left of the CP or Social Democracy is dominated by "Leninist" party-building trends, almost always either Trotskyist or Maoist/Anti-Rev. Whether it's the Trotskyists or the Maoists in any given country is a bit random, and depends largely on when exactly their far left happens to have made its first breakthrough, with a tendency for Trotskyism to overtake Maoism over time.
> 
> Every other brand of organisation is irrelevant everywhere even by the low standards of the far left, with a couple of local exceptions.



Nah.

That doesn't chime with my experiences. 

But never mind, it's a side issue, a curiosity, nothing more.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In all three of those countries, the far left is and has been dominated by parties of a self-described "Leninist" bent and their offspring. In France, it's Trotskyists, in Portugal it's Maoists (and to a lesser extent Trotskyists), in Italy, well it's a bit more complicated. The role of Maoists and other "Anti-Revisionists" as "substitute Trotskyists" in a few countries (Norway, Belgium, etc) is an interesting side issue, as is the gradual and uneven tendency for Trotskyism to replace Maoism, but neither is really relevant to the main point I was making. Being marginalised by Maoism isn't any better than being marginal compared to Trotskyism.
> 
> The whole "ultra left" is a total disaster area when it comes to strategic sense. It's a place to go to for more or less tendentious critiques of "Leninism", not a place to find any better ideas about, ahem, what is to be done. Not in the UK and not anywhere else.


 
In my experience of Coimbra, Maoists are very much a tiny and much ridiculed minority, Barroso is sort of like a SpikedOnline figure! Electorally they do a lot worse than the Left Bloc and the PCP.


----------



## Before Theory (Jan 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> 3) Apparently there are 93 official branches.
> NC.



Pardon my cynicism but I was in the SWP until the 2011 conference, had been there for nearly 11 years, and there was no way they had 93 branches !!! That's a bureaucratic manoeuvre to raise the bar and prevent a recall conference.

There were at the most 40 branches even on paper with only about 25 of them in any way active, the "leaders" were always lamenting the lack of meetings and paper sales.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 26, 2013)

> Pardon my cynicism but I was in the SWP until the 2011 conference, had been there for nearly 11 years, and there was no way they had 93 branches !!! That's a bureaucratic manoeuvre to raise the bar and prevent a recall conference.


 
Of course, it raises the numbers required to force a recall conference making it easier for the leadership to then say that the required percentage wasn't reached, ergo, no need for a conference.



> There were at the most 40 branches even on paper with only about 25 of them in any way active, the "leaders" were always lamenting the lack of meetings and paper sales.


Except in the pages of 'Party Notes' where everything was the most brilliant and amazing opportunity ever and attended by the world's supply of young enthusiasts who all joined up immediately if they hadn't already?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 26, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Pardon my cynicism but I was in the SWP until the 2011 conference, had been there for nearly 11 years, and there was no way they had 93 branches !!! That's a bureaucratic manoeuvre to raise the bar and prevent a recall conference.
> 
> There were at the most 40 branches even on paper with only about 25 of them in any way active, the "leaders" were always lamenting the lack of meetings and paper sales.


there's nearly eighty branch meetings listed in socialist worker.


----------



## Before Theory (Jan 26, 2013)

discokermit said:


> there's nearly eighty branch meetings listed in socialist worker.



Of course there is this week - but have a look at this time last year if it's still cached somewhere - and I've got old Socialist Workers lying in my loft from two/three years ago, they show 20 listings for branch meetings.

Again pardon my cynicism but I smell a big fat rat.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 26, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Of course there is this week - but have a look at this time last year if it's still cached somewhere - and I've got old Socialist Workers lying in my loft from two/three years ago, they show 20 listings for branch meetings.
> 
> Again pardon my cynicism but I smell a big fat rat.


 
What you're thinking, if I may, is that the number of branches that have either been suddenly built or suddenly re-activated after being moribund for months or even years might just resemble the number voting against the motion for a recall conference?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 26, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> two/three years ago, they show 20 listings for branch meetings.


hasn't there been a move towards more branch meetings since then though?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 26, 2013)

discokermit said:


> hasn't there been a move towards more branch meetings since then though?


The listings in the paper are not very good guide as the whole thing is a bit hit an miss and a lot of branches don't get listed and even more don't mange to have a meeting every week (and I think a year or so ago they were every two weeks anyway) but they still exist as a branch. So i think they have more than 40.

But the real question is do SWSS groups count as branches, they would have when I was a member but I don't know the official position now. If not it will go some way towards explaining this ridiculous figure of 80 odd members per branch, when i was a member most brach lists had 20-40 members listed. If they do count as separate branches then they could have around 100 branches, but it would also mean that almost 20% of branches had called for a recall conference.


----------



## Before Theory (Jan 26, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> What you're thinking, if I may, is that the number of branches that have either been suddenly built or suddenly re-activated after being moribund for months or even years might just resemble the number voting against the motion for a recall conference?



Very well put Bakunin, that's exactly what I meant to say.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 26, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Of course there is this week - but have a look at this time last year if it's still cached somewhere


i just looked for the beginning of december last year, before all this blew up, and there was seventy two branch meetings listed.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 26, 2013)

Paper branches to prevent people reaching the required number to get a recall conference, full of paper members who onced signed an SWP mailing list on a freshers fair stall 5 years ago. What a farce.


----------



## Before Theory (Jan 26, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i just looked for the beginning of december last year, before all this blew up, and there was seventy two branch meetings listed.



Thanks discokermit, maybe they started building branches after I left - I concede that I haven't stayed in contact - but in the 2010 period there were on average 40/50 branches listed  but they would often literally be three men and a dog. I used to occasionally speak at other branches and most of them were pretty dire, the only decent ones were the SWSS groups.


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 26, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i just looked for the beginning of december last year, before all this blew up, and there was seventy two branch meetings listed.


 
And now according to Seymour and less than a month into the new year, silly season notwithstanding, they've got 93.

21 new or re-activated branches in less than two months.

During the end-of-year silly season.

Way back when, I remember reports of the SWP packing meetings of other orgs so they could effectively rig important votes in their favour. Suddenly and without warning groups would have lots of new members who all secured voting rights and all voted pro-SWP as a bloc.

I'm having serious doubts whether or not the leadership isn't doing this within the party itself. Where did all these new're-activated branches come from? How many members do they have? Have these branches all been properly set up?

Just a few little questions I'd quite like answered.


----------



## SLK (Jan 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The listings in the paper are not very good guide as the whole thing is a bit hit an miss and a lot of branches don't get listed and even more don't mange to have a meeting every week (and I think a year or so ago they were every two weeks anyway) but they still exist as a branch. So i think they have more than 40.
> 
> But the real question is do SWSS groups count as branches, they would have when I was a member but I don't know the official position now. If not it will go some way towards explaining this ridiculous figure of 80 odd members per branch, when i was a member most brach lists had 20-40 members listed. If they do count as separate branches then they could have around 100 branches, but it would also mean that almost 20% of branches had called for a recall conference.


 
The 80 odd members per branch is the old exaggerate the numbers and anyone who signed up in the last two years is a member (I remember visiting these people trying to get them to 'up' their subs -usually not interested but sometimes I'd just be reminding them to cancel their direct debit).

SWSS groups were not branches when I was a member. We were all in the same branch closest to our university (because there was a decided orientation on universities then - and that is actually different to other periods when I was a member). SWSS membership wasn't SWP membership either.

I would very much doubt that any meeting advertised in the paper wasn't a real branch, even if it has 10 members and 3 are active - in my experience the 3 of us would meet anyway. It's just not the way they work. If there was no public record, they'd claim 200 branches.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 26, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> And now according to Seymour and less than a month into the new year, silly season notwithstanding, they've got 93.
> 
> 21 new or re-activated branches in less than two months.
> 
> During the end-of-year silly season.


there's only six more in this weeks paper. not all branches will have meetings in the paper.

there will be some exageration of numbers, but not the amount some people think. otherwise the cc would risk turning their own regional organisers, who know what branches are operational in their areas, against them.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Thanks discokermit, maybe they started building branches after I left - I concede that I haven't stayed in contact - but in the 2010 period there were on average 40/50 branches listed but they would often literally be three men and a dog. I used to occasionally speak at other branches and most of them were pretty dire, the only decent ones were the SWSS groups.


 
When I was in the SWP (around 2008 I think) there were plenty of branches that didn't put their meetings in the paper - mine never did.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2013)

SLK said:


> The 80 odd members per branch is the old exaggerate the numbers and anyone who signed up in the last two years is a member (I remember visiting these people trying to get them to 'up' their subs -usually not interested but sometimes I'd just be reminding them to cancel their direct debit).
> 
> SWSS groups were not branches when I was a member. We were all in the same branch closest to our university (because there was a decided orientation on universities then - and that is actually different to other periods when I was a member). SWSS membership wasn't SWP membership either.
> 
> I would very much doubt that any meeting advertised in the paper wasn't a real branch, even if it has 10 members and 3 are active - in my experience the 3 of us would meet anyway. It's just not the way they work. If there was no public record, they'd claim 200 branches.


Yeah the exact nature of SWSS groups and SWSS members has varied over time. At one point they did away with the notion of SWSS members who were not SWP members, which makes sense frankly as it never really happened in practice.

Thinking about it the the best way for the SWP to count the number of branches would be by paper deliveries, as each branch gets a separate bundle of papers.


----------



## SLK (Jan 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yeah the exact nature of SWSS groups and SWSS members has varied over time. At one point they did away with the notion of SWSS members who were not SWP members, which makes sense frankly as it never really happened in practice.
> 
> Thinking about it the the best way for the SWP to count the number of branches would be by paper deliveries, as each branch gets a separate bundle of papers.


 
I remember SWSS was an entry to the SWP - be a member of our radical group. Some help us (maybe 15%) build the meetings. About 50% of them joined the SWP. Seemed efficient to me at the time. Used to get 8-10 SWP members a year (China Mieville was one, but not that route).


----------



## SLK (Jan 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> When I was in the SWP (around 2008 I think) there were plenty of branches that didn't put their meetings in the paper - mine never did.


 
Yes, this too - though I drifted away in about 1999.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2013)

SLK said:


> I remember SWSS was an entry to the SWP - be a member of our radical group. Some help us (maybe 15%) build the meetings. About 50% of them joined the SWP. Seemed efficient to me at the time. Used to get 8-10 SWP members a year (China Mieville was one, but not that route).


If you drifted away in 1999 then it would have been a couple of yeas after your time, I think. They did away with the Idea of a separate SWSS membership, except as  list for the SU. No idea how long it lasted or what the situation is now though.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm curious as to why Kostick is wary given his clear sympathy for the opposition of a moderate variety.


conor has posted a piece, http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-message-of-support-to-swp-opposition.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 27, 2013)

chinas letter in lenins tomb was a bit good, mainly for this


> • The removal of this CC and Disputes Committee. By their stunning miscalculations, they have shown themselves to be inadequate to their tasks. They must go.


 
hard to disagree with that. Is it likely to ever happen though


----------



## liquorice1956 (Jan 27, 2013)

what's interesting is how hard richard seymour and a very few others are working to convince people there's a large opposition - this says to me that there is not and their gossip and innuendo is not really working - know some of the swss members who were not consulted at all about these statements and are pretty pissed off that it's supposed to represent them


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

hiya prof!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2013)

Telling first post. So what innuendo and gossip have you heard spread around by Seymour and a few others? Or have heard is being spread around? Which SWSS group?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

haha liquorice just guaranteed his or herself a warm welcome on here. welcome to the fight!

be warned though any statement even vaguely soft on the SWP will be met with repeated demands for proof etc whereas any and all innuendo and gossip damaging  towards the party will be accepted at face value.


----------



## liquorice1956 (Jan 27, 2013)

for a start the 'FE swss group' which doesn't actually exist - didn't realise it was my first post have been reading for a long time. I'm in one of the districts where there is an expelled comrade and while people were shocked initially there is little support for the 'expellees' particularly in the light of their recent actions which among other things involved naming the women involved to some comrades - an appalling breach of confidentiality and putting both women at risk!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> putting both women at risk!


is delta on the rampage again?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

So is liquorice the prof or not then?


----------



## liquorice1956 (Jan 27, 2013)

I'm not saying there is no support for the 'opposition' but that it is in the minority and is divided by what it actually wants - there are a hard core who lost the vote massively at conference around 'democratic centralism' and I think maybe either want to change the SWP or start a new party (not sure on this but there are some names floating around from the early 1990's who are not interested in any sort of fightback - not sure of their influence really) and then there are a number of others who are concerned about the disputes committee - they tend not to have been at conference and are often going on quite bizarre gossip.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

I don't care who liquorice is as long as theres someone else with something to say against the unholy sp-anarchist alliance on here


----------



## liquorice1956 (Jan 27, 2013)

liquorice would love to be a prof but unfortunately is just ordinary lol!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> for a start the 'FE swss group' which doesn't actually exist - didn't realise it was my first post have been reading for a long time. I'm in one of the districts where there is an expelled comrade and while people were shocked initially there is little support for the 'expellees' particularly in the light of their recent actions which among other things involved naming the women involved to some comrades - an appalling breach of confidentiality and putting both women at risk!


So some members in a SWSS group that doesn't exist were not consulted about the statement the non-existing group put out and as a result are a bit pissed off?

Can't comment on the claims that the expelees have acted in this way, but is that what you are offering as an example of Seymour spreading innuendo and gossip?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I don't care who liquorice is as long as theres someone else with something to say against the unholy sp-anarchist alliance on here


 
Yes, move along - nothing to see here. Just an anarcho-SP conspiracy against the SWP


----------



## liquorice1956 (Jan 27, 2013)

some swp FE students are very pissed off - there is no 'group' and they weren't consulted


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

If this group is the non-existent FE group then surely the only people who need to be consulted are non-existent FE students? Those who do exist and want to influence this need to check their existence privilege if you ask me.

Do the FE students exist or not? I'm confused


----------



## liquorice1956 (Jan 27, 2013)

sorry - there are loads of FE swp students - they're not in a formal group - the statement purports to represent 'fe students' (although a bit's been added now after complaints) - the worry is that a small no of people are trying to appear representative when they're not (this would be why i don't write much as I'm clearly adding to the confusion!)


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> some swp FE students are very pissed off - there is no 'group' and they weren't consulted


let me get this right, the students who aren't in the group that doesn't exist, are pissed off that the non existant group didn't consult them?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> some swp FE students are very pissed off - there is no 'group' and they weren't consulted


 
About what? Not being consulted about the non-existent group? Are they pissed off at an inadequate process leading to _their own_ SWSS groups statements? Are they claiming they were drawn up without due process? What consultation are they saying was left out? Any?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> sorry - there are loads of FE swp students - they're not in a formal group - the statement purports to represent 'fe students' (although a bit's been added now after complaints) - the worry is that a small no of people are trying to appear representative when they're not (this would be why i don't write much as I'm clearly adding to the confusion!)


 
Surely if it's the non-existent group it only represents FE students who don't exist - so the ones who do exist quite rightly have no say. They should set up their own group for FE students that do exist. Or something.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> then there are a number of others who are concerned about the disputes committee - they tend not to have been at conference and are often going on quite bizarre gossip.


everyone has read the transcript.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> there are a number of others who are concerned about the disputes committee - they tend not to have been at conference and are often going on quite bizarre gossip.


 
Well since delegates were warned not to discuss this at their branches I guess gossip (and the transcript of course) is all they have to go on - you can't blame them and it's not really surprising is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2013)

More to the point, the statement does not say that it's from a FE SWSS _group_, it says it's from SWSS _members_ in FE, then lists the members.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

The confusion around who these FE students are and who they represent (cleared up by their subsequent amendment) just serves to show how blogs and other online statements are no substitute for an old fashioned face to face gathering of comrades where real numbers and positions can be judged. The NC will be the first proper opportunity for that at a national level. its impossible to draw any conclusions from the volume of posts on the 'IS' blog as to how much support the opposition really have. The relative online silence of the other wing of the party doesn't mean they're not the majority.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The confusion around who these FE students are and who they represent (cleared up by their subsequent amendment) just serves to show how blogs and other online statements are no substitute for an old fashioned face to face gathering of comrades where real numbers and positions can be judged.


this is why conference should be recalled.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 27, 2013)

discokermit said:


> everyone has read the transcript.


 
The way that these people on the internet are behaving as if the internet does not exist is so confusing.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 27, 2013)

"our reputation as the best fighters on the left"


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

I exist though don't I? Pretty sure I do anyway.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

discokermit said:


> this is why conference should be recalled.


The majority might well say they just made their democratic wishes clear at conference. Proof of the pudding will be the number of branches who vote for a recall.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The majority might well say they just made their democratic wishes clear at conference.


it's what came out of conference that's exploded the whole issue. how could they have made their democratic wishes clear about that?

you're right about the recall thing.


----------



## cesare (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I don't care who liquorice is as long as theres someone else with something to say against the unholy sp-anarchist alliance on here


I think you mean "the unholy anyone-that's-criticising-the-actions-of-the-CC/DC alliance"


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 27, 2013)

So is discokermit an anarchist or an SPer?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> I think you mean "the unholy anyone-that's-criticising-the-actions-of-the-CC/DC alliance"


No no I said what I meant the first time  Not everyone attacking the cc/dc are playing the same game.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No no I said what I meant the first time  Not everyone attacking the cc/dc are playing the same game.


 
Which games are being played then? I hope I'm playing connect 4, great game is that!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it's what came out of conference that's exploded the whole issue. how could they have made their democratic wishes clear about that?


But if I was a middle of the road branch member what fact has come to light after the conference that would convince me that something must be done? A vocal minority have no faith in the decisions taken by the delegates at conference, a transcript that should never have been made public was and the mainstream press seized on it. But if you were one of the delegates who listened to the debates at conference and voted the way they voted, what exactly is the killer claim that has come to light since then that would make them vote for a recall? The closest I can find to something new that wasn't covered at conference is Seymour's innuendo about what people were supposed to have known at the previous conference. But I think people react to that innuendo based on their own preconceptions about the integrity of the people on the cc/dc.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 27, 2013)

Were both sides of the argument presented fully at the conference? Sorry, I'm getting lost now.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Were both sides of the argument presented fully at the conference? Sorry, I'm getting lost now.


No idea about the rest of the conference but if nothing else that bloody transcript does show an organisation having an open and full debate about a very difficult episode. Pretty much all the stuff being used to call for a recall was aired in that debate and people voted the way they voted.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The majority might well say they just made their democratic wishes clear at conference. Proof of the pudding will be the number of branches who vote for a recall.


If I was on the SWP CC and if was sure the majority of the membership supported us and that our arguments were the best ones I would happy hold a recall conference and I would go to every effort to make sure it was as open, transparent and democratic as possible. Afterall that would be the best way of resolving the mess and drawing a line under it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

Worth saying that when I read the transcript I was totally thrown by it and wouldn't have been able to say how I'd have voted. To be honest I think you probably had to be there, seeing people in person and talking to them informally before and after the debate to make an informed decision. The barebones transcript doesn't give you all that which is one more reason whoever is responsible for it did a disservice to everyone present.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 27, 2013)

its pretty damning on its own


----------



## Before Theory (Jan 27, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> what's interesting is how hard richard seymour and a very few others are working to convince people there's a large opposition - this says to me that there is not and their gossip and innuendo is not really working - know some of the swss members who were not consulted at all about these statements and are pretty pissed off that it's supposed to represent them



I would have thought the statements represent the majority of the SWSS group members in each college. Isn't that how you say your version of democratic centralism works ? Majority wins a decision and then everyone is compelled to stand by it ? Unity in action and all that ?


----------



## cesare (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No no I said what I meant the first time  Not everyone attacking the cc/dc are playing the same game.


I'm struggling to find any evidence *at all* of the SP siding with anarchists. The converse actually, given that the most overt criticism of anarchists has come from (amongst others) the SP. But by all means point to where you think that's arisen.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> I would have thought the statements represent the majority of the SWSS group members in each college. Isn't that how you say your version of democratic centralism works ? Majority wins a decision and then everyone is compelled to stand by it ? Unity in action and all that ?


How do we know how these statements came about? Full SWSS meetings with a minimum quorum, student union bar chats or a few folk with the 'IS' email address? Who knows. To be honest in my day swss groups didn't have a separate constitutional role in the sense that they'd make a statement on anything, instead we'd have gone to our branch meeting and argued things there with everyone else.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But if I was a middle of the road branch member what fact has come to light after the conference that would convince me that something must be done? .


the fact no one on the left is prepared to work with you?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But if I was a middle of the road branch member what fact has come to light after the conference that would convince me that something must be done? A vocal minority have no faith in the decisions taken by the delegates at conference, a transcript that should never have been made public was and the mainstream press seized on it. But if you were one of the delegates who listened to the debates at conference and voted the way they voted, what exactly is the killer claim that has come to light since then that would make them vote for a recall? The closest I can find to something new that wasn't covered at conference is Seymour's innuendo about what people were supposed to have known at the previous conference. But I think people react to that innuendo based on their own preconceptions about the integrity of the people on the cc/dc.


I know someone who was a delegate to the conference and the first he knew about the Delta situation was when it came up at conference. I think this is a very important point as the delegates are meant to represent the views of the members in their district (delegates are elected on a district rather than branch basis) but they could not do this as no discussion was had over the issue prior to conferree. It is not often mentioned but one of the worse things the SWP CC did, in my opinion was to disallow a perfectly legitimate faction that was set up especially around this issue. Had that faction been allowed then a discussion would have had to take place within the SWP before the conference and delegates would not have been walking into it blind. Some delegates were not even sure what they were voting on their were people in the conference hall saying that a vote against the DC report meant you thought Delta was guilty of rape. There are still people in arguing this now!


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> How do we know how these statements came about? Full SWSS meetings with a minimum quorum, student union bar chats or a few folk with the 'IS' email address? Who knows. To be honest in my day swss groups didn't have a separate constitutional role in the sense that they'd make a statement on anything, instead we'd have gone to our branch meeting and argued things there with everyone else.


I agree about the FE SWSS statement, I thought that was a bit odd to begin with as I could see no way of agreeing it, but It was the only statement with a list of names attached and it has now been amended to clarify the situation. AS far as I know SWSS groups have regular weekly meetings just as 'popper' branches do. When I was a member SWSS groups were branches, you didn't have a branch as well. Don't know the current situation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Simon Hardy! We would be better off with Laurel and Hardy


 
Harley Filben reviews: Luke Cooper and Simon Hardy, 'Beyond capitalism? The future of radical politics'



> “In the mêlée of cultural and political antagonisms distilled out of the economic crisis finding a path betwixt and between abstention from living struggle and accommodation to the still reformist consciousness of the masses, one that can result in the formation of ‘workers’ governments’, is perhaps the central question facing the radical left.”


 
+ use of "memory of the class" on p.94. The old shit in new language.


----------



## Before Theory (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> How do we know how these statements came about? Full SWSS meetings with a minimum quorum, student union bar chats or a few folk with the 'IS' email address? Who knows. To be honest in my day swss groups didn't have a separate constitutional role in the sense that they'd make a statement on anything, instead we'd have gone to our branch meeting and argued things there with everyone else.



As recently as two years ago SWSS branches were putting forward documents to the Internal Bulletins to be considered by the entire party, arguing about perspectives etc, so if they were allowed/encouraged to do that, then it was obviously accepted that they were constitutionally part of the wider group. So I don't see why the loyalists have a problem with SWSS groups putting out statements now. As a point of interest because I honestly don't know, have there been any SWSS statements released which support the CC ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I agree about the FE SWSS statement, I thought that was a bit odd to begin with as I could see no way of agreeing it, but It was the only statement with a list of names attached and it has now been amended to clarify the situation. AS far as I know SWSS groups have regular weekly meetings just as 'popper' branches do. When I was a member SWSS groups were branches, you didn't have a branch as well. Don't know the current situation.


Poppers and compulsory jazzz. Where did it all go wrong?


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 27, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> "our reputation as the best fighters on the left"


 
The SWP's master strategist, yesterday:


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> As recently as two years ago SWSS branches were putting forward documents to the Internal Bulletins to be considered by the entire party, arguing about perspectives etc, so if they were allowed/encouraged to do that, then it was obviously accepted that they were constitutionally part of the wider group. So I don't see why the loyalists have a problem with SWSS groups putting out statements now. As a point of interest because I honestly don't know, have there been any SWSS statements released which support the CC ?


No idea about SWSS statements, about the only thing online defended the CC beyond individual poster like BB on here is this. As you can see it gets to the heart of the difficult political questions. There might me stuff on facebook, but I wouldn't know about that. BB would have the best idea.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> No idea about SWSS statements, about the only thing online defended the CC beyond individual poster like BB on here is this. As you can see it gets to the heart of the difficult political questions. There might me stuff on facebook, but I wouldn't know about that. BB would have the best idea.


There really is nothing is there! I've had several extended discussions with individual loyalists but I think almost by definition they're refusing to say anything public about something that was an internal matter that 'is now closed'. And I'm sure they'd say (cause they have in private) that this needs to be discussed at branches and at the nc and NOT online, on blogs or fb. I tend to agree with them even though I'm aware that makes me kind of self defeating


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Poppers and compulsory jazzz. Where did it all go wrong?


Crikey nobody could accuse him of being apolitical this time.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There really is nothing is there! I've had several extended discussions with individual loyalists but I think almost by definition they're refusing to say anything public about something that was an internal matter that 'is now closed'. And I'm sure they'd say (cause they have in private) that this needs to be discussed at branches and at the nc and NOT online, on blogs or fb. I tend to agree with them even though I'm aware that makes me kind of self defeating


But your not a member so you are allowed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Were both sides of the argument presented fully at the conference? Sorry, I'm getting lost now.


 
Tell me about it, I'm still trying to work out whether I exist and what game I'm playing. It's all very confusing.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm still trying to work out what game I'm playing.


chess. can you guess which piece you are?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2013)

Rees the Grandmaster.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2013)

discokermit said:


> chess. can you guess which piece you are?


 
The horsey? I hope so. Rather play connect 4 though


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The horsey? I hope so. Rather play connect 4 though


of course you'd like to play connect four, the pieces are all equal. but you can't. you can't choose what you are unless you make it to the other side of the board.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The horsey? I hope so. Rather play connect 4 though


here


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> If I was on the SWP CC and if was sure the majority of the membership supported us and that our arguments were the best ones I would happy hold a recall conference and I would go to every effort to make sure it was as open, transparent and democratic as possible. Afterall that would be the best way of resolving the mess and drawing a line under it.


Go the extra mile and all that. Well yes unless you've already decided the other guy isn't acting in good faith. The cc seems pretty convinced that elements of the opposition have a larger agenda than this one incident (and in fairness many of the leading voices aren't hiding the fact very well!) and from that perspective having a recall is already a concession too far to the Seymourites.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2013)

What about if the cc themselves have a larger agenda?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I know someone who was a delegate to the conference and the first he knew about the Delta situation was when it came up at conference. I think this is a very important point as the delegates are meant to represent the views of the members in their district (delegates are elected on a district rather than branch basis) but they could not do this as no discussion was had over the issue prior to conferree. It is not often mentioned but one of the worse things the SWP CC did, in my opinion was to disallow a perfectly legitimate faction that was set up especially around this issue. Had that faction been allowed then a discussion would have had to take place within the SWP before the conference and delegates would not have been walking into it blind. Some delegates were not even sure what they were voting on their were people in the conference hall saying that a vote against the DC report meant you thought Delta was guilty of rape. There are still people in arguing this now!


You make a convincing case true enough. But surely we can't say that delegates can only vote on issues that the people who elected them have already debated and expressed an opinion on. Delegates are chosen to reflect the balance of feeling in their district about the politics and perspectives and they're trusted to apply the politics to whatever comes up. They go to conference and have prolonged discussions where they hear the experience and views of members from all parts of the organisation and then use their judgement to apply the politics correctly as best they see fit. Some issues don't lend themselves to extended discussion by the whole party during the pre conference period. Arguably disputes about the DC are among those because otherwise you'd have to have every branch debate the fine points of very confdiential matters. Now I know that argument could well be used as a way of covering up abuse by the people in power but that's why the issue needed a full and proper treatment at conference. It reads like it did have that. I really find it hard to believe people came away from the debate we all read and didn't understand what they were voting on but you're probably closer to the people concerned than me so fair enough.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> What about if the cc themselves have a larger agenda?


Well yes of course they are a state capitalist ruling class in waiting and the first thing they think of every day is how they can get an inch closer to the day they can line us all up against a wall and start living in their dachas.

Yes they do have an agenda. And if they didn't they'd deserve the sack.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2013)

You're not that good at humour





bolshiebhoy said:


> Well yes of course they are a state capitalist ruling class in waiting and the first thing they think of every day is how they can get an inch closer to the day they can line us all up against a wall and start living in their dachas.
> 
> Yes they do have an agenda. And if they didn't they'd deserve the sack.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Rees the Grandmaster.


They're offering it for free  YES! Finally I can chuck away those four unsold copies I have without feeling guilty. To think I was planning of slipping unseen into (((FireBox))) to leave them conveniently besides a half finished Zapatista mochachino. Cash back!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> here


too easy.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> You're not that good at humour


Where's the attempt at humour? I'm sure you believe just that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Where's the attempt at humour? I'm sure you believe just that.


Wrong again.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Wrong again.


I bow to your superior knowledge of your own mind.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Go the extra mile and all that. Well yes unless you've already decided the other guy isn't acting in good faith. The cc seems pretty convinced that elements of the opposition have a larger agenda than this one incident (and in fairness many of the leading voices aren't hiding the fact very well!) and from that perspective having a recall is already a concession too far to the Seymourites.


A larger agenda to what, engineer a split? They possibly do but I don't think they had that agenda before the conference. Rather in all honestly they know they are very unlikely to win and remaining within the SWP will be all but impossible if they lose. Therefore, the only other real other option is to split. I think this is a consequence of being a democratic cent party that does not allow permanent factions, it makes for a very fragile organization as the only outcome of any serious divisions is mass expulsions or a split. 

The goal of the CC then is to try an limit the size of any possible split by denny a recall conference, but could it really be more damaging than the current situation?
Also without brining the discussion into the open they are denying themselves the best option they have for splitting the opposition, which is to offer some concessions on the Delta case. There are a lot of members who are angry about this who would support the CC otherwise. Of the people who spoke against the DC report I know that Viv, Rita and X would all be backing the CC to the hilt if it was not for the Delta case. I know that Viv did vote for the expulsions. I am not much good at political maneuvering but I really think the best way for the CC to 'win' is to call a conference themselves as being forced into it would be a massive blow, and then splitting the opposition by offering some concessions around Delta. The only problems is exactly what concessions could be offered.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2013)

That Walker piece is a but uneven, but surprisingly thoughtful. His summary of Counterfire was both amusingly cutting and at the same time actually very fair to them for the most part.

This whole situation must be driving Counterfire nuts. Like kids who've patiently queued up outside the cinema only to be told they can't come in.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You make a convincing case true enough. But surely we can't say that delegates can only vote on issues that the people who elected them have already debated and expressed an opinion on. Delegates are chosen to reflect the balance of feeling in their district about the politics and perspectives and they're trusted to apply the politics to whatever comes up. They go to conference and have prolonged discussions where they hear the experience and views of members from all parts of the organisation and then use their judgement to apply the politics correctly as best they see fit. Some issues don't lend themselves to extended discussion by the whole party during the pre conference period. Arguably disputes about the DC are among those because otherwise you'd have to have every branch debate the fine points of very confdiential matters. Now I know that argument could well be used as a way of covering up abuse by the people in power but that's why the issue needed a full and proper treatment at conference. It reads like it did have that. I really find it hard to believe people came away from the debate we all read and didn't understand what they were voting on but you're probably closer to the people concerned than me so fair enough.


You also make a good point, and I think you would be right if the case did not involve a CC member. Even if a full discussion was not held at the very lest the membership should have been informed that a rape allegation had been made, and Delta should have stood down from all party work pending the result of the investigation. That the first time many members knew their was an allegation was at conference is outrageous.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> what's interesting is how hard richard seymour and a very few others are working to convince people there's a large opposition - this says to me that there is not and their gossip and innuendo is not really working - know some of the swss members who were not consulted at all about these statements and are pretty pissed off that it's supposed to represent them


 
This is a bit disingenuous isn't it?

There have been three complaints about the SWSS statements that I've seen on facebook.

One was that the "FE statement" wrongly gave the impression that it was a statement by an FE SWSS group (which does not exist) rather than by a number of SWSS members in FE. That's been corrected. The second was that one loyalist Birkbeck member hadn't been consulted. The third was that the LSE group hadn't bothered to invite their one loyalist when they met to draw up their statement.

Even if we take all of those complaints at face value, and even if we agree to tut disapprovingly about sharp practice at Birkbeck or wherever, it hardly makes a blind bit of difference does it? Seymour isn't inventing a SWSS rebellion, there plainly is one and it just as plainly includes almost all of the substantial SWSS groups.

I mean, a bunch of SWP branches have passed oppositional motions. Are you suggesting that they are all figments of Seymour's imagination? Sort of like the 85 members per branch the CC tells you about each year?

Quite apart from anything else, if the whole opposition amounted to Seymour, Mieville and a few of their mates, they'd have been summarily expelled weeks ago. You know it, we know it and you know that we know that you know it, so please don't treat us all like fools.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2013)

Further on the Walker piece and Counterfire, I like the almost off hand way that he actually agrees with Counterfire about certain, obvious things that are rarely admitted in SWP circles: For instance that Rees was scapegoated by a CC which had been in it with him from the start, or that the response of the post-Rees leadership to the Respect debacle was indeed, as Rees claimed, to batten down the hatches and return to a semi-isolated party building routine. By not seeking to defend positions that can't be reasonably maintained, he actually robs Counterfire of most of their rhetorical weapons, and frees himself to go after them on more important issues.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You also make a good point, and I think you would be right if the case did not involve a CC member. Even if a full discussion was not held at the very lest the membership should have been informed that a rape allegation had been made, and Delta should have stood down from all party work pending the result of the investigation. That the first time many members knew their was an allegation was at conference is outrageous.


And you know what I can't really disagree with that. Truth be told I suspect most of the 'loyalist' camp couldn't either,in private anyway. I think there is an overwhelming feeling that this is something they don't want to have to defend, in fact wish had been avoided by simple and obvious steps, but will defend because they don't like where the other side are going with it all.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 27, 2013)

Pardon a brief philosophical aside. I wonder if in his quieter moments the Prof wonders at the irony of facing off against a fellow, Seymour, who in his love of all things Poulantzas (and by extension) Althusser is effectively a younger version of himself. I remember a meeting at Marxism decades ago where Rees was lambasting Callinicos for his Althusserian disregard for the totality and Harman chided Rees for not ackowledging how far Alex had already come in breaking with the 'lonely moment of the last instance' structuralist crowd. And now today Harman is dead, Rees has been cast to the wolves and Alex, cast as the defender of the dialectical faith, is up against his younger Althusserian self. I wonder if he's conscious of it in those terms, probably not and there's clearly a lot more at stake here but it is interesting to me anyway. Do they even have meetings on the dialectic at Marxism any more?


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Do they even have meetings on the dialectic at Marxism any more?


Discokermit will probably know more about this, but from my time in the SWP I think that the subject was not discussed much at Marxism. This was not because of philistinism, the SWP are formally quite keen on dialectics. The problem was Rees, aka Grandmaster of Strategy and Tactics, was a rising star, yet he had picked up Lukacs' idealistic version of the subject rather than Marx's. While Rees was keen to show off what he thought was his expertise in dialectics, it seems that Harman and Cliff were able to discourage him for a while. Eventually, after Andy Wilson delivered some cracking blows (at a Marxism meeting on Lukacs, I think it was, I was there but don't recall the original title of the talk) that really caught Rees out - think Ali vs Liston - the SWP arranged for a meeting at Marxism by Harman on the dialectic. I reckon this was 1989 or 90. Harman's meeting was packed and as gently as he could, with lots of flagging of potential lines of retreat for Rees, Harman explained the materialist version. 'Ahhh,' sighed everyone, 'that's what we were saying all along'. And the 'subject-object of history' phrase, the one dialectical idea that Rees thought he had mastered, quietly receded from SWP phraseology.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Rees the Grandmaster.


From the Grandmaster: Many years ago, the labour historian Ralph Samuel wrote that one of the things he disliked about the Communist Party was that there was always a tone of emergency in the organisation. Something or other always had to be ‘done now’, ‘could not wait’, and so on. This criticism is misplaced. If a revolutionary organisation is to play its role in the chain of events, whatever that role might be at any given time, it must act with dispatch. There is always something to be done, and, if it is to be done to maximum effect, it needs to be done in a timely manner.
Which I read to mean the Grandmaster's policy of hyperbolic exhortions to turn to the next big thing (and leave the last in the dust, without any proper accounting of events) was masterful strategy and not a moralistic battering ram to get the breathless pawns out flyposting new posters and holding new placards.


----------



## liquorice1956 (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Well since delegates were warned not to discuss this at their branches I guess gossip (and the transcript of course) is all they have to go on - you can't blame them and it's not really surprising is it?


 
delegates were not told not to discuss this - just to avoid the confidential details - this was blown out of the water by someone who disgracefully released the transcript - and a comment made by a comrade at conference in the transcript has been taken as fact. I don't see how there can be replies from people to don't agree without entering into the same breach of confidentiality and that I think is a problem for many comrades who don't agree with the 'opposition'


----------



## liquorice1956 (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is a bit disingenuous isn't it?
> 
> There have been three complaints about the SWSS statements that I've seen on facebook.
> 
> ...


 

not disingenuous at all - you appear to be assuming that all of this is happening on facebook or the internet - there are other complaints in the real world. Also I didn't say that all of the opposition consisted of the people you mention but that it's divided - and one reason for this is that seymour and his lot are trying very hard to pull people on the basis of quite spurious statements which I guess are an attempt to muddy the waters - their agenda doesn't seem to have much to do with the disputes committee but replacing the cc (presumably with one of their own)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> delegates were not told not to discuss this - just to avoid the confidential details - this was blown out of the water by someone who disgracefully released the transcript - and a comment made by a comrade at conference in the transcript has been taken as fact. I don't see how there can be replies from people to don't agree without entering into the same breach of confidentiality and that I think is a problem for many comrades who don't agree with the 'opposition'


Because it wasn't recorded in the released transcript it doesn't mean that pressures of various hue were not brought to bear, the CC itself in it's statement attempted to suggest that the matter was not up for further discussion (another tactically inept move). We've seen and read numerous reports of members coming under pressure not to talk about it post-conference. To turn a blind eye to the informal way the CC imposes itself is to turn a blind eye to how you ever reached this situation and to ensure that it will happen again, but next time at a more advanced level (little bit of Reesian dialetics there).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

liquorice1956 said:


> not disingenuous at all - you appear to be assuming that all of this is happening on facebook or the internet - there are other complaints in the real world. Also I didn't say that all of the opposition consisted of the people you mention but that it's divided - and one reason for this is that seymour and his lot are trying very hard to pull people on the basis of quite spurious statements which I guess are an attempt to muddy the waters - their agenda doesn't seem to have much to do with the disputes committee but replacing the cc (presumably with one of their own)


You didn't manage to come up with the gossip and innuendo that Seymour is spreading when asked yesterday, can you have a go at it today? Have you heard any comments or anything from the non-oppositionists of a similar tone or style? Have you ever experienced the CC and their apparatus do something similar to people they oppose?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That Walker piece is a but uneven


in what sense?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

articul8 said:


> in what sense?


Do you sense another part of the Syrizia affair falling into place?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> For a lot of them it's about "rediscovering" Lenin as prophet of SYRIZA and recasting the Bolsheviks as precursors to it.


Agreed, some discussion of this on the last few pages of the Owen Jones thread.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 28, 2013)

I've never claimed a Syriza type formation is on the cards in the short term, or that it would represent some zenith of revolutionary form.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I've never claimed a Syriza type formation is on the cards in the short term.


Who said anything about claiming anything? A grandmaster doesn't publish her moves in advance.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm interested in alternative conceptions of strategy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2013)

discokermit said:


> let me get this right, the students who aren't in the group that doesn't exist, are pissed off that the non existant group didn't consult them?


 
It's all getting a bit "the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is poison, the chalice in the palace has the brew that is true".


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's all getting a bit "the vessel with the pestle has the brew that is poison, the chalice in the palace has the brew that is true".


 
No! They broke the chalice from the palace? The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon! The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true.

I'm suprised at you VP.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm interested in alternative conceptions of strategy.


GSOH?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm interested in alternative conceptions of strategy.


i think what you're getting at is you're interested in sexy things which have happened abroad at a safe distance.

but once again your post begs the question, what the bloody fuck are you doing in the labour party?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 28, 2013)

No, I'm also interested in very ordinary mundane but nevertheless acute issues at community level, where a good % of our time is attacking the positions locally and nationally of the Labour leadership.  I'm not at all arguing that its remotely likely that the left will sweep to power and transform Labour - but it is entirely possible that a clear socialist pole of attraction within the party can build support for an anti-austerity politics among people who vote Labour in the absence of anything better, because they hope that it can protect people a bit in comparison with the Tories.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No, I'm also interested in very ordinary mundane but nevertheless acute issues at community level, where a good % of our time is attacking the positions locally and nationally of the Labour leadership. I'm not at all arguing that its remotely likely that the left will sweep to power and transform Labour - but it is entirely possible that a clear socialist pole of attraction within the party can build support for an anti-austerity politics among people who vote Labour in the absence of anything better, because they hope that it can protect people a bit in comparison with the Tories.


i think what you mean here is that you're objectively helping the right of the labour party because you're trying to give people reasons to think labour is a socialist party: as there's no evidence of 'clear socialist poles of attraction' in the party doing anything for the electorate in the past it seems to me you're leading yourself and them up the garden path.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well yes of course they are a state capitalist ruling class in waiting and the first thing they think of every day is how they can get an inch closer to the day they can line us all up against a wall and start living in their dachas.
> 
> Yes they do have an agenda. And if they didn't they'd deserve the sack.





Pickman's model said:


> Wrong again.


Is he?



Pickman's model said:


> What about if the cc themselves have a larger agenda?


Which is?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 28, 2013)

You've been noticebaly silent on this thread RMP3. Where's your usual "are the SWP finished yet?" comment?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Not supporting the opposition then rmp3?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Which is?


it's a set of aims and objectives which a person or group of people pursue.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

mk12 said:


> You've been noticebaly silent on this thread RMP3. Where's your usual "are the SWP finished yet?" comment?


 on this thread?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> on this thread?


at this point.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it's a set of aims and objectives which a person or group of people pursue.


 you really have nothing do you? :-D


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you really have nothing do you? :-D


i've got more than you.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not supporting the opposition then rmp3?


 as you know butchers, not been a member for at least 10 years. Have no idea what the pros and cons of the respective parties/factions are.
If you want to succinctly lay them out for me, I will pick a side.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i've got more than you.


 point to anything out of 11923647 posts you've made.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> as you know butchers, not been a member for at least 10 years. Have no idea what the pros and cons of the respective parties/factions are.
> If you want to succinctly lay them out for me, I will pick a side.


You sound like an ideal person to be posting on the thread then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> point to anything out of 11923647 posts you've made.


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-sir-jimmy-savile-obe-thread.300406/page-41#post-11633886


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> What about if the cc themselves have a larger agenda?


 
<rmp3>
Now now, such thoughts are conspiracy theory! </rmp3>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2013)

mk12 said:


> You've been noticebaly silent on this thread RMP3. Where's your usual "are the SWP finished yet?" comment?


 
"Noticeably silent" is absolutely right. Usually everyone's "favourite" post-SWP Swappite would be in there lecturing and hectoring anyone who varied from the "party line" (all the while emphasising that he's not partisan and hasn't been a Swappite for years!), and generally making a _putz_ of himself.
Here, though, almost as quiet as the grave. Perhaps he hasn't been reprogrammed by Swap-Central since the conference?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> point to anything out of 11923647 posts you've made.


 
Ah, the old "post count" bollocks, the last refuge of someone who's got nothing better to throw than vague bilge.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, the old "post count" bollocks, the last refuge of someone who's got nothing better to throw than vague bilge.


but it's a particularly shit post as it doesn't give any indication of what he's wanting: so i linked to some random post which fulfilled his criterion.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You sound like an ideal person to be posting on the thread then.


 dammed if you do dammed if you don't 
True. Which is the real reason I have been noticeably quiet not just on this thread, but on any thread to do with the current affairs of the SWP, and many other topics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> dammed if you do dammed if you don't
> True. Which is the real reason I have been noticeably quiet not just on this thread, but on any thread to do with the current affairs of the SWP, and many other topics.


i had thought you might have passed away and no one had yet discovered the corpse.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> <rmp3>
> Now now, such thoughts are conspiracy theory! </rmp3>


 
What you have thoughts?  

Care to share them?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What you have thoughts?
> 
> Care to share them?


not got any of your own?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> but it's a particularly shit post as it doesn't give any indication of what he's wanting: so i linked to some random post which fulfilled his criterion.


 you are feigning stupidity surely?
You think the SWP CC have an agenda. Fair comment. I'm just asking, what you think that might be. 


Not expecting an answer


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you are feigning stupidity surely?
> You think the SWP CC have an agenda. Fair comment. I'm just asking, what you think that might be.
> 
> 
> Not expecting an answer


their aims and objectives for the organisation.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well yes of course they are a state capitalist ruling class in waiting and the first thing they think of every day is how they can get an inch closer to the day they can line us all up against a wall and start living in their dachas.
> 
> Yes they do have an agenda. And if they didn't they'd deserve the sack.


  come on pick and  VP, IF this is an incorrect  representation of your views, CAN you correct it?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> their aims and objectives for the organisation.


 and you think their aims and objectives for the organisation are what?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> and you think their aims and objectives for the organisation are what?


that's what i'd call their 'agenda'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What you have thoughts?
> 
> Care to share them?


 
Always after everyone else's thoughts because your own are so risible. 

Terribly sad.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> come on pick and VP, IF this is an incorrect representation of your views, CAN you correct it?


yes, yes i can.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you are feigning stupidity surely?
> You think the SWP CC have an agenda. Fair comment. I'm just asking, what you think that might be.
> 
> 
> Not expecting an answer


 
Ah, that old tactic again.
Tell you what, *you* tell us what *you* think their agenda is first.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> come on pick and VP, IF this is an incorrect representation of your views, CAN you correct it?


 
Can I? Yes.

Will I? No, I'm waiting for you to post a link to my previous views on this.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Always after everyone else's thoughts because your own are so risible.
> 
> Terribly sad.


So that's a no, you won't share your views on the SW CC secret agenda?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, yes i can.


So that's a no, you won't share your views on the SW CC secret agenda?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, that old tactic again.
> Tell you what, *you* tell us what *you* think their agenda is first.


Fighting to end capitalism and war
 We live in an world where:
* Half the population lives on less than $2 a day
 * 67% of the wealth is owned by just 2% of the population
 * The US spends $400 billion a year on weapons
 * It would take $324 billion to end extreme poverty worldwide
But this is also a time of hope. Over recent years we have witnessed growing international protest movements demanding ‘another world is possible — another world is necessary’. We have seen millions across the world take to the streets in opposition to Bush and Blair’s war and occupation of Iraq. The SWP has played a key role in all these movements.
For socialism
 The present system cannot be patched up — it has to be completely transformed. The structures of the parliament, army, police and judiciary cannot be taken over and used by the working people. Elections can be used to agitate for real improvements in people’s lives and to expose the system we live under, but only the mass action of workers themselves can change the system.
Workers create all the wealth under capitalism. A new society can only be constructed when they collectively seize control of that wealth and plan its production and distribution according to need.
For internationalism
 We live in a world economy dominated by huge corporations. Only by fighting together across national boundaries can we challenge the rich and powerful who dominate the globe. The struggle for socialism can only be successful if it is a worldwide struggle.
This was demonstrated by the experience of Russia where an isolated socialist revolution was crushed by the power of the world market — a market it could only contend with by becoming state capitalist. In Eastern Europe and China similar states were later established.
Against racism, imperialism and oppression
 We oppose everything which turns workers from one country against those from another. We oppose all immigration controls and campaign for solidarity with workers in other countries. We support the right of black people and other oppressed groups to organise their own defence and we support all genuine national liberation movements. We campaign for real social, political and economic equality for woman and for an end to all forms of discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgender people.
Revolutionary party
 Those who rule our society are powerful because they are organised — they control the wealth, media, courts and the military. They use their power to limit and contain opposition. To combat that power, working people have to be organised as well. The Socialist Workers Party aims to bring together activists from the movement and working class. A revolutionary party is necessary to strengthen the movement, organise people within it and aid them in developing the ideas and strategies that can overthrow capitalism entirely.
We are committed to fight for peace, equality, justice and socialism. Join us.
Colin Barker’s Socialist Worker columns
Workers create all the wealth under capitalism
The working class at the centre
Can't we win change through parliament?
What is the real case for socialist revolution?
Internationalism: workers of all countries unite
Oppose all barriers that divide workers
Against imperialism
What is racism and why must we fight it?
Right of the oppressed to organise their own defence
Supporting national liberation struggles
Can there be socialism in one country?
How was the Russian Revolution defeated?
We stand for genuine equality for women
Real equality for gays and lesbians is still to be won
Is there any place for parties in the movement? 
We need a party of leaders to change the world
Democracy without centralism will fail
Rank and file organisation is vital in the trade unions
The fight for reforms gives revolutionaries their muscle


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

The agenda is:



> Colin Barker’s Socialist Worker columns


 
Now this discussion is at an end.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2013)

That's not an agenda, you fuckwit. It's a mission statement.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 28, 2013)

The idea that those who come to lead revolutionary parties are motivated by a secret desire for power, privilege, and status comes up a lot in discussions of parties like the SWP. I suppose because it seems to offer an explanation for the sort of carry-on that this thread it concerned with. Ultimately, though, such views are conservative and Hobbesian, although shared by a lot of anarchists. One obvious problem with the idea is that joining a revolutionary party, learning the political language of the party, and climbing its leadership ladder is a lot more unrewarding than working towards being a leader of a mainstream party. Or even just working your way up the corporate ladder. Still, hypothetically, lets imagine a farsighted aspirant Stalin/Stalina decides to mimic a sincere, self-sacrificing, revolutionary. They are not spotted by the membership of the party, because of their hard work and mastery of the politics of the party. They are not spotted by the class, thanks to advocacy of policies that successfully bring the revolution closer. Then the glorious day comes, insurrection places him or her into the position of a commissar of the newly formed workers' government.Now our aspirant dictator reveals his or her true colours and demands the right to imprison dissidents, to give themselves extraordinary advantages, and to have new university courses dedicated to praising their career.
The risen working class therefore tell him or her to fuck off.
We need a better theory as to what has gone wrong here and Tom Walker's most recent offering would be a more interesting basis for discussion than 'a ruling class in waiting'.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The agenda is:
> 
> 
> 
> Now this discussion is at and end.


 your link doesn't work.

So any discussion of your thoughts is at an end, when it hasn't even took place . Howell usual.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's not an agenda, you fuckwit. It's a mission statement.


 you still haven't outlined your thoughts, I wonder why that is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you still haven't outlined your thoughts, I wonder why that is.


 
See post 3728, you muppet.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> The idea that those who come to lead revolutionary parties are motivated by a secret desire for power, privilege, and status comes up a lot in discussions of parties like the SWP. I suppose because it seems to offer an explanation for the sort of carry-on that this thread it concerned with. Ultimately, though, such views are conservative and Hobbesian, although shared by a lot of anarchists. One obvious problem with the idea is that joining a revolutionary party, learning the political language of the party, and climbing its leadership ladder is a lot more unrewarding than working towards being a leader of a mainstream party. Or even just working your way up the corporate ladder. Still, hypothetically, lets imagine a farsighted aspirant Stalin/Stalina decides to mimic a sincere, self-sacrificing, revolutionary. They are not spotted by the membership of the party, because of their hard work and mastery of the politics of the party. They are not spotted by the class, thanks to advocacy of policies that successfully bring the revolution closer. Then the glorious day comes, insurrection places him or her into the position of a commissar of the newly formed workers' government.Now our aspirant dictator reveals his or her true colours and demands the right to imprison dissidents, to give themselves extraordinary advantages, and to have new university courses dedicated to praising their career.
> The risen working class therefore tell him or her to fuck off.
> We need a better theory as to what has gone wrong here and Tom Walker's most recent offering would be a more interesting basis for discussion than 'a ruling class in waiting'.


 a link to Tom Walker's most recent offering please?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> The idea that those who come to lead revolutionary parties are motivated by a secret desire for power, privilege, and status comes up a lot in discussions of parties like the SWP. I suppose because it seems to offer an explanation for the sort of carry-on that this thread it concerned with. Ultimately, though, such views are conservative and Hobbesian, although shared by a lot of anarchists. One obvious problem with the idea is that joining a revolutionary party, learning the political language of the party, and climbing its leadership ladder is a lot more unrewarding than working towards being a leader of a mainstream party. Or even just working your way up the corporate ladder. Still, hypothetically, lets imagine a farsighted aspirant Stalin/Stalina decides to mimic a sincere, self-sacrificing, revolutionary. They are not spotted by the membership of the party, because of their hard work and mastery of the politics of the party. They are not spotted by the class, thanks to advocacy of policies that successfully bring the revolution closer. Then the glorious day comes, insurrection places him or her into the position of a commissar of the newly formed workers' government.Now our aspirant dictator reveals his or her true colours and demands the right to imprison dissidents, to give themselves extraordinary advantages, and to have new university courses dedicated to praising their career.
> The risen working class therefore tell him or her to fuck off.
> We need a better theory as to what has gone wrong here and Tom Walker's most recent offering would be a more interesting basis for discussion than 'a ruling class in waiting'.


I think you may have misread the anarchist criticisms as the idea of a ruling class in waiting as being the result of a collection of malevolent individual impulses and motivations rather the more fleshed out reality of it being argued that it's the inevitable structural outcome of an a form of organisation that bases itself on the idea of leaders and led (whatever the icing, "the best fighters", or the "memory of the class" etc), of degrees of consciousness, with a key, a shortcut and an award ceremony for reaching the highest level (that is, party membership).

There are, of course, anarchists and others who argue what you suggest, but if we are going to move forward, best to tackle the better arguments. Not chief among them is the idea that the SWP CC are genuinely revolutionary leaders because they really really believe it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> your link doesn't work.
> 
> So any discussion of your thoughts is at an end, when it hasn't even took place . Howell usual.


My link? The link that i didn't include? The link that i had not intention of including? A link to what?


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> a link to Tom Walker's most recent offering please?


 
http://rethinkingtheleft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-swp-where-did-it-all-go-wrong.html


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> See post 3728, you muppet.


 Nope, nothing there making sense of your wacky views on the SW CC.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

I don't think anyone would argue that the CC don't genuinely believe in the politics - anyone suggesting otherwise is being a bit daft. It's perfectly possible for them to really share those ideals _and_ engage in all kinds of Machiavellian power grabbing type stuff too.

The only person on here who never seems to have grasped this is RMP3, though it appears he's got Oisin123 for company now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think anyone would argue that the CC don't genuinely believe in the politics - anyone suggesting otherwise is being a bit daft. It's perfectly possible for them to really share those ideals _and_ engage in all kinds of Machiavellian power grabbing type stuff too.
> 
> The only person on here who never seems to have grasped this is RMP3, though it appears he's got Oisin123 for company now.


To me, it's interesting to see how a self-recruiting closed group operates within a wider open group, what traits it looks for in the way it sponsors the mobility of those from the open group into the closed group and what traits it then produces and reproduces to keep both the closed group going as a closed group and the open group open to allow it to pick _talent_ from. And the real killer, what interests the closed group then has.

There's a number of potentially clashing dynamics there - they are often dealt with by reducing the central core group down in numbers whilst expanding their influence/power. Has that happened in the SWP since Cliff died? Who now are the people really running it? It seems to me there are fewer and fewer people running things.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think you may have misread the anarchist criticisms as the idea of a ruling class in waiting as being the result of a collection of malevolent individual impulses and motivations rather the more fleshed out reality of it being argued that it's the inevitable structural outcome of an a form of organisation that bases itself on the idea of leaders and led (whatever the icing, "the best fighters", or the "memory of the class" etc), of degrees of consciousness, with a key, a shortcut and an award ceremony for reaching the highest level (that is, party membership).
> 
> There are, of course, anarchists and others who argue what you suggest, but if we are going to move forward, best to tackle the better arguments. Not chief among them is the idea that the SWP CC are genuinely revolutionary leaders because they really really believe it.


 
Good point about structure not individual impulse, and it would go off topic too much to chase it on this thread. But I think it was Serge said something like 'there are the political equivalents to harmful bacteria in every organisation, it takes certain conditions for them to flourish. I still stand by the idea that workers who have gone through a revolution will have a very low tolerance for self-serving 'leaders', whether such types have arrived by impulse or structure. Even during events a long way short of revolution we can see something like Serge's idea in practice: the SWP I joined during the miner's strike was a lot more lively, irreverent, and scathing towards bullshit than it seems to have become. And from reading their materials, old IS members say the same about the late 60s, early 70s.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think anyone would argue that the CC don't genuinely believe in the politics - anyone suggesting otherwise is being a bit daft. It's perfectly possible for them to really share those ideals _and_ engage in all kinds of Machiavellian power grabbing type stuff too.
> 
> The only person on here who never seems to have grasped this is RMP3, though it appears he's got Oisin123 for company now.


 
Woa, did I say something to associate myself with RMP3? Damn.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

Sorry if this question has already been asked on the thread, but when did the IS/SWP introduce the slate system for appointing/electing its CC?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Good point about structure not individual impulse, and it would go off topic too much to chase it on this thread. But I think it was Serge said something like 'there are the political equivalents to harmful bacteria in every organisation, it takes certain conditions for them to flourish. I still stand by the idea that workers who have gone through a revolution will have a very low tolerance for self-serving 'leaders', whether such types have arrived by impulse or structure. Even during events a long way short of revolution we can see something like Serge's idea in practice: the SWP I joined during the miner's strike was a lot more lively, irreverent, and scathing towards bullshit than it seems to have become. And from reading their materials, old IS members say the same about the late 60s, early 70s.


I would agree with that, albeit i would probably make it a social thing rather than a party thing, but i would expect it to make it's effects (beneficial when true, harmful when not) that much more effective or _felt_ within a party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So that's a no, you won't share your views on the SW CC secret agenda?


what's this about a secret agenda?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

Some well known peeps in the IS tradition signing this letter:

http://openletterswp.wordpress.com/


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Some well known peeps in the IS tradition signing this letter:
> 
> http://openletterswp.wordpress.com/


I recognise about 4 names, only one of which was actually in he party, as far as i know


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

belboid said:


> I recognise about 4 names, only one of which was actually in he party, as far as i know


They are talking as people who have spoken at Marxism or written for its publications. not members - and a lot of them have the serious sort of semi-mainstream soft left or academic clout  the SWP have long courted them for. Shame on your for only knowing 4!


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

belboid said:


> I recognise about 4 names, only one of which was actually in he party, as far as i know


 
I think it could be argued that Bakan, McNally, Post, Power and Kellogg are biggish names in this small pond we're all swimming in.

And I understand via facebook that Conor Kostick has added his name to the letter.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 28, 2013)

Well that is 17 fewer people who will be at Marxism this year. I wonder if Tony Benn will add his name to this list?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Well that is 17 fewer people who will be at Marxism this year.


Yes, no one would go to listen to these people. That's why they have previously been invited to Marxism. For lack of draw and credibility.


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They are talking as people who have spoken at Marxism or written for its publications. not members - and a lot of them have the serious sort of semi-mainstream soft left or academic clout the SWP have long courted them for. Shame on your for only knowing 4!


I know they are - I am being dubious about whether they are really 'in the IS tradition'.

& I'm guessing David McNally isnt the one who made Coyote ugly.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, no one would go to listen to these people. That's why they have previously been invited to Marxism. For lack of draw and credibility.


Sorry, I have edited my incomplete post.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

belboid said:


> I know they are - I am being dubious about whether they are really 'in the IS tradition'.
> 
> & I'm guessing David McNally isnt the one who made Coyote ugly.


They didn't claim to be though. And as we all know, only the CC can decide what the IS tradition is and how it should be used as an internal flaming sword of justice.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

belboid said:


> I know they are - I am being dubious about whether they are really 'in the IS tradition'.
> 
> & I'm guessing David McNally isnt the one who made Coyote ugly.


 
I wrote tradition as a catch all term. 

Wasn't McNally the leader of the Canadian section of the IST for many years before an earlier split?


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They didn't claim to be though.


but as I was replying to imposs1904, who _did_ say they were...


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Wasn't McNally the leader of the Canadian section of the IST for many years before an earlier split?


"A
long‐time member of the International Socialists and later the New
Socialist Group..."

apparently


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

belboid said:


> but as I was replying to imposs1904, who _did_ say they were...


Hence your quoting me in the post rather than him


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

belboid said:


> "A
> long‐time member of the International Socialists and later the New
> Socialist Group..."
> 
> apparently


 
I just vaguely remember that years ago - showing my age  - that McNally and Bakan especially were high profile speakers at Marxism. The nineties? I'll happily be corrected by list members who have the SWP as their specialist Mastermind subject.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Is this a Lance Armstrong style sponsor drift - doesn't look like it at this point.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 28, 2013)

Abbie Bakan wrote the great lie: why the ussr isn't socialist, which was the main pamphlet setting state capitalist theory out when I joined in 1985


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Abbie Bakan wrote the great lie: why the ussr isn't socialist, which was the main pamphlet setting state capitalist theory out when I joined in 1985


shit hot on Kronstadt too


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 28, 2013)

belboid said:


> shit hot on Kronstadt too


 
Absolutely he inspired that Girls Aloud track on that bootleg  that was unfortunately wthdrawn .


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Absolutely he inspired that Girls Aloud track on that bootleg that was unfortunately wthdrawn .


 
abbie's short for abigail


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

> Continuity between Lenin and Stalin is often claimed by reference to the Kronstadt revolt of 1921. But as Abbie Bakan explains the repression was necessary to defend the revolution.


 
Forward to the (new) future comrades!

What a bizarre illogical lead-in to the (filthy lying - wow is this what professors really publish?) article as well.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

Yeah after looking at Kronstadt there was no excuse for it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

Agree with butchers this letter is a blow, these are heavy hitters. On the other hand it's no secret that the US and Canadian branches of the IS have been making their peace with academic feminism for a while and the explicit reference to sexism in the letter will not endear the signatories to the middle ground loyalists. Much safer and more damaging if they'd just stuck to the handling of a high profile allegation rather than implying a general problem within the party.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I just vaguely remember that years ago - showing my age - that McNally and Bakan especially were high profile speakers at Marxism. The nineties? I'll happily be corrected by list members who have the SWP as their specialist Mastermind subject.


McNally was prominent in the Canadian IS,I heard him speak at Marxism in the late 80s. He's been banging on with a, in my view mistaken, argument about Marx on the rate of profit for years. I see that the ISJ last had an article about him in 2003, although there is a much more recent debate over a review he wrote of an SWP book. Do I get to score my point?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah after looking at Kronstadt there was no excuse for it.


You are on a dangerous path.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> McNally was prominent in the Canadian IS,I heard him speak at Marxism in the late 80s. He's been banging on with a, in my view mistaken, argument about Marx on the rate of profit for years. I see that the ISJ last had an article about him in 2003, although there is a much more recent debate over a review he wrote of an SWP book. Do I get to score my point?


 
let's see how you do in the general knowledge round.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

abigal said:
			
		

> The Kronstadt revolt had the character of a mutiny against the Bolshevik leadership of the military. and of the state. This arose at a time when that state was in a desperately vulnerable position, with its survival at stake.


 



			
				abigal  said:
			
		

> We have all previously participated in events and initiatives promoted by the SWP, including the annual Marxism festival, or written for its publications. We continue to value the commitment and work of many SWP members as trades unionists, activists and comrades. Nonetheless, we can no longer in good conscience participate in SWP publications and platformsuntil the party recognises and seriously addresses the legitimate
> criticisms of its handling of this case and the ensuing crisis.


 
Kill 'em abigal, the survival of the party is at stake.  Not your tenured gender prof job. These desperados - why are the SWP always producing them?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think anyone would argue that the CC don't genuinely believe in the politics - anyone suggesting otherwise is being a bit daft.
> 
> The only person on here who never seems to have grasped this is RMP3, though it appears he's got Oisin123 for company now.


 I wonder how Oisi123 has misconstrued their true intention, when PM VP BA 'have' explained it so clearly, WHERE????????????????

I have never said I am not aware the structural determinism some anarchists engage in, all I have done is invited them to flesh out this analysis. something they have steadfastly refused to do.



> It's perfectly possible for them to really share those ideals _and_ engage in all kinds of Machiavellian power grabbing type stuff too.


 you mean like the SP and the Socialist Alliance?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You are on a dangerous path.


 

maybe. i think the party does good work in my area though and there are a lot of people i respect in it. i don't think that looking into the history and ideas behind this stuff is a bad thing though and dont really have any respect for the idea of lenin and trotsky being some sort of jesus-like figures that must never be questioned.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> *I wonder how Oisi123 has misconstrued their true intention*, when PM VP BA 'have' explained it so clearly, WHERE????????????????
> 
> I have never said I am not aware the structural determinism some anarchists engage in, all I have done is invited them to flesh out this analysis. something they have steadfastly refused to do.
> 
> you mean like the SP and the Socialist Alliance?


 
I can add Oisin's post 3746 to the vast list of stuff you have failed to read or understand; you really are the daftest of brushes.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Good point about structure not individual impulse, and it would go off topic too much to chase it on this thread. But I think it was Serge said something like 'there are the political equivalents to harmful bacteria in every organisation, it takes certain conditions for them to flourish. I still stand by the idea that workers who have gone through a revolution will have a very low tolerance for self-serving 'leaders', whether such types have arrived by impulse or structure. Even during events a long way short of revolution we can see something like Serge's idea in practice: the SWP I joined during the miner's strike was a lot more lively, irreverent, and scathing towards bullshit than it seems to have become. And from reading their materials, old IS members say the same about the late 60s, early 70s.


 I think your post and Serge more accurately capture the dialectical nature of a revolutionary party in an environment, than does the structural determinism of some anarchists.

But more importantly imo the bit I've underlined undermines the argument that "bad politics" HAVE TO lead to failed revolution. We don't have to thrash out the "correct way" to revolution here and now. In fact, the more and the more varied the approaches, the better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I think your post and Serge more accurately capture the dialectical nature of a revolutionary party in an environment, than does the structural determinism of some anarchists.
> 
> But more importantly imo the bit I've underlined undermines the argument that "bad politics" HAVE TO lead to failed revolution. We don't have to thrash out the "correct way" to revolution here and now. In fact, the more and the more varied the approaches, the better.


Fucking give it up you useless tosspot


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> abbie's short for abigail


And abimael


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Fucking give it up you useless tosspot


 your position is so much clearer now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I think your post and Serge more accurately capture the dialectical nature of a revolutionary party in an environment, than does the structural determinism of some anarchists.
> 
> But more importantly imo the bit I've underlined undermines the argument that "bad politics" HAVE TO lead to failed revolution. We don't have to thrash out the "correct way" to revolution here and now. In fact, the more and the more varied the approaches, the better.


Indeed, the more fuck ups like this the better. _Make one, too, many fuck ups. _(see what i did there?)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I wonder how Oisi123 has misconstrued their true intention, when PM VP BA 'have' explained it so clearly, WHERE????????????????
> 
> I have never said I am not aware the structural determinism some anarchists engage in, all I have done is invited them to flesh out this analysis. something they have steadfastly refused to do.


 
You're an idiot.




ResistanceMP3 said:


> you mean like the SP and the Socialist Alliance?


 
See above. The SWP didn't exactly cover themselves in glory over that one either did they? Getting the competition out of the way of Respect?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> In fact, the more and the more varied the approaches, the better.


 
Finding it particularly difficult to square this with your SWP hackery.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

thing is bad politics may not mean that a revolution automatically fails but it surely makes it more likely


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah after looking at Kronstadt there was no excuse for it.


 
The anarchists have made a meal out of this.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The anarchists have made a meal out of this.


 
Partridge stew. Yum.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

Now that I've time I'll briefly reply to Nigel, since I do appreciate him replaying to me at length.

But mostly I have to just point out that you haven't really addressed my points. Or that you seem to be arguing against something I've not said. You seem to assume that my criticisms of Leninism mean that I'm saying anarchism would do it better. I thought I was careful to say that anarchism does not have the answers, and that a lot of the flaws of western European Leninist groups are shared by anarchist ones.



Nigel Irritable said:


> If the Trotskyist parties were to seriously decline across Europe (and there really isn't much evidence to suggest this is happening), it will not lead to a growth in serious anarchist organisation, or Left Communism, or Councilism, or anything remotely similar. It will simply mean the end of class struggle Marxist organisation on a scale large enough to be noticeable.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Finding it particularly difficult to square this with your SWP hackery.


 
RMP3 only talks about openness and varied approaches when he wants to try make some space for his latest inanity.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> Now that I've time I'll briefly reply to Nigel, since I do appreciate him replaying to me at length.
> 
> But mostly I have to just point out that you haven't really addressed my points. Or that you seem to be arguing against something I've not said. You seem to assume that my criticisms of Leninism mean that I'm saying anarchism would do it better. I thought I was careful to say that anarchism does not have the answers, and that a lot of the flaws of western European Leninist groups are shared by anarchist ones.


There are no formal organisational answers to social questions - for most partyists there has to be, or at least it has to be the start point.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> thing is bad politics may not mean that a revolution automatically fails but it surely makes it more likely


For me the important thing is not the effect on "revolution" but on simply being able to carry out work in the here and now. And it's clear to me that even at the same time as the SWP has been able to mobilise hundreds or thousands of activists, the structure of the SWP has sabotaged the aims of campaigns they've been involved with. For example the RESPECT dead-end, and the chasing after celebrities like Galloway effectively made sure that there would be no long-term antiwar movement in the UK. Instead it led to the SWP splitting. Even on their own terms, the attempt to exploit these protests didn't work.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There are no formal organisational answers to social questions - for most partyists there has to be, or at least it has to be the start point.


Yes, so this is why any challenge to their party is assumed to be on behalf of another party - or at least another branded form of organisation.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> your position is so much clearer now.


However, yours, in respect toward the rape allegations against 'comrade' delta, and the way in which they were treated by the cc and dc are completely opaque. The debate on this thread, even between the most anti SWP anarchos and those who would seek to defend the is/ SWP tradition, has remained overwhelmingly decent, because everyone has deplored the original actions of the dc investigation, what has divided us has been what happens next. You, however have made no comment whatsoever on this, instead seeking it appears to simply derail and disrupt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Now this is the bit you have to keep quiet in favour of talking about broad-realignment and openess (always with the space to your right - and i mean the CC here, not _ordinary_ members):



> “We are monopolists in the field of politics. We can’t stand any competition. We can tolerate no rivals. The working class, to make the revolution can do it only through one party and one program. This is the lesson of the Russian Revolution. That is the lesson of all history since the October Revolution. Isn’t that a fact? This is why we are out to destroy every single party in the field that makes any pretence of being a working-class revolutionary party. Ours is the only correct program that can lead to revolution. Everything else is deception, treachery. We are monopolists in politics and we operate like monopolists.”


 
and as bhoy mentions above, they'd be wrong and remiss to think anything different.

edit: oops, i should make clear that is not the open declared view of the the SWP CC it's US bloke Morris Stein in 1944.


----------



## cesare (Jan 28, 2013)

Blimey.

Ah, helpful edit  Useful to see it stated so categorically, though.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 28, 2013)

Or in the case of the UK modern SWP "one party no program".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> edit: oops, i should make clear that is not the open declared view of the the SWP CC it's US bloke Morris Stein in 1944.



That's a speech by someone who is very slightly famous in retrospect only for having given that boneheadedly sectarian speech in the first place. It's remembered precisely because nobody bar the most lunatic Spartoid agrees with it. And to be fair to the SWP CC, it is in direct opposition to their views about how a revolutionary party will come into being (ie not through the growth of today's SWP)  and also in direct contradiction to their views about programme.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

What did marx say about judging people by their actions rather than their blather?

That he (Morris) now offers a rhetorical option for people _acting as he said_ to condemn him is yet another reesian twist i feel, this time with some heavy wilsonian irony.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

> And to be fair to the SWP CC, it is in direct opposition to their views about how a revolutionary party will come into being (ie not through the growth of today's SWP)


 
Is it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What did marx say about judging people by their actions rather than their blather?



It's a much more extreme variant of a sectarian view than anything the SWP can really be fairly accused of. And yes, that does mean that it's the sort of sentiment that would allow them to tut disapprovingly and pose as anti-sectarians piously condemning such foolishness.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

You don't say it out loud of course, but when the bulk of criticisms from your party to the SWP accuse them of acting just as our morris has said, where does that leave you?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is it?



Yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes.


Ok, what are their views on "how a revolutionary party will come into being (ie not through the growth of today's SWP)". I think they pretty solidly do think that. I think that the bulk of their activity and propaganda is aimed towards establishing this end, first through dominion over the left-of -labour-but-labour constituency then by pure weight hoovering up the left lefts. All about them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You don't say it out loud of course, but when the bulk of criticisms from your party to the SWP accuse them of acting just as our morris has said, where does that leave you?



The SWP are sectarian. Deeply so. But they are not as colossally, stupidly, arrogantly so as Stein. They've done and argued enough stupid shit of their own without it being necessary to convict them of the stupidities of someone in a different party, on a different continent, in a different time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The SWP are sectarian. Deeply so. But they are not as colossally, stupidly, arrogantly so as Stein. They've done and argued enough stupid shit of their own without it being necessary to convict them of the stupidities of someone in a different party, on a different continent, in a different time.


But of their crimes coming from the same mould, if a little better finessed and with some PR treatment, easy. You feeling a little hot under the collar Nigel?


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

It's not hard to find examples of Leninist parties claiming to be the best, the cleverest, the exceptional, the irreplaceable organisation. And that their work is the best, the most important, etc. it's this kind of belif that keeps them going.

A quick google gets me these quotes from SWP 2012 conference: 

"This has been a year in which we, quicker than anyone else, grasped the idea that there was a shift towards the centrality of the organised working class in the resistance against the austerity drive of the coalition." 
“Building the party is also about shaping the movement. Whether we recruit someone to the SWP makes a difference to how the struggle builds."

Sure this is softer stuff than the 1944 quote, but it's basically the same belief.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, what are their views on "how a revolutionary party will come into being (ie not through the growth of today's SWP)". I think they pretty solidly do think that. I think that the bulk of their activity and propaganda is aimed towards establishing this end, first through dominion over the left-of -labour-but-labour constituency then by pure weight hoovering up the left lefts. All about them.



Sorry, I'm typing on a phone here so it's a pain in the balls to respond properly. I don't know how people do this without pegging the fucking thing at a wall.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> See above. The SWP didn't exactly cover themselves in glory over that one either did they? Getting the competition out of the way of Respect?


Didn't they?

I understood and respected the position the SP had in the Socialist Alliance, however I genuinely believed they were wrong. I believed at the time, and still believe what the SWP did in the Socialist Alliance was win the vote for A reasonable strategy for the movement. 

In fact, At no point was I ever motivated by "Machiavellian power grabbing type stuff".  If you were in pursuit of power grabbing control of the Socialist Alliance, it would make about as much sense as a bald man grabbing control of a comb.

So now, either I am lying, or is it possible to look at the events from a different perspective? Is it possible I wasn't motivated by grabbing control of the Socialist Alliance?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> RMP3 only talks about openness and varied approaches when he wants to try make some space for his latest inanity.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


So Im lying?


----------



## dennisr (Jan 28, 2013)

your whole approach to 'debate' is a lie. stop trying to side-track a discussion with your usual trick of re-raising an argument you lost many months ago

fuck off RMP3. just fuck off.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Didn't they?
> 
> I understood and respected the position the SP had in the Socialist Alliance, however I genuinely believed they were wrong. I believed at the time, and still believe what the SWP did in the Socialist Alliance was win the vote for A reasonable strategy for the movement.
> 
> ...


 
Were you directing SWP policy re. the SA? If not why are blethering on about your motivations?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Sorry, I'm typing on a phone here so it's a pain in the balls to respond properly.


No worries. (Revolutionary scrumpy league is what i was on about with the RSL earlier btw, i wasn't after digging all stuff up, but it got away...)


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Finding it particularly difficult to square this with your SWP hackery.


 that's because you view everything an SWP member does through the lens of "Machiavellian power grabbing type stuff".  Therefore it doesn't compute, when I say what I genuinely believe.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> It's not hard to find examples of Leninist parties claiming to be the best, the cleverest, the exceptional, the irreplaceable organisation. And that their work is the best, the most important, etc. it's this kind of belif that keeps them going.
> 
> A quick google gets me these quotes from SWP 2012 conference:
> 
> ...


 
thats not exactly confined to the leninist left tho tbf.


----------



## cesare (Jan 28, 2013)

Ach. Just when it was getting interesting  (not you, froggie)


----------



## articul8 (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There are no formal organisational answers to social questions - for most partyists there has to be, or at least it has to be the start point.


what does this mean?  "Social questions" as opposed to what other kind of questions?


----------



## cesare (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> thats not exactly confined to the leninist left tho tbf.


Who else, then?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So Im lying?


 

Lying, stupid, together and separately covers much of your contribution to these boards. 

Just now on this thread were you lying about Oisin's position or were you too dim to work it out; although the result is the same please tell me which it was?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> Who else, then?


 
the iwca, anarchists, everyone on the left does it.


----------



## cesare (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the iwca, anarchists, everyone on the left does it.


Haven't seen any examples of either of those saying that they want to/aim at monopolising the class struggle.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the iwca, anarchists, everyone on the left does it.


I've already said that I think this kind of in-group cultishness is a widespread thing among radical groupings. But the Leninists make it into a virtue; it's the central plank of how their parties are organised, that they are irreplaceable, that they need to grow and increase their influence, because only they have the right analysis. In all my years in anarchist groups, or in the IWCA, I've never heard anyone say "Whether we recruit someone to [our group] makes a difference to how the struggle builds." It's a kind of organisational self-importance. Institutional sectarianism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> thats not exactly confined to the leninist left tho tbf.


Yes it is.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Were you directing SWP policy re. the SA? If not why are blethering on about your motivations?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 Because my motivations were the strategy clearly stated in party literature. Have you read and understood that strategy?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

Nobody other than an idiot would ever say the things in butchers quote about monopoly. But in private it's a common enough sentiment among cliffites. Other socialists fall into two categories, those yet to be won to The Truth and those rigidly opposed to it (which usually means other marxists and revolutionaries) The former are to be worked with, the latter crushed where possible and in a way that doesn't pee off the former excessively. Pretty much the fulltimers outlook on life and one I shared when a member.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> thats not exactly confined to the leninist left tho tbf.


 
There would be a difference between trying to convince others of an approach to indentifying, understanding and getting to grips with problems that face working class people and trying to recruit people to the organisation which is best placed to play a leading role in indentifying, understanding and getting to grips with those problems.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> those yet to be won to The Truth and those rigidly opposed to it (which usually means other marxists and revolutionaries)


 Which is why you have toe situation of the SWP being happier to work with liberals than with other socialists.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

You must have been quite the delight to know!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 28, 2013)

Has this been put on here yet? Apologies if it has, I've been following the thread pretty closely and I haven't seen it.

The Professor speaks! "Is Leninism Finished"

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12210


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Didn't they?
> 
> I understood and respected the position the SP had in the Socialist Alliance, however I genuinely believed they were wrong. I believed at the time, and still believe what the SWP did in the Socialist Alliance was win the vote for A reasonable strategy for the movement.
> 
> ...


 
What on earth are you talking about now? Who said _you _were motivated by anything other than slavish devotion to the SWP? Regardless of mistakes made by the SP, I think the only sensible interpretation of the actions of the SWP towards the end was that they wanted to get the SA out of the way of Respect. That's it - I'm sure you, like many members, didn't think that was what you were doing. It was though.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Because my motivations were the strategy clearly stated in party literature. Have you read and understood that strategy?


 
Now it really isn't clear if you're being thick or dishonest; perhaps you can't tell anymore in much the same way that you apparently can't concieve of the SWP leadership having both stated and unstated (maybe even unrecognised and therefore unacknowledged) motivations.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> that's because you view everything an SWP member does through the lens of "Machiavellian power grabbing type stuff". Therefore it doesn't compute, when I say what I genuinely believe.


 
No I don't - I view much of what the CC do in that way - but that doesn't mean they don't _also _have a genuine commitment to their stated politics.

You're a fool, and dennis is right - you're just here to derail and disrupt. Fuck off.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The only person on here who never seems to have grasped this is RMP3, though it appears he's got Oisin123 for company now.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Now it really isn't clear if you're being thick or dishonest; perhaps you can't tell anymore in much the same way that you apparently can't concieve of the SWP leadership having both stated and unstated (maybe even unrecognised and therefore unacknowledged) motivations.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 and their stated aim was Mr expert on everything?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

Why have you posted this? Do you know? If you do, would you like to explain?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> irrelevant quote


 
What's your point?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Has this been put on here yet? Apologies if it has, I've been following the thread pretty closely and I haven't seen it.
> 
> The Professor speaks! "Is Leninism Finished"
> 
> http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12210


I wonder what the answer may be!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Oh right, _Leninism remains indispensable_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

> The flood of attacks on the SWP *originates* in* some internal arguments* that culminated in our annual conference in January. The conference discussed a difficult disciplinary case. But wider political differences emerged. Two factions were formed in the lead-up to the conference to fight for changes in the model of democratic centralism - the system of decision making used by organisations in the revolutionary Marxist tradition - that the SWP has developed.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder what the answer may be!


 
Having looked at it, the answer seems to be 'don't look at the handling of the rape alegation, there is nothing to see there, nothing at all...just look into my eyes and listen while I tell you why the SWP still matters, why you still matter, why leninism still matters...it's all ok'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

"One thing the entire business has reminded us of is the dark side of the Internet."


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 28, 2013)

Can anyone shed any light on this. Someone mentioned it in conversation and I have no way of knowing if it's true, although it sounds plausible. The reason why Alex Callinicos is actually in charge of the SWP, even though Charlie Kimber (or whoever) is technically National Secretary, is because he gives a substantial portion of his income (as a tenured professor at King's College no doubt that's a tidy sum) to the party and is therefore one of it's major underwriters.

Perfectly ready to be told I'm wrong and to fuck off shit-stirring and gossip-mongering.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Nobody other than an idiot would ever say the things in butchers quote about monopoly. But in private it's a common enough sentiment among cliffites. Other socialists fall into two categories, those yet to be won to The Truth and those rigidly opposed to it (which usually means other marxists and revolutionaries) The former are to be worked with, the latter crushed where possible and in a way that doesn't pee off the former excessively. Pretty much the fulltimers outlook on life and one I shared when a member.


I think this is the attitude of many of the party hacks, sorry BB.

When I was a member my feelings were what's the point in arguing with other revolutionaries, let the be revolutionary in their own way. The important thing was to try and create more revolutionaries. Which i guess amounts to more or less the same in practice.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What on earth are you talking about now? Who said _you _were motivated by anything other than slavish devotion to the SWP? Regardless of mistakes made by the SP, I think the only sensible interpretation of the actions of the SWP towards the end was that they wanted to get the SA out of the way of Respect. That's it - I'm sure you, like many members, didn't think that was what you were doing. It was though.


 my original comment was aimed at the change in the constitution of the SA. One which you interpreted as "grabbing power".

The stated aim of the CC and the membership was completely the opposite. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that a "mass party" was possible. Therefore, should not be hamstrung by organisations of one man and his dog and that a constitution that allowed such a situation, would be a barrier to building a mass party.

The CC and the membership 'manoeuvred' to ensure, any constitution would not pre-empt a discussion with a mass membership of the shape and form that Alliance should take.  IE SWP voted against disarming the police.

The prize wasn't control of a political nonentity, the Socialist Alliance as it was,  but are significant minority influence amongst a real working class mass organisation.

The SWP, every political party/organisation/ grouping tries to win the vote for what they think be best for the movement. I don't see anything wrong with that.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> "One thing the entire business has reminded us of is the dark side of the Internet."


 
This Militant that "fought valiantly to win Labour to socialism" would be the one Socialist Worker attacked with the headline "Sold Down the Mersey"?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think this is the attitude of many of the party hacks, sorry BB.
> 
> When I was a member my feelings were what's the point in arguing with other revolutionaries, let the be revolutionary in their own way. The important thing was to try and create more revolutionaries. Which i guess amounts to more or less the same in practice.


 my experience too


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> my original comment was aimed at the change in the constitution of the SA. One which you interpreted as "grabbing power".
> 
> The stated aim of the CC and the membership was completely the opposite. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that a "mass party" was possible. Therefore, should not be hamstrung by organisations of one man and his dog and that a constitution that allowed such a situation, would be a barrier to building a mass party.
> 
> ...


 
Nothing to do with Respect then? Yeah right.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nothing to do with Respect then? Yeah right.


It doesn't matter what you say. RMP3 just wants to take the CC at face value and think that they were acting out of the highest of motives; that they were just doing what they thought was right."Hello trees, hello flowers, hello sky". You can't argue him out of it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Can anyone shed any light on this. Someone mentioned it in conversation and I have no way of knowing if it's true, although it sounds plausible. The reason why Alex Callinicos is actually in charge of the SWP, even though Charlie Kimber (or whoever) is technically National Secretary, is because he gives a substantial portion of his income (as a tenured professor at King's College no doubt that's a tidy sum) to the party and is therefore one of it's major underwriters.
> 
> Perfectly ready to be told I'm wrong and to fuck off shit-stirring and gossip-mongering.


 
Wouldn't have thought it would give him that much power. In the SWP and the SP there are members who pay over a grand a month in subs and who don't generally command any more influence than anyone else. I'd be startled if there weren't other members who paid more than him in subs. I suspect the influence he has related more to his credibility - both in terms of being a direct disciple of Cliff and as a respected theorist etc.


----------



## cesare (Jan 28, 2013)

a grand a month


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> It doesn't matter what you say. RMP3 just wants to take the CC at face value and think that they were acting out of the highest of motives; that they were just doing what they thought was right."Hello trees, hello flowers, hello sky". You can't argue him out of it.


So why would they want to control the SA? WTF for? It was nothing, it was smaller than the SWP, wasn't it? Give me one logical reason.
Motive?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Can anyone shed any light on this. Someone mentioned it in conversation and I have no way of knowing if it's true, although it sounds plausible. The reason why Alex Callinicos is actually in charge of the SWP, even though Charlie Kimber (or whoever) is technically National Secretary, is because he gives a substantial portion of his income (as a tenured professor at King's College no doubt that's a tidy sum) to the party and is therefore one of it's major underwriters.
> 
> Perfectly ready to be told I'm wrong and to fuck off shit-stirring and gossip-mongering.


I heard is true about him giving up a large potion of his salary but the second bit is bollocks, he would still be the most influential member of the SWP even if he paid a normal level of subs, as he has the most intellectual authority within the party, as he is now the SWP leading theorist, and I think he is the only CC member left who was on the CC while Cliff was.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> a grand a month


 
Yep, I admire their commitment but I won't be following their lead any time soon


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wouldn't have thought it would give him that much power. In the SWP and the SP there are members who pay over a grand a month in subs and who don't generally command any more influence than anyone else. I'd be startled if there weren't other members who paid more than him in subs. I suspect the influence he has related more to his credibility - both in terms of being a direct disciple of Cliff and as a respected theorist etc.


Yep. The profs donations wouldn't keep them going for a week. Daft idea.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nothing to do with Respect then? Yeah right.


 respect didn't exist when the constitution was changed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I heard is true about him giving up a large potion of his salary but the second bit is bollocks, he would still be the most influential member of the SWP even if he paid a normal level of subs, as he has the most intellectual authority within the party, as he is now the SWP leading theorist, and I think he is the only CC member left who was on the CC while Cliff was.


And the fact that he's a total dick who has been wrong ever since Cliff died helps.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> a grand a month


Bourgeois bastards, I only get paid about a grand a month.


----------



## cesare (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yep, I admire their commitment but I won't be following their lead any time soon


And that's after tax. Some of em must be on a fair old whack.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> respected didn't exist when the constitution was changed.


 
So? Are you saying it wasn't in mind? 

Anyway, why not just either contribute to the thread sensibly or fuck off so those of us who want to can? Bolshieboy, discokermit, emanymton and other posters who sympathise with the SWP haven't had any trouble doing so and we were having quite a good debate until you came along. I'm not going to help you derail this any further so your next stream of nonsense will go unanswered.


----------



## cesare (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Bourgeois bastards, I only get paid about a grand a month.


Is there some sort of tithe system ... if you earn over a certain amount you have to pay it to the party or get denounced as bourgeois?


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So why would they want to control the SA? WTF for? It was nothing, it was smaller than the SWP, wasn't it? Give me one logical reason.
> Motive?


 The motive is the old Leninist desire to control or destroy anything that can be a rival for working class leadership. They'd rather have no SA than a SA not under their control.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And the fact that he's a total dick who has been wrong ever since Cliff died helps.


Oddly enough I thought about saying something about him giving up so much of his income shows he is a sincere and committed revolutionary socialist he is still tosser who has shown very poor judgment.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> It doesn't matter what you say. RMP3 just wants to take the CC at face value and think that they were acting out of the highest of motives; that they were just doing what they thought was right."Hello trees, hello flowers, hello sky". You can't argue him out of it.


well the link I was given above to the arguments of Tom what's his face, give logical arguments which influence me. You and spinny don't offer anything beyond the CC are lying for some reason never properly outlined.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

What is the class path to the prof? Or the profs path to the class. How can the dialectical relationship between party and class find expression?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> Is there some sort of tithe system ... if you earn over a certain amount you have to pay it to the party or get denounced as bourgeois?


 
LOL there should be, I'd still only have to pay a couple of quid so it wouldn't bother me! They do seem to choose to make that kind of donation - they generally say pay whatever you can afford, but they don't ask how much you earn or anything like that. As far as I can tell these people pay it because they genuinely want to and believe it's for the good. Can't say it's a commitment I'd want to make, even if I could afford to - it's not that they're incredibly loaded and won't miss it (at least with the ones I know of), they do go without stuff.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 28, 2013)

mk12 said:


> You've been noticebaly silent on this thread RMP3. Where's your usual "are the SWP finished yet?" comment?





butchersapron said:


> Not supporting the opposition then rmp3?





Pickman's model said:


> at this point.





ViolentPanda said:


> "Noticeably silent" is absolutely right. Usually everyone's "favourite" post-SWP Swappite would be in there lecturing and hectoring anyone who varied from the "party line" (all the while emphasising that he's not partisan and hasn't been a Swappite for years!), and generally making a _putz_ of himself.
> Here, though, almost as quiet as the grave. Perhaps he hasn't been reprogrammed by Swap-Central since the conference?


you know you goaded him into talking. now he's talking.

you know, you've let the board down, you've let the posters down, you've let the lurkers down.

but worst of all, and deep down in your hearts you know this, you've let yourselves down.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. The profs donations wouldn't keep them going for a week. Daft idea.


 
Obviously trying to suggest his money alone keeps the party afloat is a daft idea, but I don't think any small party like the SWP could lose even his income and not feel it. And besides, isn't it more a case of how a small party like that might end up becoming financially dependent on small-ish group of relatively well paid members, who collectively contribute the bulk of a party's finances, rather than just one individual. A layer of professors and other middle-class people who's financial clout means they can have an influence beyond their numbers?

Like most of what I put this is all just thinking out loud, but I don't think it can just simply dismissed. I also don't think that's something unique to the left fringe, I suspect those sorts of dynamics can be found in any small perpetually cash-strapped political group.



SpineyNorman said:


> Yep, I admire their commitment but I won't be following their lead any time soon


 
You'll never make it onto the National Committee at this rate comrade.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

Good - the NC meet in London and I really fucking hate London.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> well the link I was given above to the arguments of Tom what's his face, give logical arguments which influence me. You and spinny don't offer anything beyond the CC are lying for some reason never properly outlined.


I've outlined the reasons again and again. You can keep on saying you'd rather take the SWP leadership at face value. I'm not going to convince you. I'll leave it now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Obviously trying to suggest his money alone keeps the party afloat is a daft idea, but I don't think any small party like the SWP could lose even his income and not feel it. And besides, isn't it more a case of how a small party like that might end up becoming financially dependent on small-ish group of relatively well paid members, who collectively contribute the bulk of a party's finances, rather than just one individual. A layer or professors and other middle-class people who's financial clout means they can have an influence beyond their numbers?


 
I'm not sure that they are financially dependent on that small group. Do you think the regional organisers pay money to fund themselves.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What is the class path to the prof? Or the profs path to the class. How can the dialectical relationship between party and class find expression?


Are you asking me?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

yeah in the finance appeals there's always someone who presents a 5 or so grand cheque because of something or other lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you know you goaded him into talking. now he's talking.
> 
> you know, you've let the board down, you've let the posters down, you've let the lurkers down.
> 
> but worst of all, and deep down in your hearts you know this, you've let yourselves down.


My question at least has an answer i was genuinely interested in. I did ask it knowing where it would go though, so guilty as charged.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Are you asking me?


This is a matter of interest to us all. Anyone know?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

Yeah, the bulk of the money comes from the £20, £30, £50 or whatever paid by mere plebs like me. The big spenders are a tiny exception and don't contribute a big enough proportion of the income to make it so they wield too much influence.

It probably does mean they can get away with more without being expelled though


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> my original comment was aimed at the change in the constitution of the SA. One which you interpreted as "grabbing power".
> 
> The stated aim of the CC and the membership was completely the opposite. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that a "mass party" was possible. Therefore, should not be hamstrung by organisations of one man and his dog and that a constitution that allowed such a situation, would be a barrier to building a mass party.
> 
> ...


 
As reported at the time in SW, some people saw things rather differently:

'Instead of democratic rights we now have the benevolent dictatorship of the [SWP] majority'...new proposals 'give ultimate power to the SWP'.​​This perspective turned out to be rather more perceptive than the rest of the SW article it's taken from.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Can anyone shed any light on this. Someone mentioned it in conversation and I have no way of knowing if it's true, although it sounds plausible. The reason why Alex Callinicos is actually in charge of the SWP, even though Charlie Kimber (or whoever) is technically National Secretary, is because he gives a substantial portion of his income (as a tenured professor at King's College no doubt that's a tidy sum) to the party and is therefore one of it's major underwriters.
> 
> Perfectly ready to be told I'm wrong and to fuck off shit-stirring and gossip-mongering.


This sounds like nonsense to me. What I can say is that I used to know someone who was the organiser for the branch Calinicos was in, and apparently Alex alway used to reach for the cheque book when he saw him coming.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not sure that they are financially dependent on that small group. Do you think the regional organisers pay money to fund themselves.


 
Neither am I, infact I think it's amost certain they're not _dependent_ on it, although without that kind of support they'd probably struggle even more financially. Unconsciously it must have some impact on how individuals rise to prominence within the organisation, even if it is secondary to other factors.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> this is all just *thinking* out loud,


lol.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> Is there some sort of tithe system ... if you earn over a certain amount you have to pay it to the party or get denounced as bourgeois?


There is a kind of understanding that you pay a certain proportion of your salary to the party, so they expect lots from well-off people. They don't work on the standard £25 a year or whatever it costs to belong to a parliamentary party. It is probably a sort of moral blackmail that is used.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you know you goaded him into talking. now he's talking.
> 
> you know, you've let the board down, you've let the posters down, you've let the lurkers down.
> 
> but worst of all, and deep down in your hearts you know this, you've let yourselves down.


 
And the class - mustn't forget the class in a thread about the SWP.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> The motive is the old Leninist desire to control or destroy anything that can be a rival for working class leadership. They'd rather have no SA than a SA not under their control.


 
No, it wasn't, really.

Their motive in taking over the Socialist Alliance can be boiled down to a combination of a stupid misreading of the situation (they thought that the SA was on the cusp of the big time) and wild arrogance (they thought that what was holding the SA back from achieving that potential was them not getting their way).

Their later decision to wind up the SA was a fairly straightforward tying up of loose ends when they were moving on to Respect.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 28, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you know you goaded him into talking. now he's talking.
> 
> you know, you've let the board down, you've let the posters down, you've let the lurkers down.
> 
> but worst of all, and deep down in your hearts you know this, you've let yourselves down.


 
Sorry. I'll stop now.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not sure that they are financially dependent on that small group. Do you think the regional organisers pay money to fund themselves.


Any Newman claims the SWP is loaded, mainly something about a massive life insurance pay out from some member who died. he even claims that this was the real reason for the fall out between the SWP and the American IS as the guy had just moved to America. Personally I think it's bullshit, otherwise way would they have had to sell the printshop?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Any Newman claims the SWP is loaded, mainly something about a massive life insurance pay out from some member who died. he even claims that this was the real reason for the fall out between the SWP and the American IS as the guy had just moved to America. Personally I think it's bullshit, otherwise way would they have had to sell the printshop?


I saw that a few months ago. I have no way of knowing. It doesn't sound right to me, but how could i possibly know. And Newman can get to fuck as well. The rosy cheeked wurzel-fishwife.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Any Newman claims the SWP is loaded, mainly something about a massive life insurance pay out from some member who died. he even claims that this was the real reason for the fall out between the SWP and the American IS as the guy had just moved to America. Personally I think it's bullshit, otherwise way would they have had to sell the printshop?


Did they sell the printshop out of a need for money? I thought after they lost the Private Eye contract, and didn't want to pay to upgrade to modern machinery, it was no longer making money?


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, it wasn't, really.
> 
> Their motive in taking over the Socialist Alliance can be boiled down to a combination of a stupid misreading of the situation (they thought that the SA was on the cusp of the big time) and wild arrogance (they thought that what was holding the SA back from achieving that potential was them not getting their way).
> 
> Their later decision to wind up the SA was a fairly straightforward tying up of loose ends when they were moving on to Respect.


Sounds largely like a more detailed version of what i just said!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, it wasn't, really.
> 
> Their motive in taking over the Socialist Alliance can be boiled down to a combination of a stupid misreading of the situation (they thought that the SA was on the cusp of the big time) and wild arrogance (they thought that what was holding the SA back from achieving that potential was them not getting their way).
> 
> Their later decision to wind up the SA was a fairly straightforward tying up of loose ends when they were moving on to Respect.


My memory of the collapse of the SA was that it was that the SP pulled out causing the crash. Doubtless they pulled out because they weren't getting on with the SWP.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> The motive is the old Leninist desire to control or destroy anything that can be a rival for working class leadership. They'd rather have no SA than a SA not under their control.


  The SA were NOT a rival. Were never perceived as a rival. An 'opportunity', to build a basically reformist mass organisation in which a revolutionary minority could have influence? They believed so.

Even if you accept the Machiavellian argument, and I don't, would you want to control and organisation bigger than yourself, or smaller than yourself? Obviously the latter. Therefore all their actions in the SA, were what they believed would deliver this prize, a mass organisation.

PS. Does anybody have any figures on how many members the Socialist Alliance had before SW joined it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> yeah in the finance appeals there's always someone who presents a 5 or so grand cheque because of something or other lol.


 
Which everybody knows is stage managed - it's usually the case that the person making the appeal went round his or her mates/people from their region to get them to club their money together so they can make a big, impressive donation that will hopefully shame others into coughing up a bit more. Everyone knows it but at a certain level everyone still falls for it


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> The SA were NOT a rival. Were never perceived as a rival. An 'opportunity', to build a basically reformist mass organisation in which a revolutionary minority could have influence? They believed so.
> 
> Even if you accept the Machiavellian argument, and I don't, would you want to control and organisation bigger than yourself, or smaller than yourself? Obviously the latter. Therefore all their actions in the SA, were what they believed would deliver this prize, a mass organisation.
> 
> PS. Does anybody have any figures on how many members the Socialist Alliance had before SW joined it?


 
Please shut up.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> The SA were NOT a rival. Were never perceived as a rival. An 'opportunity', to build a basically reformist mass organisation in which a revolutionary minority could have influence? They believed so.


 Like I said, I'll leave it. Seems that Nigel is better informed than me, anyway.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> Sounds like a more detailed version of what i just said!


 
In terms of consequences, not far off it, but rather different in terms of motivation.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> Did they sell the printshop out of a need for money? I thought after they lost the Private Eye contract, and didn't want to pay to upgrade to modern machinery, it was no longer making money?


You might be right, they certainly said it wasn't because they needed the money, but I would have though they would want their own printshop if possible. Either way i still think Newman's talking shit.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah, the bulk of the money comes from the £20, £30, £50 or whatever paid by mere plebs like me.


 
Does it? I mean I hate be devils advocate, but have you ever actually seen the accounts of the SWP or the SP, or seen the breakdown of how it's funded? You're probably right, but this is every bit as much speculation as the bollocks I spout.

I used to pay a tenner a month to the Socialist Party, then I was paying a fiver, now I've suspended payments totally until I get a more reliable job/until the Socialist Party abandons Leninism embraces my idiosyncratic brand of Militant Bennism. I spent more money in bank charges coz of unpaid direct debits to the SP than I have funding the party in the last few months I was paying subs.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Does it? I mean I hate be devils advocate, but have you ever actually seen the accounts of the SWP or the SP, or seen the breakdown of how it's funded? You're probably right, but this is every bit as much speculation as the bollocks I spout.
> 
> I used to pay a tenner a month to the Socialist Party, then I was paying a fiver, now I've suspended payments totally until I get a more reliable job/until the Socialist Party abandons Leninism embraces my idiosyncratic brand of Militant Bennism. I spent more money in bank charges coz of unpaid direct debits to the SP than I have funding the party in the last few months I was paying subs.


You don''t need to know that it does. You are a bit of a small conspiraloon.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> My memory of the collapse of the SA was that it was that the SP pulled out causing the crash. Doubtless they pulled out because they weren't getting on with the SWP.


 
The Socialist Party pulled out when the SWP took over the SA at the end of 2001. As did the independent councillors who had joined up in Preston, Red Action and Cymru Goch (speaking of which whatever happened to them?). The SWP then ran it as their own show, along with the little groups chiefly devoted to picking off an SWP member or two, for a couple of years before winding it up.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Does it? I mean I hate be devils advocate, but have you ever actually seen the accounts of the SWP or the SP, or seen the breakdown of how it's funded? You're probably right, but this is every bit as much speculation as the bollocks I spout.
> 
> I used to pay a tenner a month to the Socialist Party, then I was paying a fiver, now I've suspended payments totally until I get a more reliable job/until the Socialist Party abandons Leninism embraces my idiosyncratic brand of Militant Bennism. I spent more money in bank charges coz of unpaid direct debits to the SP than I have funding the party in the last few months I was paying subs.


 
Yeah it does. I've not seen the national breakdown but (for legitimate reasons) I have a good idea of who pays what in my branch. I have no reason to suspect it's any different elsewhere.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think this is the attitude of many of the party hacks, sorry BB.
> 
> When I was a member my feelings were what's the point in arguing with other revolutionaries, let the be revolutionary in their own way. The important thing was to try and create more revolutionaries. Which i guess amounts to more or less the same in practice.


Yeah I get what you're saying and as much as I say I agree with the approach I wasn't very good at applying it. Don't think I ever called a Millie a centrist to their face or anything...but I bloody thought it 

You're right it shouldn't be about arguing with other revolutionaries from other traditions but rather creating new ones. The thing is you still need to debate the other revolutionaries' ideas or else you're just storing up tears for later. Arguably the swp wouldn't be in this fight for existance now (if that's what it is) if they'd had more arguments with people they'd recruited about exactly what being a revolutionary means. If there is a 'socialist feminist' / autnomist breakaway happening (and I think there is) then it suggests someone should have trashed this stuff out earlier. The people who do that are normally the ones we all hated and called hacks but they do have a purpose in life!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

iirc the SPGB are largely funded from inheritances from long-dead members, although this could also be complete bollocks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> iirc the SPGB are largely funded from inheritances from long-dead members, although this could also be complete bollocks.


It is.

(beat you darren!)


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah it does. I've not seen the national breakdown but (for legitimate reasons) I have a good idea of who pays what in my branch. I have no reason to suspect it's any different elsewhere.


Likewise, While I never saw the Full accounts for the SWP, i did see full membership lists for 2 districts which included what level of subs were being paid.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> iirc the SPGB are largely funded from inheritances from long-dead members, although this could also be complete bollocks.


How do they tell the difference between them and the current members?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I've suspended payments totally until I get a more reliable job/until the Socialist Party abandons Leninism embraces my idiosyncratic brand of Militant Bennism.


_a bennite? in the millies?_ what the fuck is going on in the world?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> iirc the SPGB are largely funded from inheritances from long-dead members, although this could also be complete bollocks.


 
It wouldn't take very much to fund the SPGB's activity levels. I'd believe you if you told me that they were funded from one small boy's pocket money.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah it does. I've not seen the national breakdown but (for legitimate reasons) I have a good idea of who pays what in my branch. I have no reason to suspect it's any different elsewhere.


 
There was that moment when the finance full-timers hoped to hang up their boots when some vague comrade won the lottery - sadly they dropped out of revolutionary politics rather rapidly thereafter... kind of understandably - so the CWI and SP did not see any of the ill-gotten gains. (I'd would have made a good donation before feckin off of course)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

The prof:



> Through a series of leaks and briefings some ensured that a highly distorted account of the disciplinary case was circulated on the web and taken up by some of the mainstream media.


 
What of the leaked transcript was distorted? What briefings? From who to who? This sloppy shit will surely not do?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, it wasn't, really.
> 
> Their motive in taking over the Socialist Alliance can be boiled down to a combination of a stupid misreading of the situation (they thought that the SA was on the cusp of the big time) and [delete] (they thought that what was holding the SA back from achieving that potential was the [delete] the wrong strategy).
> 
> Their later decision to wind up the SA was a fairly straightforward tying up of loose ends when they were moving on to Respect.


Yeah, can agree with that edited version of your comments.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

I don't know what I am enjoying more. The Prof's article or the absolute fits it's producing in the Seymourites on fb and elsewhere. Finally, the empire strikes back.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

Internal arguments makes it sound like they split over an arguement over what form of state capitalism the USSR was.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> iirc the SPGB are largely funded from inheritances from long-dead members, although this could also be complete bollocks.


Just as a matter interest I know that the SWP was able to buy their printshop originally as some member had a rich relative who died and left them a big inheritance and they donated all of it to the SWP/ The member then moved to Canada and no one ever heard from them again.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 28, 2013)

discokermit said:


> _a bennite? in the millies?_ what the fuck is going on in the world?


 
Entryism comrade.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Yeah, can agree with that edited version of your comments.


fuck off RMP3


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

the prof said:
			
		

> One thing the entire business has reminded us of is the dark side of the Internet. Enormously liberating though the net is, it has long been known that it allows salacious gossip to be spread and perpetuated - unless the victim has the money and the lawyers to stop it. Unlike celebrities, small revolutionary organisations don't have these resources, and their principles stop them from trying to settle political arguments in the bourgeois courts.


 
So where and is the slander or libel that you are too principled to chase up?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 28, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Entryism comrade.


a world turned upside down.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The prof:
> 
> 
> 
> What of the leaked transcript was distorted? What briefings? From who to who? This sloppy shit will surely not do?


Yes I noticed that, as far as i know the accuracy of the transcript has never been disputed, so it what way is it distorted?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

revolutionary discipline isn't what it used to be


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

prof said:
			
		

> All of this would be of interest solely to the SWP and its supporters, were it not for the political conclusions that are being drawn


 
All noses now justified. Jesus, _this is the brains of the operation._


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

prof said:
			
		

> If the SWP didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent it.


 
No it wouldn't.


----------



## cesare (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So where and is the slander or libel that you are too principled to chase up?


"Bourgeois courts" again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yes I noticed that, as far as i know the accuracy of the transcript has never been disputed, so it what way is it distorted?


A  small lie for a larger (potential) gain is bred in the bone.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

What political conclusions? I thought this was about a case of alleged rape not "internal arguments" or "political conclusions".


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

The most enjoyable thing about the article in itself is how he totally refuses to even name Seymour and explains why: "a few individuals, some well known, others not, have used blogs and social media to launch a campaign within the SWP. Yet they themselves, for all their hotly proclaimed love of democracy, are accountable to no one for these actions. They offer an unappetising lesson in what happens when power is exercised without responsibility." Nailed on.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> How do they tell the difference between them and the current members?


 
harsh but funny

eta: Does Pete Cook's estate gets royalties on that joke?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

If i was to write a letter into SW/SR I wonder what the odds are it would be published?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> harsh but funny
> 
> eta: Does Pete Cook's estate gets royalties on that joke?


No that's an emanymton original that is.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It wouldn't take very much to fund the SPGB's activity levels. I'd believe you if you told me that they were funded from one small boy's pocket money.


 
and yet leading SP(EW) member Steve Nally only got 40 plus votes more than the SPGB candidate in that recent local election. I wish I had that small boy's pocket money.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The most enjoyable thing about the article in itself is how he totally refuses to even name Seymour and explains why: "a few individuals, some well known, others not, have used blogs and social media to launch a campaign within the SWP. Yet they themselves, for all their hotly proclaimed love of democracy, are accountable to no one for these actions. They offer an unappetising lesson in what happens when power is exercised without responsibility." Nailed on.


Yes, Seymour is running rampant, arrogating powers of the state to himself imagining that he is a workers tribunal fully and properly formed.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> If i was to write a letter into SW/SR I wonder what the odds are it would be published?


depends what you say.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I don't know what I am enjoying more. The Prof's article or the absolute fits it's producing in the Seymourites on fb and elsewhere. Finally, the empire strikes back.


 
Do you really think it's notably good?

It struck me as a bit rambling and all over the place, trying to deal with too many different opponent's positions and ending up dealing with them very superficially or by amalgam. That last part is obviously a tactical choice (to insinuate that the "errors" of one set of opponents can somehow be attached to others) but I don't think it's done particularly skillfully.

I mean, the framing of the argument as a battle between defenders of Leninism (the SWP Central Committee) and people he therefore he portrays as its opponents, whether they are or not, is clever enough. And he managed to throw the usual bone to the "soft" oppositionists by distinguishing their "thoughtful" but wrong views from the supposed irresponsibility of the "hard" oppositionists. But he never really engaged with the arguments of any of his internal opponents in any serious way. And he completely dodged the issue that has sparked the whole controversy.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> No that's an emanymton original that is.


 
you only think it is. that joke's been told on many occasion within the SPGB and your name was never mentioned.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

the fact he's going on about the internet etc reminds me a bit of gaddafi going on about protesters being on drugs and that's why they're protesting. shows how threatened he is doesn't it


----------



## cesare (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> If i was to write a letter into SW/SR I wonder what the odds are it would be published?


We could compose a letter from this thread


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The most enjoyable thing about the article in itself is how he totally refuses to even name Seymour and explains why: "a few individuals, some well known, others not, have used blogs and social media to launch a campaign within the SWP. Yet they themselves, for all their hotly proclaimed love of democracy, are accountable to no one for these actions. They offer an unappetising lesson in what happens when power is exercised without responsibility." Nailed on.


 
There's quite a bit of irony in this statement, don't you think?

Wasn't it the prof's grandad who said power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It is.
> 
> (beat you darren!)


 
legacies and few flush living members. thanks for outing me you bastard.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, Seymour is running rampant, arrogating powers of the state to himself imagining that he is a workers tribunal fully and properly formed.


The point he's making is that no fucker elected Seymour. Hence he doesn't get a mention.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

It's a sign of a wobble. He cannot do invective, he cannot do rhetoric, he can't half do old man brown leather jacket waffle though. He bottled it by throwing it onto for against leninsm.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> you only think it is. that joke's been told on many occasion within the SPGB and your name was never mentioned.


It's true then it is impossible to have a truly original thought these days.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> legacies and few flush living members. thanks for outing me you bastard.


i've gotta say, darren is the coolest name.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The point he's making is that no fucker elected Seymour. Hence he doesn't get a mention.


 
But what 'power' is Seymour wielding? Not much as far as I can see. The CC on the other hand...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The point he's making is that no fucker elected Seymour. Hence he doesn't get a mention.


Why would he mention such a rotten method of election, this surely only opens up his own path to the closed shop to enquiry.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's a sign of a wobble. He cannot do invective, he cannot do rhetoric, he can't half do old man brown leather jacket waffle though. He bottled it by throwing it onto for against leninsm.


 
It's not his role in the party


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The thing is you still need to debate the other revolutionaries' ideas or else you're just storing up tears for later. Arguably the swp wouldn't be in this fight for existance now (if that's what it is) if they'd had more arguments with people they'd recruited about exactly what being a revolutionary means.


 After arguing with Leninists for about 20 years now I still don't understand why the different versions disagree with each other so much. Why do you need to argue so much with other socialists, who also think that there's a need to work for a working class revolution through workplace activity and campaigning? Why do the small socialist groups all spend so much time saying that the others are wrong? I can understand the need to argue against people with politics that translates into very different activity - like arguing against anarchists who just want to build affinity groups, or against christian or Islamic campaigners who want to base activity in faith. But why so much effort in showing that people with near-identical politics are so very very poisonously wrong?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> There's quite a bit of irony in this statement, don't you think?
> 
> Wasn't it the prof's grandad who said power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely?


Wasn't it cliff who developed marxs ideas about  different material interests and applied them to shop stewards?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i've gotta say, darren is the coolest name.


 
thirty years from now all those millions of old age pensioners named Darren. 

apologies for derailing the thread.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wasn't it cliff who developed marxs ideas about different material interests and applied them to shop stewards?


 
Yeah - and it was some of the better stuff produced by IS too if you ask me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah - and it was some of the better stuff produced by IS too if you ask me.


No relevance here of course.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's a sign of a wobble. He cannot do invective, he cannot do rhetoric, he can't half do old man brown leather jacket waffle though. He bottled it by throwing it onto for against leninsm.


i'm not sure he's bottling it. splitting the soft oppositionists from the hard, over the question of structure was always going to be his plan, surely?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i'm not sure he's bottling it. splitting the soft oppositionists from the hard, over the question of structure was always going to be his plan, surely?


I agree, but through the paper? This is surely for the people outside?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> After arguing with Leninists for about 20 years now I still don't understand why the different versions disagree with each other so much. Why do you need to argue so much with other socialists, who also think that there's a need to work for a working class revolution through workplace activity and campaigning? Why do the small socialist groups all spend so much time saying that the others are wrong? I can understand the need to argue against people with politics that translates into very different activity - like arguing against anarchists who just want to build affinity groups, or against christian or Islamic campaigners who want to base activity in faith. But why so much effort in showing that people with near-identical politics are so very very poisonously wrong?


 
because the groups have so similar names that its easy to get confused so they have to distance themselves. i still think we should change our name back to militant. I think it is part of the old trot thing of having to link back to what they would have called themselves back in the 4th international or whatever so you get all these groups calling themselves things like socialist workers party, revolutionary socialist party, etc etc.

you have a point though i think it is because they're trying to be the largest group on the left and attract new recruits and corner the "market share". im sure you see this kind of sectarianism in anarchism tho.

i think SP do have quite different politics to SWP as it goes. Not just on the question of the USSR or whatever but in terms of the approach taken to things like Lindsey etc.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's a sign of a wobble. He cannot do invective, he cannot do rhetoric, he can't half do old man brown leather jacket waffle though. He bottled it by throwing it onto for against leninsm.


Not sure about the first bit, but I think the second bit is one of the problems the SWP is having, Callinicos has ended up in the position of de facto leader. But I don't think it is a role he is cut out for or one he especially wants.

eta, just seen your other post, the fact that he feels the need to do this publicly is a sign of weakness.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> and yet leading SP(EW) member Steve Nally only got 40 plus votes more than the SPGB candidate in that recent local election. I wish I had that small boy's pocket money.


 
Never mind pocket-money, Steve Nally threatened to name names, _the workers have long memories..._


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Not sure about the first bit, but I think the second bit is one of the problems the SWP is having, Callinicos has ended up in the position of de facto leader. But I don't think it is a role he is cut out for or one he especially wants.


He's happy being the brown eminence. But _there's no one left._


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> After arguing with Leninists for about 20 years now I still don't understand why the different versions disagree with each other so much. Why do you need to argue so much with other socialists, who also think that there's a need to work for a working class revolution through workplace activity and campaigning?


 
Because as you know there are massive differences as to what what working class revolution actually means and how it can be effected in nominally 'open' but thoroughly imperialist capitalist countries with very heavy trade union bureaucracies.

One way to unite the left or at least to stop inter-left attacks is a massive clampdown on bourgeois norms and a sudden onset of military repression. Unlikely to happen here, instead a slow slide to the grave for the majority alongside increasing freedom and liberation for the middle-class seems more likely.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i think SP do have quite different politics to SWP as it goes. Not just on the question of the USSR or whatever but in terms of the approach taken to things like Lindsey etc.


 I can see the point in taking up practical issues like that. What I'm on about is the hours and hours and hours spent by these top Marxist thinkers in proving that someone has got some interpretation of the dialectic wrong. Who cares? 

And I'll say again for the umpteenth time, I'm not taking up this point in an attempt to say that anarchism is so much better. My experience of UK anarchism has been of very unorganised groups, which mostly operate in different tactical ways, rather than trying to convince everyone that they are the only ones on the right track.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

eta: I still don't see the massive difference between the SWP, the SP and the AWL, the WP, etc etc.



sihhi said:


> One way to unite the left or at least to stop inter-left attacks is a massive clampdown on bourgeois norms and a sudden onset of military repression. Unlikely to happen here, instead a slow slide to the grave for the majority alongside increasing freedom and liberation for the middle-class seems more likely.


 I would not be so sure. There are many examples of Communist groups in a life-or-death struggle with the State still able to spare the energy to purge the "trotskyists" or "ultra-leftists" in their ranks.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> I can see the point in taking up practical issues like that. What I'm on about is the hours and hours and hours spent by these top Marxist thinkers in proving that someone has got some interpretation of the dialectic wrong. Who cares?


 
I don't get that obsession either. I could understand it if the starting point was a tactical or strategic error and they could show that this had its roots in a theoretical error somewhere but it tends to be argued in a much more abstract way.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He's happy being the brown eminence. But _there's no one left._


 
Is it me or is this suggesting Seymour wants to drive people to something new but "less left-wing" (like Melenchon is/was with respect to the NPA)




> The stakes in these debates are very high. The New Anticapitalist Party (NPA) in France imploded in 2011-12, leading to a very serious breakaway to the Front de Gauche led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon. This has weakened the far left in Europe, and indeed the rest of the world. The implosion was caused by political differences and setbacks, but it was exacerbated by an internal regime very similar to the one advocated by some SWP members. All the debates within the NPA went through the filter imposed by the struggle between four permanent factions. Members' loyalties focused on their factional alignments rather than the party itself.


 
Also how the frig has the NPA returning to a new version of what it was before it coalesced - weakened the far left in the Philippines?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> I would not be so sure. There are many examples of Communist groups in a life-or-death struggle with the State still able to spare the energy to purge the "trotskyists" or "ultra-leftists" in their ranks.


 
siege mentality innit?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Is it me or is this suggesting Seymour wants to drive people to something new but "less left-wing" (like Melenchon is/was with respect to the NPA)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's mad hyerbole. He wants to say trotsky-fascist-feminist but can't. It really is tawdry that this strong-arming passes for left-political debate. Never mind today and the shit that the class are facing, at any time this is crude.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> siege mentality innit?


 And the feeling that the enemies within are the most dangerous ones. Purity is needed to be worthy of history!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> After arguing with Leninists for about 20 years now I still don't understand why the different versions disagree with each other so much. Why do you need to argue so much with other socialists, who also think that there's a need to work for a working class revolution through workplace activity and campaigning? Why do the small socialist groups all spend so much time saying that the others are wrong? I can understand the need to argue against people with politics that translates into very different activity - like arguing against anarchists who just want to build affinity groups, or against christian or Islamic campaigners who want to base activity in faith. But why so much effort in showing that people with near-identical politics are so very very poisonously wrong?


Cause these differences matter and matter most at critical points in history. There are many people in Egypt right now who would broadly agree that what the country needs is a workers government. But they would have all sorts of differences on whether for example that means a violent confrontation with the state at some point, what the attitude to working with fellow workers who are Islamists should be, are the liberals a lesser evil to Morsi, were the Black Bloc a help or a hindrance in the demos over the last few days etc etc. And those differences matter cause they will determine what ultimately happens to the Egyptian revolution, success or defeat. Thank fuck there happens to be a fairly worked out Leninst organistion, the Rev Soc, on the ground arguing their politics with other people on the broadly left side and making sure that the most advanced sections of the Egyptian revolution have a voice at every turn and thank fuck they bothered to separate themselves sufficiently to have a voice. In our tiny-in-comparison struggles that sounds like ridiculous hair splitting. In a major crisis like Egypt it's life and death stuff.


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2013)

"...the Paris Commune of 1871 ... ended ... once the question of political power is posed"

really?  That rather changes everything the party said about it before.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

yeah Random some of these polemics are about things i don't even understand the meaning of, i really don't understand dialectical materialism i have to say and the whole 'science' that is built around it, i thought marxism was a political philosophy and a branch of economics and the dialectic thing completely baffles me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> And the feeling that the enemies within are the most dangerous ones. Purity is needed to be worthy of history!


_Behold the mainstream onslaught_ - two articles. The british army weighs  fifteen hundred tons - how are you going to cope?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> And the feeling that the enemies within are the most dangerous ones. Purity is needed to be worthy of history!


 
They never fully took on board our positions


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cause these differences matter and matter most at critical points in history. There are many people in Egypt right now who would broadly agree that what the country needs is a workers government. But they would have all sorts of differences on whether for example that means a violent confrontation with the state at some point, what the attitude to working with fellow workers who are Islamists should be, are the liberals a lesser evil to Morsi, were the Black Bloc a help or a hindrance in the demos over the last few days etc etc. And those differences matter cause they will determine what ultimately happens to the Egyptian revolution, success or defeat. Thank fuck there happens to be a fairly worked out Leninst organistion, the Rev Soc, on the ground arguing their politics with other people on the broadly left side and making sure that the most advanced sections of the Egyptian revolution have a voice at every turn and thank fuck they bothered to separate themselves sufficiently to have a voice. In our tiny-in-comparison struggles that sounds like ridiculous hair splitting. In a major crisis like Egypt it's life and death stuff.


i dont think that this is what is being discussed here (agree re egypt tho )

eta apart fromthe stuff about the "most advanced sections" etc but yes this stuff does matter, obscure polemics about dialectial materialism do not though.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> eta: I still don't see the massive difference between the SWP, the SP and the AWL, the WP, etc etc.
> 
> I would not be so sure. There are many examples of Communist groups in a life-or-death struggle with the State still able to spare the energy to purge the "trotskyists" or "ultra-leftists" in their ranks.


 
To sum up:-
AWL are Labour loyalists - coherent.
SP are left trade union bureaucrat loyalists - coherent.
SWP are rank and file leader loyalists - coherent.
WP have split.

You're changing what you said. Purging internally is not the same as hassling or directing attacks against opponent/competitor socialists.
It's borne out from the experience of the Indian Emergency, Zia in Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey, Nigeria when the military takes over - the socialist groups do stop fighting one another - at least for a few years (unless part of them support the coup like in India which can get complicated).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cause these differences matter and matter most at critical points in history. There are many people in Egypt right now who would broadly agree that what the country needs is a workers government. But they would have all sorts of differences on whether for example that means a violent confrontation with the state at some point, what the attitude to working with fellow workers who are Islamists should be, are the liberals a lesser evil to Morsi, were the Black Bloc a help or a hindrance in the demos over the last few days etc etc. And those differences matter cause they will determine what ultimately happens to the Egyptian revolution, success or defeat. Thank fuck there happens to be a fairly worked out Leninst organistion, the Rev Soc, on the ground arguing their politics with other people on the broadly left side and making sure that the most advanced sections of the Egyptian revolution have a voice at every turn and thank fuck they bothered to separate themselves sufficiently to have a voice. In our tiny-in-comparison struggles that sounds like ridiculous hair splitting. In a major crisis like Egypt it's life and death stuff.


How on earth does that come from or reflect what random is on about? These are just social/political conversations that everyone involved is having.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 28, 2013)

Am I the only person who found all the references to the SA a couple of pages ago a bit 'night of the long knives'?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Wait till you see the NSSN stuff.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> I can see the point in taking up practical issues like that. What I'm on about is the hours and hours and hours spent by these top Marxist thinkers in proving that someone has got some interpretation of the dialectic wrong. Who cares?


 
I think you must be thinking of some other SWP and Socialist Party because the two groups I know of by that name really don't go in for extended polemics with other groups on the left very often, and certainly not on wildly abstract topics like that.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i dont think that this is what is being discussed here (agree re egypt tho)


No indeed. That kind of discussion, about relationship to Islam, to the use of force, etc is exactly the kind of important discussion that is needed. It is linked to practical tasks.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think you must be thinking of some other SWP and Socialist Party because the two groups I know of by that name really don't go in for extended polemics with other groups on the left very often, and certainly not on wildly abstract topics like that.


Yes this is more of a CPGB type of thing to do.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

the prof said:
			
		

> It would be ridiculous to assert that the working class is finished.


 
How handy then, that everyone else is asserting that. Everyone but you.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think you must be thinking of some other SWP and Socialist Party because the two groups I know of by that name really don't go in for extended polemics with other groups on the left very often, and certainly not on wildly abstract topics like that.


 What I keep on remembering is a discussion I had with a socialist at a stall one demo. He was explaining why I should join his group; but at the end, he had basically alo made the argument for me joining the socialist group over the other side of the field, or the stall just by the main road. The basic decent argument for joining a socialist (trotskyist) group is one that applies to almost all of them. So why your group? Why are you better? 

Theeeeeen the abstract and/or historical stuff has to be rolled out.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How on earth does that come from or reflect what random is on about? These are just social/political conversations that everyone involved is having.


Because the argument was "Why do you need to argue so much with other socialists, who also think that there's a need to work for a working class revolution through workplace activity and campaigning?" Sorry but that lowest common denominator approach isn't enough. If Rev Soc had followed it they'd be in Hamdeen Sabahi's much larger group (most of whom are decent enough leftists and jan25 veterans in their own right) now and nobody would be making revolutionary arguments loudly in Egypt.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> im sure you see this kind of sectarianism in anarchism tho.


 anarchism doesn't exist.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> No indeed. That kind of discussion, about relationship to Islam, to the use of force, etc is exactly the kind of important discussion that is needed. It is linked to practical tasks.


And the Leninst argument that annoys you so much is that you need a group of people in a separate org to have been arguing those things for a long while to make their voice heard when it counts.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Because the argument was "Why do you need to argue so much with other socialists, who also think that there's a need to work for a working class revolution through workplace activity and campaigning?" Sorry but that lowest common denominator approach isn't enough. If Rev Soc had followed it they'd be in Hamdeen Sabahi's much larger group (most of whom are decent enough leftists and jan25 veterans in their own right) now and nobody would be making revolutionary arguments loudly in Egypt.


The argument _isn't yours_. That's the point. You partaking of it does not make it yours and it doesn't mean that you have to be a leninist party to have those debates. They are happening and on the whole, they're happening _outside of your favoured group. _


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 28, 2013)

I see via Twitter that the 'Open Letter to the SWP CC' now has more signatories to it than earlier. In a few hours it has gone from 17 names to 29.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> What I keep on remembering is a discussion I had with a socialist at a stall one demo. He was explaining why I should join his group; but at the end, he had basically alo made the argument for me joining the socialist group over the other side of the field, or the stall just by the main road. The basic decent argument for joining a socialist (trotskyist) group is one that applies to almost all of them. So why your group? Why are you better?
> 
> Theeeeeen the abstract and/or historical stuff has to be rolled out.


What was this clown doing on a stall ffs.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> To sum up:-
> AWL are Labour loyalists - coherent.
> SP are left trade union bureaucrat loyalists - coherent.
> SWP are rank and file leader loyalists - coherent.
> WP have split.


 The only real thing that separates these groups is that they have different small groups in their leadership, who are using a different hand of cards from the pack of trotskyist socialist tactics. The SP were in Labour before. the SWP were once not in Labour, and now are, etc. All the groups think that the unions' leadership are not to be trusted, hope lies in the rank and file, etc. it's all splitting hairs when it comes to real politics.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

dennisr said:


> your whole approach to 'debate' is a lie. stop trying to side-track a discussion with your usual trick of re-raising an argument you lost many months ago
> 
> fuck off RMP3. just fuck off.


 Why do you think I'm stifling the glee filled contributions to the thread? 

PS. I've just won that debate again.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yes this is more of a CPGB type of thing to do.


To try to do, them and the AWL. They are just ignored though.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> What I keep on remembering is a discussion I had with a socialist at a stall one demo.


 
I'm not sure that this is really a solid foundation to be building your conclusions on.

Yes, there are many basic socialist arguments which would amount to reasons to join any socialist group from the ICC to the SWP. And then, if those arguments are accepted, there are reasons why you might agree with the opinions of one group over another and it's not particularly odd for partisans of that group to explain why they think that their ideas and strategies and theories are better to someone who is wondering what group to join.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The argument _isn't yours_. That's the point. You partaking of it does not make it yours and it doesn't mean that you have to be a leninist party to have those debates. They are happening and on the whole, they're happening _outside of your favoured group. _


I think you do but that's a whole thread in it's own right so I'll back off now


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's mad hyerbole. He wants to say trotsky-fascist-feminist but can't. It really is tawdry that this strong-arming passes for left-political debate. Never mind today and the shit that the class are facing, at any time this is crude.


 
Isn't the hyperbole an act of lunacy?

'Hi we're a bunch of people who consider our not investigating rape impartially is like the NPA siding with Melenchon and not Laguilier and that has weakened the far left squatter organisations in Brazil.'

It just screams self-centred _and_ mad. Is it just me?


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not sure that this is really a solid foundation to be building your conclusions on.


 It's just a Laurie Penny-style attempt to ground my argument in "someone I once met".



Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, there are many basic socialist arguments which would amount to reasons to join any socialist group from the ICC to the SWP. And then, if those arguments are accepted, there are reasons why you might agree with the opinions of one group over another and it's not particularly odd for partisans of that group to explain why they think that their ideas and strategies and theories are better to someone who is wondering what group to join.


 Look at it this way. I need a good kitchen knife. Once I've accepted that it needs to be sharp and the right size for me, why do I then need to agonize over exactly which brand to get? Why should all the knife sellers try to say that the other knives will actually turn in my hand and cut me? Although that analogy is probably true for joining the AWL, tbh.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> You're changing what you said. Purging internally is not the same as hassling or directing attacks against opponent/competitor socialists.
> It's borne out from the experience of the Indian Emergency, Zia in Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey, Nigeria when the military takes over - the socialist groups do stop fighting one another - at least for a few years (unless part of them support the coup like in India which can get complicated).


 You may be right. I'm not changing what I say, just pointing out a linked fact.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> Am I the only person who found all the references to the SA a couple of pages ago a bit 'night of the long knives'?


 
I don't get what you're saying here.
1 Why did the Socialist Alliance collapse?
2 What is the parallel?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> It's just a Laurie Penny-style attempt to ground my argument in "someone I once met".
> 
> Look at it this way. I need a good kitchen knife. Once I've accepted that it needs to be sharp and the right size for me, why do I then need to agonize over exactly which brand to get? Why should all the knife sellers try to say that the other knives will actually turn in my hand and cut me? Although that analogy is probably true for joining the AWL, tbh.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> What I keep on remembering is a discussion I had with a socialist at a stall one demo. He was explaining why I should join his group; but at the end, he had basically alo made the argument for me joining the socialist group over the other side of the field, or the stall just by the main road. The basic decent argument for joining a socialist (trotskyist) group is one that applies to almost all of them. So why your group? Why are you better?
> 
> Theeeeeen the abstract and/or historical stuff has to be rolled out.


One thing that used to piss me off when I was in the SWP was that if asked why someone should join us and not, say the SP the only answer some would give was that the SWP was bigger. To which my response was and the labour party is bigger than us, should we all join labour? The communist party was once much bigger than the SWP, where all those who joined the SWP at that time wrong to do so? It was full timers coming out with this shit. 

I know that doesn't answer your question I just wanted to get it off my chest.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> You may be right. I'm not changing what I say, just pointing out a linked fact.


 
I think your linked fact is correct - people are always purged, but that's the same in all parties mainstream and left.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Because the argument was "Why do you need to argue so much with other socialists, who also think that there's a need to work for a working class revolution through workplace activity and campaigning?" Sorry but that lowest common denominator approach isn't enough. If Rev Soc had followed it they'd be in Hamdeen Sabahi's much larger group (most of whom are decent enough leftists and jan25 veterans in their own right) now and nobody would be making revolutionary arguments loudly in Egypt.


 I'm not able to reply to your points because I don't know enough about Egypt, sorry. Like I've said, though, I can understand why people want to organise separately when they have very different aims or use incompatible methods. In the UK I don't see how this is the case.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, yes i can.


 but no you won't.

 So evidently, being an anarchist is like the film Fight Club. At every meeting the mantra is "the first rule about anarchism is, you do not discuss anarchism".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> Look at it this way. I need a good kitchen knife. Once I've accepted that it needs to be sharp and the right size for me, why do I then need to agonize over exactly which brand to get?


 
Because the distinctions are rather more than branding. There are basic political disagreements about things with real world significance between various small left groups.

Of course, many people don't bother "agonizing over" which group to join anyway. In my experience, simply joining the first radical group you see is perhaps more common.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> One thing that used to piss me off when I was in the SWP was that if asked why someone should join us and not, say the SP the only answer some would give was that the SWP was bigger. To which my response was and the labour party is bigger than us, should we all join labour? The communist party was once much bigger than the SWP, where all those who joined the SWP at that time wrong to do so? It was full timers coming out with this shit.
> 
> I know that doesn't answer your question I just wanted to get it off my chest.


 It doesn't answer my question, but it does help me understand things inside the SWP better, thanks.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> ... Their later decision to wind up the SA was a fairly straightforward tying up of loose ends when they were moving on....


For example.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> For example.


 
What on Earth are you talking about?


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Of course, many people don't bother "agonizing over" which group to join anyway. In my experience, simply joining the first radical group you see is perhaps more common.


 And the parties' leadership are well aware of this. hence their wanting to be the most visible in whichever campaign is flavour of the month. They know that what mainly succeeds is success itself. So why pretend that its your party that's the one with the uniquely best understanding?


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What on Earth are you talking about?


I was replying to someone else using your post as an example.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> The only real thing that separates these groups is that they have different small groups in their leadership, who are using a different hand of cards from the pack of trotskyist socialist tactics. The SP were in Labour before. the SWP were once not in Labour, and now are, etc. All the groups think that the unions' leadership are not to be trusted, hope lies in the rank and file, etc. it's all splitting hairs when it comes to real politics.


To be Frank the AWL are miles away from the rest on the left.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> They know that what mainly succeeds is success itself. So why pretend that its your party that's the one with the uniquely best understanding?


 
This is a false opposition. If you think that your set of theories, strategies and structures is better than any other on offer, you would also, quite reasonably, want to put that set of stuff in the shop window as prominently as possible.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Why do you think I'm stifling the glee filled contributions to the thread?
> 
> PS. I've just won that debate again.


And your attitude toward the rape allegation? What do you think of the way in which the dc handled the investigation?
What do you think of the attempts of the cc to close down debate? Are you content that the UAF sent Delta to Greece as their representative? 
 Have you anything relevant to contribute to the actual issue which this thread is about, which at this moment is tearing apart the party you have spent all your time on urban defending?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> One thing that used to piss me off when I was in the SWP was that if asked why someone should join us and not, say the SP the only answer some would give was that the SWP was bigger. To which my response was and the labour party is bigger than us, should we all join labour? The communist party was once much bigger than the SWP, where all those who joined the SWP at that time wrong to do so? It was full timers coming out with this shit.
> 
> I know that doesn't answer your question I just wanted to get it off my chest.


That is pretty poor fair enough and yeah I've heard that stuff too. On the other hand if the full timer spent several hours explaining why they thought the SP's politics represented a break with classical marxism wouldn't there be loads of people around here who'd denounce them as splitter leninist loons obsessed with meaningless differences?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> I was replying to someone else using your post as an example.


 
You've fired out a series of one line posts with no real content to them.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> To be Frank the AWL are miles away from the rest on the left.


 
probably flying over iran on a reconnaissance mission


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2013)

Anyway I'm off home now, so no more replies from me. Good night


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> So? Are you saying it wasn't in mind?
> 
> Anyway, why not just either contribute to the thread sensibly or fuck off so those of us who want to can? Bolshieboy, discokermit, emanymton and other posters who sympathise with the SWP haven't had any trouble doing so and we were having quite a good debate until you came along. I'm not going to help you derail this any further so your next stream of nonsense will go unanswered.


 you are seriously frightened I will stifle the debate? Debate? Or gleeful celebration?  

unless the were able to predict the future, yes it definitely was not in mind, as respect didn't exist. 

See what happens when you look at the facts, through  the lens of a lie ?

 Anyway, the discussion may as well end there, because neither you or random have provided one logical argument why the SWP would want to control the tiny SA.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 28, 2013)

It was intended merely as an aside - clearly a badly expressed one.  If you go back a few pages after a few glasses of wine and read SA as Sturmabteilung instead of Socialist Alliance it seems apt, clearly with reference to a different context.  My quote of your post was only meant to be illustrative.  No offense intended.  Carry on with the debate comrades.


----------



## cesare (Jan 28, 2013)

Surreal.

(RMP3's dialogue)


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> The only real thing that separates these groups is that they have different small groups in their leadership, who are using a different hand of cards from the pack of trotskyist socialist tactics. The SP were in Labour before. the SWP were once not in Labour, and now are, etc. All the groups think that the unions' leadership are not to be trusted, hope lies in the rank and file, etc. it's all splitting hairs when it comes to real politics.


 
But some believe the rank and file can be mobilised by the correct left leadership, others don't. Some (RCP and ex-SWP Counterfire) believe the Trotskyist playbook is at a dead end and finished, others don't.

SWP will never be pro-Labour. SP might be pro-Labour in order to encourage a left split from Labour - note that TUSC didn't stand against Labour Lefts - to form what the CNWP wants. AWL will always be pro-Labour. Those differences will basically not change.

Your argument, Random, essentially is that no party or fraction of a party should ever have left the
the 1938 vintage Revolutionary Socialist League. That itself was a Trotskyist union.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Or set it up.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 28, 2013)

Just found this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

This is what an interventionist party looks like:




			
				the prof said:
			
		

> What this involved was the Bolsheviks acting as what is sometimes called a "vanguard party". They represented for most of their existence before October 1917 a small minority of the Russian working class. But this minority was united by a shared Marxist understanding of the world. And, above all, it organised and acted on the basis of this understanding.
> 
> The Bolsheviks collectively intervened in the struggles of the Russian working class. In doing so, they put forward proposals that would help to advance the struggle in question. But they simultaneously sought to encourage workers to recognise that they had to fight for political power and, to achieve this, to support the Bolshevik Party itself.


 
The CC says they want an interventionist party so this is what they mean when you support it, doing good things, not bad things.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> And your attitude toward the rape allegation? What do you think of the way in which the dc handled the investigation?
> What do you think of the attempts of the cc to close down debate? Are you content that the UAF sent Delta to Greece as their representative?
> Have you anything relevant to contribute to the actual issue which this thread is about, which at this moment is tearing apart the party you have spent all your time on urban defending?


 you mean like discussions of Kronstadt etc. And whether this kind of thing is inevitable in a Leninist organisation?

If people are going to make bold statements, then there is no guidelines that suggests I cannot ask them to back up their bold statements with a logical analysis, facts.

Correction, I have spent my time attacking what I perceive as Bullshit arguments, and saying "if you're going to attack the SWP, attack it for what it has really done, instead of making shit up."

 Dealt with current affair issue in post 3078


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you mean like discussions of Kronstadt etc. And whether this kind of thing is inevitable in a Leninist organisation?
> 
> If people are going to make bold statements, then there is no guidelines that suggests I cannot ask them to back up their bold statements with a logical analysis, facts.
> 
> ...


 
no this is about a rape allegation and how the swp dealt with it not kronstadt


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

I wonder who came up with the Marxism speakers open letter thing? As in, did one of them suggest it, or are they responding to a request from Oppositionists?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

The canada thing suggest Kellog as he had written well early on this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Kevin Murphy,  Banaji and people like that are big big hits.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 28, 2013)

Random said:


> It's just a Laurie Penny-style attempt to ground my argument in "someone I once met".
> 
> Look at it this way. I need a good kitchen knife. Once I've accepted that it needs to be sharp and the right size for me, why do I then need to agonize over exactly which brand to get? Why should all the knife sellers try to say that the other knives will actually turn in my hand and cut me? Although that analogy is probably true for joining the AWL, tbh.


 
Apart from the whole Middle-East thing why does everyone hate the AWL?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Hatherly for the kids.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> no this is about a rape allegation and how the swp dealt with it not kronstadt


 a topic of which I have no knowledge, having no involvement with the SWP for over 10 years. Already explained all this. see 3078. "Dammed if I do, dammed if I don't."

However, that topic has been used to make broader statements about Leninism et cetera .nowhere in the guidelines does it say I cannot question those statements.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Apart from the whole Middle-East thing why does everyone hate the AWL?


 
sean's poetry


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> a topic of which I have no knowledge, having no involvement with the SWP for over 10 years. Already explained all this. see 3078. "Dammed if I do, dammed if I don't."
> 
> However, that topic has been used to make broader statements about Leninism et cetera .nowhere in the guidelines does it say I cannot question those statements.


 
but this is nothing to do with kronstadt (altho some are making the link between organisational structures of the bolshevik party in 1921 and organisations which claim to be inspired by bolsheviks today) this is something tht has happened NOW, a crime has allegedly been committed, and that is what the thread is about. you dont seem to have a clue about what the thread is about except that the swp is getting a slagging


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Kevin Murphy, Banaji and people like that are big big hits.


 
Owen Jones won't be at Marxism 2013


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> sean's poetry


 
There's always a sly flash in there, that he is the one in control - i find it scary.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Snowball, late of this parish under a different name and much missed for his particularly unflinching dedication to whatever wheeze the CC were pushing this week, weighs in with a review of Seymour's book on Hitchens. He's much vexed by the drag of petty bourgeois individualism on certain SWP academics.

http://histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/book-review-unhitched-by-richard-seymour.html


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Owen Jones won't be at Marxism 2013


I wonder if they really are inviting people already, or he just got a bit excited. Fair play to him if they are.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Which everybody knows is stage managed - it's usually the case that the person making the appeal went round his or her mates/people from their region to get them to club their money together so they can make a big, impressive donation that will hopefully shame others into coughing up a bit more. Everyone knows it but at a certain level everyone still falls for it


Oh! You've just reminded me of a horrible experience. I was at the Militant summer camp in Ireland one year and they did this appeal. 'Does anyone in the audience pledge £100... anyone £50 ...' etc. It took forever, with rounds of applause for the bigger donations. I found out later they were mostly just I.O.U.s and effectively the repledging of subs. The whole system was really to encourage suckers like me to reach for a note instead of chucking some coins in the tin.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Apart from the whole Middle-East thing why does everyone hate the AWL?


 
Making themselves obnoxious to others on the left has been a central part of their political strategy for decades.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Snowball, late of this parish under a different name and much missed for his particularly unflinching dedication to whatever wheeze the CC were pushing this week, weighs in with a review of Seymour's book on Hitchens. He's much vexed by the drag of petty bourgeois individualism on certain SWP academics.
> 
> http://histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/book-review-unhitched-by-richard-seymour.html


" this little book" he does't have the firepower to say this.

edit: good lord:



> and there are some nice quotes from the likes of William Hazlitt and Isaac Deutscher on the situation post the French and Russian revolutions respectively, as former hopes were dashed *by the rise of the likes of Napoleon and Stalin.*


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Owen Jones won't be at Marxism 2013


 

FFS, whoever's organising Recruitathon this year. Their timing for sending out invites is fucking awful. Two facepalms at least.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I was at the Militant summer camp in Ireland one year and they did this appeal.


 
We've long since ditched that style of appeal over here. They work, but they are a bit too in your face.

What were you doing at a Militant summer camp, by the way?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> " this little book" he does't have the firepower to say this.


 
Indeed he does not. It's like watching a kid wearing her mother's heels.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Actually that is really too depressing, someone whose went to uni at 18 and hasn't yet left arguing against seymour on basis of what would he know/he would say that.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Snowball, late of this parish under a different name and much missed for his particularly unflinching dedication to whatever wheeze the CC were pushing this week, weighs in with a review of Seymour's book on Hitchens. He's much vexed by the drag of petty bourgeois individualism on certain SWP academics.
> 
> http://histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/book-review-unhitched-by-richard-seymour.html


 
Decca Aitkenhead ( mentioned in that review)  used to work behind the bar in the Red Lion in Withington, Manchester. Never ever voiced her opinion on anything with any punter but obviously feels free to do so now when no one can answer back.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> FFS, whoever's organising Recruitathon this year. Their timing for sending out invites is fucking awful. Two facepalms at least.


 
Total insanity on the part of whoever is calling the shots on that. But imagine being the poor junior fulltimer who actually has to ring these people up.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 28, 2013)

http://histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/book-review-unhitched-by-richard-seymour.html



> As a member of the SWP, buying this book is probably an expellable offence', I joked to the genial old guy behind the counter in Housman's bookshop in London the other day as I handed over money for_Unhitched_ by Richard Seymour - the proprieter of the Lenin's Tomb blog, which seems to be currently devoted to trying to drum up both sales of _Unhitched_ and supporters of the 'SWP Opposition'. The Housmans assistant didn't get the joke, which served for me as a timely reminder that for probably about 99% of the Left in Britain, 'Lenin's Tomb' means, well, *the Lenin's Tomb*


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Apart from the whole Middle-East thing why does everyone hate the AWL?


 
smug liberal types


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Snowball, late of this parish under a different name and much missed for his particularly unflinching dedication to whatever wheeze the CC were pushing this week, weighs in with a review of Seymour's book on Hitchens. He's much vexed by the drag of petty bourgeois individualism on certain SWP academics.
> 
> http://histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/book-review-unhitched-by-richard-seymour.html


 
I love how Lenin is _the _most important and outstanding revolutionary Marxist thinker after Marx.



> It would be farcical now if Richard Seymour, who founded a blog called 'Lenin's Tomb' precisely to rightly provoke those with essentially petty-bourgeois and individualist prejudices against the most important and outstanding revolutionary Marxist thinker after Marx himself - ever ended up himself succumbing to the kind of hostile pressures he once so detested and still warns us against so eloquently and effectively in_Unhitched_.


 
Where is Engels? Third presumably. Trotsky number four and Cliff number five.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder if they really are inviting people already, or he just got a bit excited. Fair play to him if they are.


 
Bad for his image more than any principles


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/book-review-unhitched-by-richard-seymour.html


 


> *"genial old guy"*


 
ffs, has Max mellowed? That's more of a shock than the current crisis within the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Bad for his image more than any principles


I reckon they might coincide this time. That said, if he's not been invited and just wanted to jump on...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I love how Lenin is _the _most important and outstanding revolutionary Marxist thinker after Marx.


 
Who would you expect, remembering who you are reading?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Decca Aitkenhead ( mentioned in that review) *used to work behind the bar in the Red Lion in Withington, Manchester. Never ever voiced her opinion on anything with any punter* but obviously feels free to do so now when no one can answer back.


 
Not voicing opinions is reasonable enough in anyone working in or running a pub IMO ... I've had enough of the opposite from behind pub bars over the years to do without it ...

Suspect I'm missing some of your point though


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

This is just weird from John Molyneux on that blog:

http://histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/john-molyneux-on-marxism-and-party.html



> The main example of this is the international surge of _more or less uncritical enthusiasm for Syriza in Greece_, from the moment it became clear that it had a chance of winning a parliamentary majority. Other examples include the relative success of the Front de Gauche in France (compared to the avowedly revolutionary NPA), the Left Bloc in Portugal, Die Linke in Germany, the high poll results for the Red-Green Alliance in Denmark and the yearning often expressed for such a party in Britain (unformed because the people who could form it refuse to break with the Labour Party).
> 
> Of course the emergence and progress of such broad parties of the radical left is welcome in that it is a symptom and expression of the working class moving to the left, but those who counterpose such parties to the building of revolutionary parties and hail them as the main way forward are ignoring the tragic history of left reformist governments, most notably Salvador Allende’s Popular Unity in Chile in 1970-73, which ended in Pinochet’s brutal military coup, and the Popular Front government of Spain in 1936 which succumbed to Franco and fascism, as well as the historical experience of left reformism as a whole (Menshevism in Russia, Kautskyism in Germany, the Socialist Party in Italy in 1918-21 and many other examples. The fundamental weakness of left reformism, as Lenin emphasized in The State and Revolution, is its fudging of the need to smash the capitalist state as opposed to taking it over. As a consequence left reformist governments are either captured by the capitalist state or destroyed by it.
> 
> ...


 
Rosa Luxemburg might have been killed because she wasn't in a proper party.

I assume John Molyneux pro-Delta and anti-Opposition.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Who would you expect, remembering who you are reading?


 
I didn't think they would actually parade individuals in a chart rundown Romania style:


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This is just weird from John Molyneux on that blog:
> 
> http://histomatist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/john-molyneux-on-marxism-and-party.html
> 
> ...


A proper party like what John would have been in would not have been provoked over eichorn and so set the ground for a proper insurrection.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Total insanity on the part of whoever is calling the shots on that. But imagine being the poor junior fulltimer who actually has to ring these people up.


 

Owen Jones said he got an email.

Inviting a liberal to the summer hangout - good internet.
Calling for a better investigation of rape - "the dark side of the Internet".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I didn't think they would actually parade individuals in a chart rundown Romania style:


 
I don't think I've seen that particular version of the "History of Shaving" before. It's normally Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao, or sometimes Marx-Lenin-Mao.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Owen Jones said he got an email.
> 
> Inviting a liberal to the summer hangout - good internet.
> Calling for a better investigation of rape - "the dark side of the Internet".


Tweeting michael roberts (and not doing the hard work your self) = the good side
Saying a damn thing in public about the party that you are a member of = dark side

This is just...rotting.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What were you doing at a Militant summer camp, by the way?


Testing my arguments in favour of state cap and a workers' republic against their best. Well, Joe Higgins wasn't there so it was mostly toe to toe with Peter Hadden. I also came across a really interesting hang up one of their 'historians' had. I don't know if you've ever encountered it. Someone in a talk asked why, if a planned economy is more progressive than an anarchic one (apologies to our anarchist friends, you know what I mean), did the ancient Chinese empire not advance more quickly than western feudalism? They got themselves tied up in knots over that.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A proper party like what John would have been in would not have been provoked over eichorn and so set the ground for a proper insurrection.


 
Had Eichhorn been expelled as the SPD central government intended then the assault on the left would have started with a ultra-rightist police chief. 




			
				Rosa Luxemburg said:
			
		

> The revolution does not develop evenly of its own volition, in a clear field of battle, according to a cunning plan devised by clever “strategists.”


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Had Eichhorn been expelled as the SPD central government intended then the assault on the left would have started with a ultra-rightist police chief.


I'm telling you _their_ logic not mine. Mine would have had everything under eichorn's formal control occupied by fighters days before ...but for another thread....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Testing my arguments in favour of state cap and a workers' republic against their best.


 
Did the SWP send you on your own? I remember they did that to someone a few years back, which struck me as a bit mean.




			
				Oisin said:
			
		

> Someone in a talk asked why, if a planned economy is more progressive than an anarchic one (apologies to our anarchist friends, you know what I mean), did the ancient Chinese empire not advance more quickly than western feudalism?


 
The question contains a number of dubious suppositions, so I'm not surprised that anyone trying to answer it on its own terms would end up in knots.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I doubt if there'll be too much interest in a major split in what was, after all, merely the largest anarchoid grouping in France and thus not something of any great importance.
> 
> Also, I don't really have all the details. As I understand it though, it's mostly a split between the semi-functional mini-union bit of the CNT and the ideological anarchoids. More than half of the members have left to form the new CNT-Solidarite Ouvriere, which takes its place at the head of the massed ranks of CNTs (I believe they are up to four by now). There are accusations of financial shenanigans and theft flying around and members have apparently taking to swiping books off each others stalls.


This is post 3078 it isn't even by you, so how do you "deal with the current situation" in it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> This is post 3078 it isn't even by you, so how do you "deal with the current situation" in it?


 
Wait, what?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Wait, what?


Sorry Nigel, the idiot that is resistance mp3 keeps claiming he dealt with the current situation in post 3078 so I had a look, and it was a post by you.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Did the SWP send you on your own? I remember they did that to someone a few years back, which struck me as a bit mean... The question contains a number of dubious suppositions, so I'm not surprised that anyone trying to answer it on its own terms would end up in knots.



I wasn't sent, I wanted to get a feel for the Irish Militant. A friend of mine came along and we mucked in with everyone else for the camp duties etc. It was fun, a bit like the old SWP Skegness. And while I did sometimes get crowds of males pushing me and shouting at me in scary northern accents, I was armed with the shield of righteousness. I agree about the question, by the way, it's not one I've ever thrown at SP members in the hope of scoring a victory for the theory of state capitalism.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm telling you _their_ logic not mine. Mine would have had everything under eichorn's formal control occupied by fighters days before ...but for another thread....


 
It's aimed at Molyneux's approach.  



butchersapron said:


> Tweeting michael roberts (and not doing the hard work your self) = the good side
> Saying a damn thing in public about the party that you are a member of = dark side
> 
> This is just...rotting.


 
This I don't get - Michael Roberts is an economist, Callinicos is a political scientist and philosopher so of course he won't be doing Michael Roberts work.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's aimed at Molyneux's approach.
> 
> 
> 
> This I don't get - Michael Roberts is an economist, Callinicos is a political scientist and philosopher so of course he won't be doing Michael Roberts work.


The good side is him getting to pretend that he knows what's going on, intimately.
The dark side is - lazy people like him can pretend that they do.

And this aura of course feeds baxck into his shockingly bad piece that we're talking about above - it comes from _one who knows,_ so you can't challenge it - and the wider party reception of his writ.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's aimed at Molyneux's approach. .


 
That might be an interesting thread though ...


----------



## articul8 (Jan 28, 2013)

How many original insights has the prof come out with over decades? At best one of resisters of postmodern current. But far from unique in that...


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think I've seen that particular version of the "History of Shaving" before. It's normally Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao, or sometimes Marx-Lenin-Mao.


 
Apparently Germans are still keen on it today


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

articul8 said:


> How many original insights has the prof come out with over decades? At best one of resisters of postmodern current. But far from unique in that...


How many academics ever do. He's done very good work on the historical construction of social theory and more in history. Each of which throws his role into pathetic leftist strongman into ever deeper relief.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I wasn't sent, I wanted to get a feel for the Irish Militant.


 
Going away camping with half of them sounds like a fairly drastic way to do that! At least if one of our lot goes to Marxism (recently renamed but I can't remember to what) they aren't stuck in the middle of nowhere afterwards.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The good side is him getting to pretend that he knows what's going on, intimately.
> The dark side is - lazy people like him can pretend that they do.
> 
> And this aura of course feeds baxck into his shockingly bad piece that we're talking about above - it comes from _one who knows,_ so you can't challenge it - and the wider party reception of his writ.


 
I see you - his endless tweeting of and every Financial Times article related to the Eurozone crisis.

Good internet also allows a bizarre form of unspoken 'get your graves as close as possible to Marx'.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=489889014&l=d2ea2e6bcd&id=640375117


----------



## binka (Jan 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Decca Aitkenhead ( mentioned in that review)  used to work behind the bar in the Red Lion in Withington, Manchester. Never ever voiced her opinion on anything with any punter but obviously feels free to do so now when no one can answer back.


i used to work in the white lion in withington and people were queuing up to hear what i had to say


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I wasn't sent, I wanted to get a feel for the Irish Militant. A friend of mine came along and we mucked in with everyone else for the camp duties etc. It was fun, a bit like the old SWP Skegness. And while I did sometimes get crowds of males pushing me and shouting at me in scary northern accents, I was armed with the shield of righteousness. I agree about the question, by the way, it's not one I've ever thrown at SP members in the hope of scoring a victory for the theory of state capitalism.


 
I suddenly thought of this when I was reading your post:


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I see you - his endless tweeting of and every Financial Times article related to the Eurozone crisis.
> 
> Good internet also allows a bizarre form of unspoken 'get your graves as close as possible to Marx'.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=489889014&l=d2ea2e6bcd&id=640375117


Ah, that's what people were going on about (Foot and Harman).

(How are the spaces allocated, anyone know?)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

binka said:


> i used to work in the white lion in withington and people were queuing up to hear what i had to say


I heard that you were a tardy barman more interested in gassing than getting me a fucking pint.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I suddenly thought of this when I reading your post:


 
Nigel Irritable has a go at dotcommunist for his lack of seriousness as Frogwoman looks on.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 28, 2013)

binka said:


> i used to work in the white lion in withington and people were queuing up to hear what i had to say


 
Probably trying to distract you from going into the kitchen to start the sunday roast.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ah, that's what people were going on about (Foot and Harman).
> 
> (How are the spaces allocated, anyone know?)


 

A body burial plot is _very_ expensive http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/a-green-way-to-die/



> Out of morbid curiosity, I recently enquired how much a burial spot in Highgate cemetery would cost me—the cheapest was a mere £4,500, whilst the more “elite” plot comes in at around £100,000.


 
An ashes and stone memorial like those in the picture is, I heard, several hundred. There was a big pre-announced collection after the celebration of Paul Foot's life for it.



> Funds from the sale of the hour-long DVD will go towards erecting a permanent memorial in Highgate Cemetery in Swain’s Lane, where Mr Foot’s ashes are due to be interred next week in a plot near his political inspiration, Karl Marx.


http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/011305/f011305_03.htm


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> A body burial plot is _very_ expensive http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/a-green-way-to-die/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cheers, surprised that a stone in that place only costs that.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 28, 2013)

Robert Brenner joins this list: http://openletterswp.wordpress.com/ it seems to be gathering momentum.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Big big hitter who will drag the issue out globally.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 28, 2013)

highgate cemetery is the only place that during the zombie apocalypse, the zombies will all be fighting each other.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but this is nothing to do with kronstadt (altho some are making the link between organisational structures of the bolshevik party in 1921 and organisations which claim to be inspired by bolsheviks today) this is something tht has happened NOW, a crime has allegedly been committed, and that is what the thread is about. you dont seem to have a clue about what the thread is about except that the swp is getting a slagging


 I don't have a clue, any knowledge whatsoever about the first hundred and 20 pages of this thread, or what takes place in the SWP today. I've already said that.  If I discussed something I have no knowledge of I would be damned, quite rightly.



To be honest I don't really care about the SWP. I only oppose people saying things  that from my first-hand experience appear not to be true. And that is more for entertainment than allegiance.

From what I red whilst a member , their actions fitted their words and suggested to me  Central committee argued for what they thought was going to benefit the working class movement as a whole. Wether what they thought was in fact fact the case, is legitimate debate.  some of the things that get said on here ain't FMPOV.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Cheers, surprised that a stone in that place only costs that.


 
Well I don't know about the specific locations - I _imagine_ - don't know - it runs from several hundred up to a few thousand - depending on the location within the cemetery. I don't know if being near Karl Marks is desired. The guy who wrote Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy his place is some kind of desired spot there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I don't have a clue, any knowledge whatsoever about the first hundred and 20 pages of this thread, or what takes place in the SWP today. I've already said that. If I discussed something I have no knowledge of I would be damned, quite rightly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Look, making all allowances for your voice recognition problems, you say that you have nothing to say then badger people to say something in response to your posts. Don't. Just stop it. This thread doesn't need it . If you do want to get up to date then taking an hour or so and reading this thread and related links is far better then crashing it with what you have done. The working class deserve no less.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> taking an hour or so and reading this thread and related links


i'd pencil in at least a fortnight.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i'd pencil in at least a fortnight.


As a long term defender of the party - and of the cc esp -i reckon he should be able to. Then another for what's happened since.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> As a long term defender of the party - and of the cc esp -i reckon he should be able to. Then another for what's happened since.


or at least not post until he has.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

discokermit said:


> or at least not post until he has.


I think we can get a round table agreement on that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Big big hitter who will drag the issue out globally.


 
Yes, an actual big name. I must admit, there are some on there I've never heard of.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, an actual big name. I must admit, there are some on there I've never heard of.


That's because you lot don't keep up with marxism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Oh sorry, you ARE marxism.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

On Callinicos the reaction on twitter - the place where most of the SWP type student left post - seems to be largely negative.

Some people are tweeting him, again bad internet is the only possible conclusion.




> YUNG HORSEBURGER ‏@HenriTroppmann
> @alex_callinicos what are you wearing? are you sure you should be going out like that?
> 
> 4h YUNG HORSEBURGER ‏@HenriTroppmann
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> On Callinicos the reaction on twitter - the place where most of the SWP type student left post - seems to be largely negative.
> 
> Some people are tweeting him, again bad internet is the only possible conclusion.


OOh, that is bad, they have lost them haven't they?

(edit: of course, only one example)


----------



## chilango (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> but no you won't.
> 
> So evidently, being an anarchist is like the film Fight Club. At every meeting the mantra is "the first rule about anarchism is, you do not discuss anarchism".


In all seriousness that would be a good rule.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Some Proyect stuff


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

3 days to get get the 20% -  what the news? What's the prep they done when they don't get it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's because you lot don't keep up with marxism.


 
Apparently not.

Seriously, who is Thomas Walpole?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 28, 2013)

binka said:


> i used to work in the white lion in withington and people were queuing up to hear what i had to say


 
I am not surprised Binka. Was it about cooking by any chance?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently not.
> 
> Seriously, who is Thomas Walpole?


Never heard of him, so maybe expect some names from 'outside' to appear.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Some Proyect stuff


 
Grim. He even manages to misread Owen Jones.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

The prof is now done.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Grim. He even manages to misread Owen Jones.


Yes, that wasn't something i was endorsing. He never gets it right. Signs of ripples over there though,


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The prof is now done.


 
You think it will do him real damage?

I don' t think it will do him any favours, but suspect he's too well entrenched for it fuck anything up on him.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, that wasn't something i was endorsing. He never gets it right. Signs of ripples over there though,


 
Not only is Lenin now a prophet of SYRIZA, Owen Jones is too.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Robert Brenner joins this list: http://openletterswp.wordpress.com/ it seems to be gathering momentum.


Oh fuck. it really is the July Days.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Big big hitter who will drag the issue out globally.


 
He could tip the rest of the New Left Review Verso crowd with him - into a similar 'sort out Delta or we're not coming to Marxism position'.

The full list after a day is: Greg Albo, Abbie Bakan, Jairus Banaji, Robert Brenner, Gail Day, Steve Edwards, Nadine El-Enany, Phil Gasper, Peter Hallward, Adam Hanieh, Owen Hatherley, Paul Kellogg, Brian Kelly, Conor Kostick, Robert Knox, Thomas Marois, David McNally, Adam Morton, James Murphy, Kevin Murphy, Ilan Pappé, Charles Post, Nina Power, Gregory Schwartz, Peter Thomas, Alberto Toscano, Thomas Walpole, Jeffery Webber, Rafeef Ziadah.

_Within_ the leftie microcosm (academic style):
Nina Power has a sizeable socialist feminist following, been to lots of Marxisms to debate Judith Orr and others. Owen Hatherley is on the Guardian and leftie architecture people respect him, and has written for Socialist Worker. Jairus Banaji is well respected in India writes in the main serious left Marxist economic journal and won the Deutscher prize in 2011 (Alex Callinicos on the jury), Abbie Bakan is big in gender studies in Canada does Canada's version and US version, David McNally is big in political economy in Canada again both, Ilan Pappe is big in Israel and been lots of Marxisms. Kevin Murphy is a Russia specialist, wrote a history of Moscow engineering workers, respected in wider liberal and left academia (Callinicos was on the jury panel that awarded that book the Deutscher Prize).
Conor Kostick. Seen his book but not sure how far his influence runs in SWP united front organisations/academia in Ireland.
Peter Hallward. Read his internet articles on Haiti, he was supportive of the Middlesex University occupation a while back, don't know how influential. Has done Marxism.

I googled the others who didn't ring any bells and there appears to be a small overlap with the editorial board behind Historical Materialism, that has had other writers and editorial board people at Marxism especially those from SOAS: Robert Knox, Thomas Marois and Alberto Toscano are apparently all part of Historical Marxism - and the SWP's ISJ always refers to articles in HM in its Recommended Reading bit.



If we add Owen Jones too that's quite a large chunk of "prominent lefties" saying No.

ETA:

Apparently China Mieville who wrote 

"Therefore we urge all our comrades to ask themselves the question: given all of the above, have you reached your line in the sand? And if not, where will that line be?"

recently is also an editor board member on Historical Materialism.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

Albo edits the Socialist Register.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He could tip the rest of the New Left Review Verso crowd with him - into a similar 'sort out Delta or we're not coming to Marxism position'.
> 
> The full list after a day is: Greg Albo, Abbie Bakan, Jairus Banaji, Robert Brenner, Gail Day, Steve Edwards, Nadine El-Enany, Phil Gasper, Peter Hallward, Adam Hanieh, Owen Hatherley, Paul Kellogg, Brian Kelly, Conor Kostick, Robert Knox, Thomas Marois, David McNally, Adam Morton, James Murphy, Kevin Murphy, Ilan Pappé, Charles Post, Nina Power, Gregory Schwartz, Peter Thomas, Alberto Toscano, Thomas Walpole, Jeffery Webber, Rafeef Ziadah.
> 
> ...


 
If Harvey adds his name to that list, it's game over.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 3 days to get get the 20% -  what the news? What's the prep they done when they don't get it.


They won't will they. Hearing some middle grounders watering down their motions ahead of branch meetings this week. pendulum swinging against them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

They've got six months, but at this point it certainly looks like it will be tough for them to get many "names" to speak.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Albo edits the Socialist Register.


 
His name didn't ring a bell, but that's an important academia position.

This year's Socialist Register features:
Vivek Chibber,Leo Panitch, Gregory Albo (all editors) Sam Gindin, Jodi Dean, Barbara Epstein, Mimmo Porcaro , Michalis Spourdalakis,  Hilary Wainwright, Christoph Spehr, Charles Post, Stephen Hellman,
John Saul, Atilio Boron, Susan Spronk, Johanna Brenner, Nancy Holmstrom, Joan Sangster, Meg Luxton, Eli Zaretsky, Alex Callinicos, Michael Lebowitz as article authors so it's got tentacles within the newer generation of leftie academia aswell as Callinicos.


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> If Harvey adds his name to that list, it's game over.


they'll be happy as long as they've got Benn, Ali, Zizek, Serwotka etc (the evil left reformists).  There are still only three or four names of any note on that list.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They've got six months, but at this point it certainly looks like it will be tough for them to get many "names" to speak.


If Dano Mayoo (or whatever he called himself) is right they won't cares. It will be interesting to see who makes it onto the timetable.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

Yeah I don't think Marxism 2013 is quite headed for the Vyborg District just yet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> but no you won't.
> 
> So evidently, being an anarchist is like the film Fight Club. At every meeting the mantra is "the first rule about anarchism is, you do not discuss anarchism".


I can. And for a lot of people I would. But not for you, because you're a useless cunt oxygen thief.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

belboid said:


> they'll be happy as long as they've got Benn, Ali, Zizek, Serwotka etc (the evil left reformists). There are still only three or four names of any note on that list.


 
The question is more if any "boycott" spreads beyond academia.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They won't will they. Hearing some middle grounders watering down their motions ahead of branch meetings this week. pendulum swinging against them.


 
I don't think they'll make it by the CC's deadline. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the "moderates" are still vacillating, desperate to avoid a big split. But then comes the NC and the counteroffensive. Can they continue to sit on their hands, hoping the "hard" oppositionists walk?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

You could argue, ok I am, that this boycott stuff will have its high point among the academies because of the whole socialist feminist milieu of lecturers and students alike. Not sure it'll have the same traction outside the Unis. As with the swss vs branch votes contrast.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> If Harvey adds his name to that list, it's game over.


 
Good point. David Harvey is doing a free public lecture on the crisis and recession in Warwick Uni on Valentine's Day. If anyone knows anyone in Coventry able to go that's the kind of place where an answer could be drawn.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

Phil Gasper is in the US ISO and stayed at my house one Marxism. He's a philosopher. He's also the uncle of a work colleague of mine (not related).


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You could argue, ok I am, that this boycott stuff will have its high point among the academies because of the whole socialist feminist milieu of lecturers and students alike. Not sure it'll have the same traction outside the Unis. As with the swss vs branch votes contrast.


 
The aim is to influence CC loyalists to think 'Marxism will just be us talking to ourselves and Michael Rosen, unless we sort out the "disputes" process'.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

I don't think Rosen can be too happy. Random teachers who disagree with him on phonics on twitter are smearing him as being close to the SWP and his response has not gone further than "I am not a member of the SWP".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You could argue, ok I am, that this boycott stuff will have its high point among the academies because of the whole socialist feminist milieu of lecturers and students alike. Not sure it'll have the same traction outside the Unis. As with the swss vs branch votes contrast.


 
More resonance, quite possibly, although the initial list contains no shortage of crusty old Marxists. The issue is if once going it has an effect on wider circles.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The aim is to influence CC loyalists to think 'Marxism will just be us talking to ourselves and Michael Rosen, unless we sort out the "disputes" process'.


I am not sure about Rosen, he has posted a bit on Lenin's tomb, and did not explicitly come down on one side or the other, but I got the impression he wasn't very happy. I beat the likes of Gallowy, Benn, Loach and Pilger are loving this after the shit they got for supporting Assange.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

SLK said:


> Phil Gasper is in the US ISO and stayed at my house one Marxism. He's a philosopher. He's also the uncle of a work colleague of mine (not related).


 
The ISO seem to be paying a great deal of attention to this row. And are clearly taking sides.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The ISO seem to be paying a great deal of attention to this row. And are clearly taking sides.


At the risk of sounding like a witch finder I think they are arguably the side Seymour is looking for. They have been making the running in recent years with some of the explicit Patriarchy stuff he's only obliquely broached recently. They are lapping this shit up in spades. And stirring it.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

I should say I'm not 100% that Gasper is still an ISO member - my work colleague is utterly apolitical, her Dad lives in China and says that they are two "Marxist brothers" - which is what made me ask if it was Phil. I asked about the ISO and she said she wasn't sure any more.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

Rosen always says I'm not in the SWP though surely?

His tone on LT reads like a loyalish external member.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

SLK said:


> I don't think Rosen can be too happy. Random teachers who disagree with him on phonics on twitter are smearing him as being close to the SWP and his response has not gone further than "I am not a member of the SWP".


 
outside of resistancemp3 and bolshiebhoy I always considered Rosen their most unabashed fellow traveller.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Rosen always says I'm not in the SWP though surely?
> 
> His tone on LT reads like a loyalish external member.


Did you think so? i may not have read all the posts on there due to the stupid commenting system, but that wasn't the impression i got.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

SLK said:


> I should say I'm not 100% that Gasper is still an ISO member - my work colleague is utterly apolitical, her Dad lives in China and says that they are two "Marxist brothers" - which is what made me ask if it was Phil. I asked about the ISO and she said she wasn't sure any more.


Either way the ISO have been organising meetings on this stuff (bizarrely) and their members posting stuff well to the 'right' of Seymour on it so we can see where they're coming from.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I am not sure about Rosen, he has posted a bit on Lenin's tomb, and did not explicitly come down on one side or the other, but I got the impression he wasn't very happy. I beat the likes of Gallowy, Benn, Loach and Pilger are loving this after the shit they got for supporting Assange.


 
I mentioned him because I've seen him thus far as the most SWP-supporting, non-SWP member, but, yes, if Conor Kostick can oppse then Rosen could too. 
It's worth pointing out he's never been a SWP member but has been part of a number of key SWP strategy projects including StWC and UAF - in addition to Socialist Teachers Association and Anti Academies Alliance.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Rosen always says I'm not in the SWP though surely?
> His tone on LT reads like a loyalish external member.


 
He has resolutely refused to respond to tweets about it - he retweeted one and invited others to attach the tweeter and that's it. My experience of him is that he'll find this hard to comprehend, but he has no particular loyalty to the SWP - he did do a talk at Bookmarks with John Rose yesterday for HMD though.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Did you think so? i may not have read all the posts on there due to the stupid commenting system, but that wasn't the impression i got.


Maybe I was reading what I wanted to into it. Would trouble me more if he jumped sides than most!


----------



## gawkrodger (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Good point. David Harvey is doing a free public lecture on the crisis and recession in Warwick Uni on Valentine's Day. If anyone knows anyone in Coventry able to go that's the kind of place where an answer could be drawn.


 
Unrelated to the rest of the thread, but cheers for this, just booked tickets


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> At the risk of sounding like a witch finder I think they are arguably the side Seymour is looking for. They have been making the running in recent years with some of the explicit Patriarchy stuff he's only obliquely broached recently. They are lapping this shit up in spades. And stirring it.


 
Revenge is best served cold and all that. Callinicos and Co. did rightly fuck them all those years ago, both encouraging a breakaway faction and expelling the ISO from the international grouping. So it's hardly surprising if they are taking advantage of the SWP leadership's discomfort.

Also, they have in recent years both been more willing to describe themselves as feminist, and have at least somewhat loosened their previously very rigid internal regime. So they almost certainly genuinely agree with the Oppositionists anyway.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Either way the ISO have been organising meetings on this stuff (bizarrely) and their members posting stuff well to the 'right' of Seymour on it so we can see where they're coming from.


 
I thought the ISO were getting closer to the SWP, particularly because that split was about them not moving away from the class and seeing the anti-capitalist demonstrations as a new form of social change, or whatever. They were like the anti-Counterfire. In fact, they might not have drifted apart from the SWP if it wasn't for the Rees/ German axis. This last bit is all speculation.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

gawkrodger said:


> Unrelated to the rest of the thread, but cheers for this, just booked tickets


 
Please don't tell us you are planning to heckle him about the SWP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I mentioned him because I've seen him thus far as the most SWP-supporting, non-SWP member, but, yes, if Conor Kostick can oppse then Rosen could too.
> It's worth pointing out he's never been a SWP member but has been part of a number of key SWP strategy projects including StWC and UAF - in addition to Socialist Teachers Association and Anti Academies Alliance.


No disrespect to Conor but he and Rosen aren't really cut from the same cloth.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> outside of resistancemp3 and bolshiebhoy I always considered Rosen their most unabashed fellow traveller.


They were both once members though. He's never been!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 28, 2013)

SLK said:


> I thought the ISO were getting closer to the SWP


 
They have been, but more in the sense that they will exchange the odd speaker and not snarl at each other in public than in the sense of any kind of reunion. But their people, including leaders, have been all over this on facebook.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They have been, but more in the sense that they will exchange the odd speaker than in the sense of any kind of reunion. But their people, including leaders, have been all over this on facebook.


 
How do you guys find this shit on facebook. I have an account, and I use it to organise poker meetups, laugh at people online, and show family pictures of my family. I recently re-friended Renton, who I've always respected. But how would I find people "all over this"?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 28, 2013)

SLK said:


> I don't think Rosen can be too happy. Random teachers who disagree with him on phonics on twitter are smearing him as being close to the SWP and his response has not gone further than "I am not a member of the SWP".


_We're going on a Disputes Committee chair hunt (WISHY WASHY!)_, etc


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Maybe I was reading what I wanted to into it. Would trouble me more if he jumped sides than most!


I find it difficult to get a handle on what he thinks (just slimming over all his posts at the moment), I don't think he is going to jump sides, but I get the feeling he is grumbling privately


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> outside of resistancemp3 and bolshiebhoy I always considered Rosen their most unabashed fellow traveller.


Lol but I'm convinced there must be thousands of us dotted round the place. for evey person who leaves the SWP in disgust or in disagreement there must be at least one who left or never joined just out of lack of revolutionary zeal or whatever. And those of us like that will still tend to instinctively side with the party on most things.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> _We're going on a Disputes Committee chair hunt (WISHY WASHY!)_, etc


 
I hate that fucking book! My daughter fortunately never chooses it either. I genuinely don't see that it's any good at all - even for kids.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> _We're going on a Disputes Committee chair hunt (WISHY WASHY!)_, etc


 
my son fucking loves that book. absolutely loves it. and for that I can forgive Rosen most things.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

SLK said:


> I hate that fucking book! My daughter fortunately never chooses it either. I genuinely don't see that it's any good at all - even for kids.


 
you're dead to me.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I find it difficult to get a handle on what he thinks (just slimming over all his posts at the moment), I don't think he is going to jump sides, but I get the feeling he is grumbling privately


 
I agree with this. I don't think he'll jump - if I had to guess he'll just remain neutral and maybe he'll be "busy" during Marxism. Which I actually think is up in the air - ie if the CC force through their NC meeting expulsions and so on I think Marxism won't happen or will be tightly controlled and become an education camp or something.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> you're dead to me.


 
I promise I do the noises and make it theatrical and that. I don't think she gets it to be honest (she's a week old).


----------



## sihhi (Jan 28, 2013)

SLK said:


> He has resolutely refused to respond to tweets about it - he retweeted one and invited others to attach the tweeter and that's it. My experience of him is that he'll find this hard to comprehend, but he has _no particular loyalty to the SWP_ - he did do a talk at Bookmarks with John Rose yesterday for HMD though.


 
He's sort of saying Democratic Centralism is wrong, but says only some of SWP's problems are due to DC. An external cloaked way of saying 'sort yourselves out decommission Delta, but keep the CC as it is' he's not publicly saying I won't go to Marxism and he does go to Marxism pretty much every year.






			
				Michael Rosen 3 days ago in Lenin's Tomb said:
			
		

> redcogs, why assume that you should 'get' what I'm saying? I was musing publicly that my parents left (in party or wholly - ask Don, he seems to know) for reasons to do with internal democracy in a democratic centralist organisation. I've never belonged to a dc organisation. *Whatever travails the SWP is going through, some of it is due to trying to make dc work in this context, here and now.* I thought by opening a conversation about people who struggled with this sort of thing 50 odd years ago, might contribute something to the discussion. It's not only 'others' or 'society' who has history. The communist and communistic left have history too. Obviously.


 
http://www.leninology.com/2013/01/new-swp-blog.html#disqus_thread

Also worth noting that Michael Rosen has shared several platforms in 2011 and 2012 with Delta himself as part of Unite Against Fascism on defending multiculturalism - he isn't asking any particular public questions at all.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> my son fucking loves that book. absolutely loves it. and for that I can forgive Rosen most things.


Ditto. I had a very odd conversation with my lad tonight because his mum (I made the mistake of mentioning Rosen and this stuff) told him the book was written by a guy who likes rapists. He was muchly upset!


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

That's not true - well it is that my daughter is a week old - but the daughter I'm talking about is 2 and a half and gets it, she just prefers "oops" or "This is the track that is taking him back" or "my favourite food is owl ice-cream"


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol but I'm convinced there must be thousands of us dotted round the place. for evey person who leaves the SWP in disgust or in disagreement there must be at least one who left or never joined just out of lack of revolutionary zeal or whatever. And those of us like that will still tend to instinctively side with the party on most things.


 
I'm really not trying to be snarky but I think you might be kidding yourself on there. When you think of the thousands who have been through the SWP the last 35 plus years, it's kind of shocking that there aren't _"thousands of" _you_ "dotted round the place" _who retain some sort of residual admiration for their political past. It's in direct contrast to the history of the old CP and it's ex-members.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2013)

SLK said:


> I agree with this. I don't think he'll jump - if I had to guess he'll just remain neutral and maybe he'll be "busy" during Marxism. Which I actually think is up in the air - ie if the CC force through their NC meeting expulsions and so on I think Marxism won't happen or will be tightly controlled and become an education camp or something.


Things really are up in the air at the moment. I am seriously tempted to go along to one of these revolt things they are having just to see what the atmosphere is like.


----------



## SLK (Jan 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Ditto. I had a very odd conversation with my lad tonight because his mum (I made the mistake of mentioning Rosen and this stuff) told him the book was written by a guy who likes rapists. He was muchly upset!


 
What? I'm not one to comment on your personal or family life, but I feel like I have to say that...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I'm really not trying to be snarky but I think you might be kidding yourself on there. When you think of the thousands who have been through the SWP the last 35 plus years, it's kind of shocking that there aren't _"thousands of" _you_ "dotted round the place" _who retain some sort of residual admiration for their political past. It's in direct contrast to the history of the old CP and it's ex-members.


You could be right, I honestly don't know. I suppose the SWP was always more of a revolving door than the cp for many reasons so yeah my ratio of disgruntled to simply disconnected might be a tad optimistic ;-)


----------



## SLK (Jan 29, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Things really are up in the air at the moment. I am seriously tempted to go along to one of these revolt things they are having just to see what the atmosphere is like.


 
I genuinely think they are up in the air. If (as I suspect) the CC remain in place and force through the discipline, they'll not have a significant layer of cadre at their disposal. That affects planning for a number of events.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

SLK said:


> I promise I do the noises and make it theatrical and that. I don't think she gets it to be honest (she's a week old).


 
it's the first book that he's learnt by heart, and up until a few weeks ago he would read and act it out about 15 times a night. He's now moved on to 'Go Away Big Green Monster' which, despite the title, was not written by a member of the Spiked Online team.

Sorry, I really must stop derailing this thread. I'm playing into the hands of the SWP's CC.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I had a very odd conversation with my lad tonight because his mum (I made the mistake of mentioning Rosen and this stuff) told him the book was written by a guy who likes rapists.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 29, 2013)

SLK said:


> What? I'm not one to comment on your personal or family life, but I feel like I have to say that...


I know and I'd just got him interested in Marx For Beginners too. Now she's gone all feminist on my head and tried to ban all left literature as mysogonistic. This bloody mess is having some strange fallout :-(


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know and I'd just got him interested in Marx For Beginners too. Now she's gone all feminist on my head and tried to ban all left literature as mysogonistic. This bloody mess is having some strange fallout :-(


 
I'm still trying to get my head around you and Newman both being members of the Swindon Labour Party. It's like an episode of Bill Brand that they never got round to broadcasting.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 29, 2013)

SLK said:


> I genuinely think they are up in the air.


 
Yes, although it does seem likely at this point that the CC's deadline will pass without 20% of branches passing motions. And, assuming that to be the case, the CC will try to use the NC to pull people back into line.

Then the question is, do they continue to sit on their hands, and hope the hard oppositionists walk, or do they start the purge. Either way, it's going to get even messier.

It is so utterly out of character for them to have sat back and allowed this continued impertinence for so long. They must have been absolutely terrified of pushing the vacillating middle over to the opposition, and of getting crucified in the press again.


----------



## SLK (Jan 29, 2013)

I think that Callinicos' piece suggests a purge, as does the only statement we have from the CC. Anything else is basically them resigning given that piece. And they cannot possibly allow anyone behind the oppositionists (though we should remember they aren't all agreed!) webpage to not be expelled.


----------



## SLK (Jan 29, 2013)

As for the out of character part - remember this CC are inexperienced. Four of them joined at about the time I did, most after.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

SLK said:


> I think that Callinicos' piece suggests a purge, as does the only statement we have from the CC. Anything else is basically them resigning given that piece. And they cannot possibly allow anyone behind the oppositionists (though we should remember they aren't all agreed!) webpage to not be expelled.


why can't they?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> why can't they?


 
That's a good question. There are too many variables: How big a purge to go for, what those first booted out do, how the rest react.


----------



## SLK (Jan 29, 2013)

OK, I mean Seymour, China, and those at the height. Unless they "realign" the party or whatever is being demanded, the people behind the oppositionists will need to be expelled. I guess they could hold a recall conference, win the argument, and keep them, in theory. But no.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> sean's poetry


 
I didn't believe you and then I made the mistake of googling it. Hahahahaha.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2013)

SLK said:


> How do you guys find this shit on facebook. I have an account, and I use it to organise poker meetups, laugh at people online, and show family pictures of my family. I recently re-friended Renton, who I've always respected. But how would I find people "all over this"?


 
Surveillance via facebook, and I guess via any medium really, really is about gaining confidence. Luckily, those who should know better are very vain and entirely too open with friend requests. If you are having problems getting people in the SWP to accept friend requests I suggest setting up a facebook account with a profile picture of an attractive young woman, you won't have any problems with people accepting your friend requests.

Once you have a couple of swappie 'mutual friends', you can be friends with whoever.

Enjoy.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 29, 2013)

That's odd, Brenner has removed his name. The Prof must have rung him:
http://openletterswp.wordpress.com/


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol but I'm convinced there must be thousands of us dotted round the place. for evey person who leaves the SWP in disgust or in disagreement there must be at least one who left or never joined just out of lack of revolutionary zeal or whatever. And those of us like that will still tend to instinctively side with the party on most things.


By 'instinctively' you mean 'without thinking things through'


----------



## Random (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> SWP will never be pro-Labour. SP might be pro-Labour in order to encourage a left split from Labour - note that TUSC didn't stand against Labour Lefts - to form what the CNWP wants. AWL will always be pro-Labour. Those differences will basically not change.


 From where I'm standing the SWP seem to be basically pro Labour. They've called for a vote for Labour. They have labour members speaking at their meetings. Like the SP/Militant, they think labour should be replaced by a real mass working class movement. They just disagree on time scale of exactly how and when to get there.

If you have a socialist party that allows permanent factions, I just don't see why lots of these groups could basically be factions in the same party, arguing for their own priorities. Because the day-to-day work of activism and organising will look very much the same. So many socialists would really rather be in a tiny group, than argue for their position in a larger one? Out of pure belief that they are so very very right, and the otehrs are very very wrong?

I think the real reason is that in a Leninst group the minority is always going to get squashed and silenced in favour of the leadership's policies, rather than different factions getting their own way at different times.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 29, 2013)

Random said:


> From where I'm standing the SWP seem to be basically pro Labour...


 
_...with a heavy heart?_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

So, this week the mutterings, next week the open declaration of _takfir, _week after Potemkin party


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2013)

... then we invade Moscow!!!


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

Random said:


> From where I'm standing the SWP seem to be basically pro Labour. They've called for a vote for Labour. They have labour members speaking at their meetings. Like the SP/Militant, they think labour should be replaced by a real mass working class movement. They just disagree on time scale of exactly how and when to get there.


Actually, in terms of their approach to Labour in "united front" work, the SWP are frequently to the right of the LRC - basically insisting that the political basis of co-operation has to have the broadest possible reach, and hence muting very proper criticisms of the record of Labour figures.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

two sheds said:


> ... then we invade Moscow!!!


Not far off! There will be some large initiative to keep peoples minds occupied then steadily as the year goes on a process of closing down and re-education about the nasty outside world and how it hates _our tradition._


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Actually, in terms of their approach to Labour in "united front" work, the SWP are frequently to the right of the LRC - basically insisting that the political basis of co-operation has to have the broadest possible reach, and hence muting very proper criticisms of the record of Labour figures.


Give an example.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 29, 2013)

Ho, ho, ho. Some good lines in this.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

Heh


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Give an example.


 
Something about that bloke on the ANL board


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not far off! There will be some large initiative to keep peoples minds occupied then steadily as the year goes on a process of closing down and re-education about the nasty outside world and how it hates _our tradition._


 
liberate I meant liberate  Then we liberate Moscow!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Something about that bloke on the ANL board


You mean Martin Smyth being an UAF signatory? LRC would go for that as well.

(Noted a8's slide back to the LRC recently? Valuable piece of the Syrizia chess board)


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You mean Martin Smyth being an UAF signatory? LRC would go for that as well.
> 
> (Noted a8's slide back to the LRC recently? Valuable piece of the Syrizia chess board)


What do you mean "slide back"? Peter Hain has spoken at UAF conference - and the chair moved very quickly to stop him being heckled on his record in government (for example)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What do you mean "slide back"? Peter Hain has spoken at UAF conference - and the chair moved very quickly to stop him being heckled on his record in government (for example)


What's that supposed to show? Can you give an example of the LRC being to the left of the SWP in fancily titled united front work (i won't bother pointing out that this is popular front work)

I mean slide back, but as all you do is slide it's sometimes hard to tell i admit.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

well, when has LRC invited a cabinet minister under Blair/Brown a platform to shuffle on stage and polish up their "radical" credentials?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> well, when has LRC invited a cabinet minister under Blair/Brown a platform to shuffle on stage and polish up their "radical" credentials?


Look _a brown/blair slide_ - meaning that you know they have or been on plenty with shadow ministers under miliband right?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Look _a brown/blair slide_ - meaning that you know they have or been on plenty with shadow ministers under miliband right?


I would struggle to think of any (which of course you'll then cite as proof they have no influence )


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

You say that LRC are to the left of the SWP in united front work but cannot give a single example (leaving aside what UF work actually is and with who). telling that you see the content of a groups work as being defined by what big-knob speaks at some event that no one is at.

And if you would struggle to think of any, then on earth did you add in your little brown/blair slide if not to suggest that under miliband and his golden dawn it would now be acceptable to share a platform with a shadow minister?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

Random said:


> From where I'm standing the SWP seem to be basically pro Labour. They've called for a vote for Labour. They have labour members speaking at their meetings. Like the SP/Militant, they think labour should be replaced by a real mass working class movement. They just disagree on time scale of exactly how and when to get there.
> 
> If you have a socialist party that allows permanent factions, I just don't see why lots of these groups could basically be factions in the same party, arguing for their own priorities. Because the day-to-day work of activism and organising will look very much the same. So many socialists would really rather be in a tiny group, than argue for their position in a larger one? Out of pure belief that they are so very very right, and the otehrs are very very wrong?


 
SWP do not have Labour speaking at their meetings, only at 'united front' campaign meetings. TUSC on the other hand do invite Labour Left people into their platforms.

I respect the general idea - but the practicalities are the SP organise a campaign for vote for Len McCluskey while SWP organise heavily for Jerry Hicks - to have one combined party calling for a different UNITE make-up would likely lead to a split of those in the minority engaged in UNITE.

Over the six counties of northern Ireland there are massive differences. Even the flag protests throw it up SP sees them as a legitimate social expression to be met with compromise and not organised counter-force - ie some flying of the Union Jack is inevitable. But the SWP is pushing for counter-protests and working-class organisation to stick to the original SDLP/SF motion which was for no flags (of any type) at all on civic buildings or other public spaces.

I do agree that they should at least be able to investigate one another's cases of sexual harassment.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 29, 2013)

Goldsmiths SWSS have a belated statement out. It reflects soft oppositionist views, although it is public.

More significantly perhaps apparently at least one District Committee has sent off a list of local oppositionists to the CC for disciplinary purposes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I would struggle to think of any (which of course you'll then cite as proof they have no influence )


I note that her Lady Wainwright, along with Smyth, David Cameron and David Gray all signed the uaf founding statement. Which makes Red Pepper to the right of the SWP in your world.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

I only meant that having served under a New Labour government, they had eg. voted for war in Iraq and all the rest of it. 

Do the SWP ever use a Unite the Resistance rally to demand Labour councillors table a needs budget?  I've never heard them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Goldsmiths SWSS have a belated statement out. It reflects soft oppositionist views, although it is public.
> 
> More significantly perhaps apparently at least one District Committee has sent off a list of local oppositionists to the CC for disciplinary purposes.


Where did you hear the latter?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I note that her Lady Wainwright, along with Smyth, David Cameron and David Gray all signed the uaf founding statement. Which makes Red Pepper to the right of the SWP in your world.


Bit different - a founding statement like that is deliberately written to be so unobjectionable that virtually everyone can sign it.  I agree this makes it meaningless.  But the act of signing it isn't to endorse a lowest common denominator politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Bit different - a founding statement like that is deliberately written to be so unobjectionable that virtually everyone can sign it. I agree this makes it meaningless. But the act of signing it isn't to endorse a lowest common denominator politics.


You have no fucking politics worth talking about if you can sign a statement alongside Smyth, Cameron and David Gray.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You have no fucking politics worth talking about if you can sign a statement alongside Smyth, Cameron and David Gray.


She wouldn't have known this at the time.  It's like being asked "will you say you're against racism" and then finding out your name's been added to something which Rose West and Ian Huntley have signed.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Where did you hear the latter?



An occasional poster here with very good SWP contacts mentioned it on leftist train spotters.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> An occasional poster here with very good SWP contacts mentioned it on leftist train spotters.


It that still going, good lord! Wonder if my membership has lapsed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> She wouldn't have known this at the time. It's like being asked "will you say you're against racism" and then finding out your name's been added to something which Rose West and Ian Huntley have signed.


It's the UAF - that sort of thing is written into it, what the frig did she expect, Lenin's signature or something? How naive.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

This an FYI post to anyone new reading all this - the SWP-Gilad Atzmon embrace in 2005:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050728090819/http://www.swp.org.uk/gilad.php

'Gilad Atzmon and Marxism 2005

There has been some controversy surrounding our invitation for the musician Gilad Atzmon to perform at Marxism 2005. One or two small groups are claiming that Gilad is an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. We would like to state the following:

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli born Jew who served in the Israeli Defence Force and who now lives in “self-exile” in Britain. He is an internationally acclaimed jazz musician whose album Exile won BBC Best Jazz Album of 2003.
The SWP would also like to make it clear, that we would never give a platform to a racist or fascist. ... We have a record of opposing fascism, anti-Semitism and all forms of racism, that is second to none. The SWP does not believe that Gilad Atzmon is a Holocaust denier or racist. However, while defending Gilad’s right to play and speak on public platforms that in no way means we endorse all of Gilad’s views. We think that some of the formulations on his website might encourage his readers to feel that he is blurring the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti Zionism. In fact we have publicly challenged and argued against those of his ideas we disagree with.
We do not believe that Gilad should be “banned” from performing or speaking. “No Platform” is a principle that the left has always reserved for fascists and organised racists. Where other disagreements occur, the left, with the same vigour, has defended the right to freedom of speech, debate and the clash of ideas.'


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It wouldn't take very much to fund the SPGB's activity levels. I'd believe you if you told me that they were funded from one small boy's pocket money.


 
Daniel Lambert of the SPGB has stood in every election in Lambeth I can remember. And given the same hustings speech . And they've got that shop on Clapham High St which I've never seen anyone in. Maybe it's a great success with the modern Claphamite and that's what funds the deposit money.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

And the thing is, leading members had denounced him for his anti-semtism at least as far back as 2004. Looks to me like Smith pushed this through.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you know you goaded him into talking. now he's talking.
> 
> you know, you've let the board down, you've let the posters down, you've let the lurkers down.
> 
> but worst of all, and deep down in your hearts you know this, you've let yourselves down.


 
Nah, worst of all is that I let your mum down!


----------



## co-op (Jan 29, 2013)

lagtbd said:


> Daniel Lambert of the SPGB has stood in every election in Lambeth I can remember. And given the same hustings speech . *And they've got that shop on Clapham High St which I've never seen anyone in*. Maybe it's a great success with the modern Claphamite and that's what funds the deposit money.


 
I've been in there! Saw a jolly pleasant film and had a jolly nice cup of tea and a biscuit afterwards. No one even mentioned the word "socialism". It was all very pleasant. Bit like visiting the vicar. Although I've never done that so I wouldn't know.


----------



## ayatollah (Jan 29, 2013)

As suggested by others the most likely short term scenario looks like the " mini mother of all purges" in the SWP (as great as a wee purge can be in a groupescule of a "party" with no access to the late night deep forest death pits). So, the old vain, self serving, bureaucratic chums on the Central Comittee and their full timer hacks will likely survive a bit longer as "leaders" of a grouplet which thinks its a Party - with a largely transient student-based membership leaving in droves - and from now on NOT being topped up again by a new inflow of bright-eyed , subs paying and paper selling young Leftie students at Freshers week. The SWP finances must be severely depleted by now. This is the same prolonged death dive which saw the WRP sidling along to Gaddafi all those years ago for a large regular bung to keep the crazed ego roadshow of Vannessa and Corin on the road for a few more years ! ( and deja vu-wise a significant mid-point marker of the WRP's final-stage decline from mere sectarian hyper cultishness to complete bonkerdom and collapse was also the flood of revelations of sexual impropriety by the CC with gullible young members). All a sad contrast with the highpoint of the SWP, as the IS, in 1974, with about the same overall membership (maybe less), but about 40 real factory-based branches , and the Rank & File Movement with genuine mobilising clout in the organised working class. Yep, it's all over, "it's a very dead parrot" - it's just in the final ,undead, walking but zombified, stage that political organisations completely caught out by major shifts in the political landscape often go through -- the BNP and its recent thunderous collapse actually being the most recent political example of exactly the same problem and process.

The Blogosphere is currently full of discussion stuff about the implosion of the SWP, with some really good analysis sprinkled amongst the jargon-heavy garbage, and some good stuff too even on the SWP Oppositionist's "International Socialism" site. The endless ideological handwringing about "Democratic Centralism" etc, etc, though, strikes me as important but missing a much more basic point, ie, for the last 30 years or so the SWP has been spouting revolutionery rhetoric in what has been for revolutionery socialists, a complete, neoliberal hegemonic political vacuum. For every "revolutionery" group on the left all the pontificating and posturing has been not only largely irrelevant to anything that has transpired in UK public life, but for supposed "revolutioneries" it has been personally risk free too. So what sort of people have stayed long term in the SWP for this huge period of fruitless project hatching ? Well, Red Action's now famous description of Alex Calinicos's craven behaviour at Chapel Market in Btf tells you all you need to know about the physical cowardice, but huge self regard, and limitless ego of one key human component of the sterile old-bureaucratic comrades club that has been the leadership of the SWP all that time. The point is, this wasn't down to "Democratic Centralism" or a "faulty Programme", or Socialism itself -- it could have been no other way --- only the natural bureaucrat, the person fascinated with endless infighting, endless meetings, endless applause (and sometimes sexual services) from naive young recruits, and endless polical rhetoric, (and the academic seamlessly combining this "revolutionery" theoretical pontificating with their academic paper output and careers),could have been attracted to "revolutionery" politics during this era. Likewise the general membership - in the main only the anorak "political nerd" could have stuck it out as a very long term member - the trades union militant, the activist wanting to get stuck into capitalism ? Not much role for "revolutionery" as opposed to more basic activism in society at large - so no real "combining the class fighters as the fist of the class" role for any Trot or other grouplet for a long time.

We are now in a completely new era of UK and world politics, since the 2008 Crash. Political activism at a higher level than at any time since the early 1970's is simply going to be forced on masses of people as the crisis deepens. This crisis simply WILL generate new radical parties on the Left AND Right - and eventually masses of new party members previously entirely untouched by militant political activism, and it is hardly surprising that the new tests facing the old established radical parties of Left and Right have found their leaderships and structures seriously wanting. A bit early to start writing off the need to build a mass revolutionery Socialist party with a genuinely democratic but reasonably disciplined co-ordinating structures though , just because the zombified carcase of one of the originally most innovative and dynamic of the revolutionery grouplets has finally entered its last , and no doubt still prolonged , death spasms.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And the thing is, leading members had denounced him for his anti-semtism at least as far back as 2004. Looks to me like Smith pushed this through.


 
Good spot.

Atzmon was a platform speaker in Marxism 2004 

http://deadmenleft.blogspot.co.uk/2004/07/kamm-swp-obsession.html



> His incoherent statements about politics were by all accounts dire. Meetings at Marxism are generally taped, so I invite Kamm to listen to the contributions to his meeting and hear Atzmon clearly criticised by SWP member after SWP member - prominent members, too, like John Rose. Once more, an explicit attack by the SWP on a particular view is ignored. Personally, I think it was a mistake to invite Atzmon to speak, simple as that, but I am glad that once there he was given a rough ride. As to the SW interview: Atzmon has conducted many others, on similar lines, many of which also note in passing his website - or are we to also condemn Jazzdimensions, Jazz CDs and Jazz Views as "antisemitic" or "left-wing fascists"?


 
This post about the SWP _continuing to_ invite Atzmon as a jazz performer in 2005-2007 from the comments to an AWL piece:

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/12/17/will-martin-smith-be-swps-gorbachev#comment-17656




> Smith has written - a bad book on John Coltrane. He was also, of course, the main advocate of consistently inviting anti-Semitic nutter saxophonist Gilad Atzmon to play at SWP events.


 
suggests the principle of 'live jazz matters, young women comrades and antisemitism/cultural feelings of Jewish people don't'


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned much, but is utterly crucial to what happens next is the "social life" aspect of all of this.

For anyone who's been in an activist group for any length of time there's a real danger that your social circle becomes indistinguishable from your political one and that your social life revolves around activist stuff.

To leave this, to leave your friends, to give up a very time consuming "hobby" is a big leap without anything to replace it. Hence in the past people "party hopping". (We have plenty of culprits of this on here I'd imagine, myself included) or switching to another form of activism.

But to leave the SWPs now, where else is there to go! The other Trots have vanished, with the exception of the SP who years of SWPie propaganda have put beyond the pale? The anarchist and direct action scenes are notably quiet at the moment. If you live in London and have designs on being some kinda leftie hipster there's Counterfire and firebox etc. but for average SWPie in the sticks there is nowhere to go.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

Why do you say that the anarchist and direct action scenes are notably quiet at the moment? I'd have said they were quite busy.


----------



## Random (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> To leave this, to leave your friends, to give up a very time consuming "hobby" is a big leap without anything to replace it. Hence in the past people "party hopping". (We have plenty of culprits of this on here I'd imagine, myself included) or switching to another form of activism.


 Yes, I've been having withdrawal symptoms since I moved to Sweden and lost all my activist friends. I'm about ready to join the church.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> Why do you say that the anarchist and direct action scenes are notably quiet at the moment? I'd have said they were quite busy.



Just an impression. 

I don't "see" any sign of them about.

I'm sure they're all still active, just not as visible.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

Random said:


> Yes, I've been having withdrawal symptoms since I moved to Sweden and lost all my activist friends. I'm about ready to join the church.



Yeah. It's a few years now since I was in any activist scene, and I still miss the "in-group" feeling.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> But to leave the SWPs now, where else is there to go! The other Trots have vanished, with the exception of the SP who years of SWPie propaganda have put beyond the pale? The anarchist and direct action scenes are notably quiet at the moment. If you live in London and have designs on being some kinda leftie hipster there's Counterfire and firebox etc. but for average SWPie in the sticks there is nowhere to go.


 
The average SWPer is a young university student even "in the sticks" (   at the phrase).

Are you saying they are somehow less likely to endorse the democratic opposition motion for recall because they are afraid of losing friends?


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The average SWPer is a young university student even "in the sticks" confused: at the phrase).
> 
> Are you saying they are somehow less likely to endorse the democratic opposition motion for recall because they are afraid of losing friends?



Yes.

It only takes a couple of terms at Uni to completely switch social scenes.

I'm not even sure if the SWP is as dominated by current students these days. More ex-students I'd guess as their campus recruitment ain't as hot as it used to be.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The average SWPer is a young university student even "in the sticks" (   at the phrase).
> 
> Are you saying they are somehow less likely to endorse the democratic opposition motion for recall because they are afraid of losing friends?



By "the sticks" I mean in a small city/large town where the SWPs are the only game in town for a wannabe radical.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> By "the sticks" I mean in a small city/large town where the SWPs are the only game in town for a wannabe radical.


 
There's no anti-cuts groups in small cities?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> By "the sticks" I mean in a small city/large town where the SWPs are the only game in town for a wannabe radical.


From my experience, the sticks is exactly where there are no swpies, there are more likely to be broad-based 'alternative scenes' and work/union based networks.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> There's no anti-cuts groups in small cities?




I'm not sure an anti-cuts group fills that void of belonging/social scene/constant activity that other groups do.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> Just an impression.
> 
> I don't "see" any sign of them about.
> 
> I'm sure they're all still active, just not as visible.


They don't all mask up.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> From my experience, the sticks is exactly where there are no swpies, there are more likely to be broad-based 'alternative scenes' and work/union based networks.



Maybe. I still think that these do not offer the "social package" of the more tight nit groups and scenes.


...which is a good thing.

...for everyone except potential sWP refugees.

...and even for them in the long run.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> They don't all mask up.



...or stick posters/stickers/graffiti up. Or do street stalls etc. etc.

This isn't a criticism by the way.

Just an observation that at the moment, in many places, these groups are a lot less visible than they have been at points in the past.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> Maybe. I still think that these do not offer the "social package" of the more tight nit groups and scenes.
> 
> 
> ...which is a good thing.
> ...


Then they must become their own scene!


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

Fwiw. I don't think the tight-nit social scene I'm talking about is a good thing.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> Fwiw. I don't think the tight-nit social scene I'm talking about is a good thing.


 
It happens though. I think your social scene point is a very good one and one that's not often talked about.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> ...or stick posters/stickers/graffiti up. Or do street stalls etc. etc.
> 
> This isn't a criticism by the way.
> 
> Just an observation that at the moment, in many places, these groups are a lot less visible than they have been at points in the past.


I'm not bothered if you *are* criticising, no worries. But your perception of visibility and mine don't match.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

Just as much a bubble as Laura's.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> Just as much a bubble as Laura's.


Who? What?


----------



## mk12 (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned much, but is utterly crucial to what happens next is the "social life" aspect of all of this.
> 
> For anyone who's been in an activist group for any length of time there's a real danger that your social circle becomes indistinguishable from your political one and that your social life revolves around activist stuff.
> 
> ...


 
Inactivity or the Labour Party I imagine.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It happens though. I think your social scene point is a very good one and one that's not often talked about.


 
This is/was especially true of Revolution (youth wing of WP). All best mates, slept with each other, didn't leave because they'd lose friends etc.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm not bothered if you *are* criticising, no worries. But your perception of visibility and mine don't match.



It's not a perception.

Since I returned from the UK 6 months ago I have yet to see ANYTHING in my new home town from ANY radical groups. No posters, no stickers. No stalls. No flyers in the local "alternative cafes", nothing on campus, nothing in the town centre on a Saturday. No up to  date websites. No public meetings. No protests. No buses to protests. NOTHING. I don't live in a small town either.

The Green Party on the other hand are reasonably visible.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

mk12 said:


> This is/was especially true of Revolution (youth wing of WP). All best mates, slept with each other, didn't leave because they'd lose friends etc.


 
damn, now you tell us.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> It's not a perception.
> 
> Since I returned from the UK 6 months ago I have yet to see ANYTHING in my new home town from ANY radical groups. No posters, no stickers. No stalls. No flyers in the local "alternative cafes", nothing on campus, nothing in the town centre on a Saturday. No up to date websites. No public meetings. No protests. No buses to protests. NOTHING. I don't live in a small town either.
> 
> The Green Party on the other hand are reasonably visible.


 
thats weird when i lived there i always saw class war stickers on lamp posts.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> Who? What?


 Activist ghettos. Be they the SWP or animal rights or Squatted social centres or whatever.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> thats weird when i lived there i always saw class war stickers on lamp posts.



I see old, faded stuff here and there. SP posters from a couple of years ago. And I once saw a couple of IWW posters. But nothing published in the last 12-18 months.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> It's not a perception.
> 
> Since I returned from the UK 6 months ago I have yet to see ANYTHING in my new home town from ANY radical groups. No posters, no stickers. No stalls. No flyers in the local "alternative cafes", nothing on campus, nothing in the town centre on a Saturday. No up to  date websites. No public meetings. No protests. No buses to protests. NOTHING. I don't live in a small town either.
> 
> The Green Party on the other hand are reasonably visible.


Abandoned 

You could organise something yourself?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> I see old, faded stuff here and there. SP posters from a couple of years ago. And I once saw a couple of IWW posters. But nothing published in the last 12-18 months.


 
where's this? sorry, just being nosey.

fwiw, it was always my experience that swp members "in the sticks" were not as snotty as the ones you'd encounter in the big cities. maybe it was just something in the local water supply but I'm guessing they just didn't have the numbers to throw their weight about.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> Abandoned
> 
> You could organise something yourself?



I could. I won't though.

I'm not upset about the absence of any activist scene.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> where's this? sorry, just being nosey.
> 
> fwiw, it was always my experience that swp members "in the sticks" were not as snotty as the ones you'd encounter in the big cities. maybe it was just something in the local water supply but I'm guessing they just didn't have the numbers to throw their weight about.



Reading.

Yeah, in smaller towns "rival" groups often coalesced into a joint scene.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> Reading.
> 
> Yeah, in smaller towns "rival" groups often coalesced into a joint scene.


 
My experience matches yours. There was a clear divide in my area between the SWP and the non-SWP left, which included the AWL, SolFed, Labour lefts, old CPers and social centre anarchists. If the SWPers _did_ leave the party, I can't see them joining this "joint scene" though.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> I could. I won't though.
> 
> I'm not upset about the absence of any activist scene.


But Reading's not immune from cuts (for example) or workfare, or benefits sanctions. I suppose I wasn't really thinking about direct action as a 'scene' more as activity if that's important.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 29, 2013)

I nearly joined counterfire and was told there was one other guy 50 miles away. So yeah in the sticks it's labour or nothing.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> Reading.
> 
> Yeah, in smaller towns "rival" groups often coalesced into a joint scene.


 
your local football team is sponsored by Waitrose. You're lucky you even have a local Labour Party. 

I'm showing my age again but I'm sure Proletarian Gob was produced out of Reading.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> your local football team is sponsored by Waitrose. You're lucky you even have a local Labour Party.
> 
> I'm showing my age again but I'm sure Proletarian Gob was produced out of Reading.


It was, the old days of Thames valley anarchists, red menace etc


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 29, 2013)

L&S's second largest branch was Reading


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

Chilango could always join Thames Valley SOLFED, I suppose. Dunno if they have much of a 'scene'.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It was, the old days of Thames valley anarchists, red menace etc


 
Proletarian Gob introduced me to Calvin and Hobbes. For that alone, I salute them him.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 29, 2013)




----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I nearly joined counterfire and was told there was one other guy 50 miles away. So yeah in the sticks it's labour or nothing.


Aha. Now I think I am beginning to understand your complex beliefs. Your occasional defence of the SWP CC and membership of Swindon Labour Party are not as contradictory as they seem if we understand you as a political masochist, who loves the flick of the central authority's whip.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 29, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Aha. Now I think I am beginning to understand your complex beliefs. Your occasional defence of the SWP CC and membership of Swindon Labour Party are not as contradictory as they seem if we understand you as a political masochist, who loves the flick of the central authority's whip.


 
The Labour party doesn't need to wield a whip against it's activists.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Aha. Now I think I am beginning to understand your complex beliefs. Your occasional defence of the SWP CC and membership of Swindon Labour Party are not as contradictory as they seem if we understand you as a political masochist, who loves the flick of the central authority's whip.


He's in Swindon Labour party?  With Andy Newman ?


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The Labour party doesn't need to wield a whip against it's activists.


(((Rosie Winterton)))


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He's in Swindon Labour party?  With Andy Newman ?


Crazy, isn't it? But then, somehow, you get used to the idea.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The Labour party doesn't need to wield a whip against it's activists.


 
it would have to find them first before they could get round to whipping them.


*It says something when an SPGBer can take the piss out of another party's lack of activism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

(((Rosy Newman)))


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> But Reading's not immune from cuts (for example) or workfare, or benefits sanctions. I suppose I wasn't really thinking about direct action as a 'scene' more as activity if that's important.




Yeah. I'm not talking about activity. There's always something to be done. I'm talking about a scene. A package of activism with a ready-made social circle and busy calendar. Something to fill the void that SWP refugees would immediatly feel.


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> Chilango could always join Thames Valley SOLFED, I suppose. Dunno if they have much of a 'scene'.



Why would I want to do that?


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> your local football team is sponsored by Waitrose. You're lucky you even have a local Labour Party.
> 
> I'm showing my age again but I'm sure Proletarian Gob was produced out of Reading.


I have vague memories of all kinds of itersting things being produced witha c/o address at the rising Sun institue in Reading. i walj past that place most days now. Its a sad looking building now.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2013)

Incidentally, the loss of friends is another parallel with people who have immersed themselves in a cult finding it very difficult to escape.

Eta: and the threat of some form of dis/excommunication being a way for cults to keep their people in line.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

chilango said:


> Why would I want to do that?


I posted that before you explained about the scene as a package.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> it would have to find them first before they could get round to whipping them.
> 
> 
> *It says something when an SPGBer can take the piss out of another party's lack of activism.


 
I suspect they have slightly more activists than you.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

A long piece by "Kevin Crane" on Tom Walker's blog:
http://rethinkingtheleft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/is-interventionism-finished.html

Describes the SWP national centre as a self-contained city-state like the Vatican


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I suspect they have slightly more activists than you.


 
but not as many as they should have. Even when I canvassed for Labour in the '97 they seemed thin on the ground locally. And, christ, that was '97.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Who is Crane? CK?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> A long piece by "Kevin Crane" on Tom Walker's blog:
> http://rethinkingtheleft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/is-interventionism-finished.html
> 
> Describes the SWP national centre as a self-contained city-state like the Vatican


The vatican is not a city-state.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

That piece is straight from the DO, given its repetition of their documents aim to be:



> bringing revolutionary theory to mass working-class organisation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

This is madness:



> The SWP's organisational structures have been through several stages of change since the turn of the millennium. In 2001, it was beginning a process of major reorganisation. The SWP had managed to get ahead of the curve of the new mass movements that were emerging against neoliberalism (variously the anti-globalisation, or anti-capitalist movement as we fought for it to be known) and imperialism (the mass anti-war movement). The CC took some very difficult and controversial decisions to gamble on the success of these movements, one of the most far-reaching of which was forcing the branches, with their routinised meetings and attendances of dozens, to break up and form smaller, more local groups, orientated on getting active in local anti-war groups and hosting “Marxist Forum” meetings about anti-capitalist ideas. Anyone who claims this did not serve a purpose either doesn't know or doesn't remember any better: the party gained a profile it had previously not enjoyed, even greater than the high-tide of the Anti Nazi League, and earned massive respect as the driving force behind building the anti-war demos, the biggest street protest movement in British history. I think it says something about the state of the party now that the ten year anniversary of this time merited no mention at all at this year’s conference.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

This is the first ever mention of Cliff on this board.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

This is also madness but telling madness:



> Respect was a break from this, using the mass appeal and energy of the anti-war movement to persuade left-wing voters to switch away from Labour. The idea was not simply to get a few votes here and there; it was to undermine the dominance of Labour over the working-class by using* the one issue that divided it from the class, the ‘War on Terror’.*


 
This KC is an idiot.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is the first ever mention of Cliff on this board.


 
Interesting post - I gave it a Like which should confuse the person posting it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

What does this even mean? I know that it sounds like the author thinks criticisms should sound like, but what does it mean?



> Members who were in small branches that struggled to connect with the new movements


 
What are the new movements? Is this like bolshies "the movements" and just meaning centrist wish-washy groups that you can pick people off from? What does connect mean? Emotionally? Do stuff with? Get taken over? What?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

> But that tide went out – Respect and the anti-war movement peaked in 2005 and then began to suffer serious setbacks following the resignation of Tony Blair in 2007.


 
Why did that tide go out? Anyone half competent CC loyalist should be able to tear this apart.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Sorry to keep doing this, but this stuff is appalling - and it's the opposition!:



> A CC that had lost touch severely with the bulk of the membership felt unable, even unwilling, to go to them with difficulties they were having with other forces in Respect in 2006 before the crisis became unmanageable,


 
It's not R_elate_ ffs, they didn't got to them because the party is not set up for them to go to them, its not set up for popular participation, it's set up to keep participation within tightly circumscribed limits set by the CC. There is no need and never has been to 'go to them' beyond the annual slate election stitch up. This was not a passing one-off that events forced on the poor CC ffs.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

Someone from the USA unconnected to the goings on making a point about the SWP approach to the internet:

http://polizeros.com/2013/01/29/is-...d:+PoliticsInTheZeros+(Politics+in+the+Zeros)




> Is Leninism Dead by Alex Callinicos in Socialist Review is a nigh-on perfect example of the muddled, archaic thinking too prevalent on the hard left. It’s preachy, dull, boring to read, looks continually to the past for ideas, resolutely doesn’t get the internet or social media, and includes this gem of confusion.
> 
> 'One thing the entire business has reminded us of is the dark side of the Internet. Enormously liberating though the net is, it has long been known that it allows salacious gossip to be spread and perpetuated – unless the victim has the money and the lawyers to stop it. Unlike celebrities, small revolutionary organisations don’t have these resources, and their principles stop them from trying to settle political arguments in the bourgeois courts.'
> 
> This is, of course, rubbish. The Internet allows small players to publicize themselves and refute rumors quickly and easily. A few tweets to the right people on Twitter can lead to rumors being stopped fast. But doing this does require understanding how the net works, something Callinicos and Socialist Review clearly do not. *In an almost comical example of this, the article doesn’t allow comments. You have to email the editor instead. How quaint. How backwards.* This also clearly demonstrates one of the biggest problems of current Marxism and Leninism, especially when it comes to the little baby revolutionary party groupuscules. You are expected to listen as they enlighten you to the truth they received when Lenin spoke to them through the burning bush. They don’t want feedback. They aren’t interested in your thoughts. They preach, you absorb. Any questions? And then they wonder why fewer and fewer are listening to them. Socialism still has lots of good ideas. But many of its zealots are so wedded to the past they can’t see, much less work towards change in the present.


 

I'm not a fan of twitter but Callinicos - given that he is on it - could at least try to answer sensible questions on it from other posters. Otherwise what the hell is it for? becoming something like 'a photo of my mates on every protest I go to' (easy police surveillance).


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

> Socialist Alliance candidacies usually struggled to get out of the Official Monster-Raving Loony league of votes.


 
This is very empirically dodgy.  For a start, they saved a deposit in a Westminster by-election (Preston, 2000/01?)which is beyond what the Lib Dems can achieve most of the time these days.   Just after the SA split, we ran a Socialist candidate in a white working class estate in Preston and got 20% of the vote which we were mildly disappointed with.  But considering this was more than TUSC polled in the whole of central manchester against the backdrop of austerity.

Where it's results were properly shit it was normally SWP types who were the candidates!  It was fucked from the time they blocked its federal structure and insisted they controlled it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is the first ever mention of Cliff on this board.


Well the board had only been going about 2 years when that was posted. Why re-visit it now?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why did that tide go out? Anyone half competent CC loyalist should be able to tear this apart.


 
This is pretty damning though - the monopolisation - by a bureucratised London-based clique - of its national newspaper that carefully filters all challenging correspondence to it.

"Bureaucracy, sadly, is self-justifying: there are fifteen people, more or less, paid to produce and distribute the party’s publications, and this tends to outclass any debate about the role of those publications in political activity. There is team of people building and promoting meetings on behalf of the membership and there are even people solely gathering money. These teams exist and, naturally, have to justify their existence, so they are continually forced to act as substitutionists for activity that, in a party of leaders, one should really hope would be done by lay members. And, as branches have become less and less central to SWP members’ lives over the years and played less and less of an organisational role, it has become progressively ever more detached and bastardised from its roots."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Well the board had only been going about 2 years when that was posted. Why re-visit it now?


Why have you posted that?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This is pretty damning though - the monopolisation - by a bureucratised London-based clique - of its national newspaper that carefully filters all challenging correspondence to it.
> 
> "Bureaucracy, sadly, is self-justifying: there are fifteen people, more or less, paid to produce and distribute the party’s publications, and this tends to outclass any debate about the role of those publications in political activity. There is team of people building and promoting meetings on behalf of the membership and there are even people solely gathering money. These teams exist and, naturally, have to justify their existence, so they are continually forced to act as substitutionists for activity that, in a party of leaders, one should really hope would be done by lay members. And, as branches have become less and less central to SWP members’ lives over the years and played less and less of an organisational role, it has become progressively ever more detached and bastardised from its roots."


Potemkin party. 

Don't lift the rock up, there's no creepy crawlies, there is...nothing.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Where it's results were properly shit it was normally SWP types who were the candidates! It was fucked from the time they blocked its federal structure and insisted they controlled it.


 
Not quite true Paul Foot got just under 13% in Hackney mayorals.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> This is very empirically dodgy. For a start, they saved a deposit in a Westminster by-election (Preston, 2000/01?)which is beyond what the Lib Dems can achieve most of the time these days. Just after the SA split, we ran a Socialist candidate in a white working class estate in Preston and got 20% of the vote which we were mildly disappointed with. But considering this was more than TUSC polled in the whole of central manchester against the backdrop of austerity.
> 
> Where it's results were properly shit it was normally SWP types who were the candidates! It was fucked from the time they blocked its federal structure and insisted they controlled it.


erm the preston results you quote were swappie candidates...


----------



## belboid (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Not quite true Paul Foot got just under 13% in Hackney mayorals.


not to mention the first elected SA councillor being. mmm, from the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Madness, utter bubble self-delusion:



> Our fear with the Comrade Delta affair was always primarily that it would cut us off from the class and the mass movements, but the very act of resisting that has shown that we can reach out to them


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Potemkin party.
> 
> Don't lift the rock up, there's no creepy crawlies, there is...nothing.


 
I'm going to mention again the SWP *full-timer* (paid to educate other members and pass on the memory of "the class" to other weaker liberals in local campaigns) who had *never* heard of Red Action or what happened at ANL Carnival 2.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Madness, utter bubble self-delusion:


if they reached out to my class, i'd call the fucking police.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I'm going to mention again the SWP *full-timer* (paid to educate other members and pass on the memory of "the class" to other weaker liberals in local campaigns) who had *never* heard of Red Action or what happened at ANL Carnival 2.


Don't know what to say anymore, i have similar stories of the full-timer that we met whilst we were smuggling in food and drink to the occupying students in 2010...


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

killer b said:


> erm the preston results you quote were swappie candidates...


no, the by-election wasn't (Terry Cartwright, ex-Labour Ind) - and nor was the local election (Ex-Labour Ind/SP) - true that Lavelette did well in between but that was on very much an anti-war/communalist appeal a la Galloway


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2013)

oh yeah, i were looking at the wrong dates.


----------



## belboid (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I'm going to mention again the SWP *full-timer* (paid to educate other members and pass on the memory of "the class" to other weaker liberals in local campaigns) who had *never* heard of Red Action or what happened at ANL Carnival 2.


you sure he didnt, or if he just said he didnt?  I know some (eg Nigel, north london organiser in the nineties) who would say they didnt know anything about other left groups, or earlier IS splits, just because they didnt think rthey should be discussing such things with 'ordinary' members.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

killer b said:


> oh yeah, i were looking at the wrong dates.


This was from when a8 was militantly opposed to labour, that's why he remembers so clearly.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This was from when a8 was militantly opposed to labour, that's why he remembers so clearly.


 
If they hadn't fucked up the SA I wouldn't have been forced to go back to Labour as the only game in town.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> If they hadn't fucked up the SA I wouldn't have been forced to go back to Labour as the only game in town.


If my wife hadn't forced me to send my kids to private school


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

belboid said:


> you sure he didnt, or if he just said he didnt? I know some (eg Nigel, north london organiser in the nineties) who would say they didnt know anything about other left groups, or earlier IS splits, just because _*they didnt think rthey should be discussing such things*_ with 'ordinary' members.


 
I think you have a point there - there might be a basic line about it - not the person's fault.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> If they hadn't fucked up the SA I wouldn't have been forced to go back to Labour as the only game in town.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

belboid said:


> you sure he didnt, or if he just said he didnt? I know some (eg Nigel, north london organiser in the nineties) who would say they didnt know anything about other left groups, or earlier IS splits, just because they didnt think rthey should be discussing such things with 'ordinary' members.


What about non-members that you're trying to attract?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I see you - his endless tweeting of and every Financial Times article related to the Eurozone crisis.
> 
> Good internet also allows a bizarre form of unspoken 'get your graves as close as possible to Marx'.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=489889014&l=d2ea2e6bcd&id=640375117


First post here.

my eyes lit upon reading this reference to Marx's headstone.  As a kid my home was in Cornwall, and our next door neighbour ( it was a small council estate in St Tudy) worked at the nearby De Lank Granite Quarry through the 1950/60s.  He was a lovely bloke, and he took pride in being the one who had responsibility for cutting and supplying the enormous cube of stone that ultimately became Karl's head at Highgate.   i've been amused by this fact on and off down the years, but i now believe that If there is an award for proletarian credentials i ought to be in with a shout.  

A bit off topic i know, but i was involved with the swp for a long time until the 1990s, and all this collapse stuff has me a bit nostalgic..  but, as an 'outsider'  i'm firmly with the reformers.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 29, 2013)

belboid said:


> you sure he didnt, or if he just said he didnt? I know some (eg Nigel, north london organiser in the nineties) who would say they didnt know anything about other left groups, or earlier IS splits, just because they didnt think rthey should be discussing such things with 'ordinary' members.


 
Pesky 'ordinary' members wanting to know something about the organisation they've joined!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

co-op said:


> I've been in there! Saw a jolly pleasant film and had a jolly nice cup of tea and a biscuit afterwards. No one even mentioned the word "socialism". It was all very pleasant. Bit like visiting the vicar. Although I've never done that so I wouldn't know.


 
what was the film? it wasn't one of those zeitgeist films, was it.  it would explain the lack of the s-word.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

redcogs said:


> First post here.
> 
> my eyes lit upon reading this reference to Marx's headstone. As a kid my home was in Cornwall, and our next door neighbour ( it was a small council estate in St Tudy) worked at the nearby De Lank Granite Quarry through the 1950/60s. He was a lovely bloke, and he took pride in being the one who had responsibility for cutting and supplying the enormous cube of stone that ultimately became Karl's head at Highgate. i've been amused by this fact on and off down the years, but i now believe that If there is an award for proletarian credentials i ought to be in with a shout.
> 
> A bit off topic i know, but i was involved with the swp for a long time until the 1990s, and all this collapse stuff has me a bit nostalgic.. but, as an 'outsider' i'm firmly with the reformers.


 
Welcome redcogs excellent story


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

redcogs said:


> First post here.
> 
> my eyes lit upon reading this reference to Marx's headstone. As a kid my home was in Cornwall, and our next door neighbour ( it was a small council estate in St Tudy) worked at the nearby De Lank Granite Quarry through the 1950/60s. He was a lovely bloke, and he took pride in being the one who had responsibility for cutting and supplying the enormous cube of stone that ultimately became Karl's head at Highgate. i've been amused by this fact on and off down the years, but i now believe that If there is an award for proletarian credentials i ought to be in with a shout.
> 
> A bit off topic i know, but i was involved with the swp for a long time until the 1990s, and all this collapse stuff has me a bit nostalgic.. but, as an 'outsider' i'm firmly with the reformers.


 
never gets old:


----------



## redcogs (Jan 29, 2013)

Tears rolled down the cheeks as i viewed that.  Thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

I have to add Seymour to the smug face gallery:






Look at me, i'm cleverer than you. I say ensemble instead of frame.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2013)

has there ever been a columnist who doesn't have a punchable face, at least in their byline pic?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Btw, here is Rees on the Spanish Civil war on the ISLAM CHANNEL. He sounds a bit dry.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

killer b said:


> has there ever been a columnist who doesn't have a punchable face, at least in their byline pic?


No. But you don't have to make it worse by smug eyes.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No. But you don't have to make it worse by smug eyes.


they have a makeup artist at the graun who specialises in getting them_ just so_.


----------



## SLK (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> A long piece by "Kevin Crane" on Tom Walker's blog:
> http://rethinkingtheleft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/is-interventionism-finished.html
> 
> Describes the SWP national centre as a self-contained city-state like the Vatican


 
I think this is a poster on here - Gramsci I think his name was.


----------



## co-op (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> what was the film? it wasn't one of those zeitgeist films, was it.  it would explain the lack of the s-word.


 
No it was one of the episodes of The Power of Nightmares, that Adam Curtis thing that was on TV. Not quite sure where they were planning to go with the post-fillum chat ideologically, like I said they hadn't got going after about 30 minutes of standing round rattling cups and saucers so I said thank you and left.

Socialism's loss. 

But my gain, a cuppa and a bicky to be precise.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I have to add Seymour to the smug face gallery:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know it's wrong but I have hated that picture and that face since I first saw them. Awful, awful self important, smug man. I never understood how he was so respected in the party.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2013)

co-op said:


> No it was one of the episodes of The Power of Nightmares, that Adam Curtis thing that was on TV. Not quite sure where they were planning to go with the post-fillum chat ideologically, like I said they hadn't got going after about 30 minutes of standing round rattling cups and saucers so I said thank you and left.
> 
> Socialism's loss.
> 
> But my gain, a cuppa and a bicky to be precise.


what was the biscuit?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Btw, here is Rees on the Spanish Civil war on the ISLAM CHANNEL. He sounds a bit dry.


This is mental as well, he has the collectivisation happening before the generals revolt, wtf. (I know is well ott but fucking hell)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

SLK said:


> I think this is a poster on here - Gramsci I think his name was.


Someone here posts under that name so you better be a bit more than think rod.


----------



## co-op (Jan 29, 2013)

killer b said:


> what was the biscuit?


 

Can't remember, I think it was old skool - but that could just be the vicar's tea party feel.

A Garibaldi would have had that 19thC nationalism+radicalism combo, I hope we can assume not a Bourbon.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know it's wrong but I have hated that picture and that face since I first saw them. Awful, awful self important, smug man. I never understood how he was so respected in the party.


 
careful now. he might just join the swindon labour party to spite you.


----------



## killer b (Jan 29, 2013)

co-op said:


> Can't remember, I think it was old skool - but that could just be the vicar's tea party feel.
> 
> A Garibaldi would have had that 19thC nationalism+radicalism combo, I hope we can assume not a Bourbon.


pink wafer is the biscuit of the people.


----------



## co-op (Jan 29, 2013)

killer b said:


> pink wafer is the biscuit of the people.


 

I think you'll find the people's wafer is deepest red, comrade.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

co-op said:


> Can't remember, I think it was old skool - but that could just be the vicar's tea party feel.
> 
> A Garibaldi would have had that 19thC nationalism+radicalism combo, I hope we can assume not a Bourbon.


 
that vicar's tea party that you've never ever attended?  

i'd hazard a guess it there was a pound shop handy, that's where they got the biscuits.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Empty people empty biscuits.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Empty people empty biscuits.


 
forward that onto nigel blackwell. it could be an album track title.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Where is that odd swindon twang in Rees' accent from?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Where is that odd swindon twang in Rees' accent from?


It is there isn't it, one of the things makes me see him as more of a human than some. Of all the old bunch he's the one I'd mist enjoy a pint with I reckon.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> careful now. he might just join the swindon labour party to spite you.


Lol. No chance, someone like him wouldn't be seen dead in a backwater like ours. Mind you he's probably over compensating for his own background.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol. No chance, someone like him wouldn't be seen dead in a backwater like ours. Mind you he's probably over compensating for *his own background*.


 
that's a bit of a cryptic comment.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 29, 2013)

Ballymena is hardly a cosmopolitan hub. Right I'm stopping now cause this is all very childish.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> never gets old:


 
Honda Superdream - great motorcycle.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 29, 2013)

co-op said:


> I think you'll find the people's wafer is deepest red, comrade.


 
edit: The people's wafer will be completely red, but cannot be made until we have a true proletarian democracy. This is the transitional demand wafer.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

A jammy dodger gives plenty of scope for the worker's bomb


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

OMFG - A Swappie docudrama/musical resignation - is this black propaganda by the CC?


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

"The CC killed democracy"


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OMFG - A Swappie docudrama/musical resignation - is this black propaganda by the CC?


that's going on the iPhone for watching on the bus home, looks brill.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OMFG - A Swappie docudrama/musical resignation - is this black propaganda by the CC?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OMFG - A Swappie docudrama/musical resignation - is this black propaganda by the CC?




FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OMFG - A Swappie docudrama/musical resignation - is this black propaganda by the CC?




The opposition appear to be committed to doing everything in their power to make me side with the CC.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OMFG - A Swappie docudrama/musical resignation - is this black propaganda by the CC?


 
No. It's a real person. Big fan of the Clash. Video-blogs much of his political thinking. SWP CC using provocation videos (if it were ever found out) would undermine the Callinicos line on the internet - causing massive disquiet.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 29, 2013)

oh. my. fuckin. word.

(i am imagining a young mk12...)


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OMFG - A Swappie docudrama/musical resignation - is this black propaganda by the CC?




absolutely bonkers  

that noise in the background is unity theatre turning in its grave. 

jack had a coat on. next time i hope he uses the pockets to hide his jazz hands.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> absolutely bonkers
> 
> that noise in the background is unity theatre turning in its grave.
> 
> jack had a coat on. next time i hope he uses the pockets to hide his jazz hands.


 
Man- vs Melted Snowman.






That's how the rest of the world see the opposition-CC struggle.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> absolutely bonkers
> 
> that noise in the background is unity theatre turning in its grave.
> .
> jack had a coat on. next time i hope he uses the pockets to hide his jazz hands.


Another Andrew Lloyd Webber in the making sadly. One is more than enough.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

Mocking a lad with "revolution in his soul" 

Blates jealous.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2013)

I'd been hoping that the Mike Leigh 'High Hopes' video was going to be the musical version


----------



## Red Storm (Jan 29, 2013)




----------



## dennisr (Jan 29, 2013)

sorry mk12 - so sorry...


----------



## dennisr (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That's how the rest of the world see the opposition-CC struggle.


 
that video is how this "life and death struggle" will now forever be framed.

the poor, poor fecker.... forever tainted.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 29, 2013)

Two articles up on that IS blog today and they represent a small step up in quality. The detailed account of the 2011 conference special session on Delta will be particularly embarrassing. While the riposte to the Prof's rather poor article represents the kicking of the ball into an empty net.


----------



## cesare (Jan 29, 2013)

Selling copies door to door on Cheadle High St


----------



## Buckaroo (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> No. It's a real person. Big fan of the Clash. Video-blogs much of his political thinking. SWP CC using provocation videos (if it were ever found out) would undermine the Callinicos line on the internet - causing massive disquiet.




'But when it (racism) is exposed, it falls to bits and burns up in the sun like the bloodsucker it truly is.....
this isn't me having a go at the internet.....if you see a racist sicking up his garbage shit all over the interent..'

Priceless. I watched it twice. Very funny. It is Nathan Barley.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol. No chance, someone like him wouldn't be seen dead in a backwater like ours.



That speaks well of his taste and sense,


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 29, 2013)

bless him.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 29, 2013)

Is his Brindelli his stage name, then?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Ho, ho, ho. Some good lines in this.





sales would increase tenfold if China did start writing sci fi for the Socialist Worker


----------



## SLK (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OMFG - A Swappie docudrama/musical resignation - is this black propaganda by the CC?




That's brilliant. I laughed so hard my daughter was going "what's wrong Daddy?"

https://twitter.com/JackBrindelli


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

Ooh, an official riposte to the Prof from the opposition:
http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/is-zinovievism-finished-reply-to-alex.html


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

> The CC self-selects: it has an agreed political perspective; when someone dies or resigns it chooses as replacements comrades who agree – or who are thought to agree – with that perspective; at no point is the chain ever broken by open political debate. And if the perspective is wrong? The problems extend to the membership of the CC. What are the requirements of a potential CC member? There are apparently two: that they should live in or around London and that – with a handful of exceptions – they are full-time employees of the party. So - the comrades who are eligible for membership of the CC are those who until their selection have been paid to carry out the decisions of the previous CC and who, because they tend to have been students beforehand, rarely have any direct experience of the class struggle. How can a leadership this narrow be capable of forming an accurate perspective?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ooh, an official riposte to the Prof from the opposition:
> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/is-zinovievism-finished-reply-to-alex.html


Oh god,_ proper leninism._


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

Leninism hasn't been tried (apparently)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Leninism hasn't been tried (apparently)


Do you think Syrizia looks a little bit like proper bolshevism?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Leninism hasn't been tried (apparently)


It has been tried, & convicted


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do you think Syrizia looks a little bit like proper bolshevism?


articul8 wouldn't know proper bolshevism if it whisked him away to dig the white sea canal


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 29, 2013)

There's no politics going on in those articles, it's just Lenin fetish, wrapped up in jargon and navel-gazing. Forget about fucking Lenin, or the IS tradition, and actually base your activities on what's going on with the class right now, in these circumstances. They need to get out of this straightjacket.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> articul8 wouldn't know proper bolshevism if it whisked him away to dig the white sea canal


not sure if that's criticism or praise? In any case I don't think Syiza is adequately explained/dismissed with concepts like "left reformist", "centrist" or "sub-Leninist".

and I'm not holding up Syriza as "the model" for success - it could well be the Syriza falls apart in acrimony and recrimination.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 29, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> They need to get out of this straightjacket.


 
Fuck the cisnormatives


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> ..."sub-Leninist"...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> not sure if that's criticism or praise? In any case I don't think Syiza is adequately explained/dismissed with concepts like "left reformist", "centrist" or "sub-Leninist".
> 
> and I'm not holding up Syriza as "the model" for success - it could well be the Syriza falls apart in acrimony and recrimination.


You _think that it might be praise_?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

I'm sure it's not intended as such


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:
			
		

> not sure if that's criticism or praise?





articul8 said:


> I'm sure it's not intended as such


 
What _are_ you really (secretly) sure/not sure of?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

it might - objectively - be praiseworthy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it might - objectively - be praiseworthy.


You are now discussing whether you are objectively praiseworthy. Well done articul8, well done.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What _are_ you really (secretly) sure/not sure of?


interesting edit - secretly?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> interesting edit - secretly?


In what way is your secrecy interesting to you?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

our opaque relation to our own consciousness is endlessly fascinating - hence my interest in psychoanalysis


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

You mean yourself. Away and fan your endlessly fascinating self down the LRC.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god,_ proper leninism._


 
They can't realistically cede "Leninism" to the CC, that would finish them. And they have the advantage that it's trivially easy to show that the party Lenin led was much more freewheeling, open and democratic than the SWP. It's an open goal, so they'll take advantage.

The piece is pretty good within its limits.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Can i just say, that in this weeks Socialist Worker there is an article on Hitler. There is, underneath a picture, the caption:



> Adolf Hitler and his henchmen


 
I kid you not.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You mean yourself. Away and fan your endlessly fascinating self down the LRC.


interesting disavowal/displacement of your own narcissism


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> not sure if that's criticism or praise? In any case I don't think Syiza is adequately explained/dismissed with concepts like "left reformist", "centrist" or "sub-Leninist".
> 
> and I'm not holding up Syriza as "the model" for success - it could well be the Syriza falls apart in acrimony and recrimination.


 
Don't you think we ought to consider the dangers (to working-class people in Greece) of SYRIZA standing firm and holding together?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Don't you think we ought to consider the dangers (to working-class people in Greece) of SYRIZA standing firm and holding together?


in what sense - as a united reformist bloc?  I don't see it.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 29, 2013)

"Hitler sought support from all sides. This is evident in his party’s full name—the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. “National” and “German” appealed to the right wing, the middle and upper classes.

But “Socialist” and “Worker” were designed to attract the left and the working class.

Hitler succeeded in hoovering up almost all middle class votes but he failed with the workers.

The working class made up over half of the German population, but less than a third of those who joined the NSDAP were working class."
Putting socialist and worker in the name of your party is designed to attract the working class?
 I wonder what proportion of working class members are in the SWP?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> "Hitler sought support from all sides. This is evident in his party’s full name—the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. “National” and “German” appealed to the right wing, the middle and upper classes.
> 
> But “Socialist” and “Worker” were designed to attract the left and the working class.
> 
> ...


 
This:



> MYTH 1: Hitler hypnotised his followers
> The bile and lies pumped out by the Nazi party (NSDAP) under Goebbels’ direction barely changed from its foundation in 1920. It blamed Communists, foreigners and especially Jews for the woes of the “master race”.


 
is just outright wrong, and either derives from ignorance (in which case why are you writing the article?) or deliberate falsehood (in which case, why are you lying?).


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 29, 2013)

"Their opposition ranged from playing illegal jazz music, to armed combat."
Comrade delta will be pleased


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can i just say, that in this weeks Socialist Worker there is an article on Hitler. There is, underneath a picture, the caption:
> 
> I kid you not.


 
Brilliant letters this week too.

Indispensible letter on Orwell from Mancunian James:




> Orwell was a critic of Stalin
> At the time when George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four many on the left were afraid to criticise Stalinist Russia. But he sought to attack the totalitarian regime because of its opposition to what he saw as socialism’s fundamental values. This doesn’t mark him out as a traitor to the Left, but a man of integrity. Orwell was willing to call out injustice at either side of the political spectrum.
> 
> James, Manchester


 
A boss saying they like blacklisting:



> I support blacklisting
> 
> I run a small construction company and there are many workers out there worthy of blacklisting, take my word for it. If someone came to work on your home pretending to be a skilled tradesmen, caused a whole lot of damage, stole from you, or was rude to you, then you’d probably want to make damned sure that they didn’t ever come back again. But in a commercial environment it’s probably a bit unfair to share that list with other corporations.


 

A Brit expat in France is upset at leftwing Muslims being sexual chauvinists, wants us to stop insulting believers and warns of rising 'black nationalism'.



> French left and Islamophobia
> Tragically, there was a call by a very significant group of left wing Muslim activists and intellectuals to join the demo against gay marriage in Paris last month. It didn’t help that almost all the radical left has been so hopeless on opposing Islamophobia. The space left open by the radical left has been partly filled by other forces, such as black nationalism, which are not clear on gay rights. However, at least 40% percent of Muslims in France support equal rights to marriage. So there is no need for despair, but there is plenty of work to be done. This will be extremely difficult if the far left continues its habit of insulting believers, whether Muslims or Catholics.
> John Mullen, Montreuil, France


 
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=30448

Absolutely crucial to have these voices heard in the "nerve centre" of the party at the expense of discussion from your own members who want to discuss the party's structural weaknesses.

Listen to a SWP guy - 42 minutes in - with brown T-shirt argue that the strike on 30 November 2011 was "the largest strike this country has ever seen since 1926" (ignoring the larger 1979 Day of Action) was as a result of good leadership by trade union leaders, then the December sell-out was bad leadership by the same leaders.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

The biscuit is taken with this quote from Joanna Lumley:




> ‘Don’t look like trash, don’t get drunk’
> Joanna Lumley's “advice” to women on how not to be raped


 
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=30472

'Is it fair to say you enjoy a drink?'
SWP rape investigation workers' tribunal


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The biscuit is taken with this quote from Joanna Lumley:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, is there really no self-awareness amongst all those people they employ?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, is there really no self-awareness amongst all those people they employ?


 
They've forgotten to change the picture of Owen Jones endorsing their merchandising firm 'Red Stuff' (following from their fiction publication arm Red Words).


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

What do we make of this use of Lenin-ism by Callinicos in his latest battle commands from the ISJ:




> Chris Harman argued during the Great Miners’ Strike of 1984-5 that a united front involves revolutionary socialists working both with and against those to their right. As so often with dialectical formulations such as this, there is a tendency to slide towards one or other of the two poles—in this case, just working with the left officials, or simply working against them. These are not just intellectual errors. There are objective pulls in both directions built into the situation. The relative weakness of the rank and file creates a temptation simply to tail the left bureaucracy, while the union leaders’ betrayals push activists in the direction of denunciations that aren’t backed by the muscle to call independent strikes and so lead all too often to passive demoralisation.
> 
> Revolutionaries have to grasp contradictions such as this in their totality, highlighting the aspect that brings them into focus. As Lenin put it, “The whole art of politics lies in finding and taking as firm a grip as we can of the link that is least likely to be struck from our hands, the one that is most important at the given moment, the one that most of all guarantees its possessor the possession of the whole chain”. Here and now in Britain this means building UtR, both as a forum where activists who want to build mass strikes can get together to discuss and coordinate and as a means of putting pressure on the left officials.


 
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=863&issue=137

What exactly does Lenin's "The whole art of politics lies in finding and taking as firm a grip as we can of the link that is least likely to be struck from our hands, the one that is most important at the given moment, the one that most of all guarantees its possessor the possession of the whole chain" mean?

'Do the thing that will have the most impact'
'Find the most sensible course of action, not the dumbest one'

Also whatever happened to Right to Work?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 29, 2013)

That "rethinking the left" article by Kevin Crane made my teeth hurt. A really intense mixture of SWP buzzwords and arrogance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it might - objectively - be praiseworthy.


you think ignorance can be praiseworthy?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That "rethinking the left" article by Kevin Crane made my teeth hurt. A really intense mixture of SWP buzzwords and arrogance.


 
It's almost saying Livingstone should _not_ have been challenged in 2008, when Boris won:

"A CC that had lost touch severely with the bulk of the membership felt unable, even unwilling, to go to them with difficulties they were having with other forces in Respect in 2006 before the crisis became unmanageable, then swung the other way and began mobilising members for a messy break with Galloway, culminating in a badly misjudged attempt at launch a breakaway party from Respect (the ‘Left List’) in the London elections. It bombed in the polls and damaged our relations not only with those who still followed Galloway, but also many socialists who had been desperate to fend off the defeat of Ken Livingstone in the mayoral election (the actual impact the Left List had on Ken's vote was not far off zero, it was the symbolic break that was the harm). Party members were rightly concerned and in many cases angry."
Easy prey for the CC.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What exactly does Lenin's "The whole art of politics lies in finding and taking as firm a grip as we can of the link that is least likely to be struck from our hands, the one that is most important at the given moment, the one that most of all guarantees its possessor the possession of the whole chain" mean?
> 
> 'Do the thing that will have the most impact'
> 'Find the most sensible course of action, not the dumbest one'


 
Yes, the quote is a statement of the bleedin' obvious. The purpose of digging it up is to add legitimacy to whatever Callinicos attaches it to.




			
				sihhi said:
			
		

> Also whatever happened to Right to Work?


 
It went down the memory hole. It did so here in Ireland too. I think here in Ireland they may be on to anti-austerity united front number four at this point, but I've honestly lost count and can't even remember all of their names.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Easy prey for the CC.


 
Yes, but this guy is off message in opposition terms. He seems to be perched halfway between the mainstream opposition stance and the Counterfire/Donny Mayo stance, leaning towards the latter. It's the mixture of these two essentially incompatible positions that leads to its incoherence.


----------



## ZeeZee (Jan 29, 2013)

Had anyone else posted this ? Choked laughing on my Pringles

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=3Jll...i=/watch?v=3JllQnXl208&feature=youtu.be&gl=GB


----------



## kavenism (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What do we make of this use of Lenin-ism by Callinicos in his latest battle commands from the ISJ:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ah! the theory of the weakest link. In the words of Foucault, a strategy so obvious even to the lowest sub lieutenant.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

Of course it's idiocy as well, the _true_ marxist position is that contradictions mass at the strongest point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Ah! the theory of the weakest link.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course it's idiocy as well, the _true_ marxist position is that contradictions mass at the strongest point.


Surely in that sense Capitalism's strongest point would be their weakest from the perspective of the revolutionary, hence the difference in class consciousness?


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you think ignorance can be praiseworthy?


Yes, it can. Ignorance of dire straits, for example, would be a highly praiseworthy condition.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 29, 2013)

They weren't that bad, I remember feeling dead proud when I learned the guitar solo on Sultans of Swing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Yes, it can. Ignorance of dire straits, for example, would be a highly praiseworthy condition.


twat


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> twat


Yes that was him, in the headband


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Yes that was him, in the headband


mark knopfler. a better socialist than you'll ever be.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> mark knopfler. a better socialist than you'll ever be.


Quiet night in the library is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Quiet night in the library is it?


for someone who's so interested in extremely obscure communist sects it's rather revealing you appear ignorant of proper bolshevism.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> for someone who's so interested in extremely obscure communist sects it's rather revealing you appear ignorant of proper bolshevism.


Extremely obscure commie sects?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Extremely obscure commie sects?


yes, extremely obscure communist sects


----------



## steeplejack (Jan 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is the first ever mention of Cliff on this board.


 
What. A. Thread. some long forgotten names there- remember right wing troll 'Saxon Rillet' being an absolute rocket, in particular.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 29, 2013)

Yeah, it was good fun looking over that thread.
It's a pity the "Is Bolshevism as Bad as Fascism" thread was binned as that was great


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 29, 2013)

Dr Christmas, I presume


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Brilliant letters this week too.
> 
> Indispensible letter on Orwell from Mancunian James:
> 
> ...




Would you believe me if I told you he was a fulltimer?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Would you believe me if I told you he was a fulltimer?


yes


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes


 
Well you shouldn't be so trusting 

I don't think he's one now but was for about a year.

Politics aside he's not a bad lad really.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Politics aside he's not a bad lad really.


 
Bit like Joey Barton then.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2013)

No, he's just a cunt.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

It seems that the "loyalist" element are getting a bit more assertive online over the last day or two. Whether that represents anything more than a few random members getting frustrated I don't know. There have been a few, "why don't you just leave then?" style comments over on the IS site for instance, as well as Snowball's intervention on his blog.

Some of their comments are really quite personally focused (on Seymour).


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

can't really see Seymour being a member much past the weekend, really.

In one of the other posts comments, it seems to say the South Wales aggregate had a massive 15 people at it!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> can't really see Seymour being a member much past the weekend, really.


 
Likely not. But even so, he's definitely set a new record for "most piss taken out of the CC before expulsion".




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> In one of the other posts comments, it seems to say the South Wales aggregate had a massive 15 people at it!


 
Doesn't sound particularly impressive, does it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

There's now a statement, allegedly from John Molyneux, on Lenin's Tomb (in the comments to the Is Zinovievism finished article). It's not on his blog or anywhere else I can see as of yet, so caution advised.

It's a full on, no criticism, support for the British CC. Goes after Seymour. It's all about an attack on the Leninist party. Feeding frenzy created by the oppositionalists.

If it is real, then you'd have to guess that it's coordinated with the British CC. And is presumably about warming things up for the counter offensive, by having the loyal critic soften up the wavering elements among the opposition.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 30, 2013)

sihhi said:


>




anybody know what diet John's on? I'm impressed and I need to lose a few pounds.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's now a statement, allegedly from John Molyneux, on Lenin's Tomb (in the comments to the Is Zinovievism finished article). It's not on his blog or anywhere else I can see as of yet, so caution advised.
> 
> It's a full on, no criticism, support for the British CC. Goes after Seymour. It's all about an attack on the Leninist party. Feeding frenzy created by the oppositionalists.
> 
> If it is real, then you'd have to guess that it's coordinated with the British CC. And is presumably about warming things up for the counter offensive, by having the loyal critic soften up the wavering elements among the opposition.


 
Yup it's all just a reflection of 'radicalised liberal individualism'. Nothing to see here!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 30, 2013)

The Molyneux thing was forshadowed on his own blog a little while ago with his little piece on Syriza and anti leninism as by products of a "radicalised version of neo-liberal individualism which developed a very strong hold on youth consciousness over the past couple of decades."

The LT comments do read like his style completely and he's not pulling any punches.

"Finally, I would say that this is a wretched time for many of us – the feeding 
frenzy on the net, added to by some who should know better, must make 
many comrades feel sickened."

This is coming to a head. Good.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

Apparently not intended for publication. It is claimed that it was sent to select members. (The unkind might describe that as "secret factionalism" I suppose).

Interesting to see an example of the kind of behind the scenes lobbying that's going on.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> This is coming to a head. Good.


 
It's language which implies the necessity of a quick split.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's language which implies the necessity of a quick split.


Seymour knows it (you don't call party notes Pravda if you think otherwise) the dogs in the street know it.

Molyneux says of a recall conference:
"The demand for a recall conference is not a democratic demand but an
anti-democratic demand designed to undermine the vote of the majority.
Yes, there are circumstances when the demand for a recall conference is
legitimate; for example when there is major new development, such as the
outbreak of an unforeseen war or major strike, on which the party is
divided as to its response. But this not one of them. Nothing has
changed in the outside world except for the public furore CREATED BY
THOSE WHO DISAGREED with conference decisions."

You can't stay long in the same party as people doing that.

"the actual behaviour – as opposed to their formal declarations- of those who have 
gone public, in the bourgeois press, on their blogs and on Facebook (and
FB IS public) shows that they either have a very different conception 
of the party or no real regard for it. In particular, a question I would
put to Richard Seymour (and to his supporters) is do you believe that 
party rules and norms, which you must be aware of, do not apply to you 
or is it that you disagree with them all and think that everyone should 
be allowed to attack the party publicly in any way they like?"

This will strike a chord with everyone who hasn't already decided to go. It's deep in the dna of a leninist that you don't do this shit. Look at what happeend to Paul Levi and he had much, much more excuse and redeeming qualities.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Seymour knows it (you don't call party notes Pravda if you think otherwise) the dogs in the street know it.


 
Oh come on, with its relentless diet of good news only stories and exhortations to work, calling Party Notes "Pravda" is so obvious that it barely even counts as witty.




			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> You can't stay long in the same party as people doing that.


 
Yes, it's the language of the purge. And it is, almost as an aside, a quite extraordinarily tendentious way of describing the origins of the SWP's crisis.




			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> This will strike a chord with everyone who hasn't already decided to go.


 
It's an attempt to make the hard oppositionists anathema, so as to whip people up for expulsions and cow softer oppositionists. To what degree it will actually have an effect remains to be see. Molyneux, as resident tame critic, is one of the few people on the CC side who will have a bit of additional authority to trade off.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 30, 2013)

Can someone post the molyneux bit up in full, for some reason I cannot read comments on seymour's site, tho disquis works fine on other sites?!?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's an attempt to make the hard oppositionists anathema, so as to whip people up for expulsions and cow softer oppositionists. To what degree it will actually have an effect remains to be see. Molyneux, as resident tame critic, is one of the few people on the CC side who will have a bit of additional authority to trade off.


Well yes there is that. But it will have an effect. The reason party loyalists aren't commenting online, or have been less than the others, isn't because they have nothing to say, it's cause they agree with JM that you don't have these debates in public, not the procedural ones certainly and even with the political ones there ought to be limits to what you say publically about your own org. That's deeply ingrained. To be honest if I was ever to rejoin (not that they'd have me probably)  I'd never post on a forum like this again either, only do it now cause I've nobody else to talk to about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Seymour knows it (you don't call party notes Pravda if you think otherwise) the dogs in the street know it.
> 
> Molyneux says of a recall conference:
> "The demand for a recall conference is not a democratic demand but an
> ...


'it's deep in the dna of a leninist' = I have no argument


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

ISO have a statement out:

http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/30/the-crisis-in-the-swp


----------



## SLK (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> ISO have a statement out:
> 
> http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/30/the-crisis-in-the-swp


 
That rambles an repeats itself a lot! I can't disagree with it though.


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2013)

I thought it was a problem with the way the page was loading when I kept reading the same thing  I completely disagree (unsurprisingly) with what they have to say about bypassing bourgeois courts and limiting sanctions for sexual abuse to expulsion.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 30, 2013)

SLK said:


> That rambles an repeats itself a lot! I can't disagree with it though.


Rambles cause they're trying to be even handed and not throw the baby out with the bath water. But they are making a huge mistake giving Seymour such a personal ego rub in it. Got to laugh at the we don't like to interfere but nonsense. but they are also clearly worried at some of the over the top stuff their own members have been saying on fb. Once it's there it doesn't go away indeed.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Rambles cause they're trying to be even handed and not throw the baby out with the bath water. But they are making a huge mistake giving Seymour such a personal ego rub in it. Got to laugh at the we don't like to interfere but nonsense. but they are also clearly worried at some of the over the top stuff their own members have been saying on fb. Once it's there it doesn't go away indeed.


 
It also repeats itself because they've added an introduction to an earlier document which already had one.

And yes, because they have a few different agendas (1) supporting the SWP oppositionists (2) trying to encourage the rethinking of Cliffism to stay within the same sort of bounds they have and (3) keeping a lid on their own rasher elements.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cause these differences matter and matter most at critical points in history. There are many people in Egypt right now who would broadly agree that what the country needs is a workers government. But they would have all sorts of differences on whether for example that means a violent confrontation with the state at some point, what the attitude to working with fellow workers who are Islamists should be, are the liberals a lesser evil to Morsi, were the Black Bloc a help or a hindrance in the demos over the last few days etc etc. And those differences matter cause they will determine what ultimately happens to the Egyptian revolution, success or defeat. Thank fuck there happens to be a fairly worked out Leninst organistion, the Rev Soc, on the ground arguing their politics with other people on the broadly left side and making sure that the most advanced sections of the Egyptian revolution have a voice at every turn and thank fuck they bothered to separate themselves sufficiently to have a voice. In our tiny-in-comparison struggles that sounds like ridiculous hair splitting. In a major crisis like Egypt it's life and death stuff.


 
You mean the Rev Socialists who called for support for Mursi not so long ago? The same Mursi that has just initiated a curfew?


----------



## SLK (Jan 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Rambles cause they're trying to be even handed and not throw the baby out with the bath water. But they are making a huge mistake giving Seymour such a personal ego rub in it. Got to laugh at the we don't like to interfere but nonsense. but they are also clearly worried at some of the over the top stuff their own members have been saying on fb. Once it's there it doesn't go away indeed.


 
I know you dislike him. I don't really have an opinion. If his ego is rubbed, so be it, I don't really care. I can't see him being a leader of a significant group for a long time.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> We've long since ditched that style of appeal over here. They work, but they are a bit too in your face.
> 
> What were you doing at a Militant summer camp, by the way?


 
Could you elaborate a bit Nigel? Message me if you prefer, interested in your alternative appeal style


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 30, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Testing my arguments in favour of state cap and a workers' republic against their best. Well, Joe Higgins wasn't there so it was mostly toe to toe with Peter Hadden. I also came across a really interesting hang up one of their 'historians' had. I don't know if you've ever encountered it. Someone in a talk asked why, if a planned economy is more progressive than an anarchic one (apologies to our anarchist friends, you know what I mean), did the ancient Chinese empire not advance more quickly than western feudalism? They got themselves tied up in knots over that.


 
The ancient Chinese empire did advance far more quickly than Western feudalism, though I'm not sure how it's strictly relevant as neither were planned economies.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 30, 2013)

cesare said:


> I thought it was a problem with the way the page was loading when I kept reading the same thing  I completely disagree (unsurprisingly) with what they have to say about bypassing bourgeois courts and limiting sanctions for sexual abuse to expulsion.


 
So our conclusion re the allegations are that these are best dealt with by bourgeois courts?


----------



## two sheds (Jan 30, 2013)

With SWPers coming out, and the most active amongst them therefore possibly losing many of their friends, perhaps there should be a support group.


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> So our conclusion re the allegations are that these are best dealt with by bourgeois courts?


We don't know enough about these specific allegations to conclude anything about this particular incident/s. What *I* would generally conclude though is that investigating allegations of sexual abuse shouldn't automatically bypass the bourgeois court system and that sanctions for sexual abuse shouldn't be limited to party expulsion.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 30, 2013)

cesare said:


> We don't know enough about these specific allegations to conclude anything about this particular incident/s. What *I* would generally conclude though is that investigating allegations of sexual abuse shouldn't automatically bypass the bourgeois court system and that sanctions for sexual abuse shouldn't be limited to party expulsion.


 
What iyo would be the reasons/circumstance not to bypass the bourgeois court system? One would be the victim refusing to take this route , but what then? 
I am generally undecided about this btw .


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 30, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> What iyo would be the reasons/circumstance not to bypass the bourgeois court system? One would be the victim refusing to take this route , but what then?
> I am generally undecided about this btw .


 
I think if the victim is explicit about not wanting to go through the courts/police then that has to be accepted. (The alternative is that members do not feel confident in bringing complaints because their wishes might be over-ridden and the matter handed over to the cops against their will?)

But there also has to be a discussion with them about the limits of the internal complaints procedure, and its sanctions.

Unless there is a case to be made that in some situations the allegation is so horrendous that it _has_ to go to the police?


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> What iyo would be the reasons/circumstance not to bypass the bourgeois court system? One would be the victim refusing to take this route , but what then?
> I am generally undecided about this btw .


In general terms (because the course of action will turn on the facts emerging from each individual case) I suggest that <whichever> political organisation reserve their rights from the outset to refer the matter (at any stage) to the OB if (a) the complainant consents and/or (b) if on the face of it the matter is sufficiently serious that it may be a criminal offence. If the complainant refuses to involve the OB in any circumstances and despite any offers of support, then the complainant needs to be referred to a specialist organisation (such as but not necessarily the Havens) and the matter left there.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

cesare said:


> In general terms (because the course of action will turn on the facts emerging from each individual case) I suggest that <whichever> political organisation reserve their rights from the outset to refer the matter (at any stage) to the OB if (a) the complainant consents and/or (b) if on the face of it the matter is sufficiently serious that it may be a criminal offence. If the complainant refuses to involve the OB in any circumstances and despite any offers of support, then the complainant needs to be referred to a specialist organisation (such as but not necessarily the Havens) and the matter left there.


 
But in those circumstances how can the matter be "left there"? A decision of some sort has to be arrived at concerning the status of the accused individual in the organisation concerned.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> What iyo would be the reasons/circumstance not to bypass the bourgeois court system? One would be the victim refusing to take this route , but what then?
> I am generally undecided about this btw .


 
Like it or not, the only way that a victim will gain, professional support, forensic proof of the attack and justice will be through engaging agencies independent and outside of their political party, no matter how revolutionary that is.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Like it or not, the only way that a victim will gain, professional support, forensic proof of the attack and justice will be through engaging agencies independent and outside of their political party, no matter how revolutionary that is.


 
Is it your view therefore that an organisation should report any serious complaint made to it to the police, even if that is against the wishes of the complainant?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is it your view therefore that an organisation should report any serious complaint made to it to the police, even if that is against the wishes of the complainant?


 
I don't think so, though I think that any responsible organisation might want to flag up, in advance of any reporting, that its policy would normally be to do so.
FWIW, if comrade Delta is innocent it would have been in his interest for the police forensic team to have been able to prove so.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I don't think so


 
Well then we're back in the position of trying to work through what should be done in those circumstances.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well then we're back in the position of trying to work through what should be done in those circumstances.


 
Yes, but I did make a further suggestion.
IMO, the gravest error made by the party was to suggest to the victim that party discipline could substitute for support and justice offered by professional agencies.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yes, but I did make a further suggestion.


 
Do you not believe that might make someone less likely to complain in the first place? Which is hardly a good thing. And even then, would you actually go through with it against the complainant's wishes?




			
				brogdale said:
			
		

> IMO, the gravest error made by the party was to suggest to the victim that party discipline could substitute for support and justice offered by professional agencies.


 
I'm not talking about what the SWP did or didn't do here. I'm asking what should be done in a hypothetical case where the complainant, despite being offered support to do so, remained adamant about not wanting to involve the police?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

come on comrades! one valiant push to 150 pages!


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not talking about what the SWP did or didn't do here. I'm asking what should be done in a hypothetical case where the complainant, despite being offered support to do so, remained adamant about not wanting to involve the police?


 
Perhaps a key issue here is whether or not there are likely to be victims in the future other than the complainant? (Which it would be difficult to determine, obviously.)


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Do you not believe that might make someone less likely to complain in the first place? Which is hardly a good thing. And even then, would you actually go through with it against the complainant's wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about what the SWP did or didn't do here. I'm asking what should be done in a hypothetical case where the complainant, despite being offered support to do so, remained adamant about not wanting to involve the police?


 
It is obviously the victim's right to do whatever they choose wrt the police. In the case of organisations I think that they should make it clear to any victim reporting criminal wrong-doing that they would feel compelled to pass on that information. I believe the same situation pertains with the disclosure of child abuse? From the outset individuals alleging abuse are advised that confidentiality of their report cannot be maintained.

The alleged victim would therefore be aware, in advance, that one additional disadvantage of not reporting to the police would be that they would not be able to confidentially report to the organisation. Obviously, if a member were subsequently convicted, then it would be within their remit to discipline internally.

The error on the part of the SWP was to somehow imply that the organistion had the capacity to handle this case; they patently could not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Perhaps a key issue here is whether or not there are likely to be victims in the future other than the complainant? (Which it would be difficult to determine, obviously.)


that's just the sort of stakhanovite effort i sought to encourage


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2013)

What about claims of serial violent and _ongoing_ rapes that would mean, if true, that a member constituted a threat to other women - inside and outside the organisation? How would these robust rejections of bourgeois process stand up to that? And what about the dangers posed to those _outside the party_ that would effectively be sustained by the sort of amateur internal policing procedure that took place here. If we're doing hypotheticals and if the party wants to argue that there is no justice outside of itself...


----------



## kavenism (Jan 30, 2013)

I’m sure we’ve covered this further back. If the party doesn’t have the resources to properly investigate a rape or to provide what most would consider to be a just punishment (and everyone seems to be in agreement that they don’t), then the obvious course of action is simply not to investigate it but rather make clear to the claimant that they can only investigate claims of harrasment and sexist conduct that would breech the party’s internal rules; the sorts of accusations that a regular HR department or Union might investigate, and for which expulsion would be a reasonable outcome. I don’t think they would be failing the woman if they just said we don’t have the resourses to deal with a rape but we’ll deal with the question of harrasment. Then the ball is back in her court as to whether she thinks that satisfactory.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What about claims of serial violent and _ongoing_ rapes that would mean, if true, that a member constituted a threat to other women - inside and outside the organisation? How would these robust rejections of bourgeois process stand up to that? And what about the dangers posed to those _outside the party_ that would effectively be sustained by the sort of amateur internal policing procedure that took place here. If we're doing hypotheticals and if the party wants to argue no justice outside of itself...


no justice, no peace


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> But in those circumstances how can the matter be "left there"? A decision of some sort has to be arrived at concerning the status of the accused individual in the organisation concerned.


This is where I go back (again!) to what I said about checking at each stage of the way about complainant confidentiality.

From the outset, the complainant needs to understand that their complaint will generate a response, and that the response will alter as the facts of the matter emerge. The initial response to a complaint of abuse (whether sexual, racial, homophobic, domestic, bullying etc etc) will be to assess what the complainant wants to acheive by way of a careful conversation with them. Ideally, the person holding that conversation would not be an investigator or decision maker. If the complainant wants/needs support/counselling and no retributive action if upheld - then from the very start the complainant should be referred to a specialist advice/support centre and the matter not pursued internally. Although a record should be kept of the fact of the complaint and the action taken.

And then a similar conversation at each step of the way. For example; having obtained consent from the complainant to investigate the matter with the proviso of referral - the next step would be to start gathering facts/versions of events. This starts with the person assigned to investigate (investigating officer for want of a better expression). The investigating officer obtains the complainant's version of events and obtains further details via proper questioning. After that has been done, the investigating officer says something along these lines as appropriate "well, <name> thank you for telling me about this. What you've described is serious, and therefore I need to investigate further. This means that I have to interview the person that you're complaining about and also take statements from the people that witnessed <whatever behaviour>. Are you happy for me to do that?" If the answer is yes - that's what the investigating officer does. If the answer is no, the investigating officer explains that the matter can't be pursued internally because it's essential to get everyone involved's version of events before proceeding further.

Etc. I won't set out each step cos you'll get TL: DR


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

kavenism said:


> I’m sure we’ve covered this further back. If the party doesn’t have the resources to properly investigate a rape or to provide what most would consider to be a just punishment (and everyone seems to be in agreement that they don’t), then the obvious course of action is simply not to investigate it but rather make clear to the claimant that they can only investigate calims of harrasment and sexist conduct that would breech the party’s internal rules; the sorts of accusations that a regular HR department or Union might investigate, and for which expulsion would be a reasonable outcome. I don’t think they would be failing the woman if they just said we don’t have the resourses to deal with a rape but we’ll deal with the question of harrasment. Then the ball is back in her court as to whether she thinks that satisfactory.


what do you mean the party doesn't have the resources to properly investigate a rape? they might not have the skills and they certainly don't have the inclination, but they've got the resources, resources which many a poor police department in many countries round the world would love. but it's not like the alleged (!) perpetrator's unknown: there's been no fucking need for resources. no need to a manhunt, no need for a dna test, etc etc. but to say they don't have the resources - pisspoor.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2013)

kavenism said:


> I’m sure we’ve covered this further back. If the party doesn’t have the resources to properly investigate a rape or to provide what most would consider to be a just punishment (and everyone seems to be in agreement that they don’t), then the obvious course of action is simply not to investigate it but rather make clear to the claimant that they can only investigate calims of harrasment and sexist conduct that would breech the party’s internal rules; the sorts of accusations that a regular HR department or Union might investigate, and for which expulsion would be a reasonable outcome. I don’t think they would be failing the woman if they just said we don’t have the resourses to deal with a rape but we’ll deal with the question of harrasment. Then the ball is back in her court as to whether she thinks that satisfactory.


That pilate option would be political madness, near suicide. Say the woman goes to the police and a conviction follows, the party learns that the CC was informed of a rape and did nothing, and did nothing as a point of principle.The other side of the coin if police are not involved is that the CC again, did nothing, and again, as a point of principle. That cannot happen in these parties due to a) simple practical common sense and b) the political perspective they seek to establish - i.e criticisms of bourgeois law and the leading role of the party pre-and post revolution. They cannot just abdicate what they have spent years saying is their responsibility. You can see this in the opening statement on the DC transcript.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

I don't think you are going to get any responses premised on the idea that there's no justice outside the party. The issue is what should an organisation sane enough not to think that do when an adult brings a serious complaint against another member but is adamant that they won't go to the cops?

I don't have a thought through opinion on this.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 30, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you mean the party doesn't have the resources to properly investigate a rape? they might not have the skills and they certainly don't have the inclination, but they've got the resources, resources which many a poor police department in many countries round the world would love. but it's not like the alleged (!) perpetrator's unknown: there's been no fucking need for resources. no need to a manhunt, no need for a dna test, etc etc. but to say they don't have the resources - pisspoor.


 
Forensics? That's often what it turns on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Forensics? That's often what it turns on.


you're saying that no doctors or other relevant professionals among the party membership would assist the party authorities in this matter.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you mean the party doesn't have the resources to properly investigate a rape? they might not have the skills and they certainly don't have the inclination, but they've got the resources, resources which many a poor police department in many countries round the world would love. but it's not like the alleged (!) perpetrator's unknown: there's been no fucking need for resources. no need to a manhunt, no need for a dna test, etc etc. but to say they don't have the resources - pisspoor.


 
A political party does not have the victim support services, or the forensics to determine proof of guilt/innocence or access to the judicial system. Wake up man.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think you are going to get any responses premised on the idea that there's no justice outside the party. The issue is what should an organisation sane enough not to think that do when an adult brings a serious complaint against another member but is adamant that they won't go to the cops?
> 
> I don't have a thought through opinion on this.


The idea of no justice outside the party runs clear through the DC's reports, even Stacks contribution. I know what the issue is, and i've asked a question of those who would say no recourse to the police no matter what.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> A political party does not have the victim support services, or the forensics to determine proof of guilt/innocence or access to the judicial system. Wake up man.


the determination of guilt is not the function of the investigation in bourgeois criminal justice but the function of the judiciary. victim support is not an investigative function either.

wake up? you don't even know you're asleep.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 30, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're saying that no doctors or other relevant professionals among the party membership would assist the party authorities in this matter.


 
That’s very speculative, and I really don’t think they could access the appropriate level of scientific resourses without drawing attention to what they were doing. Then they’d have to answer the same sorts of questions from their detractors. The only thing we seem to be able to agree on is that from the moment the original alegation was made the party was pretty much fucked whatever it did.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

fer fucks sake, are we running the entire thread again? With idiotic, ill-thought out, liberal bullshit about how everyone must go to the police, again? Jesus christ, what a waste of time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

kavenism said:


> That’s very speculative, and I really don’t think they could access the appropriate level of scientific resourses without drawing attention to what they were doing. Then they’d have to answer the same sorts of questions from their detractors. The only thing we seem to be able to agree on is that from the moment the original alegation was made the party was pretty much fucked whatever it did.


what makes you think we agree on that?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the determination of guilt is not the function of the investigation in bourgeois criminal justice but the function of the judiciary. victim support is not an investigative function either.
> 
> wake up? you don't even know you're asleep.


 
So the party proposed to deal with the matter on the basis of no professional victim support, no forensic evidence and with no prospect of justice for either party. Pretty smart, eh?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The idea of no justice outside the party runs clear through the DC's reports, even Stacks contribution. I know what the issue is, and i've asked a question of those who would say no recourse to the police no matter what.



I was just about to say that there's nobody here to answer a question from that perspective, but actually maybe there is.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> fer fucks sake, are we running the entire thread again? With idiotic, ill-thought out, liberal bullshit about how everyone must go to the police, again? Jesus christ, what a waste of time.


 
I don't think anyone posting in the thread has suggested that every victim of rape should report to the police. All the professional support agencies have made that clear for decades.
What is at issue is the responsibility of civil organisations if and when a disclosure is made.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 30, 2013)

There are plenty of cases in which a party or party members would advise people to go to the police, any party. Would be idiotic not to, especially in an immediate emergency, I've done it myself when I was still a card carrying trot. But if a person doesn't exercise their right to do that and instead prefers the org they're a member of to investigate then that body has to have a way of dealing with these cases. 

In this particular case there are obvious reasons why everyone concerned wouldn't have expected a fair handling of things by the police.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> So the party proposed to deal with the matter on the basis of no professional victim support, no forensic evidence and with no prospect of justice for either party. Pretty smart, eh?


you're talking shit. i was replying to the claim that the party did not have the resources to INVESTIGATE the allegation, you seem to be talking about something rather different. do you think that all rape investigations everywhere ever require forensick evidence? that all rape investigations everywhere ever require victim support services? that no one has ever been convicted of rape in the absence of these?

i haven't made any comment on "justice" for either the complainant or the alleged perpetrator: perhaps you could indicate what you mean by "justice".


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The idea of no justice outside the party runs clear through the DC's reports, even Stacks contribution. I know what the issue is, and i've asked a question of those who would say no recourse to the police no matter what.


Who says 'no recourse to the police no matter what'? No one. No recorse to the police when the complainant explicitly says she wont support such a move is a very different matter.

And what, when the police go 'there is no case we can investigate with any hope of prosecuation after four years' do you do? Logically all those calling for their cops, with their brilliant forensics, _must_ go 'Welcome Home Comrade Delta' - or should they run another, internal, investigation, then??


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There are plenty of cases in which a party or party members would advise people to go to the police, any party. Would be idiotic not to, especially in an immediate emergency, I've done it myself when I was still a card carrying trot. But if a person doesn't exercise their right to do that and instead prefers the org they're a member of to investigate then that body has to have a way of dealing with these cases.
> 
> In this particular case there are obvious reasons why everyone concerned wouldn't have expected a fair handling of things by the police.


It might be obvious to you - but please spell out the reasons for those of us for whom it's not so obvious.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

cesare said:


> It might be obvious to you - but please spell out the reasons for those of us for whom it's not so obvious.


we've already established earlier in the thread that bolshiebhoy hasn't thought through all this so i would be inclined to take his post with more than a pinch of salt,


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There are plenty of cases in which a party or party members would advise people to go to the police, any party. Would be idiotic not to, especially in an immediate emergency, I've done it myself when I was still a card carrying trot. But if a person doesn't exercise their right to do that and instead prefers the org they're a member of to investigate then that body has to have a way of dealing with these cases.
> 
> In this particular case there are obvious reasons why everyone concerned wouldn't have expected a fair handling of things by the police.


 
Maybe the party should have the self-awareness and honesty to say that they are not capable of doing what is needed, and that the best they can do is to help the individual find the care, support and resources they require elsewhere. It's the sort of thing we do as individuals when confronted by the difficulties of friends and family which are beyond us; surely the revolutionary party, that collection of the most advanced of the class, the memory of the class should be capable of at least as much.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 30, 2013)

SLK said:


> I know you dislike him. I don't really have an opinion. If his ego is rubbed, so be it, I don't really care. I can't see him being a leader of a significant group for a long time.


I do dislike him - totally unfairly as I've never met him. But that's not what I meant here. They're mistaken to hitch themselves to him cause he's on a journey out of the tradition they still value and would surely end up leading some post Leninist Syriza lite identity politics mashup that most of then wouldn't touch with a barge pole. Some of them would which is why I think they tie themselves in knots trying to phrase their position.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Maybe the party should have the self-awareness and honesty to say that they are not capable of doing what is needed, and that the best they can do is to help the individual find the care, support and resources they require elsewhere. It's the sort of thing we do as individuals when confronted by the difficulties of friends and family which are beyond us; surely the revolutionary party, that collection of the most advanced of the class, the memory of the class should be capable of at least as much.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


so, you'd leave an alleged rapist in post, unchallenged?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Maybe the party should have the self-awareness and honesty to say that they are not capable of doing what is needed, and that the best they can do is to help the individual find the care, support and resources they require elsewhere. It's the sort of thing we do as individuals when confronted by the difficulties of friends and family which are beyond us; surely the revolutionary party, that collection of the most advanced of the class, the memory of the class should be capable of at least as much.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


given that the swp have proved incapable of their core functions - advancing the cause of revolution in this country and, in conjuction with their sister parties abroad, internationally - it would be no surprise if they were equally incapable of a searching and exhaustive investigation of a rape allegation made against one of their senior members.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> Who says 'no recourse to the police no matter what'? No one. No recorse to the police when the complainant explicitly says she wont support such a move is a very different matter.
> 
> And what, hgen the police go 'there is no case we can investigate with any hope of prosecuation after four years' do you do? Logically all those calling for their cops with their brilliant forensics _must_ go 'Welcome Home Comrade Delta' - or should they run another, internal, investigation, then??


That is the logic of the argument that bourgeois courts and law cannot and will not deal with such cases fairly and so should be left well alone (of course, this is a liberal argument in that it contains within itself the idea that if only bourgeois courts _did_ deal with such cases fairly then all is good, rather than a more substantial criticism of law as such). I've heard and read these last few weeks people argue such positions.

And you've mistook my question to those who would and have taken that position with a question or comment about the 'delta' case when it specifically and explicitly wasn't. I was rather trying to establish if and where people who did take that no police views clash with wider responsibility to people outside the party and as what point this clash leads to the position crumbling.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I do dislike him - totally unfairly as I've never met him. But that's not what I meant here. They're mistaken to hitch themselves to him cause he's on a journey out of the tradition they still value and would surely end up leading some post Leninist Syriza lite identity politics mashup that most of then wouldn't touch with a barge pole. Some of them would which is why I think they tie themselves in knots trying to phrase their position.


What strikes me as rather odd about this is that aside from a few hundred totally committed loyalists that actually run the party, that Syriza lite identity politics mashup politics  pretty much sums up the views of the membership - it's not a battle hardened cliffite tank, it's exactly people like that - you've seen them screaming _racists_ on here over the last 10 years (and that's actually from people who are closer to the former group).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> so, you'd leave an alleged rapist in post, unchallenged?


do you mean here that a) they should be removed from post; or b) they should be suspended from their post?


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 30, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> The ancient Chinese empire did advance far more quickly than Western feudalism, though I'm not sure how it's strictly relevant as neither were planned economies.


Well, up to a point, say c.1100. But I think Marxist and non-Marxist historians alike agree that the political fragmentation of Western Europe allowed for the implementation of new urban and rural practices, while the heavy-handed Chinese bureaucracy kept innovation in check. I do agree though that it this doesn't have any bearing on whether Russia under Stalin was state capitalist or not. And even less bearing on the thread. But I sneak it in while things are quiet.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> so, you'd leave an alleged rapist in post, unchallenged?


 
How does that follow from what I've said? The party would be quite capable of suspending the accused from activity (but not membership) while the accuser investigated and pursued their preferred course of action. The rationale for such a suspension being that it is in the best interests of the party to:

1. respect the decisions of the accuser;
2. be transparent in its dealing with accusation;
3. err on the side of caution.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> How does that follow from what I've said? The party would be quite capable of suspending the accused from activity (but not membership) while the accuser investigated and pursued their preferred course of action. The rationale for such a suspension being that it is in the best interests of the party to:
> 
> 1. respect the decisions of the accuser;
> 2. be transparent in its dealing with accusation;
> ...


to their credit the swp did follow part of your prescription, the "err" out of '3'. indeed, they put in an umm or two too.


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> to their credit the swp did follow part of your prescription, the "err" out of '3.3'. indeed, they put in an umm or two too.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That is the logic of the argument that bourgeois courts and law cannot and will not deal with such cases fairly and so should be left well alone (of course, this is a liberal argument in that it contains within itself the idea that if only bourgeois courts _did_ deal with such cases fairly then all is good, rather than a more substantial criticism of law as such). I've heard and read these last few weeks people argue such positions.


Have you? Fair enough, I haven't. All the criticisms I've heard say (to paraphrase) bourgeois courts are shit and won't investigate fairly, but they are often the best we have.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> How does that follow from what I've said? The party would be quite capable of suspending the accused from activity (but not membership) while the accuser investigated and pursued their preferred course of action. The rationale for such a suspension being that it is in the best interests of the party to:
> 
> 1. respect the decisions of the accuser;
> 2. be transparent in its dealing with accusation;
> ...


And if after all that, the complainant still didn't want to go to the cops? But still maintained her complaint?


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> How does that follow from what I've said? The party would be quite capable of suspending the accused from activity (but not membership) while the accuser investigated and pursued their preferred course of action. The rationale for such a suspension being that it is in the best interests of the party to:
> 
> 1. respect the decisions of the accuser;
> 2. be transparent in its dealing with accusation;
> ...


All the above is rather more than the 'best they can do is ...' As you wrote before.  Clearly you think the best they can do is what you said before AND the above. Which is quite a different thing.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And if after all that, the complainant still didn't want to go to the cops? But still maintained her complaint?


 
It doesn't demand that anybody has to go to the cops. It does require that the complainant is satisfied that they have been taken seriously and treated approrpriately.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And if after all that, the complainant still didn't want to go to the cops? But still maintained her complaint?


if lenin was happy to put anti-social crims up against the wall, it ill behoves his intellectual descendants in the swp to flinch at such a decision.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> All the above is rather more than the 'best they can do is ...' As you wrote before. Clearly you think the best they can do is what you said before AND the above. Which is quite a different thing.


 
No I was just thinking on my feet in response to your question re. leaving the accused in post; I'm sure there are many other ways through this which would all better than what has actually been done.

To clarify further, my use of the 'best they can do' was really with respect to the complainant. 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What strikes me as rather odd about this is that aside from a few hundred totally committed loyalists that actually run the party, that Syriza lite identity politics mashup politics  pretty much sums up the views of the membership - it's not a battle hardened cliffite tank, it's exactly people like that - you've seen them screaming _racists_ on here over the last 10 years (and that's actually from people who are closer to the former group).



Few hundred? Few dozen more like.


----------



## JimW (Jan 30, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Well, up to a point, say c.1100. But I think Marxist and non-Marxist historians alike agree that the political fragmentation of Western Europe allowed for the implementation of new urban and rural practices, while the heavy-handed Chinese bureaucracy kept innovation in check. I do agree though that it this doesn't have any bearing on whether Russia under Stalin was state capitalist or not. And even less bearing on the thread. But I sneak it in while things are quiet.


By all the accounts I've read, the standard of living for an ordinary person the most economically advanced nation in Western Europe (Britain) didn't surpass that of a comparable area of China (Yangtze Delta) until the early 19th century, well into your industrial revolution - it's what came out of Pomeranz' work he puts in his book the Great Divergence http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6823.html and the debates that came after. There were periods of significant technical innovation too, high Song etc. Fascinating subject (to people like me) tho I may have got the exact facts  wrong as only an interested reader.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 30, 2013)

JimW said:


> By all the accounts I've read, the standard of living for an ordinary person the most economically advanced nation in Western Europe (Britain) didn't surpass that of a comparable area of China (Yangtze Delta) until the early 19th century, well into your industrial revolution - it's what came out of Pomeranz' work he puts in his book the Great Divergence http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6823.html and the debates that came after. There were periods of significant technical innovation too, high Song etc. Fascinating subject (to people like me) tho I may have got the exact facts wrong as only an interested reader.


when you say 'by all the accounts i've read' do you mean you've read other accounts apart from pomeranz - and if so, which other accounts are you drawing on?


----------



## JimW (Jan 30, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> when you say 'by all the accounts i've read' do you mean you've read other accounts apart from pomeranz - and if so, which other accounts are you drawing on?


There were a load who came after him following up with more detailed research - comparing wages etc (link here just Googled up as was carrying on reading around having looked for the Pomeranz link that has some ongoing research: http://economistsview.typepad.com/e...reat-divergence-between-china-and-europe.html ). Think Barry Naughton rounded up a few more in his recent overview of Chinese economic history but might be misrembering. ETA: Just checked and he does, in Chap 2 of his Chinese Economy Transitions and Growth


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> It is obviously the victim's right to do whatever they choose wrt the police. *In the case of organisations I think that they should make it clear to any victim reporting criminal wrong-doing that they would feel compelled to pass on that information.* I believe the same situation pertains with the disclosure of child abuse? From the outset individuals alleging abuse are advised that confidentiality of their report cannot be maintained.
> 
> The alleged victim would therefore be aware, in advance, that one additional disadvantage of not reporting to the police would be that they would not be able to confidentially report to the organisation. Obviously, if a member were subsequently convicted, then it would be within their remit to discipline internally.
> 
> The error on the part of the SWP was to somehow imply that the organistion had the capacity to handle this case; they patently could not.


 
You are suggesting that this should apply to revolutionary organsiations, the anarchist scene, hunt sabs or would you include the EDL. BNP etc in this as well?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What strikes me as rather odd about this is that aside from a few hundred totally committed loyalists that actually run the party, that Syriza lite identity politics mashup politics  pretty much sums up the views of the membership - it's not a battle hardened cliffite tank, it's exactly people like that - you've seen them screaming _racists_ on here over the last 10 years (and that's actually from people who are closer to the former group).


I have. And this is the point where you paint me into an elitist corner where I'm forced to say it doesnt matter what fraction of the members are centrist vacillators as long as the leadership and its local cadres manage to steer the majority in a leninist direction most of the time. Oh there I've said it.


----------



## osterberg (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> can't really see Seymour being a member much past the weekend, really.
> 
> In one of the other posts comments, it seems to say the South Wales aggregate had a massive 15 people at it!


 Just for information that was the total number of votes for a motion . There was also a number of abstentions  and non voting .


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> It is obviously the victim's right to do whatever they choose wrt the police. In the case of organisations I think that they should make it clear to any victim reporting criminal wrong-doing that they would feel compelled to pass on that information.


even when going to the police is explicitly against the accuser's wishes? Even when doing so would undermine her confidence in you, your organisation and any investigation that would be undertaken?  And _any victim reporting criminal wrong-doing_?  Really?  You'd insist on reporting it to the police if someone had swiped a kitkat from the office cupboard? Or for flyposting?


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

osterberg said:


> Just for information that was the total number of votes for a motion . There was also a number of abstentions and non voting .


those who choose to 'non vote' rather than abstain always intrigue me.

But, even if we double the numbers to take this into account, its an astoundingly small number. Unless Swansea and Cardiff have separate aggregates (and even then...)


----------



## osterberg (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> those who choose to 'non vote' rather than abstain always intrigue me.
> 
> But, even if we double the numbers to take this into account, its an astoundingly small number. Unless Swansea and Cardiff have separate aggregates (and even then...)


The total number of votes for and against the motion I should have said . Which makes no differrence of course.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> You are suggesting that this should apply to revolutionary organsiations, the anarchist scene, hunt sabs or would you include the EDL. BNP etc in this as well?


 
No.
Everyone should be free to decide whether or not to engage with the police, and every civil organisation likewise.

But, if an organisation does decide against reporting I think they have a responsibility to make clear to the member the limitations of their investigation and response so that their personal decision is an informed one. My concern with the public statements from the CC was that they, perhaps mistakenly, gave  the impression that the party's disciplinary committee could act as some substitute for the state's bourgeois, judicial process.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> even when going to the police is explicitly against the accuser's wishes? Even when doing so would undermine her confidence in you, your organisation and any investigation that would be undertaken? And _any victim reporting criminal wrong-doing_? Really? You'd insist on reporting it to the police if someone had swiped a kitkat from the office cupboard? Or for flyposting?


 
I meant serious criminal wrong-doing that allegedly caused harm to another member.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I meant serious criminal wrong-doing that allegedly caused harm to another member.


So only the first two questions remain relevant:
_even when going to the police is explicitly against the accuser's wishes? Even when doing so would undermine her confidence in you, your organisation and any investigation that would be undertaken? _


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> So only the first two questions remain relevant:
> _even when going to the police is explicitly against the accuser's wishes? Even when doing so would undermine her confidence in you, your organisation and any investigation that would be undertaken? _


 
wrt the other questions, that's obviously a decision for the organisation, but if the organisation were explicit about their position, either way, at the point where the member was about to report none of the undermining you invisage need occur.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> No.
> Everyone should be free to decide whether or not to engage with the police, and every civil organisation likewise.
> 
> But, if an organisation does decide against reporting I think they have a responsibility to make clear to the member the limitations of their investigation and response so that their personal decision is an informed one. My concern with the public statements from the CC was that they, perhaps mistakenly, gave the impression that the party's disciplinary committee could act as some substitute for the state's bourgeois, judicial process.


 
Would it be useful for some form of chartermark for organisations to sign up to ?



> they, perhaps mistakenly, gave the impression that the party's disciplinary committee could act as some substitute for the state's bourgeois, judicial process


 to whom and who aside from yourself is alleging this?


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> wrt the other questions, that's obviously a decision for the organisation, but if the organisation were explicit about their position, either way, at the point where the member was about to report none of the undermining you invisage need occur.


Really?  I disagree.  It would either undermine her confidence, or she would simply choose not to proceed at all - leaving an alleged rapist in post, uninvestigated. Both dreadful outcomes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2013)

***oops, wrong thread***


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2013)

osterberg said:


> Just for information that was the total number of votes for a motion . There was also a number of abstentions  and non voting .


Cathays branch alone used to have more than that...y


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> No.
> Everyone should be free to decide whether or not to engage with the police, and every civil organisation likewise.
> 
> But, if an organisation does decide against reporting I think they have a responsibility to make clear to the member the limitations of their investigation and response so that their personal decision is an informed one. My concern with the public statements from the CC was that they, perhaps mistakenly, gave the impression that the party's disciplinary committee could act as some substitute for the state's bourgeois, judicial process.


 
Good point. i don't think they'd have come out of this quite so badly if they had said or been able to say honestly and explicitly in the original report that they felt unequipped to deal with such a serious allegation, that they felt the courts would be better placed to do so and that they had only agreed to do so because the alleged victim didn't want to go to the police. Of course, that leads you on to the question of whether they can realistically take any action following their investigation.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> Really? I disagree. It would either undermine her confidence, or she would simply choose not to proceed at all - leaving an alleged rapist in post, uninvestigated. Both dreadful outcomes.


 
It might. But we have to concede that most civil organisations would engage with the bourgeois state if they were made aware of such a matter. It is the decision 'not to' that produces its own particular set of problems.

Of course, in this particular instance, the claimant appears to have been left with the alleged ("investigated")rapist in post despite proceeding with the party's own disciplinary proceedure.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Would it be useful for some form of chartermark for organisations to sign up to ?
> 
> to whom and who aside from yourself is alleging this?


 
No, and I can't access the Kimber statement where the reference to the bourgeois state was made as the party notes have been updated.


----------



## cesare (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> Really? I disagree. It would either undermine her confidence, or she would simply choose not to proceed at all - leaving an alleged rapist in post, uninvestigated. Both dreadful outcomes.


But it's a fairly standard approach in civil organisations (using the step by step approach that I wrote out earlier), so why is a political organisation any different? And some of these SWP members are also trade unionists and therefore many are also familiar with what happens in civil organisations - is there no questioning as to why it's deemed appropriate in a business but not in a political organisation?


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

Civil organisations - and I am not really sure an organisation dedicated to the revolutionary overthrow of society should really be defined as such - would not agree to such an investigation without involving the police.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> Civil organisations - and I am not really sure an organisation dedicated to the revolutionary overthrow of society should really be defined as such - would not agree to such an investigation without involving the police.


 


belboid said:


> Civil organisations - and I am not really sure an organisation dedicated to the revolutionary overthrow of society should really be defined as such - would not agree to such an investigation without involving the police.


Interesting one, that.
I'd not really thought of it before, but as the SWP is not family, state or market that does kind of leave it as a civil organisation.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Interesting one, that.
> I'd not really thought of it before, but as the SWP is not family, state or market that does kind of leave it as a civil organisation.


civil or civic?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> Civil organisations - and I am not really sure an organisation dedicated to the revolutionary overthrow of society should really be defined as such - would not agree to such an investigation without involving the police.


 

civil (unrest) organisations?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 30, 2013)

Hearing that there were more votes last night. Only result known us that Middlesborough branch voted for recall. More votes tonight.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2013)

Bambers (group) speaks!

More _proper Leninism, much much more_ is what's required unsurprisingly.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 30, 2013)

If they can reach the conclusion that what's required is proper Leninism _with extreme predge _then they can probably become a permanent faction within PD.

Not Seymour though, he's too much of a smug cunt.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 30, 2013)

'Leninism is Finished.'


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 30, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> civil or civic?


they've been very uncivil recently


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 30, 2013)

Barry Mainwaring has been suspiciously quiet on the SWP question. Probably biding his time I would think.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bambers (group) speaks!
> 
> More _proper Leninism, much much more_ is what's required unsurprisingly.


 
Can you or anyone explain this?

'But what should interest us…now, is not this or that thesis but the way in which each of them was produced. What should interest us is a style of thinking and action, a style that can be summed up as continuous and constant change in relation to the given situation. Lenin is the continuous redefinition of the given situation on the basis of the dynamic of the class struggle and of the spaces which open up from time to time, or which become closed, to the activism of the popular movement. Lenin is the minute attention to singularity, to the unrepeatability of each historic moment, to getting a concrete hold on an unprecedented condition, and thus to the constant mutation of the objective situation and of the subjects that act within it. Lenin, therefore, is a continuous movement of rupture in the face of convictions, of political lines and of organizational forms, which, having matured in a preceding situation, tend by inertia to repeat their problems and solutions and therefore to remain prisoners of the old class relations.'


----------



## sihhi (Jan 30, 2013)

audiotech said:


> 'Leninism is Finished.'


 
AKA 'Man from America says become Labour Left cheerleading group'




> This is simply another way of stating that something like a British SYRIZA is necessary. Perhaps anticipating the struggle that has broken out now, Richard Seymour defended the Greek multi-tendency electoral formation in an open challenge to the SWP leadership.
> I have no idea how the fight in the SWP will be resolved but I have a strong feeling that if the current gang is removed from the leadership, the party can be a powerful catalyst in moving Britain in the direction that Owen Jones outlined and that the revolutionary left contingent of SYRIZA in Greece is working toward. And if they are defeated, I would only hope that the comrades consider becoming part of a broad initiative that aims to unite the left on a nonsectarian basis.


 
What the hell is this nonsense?
SYRIZA's leadership is making deals in secret with the IMF, has promised a consensual foreign policy and is visiting Latin America on behalf of Greece so that the Greek government doesn't have to.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> So only the first two questions remain relevant:
> _even when going to the police is explicitly against the accuser's wishes? Even when doing so would undermine her confidence in you, your organisation and any investigation that would be undertaken? _


 
What really shocked me was that it doesn't seem that the accuser was advised and supported in going to a specialist support organisation such as The Haven, who support people regardless of whether they decide to go to the police or not. That's the absolute basic action I would have expected, and it was the height of arrogance that the organisation seems to have felt it could perform that action too.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 30, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Can you or anyone explain this?
> 
> 'But what should interest us…now, is not this or that thesis but the way in which each of them was produced. What should interest us is a style of thinking and action, a style that can be summed up as continuous and constant change in relation to the given situation. Lenin is the continuous redefinition of the given situation on the basis of the dynamic of the class struggle and of the spaces which open up from time to time, or which become closed, to the activism of the popular movement. Lenin is the minute attention to singularity, to the unrepeatability of each historic moment, to getting a concrete hold on an unprecedented condition, and thus to the constant mutation of the objective situation and of the subjects that act within it. Lenin, therefore, is a continuous movement of rupture in the face of convictions, of political lines and of organizational forms, which, having matured in a preceding situation, tend by inertia to repeat their problems and solutions and therefore to remain prisoners of the old class relations.'
> 
> View attachment 28295


Yes that is hard to understand. Maybe it has something to do with the translation from the Russian. A more common and well-known expression from Lenin, often referred to by Tony Cliff is "bending-the-stick". I read it defined as meaning "over exaggerating" somewhere recently but I have always thought it was meant as making compromises. I have difficulty in relating the origin of the phrase in the real world. What stick- I would ask? Sorry for the derail.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 30, 2013)

audiotech said:


> 'Leninism is Finished.'



Or why we need a version of SYRIZA/socialist Alliance mark 2. Groundhog Day has never been closer


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> No, and I can't access the Kimber statement where the reference to the bourgeois state was made as the party notes have been updated.


So how would you get these civil organisations to move towards your advice?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 30, 2013)

Anyway everyone is now sticking their oar in desperate to get the fresh student blood when the 'Big Bang' happens.

Real life Barry Mainwairing no7 Martin Thomas






explains what Leninism is:

*'Leninism is, first of all, realism, the highest qualitative and quantitative appreciation of reality*, from the standpoint of revolutionary action. Precisely because of this it is irreconcilable with the flight from reality behind the screen of hollow agitationalism, with the passive loss of time, with the haughty justification of yesterday’s mistakes on the pretext of saving the tradition of the party.

Leninism is genuine freedom from formalistic prejudices, from moralising doctrinalism, from all forms of intellectual conservatism attempting to bind the will to revolutionary action. But to believe that Leninism signifies that "anything goes" would be an irremediable mistake. Leninism includes the morality, not formal but genuinely revolutionary, of mass action and the mass party. Nothing is so alien to it as functionary-arrogance and bureaucratic cynicism. A mass party has its own morality, which is the bond of fighters in and for action. Demagogy is irreconcilable with the spirit of a revolutionary party because it is deceitful: by presenting one or another simplified solution of the difficulties of the hour it inevitably undermines the next future, weakens the party’s self-confidence. Swept by the wind and gripped by a serious danger, demagogy easily dissolves into panic. It is hard to juxtapose, even on paper, panic and Leninism. Leninism is warlike from head to foot. War is impossible without cunning, without subterfuge, without deception of the enemy. Victorious war cunning is a constituent element of Leninist politics. But, at the same time, Leninism is supreme revolutionary honesty toward the party and the working class. It admits of no fiction, no bubble-blowing, no pseudo-grandeur.'


----------



## sihhi (Jan 30, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Yes that is hard to understand. Maybe it has something to do with the translation from the Russian. A more common and well-known expression from Lenin, often referred to by Tony Cliff is "bending-the-stick". I read it defined as meaning "over exaggerating" somewhere recently but I have always thought it was meant as making compromises. I have difficulty in relating the origin of the phrase in the real world. What stick- I would ask? Sorry for the derail.


 
Look again, it's not from Russian, it's from a bilingual academic Mimmo Porcaro from the University of Ferrara writing in an English-edited major socialist journal.  

https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/srv/article/view/18810


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 30, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Look again, it's not from Russian, it's from a bilingual academic Mimmo Porcaro from the University of Ferrara writing in an English-edited major socialist journal.
> 
> https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/srv/article/view/18810


I looked at your link, but the paragraph under discussion does not occur in the abstract which is all that anyone can access from that website if you are not a paid up subscriber. I guess you must be, especially as you describe it as a 'major socialist journal'.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 30, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I looked at your link, but the paragraph under discussion does not occur in the abstract which is all that anyone can access from that website if you are not a paid up subscriber. I guess you must be, especially as you describe it as a 'major socialist journal'.


 
I'm not a subscriber so I can't see it either but Bambery's organisation is quoting from it. 

The reference given is Porcaro, Mimmo; Occupy Lenin; Socialist Register 2013: The Question of Strategy; ed. Panitch, Albo, Chibber; (Merlin Press 2012); 89.

It's edited by at the very least 3 English speakers.
I'm not asking you decipher it if you can't. I can't.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 30, 2013)

Yes but Bambery's organisation all speak English with a Scottish accent; I wonder what it sounds like when they discuss it amongst themselves.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 30, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Yes but Bambery's organisation all speak English with a Scottish accent; I wonder what it sounds like when they discuss it amongst themselves.


 


Anyway, sticking to the ISG's approach what does 'the movements' actually mean - which movements, where?

"Today, our organisations must acknowledge the fact that the class is increasingly stratified, less organised and more dispersed than they were in the early 20th century, even than they were in the “heyday” of the 1970s (in which comparison we can add ‘more precarious’ to the list). More than just acknowledge these facts, we must build organisations that can accommodate these shifts. Our interaction with the movements is the real test."

I find the positive quotation of this odd aswell:-

"We must understand that the notion of running society by a system of workers’ councils does not immediately make sense to those who have been most radicalised against private property, the state, and the capitalist system. For a generation that is used to unemployment or precarious employment, where ‘delayed transitions’ to adulthood express themselves in perpetual callowness and immaturity – finding cultural expression in ‘kidult’ cartoon culture, inflected sentences, and passive-aggressive resistance to all and every ‘authority’ figure – calls for a new democracy and opposition to all hierarchy make sense"

Is it saying people can't understand socialising production because they've never had 'proper jobs' or is it something more subtle?
There probably is something worthwhile in there somewhere I just can't quite get to it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Hearing that there were more votes last night. Only result known us that Middlesborough branch voted for recall. More votes tonight.


On a Tuesday? Seems a bit odd


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Can you or anyone explain this?
> 
> 'But what should interest us…now, is not this or that thesis but the way in which each of them was produced. What should interest us is a style of thinking and action, a style that can be summed up as continuous and constant change in relation to the given situation. Lenin is the continuous redefinition of the given situation on the basis of the dynamic of the class struggle and of the spaces which open up from time to time, or which become closed, to the activism of the popular movement. Lenin is the minute attention to singularity, to the unrepeatability of each historic moment, to getting a concrete hold on an unprecedented condition, and thus to the constant mutation of the objective situation and of the subjects that act within it. Lenin, therefore, is a continuous movement of rupture in the face of convictions, of political lines and of organizational forms, which, having matured in a preceding situation, tend by inertia to repeat their problems and solutions and therefore to remain prisoners of the old class relations.'
> 
> View attachment 28295


Has theblackhand joined bambers?


----------



## SLK (Jan 30, 2013)

This interested my trainspotter side: http://piraniarchive.wordpress.com/...he-break-up-of-the-wrp-from-the-horses-mouth/

It does appear to be a desperate attempt to be relevant though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> On a Tuesday? Seems a bit odd


 
Dunno but I do know there's at least one person in Middlesbrough SWP who is very close to the SP so a leaked vote wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2013)

> Advice for comrades feeling the heat from the CC and its full-time organisers
> 
> In the face of the unprecedented opposition within our party to the Central Committee, its shocking handling of the rape allegation against a leading member, its attempts to force through a post-conference pretence that all is settled, and its continuing bullish defence of undemocratic methods and ongoing attempts to silence dissent, the Central Committee and its full-time organisers have started to move against those of us demanding an accounting in the party.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kuke (Jan 30, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OMFG - A Swappie docudrama/musical resignation - is this black propaganda by the CC?




I needed some cheering up this evening!

If the revolution's in his hands we're properly buggered... 

Maybe it's his screen test for Les Miserable 2 - Revenge of the Swappies.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 30, 2013)

Kuke said:


> I needed some cheering up this evening!
> 
> If the revolution's in his hands we're properly buggered...
> 
> Maybe it's his screen test for Les Miserable 2 - Revenge of the Swappies.


 
I think I'm warming to Cde Brindelli:



eta: via that Far Left Fashion Tumblr page


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 30, 2013)

I see the piece Butchers quoted from the opposition blog has since been pulled from their blog. I wonder why?

Funnily enough, reading through it and it's advice in case of local full timers or CC applying pressure, it reminded me of this piece of unintentional hilarity from the Weekly Worker that dates from 2001 and details the the expulsion of Eric Karas from the SWP.

Look who was applying the pressure back in the day. I'm sure that was the first time I'd ever heard of cde Delta.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

At this url now.

http://internationalsocialismuk.blo...ce-for-comrades-feeling-heat-from_30.html?m=1


----------



## J Ed (Jan 31, 2013)

Apparently there was a big bust up at a Sheffield SWSS meeting on feminism today https://www.facebook.com/events/530...0183184/?ref=notif&notif_t=plan_mall_activity - AWLers tried to turn up and got barred, people shouted at each other etc


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 31, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Apparently there was a big bust up at a Sheffield SWSS meeting on feminism today https://www.facebook.com/events/530...0183184/?ref=notif&notif_t=plan_mall_activity - AWLers tried to turn up and got barred, people shouted at each other etc


Your link doesn't go to a particular facebook page. Can you tell us what happened?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 31, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Surveillance via facebook, and I guess via any medium really, really is about gaining confidence. Luckily, those who should know better are very vain and entirely too open with friend requests. If you are having problems getting people in the SWP to accept friend requests I suggest setting up a facebook account with a profile picture of an attractive young woman, you won't have any problems with people accepting your friend requests.
> 
> Once you have a couple of swappie 'mutual friends', you can be friends with whoever.
> 
> Enjoy.


 


J Ed said:


> Apparently there was a big bust up at a Sheffield SWSS meeting on feminism today https://www.facebook.com/events/530...0183184/?ref=notif&notif_t=plan_mall_activity - AWLers tried to turn up and got barred, people shouted at each other etc


 
I know what your sock account is. Bit of a relief to be honest, only accepted the request cos you had loads of people I knew on your facebook and just assumed I knew you but couldn't remember where from - but I was getting concerned cos something didn't seem right with it and me and a couple of others began to suspect you might be a copper 

Hang on, how do I know you're _not _a copper


----------



## emanymton (Jan 31, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Hang on, how do I know you're _not _a copper


Apparently you can tell by looking at their shoes.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 31, 2013)

Did anyone see this from a Unison NEC guy: http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-blog-post-for-my-friends-and-comrades.html

If that's indicative of left tu responses the swp can relax a little. He'll still happily vote for and work with them. He just doesn't like an article defending leninism written by the prof, shock, would someone like that ever have probably not. If the level of political critique is how many women Alex name checks in his article that isn't going to worry anyone much either.

Last few branch meetings tonight i guess, recall looks dead in the water.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Did anyone see this from a Unison NEC guy: http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-blog-post-for-my-friends-and-comrades.html
> 
> If that's indicative of left tu responses the swp can relax a little. He'll still happily vote for and work with them. He just doesn't like an article defending leninism written by the prof, shock, would someone like that ever have probably not. If the level of political critique is how many women Alex name checks in his article that isn't going to worry anyone much either.
> 
> Last few branch meetings tonight i guess, recall looks dead in the water.


"the swp can relax a little". From the rest of your post it's clear that, for you, "the swp" is the leadership and not the membership. So you see no problem with a tainted clique lording it over an impotent membership, many of whom believe the cc have scant credibility or legitimacy any more.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 31, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I know what your sock account is. Bit of a relief to be honest, only accepted the request cos you had loads of people I knew on your facebook and just assumed I knew you but couldn't remember where from - but I was getting concerned cos something didn't seem right with it and me and a couple of others began to suspect you might be a copper
> 
> Hang on, how do I know you're _not _a copper


 
You seem really nice and I was starting to feel guilty so I made it obvious


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 31, 2013)

i want more goss on this attempted intervention on a SWSS meeting by the AWL J Ed!!


----------



## osterberg (Jan 31, 2013)

chilango said:


> Cathays branch alone used to have more than that...y


 Yes , It's all been downhill since you left . Your maturity and undoubted leadership qualities are sorely missed .


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 31, 2013)

I can't find a link to it, but there was a piece on the R4 Today Programme this morning about a woman in the army who committed suicide after the military police investigated a rape allegation she made against two colleagues.

Someone from Liberty was on there and made the following criticisms:

That the investigators were not independent
That the investigators were not sufficiently trained in dealing with rape allegations
That the complainant did not receive sufficient care and counselling
That there was a climate of triumphalism in the barracks concerned - a culture of resentment against the complainant for making the complaint.
Presumably all of this would be supported by most people, and especially those actively involved in fighting womens' oppression.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I see the piece Butchers quoted from the opposition blog has since been pulled from their blog. I wonder why?
> 
> Funnily enough, reading through it and it's advice in case of local full timers or CC applying pressure, it reminded me of this piece of unintentional hilarity from the Weekly Worker that dates from 2001 and details the the expulsion of Eric Karas from the SWP.
> 
> Look who was applying the pressure back in the day. I'm sure that was the first time I'd ever heard of cde Delta.


 
Part of the IS tradition?


> Eric Karas But I`m a state capitalist and I believe in the permanent arms economy, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

smith said:
			
		

> This is not a court and I won`t have this minuted.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I can't find a link to it, but there was a piece on the R4 Today Programme this morning about a woman in the army who committed suicide after the military police investigated a rape allegation she made against two colleagues.
> 
> Someone from Liberty was on there and made the following criticisms:
> 
> ...


 
Aside from moving the the  cobweb left and the anarchist scene from 'civil society'  to being part of the state are there any other implications of modelling the 'radical left' on lessons learnt from the British Army?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2013)

what i liked about it best was that the meeting was in Karas's house!!


----------



## articul8 (Jan 31, 2013)

> 'But what should interest us…now, is not this or that thesis but the way in which each of them was produced. What should interest us is a style of thinking and action, a style that can be summed up as continuous and constant change in relation to the given situation. Lenin is the continuous redefinition of the given situation on the basis of the dynamic of the class struggle and of the spaces which open up from time to time, or which become closed, to the activism of the popular movement. Lenin is the minute attention to singularity, to the unrepeatability of each historic moment, to getting a concrete hold on an unprecedented condition, and thus to the constant mutation of the objective situation and of the subjects that act within it. Lenin, therefore, is a continuous movement of rupture in the face of convictions, of political lines and of organizational forms, which, having matured in a preceding situation, tend by inertia to repeat their problems and solutions and therefore to remain prisoners of the old class relations.'


 
trans. Lenin paid particular awareness to changes in the political situation and was able to respond appropriately


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> what i liked about it best was that the meeting was in Karas's house!!


Security reasons. Very good ones i bet. What with the civil war.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2013)

Yet more from the archives of expulsions:



> Martin Smith comes over as slightly deranged in his dealings with the young and inexperienced comrade Kidd.


 


> Unless those like comrade Molyneux protest when comrades such as Matt Kidd or comrade X fall foul of the SWP`s draconian regime, their claims to be committed to democracy will be seen as just hot air.


http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/609/victim-of-democracy


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Yet more from the archives of expulsions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 31, 2013)

J Ed said:


> You seem really nice and I was starting to feel guilty so I made it obvious


 
I'm actually a bit of a cunt so you needn't have worried


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 31, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm actually a bit of a cunt so you needn't have worried


 
yeah, but you're not a racist cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm actually a bit of a cunt so you needn't have worried


which bit?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 31, 2013)

All the best bits.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> All the best bits.


i'm not so sure


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> All the best bits.


You mean there are worse bits? I'm telling Laurie Penny on you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> You mean there are worse bits? I'm telling Laurie Penny on you.


stop! in the name of all that's holy, do you really want to do that?


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> stop! in the name of all that's holy, do you really want to do that?


True. Would be stealing firky's vocation


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> You mean there are worse bits? I'm telling Laurie Penny on you.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> True. Would be stealing firky's vocation


 
The posh git's on holiday now is he?


----------



## chilango (Jan 31, 2013)

osterberg said:


> Yes , It's all been downhill since you left . Your maturity and undoubted leadership qualities are sorely missed .



Heh. 

Yes  I was a massive bellend when I was in the SWP. Probably still am. But there you go. Knowing that ain't gonna save the Party though is it?

By the way, who were you?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 31, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i want more goss on this attempted intervention on a SWSS meeting by the AWL J Ed!!


 
The AWL seem to be whining about the fact that they weren't let into the meeting after spending days winding them up on facebook, I get the impression that they are trying (very badly) to pick up disaffected people from the SWP


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Apparently there was a big bust up at a Sheffield SWSS meeting on feminism today https://www.facebook.com/events/530...0183184/?ref=notif&notif_t=plan_mall_activity - AWLers tried to turn up and got barred, people shouted at each other etc


we were going to go and crash the Sheffield North meeting on feminism yesterday.  But then we realised we had a life, and went to the pub.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 31, 2013)

http://openletterswp.wordpress.com/...socialist-workers-party-from-union-activists/

This hasn't been up here yet, has it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

First two names...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

steeplejack said:


> What. A. Thread. some long forgotten names there- remember right wing troll 'Saxon Rillet' being an absolute rocket, in particular.


Forgot to say hello again the other day - hello!


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> First two names...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> First two names...


 
I know about half the people on the list, the first two are sound


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

Can the SWP deal with rape allegations?
http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/can-swp-deal-with-rape-allegations.html?m=1


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:
			
		

> I know about half the people on the list, the first two are sound



Wasn't suggesting otherwise, just to clarify.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> First two names...


 
I only know of the first, obviously know the second.

You should know the second bottom name too. Not a bad lad.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can the SWP deal with rape allegations?
> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/can-swp-deal-with-rape-allegations.html?m=1


Investigated NINE rape allegations before?


----------



## kavenism (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can the SWP deal with rape allegations?
> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/can-swp-deal-with-rape-allegations.html?m=1


 
This is very good. Her outline for a possible investigative framework is very well thought out and sensible. The main point being that the DC should have made its limitations clear and orientated the approach to the sort of investigation that goes on in workplaces. In no circumstances should they have taken the position (which the transcript reveals they explicitly did) of substituting for a criminal court. Do you still consider this the 'Pilate' option?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 31, 2013)

I hadnt noticed previously that Davidson was amongst the signatories of the oppositions "is Zinoviesm dead?" response to Callinicos.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 31, 2013)

What is Seymour's background?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I hadnt noticed previously that Davidson was amongst the signatories of the oppositions "is Zinoviesm dead?" response to Callinicos.


I dont think he was, nor John Game.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

I think that's a good article.

The only thing I query (and not just in this article but all along, tbh) is that rape is being portrayed as a women's issue. It's not, necessarily. Rape and any other form of abuse is about the abuse of power and the use of violent and/or psychological and/or emotional means to dominate/control/oppress. This is why - in the workplace and other hierarchical organisations - complaints of harassment/bullying often arise out of a manager/worker relationship.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can the SWP deal with rape allegations?
> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/can-swp-deal-with-rape-allegations.html?m=1


This is a bit confused.  She says the party cant investigate rape claims, and then lays out a (pretty sensible and comprehensive) way for them to do so.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> This is a bit confused. She says the party cant investigate rape claims, and then lays out a (pretty sensible and comprehensive) way for them to do so.


Not exactly:


> 4- Explain that the DC's remit is to investigate if someone has behaved in a way that is not in line with the SWP's purpose, aims and values. So the DC cannot investigate a rape and neither can they find someone “innocent” or “guilty” or “not proven” or “exonerate” them. The limits of their findings are to matters of conduct and whether allegations are founded or unfounded.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

kavenism said:
			
		

> This is very good. Her outline for a possible investigative framework is very well thought out and sensible. The main point being that the DC should have made its limitations clear and orientated the approach to the sort of investigation that goes on in workplaces. In no circumstances should they have taken the position (which the transcript reveals they explicitly did) of substituting for a criminal court. Do you still consider this the 'Pilate' option?



Come on, you in no way fleshed out your brief proposal like that piece does! And more to the point, I suggested that politically the party could never do that as it would involve rejecting a number of the parties positions, not that it was a flawed idea in itself.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Come on, you in no way fleshed out your brief proposal like that piece does! And more to the point, I suggested that politically the party could never do that as it would involve rejecting a number of the parties positions, not that it was a flawed idea in itself.


OK that's fair enough. And I agree on your second point, which is why I'm now pretty much fixed on the idea that Leninist parties simply cannot deal with situations like this, and that whatever comes out of Seymour's gambit will thus (if he learns the lessons as he claims) not be recognisably Leninist. It's got to be a new group, there is no way in hell he's turning this around in the SWP. This weekend will see Super Purge Saturday me thinks!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

kavenism said:
			
		

> OK that's fair enough. And I agree on your second point, which is why I'm now pretty much fixed on the idea that Leninist parties simply cannot deal with situations like this, and that whatever comes out of Seymour's gambit will thus (if he learns the lessons as he claims) not be recognisably Leninist. It's got to be a new group, there is no way in hell he's turning this around in the SWP. This weekend will see Super Purge Saturday me thinks!



Ten pound double on that with Leeds to beat Cardiff


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

Open Letter from Germany to the Opposition in the British Socialist Workers Party

From Florian Wilde member of the National Executive Committee of DIE LINKE.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

I see Robert Brenners name has been re-attached to that Open Letter to the SWP, alongside new signatories Alberto Toscano and a Ms L Penny


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

The two been there a few days  now (last two i mean).


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 31, 2013)

J Ed said:


> The AWL seem to be whining about the fact that they weren't let into the meeting after spending days winding them up on facebook, I get the impression that they are trying (very badly) to pick up disaffected people from the SWP


 
who would have thought that?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 31, 2013)

Seattle-Bolschewiki


----------



## kavenism (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ten pound double on that with Leeds to beat Cardiff


 
Perhaps Andy Gray could do the punditry at the NC...on second thoughts.


----------



## MikeC (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> we were going to go and crash the Sheffield North meeting on feminism yesterday. But then we realised we had a life, and went to the pub.


 
Me and another CPGB member did actually try and get into that meeting, which is advertised, as are all these 'open' branch meetings, as 'all welcome'. Lol, jokes on us right?
We didn't get in and were received with quite a lot of hostility. No explanation as to why we couldnt get in, they knew full well that 'all welcome' is a cyncial ploy to try and look vaguely democratic but in reality is pure BS, and one of them made up some fiction about how a CPGB member had abused someone on the internet! Naturally she refused to elaborate so that we could hunt down this alleged brute.
Whats the juicy goss on this Sheff SWSS bust up?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I can. And for a lot of people I would. But not for you, because you're a useless cunt oxygen thief.


 not once in 11926005 posts, liar.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Look, making all allowances for your voice recognition problems, you say that you have nothing to say then badger people to say something in response to your posts. Don't. Just stop it. This thread doesn't need it . If you do want to get up to date then taking an hour or so and reading this thread and related links is far better then crashing it with what you have done. The working class deserve no less.


Just this thread then.   OK enjoy yourself.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 31, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Seattle-Bolschewiki


 
I'd always used that name as a shorthand for the silliness of "anti-capitalist movement" Cliffism. The joke is sort of spoiled now by the row turning out to have been about a bunch of sexual assault allegations.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

MikeC said:


> one of them made up some fiction about how a CPGB member had abused someone on the internet!


Let's be honest, that probably isn't a fiction, is it?  Even if it isnt an excuse for refusing entry to a meeting.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can the SWP deal with rape allegations?
> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/can-swp-deal-with-rape-allegations.html?m=1


 
Sorry but this article is just awful. The party doesn't see 'date rape' as real rape? Bollox it doesn't. I think I mentioned somehwere way back on this thread the case of my Irish mate who was accused of rape in a London branch and then expelled after an investigation. That case was precisely one of date rape. He, a young man in his 20's who'd joined the party a couple of months previous, was in a sexual relationship with the woman concerned but when one day she said to several people, including my ex, that he'd raped her the night before the party took it completely seriously. One of the people on the current DC (I think) spoke to her and asked if she wanted to go to the police. Asked not told her. She decided not to but wanted him out of her branch, her party and her life. There was a DC session which found in her favour and he was kicked into touch. End of. Now I don't know the timescale of these nine cases but if most of them where like my former friend's case I'm not totally sure how terrifying that is as this article puts it. There is no epidemic of rape but neither are socialists somehow guaranteed to behave differently in their private lives to everyone else. It's what happens next that matters. What would be terrifying is if the party refused to listen to young women like the one I mention and forced her to go to the police when she absolutely didn't want to. When she expected and experienced a more understanding response from her comrades than she'd ever get from the police and courts.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He, a young man in his 20's who'd joined the party a couple of months previous, was in a sexual relationship with the woman concerned but when one day she said to several people,
> ...
> What would be terrifying is if the party refused to listen to young women like the one I mention and forced her to go to the police when she absolutely didn't want to. When she expected and experienced a more understanding response from her comrades than she'd ever get from the police and courts.


Problem is that in this instance the women concerned have not had a more understanding response from their comrades than from the police quite the opposite in fact I think.
I suspect the different approaches might have something to do with the fact that one of the men involved had been a member for a couple of months while the other has been a member for decades and was a member of the CC.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> http://openletterswp.wordpress.com/...socialist-workers-party-from-union-activists/
> 
> This hasn't been up here yet, has it?


 
The list there will be used by the CC for their own purposes as a "Labour-anarchist lash-up" to solidify the path of Cliffism as represented by the CC.

I approve the intent, but it seems a bit of an awkward statement.  SWP don't recruit from within workplaces - at best they fail at recruiting into their rank and file inchorent lefty union groupings. 

"If the CC continue to respond by ignoring the issue or closing down debate, as well as losing some great activists, you are going to find your remaining members have a harder time organising, campaigning, and making connections with other union members"

Union recruitment doesn't proceed on the basis of revolutionary parties. A UNISON member (who happens to be an SWP member) doesn't try and persuade union membership on the basis of anything to do with the SWP. If the concern is worrying that the SWP won't be able to get new members, why not say this openly, though I doubt it is because none as far as I can tell have politics similar to the SWP. 

It's a weak statement because half those people - mostly the Labour members - _do_ want to be union bureaucrats (or full-timers at least) and so it's not saying 'SWP, the case for rank-and-file unionism is weakened with your nonsense' it's saying 'SWP, very very bad people boo!'.

These two sentences in the same paragraph are weird to me: "*We are not saying we won’t work with SWP members.* That isn’t even an option, while we are in the same unions we will of course be working side by side. But, your members are right, it has changed things. We are dismayed, we are appalled, *we feel uncomfortable round SWP members unless we know that like many of your members, they are equally appalled*"


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Problem is that in this instance the women concerned have not had a more understanding response from their comrades than from the police *quite the opposite in fact I think.*


 
Again a suggestion that a police force would have better handled things - except carefully worded. No evidence for it though.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Problem is that in this instance the women concerned have not had a more understanding response from their comrades than from the police quite the opposite in fact I think.
> I suspect the different approaches might have something to do with the fact that one of the men involved had been a member for a couple of months while the other has been a member for decades and was a member of the CC.


I think you're absolutely right.  The case I mentioned before was also one of 'date rape' - and the party took it very seriously.  That doesnt mean they knew how to deal with 'Delta', but it does completely contradict the articles claim that 'it did not recognise rape within relationship, acquaintance rape, date rape or whatever you want to call this woman’s experience as a ‘real’ rape.'


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> I think you're absolutely right. The case I mentioned before was also one of 'date rape' - and the party took it very seriously. That doesnt mean they knew how to deal with 'Delta', but it does completely contradict the articles claim that 'it did not recognise rape within relationship, acquaintance rape, date rape or whatever you want to call this woman’s experience as a ‘real’ rape.'


 
I agree the SWP's CC and DC system and the closeness between the two is a key problem - the lack of rotating positions and the lack of transparency and openness/fear of approaching other revolutionary organisations.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I agree the SWP's CC and DC system and the closeness between the two is a key problem - the lack of rotating positions and the lack of transparency and openness/fear of approaching other revolutionary organisations.


Also the power relationship.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 31, 2013)

There are two tings here as belboid says. Does the party recognise date rape? Yes. Does it have some blind spot on that issue that needs informing by modern feminism as the article claims ? No it bloody doesn't.

And then there is the quite separate question of whether the party dealt adequately with the highly charged situation where a man in a leading position is charged.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 31, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Again a suggestion that a police force would have better handled things - except carefully worded. No evidence for it though.


Fair point.
But police response to the things is not uniform, in some cases the women would be treat better in others about the same in far two many cases they would be treat worse. But as the SWP is an organisation that would describes itself as commited to fighting against the oppression of women, I think you should hold it to a higherstandard than we do the police.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

"Not uniform"  - v good


----------



## emanymton (Jan 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There are two tings here as belboid says. Does the party recognise date rape? Yes. Does it have some blind spot on that issue that needs informing by modern feminism as the article claims ? No it bloody doesn't.
> 
> And then there is the quite separate question of whether the party dealt adequately with the highly charged situation where a man in a leading position is charged.


Oh I agree, as a dumb working class lad it was being in the SWP that made me aware of these issues. In theory the SWP has a perfectly good understanding of issues like date rape. But i think in this instance they have failed in practice.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 31, 2013)

I suspect that there's too much of a binary choice being offered here between "not recognising date rape" as a form of rape and "taking date rape seriously". It seems highly unlikely to me that the SWP somehow don't recognise rape as rape unless it involves an attack by a stranger in the street. But that doesn't necessarily mean that sexist assumptions of various sorts don't still effect how people assess the credibility of complainants in such cases, even where they are intellectually aware of the problem.

Either way, the seniority of the accused in this particular case, and the resulting issues with the procedures followed (composition of the DC etc) seem to present more obvious problems than the SWP's formal understanding of rape.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 31, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Fair point.
> But police response to the things is not uniform, in some cases the women would be treat better in others about the same in far two many cases they would be treat worse. But as the SWP is an organisation that would describes itself as commited to fighting against the oppression of women, I think you should hold it to a higherstandard than we do the police.


Well I think we can almost guarantee that in this case the woman invloved would have had one of the warmest and most sympathetic hearings imaginable from officers given the chance to damage the swp generally and this guy in particular.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 31, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that there's too much of a binary choice being offered here between "not recognising date rape" as a form of rape and "taking date rape seriously". It seems highly unlikely to me that the SWP somehow don't recognise rape as rape unless it involves an attack by a stranger in the street. But that doesn't necessarily mean that sexist assumptions of various sorts don't still effect how people assess the credibility of complainants in such cases, even where they are intellectually aware of the problem.


My only personal experience of anything like this was being on a jury in a rape case. And when it more or less comes down to his word against hers it is a really fucking hard decision to make. Which is way I think the SWP fell at the first hurdle in this instance as the case should never have been heard by people who were long standing associates of one of the two people involved. And I think you are right when the case is so hard, the sexist assumptions we all carry with us can have an influence.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well I think we can almost guarantee that in this case the woman invloved would have had one of the warmest and most sympathetic hearings imaginable from officers given the chance to damage the swp generally and this guy in particular.


 
you think?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> But that doesn't necessarily mean that sexist assumptions of various sorts don't still effect how people assess the credibility of complainants in such cases, even where they are intellectually aware of the problem.


That is, as a generalisation, undoubtedly true. But I dont think it applies in this case at all.  I simply do not believe a rape counsellor with over a decades experience in that role would make such assumptions _in any other case_, ditto the committee member I know very well.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well I think we can almost guarantee that in this case the woman invloved would have had one of the warmest and most sympathetic hearings imaginable from officers given the chance to damage the swp generally and this guy in particular.


let's be honest, I don't think any cooper she is likely to have report it to is going to have heard of him.

I think considering the allegation was made two years after the incident, even if she had gone to the police, I doubt it would have got anywhere near a courtroom.

eta: I am just looking over the transcript again and it is more like 3 or 4 years after the incident. It was two years after the first complaint.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> not once in 11926005 posts, liar.


Dull, dull, dull


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Dull, dull, dull


 yes they are.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 31, 2013)

emanymton said:


> let's be honest, I don't think any cooper she is likely to have report it to is going to have heard of him.
> 
> I think considering the allegation was made two years after the incident, even if she had gone to the police, I doubt it would have got anywhere near a courtroom.


Not so sure. I can imagine the conversation getting quite quickly around to the nature of her relationship with him, how they met etc and even who she asked for help after the incident which would be duiiifcult to discuss without their shared memebrship of a certain party coming up. And from there to someone in the Met realising they have a live one here isn't too big a leap surely? At that point even if they didn't think it would hold in court there would be a severe temptation to give it a go just for the damage it could cause. Maybe that's too Machiavellian but I don't necessarily think so.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not so sure. I can imagine the conversation getting quite quickly around to the nature of her relationship with him, how they met etc and even who she asked for help after the incident which would be duiiifcult to discuss without their shared memebrship of a certain party coming up. And from there to someone in the Met realising they have a live one here isn't too big a leap surely? At that point even if they didn't think it would hold in court there would be a severe temptation to give it a go just for the damage it could cause. Maybe that's too Machiavellian but I don't necessarily think so.


Am I understanding you correctly? You think the potential bad PR of a public court hearing was a deciding factor for not referring to the police?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> Am I understanding you correctly? You think the potential bad PR of a public court hearing was a deciding factor for not referring to the police?


No you're not understanding me properly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> yes they are.


You'll never make it in stand-up if that's the best material you've got.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No you're not understanding me properly.


What did you mean then? Because that's what "even if they didn't think it would hold in court there would be a severe temptation to give it a go just for the damage it could cause" looks like.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 31, 2013)

not sure how relevant it is but i had a converstation sometime in the eighties, with a member of the control commission (ccc) who was also a friend. i had heard a comrade in birmingham, who i thought very highly of, had been expelled over a rape allegation, i asked the ccc member if he knew anything about it, his response was that he did as it was him who expelled him. i asked whether the former comrade was guilty or not. the ccc member replied that he had no idea, his job wasn't to decide whether he was guilty or not but to do what was best for the party.

i came away with the impression that just to be accused of rape in the swp would lead to your expulsion.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> You'll never make it in stand-up if that's the best material you've got.


http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/18571129/?page=2 8 pages of posts just to this thread, = zip


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> What did you mean then? Because that's what "even if they didn't think it would hold in court there would be a severe temptation to give it a go just for the damage it could cause" looks like.


So a sentence about the possible motivation of the police looks like me saying something about the motivation of the woman for not going to them? That's a logical non sequitor far as I can see but god bless your eyesight if it looks that way to you.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So a sentence about the possible motivation of the police looks like me saying something about the motivation of the woman for not going to them? That's a logical non sequitor far as I can see but god bless your eyesight if it looks that way to you.


No. A sentence about the possible motivation of the police to pursue it to a public court hearing saying something about the reluctance of the CC/DC to refer the woman to the police in the first place. Bless.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> No. A sentence about the possible motivation of the police to pursue it to a public court hearing saying something about the reluctance of the CC/DC to refer the woman to the police in the first place. Bless.


eh?  You've got this completely back to front. Really.


----------



## kavenism (Jan 31, 2013)

It was inevitable.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/947/swp-crisis-professor-callinicos-and-the-dark-side


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 31, 2013)

Meanwhile in the Blogosphere, I see that the number of signatories to the 'Open letter to the SWP' from previous contributors to Marxism has gone up to 34.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> eh? You've got this completely back to front. Really.


I may well have done. In which case someone can clarify what "At that point even if they didn't think it would hold in court there would be a severe temptation to give it a go just for the damage it could cause" means in this context.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> I may well have done. In which case someone can clarify what "At that point even if they didn't think it would hold in court there would be a severe temptation to give it a go just for the damage it could cause" means in this context.


The 'they' refers to the police, not the CC.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> What did you mean then? Because that's what "even if they didn't think it would hold in court there would be a severe temptation to give it a go just for the damage it could cause" looks like.


He was suggesting that was a temptation for the police he was not talking about the SWP at all.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The 'they' refers to the police, not the CC.


thanks


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

Yeah, I get that "they" referred to the police. What I don't get it why the police giving it a go just for the damage it could cause [at a public court hearing]* would be a factor in (presumably) not actively encouraging her to report.

* there's the issue of convincing the CPS too here of course


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Meanwhile in the Blogosphere, I see that the number of signatories to the 'Open letter to the SWP' from previous contributors to Marxism has gone up to 34.


 
http://openletterswp.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/open-letter-to-the-swp-about-the-current-crisis/



> Greg Albo, Abbie Bakan, Jairus Banaji, Robert Brenner, Sheila Cohen, Gail Day, Steve Edwards, Nadine El-Enany, Samuel Farber, Phil Gasper, Peter Hallward, Adam Hanieh, Owen Hatherley, Owen Jones, Paul Kellogg, Brian Kelly, Conor Kostick, Robert Knox, David McNally, Kim Moody, Adam Morton, Kevin Murphy, Ilan Pappé, Laurie Penny, Charles Post, Nina Power, Gregory Schwartz, Peter Thomas, Alberto Toscano, Daniel Trilling, Thomas Walpole, Jeffery Webber, Rafeef Ziadah.


 
The list keeps growing. 

Their serious art analysis for Marxism is screwed now.
'Steve Edwards and Gail Day - Revolutionary art today - Marxism 2012'

Robert Knox was writing for the ISJ and even quoted positively by Callinicos only a few months ago.

"Elsewhere in this journal Alex Anievas, Adam Fabry and Robert Knox demonstrate the continuities between Obama’s foreign policy and that of his Republican predecessor George W Bush."

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=846&issue=136

Sheila Cohen and Kim Moody are both associated with Solidarity US.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yeah, I get that "they" referred to the police. What I don't get it why the police giving it a go just for the damage it could cause [at a public court hearing]* would be a factor in (presumably) not actively encouraging her to report.


Where is the suggestion that it was a factor? It wasn't.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2013)

With the reaction of the SWP to close ranks since the accusation was made public, it looks quite likely to me that they *would* have discouraged the woman from going to the police because of the damage it would do to the SWP's reputation.

I think that would be a fairly common reaction of a group 'on the fringes' including SWP and cults. I very much doubt she was given a free and informed choice with no pressure whatsoever.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> Where is the suggestion that it was a factor? It wasn't.


But the exchange was following from this: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-154#post-11934733

The exchange looks to me as though reputational risk is a factor here. I'm not being awkward for the sake of it; that's just how the exchange read to me.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

two sheds said:


> With the reaction of the SWP to close ranks since the accusation was made public, it looks quite likely to me that they *would* have discouraged the woman from going to the police because of the damage it would do to the SWP's reputation.


No it doesnt, not at all. Someone fucking up and then being defensive isn't any evidence an earlier cover up.



> I think that would be a fairly common reaction of a group 'on the fringes' including SWP and cults. I very much doubt she was given a free and informed choice with no pressure whatsoever.


They have their problems, but to equate them to a cult just shows your own prejudices about them, I'm afraid.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> But the exchange was following from this: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page
> 
> The exchange looks to me as though reputational risk is a factor here. I'm not being awkward for the sake of it; that's just how the exchange read to me.


what is 'this'?  all that link does is bring up the thread.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> No it doesnt, not at all. Someone fucking up and then being defensive isn't any evidence an earlier cover up.
> 
> They have their problems, but to equate them to a cult just shows your own prejudices about them, I'm afraid.


 
And the descriptions of people being called in individually and expelled from the party unless they recant? That's pure cult.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> what is 'this'? all that link does is bring up the thread.


Apologies, I can't seem to link it properly. It's where Bolshiebhoy says "Well I think we can almost guarantee that in this case the woman invloved would have had one of the warmest and most sympathetic hearings imaginable from officers given the chance to damage the swp generally and this guy in particular" #4617


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

Again, it's worth re-repeating, W didn't want to make a police allegation - why would anyone be  "actively encouraging her to report" if she didn't wish to?
We can't know what would have happened, in part because a hypothetical future is unknowable and more to the point don't know W's circumstances or anything else, some comments (not so much on this thread but elsewhere) is still trying to needle towards the idea 'working-class self-organisation can't ever police itself, it needs a middle-class body to take up the burden'.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Again, it's worth re-repeating, W didn't want to make a police allegation - why would anyone be "actively encouraging her to report" if she didn't wish to?
> We can't know what would have happened, in part because a hypothetical future is unknowable and more to the point don't know W's circumstances or anything else, some comments (not so much on this thread but elsewhere) is still trying to needle towards the idea 'working-class self-organisation can't ever police itself, it needs a middle-class body to take up the burden'.


Because if anyone made a rape complaint to me I would actively encourage them to report it to the police and support them in doing so. If she then says "no, I refuse to" at least you can report that despite active encouragement and support she decided she didn't want to - as opposed to a passive "she didn't want to report it" which leaves it completely open for people to wonder why not.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> Apologies, I can't seem to link it properly. It's where Bolshiebhoy says "Well I think we can almost guarantee that in this case the woman invloved would have had one of the warmest and most sympathetic hearings imaginable from officers given the chance to damage the swp generally and this guy in particular" #4617


in response to a comment that no copper would have heard of martin smith. All that says is, the cops probably _would_ have an interest in the case - whether they thought it could end up in court or not - just to be a pain.  That that is true is fairly obvious, but it doesnt imply anything about what anyone else might have done, to encourage or discourage W in any way.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> Because if anyone made a rape complaint to me I would actively encourage them to report it to the police and support them in doing so. If she then says "no, I refuse to" at least you can report that despite active encouragement and support she decided she didn't want to - as opposed to a passive "she didn't want to report it" which leaves it completely open for people to wonder why not.


But you and I have no idea about whether they did do that or not. All we _know_ is that she said she didnt want it to go to the police, and that it didnt go to the police.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 31, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OMFG - A Swappie docudrama/musical resignation - is this black propaganda by the CC?



This fucker needs purged ASAP!


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> in response to a comment that no copper would have heard of martin smith. All that says is, the cops probably _would_ have an interest in the case - whether they thought it could end up in court or not - just to be a pain. That that is true is fairly obvious, but it doesnt imply anything about what anyone else might have done, to encourage or discourage W in any way.


 
Well if the SWP knew or suspected that, then surely they are unlikely to encourage her to go to the police and likely to encourage her not to go. The questions she was asked by the panel about her own behaviour, and the fact that it was packed with friends of the accused, don't suggest even handed behaviour.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> Because if anyone made a rape complaint to me I would actively encourage them to report it to the police and support them in doing so. If she then says "no, I refuse to" at least you can report that despite active encouragement and support she decided she didn't want to - as opposed to a passive "she didn't want to report it" which leaves it completely open for people to wonder why not.


 
This was a _leaked_ _transcript_ of an event that was not about "a rape complaint" but a re-election of a SWP DC. It's not going to report what we might wish it to report on - how the complaint was made, what the wishes/considerations of the person was whilst making that complaint, if there was someone around her like you to "actively encourage" - do you mean suggest? - her to report to police or not, and indeed other things about the circumstances and complaint that might mean action x instead of action y.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Well if the SWP knew or suspected that, then surely they are unlikely to encourage her to go to the police and likely to encourage her not to go.


Surely?  You mean, thats what you'd do? Or else where do you get 'surely' from?

You're still just imposing your own opinion of the SWP - they're wankers, therefore everything they do is what a wanker would do. 

Bad logic


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> No it doesnt, not at all. Someone fucking up and then being defensive isn't any evidence an earlier cover up.


 
It does strongly suggest it, though. If the SWP is now trying to hush it up and say to their members 'move along now nothing to see' then it suggests that is likely to have been their attitude before now.

If they had said for example 'yes we did it wrongly and we will allow both sides be put to the full membership to allow them to decide' then I'd be a lot more willing to believe that they dealt even-handedly with the accuser in the first place.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> Surely? You mean, thats what you'd do? Or else where do you get 'surely' from?
> 
> You're still just imposing your own opinion of the SWP - they're wankers, therefore everything they do is what a wanker would do.
> 
> Bad logic


 
No, it is what I feel it is likely that they did - given the subsequent train of events.

I could accuse you of similarly just imposing your own opinion that the SWP were scrupulously fair to the accuser, when they clearly weren't during the hearing itself or subsequently.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I could accuse you of similarly just imposing your own opinion that the SWP were scrupulously fair to the accuser, when they clearly weren't during the hearing itself or subsequently.


Wher have I ever said that?  I have said repeatedly _we dont know._ You dont, I dont. I am simply trying not to impose my existing opinions on the SWP and their myriad of shortcomings upon aspects of this case we know nothing about.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> Wher have I ever said that? I have said repeatedly _we dont know._ You dont, I dont. I am simply trying not to impose my existing opinions on the SWP and their myriad of shortcomings upon aspects of this case we know nothing about.


 
No, we don't know. I think it is a valid question to ask, though, and that we can make our own judgement from the SWP's reactions since this came out. They have reacted similarly to how I would have expected the Catholic church, or the scientologists, or another cult, would act in similar circumstances.

With that reaction, I do not believe the woman would have been allowed to make a free decision under no pressure whatsoever. You believe she could have been, fine - we differ.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> But you and I have no idea about whether they did do that or not. All we _know_ is that she said she didnt want it to go to the police, and that it didnt go to the police.


What we also _know_ is that Sara Bennett said:
"We have no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice. (inaudible) The contribution I'm about to make is in no way to undermine the fact that we have a disputes committee - that is the right way to go."


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> What we also _know_ is that Sara Bennett said:
> "We have no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice. (inaudible) The contribution I'm about to make is in no way to undermine the fact that we have a disputes committee - that is the right way to go."


sorry, i fail to grasp the relevance


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

two sheds said:


> No, we don't know. I think it is a valid question to ask, though, and that we can make our own judgement from the SWP's reactions since this came out. They have reacted similarly to how I would have expected the Catholic church, or the scientologists, or another cult, would act in similar circumstances.
> 
> With that reaction, I do not believe the woman would have been allowed to make a free decision under no pressure whatsoever. You believe she could have been, fine - we differ.


Not just not encouraged, buy positively _pressured_, eh?


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

two sheds said:


> No, we don't know. I think it is a *valid* question to ask, though, and that we can make our own judgement from the SWP's reactions since this came out. They have reacted similarly to how I would have expected the Catholic church, or the scientologists, or another cult, would act in similar circumstances.
> 
> With that reaction, I do not believe the woman would have been allowed to make a free decision under no pressure whatsoever. You believe she could have been, fine - we differ.


 
It's a weak question to ask given that it allows the essential point to be endlessly re-stated that Comrade W did not wish to make a complaint to the police.
Until there is information it doesn't really seem like a meaningful question.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> Not just not encouraged, buy positively _pressured_, eh?


 
Pressure, discouragement, yes. Of the sort just quoted by Cesare in fact:

"We have no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice. (inaudible) The contribution I'm about to make is in no way to undermine the fact that we have a disputes committee - that is the right way to go."

You don't feel that sort of statement would make someone reluctant to put their faith in the bourgeois court system by going to the police?

I also don't feel that it is a simple question of you being even handed about this and me having shown up my prejudices. You're giving the SWP the benefit of the doubt - I don't think they've earned it. No, we don't know but that doesn't mean we can't make an informed judgement.


----------



## cesare (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> sorry, i fail to grasp the relevance


The relevance is that the SWP openly state that they have no faith in the bourgeois court system; and so when I'm forming an opinion - on balance of probabilities - whether W was actively encouraged and supported to report to the police before refusing to ... I think, no. She probably wasn't. And then when I see bolshiebhoy talking about reputational risk to the SWP as a result of the police's motivation in pursuing a rape allegation that involves a senior member of the SWP - that serves to further reinforce my opinion.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 31, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Pressure, discouragement, yes. Of the sort just quoted by Cesare in fact:
> 
> "We have no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice. (inaudible) The contribution I'm about to make is in no way to undermine the fact that we have a disputes committee - that is the right way to go."
> 
> ...


I think they are enough problems with the way the SWP handled the investigation, without speculating on what else they may have done wrong with no evidence one way or the other.


----------



## two sheds (Jan 31, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's a weak question to ask given that it allows the essential point to be endlessly re-stated that Comrade W did not wish to make a complaint to the police.
> Until there is information it doesn't really seem like a meaningful question.


 
Not really, since the other essential point to be endlessly re-stated is that we don't know whether she was put under any pressure to make that decision. Whether your point has any meaning and is worth saying depends totally on whether she was discouraged from going to the police.

Yes we need to know, but I still think it's meaningful and indeed critical question to ask. I think it goes to the heart of the matter.

Again though, fair enough - we disagree.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> The relevance is that the SWP openly state that they have no faith in the bourgeois court system; and so when I'm forming an opinion - on balance of probabilities - whether W was actively encouraged and supported to report to the police before refusing to ... I think, no. She probably wasn't. And then when I see bolshiebhoy talking about reputational risk to the SWP as a result of the police's motivation in pursuing a rape allegation that involves a senior member of the SWP - that serves to further reinforce my opinion.


I have no faith in the bourgeois court system or the police, but if I as a victim of a crime I would probably report it to them as for the moment they are all there is. And you still completely misreading Bolshiebhoy's post.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Pressure, discouragement, yes. Of the sort just quoted by Cesare in fact:
> 
> "We have no faith in the bourgeois court system to deliver justice. (inaudible) The contribution I'm about to make is in no way to undermine the fact that we have a disputes committee - that is the right way to go."
> 
> ...


 
That statement was made by someone who was against the Disputes Committee handling, who wanted a transparent, real investigation. 

Reality - deportations, police lies, police biases, police infiltrate-or-neutralise mindset when it comes to socialists, judge lies, court procedures, lawyer systems etc (the bedrock of the police is antisocialism) makes many people "reluctant to put their faith in the bourgeois court system by going to the police." It's not the SWP doing this.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

Again, I don't want to state, because we can't know, those reasons are why W chose not to forget the disputes committee and make a sexual harassment/rape complaint to the police at 2008 or 2010 or whenever.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2013)

cesare said:


> The relevance is that the SWP openly state that they have no faith in the bourgeois court system; and so when I'm forming an opinion - on balance of probabilities - whether W was actively encouraged and supported to report to the police before refusing to ... I think, no. She probably wasn't. And then when I see bolshiebhoy talking about reputational risk to the SWP as a result of the police's motivation in pursuing a rape allegation that involves a senior member of the SWP - that serves to further reinforce my opinion.


They're a revolutionary organisatin dedicated to the overthrow of capitalist system and all its social relations.  Of course they have no faith in the bourgeois courts, neither does any communist or anarchist organisation, not to mention a hell of a lot of other people.

and bolshies comments were to another different and specific question. 

sorry, but i think you're adding two and two and making the number you first thought of.


----------



## sihhi (Jan 31, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Not really, since the other essential point to be endlessly re-stated is that we don't know whether she was put under any pressure to make that decision. Whether your point has any meaning and is worth saying depends totally on whether she was discouraged from going to the police.
> 
> Yes we need to know, but I still think it's meaningful and indeed critical question to ask. I think it goes to the heart of the matter.
> 
> Again though, fair enough - we disagree.


 
We do disagree. I don't think the heart of the matter is the failure to report to the police by as yet unsubstantiated SWP pressure. It's more SWP's lack of internal democracy and transparency.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> and bolshies comments were to another different and specific question.


And I rather wish I hadn't said anything now.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2013)

belboid said:


> They're a revolutionary organisatin dedicated to the overthrow of capitalist system and all its social relations. Of course they have no faith in the bourgeois courts, neither does any communist or anarchist organisation, not to mention a hell of a lot of other people.


 
I'm sure that they are genuinely held views, often forged through experience of oppression. I'm also perfectly prepared to accept that the complainants decison not to engage the agents of the bourgeois state was instinctive and her own, but...in placing trust in the party she appears to have been let down.

Whilst it is ideologically consistent for the party elite to offer an alternative to state justice they appear to have been woefully ill-prepared to deliver a fair and effective service to its member(s). IMO this does relate to the democratic deficit of the Leninist model and, in particular, the absence within their political practice of those forms of social relations, decision-making, culture, and human experience that are the ultimate goal of the proclaimed revolution.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 1, 2013)

Just seen this:

The break-up of the WRP – from the horse’s mouth by Simon Pirani



> ...[Corin] Redgrave replied by citing the WRP’s achievements (publication of a daily Trotskyist newspaper, building of a big youth movement, influence in trade unions, etc) and concluded: “If this is the work of a rapist, let’s recruit more rapists."


 
Good grief.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 1, 2013)

Twitter bingo continues:



> *George Galloway* ‏@*georgegalloway*
> I'm on BBC's 'Any Questions' tonight on Radio 4. Repeated tomorrow. Tune in!
> Retweeted by *Michael Rosen*


 
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/297344233218658305


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 1, 2013)

I do hope he wears that leather hat, really gives him an air of gravitas


----------



## SLK (Feb 1, 2013)

that Brindelli video is trending on twitter.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2013)

SLK said:


> that Brindelli video is trending on twitter.


From 5 days ago?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2013)

You haven't been in the party for 15 years. You're not involved in any socialist work. You're not going to join again. You're dead. What's your interest?


----------



## SLK (Feb 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> From 5 days ago?


 
I think it's been in the Independent or something.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 1, 2013)

The frightened Gironde liberal is indeed on the Independent website:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...es-miserables-are-getting-louder-8475667.html


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 1, 2013)

".... said that what Delta did in his spare time was his affair and was to be separated from his politics. Corin went on to say that he was “neither for nor against rape” but “for the social revolution” . He went on to say that Aileen’s letter was a provocation orchestrated by the state machine in order to smash up and destroy the party"


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 1, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> ".... said that what Delta did in his spare time was his affair and was to be separated from his politics. Corin went on to say that he was “neither for nor against rape” but “for the social revolution” . He went on to say that Aileen’s letter was a provocation orchestrated by the state machine in order to smash up and destroy the party"


 
Confused with that quote. Is it from the Independent? Bastards want me to pay a sub to read the linked to Independent article.

Whatever else you can say about Corin Redgrave, he's always played a bastard well on screen and on the stage. Question is: did he learn it at the Royal National Theatre or at the knee of Gerry Healey?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 1, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Confused with that quote.


 
I believe it's a reimagining of Corin Redgrave's defence of Gerry Healy, per the link upthread.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 1, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I'm sure that they are genuinely held views, often forged through experience of oppression. I'm also perfectly prepared to accept that the complainants decison not to engage the agents of the bourgeois state was instinctive and her own, but...in placing trust in the party she appears to have been let down.
> 
> Whilst it is ideologically consistent for the party elite to offer an alternative to state justice they appear to have been woefully ill-prepared to deliver a fair and effective service to its member(s). IMO this does relate to the democratic deficit of the Leninist model and, in particular, the absence within their political practice of those forms of social relations, decision-making, culture, and human experience that are the ultimate goal of the proclaimed revolution.


 
Ever thought of taking up politics as a hobby?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 1, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Ever thought of taking up politics as a hobby?


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 2, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> ".... said that what Delta did in his spare time was his affair and was to be separated from his politics. Corin went on to say that he was “neither for nor against rape” but “for the social revolution” . He went on to say that Aileen’s letter was a provocation orchestrated by the state machine in order to smash up and destroy the party"


http://stayingred.wordpress.com/staying-red-html-version/#Contents
Norman Harding appears to have been Healy's pimp


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 2, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> http://stayingred.wordpress.com/staying-red-html-version/#Contents
> Norman Harding appears to have been Healy's pimp


 
I'm the sort of sad bastard who'd download that and read it. 

I read Harry Ratner's Reluctant Revolutionary years ago. Healey's organisation was tainted from the get go.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 2, 2013)

I also have ratners book, an interesting read, hHarding's book follows the same pattern, but without the saving grace of seeing through the bastard early on. A line which made me jump was the opening of 'the letter' which triggered the coup against Healy, 
"During the course of action on the Manchester Area certain practices have come to light as to the running of Youth Training by a homosexual and the dangers this holds for the party in relation to police provocation. I believe the Political Committee was correct in stating that a cover-up of such practices endangered the Party from a serious provocation."
 That was in 1985, not 1955!
And this:
"On two occasions Healy told two of the girls not to go with black men as black men carried diseases. This can only be described as a racist remark and not the remark of a communist."
More pertinently for the subject of this thread, the WRP also considered itself qualified to investigate rape:

"In 1964, after the Control Commission of Investigation Comrade Healy gave an undertaking that he would cease these practices, this has not happened and I cannot sit on this volcano any longer."


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 2, 2013)

She managed to sit on it for twenty years...


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 2, 2013)

The Daily Heil's got hold of it now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alist-Workers-Party-cleared-comrade-rape.html


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 2, 2013)

Can we please stop pretending there is any comparison between the WRP and the SWP. Politically or 'sexually'. The dc of the SWP agonised and split over whether there was  an outside chance that delta might have harassed someone. if any of them had imagined for a second that he had actually raped someone, let alone had a history of repeated rape, he'd have been out the door quicker than you can say 'Where we stand'. The WRP leadership knew of a repeated pattern of rape and suppressed it. And some of them positively revelled in their 'Bolshevik' morality in doing so. Two totally different traditions and sets of practices.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 2, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> The Daily Heil's got hold of it now:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alist-Workers-Party-cleared-comrade-rape.html


Couldnt have been better timed to strengthen the loyalists hand at the NC today. Show of hands at conference to decide if someone was raped?!? Seymour must be raging this shit was published today.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 2, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> The Daily Heil's got hold of it now:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alist-Workers-Party-cleared-comrade-rape.html


A pretty fair report! And this is revealing, that the shitter hole that the SWP have made for themselves without the Mail having to make anything up!
  I was concerned that they printed photos of the female dc members, but seeing what they had done, perhaps they cannot complain ( tho they will).
Also all those photos have been previously printed in SWP publications.
 Well done to the mail for doorstep ping Delta's house.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can we please stop pretending there is any comparison between the WRP and the SWP. Politically or 'sexually'. The dc of the SWP agonised and split over whether there was  an outside chance that delta might have harassed someone. if any of them had imagined for a second that he had actually raped someone, let alone had a history of repeated rape, he'd have been out the door quicker than you can say 'Where we stand'. The WRP leadership knew of a repeated pattern of rape and suppressed it. And some of them positively revelled in their 'Bolshevik' morality in doing so. Two totally different traditions and sets of practices.


Total crap, the cc of the WRP split, and the majority expelled Healy and his rape denying gang. Your supine bunch of Toadys loved up to delta and told the sluts to fuck off. You are an apologist for the rape deniers


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 2, 2013)

Didn't they just make Julian Assange an honorary member?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 2, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> A pretty fair report! And this is revealing, that the shitter hole that the SWP have made for themselves without the Mail having to make anything up!
> I was concerned that they printed photos of the female dc members, but seeing what they had done, perhaps they cannot complain ( tho they will).
> Also all those photos have been previously printed in SWP publications.
> Well done to the mail for doorstep ping Delta's house.


Fair? There was no show of hands at conference to decide if anyone was raped. Hurrah for the doorstepping Blackshirts!


----------



## kavenism (Feb 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Fair? There was no show of hands at conference to decide if anyone was raped. Hurrah for the doorstepping Blackshirts!


 
And it says they doorstepped his partner not him. I don't know who that is any more; still Judith?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Fair? There was no show of hands at conference to decide if anyone was raped. Hurrah for the doorstepping Blackshirts!


posts like this support your admission earlier in the thread that you haven't thought this through


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can we please stop pretending there is any comparison between the WRP and the SWP. Politically or 'sexually'. The dc of the SWP agonised and split over whether there was  an outside chance that delta might have harassed someone. if any of them had imagined for a second that he had actually raped someone, let alone had a history of repeated rape, he'd have been out the door quicker than you can say 'Where we stand'. The WRP leadership knew of a repeated pattern of rape and suppressed it. And some of them positively revelled in their 'Bolshevik' morality in doing so. Two totally different traditions and sets of practices.


I see you're still acting instinctively. Is living in denial so strong in your leninist dna?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 2, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> The Daily Heil's got hold of it now:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...alist-Workers-Party-cleared-comrade-rape.html


 


> The other members of the disputes committee were: Maxine Bowler, 54, from Sheffield, a community worker who once had a review of a play about Mary Shelly published in Socialist Worker online; Esme Choonara, 50, author of a Rebels’s Guide To Trotsky and a London Ambulance Service employee; Amy Leather, 37, from Manchester, a regular contributor to the Socialist Worker newspaper who was involved in the protest camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral; Londoner Pat Stack, chair of the appeals committee that _*overseas expulsions from the SWP*_; and, finally, Rhetta Moran, also from Manchester, trained rape counsellor and founder of a refugees’ charity.


 

The Gulag?


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 2, 2013)

What time is kick off today and will we get live updates here?


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2013)

brogdale said:


> The Gulag?


It's quite odd that the worst they can find to say about Maxine is that she 'once had a review of a play about Mary Shelly published in Socialist Worker online'


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 2, 2013)

belboid said:


> It's quite odd that the worst they can find to say about Maxine is that she 'once had a review of a play about Mary Shelly published in Socialist Worker online'


Looks like a perfunctory speed search of the website before publication.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Didn't they just make Julian Assange an honorary member?


Nope, that was the Oxford Union. Really.


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Looks like a perfunctory speed search of the website before publication.


Which would also show her standing for the party on half a dozen occasions!


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 2, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I see you're still acting instinctively. Is living in denial so strong in your leninist dna?


 
He has a point though  to lump in the Delta situation in the same league as Healey's systematic abuse of women comrades is frankly crackers. As would be someone  lumping in last years  anarchist grooming cases


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 2, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> He has a point though to lump in the Delta situation in the same league as Healey's systematic abuse of women comrades is frankly crackers. As would be someone lumping in last years anarchist grooming cases


 
Yes, but he then tries to piggy back onto the correct dismissal of the Delta/Healy comparison, a further dismissal of any comparison between the politics of the SWP and the WRP; in that I think he's over egging the pudding.

What the two organisations share are/were largely unchanging leaderships, democratic centralism, a vanguard understanding of their revolutionary role and an appreciation that they are under attack by the bourgeois state (perhaps they also believe that they provide and example of an alternative socialist practice?).

It seems to me that these shared characteristics (shared by many more organisations than just the SWP and WRP), and their potential to impact on the respective investigations of Delta and Healy,  are sufficient to make drawing political comparisons a legitimate exercise.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## pir (Feb 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The frightened Gironde liberal is indeed on the Independent website:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...es-miserables-are-getting-louder-8475667.html


 
WTF? So Jack Brindelli, stereotype of a SWP student member, having qualms about a likely rapist being cleared by the party should just man the fuck up, is that it? The Girondists got cold feet once the French Revolution got going - are you saying a committed revolutionary is expected to defend a likely rapist in the party's ranks? You sound just like Corin Redgrave defending Healy. ffs...........


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2013)

pir said:


> WTF? So Jack Brindelli, stereotype of a SWP student member, having qualms about a *likely* rapist


likely?  ffs...........


----------



## pir (Feb 2, 2013)

belboid said:


> likely? ffs...........


 
Likely in the sense that 97% of rape accusations are genuine and that there's a second SWp member making seperate accusations. I won't say anything further on that as that is all the information we have.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 2, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Yes, but he then tries to piggy back onto the correct dismissal of the Delta/Healy comparison, a further dismissal of any comparison between the politics of the SWP and the WRP; in that I think he's over egging the pudding.
> 
> What the two organisations share are/were largely unchanging leaderships, democratic centralism, a vanguard understanding of their revolutionary role and an appreciation that they are under attack by the bourgeois state (perhaps they also believe that they provide and example of an alternative socialist practice?).
> 
> ...


 
'an appreciation that they are under attack by the bourgeois state' extends not just to the cobweb left and the anarchists scene but to republicans, animal libbers, far right, nationalists, and a range of others groupings. Its this for me that then sets out a path that unless the complainant does go to the bourgeois legal system means that it has to be dealt with internally in some way. This path wouldn't be confined to vanguard, democratic centralist organisations and allegations of such behaviour won't be confined to them either just because of those characteristics.

I think some posters have attempted to set out what an internal way of dealing with allegations like these might look like , others are simply,  equating Trotskyism with sexual cover ups.


----------



## laptop (Feb 2, 2013)

belboid said:


> It's quite odd that the worst they can find to say about Maxine is that she 'once had a review of a play about Mary Shelly published in Socialist Worker online'


 
It's the _*irony*_ of her associating with feminists but exonerating an (alleged) rapist. See?


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2013)

pir said:


> Likely in the sense that 97% of rape accusations are genuine and that there's a second SWp member making seperate accusations. I won't say anything further on that as that is all the information we have.


I hope you never are in a situation where you have to use logic is a life or death matter.  Because you would die.


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2013)

laptop said:


> It's the _*irony*_ of her associating with feminists but exonarating an (alleged) rapist. See?


aaah, of course, that makes sense now.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 2, 2013)

pir said:


> Likely in the sense that 97% of rape accusations are genuine and that there's a second SWp member making seperate accusations. I won't say anything further on that as that is all the information we have.


 
Where did you get that stat from?


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Where did you get that stat from?


his arse.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 2, 2013)

I haven't read the whole thread, but what were the kommittee going to do if they found him guilty?


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> his arse.


nah, it is a commonly quoted figure, from reputable sources.  Although it is wrong - the report (I am guessing) it comes from shows only 3% go to jail, a further 2% will be found guiltyt but somehow avoid jail, and it ignores the small (2-8%) number of false accusations.

http://falseallegations.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/2/


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but what were the kommittee going to do if they found him guilty?


Expel him, remove him from all party positions.  That is all they can do as  a party.


----------



## pir (Feb 2, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Where did you get that stat from?


 
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf

p.99 :



> Key findings
> There are false allegations, and possibly slightly more than some researchers and
> support agencies have suggested. However, at maximum they constitute nine per
> cent and *probably closer to three per cent of all rep orted cases*. An over-
> ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 2, 2013)

belboid said:


> Expel him, remove him from all party positions. That is all they can do as a party.


And not turned him in?


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> And not turned him in?


the alleger chose not to report it to the police.


----------



## killer b (Feb 2, 2013)

Is there a half decent rundown of the case that could be posted up every time someone says they haven't read the thread then asks a stupid question?


----------



## cesare (Feb 2, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> And not turned him in?


The person putting the situation to the conference said that the complainant didn't want to go to the police.


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> The person putting the situation to the conference said that the complainant didn't want to go to the police.


 
Although a complainant not wanting to go to the police doesn't automatically mean a defendant won't be prosecuted, it just makes it less likely. In allegations of criminal conduct he police decide whether there's a case to investigate and the CPS decide whether the resulting evidence is enough for a prosecution. A complainant's consent to proceed with a case makes things easier, but isn't actually essential.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 2, 2013)

pir said:


> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf
> 
> p.99 :



Not wanting to detract from the serious issue of rape reporting but this study is based on reporting to the police and the later Stern report whilst mentioning research of 10% false claims called on the ministry of justice to do commission more research on this matter. 

The delta case and this new accusation haven't been reported to the police have they?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> his arse.


Using old home office research papers to wipe his arse with?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 2, 2013)

killer b said:


> Is there a half decent rundown of the case that could be posted up every time someone says they haven't read the thread then asks a stupid question?


Sihi and ceseare have probably provided the most succinct summaries IMO


----------



## articul8 (Feb 2, 2013)

belboid said:


> the alleger chose not to report it to the police.


or, the alleger "chose" not to report it to the police


----------



## cesare (Feb 2, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Although a complainant not wanting to go to the police doesn't automatically mean a defendant won't be prosecuted, it just makes it less likely. In allegations of criminal conduct he police decide whether there's a case to investigate and the CPS decide whether the resulting evidence is enough for a prosecution. A complainant's consent to proceed with a case makes things easier, but isn't actually essential.


I didn't know this, cheers.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 2, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Although a complainant not wanting to go to the police doesn't automatically mean a defendant won't be prosecuted, it just makes it less likely. In allegations of criminal conduct he police decide whether there's a case to investigate and the CPS decide whether the resulting evidence is enough for a prosecution. A complainant's consent to proceed with a case makes things easier, but isn't actually essential.


But considering the whole nature of a rape allegation is based on the question of consent, they could not practically proceed without the alleged victims support.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 2, 2013)

pir said:


> Likely in the sense that 97% of rape accusations are genuine and that there's a second SWp member making seperate accusations. I won't say anything further on that as that is all the information we have.


But the second accusation is not one rape.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 2, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but what were the kommittee going to do if they found him guilty?


 according to their online statement, expel him.



> There has been a series of attacks on the Socialist Workers Party in the media and by assorted bloggers. They concern the partyâ€™s handling of serious allegations against a leading member and the arguments (partly arising from the case) leading up to and during our recent conference.
> 
> This was an internal matter and we had promised full confidentiality to all involved. So we strongly condemn the publication of a transcript of a closed session of the conference discussing this case. The transcript was publicised against the wishes of the complainant herself.
> The attacks are a travesty of the truth. We live in what remains a profoundly sexist society, as is shown by the sex abuse scandals and cover-ups in mainstream institutions such as the BBC and the police.
> ...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 2, 2013)

SO! Have they split yet?


----------



## mk12 (Feb 2, 2013)

I believe we're just waiting for confirmation. I logged on expecting this thread to have hit 175 pages due to the fallout of the NC meeting...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 2, 2013)

It looks worse (for the SWP) as time passes. I doubt if it will be a straightforward split, more like a drift away of members and a downturn in activity as its resources dwindle. There is no hint of the various oppositions proposing an alternative party that I can see.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 2, 2013)

The NC meeting is tomorrow, I believe. Depending on how aggressively the CC play it, stuff could start leaking immediately or it could take until early next week.

Hocus Eye: they can't hint at a new party in advance. That would be tactical suicide.

On another note, Tom Walker has another post up, which goes a little further in questioning SWP orthodoxy than most other oppositionist pieces.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 2, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It looks worse - for the SWP (as time passes). I doubt if it will be a straightforward split, more like a drift away of members and a downturn in activity as its resources dwindle. There is no hint of the various oppositions proposing an alternative party that I can see.


 so most people believe that is a good thing???


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The NC meeting is tomorrow, I believe. Depending on how aggressively the CC play it, stuff could start leaking immediately or it could take until early next week.
> 
> Hocus Eye: they can't hint at a new party in advance. That would be tactical suicide.
> 
> On another note, Tom Walker has another post up, which goes a little further in questioning SWP orthodoxy than most other oppositionist pieces.


 no link?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 2, 2013)

Has somebody already explained in this thread, why the leadership would be so desperate to keep hold of this guy in the leadership, desperate enough to "cover something up", when they have jettisoned so many IE John Rees, German, Smith et cetera?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 2, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> no link?


Here.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I would certainly stop my criticisms of the SWP if they had better more consistent leninists at the top table. I think the class would give more of a shit too. And look at you going ooh paris is working class - what does that tell you? That you need to point that out? What situation have you put up with enough to point out that he's working class?


 who is this directed to? What would constitute a more consistent Leninist? And what are the last three questions going on about?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 2, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I see you're still acting instinctively. Is living in denial so strong in your leninist dna?


You know what fella, you really have nothing to offer. I don't mind you but you are a minor annoyance.

I'm being polite cause I'm just back from the Millenium Stadium on a high.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 2, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It looks worse - for the SWP (as time passes). I doubt if it will be a straightforward split, more like a drift away of members and a downturn in activity as its resources dwindle. There is no hint of the various oppositions proposing an alternative party that I can see.


Really? Some of us are on the point of rejoining. Sometimes it takes a shit split to convince the meanderers to do the decent thing.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> rejoining


 
Rejoining the SWP?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 2, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Seriously doesn't stop the antibiotics working? Only I got a bottle of single malt and a crate of Guinness in my Christmas box and I'm thinking it might be more effective as a painkiller than the ibuprofen I've been taking.


 what I got told was, antibiotics were first introduced to deal with the clap. They knew that you were more likely to spread the clap, if you were drunk, so they encouraged the belief that the antibiotics didn't work if you drank, to stop drunken sex. It is true that only the antibiotics that say "not to be taken with alcohol" are the ones you shouldn't take with alcohol.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 2, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Most of the people in far left groups are lefty trainspotters, obsessed with the tiny and ever shrinking world of the far left. And each group, whether the SWP, SP or whoever else gloat at any problems that other groups have while seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are little different from each other.


 and yet almost the entire left is united in saying, the SWP ignores the rest of the left, and fails to engage with it. That the SWP almost entirely concentrate on people to the right of the revolutionary left.
And while the SWP quite rightly celebrated the demise of the Soviet Union, and the politics of such as the CPGB, as a caveat it did warn that the great loss activists organised by the Communist parties, would be a LOSS to the labour movement, anti-fascism, et cetera.


And whilst I am sure money on here will celebrate the death of the SWP, I fear it will be part of that continuing trend, of a smaller and smaller revolutionary left in the UK. :-(


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 2, 2013)

http://www.socialistunity.com/socialist-workers-party-swp-national-committee-debates-the-crisis/

Newman has put up the motions to be discussed at the NC meeting tomorrow. Grim stuff mostly.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 2, 2013)

> We reaffirm the right of the Central Committee to impose disciplinary measures for violation of our democratic constitution.


 
Uh oh.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> http://www.socialistunity.com/socialist-workers-party-swp-national-committee-debates-the-crisis/
> 
> Newman has put up the motions to be discussed at the NC meeting tomorrow. Grim stuff mostly.


 
Only one motion _not_ supportive of the CC. This will be interesting!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 2, 2013)

Various loyalist motions calling for purges (or "upholding the right of the Central Committee to impose disciplinary measures...").

A truly dismal, in the best traditions of the SWP, document in from Sean Vernell and Mark Campbell, puts the central blame on the failure of members to implement the perspective and then goes on to a truly incoherent account of the influence of "autonomism" on students. It does manage to admit a mistake though: The Education Action Network comes in for a kicking, which is I would guess a dig at recent CC minority people.

The CC statement suggests that some changes may need to be made to the DC's procedures - and then explains that they mean changes to preserve its confidentiality and limit reports to conference.

Seymour gets attacked by name in two motions. One of which wants the CC to distribute Molyneux's self-immolation.

No compromise motions and no concessions in the loyalist ones.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 2, 2013)

> This has created difficulties for any future DC hearing. Therefore it is in this light that the NC thinks it sensible to consider these issues, in particular:
> _i) how the future confidentiality of DC proceedings can be safeguarded_​_ii) how future findings of the DC should be reported to the party_​


Meaning, next time we won't even bother to tell the members, as they obviously can't be trusted.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 2, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Only one motion _not_ supportive of the CC. This will be interesting!


 
It's going to be carnage next week.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's going to be carnage next week.


 
Seymour will be out of the Party for sure. How many others?


----------



## mk12 (Feb 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Meaning, next time we won't even bother to tell the members, as they obviously can't be trusted.


 
Strip search of delegates? Ban mobile phones? X-ray machines on entrance?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 2, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Seymour will be out of the Party for sure. How many others?


 
They'll try to start small, I'd guess, and try to decapitate the opposition. But maybe not: The motions seem to suggest a siege mentality, so they might go "shock and awe".


----------



## emanymton (Feb 2, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Seymour will be out of the Party for sure. How many others?


Not as many as some think I suspect


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 3, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Not as many as some think I suspect


 
There will be expulsions, there will be who go with them, there will be who don't but who form an ongoing sullen minority inside, setting up further rows and splits. How many in each category we can't be sure, but overall we are talking about a sizeable percentage of the SWP.

Meanwhile, these motions are completely tone deaf. Nobody outside the SWP is going to be remotely supportive or convinced.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Meanwhile, these motions are completely tone deaf. Nobody outside the SWP is going to be remotely supportive or convinced.


 
I can think of _one_ person outside the Party who will be supportive _and_ convinced.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There will be expulsions, there will be who go with them, there will be who don't but who form an ongoing sullen minority inside, setting up further rows and splits. How many in each category we can't be sure, but overall we are talking about a sizeable percentage of the SWP.
> 
> Meanwhile, these motions are completely tone deaf. Nobody outside the SWP is going to be remotely supportive or convinced.


I think a lot will settle into the Sullen minority category, simply because most will feel that while the SWP is shit it is the best available option. What impact it will have on any future rows is impossible to tell.  My prediction is that between expulsions and resignations this will cost them around 100 members in the next couple of month. unless the CC goes on a mad purge which is quite possible.

Of course I could be completely and utterly wrong.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 3, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think a lot will settle into the Sullen minority category, simply because most will feel that while the SWP is shit it is the best available option. What impact it will have on any future rows is impossible to tell. My prediction is that between expulsions and resignations this will cost them around 100 members in the next couple of month. unless the CC goes on a mad purge which is quite possible.
> 
> Of course I could be completely and utterly wrong.


 
I think it will be more than that between expulsions, resignations to follow the expelled and drop outs due to demoralisation. In particular, SWSS is going to be gutted.

But the real damage is going to be that they will be stumbling on demoralised, isolated and with a sullen and resentful minority still on board. Remember the Counterfire split, which was less significant than this, dragged on through a couple of years of mini splits. Back in the 70s, when a minority got expelled, it got expelled quickly and thoroughly, but more recently things have been a lot messier.

Still, there are too many variables to be certain about how this will go.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 3, 2013)

And now Nick Cohen has a predictably gloating column. I'm actually surprised it took him this long.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think it will be more than that between expulsions, resignations to follow the expelled and drop outs due to demoralisation. In particular, SWSS is going to be gutted.
> 
> But the real damage is going to be that they will be stumbling on demoralised, isolated and with a sullen and resentful minority still on board. Remember the Counterfire split, which was less significant than this, dragged on through a couple of years of mini splits. Back in the 70s, when a minority got expelled, it got expelled quickly and thoroughly, but more recently things have been a lot messier.
> 
> Still, there are too many variables to be certain about how this will go.


Well I can't argue with the last point. I also agree that the real damage is likely to be long term, I think they will appear to weather the current storm quite well, but where they will be in 10 years I have no idea. For one thing this could really hit their ability to recruit.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And now Nick Cohen has a predictably gloating column. I'm actually surprised it took him this long.


He's probably only just sobered up.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 3, 2013)

The loss of the current swss cadre might be the least of their worries, I can't see many su's letting the rape party onto campus in future, nor many broad lefts willing to embrace a cult so openly contemptuous of even the facade of democracy.
 Let this sad broken husk die, and let the scum who defend it die with it.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 3, 2013)

Will the SWP still be welcome in TUSC after this I wonder?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> http://www.socialistunity.com/socialist-workers-party-swp-national-committee-debates-the-crisis/


 


> un-comradely language


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 3, 2013)

Just read that nick cohen article. Thanks SWP for giving the right a stick with which to beat and smear us all, regardless of whether we're supporters of the SWP or not. These fuckers are doing huge damage to the radical left, giving our enemies and lowlife vermin such as Cohen an opportunity to indulge in a bit of McCarthyite red-baitng. They need to be treated like Galloway, as pariah's, or they'll take us all down with them.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The loss of the current swss cadre might be the least of their worries, I can't see many su's letting the rape party onto campus in future, nor many broad lefts willing to embrace a cult so openly contemptuous of even the facade of democracy.
> Let this sad broken husk die, and let the scum who defend it die with it.


Cheers


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 3, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Not as many as some think I suspect


I agree. There's a reason the prof didnt mention names inside the party in his piece.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They'll try to start small, I'd guess, and try to decapitate the opposition. But maybe not: The motions seem to suggest a siege mentality, so they might go "shock and awe".


 
I'm pretty sure it's going to be shock and awe (which is well put, but another way to say it would be 'bullying and intimidation'). From those resolutions it seems that the CC has found a certain amount of support among a layer of members who were organisers in the 90s. Enough to provide the CC and organisers with a ballistic launch pad.


----------



## cesare (Feb 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Really? Some of us are on the point of rejoining. Sometimes it takes a shit split to convince the meanderers to do the decent thing.


I thought that you were a member of the SWP until you said you were a member of the LP nowadays "just an ex-member giving some insight but no partisanship". But your postings were all about the party line (as I understand it) dressed up in polite language. When you responded to me questioning the overall attitude of "don't look at this particular rape accusation - look at that one over there" with the put down "god bless" I fucking knew there was more to what you were posting than that of an onlooker. 

I suppose a schism of this sort will make people consider their positions. Leave the party, rejoin the party, carry on as a disgruntled wedge, or carry on regardless.

But you're a dishonest bastard. Don't fucking come it now with "some of us are on the point of rejoining". I doubt you ever left.

"Do the decent thing".

Fuck's sake.


----------



## manny-p (Feb 3, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> or they'll take us all down with them.


 
Really?


----------



## manny-p (Feb 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> I thought that you were a member of the SWP until you said you were a member of the LP nowadays "just an ex-member giving some insight but no partisanship". But your postings were all about the party line (as I understand it) dressed up in polite language. When you responded to me questioning the overall attitude of "don't look at this particular rape accusation - look at that one over there" with the put down "god bless" I fucking knew there was more to what you were posting than that of an onlooker.
> 
> I suppose a schism of this sort will make people consider their positions. Leave the party, rejoin the party, carry on as a disgruntled wedge, or carry on regardless.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## manny-p (Feb 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> _Really? Some of us are on the point of rejoining. Sometimes it takes a shit split to convince the meanderers to do the decent thing._


Why would you rejoin now out of all the times to do so? Troll alert.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The loss of the current swss cadre might be the least of their worries, I can't see many su's letting the rape party onto campus in future, nor many broad lefts willing to embrace a cult so openly contemptuous of even the facade of democracy.
> Let this sad broken husk die, and let the scum who defend it die with it.


 
Take it you don't regularly contribute to the fighting fund?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Will the SWP still be welcome in TUSC after this I wonder?


 
The acid test will be Steve Hedley.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Take it you don't regularly contribute to the fighting fund?


 


But the point about campus acceptance is a very valid one.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2013)

Interesting that Beyond the Fragments (which is being republished with new intros later this year btw) is singled out for criticism - together with the perspective of "broad, pluralist" left realignment.  Ahead of its time...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The acid test will be Steve Hedley.


 
what do you mean?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> what do you mean?


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-108#post-11905817


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2013)

brogdale said:


> But the point about campus acceptance is a very valid one.


 
Valid as in ?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-108#post-11905817


 
ah yeah. yeah i wonder what will happen with that ...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Valid as in ?


 
credible


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2013)

brogdale said:


> credible


 

Personally I have always thought the cobweb lefts obsession with campus student to be completely mistaken but aside from that in your experinece as a studenty type which university campus's do you think this would be a credible scenario to no platform the SWP?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Personally I have always thought the cobweb lefts obsession with campus student to be completely mistaken but aside from that in your experinece as a studenty type which university campus's do you think this would be a credible scenario to no platform the SWP?


 
agreed, from my own experience at uni i would say that this is a bit misguided to say the least! (because there weren't any swp members on campus anyway!)


----------



## brogdale (Feb 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Personally I have always thought the cobweb lefts obsession with campus student to be completely mistaken but aside from that in your experinece as a studenty type which university campus's do you think this would be a credible scenario to no platform the SWP?


 
Oh, I don't have any firm intelligence on that matter; it's more than 30 years since I was a studenty type. But, I suppose, the list of those SWSSs that have tabled motions might well give an indication of where the student section will collapse. In such conditions of febrile debate I'd imagine that a party perceived as going to the extreme of rape apology, for the sake of self-preservation, will fare pretty badly with the politicised students in places like Sussex.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 3, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Just read that nick cohen article. Thanks SWP for giving the right a stick with which to beat and smear us all, regardless of whether we're supporters of the SWP or not. These fuckers are doing huge damage to the radical left, giving our enemies and lowlife vermin such as Cohen an opportunity to indulge in a bit of McCarthyite red-baitng. They need to be treated like Galloway, as pariah's, or they'll take us all down with them.


The Cohen piece is a gift to the CC this morning, That it has come out on the day if the NC meeting is amazingly good timing for them.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2013)

One unanswered question is which organisations are going to benefit from this in terms of recruitment?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> One unanswered question is which organisations are going to benefit from this in terms of recruitment?


None.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2013)

emanymton said:


> None.


 
If so that is fascinating as there has been a huge amount of time spent by various groups, grouplets and scenes saying how bad they all are and how they misread this  and that for so little gain.

Actually I think its all back to labour.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 3, 2013)

The IS blog's comment on the CC motion indicates that 10 branches passed recall motions.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can we please stop pretending there is any comparison between the WRP and the SWP. Politically or 'sexually'. The dc of the SWP agonised and split over whether there was an outside chance that delta might have harassed someone. if any of them had imagined for a second that he had actually raped someone, let alone had a history of repeated rape, he'd have been out the door quicker than you can say 'Where we stand'. The WRP leadership knew of a repeated pattern of rape and suppressed it. And some of them positively revelled in their 'Bolshevik' morality in doing so. Two totally different traditions and sets of practices.


 I don't know, the 'lefts' fascination for political titillation with this issue, and persecution of the claimant who expressly wished this not to be made a public issue, is somewhat reminiscent of the tabloid media. Hypocrites.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I agree. There's a reason the prof didnt mention names inside the party in his piece.


Reverse engineering continues apace. _The prof is an astute political tactician, therefore his pieces display astute political tactics. _

Ad you've been 'on the verge of rejoining' for a decade now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2013)

I know that we are not supposed to be quoting or answering the fool above, but " persecution of the claimant" is probably the most stupid post of the thread and definitely the lowest point of the loyalist defence on here. Worse even that bolshie's demonstration that you can take the hack out of the party...


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I know that we are not supposed to be quoting or answering the fool above, but " persecution of the claimant" is probably the most stupid post of the thread and definitely the lowest point of the loyalist defence on here. Worse even that bolshie's demonstration that you can take the hack out of the party...


It's just the words of a moron who never understood the politics of the organisation he pretends not to be a supporter of.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2013)

> If you have ‘forty years of experience’ of Leninism, and your organisation is about the same size now as it was when you started, _you’re doing it wrong_.


http://rethinkingtheleft.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I know that we are not supposed to be quoting or answering the fool above, but " persecution of the claimant" is probably the most stupid post of the thread and definitely the lowest point of the loyalist defence on here. Worse even that bolshie's demonstration that you can take the hack out of the party...


The more they write, the more I think king street had the right idea; "treat (some) Trotskyites as you would a fascist"


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2013)

And treat some ex-trots like you would a very small, very stupid, child.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You know what fella, you really have nothing to offer. I don't mind you but you are a minor annoyance.
> 
> I'm being polite cause I'm just back from the Millenium Stadium on a high.


I'll take that as a 'yes' then


----------



## mk12 (Feb 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> If so that is fascinating as there has been a huge amount of time spent by various groups, grouplets and scenes saying how bad they all are and how they misread this and that for so little gain.
> 
> Actually I think its all back to labour.


 
Yes, definitely. The negative view of other leftist groups held by SWP members won't suddenly leave them when they leave/are expelled. The AWL and CPGB were particularly hated by members when I was in the Party, but the SP might pick up a few strays.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2013)

How many people are on the NC?  Seymour says he's isn't - and isn't entitled to be an observer either.  Suggests the 'debate' will be more than a little one-sided?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2013)

50


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2013)

suggests critics on the NC will be v small in number - so discussion will probably be about the timing and scale of expulsions not their desirability


----------



## laptop (Feb 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Interesting that Beyond the Fragments (which is being republished with new intros later this year btw) is singled out for criticism - together with the perspective of "broad, pluralist" left realignment. Ahead of its time...


 
Next, Big Flame II? The Return of Big Flame?? Blowback???


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Interesting that Beyond the Fragments (which is being republished with new intros later this year btw) is singled out for criticism - together with the perspective of "broad, pluralist" left realignment. Ahead of its time...


Reality=creeping into the labour party. Failed miserably then - and in better conditions than today. I saw her ladyship was talking at the Compass (i agree with Nick) AGM yesterday, rather sums it all up doesn't it?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 3, 2013)

Trust me, the individual moving motion two you don't want to mess with.

Edit: I'm reading that motion two was passed. Worked then.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Reality=creeping into the labour party. Failed miserably then - and in better conditions than today. I saw her ladyship was talking at the Compass (i agree with Nick) AGM yesterday, rather sums it all up doesn't it?


I told her was wasting her time there.  But she thinks their audience can be won to something better


----------



## manny-p (Feb 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I told her was wasting her time there. But she thinks their audience can be won to something better


says the man who supports a party that is responsible for millions of dead in Iraq.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2013)

Here we fucking go...huge numbers of Lab supporters opposed it.  Lab also supported Falklands war, for eg, but not a reason to leave rather than fight


----------



## SLK (Feb 3, 2013)

Actually, forget that - it's a useless piece of information from SU.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> How many people are on the NC? Seymour says he's isn't - and isn't entitled to be an observer either. Suggests the 'debate' will be more than a little one-sided?


No it suggests he is too self important to do anyting as menial as seek election to a party body. Far better to bleat sweet nothings from your blog and not have to answer to anybody.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 3, 2013)

Completely irrelevant but Bambery getting quite excited on fb about the Italy result today.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 3, 2013)

The moderate opposition are sounding gloomy. All very oblique but references to the Titanic don't sound like they're happy.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Completely irrelevant but Bambery getting quite excited on fb about the Italy result today.


 
Balotteli's debut?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> suggests critics on the NC will be v small in number - so discussion will probably be about the timing and scale of expulsions not their desirability


According to a post on SU the opposition got around 9 votes as the NC, better than I would have expected.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 3, 2013)

Yes, more than they themselves or the CC expected either. Which means that the CC, despite getting the purge motions passed are still in a delicate position. Substantial opposition amongst even this lot indicates that they haven't yet managed to marginalise the hard opposition from the vacillators.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 4, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Again, I don't want to state, because we can't know, those reasons are why W chose not to forget the disputes committee and make a sexual harassment/rape complaint to the police at 2008 or 2010 or whenever.


It's very unlikely that Comrade W would get any success going through CPS & criminal courts on this accusation, however going through the civil courts she could have had a better chance of getting a succesful outcome and minimising the involvement of the police and other apparatus of the establishment & the British Capitalist State.

Thinking the Quakers (as most of the left seem to use their premises at for their events) might have been the more objective arbitrating council to use.( although in my opinion they should have told comrade W to make a complaint with the police).


----------



## Nigel (Feb 4, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The acid test will be Steve Hedley.


On Facebook he sort of defended(maybe that's a bit overt) AWL attacks on SWP linking sexual assault/rape allegations with anti semitism.
In Oxford relations between TUSC supporters & SWP seem to be relatively ok.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 4, 2013)

The International Bolshevik Tendency reveal their conclusions. 

Warning: 99% of posters on this thread might well be "reformists, cranks, confusionists and trolls" 



> With the SWP leadership strongly discouraging discussion on the findings of their disputes committee regarding the rape allegation, and bureaucratically declaring ‘the case is closed’, dissidents have taken the discussion outside the party. Some observers welcome this as being a good thing in principle. In this case it seems to be necessary, but in a healthy revolutionary organisation internal debate is the most effective way to arrive at correct decisions regarding the inevitable problems that arise in political life. To open such discussions to the public is to invite those who are not obligated to carry out the decisions reached (as well as reformists, cranks, confusionists and trolls) to gum up the works. This is not, as anti-Leninists contend, a means of shutting down programmatic debate, but rather raising the level of debate inside and outside the revolutionary organisation.


 
What's the conclusion I can hear everyone eager to know what the IBT think - well it is not just Lenin, it is Lenin _and_ Trotsky. That is the answer for those leaving.



> The ‘IS tradition’ must be politically rejected in its entirety. An authentically Marxist vanguard can only be built on the revolutionary tradition of the Bolshevik Party under Lenin and Trotsky – only this sort of party can actually solve the problems of the oppressed and exploited.


 
http://www.bolshevik.org/statements/ibt_20130203_swp_crisis.html


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 4, 2013)

> only this sort of party can actually solve the problems of the oppressed and exploited.


 
How's that going for them?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> I thought that you were a member of the SWP until you said you were a member of the LP nowadays "just an ex-member giving some insight but no partisanship". But your postings were all about the party line (as I understand it) dressed up in polite language. When you responded to me questioning the overall attitude of "don't look at this particular rape accusation - look at that one over there" with the put down "god bless" I fucking knew there was more to what you were posting than that of an onlooker.
> 
> I suppose a schism of this sort will make people consider their positions. Leave the party, rejoin the party, carry on as a disgruntled wedge, or carry on regardless.
> 
> ...


 
I find it quite interesting how there are quite a few "ex Swappies" with fairly up-to-date knowledge of what's going on in the party, as well as a continuing commitment to the SWP, who happily sow pro-Swappite propaganda and put-downs of people who disagree with the Swappite line. 

Of course, that *doesn't* NECESSARILY mean that they're members-in-good-standing of the SWP. It *could* mean that they're so politically-naive that they're happy to shill for any old bunch of cunts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The acid test will be Steve Hedley.


 
Isn't he a weatherman, or was that John Kettley?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I agree. There's a reason the prof didnt mention names inside the party in his piece.


 
There are *many* possible reasons that he didn't. Which is *your* contention?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't he a weatherman, or was that John Kettley?


Did he ever apologise for his disgraceful outburst:




			
				 John Kettley said:
			
		

> Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in pig Tate's belly. Wild! Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2013)

_


butchersapron said:



			Reverse engineering continues apace.
		
Click to expand...

_ 
At least there's Photoshop nowadays, so some poor bastard doesn't have to airbrush individual photos by candlelight anymore.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Did he ever apologise for his disgraceful outburst:


 
The BBC held a full enquiry and found that Kettley had been misunderstood, and that anyway no-one at the Beeb knew about his anti-establishment pro-Mansonist tendencies, even when he was known to take underage pro-Mansonist tendencies into his dressing room with him.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 4, 2013)

SU Newman has just posted up a story about similar allegations that are dogging the German sister organisation of the SWP


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Smokeandsteam said:


> SU Newman has just posted up a story about similar allegations that are dogging the German sister organisation of the SWP


From over a decade ago though.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

http://socialistunity.com/swp-dehumanisation-leads-to-abuse/#.UQ_ZUHwgGK0
Anna Chen expands on the fuck circuit


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> http://socialistunity.com/swp-dehumanisation-leads-to-abuse/#.UQ_ZUHwgGK0
> Anna Chen expands on the fuck circuit


Anna Chen is utterly full of shit.  Still sulking cos she wasn't given an official SWP PR person job when they realised she was basically just a wet  liberal.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 4, 2013)

belboid said:


> Anna Chen is utterly full of shit. Still sulking cos she wasn't given an official SWP PR person job *when they realised she was basically just a wet liberal.*


 
And it took them seven plus years to realise that? All hail the vanguard. They know better than us.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

belboid said:


> Anna Chen is utterly full of shit.


So she could reasonably have expected promotion then...


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> http://socialistunity.com/swp-dehumanisation-leads-to-abuse/#.UQ_ZUHwgGK0
> Anna Chen expands on the fuck circuit


 
This was pretty good: "I looked from pig to man and then man to pig and then back again and wondered who’d look better in a bacon sandwich." Kind of a Communist Joan Rivers vibe.

And I think belboid is confusing sulking with anger.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> And I think belboid is confusing sulking with anger.


angry?  Its become a nice little earner for Anna, slagging off the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> And it took them seven plus years to realise that? All hail the vanguard. They know better than us.


Ah that's easy to get around, _we were using her for all that time_. 7 years work for nothing etc


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 4, 2013)

belboid said:


> angry? Its become a nice little earner for Anna, slagging off the SWP.


 
Ah, the plot thins, to quote Ed Rearden.

And she earns how much, exactly, from posts like the one on Socialist Unity?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2013)

This was funny - from Andrew Burgin on Facebbok:

_"The really dark side of the internet - Chris Harman shared a link. about an hour ago; 'A robust and timely defence of Leninism, by Alex Callinicos..'_


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

That's probably what happened at the NC - they got the ouija board out and asked Lenin, Trotsky and Cliff (and maybe Hallas and Harman).


----------



## kavenism (Feb 4, 2013)

Jesus Christ! Her writing style makes me want to scoop my eyeballs out with a spoon!


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> That's probably what happened at the NC - they got the ouija board out and asked Lenin, Trotsky and Cliff (and maybe Hallas and Harman).


 
but not Sedgwick or Widgery.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> but not Sedgwick or Widgery.


no, once a splitter always a splitter


----------



## sihhi (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ah that's easy to get around, _we were using her for all that time_. 7 years work for nothing etc


 
The classic line applicable both for deviationists and for unwittingly harboured neofascists:



> *BNP moles infiltrate left parties Morning Star Thursday 19 August 2004*
> 
> However, campaigners said that they are not worried about any vital or confidential information being leaked by Mr Finnon and Ms Stoker "because our activities are public knowledge." The groups noted that the infiltration was a desperate ploy by a defeated fascist group which has lost out to the left in the north-west. Respect national secretary John Rees said that he regretted the incident, but pointed out that, ironically, the infiltrators did "more to help than stop us from fighting fascism." He added: "We got more work out of them than anything else. They even actively helped us organise the protest against Le Pen."


 
I imagine Anna Chen is talking about John Rees there, is that right?


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Ah, the plot thins, to quote Ed Rearden.
> 
> And she earns how much, exactly, from posts like the one on Socialist Unity?


from the post, nowt.  From the bits of media work she picks up from it....a bit


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The classic line applicable both for deviationists and for unwittingly harboured neofascists:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine Anna Chen is talking about John Rees there, is that right?


absolutely - he who viciously assaulted her _with a balloon_


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 4, 2013)

belboid said:


> from the post, nowt. From the bits of media work she picks up from it....a bit


 
A "bit", eh? So the milky bars are on Anna?


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> A "bit", eh? So the milky bars are on Anna?


dunno - I believe she is lactose intolerant


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 4, 2013)

belboid said:


> dunno - I believe she is lactose intolerant


 
racist


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 4, 2013)

Victor Serge_ and_ Chris Harman are all now tweeting and posting in favour of the CC's line on the party dispute...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Victor-Serge/46605587356?ref=ts&fref=ts


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> I thought that you were a member of the SWP until you said you were a member of the LP nowadays "just an ex-member giving some insight but no partisanship". But your postings were all about the party line (as I understand it) dressed up in polite language. When you responded to me questioning the overall attitude of "don't look at this particular rape accusation - look at that one over there" with the put down "god bless" I fucking knew there was more to what you were posting than that of an onlooker.
> 
> I suppose a schism of this sort will make people consider their positions. Leave the party, rejoin the party, carry on as a disgruntled wedge, or carry on regardless.
> 
> ...


Well oh well sorry to have offended you. Not that my motivation matters the slightest I guess but the idea that the swp has secret members posing as exes so they can jump to the party's defence at times like this is kind of cute, if mad. I have no secret lines of communication, the only people who have shared any detail are the opposition folks I know.

I never claimed to be non partisan and soon after I first heard about this mess (haven't watched the debates in the swp that closely for years but this one kind of demnaded attention) I decided that politically I knew which side I was on between the loyalists and the seymourites. I sincerely hope two things, a) that the swp survives this crisis and b) that they don't lose too many of the moderate opposition when the syriza-lite bunch split/are expelled.

Whether they also pick up the odd ex member is the least important thing but I'm sure they will because as you say a crisis like this makes people reconsider everything. Personally I doubt they care about regaining burnt out folks no matter how formally 'loyal' they are.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

belboid said:


> from the post, nowt.  From the bits of media work she picks up from it....a bit


Can you link to a single paid for article by Chen profiting from slagging off the SWP?( not that think you are simply smearing sectarian bullshit against someone who says uncomfortable things about your party, I just would like to read one)


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

Removed as requested
 I still dislike bolshiebhoy's argument.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

The Prof's FB page has an interesting exchange between him and Paul Le Blanc of the ISO about the latter's article. Loads of other people jump in but this is their bit of the thread:

Alex Callinicos: The best thing about Paul Le Blanc's thoughtful piece is its title, 'Leninism is Unfinished'. This completely corresponds to my argument that a tradition is continued by creatively applying it to new cases. But there is a sting in the tail here. I don't argue that the model of democratic centralism the SWP has evolved corresponds to some timeless Idea of Democratic Centralism. Self-evidently there are differences between our practice and that of the Bolsheviks or the KPD at different points in their histories. So what? The interesting question is whether our model fits the conditions of building a small revolutionary party in Britain today. After a series of debates notably in June 2009 and January 2013 SWP conferences have decided that (with various modifications) it does. No doubt this debate will continue and our model will carry on evolving. But the efforts at knock-down refutations by citing this or that that Lenin wrote about party organization at different points in his political career are mere dogmatism (and hypocrisy as well when they don't correspond to the practice of the quoter's own organization).

Paul Le Blanc: RESPONSE TO A RESPONSE ON DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM
I appreciate Alex Callincios’s kind word about the title of my contribution, and I want to assure him that I meant to hide no “sting in the tail” of either the title or the contribution as a whole. It may feel that way because we are dealing with thorny questions, felt especially keenly given the crisis in the British SWP. The pathway to overcoming the crisis lies in trying to grapple with these questions in a serious way, so I appreciate Alex’s effort to respond to what I have written as at least an aspect of a larger process that will clarify and hopefully help to resolve the crisis. I am not sure some of his formulations help move things in that direction, but it is worth continuing the discussion.
I very much agree with Alex assertion that "a tradition is continued by creatively applying it to new cases" and agree also agree that it is absolutely NOT the case that "the model of democratic centralism the SWP has evolved corresponds to some timeless Idea of Democratic Centralism." An obvious question is whether the variant of democratic centralism developed within the British SWP should be “some timeless idea” or – given the problems highlighted by the current crisis in the organization – needs to give way to a different variant.
Since Alex has also, from time to time, quoted from Lenin, I know he will agree with me that doing so is not always a reversion to dogmatism, but sometimes can be helpful, nonetheless, in helping to clarify what Leninism is and can be, in providing possible insights into problems revolutionaries face, and so on. It is disappointing, therefore, that he seems to want simply to wave aside what Lenin had to say rather than to engage with the substance of the points Lenin advances, which I think would have been helpful.
Passed over in silence is one of the central points in my article – that the SWP is not “the” revolutionary party (small or large) but is (can be, should be) an element in the much-needed revolutionary party of the future that can only be forged through mass struggles in which other forces on the left and in the broader workers movement will also engage – a reality which cries out for a certain openness, I think, and which helps to define variants of democratic centralism at this time. I know this outlook informs the practice of the organization I belong to, but it appears to me that the same may not be true for the SWP and that this may be part of the problem. It would have been helpful if Alex had engaged with some of this.
Most disappointing is Alex’s concluding comment (a sort of sledge-hammer in the tail) that “efforts at knock-down refutations by citing this or that that Lenin wrote about party organization at different points in his political career are mere dogmatism (and hypocrisy as well when they don't correspond to the practice of the quoter's own organization)." I have tried to deal with the “dogmatism” charge above but am less certain what to do with the charge of hypocrisy. But that is the note I seem forced to conclude on – but which I prefer to turn into something else than some kind of counter-charge.
While it appears to me that there actually are some differences between the functioning of the SWP and my organization, this hardly means that the ISO conforms to some perfect and beautiful “timeless idea of Democratic Centralism” – a conception that both Alex and I reject. As any thoughtful ISO member will agree, the ISO has its own imperfections. I have indicated above one key aspect where I suspect our two organizations differ. Another difference, obviously, is that the ISO is not currently in the kind of crisis that is wracking the British SWP. This does not mean that there will not be a crisis – there probably will be, since crisis is generally a precondition for growth, necessary adjustment, and further development (as I would like to think will be the outcome for the British SWP).
The present crisis of the SWP is one that affects all of us, challenges all of us, on the revolutionary left throughout the world, particularly those of us operating in the framework of the Leninist tradition. A critical engagement with that challenge means that all of us, not simply the British comrades, must struggle to understand things better, do things better, push forward more effectively as revolutionaries than may have been the case before the crisis.

Alex Callinicos: Paul, the accusations of dogmatism and hypocrisy weren't directed at you. I welcome your contribution as constructive and helpful. The sting in the tail was all mine. Of course, the SWP doesn't conceive itself as THE revolutionary party. As I said, we're a small revolutionary party trying to become bigger and more influential. In that respect, we're quite like the ISO (and of course our intellectual background and much of our history are shared). But we have considerable experience of building united fronts 'in which other forces on the left and in the broader workers movement will also engage'. I'm sorry that you haven't addressed this experience more (I mentioned it in my initial response to your article: somewhere lower down my Wall). And, yes, this is 'a reality which cries out for a certain openness, I think, and which helps to define variants of democratic centralism at this time'. What we have tried to do since the Respect crisis is, while not abandoning the strong features of the model of democratic centralism that we had developed earlier, to open out to the rest of the left. What we are trying to work out now is how to protect what we have achieved under unprecedented attack from a group of members who are trying to use pressure from outside to compensate for their weakness within the SWP. This isn't easy: hence my irritation with some of the self-righteous and ill-informed commentary that has been directed our way. But - to repeat - this wasn't aimed at you.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

barney for your benefit I'll repeat that it is possible to believe the dc made mistakes AND that seymour is a cock


----------



## emanymton (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> barney for your benefit I'll repeat that it is possible to believe the dc made mistakes AND that seymour is a cock


I believe both these things as it happens.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> barney for your benefit I'll repeat that it is possible to believe the dc made mistakes AND that seymour is a cock


And yet this leads you to side with rape deniers? How very dialectical


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> And yet this leads you to side with rape deniers? How very dialectical


If I thought they knew there had been a rape and had decided to cover it up I'd be right there alongside you with a pitchfork.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

The bit further down Callinicos' wall that he mentioned and a measured response from solid old head Colin Barker.

Alex Callinicos:
Thanks to Paul LeBlanc for making a serious contribution to the discussion (something shamefully absent to date). Two observations: (i) LeBlanc ignores my stress on the importance of the united front, where we work on many issues with a broad spectrum of forces, including the likes of Owen Jones; (ii) Lenin's practice, we both agree, was very variable. I'm dubious about extrapolating from what he said when in a common party with the Mensheviks and treating this as eternal wisdom. 1917 redefined the nature of revolutionary politics. Of course there was room for debate within this framework, as there is definitely within that defining the political basis of the SWP, as anyone who has followed our recent history knows. But it is always necessary to define the limits of diversity, and the parameters of comradely debate. That in itself is a political choice - not just for the SWP, but for the ISO and other revolutionary organizations. No amount of playing holier than thou (I'm not accusing Paul of this but it's true of plenty of others) can evade this choice.

Colin Barker: 
Alex wrote: “But it is always necessary to define the limits of diversity, and the parameters of comradely debate. That in itself is a political choice - not just for the SWP, but for the ISO and other revolutionary organizations. No amount of playing holier than thou (I'm not accusing Paul of this but it's true of plenty of others) can evade this choice.”
As a general proposition, what Alex says is surely correct. Those limits themselves, along with the parameters of comradely debate, are however also subject to determination by context. One of the things that does seem to have happened – one might say, “for good or ill” – is that what were previously thought of as limits have been altered. Until recently, Facebook and similar social media were not widely regarded as places where the internal life of organisations like ours could suitably be discussed. That’s changed, and it’s difficult to imagine that the clock can just be wound back – not, anyway, without heavy costs. I can’t but note with interest that someone has recently posed questions about whether such public internal debate might not also occur in and around bodies like the ISO. Pandora’s Box is open, in a sense, and we will need to learn to live with that.
Many comrades have, understandably, been very reticent about participating openly in the current shitstorm – and on all sides in the arguments, I’d add. What Alex calls ‘the parameters of comradely debate’ do seem to me to have been breached rather a lot in some of what I have seen – and especially in the ‘comments’ sections that have followed the appearance of many of the flurries of documents. Abusive personal remarks don’t take us forward at all, and it’s been good to see people being called to order sometimes by comrades, on all sides.
I tend to agree with Alex about the ‘holier than thou’ tendency. I detect touches of Schadenfreude and the settling of old scores in some external commentary. Alex remarked to me once – and in a quite different context! – that sometimes wisdom consists in saying nothing. A useful thought, on occasion.
If there is a particular point to this, I would say that the understandable wish to wind the clock back to a period when the limits and parameters were generally understood to be different is – at this particular moment – very inappropriate. The present situation is extremely painful and worrying, but the way forward will not be helped by applying extreme administrative solutions. 
I’m glad Alex wrote what he did.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> And yet this leads you to side with rape deniers? How very dialectical


Rape deniers! FFS, none of us, not one person posting on this thread has anyway of judging if a rape took place. What we can judge is how well the SWP handled the allegations, and in mu my opinion thy made a might balls us of it from start to finish.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> And yet this leads you to side with rape deniers? How very dialectical


 
This, and your other comment, with a quote apparently originating from, Corin Redgrave, a former member of the WRP, ascribed by you to bolshiebhoy is all very silly.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> Victor Serge_ and_ Chris Harman are all now tweeting and posting in favour of the CC's line on the party dispute...
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Victor-Serge/46605587356?ref=ts&fref=ts


 
Bloody stupid. As with the Hallas page it's just tacky to abuse their prestige this way :-(
There is a case to be made but not with cheap shots like this.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 4, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> Victor Serge_ and_ Chris Harman are all now tweeting and posting in favour of the CC's line on the party dispute...
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Victor-Serge/46605587356?ref=ts&fref=ts


 
Victor Serge -  the John Molyneux of the Bolshevik Party


----------



## emanymton (Feb 4, 2013)

audiotech said:


> This, and your other comment, with a quote apparently originating from, Corin Redgrave, a former member of the WRP, ascribed by you to bolsiebhoy is all very silly.


I think silly is putting it mildly.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

I do have to say if someone accused me face to face of being neither for nor against rape the 'conversation' would be very short.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I do have to say if someone accused me face to face of being neither for nor against rape the 'conversation' would be very short.


why?

that is, why do you have to say it?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> why?
> 
> that is, why do you have to say it?


Cause it was a pretty shit thing to suggest I'd said and I found it a tad offensive. Good enough for you fella?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 4, 2013)

Jesus fucking christ.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cause it was a pretty shit thing to suggest I'd said and I found it a tad offensive. Good enough for you fella?


with everything you have said, you're right, it was pointless and unnecessary to make up some auld bollocks. there's so much else which could have been used instead.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Jesus fucking christ.


care to add some content to that vacuous post?


----------



## cesare (Feb 4, 2013)

I've seen that quote before. Did you make a mistake ascribing it to bolshiebhoy, barney?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the idea that the swp has secret members posing as exes so they can jump to the party's defence at times like this is kind of cute, if mad.
> 
> seymourites. syriza-lite bunch.
> 
> Whether they also pick up the odd ex member


the reason you look like a current member is because you're such a hack. i mean, who in their right mind would consider rejoining after this debacle?

also, your constant use of terms like "seymourites", syriza light", etc., is straight from the cc slur machine. it shows you have no real understanding of the situation.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the reason you look like a current member is because you're such a hack. i mean, who in their right mind would consider rejoining after this debacle?
> 
> also, your constant use of terms like "seymourites", syriza light", etc., is straight from the cc slur machine. it shows you have no real understanding of the situation.


Hang on a mo. The politics of Seymour and Walker and 'Mayo' and the rest are there to see on their blogs. If it makes you a hack to see that when it's staring you in the face then so be it. The 'situation' has never been about one alleged incident alone.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> I've seen that quote before. Did you make a mistake ascribing it to bolshiebhoy, barney?


Don't be such a plank, it came straight out of the barney slur machine.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Hang on a mo. The politics of Seymour and Walker and 'Mayo' and the rest are there to see on their blogs. If it makes you a hack to see that when it's staring you in the face then so be it. The 'situation' has never been about one alleged incident alone.


no it hasn't, but the disgust over the way the cc handled the situation is the one thing that unites the opposition. there are many differeing strands to the opposition, to describe them as "seymourites" is either stupid or disingenuous. anyway, seymour was quite late into the fray, if i remember right.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no it hasn't, but the disgust over the way the cc handled the situation is the one thing that unites the opposition. there are many differeing strands to the opposition, to describe them as "seymourites" is either stupid or disingenuous. anyway, seymour was quite late into the fray, if i remember right.


You're totally right, the opposition has many strands and demands. The problem is that the 'IS' blog and other public faces of opposition are dominated by people demanding the cc stand down, without saying what group of people should replace them. Until those people say what their alternative cc looks like and what it stands for they will tend to be identified as his fan club. I can see why they don't want to, as that would reveal the divisions between the various wings of the opposition but maybe, just maybe, those divisions are more important that their points of agreement.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You're totally right,


there's a turn up.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Don't be such a plank, it came straight out of the barney slur machine.


It comes from corin red graves defence of Gerry Healy, bolshiebhoys craven crawling to those whose aim was to exonerate their pal and cover up rape allegations from both their own members and the public reminded me of the filth trotted by Healy's supporters- he doesn't even have the excuse that he is loyal to his party, he isn't, as far as I am aware the Labour Party doesn't try to deal with rape allegations by purging those supporting the victim.
 If bolshiebhoys finds it offensive, that was the intention.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 4, 2013)

Then you were out of order claiming he said it, and should edit your post.

I don't like BB's position on this issue, I think it and his defence of the SWP stinks but you can criticise him using what he's actually said rather than making shit up.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Then you were out of order claiming he said it, and should edit your post.
> 
> I don't like BB's position on this issue, I think it and his defence of the SWP stinks but you can criticise him using what he's actually said rather than making shit up.


Done as requested.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 4, 2013)

Ta, I don't want to be too po-faced but I'm just skimming this thread at work and really had thought that BB had said that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Ta, I don't want to be too po-faced but I'm just skimming this thread at work and really had thought that BB had said that.


Jesus that makes me feel worse than the original misquote ;-)


----------



## kavenism (Feb 4, 2013)

On a lighter note. Just seen this


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

I think I need to be clearer, the SWP is a political joke. It lost any relationship with the actual working class decades ago, and perpetuates itself through hyper activity and a regular supply of impressionable radical students, upon whom the leadership depend financially, and prey sexually.
   The dc 'investigation' consisted, as they themselves admit, of hearing the statements of the woman 'w' and of 'comrade' Delta.
 They chose to believe Delta rather than W. they took their mates word over that of a young woman.
 They then attempted to forestall any discussion of the case by expelling the Facebook four. 
Their attempt to keep it completely quiet backfired, but this didn't stop them attempting to silence socialist unity and its transcript of the conference.
 When someone chooses to believe the alleged assaulter over the victim, and then uses their position to suppress information about the case. That's rape denial.
Richard Seymour has supported and alibi-ed every twist and contortion of the SWP for years, and originally he did the same in this case, but he has run to the front of his, perhaps because he sees the chance to make himself a new mini cult, or maybe because he has grown a pair...
 Unfortunately, the SWP is so effective in breeding sheep within its own ranks that the opposition has fallen over itself to fall in behind another leader, and so he gets more attention than he deserves.
 Unfortunately, for some the sheep mentality continues even after leaving the SWP.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If I thought they knew there had been a rape and had decided to cover it up I'd be right there alongside you with a pitchfork.


The cc has investigated 9 alleged rapes, and decided 2 were 'genuine', had you heard of them?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The cc has investigated 9 alleged rapes, and decided 2 were 'genuine', had you heard of them?


have you got a link to that? i've heard it mentioned but i haven't seen where from.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> http://socialistunity.com/swp-dehumanisation-leads-to-abuse/#.UQ_ZUHwgGK0
> Anna Chen expands on the fuck circuit


 


> *Head honcho’s side were alarmed by the magnitude of the anger over the coming war and during a critical period instructed their members in the SWP via Party Notes not to build the demo*, leaving it to the Socialist Alliance to mobilise (with the notable help of some/a few/several honourable SWP members in the provinces who effectively blew a big raspberry and carried on regardless). Then Birmingham, the biggest and strongest STWC branch, was purged.


 


Can anyone expand on this?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

It really is like waking up in a parallel universe, where has this ridiculous idea that the SWP exists to supply sexual fodder to the cc come from?! If anything there was always a culture of laughing at the more socially inept among the leadership. There was plenty of sex, some good, some bad as there would be in any group of like minded people sharing too much time and proximity. But the idea that younger members were lining up to supply sexual favours to their elders is more hilarious than offensive. And trust me I know the signs, I went to a Franciscan run school that had at least one priest arrested for child abuse.The whole culture of the SWP and it's sister organisations is just not the right breeding ground for that type of abuse of power, they're too bloody argumentative and critical about each other and everyone else. Something not recognised by people who dismiss them as sheep because they generally present a common front to the world. Put any group of IS people together and they will argue politics all day long. It's what makes them tick, its a way of preparing yourself to have arguments with people who disagree with you on most things. In fact it can be very draining which is one reason I for one burnt out from spending most of my waking life with comrades. The idea that the same group of people who would happily spend a Saturday doing a paper sale and then passionately debating deflected permanent revolution or whether finance workers produce surplus value could turn a blind eye to one of their number getting sexually harassed by another is just weird to me. Sorry but it is a fucked up idea of life in a party like the SWP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But the idea that younger members were lining up to supply sexual favours to their elders is more hilarious than offensive. And trust me I know the signs, I went to a Franciscan run school that had at least one priest arrested for child abuse.


traditionally people do not queue up for sexual abuse. so the idea that people were willingly lining up to supply sexual favours to the swappie big wigs would be accompanied by different signs to priests queuing up to abuse children.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> traditionally people do not queue up for sexual abuse. so the idea that people were willingly lining up to supply sexual favours to the swappie big wigs would be accompanied by different signs to priests queuing up to abuse children.


Sorry I meant lining up in a passive sense as in lambs to the slaughter not knowing what was about to happen but thank you for pulling me up for my ambiguous phrasing and giving me the chance to clarify. You are a gent as always.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2013)

A new blog with a familiar style chimes in:
http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/the-swp-crisis-some-reflections/


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A new blog with a familiar style chimes in:
> http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/the-swp-crisis-some-reflections/


Very familiar. Lots of speculation about supposed features of internal party life with precious little in the way of evidence. And then in the brief moments it gets round to the politics of the split...it can't be bothered. The little paragraph on feminism almost gets round to describing how the IS eventually hardened up it's position on feminism but then decides not to because the politcs are "too boring to relate here". Which doesn't really help us understand how loyalists see Seymour and the other Patriarchy fans. Oh well next...


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Can anyone expand on this?


Yeah, it's total bollocks. If anything the opposite is the truth, the SWP wanted to make sure it benefited most from the anti-war movement and so sidelined the SA.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I think I need to be clearer, the SWP is a political joke. It lost any relationship with the actual working class decades ago, and perpetuates itself through hyper activity and a regular supply of impressionable radical students, upon whom the leadership depend financially, and prey sexually.
> The dc 'investigation' consisted, as they themselves admit, of hearing the statements of the woman 'w' and of 'comrade' Delta.
> They chose to believe Delta rather than W. they took their mates word over that of a young woman.
> They then attempted to forestall any discussion of the case by expelling the Facebook four.
> ...


God you talk such utter shit, posts like this almost make me feel more sympathetic towards the SWP. Are you sure you are not on the SWP CC? Stuff like this does their job for them.


----------



## manny-p (Feb 5, 2013)

Any details about who has been purged yet?


----------



## SLK (Feb 5, 2013)

Here's a loyalist ex-members blog. Apologies if it's been posted.

http://derekthomas2010.wordpress.com/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2013)

Socialist Unity is claiming that a CC member resigned last night, probably because expulsions were agreed at a CC meeting beforehand:

http://socialistunity.com/swp-leadership-fracturing-under-the-pressure/#.URDggWfwtic


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

SLK said:


> Here's a loyalist ex-members blog. Apologies if it's been posted.
> 
> http://derekthomas2010.wordpress.com/


This blog is a pisstake right?



> Anna Chen has leapt into bed (metaphorically) with Andy Newman and Richard Seymour to make shit up. Rather than placing a spotlight on the reactionary role of the FBI in their attempting to frame Martin Luther King to destroy the American Civil Rights movement, and the FBI’s infiltration of the Black Panthers, having them killed and framed for crimes they never committed, or of British Intelligence bumping off civil rights lawyers like Pat Finucane, and the use by Isreal’s Mossad of honey traps to kidnap Mordecai Vanunu, Anna Chen tosses mud in everyone’s eyes?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This blog is a pisstake right?


 
"troubled", I suspect.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

it's Tom Delargy, again.

(I think he's trying to imply AC was a police spy)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Interesting that SLK thought this sort of thing was the sort of thing loyalists are coming out with:




> Richard Seymour crawls from Tomb
> Stellar rimming. Dives in womb
> Agents of the British state
> Get out cheque book
> ...


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> it's Tom Delargy, again.
> 
> (I think he's trying to imply AC was a police spy)


that guy?  Mad as a box of frogs.  Blocked me on twitter


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2013)

Should we have a betting pool on which day this week the expulsions start? Or maybe on how many expulsions there are in the first wave?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting that SLK thought this sort of thing was the sort of thing loyalists are coming out with:


 
Matgamna?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Should we have a betting pool on which day this week the expulsions start? Or maybe on how many expulsions there are in the first wave?


I hear tell of a letter being circulated to get Delta dropped from UAF work - Weyman is telling signatories that they risk being sued for defamation so better take their names off.


----------



## Bun (Feb 5, 2013)

I think this chap has "issues".....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I hear tell of a letter being circulated to get Delta dropped from UAF work - Weyman is telling signatories that they risk being sued for defamation so better take their names off.


 
Is this a letter from non-SWP supporters of UAF? Or an SWP one?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yeah, it's total bollocks. If anything the opposite is the truth, the SWP wanted to make sure it benefited most from the anti-war movement and so sidelined the SA.


 
May I ask your party allegiances?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Should we have a betting pool on which day this week the expulsions start? Or maybe on how many expulsions there are in the first wave?


 
I think they'll expel Seymour and a couple of his higher profile supporters to test the waters and hope the rest knuckle under, but then move to expel droves if that doesn't shut them up.

It's quite clear the soft opposition are going to put their heads down while it all goes on.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Socialist Unity is claiming that a CC member resigned last night, probably because expulsions were agreed at a CC meeting beforehand:
> 
> http://socialistunity.com/swp-leadership-fracturing-under-the-pressure/#.URDggWfwtic


The comments are interesting there. Lots about the impact on the TU aspect particularly in relation to rape investigations.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is this a letter from non-SWP supporters of UAF? Or an SWP one?


no idea in all honesty, could be either, or mixed.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2013)

I've spoken to loads of lefty TUists (tell them, tell them!) in the last few days and I've been surprised at how many know about the SWP's problems and now consider them beyond the pale, and it's all to do with the way the allegations and investigation were handled.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I hear tell of a letter being circulated to get Delta dropped from UAF work - Weyman is telling signatories that they risk being sued for defamation so better take their names off.


So much for "we have no confidence in the bourgeois courts"


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Can you link to a single paid for article by Chen profiting from slagging off the SWP?( not that think you are simply smearing sectarian bullshit against someone who says uncomfortable things about your party, I just would like to read one)


I might have bothered replying to you, exceopt from the rest of your posts I see you have no interest in an honest discussion, and are just childishly willing to believe absolutely anything about the party you were a member of a damned sight more recently than me because you weally weally hate them so much now.  Chen is a full of herself bullshitter whos politics are laid bare in the last line of her fiction - the link to Nick Cohen.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

discokermit said:


> have you got a link to that? i've heard it mentioned but i haven't seen where from.


it is barney lazily mis-reading things on the IS blog. One of the posters states that they were told there had been nine previous investigations. One comment states that the commentor is aware of two of those, both of which were found guilty. It _doesnt_ [/I]say at all that they were the only ones to be found guilty, that is something barney created through the haze of his hatred


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> I might have bothered replying to you, exceopt from the rest of your posts I see you have no interest in an honest discussion, and are just childishly willing to believe absolutely anything about the party you were a member of a damned sight more recently than me because you weally weally hate them so much now. Chen is a full of herself bullshitter whos politics are laid bare in the last line of her fiction - *the link to Nick Cohen*.


 
Was that her linking to the Cohen or was that added on by one of the Socialist Unity administrators? I thought it was ambiguous. 

Myself, I thought it was added on by SU admins, simply because she uses the line _"politics is showbiz for ugly people"_ in her piece, and if that's the case, it begs the question: How many political parties is Nick Cohen a member of?


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Was that her linking to the Cohen or was that added on by one of the Socialist Unity administrators? I thought it was ambiguous.
> 
> Myself, I thought it was added on by SU admins, simply because she uses the line _"politics is showbiz for ugly people"_ in her piece, and if that's the case, it begs the question: How many political parties is Nick Cohen a member of?


its in the original article on her own blog, so i surmise she posted it in the first place!


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> its in the original article on her own blog, so i surmise she posted it in the first place!


 
fair enough. I just read the article via Socialist Unity.

eta: however, I do stand by my line that no one can use the _"politics is showbiz for ugly people"_ line and then write of Nick Cohen approvingly.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I've spoken to loads of lefty TUists (tell them, tell them!) in the last few days and I've been surprised at how many know about the SWP's problems and now consider them beyond the pale, and it's all to do with the way the allegations and investigation were handled.


Whilst it would be unfair for any TUists to hold individual SWPs to account for the actions of the CC/DC I can imagine that there might be a fair amount of nervousness about actual or perceived competence wrt to workplace sex harassment complaints & investigations. Have you heard of any suggestions of training/retraining etc?


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> it is barney lazily mis-reading things on the IS blog. One of the posters states that they were told there had been nine previous investigations. One comment states that the commentor is aware of two of those, both of which were found guilty. It _doesnt_ [/I]say at all that they were the only ones to be found guilty, that is something barney created through the haze of his hatred


As you have a direct link with the central committee can you inform us of how many more were found "guilty" and what suitable punishment was applied?


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> As you have a direct link with the central committee can you inform us of how many more were found "guilty" and what suitable punishment was applied?


imbecile


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> no idea in all honesty, could be either, or mixed.


 
Well find out then!

What's the point in you having all these left liberal connections if you aren't going to use them for our benefit?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

my espionage technique involved loitering at the coffee machine and earwigging


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Whilst it would be unfair for any TUists to hold individual SWPs to account for the actions of the CC/DC I can imagine that there might be a fair amount of nervousness about actual or perceived competence wrt to workplace sex harassment complaints & investigations. Have you heard of any suggestions of training/retraining etc?


 
I think this is a good point and would suggest that the TU left offers leading SWP activists training or retraining on these areas and makes it a condition of future working together.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think this is a good point and would suggest that the TU left offers leading SWP activists training or retraining on these areas and makes it a condition of future working together.


Some of the TU left *are* leading SWP activists, aren't they?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Some of the TU left *are* leading SWP activists, aren't they?


 
Yes, obviously I mean the others


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes, obviously I mean the others


I'm just wondering how it's going to pan out in the TUs where TUists are also SWP activists and also are supportive of the CC/DC's handling of this rape complaint.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

it wont 'pan out' at all.  Absolutely nothing will happen.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Whilst it would be unfair for any TUists to hold individual SWPs to account for the actions of the CC/DC I can imagine that there might be a fair amount of nervousness about actual or perceived competence wrt to workplace sex harassment complaints & investigations. Have you heard of any suggestions of training/retraining etc?


 
Why should there be? Unless both accuser and accused are SWP members. 
I don't understand your suggestion. This was a case of a key CC member against a new SWP ordinary member/drone.
Why should SWP members be any less competent in dealing with employer sexual harassment than rightist Labour or Christian trade unionists?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the reason you look like a current member is because you're such a hack. i mean, who in their right mind would consider rejoining after this debacle?
> 
> also, your constant use of terms like "seymourites", syriza light", etc., is straight from the cc slur machine. it shows you have no real understanding of the situation.


 
Or that he's retailing a "party line".


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the syriza-lite bunch


are any  of them _really_ for a Syriza light? The term looks to be more used as a lazy insult by big Al. Simply pointring out that the party made a daft sectarian error in not _voting_ for Syriza is hardly the same as calling for a new organisation built along the same lines as it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It really is like waking up in a parallel universe, where has this ridiculous idea that the SWP exists to supply sexual fodder to the cc come from?!


 
Your imagination. No-one has claimed that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

Bun said:


> I think this chap has "issues".....


 
Yeah, every issue of "Donkey-fucker Monthly", I'd say!


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why should there be? Unless both accuser and accused are SWP members.
> I don't understand your suggestion. This was a case of a key CC member against a new SWP ordinary member/drone.
> Why should SWP members be any less competent in dealing with employer sexual harassment than rightist Labour or Christian trade unionists?


I'm only going by the comments that I saw at the end of the piece that Nigel I linked to. There seems to be concern there, which is why I started thinking about it. I imagine that some of the worries might be that SWP TU reps might be perceived by members (rightly or wrongly) to hold managers in the workplace to a lower standard wrt to how harassment complaints are investigated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> So much for "we have no confidence in the bourgeois courts"


 
Well obviously, barney, they "have no confidence in the bourgeois courts". That doesn't mean that they shouldn't use them to their advantage, as *any* revolutionary vanguard doubtless would!


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> I imagine that some of the worries might be that SWP TU reps might be perceived by members (rightly or wrongly) to hold managers in the workplace to a lower standard wrt to how harassment complaints are investigated.


 
That would only happen if trade unionists knew that their reps were SWP members, believed that these TU reps would go soft on an employer's culture, because the employer has some sort of connection to the SWP. Many SWP TU people did not attend the Conference based on the fact that there were only 400 SWP Conference members. If CC members like Weyman Bennett or Michael Bradley or Charlie Kimber were actually current trade union reps that would be different. I think many would separate the behaviour of the CC and DC (the ones that asked about the drinking etc, friends of the accused) from the wider SWP membership.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That would only happen if trade unionists knew that their reps were SWP members, believed that these TU reps would go soft on an employer's culture, because the employer has some sort of connection to the SWP. Many SWP TU people did not attend the Conference based on the fact that there were only *400 SWP Conference members*. If CC members like Weyman Bennett or Michael Bradley or Charlie Kimber were actually current trade union reps that would be different. I think many would separate the behaviour of the CC and DC (the ones that asked about the drinking etc, friends of the accused) from the wider SWP membership.


More like 700.

One of the DC is  a rep locally, I am half expecting the AWL to turn up to the next branch meeting (for the first time in a year) to demand her removal.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That would only happen if trade unionists knew that their reps were SWP members, believed that these TU reps would go soft on an employer's culture, because the employer has some sort of connection to the SWP. Many SWP TU people did not attend the Conference based on the fact that there were only 400 SWP Conference members. If CC members like Weyman Bennett or Michael Bradley or Charlie Kimber were actually current trade union reps that would be different. I think many would separate the behaviour of the CC and DC (the ones that asked about the drinking etc, friends of the accused) from the wider SWP membership.



That's why I said that it would be unfair of TUists to hold individual SWP [TUists] to account for the failings of the CC/DC. However, it clearly is a concern otherwise they wouldn't be commenting.

Probably many would separate the behaviour of the CC/DC from the wider SWP membership but some may not, particularly if they think that it's totally democratic and the CC/DC decisions reflect the wider membership.

It hadn't really occurred to me until I saw those comments, but I can see where they're coming from.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Some very nasty red baiting going on on SU orchestrated by my comrade Newman. The irony is how many ex tankies are lapping this shit up. Trying to get people kicked off tu committees cause they're members of the swp is doubly laughable coming from people in the Labour party. Course its fantasy land, won't happen but it tells me what a slug Newman is. Again.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> More like 700.
> 
> One of the DC is a rep locally, I am half expecting the AWL to turn up to the next branch meeting (for the first time in a year) to demand her removal.


 
OK I thought the vote was around 200 each pro-DC winning narrowly can't remember where I read the figures.

That DC TU rep is in a tricky position then, particularly as Pat Stack said his convictions led him to assert harrasment had happened.



cesare said:


> That's why I said that it would be unfair of TUists to hold individual SWP [TUists] to account for the failings of the CC/DC. However, it clearly is a concern otherwise they wouldn't be commenting.
> 
> Probably many would separate the behaviour of the CC/DC from the wider SWP membership but some may not, particularly if they think that it's totally democratic and the CC/DC decisions reflect the wider membership.
> 
> It hadn't really occurred to me until I saw those comments, but I can see where they're coming from.


 
I suppose it's possible (if you don't know how the SWP operates or any SWP ex-members) to interpret the DC decision as being on a democratic mandate from below to ask those sorts of questions, conduct that kind of investigation etc.

But the fact that the argument from the DC/majority CC was on the basis of 'this is all in the past' and 'we deal with rape in our real jobs', all happening in a large conference hall with people worried about confidentiality and keeping things private to protect a woman, makes it appear as a grudging endorsement even from those who voted to accept the DC decision. It's a restrospective 'what's done is done', 'the investigation has been botched there's nothing more that can be done now' half-mandate.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

So the suggestion is Bergfeld has resigned? Can't say that's totally surprising if true.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I suppose it's possible (if you don't know how the SWP operates or any SWP ex-members) to interpret the DC decision as being on a democratic mandate from below to ask those sorts of questions, conduct that kind of investigation etc.
> 
> But the fact that the argument from the DC/majority CC was on the basis of 'this is all in the past' and 'we deal with rape in our real jobs', all happening in a large conference hall with people worried about confidentiality and keeping things private to protect a woman, makes it appear as a grudging endorsement even from those who voted to accept the DC decision. It's a restrospective 'what's done is done', 'the investigation has been botched there's nothing more that can be done now' half-mandate.



I imagine that there are many people that just take on face value what the transcript said, that the vote was whether or not to accept the report of the DC.


----------



## Random (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Some very nasty red baiting going on on SU orchestrated by my comrade Newman.


 I know trots love saying they're the victim of "red baiting"; the trolling of its day. but Is red baiting the appropriate word, when it's done by other socialists?

Edit: I think it's in NN Sukanov's notes on the R Revolution where the petrograd soviet was organising a "bourgeois baiting" campaign.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So the suggestion is Bergfeld has resigned? Can't say that's totally surprising if true.


 
Only one of the four pre-conference dissident CC members left on it now.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

Random said:


> I know trots love saying they're the victim of "red baiting"; the trolling of its day. but Is red baiting the appropriate word, when it's done by other socialists?


 
'Pinko-commie baiting'?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2013)

I'd be enormously surprised if anything came of it in terms of orchestrated attempts to remove SWP trade unions from branch positions and the like.

UAF could be an issue though, if various "names" and/or unions start making a fuss.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> are any  of them _really_ for a Syriza light? The term looks to be more used as a lazy insult by big Al. Simply pointring out that the party made a daft sectarian error in not _voting_ for Syriza is hardly the same as calling for a new organisation built along the same lines as it.


I honestly think they do belboid old chap. The vote is a tactical question and fine people can argue that one on it's merits, although I do think there was inordinate bullying of Antasyra to accept Syrizas god given right to every left vote. But Seymour's arguments went deeper, they echoed some of the more explicit formulations by Rees and Bambery which described Syriza as left centrist when it's clearly nothing of the sort. Seymour danced around the subject but he definitely played up the oh who knows what evolution Syriza will take and isn't it cool that it's such an open ended experiment in a fusion of revolutionary and reformist currents. Far too much. When the question of who runs Syriza and how it would react to being in office was settled long ago.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

I like Newman's blog for its madness. 

This morning in addition to commending a whole host of crappy liberal blogs 
including this one for right-wing Labour arsehole Damian McBride (tried to pull a Nixon and spread total lies about oppositions politicians before he was found out) http://dpmcbride.tumblr.com

there's a plug for a magazine telling us how important art under the Soviet purges is.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Far too much. When the question of who runs Syriza and how it would react to being in office was settled long ago.


And I assume it's on the basis of this infallible crystal ball of yours that you decided to join the Labour party?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So the suggestion is Bergfeld has resigned? Can't say that's totally surprising if true.


 
For someone in the Swindon Labour Party you seem to know a lot about members who joined after you left the SWP, and who live on the other side of the country.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> I imagine that there are many people that just take on face value what the transcript said, that the vote was whether or not to accept the report of the DC.


 
But it's done in a context - imposed from above - of not being able to discuss the wrongs over the investigation into the case, lest it impinge on confidentiality issues. Several times in the transcript you see people speaking being wound up on this basis. Obviously people at the meeting who didn't know much about the case etc. didn't know it was going to be leaked.

I think I'm saying the SWP membership who did vote to accept have been 'psychologically pressured' or 'played' encouraged not to carry on the discussion for fear of harming the status of women in the party, by this discussion eventually letting the identities of the two accusing women (particularly W's name) out.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But it's done in a context - imposed from above - of not being able to discuss the wrongs over the investigation into the case, lest it impinge on confidentiality issues. Several times in the transcript you see people speaking being wound up on this basis. Obviously people at the meeting who didn't know much about the case etc. didn't know it was going to be leaked.
> 
> I think I'm saying the SWP membership who did vote to accept have been 'psychologically pressured' or 'played' encouraged not to carry on the discussion for fear of harming the status of women in the party, by this discussion eventually letting the identities of the two accusing women (particularly W's name) out.


 
Do you know whether they were voting on the content of the DC's report (redacted for confidentiality) or just the outcome i.e. not proven/


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Do you know whether they were voting on the content of the DC's report (redacted for confidentiality) or just the outcome i.e. not proven/


 
It's the whole "report of the disputes committee 2012" which includes three cases:

Bristolian Alpha expelled for domestic violence.
Beta suspended for 6 months for a fight in a nightclub, then 6 months more for breaching that suspension.
CC member Delta suspended from party activity during the investigation but returned to active service once the investigation is completed.

You vote to accept or reject the report, what would happen next I don't know - a new DC slate and reinvestigation I don't know.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think this is a good point and would suggest that the TU left offers leading SWP activists training or retraining on these areas and makes it a condition of future working together.


 
yeah right


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'd be enormously surprised if anything came of it in terms of orchestrated attempts to remove SWP trade unions from branch positions and the like.
> 
> UAF could be an issue though, if various "names" and/or unions start making a fuss.


 
heaven help any other lefty organisation that has to deal with a similar situation


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's the whole "report of the disputes committee 2012" which includes three cases:
> 
> Bristolian Alpha expelled for domestic violence.
> Beta suspended for 6 months for a fight in a nightclub, then 6 months more for breaching that suspension.
> ...


Ta. I just wondered what amount of detail there was in the (redacted for confidentiality) report.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> heaven help any other lefty organisation that has to deal with a similar situation


 
Don't worry, the ire will be directed at "small" "extreme" left wing and republican parties, Labour who backed those who covered up 'Trottergate' in Hackney will be immune.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Ta. I just wondered what amount of detail there was in the (redacted for confidentiality) report.


 
I have no idea of the detail, I suspect that the delegates saw very little at all hence why W's supporters had to speak from the floor.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I have no idea of the detail, I suspect that the delegates saw very little at all hence why W's supporters had to speak from the floor.


I think you're probably right. Difficult call for them to make - to vote on whether or not to accept a report where you don't know what it actually contains (apart from what's presented at Conference and what comes out as a result of questioning at same Conference).


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> For someone in the Swindon Labour Party you seem to know a lot about members who joined after you left the SWP, and who live on the other side of the country.


Lol. Well the train service to London is quite frequent 

And Bergfeld's meeting at Marxism last year was the only one I've ever walked out of, not counting cases of poor air conditioning or toilet breaks. He's far too hip and smug for an old timer like me.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> May I ask your party allegiances?


I was in the SWP at the time. Now I am a soclaist without a home.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol. Well the train service to London is quite frequent
> 
> And Bergfeld's meeting at Marxism last year was the only one I've ever walked out of, not counting cases of poor air conditioning or toilet breaks. He's far too hip and smug for an old timer like me.


 
what was the meeting? it's probably on the swptv youtube channel.

eta: In his favour he does disproves that line of "politics is showbiz for ugly people".


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Got something a little odd concerning him to post when I get home shortly.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Right, first of this month i saved a review of Andrew Kliman's book The Failure of Capitalist Production to read later. Just read it on the train now. Two things struck me 1) the review was appalling and misunderstood Kliman  and 2) the reviewer didn't think the USSR was capitalist. Scrolled to the top to check who the author was and what tradition they came from - author mark bergfeld (i had never heard of him until this morning). Just went to the site to check and the author has now been changed to Matthew Wood. Harmless mistake or realisation of what it would open him up to? And he has reviewed books for them before, possibly tellingly Lar Lih on Lenin.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Right, first of this month i saved a review of Andrew Kliman's book The Failure of Capitalist Production to read later. Just read it on the train now. Two things struck me 1) the review was appalling and misunderstood Kliman and 2) the reviewer didn't think the USSR was capitalist. Scrolled to the top to check who the author was and what tradition they came from - author mark bergfeld (i had never heard of him until this morning). Just went to the site to check and the author has now been changed to Matthew Wood. Harmless mistake or realisation of what it would open him up to? And he has reviewed books for them before, possibly tellingly Lar Lih on Lenin.


 
I thought the swp thought the USSR was capitalist?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

They do - that's why i'm suggesting it's a little odd.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Right, first of this month i saved a review of Andrew Kliman's book The Failure of Capitalist Production to read later. Just read it on the train now. Two things struck me 1) the review was appalling and misunderstood Kliman and 2) the reviewer didn't think the USSR was capitalist. Scrolled to the top to check who the author was and what tradition they came from - author mark bergfeld (i had never heard of him until this morning). Just went to the site to check and the author has now been changed to Matthew Wood. Harmless mistake or realisation of what it would open him up to? And he has reviewed books for them before, possibly tellingly Lar Lih on Lenin.


 
Do you remember a couple of years ago the UNITE cabin crew strike against BA. When SWP members swarmed the talks and allowed Willie Walsh to get off early for the day?
Well all the SWP were upstairs in the building - minimum security on a Sunday. It was left to Mark Bergfeld outside late from the RTW conference to take questions from BBC News 24 guy.

Someone retold it to me on the lines of

Q: Do you realise the talks have been suspended because of your party's actions?
Mark: I should hope so.
Q: Do you want to see a settlement to this dispute?
Mark: We want to see the cabin crew win.
Q: Do you think this will be more likely after today?
Mark: We want to see the cabin crew win.
Q: Back to the studio.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Right, first of this month i saved a review of Andrew Kliman's book The Failure of Capitalist Production to read later. Just read it on the train now. Two things struck me 1) the review was appalling and misunderstood Kliman and 2) the reviewer didn't think the USSR was capitalist. Scrolled to the top to check who the author was and what tradition they came from - author mark bergfeld (i had never heard of him until this morning). Just went to the site to check and the author has now been changed to Matthew Wood. Harmless mistake or realisation of what it would open him up to? And he has reviewed books for them before, possibly tellingly Lar Lih on Lenin.


hmm, they each have a different MA topoic listed, which would be too easily checked to fib about, I'd have thought.  Wood's only other review is of a Kieran (Irish SWP) Allen book, tho


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Right, first of this month i saved a review of Andrew Kliman's book The Failure of Capitalist Production to read later. Just read it on the train now. Two things struck me 1) the review was appalling and misunderstood Kliman and 2) the reviewer didn't think the USSR was capitalist. Scrolled to the top to check who the author was and what tradition they came from - author mark bergfeld (i had never heard of him until this morning). Just went to the site to check and the author has now been changed to Matthew Wood. Harmless mistake or realisation of what it would open him up to? And he has reviewed books for them before, possibly tellingly Lar Lih on Lenin.


Matthew Wood has also reviewed previously, so may guess is website cock up. But the only way to be sure is for you to read all the reviews and do a thorough analysis of the writing styles.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Do you remember a couple of years ago the UNITE cabin crew strike against BA. When SWP members swarmed the talks and allowed Willie Walsh to get off early for the day?
> Well all the SWP were upstairs in the building - minimum security on a Sunday. It was left to Mark Bergfeld outside late from the RTW conference to take questions from BBC News 24 guy.
> 
> Someone retold it to me on the lines of
> ...


I do, and i think may have seen that interview at the time to, or on the sunday evening - think we had a moan about it on here or matb.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

"Certainly, it is not necessarily wrong to view the USSR as a capitalist state, but it is curious and misleading to not even acknowledge the presence of debate around the subject."  (from the review of Kieran Allen).  I think we can safely say they are different people.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> hmm, they each have a different MA topoic listed, which would be too easily checked to fib about, I'd have thought. Wood's only other review is of a Kieran (Irish SWP) Allen book, tho


#
But if they've agreed to say that MH did it when MB did that wouldn't matter.



emanymton said:


> Matthew Wood has also reviewed previously, so may guess is website cock up. But the only way to be sure is for you to read all the reviews and do a thorough analysis of the writing styles.


 
Fuck that. But only one of the two has a degree partially in economics - the other one is into philosophy shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> "Certainly, it is not necessarily wrong to view the USSR as a capitalist state, but it is curious and misleading to not even acknowledge the presence of debate around the subject." (from the review of Kieran Allen). I think we can safely say they are different people.


I wasn't suggesting that they were the same person but that one may well have agreed to say they wrote it when they didn't. It may well have been simple cock-up though. And anyway, that quote doesn't contradict the claim in the Kliman review that the USSR wasn't capitalist does it?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

Anyone know if it is possible to get hold of someone's MA thesis? I am actually quite interested in reading Woods.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck that. But only one of the two has a degree partially in economics - the other one is into philosophy shit.


Lazy bugger.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They do - that's why i'm suggesting it's a little odd.


Quite. Order of lenin to butchers if this proves correct!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Continuing discussions between the prof, Paul Le Blanc and assorted oppositionists on FB. Interesting pitch from Callinicos: "The problem for people like me is that we are being bombarded by distortions, half-truths and outright falsehoods online about a situation about which we are constrained in what what we can say in response. " Implies there's stuff they'd like to say but can't, I suppose that could be about the claims about questions asked by the DC etc. And that confidentiality prevents them giving the full story. God knows but what a mess.

Apologies from some oppositionists for claiming that the rape allegation was known of two years ago. And the revelation that it was a former cc member who made this false claim in the first place?


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wasn't suggesting that they were the same person but that one may well have agreed to say they wrote it when they didn't. It may well have been simple cock-up though. And anyway, that quote doesn't contradict the claim in the Kliman review that the USSR wasn't capitalist does it?


Not at all - it seems to entirely be in sync with it, hence my thinking they were both written by the same person


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Implies there's stuff they'd like to say but can't


it's also a cracking way of avoiding commenting on things he simply doesnt want to comment on


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Apologies from some oppositionists for claiming that the rape allegation was known of two years ago. And the revelation that it was a former cc member who made this false claim in the first place?



Clarification BB as you rush to back pedal and start talking about "false claims". The non consensual nature of the relationship between the victim and Delta was known about 2 years ago - hence his standing down at conference 2011. That the victim came to realize it was actually rape is a development if the past few months.


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

So no "false claims" BB, just more slander of a young victim. Par for the course from my ex comrades it would seem.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Bollox, it was a false claim that people knew of a rape allegation two years ago. And that false claim has been made repeatedly inlcuding by people who should know better.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Apologies from some oppositionists for claiming that the rape allegation was known of two years ago. And the revelation that it was a former cc member who made this false claim in the first place?


One of a number of falsehoods flooring around, there seems to be a lot of people on both sides who struggle with reading and understanding the transcript. Or am I am being too genius there? Which CC member or would you prefer not to say?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> One of a number of falsehoods flooring around, there seems to be a lot of people on both sides who struggle with reading and understanding the transcript. Or am I am being too genius there? Which CC member or would you prefer not to say?


No not at all, nobody is naming them. One oppositionist just said this when asked to withdraw the claim by Callinicos: "To be clear, it was was a former CC who fabricated an abominable slander. I was very, very naive. I cannot believe they stooped to this level. Apologies again Alex."


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Bollox, it was a false claim that people knew of a rape allegation two years ago. And that false claim has been made repeatedly inlcuding by people who should know better.



Bollox right back at you  CC Apology Boy. Non consensual sex is treated as rape in some countries, and not in others. It is true that the rank and file of the SWP knew nothing about the victim's statements, but your friend Lord Alex knew exactly what Delta was accused of. His pretense of wishing to set the record straight is nothing more than that.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No not at all, nobody is naming them. One oppositionist just said this when asked to withdraw the claim by Callinicos: "To be clear, it was was a former CC who fabricated an abominable slander. I was very, very naive. I cannot believe they stooped to this level. Apologies again Alex."


I know you don't think the transcript should have been published but it should at least allow us to discuss the facts of the situation. I can't believe people in the opposition not taking the time to read it, it is quite clear from the transcript that the rape allegation was only made recently.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Bollox right back at you CC Apology Boy. Non consensual sex is treated as rape in some countries, and not in others. It is true that the rank and file of the SWP knew nothing about the victim's statements, but your friend Lord Alex knew exactly what Delta was accused of. His pretense of wishing to set the record straight is nothing more than that.


Are you suggesting that Alex should have concluded that rape had taken place from his involvement in the original dispute, even though the women herself only reach that conclusion a few months ago?


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> it was was a former CC who fabricated an abominable slander. I was very, very naive. I cannot believe they stooped to this level. Apologies again Alex."



The only abominable slander circulating here is that the CC are bravely holding some imaginary line of decency and circumspection. They knew what Delta was accused of, and that is why they made him stand down as NS at the 2011 conference. They know that the victim's friends and supporters cannot release the details of what happened to her and they are relying on that to let them hide behind their defense of "the Party".


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> The only abominable slander circulating here is that the CC are bravely holding some imaginary line of decency and circumspection. They knew what Delta was accused of, and that is why they made him stand down as NS at the 2011 conference. They know that the victim's friends and supporters cannot release the details of what happened to her and they are relying on that to let them hide behind their defense of "the Party".


As emanymton says how could they know what she hadn't decided herself until a few months ago


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Are you suggesting that Alex should have concluded that rape had taken place from his involvement in the original dispute, even though the women herself only reach that conclusion a few months ago?



I am suggesting that the faux outrage that Lord Alex and his loyalists are fermenting now is a sickening smokescreen to obscure the fact that they knew their 50 something NS had a non consensual relationship with a teenage girl, and when she eventually managed to end it, he continued to harass her. I don't know if he considers non consensual sex to be rape, why doesn't CC Apology Boy ask him instead of fawning over his fb utterances.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> I am suggesting that the faux outrage that Lord Alex and his loyalists are fermenting now is a sickening smokescreen to obscure the fact that they knew their 50 something NS had a non consensual relationship with a teenage girl, and when she eventually managed to end it, he continued to harass her. I don't know if he considers non consensual sex to be rape, why doesn't CC Apology Boy ask him instead of fawning over his fb utterances.


 
Non consensual? Again I ask considering the women herself only reach this conclusion recently how could they have none at the time? Also considering one of the CC members involved in the original complaint took a position in opposition to the rest of the CC at the last conference I think it is possible not all the facts came out originally.

None of this is to deny that the case was handled terribly both times, but you are trying to imply the CC new of a rape allegation 2 years ago which is not the case.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Bollox right back at you CC Apology Boy. Non consensual sex is treated as rape in some countries, and not in others. It is true that the rank and file of the SWP knew nothing about the victim's statements, but your friend Lord Alex knew exactly what Delta was accused of. His pretense of wishing to set the record straight is nothing more than that.


 
Welcome BT, what's the chronology here - is this right?

approx Oct 2008 - Mar 2009 "a period of about six months in 2008 and 2009" - Delta's sexual harassment/ accused rape of W.

early Jan 2010:  Conference battle between the CC majority (Callinicos leadership, Delta supportive of Callinicos) and the rest of the opposition (future Counterfire) pole. High tension against the opposition.

Jul 2010: complaint from W about Delta's behaviour on the grounds of sexual harrassment.

Jul 2010: W rejects going through the DC route about it - seeks only for the CC to be made aware of the allegations. CC is made aware. CC members Hannah Dee, Charlie Kimber and Alex Callinicos handles this non-formal non-DC process, apparently to W's satisfaction.

Dec 2010/Jan 2011??: rumours of Delta and sexual harassment appear on internet, and then hit the _Weekly Worker_
early Jan 2011: Delta is dismissed from CC. No one really knows why since Delta supported Callinicos and the majority against the Counterfire splitters.

April 2011: Bambery is pushed/jumps. 

Sep 2012: W makes complaint against Delta to DC over rape. Delta is suspended pending investigation.

Oct 2012: DC meets "over a period of four extended days" after/for the investigation. W is asked about drinking habits, sexual behaviour/promiscuity, Delta is given time and opportunity to prepare for the hearing unlike W etc etc. DC clears Delta except for Pat Stack who believes sexual harassment did happen.

Oct 2012??-Nov 2012??: After the inevstigation, X  gives a report to the DC about Delta's inappropriate harrassing?? but non-directly-sex-based behaviour. X says she doesn't wish the formal DC route with hearings but wants the report to be on record. DC says OK, reads the report, meets again with Delta (presumably to put the questions to him), but doesn't change the clearance of Delta. 

early Jan 2013: SWP Conference narrowly votes to approve this decision by accepting the report of the DC.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> I am suggesting that the faux outrage that Lord Alex and his loyalists are fermenting now is a sickening smokescreen to obscure the fact that they knew their 50 something NS had a non consensual relationship with a teenage girl, and when she eventually managed to end it, he continued to harass her. I don't know if he considers non consensual sex to be rape, why doesn't CC Apology Boy ask him instead of fawning over his fb utterances.


 
Wow.


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

Let me make it clear, the CC knew in the summer of 2010 that the victim had made a complaint of coercion and harassment against Delta. It is quite correct that the actual term rape was not used by the victim at that time. However coercion and harassment were the defining words. On the basis that the complaint would go no further, Delta was asked to stand down as NS. He did so at Conference 2011 amid nauseating scenes of cheering and clapping, a standing ovation from about half the conference. I will repeat again that the r & f of the SWP did not realize what Delta was being accused of. Subsequently the victim has come to understand that what happened to her was rape, and has called it such. This is not an uncommon process for victims to go through. Now whether the CC members believed it to have been rape all along I leave to them and their individual consciences. Lord Alex clearly doesn't believe that any untoward behavior occurred and other CC members believed Delta raped the victim.

Like I said before the CC PR machine is in overdrive now, Alistair Campbell would be proud of them all.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Let me make it clear, the CC knew in the summer of 2010 that the victim had made a complaint of coercion and harassment against Delta. It is quite correct that the actual term rape was not used by the victim at that time. However coercion and harassment were the defining words. _*On the basis that the complaint would go no further, Delta was asked to stand down as NS*_. He did so at Conference 2011 amid nauseating scenes of cheering and clapping, a standing ovation from about half the conference. I will repeat again that the r & f of the SWP did not realize what Delta was being accused of. Subsequently the victim has come to understand that what happened to her was rape, and has called it such. This is not an uncommon process for victims to go through. Now whether the CC members believed it to have been rape all along I leave to them and their individual consciences. Lord Alex clearly doesn't believe that any untoward behavior occurred and other CC members believed Delta raped the victim.
> 
> Like I said before the CC PR machine is in overdrive now, Alistair Campbell would be proud of them all.


 
Again, wow.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Let me make it clear, the CC knew in the summer of 2010 that the victim had made a complaint of coercion and harassment against Delta. It is quite correct that the actual term rape was not used by the victim at that time. However coercion and harassment were the defining words. On the basis that the complaint would go no further, Delta was asked to stand down as NS. He did so at Conference 2011 amid nauseating scenes of cheering and clapping, a standing ovation from about half the conference. I will repeat again that the r & f of the SWP did not realize what Delta was being accused of. Subsequently the victim has come to understand that what happened to her was rape, and has called it such. This is not an uncommon process for victims to go through. Now whether the CC members believed it to have been rape all along I leave to them and their individual consciences. Lord Alex clearly doesn't believe that any untoward behavior occurred and other CC members believed Delta raped the victim.
> 
> Like I said before the CC PR machine is in overdrive now, Alistair Campbell would be proud of them all.


Thanks, this is a much fairer picture.

Eta, I share your anger I really do.


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Welcome BT, what's the chronology here - is this right?
> 
> approx Oct 2008 - Mar 2009 "a period of about six months in 2008 and 2009" - Delta's sexual harassment/ accused rape of W.
> 
> ...



That is my recollection of the chronology of events. Only added piece of information is that Comrade W was pursuing a Disputes Committee hearing over her complaint, and was not leaving it to the good offices of the CC to deal with.

An extra little f - bomb in here for the loyalists is that a female UAF worker was also constructively dismissed when she raised the Delta question with Weyman Bennett sometime in the autumn of 2010,  so the coverup and clampdown is even more sickening than it would first appear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> As emanymton says how could they know what she hadn't decided herself until a few months ago


loyal to the bitter end


----------



## mk12 (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> That is my recollection of the chronology of events. Only added piece of information is that Comrade W was pursuing a Disputes Committee hearing over her complaint, and was not leaving it to the good offices of the CC to deal with.
> 
> An extra little f - bomb in here for the loyalists is that a female UAF worker was also constructively dismissed when she raised the Delta question with Weyman Bennett sometime in the autumn of 2010, so the coverup and clampdown is even more sickening than it would first appear.


 
It isn't "Comrade W", it's just "W". "Comrade" is reserved for Delta.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2013)

mk12 said:


> It isn't "Comrade W", it's just "W". "Comrade" is reserved for Delta.


because some people are more equal than others


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> That is my recollection of the chronology of events. Only added piece of information is that Comrade W was pursuing a Disputes Committee hearing over her complaint, and was not leaving it to the good offices of the CC to deal with.
> 
> An extra little f - bomb in here for the loyalists is that a female UAF worker was also constructively dismissed when she raised the Delta question with Weyman Bennett sometime in the autumn of 2010, so the coverup and clampdown is even more sickening than it would first appear.


 
OK just so we're clear:
Karen Reissman said in the leaked transcript: "We looked at how the complaint was handled in 2010. She’d raised concerns of harassment, about these same incidents, with the central committee. Central committee members had met with Comrade Delta, who denied them. _*And at that time W was asked if she wanted to go to the disputes committee, but she confirmed that she didn’t want to do that.*_ She wanted an apology, for her views to be recognised, and for the CC to be made aware of them. An informal resolution was reached which was agreed and accepted by W."

Are you saying that that is wrong?

Also what do you think about Maxine Bowler's assertion here that the opposition within should have stood a slate against the current DC?

"I urge you to vote for this report that we’ve made, and to be honest, nobody else has come forward to stand for the disputes committee. I do not know, if people are so angry about the way in which the disputes committee have dealt with this then really they should have come forward with an alternative slate."

The final bit: was the woman dismissed an SWP UAF member-worker or just an UAF worker?


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> loyal to the bitter end



It's classic PR rebuttal spin. Pick on one part of a damaging story that has a timeline confused or a quote in the wrong place and hammer away at that until the audience forgets what the original article was about. The CC have had their briefing and now with the help of their apologists they are attempting to reframe the parameters of the debate. Suddenly it's about when did the victim decide it was rape, not why was our National Secretary free to coerce and harass young women and why are we covering it up for him ?


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> OK just so we're clear:
> Karen Reissman said in the leaked transcript: "We looked at how the complaint was handled in 2010. She’d raised concerns of harassment, about these same incidents, with the central committee. Central committee members had met with Comrade Delta, who denied them. _*And at that time W was asked if she wanted to go to the disputes committee, but she confirmed that she didn’t want to do that.*_ She wanted an apology, for her views to be recognised, and for the CC to be made aware of them. An informal resolution was reached which was agreed and accepted by W."
> 
> Are you saying that that is wrong?
> ...



An SWP UAF worker.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Lord Alex clearly doesn't believe that any untoward behavior occurred and other CC members believed Delta raped the victim.


The cc isn't the issue here. The only body which heard all the evidence available (something none of us have done) was the DC which found unanimously that no rape had been proven. One member agreed that rape hadn't happened but believed that harassment probably had. The majority disagreed with him.


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

Sorry I messed up my reply to Sihhi by trying to answer his/her questions in the body of his/her text. If it isn't clear ask me again and I'll try to repost.

Btw where's CC Apology Boy gone ? Is he awaiting his master's words on the issues I raised ?


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

Spoke to soon ! 

Yes Apology Boy, your CC is the issue here because they've been orchestrating the response to the victim's complaints from day one. The only thing is, they thought they were doing it under the cover of the night. Wrong. Welcome to the real world, SWP speak and selective quotes from Lenin don't cut it here.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

You are a bumptious little turd aren't you.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 5, 2013)

You seem to be very quick to leap to abuse as an answer to attacks on the SWP cc; does this cause problems at Swindon Labour Party meetings?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Btw where's CC Apology Boy gone ? Is he awaiting his master's words on the issues I raised ?


If you said anything new I might be forced to Anti Theory.

All this blather about PR and spin doctors from the people who've fueled a bourgeois media campaign against their own party.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Also what do you think about Maxine Bowler's assertion here that the opposition within should have stood a slate against the current DC?
> 
> "I urge you to vote for this report that we’ve made, and to be honest, nobody else has come forward to stand for the disputes committee. I do not know, if people are so angry about the way in which the disputes committee have dealt with this then really they should have come forward with an alternative slate."


 
The CC refused to allow a faction set up to challenge the DC report, I think this made proposing an alternative slate more difficult.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> You seem to be very quick to leap to abuse as an answer to attacks on the SWP cc; does this cause problems at Swindon Labour Party meetings?


I've spent weeks explaining patiently where I stand. Think you'll find I rarely lower myself to your sort of level. But this fucker's tone is too infuriating to ignore, self righteous little prig.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Top work there, with that chronology, Sihhi. Must have taken ages.

Before Theory - were the Conference delegates provided with copies of the DC report they were required to vote on?


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You are a bumptious little turd aren't you.



That's Mr Bumptious Turd to you Apology Boy.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> That's Mr Bumptious Turd to you Apology Boy.


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I've spent weeks explaining patiently where I stand. Think you'll find I rarely lower myself to your sort of level. But this fucker's tone is too infuriating to ignore, self righteous little prig.



No you've been too busy lowering yourself to the CC's collective arseholes to pick up what your next brain dead loyal response should be. 

I think you should definitely rejoin Apology Boy, the SWP is going to have a few empty united fronts to plant people in.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I've spent weeks explaining patiently where I stand.


Patiently explain. Where we stand. Lol


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

No the





cesare said:


> Top work there, with that chronology, Sihhi. Must have taken ages.
> 
> Before Theory - were the Conference delegates provided with copies of the DC report they were required to vote on?



No they were not. Infact a sizeable amount of decent folks from outside the large branches turned up at conference with no idea of the shitstorm that was about to descend on them.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Honest question here Anti Theory, how long ago did you leave the party? I can understand your anti cc passion given the scale of this crisis and the issues involved. Fair enough. But this dismissing of the party's united front work suggests something a little more politically bitter at work in your head.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> No the
> 
> No they were not. Infact a sizeable amount of decent folks from outside the large branches turned up at conference with no idea of the shitstorm that was about to descend on them.


Thank you. Was this normal practice? (Asking delegates to vote on whether or not to accept, unseen, a DC report).


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Thank you. Was this normal practice? (Asking delegates to vote on whether or not to accept, unseen, a DC report).



It was always a verbal report in all the years I was in the SWP. R & F members were not given any prior information about cases before the DC, printed or otherwise.


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> It was always a verbal report in all the years I was in the SWP. R & F members were not given any prior information about cases before the DC, printed or otherwise.


Ah, ok, cheers. Not out of the ordinary then, in terms of how they did it. I'm surprised more people didn't abstain though.


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Honest question here Anti Theory, how long ago did you leave the party? I can understand your anti cc passion given the scale of this crisis and the issues involved. Fair enough. But this dismissing of the party's united front work suggests something a little more politically bitter at work in your head.



Spot on Apology Boy. I am bitter. And I am angry that Delta, Lord Alex and their loyal coterie have manufactured a whole backstory to cover-up his behavior, and that they are willing to destroy a party I spent many years building in order do that.

10 out of 10 for fucking observation, maybe you're not the brain dead apologist I thought you were, but then again....


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Ah, ok, cheers. Not out of the ordinary then, in terms of how they did it. I'm surprised more people didn't abstain though.


Abstention is vaccilation, vaccilation is anti Bolshevik.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But this dismissing of the party's united front work suggests something a little more politically bitter at work in your head.


 
More politically bitter than this?


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Abstention is vaccilation, vaccilation is anti Bolshevik.


Gotcha.


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Ah, ok, cheers. Not out of the ordinary then, in terms of how they did it. I'm surprised more people didn't abstain though.



Hard to explain the kind of atmosphere at these SWP events. At conference 2011 women who spoke up in support of the victim were literally screamed at by members, male and female. It can be quite intimidatory, and the full facts have only emerged since. Also abstention is really jeered at, apparently "It's not in the Bolshevik tradition"  I can understand why people voted with the CC in this situation, especially when they weren't sure what the hell was happening.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

Right BT if we can lower the level of abuse a wee bit I'm sure that'd be appreciated all round. So are you saying the united front work is all going to be undone by this crisis and that nobody will work with swpers going forward? Or are you one of those who thinks the united front work was all a sham all along? Not trying to goad you with this question just trying to understand where exactly you're coming from.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 5, 2013)

from revleft,

"Last night Bristol SWP effectively voted to censure long-dead Bolshevik Grigory Zinoviev. The motion itself condemned "a model based on Syriza in Greece, the Mensheviks or other Centrist or left reformist tendencies." But the proposer used the opportunity to polemicise against Zinoviev for breaking party discipline and speaking outside the party. Ironically, the Bolsheviks, in whose tradition he was at pains to point out the SWP stand, didn't expel him...

I'm glad that piece of business has finally been resolutely resolved after almost 96 years of uncertainty over whether Zinoviev was in fact a bureaucratic autonomist, creeping feminist, or reformist Menshevik.

Zinoviev has actually become a contentious issue for them. As the party crumbles around they think the way to resolve the crisis is to debate whether Zinoviev should have been expelled in 1917 in order to justify the expulsions being made by the SWP presently. 

Yeah, if anyone thinks that organisation isn't worth saving, I wholeheartedly agree"

http://www.revleft.com/vb/censure-z...l?s=220aacc650b83a00bd1dcadf217715aa&t=178358


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

discokermit said:


> from revleft,
> 
> "Last night Bristol SWP effectively voted to censure long-dead Bolshevik Grigory Zinoviev. The motion itself condemned "a model based on Syriza in Greece, the Mensheviks or other Centrist or left reformist tendencies." But the proposer used the opportunity to polemicise against Zinoviev for breaking party discipline and speaking outside the party. Ironically, the Bolsheviks, in whose tradition he was at pains to point out the SWP stand, didn't expel him...
> 
> ...


The SWP, so leninist they can tell Lenin were he went wrong.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

Anyway one for BB, apparently their is some bad stuff about CM here, but I couldn't manage to actually read it, I'd pretty much given up by the end of the first sentence.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

discokermit said:


> from revleft,
> 
> "Last night Bristol SWP effectively voted to censure long-dead Bolshevik Grigory Zinoviev. The motion itself condemned "a model based on Syriza in Greece, the Mensheviks or other Centrist or left reformist tendencies." But the proposer used the opportunity to polemicise against Zinoviev for breaking party discipline and speaking outside the party. Ironically, the Bolsheviks, in whose tradition he was at pains to point out the SWP stand, didn't expel him...
> 
> ...


That reminds me, i was told on sat night that the local organiser has just been removed, and removed for wandering hand syndrome. I can't vouch for it and have only just remembered.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That reminds me, i was told on sat night that the local organiser has just been removed, and removed for wandering hand syndrome. I can't vouch for it and have only just remembered.


Only just remembered! You trying to say you have more important things to think about?


----------



## cesare (Feb 5, 2013)

I wonder if they also do posthumous recruitment.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Only just remembered! You trying to say you have more important things to think about?


It was at a party, cut me some slack!


----------



## discokermit (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It was at a party, cut me some slack!









bristol, sometime saturday night...


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 5, 2013)

discokermit said:


> bristol, sometime saturday night...


Trotsky wasn't invited


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 5, 2013)

Just remembered this
http://stalinsdiary.wordpress.com/


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 5, 2013)

discokermit said:


> bristol, sometime saturday night...


 
I hate that T shirt but I love Fidel's trackie top. I'm conflicted.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The SWP, so leninist they can tell Lenin were he went wrong.


Well in fairness trots have been doing that since the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry 'mistake' we corrected for Lenin.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 5, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> May I ask your party allegiances?


 
how is organising the Firebox workers going?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Anyway one for BB, apparently their is some bad stuff about CM but I couldn't manage to actually read it, I'd pretty much given up by the end of the first sentence.


Is that link broken? Mind you doesn't sound worth fixing


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> it wont 'pan out' at all. Absolutely nothing will happen.


 
This is pretty much how I see it.Perhaps something in the irrelevant world of students and internet blogs but that is about it


----------



## audiotech (Feb 5, 2013)

The home for just about anything EX. Ex-WRP, ex-SWP, ex-IMG, ex-anarchists. EX-it!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> This is pretty much how I see it.Perhaps something in the irrelevant world of students and internet blogs but that is about it


 
I suspect that most left wing trade unionists who know or care about the SWP's dispute will be negatively disposed towards the leadership's handling of the row, but that will only be a tiny number of people in the first place. And even the most outraged will have more sense than to bring it up at some union branch meeting so as to have a pop at some SWP trade unionist.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 5, 2013)

audiotech said:


> The home for just about anything EX. Ex-WRP, ex-SWP, ex-IMG, ex-anarchists. EX-it!





> _Last night 25 comrades – some from left organisations and some individuals met at Conway Hall in central London to continue the discussion around the recomposition of the left. _


Yup. This is the start of something big


----------



## audiotech (Feb 5, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> how is organising the Firebox workers going?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

Mention on facebook of "London SWSS" doing something oppositional earlier. Very vague as to what it was.


----------



## Random (Feb 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Right BT if we can lower the level of abuse a wee bit I'm sure that'd be appreciated all round. So are you saying the united front work is all going to be undone by this crisis and that nobody will work with swpers going forward? Or are you one of those who thinks the united front work was all a sham all along? Not trying to goad you with this question just trying to understand where exactly you're coming from.


Poor bolshie, you do so much want to believe that all the SWPers disgusted at a rape cover up are just bad trots using it as an excuse.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Belboid, 39thStep and Nigel I. Do you completely discount that this may have filtered through to the wider rank and file membership of the TUs, who might be asking questions of any SWP reps?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 6, 2013)

Random said:


> Poor bolshie, you do so much want to believe that all the SWPers disgusted at a rape cover up are just bad trots using it as an excuse.


No I completely understand the indignation on the assumption you buy the coverup hypothesis. But how people explain what's happened to their party after that initial reaction also interests me. Some see it as a mistake that the cc are too thick headed to correct. Some see it as a symptom of a degenerated model of dem cen. Some blame the alleged macho sexism inherent in the left. And some throw the whole baby out with the bath water and blame Leninism per se. The moral indignation matters, course it does. But the broader political explanation people latch on to matters too. And five or ten years from now it's that explanation which will determine what sort of politics people will end up practising, in,or out of the party they feel has let them down.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Is that link broken? Mind you doesn't sound worth fixing


Looks like the Page has been taken down, I found the link on SU (which should tell you something) and the link there is not working either.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Mention on facebook of "London SWSS" doing something oppositional earlier. Very vague as to what it was.


Petitioning outside the centre? Invaded a CC meeting waving flags around?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Belboid, 39thStep and Nigel I. Do you completely discount that this may have filtered through to the wider rank and file membership of the TUs, who might be asking questions of any SWP reps?


 
I wouldn't discount the latter at all but I think the notion of the SWP becoming toxic through this is somewhat overrated.It will be used as a stick every now and again by those in the union bureaucracy to beat them with but I think the SWP will produce a consistent line which will be that they investigated the complaint, the complainant did not want the police involved , that the committee that investigated the compliant had people from appropriate victim centred backgrounds and that they did not find the case proven.The party takes allegations like these seriously and is committed to fighting sexism in all its aspects.

The only thing that would blow this off course would be if the victim left the SWP because of this and went public.

The democratic centralism/real meaning of lennism debate is to be honest irrelevant to the wider rank and file of TUs.

Btw I came across an Afed case in Sheffield of sexual harassment in which the case was also not referred to the Police for investigation,


----------



## emanymton (Feb 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No I completely understand the indignation on the assumption you buy the coverup hypothesis. But how people explain what's happened to their party after that initial reaction also interests me. Some see it as a mistake that the cc are too thick headed to correct. Some see it as a symptom of a degenerated model of dem cen. Some blame the alleged macho sexism inherent in the left. And some throw the whole baby out with the bath water and blame Leninism per se. The moral indignation matters, course it does. But the broader political explanation people latch on to matters too. And five or ten years from now it's that explanation which will determine what sort of politics people will end up practising, in,or out of the party they feel has let them down.


I tend to be on the side of mistake and a thick headed CC rather than a cover up. I don't have time for a long post, maybe tonight, but I have always said the roots of the crises are political.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Let's hear about this AFED case then!


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Let's hear about this AFED case then!


 
This is what I came across. I don't know anything else about it and I am not suggesting any similarities except for the fact that for what ever reason they chose to ignore the bourgeois legal system ( which I have nothing against  in principle providing all parties agree)

http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/society...he-disassociation-of-sam-sheffield-group.html


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> This is what I came across. I don't know anything else about it and I am not suggesting any similarities except for the fact that for what ever reason they chose to ignore the bourgeois legal system ( which I have nothing against  in principle providing all parties agree)
> 
> http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/society...he-disassociation-of-sam-sheffield-group.html


Where does it say anything about choosing to ignore the bourgeois legal system?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Where does it say anything about choosing to ignore the bourgeois legal system?


 
Quite obvious that they decided to take their own action and not go down that route.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Quite obvious that they decided to take their own action and not go down that route.


No, it's not. A statement of their own action so far, together with setting out what "Sam" has to do next as a first step - doesn't imply or infer that this is all that has or will happen.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> No, it's not. A statement of their own action so far, together with setting out what "Sam" has to do next as a first step - doesn't imply or infer that this is all that has or will happen.


 
Sam wouldn't be doing any such thing  if the case was going to court!

Anyway you read it the way you want to.The only thing that will settle it is if we get someone from Afed on here to say what happened.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Sam wouldn't be doing any such thing  if the case was going to court!
> 
> Anyway you read it the way you want to.The only thing that will settle it is if we get someone from Afed on here to say what happened.



I agree that Sam wouldn't be doing any such thing if the case was going to court. However you can't infer from that, that the parties chose not to involve the police. They may not have done - but you don't know. 

So I don't know why you're providing this as an example of "an Afed case in Sheffield of sexual harassment in which the case was also not referred to the Police for investigation".

Edit: if what you are trying to get to, is that anarchist organisations preclude reporting to the police in how they deal with things; and from that draw some comparison with how the SWP dealt with this rape complaint ... Why don't you just ask AFED/ the SOLFED for details on how they go about dealing with sexual misconduct complaints?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> I agree that Sam wouldn't be doing any such thing if the case was going to court. However you can't infer from that, that the parties chose not to involve the police. They may not have done - but you don't know.
> 
> So I don't know why you're providing this as an example of "an Afed case in Sheffield of sexual harassment in which the case was also not referred to the Police for investigation".
> 
> Edit: if what you are trying to get to, is that anarchist organisations preclude reporting to the police in how they deal with things; and from that draw some comparison with how the SWP dealt with this rape complaint ... Why don't you just ask AFED/ the SOLFED for details on how they go about dealing with sexual misconduct complaints?


 
Quite clear to me that the inference is that they didn't although I do agree with you that the statement isn't as transparent as it should be. Are you around Solfed/Afed? perhaps you could use your contacts to find out?


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Quite clear to me that the inference is that they didn't although I do agree with you that the statement isn't as transparent as it should be. Are you around Solfed/Afed? perhaps you could use your contacts to find out?


I didn't say the statement isn't as transparent as it should be, so there's no need to agree with what I didn't say.

I have no dealings with AFED but sometimes I'm "around" people from the SOLFED. I'm happy to email the SOLFED to see if they want to answer any queries; particularly I suppose in comparison to how the SWP have dealt with this rape complaint as that's the context you've raised it in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Quite clear to me that the inference is that they didn't although I do agree with you that the statement isn't as transparent as it should be. Are you around Solfed/Afed? perhaps you could use your contacts to find out?


The inference is quite clear but my conclusion is that despite the ready availability of af and sf contact details you haven't contacted them to enquire into their handling of the situations you've identified. If you are as concerned as you affect to be this is something of a surprise.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> I didn't say the statement isn't as transparent as it should be, so there's no need to agree with what I didn't say.
> 
> I have no dealings with AFED but sometimes I'm "around" people from the SOLFED. I'm happy to email the SOLFED to see if they want to answer any queries; particularly I suppose in comparison to how the SWP have dealt with this rape complaint as that's the context you've raised it in.


 
if you could please. I am particularly interested in organisations who have ( for what ever reason) have not chosen to use the bourgeois justice system but have dealt with these things internally.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> The inference is quite clear but my conclusion is that despite the ready availability of af and sf contact details you haven't contacted them to enquire into their handling of the situations you've identified. If you are as concerned as you affect to be this is something of a surprise.


 

Not concerned Pickmans, interested. The left and the anarchist scene can't be immune to this sort of behaviour but I am interested in how they are dealt with.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> if you could please. I am particularly interested in organisations who have ( for what ever reason) have not chosen to use the bourgeois justice system but have dealt with these things internally.


I have emailed Solfed already. Perhaps you could email Afed, as it's your interest/comparison.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> I have emailed Solfed already. Perhaps you could email Afed, as it's your interest/comparison.


 
I think its more than just _my_ interest Cesare and its not a comparison at this stage. There must be other examples that have occured , we know about the WRP incidents, the outing of two  men whose behaviour was unacceptable in the anarchist scene last year(?), the SWP, and we will hopefully find out a bit more about Afed.

Btw what is the difference between Afed and SolFed?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No I completely understand the indignation on the assumption you buy the coverup hypothesis.


 
So you don't buy the coverup hypothesis?


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I think its more than just _my_ interest Cesare and its not a comparison at this stage. There must be other examples that have occured , we know about the WRP incidents, the outing of two men whose behaviour was unacceptable in the anarchist scene last year(?), the SWP, and we will hopefully find out a bit more about Afed.
> 
> Btw what is the difference between Afed and SolFed?


It may not be just *your* interest, The39thStep, but you are the person that is specifically raising it (again).

Afed and Solfed are two different anarchist organisations, and operate separately with different constitutions and aims/objectives which are set out on their respective websites.I'm not a member of either and never have have been, so I can only describe what I perceive to be the differences and someone more knowledgeable than me can put me right if necessary.

Afed - Anarcho-communist, a class struggle organisation which aims to abolish capitalism. Some of its members meet and organise, but it's possible to be a member without becoming involved in direct action.
Solfed - Anarcho- syndicalist, which is anarchism applied to the workers' movement. A revolutionary union based on direct action and direct democracy. Its members meet and organise.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> how is organising the Firebox workers going?


 
What's your party allegiances?

You're far too old, straight and blokey for Counterfire.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> It may not be just *your* interest, The39thStep, but you are the person that is specifically raising it (again).
> 
> Afed and Solfed are two different anarchist organisations, and operate separately with different constitutions and aims/objectives which are set out on their respective websites.I'm not a member of either and never have have been, so I can only describe what I perceive to be the differences and someone more knowledgeable than me can put me right if necessary.
> 
> ...


 

Ta. pleasure doing business etc


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Ta. pleasure doing business etc



No worries. Are you going to email AFED?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> What's your party allegiances?
> 
> You're far too old, straight and blokey for Counterfire.


 
don't have one.

Thanks. Mature is the word I believe you are searching for btw. ( some people have said that I have a strong feminine side as well though)


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> No worries. Are you going to email AFED?


 
yes dear.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> yes dear.


Excellent, darling


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Belboid, 39thStep and Nigel I. Do you completely discount that this may have filtered through to the wider rank and file membership of the TUs, who might be asking questions of any SWP reps?


Yes.  Outside of education it will have almost precisely zero impact.  For 99% of regular TUists as soon as they'd hear the words 'in the SWP' they would stop paying any attention whatsoever. If someone started a conversation about a rep in the party with (something like) 'but do you know what they did in his/her party' - the answer would be 'I dont care they're a good rep' (unless they're not a good rep, of course).  But they wont are about 'the party' unless they are, or were, a member of a rival body.  

The 'open letter' linked to earlier is just an excuse for a small number of people not particularly enamoured of the SWP anyway to go 'nyahh nyahh, I know what you've done'


----------



## kavenism (Feb 6, 2013)

On Elane Heffernan's FB


> i am going to Mexico for three months..... wink wink


 
Suspension from branch? I only recall one public post from her critical of the situation in the party. Is that all it takes for a suspension? They must be cracking heads right left and center if that's anything to go by!


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2013)

kavenism said:


> On Elane Heffernan's FB
> 
> 
> Suspension from branch? I only recall one public post from her critical of the situation in the party. Is that all it takes for a suspension? They must be cracking heads right left and center if that's anything to go by!


she  left two years ago apparently - over the initial investigation into this affair


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Not concerned Pickmans, interested. The left and the anarchist scene can't be immune to this sort of behaviour but I am interested in how they are dealt with.


you're not that interested if you've not bothered emailing them about it


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

kavenism said:


> On Elane Heffernan's FB
> 
> 
> Suspension from branch? I only recall one public post from her critical of the situation in the party. Is that all it takes for a suspension? They must be cracking heads right left and center if that's anything to go by!


at least it's not resettlement in the east


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Mature is the word I believe you are searching for btw.


like an old camembert


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

kavenism said:


> On Elane Heffernan's FB
> 
> 
> Suspension from branch? I only recall one public post from her critical of the situation in the party. Is that all it takes for a suspension? They must be cracking heads right left and center if that's anything to go by!


 
Mexico is welcome to her/in her


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're not that interested if you've not bothered emailing them about it


 
do keep up with Cesare's management of me


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> do keep up with Cesare's management of me


you haven't emailed them. you're not bothered about it. you're just pissing about with it on urban. probably just to bump up your post count.


----------



## Random (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you haven't emailed them. you're not bothered about it. you're just pissing about with it on urban. probably just to bump up your post count.


 You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and piss about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

Random said:


> You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and piss about?


not people like you or me, obviously. but people like the 39th step, that type might.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Don't be mean to 39thStep. I'm sure he's already put his interest to afed by way of an email ALREADY.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Don't be mean to 39thStep. I'm sure he's already put his interest to afed by way of an email ALREADY.


(((afed)))


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> (((afed)))


 
Probably in green ink, too


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Probably in green ink, too








gone but not forgotten


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

Slightly more details about the London SWSS thing: apparently the two CC members now in charge of student work organised a meeting with a large bunch of students to whack them back into line. And it went badly wrong as they were unprepared for a totally hostile and insubordinate response.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Slightly more details about the London SWSS thing: apparently the two CC members now in charge of student work organised a meeting with a large bunch of students to whack them back into line. And it went badly wrong as they were unprepared for a totally hostile and insubordinate response.


the whackers whacked


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Slightly more details about the London SWSS thing: apparently the two CC members now in charge of student work organised a meeting with a large bunch of students to whack them back into line. And it went badly wrong as they were unprepared for a totally hostile and insubordinate response.


 
who were the two CC members? Wish I was fly on the wall in that meeting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Honest question here Anti Theory, how long ago did you leave the party? I can understand your anti cc passion given the scale of this crisis and the issues involved. Fair enough. But this dismissing of the party's united front work suggests something a little more politically bitter at work in your head.


 
Some advice: Please exercise a modicum of reflexivity before posting.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> who were the two CC members? Wish I was fly on the wall in that meeting.


I'd love to know what "hostile and insubordinate" consisted of


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'd love to know what "hostile and insubordinate" consisted of


 
I hope the line: "you can shove this weeks quota of Socialist Workers up your arse, sunshine" was used at some point.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 6, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I hope the line: "you can shove this weeks quota of Socialist Workers up your arse, sunshine" was used at some point.


 
They have targets for how many to sell a month?  That's soooooooo 1950s corporate quality control.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Slightly more details about the London SWSS thing: apparently the two CC members now in charge of student work organised a meeting with a large bunch of students to whack them back into line. And it went badly wrong as they were unprepared for a totally hostile and insubordinate response.


 


It keeps getting better.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I hope the line: "you can shove this weeks quota of Socialist Workers up your arse, sunshine" was used at some point.


Seems a bit tame compared to actually doing it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'd love to know what "hostile and insubordinate" consisted of


 
Not genuflecting in an obsequious enough manner?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 6, 2013)

two sheds said:


> They have targets for how many to sell a month?  That's soooooooo 1950s corporate quality control.


 
It's just a way of drawing funds from the student membership.

I know an ex-member - member only for a short while - couldn't sell them because other paper sellers were there at the same time, was young and unemployed, so by giving 15 or 20 x the cover price to the SWP pretending that they were sold, got away from the dreaded "pep talk" by the SWP full timer.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not genuflecting in an obsequious enough manner?


"Audible murmurings and shuffling of feet"


----------



## two sheds (Feb 6, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's just a way of drawing funds from the student membership.
> 
> I know an ex-member - member only for a short while - couldn't sell them because other paper sellers were there at the same time, was young and unemployed, so by giving 15 or 20 x the cover price to the SWP pretending that they were sold, got away from the dreaded "pep talk" by the SWP full timer.


 
Wehey, 'pep talk' if you don't hit target - closer and closer to 1950s corporate quality control mentality 

They need to be told that it's the system that's at fault - its the managers who set the system up that need the pep talk not the downtrodden workers who can't change the system they have to work under.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> "Audible murmurings and shuffling of feet"


rumblings


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> rumblings


Askance glances


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Askance glances


SIDELONG glances


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> SIDELONG glances


Those too


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

a murmur of discontent


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> a murmur of discontent


Now is the murmur of their discontent.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 6, 2013)




----------



## sihhi (Feb 6, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Wehey, 'pep talk' if you don't hit target - closer and closer to 1950s corporate quality control mentality
> 
> They need to be told that it's the system that's at fault - its the managers who set the system up that need the pet talk not the downtrodden workers who can't change the system they have to work under.


 
Worse than that the middle-class members can "buy" their own Socialist Workers and avoid facing the music, working-class ones can't afford it so face the full "pep talk".
Obviously if the members were able to admit how limited their sales were to one another, they could organise a better system, but they are afraid of admitting it in case the secret is out.

Anyway, Callinicos admits he is notoriously bad at selling Socialist Worker:

"The great anti-war demonstrations in London this year - immortalized in all those photos of huge clumps of people filing along holding placards and banners - didn't just happen. They had to be organized by local activists all over the country. The SWP are only a minority among these activists, but most people involved in the anti-war movement in Britain would concede that we have played an important role. This reflects the concentrated impact that precisely the features you list - Marxist analysis, democratic centralist organization, and socialist vision - can have. Selling Socialist Worker weekly is part of the same process. It organises us to engage in a regular political dialogue with the people we encounter in our activities. Sure it can be done badly, even robotically (I'm notoriously bad at it), but the contempt that you show for socialist paper-sellers reflects more on you than on them."


----------



## two sheds (Feb 6, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Worse than that the middle-class members can "buy" their own Socialist Workers and avoid facing the music, working-class ones can't afford it so face the full "pep talk".


 
Don't they know that it should be distributed according to need?


----------



## kavenism (Feb 6, 2013)

belboid said:


> she left two years ago apparently - over the initial investigation into this affair


Ah! I really am behind the times!


----------



## sihhi (Feb 6, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Don't they know that it should be distributed according to need?


 
Most new recruits are given a _highly selective_ history of their party which stresses the Socialist Worker as the key to just about everything good that the SWP does - as in that Callinicos quote about Socialist Worker and the STWC. The rank and file bulletins are basically forgotten, everything great about the SWP comes from having sold Socialist Worker which builds up the organisation via the united fronts. Having so many united fronts is in large measure a means to have more sales. 
Traditional Saturday sales are less productive despite the SWP lead petition, so if you have more united front meetings then your paper-sellers aren't so overbearing and conspicious (some say "robotic" - I think that's harsh) at the kind of meeting/event where they might be sold.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 6, 2013)

Interesting, ta.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

The CC members who crashed and burned with the London students were, apparently, Leather and Cardwell.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 6, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's just a way of drawing funds from the student membership.
> 
> I know an ex-member - member only for a short while - couldn't sell them because other paper sellers were there at the same time, was young and unemployed, so by giving 15 or 20 x the cover price to the SWP pretending that they were sold, got away from the dreaded "pep talk" by the SWP full timer.



I'm surprised by that. We (small town branch) were given targets by centre, but we just sold however many we could. It varied a lot - we had good Saturdays and bad Saturdays. 

We might have been given the occasional pep talk, but no way I would have bought extra papers myself. If they didn't like it, they could lump it !!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

And the lead member? Are you sure she didn't have tons of them under her bed?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The CC members who crashed and burned with the London students were, apparently, Leather and Cardwell.


 
Might I suggest:


​


> HELL FOR LEATHER & CARDWELL​
> ​


​​


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Ah! I really am behind the times!


You and murdoch both


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Don't be mean to 39thStep. I'm sure he's already put his interest to afed by way of an email ALREADY.


 
your wish was my command


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And the lead member? Are you sure she didn't have tons of them under her bed?



I was t'paper organiser !


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 6, 2013)

A bit of light relief from Facebook:

eta: A loyalist Swappie who set up the Hallas, Harman and Serge pages on Facebook has been using the dead comrades to push the CC's line.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Worse than that the middle-class members can "buy" their own Socialist Workers and avoid facing the music, working-class ones can't afford it so face the full "pep talk".
> Obviously if the members were able to admit how limited their sales were to one another, they could organise a better system, but they are afraid of admitting it in case the secret is out.
> 
> Anyway, Callinicos admits he is notoriously bad at selling Socialist Worker:
> ...


Ha, not surprised.

We had one comrade our branch call Brian. He was just one of those people, if people were getting befuddled around an issue, he just had this knack of cutting through the bullshit ,and making things clear. He was absolutely hopeless on the paper sale. stood the totally unable to engage with people.

I on the other hand, sold loads of papers, and my contributions to the meetings were always met with,,,,,,,,,,,,,.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 6, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> A bit of light relief from Facebook:
> 
> eta: A loyalist Swappie who set up the Hallas, Harman and Serge pages on Facebook has been using the dead comrades to push the CC's line.
> 
> ...


 
The Gerry Healy comments are brill


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 6, 2013)

In another hideous example of creeping feminism they've been deleted though


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

I don't think that SWP members have individual paper sales quotas. Certainly not of a sort where you have to pay for them yourself if you don't meet them.


----------



## killer b (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Certainly not of a sort where you have to pay for them yourself if you don't meet them.


 
no-ones suggesting that.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

They must be on a sale or return basis?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

killer b said:


> no-ones suggesting that.


 
If they aren't then what's the point of that part of the conversation? SWP members are expected to try and sell their publications and if they don't... then nothing of any great interest happens?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> They must be on a sale or return basis?


 
I doubt if its even that. They are unlikely to want last weeks paper back. It'll be a sale if possible, stick it in the bin if you haven't shifted them by the time next week's one is out basis.


----------



## killer b (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If they aren't then what's the point of that part of the conversation? SWP members are expected to try and sell their publications and if they don't... then nothing of any great interest happens?


they're suggesting that some comrades stump up the cash to avoid a tedious lecture from a fulltimer.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think that SWP members have individual paper sales quotas. Certainly not of a sort where you have to pay for them yourself if you don't meet them.


 
Aye if they did that then I doubt they'd have any members left


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I doubt if its even that. They are unlikely to want last weeks paper back. It'll be a sale if possible, stick it in the bin if you haven't shifted them by the time next week's one is out basis.


Must get a load of people hanging round at the end of the day hoping for a reduced price copy 

Or some enterprising stude might be making them into briquettes to use as firelighters.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

killer b said:


> they're suggesting that some comrades stump up the cash to avoid a tedious lecture from a fulltimer.


 
I suspect that even SWP fulltimers have better things to be doing than hassling people for taking five papers and only shifting three. If someone is routinely taking twenty and then selling one then that's a slightly different issue, but even then it's more likely to be their branch paper organiser wanting to know what they are playing at than a fulltimer, I'd have thought.

How big a role do "individual" sales (as opposed to sales at stalls, public meetings, protests, canvasses etc plus subscriptions) actually play in the SWP nowadays anyway? I suspect that they are actually quite minimal, certainly as compared to their place in the shared mythology of anarchists and liberals, who would give you the impression that the Swaps are like a left wing version of Amway.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think that SWP members have individual paper sales quotas. Certainly not of a sort where you have to pay for them yourself if you don't meet them.


 
Individual SWP members do not have individual paper sales quotas. SWP branches do not have branch quotas. I have never paid for unsold papers or know of any other member of my branch paying for unsold papers.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Worse than that the middle-class members can "buy" their own Socialist Workers and avoid facing the music, working-class ones can't afford it so face the full "pep talk".
> Obviously if the members were able to admit how limited their sales were to one another, they could organise a better system, but they are afraid of admitting it in case the secret is out.
> 
> Anyway, Callinicos admits he is notoriously bad at selling Socialist Worker:
> ...


There are no 'political dialogues with the people we encounter' (suggesting that this is a dialogue with the broad class) via paper sales. Whether the prof does it or not. There are crap fleeting _oh so you hate clegg too, do you want to come to a meeting_ exchanges The prof only deigns to dialogue with people with his 95%+ level of class consciousness (badge awarded by the SWP CC) anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Individual SWP members do not have individual paper sales quotas. SWP branches do not have branch quotas. I have never paid for unsold papers or know of any other member of my branch paying for unsold papers.


Despite one member saying that they did receive such quotas earlier today, and they in fact, organised those sales. Given that it's *ILLEGAL* for one branch to talk to another, just who is having the wool pulled over their eyes here?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I doubt if its even that. They are unlikely to want last weeks paper back. It'll be a sale if possible, stick it in the bin if you haven't shifted them by the time next week's one is out basis.


 
No comrade if you have unsold papers you leave them on the bus, in the canteen or give them to people who may show a bit of interest. You dont put them in the dustbin!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Yes, the famous SWP _canteen_. How many of them work in places with works canteens are there i wonder?


----------



## killer b (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that even SWP fulltimers have better things to be doing than hassling people for taking five papers and only shifting three. If someone is routinely taking twenty and then selling one then that's a slightly different issue, but even then it's more likely to be their branch paper organiser wanting to know what they are playing at than a fulltimer, I'd have thought.
> 
> How big a role do "individual" sales (as opposed to sales at stalls, public meetings, protests, canvasses etc plus subscriptions) actually play in the SWP nowadays anyway? I suspect that they are actually quite minimal, certainly as compared to their place in the shared mythology of anarchists and liberals, who would give you the impression that the Swaps are like a left wing version of Amway.


ok. i guess they must be lying then.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Despite one member saying that they did receive such quotas earlier today, and they in fact, organised those sales. Given that it's *ILLEGAL* for one branch to talk to another, just who is having the wool pulled over their eyes here?


 
Branches dont talk to each other, comrades do! Get your facts right.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Branches dont talk to each other comrades do! Gert your facts right.


That's what i said.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

killer b said:


> ok. i guess they must be lying then.


 
Who are lying then?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

killer b said:


> they're suggesting that some comrades stump up the cash to avoid a tedious lecture from a fulltimer.


 
Did it ever occure to you that members often tell fulltimers to fuck off?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's what i said.


 
No I think you were taking the piss.


----------



## killer b (Feb 6, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Did it ever occure to you that members often tell fulltimers to fuck off?


i don't really care. i was just explaining to nige what people were saying on the thread, as he didn't seem to be able to read it for himself. i know fuck all about the SWP tbh, and hope to remain in ignorance for the rest of my days.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that even SWP fulltimers have better things to be doing than hassling people for taking five papers and only shifting three. If someone is routinely taking twenty and then selling one then that's a slightly different issue, but even then it's more likely to be their branch paper organiser wanting to know what they are playing at than a fulltimer, I'd have thought.
> 
> How big a role do "individual" sales (as opposed to sales at stalls, public meetings, protests, canvasses etc plus subscriptions) actually play in the SWP nowadays anyway? I suspect that they are actually quite minimal, certainly as compared to their place in the shared mythology of anarchists and liberals, who would give you the impression that the Swaps are like a left wing version of Amway.


I would suspect that such petty make-work and personal power play is the mainstay of their daily operations as it goes. And sorry, but Cliff (from lenin and also part of your tradition) aggressively put forward the role of the paper as organiser - and the swp have reaffirmed this time after time and now contrast it to the internet and its concomitant darkside.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Despite one member saying that they did receive such quotas earlier today, and they in fact, organised those sales. Given that it's *ILLEGAL* for one branch to talk to another, just who is having the wool pulled over their eyes here?


 
Give the rather anarchic structure of the SWP outside of the CC and the full time apparatus, and the seemingly rather competitive culture (Birchall's Cliff biography was surprisingly revealing on that) it's entirely possible that you might get some zealot District Organiser or branch paper organiser operating a quota system of some kind in their own fiefdom, but I'm really pretty sure that it's not the norm.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, the famous SWP _canteen_. How many of them work in places with works canteens are there i wonder?


 
Just shows how little you understand about the composition of SWP branches. Most of my branch are either working, unemployed workers or retaired workers. We do have a couple of students as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Give the rather anarchic structure of the SWP outside of the CC and the full time apparatus, and the seemingly rather competitive culture (Birchall's Cliff biography was surprisingly revealing on that) it's entirely possible that you might get some zealot District Organiser or branch paper organiser operating a quota system of some kind in their own fiefdom, but I'm really pretty sure that it's not the norm.


Judging by what? We've had one person say it's the norm and one say that it's not.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Just shows how little you understand about the composition of SWP branches. Most of my branch are either working, unemployed workers or retaired workers. We do have a couple of students as well.


And, of course, your branch is entirely typical of them all. let's assume that it is, does that mean the _canteen_ trope has not been used over and over by SWP tops to offer some form of _we're all in this together/on the busess _cover to their initiatives/manouveres?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I would suspect that such petty make-work and personal power play is the mainstay of their daily operations as it goes. And sorry, but Cliff (from lenin and also part of your tradition) aggressively put forward the role of the paper as organiser.


 
It's precisely because my own "tradition" (I don't particularly like the term) also places an emphasis on using a paper as an organiser, that I'm pretty skeptical of the various stories you hear about the SWP and their quotas and their secretly-paying-for-unsold-papers and the like.

In my experience (different party, different country), a miniscule percentage of the total sales of our paper come from "personal sales", where a member takes a few and sells them to people they know or meet, in the first place. Members are encouraged to take some, but it's really a pretty low priority. And people would thing you were nuts if you were habitually taking a bunch of papers, not selling them and then paying for them yourself.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Give the rather anarchic structure of the SWP outside of the CC and the full time apparatus, and the seemingly rather competitive culture (Birchall's Cliff biography was surprisingly revealing on that) it's entirely possible that you might get some zealot District Organiser or branch paper organiser operating a quota system of some kind in their own fiefdom, but I'm really pretty sure that it's not the norm.


 
You do not understand the SWP structure, it is not anarchic. Your comment about zealot district organisers is more accurate. They can be a pain the the backside. Fortunatly there are some very good district organisers.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Judging by what? We've had one person say it's the norm and one say that it's not.


 
An ex of mine was an Irish SWP branch publications officer, and I've known quite a lot of SWP members socially over the years.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's precisely because my own "tradition" (I don't particularly like the term) also places an emphasis on using a paper as an organiser, that I'm pretty skeptical of the various stories you hear about the SWP and their quotas and their secretly-paying-for-unsold-papers and the like.
> 
> In my experience (different party, different country), a miniscule percentage of the total sales of our paper come from "personal sales", where a member takes a few and sells them to people they know or meet, in the first place. Members are encouraged to take some, but it's really a pretty low priority. And people would thing you were nuts if you were habitually taking a bunch of papers, not selling them and then paying for them yourself.


Given that your experience then isn't of a country with 100 universities, 130 similar colleges, 50+ cities, 1000+ large towns and so on then i think the situations are not really comparable nor the emphasis placed on these sales.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> An ex of mine was an Irish SWP branch publications officer, and I've known quite a lot of SWP members socially over the years.


I've heard the opposite, many many times  and in this country, not Ireland.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> You do not understand the SWP structure, it is not anarchic.


 
I think I have a pretty good grasp of the SWP's structure, such as it is. And their culture. And one of the ways those two things interact is that different branches and regions can be really quite vigorously different from each other, depending on the personality and outlook of a few key individuals (most importantly the District Organiser).


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Did it ever occure to you that members often tell fulltimers to fuck off?


Oh aye? Told any to fuck off recently regarding the Conference vote?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's what i said.


 
Branch members talk to members in other branches all the time.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I've heard the opposite, many many times and in this country, not Ireland.


 
You might be right. My experience is overwhelmingly of the Irish SWP and I can say with 99% certainty that they don't have an individual sales quota system. It's secondarily of the SWP as a platform of the SSP (I used to drink with a few of them), and they really didn't seem to put an emphasis on those sort of sales either, although again that might be an unusual context.

But, I remain just a bit skeptical. The two people who've mentioned being current/recent members in the last couple of pages here don't seem to think it's the norm. And it's a really, really bad idea even in terms of narrow organisational self-interest, not that they are necessarily immune to really bad ideas.

Anyway, there must be two dozen ex-members on this board who can settle this issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Branch members talk to members in other branches all the time.


Dos this mean that all branches talk to all branches all the time? Of course it doesn't. So why are you suggesting that the poster who talked earlier about being given quotas of papers to sell (and who was the paper sale organsier) is wrong? Maybe, just maybe, some branches are organised differently and part of that difference is the handing out of quotas?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And, of course, your branch is entirely typical of them all. let's assume that it is, does that mean the _canteen_ trope has not been used over and over by SWP tops to offer some form of _we're all in this together/on the busess _cover to their initiatives/manouveres?


 
You completly underestemate the number of working comrades in the SWP. Its conveniant to say we are all students, sorry that wont wash. As for your other comments I am at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 6, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> I'm surprised by that. We (small town branch) were given targets by centre, but we just sold however many we could. It varied a lot - we had good Saturdays and bad Saturdays.
> 
> We might have been given the occasional pep talk, but no way I would have bought extra papers myself. If they didn't like it, they could lump it !!


yeah my experience as well any atemped to impose targets was met with laughter. Anyone who is buying extra copies or whatever, well frankly that is their problem.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Dos this mean that all branches talk to all branches all the time? Of course it doesn't. So why are you suggesting that the poster who talked earlier about being given quotas of papers to sell (and who was the paper sale organsier) is wrong? Maybe, just maybe, some branches are organised differently and part of that difference is the handing out of quotas?


 
Comrade if some branches use other tactics then that sort of makes a mockery of the idea that SWP members are mindless robots. Good grief they can think for themself!


----------



## audiotech (Feb 6, 2013)

two sheds said:


> They have targets for how many to sell a month?  That's soooooooo 1950s corporate quality control.


 
I doubt that. There was an attempt way back for members to take an allotted amount each week. That was kicked into touch when branches voted against it, well the one I was in did.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Comrade if some branches use other tactics then that sort of makes a mockery of the idea that SWP members are mindless robots. Good grief thay can think for themself?


No it doesn't, _it means their organsiers can think for them_ - and where is that claim made anyway?

More to the point, what does it do to your claim that no branches ever get given paper sale quotas?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

emanymton said:


> yeah my experience as well any atemped to impose targets was met with laughter. Anyone who is buying extra copies or whatever, well frankly that is their problem.


Right so there were attempts to impose targets? Your branch didn't go for it.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that even SWP fulltimers have better things to be doing than hassling people for taking five papers and only shifting three...


 
Never happened in all the years, remember the war etc. I'd have told them to do one.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think that SWP members have individual paper sales quotas. Certainly not of a sort where you have to pay for them yourself if you don't meet them.



That's right - a target is given for a branch. I certainly don't remember any pressure if it wasn't met.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, the famous SWP _canteen_. How many of them work in places with works canteens are there i wonder?


 
There used to be some. How many canteens are there in the workplace these days? The glory days of works canteens with subsidised hot meals are long gone, well apart from the House of Commons, minus the hard labour, at a number of levels.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 6, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> That's right - a target is given for a branch. I was certainly don't remember any pressure if it wasn't met.


 
Won't that depend on the individual branch? I'm sure most branches of any trot party have targets for selling papers, but all it takes is one particularly zealous branch organiser, keen to show how good they are at flogging papers to their superiors in the party, for those voluntary targets to become a quota, and for bullying to ensue as a result of that?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

It's worth pointing out that there is a very big difference between branches coming up with targets of how many publications they think they can shift through all forms of branch activity and an organisation imposing personal quotas on members for publication sales on their own time (and expecting them to be met/paid for).

The first is a pretty basic logistical issue when it comes to producing any publication. You have to have a working estimate of how many you think you can sell and where, or else you are going to get your print runs all wrong, your publications sent to the wrong places, and financial problems in a hurry.

The second sounds like a standing invitation to self-delusion and/or burn out.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 6, 2013)

On a couple of other issues:

1) I hear (from leftist trainspotters) that the Sheffield District Organiser has resigned in sympathy with the Opposition.

2) I hear (from the tendance Coatesy blog) that the number of NC members voting against the CC motion was eight. There are fifty on the NC, but it's not clear how many of them were there (I'd guess 45 or so).


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> They must be on a sale or return basis?



You collected the batch of papers for your branch, sold what you could, sent the money for the sold ones off to centre. The remainder could then be used for compost, cats litter trays, etc.


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> On a couple of other issues:
> 
> 1) I hear (from leftist trainspotters) that the Sheffield District Organiser has resigned in sympathy with the Opposition.
> 
> 2) I hear (from the tendance Coatesy blog) that the number of NC members voting against the CC motion was eight. There are fifty on the NC, but it's not clear how many of them were there (I'd guess 45 or so).


interesting.  A lot of their district full-timers are fairly recently ex-students, so it wouldnt be surprising if many of them were sympathetic to the oppositionists.  And Sheffield seems (from the NC motions) to be a fairly hardline branch at the mo, so it cant have been pleasant for the organiser.


On papaer sale quota's - as Nigel says, it is hardly surprising that branches have _targets_, and members would be expected to sell at least 'a few' each, but nothing more stringent than that.  Of course, it would happen quite frewquently that someone would be lambasted for failing to sell many papers, its a sign of the bourgeois deviationist tendencies or summat, but that isnt the same as them having specific quotas.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> You collected the batch of papers for your branch, sold what you could, sent the money for the sold ones off to centre. The remainder could then be used for compost, cats litter trays, etc.


Cheers! How many were in the batch - did it depend on the number of members in the branch?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 6, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> You collected the batch of papers for your branch, sold what you could, sent the money for the sold ones off to centre. The remainder could then be used for compost, cats litter trays, etc.


 
An anarchist acquaintance, then in DAM, purposely bought a SW for his then Alsation pup to piss on. Hilarity all round.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Oh aye? Told any to fuck off recently regarding the Conference vote?


 
Yes!


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

audiotech said:


> An anarchist acquaintance, then in DAM, purposely bought a SW for his then Alsation pup to piss on. Hilarity all round.


 
No just stupid. When I buy an anarchist publication I read it. Lol.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

Have to go out to a meeting now, I will be back later to play.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 6, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Won't that depend on the individual branch? I'm sure most branches of any trot party have targets for selling papers, but all it takes is one particularly zealous branch organiser, keen to show how good they are at flogging papers to their superiors in the party, for those voluntary targets to become a quota, and for bullying to ensue as a result of that?



Possibly, but I can't say I ever saw it happen.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Yes!


Gwan, tell us more!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I've heard the opposite, many many times and in this country, not Ireland.


Really? I've been in 3 branches in this country after my time in Ireland and I've never had to meet a quota. I've had people who were good at selling papers give me a pep talk and hints on how to do it better as mates but no fulltimer ever told me off for being as shit at it as I was. Not turning up with the paper when I was asked to, at a picket or whatever, now that would get you a bollicking but that's fair enough.

My most traumatic paper sale memories were the pub sales we used to do in Dublin. There was intense competition between members to get the most sales and just as much competition with the An Phoblacht sellers. But the fulltimers nevere did more than sigh when I turned up a the end with my pathetic haul.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Oh aye? Told any to fuck off recently regarding the Conference vote?


Eh why would they? It's their fellow rank and file members who were delegates and voted for the conference decisions.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No it doesn't, _it means their organsiers can think for them_ - and where is that claim made anyway?
> 
> More to the point, what does it do to your claim that no branches ever get given paper sale quotas?


Thinking back on it the issue with targets was it determined how many papers you got sent, so rather like the infamous membership list there was always a struggle to get the number reduced.

'No we don't need  100 papers 50 is quite enough'

I decided they had a point on this one and it was always better to have two many the first time we had a really god saturday sale and sold out of the bloody things.

What pressure there was around selling the paper was simply about making the effort not how many you sold. Being asked to take three papers away an try and sell them is very different from being told you have to sell three papers. Maybe some of the horror stories above is people not getting this distinction? Or as has been suggested just a local dickhead paper orginser, although the SWP is meant to be a party of Bolsheviks for gods sake just tell them to fuck It's like the Anna Chen piece from the other day moaning about how much free work she did for the SWP, if she hasn't got the sense to tell them to get stuffed that's her problem. Being able to say NO is very important for an SWP member. Oh yeah I was a crap paper seller and during my time in the SWP I was in 4 different branches across 2 districts and had 3 different district organizers, and never once had a lecture about selling more papers.

Nigel is pretty much spot on including about the stupid competition, I wonder if they still produce the league tables for Marxism bookings? Based on what percentage of last years booking each district has managed to achieve. Now not that I buy into this competitiveness but the year I was a district marxism orginser my district came top.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

Sounds more and more like the cubs each post.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sounds more and more like the cubs each post.


I was never in the cubs, so wouldn't know


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

That's no reason not to know.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 6, 2013)

The most I ever sold on any sale was in front of the GPO in Dublin on XMas Eve and that was mostly sympathy sales. I was proud as punch of that tidy sum and emanymton is right I should have said NO to my own internal fulltimer. There was certainly no real fulltimer telling me to stay there until I reached a quota.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cheers! How many were in the batch - did it depend on the number of members in the branch?



We were a small branch of about five, and I think our paper batch was about 40, or 50 when something big was coming up. We had a few non members locally who asked to get the paper regularly, and then there was the Sat sale, hospital, college, etc.

Apparently at one Leeds branch the paper organiser did try to impose individual targets and was laughed at. I can see though that somebody relatively new and/or young might feel that they had to meet a target if given one.


----------



## killer b (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sounds more and more like the cubs each post.


With a gropey akala.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cheers! How many were in the batch - did it depend on the number of members in the branch?



To answer the question: I think the size of the batch depended upon the no of people in the branch and how many papers you normally shifted.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sounds more and more like the cubs each post.


Actually that's not so wrong. If the fulltimers could have handed out merit badges they would have. Selling a lot of papers could certainly buy a lot of leeway for other sins. We had one guy in our branch in Dublin who was pretty much a Left Republican Stalinist who I liked immensely but never understood why he was with us (other than he wasn't mad enough to join the IRSP) and he sold unbelievable amounts of papers. Which earnt him a friendly grin at marches from the fulltimers when he cheekily suggested we get into 3 lines like the shinners.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The most I ever sold on any sale was in front of the GPO in Dublin on XMas Eve and that was mostly sympathy sales. I was proud as punch of that tidy sum and emanymton is right I should have said NO to my own internal fulltimer. There was certainly no real fulltimer telling me to stay there until I reached a quota.


You just reminded me of something. I remember one saturdays sale were the full timer decided to call it of as it was pissing it down and she started to text people to let them know we would be having a meeting in a coffee shop instead. She suddenly stopped and went 'shit I just send that to Julie Waterson by mistake' (this was back when Julie was on the CC). about 5 minutes later Julie phones her up just to laugh at her.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 6, 2013)

Don't know what the current situation is, but in the early 1990s 'Party Notes' told branches that only those who met a target number of SW sales were to be eligible for leadership positions on local branch committees.   Those (often good comrades) who had difficult workplace situations and couldn't fulfil the quota were henceforth regarded as 'backward' and more or less valueless political failures..

i turned my back on the swp when the local branch official/s deliberately thwarted attempts to question the position and instead encouraged a bullying response to dissident voices.  

As someone above remarked;  "1950s corporate quality control" had become part of the revolutionary party's MO, and proper internal discussion more or less absent.  Nothing much appears to have changed.


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Eh why would they? It's their fellow rank and file members who were delegates and voted for the conference decisions.


Santiago says yes, so I'm sure we'll find out why.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 6, 2013)

The only time I remember conflict about paper sales was when it was appropriate to do it. Not how many you managed.

Back in 93 when Paul Foot and other journos at the Mirror were fighting for the soul of the paper and found themselves on the pavement in front of the building I was summoned early one morning by comrade delta from the nearby LSE to sell our paper to them all. Footy welcomed us to the picket but asked us not to sell as he was in some delicate discussion with his colleagues and didn't feel us milling about shoving the paper in their gobs would help. Delta disagreed but complied to the extent that we stood to one side and didn't oversell! Never a problem for me


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 6, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You just reminded me of something. I remember one saturdays sale were the full timer decided to call it of as it was pissing it down and she started to text people to let them know we would be having a meeting in a coffee shop instead. She suddenly stopped and went 'shit I just send that to Julie Waterson by mistake' (this was back when Julie was on the CC). about 5 minutes later Julie phones her up just to laugh at her.


She would  Though she might have suggested a pub instead.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 6, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Don't know what the current situation is, but in the early 1990s 'Party Notes' told branches that only those who met a target number of SW sales were to be eligible for leadership positions on local branch committees. Those (often good comrades) who had difficult workplace situations and couldn't fulfil the quota were henceforth regarded as 'backward' and more or less valueless political failures..
> 
> i turned my back on the swp when the local branch official/s deliberately thwarted attempts to question the position and instead encouraged a bullying response to dissident voices.
> 
> As someone above remarked; "1950s corporate quality control" had become part of the revolutionary party's MO, and proper internal discussion more or less absent. Nothing much appears to have changed.


Nothing like that when I was a member. Were leadership positions on branch committees in hot demand at the time, my experience was always too few people wanted these jobs rather than too many.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Nothing like that when I was a member. Were leadership positions on branch committees in hot demand at the time, my experience was always too few people wanted these jobs rather than too many.


you should always be wary of people with leadership tendencies


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 6, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Don't know what the current situation is, but in the early 1990s 'Party Notes' told branches that only those who met a target number of SW sales were to be eligible for leadership positions on local branch committees.


That's when I was a member too so I ought to remember that but honsetly can't. Certainly never was applied in any branch I was in. As emanymton says it wasn't as if people were queuing up to be on the bc. And we certainly had people on them who couldn't sell a paper to save their lives but were recognised as invaluable to the functioning of the branch. Maybe it was different in some of the larger branches around the country.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you should always be wary of people with leadership tendencies


There's the rub. My favorite speech of Cliff was the one were he used to tell us all to model ourselves on shop stewards.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 6, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Were leadership positions on branch committees in hot demand at the time, my experience was always too few people wanted these jobs rather than too many.


 
i can't remember that committee positions were desperately wanted by rank and file people, but there may have been a move to incorporate the most active/successful sellers into local branch structures.  The problem as i saw it related to the message being sent -  those comrades whose opportunities for 'good' paper sale returns were limited (for whatever reason) were being needlessly undervalued.

Its yer Leninist elitism init.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There's the rub. My favorite speech of Cliff was the one were he used to tell us all to model ourselves on shop stewards.


the people i've known who had genuine leadership rarely went for formal posts. there was one man out of camden stop the poll tax who i've always had immense respect for, an 'independent socialist', who both walked the walk and talked the talk: and some former members of class war, including one or two who post here. there's the leadership of ideas, which is good, but when allied with charisma it's a heady brew.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That's when I was a member too so I ought to remember that but honsetly can't. Certainly never was applied in any branch I was in. As emanymton says it wasn't as if people were queuing up to be on the bc. And we certainly had people on them who couldn't sell a paper to save their lives but were recognised as invaluable to the functioning of the branch. Maybe it was different in some of the larger branches around the country.


 

The branch i was in was tiny-ish bolshie.  Perhaps a dozen regular attendees (obviously a few more non attenders).


----------



## chilango (Feb 6, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Individual SWP members do not have individual paper sales quotas. SWP branches do not have branch quotas. I have never paid for unsold papers or know of any other member of my branch paying for unsold papers.



There was the "Three for me" initiative. There was certainly pressure on members to meet a quota during that period. And members did just pay out if their own pockets for imaginary sales to keep the paper organisers off their back.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 6, 2013)

I used to love selling Socialist Worker! It used to feel good to be a part of the SWP. How times have changed. 

Some real highpoints were the principled stand in defence of asylum seekers that the party fought hard on - this was around 1996 - 2000, when I was a relatively 'active' member. Then the anti-capitalist movement kind of exploded, the culmination (personally speaking) was Genoa, 2000. I was 28 at the time, and it was an incredible time politically. It really felt like revolution was on the agenda. 

Then 9/11 came along. And the world changed forever.

But the roots of the crisis in the SWP go much deeper, and now the Owl of Minerva has taken wing, we have the luxury to contemplate on that. Tragically, the SWP have never really bothered to nurture a thinking, independent, intellectually robust membership. Maybe this was partly due to the alliance of national secretary Chris Bambery's _Calvinism_ (in the ascendant in the 80s/90s)  and Cliff's bubbling optimism, understandably together this alliance was undisputed throughout much of the 1980s. In hindsight however, we can see how the Cliff/Bambery alliance sowed the seeds of the current implosion of the SWP. 'The Elect' could get on with the important business of 'thinking' while the rank and file could get on with the doing.

Bambery's latest incarnation, the IST in Scotland, is tub thumping about the so-called 'morally bankrupt' bankers. Not sure exactly which part of _Das Capital_ that analysis can be found - certainly not Volume 3. Maybe Bambery never read that far.

I joined the SWP in 1986, during the Wapping dispute, and while the Great Miner's Strike was still uppermost in people's minds, and quite understandably, the emphasis was always on 'activity.' I am sure a lot of us thought the revolution would be, essentially, quite a simple affair. I for one genuinely believed it was just a lack of will and effort on our part that would cause the revolution to go off course or fail to become incubated.

But at least, even then, back in 1986, the party had a bit of a drive at 'educating' the membership - a half-arsed attempt was made to get the 'comrades' to comprehend what was meant by 'a critique of political economy' but it was a bit like the blind leading the blind. Everything boiled down to getting people to swallow the one insight of Marx's  of the 'tendency of the rate of profit to fall' - as if _Capital_ was literally built around this (it wasn't). 

This dove-tailed nicely with the whole trotskyist analysis that the only barrier to revolution was the putting in place of  'the right proletarian leadership.' Once the cowardly and craven trade union bureaucrats were swept aside, then the decent and principled leaderhip of the revolutionary party could take over the reins, and so usher in the era of socialism. If you look at the approach the SWP and most of the trotskyist left have to the critique of political economy, this analysis fits. Essentially, in the broadest outline, Trotskyism _is_ Stalinism. Hence, I have to say, despite the fond memories and respect I have for some people in the SWP, its demise, like the collapse of the Berlin wall, is something to be celebrated...

Nothing about Marx's critique of the fetish of commodities is mentioned by the SWP, not really. It is given a bit of an airing every now and then by some PhD student in an obscure journal, but then to be fair this is a critique that is only really coming into its own in recent years, what with the renaissance in Hegelian marxism that is currently underway elsewhere - i.e., outside ofthe bloody SWP! Don't forget - Alex Callincos cut his teeth on Althusser. Callinicos hates Hegel! He will never broach that subject, although people like Esther Leslie occasionally get to pen an article, and the journal _Historical Materialism_ is the place academics can wank off about esoteric stuff like that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

chilango said:


> There was the "Three for me" initiative. There was certainly pressure on members to meet a quota during that period. And members did just pay out if their own pockets for imaginary sales to keep the paper organisers off their back.


sometimes to the detriment of their own health, if the gauntness of a number of members of the swp i've seen is down to them paying from the housekeeping to exaggerate the volume of socialist worker sales.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> I used to love selling Socialist Worker!


but then you got better?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> It may not be just *your* interest, The39thStep, but you are the person that is specifically raising it (again).
> 
> Afed and Solfed are two different anarchist organisations, and operate separately with different constitutions and aims/objectives which are set out on their respective websites.I'm not a member of either and never have have been, so I can only describe what I perceive to be the differences and someone more knowledgeable than me can put me right if necessary.
> 
> ...


 
What's the difference between Solfed and the IWW then? (genuinely interested btw, not taking the piss)


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What's the difference between Solfed and the IWW then? (genuinely interested btw, not taking the piss)


solfed an anarcho-syndicalist organisation (never previously heard it called a union), iww a trade union friendly to but not anarcho-syndicalist


----------



## mk12 (Feb 6, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> I used to love selling Socialist Worker! It used to feel good to be a part of the SWP. How times have changed.
> 
> Some real highpoints were the principled stand in defence of asylum seekers that the party fought hard on - this was around 1996 - 2000, when I was a relatively 'active' member. Then the anti-capitalist movement kind of exploded, the culmination (personally speaking) was Genoa, 2000. I was 28 at the time, and it was an incredible time politically. It really felt like revolution was on the agenda.
> 
> ...


 
Good contribution. A refreshing change from that SWP love-in going on above your post!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 6, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Good contribution. A refreshing change from that SWP love-in going on above your post!


 
Seconded


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 6, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Some real highpoints were the principled stand in defence of asylum seekers that the party fought hard on - this was around 1996 - 2000, when I was a relatively 'active' member. Then the anti-capitalist movement kind of exploded, the culmination (personally speaking) was Genoa, 2000. I was 28 at the time, and it was an incredible time politically. It really felt like revolution was on the agenda.



So true !!


----------



## discokermit (Feb 6, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> I joined the SWP in 1986,


when you were fourteen?


----------



## cesare (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> solfed an anarcho-syndicalist organisation (never previously heard it called a union), iww a trade union friendly to but not anarcho-syndicalist


There's a bit more description about the revolutionary union aspect in their aims, here: http://www.solfed.org.uk/?q=the-aims-of-the-solidarity-federation


----------



## past caring (Feb 6, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> I used to love selling Socialist Worker! It used to feel good to be a part of the SWP. How times have changed.
> 
> Some real highpoints were the principled stand in defence of asylum seekers that the party fought hard on - this was around 1996 - 2000, when I was a relatively 'active' member. Then the anti-capitalist movement kind of exploded, the culmination (personally speaking) was Genoa, 2000. I was 28 at the time, and it was an incredible time politically. It really felt like revolution was on the agenda.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Sean - funny thing you turning up here.

Where the fuck were you on Monday?

(that'll get him wondering. )


----------



## two sheds (Feb 6, 2013)

past caring said:


> Hi Sean - funny thing you turning up here.
> 
> Where the fuck were you on Monday?
> 
> (that'll get him wondering. )


 
Doubtful - most of the people he knows are probably past caring.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 6, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> View attachment 28649


you a friend of andy as well then?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 6, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you a friend of andy as well then?


 
I am.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 6, 2013)

ha ha! Past Caring! Terrible _nom de guerre_, mon brav


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 6, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I am. On facebook, I mean. I sure he doesn't know me form Adam.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 6, 2013)

Strong but as yet unconfirmed rumours that the SWP fulltimer in Sheffield has resigned. Hopefully a mate will get back to me soon and I'll be able to confirm. Interesting if true because he came here from Leeds and I understand he was quite close to Paris in the past.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Strong but as yet unconfirmed rumours that the SWP fulltimer in Sheffield has resigned. Hopefully a mate will get back to me soon and I'll be able to confirm. Interesting if true because he came here from Leeds and I understand he was quite close to Paris in the past.


 
His job, or from the Party?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 6, 2013)

Resigned as regional organiser is what I've been told - just a rumour for now but a strong one.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Resigned as regional organiser is what I've been told - just a rumour for now but a strong one.



Wasn't there today now I think about it.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No it doesn't, _it means their organsiers can think for them_ - and where is that claim made anyway?
> 
> More to the point, what does it do to your claim that no branches ever get given paper sale quotas?


 
That argument fits your perception that the avarage SWP member is stupid. Thanks for that Comrade!

The point I made was that members did not have quoters and members did not have to pay for unsold papers.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think I have a pretty good grasp of the SWP's structure, such as it is. And their culture. And one of the ways those two things interact is that different branches and regions can be really quite vigorously different from each other, depending on the personality and outlook of a few key individuals (most importantly the District Organiser).


 
Therefore what you are saying is that individual members are in fact capable of individual thought?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

audiotech said:


> There used to be some. How many canteens are there in the workplace these days? The glory days of works canteens with subsidised hot meals are long gone, well apart from the House of Commons, minus the hard labour, at a number of levels.


 
For canteen read, rest room, lobby, hut messroom, cafe etc etc etc.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Right so there were attempts to impose targets? Your branch didn't go for it.


 
You are clutching at straws. Lol


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Won't that depend on the individual branch? I'm sure most branches of any trot party have targets for selling papers, but all it takes is one particularly zealous branch organiser, keen to show how good they are at flogging papers to their superiors in the party, for those voluntary targets to become a quota, and for bullying to ensue as a result of that?


 
There is a danger in what you say and that as happened from time to time.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> On a couple of other issues:
> 
> 1) I hear (from leftist trainspotters) that the Sheffield District Organiser has resigned in sympathy with the Opposition.
> 
> 2) I hear (from the tendance Coatesy blog) that the number of NC members voting against the CC motion was eight. There are fifty on the NC, but it's not clear how many of them were there (I'd guess 45 or so).


 
47


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 6, 2013)

When I was in the SWP there were definitely no quotas and nobody was forced to pay for papers they'd not sold or anything like that.

There was sometimes quite a lot of pressure put on people to take them though and it wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them did pay for them and make out they'd sold them, if only to make yourself look good or just to avoid hassle.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> sometimes to the detriment of their own health, if the gauntness of a number of members of the swp i've seen is down to them paying from the housekeeping to exaggerate the volume of socialist worker sales.


 
I think you are thinking of the WRP. They did pay for all their unpaid papers.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 6, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> When I was in the SWP there were definitely no quotas and nobody was forced to pay for papers they'd not sold or anything like that.
> 
> There was sometimes quite a lot of pressure put on people to take them though and it wouldn't surprise me at all if some of them did pay for them and make out they'd sold them, if only to make yourself look good or just to avoid hassle.


 
This was my experience too. 50 papers which I collected weekly. Few people would take them at the branch and I was not of the persuasion to try and blackmail people into doing so. I used to organise at least one sale a week, occasionally two, but getting people to help was often difficult and I used to resort to asking people from other branches to chip in. Regarding the cash. I don't think I ever just threw in extra cash of my own in lieu of actually getting papers into people's hands. What I did do quite regularly was to sell it at less than the 80p as it was then and make up the difference, or if I had a good conversation with someone but they didn't want to pay for the paper I'd give it to them for free and pay for it myself. Then I was one of those working middle class members who could afford to do things like that. I recall one dull (and it must have been very very dull) afternoon when after my weekly shop at Tesco, I spent 40mins or so hawking the paper to people returning to their cars outside. I sold 15 which was something of an event in my district. The success was put down to my 'ruling class visage'! Ah good times


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Therefore what you are saying is that individual members are in fact capable of individual thought?


What? When have I claimed otherwise? I think you might have mistaken me for someone else.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You know what fella, you really have nothing to offer. I don't mind you but you are a minor annoyance.
> 
> I'm being polite cause I'm just back from the Millenium Stadium on a high.


 
You got seriously lucky pal. If the ref had only played _three _halves we'd have destroyed you. Oh, and Faletau def scored.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 7, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Good contribution. A refreshing change from that SWP love-in going on above your post!


More oblique than refreshing. So the problem with Trotskyism is a lack of a critique of political economy?! What does that even mean? Not enough Kapital reading groups?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Strong but as yet unconfirmed rumours that the SWP fulltimer in Sheffield has resigned. Hopefully a mate will get back to me soon and I'll be able to confirm. Interesting if true because he came here from Leeds and I understand he was quite close to Paris in the past.


 
Just had this confirmed as true.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 7, 2013)

An exchange of views in the ISO's Socialist Worker


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 7, 2013)

So the soft opposition reappear. According to the Weekly Worker, there were over 160 signatories to a soft opposition document distributed at the NC demanding concessions from the CC or else they would start campaigning for a recall conference.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Branches dont talk to each other, comrades do! Get your facts right.


 he's just on a windup mate. LOL


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> he's just on a windup mate. LOL


fuck off you dull cunt oxygen thief.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Therefore what you are saying is that individual members are in fact capable of individual thought?


reread the post


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, the famous SWP _canteen_. How many of them work in places with works canteens are there i wonder?


 the wire Works had a canteen. The hospital had a canteen. The further education college had a canteen. The bus station had a canteen. The mosque and ICI didn't, LOL. All of which I used to do on a Friday. And I used to sell "loadsa papers" in the 80s and 90s. My record at NMGH was 33.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> fuck off you dull cunt oxygen thief.


:-*


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the wire Works had a canteen. The hospital had a canteen. The further education college had a canteen. The bus station had a canteen. The mosque and ICI didn't, LOL. All of which I used to do on a Friday. And I used to sell "loadsa papers" in the 80s and 90s. My record at NMGH was 33.


you must have been very lardy after going round all those canteens.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's precisely because my own "tradition" (I don't particularly like the term) also places an emphasis on using a paper as an organiser, that I'm pretty skeptical of the various stories you hear about the SWP and their quotas and their secretly-paying-for-unsold-papers and the like.
> 
> In my experience (different party, different country), a miniscule percentage of the total sales of our paper come from "personal sales", where a member takes a few and sells them to people they know or meet, in the first place. Members are encouraged to take some, but it's really a pretty low priority. And people would thing you were nuts if you were habitually taking a bunch of papers, not selling them and then paying for them yourself.


 butchers is talking shite, just to wind people up. LOL

I was a paper organiser up to about 2001, never any quotas.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I would suspect that such petty make-work and personal power play is the mainstay of their daily operations as it goes. And sorry, but Cliff (from lenin and also part of your tradition) aggressively put forward the role of the paper as organiser - and the swp have reaffirmed this time after time and now contrast it to the internet and its concomitant darkside.


 yes, "the paper is the scaffolding upon which the party is built". I don't think anybody would deny the SWP try to sell as many papers as they can.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Give the rather anarchic structure of the SWP outside of the CC and the full time apparatus, and the seemingly rather competitive culture (Birchall's Cliff biography was surprisingly revealing on that) it's entirely possible that you might get some zealot District Organiser or branch paper organiser operating a quota system of some kind in their own fiefdom, but I'm really pretty sure that it's not the norm.


 "anarchic "  excellent!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Just shows how little you understand about the composition of SWP branches. Most of my branch are either working, unemployed workers or retaired workers. We do have a couple of students as well.


 certainly my experience. The myth that the SWP is almost entirely composed of students, trobots unable to think for themselves, is a typical cultish denunciation.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No it doesn't, _it means their organsiers can think for them_ - and where is that claim made anyway?
> 
> More to the point, what does it do to your claim that no branches ever get given paper sale quotas?


 that is just so fucking lazy


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2013)

audiotech said:


> An anarchist acquaintance, then in DAM, purposely bought a SW for his then Alsation pup to piss on. Hilarity all round.


 LOL cant say I am surprised.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sounds more and more like the cubs each post.


 where as you sound like a fantasist?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 7, 2013)

rmp3 thinks he has found a new friend. sad fuck.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So the soft opposition reappear. According to the Weekly Worker, there were over 160 signatories to a soft opposition document distributed at the NC demanding concessions from the CC or else they would start campaigning for a recall conference.


 
The document existed but the CC would not allow it to be circulated at the NC meeting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2013)

dennisr said:


> rmp3 thinks he has found a new friend. sad fuck.


sad fuckS i think you'll find.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 7, 2013)

sadFuckMP3


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> LOL cant say I am surprised.


 
Stop saying LOL.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2013)

Warning! Warning! 

"Jack Conrad begins a short series of articles"


----------



## mutley (Feb 7, 2013)

One of many truths that this affair has exposed, its that swp students are definitely not trobots


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 7, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> The document existed but the CC would not allow it to be circulated at the NC meeting.


 
And the NC went along with the idea that they had no right to see the document? That's almost beyond parody.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 7, 2013)

mutley said:


> One of many truths that this affair has exposed, its that swp students are definitely not trobots


 
Get back in your box. Obviously there are a greater mix of politics in the student end of trottery.


----------



## belboid (Feb 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Warning! Warning!
> 
> "Jack Conrad begins a short series of articles"


the one on the programme?  I started to read it at work.  But actually found work preferable.  Atrociously written and such fucking tediously predictable content.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 7, 2013)

So, do you think the SWP will refrain from 'investigating' further allegations of rape?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2013)

belboid said:
			
		

> the one on the programme?  I started to read it at work.  But actually found work preferable.  Atrociously written and such fucking tediously predictable content.


Similar here, and these,  I expect, are the more exciting cut down versions of his recent rambling unedited ones...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 7, 2013)

It's typical of the new model semi-obsolete Weekly Worker. They don't have the access they used to have to gossip and/or internal information, and in any case, blogs, facebook and message boards get all the scoops first. Instead they fill in the space with their theoretical meanderings, and nobody reads the Weekly Worker for the views of the CPGB.

I mean this is the moment the CPGB have been geared towards for nearly twenty years and yet not only do they have zero influence on events, they have less access to leaks than Andy fucking Newman.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 7, 2013)

I bet it's been quite frothy in Weekly Worker towers in the last month or so


----------



## mk12 (Feb 7, 2013)

Andy Newman is Tommy Gunn to Weekly Worker's Rocky. An up and coming rising star in lefty gossip, Andy is increasingly making the WW seem irrelevant and past its sell by date. Will the WW hit back?


----------



## belboid (Feb 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Similar here, and these, I expect, are the more exciting cut down versions of his recent rambling unedited ones...


it does read like an editted transcript of a talk.  nobody has ever bothered listening to any of those podcasts, have they?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2013)

Excellent bit of pomposity from SEYMOUR! (note the libidinal line):



> Enter Nick Grant, defending his leaders from the ravages of socialists who disagree with them. His role, and that of others of his ilk, as a bullhorn for CC insinuations is clear. The CC's traducing of its internal critics in Party Notes consists of nudges: no names are given, details are scant, hints are urgent but en passant. The CC wager that the faithful, whose investment in 'official' positions is unshakable, as libidinal as theoretical, eager for diktats to keep them safe from nuance, will parse these nuggets. Thus here. We respond to Grant not because he is an interesting figure in himself - he is not - but because he is a function, a meat-exemplar of the worst kind of loyalism. We argue not with Nick Grant, but with 'Nick Grant'.


 
The Grant letter is here - and it is an brilliant example of apolitical loyalism that would have been perfectly at home in the USSR 1928-38 period.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent bit of pomposity from SEYMOUR! (note the libidinal line):
> 
> 
> 
> The Grant letter is here - and it is an brilliant example of apolitical loyalism that would have been perfectly at home in the USSR 1928-36 period.



Urgh, see what you mean. Ignore the issue, repeat fantastic achievements in leading glorious 'united front' work (anyone else sick of the misuse of this phrase?) ad nauseum.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 7, 2013)

kavenism said:


> The success was put down to my 'ruling class visage'! Ah good times


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> it does read like an editted transcript of a talk. nobody has ever bothered listening to any of those podcasts, have they?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 7, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


>


 
A number posting here will have had a listen. I suspect even the most lofty here pretending that they haven't have.


----------



## cesare (Feb 7, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


>


I've listened to the first 20 minutes of that John Molyneux one. It's on "pause" in another tab.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

Jesus those 2 loyalist letters to the ISO are awful, the second one is worse than Grant's. The FB four were expelled because they were clearly organising a faction! Eh yeah that's kind of the point of being in a faction. And NG's argument that the factions jumped the 3 month gun by a week is ....well not even an argument. There must be better defenders of the line out there.

Mind you Seymour does twist himself in knots discussing the 'you earn your living from the internet' jibe. It's obviously an argument gaining traction, understandably, among the membership.

Maybe the antipathy to having the debate online at all explains why the rare foray into defending the cc online is so weak. Certainly feels like the best people are just staying quiet (although presumably not in their branches where it matters).


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 8, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> So, do you think the SWP will refrain from 'investigating' further allegations of rape?


No just stop telling anyone about them.
Almost to rub the weekly workers face in it, socialist unity has the text of mark bergfelds resignation letter.
 Please note it says 

FOR SWP MEMBERS ONLY. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE THE PARTY. DO NOT PUBLISH ONLINE.

So do not read


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 8, 2013)

audiotech said:


> A number posting here will have had a listen. I suspect even the most lofty here pretending that they haven't have.


I clicked onto one of these a few months back, even if it promised the secret to eternal life AND an end to human servitude I would not click again.


----------



## manny-p (Feb 8, 2013)

Has Pat Stack resigned? Or am I hearing things.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

audiotech said:


> A number posting here will have had a listen. I suspect even the most lofty here pretending that they haven't have.


 
What did you make of it?


----------



## kavenism (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Excellent bit of pomposity from SEYMOUR! (note the libidinal line):
> 
> 
> 
> The Grant letter is here - and it is an brilliant example of apolitical loyalism that would have been perfectly at home in the USSR 1928-38 period.


 
Pomposity is the word. I had a flick through a copy of unhitched last night. I’ve never seen prose which has been so self-consciously touched up with a thesaurus as his; that response to Grant is another case in point.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Has Pat Stack resigned? Or am I hearing things.


 
Where did you hear this?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2013)

> bolshiebhoy said: ↑
> No I completely understand the indignation on the assumption you buy the coverup hypothesis.​


​​So you don't buy the coverup hypothesis?


----------



## manny-p (Feb 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Where did you hear this?


In a pub.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 8, 2013)

manny-p said:


> In a pub.



How reliable a source ?


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Has Pat Stack resigned?


from what?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

A normally reliable and informed source whose board name i cannot spell (and who has't been here for years anyway) says an open faction has now been declared and info sent to the CC this morning.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> from what?


The DC maybe? Can't see it myself as that would be a big card for him to pull out from the bottom of the house and i don't think that is his game at all (god, what a terrible sentence).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 8, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Has Pat Stack resigned? Or am I hearing things.


 
If that were true then there would have to be some serious spinning to be done in order to make him 'not one of us'. However I don't believe it for a minute.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2013)

I heard that he values the bourgeois police service with its whole history of state repression more highly than a duly elected commission of the workers  .


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

I heard he downloaded Michel Thomas' guide to learning Greek.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A normally reliable and informed source whose board name i cannot spell (and who has't been here for years anyway) says an open faction has now been declared and info sent to the CC this morning.


 
Apparently this involves a lot of previously "soft" oppositionists too.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A normally reliable and informed source whose board name i cannot spell (and who has't been here for years anyway) says an open faction has now been declared and info sent to the CC this morning.


 
Interesting, presumably that means they can all be expelled now.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Interesting, presumably that means they can all be expelled now.


 
If they listed their whole support on the declaration, it certainly makes the massive purge option simpler for the CC.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

I wonder will the faction publicise its own statement or will Socialist Unity do it first?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Is this a deliberate move to get expelled now, so they can set up a rival organisation with some legitmacy - or is it a show of strength to scare the CC off the idea of expelling them?


----------



## mk12 (Feb 8, 2013)

I can't see the CC _not_ expelling them. It's unconstitutional!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 8, 2013)

This makes a split pretty much inevitable really doesn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

A lot depends on the numbers really - but annoyingly, good tactical arguments can be made either way. If they have barley scraped the required 30 they can easily be chopped off right now, but equally they can be allowed to stay, utterly marginalised and punished and left hanging on the barbed wire for all potential future dissenters to see. If they are up around or over the 160 who signed the letter the NC refused to read to the delegates then they are both maybe too large to chuck out in one go but also too large to be allowed to stay. In the latter case i think the CC's instinct will be to cut out the gangrene in order to achieve #1 priority - the CC's survival - either one big go or a couple of swift chops, so those defending the first lot of expelees are too busy fighting for the first lot to fight the ax at their own neck.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This makes a split pretty much inevitable really doesn't it?


 
A split was pretty much inevitable from the moment they expelled the facebook four before the conference. Possibly earlier.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 8, 2013)

Before this came out I'd got the impression from a few things I'd heard that the CC's strategy was probably to decapitate the opposition by removing ringleaders and more prominent hard oppositionists in the hopes that the rest would either fall into line or slowly and quietly drift away rather than all leave together and form another group claiming to be the true heirs of Cliff. I wonder if this is an attempt to sort of solidify the opposition to make that more difficult, so that the only options for the CC are getting rid of the lot or allowing them all to remain inside to 'fight for the soul of the party'.

I'm open to the possibility than I'm completely misreading things and talking bollocks though.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)




----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A split was pretty much inevitable from the moment they expelled the facebook four before the conference. Possibly earlier.


 
I think a mass exodus was always inevitable. But at one point it looked to me like it might be difficult or impossible for those leaving to set up a rival group. I think declaring this faction makes that less likely - I think those leading the faction will see it as the first step towards setting up a new group.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

manny-p said:


> In a pub.


 
This is not correct.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Has Pat Stack resigned? Or am I hearing things.


 
This is not correct.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> This is not correct.


how do you know?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently this involves a lot of previously "soft" oppositionists too.


 
Correct.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Has Pat Stack resigned? Or am I hearing things.


 
No Pat Stack has not resigned.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Owen 'i like houses and churches' Hatherley has his say.

A tale of rape claims, abuses of power and the Socialist Workers party

(not sure using the renegade steadman Jones will do him any favours)


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I can't see the CC _not_ expelling them. It's unconstitutional!


 
You should read the SWP Constitution. It is constitutional.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> You should read the SWP Constitution. It is constitutional.


The coming expulsions or the formation of a faction outside of the pre-conference discussion period?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Owen 'i like houses and churches' Hatherley has his say.
> 
> A tale of rape claims, abuses of power and the Socialist Workers party
> 
> (not sure using the renegade steadman Jones will do him any favours)


 



> Both received and official SWP opinion run contrary to the most recent scholarly research on what actually happened in the Russian Social Democratic party. Lars T Lih's Lenin Rediscovered, for instance, roundly debunks the notion that Lenin ever wanted to create something distinct from the large and democratic Social Democrats of Germany.


 
Is it true that all misunderstood Lenin ever wanted was a large and democratic SPD.

Is the implication the SPD was ever democratic?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> You should read the SWP Constitution. It is constitutional.


like the ussr


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Owen 'i like houses and churches' Hatherley has his say.


 
 His parents were millies, iirc.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> No Pat Stack has not resigned.


 
http://www.haspatstackresigned.com


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

apparently in Manchester taxi drivers are being used to drive the faction statement around members to get them to sign


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> apparently in Manchester taxi drivers are being used to drive the faction statement around members to get them to sign


only the scouse drivers who performed sterling work for degsy in the 80s


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 8, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> His parents were millies, iirc.


 
Wasn't that Owen Jones?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Wasn't that Owen Jones?


 
I thought it was Mark Owen, his dad was one of the Liverpool councillors

ETA: I know he's a manc but that's because they moved there after


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> apparently in Manchester taxi drivers are being used to drive the faction statement around members to get them to sign


 
and give them herpes.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> and give them herpes.


 
only if they don't sign


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Wasn't that Owen Jones?


 



			
				Owen Hatherley said:
			
		

> My Dad was a shop steward and both he and my Mum were Militant activists, and I’m immensely proud of them both for educating themselves in difficult circumstances and for ensuring that I would do the same, with less difficulty. So when I hear that socialists are middle class do-gooders and that the working class is traditionalist and simple, and so forth, it tends to irritate me immensely


 
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/militant-modernist-owen-hatherley/


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Is it true that all misunderstood Lenin ever wanted was a large and democratic SPD.
> 
> Is the implication the SPD was ever democratic?


The argument in a nutshell is that the leninism, the bolshevism that all western trot groups adopted was the post-1917 Leninism, that due to the situation necessarily had  to develop centralising authoritarian structures in order to survive etc and that in the period before this the RSDLP was an a more democratic body that allowed internal argument and dissent, was characterised by open election and recall etc - all true, the pre-1917 bit i mean.

Critics then pointed to What is To be Done from 1902 to say that later authoritarianism was there all along - Lih's very influential book attempted to take an axe that idea and suggests that WITBD was itself an example of that open debate that bolshevism was centred on. There's been a debate over the last what decade or so over this - hence all this current stuff about real leninism (and regroupment this time with no mistakes!) The gaping hole of course, is what use is an open democratic body before the revolution if once the situation it says must and will come it becomes post-1917 leninism due to the demands of the situation? They can never square that circle, because they have to defend the actions of the post revolution bolsheviks up to 1928.

Don't really think there's any idealisation of the SDP behemoth as such just more a comparison with the modern day bolsheviks forms of organisation - i think it's based more on naivety as to how the SDP and its leaders actually worked than argument for an SDP type party.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 8, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/militant-modernist-owen-hatherley/


 
Oh right. I think I read somewhere that Owen Jones's parents were Militant full-timers in Sheffield.

So all kids who have the name Owen have parents who were Millies? I wish I got the memo.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Oh right. I think I read somewhere that Owen Jones's parents were Militant full-timers in Sheffield.
> 
> So all kids who have the name Owen have parents who were Millies? I wish I got the memo.


I actually knew a Welshman in Oxford who's name was Owen and whose parents were in the Militant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> I actually knew a Welshman in Oxford who's name was Owen and whose parents were in the Militant.


THE militant? the yankee swappies?


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> THE militant? the yankee swappies?


The Militant tendency of the Labour Party. AKA The Militant.


----------



## manny-p (Feb 8, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> How reliable a source ?


a very reliable source - rank and file member. The member told me whilst drunk at the pub.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Critics then pointed to What is To be Done from 1902 to say that later authoritarianism was there all along - Lih's very influential book attempted to take an axe that idea and suggests that WITBD was itself an example of that open debate that bolshevism was centred on. There's been a debate over the last what decade or so over this - hence all this current stuff about real leninism (and regroupment this time with no mistakes!) The gaping hole of course, is what use is an open democratic body before the revolution if once the situation it says must and will come it becomes post-1917 leninism due to the demands of the situation? They can never square that circle, because they have to defend the actions of the post revolution bolsheviks up to 1928.
> 
> Don't really think there's any idealisation of the SDP behemoth as such just more a comparison with the modern day bolsheviks forms of organisation - i think it's based more on *naivety as to how the SDP and its leaders actually worked* than argument for an SDP type party.


 
Anyone can make Lenin into anything they want - that's the problem with arguing figures not wider collections of people and movements. The various hues within Maoists - 30s era and 50s era, liberal Western Marcusians, Titoists, Guevarists - urban and peasant-focused, 68ers, Hoxhaists, Ceaucescuists, Eurocommunists - hard (PCI) and soft (KPO), Trotksyists - orthodox, entrist and reform, Iranian two-stagers, the Marxist Leninists, national liberationists they all spin/see a different Lenin.

Perhaps 2 things overlooked. 
1. How little the RSDLP was able to influence/dominate etc "the masses" between WISTBD and the outbreak of 1914. Inspite of 1905 and the gains afterwards- Lena gold miners RSDLP not there, black earth peasant disturbances RSDLP not there, Latvian forest war RSDLP not there.

2. How the SDP betrayal of 1914 was well on the cards from the structures of the party from the late nineteenth century onwards.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> No I think you were taking the piss.


 
You think that because you have not yet attained the necessary level of revolutionary consciousness, comrade.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 8, 2013)

> How little the RSDLP was able to influence/dominate etc "the masses" between WISTBD and the outbreak of 1914. Inspite of 1905 and the gains afterwards- Lena gold miners RSDLP not there, black earth peasant disturbances RSDLP not there, Latvian forest war RSDLP not there.


 
I'd argue they were only able to influence "the masses" from the middle of 1917 to early 1918, when they started _losing_ support to the Mensheviks in a number of urban areas. The 'free' soviets were then emptied of their democratic nature and were Bolshevised.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> You completly underestemate the number of working comrades in the SWP. Its conveniant to say we are all students, sorry that wont wash. As for your other comments I am at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make?


 
He hasn't attempted to estimate the number of working comrades in the SWP, therefore *under*estimating the number would be impossible, and your "claim" is merely a poorly-executed rhetorical device on your part, aimed at making you look knowledgeable, but successful only in doing the opposite.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I thought it was Mark Owen, his dad was one of the Liverpool councillors
> 
> ETA: I know he's a manc but that's because they moved there after


 
Take That's Mark Owen?


----------



## kavenism (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The argument in a nutshell is that the leninism, the bolshevism that all western trot groups adopted was the post-1917 Leninism, that due to the situation necessarily had to develop centralising authoritarian structures in order to survive etc and that in the period before this the RSDLP was an a more democratic body that allowed internal argument and dissent, was characterised by open election and recall etc - all true, the pre-1917 bit i mean.
> 
> Critics then pointed to What is To be Done from 1902 to say that later authoritarianism was there all along - Lih's very influential book attempted to take an axe that idea and suggests that WITBD was itself an example of that open debate that bolshevism was centred on. There's been a debate over the last what decade or so over this - hence all this current stuff about real leninism (and regroupment this time with no mistakes!) The gaping hole of course, is what use is an open democratic body before the revolution if once the situation it says must and will come it becomes post-1917 leninism due to the demands of the situation? They can never square that circle, because they have to defend the actions of the post revolution bolsheviks up to 1928.
> 
> Don't really think there's any idealisation of the SDP behemoth as such just more a comparison with the modern day bolsheviks forms of organisation - i think it's based more on naivety as to how the SDP and its leaders actually worked than argument for an SDP type party.


 
I mostly agree with that. But I wonder, is there less chance of an open democratic body turning into a disciplined party at the time of the revolution, than there is an introverted out of touch sect turning into a useful revolutionary vehicle attractive to a broad spectrum of the WC at said time? I doubt it, I think it’s more as Owen put it: “Being in a sect can be oddly cosy, reassuringly and stuffily familiar – to the point where any voices outside it are no longer heard at all.”​


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> The Militant tendency of the Labour Party. AKA The Militant.


 
Pickman's is right there is no definate article in the British version


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Take That's Mark Owen?


his solo album 'the green man' was originally going to be called 'the red flag of the revolution' but his record company wouldn't have it. think he's a member of the AWL these days.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Take That's Mark Owen?


 
yep


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

kavenism said:


> I mostly agree with that. But I wonder, is there less chance of an open democratic body turning into a disciplined party at the time of the revolution, than there is an introverted out of touch sect turning into a useful revolutionary vehicle attractive to a broad spectrum of the WC at said time? I doubt it, I think it’s more as Owen put it: “Being in a sect can be oddly cosy, reassuringly and stuffily familiar – to the point where any voices outside it are no longer heard at all.”


Like the Manson Family.

Anyway, we're all autonomists now aren't we?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> yep


 
I wonder if Owen and Gary Barlow have political rows? I hope it involves violence.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> how do you know?


 
Because of recent developments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Because of recent developments.


were you in the pub?


----------



## kavenism (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Like the Manson Family.
> 
> Anyway, we're all autonomists now aren't we?


 
I was born autonomist!


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Like the Manson Family.
> 
> Anyway, we're all autonomists now aren't we?


 

I don't see the ending making much sense either.



> But a party and a sect are not the same thing. Historian Gareth Stedman-Jones wrote of the SWP's great-grandfathers, the perpetually splitting Marxist sects of late Victorian Britain, that it was not their sectarianism that got them ignored by the mass of the people. On the contrary, the fact that workers were not radicalised turned the far left organisations into self-contained sects, whose impotence was sublimated into *aimless doctrinal righteousness*. The question is, *when political circumstances change*, can a sect change into a party? Being in a sect can be oddly cosy, reassuringly and stuffily familiar – to the point where any voices outside it are no longer heard at all.


 
We should be more doctrinally wrong to change into a party in these new political circumstances ?/?


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Pickman's is right there is no definate article in the British version


Not in the name of the newspaper, but this Owen, and presumably his parents, called their group "the Militant".


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

kavenism said:


> I was born autonomist!


"But everywhere is in leninist discipline"


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The coming expulsions or the formation of a faction outside of the pre-conference discussion period?


 
The formation of a faction is constitutional. Expulsions would be a mistake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> Not in the name of the newspaper, but this Owen, and presumably his parents, called their group "the Militant".


i never heard millies call their party 'the militant' back in the day

must be a northern t'ing


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> The formation of a faction is constitutional. Expulsions would be a mistake.


we have always been at war with eurasia


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I wonder if Owen and Gary Barlow have political rows? I hope it involves violence.


 
Interestingly Robbie Williams has moved close to Posadas in recent years, with his UFO obsession running up against what he learnt from long chats with Mark while on tour all those years ago.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> were you in the pub?


 
Thats a very poor comment. You will have to do better than that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> Not in the name of the newspaper, but this Owen, and presumably his parents, called their group "the Militant".


 
No, it's sloppy writing imo


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Thats a very poor comment. You will have to do better than that.


the difference between the two of us is, i can do better than that.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> The formation of a faction is constitutional. Expulsions would be a mistake.


Ok  - and i expect we'll see some CC clarity on this issue explicitly outlining the informal 3-month rule _rather soon_.

Expulsions also constitutional though. Good constitution that.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> The formation of a faction is constitutional. Expulsions would be a mistake.


Didn't someone back in the thread take a look and found that the banning of factions was more of a SWP urban myth, than supported in the constitution? Maybe the opposition have found this too, and are prepared to take this loophole all the way to Mexico?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But a party and a sect are not the same thing. *Historian Gareth Stedman-Jones wrote of the SWP's great-grandfathers, the perpetually splitting Marxist sects of late Victorian Britain*, that it was not their sectarianism that got them ignored by the mass of the people. On the contrary, the fact that workers were not radicalised turned the far left organisations into self-contained sects, whose impotence was sublimated into aimless doctrinal righteousness. The question is, when political circumstances change, can a sect change into a party? Being in a sect can be oddly cosy, reassuringly and stuffily familiar – to the point where any voices outside it are no longer heard at all.


 
Is that Hatherley's bad history or Stedman-Jones's? If you consider the SDF the first Marxist 'sect' in British politics, they only had one split in the Victorian era. Not bad for 17 years.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No, it's sloppy writing imo


Oh yes they did


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

The two Owens to the rescue - Owen Hatherley and Owen Jones.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> Oh yes they did


 
do you regularly discuss politics with his parents then?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You think that because you have not yet attained the necessary level of revolutionary consciousness, comrade.


 
Yes I have only been involved 40 years, I still have a lot to learn.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The two Owens to the rescue - Owen Hatherley and Owen Jones.


 
Owen Wilson's parents were in The Militant in the US


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Yes I have only been involved 40 years, I still have a lot to learn.


Ah, openly saying class consciousness comes from the party. Creeping Leninism.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Owen Wilson's parents were in The Militant in the US


So tempted to quickly edit his Wikipedia page to say that and take a screenshot!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

comrade Delta creepy Leninism


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> do you regularly discuss politics with his parents then?


I am in favour of ethno-political self identification, and your ortho-logocentric oppressive statements have been noted and will be entered into the MULTIVAC of intersectionality to decide your fate.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i never heard millies call their party 'the militant' back in the day
> 
> must be a northern t'ing


 
if it was a northern thing surely they would call it t'Millitant, as in trouble at t'Militant


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> I am in favour of ethno-political self identification, and your ortho-logocentric oppressive statements have been noted and will be entered into the MULTIVAC of intersectionality to decide your fate.


your login's been taken by santiagotalk


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

_This is the real reason the Weekly Worker is going down the pan. They've forgotten how to mole in other organisations, admitting your organisation as soon they ask - amateurs._

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/948/letters


CPGB comrades noticed that Sheffield’s two SWP branches were each holding meetings on ‘The politics of feminism’. In light of the crisis which has engulfed the organisation recently, we thought this particular topic could make for an interesting discussion.
The five or so comrades waiting to start at Sheffield South must have low expectations for their 'all welcome' ‘public’ branch meetings, since they immediately twigged we were - shock, horror - other leftists! On being questioned, *we admitted our affiliation*, and were informed that “We don’t want people who blog [sic] about our members at the meeting”. Presumably a reference to the Weekly Worker’s scandal-free coverage of the crisis in the SWP, but the comrade did not wish to elaborate.
After being stonewalled for several minutes, we asked if they definitely didn’t want other comrades at the meeting. To which one SWPer replied, “I’m not feeling very comradely”.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> _This is the real reason the Weekly Worker is going down the pan. They've forgotten how to mole in other organisations, admitting your organisation as soon they ask - amateurs._
> 
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/948/letters
> 
> ...


 
Brilliant


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Brilliant


 
I know. This week's edition is a corker.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/948/left-press-and-the-swp-the-dog-that-didnt-bark

It's attacking the Socialist Party as hopelessly sectarian for not devoting The Socialist to discussing it all.

This reality ‘on the ground’, as it were, is very unevenly reproduced at the level of the left press. Most of the smaller groups have weighed in - Workers Power, Permanent Revolution, Counterfire and others. But the silence from other quarters is deafening. The Socialist Party in England and Wales is a case in point. It is, broadly, competing for the same people as the SWP. It is jostling for the same union positions (a little more effectively), and the affections of the same union tops; it is the other relatively substantial Trotskyist group in the country and, while it remains smaller than the SWP (although who knows how long that will last?), it fights in broadly the same weight bracket, with a thousand or so members. In short, it has every interest in the crisis afflicting the SWP. Yet it is entirely absent from its press. The last month’s worth of _The Socialist_, SPEW’s sleepy weekly, consists of the usual monotonous gabble about resisting the cuts, fighting back against the cuts, and striking against the cuts - _*not a word is inked on the enormous bust-up*_ which is provoking, at the very least, morbid curiosity on the part of its members and periphery.
SPEW has condescended to comment on the affairs of other groups in the past. Its ‘international’ issued a gloating statement on the matter of a series of splits in the International Marxist Tendency, which split from Militant in the early 90s, taking founder-leader Ted Grant with it.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> if it was a northern thing surely they would call it t'Millitant, as in trouble at t'Militant


how long have you live here?  No one ever uses 't' in that way*!  It'd be 'there's trouble at' militant' - with an extra stress on the final t of 'at' and a glottal stop befor the 'militant'




* except, maybe, in Barnsley


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Yes I have only been involved 40 years, I still have a lot to learn.


 
Oh look, a "subtle" reference to the length of your religious ideological conviction, and an attempt at (false) humility!!!

Swappite, please!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Owen Wilson's parents were in The Militant in the US


 
And who knows what Owen Oyston's parents were, besides being the parents of a sex offender!


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He hasn't attempted to estimate the number of working comrades in the SWP, therefore *under*estimating the number would be impossible, and your "claim" is merely a poorly-executed rhetorical device on your part, aimed at making you look knowledgeable, but successful only in doing the opposite.


 
I think you like the sound of your own voice. It tried to make a relevant point about my own branch  of which I have a little bit of knowledege.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Is that Hatherley's bad history or Stedman-Jones's? If you consider the SDF the first Marxist 'sect' in British politics, they only had one split in the Victorian era. Not bad for 17 years.


The socialist league split in 1884, those who later formed the ilp split in 1888, and more split off to the ilp in 1892, your lot left, of course, in 1904, but that Scottish bunch split in 1903. The SDf were far better than modern leftist sects, and its splits were far more interesting than the mini me Trotskyisms of today, but your split was not alone.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> comrade Delta creepy Leninism


 
Although his alleged crimes are more accurately described as a form of Stalinism, surely?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh look, a "subtle" reference to the length of your religious ideological conviction, and an attempt at (false) humility!!!
> 
> Swappite, please!!!


 
I think you are taking the piss, however I can enjoy a joke its part of our swp training. Lol.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although his alleged crimes are more accurately described as a form of Stalinism, surely?


I am sure that they will be by a future new party, in order to exonerate their clean and pure Trotsky-Lenin- perdido street stationism.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> we have always been at war with eurasia


 
Ok that is funny.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> I think you like the sound of your own voice. It tried to make a relevant point about my own branch of which I have a little bit of knowledege.


 
Your reply (to which I responded):
"*You completly underestemate the number of working comrades in the SWP*. Its conveniant to say we are all students, sorry that wont wash. As for your other comments I am at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make?"(my emphasis).

You weren't trying "to make a relevant point" about your own branch. Your own reply to butchersapron specifically speaks of "the number of working comrades in the SWP", not of anything to do with your branch.

Try again, and set the bar a bit higher this time, eh?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ah, openly saying class consciousness comes from the party. Creeping Leninism.


 
I have been involved in the movement for 40 years, in three politcal organisations and a member of four different trades unions. My father was a miner and my mother was a factory worker  that were my class consciousness comes from.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I am sure that they will be by a future new party, in order to exonerate their clean and pure Trotsky-Lenin- perdido street stationism.


 
Ah, so Mievillist Trotskist-Leninism, eh?


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your reply (to which I responded):
> "*You completly underestemate the number of working comrades in the SWP*. Its conveniant to say we are all students, sorry that wont wash. As for your other comments I am at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make?"(my emphasis).
> 
> You weren't trying "to make a relevant point" about your own branch. Your own reply to butchersapron specifically speaks of "the number of working comrades in the SWP", not of anything to do with your branch.
> ...


 
Yes you are right I made a mistake. I mixed up two differnt commets.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, so Mievillist Trotskist-Leninism, eh?


Just as well, since making a working Leninist group in the UK these days is sheer science fiction. Signed, Mike Giggler


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> how long have you live here? No one ever uses 't' in that way*! It'd be 'there's trouble at' militant' - with an extra stress on the final t of 'at' and a glottal stop befor the 'militant'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
damn you


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> Yes you are right I made a mistake. I mixed up two differnt commets.


 
Halleys and..?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 8, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The socialist league split in 1884, those who later formed the ilp split in 1888, and more split off to the ilp in 1892, your lot left, of course, in 1904, but that Scottish bunch split in 1903. The SDf were far better than modern leftist sects, and its splits were far more interesting than the mini me Trotskyisms of today, but your split was not alone.


 
But 1903 and 1904 wasn't the Victorian era, was it? I was being specific about the Victorian period. 

Who split off in 1888? Genuinely interested in all this sort of stuff. And didn't the ILP formally found itself in 1893?


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

bah


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> I have been involved in the movement for 40 years, in three politcal organisations and a member of four different trades unions. My father was a miner and my mother was a factory worker that were my class consciousness comes from.


 
Oh fuck, here it comes, the "considerably more working class cred than yow" argument.
That might mean something in the SWP. It means fuck-all when most of the people you're saying it to have the same "credentials".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> Just as well, since making a working Leninist group in the UK these days is sheer science fiction. Signed, Mike Giggler


 
I remember Kilgore Trout saying something similar. So it goes.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 8, 2013)

manny-p said:


> a very reliable source - rank and file member. The member told me whilst drunk at the pub.



Interesting to know. Ta.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh fuck, here it comes, the "considerably more working class cred than yow" argument.
> That might mean something in the SWP. It means fuck-all when most of the people you're saying it to have the same "credentials".


 
ViolentPanda. (well named) I have tried to post comments on here in a constructive and informative way. I have not tried to take the piss out of anyone. I responded to you sarcastic point about my 40 years in the movement in a factual way. I certanly do not think I have any more working class credentials than any other contributor on this site. Have you ever considered that you come across as an offensive and disruptive individual. Why dont you stop having a go at people and say something constructive.

Solidarity and goodbye for today


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> ViolentPanda. (well named) I have tried to post comments on here in a constructive and informative way. I have not tried to take the piss out of anyone. I responded to you sarcastic point about my 40 years in the movement in a factual way. I certanly do not think I have any more working class credentials than any other contributor on this site. Have you ever considered that you come across as an offensive and disruptive individual. Why dont you stop having a go at people and say something constructive.
> 
> Solidarity and goodbye for today


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I remember Kilgore Trout saying something similar. So it goes.


 
Now there's an in-joke not many will get.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Now there's an in-joke not many will get.


You all know what this is a drawing of *


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

manny-p said:


> a very reliable source - rank and file member. The member told me whilst drunk at the pub.


 
Seems to be reliable


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

killer b said:


> his solo album 'the green man' was originally going to be called 'the red flag of the revolution' but his record company wouldn't have it. think he's a member of the AWL these days.


 
One of Girls Aloud dad's was in the IMG


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

The faction declared (pdf)

Note the CPGB URL

/assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/In_Defence_of_Our_Party.pdf


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The faction declared (pdf)
> 
> Note the CPGB URL
> 
> /assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/In_Defence_of_Our_Party.pdf


 
Love how they have a dedicated folder for "SWP internal bulletins"


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

It's not a unified opposition statement at all. It's a revamped "soft" opposition. Still of note though given who the initial signatories are: Pat S, Ian B, Colin B, mike G etc.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

Pat Stack and Mike Gonzalez!!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Fuck me some big names on there.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 8, 2013)

> Recognition that feminists are not our enemies, but potential allies[/QUOTE]
> 
> Potential?!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

I make that 66 - and much more top heavy than i expected.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

blimey, Charlie Hore, Ian Birchall, both Collins.  Bloody decent list


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The faction declared (pdf)
> 
> Note the CPGB URL
> 
> /assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/In_Defence_of_Our_Party.pdf


 
There are a few on there that by now must be on a pensionable age.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

It's the sane wing of the old guard plus the saner parts of the third tier leadership desperately trying to avoid a split.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Recognition that feminists are not our enemies, but potential allies[/QUOTE]
> 
> Potential?!


 

Makes sense to me.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 8, 2013)

> X to stand down from any paid or representative roles in our party or united front work for the foreseeable future.


 
So they want him not to be kicked out or even suspended?! Wankers, the lot of em.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

> We accept the decisions taken at conference. None of the concerns listed above involve overturning these decisions.


 
Every point they have retreated on 'until next conference' - so they are now left with a few big names providing cover and the choice put to the CC to put up with a faction for 8 months - which they won't - or get rid. Which might explain the _we'll be good but_ tone...

These are the opposition, the tea-weakened opposition.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's the sane wing of the old guard plus the saner parts of the third tier leadership desperately trying to avoid a split.


and making some very sound points about how the party should operate generally, as well. all very sensible stuff


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> So they want him not to be kicked out or even suspended?! Wankers, the lot of em.


 
I know organising the Firebox workers is a long and difficult process but do try and read events like this with some political understanding.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

At least Renton has been forced out into the open.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Not much of a geographical spread is it? And much of those are uni prof types.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 8, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I know organising the Firebox workers is a long and difficult process but do try and read events like this with some political understanding.


 
I think when someone said you were feminine I think that was code for 'bitch'.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not much of a geographical spread is it? And much of those are uni prof types.


Contaminated by academic feminism! /bolshie


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

10 from the NC but only 8 votes? 160 signers but 66 members?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not much of a geographical spread is it? And much of those are uni prof types.


 
I believe the Cambridge one is a manager in her job...and has isolated the only working class people in the local branch.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not much of a geographical spread is it? And much of those are uni prof types.


I am guessing part of that is simply down to ease of organising for the initial statement.  Quite a few are the unite members who supported McLuskey for leader and are pissed off at their decision being overturned.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> I am guessing part of that is simply down to ease of organising for the initial statement. Quite a few are the unite members who supported McLuskey for leader and are pissed off at their decision being overturned.


Well come on, it ain't like they haven't had 4 weeks to prepare.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Every point they have retreated on 'until next conference' - so they are now left with a few big names providing cover and the choice put to the CC to put up with a faction for 8 months - which they won't - or get rid. Which might explain the _we'll be good but_ tone...
> 
> These are the opposition, the tea-weakened opposition.


 

I did miss in the last bit as regard 'next conf':



> We aim to conduct an argument within the party so that these concerns are addressed by the next SWP conference, whether a special conference or the next annual conference. In line with the SWP constitution we will dissolve the faction at the end of the next conference


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 10 from the NC but only 8 votes? 160 signers but 66 members?



There were three people not at the NC meeting. Also these aren't the Democratic Centralist faction people, particularly at the top end. The CC people and the older big names werent signed up to that, while people like Davidson were. This is a new cast of names adopting the same role.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2013)

> Bunny LaRoche


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


>


Just fuck off eh.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2013)

This thread is like the crowd of gawpers you get round the scene of an accident.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> This thread is like the crowd of gawpers you get round the scene of an accident.


 Then you're someone who made a joke about one of the number plates


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> This thread is like the crowd of gawpers you get round the scene of an accident.


And here's the 16 year old PCSO.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

Seymour, Davidson, Mieville and a group of 70 or so are joining the faction as a distinct platform.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


>





> Bunny came into her unpleasant element again when she ran up against Stoke SP comrades. She went from sweetness and light at the founding meeting of North Staffs NSSN to an aggressive bully at the anti-fascist rally held a few days later. When we turned up at the rally with our banner she *commanded*(!) we take it down because “it was agreed” no party banners or placards were allowed (we refused). Needless to say her concern for this spurious agreement (if indeed it ever existed) evaporated when her fellow SWP’ers disembarked their coaches and broke out their SWP-branded ‘Smash the BNP’ plaques. Then at last week’s debate, she harassed our paper sellers and leafleters by telling them where and when they could/couldn’t sell/leaflet, led the charge in shouting down – with some Labour people – one of our comrades who pointed out the rise of the BNP in Stoke might have something to do with the identikit policies of the mainstream parties, snapped at the coffee attendant to make sure one of our comrades paid for his drink, and curled her lip at the activist on the NorSCARF stall – for the crime of daring to carry _Searchlight_ material. It beggars belief someone obviously unsuited to this kind of work, let alone a full time position in a socialist organisation, has been so appointed. What does this say about the SWP?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Now we're going to more serious figures.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

So there's a starting point of roughly 135. That will go up, although by how much I don't know


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Seymour, Davidson, Mieville and a group of 70 or so are joining the faction as a distinct platform.


a faction within the faction??!!


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Seymour, Davidson, Mieville and a group of 70 or so are joining the faction as a distinct platform.


 
a platform within a faction within a party ?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> a faction within the faction??!!


Let a thousand blogs bloom.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

I think PD need declare our hand as an external faction. The iron is hot.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> a faction within the faction??!!



The two oppositions need to cooperate, but both sides have reason to preserve their independence from each other.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The faction declared (pdf)
> 
> Note the CPGB URL
> 
> /assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/In_Defence_of_Our_Party.pdf


 
So given who has signed up, the 'they're not really one of us' defence isn't available. How does the much criticised CC deal with dissent on this scale and from these quarters; can it expel the problem with out causing terminal damage and if they don't expel can they carry on with their authority so questioned?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## articul8 (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> Then you're someone who made a joke about one of the number plates


nowt wrong with a bit of gallows humour


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

A fraction within the faction - perfectly normal.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So given who has signed up, the 'they're not really one of us' defence isn't available. How does the much criticised CC deal with dissent on this scale and from these quarters; can it expel the problem with out causing terminal damage and if they don't expel can they carry on with their authority so questioned?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


That first point is excellent - bolshiebhoy and those card players have been trumped by this one.


----------



## ayatollah (Feb 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not a unified opposition statement at all. It's a revamped "soft" opposition. Still of note though given who the initial signatories are: Pat S, Ian B, Colin B, mike G etc.


 
Is that "Colin B" , ancient Manchester SWP longtimer, Colin Barker ?    Gawd, if it is, I'm amazed. I'd have thought he would have rather sawn his own leg off with a blunt spoon than be even moderately  "factional". If it  is indeed Colin Barker, I recall during the mid 1981 run up to the purging of us "Squadists" in  Manchester, I was at an SWP social and drifting about with a beerglass in my hand and  by chance  found myself  next to Colin. He did a theatrical doubletake, and literally SCUTTLED to the far side of the room - as far away as possible from someone he had been a friendly comrade with for nearly ten years, but was now UNCLEAN !

Are these high profile "oppositionists" a bit like the tame bogus  "resistance cells" set up in Occupied France by German counter intelligence to attract genuine people in  , nullify their activities , and then "dispose" of em ? In other words a "respectable" old guard "faction" emerges with a few" procedural quibbles", is soon satisfied with whatever fudge the leadership concocts  to "solve the problem", and then declares the issue "resolved" -- a round of applause for the soundness of SWP  democratic centralism. On to business as usual ?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

I don't think so no.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Is that "Colin B" , ancient Manchester SWP longtimer, Colin Barker ? Gawd, if it is, I'm amazed. I'd have thought he would have rather sawn his own leg off with a blunt spoon than be even moderately "factional". If it is indeed Colin Barker, I recall during the mid 1981 run up to the purging of us "Squadists" in Manchester, I was at an SWP social and drifting about with a beerglass in my hand and by chance found myself next to Colin. He did a theatrical doubletake, and literally SCUTTLED to the far side of the room - as far away as possible from someone he had been a friendly comrade with for nearly ten years, but was now UNCLEAN !
> 
> Are these high profile "oppositionists" a bit like the tame bogus "resistance cells" set up in Occupied France by German counter intelligence to attract genuine people in , nullify their activities , and then "dispose" of em ? In other words a "respectable" old guard "faction" emerges with a few" procedural quibbles", is soon satisfied with whatever fudge the leadership concocts to "solve the problem", and then declares the issue "resolved" -- a round of applause for the soundness of SWP democratic centralism. On to business as usual ?


 
Colin Barker (Manchester)one and the same

Essentially a lot of these are the 'reasonable face of the party' ( although i have just seen a couple of names who are top class nut jobs, not sure they would have the stomach for anything more than an internal campaign and then go home.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

No matter what the split- no enduring party (even in the realms of micro-sects) will come out of this.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 8, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> a platform within a faction within a party ?


 
...within a movement.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

*SEYMOUR!* and his platform speak.

(First names only, the state closes in)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So given who has signed up, the 'they're not really one of us' defence isn't available. How does the much criticised CC deal with dissent on this scale and from these quarters; can it expel the problem with out causing terminal damage and if they don't expel can they carry on with their authority so questioned?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
I agree, this is much better than the Seymourites declaring a faction - the CC can't afford in my view to expel this lot then go after the Seymour-Mievillists - these are the people they need on board.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

The curse of autonomo-seymourism strikes again


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *SEYMOUR* and his platform speak.
> 
> (First names only, the state closes in)


 
feminist as a term of abuse? Time and place for everything

Some very 90s born sounding names there


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Why would the faction accept them anyway?


----------



## kavenism (Feb 8, 2013)

Am I missing something? Where are Seymour and Mieville’s names? Are they going it alone or were they expelled without me noticing?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Am I missing something? Where are Seymour and Mieville’s names? Are they going it alone or were they expelled without me noticing?


 
On the list


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

cyber-utopianism


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why would the faction accept them anyway?


 
Good question it will be more entertaining in my view if the faction reject the platform.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 8, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Am I missing something? Where are Seymour and Mieville’s names? Are they going it alone or were they expelled without me noticing?


 
Ah I see they have their own thing. Two factions outside of conference period. Who'da thunk it!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Am I missing something? Where are Seymour and Mieville’s names? Are they going it alone or were they expelled without me noticing?


There is a faction  - it's from what i think was one of the factions at the conference, the small centrist one. The other lot have declared they want to constitute a platform within that faction  - i don't see why they should be allowed to.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Good question it will be more entertaining in my view if the faction reject the platform.


Sorry, this fraction can only be run on Windows XP


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

it's a platform not a fraction - fractions are industrial.

I wonder if someone will form a pole within the platform? It certainly contains both a tendency and a clique


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> it's a platform not a fraction - fractions are industrial.
> 
> I wonder if someone will form a pole within the platform?


A mole in the pole on the platform in the fraction of the faction


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

I think we could be witnessing the begining of a new direction of matrioshka-leninism within the SWP


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Good question it will be more entertaining in my view if the faction reject the platform.


 
If they have any sense they will


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

Thats 131 people so far i think!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Thats 131 people so far i think!


 
for the platform or the faction or the platform and faction combined?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> for the platform or the faction or the platform and faction combined?


 
both of them


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2013)

mk12 said:


> ...within a movement.



That's what they would like to think.

We know better.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> both of them


 
It's probably not useful to count them both at the same time for now then until we have confirmation of the factions attitude to the platform...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

but are they going to set up their own fractional organ? This is a matter of extreme importance to the class


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> ViolentPanda. (well named)


 
Meaning?
Have I physically assaulted you at some time in the past?



> I have tried to post comments on here in a constructive and informative way. I have not tried to take the piss out of anyone. I responded to you sarcastic point about my 40 years in the movement in a factual way. I certanly do not think I have any more working class credentials than any other contributor on this site.


 
Then why mention them in such a way as to assert "working class credibility"?



> Have you ever considered that you come across as an offensive and disruptive individual.


 
Yes. To most people it doesn't matter as long as I contribute meaningfully. To some people it does, usually those more concerned with style than with substance. If someone says something stupid/ignorant/repellent/crass it's incumbent on everyone else to point that out to them, not to coddle them and/or their attitudes.



> Why dont you stop having a go at people and say something constructive.


 
People? You mean the sort of person who rocks up and tell people they're wrong about _X, Y_ and _Z_ without bothering to explain exactly how they're wrong; who extrapolate their own experiences as representative of the generality of SWP membership; who gob off while adding little or nothing to the mix?
Because that's the sort of person I have a go at. Don't talk shite and you don't get shite.

As for constructive contributions, I make plenty, as my sympathisers and my opposers will attest.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but are they going to set up their own fractional organ? This is a matter of extreme importance to the class


And who the fucks going to play it?! Didn't Steve Reich play fractional organ or was it Philip Glass?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but are they going to set up their own fractional organ? This is a matter of extreme importance to the class


 
the pole have their own organ


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


>


 
Sexist!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

talking of Poles I've just recieved an email confirming that solidarnosc previously of this parish (and many orgs on the far-left) is rejoining the SWP to take up cudgels in both the faction and the platform.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

For those of you whose self sacrifice knows no boundaries ......Barry Biddulph reviews Harman and Cliff

http://thecommune.co.uk/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Now there's an in-joke not many will get.


 
You under-estimate the degree of Kurt-fandom on Urban, I suspect!


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> the pole have their own organ



Aren't the pole and the organ the same genital?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh fuck, here it comes, the "considerably more working class cred than yow" argument.
> That might mean something in the SWP. It means fuck-all when most of the people you're saying it to have the same "credentials".


 
I think you're out of order. There's no need for your hatred of the SWP to lead you to treat people in such a disrespectful and aggressive way.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Doomed


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Meaning?
> Have I physically assaulted you at some time in the past?
> 
> 
> ...


 

just pm him. We have bigger fish to fry here.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

chilango said:


> Aren't the pole and the organ the same genital?


 
how long was Kilgore Trout's penis again I forget?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> talking of Poles I've just recieved an email confirming that solidarnosc previously of this parish (and many orgs on the far-left) is rejoining the SWP to take up cudgels in both the faction and the platform.


 
straddling the pole


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> straddling the pole


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)




----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

I'm going to need to take next week of work sick to keep up with all this


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

When is the next CPGB podcast out? I'm not sure I can wait that long


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> When is the next CPGB podcast out? I'm not sure I can wait that long


 
I'll wait and listen to the boxset all in one go


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> When is the next CPGB podcast out? I'm not sure I can wait that long


 
Sunday straight after the 4 o' clock game on Sky Sports .Its on Leninism , I think its part 37 next week


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The faction declared (pdf)
> 
> Note the CPGB URL
> 
> /assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/In_Defence_of_Our_Party.pdf


 

Is that the same Cathy Porter who wrote a biog of Kollontai? 

I see that Molyneux's isn't one of the signatories. The tame oppositionist.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Sunday straight after the 4 o' clock game on Sky Sports .Its on Leninism , I think its part 37 next week


 
I can't get leninism on freeview.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Is that the same Cathy Porter who wrote a biog of Kollontai?
> 
> I see that Molyneux's isn't one of the signatories. The tame oppositionist.


Quite poss. 

Molyneux is a man who has chicken in his beard never mind his soul. The gendarme sits there already.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

You can also get it on Trotflix


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

I'd guess that the soft and hard elements have reached a mutually acceptable accommodation. And that the vacillators won't reject the platform, as that would amount to setting them up for expulsion.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That first point is excellent - bolshiebhoy and those card players have been trumped by this one.


Absolutely true fella. This one is a game changer. The cc has to back down now or risk fucking everything up once and for all. Seymour and Mieville can still go take a jump (or just limp away slowly over the next months) but purging or just watching people like Birchall, Gonzales(!), Stack(!!) or Barker (!!!) walk away can't be acceptable to anyone who ever gave a flying fuck about the swp.

I think I said very early on in this thread that Stack's position on on the dc findings was one I sympathised with. If he's prepared to sign this ting that's good enough for me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'd guess that the *soft and hard elements* have reached a mutually acceptable accommodation. And that the vacillators won't reject the platform, as that would amount to setting them up for expulsion.


 
*snigger*


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2013)

Is the pole hard or soft?

(Dammit Spanky Longhorn!)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Absolutely true fella. This one is a game changer. The cc has to back down now or risk fucking everything up once and for all. Seymour and Mieville can still go take a jump (or just limp away slowly over the next months) but purging or just watching people like Birchall, Gonzales(!), Stack(!!) or Barker (!!!) walk away can't be acceptable to anyone who ever gave a flying fuck about the swp.


Whoever though Birchall would jump out of the traps!? Not me for sure.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

chilango said:


> Is the pole hard or soft?


 
the harder it gets the bigger it's membership gets


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

deep and penetrating marxist criticisms


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2013)

Surely the harder the pole the larger the organ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> the harder it gets the bigger it's membership gets


ooer missus


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> deep and penetrating marxist criticisms


 
useful for entering the faction


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> useful for entering the faction


lubricated by real ale no doubt


----------



## mk12 (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> talking of Poles I've just recieved an email confirming that solidarnosc previously of this parish (and many orgs on the far-left) is rejoining the SWP to take up cudgels in both the faction and the platform.


 
Fuck off. That has to be a joke?


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2013)

Would the soft pole need a platform for entry?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

and making them vacillitate more than any autonomous action ever could


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Whoever though Birchall would jump out of the traps!? Not me for sure.


Agreed, not in a million years. Or Gonzales or Barker. Stack maybe as he has his own moral authority for some reason.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Whoever though Birchall would jump out of the traps!? Not me for sure.


He is another one allowed to be critical, has been for decades. You could see some of that in his cliff biography. 


I don't think the faction _could_ refuse to allow the platform members to join. It is a faction, not a party, anyone who agrees with that factions platform can sign up to say they agree. Having an explicit _platform_ within the faction is a bit weird and not in in any constitution - tho it isn't barred from one either.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

If the vacillators were looking to keep the Seymourites out, surely they would have achieved that via the straightforward method of including a couple of lines they couldn't sign up to.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> and making them vacillitate more than any autonomous action ever could


50 Fractions of Grey


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If the vacillators were looking to keep the Seymourites out, surely they would have achieved that via the straightforward method of including a couple of lines they couldn't sign up to.


 
Good point.

Interesting times indeed *munches popcorn*


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

Once you've had the pole you can never go back to simple autonomous entryism


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> He is another one allowed to be critical, has been for decades. You could see some of that in his cliff biography.


Critical yes. But to join a faction at a time when the cc is at war with people like seymour is something I never would have dreamt possible, unless the issue was just too big to ignore. And he clearly thinks it is.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> He is another one allowed to be critical, has been for decades. You could see some of that in his cliff biography.
> 
> 
> I don't think the faction _could_ refuse to allow the platform members to join. It is a faction, not a party, anyone who agrees with that factions platform can sign up to say they agree. Having an explicit _platform_ within the faction is a bit weird and not in in any constitution - tho it isn't barred from one either.


Exactly, he is allowed to be critical. Yet he has never joined an open declared faction outside of the pre-discussion period _until now._


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

This is my 224th post on this thread apparently. The sort of thing that you normally read about in Fortean Times about compulsive behaviour


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly, he is allowed to be critical. Yet he has never joined an open declared faction outside of the pre-discussion period _until now._


Exactly.

Shit that may be the only time I've ever found myself saying the exact same thing as butchers at the same time ;-)


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> 50 Fractions of Grey


 
oh god PD have got to do this


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I think you're out of order. There's no need for your hatred of the SWP to lead you to treat people in such a disrespectful and aggressive way.


 
1) I don't "hate the SWP", I strongly dislike the brake that I personally believe that the various machinations of the SWP with reference to their practice of "embrace and stifle" of popular movements puts on working class and left politics as a whole.

2) I've been aggressive, but "disrespectful"? What reason(s) has the poster given me to be respectful? No reason(s) whatsoever!


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If the vacillators were looking to keep the Seymourites out, surely they would have achieved that via the straightforward method of including a couple of lines they couldn't sign up to.


 
prebanned? Looks like MATB were ahead of their time


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

Reading those demands again, it looks astoundingly like what union full-timers would propose as a way out when they thought a wildcat (or somesuch event) was getting out of hand.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Good point.
> 
> Interesting times indeed *munches popcorn*


 
speaks with mouthful


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> just pm him. We have bigger fish to fry here.


 
A tarpon, perhaps?


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Exactly, he is allowed to be critical. Yet he has never joined an open declared faction outside of the pre-discussion period _until now._


There hasn't been one until now!


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A tarpon, perhaps?


 
Didn't they sponsor Leeds at one point?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2013)

Rumour that another CC member has resigned, presumably J Choonara. Not confirmed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> how long was Kilgore Trout's penis again I forget?


 
Big, once he'd undergone the Tralfamadorian penis expansion ritual.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I can't get leninism on freeview.


 
I think they repeat on Dave (Spart).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> There hasn't been one until now!


Because of people like him.  Odd thing to say though.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Reading those demands again, it looks astoundingly like what union full-timers would propose as a way out when they thought a wildcat (or somesuch event) was getting out of hand.


I think the faction gives a way for the CC to get off the spike upon which it has impaled itself. If they have any remaining wisdom they will allow the discussions to take place and concede points. I won't be putting any bets on it though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Then next year? The year after?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

It would have been really, really wise for the faction to have said something that made the platform keep their distance.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

They will have every CC loyalist in their ear now sensing they can cut them both off by dividing them. First foot wrong from SEYMOUR!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It would have been really, really wise for the faction to have said something that made the platform keep their distance.


Not at all, they should be attempting to reconcile 'the platform' with the newly enlightened CC after it reforms itself by dialogue. Fairy tales are supposed to have a happy ending.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They will have every CC loyalist in their ear now sensing they can cut them both off by dividing them. First foot wrong from SEYMOUR!


 
Is it though - I think that despite what he is saying publically he would quite like to break away from the party and that the best way to do it while looking like the wronged party is set up an infrastructure which the CC have to expel by their own logic, and that allows him to take a number of members, especially young and energetic ones away with him.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Is it though - I think that despite what he is saying publically he would quite like to break away from the party and that the best way to do it while looking like the wronged party is set up an infrastructure which the CC have to expel by their own logic, and that allows him to take a number of members, especially young and energetic ones away with him.


My reading is SEYMOUR! has no interest in or support for another group - this is his last fling with organised politics.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)




----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Not at all, they should be attempting to reconcile 'the platform' with the newly enlightened CC after it reforms itself by dialogue. Fairy tales are supposed to have a happy ending.


Lol. Some of them know that's not going to happen, the reconcile bit that is. I think they genuinely believe the 'reforms' bit might in the sense of correcting a cockup.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> My reading is SEYMOUR! has no interest in or support for another group - this is his last fling with organised politics.


 
It wouldn't surprise me if you're right - anyway the main point is he doesn't care if he gets expelled.


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think the faction gives a way for the CC to get off the spike upon which it has impaled itself. If they have any remaining wisdom they will allow the discussions to take place and concede points. I won't be putting any bets on it though.


'Give us smiths head, and we'll give you seymours'


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


>


 "I will take you with my forward body of the class" he said, stroking the lobe of my ear. "But you have to be loyal. A very loyal oppositionalist. You have to make me believe that you are in opposition to the stern discipline of my central pole."


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> 'Give us smiths head, and we'll give you seymours'


 
With all the innuendo in this thread it took a couple of goes to read this


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


>


FACTIONS not fRActions...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> 'Give us smiths head, and we'll give you seymours'


Not the way i'd put it but...interesting


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> FACTIONS not fRActions...


 Does the incorrectness of our Marxist-Leninist terminology ... excite you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> FACTIONS not fRActions...


rote armee FRAKTION not rote armee FAKTION

the continentals are more into their fractions whereas i suppose we prefer decimals.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not the way i'd put it but...interesting


 
Yes could be a way out for the majority on all three sides


----------



## redcogs (Feb 8, 2013)

There must be huge tensions within Party branches around this crisis?  The hacks who have been holding the CC's line will have been subject to a good deal of unwelcome questioning - commensurate to the amount of information and criticism that the ordinary membership has received during their real world and www experience/s.  i spoke with a member last  weekend who was almost completely ignorant of the main contentious issues ( despite having had a soft soap debriefing from a 'trusted' comrade), but she was devastated by the attacks from Gob Cohen and the Daily Wail..

Who can imagine how matters might develop now?  If individuals from ostensibly 'loyalist' branches join the faction and /or platform won't the CC's bully tendency move to nullify them?  It all sounds to have the potential for collapsing into deeply unpleasant score settling catastrophe.  i'd wager there is plenty of 'cowardly flinching' and behind the scene cyborg muscle flexing in the mix.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> 'Give us smiths head, and we'll give you seymours'


Brilliant, that's it in a nutshell.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


>


 

Missed an opportunity there. Should have been a Keffiyeh in the pic.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> 1) I don't "hate the SWP", I strongly dislike the brake that I personally believe that the various machinations of the SWP with reference to their practice of "embrace and stifle" of popular movements puts on working class and left politics as a whole.
> 
> 2) I've been aggressive, but "disrespectful"? What reason(s) has the poster given me to be respectful? No reason(s) whatsoever!


 

1) I understand your political position.

2) Disrespectful meaning rude.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Brilliant, that's it in a nutshell.


How could they deliver on the second?


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the continentals are more into their fractions whereas i suppose we prefer decimals.


And you were doing so well until then...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> And you were doing so well until then...


one out of two ain't a bad start


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


>


is it just me or do other people imagine proletarian democracy man going 'sold! to the comrade in the corner!'?


----------



## belboid (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How could they deliver on the second?


By not opposing his expulsion.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> By not opposing his expulsion.


One way we will know if they accept them lot in and accept them in as a platform. If they do, it's not as you say, if they don't it's all bets off i think.


----------



## cesare (Feb 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> is it just me or do other people imagine proletarian democracy man going 'sold! to the comrade in the corner!'?


Dusty tomes under the hammer


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

cesare said:


> Dusty tomes under the hammer


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> is it just me or do other people imagine proletarian democracy man going 'sold! to the comrade in the corner!'?


 
funnily enough that was originally the logo of the Amalgamated Society of Auctioneers and Auctioneer's Lads


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
Is that from the first Freedom bookshop firebombing back in 1889?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Is that from the first Freedom bookshop firebombing back in 1889?


it's some of the unsold copies of the first edition of kropotkin's 'mutual aid' in 2011, taken with a digital camera in sepia


----------



## audiotech (Feb 8, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> What did you make of it?


 
The sniggering heard in the background of the first of this series of CPGB podcasts gave a flavour of what was to come. Reminded me of here.

Edit: Were you there with your witty one-liners?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 8, 2013)

oops


----------



## cesare (Feb 8, 2013)

Sniggering at the back of the lecture hall  Little bit calumny


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

cesare said:


> Sniggering at the back of the lecture hall  Little bit calumny


that's not just any sniggering, that's *m&s* sniggering


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

audiotech said:


> The sniggering heard in the background of the first of this series of CPGB podcasts gave a flavour of what was to come. Reminded me of here.
> 
> Edit: Were you there with your witty one-liners?


So let me get this right, you were listening to these things that you had a pop at others for listening to? We _really_ weren't listening.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 8, 2013)

i think the idea of the smith/seymour thing is pure fantasy. how is that going to happen now? how would that ever work?

whether the faction being set up is good or not, depends on the strength of the harder element of the opposition. tactically, it's fantastic. witness bolshieboy, the hacks have had the rug pulled completely from under their feet. strategically, i'm not so sure.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 8, 2013)

I once had to drag one of the signees of the latest document away from a silly altercation he decided to have with a copper on a city centre Saturday sale. He seems to have been an adventurist student forever. Another of the signees and a one time researcher for Arthur Scargill went on to work for RJB Mining (bought most of the pits after the strike) on a huge salary apparently and have ever since little in the way of respect for that one. Colin Barker I have some time for.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So let me get this right, you were listening to these things that you had a pop at others for listening to? We _really_ weren't listening.


 
No, I was drawing the attention to the probability of those saying they didn't listen actually did listen.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

audiotech said:


> No, I was drawing the attention to the probability of those saying they didn't listen actually did listen.


You've established this probability have you? By what? Oh god.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

audiotech said:


> No, I was drawing the attention to the probability of those saying they didn't listen actually did listen.


fucking give it up you dull twat


----------



## audiotech (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You've established this probability have you? By what? Oh god.


 
Yes, you got it, from years of reading bull-shit.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 8, 2013)

Pickman's especially.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 8, 2013)

What is really shocking is the amount of SWP members who are carrying on as if nothing bad is happening...they seem to be waiting for this nasty stuff to go away. This week's 'meetings and events' page in SW is all 'business as usual.' I quite admire that in one way - a rockhard approach - 'keep calm and carry on' and all that jazz...but on the other hand, we are talking about the future of the party, and lets be honest, everyone outside of the dedicated band of loyalists ("We few, we happy few") know exactly what kind of scale of a disaster this is: it is a great yawning chasm of a Grand Canyon type disaster.

But then look again at the meetings and events page in SW this week -  the range and breadth of discussions the SWP want to have this week up and down the country is pretty awe inspiring. Be honest: they do try to be what they say they are, a revolutionary party of dedicated professional revolutionaries.  You have to hand it to them - this is the only organisation nationally -- even, maybe internationally -- that has the capacity to bring ideas like this to a mass audience (shame that 'mass audience' aren't in the slightest bit interested)

I have major disagreements with what the SWP thinks constitutes 'revolution', major disagreements as to what they think might constitute 'capitalism' even. The SPD _was_ the model for Lenin's Bolsheviks - the Soviet 'Thermidorian reaction' ushered in a period where 'turning necessity into a virtue' became the norm for the Bolsheviks, and the SWP/Trotskyism was too eager to assess this epoch uncritically. Essentially, Cliff's theoretical contribution from the 1950s has never had to go through a renaissance - until -- maybe --  now. Perhaps revolutionary politics is now about to embark on a new journey - a re-evaluation of what we mean by 'revolution' and what needs to be done to make it happen.

The general parameters of 'debate' that we have been subject to from the SWP opposition has been pretty damn appalling. The root and branch issues of what revolutionaries mean by 'revolution' have not been addressed. The 'oppositionists' have restricted themselves to a discussion on 'content', assuming that the aspect of the 'form' itself is fine. On this all sides of the SWP agree!

But people like Moishe Postone and Gaspar Tamas in Hungary have done a lot of spadework on 'the form' problem of revolution already, and have set out some parameters for others to contribute to, and as Gaspar Tamas said recently, while 'the head' or 'brain' of Marxian philosophy/critical theory is huge, the physical 'body' of praxis/real movement is extremely puny!  The avananche of 'critical/Marxian theory' is formidable, but, just for what it is worth, someone else raising important problems/debates in the 'Anglosphere' is one of the signatories to a 'dissident' open letter - Alberto Toscano. He is one of the very few people out there who is broaching the very prescient problem of 'real abstraction' which can be read here.

Something has to give.

The funny thing is, meanwhile, in the outside world, the economy is heading for a complete collapse. Problems are welling up that is going to make all this blather seem like a chimp's tea party real soon.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> talking of Poles I've just recieved an email confirming that solidarnosc previously of this parish (and many orgs on the far-left) is rejoining the SWP to take up cudgels in both the faction and the platform.


Has he completed one complete circuit of the British left and started a second one? There must be an easier way to collect party membership cards, if that's your thing. Maybe a polite letter?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> talking of Poles I've just recieved an email confirming that solidarnosc previously of this parish (and many orgs on the far-left) is rejoining the SWP to take up cudgels in both the faction and the platform.


aren't we supposed to be suspicious of people who go from organisation to organisation as solidarnosc has apparently done?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

There is no organisational solution to social problems. The key is engaged activity that produces forms of organisation. See, we are all autonomists now.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is no organisational solution to social problems. The key is engaged activity that produces forms of organisation. See, we are all autonomists now.


 
I don't understand this.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Activity produces organisation (and by activity we mean class struggle). It rarely throws up leninism. Self-replicating groups from when it might have done so, do. If, however, the class needs leninsim and this form(s) of organisation to meet its needs, then i'm sure it will find a way to express it.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Activity produces organisation (and by activity we mean class struggle). It rarely throws up leninism. Self-replicating groups from when it might have done so, do. If, however, the class needs leninsim and this form(s) of organisation to meet its needs, then i'm sure it will find a way to express it.


8)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Random said:


> 8)


Tired, sleepy...must save...class.


----------



## Random (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Tired, sleepy...must save...class.


Fighting... must fight ... ruling ideas... of hegemonic class... in my brain


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Need...pint, fucking sharpish.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

audiotech said:


> The sniggering heard in the background of the first of this series of CPGB podcasts gave a flavour of what was to come. Reminded me of here.
> 
> Edit: Were you there with your witty one-liners?



They asked me to do the warm up spot but I had already said I would for an afternoon of demo voyeurism with my mate Laurie Penny


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How could they deliver on the second?


If and when they get the concessions they want and a recognition that it was all handled too administratively they will row in politically against the seymourites. I'm convinced of that cause of the things some of the faction (not the platform ) say in private. They are embarrassed by the anti IS trend of Seymour but won't say it public ally while they're both fighting the handling of this case.


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2013)

Do they know that talking to you about it is roughly equivalent to talking in public?


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> This thread is like the crowd of gawpers you get round the scene of an accident.


 
Hey, we're not just here out of vulgar curiosity!


----------



## killer b (Feb 8, 2013)

speak for yourself.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2013)

> bolshiebhoy said: No I completely understand the indignation on the assumption you buy the coverup hypothesis.


​So you don't buy the coverup hypothesis?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

two sheds said:


> ​​So you don't buy the coverup hypothesis?


It was cock up (pardon the expression) rather that cover up. The CC has not tried to hid the fact that allegations have been made, they haven't gone out of their way to make it known either of course. They haven't made the details public and nor should they.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

It was both. The cocked it up then they tried to cover up the cock up.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2013)

In what sense cock up? If the transcript hadn't been leaked then we'd not have learned anything. They would have kept it quiet that they had packed the judging panel with friends of the accused (and the rest) - cover up, surely.

If that had been bourgeois justice and it had later come out that a rape accusation had been handled in the same way, in private, I doubt we'd be arguing.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

Thy did a good job of it.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Thy did a good job of it.


 
Errrm not really


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Thy did a good job of it.


Of what? They even cocked up the cover up.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 8, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Are these high profile "oppositionists" a bit like the tame bogus "resistance cells" set up in Occupied France by German counter intelligence to attract genuine people in , nullify their activities , and then "dispose" of em ? In other words a "respectable" old guard "faction" emerges with a few" procedural quibbles", is soon satisfied with whatever fudge the leadership concocts to "solve the problem", and then declares the issue "resolved" -- a round of applause for the soundness of SWP democratic centralism. On to business as usual ?


 
This morning when we heard the news of the faction, myself and another former member thought that this could be a distinct possibility.

And if we want to go really paranoid: I have heard theories that the entire organisation is a way of neutralising dissent - draw people in, get them to slog their tripe out and use their resources, then after a few years boot them back out into the wild again, leaving them vowing never to touch another left org with a bargepole. But no, that's just fantasy, right?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

two sheds said:


> In what sense cock up? If the transcript hadn't been leaked then we'd not have learned anything. They would have kept it quiet that they had packed the judging panel with friends of the accused (and the rest) - cover up, surely.
> 
> If that had been bourgeois justice and it had later come out that a rape accusation had been handled in the same way, in private, I doubt we'd be arguing.


Of course we would but not in as much detail I we would all have been discussing rumor rather that fact and It would not have been kept quite from the membership, it was discussed at the conferree, it was discussed at the district meeting following conference. The whole idea behind there being a cover up is that they tried to hide it from the membership which is not the case.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of what? They even cocked up the cover up.


That was my point.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 8, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sexist!


 
Nah, that could be a man or a woman.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 8, 2013)

chilango said:


> Aren't the pole and the organ the same genital?


 
No, some organs are not poles.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> That was my point.


Obv on the point of rejoining then.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Obv on the point of rejoining then.


eh, you said they had made a cock up and tried to cover it up. I made a sarcastic comment about them doing a good job of it, meaning they hadn't and this means I am on the point of rejoining, or are you being sarcastic?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> eh, you said they had made a cock up and tried to cover it up. I made a sarcastic comment about them doing a good job of it, meaning they hadn't and this means I am on the point of rejoining, or are you being sarcastic?


Oh god, all these years and i still can't get over non-literal stuff.


----------



## ayatollah (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Activity produces organisation (and by activity we mean class struggle). It rarely throws up leninism. Self-replicating groups from when it might have done so, do. If, however, the class needs leninsim and this form(s) of organisation to meet its needs, then i'm sure it will find a way to express it.


 
Sihhi was battling to grasp an earlier version of this "wisdom" from Butchersapron in post 5581. I sympathise with his difficulty, because  Butchersapron's  statement is such utter  bollocks that it almost defies belief .

One doesn't have to be either a "Leninist" or a Trot to understand that the old statement "Without revolutionery theory there can be no revolutionery practice" contains a hard kernal of solid political truth. The capitalist state's  mass media, entertainment and education systems, and indeed the traditional barroom "truisms" of everyday culture serve to seriously distort most people's everyday  understandings and  interpretations of daily life, the true nature of the problems people face, and the best solutions to these problems. (And this is true of any class-based social system - that is how small ruling classes mainly hold on to their privileges and class power). "Spontaneity" and "action" on its own  is just as likely to lead to distinctly reactionery self-defeating actions by the oppressed in society if not connected to a radical, progressive, political belief system. In the case of capitalism, this action needs to be connected to specifically socialist values and long term aims. Without this progressive, socialist , framework ,  people wanting to fight against problems like housing shortages are just as likely to see local ethnic minorities as the cause of their housing problems than grasp that the  housing shortages  being caused by the operations of the capitalist system. People worried about high unemployment levels  - the capitalist ideology fed day in day out by the popular press is more likely to lead many people to focus on the jobs  supposedly "stolen" by minority communities, than on the higher level operations of the capitalist  system. And so it goes on in every case of social problems and people's understanding of the real underlying basis of those problems.

 Butchersapron, not just here, but elsewhere on these threads, when he actually gives us a glimpse of his  reactionery spontaneist politics, seems to believe that  the  undifferentiated "working class"  has a mysterious spontaneous  "wisdom of crowds" understanding of its real interests - so left alone from the malignant influence of the "middle class left" it will, through action alone, "find the true path" forward to some sort of "working class solution" ("working class power in working class areas" perhaps ? a la that simplistic key IWCA slogan  - it's so simplistic it's positively laughable !). This is of course dangerous drivel, as the key oppressed class under capitalism, deeply imbued with a huge weight of capitalist ideology, the "spontaneous" expression of the  non socialist influenced working class community is just as likely to be profoundly reactionary, as progressive. What Butchers is actually extolling is usually  called crass "workerism" , the "tailing" of the "spontaneous" (but hugely capitalist ideology-influenced) instincts of the undifferentiated crowd , by an opportunist political party seeking only to "ride that wave" in whatever direction it goes.  The Trot/Leninist tradition is profoundly compromised and disfunctional , true, but 200 years of socialist theory and practice has given us a priceless store of working class-based knowledge and experience (yep, WORKING CLASS knowledge and experience) as to how to combat and overcome capitalism.  Socialist political militants need collectively to seek to build a more open, less rigidly dogmatic, mass socialist movement. We don't need to go down any of the empty , "action without thought or theory" routes hinted at by Butchers and his coterie of chums on here. That route leads in the end to gross opportunism and reaction.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

The first two tablets.

Now take some gin.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Sihhi was battling to grasp an earlier version of this "wisdom" from Butchersapron in post 5581. I sympathise with his difficulty, because Butchersapron's statement is such utter bollocks that it almost defies belief .
> 
> One doesn't have to be either a "Leninist" or a Trot to understand that the old statement "Without revolutionery theory there can be no revolutionery practice" contains a hard kernal of solid political truth. The capitalist state's mass media, entertainment and education systems, and indeed the traditional barroom "truisms" of everyday culture serve to seriously distort most people's everyday understandings and interpretations of daily life, the true nature of the problems people face, and the best solutions to these problems. (And this is true of any class-based social system - that is how small ruling classes mainly hold on to their privileges and class power). "Spontaneity" and "action" on its own is just as likely to lead to distinctly reactionery self-defeating actions by the oppressed in society if not connected to a radical, progressive, political belief system. In the case of capitalism, this action needs to be connected to specifically socialist values and long term aims. Without this progressive, socialist , framework , people wanting to fight against problems like housing shortages are just as likely to see local ethnic minorities as the cause of their housing problems than grasp that the housing shortages being caused by the operations of the capitalist system. People worried about high unemployment levels - the capitalist ideology fed day in day out by the popular press is more likely to lead many people to focus on the jobs supposedly "stolen" by minority communities, than on the higher level operations of the capitalist system. And so it goes on in every case of social problems and people's understanding of the real underlying basis of those problems.
> 
> Butchersapron, not just here, but elsewhere on these threads, when he actually gives us a glimpse of his reactionery spontaneist politics, seems to believe that the undifferentiated "working class" has a mysterious spontaneous "wisdom of crowds" understanding of its real interests - so left alone from the malignant influence of the "middle class left" it will, through action alone, "find the true path" forward to some sort of "working class solution" ("working class power in working class areas" perhaps ? a la that simplistic key IWCA slogan - it's so simplistic it's positively laughable !). This is of course dangerous drivel, as the key oppressed class under capitalism, deeply imbued with a huge weight of capitalist ideology, the "spontaneous" expression of the non socialist influenced working class community is just as likely to be profoundly reactionary, as progressive. What Butchers is actually extolling is usually called crass "workerism" , the "tailing" of the "spontaneous" (but hugely capitalist ideology-influenced) instincts of the undifferentiated crowd , by an opportunist political party seeking only to "ride that wave" in whatever direction it goes. The Trot/Leninist tradition is profoundly compromised and disfunctional , true, but 200 years of socialist theory and practice has given us a priceless store of working class-based knowledge and experience (yep, WORKING CLASS knowledge and experience) as to how to combat and overcome capitalism. Socialist political militants need collectively to seek to build a more open, less rigidly dogmatic, mass socialist movement. We don't need to go down any of the empty , "action without thought or theory" routes hinted at by Butchers and his coterie of chums on here. That route leads in the end to gross opportunism and reaction.


 
I understand this even less.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

ayatollah you really are the biggest div to darken these boards with your presence since oo I dunno; Quartz maybe?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I understand this even less.


I can't even read it, line breaks man, line breaks.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The first two tablets.
> 
> Now take some gin.


 
You mean take the entire pack of tablets and down with a quart of gin


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I can't even read it, line breaks man, line breaks.


 
don't bother, I picked a couple of lines out and then wondered why


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Can't trust the w/c. Who can you trust ? I know. 10 posh blokes who said that you can. I will then. I'll give them loads of time and money too.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

I think some of the critique of leninism is that it _isn't_ rooted in the class though. I may have misunderstood some of what I've read over the last couple of weeks because I am fairly new to this stuff after all, but it seems to me that one of the main problems a lot of left communists and anarchists have with Leninism is that it replaces the class with the party and the party's leadership are often (although not always) removed from the day to day existence and struggles, their conditions of life are different and they are "professional revolutionaries" rather than their activity arising out of what they do in the workplace and day to day life, they have a lot more control over their work than the people they represent etc, certainly in the case of things like central committees and higher level people paid by the party, in many cases anyway. Thus their views become more and more distorted and removed and they start to see things differently to what they would if they were still working and doing political activity in their spare time, again I may have misunderstood some of the criticisms but I think that's how it seems.

I don't think you have to be a "workerist" to see that that criticism has some validity, I know what workerism is and i think very few people on this site actually are

would somebody who has more knowledge of this correct me, or have i got that mostly right?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> One doesn't have to be either a "Leninist" or a Trot to understand that the old statement "Without revolutionery theory there can be no revolutionery practice" contains a hard kernal of solid political truth. The capitalist state's mass media, entertainment and education systems, and indeed the traditional barroom "truisms" of everyday culture serve to seriously distort most people's everyday understandings and interpretations of daily life, the true nature of the problems people face, and the best solutions to these problems. (And this is true of any class-based social system - that is how small ruling classes mainly hold on to their privileges and class power).


Ok serious question, where does this theory come from?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Of course we would but not in as much detail


 
Yes, which is why I say it is a cover up.



> we would all have been discussing rumor rather that fact and It would not have been kept quite from the membership, it was discussed at the conferree, it was discussed at the district meeting following conference. The whole idea behind there being a cover up is that they tried to hide it from the membership which is not the case.


 
Would we have been discussing anything? Sorry I'm getting a bit lost - are you saying they would have discussed it fully at conference, trying to cover nothing up? Including that the judging panel was packed with friends of the guy being accused?

I'd understood that there was a (successful) attempt to push it through without letting members  know in advance what had actually happened so they couldn't make an informed vote. I'd also thought that at conference it was all 'move along there's nothing to see', and after the vote people were effectively unable to bring it up for another year.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can't trust the w/c. Who can you trust ? I know. 10 posh blokes who said that you can. I will then. I'll give them loads of time and money too.


 
I think you've been accused by ayatollah of "tailing" and "workerism".


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Ok serious question, where does this theory come from?


 
I'm sure the answer will be: "but 200 years of socialist theory and practice has given us a priceless store of working class-based knowledge and experience"


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I may have misunderstood some of what I've read over the last couple of weeks because I am fairly new to this stuff after all,


 
Er, who do you think you are kidding Ms frogwoman; you've been reading and doing this stuff for years, don't try that on us we've all known you (in an online sense) for like 10 - 12 years.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Activity produces organisation (and by activity we mean class struggle). It rarely throws up leninism. Self-replicating groups from when it might have done so, do. If, however, the class needs leninsim and this form(s) of organisation to meet its needs, then i'm sure it will find a way to express it.


Also, whilst this on the hoof drivel, it still points to the fatal misunderstanding of spontaneity that ayatollah demonstrates - he think that it means that it happens once, in one situation, when it really means the coming to light of previous forms of informal organisation. It is all about consistent ongoing real organisation.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Er, who do you think you are kidding Ms frogwoman; you've been reading this stuff for years, don't try that on us we've all known you (in an online sense) for like 10 - 12 years.


 
I meant in terms of reading communist theories that are critical of leninism


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Also, whilst this on the hoof drivel, it still points to the fatal misunderstanding of spontaneity that ayatollah demonstrates - he think that it means that it happens once, in one situation, when it really means the coming to light of previous forms of informal organisation. It is all about consistent ongoing real organisation.


 
leninists will say the parties - firebox counterfire and the swp and sp do this already


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Yes, which is why I say it is a cover up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have not seen anyone in the opposition make any such accusation.

I think there are two issues here.
1, did they try to cover it up from the membership? I don't think they did, I think they could and should have been more open about it, but that is not quite the same thing. They should have made it formally know that an accusation of rape had been made against a CC member as soon as the DC investigation had concluded, not 2 moths latter at their conference. There was an attempt to prevent discussion from taken place prior to the conference.  

2, Did they try and cover it up from the outside world. In sense yes, but the SWP has never been particularly open about it's 'inner life' so this is nothing new or specifically related to the current situation.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

Also surely another criticism is that if you are a leading member of a Leninist party the majority of your friends will also be in that party, so you will get a distorted view of "the class struggle on the ground"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I have not seen anyone in the opposition make any such accusation.
> 
> I think there are two issues here.
> 1, did they try to cover it up from the membership? I don't think they did, I think they could and should have been more open about it, but that is not quite the same thing. They should have made it formally know that an accusation of rape had been made against a CC member as soon as the DC investigation had concluded, not 2 moths latter at their conference. There was an attempt to prevent discussion from taken place prior to the conference.
> ...


That's two issues. You point out within that that there are many many others.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> ... witness bolshieboy, the hacks have had the rug pulled completely from under their feet. strategically, i'm not so sure.


They really have. bolshieboy's main tactic of insinuating all opposition is arising from people with flawed politics has been taken from him. Now all they can try to do is divide the two oppositions. But neither set are fools and the situation now looks bleak for the CC and their bolshieboy-esque supporters. Alex is probably holding secret talks right now to prepare himself a political lifeline.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

Just been out in Manchester, at the castle on Oldham street, with daughters and one of their boyfriends. Inadvertently learnt , after me beginning to change the world after four pints, that when boyfriend was on a nuclear fuels induction course that they were taken to some lefty cafe to experience alternative views. Turned out to be Firebox and lengthy discussion that by abolishing trident etc etc that they would all be retrained to work in hospitals etc


----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> They should have made it formally know that an accusation of rape had been made against a CC member as soon as the DC investigation had concluded, not 2 moths latter at their conference. There was an attempt to prevent discussion from taken place prior to the conference.


 
How did they present it at the conference? What did they tell the membership and what did they leave out?



> 2, Did they try and cover it up from the outside world. In sense yes, but the SWP has never been particularly open about it's 'inner life' so this is nothing new or specifically related to the current situation.


 
That is still a cover-up more widely. That they normally cover up stuff that they don't want to get out is no defence.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Just been out in Manchester, at the castle on Oldham street, with daughters and one of their boyfriends. Inadvertently learnt , after me beginning to change the world after four pints, that when boyfriend was on a nuclear fuels induction course that they were taken to some lefty cafe to experience alternative views. Turned out to be Firebox and lengthy discussion that by abolishing trident etc etc that they would all be retrained to work in hospitals etc


 
Nothing wrong with the goal.

I personally can't see how their actions will spearhead it:

"comedy from:
Stewart Lee
Mark Steel
Francesca Martinez
Mark Thomas
Jeremy Hardy
Lee Camp
Andy Zaltzman

And contributions from Tony Benn and Clare Solomon
Wed 1st May @ the Bloomsbury Theatre, London
Doors open at 7pm
To order tickets to go www.thebloomsbury.com or call 020 7388 8822

For more information go to www.fireboxlondon.net or call 07595822145"







Firebox has opened its doors to the movement to host a wide range of lectures, film showings, discussion groups, exhibitions and activist meetings. We hope to raise enough funds to_* expand*_ its _media centre_ to offer _citizen journalism courses_ and educational _seminars_ and _*facilitate*_ our work organising a _mass_ pro-democracy movement against _war, austerity and inequality_."


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

I'm glad austerity only comes second


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

two sheds said:


> How did they present it at the conference? What did they tell the membership and what did they leave out?


 
Read the Transcript that its all in there


two sheds said:


> That is still a cover-up more widely. That they normally cover up stuff that they don't want to get out is no defence.


 
I wasn't suggesting it was, just that they have not tried to cover this situation up specifically, it is business as normal. For some reason this case is really brining out out the pedant in me.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

A mass movement going beyond traditional conceptions of left and right


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> A mass movement going beyond traditional conceptions of left and right


 
Marinne LePen can tell you about that


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> A mass movement going beyond traditional conceptions of left and right


That must get bloody confusing trying to give someone directions.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> That must get bloody confusing trying to give someone directions.


 
only at a T-junction


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm glad austerity only comes second


 



http://www.thebloomsbury.com/event/run/1782
"Firebox is a haven for dangerously progressive ideas in the heart of London. This is a political project initiated by Counterfire and bringing the best the left has to offer in ideas, debate, art and culture."
Anyway 25 quid a pop, plus 2.50 transaction fee.  





'the best the left has to offer in... culture'


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Read the Transcript that its all in there
> 
> 
> I wasn't suggesting it was, just that they have not tried to cover this situation up specifically, it is business as normal. For some reason this case is really brining out out the pedant in me.


A cover up of a specific situation in a wider situation of ongoing cover up does not mean that either is not a cover-up - nor what they are covering up (specific and general) are not cock-ups.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> http://www.thebloomsbury.com/event/run/1782
> "Firebox is a haven for dangerously progressive ideas in the heart of London. This is a political project initiated by Counterfire and bringing the best the left has to offer in ideas, debate, art and culture."
> Anyway 25 quid a pop, plus 2.50 transaction fee.
> 
> ...


Private school and oxbridge - but he likes's the fall and this. Ok, do it at a school on sat afternoon. On your own. In fact, i'll ring your agent up tmw and see how we go. Bedroom tax starter.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> http://www.thebloomsbury.com/event/run/1782
> "Firebox is a haven for dangerously progressive ideas in the heart of London. This is a political project initiated by Counterfire and bringing the best the left has to offer in ideas, debate, art and culture."
> Anyway 25 quid a pop, plus 2.50 transaction fee.
> 
> ...


 
The only austerity they'll be fighting is that within Firebox's cash flow chart


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 'the best the left has to offer in... culture'


Hey you know Rob Newman shagged an aquaintance of ours


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Private school and oxbridge - but he likes's the fall and this. Ok, do it at a school on sat afternoon On your own.


 
 Actually I wouldn't mind being a fly in the wall if they ever take that comedy set to a school round here.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A cover up of a specific situation in a wider situation of ongoing cover up does not mean that either is not a cover-up - nor what they are covering up (specific and general) are not cock-ups.


Urmmm I agree I think, that's one hell of a complicated sentence.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Actually I wouldn't mind being a fly in the wall if they ever take that comedy set to a school round here.


I'd love it - the face of new brave-comedy.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Urmmm I agree I think, that's one hell of a complicated sentence.


 
even our trusty old friend the semi-colon couldn't help with that


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Not the effortless mix of nor and either?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not the effortless mix of nor and either?


 
Stylistically impressive admittedly


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

killer b said:


> Do they know that talking to you about it is roughly equivalent to talking in public?


Facebook IS public as JM keeps saying!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Can you change concessions to oppressions? Otherwise, i'm there.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Need a hand on the door?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Maybe we could a fiver off for each oppression?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)




----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'd love it - the face of new brave-comedy.


 
It's brave just being a successful comedian nowadays with the Rise of Twitter:

http://www.suchsmallportions.com/fe...t-think-16-year-old-me-would-want-be-comedian

1990s


“I don't remember it being inconvenient... And then one day, a bloke had shouted at me on escalator ‘Oi Stew’ and a guy in a van had shouted ‘Oi Stew’ and this happened about four times. My Dad went, ‘God you know loads of people’, he never realised. He thought I knew van drivers, random people in vans or cars that I didn’t recognise, but I never remember it being a problem.”

Now

“Now what I would love to do, if I can get out of the venue in time, takes me about half an hour to sell my stuff... is get to a pub and get one or two pints of a local bitter that I wouldn’t be able to get in London. That’s perfect but often that's difficult, people recognise you and hassle you. ...
What changed in the meantime is Twitter, social networking all that kind of stuff and it’s much worse now and you’re basically tracked and feel paranoid all the time and you have to be on your best behaviour."


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

I wonder what he feels about snoop-teams and grass numbers and increasing work surveillance and peoples free time being ate away by 'open access'from bosses to them? Because all you've got is an agent isn't it lee?  That's not just an anti-lee point, i just find the lack of perspective pretty...i want to say offensive, but it's not, it's just how i expect them to think.

(I also think we're well OT on this thread  )


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

Well its been a quiet day on the swp front


----------



## discokermit (Feb 8, 2013)

one thing to come out of all this, molyneux has made himself look a right cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well its been a quiet day on the swp front


We are watching hands and looking at facial gestures. There is no politics in this now - at least as little as there ever was. It's a challenge and if it succeeds or fails - a game. If it succeeds you and others will be praising their bravery as part of the tradition that you defend in short step. But none of it means anything apart from those to whom it must (i said whom).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> one thing to come out of all this, molyneux has made himself look a right cunt.


 
_I've been in the party 30 years, and i almost grew a spine, then the CC told me not to._


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> one thing to come out of all this, molyneux has made himself look a right cunt.


Well there's a very thin sliver between the far right wing of the loyalists and the far left wing of the opposition. Plus being in Dublin screws with your perspective.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well there's a very thin sliver between the far right wing of the loyalists and the far left wing of the opposition. Plus being in Dublin screws with your perspective.


All the good ones, _they're on the right, we're on the left, _every time. Saw them with counterfire then bamberry - your politic are indistinguishable. You are all the same politically just fighting over a teachers turd.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> All the good ones, _they're on the right, we're on the left, _every time. Saw them with counterfire then bamberry - your politic are indistinguishable. You are all the same politically just fighting over a teachers turd.


Now come on chap. That's as crass as me saying all you anarchists are the same. I know there's a world of difference between your sophisticated brand and some of the folk on here.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

I'm talking about the organisation bb. And the way that you good people fight over it with the same tricks over and over, they're on the right they've moving away they never grasped it, they were part of 'the movements' - it's a hacks handbook. It's like a managers little toolkit.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _I've been in the party 30 years, and i almost grew a spine, then the CC told me not to._


 
25 minutes in - explains the importance of the party.



"You have organise, bring together [in a party] and get to work together those key people, who _*are*_ the actual more militant those people who do want to see socialist revolutionary change in all the struggles of the working-class. Now, that is what we're talking about when we're talking about how you need a party. Not people to rule the working-class but people to win the working-class to what needs to be done in the struggle to secure the victory in the revolution"


----------



## redcogs (Feb 8, 2013)

audiotech said:


> I once had to drag one of the signees of the latest document away from a silly altercation he decided to have with a copper on a city centre Saturday sale. He seems to have been an adventurist student forever. Another of the signees and a one time researcher for Arthur Scargill went on to work for RJB Mining (bought most of the pits after the strike) on a huge salary apparently and have ever since little in the way of respect for that one. Colin Barker I have some time for.


 
i have an idea that the former NUM employee (Brian Parkin)  passed away, quite some time ago.

It may be that another Brian Parkin (who is a current SWP member) has signed up.  Only mentioning it because the extant  Parkin  may not deserve any disrespect for turn-coatism.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 25 minutes in - explains the importance of the party.
> 
> 
> 
> "You have organise, bring together [in a party] and get to work together those key people, who _*are*_ the actual more militant those people who do want to see socialist revolutionary change in all the struggles of the working-class. Now, that is what we're talking about when we're talking about how you need a party. Not people to rule the working-class but people to win the working-class to what needs to be done in the struggle to secure the victory in the revolution"



Entirely consistent wht their 19th century plan  - from lenin - reach the mass of workers through the best most militant workers - then we have the ladder into them. Of course we learn form them, but you know...the party sees further than the class.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Entirely consistent wht their 19th century plan - from lenin - reach the mass of workers through the best most militant workers - then we have the ladder into them. Of course we learn form them, but you know...the party sees further than the class.


 
At least it worked in Russia and didn't end up attacking its "most militant workers" and channeling gold to national dictators who attacked their own "most militant workers". .... Err hang on a moment.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 8, 2013)

I thought the party _was_ the class?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


>


 
I like Stuart Lee but I would pay to see Katie Price


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'd love it - the face of new brave-comedy.




forever


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

And then stewart lay on the stage (this signifies exasperation and physically does what all the people on the audience would like to do people who laugh at OFAH - join the freikorps and wipe the scrounging cunts out) to let us know that he really really means it, he trigger even does the face. This is socialist comedy? I bet ayatollah loves its it but...such hate filled privilege.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> forever



better than the AMM video


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And then stewart lay on the stage (this signifies exasperation and physically does what all the people on the audience would like to do people who laugh at OFAH - join the freikorps and wipe the scrounging cunts out) to let us know that he really really means it, he trigger even does the face. This is socialist comedy? I bet ayatollah loves its it but...such hate filled privilege.


Come the revolution butchersapron, Come the revolution.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)




----------



## two sheds (Feb 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Read the Transcript that its all in there


 

I’d say there were strong although unsuccessful attempts at a cover-up from the transcript. The woman chairing the discussion (Karen) stressed they would not discuss the detail of what happened in the hearing. A couple of times she interrupted people who were trying to say how badly X had been treated.



> VIV S. ... she [W] was asked about past and subsequent sexual relationships, and she was pressured -
> 
> KAREN (interrupts): Could I ask you not to go into the detail of what was discussed, because I don’t think that’s relevant and that is one of the ground rules that we agreed. (Audience groans.) I think if we get into the details of the case – (Many audience members: Let’s hear it!) I did ask if people could not actually interrupt. We are attempting to deal with a very very serious issue, and I think it’s important that a guarantee of confidentiality was given. I think that then if we try and then hear this, hearing small elements of what took place and the detail of the content, then we’re actually moving to a different agenda to the one that we agreed. I suggest we attempt to stick to that.
> 
> ...


 
Karen chairing stresses the guarantee of confidentiality that had been given, but W had actually apparently ‘frequently’ asked to be present at the conference session but was refused by the CC.

And …



> X [the second complainant] said I also want to add that I think it’s entirely disingenuous that leading members have denied that there is a second complaint. My evidence was effectively a second complaint, but because of the experience of the first case I’m unwilling to have it heard by the current disputes committee as a separate dispute. I don’t accept the account given that they’re not aware of the substance of my complaint – it’s the same as the account that I’d given in the first place.


 
And I think it was more than just ‘cock-up’



> Sadia J: Her [W's] treatment afterwards has been worse. She feels completely betrayed. No one on the CC has ever contacted her voluntarily, not even to tell her that Comrade Delta was standing down, and she feels she’s been treated as this non-person. The disgusting lies and gossip going round about her has been really distressing and disappointing for her to hear, and the way her own witnesses have been treated in Birmingham hasn’t been much better.
> 
> Recently the complainant wanted to attend a meeting and tried to talk to a local member. He told her that it wasn’t appropriate for him to speak to her and he walked away. ... Is it right that a young woman has to plan her route to work avoiding paper-sellers, or that she comes away from a meeting crying because people refuse to speak to her? Is it right that her witnesses are questioned about their commitment to the party because they missed a branch meeting?


 
The person leaking the transcript said:



> For all the CC’s claims that they are not engaged in a cover up, in the ‘reporting back’ session of conference we were told that branches and districts should not be told any details of this discussion – “I would urge everyone not to go into the details of any particular contribution in the report back” – apart from saying “there were some criticisms”, with confidentiality as the excuse. However, as you will see, each speaker was careful to respect confidentiality in their contribution, so circulating it is not problematic in that respect.


 
You say this is bringing out the pedant in you - so I'm even more surprised you don't recognise a cover-up.

Incidentally I’d wondered why he was called Comrade Delta – there had apparently been two other complaints, with Comrade Alpha and Comrade Beta (no mention of Comrade Gamma who I think must have been disappeared  )


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And then stewart lay on the stage (this signifies exasperation and physically does what all the people on the audience would like to do people who laugh at OFAH - join the freikorps and wipe the scrounging cunts out) to let us know that he really really means it, he trigger even does the face. This is socialist comedy? I bet ayatollah loves its it but...such hate filled privilege.


 
Personally never found OFAH very funny but never found myself wanting to wipe the scrounging cunts out.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> better than the AMM video


This man, this is the man that they have asked to lead their assault into popular culture. The Red wedge.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This man, this is the man that they have asked to lead their assault into popular culture. The Red wedge.


 
your are sounding a bit like Stuart Lee now


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Personally never found OFAH very funny but never found myself wanting to wipe the scrounging cunts out.


You are of them though. Eyes that cannot see.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Personally never found OFAH very funny but never found myself wanting to wipe the scrounging cunts out.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> your are sounding a bit like Stuart Lee now


alright Dave?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And then stewart lay on the stage (this signifies exasperation and physically does what all the people on the audience would like to do people who laugh at OFAH - join the freikorps and wipe the scrounging cunts out) to let us know that he really really means it, he trigger even does the face. This is socialist comedy? I bet ayatollah loves its it but...such hate filled privilege.


 
Have you listened to that interview? It's him complaining about twitter because someone did a celebrity sighting 'Stewart Lee has just walked into this cafe' not bothered or pestered him at all nothing more, even though he says twitter has made his life much easier because before he had to hire lawyers to sue/threaten now all he needs to do is write a rebuttal and his fans retweet-bombard it to the media.

Slightly more on topic here, the same Stewart Lee who took part in the Time Trumpet 'Rape a Celebrity Ape' with an older "Anne Robinson" and the whole 'I'd have loved to have been on it, wouldn't you, how many years did it run, I would have wanted it...'


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Never trust a man who wore a suit when he was 18 at oxbridge - it says, i'm serious about culture and will be hectoring you shortly.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2013)

More of a Its always Sunny in Philadelphia man myself


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Sihhi was battling to grasp an earlier version of this "wisdom" from Butchersapron in post 5581. I sympathise with his difficulty, because Butchersapron's statement is such utter bollocks that it almost defies belief .


 
You might have a point if it weren't ridiculously easy to break butch's post down into its' constituent parts to (very simply) see what he's saying.

"Activity produces organisation (and by activity we mean class struggle). It rarely throws up leninism. Self-replicating groups from when it might have done so, do. If, however, the class needs leninsim and this form(s) of organisation to meet its needs, then i'm sure it will find a way to express it."

Let's do some of that "breaking down" I mentioned:

1) "Activity produces organisation (and by organisation we mean class struggle" - Activity contributes to the production of a basis for organised class struggle.

2) "It rarely throws up Leninism" - Such activity has not historically caused the spontaneous creation of forms of struggle that have much of a relation to Leninism as we understand it.

3) "Self-replicating groups from when it might have done so, do" - Groups that base themselves on the verities and ideologies of yesteryear, i.e. the days when activity might have thrown up Leninism *will* throw up Leninism, because it's the only songbook they want to sing from.

4) "If, however, the class needs leninsim and this form(s) of organisation to meet its needs, then i'm sure it will find a way to express it." - If the class, rather than the various "leninist" parties, need Leninism, then the class will reach a Leninistic mode of working, of its' own accord, without the aid of the aforementioned self-replicating groups.

it's not fucking rocket science, you great fucking div!


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


>


 
Abba bottom of the bill? Workers' Gurner are dead to me.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Never trust a man who wore a suit when he was 18 at oxbridge - it says, i'm serious about culture and will be hectoring you shortly.


 
1. He is a huge Fall fan. 


2. Does he describe his own show as "the closest comedy gets to art" in this trail?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> alright Dave?


 
Arnold Brown once had Jim Davidsons head in a carrier bag saying 'Alright my son'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I don't understand this.


 
The solution comes from the class looking for solutions, not from external organisations handing down prescriptions for how to do stuff.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Abba bottom of the bill? Workers' Gurner are dead to me.


 
Not the bottom of the bill comrade but the final and ultimate stage of the night just as communism will be the final stage of socialism. All of the previous acts, Ant, Dec, Bordiga, etc will be as nothing compared to Abba on their reunion tour singing all the old favourites, Waterloo, Gimme Gimme Gimme etc with a brand-new number about dialectical materialism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You mean take the entire pack of tablets and down with a quart of gin


 
Waste of gin.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Have you listened to that interview? It's him complaining about twitter because someone did a celebrity sighting 'Stewart Lee has just walked into this cafe' not bothered or pestered him at all nothing more, even though he says twitter has made his life much easier because before he had to hire lawyers to sue/threaten now all he needs to do is write a rebuttal and his fans retweet-bombard it to the media.
> 
> Slightly more on topic here, the same Stewart Lee who took part in the Time Trumpet 'Rape a Celebrity Ape' with an older "Anne Robinson" and the whole 'I'd have loved to have been on it, wouldn't you, how many years did it run, I would have wanted it...'


In all honesty i haven't, but that sort of expectation of personal ownership of social space doesn't surprise me. And when he does it about the internet it's him encroaching on others.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Never trust a man who wore a suit when he was 18 at oxbridge - it says, i'm serious about culture and will be hectoring you shortly.


 
Not here to trust him but I find him funny.dare say funnier that OFAH.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> leninists will say the parties - firebox counterfire and the swp and sp do this already


 
That's because they're twats, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 1. He is a huge Fall fan.
> 
> 
> 2. Does he describe his own show as "the closest comedy gets to art" in this trail?



He described something as that - to be fair it was edited from something else so it could refer to anything (leaving aside his redundant classical idea of ART).


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Not the bottom of the bill comrade but the final and ultimate stage of the night just as communism will be the final stage of socialism. All of the previous acts, Ant, Dec, Bordiga, etc will be as nothing compared to Abba on their reunion tour with a brand-new number about dialectical materialism.


 
I always thought 'Take A Chance On Me' was their take on the vanguard's relationship to the working class. I'm confused now.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I always thought 'Take A Chance On Me' was their take on the vanguard's relationship to the working class.


 
It is now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Not here to trust him but I find him funny.dare say funnier that OFAH.


I think he's very funny as well. I think he's very clever and i like the way he approaches stuffm i like it enough that i can get past the smugness - doesn't mean that there's no hate filled gaps in his life, that sometimes pop out in lying on the floor everyone else didn't go to oxbridge incidents.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

He's like bill hicks for the unilad crowd.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)




----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> In all honesty i haven't, but that sort of expectation of personal ownership of social space doesn't surprise me. And when he does it about the internet it's him encroaching on others.


 
Sometime he writes about the Fall and the internet at the same time 

"This is another thing we've forgotten about is that with Mark E. Smith and Dave Graney, you buy into all the things that they're saying or their point of view can shift. Are you being addressed by them as a person, are they in character? You don't really know enough about them to assume anything. So it actually means they can do anything.

Whereas if you live your life through Twitter and blogging everyone assumes that what you write is an extension of making yourself public, one of the things about writers and musicians historically is that we project onto them, or we choose to take different things away from them. But it's increasingly hard to do that because everyone's living like a Philip Dick novel where they're supposed to have an online presence as themselves."

http://thequietus.com/articles/06324-stewart-lee-interview-favourite-albums?page=11

I suppose there's nothing "wrong" with this interview and he wouldn't break strike action unlike his vile partner Richard Herring, but it feels like .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/aug/01/stewart-lee-collecting-comics-stand-up

"Those prolific genius artists were just the start of it – I had 6ft of Fall CDs, 5ft 8in of Miles Davis, 5ft 6in of Sonic Youth and its solo spin-offs, 5ft 2in of John Coltrane, 4ft 11in of the free improviser Derek Bailey, 4ft 4in of Robert Pollard and Guided by Voices, 3ft of Bob Dylan, 2ft 8in of the Byrds and various tributaries, 2ft 6in of the Texan outsider artist Jandek and 2ft 4in of the saxophonist Evan Parker; I had 20ft of European improvised music, 20ft of jazz, 14ft apiece of British folk music, reggae, and blues, 7ft of Japanese psychedelia, and 6ft each of music from Tucson, New Zealand and 1970s Germany. Even after a massive cull, I reckon I still had 350ft of recorded sound which I imagined I needed to keep."

Also a big Gang of Four fan. 

http://www.stewartlee.co.uk/REVIEW.php?page=album_review_archive/v-various-messthetics.php


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He described something as that - to be fair it was edited from something else so it could refer to anything (leaving aside his redundant classical idea of ART).


 
Yes you're probably right - probably something he's bigging up on his own 'I interview the real comedy minds' show.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

whats this about Herring being a strike breaker?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

His thing about mark e  smith is genuine - he did a bbc4 doc and they met and he was almost scared to talk to him - so MES had him in his hand - i think he toyed with him really. It's almost like he couldn't imagine great imaginative writing coming out of certain conditions that he had set in his mind. And well, if he likes G04 there is always hope  (think we have wandered far off track here)


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> whats this about Herring being a strike breaker?


 
He broke the BBC  strike in 2010 (aiming to defend pensions for future generations), alongside John Peel's son, Steve Lamacq, Paul Ross, Jeremy Vine, Andrew Collins, Chris Moyles, Chris Evans, Andrew Neil, Fun Lovin Criminals Huey, Louis Theroux and Peter Kaye.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

And Johnathon Agnew for anyone listening to the cricket from 6am tonight.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He broke the BBC strike in 2010 (aiming to defend pensions for future generations), alongside John Peel's son, Steve Lamacq, Paul Ross, Jeremy Vine, Andrew Collins, Chris Moyles, Chris Evans, Andrew Neil, Fun Lovin Criminals Huey, Louis Theroux and Peter Kaye.


 
none of them including Herring surprise me tbh


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 9, 2013)

Waterloo demonstrated the party's role as the memory of the class.
 Whilst money, money, money was a savage critique of Ricardian scarcity models of economic fluctuation and chiquitita was the groups paen of praise for comrade Gonzalo and the sendero luminoso.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And Johnathon Agnew for anyone listening to the cricket from 6am tonight.


 
no one cares about cricket though


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> no one cares about cricket though


More people care abut cricket than gay marriage - 100%


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Bring back test cricket to terrestial tv, def vote winner.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> More people care abut cricket than gay marriage - 100%


 
racist


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Waterloo demonstrated the party's role as the memory of the class.
> Whilst money, money, money was a savage critique of Ricardian scarcity models of economic fluctuation and chiquitita was the groups paen of praise for comrade Gonzalo and the sendero luminoso.


 
Dancing Queen was a ruthless Marxist criticism of bourgeois conceptions of the role of entertainment under late capitalist decay.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 9, 2013)

I am neutral about cricket but I don't understand it anymore. Lots of different formats and leagues and stuff. 

The olden days were the best days.


----------



## Favelado (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Dancing Queen was a ruthless Marxist criticism of bourgeois conceptions of the role of entertainment under late capitalist decay.


 
It was number 1 in the hit parade when I was born.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

Favelado said:


> It was number 1 in the hit parade when I was born.


 
Showing the development of an incipient class consciousness.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Tell us oh mighty SEYMOUR! have you been granted entry to the first door?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> "Those prolific genius artists were just the start of it – I had 6ft of Fall CDs, 5ft 8in of Miles Davis, 5ft 6in of Sonic Youth and its solo spin-offs, 5ft 2in of John Coltrane, 4ft 11in of the free improviser Derek Bailey, 4ft 4in of Robert Pollard and Guided by Voices, 3ft of Bob Dylan, 2ft 8in of the Byrds and various tributaries, 2ft 6in of the Texan outsider artist Jandek and 2ft 4in of the saxophonist Evan Parker; I had 20ft of European improvised music, 20ft of jazz, 14ft apiece of British folk music, reggae, and blues, 7ft of Japanese psychedelia, and 6ft each of music from Tucson, New Zealand and 1970s Germany. Even after a massive cull, I reckon I still had 350ft of recorded sound which I imagined I needed to keep."


where's the fucking abba you cunt.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Tell us oh mighty SEYMOUR! have you been granted entry to the first door?


 
he's an entered apprentice


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Favelado said:


> I am neutral about cricket but I don't understand it anymore. Lots of different formats and leagues and stuff.
> 
> The olden days were the best days.


 


Favelado said:


> It was number 1 in the hit parade when I was born.


 
How dare you be neutral in a war like this. Anyway mouldy old dough, Also exposed tony blackburn via glance.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> none of them including Herring surprise me tbh


 
Steve Lamacq according to John Harris's (yes I know, another Labour Guardian guy) book was starving/depriving himself of food just to give money to miners strike support funds, that surprised me.

Tom Robinson was on the picket line apparently.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Tom Robinson was on the picket line apparently.


 
that doesn't surprise me either, a lovely man


----------



## pansalar (Feb 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> no one cares about cricket though


I don't like cricket ...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Lamacq started writing for the NME mid-late 80s, harris late 90s. That's personal talk. IF SL said that to him then i believe it. But then he should know not to cross picket lines now he has things pretty easy.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

oh no...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Is Rees coming?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

pansalar said:


> I don't like cricket ...


 
you love it?


----------



## pansalar (Feb 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> oh no...


I have been lurking on this thread for a while, couldn't resist, sorry.  I've seen them live as well.


----------



## killer b (Feb 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> where's the fucking abba you cunt.


Even the most obsessive Abba collector could only manage a couple of inches. Scarcely worth bragging about.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

pansalar said:


> I have been lurking on this thread for a while, couldn't resist, sorry. I've seen them live as well.


i thought your username was panesar. that would have been the best entry into a thread ever. from now on, in my head, you are.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

killer b said:


> Even the most obsessive Abba collector could only manage a couple of inches. Scarcely worth bragging about.


coulda slipped it in at the end. "bit of abba".


----------



## killer b (Feb 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> coulda slipped it in at the end. "bit of abba".


Tbf, thats the unspoken postscript to everyones record collection brags. Don't even need saying.


----------



## pansalar (Feb 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i thought your username was panesar. that would have been the best entry into a thread ever. from now on, in my head, you are.


No probs.  But I have no intention of becoming a regular poster on this particular subject (the on topic part thereof), shall we say, because I've already put my neck on the line and am being discreet.  Great-grandparents in the Communist Party in the '30s;  history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> he should know not to cross picket lines now he has things pretty easy.


 
Yes that was the point of my posting that. Lamacq knew what he was doing, iirc on 6 Music he actually covered Tom Robinson's show as well as doing his own . 

Re Miners Strike. I can dig out the reference if I have a chance but it's from the first bit of the Last Party: Britpop, Blair and the demise of English rock.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

How's this? can somebody do a version thats not crap lol


----------



## pansalar (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How's this?


A real shame that Chuckle Academy's been canned


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> none of them including Herring surprise me tbh


 
collins surprises me.

and I like Kaye 

I always thought Herring and Lee were wank. A second rate New man and Baddiel..


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> collins surprises me.
> 
> and I like Kaye
> 
> I always thought Herring and Lee were wank. A second rate New man and Baddiel..


Wtf is wrong with you? 4 oxbridge comedians yeh.

I'm coming to NY, can i kip at yours?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How's this? can somebody do a version thats not crap lol


 

Surely there's a better photograph of Bordiga out there? I can't decide if he looks like Gerry Healey's uglier brother or Ian Birchall after chemotherapy treatment.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

The undercurents sussx uni website - junior aufheben - used to have one. The main person was the daughter of the greek ambassador. Check this shit out. I may waffle, but it's there.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Sihhi was battling to grasp an earlier version of this "wisdom" from Butchersapron in post 5581. I sympathise with his difficulty, because Butchersapron's statement is such utter bollocks that it almost defies belief .
> 
> One doesn't have to be either a "Leninist" or a Trot to understand that the old statement "Without revolutionery theory there can be no revolutionery practice" contains a hard kernal of solid political truth. The capitalist state's mass media, entertainment and education systems, and indeed the traditional barroom "truisms" of everyday culture serve to seriously distort most people's everyday understandings and interpretations of daily life, the true nature of the problems people face, and the best solutions to these problems. (And this is true of any class-based social system - that is how small ruling classes mainly hold on to their privileges and class power). "Spontaneity" and "action" on its own is just as likely to lead to distinctly reactionery self-defeating actions by the oppressed in society if not connected to a radical, progressive, political belief system. In the case of capitalism, this action needs to be connected to specifically socialist values and long term aims. Without this progressive, socialist , framework , people wanting to fight against problems like housing shortages are just as likely to see local ethnic minorities as the cause of their housing problems than grasp that the housing shortages being caused by the operations of the capitalist system. People worried about high unemployment levels - the capitalist ideology fed day in day out by the popular press is more likely to lead many people to focus on the jobs supposedly "stolen" by minority communities, than on the higher level operations of the capitalist system. And so it goes on in every case of social problems and people's understanding of the real underlying basis of those problems.
> 
> Butchersapron, not just here, but elsewhere on these threads, when he actually gives us a glimpse of his reactionery spontaneist politics, seems to believe that the undifferentiated "working class" has a mysterious spontaneous "wisdom of crowds" understanding of its real interests - so left alone from the malignant influence of the "middle class left" it will, through action alone, "find the true path" forward to some sort of "working class solution" ("working class power in working class areas" perhaps ? a la that simplistic key IWCA slogan - it's so simplistic it's positively laughable !). This is of course dangerous drivel, as the key oppressed class under capitalism, deeply imbued with a huge weight of capitalist ideology, the "spontaneous" expression of the non socialist influenced working class community is just as likely to be profoundly reactionary, as progressive. What Butchers is actually extolling is usually called crass "workerism" , the "tailing" of the "spontaneous" (but hugely capitalist ideology-influenced) instincts of the undifferentiated crowd , by an opportunist political party seeking only to "ride that wave" in whatever direction it goes. The Trot/Leninist tradition is profoundly compromised and disfunctional , true, but 200 years of socialist theory and practice has given us a priceless store of working class-based knowledge and experience (yep, WORKING CLASS knowledge and experience) as to how to combat and overcome capitalism. Socialist political militants need collectively to seek to build a more open, less rigidly dogmatic, mass socialist movement. We don't need to go down any of the empty , "action without thought or theory" routes hinted at by Butchers and his coterie of chums on here. That route leads in the end to gross opportunism and reaction.


This is, no messing about, bonkers bruno.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 9, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i have an idea that the former NUM employee (Brian Parkin) passed away, quite some time ago.
> 
> It may be that another Brian Parkin (who is a current SWP member) has signed up. Only mentioning it because the extant Parkin may not deserve any disrespect for turn-coatism.


 
Really? Saw him around two years ago at a meeting and he was alive and well then. I was surprised to see him there as a member of the SWP. Tried to re-recruit me and I blanked him.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

think i've got it now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Really? Saw him around two years ago at a meeting and he was alive and well then. I was surprised to see him there as a member of the SWP. Tried to re-recruit me and I blanked him.


Oh shut up.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Bottom left -class.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

cheers, been pissing myself with laughter while doing these


----------



## audiotech (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh shut up.


 
No.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wtf is wrong with you? 4 oxbridge comedians yeh.
> 
> I'm coming to NY, can i kip at yours?


 
coming to ny? I don't believe you.

but if you are, sorry not enough room. what about petee? 

ps - I was joking about Newman and Baddiel


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> think i've got it now.


 

who's the bloke under the Chuckle Brothers?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

frank turner


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> frank turner


 
No, the other one.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> frank turner


 
is that the posh folk singer bloke?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If and when they get the concessions they want and a recognition that it was all handled too administratively they will row in politically against the seymourites. I'm convinced of that cause of the things some of the faction (not the platform ) say in private. They are embarrassed by the anti IS trend of Seymour but won't say it public ally while they're both fighting the handling of this case.


 
From the "Platform" point of view, the "soft" opposition are useful tactically: That particular list of old lags and third tier leaders will be able to speak to and reassure the middle cadre in a way that the students and bloggers simply can't. They also provide a partial shield against expulsion.

But associations carries risks. They are older and more experienced than the Platform membership, and have their own agenda (moderation of the rebellion), which they will try to push. They are also reasonably likely to stab the Platform in the back if the CC partially backs down and offers a deal.

The game for the CC remains the same, even though this represents a weakening of their position: Try to hive off the "hard" opposition from the "soft", divide and conquer.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

It will be interesting to see how much the faction and the platform grow by over the next few days. There are now 81 Platform signatories for instance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It will be interesting to see how much the faction and the platform grow by over the next few days. There are now 81 Platform signatories for instance.


Queuing for the scaffold


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> think i've got it now.


What's going on with the gender balance there? Not to mention the number of middle-aged old or frankly dead white men


----------



## manny-p (Feb 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Seems to be reliable


Was reliable you cunt


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

*Initial "Platform" signatories by branch:*
Bristol South
Brixton (x3)
Camden (x2)
Canterbury (x3)
Edinburgh (x6)
Euston (x5)
Hackney East (x2)
Hornsey and Wood Green
Oxford (x3)
Leeds Central
Leicester (x4)
Leytonstone
Liverpool (x4)
Manchester Rusholme (x3)
Newcastle
Norwich (x2)
Nottingham (x2)
Portsmouth (x5)
Sheffield North (x3)
Sheffield South (x4)
Stoke on Trent (x2)
Sussex and Brighton (x7)
Swansea
Thanet
Tottenham (x2)
Tower Hamlets
Wandsworth and Merton (x2)
Wigan
York

80 total in 33 branches (plus four expelled)

*Initial "Faction" signatories by branch:*
Goldsmiths (x2)
Norwich
Birmingham (x5)
Brighton (x3)
Brixton
Bury (x2)
Cambridge
Camden
Croydon
Edinburgh
Euston (x7)
Glasgow
Hackney (x5)
Hackney South (x2)
Hornsey and Wood Green
Islington (x3)
Kent (x2)
Leeds (x2)
Leicester
Lewisham
Liverpool (x2)
Manchester (x3)
Newham
Norwich
Oxford (x3)
South London
Tooting
Walthamstow (x6)
No branch given (x5)

(66 signatories, 28 branches, 5 have no branch given)

*Branches which passed a recall conference motion:*
Aberdeen
Canterbury
Croydon
Edinburgh
Hull
Liverpool
Middlesbrough
Manchester Rusholme
+at least two others.

*Branches which passed some other critical motion:*
Brighton
Brixton
Bury
Euston
Lewisham
Norwich
Portsmouth
Tower Hamlets
Wandsworth and Merton


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

I make that 48 branches with at least one oppositionist present, so the spread isn't bad. 146 have signed up so far. It's also worth noting that quite a few people seem to be unaffiliated oppositionists, given that there are branches which passed recall motions without having a single platform or faction signatory in them and others which passed such motions with one or two.

As against that, it's hard to know how many branches the two strands of oppositionists actually control in practice. A lot would depend on whether less involved members side with their local oppositionists or their local loyalists.


----------



## Random (Feb 9, 2013)

So much for the CPGB idea that the SP doesn't care!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

lol Random it is top notch analysis he's done true enough!


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2013)

Stockport Plaza 20th April.

We will be calling for a general strike in support of this event. ( I think there is a spiritualist and a medium on the week after if anyone is interested)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

Random said:


> So much for the CPGB idea that the SP doesn't care!


 
I blame insomnia.

I'm a bit curious about the "oppositional" branches with no declared oppositionists in them. Places like Hull, Aberdeen, Middlesbrough. Are they just out of the (London based) loop of either factional leadership? Or are they people who are opposed to the CC but suspicious of the factionalists?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

Alan Gibbons, ex swp, on Sky News just now speaking passionately about library closures. Unless the cc want to see the likes of Stack and Barker on the outside too they need to solve the riddle of how to keep the faction in while losing the platform.


----------



## manny-p (Feb 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Seems to be reliable


Well? Was my source reliable then? Think so knobhead.


----------



## pansalar (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> *Branches which passed a recall conference motion:*
> Aberdeen
> Canterbury
> Croydon
> ...


 
I can vouch for one of the two others but that would be personally identifying info and I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DARK SIDE ... OH NO.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Well? Was my source reliable then? Think so knobhead.


 
Wash your mouth out with soap and water.

Has Stack resigned as your reliable source stated?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Unless the cc want to see the likes of Stack and Barker on the outside too they need to solve the riddle of how to keep the faction in while losing the platform.


 
That's been roughly their game plan from the start: Split the hard and soft oppositionists. But the problem is that action against the "hard" lot risks inflaming the soft lot. Davidson, for instance, was in the "soft" pre-conference faction but is now in the platform, and that's without the CC going on an expulsion spree.

And there's the additional complication that this stuff is, uniquely in terms of SWP splits, newsworthy. And the key people in the platform are well connected in the media. You don't need to be a spin doctor to work out what angle the papers will take should they start expelling them.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And there's the additional complication that this stuff is, uniquely in terms of SWP splits, newsworthy. And the key people in the platform are well connected in the media. You don't need to be a spin doctor to work out what angle the papers will take should they start expelling them.


True but a lot easier to do if they listen to the faction and lance the festering delta case boil.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 9, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Really? Saw him around two years ago at a meeting and he was alive and well then. I was surprised to see him there as a member of the SWP. Tried to re-recruit me and I blanked him.


 
i'm obviously wrong if you saw him as recent as two years ago - apologies.  

If you see him again you might mention that he isn't in fact dead - he may want too know


----------



## manny-p (Feb 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Wash your mouth out with soap and water.
> 
> Has Stack resigned as your reliable source stated?


yeah from the dc. sorry about the abuse comrade XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


----------



## redcogs (Feb 9, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Really? Saw him around two years ago at a meeting and he was alive and well then. I was surprised to see him there as a member of the SWP. Tried to re-recruit me and I blanked him.


 
Its probably also safe to reinstate the turncoat epithet.  What a trajectory though - SWP loyalist, NUM loyalist, RJB Mining (ie significant beneficiaries of the assault upon the NUM) loyalist, and now, an SWP oppositionist!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> True but a lot easier to do if they listen to the faction and lance the festering delta case boil.


 
I'm not even sure if that's true now. After all, why have the "vacillators" chosen now to form a faction?

It seems to me to be a direct response to last weekend's NC and them Monday's CC, which is to say the clear preparations for a purge. And one of their demands is for no disciplinary action. It looks to me like an attempt to force the CC to back down on its plans to get rid of what is now the Platform. The CC has already shown unprecedented weakness in this row - nobody has ever gotten away with thumbing their nose at the leadership this loudly and for this long in public without being swiftly ejected before.

I'd have previously said that no SWP CC would dream of taking this from uppity members, but it seems to me that the "vacillators" may think that the CC is so weak that they can push it back entirely. So the CC are left with a choice: Call their bluff and risk a huge split or back down and lose all authority.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

There is only one option for them then.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is only one option for them then.


 
yep - call their bluff


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is only one option for them then.


 
Every single dispute in the SWP's history provides strong supporting evidence for that. But, yet, there are a lot of unusual things about this row: The fact that they haven't long ago expelled the public dissidents at the very least is merely the most obvious.

The "Faction" people, the old lags and third tier leaders, do have access to better information than we do - Bergfeld was on the CC up until a few days ago, and Choonara still seems to be. Their gamble seems to be that the CC has lost its bottle.

I still think that expulsions are their most likely move. But I'm not quite 100% sure of it anymore.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Hold your nerve nige, the leninists steed shall charge - the prof is working it up to a proper lather as we speak,


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Hold your nerve nige, the leninists steed shall charge - the prof is working it up to a proper lather as we speak,


 
I still think that's the most likely course, by a distance.

I note though that someone in the comments on SU is claiming that they've been told the Faction now has 300 signatories. That's third hand and obviously not to be taken at face value, mind you.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

I think that would change things if true - in the short term at least. That would def extend the game.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

There will be more opportunities for memes and crap puns as well. If the split happens I think PD should issue polemics with all sides. It worked for the sparts so it should work now


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

_Revolutionarize the SWP_


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think that would change things if true - in the short term at least. That would def extend the game.


 
Yes.

Although, it's difficult to see what kind of fudge/compromise could really be arranged.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2013)

pansalar said:


> I don't like cricket ...


 
To paraphrase Dr Johnson: When a person does not like cricket, they do not like life.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes.
> 
> Although, it's difficult to see what kind of fudge/compromise could really be arranged.


The biggest problem is the range of positions within the faction (excluding the platform). There probably isn't agreement among the faction about what should happen to the hard core in the platform. Makes a negotiated settlement with the prof difficult when Stack won't be speaking for everyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The biggest problem is the range of positions within the faction (excluding the platform). There probably isn't agreement among the faction about what should happen to the hard core in the platform. Makes a negotiated settlement with the prof difficult when Stack won't be speaking for everyone.


That's both the strength and the weakness. Negotiated peace with some is going to come at a very heavy cost and spur on those who want more. Key thing for CC is to _use_ the faction in the short term, play on it's loyalty and its range of differences.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The biggest problem is the range of positions within the faction (excluding the platform). There probably isn't agreement among the faction about what should happen to the hard core in the platform. Makes a negotiated settlement with the prof difficult when Stack won't be speaking for everyone.


 
I suspect that opposition to expulsions is probably the overwhelming preference of people in the Faction. Although how absolute that preference is may vary considerably.

Serious question:
Assume for a moment that the CC does lose it's bottle, how could it arrange a compromise? What it could it offer?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

I think we need some proper nuclear maths on that board.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

Just heard someone describe the Faction as the SWP's very own House of Lords revolt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Just heard someone describe the Faction as the SWP's very own House of Lords revolt.


That's excellent.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that opposition to expulsions is probably the overwhelming preference of people in the Faction. Although how absolute that preference is may vary considerably.
> 
> Serious question:
> Assume for a moment that the CC does lose it's bottle, how could it arrange a compromise? What it could it offer?


 
Smith, Kimber and a few seats.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

cheers, i managed to fix it so it's not got the weird bubble thing lol


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Smith, Kimber and a few seats.


 
What happens to the Seymourites? What happens to the fulltimers pushed out of their jobs? Does a "lame duck" CC and apparatus largely stay in place?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

Do people think it looks better with the oval board? can change it back lol


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What happens to the Seymourites? What happens to the fulltimers pushed out of their jobs? Does a "lame duck" CC and apparatus largely stay in place?


Depends if they are in the faction or not. I can't see them cohering without* SEYMOUR!* whipping them and i think he's on his way out of organised party politics. The fulltimers were made fulltimers precisely because of their dull inability to collectively challenge the CC - without a strong lead (and let's face it, China is not it) they are going nowhwere. A few _penititi_ and they'l crumble without Seymour - if the lords go, as i expect, down the path of negotiation as far as possible.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Do people think it looks better with the oval board? can change it back lol


Can't see an oval board this end...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Stalin's left turn to forced industrialisation in 1928 - split the trot opposition as it looked like (and really was) their own program. The CC are doing the same manouvere with their published need for a "sharp ideological turn". They're going to more like the opposition than the opposition soon - once the immediate danger is dealt with.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Stalin's left turn to forced industrialisation in 1928 - split the trot opposition as it looked like (and really was) their own program. The CC are doing the same manouvere with their published need for a "sharp ideological turn". They're going to more like the opposition than the opposition soon - one the immediate danger is dealt with.


thing is, the cc are massively incompetent, as they have shown. so far, their attempts to split the opposition have done the opposite, unifying them (to some extent) and drawing in others. callinicos is no fighter.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Totally agree, in their minds this is what they are doing though - they've shown that they don't have the basic competence to do it or to to even create the conditions that might allow them to try it.

I watched 5 minutes of a kimber video last night - this is not someone who could make a rooster fight.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Serious question:
> Assume for a moment that the CC does lose it's bottle, how could it arrange a compromise? What it could it offer?


Heads, lots of heads and apologies.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Totally agree, in their minds this is what they are doing though - they've shown that they don't have the basic competence to do it or to to even create the conditions that might allow them to try it.
> 
> *I watched 5 minutes of a kimber video last night* - this is not someone who could make a rooster fight.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

8 great albums then they ruin it all by this


----------



## Athos (Feb 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> callinicos is no fighter.


 
It's not his role in the party.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2013)

Have you heard the Claire Denis soundtracks by them?


----------



## mk12 (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> *Initial "Platform" signatories by branch:*
> Bristol South
> Brixton (x3)
> Camden (x2)
> ...


 
Disappointed, but not surprised, that my old branch isn't on any of those lists.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

Athos said:


> It's not his role in the party.


it's his role in the faction.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Have you heard the Claire Denis soundtracks by them?


Yep, and by god i'm glad staples didn't mumble all over them - although he does some i think.


----------



## binka (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Private school and oxbridge


if you'd actually bothered to read his book butchers then you'd know that he makes it *very clear* that he went to private school on a scholarship and certainly isn't anything like the rest of those oxbridge types


----------



## killer b (Feb 9, 2013)

I bet he makes it clear.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 9, 2013)

Stewart Lee is fantastic. Anyone who says differently is wrong. He also made a joke in the last show that many on here would have appreciated...

"1 in 2 people who claim to be a spokesperson for the entire British muslim community is in fact the unelected leader of a non-democratic special interest fringe group given ideas above it's station by a misguided New Labour community bridge building initiative."


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Misguided? Good intentions done wrong. Liberal toynbee's son.


----------



## killer b (Feb 9, 2013)

he is fantastic. I dont think that stops him from being yet another example of private school / Oxbridge dominance. Or is it ok if they went on a scholarship and make you laugh?


----------



## binka (Feb 9, 2013)

iirc he gets most of his material from this forum


----------



## mk12 (Feb 9, 2013)

killer b said:


> he is fantastic. I dont think that stops him from being yet another example of private school / Oxbridge dominance. Or is it ok if they went on a scholarship and make you laugh?


 
Haha yeah I agree. I don't think he pretends he is anything else though.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

Being funny won't save you come The Day


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Haha yeah I agree. I don't think he pretends he is anything else though.


It's what he says and thinks about others - _others who may like OFAH_  - that is produced by that background that's the problem.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2013)

I'm forming a platform in Mk12' and Binka's faction on the Stewart Lee issue.

Thinking about OFAH it is probably the most 'do you remember that episode' comedy that you hear talked about in pubs. Years ago ,  I probably mean decades ,  you couldn't move for students, rugby types and middle managers repeating the Dead Parrot sketch from Monty Python.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Being funny won't save you come The Day


oh how we laughed as we loaded the rifles.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 9, 2013)

Thought this might be of assistance to Dr Ring Ring and some others following this thread


----------



## killer b (Feb 9, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Haha yeah I agree. I don't think he pretends he is anything else though.


Except he makes it very clear (apparently) he was a scholarship kid. The good kind of private school/oxbridge dominance.


----------



## binka (Feb 9, 2013)

killer b said:


> he is fantastic. I dont think that stops him from being yet another example of private school / Oxbridge dominance.


 
he's been crticial of the way comedy on tv is pretty much a closed shop with the same interests controlling the production companies that make the shows and the acts who appear on them:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...at-monopoly-control-of-tv-comedy-8477824.html

obviously he would be aware of the same story for comedians going from oxbridge to the bbc (and similarly oxbridge to politics, business, law etc.) which is one of the reasons theres a lot of utter mediocre shit that passes for comedians (and poiliticans etc) he of course took that route oxford -> bbc radio -> bbc tv.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Odd thing is, he looks posher and smugger than his mate.


----------



## cesare (Feb 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Thought this might be of assistance to Dr Ring Ring and some others following this



How very dare you. I'm at a far more advanced stage of learning, thanks to other Oxbridge types:


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

i hate those sneery python cunts.


----------



## cesare (Feb 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i hate those sneery python cunts.


I've heard they're not keen on you either.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

cesare said:


> I've heard they're not keen on you either.


i hope they aren't.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 9, 2013)

Special conference called - March:

http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-brief-note-on-ccs-call-for-special.html


----------



## cesare (Feb 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i hope they aren't.


Sneering's not a good look, no matter who's doing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Special conference called - March:
> 
> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-brief-note-on-ccs-call-for-special.html


Blimey. A special conference of a special kind? Those heavyweight names yesterday have totally thrown them - if we can talk of 'them' anymore.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 9, 2013)

The oppos will be encouraged.  

Delta's harakiri can't be far away.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

A special sort of harakiri. _See that bus? Get fucking under it - now._


----------



## redcogs (Feb 9, 2013)

Do i detect the faintest rumbling?  - can it be the hackery's boots quaking?


----------



## redcogs (Feb 9, 2013)

Cmde Kimber - Beware the ides of March..


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Thought this might be of assistance to Dr Ring Ring and some others following this thread


 
You are the Nigel Farage of this thread.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

response from the opposition, http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-brief-note-on-ccs-call-for-special.html

trying to oppose the timing of the conference. audacious move.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

_We tell *you* when it happens._


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

Has anyone seen this?
The Prof explaining to Greeks how to fight fascism:

http://www.efsyn.gr/?p=20808

Κατά πρώτον, είμαι ελληνικής καταγωγής, ο πατέρας μου ήταν στο ΕΑΜ κατά τη διάρκεια του αντιφασιστικού πολέμου και είναι φοβερό να βρίσκει υποστήριξη σήμερα ένα καθαρά ναζιστικό κόμμα. Νομίζω ότι η ιστορική εμπειρία της μάχης κατά του φασισμού μπορεί να είναι αρνητική, όπως έδειξε η περίπτωση της Γερμανίας, όπου η έλλειψη ενότητας της Αριστεράς οδήγησε στην άνοδο του Χίτλερ, αλλά, επίσης, και θετική, όπως για παράδειγμα εδώ στην Αγγλία, με την καμπάνια της Αντιναζιστικής Ενωσης εναντίον του ναζιστικού κόμματος.

First of all I am of Greek origin (katagogi), my dad was in EAM for the duration of the anti-fascist war and it is terrible to find today support for a completely Nazi party (komma). I think that the historical experience of the struggle (maxi) against fascism can be negative, as the case of Germany shows, where the absences of unity amongst the lefts led to the rise of Hitler, but, also (episisis) positive, as for example here in England with the campaign of the Anti-Nazi League (avtivastistikis evosis) against the Nazist (vazistikos) party.

Αυτό που έγινε εδώ ήταν ένα πολύ πλατύ ενιαίο μέτωπο, το οποίο κατόρθωσε να ενώσει όλη την Αριστερά, από την ακροαριστερά μέχρι και το Εργατικό Κόμμα, αλλά και τα συνδικάτα. Αυτό όχι στη βάση συνθημάτων του στιλ «οι ναζί είναι κακοί» ή «όλοι μαζί αδελφωμένοι» κ.λπ., αλλά στη βάση της κινητοποίησης στους δρόμους.

What happened/arose here was a very broad (platos) united front, which managed to unite all the left, from far left up to the Labour Party, and even the unions. This was not on the basis of slogans in the style of "the Nazis are bad" or "everyone together fraternally" etc., but on the basis of mobilization (κινητοποίησης) in the streets.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

Holy shit. Three possibilities:

1) The CC have bottled it and are in full flight.

2) The CC think that they can use the special conference to pull the "soft" opposition around a compromise position and isolate the radicals.

2) The CC think that they can pull together a comfortable delegate majority in the abbreviated pre-conference period around a hard line position. They can then use the SC like they did the NC as an opportunity to hammer the radicals. Without making any significant concessions they can then keep most of the "soft" opposition as they got their chance, democracy, etc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

Just after putting up the CC statement, Socialist Unity seems to have gone down. It's showing one of those "this page has been registered for one of our customers" signs, as if Newman managed to let the domain registration lapse at the only time his site has served any purpose in years.


----------



## pansalar (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Just after putting up the CC statement, Socialist Unity seems to have gone down. It's showing one of those "this page has been registered for one of our customers" signs, as if Newman managed to let the domain registration lapse at the only time his site has served any purpose in years.


 
Definitely registered to one Andrew Newman, expires June 2013.  The plot thickens.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 9, 2013)

pansalar said:


> Definitely registered to one Andrew Newman, expires June 2013. The plot thickens.


 
too much traffic?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Too much blusher


----------



## cesare (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Just after putting up the CC statement, Socialist Unity seems to have gone down. It's showing one of those "this page has been registered for one of our customers" signs, as if Newman managed to let the domain registration lapse at the only time his site has served any purpose in years.


Those signs sometimes refer to hosting too. So it could be that the hosting is due for renewal (and/or might be in the process of being migrated to a different hosting supplier) rather than the domain registration having run out.


----------



## pansalar (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Too much blusher


as in that new Bourjois shade La Choeur de l'Armée Rouge?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Holy shit. Three possibilities:
> 
> 1) The CC have bottled it and are in full flight.
> 
> ...


 
or

3) all of the above are true at once


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

http://theredneedle.blogspot.ie/2013/02/swp-crisis-central-committee-calls.html

A summary of the CC statement, but not the whole text.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

It's here in all it's glory


----------



## emanymton (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Holy shit. Three possibilities:
> 
> 1) The CC have bottled it and are in full flight.
> 
> ...


Little bit of 2 little bit of 3 I would imagine. 

P. S. I socialist unity seems to be working for me.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

That can't be real?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

pansalar said:


> as in that new Bourjois shade La Choeur de l'Armée Rouge?


We kept the red cheeks flying here


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

> 11. We believe all the decisions of the last conference and this special conference are binding, unlike those of our critics who believe they are binding unless they disagree with them. The special conference must be the final word. We demand factions accept that - in practice, not words.


 
This is a child's response. It must be fake.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

> The conference will be to reaffirm the decisions of January’s conference and the NC, resolve recent debates, clarify some elements of the constitution and move the party forwards.


 
Will it?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 9, 2013)

The result will be interesting - the original report vote was pretty bloody close even before all the discussions: 231 for, 209 against and 18 absentions.


----------



## tony collins (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Just after putting up the CC statement, Socialist Unity seems to have gone down. It's showing one of those "this page has been registered for one of our customers" signs, as if Newman managed to let the domain registration lapse at the only time his site has served any purpose in years.


 
Denial of service attacks which seem to coincide with when we put stuff up about the SWP. People think we're joking when we say it, but there's a consistent pattern of scripts being run to swamp the site. I'm trying to balance the traffic with the need to keep them out, and sometimes they overwhelm the server so no one can have any fun.

I actually didn't know the site had gone down until I read it here (just got home from work), cos the stupid monitoring app for the stupid iphone didn't connect to the stupid site, and instead of saying "oh, maybe that means the site is down, I'd better alert that guy", it just said "oh I'll try again later".

If you get the "1&1 reservation" thing, it's probably a sign that the attackers have managed to succeed in one or another way. I could barely get in to restart the server just now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

> It is clear that serious divisions have been created in our party. Sometimes genuine concerns have been preyed upon by a small minority of comrades who want a wholly different sort of party. A debilitating process of relentless internally-focused debate has gone on for weeks. The NC last weekend made clear that this must come to an end. Those who refuse to stop factionalising seek to continue the branch motions, the blogs, the Facebook battles and the inward focus for another 11 months. There must be a resolution - and soon.


That's a CC on it's last legs. Knock them over. Then be the new CC.


----------



## tony collins (Feb 9, 2013)

Also, as part of the hardening against attacks, it should no longer be possible to access SU by typing in the IP address - that *should* give you the "reserved domain" message. If you're still getting it, try going direct to http://socialistunity.com


----------



## mk12 (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's a CC on it's last legs. Knock them over. Then be the new CC.


 
Will they remain members of the SWP? Maybe the Prof _will_ have to sell the paper then.


----------



## tony collins (Feb 9, 2013)

Sorry, I stopped everyone talking. It's ok, you can carry on, I won't tell Andy that he's not universally popular. He thinks everyone loves him. Andy Chavez, we have to call him.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

That whole thing is like a 12 year olds response, It's is shockingly bad. A century of lessons from the class struggle and seeing further and all we get is a mum wagging their finger?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

The aggregates are going to be carnage.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Will they remain members of the SWP? Maybe the Prof _will_ have to sell the paper then.


The old cc if they're knocked over?  Of course. They might even form a faction.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 9, 2013)

They'll have to limit their activity to three months before Conference though. That's democratic centralism after all.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Grounds to expel them from the new clean leninist party then.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Going to be a bad weekend for bolshie full stop.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

The 300 Faction signatories thing is true according to a supporter. Including the Platform I think.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ok - and i expect we'll see some CC clarity on this issue explicitly outlining the informal 3-month rule _rather soon_.


 




			
				the no longer scary CC said:
			
		

> The CC does not accept the right to form factions outside the three month pre-conference discussion period. Such factions open the door to permanent factions and permanent oppositions, making it impossible to unite and intervene effectively. This time comrades want to launch a faction five weeks after the end of conference. Next time it may be five days afterwards. The SWP has never seen factions outside the pre-conference period – as certainly a large number of the comrades who have signed the faction statement know. The CC is criticised for acting bureaucratically. In truth it is the faction which bureaucratically seeks to use the lack of precision in the constitution to raise debates it has lost in other forums.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

Perfect response from the cc. No mass expulsions, no back room deals. A special conference that is a chance to put it all to bed once and for all and if the platform want to still fight for a syriza lite after that they know where the door is.  Olive branch to the faction and a clear final warning to the platform liquidationists "Sometimes genuine concerns have been preyed upon by a small minority of comrades who want a wholly different sort of party"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Perfect response from the cc. No mass expulsions, no back room deals. A special conference that is a chance to put it all to bed once and for all and if the platform want to still fight for a syriza lite after that they know where the door is. Olive branch to the faction and a clear final warning to the platform liquidationists "Sometimes genuine concerns have been preyed upon by a small minority of comrades who want a wholly different sort of party"


Have you read that teenage drivel? Perfect response. You are drowning in the same way that they are.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Perfect response from the cc.


 
Really? Shouldn't you be pointing out how apolitical it is?

And now they are going to organise a national series of aggregates and a conference, where everyone will be given the opportunism to further antagonise each other. They think they'll win, and they are in a better position to know than I am, but it's going to be very messy.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

I think bottling it is perfectly judged says bolshiebhoy. I think standing and fighting is perfectly judged says bolshiebhoy. I think Ireland losing 31-8 is perfectly judged says bolshiebhoy. I think milk bottles are perfectly shaped says bolshiebhoy.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Perfect response from the cc.


ahahaha!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

Some fairly "strong opinions" being expressed on facebook. The Platformistas seem convinced its a split document, a three week offensive to get rid of opposition. The loyalists are getting belligerent.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think bottling it is perfectly judged says bolshiebhoy. I think standing and fighting is perfectly judged says bolshiebhoy. I think Ireland losing 31-8 is perfectly judged says bolshiebhoy. I think milk bottles are perfectly shaped says bolshiebhoy.


40 years of Leninism. 10 years of fortress Dublin.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> 40 years of Leninism. 10 years of fortress Dublin.


We'll see at at 5 tmw


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

Something was brewing, the prof hadn't posted on fb for a day. And now he's rallied the loyalists with his latest: "Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it."


----------



## redcogs (Feb 9, 2013)

The relentless hectoring tone of the CC is chilling.  They have fucked up, yet they blame the membership. It is very difficult to imagine which working class socialists they would hope to attract and hold following a special conference at which they succeed in  reinforcing the dominant cyborg attackers.

Attending a conference which has the declared intention of crushing the dissenters in this way creates an atmosphere only of dread and fear.  All power and courage to the opposition, but you have my sincere sympathy  for the blood letting that seems now to be inevitable.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Something was brewing, the prof hadn't posted on fb for a day. And now he's rallied the loyalists with his latest: "Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it."


 
Think he's taken that down again, or at least I can't see it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

"Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it."

I think your _threat_ is going to bite you and your owl right up the secure uni job, prof.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Think he's taken that down again, or at least I can't see it.


Still there. The platform mob are spitting fur but are sounding rattled.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> "Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it."
> 
> I think your _threat_ is going to bite you and your owl right up the secure uni job, prof.


 
A show-down between Seymourists and Callinicosists at the SWSS Revolt! talk on the politics of Leninism might be interesting.







I like how there's a *Course* called 'why the working-class'


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Still there. The platform mob are spitting fur but are sounding rattled.


 
Oh I'm sure that they are rattled. As of this morning, they were feeling more secure against the threat of imminent expulsion than they had been. Now they are pretty sure that the CC is still intent on driving them out.

But aside from rattling the Platformists, the main purpose here is to call the bluff of the House of Lords. And they aren't offering any olive branches, which is risky. The old boys may have a long record of falling into line, but each and every aggregate will be an opportunity for zealots to aggravate them beyond the point of return.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> A show-down between Seymourists and Callinicosists at the SWSS Revolt! talk on the politics of Leninism might be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
"Why have _we_ chosen _them_ as the agents of change?"


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Oh I'm sure that they are rattled. As of this morning, they were feeling more secure against the threat of imminent expulsion than they had been. Now they are pretty sure that the CC is still intent on driving them out.
> 
> But aside from rattling the Platformists, the main purpose here is to call the bluff of the House of Lords. And they aren't offering any olive branches, which is risky. The old boys may have a long record of falling into line, but each and every aggregate will be an opportunity for zealots to aggravate them beyond the point of return.


 
This is the response Callinicos gives to posters on facebook:

_Critical Reading_ Alex, I’m not interested in knowing the details of the case. What is of concern is the process that was used to adjudicate it, including the fact that most members of the Disputes Committee were close personal acquaintances of the accused, and the fact that the woman involved was apparently asked grossly inappropriate questions. If the SWP CC had any sense it was issue a statement saying it has confidence that the DC reached the correct decision, but it acknowledges the concerns about how the investigation was conducted and that it will review its internal processes to ensure that they are fair, impartial and non-sexist. If you did that, you would solve a huge part of the current crisis. Like · 11

_Alex Callinicos_ Thanks, 'Critical', for your characteristically sanctimonious advice on a subject about which you know zip. Like · 3

Critical Reading's response is actually a pro-CC fudge, how can you accept the result of the process was at fault?, but Callinicos doesn't endorse it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

the prof said:
			
		

> Alex Callinicos Thanks, 'Critical', for your characteristically sanctimonious advice on a subject about which you know zip.


Meanwhile, here  is an FT blog piece that someone else wrote.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 9, 2013)

Fear not comrades, the revolutionary left is rising from its fifty-year slumber 

*New mass workers' party set up*

In a revival of the fortunes of revolutionary politics in Britain Proletarian Democracy will be standing candidates in the next election as part of a new mass workers' party called FANG (For A Nuclear Globe), alongside the ghost of Gerry Healy, the Wool-Workers' Union, the Association of Auctioneers and Auctioneers' Lads, the International Bolshevik Tendency, and perhaps many more. Proletarian Action are also offering their support but sadly are playing a disgracefully sectarian role. The support of Gerry Healy's ghost, who in his day led one of the most important revolutionary organisations in Britain, for this important initiative for the proletariat shows FANG's potential to attract broad layers of the working class and to be ever mindful of the perils of creeping feminism in its ranks. It also shows FANG's potential to reach beyond the life-death divide and attract a mass layer of class conscious workers.

Wool-workers' Union General Secretary Matt Jumper, who is standing as a candidate for the local elections in May, said, "FANG is the most important new party set up in Britain in years. People are crying out for an alternative to Labour and as nobody has revolutionarized it by now, it is safe to conclude that nobody ever will."

Other names such as Victor Serge, Hegel and Gary Lineker have also added their support to FANG's electoral campaign. Gary Lineker said, "The reaction I got standing outside selling Workers' Girder with Gerry Healy's ghost by Leicester Square tube station this morning, where people literally screamed in surprise that finally we have a working class alternative to the established parties, is something important to build on for the future."

One shop steward in the Association of Auctioneers and Auctioneers' Lads was said to have promised to vote for FANG in the forthcoming elections, although this cannot be confirmed. As the president of the Meat Packers' Association said, "that single vote is like a tiny acorn from which a mighty oak tree could grow."

Nonetheless we believe this is an important initiative for the class and another giant leap towards overthrowing capitalism.

"The screams of terror at my appearance during village parish council meetings are nothing compared to the screeches we will hear when the Con-Dems discover a mass workers' party capable of resisting their austerity attacks!" Gerry Healy said. We wholeheartedly endorse his sentiments, despite our serious differences and reservations towards him before he became a ghost. Unlike Proletarian Action, we are able to put sectarianism aside and work together in a broad coalition on the issues that matter.


The dissatisfaction shown by honest toilers towards members of all three main parties shows the time for an alternative is long overdue. And who better to lead it than these august veterans of the class struggle with their long experience of leadership in the union and labour movement? Of course, the presence of the Marxist core of Proletarian Democracy inside the party will ensure that the bureaucratic and reformist tendencies present within the union bureaucracy, such as those displayed by the disgraceful comments by the right wing president of the Potato Peelers' Union about "Posadists" trying to cause trouble, are themselves discarded and thrown away. There will be no room in FANG for a leadership that sells out the workers.

The response at our canvassing in Leicester Square demonstrates the complete disaffection the majority of workers have with the capitalist system. Those who came to our stall prior to the launch of FANG's electoral campaign reacted as though they had seen a ghost! But make no mistake - the idea of a union-led party based on Old Labour principles might be dead, but it is no longer buried!


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Meanwhile, here is an FT blog piece that someone else wrote.


 
Amidst the ongoing questions of Delta, there's this






I have nothing against Costas and Alexis but why, other than a payment for them, is it good for Costas to be in the FT?

It's behind a subscription paywall, a weekday issue costs £2.50, ordinary libraries in many areas don't buy copies any more for this reason, doesn't really reach anyone except business classes or already keen socialists.

Reminds me of how Paul Mason "moved onto the current generation’s most obvious antecedents – the thinkers that inspired the 1968 student revolts, most notably the doyen of Situationism, Guy Debord, who argued that capitalism has replaced genuine social life with an inauthentic ‘spectacle’. ‘I wish mainstream politicians today had a little more exposure to those sorts of ideas, it might allow them to think a little bit more freely through the problems that they are confronting right now,’ Mason says. With one ear to the street and another to the boardroom, Mason knows better than most the sheer scale of the challenge facing politicians today"


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

M.A. student/graduate on Callinicos' facebook: "A lot of this is nonsense. A debate was had, factions were formed, conference debated the matter, (the whole party debated the matter) a vote was had, and the position of the leadership was endorsed. We are a democratic centralist organisation not a student union debating society. Frankly, if you don't like it suck it up, or walk."

I've seen on another closed facebook (so would be improper to quote) a suggestion from an obvious loyalist that the rebel faction are bringing outsiders into party disputes, and half suggesting that rebel faction controlled branches are fighting/will fight dirty. (Presumably suddenly sign up a bunch of lefties eager for a proper independent investigation over Delta, as SWSS/SWP members, and use them to stack the conference to depose the current CC?).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

the death of a party said:
			
		

> . Frankly, if you don't like it suck it up, or walk."


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> (Presumably suddenly sign up a bunch of lefties eager for a proper independent investigation over Delta, as SWSS/SWP members, and use them to stack the conference to depose the current CC?).


I'm tempted...

The CCs response is astoundingly incompetent. It just says we accept the need to completely reaffirm the decisions we've made, and you will fall in line. It is explicitly rejecting the centrist factions demands, except in the most tokenism if manner. It won't fool anyone, surely.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'm tempted...
> 
> The CCs response is astoundingly incompetent. It just says we accept the need to completely reaffirm the decisions we've made, and you will fall in line. It is explicitly rejecting the centrist factions demands, except in the most tokenism if manner. It won't fool anyone, surely.


 



			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Perfect response from the cc.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

Did anyone think the cc was going to say oh you know what, our elected dc didn't convict delta, our conference backed the dc's procedures but here you are here's his head on a platter, suit you? No they couldn't, constitutionally and democratically they couldn't! But they could and have given everyone a chance to trash it out properly again once and for all.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

It was right to back off when unexpected facts occour  
It's like mubarak all over.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Did anyone think the cc was going to say oh you know what, our elected dc didn't convict delta, our conference backed the dc's procedures but here you are here's his head on a platter, suit you? No they couldn't, constitutionally and democratically they couldn't! But they could and have given everyone a chance to trash it out properly again once and for all.


 
They could have said our disputes committee procedures were totally inadequate and the fuzziness of the system as well as having longtime mates of Delta means we have screwed up, fair cop, let's ask someone else outside the party to investigate.

Anyway, Richard Seymour is indirectly being compared to Max Shachtman now.

Seymour's picture above Trotsky's denunciation of Shachtman (via Lenin) in 1940.

http://derekthomas2010.wordpress.co...ys-savage-critique-of-the-swps-factionalists/


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Did anyone think the cc was going to say oh you know what, our elected dc didn't convict delta, our conference backed the dc's procedures but here you are here's his head on a platter, suit you? No they couldn't, constitutionally and democratically they couldn't! But they could and have given everyone a chance to trash it out properly again once and for all.


But ALL they are giving is a repet of the discussion, and a reaffirmation of the line. They have ignored the factions argument that those that disagree need to be WON, not simply beaten. Such a move cannot resolve anything. Of course they can't agree to Smiths removal immediately, but they have to be prepared for it, or they're doomed. 

And quite why they think he is so so worth keeping is just bizarre. At best all you could say of him was that he was a competent organiser, he's never written anything of note theoretically or practically, and I've never known him win anything but the most obvious of political arguments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'm tempted...
> 
> The CCs response is astoundingly incompetent. It just says we accept the need to completely reaffirm the decisions we've made, and you will fall in line. It is explicitly rejecting the centrist factions demands, except in the most tokenism if manner. It won't fool anyone, surely.


i think you'll find it will fool a reasonable number of people.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> And quite why they think he is so so worth keeping is just bizarre. At best all you could say of him was that he was a competent organiser, he's never written anything of note theoretically or practically, and I've never known him win anything but the most obvious of political arguments.


 
He's a mate and he knows where the bodies are buried


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you'll find it will fool a reasonable number of people.


Tho not a number of reasonable people


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> But ALL they are giving is a repet of the discussion, and a reaffirmation of the line. They have ignored the factions argument that those that disagree need to be WON, not simply beaten. Such a move cannot resolve anything. Of course they can't agree to Smiths removal immediately, but they have to be prepared for it, or they're doomed.
> 
> And quite why they think he is so so worth keeping is just bizarre. At best all you could say of him was that he was a competent organiser, he's never written anything of note theoretically or practically, and I've never known him win anything but the most obvious of political arguments.


It's not about him, it's about them. The body.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> And quite why they think he is so so worth keeping is just bizarre. At best all you could say of him was that he was a competent organiser, he's never written anything of note theoretically or practically, and I've never known him win anything but the most obvious of political arguments.


 
The only reason I can think is precisely because they don't want the Seymours, Bergfelds, Brindellis and others - they see these types as a Counterfire Mark II waiting to happen, and are happy for them to stew before some kind of split.

I think they recognise the jig is up. They are no longer "the smallest mass workers' party in the world but the largest one in Britain", the SP must have certainly taken them over in the non-student numbers game.

Perhaps also they want to keep a hold of UAF. If Delta is booted, UAF's credibility is shot to pieces.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> Tho not a number of reasonable people


But also 10 000 people + the cc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's not about him, it's about them. The body.


 
This - they're a gang protecting one of their own - because they have to.


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> This - they're a gang protecting one of their own - because they have to.


He's the buffer. He is a mere mouthpiece for those who actually decide things. They'll defend him, cos they have to, but they can give him up without it coming back too hard on them.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 9, 2013)

The SWP need to get it all out in the open & discuss & debate this properly or it will end up as a festering sore disrupting the party's ability to fight austerity & the condems as an united party. The fact the CC seem unwilling to accept that there is a problem and discuss it makes them look weak & makes their argument look weak. We always talk about democracy & discussion but it looks like the CC are clamping down on it and quite frankly the points in the email regarding the fraction & emergency conference are piss poor.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> He's the buffer. He is a mere mouthpiece for those who actually decide things. They'll defend him, cos they have to, but they can give him up without it coming back too hard on them.


It's rotten and the party should dissolve right?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> The SWP need to get it all out in the open & discuss & debate this properly or it will end up as a festering sore disrupting the party's ability to fight austerity & the condems as an united party. The fact the CC seem unwilling to accept that there is a problem and discuss it makes them look weak & makes their argument look weak. We always talk about democracy & discussion but it looks like the CC are clamping down on it and quite frankly the points in the email regarding the fraction & emergency conference are piss poor.


Finally, some clarity


----------



## emanymton (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> But ALL they are giving is a repet of the discussion, and a reaffirmation of the line. They have ignored the factions argument that those that disagree need to be WON, not simply beaten. Such a move cannot resolve anything. Of course they can't agree to Smiths removal immediately, but they have to be prepared for it, or they're doomed.
> 
> And quite why they think he is so so worth keeping is just bizarre. At best all you could say of him was that he was a competent organiser, he's never written anything of note theoretically or practically, and I've never known him win anything but the most obvious of political arguments.


This is what I don't get, why didn't they just hang him out to dry? They had no problem turning on Rees And German when they had to. Obviously they can't do that now, but why stand by him in the first place?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 9, 2013)

Would be implicit acknowledgement that they were wrong in their verdict and were swayed by knowing him so well?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

The dc's verdict?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 9, 2013)

Yes, what I was thinking, but also reflects on their dispute processes more widely I suppose.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

Don't we need to wait and see what motions the cc or cc loyalists propose to this special conference before we assume they are going to just copper-fasten the previous conference? A day after the faction is formed the first concession is the special conference. I wouldn't bet on it being the last.


----------



## carrotz (Feb 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This is what I don't get, why didn't they just hang him out to dry? They had no problem turning on Rees And German when they had to. Obviously they can't do that now, but why stand by him in the first place?


cos a lot of them are up to the same sort of thing?
one of the 'fringe benefits' of being an swp leader


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Would be implicit acknowledgement that they were wrong in their verdict and were swayed by knowing him so well?


That's there way out. Accept that they entered the process honestly, and in line with SWP rules, but that it ws, in retrospect, inadequate. Smith can be sacrificed without any recourse to softness on 'feminism'


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2013)

carrotz said:


> cos a lot of them are up to the same sort of thing?
> one of the 'fringe benefits' of being an swp leader


And this comment is exactly why they need to deal with it thoroughly, or it will follow them around until they wither and die.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> That's there way out. Accept that they entered the process honestly, and in line with SWP rules, but that it ws, in retrospect, inadequate. Smith can be sacrificed without any recourse to softness on 'feminism'


But what allowed and made them think they could or should enter there 'honestly'?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> And this comment is exactly why they need to deal with it thoroughly, or it will follow them around until they wither and die.


But if it was true we would have seen a load more accusations being made now this one has broke????


----------



## carrotz (Feb 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> But if it was true we would have seen a load more accusations being made now this one has broke????


i never meant to imply that swp is full of rapists,
but simply that many of the swp's leading men have no qualms about trying it on with much younger female comrades


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But what allowed and made them think they could or should enter there 'honestly'?


Because they're good honest comrades/arrogant cunts.


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> But if it was true we would have seen a load more accusations being made now this one has broke????


Didn't you read the Anna Chen piece?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> Didn't you read the Anna Chen piece?


Yeah, but she's full of crap.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> Because they're good honest comrades/arrogant cunts.


What made them think that they were?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> And this comment is exactly why they need to deal with it thoroughly, or it will follow them around until they wither and die.


Agree completely that it needs dealing with lest it slowly strangle a lot of good people who shouldn't have been put in this position.


----------



## belboid (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What made them think that they were?


Because they're good honest comrades/arrogant cunts.​


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> Because they're good honest comrades/arrogant cunts.​


What made them think that they are good honest comrades/arrogant cunts?


----------



## manny-p (Feb 9, 2013)

rumours of a fight...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

manny-p said:


> rumours of a fight...


 
from a reliable source?


----------



## manny-p (Feb 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> from a reliable source?


 
Was I right about Pat Stack?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

manny-p said:


> rumours of a fight...


More work for the DC!


----------



## manny-p (Feb 9, 2013)

3 peeps got battered


----------



## SLK (Feb 9, 2013)

"The conference will be *to reaffirm the decisions of January's conference and the NC*, resolve recent debates, clarify some elements of the constitution and move the party forwards"

So they've called a conference and announced the outcome.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

manny-p said:


> 3 peeps got battered


SWP peeps by fellow SWP peeps?


----------



## manny-p (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> SWP peeps by fellow SWP peeps?


no comment.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

Was it in Newcastle? I heard there was a semi public altercation between the local organiser and a member but that was yesterday?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

manny-p said:


> no comment.


 
Then why say owt in the first place?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> "The conference will be *to reaffirm the decisions of January's conference and the NC*, resolve recent debates, clarify some elements of the constitution and move the party forwards"
> 
> So they've called a conference and announced the outcome.


I guess the devil is in the detail of 'resolve recent debates'.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 9, 2013)

* I think the devil is more likely in the "reaffirm the decisions of January's conference" *


----------



## manny-p (Feb 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Was it in Newcastle? I heard there was a semi public altercation between the local organiser and a member but that was yesterday?


No. In Sussex if I remember correctly. Just back from boozer.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 9, 2013)

manny-p said:


> No. In Sussex if I remember correctly. Just back from boozer.


 
Brighton?


----------



## manny-p (Feb 9, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Brighton?


He didnt say. Just Sussex-but Brighton is probly ur best bet I wud imagine?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

two sheds said:


> * I think the devil is more likely in the "reaffirm the decisions of January's conference" *


But the faction itself accepts those decisions, their document says "We do not want to reopen or discuss the case". The Platform may want to do just that but the faction know that's not going to happen. But there is always the possibility of discussing how the dc should operate in future and implicitly if not explicitly agreeing that the process used for delta was flawed. The eternal optimist in me hopes that 'resolve recent debates' opens the door ever so slightly to that option. The cc certainly wasn't going to be more explicit than that a mere day after the faction was formed.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 9, 2013)

Do you still believe there wasn't a cover-up by the way?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Do you still believe there wasn't a cover-up by the way?


yeah totally


----------



## manny-p (Feb 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> yeah totally


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 9, 2013)

I'm starting to feel really sorry for that poor little fucker. None of this can be got rid of now it's on the net and the poor sod's gonna have to live with the shame for the rest of his life!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

Actually, he comes out of looking quite sweet in a useless sort of way.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 9, 2013)

I think Paul Holborrow just criticised the prof for the 'be careful what you wish for' line. Unless I misread Paul's comment that single fact is the most amazing thing I've heard yet in this dispute.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 9, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I’d say there were strong although unsuccessful attempts at a cover-up from the transcript. The woman chairing the discussion (Karen) stressed they would not discuss the detail of what happened in the hearing. A couple of times she interrupted people who were trying to say how badly X had been treated.
> 
> Karen chairing stresses the guarantee of confidentiality that had been given, but W had actually apparently ‘frequently’ asked to be present at the conference session but was refused by the CC.
> 
> ...


 

Since we are back on the cover up issue a quick reply to this. ETA maybe not that quick

I think we can both agree that the SWP leadership handled the case appallingly, and yes i think the charing was terrible at times. I think the handling of the case is damming enough as it is, in fact I think talking about a cover up harms the opposition as it moves the discussion away from the actually handling of the complaint and into a discussion of was there a cover up or not and I think the CC is in a much stronger position in this argument. Although I think when most of the opposition within the SWP talk of a cover up they are mainly referring to the original complaint from two years ago, but I know a lot less about that so don't feel able to comment much on it.

Regarding the points you make and events at the most recent conference I am going to defend the SWP CC to some extent. I might need to take a bath after. 

First lets remember what the SWP delegates at confrere were voting on whether or not they felt the disputes committee had handled the case appropriately, they were not voting on the case itself. therefore there was no need for all the evidence to be presented to the conference, in fact in my opinion it is quite correct to keep the details private. Are you really suggesting that all the details should have been given to the 500 or so delegates? This is something they have inaccurately been accused of doing Of course the nature of the questioning should be know to the delegates but there is a pretty fine line here.

As for allowing her to attend the session at conference, she also asked to be allowed to speak. When I first read this I felt the same as you, but on reflection they may have been right here. If she had been allowed to attend then Delta would have to be given the same right and if she was allowed to speak he would have to be allowed to speak. I think it was a really really good decision for Delta not to be there, as for allowing them both to speak well that would have been a hell of a mess.

It is not true that members were not allowed to discus it after conference, all districts had report backs were it was discuses and of course most members will have been talking about it a great length.

As far as I am aware it was Andy Newman that came up with comrade Delta not the SWP

I can't help but feel that you along with some others on here are working on the assumption that Delta is guilty, when in fact none of us are in a position to make that determination. All I know is that an allegation of rape was made against a CC member and that it appears that the investigation was handled very badly and I therefore have no faith in the result. I can not pass judgment on Delta as I do not know the details of the case nor do I think I have any rights to those details. In fact considering that the woman in question has apparently asked Newman to take the transcript down and he refused (where is the condemnation of Newman for that!) I cannot help feeling a little uncomfortable and voyeuristic as it is.


----------



## SLK (Feb 9, 2013)

Where did you hear that she had asked Newman to take it down?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> Where did you hear that she had asked Newman to take it down?


I have read so much in various places that I can't remember nnow. I think it might have been Lenin's tomb. I will see if I can find it. I think it might also have come up on Socialist unity but the original thread there seems to have vanished. I should say that i don't remember Newman ever confirming thsis so it may not be true.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

**


----------



## SLK (Feb 9, 2013)

I know there's an argument that it's not about this case, hence not about her. And that it's about how they handle these cases. But if that is true and Newman didn't take it down he has gone down further in my estimation.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Listen to yourself:



			
				emynantuon said:
			
		

> As for allowing her to attend the session at conference, she also asked to be allowed to speak. When I first read this I felt the same as you, but on reflection they may have been right here. If she had been allowed to attend then Delta would have to be given the same right and if she was allowed to speak he would have to be allowed to speak. I think it was a really really good decision for Delta not to be there, as for allowing them both to speak well that would have been a hell of a mess.


 
Listen.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> I know there's an argument that it's not about this case, hence not about her. And that it's about how they handle these cases. But if that is true and Newman didn't take it down he has gone down further in my estimation.


It is in this piece on Lenin's tomb, 8th paragraph


----------



## emanymton (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Listen to yourself:
> 
> 
> Listen.


Do you think they could have allowed her to be present and/or speak but not give the same rights to him?
Do you think it would have been a good thing for them both to be there /allowed to speak?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> I know there's an argument that it's not about this case, hence not about her. And that it's about how they handle these cases. But if that is true and Newman didn't take it down he has gone down further in my estimation.


You can fuck off as well, you rang a womans number 500 times and put the phone down then you allowed someone else to get the blame - your estimation is worth fuck all you stalky cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Do you think they could have allowed her to be present and/or speak but not give the same rights to him?
> Do you think it would have been a good thing for them both to be there /allowed to speak?


Listen - "allowed" jesus christ.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You can fuck off as well, you *rang a womans number 500 times and put the phone down then you allowed someone else to get the blame* - your estimation is worth fuck all you stalky cunt.


 
WTF?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

It's the ex-poster flimsier. He can get to fuck.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Listen - "allowed" jesus christ.


OK not sure i get you. It's not up to the SWP to allow her anything??


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> OK not sure i get you. It's not up to the SWP to allow her anything??


How do you "allow" stuff? What chain of assumptions need be in place to legitimately be allowed to not "allow" someone to testify on their own experience? This is just mad, you should be ashamed of yourself. Look at what you've said.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You can fuck off as well, you rang a womans number 500 times and put the phone down then you allowed someone else to get the blame - your estimation is worth fuck all you stalky cunt.


 
WTF


----------



## sihhi (Feb 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's the ex-poster flimsier. He can get to fuck.


 
SLK is flimsier  I don't know what to say.

On this point emy brought up

"The day after conference, the transcript of the Disputes Committee session was leaked to a sectarian website. Whoever was responsible has attempted to use this affair, which I view as a botched rape investigation, for political gain. This is reprehensible (and indeed despite requests from Comrade W, Andy Newman, who runs said sectarian blog, refused to remove the transcript from his blog). This marked what those of us involved in the Facebook conversation had feared and had worked to avoid – the matter not being dealt with adequately at conference and then being leaked into the public domain."

I'm not sure how it changes the situation substantially and the SWP DC culpability for botching the investigation on lines already discussed.



> As for allowing her to attend the session at conference, she also asked to be allowed to speak. When I first read this I felt the same as you, but on reflection they may have been right here. If she had been allowed to attend then Delta would have to be given the same right and if she was allowed to speak he would have to be allowed to speak. I think it was a really really good decision for Delta not to be there, as for allowing them both to speak well that would have been a hell of a mess.


 
Why should about 5 longtime mates of Delta but only 1 semi-strong advocate of W speak at that Conference? Who chaired the session? With what aims? Who decided the length of the session?
There's lots of stuff we don't know but many are still suspicious.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> WTF


Old school stuff, will be sorted elsewhere shortly. Apols for having to start it on this thread.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm starting to feel really sorry for that poor little fucker. None of this can be got rid of now it's on the net and the poor sod's gonna have to live with the shame for the rest of his life!


 
Says he.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How do you "allow" stuff? What chain of assumptions need be in place to legitimately be allowed to not "allow" someone to testify on their own experience? This is just mad, you should be ashamed of yourself. Look at what you've said.


 
The assumption as far as I can work out is: W is speaking, Delta will be speaking aswell, the verbal mauling Delta is likely to give W will be enough to put off any other woman from ever exposing a similar situation ever again, because implicit might be the feeling that it has to come to a Conference Battle instead of/in addition to the DC procedure.

It's a bit rich when the DC procedure was so dire in the first place.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How do you "allow" stuff? What chain of assumptions need be in place to legitimately be allowed to not "allow" someone to testify on their own experience? This is just mad, you should be ashamed of yourself. Look at what you've said.


And that would have to be the same for both individuals. I will think on it. When I first read that bit in the transcript I was horrified, but I could not see anything good coming from them both making speeches to the conference.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The assumption as far as I can work out is: W is speaking, Delta will be speaking aswell, the verbal mauling Delta is likely to give W will be enough to put off any other woman from ever exposing a similar situation ever again, because implicit might be the feeling that it has to come to a Conference Battle instead of/in addition to the DC procedure.
> 
> It's a bit rich when the DC procedure was so dire in the first place.


Yes, exactly.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> And that would have to be the same for both individuals. I will think on it. When I first read that bit in the transcript I was horrified, but I could not see anything good coming from them both making speeches to the conference.


Soft, can be turned


----------



## sihhi (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> And that would have to be the same for both individuals. I will think on it. When I first read that bit in the transcript I was horrified, but I could not see anything good coming from them both making speeches to the conference.


 
But you'd agree it's W's choice to make that judgement.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yes, exactly.


That is terrifying. Just that.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why should about 5 longtime mates of Delta but only 1 semi-strong advocate of W speak at that Conference? Who chaired the session? With what aims? Who decided the length of the session?
> There's lots of stuff we don't know but many are still suspicious.


 
I am in no way defending the whole process. Although I thought the balance of speakers was about 50/50 maybe one more for the loyalist side as Candy got to introduce it. However the chair was in no way neutral and is in fact an out and out loyalist, in fact she disgusts me far more that any of the loyalist speakers.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But you'd agree it's W's choice to make that judgement.


I would yes. If she was prepared to confront him  at conferree then OK, that's her choice. But the SWP could not give her a platform while denying him one.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I can't help but feel that you along with some others on* here are working on the assumption that Delta is guilty*, when in fact none of us are in a position to make that determination. All I know is that an allegation of rape was made against a CC member and that it appears that the investigation was handled very badly and I therefore have no faith in the result. I can not pass judgment on Delta as I do not know the details of the case nor do I think I have any rights to those details. In fact considering that the woman in question has apparently asked Newman to take the transcript down and he refused (where is the condemnation of Newman for that!) I cannot help feeling a little uncomfortable and voyeuristic as it is.


 
That's a real low blow. On the contrary, most here are working on the assumption that more sensible procedures and/or the wider feminist/pacifist/republican/Trotskyist pool of people should have been used precisely to *grasp the truth**more accurately* than this DC CC caricature.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I would yes. If she was prepared to confront him at conferree then OK, that's her choice. But the SWP could not give her a platform while denying him one.


A platform? You don't mean that do you? Look at this - 'a platform'. Someone making a rape claim being allowed or not  a platform ?

Come home.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

Sorry, but I think an assumption of guilt is creeping into *some* posts.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 10, 2013)

W could have spoken at the conference, but Delta communicate by means of a pre-written statement.
To avoid the Delta fireworks.

ETA: If that's what W desired, as far as her advocate said in the transcript, W did want to communicate at the conference.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> A platform? You don't mean that do you? Look at this - 'a platform'. Come home.


I was trying to void 'allowed to sepak' since that annoys you so.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Says he.


 
Yes, I definitely said that. There was really no need for you to point that out though. The username beside the post is enough for most people to work it out for themselves.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> W could have spoken at the conference, but Delta communicate by means of a pre-written statement.
> To avoid the Delta fireworks.


That's a bloody good Idea, I was just starting to think along these lines.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Sorry, but I think an assumption of guilt is creeping into *some* posts.


Where and when.

Sorry all you like. Be serious.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> That's a bloody good Idea, I was just starting to think along these lines.


Bur didn't happen, instead something bad happened - why?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bur didn't happen, instead something bad happened - why?


 
At several points in the DC investigation as well. Written statements from W were given to Delta in advance - to prepare a defence in good time with careful planning and consideration. Delta's points were put to W without advance warning as an inquisition My mind races to something like DC saying 'you're exaggerating what happened because w, x, y, z'


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Where and when.
> 
> Sorry all you like. Be serious.


Of the top of my head at least one poster has called the SWP CC 'rape deniers' I would say that relies on a pretty explicit assumption of guilt.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Of the top of my head at least one poster has called the SWP CC 'rape deniers' I would say that relies on a pretty explicit assumption of guilt.


You have barney ok , one poster, What else. Jesus, just look up to sihhi's reply to me. Do yourself a real big favour _right now._


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> At several points in the DC investigation as well. Written statements from W were given to Delta in advance - to prepare a defence in good time with careful planning and consideration. Delta's points were put to W without advance warning as an inquisition My mind races to something like DC saying 'you're exaggerating what happened because w, x, y, z'


Yep, now how far any _but they're comrades_ strech?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Of the top of my head at least one poster has called the SWP CC 'rape deniers' I would say that relies on a pretty explicit assumption of guilty.


 
Given the circumstances it's fair to say deniers of adequate revolutionary (note - not _bourgeois_) justice for women in inferior positions in the party.

It makes the SWP look stupid - can SWP members really march with this kind of idea/slogan in their posters?







Can they criticise Joanna Lumley from a "materialist" position by including her in the list of dumb quotes of the week:

‘Don’t look like trash, don’t get drunk’ 
Joanna Lumley's “advice” to women on how not to be raped
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=30472
when this is the nub of the advice given by the DC questioning.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You have barney ok , one poster, What else. Jesus, just look up to sihhi's reply to me. Do yourself a real big favour _right now._


The post about Delta seeing W's statements in advance. Madness absolute madness to think that was in any way reasonable. And your right, (i think this is what you at getting at) I am getting all wrapped up in trying to be fair to the SWP CC on some details and losing sight of the bigger picture, they don't deserve it. Fuck um.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The post about Delta seeing W's statements in advance. Madness absolute madness to think that was in any way reasonable. And your right, (i think this is what you at getting at) I am getting all wrapped up in trying to be fair to the SWP CC on some details and losing sight of the bigger picture, they don't deserve it. Fuck um.


Fair does, i know it can take some to just go back and have another look, i know that it's easy to just jump over what i've said and what i've posted (hates swp = ignore)... but really at least have a look. You did, so good lad.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

There's some drunk spelling and punctuation going on.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> There's some drunk spelling and punctuation going on.


Nah, I'm always this shit with English.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> There's some drunk spelling and punctuation going on.


 
how are you getting on with unionising the Firebox workers anyway?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> how are you getting on with unionising the Firebox workers anyway?


 
Where did I say that yer cunt?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 10, 2013)

It's easy to see why you're so popular on here.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's easy to see why you're so popular on here.


 
Get back in your box SpinelessHerbert.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Where did I say that yer cunt?


 
Dousafavour, remember your PM to me after your lies on the Counterfire thread about rumblings among the coffeeshop workers?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Dousafavour, remember your PM to me after your lies on the Counterfire thread about rumblings among the coffeeshop workers?


 
Er no lies you utter twat.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Dousafavour, remember your PM to me after your lies on the Counterfire thread about rumblings among the coffeeshop workers?


 
Your sheer arrogance is not becoming dear.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

The fact is I highlighted the lack of contract and the working conditions of the the staff at Firebox and you and a couple of others didn't like that. I wonder why?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> The fact is I highlighted the lack of contract and the working conditions of the the staff at Firebox and you and a couple of others didn't like that. I wonder why?


 
Because you're a devious and dishonest cunt


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

So why don't you want Counterfire to be exposed as the hypocrites they are?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> So why don't you want Counterfire to be exposed as the hypocrites they are?


 
You have yet to provide any evidence for your claims and going by your previous record I imagine it will be a while before we see any.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Because you're a devious and dishonest cunt


 
I'm not dishonest. I await your apology.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You have yet to provide any evidence for your claims and going by your previous record I imagine it will be a while before we see any.


 
Evidence that the Firebox workers have shite working conditions?

You're an idiot.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm not dishonest. I await your apology.


 
I will apologise when you provide evidence for your claims

PS you realise there's only about five us on here that don't have you on ignore anyway right?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I will apologise when you provide evidence for your claims


 
Why don't you go to Firebox and ask the workers.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I will apologise when you provide evidence for your claims


 
I don't trust your leanings.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Get back in your box SpinelessHerbert.


 
 Dr Wingding aged 13 3/4.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Why don't you go to Firebox and ask the workers.


 
Er you made the original claim it's up to you to provide some form of evidence


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Er you made the original claim it's up to you to provide some form of evidence


 
I don't really care what you think. 

Counterfire are hypocrites.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I don't really care what you think.
> 
> Counterfire are hypocrites.


 
OK


----------



## cesare (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Dousafavour, remember your PM to me after your lies on the Counterfire thread about rumblings among the coffeeshop workers?



He lied? Then I guess Firebox were probably telling me the truth when they assured me they were paying their workers holiday pay, and had given them their contracts - credit where it's due.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> He lied? Then I guess Firebox were probably telling me the truth when they assured me they were paying their workers holiday pay, and had given them their contracts - credit where it's due.


 
Well he promised evidence for his claims and didn't come back with it, so I can only assume


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> He lied? Then I guess Firebox were probably telling me the truth when they assured me they were paying their workers holiday pay, and had given them their contracts - credit where it's due.


 
When I reported what I did they had no breaks or contract, let alone holiday.

That may of changed.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Well he promised evidence for his claims and didn't come back with it, so I can only assume


 
Er where did I promise evidence? I ask you to go back and read your PM and respect the confidence in it.


----------



## cesare (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Well he promised evidence for his claims and didn't come back with it, so I can only assume


I don't imagine that Firebox would have admitted that they weren't to me


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky you are a liar and I'm awaiting an apology.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Er where did I promise evidence? I ask you to go back and read your PM and respect the confidence in it.


 
I've already emailed it to Firebox management


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Spanky you are a liar and I'm awaiting an apology.


 
Fuck off freak


----------



## cesare (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> When I reported what I did they had no breaks or contract, let alone holiday.
> 
> That may of changed.


You got right nasty on that thread, so I thought I'd ask em direct. I've still no way of knowing if their assurances were true or not, of course. Do you know workers there?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I've already emailed it to Firebox management


 
What makes you think you're the authority of what they get up to?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Fuck off freak


 
So, you lie, and accuse someone else of lying then call them a freak.

Why are you so obsessed with fighting for them?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> What makes you think you're the authority of what they get up to?


 
Speak English boy


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

I won't expect an apology but it would be appreciated.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> So, you lie, and accuse someone else of lying then call them a freak.
> 
> Why are you so obsessed with fighting for them?


 
I'm not fighting for them, just think you've shown your self to be a devious duplicitous shit stirring wanker


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I won't expect an apology but it would be appreciated.


 
You don't care what I think though


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm not fighting for them, just think you've shown your self to be a devious duplicitous shit stirring wanker


 
Exposing the trots as hypocrites is not a bad thing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Exposing the trots as hypocrites is not a bad thing.


 
lol


----------



## cesare (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Exposing the trots as hypocrites is not a bad thing.


Well it's bad if it's not true.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

I will say what I told you was the truth.....it's pretty bloody obvious too.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> Well it's bad if it's not true.


 
Who did you speak to there?

You know they are all card carrying Counterfire bar one or two.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Who did you speak to there?
> 
> You know they are all card carrying Counterfire bar one or two.



let the dissembling begin, anyway I'm off to bed


----------



## cesare (Feb 10, 2013)

Ah, fuck it. He'll say if there's any substance to it.


----------



## cesare (Feb 10, 2013)

.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

Wow that was an interesting night everyone had there, glad I went to bed early 

And for the record there is a working assumption in a majority of the posts on here that delta is guilty. I read the transcript like everyone else and the debate at least was fair. But for a lot of people on here the only way they'd be happy is if the transcript had detailed descriptions of w chopping delta's balls off. Neither of them should have been there as the debate wasn't about the detail of the case but rather the process used to judge that detail. It wasn't a public solidarity meeting (though by fuck W better have been treated with the compassion and absolute sensitivity Candy claims she was in private) over a proven miscarriage, it was a chance to hold the dc accountable and establish if they got it right in terms of process. Now whether it fulfilled that obligation is another matter entirely. But all the handwringing about w being allowed to speak misses the purpose of that conference session.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

PH criticising the prof is still the biggest shock of this thing for me. Tells me all I need to know about how this will ultimately play out at the special conf.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 10, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Was I right about Pat Stack?


 
only half right


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

Many of the faction seem to be torn today. Welcoming the concession but hating the tone. Don't think they get it yet that once the immediate cause of this mess has been resolved (not that that's easy in itself!) there remains the fact that the Platform stared into the abyss far too long and it did indeed stare back.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 10, 2013)

Dude, your weird bloodlust is showing.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

Seymour's Christ act does bring out the Nietzsche in me true enough.

Seriously though you've read the tone of the leading platform folk in their discussions with loyalists (and even moderate faction members) and there's no way they can stay in the same party for long.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

Jeezus I hadn't realised how oblique people could be about these debates. Just seen a debate about the merits of Spielberg's Lincoln take off on a FB thread. And it wasn't about the film, not for a minute. Was about identity politics and the alleged failings of the white working class (albeit people were talking about the class a long time ago and on another continent). These divisions run very deep.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Seymour's Christ act does bring out the Nietzsche in me true enough.
> 
> Seriously though you've read the tone of the leading platform folk in their discussions with loyalists (and even moderate faction members) and there's no way they can stay in the same party for long.


 
Did Neil Davidson never really understand your tradition?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Did Neil Davidson never really understand your tradition?


You mistake understanding with agreeing. I'm pretty sure butchers understands 'my' tradition better than most swpers for example 

But yes as far back as Choonara's 2011 reply to Davidson on Permanent Revolution there are enough hints at how the failure to accept PR as a concept of useful historical analysis could have implications for the role of a (leninist) revolutionary minority party. In discussing Iran and Bolivia Choonara implicitly chides Davidson " the absence of a revolutionary party with sufficient size and experience is the central problem rather than the non-revolutionary nature of the working class." That sentence could be a one line summary of Callinicos' recent Leninism Unfinished reply to the Seymourites.

But people can move in more than one direction as the prof's own intelectual history shows! Not all the platform will be beyond redemption but with Seymour it's surely now only a question of when not if.


----------



## newbie (Feb 10, 2013)

so will W, X and Delta be able to speak at, or even attend, the special conference?

It seems inconceivable that any organisation can formally set up a conference confrontation between accuser and accused over a question of rape. 

whether it's dressed up as merely looking at whether the disputes process was fair or not.

How could anyone think that right?

Poring over the intimate details of a personal relationship through rousing speeches, emotional appeals and rhetorical flourishes is madness, even without the obviously asymmetrical balance of power and organisational opportunity.

Salacious details to be argued out in front of an audience of passionate activists, spooks and wannabe journalists.  Then splashed all over the News of the World along with the background checks, doorstepping, CRB and health records, interviews with former partners and so on.

At least a modicum of decorum is required, surely.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jeezus I hadn't realised how oblique people could be about these debates. Just seen a debate about the merits of Spielberg's Lincoln take off on a FB thread. And it wasn't about the film, not for a minute. Was about identity politics and the alleged failings of the white working class (albeit people were talking about the class a long time ago and on another continent). These divisions run very deep.


 
It was the hideously white working class in Lancashire who even though tens of thousands were in poverty on Poor Law relief due to the cotton shortage caused by the Union blockade of the Confederate ports voted to side against slavery and support the Union?
Lincoln wrote and thanked them.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

newbie said:


> At least a modicum of decorum is required, surely.


Which is why the majority are agreed the details of the case are not to be discussed. Only in the rancid imagination of the Mail would a conference ever have a show of hands on the facts of the case.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Many of the faction seem to be torn today. Welcoming the concession but hating the tone. Don't think they get it yet that once the immediate cause of this mess has been resolved (not that that's easy in itself!) there remains the fact that the Platform stared into the abyss far too long and it did indeed stare back.


Again with the 'opposition = political deviation from the true Leninism that is the CC' refrain. It's the techno backbeat to this thread and its been going on so long now I hardly hear it. Your comment about Paul Holborrow is more interesting. Weren't he and Jan for very mild Molyneux-esque reforms back before the Counterfire split?

It seems to me that the CC have picked the place of battle and made sure the terrain favours them. But they might still lose. If I were in the SWP opposition I'd accept the fight and pull out all the stops in the battle for delegates. I'd also ensure that among the motions was a very soft acknowledgement that the rape accusation was not handled appropriately. That way even if the full range of demands isn't won e.g. reinstatement for the expelled 4, new CC elections, at least the foaming-mouthed toy Bolsheviks represented by the NC majority are given a check.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> And for the record there is a working assumption in a majority of the posts on here that delta is guilty.


 
I'd say there's a working assumption that any verdict made by a panel packed with Comrade Delta's mates is worthless. Worse than worthless because of the message given to other women who might consider making a similar complaint.

It was more than about retaining confidentiality, it was an attempt to cover up the details of the inquiry. There is nothing in the following that would have given away the identities of the people involved but the woman was still interrupted and talked over:



> Sadia J: She was questioned about why she went for a drink with him, her witnesses were repeatedly asked whether she’d been in a relationship with him, and you know, she was asked about (Karen begins to talk over Sadia to warn about providing details) … she was asked about relationships with other comrades including sexual relationships. All this was irrelevant to the case.


 
I presume the reason W wanted to speak was at least in part because of:



> Sadia J: Her treatment afterwards has been worse. She feels completely betrayed. ... The disgusting lies and gossip going round about her has been really distressing and disappointing for her to hear, and the way her own witnesses have been treated in Birmingham hasn’t been much better.
> 
> ... Is it right that a young woman has to plan her route to work avoiding paper-sellers, or that she comes away from a meeting crying because people refuse to speak to her? Is it right that her witnesses are questioned about their commitment to the party because they missed a branch meeting?


 
If she's been attacked in public by the rank and file then I can imagine she'd want to put her side in public.

I really am surprised that you t consider that the Chair's actions don't amount to a cover up, though. The complaints about the transcript being leaked, too. If the SWP is a beacon of transparancy and a model for a democratic operation then they should welcome this being shown to the rest of the world, not try and hide it like some grubby little secret.

Again - I think the discussion would have a very different flavour if we were talking about a bourgeois court that had acted in this way.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Weren't he and Jan for very mild Molyneux-esque reforms back before the Counterfire split?


Could be true but look at where JM is on all this.


----------



## Athos (Feb 10, 2013)

newbie said:
			
		

> so will W, X and Delta be able to speak at, or even attend, the special conference?
> 
> It seems inconceivable that any organisation can formally set up a conference confrontation between accuser and accused over a question of rape.
> 
> ...



If one of the questions the forthcoming conference will consider is whether or not to reaffirm to decisions taken at the previous one (which will include whether or not to endorse the DC's findings in respect of W's allegations), then W must be heard. She can give crucial evidence regarding the procedural fairness of the DC's investigation.  And this could be done without reference to the substance of her allegations. For instance, she could raise the issue of the suspect seeing her evidence in advance, whereas she was cross-examined without having had the opportunity to see his case.  There is no reason to suggest that 'allowing' her to speak will result in W and Delta arguing over the facts of the alleged incident, and the conference voting on which of them it believes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 10, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Cmde Kimber - Beware the ides of March..


 
And the shoving hands on tube platforms of April.


----------



## newbie (Feb 10, 2013)

Athos said:


> If one of the questions the forthcoming conference will consider is whether or not to reaffirm to decisions taken at the previous one (which will include whether or not to endorse the DC's findings in respect of W's allegations), then W must be heard. She can give crucial evidence regarding the procedural fairness of the DC's investigation. And this could be done without reference to the substance of her allegations. For instance, she could raise the issue of the suspect seeing her evidence in advance, whereas she was cross-examined without having had the opportunity to see his case. There is no reason to suggest that 'allowing' her to speak will result in W and Delta arguing over the facts of the alleged incident, and the conference voting on which of them it believes.


 
She has the opportunity to add her testimony to any number of blogs whilst maintaining relative anonymity. She "must be heard" at conference: is that from behind a screen or does the SWP now expect those who allege rape to stand at a lectern & defend themselves?

tbf, I hope you're saying she should have the right to speak, rather than the duty or obligation, that it should be her choice, but adding your expectation on her to do so looks like you're suggesting she should be subjected to some sort of Vicky Price spotlight moment, in which case surely Jeremy Kyle is a better forum?


----------



## Before Theory (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I would yes. If she was prepared to confront him  at conferree then OK, that's her choice. But the SWP could not give her a platform while denying him one.





emanymton said:


> I would yes. If she was prepared to confront him  at conferree then OK, that's her choice. But the SWP could not give her a platform while denying him one.



The SWP already gave Delta a platform - the 2011 conference when he got to speak for almost ten minutes, giving his "side" of the story, resulting in the infamous standing ovation and chants of "the workers united will never be defeated".

The CC faction led by Delta have already enjoyed numerous platforms to disseminate their "version" of events through whispering campaigns against the victim and her supporters, and outright censorship in expelling four members who wanted to takes the issue at conference 2013.

Don't think for one minute that this has been an equal fight.

I don't start from the assumption that Delta is guilty, I start from the assumption that a young woman making a complaint of sexual violence against a man in a position of power over her is not a liar.

I take the same starting point over the Jimmy Saville and Catholic Church scandals.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 10, 2013)

Its hard to see that a conference simply dealing with the Delta abuse issue will pacify the discontents.

It is obvious that the Prof/Kimber bully controlling element are seeking to narrowly define the terms of debate at the March special, and all they want is reaffirmation of "the decisions of January’s conference and the NC, resolve recent debates, clarify some elements of the constitution and move the party forwards".   Many of the oppo's  will not find this acceptable for the equally obvious reason that what they appear to seek is a more open and responsive organisation which makes the intimidation of those with alternative political understandings a relic of history rather than a current modus.  

It isn't a situation that can end well for either wing.  We are definitely looking at a painful and messy long term demise of the swp if the hard loyalists succeed in thrashing the oppo's, which they must, unless the debate is widened to encompass the important  matters  being raised by dissident voices.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 10, 2013)

carrotz said:


> cos a lot of them are up to the same sort of thing?
> one of the 'fringe benefits' of being an swp leader


 
Even if they're not (and I doubt the likes of "king" Al have the juice for it), ignoring that it may well have happened makes them come across as guilty of it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Sorry, but I think an assumption of guilt is creeping into *some* posts.


 
Why do you think that might be?
Whilst I'm sure that CC loyalists would argue that it's because of external forces hating on the SWP, a case can also be made that "comrade" Delta's own past history of behaviour does NOT stand him in good stead. Blind eyes have been turned to his previous indulgences in "banter" and his fondness for physical contact with "it's just the sort of person he is" and the like being used as excuses. That doesn't make him guilty, but it will give some people in the party who are "in the know" pause when considering whether Delta is capable of and guilty of such actions, especially as anyone remotely informed about sexual offences will be aware that an offender usually travels along a spectrum, starting with stuff like inappropriate touching and ending with offenses of the sort of seriousness he's being accused of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Where did I say that yer cunt?


 
You tattooed it on your mum's clit.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 10, 2013)

sihhi said:


> W could have spoken at the conference, but Delta communicate by means of a pre-written statement.
> To avoid the Delta fireworks.
> 
> ETA: If that's what W desired, as far as her advocate said in the transcript, W did want to communicate at the conference.


They could have had written statements from both read out avoiding a probable public haranguing of W


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 10, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Its hard to see that a conference simply dealing with the Delta abuse issue will pacify the discontents.
> 
> It is obvious that the Prof/Kimber bully controlling element are seeking to narrowly define the terms of debate at the March special, and all they want is reaffirmation of "the decisions of January’s conference and the NC, resolve recent debates, clarify some elements of the constitution and move the party forwards". Many of the oppo's will not find this acceptable for the equally obvious reason that what they appear to seek is a more open and responsive organisation which makes the intimidation of those with alternative political understandings a relic of history rather than a current modus.
> 
> It isn't a situation that can end well for either wing. We are definitely looking at a painful and messy long term demise of the swp if the hard loyalists succeed in thrashing the oppo's, which they must, unless the debate is widened to encompass the important matters being raised by dissident voices.


The debate needs to be had if the party is to move forward, the longer the CC dampen down debate the more things fester.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 10, 2013)

Stack has weighed in now, and as the lone dissenter on the DC its long overdue.

Quite critical of the CC in some respects, but no sign of wishing to be properly associated with the oppo's.
Delta must really only have hours left..


----------



## pansalar (Feb 10, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Stack has weighed in now, and as the lone dissenter on the DC its long overdue.
> 
> Quite critical of the CC in some respects, but no sign of wishing to be properly associated with the oppo's.
> Delta must really only have hours left..


It is always open to Delta to resign, even if the CC has not seen fit to expel him.  I'm trying to imagine the mindset that would hang on whilst inflicting such damage on the party.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 10, 2013)

The greater good mustn't be a familiar concept for him, regardless of his 'unproven' status.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

It's too late now the damage is done, if he does go it would have to be part of a wider compromise deal at the upcoming conference.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 10, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Stack has weighed in now, and as the lone dissenter on the DC its long overdue.
> 
> Quite critical of the CC in some respects, but no sign of wishing to be properly associated with the oppo's.
> Delta must really only have hours left..


 
Link?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2013)

http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/letter-from-pat-s-to-the-national-committee/


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/letter-from-pat-s-to-the-national-committee/


 
as someone else pointed out on facebook, Stack refers to non-Party bloggers blogging about this as "filth".


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 10, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> as someone else pointed out on facebook, Stack refers to non-Party bloggers blogging about this as "filth".


I am not surprised bearing in mind how much has been negative to the party & the posting of transcripts


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> as someone else pointed out on facebook, Stack refers to non-Party bloggers blogging about this as "filth".


was that persons profile pic of steve mcqueen wearing persol sunglasses and smoking a fag?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 10, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I am not surprised bearing in mind how much has been negative to the party & the posting of transcripts


 
Fair enough thinking it, I guess. Bit daft putting it in writing  . . . especially when he knows that it will turn up on a non-Party blog.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> was that persons profile pic of steve mcqueen wearing persol sunglasses and smoking a fag?


 
it was

eta: and for your next mind trick. Who's hidden John Molyneux's spine and where have they put it?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2013)

cool.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 10, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I am not surprised bearing in mind how much has been negative to the party & the posting of transcripts


 
Eventually the comrades will need to adapt to the changed circumstances that four decades of  free market chaos have delivered.   The secrecy and the constriction of debate  that the CC have depended upon are no longer possible in an internet age, so its adjust or die.  Stack asks them to take a chill pill on the issue, and learn to live with the web, but more than that is required.  It is simply impossible for democratic centralism (of the type that the SWP leadership insists upon) to remain a viable model for the future.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 10, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Eventually the comrades will need to adapt to the changed circumstances that four decades of free market chaos have delivered. The secrecy and the constriction of debate that the CC have depended upon are no longer possible in an internet age, so its adjust or die. Stack asks them to take a chill pill on the issue, and learn to live with the web, but more than that is required. It is simply impossible for democratic centralism (of the type that the SWP leadership insists upon) to remain a viable model for the future.


True


----------



## manny-p (Feb 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/letter-from-pat-s-to-the-national-committee/


What the fuck are your playing at comrade? Didn't you read that - *UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THIS TEXT BE POSTED ON THE INTERNET. FOR MEMBERS OF THE SWP ONLY.*


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> it was
> 
> eta: and for your next mind trick. Who's hidden John Molyneux's spine and where have they put it?


no mind trick, it was me.

i'm doubtful molyneux ever had a spine. he spectacularly misjudged this one though.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 10, 2013)

manny-p said:


> What the fuck are your playing at comrade? Didn't you read that - *UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THIS TEXT BE POSTED ON THE INTERNET. FOR MEMBERS OF THE SWP ONLY.*


i am the darkside of the internet..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 10, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Fair enough thinking it, I guess. Bit daft putting it in writing  . . . especially when he knows that it will turn up on a non-Party blog.


It could be that he sees a certain amusement value in having these non party bloggers post something up that describes themselves as filth.

And anyway, it's playing to the gallery in the SWP to put the boot into external critics.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It could be that he sees a certain amusement value in having these non party bloggers post something up that describes themselves as filth.
> 
> And anyway, it's playing to the gallery in the SWP to put the boot into external critics.


 
I think it's a dodgy word to use, tbh. Even if I was Robo-Swappie, I'd feel uncomfortable with the use of that word.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 10, 2013)

Why?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Why?


 
I think it's dehumanising. Christ, I sound like a quaker.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 10, 2013)

"Filth" is a very non specific swipe at net users.  Stack knows this, for he is one such, but must feel it is worth the risk of upsetting a few  who are not regarded as recruitable 'periphery'. 

Maybe it is a positional bid on his part?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> We'll see at at 5 tmw


And now I have to say it yes you were right, the weekend has been shit! England as boringly efficient at grinding down the opposition as the cc really


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

Top man Stack. Don't lose people who are genuine, sort the mess, jettison the parts of the platform who are beyond redemption.

"My starting point is that I want the essentials of our politics to be maintained whilst loss of membership is minimised. I realise getting that balance right is going to prove very tricky to say the least. Anyway, here goes."


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

Yeap the Platform need to read Stack carefully "the CC seemed to be declaring war on the minority and, in my opinion, in the process were allowing people with very substantial differences to leap into the vanguard of those comrades who were troubled, unhappy and unsure." In other words lets stop fucking each other over about things that can be easily resolved so we can deal with the real enemy not by expulsions but politically.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 10, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> eta: and for your next mind trick. Who's hidden John Molyneux's spine and where have they put it?


 
JM has missed his chance to be the reasonable peace-maker here through having firing his salvo too early. Good. He's shown people like me, who had a lot of respect for him, where he actually stands when the pressure is on. And I think the centre of gravity of the eventual settlement will be a good bit to the 'left' (so to speak) of where he stands.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 10, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I think it's dehumanising. Christ, I sound like a quaker.


 whereas "trotbot" is the refuge of those who,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 10, 2013)

Have they split yet? LOL


----------



## redcogs (Feb 10, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> JM has missed his chance to be the reasonable peace-maker here through having firing his salvo too early. Good. He's shown people like me, who had a lot of respect for him, where he actually stands when the pressure is on. And I think the centre of gravity of the eventual settlement will be a good bit to the 'left' (so to speak) of where he stands.


 
i've enjoyed his blog, but i fear you may be correct.  But equally, Stack reserved his powder until it became safe to appeal over the heads of the CC to the rank and file, some time after Moly prepared the ground with his disreputable intervention.  How long before other prominents start doing similarly?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 10, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I think it's a dodgy word to use, tbh. Even if I was Robo-Swappie, I'd feel uncomfortable with the use of that word.


 how would you describe the tabloid media reporting upon such circumstances AGAINST the wishes of the 'victim'?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 10, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> whereas "trotbot" is the refuge of those who,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?


 
I used the term "robo-swappie". My wee homage to Donald Rooum's wildcat cartoons  







(For some reason I could only find a German translation of the image.)

Anyway, I don't think the terms 'filth' and 'robo-swappie' are comparable. Maybe you're even more of a quaker than me?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 10, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> how would you describe the tabloid media reporting upon such circumstances AGAINST the wishes of the 'victim'?


 
You think Stack was thinking of the victim when he used that term? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 10, 2013)

Pat Stack's letter seemed eminently reasonable to me. The CC has got to listen to someone of his standing who is well respected in the party by anyone who knew him from his articles on the back of the paper. His reference to the bloggers and outsiders to the party as 'filth' is no big issue to me. It expresses his anger that an embarrassing tactical mistake by the leaders has become publicised via the internet. If the CC and its allies don't do something to change their approach and show awareness that for younger members the internet is their location of debate, then the tactical mistake will prove to be a strategic one. This is happening in a time when the voice of the left is desperately needed under the renewed onslaught of capitalist control of politics.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 10, 2013)

A quick test of your understanding of party and class:

1. Where do the best initiatives of the revolutionary party come from?
A) The head of John Rees. B) The CC. C) The generalised experience of the most combative workers. 

2. How does a revolutionary party correct its mistakes?
A) John Rees never makes mistakes. B) A CC reshuffle. C) By listening to militant workers beyond the party. 

3. What is the correct attitude of the revolutionary party towards its leaders?
A) Worshipful. B) Deferential if they are on the way up, cold if they are on the way out. C) Organised distrust. 

Score A=1, B=3, C=5

3pts. You are a member of Counterfire
5-13pts. You are bolshieboy or a member of the SWP CC
15pts. Congratulations. You are the true heir of Lenin.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 10, 2013)

It's a bit odd that Counterfire didn't replicate the SWP's structures.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 10, 2013)

bolshieboy will be along in a minute to explain that it is because they rejected democratic centralism and the centrality of the working class. And he might have a point


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's a bit odd that Counterfire didn't replicate the SWP's structures.


 
Not sure you can run a cafe on democratic centralist lines, especially if Dr Ring Ring is at the same time organising the staff


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> bolshieboy will be along in a minute to explain that it is because they rejected democratic centralism and the centrality of the working class. And he might have a point


Thank you kindly!


----------



## two sheds (Feb 10, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Not sure you can run a cafe on democratic centralist lines, especially if Dr Ring Ring at the same time organising the staff


 
Tut you all put your order in and the dish with the most orders is what everybody gets.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 10, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Tut you all put your order in and the dish with the most orders is what everybody gets.


But what if the vegetarians demand permanent faction rights?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 10, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Tut you all put your order in and the dish with the most orders is what everybody gets.


 
No. The CC will give you the choice of borscht and sprouts or...well nowt else.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 10, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> But what if the vegetarians demand permanent faction rights?


 
They get bloody sausages like the rest of us


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 11, 2013)

Lot of discussion around Stacks notion of two years of debate around dem cen and feminism like what they had when he was a kid. So basically his line is look these youngsters weren't around in the 70's and 80's and you need to have the debates with them all over again. The thing is where does patient discussion and education end and permanent factionalising start? Does a party really have to revisit all of its traumatic learning debates every generation? Or does it not just need to be better at explaining its own traditions to new recruits rather than dumbing down? If your ideas are worth defending Pat aren't they worth defending here and now, not after two years of soul searching? Which is a different subject by the way from the necessity to apply those ideas creatively to a changing world. To apply them and develop them you first have to agree with the first principles and clearly (as Stack himself implies) some of those around Seymour don't.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i am the darkside of the internet..


 
Dark side of the internet I am in you.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> *PH criticising the prof is still the biggest shock of this thing for me.* Tells me all I need to know about how this will ultimately play out at the special conf.


 
Sorry BB but that is very sad; there are much greater shocks in the treatment of W than in a gentle rebuke between  leading lights.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lot of discussion around Stacks notion of two years of debate around dem cen and feminism like what they had when he was a kid... If your ideas are worth defending Pat aren't they worth defending here and now, not after two years of soul searching?


The usefulness of having bolshieboy active here is that we get a direct line to CC loyalist thinking. At first they were rattled, now they are rallying. Go ahead then, spit on his peace offering. And like every unbending authority in the face of mutiny, you'll break. And it won't be the compromise members making the running when that happens.


----------



## manny-p (Feb 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Dark side of the internet I am in you.


You two lovers?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lot of discussion around Stacks notion of two years of debate around dem cen and feminism like what they had when he was a kid. So basically his line is look these youngsters weren't around in the 70's and 80's and you need to have the debates with them all over again. The thing is where does patient discussion and education end and permanent factionalising start? Does a party really have to revisit all of its traumatic learning debates every generation? Or does it not just need to be better at explaining its own traditions to new recruits rather than dumbing down? If your ideas are worth defending Pat aren't they worth defending here and now, not after two years of soul searching? Which is a different subject by the way from the necessity to apply those ideas creatively to a changing world. To apply them and develop them you first have to agree with the first principles and clearly (as Stack himself implies) some of those around Seymour don't.


Sometimes you do need to go over some ground again, the fight is always there & we need to guard against claw back of rights gained previously, judging by the crap that's coming up yet again re abortion and the so called raunch culture it's not a moment too soon.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Or does it not just need to be better at explaining its own traditions to new recruits rather than dumbing down? If your ideas are worth defending Pat aren't they worth defending here and now, not after two years of soul searching?


whether they'd be better off doing that may (or may not) be debatable, but there can't be any doubt that they clearly _havent_ done that, so what do they do about it (and whose fault is it?  Probably Germans). Callinicos is simply tellinfg those unconvinced to fuck off, whilst Stack is at least trying to retain them.

And what do you think two years of debate would be, other than two years of defending your own ideas? Listening to other people doesnt stop you defending you own ideas.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 11, 2013)

Pope resigns. Smith stays put


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 11, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Pope resigns. Smith stays put


 
via facebook:



> _The Pope says he's too ill to continue working, but ATOS aren't so sure. They suspect a case of Benedict fraud._


----------



## pansalar (Feb 11, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Pope resigns. Smith stays put


Smith is still infallible.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> But what if the vegetarians demand permanent faction rights?


 

they can join Proletarian Democracy's 'Veg Wedge'


----------



## two sheds (Feb 11, 2013)

Donkeyburgers all round.​


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2013)

Revolutionarize the Vatican


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 11, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Donkeyburgers all round.​


Donkey jackets not horsey burgers


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> they can join Proletarian Democracy's 'Veg Wedge'


 
Are Vegans allowed in the Vedge Wedge? I only ask cos Veganism is tantamount to the rankest bourgeois deviationism.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 11, 2013)

belboid said:


> whether they'd be better off doing that may (or may not) be debatable, but there can't be any doubt that they clearly _havent_ done that, so what do they do about it (and whose fault is it? Probably Germans). Callinicos is simply tellinfg those unconvinced to fuck off, whilst Stack is at least trying to retain them.
> 
> And what do you think two years of debate would be, other than two years of defending your own ideas? Listening to other people doesnt stop you defending you own ideas.


 
Yeah, you'd have to give it to Stack, he is trying to (probably too late) to get a bit of common sense in here. If he succeeds the 'platform' will find itself out on a limb a bit.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Revolutionarize the Vatican


 
For a People's Pope!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Are Vegans allowed in the Vedge Wedge? I only ask cos Veganism is tantamount to the rankest bourgeois deviationism.


 

You'd have to take this issue up with the wedgists themselves comrade, I'm currently eating horseburger and struggling with the complexity of Chuckleism. To me, but also to you.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> You'd have to take this issue up with the wedgists themselves comrade, I'm currently eating horseburger and struggling with the complexity of Chuckleism. To me, but also to you.


 
And to you also, Comrade, thanks for the tip, I shall begin consumation of anti-Vegan entryist work immediately.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 11, 2013)

Interestingly, the CPGB don't tackle the fact that the F.R.F.I./RCG have not tackled the SWP split at all.

Instead FRFI's apparoach is based around Socialist Worker's failures in reporting on Venezuela - this matters for the very good reason that there are no ISO groups in Venezuela - hence any position the SWP position took would be largely irrelevant.

"The _position of the SWP on the Bolivarian Revolution_ is _thoroughly reactionary and chauvinist_. It has no concept of a real struggle for socialism with all its problems and vicissitudes: instead it serves up a cocktail of idealist schema laced with borrowings from the imperialist media. Its position on the Labour Party is based on the same adaptation to imperialism. We have argued for a long time that it is impossible to remain a socialist and be a member of the Labour Party. Now we have to ask: how is it possible to be a socialist and remain in the SWP?"

http://www.revolutionarycommunist.o...832-swp-vultures-circle-bolivarian-revolution


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Interestingly, the CPGB don't tackle the fact that the F.R.F.I./RCG have not tackled the SWP split at all.
> 
> Instead FRFI's apparoach is based around Socialist Worker's failures in reporting on Venezuela - this matters for the very good reason that there are no ISO groups in Venezuela - hence any position the SWP position took would be largely irrelevant.
> 
> ...


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 11, 2013)

Both Gonzales and Choomarah getting it in the neck there. What is FRFI's line on the AMM?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Both Gonzales and Choomarah getting it in the neck there. What is FRFI's line on the AMM?


 
Good point, I don't know. What's CPGB's line on the lack of a FRFI line on the AMM?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 11, 2013)

Probably a failure to understand proper Leninism, most things come down to that or lack of a programme.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah, you'd have to give it to Stack, he is trying to (probably too late) to get a bit of common sense in here. If he succeeds the 'platform' will find itself out on a limb a bit.


 
I always had a fair bit of time for Stack - definitely one of the more likeable senior members of the SWP. And as a speaker he is an incredible sight to behold - despite having only one arm he is able to do even more impressive gestures than that German bloke from the CWI by sort of swinging his sleeve around.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Probably a failure to understand proper Leninism, most things come down to that or lack of a programme.


 
I'm thinking of sending this is in to the Weekly Worker this week:

Dear editors,

As a long-time donator to your website and keen follower of developments in the programme and British socialism more generally, I was puzzled by your article 'Left press and the SWP the dog that didn’t bark' subtitled 'The silence of significant sections of the left on the Socialist Workers Party crisis is a symptom of sectarianism' by Paul Demarty. I entirely agree with the broad thrust of Demarty's article. However I believe there was an element of sectarianism in seeking to concentrate only on the silence of the SP and semi-Stalinist CPB on the SWP crisis. The lack of response by such groups as the RCG and RDG should have been covered to remain more fully judicious in a proletarian anti-sectarian anti-favourist sense.

Yours, 
Barry Main


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I'm thinking of sending this is in to the Weekly Worker this week:
> 
> Dear editors,
> 
> ...


 
Get it banged off.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Get it banged off.


 
but it needs a real ending to increase credibility 

on the lines of:

'All Trotskyists - those in small organisations aswell the big four (SWP, SP, CPB, Workers' Power) need the careful analysis and scrutiny your paper provides. If we are ever to unite on the basis of the programme and the real long-term interests of the working-class, no real Trotskyist should be in a position where they can consider themselves left out.'

If anyone can improve on this...


----------



## Random (Feb 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> but it needs a real ending to increase credibility
> 
> on the lines of:
> 
> ...


Leninists, or Communists, instead of trotskyists, as iirc the FRIFI-RDG don't consider themselves trotskyists any more


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's been some discussion of the latest SWP rows and expulsions over on the Callinicos / Penny thread, but, it tended to get buried under mountains of hate directed at the "left" commentariat. So here's a thread to discuss expulsions and squabbles in one of Britain's main left wing groups.
> 
> The Weekly Worker (as always, caution advised) has an account of four people getting the boot in the run up to SWP conference. There's an amusingly Kafkaesque edge to it too. They were expelled for factionalism, seemingly as a result of facebook messages. But this happened during the "pre-conference period", where for a few months a year, SWP members are supposed by allowed to form factions. The problem is though that to gain factional rights, you need 30 signatories... but to gather those 30 signatories you have to engage in what the Central Committee considers "factionalism". Which is an expellable offence.
> 
> ...


 
They sound like a bunch of totalitarian cunts. Quite amusing really, as they have about as much influence in the nation as my cat.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 11, 2013)

Random said:


> Leninists, or Communists, instead of trotskyists, as iirc the FRIFI-RDG don't consider themselves trotskyists any more


 
Are you sure? 
RDG are the Scottish repulicans, RCG are the Yaaffeists


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> but it needs a real ending to increase credibility
> 
> on the lines of:
> 
> ...


 
They will think you are taking the piss with that additional ending.

Perhaps something like :' Although their audience is small the lack of response by groups such as the RDG and RCG should not go uncovered by the Weekly Worker. There may be individuals  who are mistakenly attracted to such  grouplets who churn out both abstentionsim and adventurism in contrast for the need for analysis and political  intervention which the Weekly Worker should strive for'.?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> They will think you are taking the piss with that additional ending.
> 
> Perhaps something like :' Although their audience is small the lack of response by groups such as the RDG and RCG should not go uncovered by the Weekly Worker. There may be individuals who are mistakenly attracted to such grouplets who churn out both abstentionsim and adventurism in contrast for the need for analysis and political intervention which the Weekly Worker should strive for'.?


 
Yes it's too much of a slap in the face for the CPGB who aren't big enough to be in the gang of four of trotskyist groups 
Yours is really good, although they might think it too sucky when combined with the start 'As a long-time donator to your website and keen follower of developments in the programme'

Perhaps something along the lives of 'have become an avid reader of the Weekly Worker due to Chris Knight's anthropological writings, and ditch any mention of "the programme"?


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 11, 2013)

I have blood relations on my shelf #unreadbooks


----------



## two sheds (Feb 11, 2013)

Sasaferrato said:


> They sound like a bunch of totalitarian cunts.


 
Yep, almost as bad as your lot, bunch of fucking criminals that *they* are.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I always had a fair bit of time for Stack - definitely one of the more likeable senior members of the SWP. And as a speaker he is an incredible sight to behold - despite having only one arm he is able to do even more impressive gestures than that German bloke from the CWI by sort of swinging his sleeve around.


I was a marxism one year practicing my indoor photography and didn't get a single non blurry pic of him!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I used the term "robo-swappie". My wee homage to Donald Rooum's wildcat cartoons
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 the clue is in your own words. Are robots humans?  You were the one crying about dehumanising. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of such a claim when one refers to people as robots etc. 

To me people who describe SWP members in such a way are displaying the typical cult /sectarian trait, who would rather vilify and dehumanise the opponent because they are too lazy/ ignorant/ Machiavellian to take on the arguments..


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> You think Stack was thinking of the victim when he used that term? We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


 of course you can disagree. 

What was his intention, and what is your evidence?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I always had a fair bit of time for Stack - definitely one of the more likeable senior members of the SWP. And as a speaker he is an incredible sight to behold - despite having only one arm he is able to do even more impressive gestures than that German bloke from the CWI by sort of swinging his sleeve around.



Ha! Gonna see if I can find some youtube footage now-they must be pretty good hand/sleeve gestures. Stefan has mad revolutionary gesturing skills.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 11, 2013)




----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 11, 2013)

Did well on TV after the Poll Tax riot too. Top man which is why I'm glad the cc has listened to people of his calibre enough to do something other than repeat case is closed ad infinitum. 

But to return to Belboids reasonable point a page ago about whether Stack is right to want an extended debate on the political differences after the dc issue is resolved, I think it comes down to how likely people think it is that they can win each other over. I'm not close enough to be able to tell how deep the divisions are and how entrenched people are but from a distance it does honestly seem that many of the platform lot do indeed know what the arguments of the old guard are about feminism etc and just don't accept them. At some point you have to make a call on what's to be gained from continued debate vs drawing a line and letting people decide which side they are on.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 11, 2013)

So Pat Stack spends a large part of his letter explaining why the CC are wrong to be negative about the new wave of feminism, and bolshieboy reads this as Stack being with the CC against the platform on this issue.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Yes it's too much of a slap in the face for the CPGB who aren't big enough to be in the gang of four of trotskyist groups
> Yours is really good, although they might think it too sucky when combined with the start 'As a long-time donator to your website and keen follower of developments in the programme'
> 
> Perhaps something along the lives of 'have become an avid reader of the Weekly Worker due to Chris Knight's anthropological writings, and ditch any mention of "the programme"?


 
I think you need this chap Jonny Favourite to pen it :




> Revo and WP
> One would have hoped that the acrimonious split between Workers Power and Permanent Revolution would not have damaged those who supported neither side but who want a truly independent revolutionary youth movement.
> 
> It was expected that, since Workers Power control the Revo site, the supporters of Permanent Revolution would have been culled, but those of us who defended the independence of Revo from Workers Power have recently been under attack ourselves in a way that makes the Socialist Workers Party look like the birthplace of democratic faction rights.
> ...


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> So Pat Stack spends a large part of his letter explaining why the CC are wrong to be negative about the new wave of feminism, and bolshieboy reads this as Stack being with the CC against the platform on this issue.


to be fair, every post of his is like that now. i only read them for comedy value.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 11, 2013)

Quite thevreverse, I was questioning whether he was right Oisin, I know he doesn't share their view of how to deal with the debate. Clear enough that he does think some of the platform have it wrong though.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I think you need this chap Jonny Favourite to pen it :


that is a fucking cool name.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the clue is in your own words.* Are robots humans?* You were the one crying about dehumanising. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of such a claim when one refers to people as robots etc.
> 
> To me people who describe SWP members in such a way are displaying the typical cult /sectarian trait, who would rather vilify and dehumanise the opponent because they are too lazy/ ignorant/ Machiavellian to take on the arguments..


 

deny the robot


----------



## cesare (Feb 11, 2013)

U r dmpd


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> that is a fucking cool name.


 
He is a cool bloke, ex leader of Skaters Against the War.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> to be fair, every post of his is like that now. i only read them for comedy value.


Stack makes it clear why he thinks Seymour shouldn't be expelled right now. and it ain't cause he shares his 'nuanced' differences. Funny how people only read into Stack what they want to find there. I know he's facing two ways at once.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> He is a cool bloke, ex leader of Skaters Against the War.


 
I heard he's working for Political Scrapbook as a sub-editor/intern now?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> He is a cool bloke, ex leader of Skaters Against the War.


i've gone off him now.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I heard he's working for Political Scrapbook as a sub-editor/intern now?


 
Yes he is on a coach trip across Europe to watch a few demo's and hang out with skaters and poets. I got a text from him but he had either left the auto speller on or it was in Greek or something.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Stack makes it clear why he thinks Seymour shouldn't be expelled right now. and it ain't cause he shares his 'nuanced' differences. Funny how people only read into Stack what they want to find there. I know he's facing two ways at once.


I thought what he said about the 'facebook 4' was quite revealing. That it was tactically wrong to expel them, nothing about it being wrong in principle just tactically.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 11, 2013)

Exactly emanymton. And the way he says Seymour, just Seymour the second time he mentions him, not Richard.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 11, 2013)

Came across a picture tonight of myself and others on FB from 21 years ago in Dublin during the X Case on a day when Cliffites, anarchists and Millie's were all literally shoulder to shoulder against the Youth Defence anti abortion bigots. One of my favourite times to be alive and political. A simple uncomplicated day of our side vs theirs.  In some ways I wish we could have stopped time on that day and not have to trawl through horrible debates like this shit on this thread (yes I know whose fault that is etc). Plus I had a lot more hair then. My point being that there can't be anyone that enjoys this bloodletting nonsense, it's not why people get involvd in the first place. But you'd have to be totally naive to think it isn't sometimes and for well defined purposes necessary.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Exactly emanymton. And the way he says Seymour, just Seymour the second time he mentions him, not Richard.


i'm making no comment about what stack thinks about seymour, but this is rubbish. i mean, "not richard"? this is just bollocks.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 11, 2013)

https://twitter.com/davidosler/status/301078184932294658

Couldn't resist. Not sure why it hasn't displayed though. Just click.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cliffites


not "tonyites"?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i'm making no comment about what stack thinks about seymour, but this is rubbish. i mean, "not richard"? this is just bollocks.


Maybe I am reading too much into a small thing but why are people so reluctant to imagine who Stack means when he says the vanguard of the minority are "people with very substantial differences". This is Stack, a hardened old guard veteran, not some newbie who thinks we should all just agree to differ.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> not "tonyites"?


I'd have said swmers as that's what we were but no fucker younger than 30 would have recognised that name.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i'm making no comment about what stack thinks about seymour, but this is rubbish. i mean, "not richard"? this is just bollocks.


This may be true but the whole spirt of Stack contribution is an appeal to the CC not to throw the baby out with the bath-water.

I wouldn't normally leak stuff that I mange get hold of (not that I ever get anything anyway) but this is pretty innocuous, so on the off chance anyone is interested.




> *Conference regulations*
> The conference will take place on Sunday 10 March in London. Registration will begin at Xam.
> Conference begins promptly at Xam.
> 
> ...


----------



## discokermit (Feb 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Maybe I am reading too much into a small thing but why are people so reluctant to imagine who Stack means when he says the vanguard of the minority are "people with very substantial differences". This is Stack, a hardened old guard veteran, not some newbie who thinks we should all just agree to differ.


it's quite obvious though. these aren't insights. we all know where stack fits in this.

you have these moments of lucidity followed by periods of utter self contradicting fantasy.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it's quite obvious though. these aren't insights. we all know where stack fits in this.
> 
> you have these moments of lucidity followed by periods of utter self contradicting fantasy.


I'll take that


----------



## discokermit (Feb 12, 2013)




----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

Happier days when people heard SWP and thought "woman's right to choose". I'm not the one with the placard by the way, though older LSE folk will know him.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'd have said swmers as that's what we were but no fucker younger than 30 would have recognised that name.


 
They're still known as swimmers more than swappies over here, you'll be glad to know.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Happier days when people heard SWP and thought "woman's right to choose". I'm not the one with the placard by the way, though older LSE folk will know him.


So you're S B then. Well, well. Thanks for clarifying matters. Why don't you drop the Swindon Labour Party rubbish and just openly debate your position?


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 12, 2013)

Me hums: 6-7-9-4-7-0-0, women have the right to know!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Quite thevreverse, I was questioning whether he was right Oisin, I know he doesn't share their view of how to deal with the debate. Clear enough that he does think some of the platform have it wrong though.


 
You are correct that he makes it plain that he regards some prominent oppositionists (and he clearly means Seymour and his closest associates) as having "significant differences" with the SWP, and by unstated extension him. And it's also true that he poses much of his argument as tactical advice on how to deal with disquiet.

But it's worth noting that he at no point explains what those "significant differences" are, still less does he mount any argument against those holding them. Every single criticism he raises, every specific argument he makes, is aimed at the CC.

Which is, in retrospect, a bit peculiar.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> So you're S B then. Well, well. Thanks for clarifying matters. Why don't you drop the Swindon Labour Party rubbish and just openly debate your position?


 
If by SB you mean the fulltimer who went back to England, that's not bolshiebhoy.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 12, 2013)

Ahh, yes I did mean him.  I wonder who that was doing an injustice to? So bolshieboy is the guy with the hat?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You are correct that he makes it plain that he regards some prominent oppositionists (and he clearly means Seymour and his closest associates) as having "significant differences" with the SWP, and by unstated extension him. And it's also true that he poses much of his argument as tactical advice on how to deal with disquiet.
> 
> But it's worth noting that he at no point explains what those "significant differences" are, still less does he mount any argument against those holding them. Every single criticism he raises, every specific argument he makes, is aimed at the CC.
> 
> Which is, in retrospect, a bit peculiar.


I took that as him just not doing the cc's job for them no? They're making the running on what's wrong with the platform's politics but he's concentrating on dc reform and preventing what he sees as an overly administrative response from the cc.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Ahh, yes I did mean him. I wonder who that was doing an injustice to? So bolshieboy is the guy with the hat?


Lol, no the unkempt one in between. Happy to have been confused with your 1st guess mind, top fella that he is.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Me hums: 6-7-9-4-7-0-0, women have the right to know!


That brings back memories.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

A quick moan.

I come from a small rural town that is over run with a higher than average EDL and BNP membership.

There is only one other person who's left of NIgel Farage in the town. So, he ends up getting and giving shit to goons. Last night a local fascist starts having a whinge on his facebook page. I pile in use a usually effective tactic of pulling out the bag the long list of nonces in the EDL and far right ranks. Even though he appeared to have no genuine knowledge of the paedos on his team he knew full well about Martin Smith and his allegations of rape.

So cheers for that!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> A quick moan.
> 
> I come from a small rural town that is over run with a higher than average EDL and BNP membership.
> 
> ...


 
In fairness mate, don't you think you should have posed a more effective criticism of the EDL and the rest of the far-right than "Well, they're like, all a bunch on nonces"? Shit politics in, Shit politics out.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> In fairness mate, don't you think you should have posed a more effective criticism of the EDL and the rest of the far-right than "Well, they're like, all a bunch on nonces"? Shit politics in, Shit politics out.


 
It's obviously not the only arguement I use against them. This lot are reactionary tabloid led idiots. They think they're doing their mums proud. The title 'nonce' carries a lot of weight.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 12, 2013)

Shit edl thread thataway mr dingding--->

New SWP party notes on the special conference of special kind.


----------



## belboid (Feb 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> does honestly seem that many of the platform lot do indeed know what the arguments of the old guard are about feminism etc and just don't accept them. At some point you have to make a call on what's to be gained from continued debate vs drawing a line and letting people decide which side they are on.


absolutely. But, the point of much of Stacks criticism of the CC is that _they_ didn't actually debate the platforms arguments, but simply answered the criticisms they were used to from thirty years ago. And thats something I bet we've both seen them do over various issues over the years - answering the criticisms they are used to rather than the ones they are actually facing. It's not really a very useful way of convincing people, is it?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 12, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This may be true but the whole spirt of Stack contribution is an appeal to the CC not to throw the baby out with the bath-water. (snip)


That is how I read it


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You are correct that he makes it plain that he regards some prominent oppositionists (and he clearly means Seymour and his closest associates) as having "significant differences" with the SWP, and by unstated extension him. And it's also true that he poses much of his argument as tactical advice on how to deal with disquiet.
> 
> But it's worth noting that he at no point explains what those "significant differences" are, still less does he mount any argument against those holding them. Every single criticism he raises, every specific argument he makes, is aimed at the CC.


 

He does. He makes it clear that feminism cannot achieve women's liberation.

He's arguing that the CC have misinterpreted the new wave of feminism and as a result the older cadre haven't been sufficiently political in their responses; if they had been, then the group of people with Seymour wouldn't be as large. They still have a chance of persuading some to the SWP position if they listen and debate in a patient and rigorous way, thereby weakening the arguments and leadership of Seymour, saving the party from complete collapse.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> It's obviously not the only arguement I use against them. This lot are reactionary tabloid led idiots. They think they're doing their mums proud. The title 'nonce' carries a lot of weight.


 
I see. So because _they _are stupid, it becomes neccessary for you to add to _your_ very cogent class-based arguments the conclusion "and anyway they're all nonces."

I bet that worked really well, before this whole Martin Smith thing blew up. I bet loads of EDL members immediately began to question the far-right politics they'd been expressing up until they met you, whereupon you pointing out that some of the EDL are nonces led them to a reach a Damascus-like conversion and embrace the concept of class solidarity. I bet that now this Martin Smith thing is out there, the number of far-right nutters you're able to convert by pointing out that _they are a load of nonces _will _dramatically fall.

I shudder to think of the repercussions for the class. _


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> He does. He makes it clear that feminism cannot achieve women's liberation.


 
What does "feminism" mean in this context?  Liberal identity politics?  Radical feminist separatists?  Is a socialist feminism unthinkable?!


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I see. So because _they _are stupid, it becomes neccessary for you to add to _your_ very cogent class-based arguments the conclusion "and anyway they're all nonces."
> 
> I bet that worked really well, before this whole Martin Smith thing blew up. I bet loads of EDL members immediately began to question the far-right politics they'd been expressing up until they met you, whereupon you pointing out that some of the EDL are nonces led them to a reach a Damascus-like conversion and embrace the concept of class solidarity. I bet that now this Martin Smith thing is out there, the number of far-right nutters you're able to convert by pointing out that _they are a load of nonces _will _dramatically fall._
> 
> _I shudder to think of the repercussions for the class. _


 
Most the of the far right I know identify with them as they see them as working class and not snotty middle class like your good self that would put anyone off the left.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Most the of the far right I know identify with them as they see them as working class and not snotty middle class like your good self that would put anyone off the left.


 
So stupid working class people can't take reasoned argument; how far do you want to push this?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So stupid working class people can't take reasoned argument; how far do you want to push this?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
That's your snide projection.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> That's your snide projection.


 
No, it's yours, you canniving little shit, don't try and turn it around. You called them "tabloid-led idiots" and decreed on this basis that you needed to employ mindless tabloid style accusations of being a nonce _as a logical conclusion of an argument against the EDL. _And don't you call me "snotty middle class" because it's not me who is so fucking convinced of their own superiority that they have the cheek to blame the EDL for their own brand of shitty patronising paternalistic bullshit excuse for politics. "Call them nonces - it's all they understand." You are a fucking disgrace.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> No, it's yours, you canniving little shit, don't try and turn it around. You called them "tabloid-led idiots" and decreed on this basis that you needed to employ mindless tabloid style accusations of being a nonce _as a logical conclusion of an argument against the EDL. _And don't you call me "snotty middle class" because it's not me who is so fucking convinced of their own superiority that they have the cheek to blame the EDL for their own brand of shitty patronising paternalistic bullshit excuse for politics. "Call them nonces - it's all they understand." You are a fucking disgrace.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

That's actually cheered me up. Nice one SpackleFrog, no harm meant. Welcome to the boards


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What does "feminism" mean in this context? Liberal identity politics? Radical feminist separatists? Is a socialist feminism unthinkable?!


 
He says the new wave of feminism. I'm not familiar with it myself. It's also a long time since I read the SWPs arguments against socialist feminism. I'm not the person to ask.

I was merely interpreting Stack's letter as I see it. I didn't say anything about agreeing or not agreeing with him.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What does "feminism" mean in this context? Liberal identity politics? Radical feminist separatists? Is a socialist feminism unthinkable?!


The question to ask is not what feminism means, but what Stack means in his statement. The answer that the CC gives to his comment is in point 7 of the Party Notes from the link posted by butchersapron namely:


> It is not controversial that feminism can be part of a process that leads people into struggle and towards a Marxist understanding of the world. We are always on the side of feminists against oppression. But we are also for winning women, and men, to a revolutionary socialist view, not adapting to a different view..


That is the current CC line on the role of feminism in relationship to the SWP. That can be argued about of course.


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 12, 2013)

Interesting how this thread has progressed. I swear that 150 or so pages back posters were commenting on the lack of a response at Lenin's Tomb, insinuating that Seymour was spineless. Now he's the 'christ like' leader of some dangerous anti-leninist faction with utterly different politics to the CC. 

What struck me about that first post of Seymour's about the conference was how raw and visceral and angry it was at how those two women had been treated. The loyalists have done well at converting that gut visceral rebellion against natural justice into an attack on the SWP's heart and soul.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 12, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> Now he's the 'christ like' leader of some dangerous anti-leninist faction with utterly different politics to the CC.


 
Who has said this?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> That's actually cheered me up. Nice one SpackleFrog, no harm meant. Welcome to the boards



You're welcome. Next time you start to sense that your lack of analysis is a problem, feel free to come to me before you blame it all on Martin bloody Smith and the stupidity of the class as a whole. I'll do what I can for you.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> That's your snide projection.


 
You called them idiots; i.e. they are stupid. You said they identified with the EDL on a class basis; i.e. they're working class or see themselves as such. You choose the 'they're nonces' line of argument, rather than they're anti-working class. There is no projection on my part; so I ask again how far do you want to push your stupid working class people can't take reasoned argument line?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> You're welcome. Next time you start to sense that your lack of analysis is a problem, feel free to come to me before you blame it all on Martin bloody Smith and the stupidity of the class as a whole. I'll do what I can for you.


 
High-minded, middle class, mental masturbation, would go down a treat I'm sure


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You called them idiots; i.e. they are stupid. You said they identified with then EDL on a class basis; i.e. they're working class or see themselves as such. You choose the 'they're nonces' line of argument, rather than they're anti-working class. There is no projection on my part; so I ask again how far do you want to push your stupid working class people can't take reasoned argument line?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Yer full of shite. The far right I know do identify with the fash as they see them as working class. I usually take the line that the fash are anti-working class but I'll let you have your wank.


----------



## lazythursday (Feb 12, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Who has said this?


Somebody. Some pages back. It's not really important. It's just that the change in how Seymour etc is being perceived is very noticeable on coming back to this thread after a long gap.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Yer full of shite. The far right I know do identify with the fash as they see them as working class. I usually take the line that the fash are anti-working class but I'll let you have your wank.


 
You dim wit, I'm not arguing with you about their identification as working class. I have been trying to point out that your sliding together of idiot and working class, and your subsequent pitching an argument at what you see as the correct low level, is a crock of shit. Not only that it has echoes of the Leninism you claim to abhor. Now dullard engage with the argument or piss off.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You dim wit, I'm not arguing with you about their identification as working class. I have been trying to point out that your sliding together of idiot and working class, and your subsequent pitching an argument at what you see as the correct low level, is a crock of shit. Not only that it has echoes of the Leninism you claim to abhor. Now dullard engage with the argument or piss off.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Fap fap fap.

(Stop projecting 'Louis')


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> sliding together of idiot and working class


 
I'm not 'sliding' together idiot and working class I'm 'sliding' idiot with fash.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> I'm not 'sliding' together idiot and working class I'm 'sliding' idiot with fash.


 
So fash are idiots and can only deal with the 'nonces' argument; you still peddling a crock of shit and still not recognising what you're doing. Stop being angry and imagining me wanking and try thinking instead; it'll be a lot more rewarding.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## redcogs (Feb 12, 2013)

i'm so excited! Just spotted a couple of waxwings in the garden.  i place apple halves strategically for the blackbirds, but other types are encouraged also.  Apparently waxwings pop across from Scandinavia for their winter jollies.  Beautiful plumage colouration - and a high crest.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Yer full of shite. The far right I know do identify with the fash as they see them as working class. I usually take the line that the fash are anti-working class but I'll let you have your wank.


 
I see, terribly sorry. I've misrepresented your position entirely. It's _because they think the edl are a working class org _that you have to call them nonces _because nonces can't be working class.
_Now I get it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 12, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> Somebody. Some pages back. It's not really important. It's just that the change in how Seymour etc is being perceived is very noticeable on coming back to this thread after a long gap.


There is a change, and that change is that the CC of the SWP have woken up and begun to smell the burning toast. Instead of just ignoring the challenge they have recognised it is there. They have started to respond further than Callinicos's written piece that studiously ignored the main issues. They are now on Plan B: hold a pre-emptive special conference on their own terms which they hope or plan to pull people back around a carefully re-presented party line. The results of this to be final and agreed by all. I wish them luck with that.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So fash are idiots and can only deal with the 'nonces' argument


 
All the fash i know are either lacking knowledge and/or don't have the greatest cognitive abilities. And like I've previously said I usually take the line that the fash are anti working class.

Now what you've failed to understand in your grandstanding is that I used the nonce thing as a brickbat in a dingdong. You're filling in the gaps as you please so you can have rant and to feel self righteous.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I see, terribly sorry. I've misrepresented your position entirely. It's _because they think the edl are a working class org _that you have to call them nonces _because nonces can't be working class._
> Now I get it.


 
So, SpackleFrog how many people have your efforts help persuade people to leave far right orgs?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 12, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> There is a change, and that change is that the CC of the SWP have woken up and begun to smell the burning toast. Instead of just ignoring the challenge they have recognised it is there. They have started to respond further than Calinicos's written piece that studiously ignored the main issues. They are now on Plan B: hold a pre-emptive special conference on their own terms which they hope or plan to pull people back around a carefully re-presented party line. The results of this to be final and agreed by all. I wish them luck with that.


The other change in the thread is that instead of being hi-jacked by representatives of other non SWP sects giving their own history and squabbles going back to the beginning of the last century, is that it is being taken over by discussions about unconnected right-wing groups with no reference to the SWP. That's Urban75 I guess.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> All the fash i know are either lacking knowledge and/or don't have the greatest cognitive abilities. And like I've previously said I usually take the line that the fash are anti working class.
> 
> Now what you've failed to understand in your grandstanding is that I used the nonce thing as a brickbat in a dingdong. You're filling in the gaps as you please so you can have rant and to feel self righteous.


 
Good you've realised that your 'nonce brickbat' was a crock of shite even in a ding dong; the sound of you rowing back is music to my ears.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. It's not my experience that fash are uniformly uniformed and/or stupid; I'd suggest it's not a good place to start from even in a ding dong ring ring.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 12, 2013)

With respect to the SWP Special Conference I have only just noticed this gem from a leaked document:


> Support the CC statement: A group of comrades who back the CC statement are collecting names in support. They cannot form a faction because they support the party’s policies! To add your name email xxx.xx


 
I was amused about the aside concerning the fact that they cannot form a faction.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 12, 2013)

That's even worse - that's a _secret faction.  _


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> That's even worse - that's a _secret faction.  _


The SWP has no problems about secrecy, it is publicity that they fear, at least when it comes to their internal workings.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 12, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> With respect to the SWP Special Conference I have only just noticed this gem from a leaked document:
> 
> 
> I was amused about the aside concerning the fact that they cannot form a faction.


If that is from my post, then to be honest that line was the reason I posted it


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 12, 2013)

getting a bit decoder ring


----------



## ayatollah (Feb 12, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> There is a change, and that change is that the CC of the SWP have woken up and begun to smell the burning toast. Instead of just ignoring the challenge they have recognised it is there. They have started to respond further than Calinicos's written piece that studiously ignored the main issues. They are now on Plan B: hold a pre-emptive special conference on their own terms which they hope or plan to pull people back around a carefully re-presented party line. The results of this to be final and agreed by all. I wish them luck with that.


 
I strongly suspect the individuals who compose the self-recruiting permanent faction who have run the IS/SWP pretty much since its formation in Cliff's front room, are stuck now in the swamp created by their own collective authoritarian mindset. The people on the CC apparently believe that they , like Cliff certainly did himself, are in direct touch with the "dialectic of the inner dynamic of history" - or at least "channelling lenin" , a bit like the Pope and his supposed direct line to God (though in this case at least God has apparently just told Benedict to "fuck off now before all that abuse cover up stuff overwhelms you and you're too far gone to do much more than dribble incoherently in your cups "). This being the case (known in Far Left politics as "Cliff and Gerry egomania disease") how can they be "wrong" about organisational structures, democratic procedures, political tactics, rape tribunals, etc ? The "problem" (as also always claimed by the Blairites when the electorate gave them a kicking) must simply be one of "poor presentation". So, the solution is to deviously and bullyingly try to "manage" the presentation problems, and of course GET RID of those few deviants who have the temerity to question the way the IS/SWP has always been run. It's quite obviously a sad rerun of the last crazed few years in the bunker of the leadership clacque of the WRP. It'll take a few years, but the SWP is toast -- doomed to a slow death by a thousand desertions and expulsions, until only a handful of very old politicos will be left raging at the world alongside their sacred death mask of Cliff.

As an aside , like a lot of old ex SWP expellees I've had a certain "car crash voyeur" fascination with the crisis as it has unfolded. There's been a lot of interesting, and even politically insightful stuff been generated by the SWP's current plight across the blogosphere. However in case we think that the now inevitable collapse of the SWP in the longer term will in itself sort out all the lunacy lurking on the Far left, think again.For instance I've been struck by the high level of SWP leaks to the "Socialist Unity" website, and the often interesting discussions on same. I've also been surprised at the quite extraordinary crap background politics of some of the leading lights behind that site. "Andy" himself , whilst pontificating pompously about the SWP's lack of internal democracy, appears to be a dedicated apologist for both stalinism ( the "socialist states" )AND the Catholic Church hierarchy ! His recent blog on the Pope's resignation must make any radical socialist reach for the sick bag. Ironically much of the political theory of the SWP is, in comparison, many light years MORE PROGRESSIVE than this bonkers stuff. So the eventual disappearance of the SWP wont in itself guarantee that Left politics in the UK wont continue to be dominated by politicos fundamentally attached to authoritarian belief systems and theories that will continue to isolate us from the mass of ordinary sane working class people.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 12, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> I strongly suspect the individuals who compose the self-recruiting permanent faction who have run the IS/SWP pretty much since its formation in Cliff's front room, are stuck now in the swamp created by their own collective authoritarian mindset. The people on the CC apparently believe that they , like Cliff certainly did himself, are in direct touch with the "dialectic of the inner dynamic of history" - or at least "channelling lenin" , a bit like the Pope and his supposed direct line to God (though in this case at least God has apparently just told Benedict to "fuck off now before all that abuse cover up stuff overwhelms you and you're too far gone to do much more than dribble incoherently in your cups "). This being the case (known in Far Left politics as "Cliff and Gerry egomania disease") how can they be "wrong" about organisational structures, democratic procedures, political tactics, rape tribunals, etc ? The "problem" (as also always claimed by the Blairites when the electorate gave them a kicking) must simply be one of "poor presentation". So, the solution is to deviously and bullyingly try to "manage" the presentation problems, and of course GET RID of those few deviants who have the temerity to question the way the IS/SWP has always been run. It's quite obviously a sad rerun of the last crazed few years in the bunker of the leadership clacque of the WRP. It'll take a few years, but the SWP is toast -- doomed to a slow death by a thousand desertions and expulsions, until only a handful of very old politicos will be left raging at the world alongside their sacred death mask of Cliff.
> 
> As an aside , like a lot of old ex SWP expellees I've had a certain "car crash voyeur" fascination with the crisis as it has unfolded. There's been a lot of interesting, and even politically insightful stuff been generated by the SWP's current plight across the blogosphere. However in case we think that the now inevitable collapse of the SWP in the longer term will in itself sort out all the lunacy lurking on the Far left, think again.For instance I've been struck by the high level of SWP leaks to the "Socialist Unity" website, and the often interesting discussions on same. I've also been surprised at the quite extraordinary crap background politics of some of the leading lights behind that site. "Andy" himself , whilst pontificating pompously about the SWP's lack of internal democracy, appears to be a dedicated apologist for both stalinism ( the "socialist states" )AND the Catholic Church hierarchy ! His recent blog on the Pope's resignation must make any radical socialist reach for the sick bag. Ironically much of the political theory of the SWP is, in comparison, many light years MORE PROGRESSIVE than this bonkers stuff. So the eventual disappearance of the SWP wont in itself guarantee that Left politics in the UK wont continue to be dominated by politicos fundamentally attached to authoritarian belief systems and theories that will continue to isolate us from the mass of ordinary sane working class people.


Newman is proof positive that the act of leaving the SWP is not necessarily a positive act.
At least PD argues for a workers bomb, not a Chinese aircraft carrier


----------



## redcogs (Feb 12, 2013)

Callinicos's belief that the swp is strong enough to ride this out is visibly absurd.  The widespread orchestrated intimidation of the oppo's indicate an organisation at breaking point, resorting to internal thuggery to restore order.  It is fucking shameful, but it is a very long standing facet of the party's culture, one that should never have been allowed to develop.  Bullying is an illegitimate response to political differences that cannot fail to alienate hundreds of good people with the possibility is that they will all be lost from the struggle for justice and humanity, maybe permanently.

It is depressing that the short sighted inflexibility and blind stupidity of a few at the top has contaminated the swp so thoroughly, and although  i've not personally been involved for two decades, these ongoing and disastrous events create  anger and sadness in equal measure.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 12, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Callinicos's belief that the swp is strong enough to ride this out is absurd.


Well, his first calculation is that the CC can ride out the March conference. Then ride out the resignations and splits. Then the loss of the student groups. Then having done that, rebuild out of 'the next big thing'. It's a cynical and dishonest (with regard to the handling of the rape accusation) strategy. But it's not an absurd one. As an outsider who wants to see a renewed and less 'top-down' style SWP I'm worried that it might succeed. Having said that, I do see that such a 'success' will be so costly that the SWP would then be unlikely to play much of a role in a future revolution.


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 12, 2013)

belboid said:


> the alleger chose not to report it to the police.


Sorry to drag up an old debate (if this was asked before?), but if they had "found him guilty", what right have they got to allow a rapist to wonder our streets? What about protecting others?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 12, 2013)

CyberRose said:


> Sorry to drag up an old debate (if this was asked before?), but if they had "found him guilty", what right have they got to allow a rapist to wonder our streets? What about protecting others?


 
Similar question has been asked and answered.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 12, 2013)

The idea that rapists wander the streets isn't helpful at all.


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Similar question has been asked and answered.


Yes sorry I was reading forwards, not backwards, can see the posts now


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Well, his first calculation is that the CC can ride out the March conference. Then ride out the resignations and splits. Then the loss of the student groups. Then having done that, rebuild out of 'the next big thing'. It's a cynical and dishonest (with regard to the handling of the rape accusation) strategy. But it's not an absurd one. As an outsider who wants to see a renewed and less 'top-down' style SWP I'm worried that it might succeed. Having said that, I do see that such a 'success' will be so costly that the SWP would then be unlikely to play much of a role in a future revolution.


 
It seems to me that Stack has the right idea in terms of minimising damage, otherwise I can't see how they can survive in any meaningful way. I think if I were a member that would be the approach that may convince me to remain. Maybe.

But there is so much unthought about feeling in the party I'm not sure the defences can be dropped that would allow this to happen.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Callinicos's belief that the swp is strong enough to ride this out is visibly absurd. The widespread orchestrated intimidation of the oppo's indicate an organisation at breaking point, resorting to internal thuggery to restore order. It is fucking shameful, but it is a very long standing facet of the party's culture, one that should never have been allowed to develop. Bullying is an illegitimate response to political differences that cannot fail to alienate hundreds of good people with the possibility is that they will all be lost from the struggle for justice and humanity, maybe permanently.


Hang on is it a very long standing facet of the party's culture or does it indicate an organisation at breaking point?!  You need to make up which insult to hurl at them, either they've always been bullies or they're about to fall apart and your proof is the bullying.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> Somebody. Some pages back. It's not really important. It's just that the change in how Seymour etc is being perceived is very noticeable on coming back to this thread after a long gap.


Yeah that was me called him a wannabe Christ. And yes things have changed cause as the dispute has played itself out more and more people have realised Seymour has a much bigger agenda than the delta case.


----------



## newbie (Feb 12, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The SWP has no problems about secrecy, it is publicity that they fear, at least when it comes to their internal workings.


I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would be in a political party that excludes journalists from its annual conference. One seeking to build a mass membership, anyway.

The transcript was single source leaked and is relied upon: it's entirely possible a different picture could have emerged if the debate had been properly reported. Anyway, the mere anticipation of journalist scrutiny would have led to a different disputes process, this mess can only have happened because no-one stopped to wonder what the wider party & public would make of it because they never expected us to hear of it. As if, in the internet age..

_Comrades, we aim to transform the lives of millions of people but we don't want them to know what we're up to_.

It's so obviously a winning strategy, it's bound to come into its own at some point.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 12, 2013)

newbie said:


> I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would be in a political party that excludes journalists from its annual conference. One seeking to build a mass membership, anyway.


 
If you've ever asked a SWPer it's because they discuss illegal, dangerous revolutionary things, apparently.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 12, 2013)

yes, I would trust the mainstream press to properly report something like this.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> yes, I would trust the mainstream press to properly report something like this.


 
Of course they don't and wouldn't with something to them as juicy as this. 

But it's worth noting that the massively derided "Stalinists" in the Communist Parties on the continent in the early 1970s even before official Euro-Communism were inviting _accredited _(people with a history of not lying, making stuff up) journalists to cover its annual conferences and votes.

Do members of fellow Trotksyist parties attend each other's annual conventions as observers?
I don't know the answer but I suspect it is no.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Of course they don't and wouldn't with something to them as juicy as this.
> 
> But it's worth noting that the massively derided "Stalinists" in the Communist Parties on the continent in the early 1970s even before official Euro-Communism were inviting _accredited _(people with a history of not lying, making stuff up) journalists to cover its annual conferences and votes.
> 
> ...


Certainly back in the early eighties the fourth had journalists and invited delegations from other organisations attending world and national conferences. I think that even the notoriously secretive Lutte Ouvriere did this.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Hang on is it a very long standing facet of the party's culture or does it indicate an organisation at breaking point?! You need to make up which insult to hurl at them, either they've always been bullies or they're about to fall apart and your proof is the bullying.


 
What you on about bolshie'?  The ability of the SWP to use internal intimidation as a 'solution' to political dissent will be recognised by any current (or previous) long term member.  Most often in the past it has been relatively small scale, involving individuals/ branches/districts etc, but it is a well rehearsed aspect of an authoritarian culture that has developed over decades.

Today intimidatory bullying is been utilised by the CC as a substitute for proper discussion precisely because they fear the consequences of an open and far reaching debate - in other words, because they have judged that the groundswell of dissent is escalating beyond that which they can control by rational argument.

Its easy to follow provided you don't have your head up your arse.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 12, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Certainly back in the early eighties the fourth had journalists and invited delegations from other organisations attending world and national conferences. I think that even the notoriously secretive Lutte Ouvriere did this.


 
That's my point. It was more open before.

The SSP or the Socialist Alliance no problems, probably be the same for a future planned Syriza formation (if the ex-Workers Power and Richard Seymourists get their way).

But the individual parties - Hannah Sell being invited to SWP conference. Alex Callinicos invited to SP conference - I don't see it happening - that's my outsider's view.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 12, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Certainly back in the early eighties the fourth had journalists and invited delegations from other organisations attending world and national conferences. I think that even the notoriously secretive Lutte Ouvriere did this.


 
What even the control commission/disciplinary/finance bits?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 12, 2013)

Does the  anarchist scene invite journalists to their AGMs?


----------



## newbie (Feb 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> yes, I would trust the mainstream press to properly report something like this.


Unless it's as _juicy_ as the last one no MSM editor will trouble their readers with an account, but there's loads of left press and blogs.

Why on earth would anyone trust the mainstream press?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 12, 2013)

why would anyone trust Socialist Unity?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Does the anarchist scene invite journalists to their AGMs?


 
Does the anarchist scene _have_ AGMs?


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Does the anarchist scene _have_ AGMs?


 
Boot Fair!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Does the anarchist scene _have_ AGMs?


 

they have a bookfair!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> So, SpackleFrog how many people have your efforts help persuade people to leave far right orgs?


 
As an individual over the last four years, 3 BNP and 1 EDL, not that it's significant or relevant. But the extent to which I've contributed to combatting general racist or fascist ideas, I'd say I've done my bit. Even if I haven't though, it's no defence of your village idiot level approach.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> As an individual over the last four years, 3 BNP and 1 EDL


 
Of course you have


----------



## newbie (Feb 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> why would anyone trust Socialist Unity?


 
see my point about this whole fandango being based on a single sourced leak, which is being trusted to such an extent it might blow the party out of the water. People quote from it, refer back to it as though it's somehow rigorous. SU is being trusted, in much the same way as Guardian articles.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 12, 2013)

newbie said:


> see my point about this whole fandango being based on a single sourced leak, which is being trusted to such an extent it might blow the party out of the water. People quote from it, refer back to it as though it's somehow rigorous. SU is being trusted, in much the same way as Guardian articles.


 
People are also going on their own prior experience and/or knowledge of the SWP as well, though.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 12, 2013)

newbie said:


> see my point about this whole fandango being based on a single sourced leak, which is being trusted to such an extent it might blow the party out of the water. People quote from it, refer back to it as though it's somehow rigorous. SU is being trusted, in much the same way as Guardian articles.


 
i agree with the general sentiment that SU is little more than an overflowing excrement container, but in relation to the leaked transcript few have denied the accuracy of its content.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 12, 2013)

newbie said:


> see my point about this whole fandango being based on a single sourced leak, which is being trusted to such an extent it might blow the party out of the water. People quote from it, refer back to it as though it's somehow rigorous. SU is being trusted, in much the same way as Guardian articles.


 
If there were over 400 people at the conference you'd imagine at least one person would have raised an objection.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 12, 2013)

newbie said:


> see my point about this whole fandango being based on a single sourced leak, which is being trusted to such an extent it might blow the party out of the water. People quote from it, refer back to it as though it's somehow rigorous. SU is being trusted, in much the same way as Guardian articles.


 
There were 400 other people there someone could have challenged its accuracy if it was faulty, CC loyalists certainly would have done so.

It's not a question of trusting Socialist Unity - the same transcript was sent to the Weekly Worker aswell, which you'd have found out had you listened to Jack Conrad's podcast. 

Both SU and WW are conduits for the disaffected within the SWP.

Don't really get the reference to the Guardian.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 12, 2013)

newbie said:


> see my point about this whole fandango being based on a single sourced leak, which is being trusted to such an extent it might blow the party out of the water. People quote from it, refer back to it as though it's somehow rigorous. SU is being trusted, in much the same way as Guardian articles.


Others have said similar things but no one has questioned the accuracy of the statement including Charlie Kimber when we emailed Andy Newman to complain about it. Mind you the only source we have for that email is also SU.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Does the anarchist scene _have_ AGMs?


I think they should have if they are rejecting democratic centralism for being too centralist and not democratic enough and from some of the posts on here there are obviously a few anarchists who have some experience of rule books and constitutions.

ALARM had an inaugural general meeting, not sure if they invited anyone from the press or left blogosphere, with an agenda/election of officials etc. Not sure if they lasted long enough for an AGM.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I think they should have if they are rejecting democratic centralism for being too centralist and not democratic enough and from some of the posts on here there are obviously a few anarchists who have some experience of rule books and constitutions.


 
I can't disagree.



> ALARM had an inaugural general meeting, not sure if they invited anyone from the press or left blogosphere, with an agenda/election of officials etc. Not sure if they lasted long enough for an AGM.


 
An inaugural meeting is always dominated by the original people who call the meeting, meaning they'll be the elected officials, until the next proper AGM. 

I think, in practice, the "anarchist scene" is way too full of different people for them ever to last longer than five minutes in the same room let alone a whole AGM.  Westcountry mink liberator types, East London Catholic Worker, Faslane peace camp, Edinburgh Earth First!, Norwich Class War etc.


----------



## newbie (Feb 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> There were 400 other people there someone could have challenged its accuracy if it was faulty, CC loyalists certainly would have done so.
> 
> It's not a question of trusting Socialist Unity - the same transcript was sent to the Weekly Worker aswell, which you'd have found out had you listened to Jack Conrad's podcast.
> 
> ...


you're right, I didn't listen.

it's still a single source, howevermany different places publish it.  From someone doing what a journalist does, reporting what happened. It's not been challenged, neither has it been expanded upon sfaik.

Surely a plurality of reports, in SW and elsewhere, would have been better?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I can't disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ah Ha !


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeah that was me called him a wannabe Christ. And yes things have changed cause as the dispute has played itself out more and more people have realised Seymour has a much bigger agenda than the delta case.


 
This is patently absurd. I'm no fan of Richard 'Victory to the Taliban' Seymour, but his motivations are quite straightfoward. The latest claim on the opposition website that their supporters are facing intimidation and are being shouted down in meetings absolutely fits the SWP _modus operandi, _which he was happily a part of until he realized 'he don't like it up 'im.'

After all, as Callinicos says, 'if the SWP didn't exist, we would need to invent it.' Shut up or fuck off in other words.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Ah Ha !


 
fighting the pedestrianisation of Norwich town centre for over 10 years.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 12, 2013)

I liked that Norwich Anarchists always seemed to have the biggest banner. Bless.


----------



## SLK (Feb 12, 2013)

I can't be as harsh on RS as Bolshie because China is involved, and I did 5.30am Mount Pleasant sales with China (or his then-partner Emma). He knows IS politics. It's not as clear cut as Bolshie makes out in my view.
They've called the 'conference' right though - way too aggressively for me to really believe they want to be in the SWP any more, but right http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/when-is-conference-not-conference.html


----------



## SLK (Feb 12, 2013)

Interesting how they talk about the Platform briefly, and then talk on behalf of the whole faction.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 12, 2013)

SLK said:


> I can't be as harsh on RS as Bolshie because China is involved, and I did 5.30am Mount Pleasant sales with China (or his then-partner Emma). He knows IS politics. It's not as clear cut as Bolshie makes out in my view.


 
I don't really get the line "He knows IS politics". China Mieville knows IS politics.
Does Seymour somehow not know IS politics (because he is too young) ? Do you know IS politics?  Are there people in the SWP who don't know IS politics - the direct party before the SWP - if so that's a massive failure in party education. The IS stopped in 1976 and the SWP took over, you can't explain the SWP without the IS.


----------



## SLK (Feb 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I don't really get the line "He knows IS politics". China Mieville knows IS politics.
> Does Seymour somehow not know IS politics (because he is too young) ? Do you know IS politics? Are there people in the SWP who don't know IS politics - the direct party before the SWP - if so that's a massive failure in party education. The IS stopped in 1976 and the SWP took over, you can't explain the SWP without the IS.


 
Yes, that was lazy of me. I meant committed to, and did commit to learning before he'd even let us talk about recruiting him. I have no idea on Seymour. I see what bolshie is saying - but Stack and China are two (polar opposite backgrounds!) who would make me listen. As has been pointed out, I'm not rejoining any time soon, so I'm only an interested observer.

As for, "Are there people in the SWP who don't know IS politics?" - I was an active member for 7 years and a member for longer. And yes, "sign them up" regardless became the mode of operation more and more regardless of political disagreements. I'd say even in my day a fair few had never heard of the IS.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 12, 2013)

SLK said:


> Yes, that was lazy of me. I meant committed to, and did commit to learning before he'd even let us talk about recruiting him. I have no idea on Seymour. I see what bolshie is saying


 
What is he saying?


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 12, 2013)

Is it just me or does it feel like Leningrad 1941 in London right now? Minus Shostakovich, but the snowy streets, babushkas wrapped up in furs against the unforgiving cold, more snow and the biting wind. Desperation written in the faces of all those queuing for provisions at Waitrose, and internecine warfare between the renegades and the central committee.

No?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> This is patently absurd. I'm no fan of Richard 'Victory to the Taliban' Seymour, but his motivations are quite straightfoward. The latest claim on the opposition website that their supporters are facing intimidation and are being shouted down in meetings absolutely fits the SWP _modus operandi, _which he was happily a part of until he realized 'he don't like it up 'im.'
> 
> After all, as Callinicos says, 'if the SWP didn't exist, we would need to invent it.' Shut up or fuck off in other words.


His motivations are straightforward I agree and I'm not suggesting he has personal leadership ambitions, not something he'd want I suspect as it would carry equal parts responsibility and power, but that doesn't preclude his motivations being about much more than seeking justice over one case. He would no doubt cast it in terms of a return to the democratic, iconoclastic traditions of the earlier IS. But the problem with that is that when people revolt and demand the freedom to speak its usually because they have something to say. And in his case a not even very close reading of his often turgid and thesaurus fuelled prose can only lead to the conclusion that what he has to say is we need a looser, identity politics friendly mash up of revolutionaries and left reformists along the lines of the almighty Syriza. Now I'm as excited as the next centrist about every seat Tsirpas wins from New Democracy in Greece and I haven't got anything against centrism on a moral or aesthetic level - wouldn't have a POUM avatar if I did  - but whatever that politics is its not recognisably the IS. Dishonesty on that score is the main real complaint I'd have with RS and the other Platform leaders. 

People are shouting at each other in the SWP right now on all sides and that is something people on all sides who want to work together in the future, which I honestly think is the majority of them, need to resist. I've been in enough of these cat fights to know that no side in these things ever has a monopoly on good behaviour when you think all your hard work is being put at risk. If the tone of the FB debates is at all reflective of the face to face confrontations then both the name calling, ad hominem behaviour and the rational, comradely behaviour are features of both wings of the party right now.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 12, 2013)

COMRADES COME RALLY


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 12, 2013)

AND LET THE LAST FIGHT LET US FACE


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 12, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Of course you have



Why ask if you won't accept the answer?


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 12, 2013)

THE INTERNATIONALE something something HUMAN RAAAAAICE


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> And in his case a not even very close reading of his often turgid and thesaurus fuelled prose can only lead to the conclusion that what he has to say is we need a looser, identity politics friendly mash up of revolutionaries and left reformists along the lines of the almighty Syriza.


 
I don't think so. The SWP are the British version of Syriza already, minus the membership or popularity. But they are a complete mirror image. Bureaucratic top layer, passive membership.

The SWP would love to be the new Syriza, loyalists or so-called 'opposition' all. Lets face it, that is what they base their whole strategy on. And look what the leading theoreticians of the so-called 'Marxist' left have to say about the mess in Greece - they all want to see the establishment of a state managed war-economy.  Like my nan used to say 'the war was great. It brought all the people together dear.'

It ain't ever gonna happen, but the fantasy keeps a steady line of recruits turning up at the queue where people sign their names and fill out the bit for SWP bank direct debit/standing orders.

And so keeps the whole SWP racket on the road.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 12, 2013)

The SWP CC should do what the Situationist International did in 1971.

Liquidate. Initiate the first adventure in revolutionary politics in the history of Britain.Why are British revolutionaries so crap? The fuck awful British surrealists set the precident. Bunch of milk sops.

Oh no, hold on, the fight against austerity and tory cuts will collapse without the SWP. I forgot.


----------



## manny-p (Feb 12, 2013)

My swp informant has gone quiet. Any more shit going down?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 12, 2013)

SLK said:


> Interesting how they talk about the Platform briefly, and then talk on behalf of the whole faction.


 
That's pretty straightforward: The CC's whole strategy is to split the "hard" oppositionists from the "soft" ones, and their strategy in response has to be to try to pull the different parts of the opposition together.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

redcogs said:


> What you on about bolshie'?  The ability of the SWP to use internal intimidation as a 'solution' to political dissent will be recognised by any current (or previous) long term member.  Most often in the past it has been relatively small scale, involving individuals/ branches/districts etc, but it is a well rehearsed aspect of an authoritarian culture that has developed over decades.
> 
> Today intimidatory bullying is been utilised by the CC as a substitute for proper discussion precisely because they fear the consequences of an open and far reaching debate - in other words, because they have judged that the groundswell of dissent is escalating beyond that which they can control by rational argument.
> 
> Its easy to follow provided you don't have your head up your arse.


Where is the evidence for this beyond the Paltform's vague claims? All I am hearing is branches in constant turmoil with people doing nothing but discuss all of this, sometimes in aggressive ways but mostly with a minimum of civility. I do know the behaviour you're talking about, course I do. I was at the receiving end myself once or twice, including being called a racist by one young Dublin hack at the end of the war in Kuwait for disagreeing with his estimate of the strength of the anti war movement. The important thing is that when someone demanded the slur of racism be taken back the hack was forced to because the culture of most IS branches isn't quite as corrupt as detractors like to think and if hacks overstep the mark there will be enough of the Pat Stacks around to pull them up. And the majority will usually cohere against the hack and his methods even while maybe agreeing with the political argument he's pursuing, badly. let's be honest here the platform have had an incredible degree of freedom to provoke and publically criticise their comrades and the administrative response has been pretty damn mild.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's pretty straightforward: The CC's whole strategy is to split the "hard" oppositionists from the "soft" ones, and their strategy in response has to be to try to pull the different parts of the opposition together.


A more cynical eye might say they are less interested in factional unity than in hegemonising the rest of the faction. Not that Stack or Barker or likely to fall for Seymour's charms beyond tactical unity on dc reform.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> let's be honest here the platform have had an incredible degree of freedom to provoke and publically criticise their comrades and the administrative response has been pretty damn mild.


 
This is a bit sneaky. You are effectively giving the CC credit for a commitment to free debate, when you are well aware that the only reason why there hasn't been a purge is that they have made tactical decisions to hold back for fear of the consequences. You are confusing weakness with generosity.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 12, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Is it just me or does it feel like Leningrad 1941 in London right now? Minus Shostakovich, but the snowy streets, babushkas wrapped up in furs against the unforgiving cold, more snow and the biting wind. Desperation written in the faces of all those queuing for provisions at Waitrose, and internecine warfare between the renegades and the central committee.
> 
> No?



It's icy cold in the north too.  

Yes, all seems ominous, weatherwise and politicswise.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> A more cynical eye might say they are less interested in factional unity than in hegemonising the rest of the faction.


 
Of course they want to win the softer elements to their views, but the overriding concern (for purely "cynical" or more accurately tactical) reasons is to keep the bloc together and stop the CC from isolating them.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> I don't think so. The SWP are the British version of Syriza already, minus the membership or popularity. But they are a complete mirror image. Bureaucratic top layer, passive membership.
> 
> The SWP would love to be the new Syriza, loyalists or so-called 'opposition' all. Lets face it, that is what they base their whole strategy on. And look what the leading theoreticians of the so-called 'Marxist' left have to say about the mess in Greece - they all want to see the establishment of a state managed war-economy.  Like my nan used to say 'the war was great. It brought all the people together dear.'
> 
> ...


Sorry not being snide here but don't understand your point SD. Leave aside the regimes of the two parties for a minute (which may or may not be similar) in what sense do they share the same politics or does one aspire to be the other? I think the SWP knows it could never have the sort of electoral strength of Syriza without stopping being what it is. They might want to be part of a looser electoral coalition at some point that has similar votes but that's not the same as being that party themselves is it?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is a bit sneaky. You are effectively giving the CC credit for a commitment to free debate, when you are well aware that the only reason why there hasn't been a purge is that they have made tactical decisions to hold back for fear of the consequences. You are confusing weakness with generosity.


I'm sure we agree on why they haven't expelled Seymour and the other leaders. But I'm not sure they even want to expell the majority of the softer platform supporters, they'd rather have the argument with them until it's obviously lost. Fact remains that whatever the cc's motivations the internal regime right now is pretty close to a free for all with people saying damn near anything they please, in every forum.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Fact remains that whatever the cc's motivations the internal regime right now is pretty close to a free for all with people saying damn near anything they please, in every forum.


 
Surely not .... freedom of speech?


----------



## treelover (Feb 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Surely not .... freedom of speech?


 

great....


----------



## SLK (Feb 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is a bit sneaky. You are effectively giving the CC credit for a commitment to free debate, when you are well aware that the only reason why there hasn't been a purge is that they have made tactical decisions to hold back for fear of the consequences. You are confusing weakness with generosity.


 
Yes, bolshie might want to reflect on the fact that the CC is 4 parts people he refused to obey as organisers back in the day!! 

I don't want to stroke his ego, but THEN he was a source of political argument they couldn't match. Maybe they can now.


----------



## SLK (Feb 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is a bit sneaky. You are effectively giving the CC credit for a commitment to free debate, when you are well aware that the only reason why there hasn't been a purge is that they have made tactical decisions to hold back for fear of the consequences. You are confusing weakness with generosity.


 
You Millies would have got shot asap?


----------



## SLK (Feb 13, 2013)

I had an interesting discussion with a UAF Officers Group member tonight. Will update soon.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

SLK said:


> You Millies would have got shot asap?


 
No, we'd have made them read telephone directory size exchanges of internal documents until they all left out of boredom.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

SLK said:


> I had an interesting discussion with a UAF Officers Group member tonight. Will update soon.


Well get on with it, you tease.


----------



## SLK (Feb 13, 2013)

I know this won't be a shock, but Delta is not now a part of the UAF officers group. The person I spoke to (who has long since left the SWP and has no job, but once worked FT for their magazine) was of the opinion that this wouldn't affect UAF. He actually said the it was - oh I can't remember.


----------



## SLK (Feb 13, 2013)

As I said!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 13, 2013)

the axe may have fallen then


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 13, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Surely not .... freedom of speech?


God forbid anyone should remove anyone's freedom of speech and actually nobody is. RS is of course free to say whatever he likes on his blog and in his Guardian articles. And equally the majority of the swp have the right to decide that what he's saying puts him beyond the pale of what constitutes a member. Comradeship comes with certain rights and duties in any left organisation serious about getting it's message across. It's hard enough to argue for revolutionary ideas in this world without your own comrades - some of whom have carved out a bit of a niche inside the dominant, mainstream media - using their pulpits to demand the demise of your democratically elected leadership and generally doing their best to convince people your organisation should be shunned. And yes I know the answer will be that the cc/dc have made the party toxic all on their own but the arguments of the RS types have generalised beyong one case to the point where the very idea of a small, leninist org is being trashed. Now maybe they're right and such parties have had their day but what they can't do is act surprised if the small, leninist party they're attacking chooses to part company with them at some point.


----------



## Andy Wilson (Feb 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the arguments of the RS types have generalised beyong one case to the point where the very idea of a small, leninist org is being trashed.


 
Don't make me laugh. This is exactly the same lie that the CC are spreading, claiming that anyone who disagrees with their peculiar interpretation of Leninism is attacking Leninism itself. 

And Smith may or may not have been removed as a UAF officer - if he has, I would encourage you to check whether LMHR gained a new full time officer at the same moment.

"some of whom have carved out a bit of a niche inside the dominant, mainstream media"

Like Marx, Engels, Trotsky and a hundred others working as journalists perhaps?


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> God forbid anyone should remove anyone's freedom of speech and actually nobody is. RS is of course free to say whatever he likes on his blog and in his Guardian articles. And equally the majority of the swp have the right to decide that what he's saying puts him beyond the pale of what constitutes a member. Comradeship comes with certain rights and duties in any left organisation serious about getting it's message across. It's hard enough to argue for revolutionary ideas in this world without your own comrades - some of whom have carved out a bit of a niche inside the dominant, mainstream media - using their pulpits to demand the demise of your democratically elected leadership and generally doing their best to convince people your organisation should be shunned. And yes I know the answer will be that the cc/dc have made the party toxic all on their own but the arguments of the RS types have generalised beyong one case to the point where the very idea of a small, leninist org is being trashed. Now maybe they're right and such parties have had their day but what they can't do is act surprised if the small, leninist party they're attacking chooses to part company with them at some point.


 
i'm unconvinced by this characterisation of  RS.   Since when did questioning the handling of  possible sex abuse by a leading party member become illegitimate?  In the real world (of leaked transcripts and internet gossip) it was always inevitable that some version of events would surface, so the reaction to the transcript amongst layers of people hostile to the swp was predictable, and will have surprised very few seasoned observers.  The really damaging aspect of this affair relates to those in the wider movement (such as it is),  those who are the very people that the party regards as the material for future growth and who can be influenced politically.  Many amongst them have now distanced themselves from the revolutionary left on the grounds of a loss of trust - presumably they are now believing that if the party of radical change cannot get its own affairs in order then it could not be a fit organisation to conduct any transition to a new socialised society.  

If Seymour is actually encouraging (and i'm not certain he is) greater openness within the swp, and a higher degree of accountability amongst the leadership. and a questioning process about the particular interpretation that Cliff created of Lenin, then he is actually addressing important aspects of a critical issue - that is,  how can the real Left generate greater influence and respect in a diffuse and demoralised workers movement.   

You appear to be suggesting that what is really  needed in this period of history is a "small leninist organisation".  If the SWP maintains its current strategy, and refuses to adapt to the changed circumstances of an internet conducted world, then i expect that desire will be guaranteed.


----------



## Plastic Red (Feb 13, 2013)

hello, I'm a new poster here. I have been following this car crash with a lot of interest over the last few weeks. I was a member of the SWP for a couple of years in the early nineties. Having all this stuff come out over the internet has explained a lot of my experiences as a member. The weird slate system which I was utterly unaware of while a member is amazing for an organisation that is supposed fighting for socialism. To have such an undemocratic and bureaucratic method of selecting leadership regardless of which tradition it claims to be in must be counter productive to creating an revolutionary organsation for change from below.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Where is the evidence for this beyond the Paltform's vague claims? All I am hearing is branches in constant turmoil with people doing nothing but discuss all of this, sometimes in aggressive ways but mostly with a minimum of civility. I do know the behaviour you're talking about, course I do. I was at the receiving end myself once or twice, including being called a racist by one young Dublin hack at the end of the war in Kuwait for disagreeing with his estimate of the strength of the anti war movement. The important thing is that when someone demanded the slur of racism be taken back the hack was forced to because the culture of most IS branches isn't quite as corrupt as detractors like to think and if hacks overstep the mark there will be enough of the Pat Stacks around to pull them up. And the majority will usually cohere against the hack and his methods even while maybe agreeing with the political argument he's pursuing, badly. let's be honest here the platform have had an incredible degree of freedom to provoke and publically criticise their comrades and the administrative response has been pretty damn mild.


 
Its no good justifying bullying as a legitimate form of political discourse bolshie. Socialists need to be about the prospect of the strong defending the weak, the able protecting the less so etc etc. Any internal process that places the big stick in the hands of a placeman (or woman) to wave over perceived recalcitrants is an abuse of authority and delegitimates that authority in any event.

Politics is served by rational persuasion. Bullying, as you know from your own account here, can be extremely unpleasant. But when it has become the main method for curtailing dissent then those perpetrating the intimidation have lost any entitlement to any respect.

On the evidence for bullying within the swp currently, there is some on the IS site. As you state, much of it is pretty vague, but my own experience tells me to believe what i have read there. It sounds as though your experiences ought to alert you to the strong possibility that it is indeed an actuality. Marxists ought to have no room for bullying our side, don't we reserve the strong arm for our well healed and tyrannical opponents?


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ... The arguments of the RS types have generalised beyong one case to the point where the very idea of a small, leninist org is being trashed. Now maybe they're right and such parties have had their day ...


bolshiebhoy, you have one or two people here who stick up for you now and again. But you've exasperated me beyond all sympathy with the way you put this line across again and again. It's time to provide us with some evidence or drop it as the lie that Andy quite right calls you on. Give us a link or a quote from RS that in any way argues that Leninist parties have had their day. Or duck your head in shame that you are caught smearing the opposition with the same avoidance tactics that the CC are using.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 13, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Of course you have


 
Try a bit harder not to be a cunt, eh?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 13, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> hello, I'm a new poster here. I have been following this car crash with a lot of interest over the last few weeks. I was a member of the SWP for a couple of years in the early nineties. Having all this stuff come out over the internet has explained a lot of my experiences as a member. The weird slate system which I was utterly unaware of while a member is amazing for an organisation that is supposed fighting for socialism. To have such an undemocratic and bureaucratic method of selecting leadership regardless of which tradition it claims to be in must be counter productive to creating an revolutionary organsation for change from below.


And enough members have picked up flack for pointing this out


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 13, 2013)

Isn't it despicable how this affair has been the excuse for individual members of the SWP to be the subject of vitriolic and opportunistic attacks by members of the pro war pro cuts Labour Party.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 13, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> hello, I'm a new poster here. I have been following this car crash with a lot of interest over the last few weeks. I was a member of the SWP for a couple of years in the early nineties. Having all this stuff come out over the internet has explained a lot of my experiences as a member. The weird slate system which I was utterly unaware of while a member is amazing for an organisation that is supposed fighting for socialism. To have such an undemocratic and bureaucratic method of selecting leadership regardless of which tradition it claims to be in must be counter productive to creating an revolutionary organsation for change from below.


 
Does anyone know how other lefty groups or those in the anarchist scene, who are committed to  change form below select their leadership?

i think someone covered the SP and despite someone sayng that the membership of anarchsist groups aren't around enough to hold agms , there are some like Solfred, Afed, and I supposet Class war when it was going , who would have to have a system?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Does anyone know how other lefty groups or those in the anarchist scene, who are committed to change form below select their leadership?


 
I favour the model of an anarcho-syndicalist commune where we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, or by a two-thirds majority ...


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 13, 2013)

For class war, at least in its final recent years, leadership consisted of whoever was nearby and willing to do something, did It.
This occasionally had unfortunate consequences, but worked surprising well most of the time.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> For class war, at least in its final recent years, leadership consisted of whoever was nearby and willing to do something, did It.
> This occasionally had unfortunate consequences, but worked surprising well most of the time.


 
Can you tell us your favourite unfortunate consequence barney?


----------



## Plastic Red (Feb 13, 2013)

I can understand having a fairly formal structure but i can't see any argument for not having CC members elected individually. It seems like a recipe for creating a self serving out of touch bureaucracy that doesn't understand new developments, is impatient or actively hostile to debate and simply parrots the same tired decades old arguments regardless of changing circumstances.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> I can understand having a fairly formal structure but i can't see any argument for not having CC members elected individually. It seems like a recipe for creating a self serving out of touch bureaucracy that doesn't understand new developments, is impatient or actively hostile to debate and simply parrots the same tired decades old arguments regardless of changing circumstances.


Sounds familiar


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 13, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Can you tell us your favourite unfortunate consequence barney?


Suffice to say it involved Swindon


----------



## cesare (Feb 13, 2013)

Try looking on their websites, 39thStep?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> I can understand having a fairly formal structure but i can't see any argument for not having CC members elected individually. It seems like a recipe for creating a self serving out of touch bureaucracy that doesn't understand new developments, is impatient or actively hostile to debate and simply parrots the same tired decades old arguments regardless of changing circumstances.


 
The UK SP also has a slate system, although if you ask me I think it should be changed. One of the arguments against changing it which is used by its supporters is it could mean that the leadership election turns into a popularity contest with everyone competing with each other rather than working together for the good of the party


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 13, 2013)

A slate system, where the current leadership recommends the composition of the future leadership, is essential if the knowledge, skills and experience of the most advanced element of the class are to be remembered, learned from and built on. Opposition to such a system, as it objectively seeks to undermine the most advanced element of the class, is objectively anti-working class and counter revolutionary.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The UK SP also has a slate system, although if you ask me I think it should be changed. One of the arguments against changing it which is used by its supporters is it could mean that the leadership election turns into a popularity contest with everyone competing with each other rather than working together for the good of the party


 

surely the counter argument is that people end up voting for a slate where they know one or two as good eggs and take it on faith that the rest are OK?


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

Are counter revolutionaries expected to face a period of self criticism Louis?

Or is there some other, more appropriate, penalty?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 13, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Are counter revolutionaries expected to face a period of self criticism Louis?
> 
> Or is there some other, more appropriate, penalty?


 
i think Louis was joking. I hope he was joking.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> surely the counter argument is that people end up voting for a slate where they know one or two as good eggs and take it on faith that the rest are OK?


 
well yep exactly. it needs to go if you ask me.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

When i was a swp member eons ago i never knew any of the CC candidates personally, apart from 'big' names with profile. Hallas and Cliff stayed at my gaff occasionally (name dropping ), and they would have won my vote by being gifted, Foot also. The rest of the CC were essentially elected by our 'delegate' (i'd argue thats a wrong term really, cos they were not mandated, but decided for themselves).

Pretty unsatisfactory method in some ways, and could certainly be improved upon with a bit of intelligent discussion?


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> i think Louis was joking. I hope he was joking.


Yes i assumed so


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Suffice to say it involved Swindon


Not the Andy Newperson of Socialist Unity Swindon?!


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 13, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Not the Andy Newperson of Socialist Unity Swindon?!


No a completely different pain in the arse


----------



## Plastic Red (Feb 13, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> A slate system, where the current leadership recommends the composition of the future leadership, is essential if the knowledge, skills and experience of the most advanced element of the class are to be remembered, learned from and built on. Opposition to such a system, as it objectively seeks to undermine the most advanced element of the class, is objectively anti-working class and counter revolutionary.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
Who decides who has the knowledge and skills? Would someone running a factory just over taken my a workers council make a similar argument? While we're name calling isn't a slate system so utterly abhorent to most peoples democratic instints that they wouldn't touich an organisation run like that with a barge pole therefore dooming the party to obscurity anti-working class and counter revolutionary? Surely not giving the working class a say in who leads the party that purports to be their vanguard is pretty anti-working class?


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> No a completely different pain in the arse


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> surely the counter argument is that people end up voting for a slate where they know one or two as good eggs and take it on faith that the rest are OK?


 
The objectively anti-working class, counter revolutionary elements have obviously never really understood the tradition they sometimes claim to stand within; for the health of class and party they must either leave or be expelled.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (Feb 13, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> Who decides who has the knowledge and skills?


 
The current leadership of course


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 13, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> Who decides who has the knowledge and skills?


 
Who is best placed?

Surely it is the most advanced element of the class, that has come together over decades of struggle in the leadership of the party; or do you think the most conscious, articulate and skillful fighters are to be found outside the ranks of the party? 

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2013)

The argument for the CC system is that it will mean people other than the famous bods or those from big districts get elected, and that it can allow for a balanced team that fairly represents the trains of thought within the party to be represented upon it.

Of course the problem with that is fairly obvious - that it will work only if the outgoing CC choose to pick the 'right' team.  In effect whoever they pick IS the right team, like it or not.

It is true that there is nothing inherent in direct elections that would mean a fairer share of CC places for minorities, a well organised majority could quite easily carve out all the votes necessary to win the top places.  And it is true that such individual systems will tend to favour established 'stars' or those from big places, from whence they can garner enough votes to outpoll those in backwaters.  But neither of those points are enough in the slate syatems favour to outweigh the general benefits of doing away with it.


----------



## Plastic Red (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The UK SP also has a slate system, although if you ask me I think it should be changed. One of the arguments against changing it which is used by its supporters is it could mean that the leadership election turns into a popularity contest with everyone competing with each other rather than working together for the good of the party


 
Surely you have to trust in the judgement of the party members?


----------



## Plastic Red (Feb 13, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Who is best placed?
> 
> Surely it is the most advanced element of the class, that has come together over decades of struggle in the leadership of the party; or do you think the most conscious, articulate and skillful fighters are to be found outside the ranks of the party?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
Often they probably are outside the ranks of the party. Again how do you decide who the "most advanced elements of the class" are? It's not self evident to me and at the moment it doesn't seem to be the SWP CC.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

It is a bit of an un-marxist idea isn't it, the idea that some people are more "advanced" than others.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 13, 2013)

I'm more advanced than you lot though if we're being honest about it.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 13, 2013)

The SWP CC aren't even _part of the class_, let alone the advanced element of it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 13, 2013)

my old man said follow the van etc


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm more advanced than you lot though if we're being honest about it.


Well you may be more advanced than i, and you may therefore look down upon me, but i am more advanced then he, and i can therefore look down upon him (or her?)..

It is always best when people know there position, don,t you think?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It is a bit of an un-marxist idea isn't it, the idea that some people are more "advanced" than others.


In the SWP world the working class exists as a series of "layers" - check the paper to see this used quite a lot. In this onion-like visualisation of the class there are those who are more aware of Marxist ideas and so are "advanced". The advanced layers then form the "vanguard" leading the party which is itself the "vanguard" of the class. Democratic Centralism means that you are free to do as you are told by those more "advanced" than you.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Yes, proletarian democracy covered this in the onion theory of proletarian struggle ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 13, 2013)

mk12 said:


> The SWP CC aren't even _part of the class_, let alone the advanced element of it.


 
Well, they're like a scouting party, and they like to stay upwind.


----------



## Plastic Red (Feb 13, 2013)

Surely if the leadership selects it's self it's still a popularity contest. Just much more likely to be clouded by personal feelings. It is also much more likely to perpetuate out moded ideas (like the internet is middle class and news papers are the best way to communicate) as people select like minded people?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 13, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Well, they're like a scouting party, and they like to stay upwind.


 

so when Rees farts, the working class get a noseful


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 13, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> Often they probably are outside the ranks of the party. Again how do you decide who the "most advanced elements of the class" are? It's not self evident to me and at the moment it doesn't seem to be the SWP CC.


 
If you don't think that the vanguard organisation contains the most advanced elements of the class, then how can it act as a vanguard? If it does contain those best elements, then its leadership, tested and proven in struggle, must be best placed to judge what its duty as a vanguard is.

I think you made the right decision to leave the party....before push came to shove.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Plastic Red (Feb 13, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If you don't think that the vanguard organisation contains the most advanced elements of the class, then how can it act as a vanguard? If it does contain those best elements, then its leadership, tested and proven in struggle, must be best placed to judge what its duty as a vanguard is.
> 
> I think you made the right decision to leave the party....before push came to shove.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
If it doesn't then it can't. But if it contains only a few hundred issolated activists with very little influence over the rest of the movement because it can't tolerate even the most hair splitting of differences without expelling people then how canit act as the vanguard?

If I'm on the CC and I pick the best people for the job how can I be sure I'm making the right choice? That my judgement isn't clouded by my own predjudices?

Which member of the vanguard party invented workers councils by the way?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It is a bit of an un-marxist idea isn't it, the idea that some people are more "advanced" than others.


 
FW hand back your PD t-shirt, apron and mug and report immediately to Mainwaring Towers for re-education.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 13, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> If it doesn't then it can't. But if it contains only a few hundred issolated activists with very little influence over the rest of the movement because it can't tolerate even the most hair splitting of differences without expelling people then how canit act as the vanguard?
> 
> If I'm on the CC and I pick the best people for the job how can I be sure I'm making the right choice? That my judgement isn't clouded by my own predjudices?


 

I think you've answered your own questions and are well out of it.

I'll stop playing devils advocate.

The slate system is a recipe for self perpetuating rubbish. Even worse it is an organisational dog's breakfast which conceals an even worse political problem; a problem which I've been gently trying to point out.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 13, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> FW hand back your PD t-shirt, apron and mug and report immediately to Mainwaring Towers for re-education.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 

she gets to keep the hoodie? score!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> she gets to keep the hoodie? score!


 
Put her hoodie in your bag along with the rest of your gear; make sure you're at the Towers by 12.00...lateness will not be tolerated.

LM


----------



## Plastic Red (Feb 13, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I think you've answered your own questions and are well out of it.
> 
> I'll stop playing devils advocate.
> 
> ...


 
If we're both playing devil's advocate we'll be here a long time.

I find it incredibly depressing that the working class has been taking a sustaining kicking for thirty years and the SWP has been helpless to stop it, yet they still seem to believe they are infalliable. Surely they should be desperate for ideas and debate.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 13, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> If we're both playing devil's advocate we'll be here a long time.
> 
> I find it incredibly depressing that the working class has been taking a sustaining kicking for thirty years and the SWP has been helpless to stop it, yet they still seem to believe they are infalliable. Surely they should be desperate for ideas and debate.


 
Have a look a Bolshie's posts on this thread to see how deep loyalty to vanguard is ingrained even for those who left the organisation years ago; and remember it's not just true of the SWP.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It is a bit of an un-marxist idea isn't it, the idea that some people are more "advanced" than others.


 
No it isn't. "Advanced" is just an archaic term. You are correct on most political issues in a way that, say, a Tory is not. Therefore you are, from a socialist point of view, more "advanced". Should said Tory change her mind about politics it's entirely possible that she might at some stage be more "advanced" than you. It's not a permanent, inherent, trait.

People get all shifty and embarrassed about this because of a vague, incoherent, ill-thought through, assumption that it's arrogant to say that all ideas are not equally valid (you trying to imply you're better than other people? eh? eh?). Anarchoids and other radical liberals prefer to use that incoherence and embarrassment rather than make a case for their own strategies and assumptions.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2013)

_Advanced by virtue of filling in a membership card_, and a whole group of people who've filled in a membership card, well they must be collectively more advanced than those outside - that's the sort of circular self-supporting logic that's being attacked by anti-vanguardists.

The real incoherence here (tactical no doubt - or at least i would hope so, or it's even more pathetic) lies in confusing the idea that not all ideas are equally valid with the criticisms of the above self-appointed roles and positions.The criticisms are far more material then _who has the right ideas_, they are about the sort of organisation and society that flows from such a conception of self-appointed advanced leadership (esp when the ideas of the vanguard are wrong).

Why do vanguardists never really understand the real criticisms of vanguardism and instead prefer to use stuff like the above than get to grips with them (it just means that people believe different things - _no it doesn't_). Why are the vanguard so...backward?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _Advanced by virtue of filling in a membership card_


 
No, "advanced" by virtue of holding revolutionary socialist ideas.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> The real incoherence here (tactical no doubt - or at least i would hope so, or it's even more pathetic) lies in confusing the idea that not all ideas are equally valid with the criticisms of the above self-appointed roles and positions.


 
What "above self-appointed roles and positions"?




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> they are about the sort of organisation and society that flows from such a conception of self-appointed advanced leadership


 
What sort of society? Are you hinting towards prefigurative bollocks here?




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Why do vanguardists never really understand the real criticisms of vanguardism and instead prefer to use stuff like the above than get to grips with them (it just means that people believe different things - _no it doesn't_).


 
Why do "anti-vanguardists" prefer to argue with straw men than to mount a coherent, positive, case for their own political assumptions? The answer is because anarchism and related forms of radical liberalism exist not as movements aimed at changing the world but as moralist's critiques of movements aimed at changing the world.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2013)

But that's not what it actually means is it? We need only read the redundant archaicisms from both sides in this latest dispute to see what it means and what relations and conceptions it leads to, here are the leaders, those who must teach. the most advanced workers and so are placed in a position to do so by virtue of filling in that bloody format then being picked to do so by someone else who filled it in before you. And that's the roles I'm talking about.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 13, 2013)

It doesn't detract from butchersapron's point but the SWP don't have a membership card. That is probably because it enables them to have a flexible view of their membership numbers. The only signature they ask for is on a Direct Debit form.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 13, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The only signature they ask for is on a Direct Debit form.


 


in truth the most important signature of all.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> moralist's critiques of movements aimed at changing the world.


 
Thank God Irish republicans never saw the SP in this way.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 13, 2013)

two sheds said:


> in truth the most important signature of all.


Now that's something we can all agree on.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But that's not what it actually means is it?


 
That depends on whose using the term and in what context.

That the SWP CC seem intent on actually adopting what should be straw man anarchoid arguments as actual theoretical positions is rather bizarre. But the SWP have their own rather unusual conception of leadership, which involves a constant war to win a supposedly conservative membership to their latest wheeze, which is really quite alien to people from other Marxist backgrounds. Including those who have absolutely no problem with "leadership" in general.

(In fact anyone who has a problem with leadership in general is a fucking moron, but I'm assuming that it's redundant to go into detail on that).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2013)

They do 





Hocus Eye. said:


> It doesn't detract from butchersapron's point but the SWP don't have a membership card. That is probably because it enables them to have a flexible view of their membership numbers. The only signature they ask for is on a Direct Debit form.


(or they did very very recently)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Thank God Irish republicans never saw the SP in this way.


 
I'm sure they did at times. So what?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What sort of society? Are you hinting towards prefigurative bollocks here?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do "anti-vanguardists" prefer to argue with straw men than to mount a coherent, positive, case for their own political assumptions? The answer is because anarchism and related forms of radical liberalism exist not as movements aimed at changing the world but as moralist's critiques of movements aimed at changing the world.


 
Prefigurative bollocks? You mean the communist idea that the methods that you use to organise will inevitably effect the society that would appear as result of your success? Sounds pretty sensible to me - and that Marx feller i believe.

Nigel, you were the one whose opening gambit here was a strawman - you might as well just have said 'proudhon/anti-semitism/liberal vicars/etc' and get it over with. No substantive engagement with or understanding of anti-vanguardist critiques were actually on display in that post of yours, so i thought at the very least i could point out a few basic misunderstandings for those watching in the absence of anything more meatier.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Prefigurative bollocks? You mean the communist idea that the methods that you use to organise will inevitably effect the society that would appear as result of your success?


 
I mean the anarchoid notion that revolutionary political organisations under capitalism should be little models of a future society, like tiny little islands of communism, a notion which (a) has more in common with the desire to live in a commune than a desire to change the world and (b) has consistently led to complete organisational and strategic incompetence.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> No substantive engagement with or understanding of anti-vanguardist critiques were actually on display in that post of yours


 
I wasn't responding to a substantive "anti-vanguardist critique" in the first place, such things being few, far between, absent from this thread, and rarely significantly related to the kind of anarchoid bollocks assumptions I was arguing against in the first place.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm sure they did at times. So what?


 
Ok. And Workers' Power also saw Militant in the same way, didn't they?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Ok. And Workers' Power also saw Militant in the same way, didn't they?


 
What? I very much doubt it. But to the very limited extent that Militant had any opinion had any opinion of Workers Power, it would have regarded them as irrelevant in a closely related, if not identical, way. And rightly so. Spartoids, like anarchoids, exist primarily as critiques of revolutionary movements and organisations, although they are at least less moralistic about it, which I suppose is to their credit.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It doesn't detract from butchersapron's point but the SWP don't have a membership card. That is probably because it enables them to have a flexible view of their membership numbers. The only signature they ask for is on a Direct Debit form.


 
Really? i'm sure i remember having a membership card with a fist on it. Maybe that was prior to the stickbending dishonesty and hyper optimism phase, to produce an exaggerated membership role.

i'm not sure where telling the truth to the working class fits into this though?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 13, 2013)

Here's an idea just ask the CC to explain the dialectic


----------



## sihhi (Feb 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What? I very much doubt it. But to the very limited extent that Militant had any opinion had any opinion of Workers Power, it would have regarded them as irrelevant in a closely related, if not identical, way. And rightly so.


 
I mean: Workers' Power would see Militant as a moralist critique of anti-imperialist Trotskyism aimed at changing the world.
That's true isn't it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That's true isn't it?


 
No. That wasn't their line of argument at all.

Anyway, getting back to the subject of the thread, I've been trying to listen to the latest CPGB podcast and I can't get more than about four minutes into it before I start losing the will to live.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I mean the anarchoid notion that revolutionary political organisations under capitalism should be little models of a future society, like tiny little islands of communism, a notion which (a) has more in common with the desire to live in a commune than a desire to change the world and (b) has consistently led to complete organisational and strategic incompetence.
> 
> I wasn't responding to a substantive "anti-vanguardist critique" in the first place, such things being few, far between, absent from this thread, and rarely significantly related to the kind of anarchoid bollocks assumptions I was arguing against in the first place.



You certainly weren't responding to any substantive critique I agree. You were just jumping in with your own strawman, which you repeat above and which again demonstrates that you haven't ever engaged with such critiques, preferring instead to just go the liberal vicars route.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No. That wasn't their line of argument at all.
> 
> Anyway, getting back to the subject of the thread, I've been trying to listen to the latest CPGB podcast and I can't get more than about four minutes into it before I start losing the will to live.


 
When i tried the same WW facility my ears calcified - i now use a trumpet.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

You want me to respond to critiques that nobody here has made? As opposed to responding to attitudes that actually are expressed here?


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

i think my ear trumpet might be a device worth misplacing occasionally now i've started coming here.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You want me to respond to critiques that nobody here has made? As opposed to responding to attitudes that actually are expressed here?


No, i don't. I want you to seriously engage with critiques of vangaurdism made historically among what we might call the broad hard-left before (and consequently i expect, _in place of_) jumping in and offering the sort of strawman rubbish and collected misreadings that you did up there _on here._


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, i don't. I want you to seriously engage with critiques of vangaurdism made historically among what we might call the broad hard-left before (and consequently i expect, _in place of_) jumping in and offering the sort of strawman rubbish and collected misreadings that you did up there _on here._


 
I'm not sure why you are starting with "No I don't", given that you then go on to agree that you want me to do exactly as I suggested: Answer critiques not made on this thread rather than assumptions actually expressed on this thread. It's not a straw man when you are responding to views people actually hold.

As far as "critiques of vanguardism made historically among what we might call the broad hard-left", they are ten a penny and rarely more sophisticated or convincing than the anarchoid gibberish I was responding to. In general, use of the anarcho swear word "vanguardism" serves in and of itself as an indicator that the people offering the critique probably have little or nothing of interest to say on the subject and will instead be concentrating on arguments with the straw man "Leninists" in their heads.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 13, 2013)

cesare said:


> Try looking on their websites, 39thStep?


 
Very helpful cesare. I was obviously mistaken when I thought I might try and involve some posters on here who were either members of other groups or still are members of other groups , you know a sort of collective/collaborationist approach to sharing knowledge.

Still waiting for Afed to get back to me. Do they have business standards in terms of customer care?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 13, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> For class war, at least in its final recent years, leadership consisted of whoever was nearby and willing to do something, did It.
> This occasionally had unfortunate consequences, but worked surprising well most of the time.


 
You are not hinting at The Black Hand when you mention unfortunate consequences are you?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 13, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I favour the model of an anarcho-syndicalist commune where we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, or by a two-thirds majority ...


 
is there a quorum for the bi weekly meeting?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not sure why you are starting with "No I don't", given that you then go on to agree that you want me to do exactly as I suggested: Answer critiques not made on this thread rather than assumptions actually expressed on this thread.
> 
> As far as "critiques of vangaurdism made historically among what we might call the broad hard-left", they are rarely more sophisticated or convincing than the anarchoid gibberish I was responding to. It's not a straw man when you are responding to views people actually hold. In fact, use of the anarcho swear word "vanguardism" serves in and of itself as an indicator that the people offering the critique probably have little or nothing of interest to say on the subject.


No read again what i said. Read it carefully this time. 

And this, this is where vanguardism leads you doesn't it - assuming that you know what you're talking about and offering only strawmen in support of your positons. Tell you what Nigel, given that i, an anarchist, reject exactly the sort of isolated commune bollocks that you mention above (and i reject it precisely because it's another example of vanguardism - as do most anarchists and have done so since the formation and the early days of the workers movements) and also reject vanguadism, maybe you could outline how anarchism and it's rejection of vanguardism leads precisely to embracing such pointless endeavours and how this is directly related to that rejection of vanguardism - and how i'm doing it wrong. Should be easy given how unsophisticated the tradition is.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No read again what i said. Read it carefully this time


 
Good to see that unnecessary condescension isn't merely a "Leninist" trait.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> And this, this is where vanguardism leads you doesn't it - assuming that you know what you're talking about and offering only strawmen in support of your positons.


 
I think you'll find that this too is a common trait rather than one particularly associated with your "vanguardist" bogeyman, and indeed that assuming knowledge of a subject and substituting straw man arguments for engagement is not exactly unheard of amongst anarchists.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Tell you what Nigel, given that i, an anarchist, reject exactly the sort of isolated commune bollocks that you mention above (and i reject it precisely because it's another example of vanguardism - as do most anarchists and have done so since the formation and the early days of the workers movements) and also reject vanguadism, maybe you could outline how anarchism and it's rejection of vanguardism leads precisely to embracing such pointless endeavours


 
As someone somewhere once suggested: "No read again what i said. Read it carefully this time".

I did not suggest that anarchism necessarily leads to proposing drop out communes as political solutions. Most anarchists aren't stupid enough for that (although some are). I did suggest that "pre-figurative" arguments about political organisation, ie arguments that political organisation under capitalism should be little models of a post-revolutionary society, have more in common with the desire to live in a commune than with serious strategic thinking. And further, that such arguments are a key part of why anarchist organisations are so marginal, so trivial and so ineffectual even by the marginal, trivial and ineffectual standards of the revolutionary left and why they are out-organised over and over and over again.

The logical hole between "the methods we use effect the ends we achieve" and "the methods we use must be exactly the same as the ends we achieve" is admittedly easy to overlook, but it's a hole that anarchists insist on falling into.

Interesting to hear that you are an anarchist again, though. Weren't you a supporter of the IWCA at one point fairly recently? (That's not a dig, by the way).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2013)

You did rather suggest that it was the end result of their rejection of vanguardism though didn't you - and their embrace of what you called 'pre-figurative bollocks" (again, something marx was rather keen on). And that was a misreading of my post anyway, which was instead suggesting that a society born out of vanguardism and that entails would be one scarred in all its features by that vanguardism, which is why it's essential to deal with it before any such future.

And this commune thing - no anarchist organisation i've ever encountered has any such thing as part of their approach, so how it could lead to their marginalisation i don't know. You yourself say "Most anarchists aren't stupid enough for that (although some are)" then go on to directly say that this is the reason for both their current marginalisation and historical defeats.

My point concerning your interjection here is simple - if you are going to offer a characterisation of the views of anti-vanguardists, the traditions that they come from and what motivates them then do your research first so you don't end up posting nonsense about communes ( i mean wtf?) and so on as you did above - effectively doing the trot equivalent of someone saying to you _oh you're a Communist so you support stalin killing all them people then._

Plenty of anarchists involved in the IWCA.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> is there a quorum for the bi weekly meeting?


 
As long as they haven't got shit all over them, we don't care.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You did rather suggest that it was the end result of their rejection of vanguardism though didn't you - and their embrace of what you called 'pre-figurative bollocks" (again, something marx was rather keen on). And that was a misreading of my post anyway, which was instead suggesting that a society born out of vanguardism and that entails would be one scarred in all its features by that vanguardism, which is why it's essential to deal with it before any such future.
> 
> And this commune thing - no anarchist organisation i've ever encountered has any such thing as part of their approach, so how it could lead to their marginalisation i don't know. You yourself say "Most anarchists aren't stupid enough for that (although some are)" then go on to directly say that this is the reason for both their current marginalisation and historical defeats.
> 
> ...


 
There's always one that will let you down.......



two sheds said:


> I favour the model of an anarcho-syndicalist commune where we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, or by a two-thirds majority ...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You did rather suggest that it was the end result of their rejection of vanguardism though didn't you


 
No.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> And this commune thing - no anarchist organisation i've ever encountered has any such thing as part of their approach, so how it could lead to their marginalisation i don't know.


 
At this point, given that you are actually responding to a post which specifically disavowed the notion that anarchists automatically want to live in communes, I can only conclude that you are being actively disingenuous.

Most anarchist don't see living in a little model of a future society as a strategic principle, although some do. But all anarchists see building revolutionary organisations as little models of a future society as a principle. That's self-defeating, utopian, and a central cause of the marginality and ineffectualness of anarchism.




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> Plenty of anarchists involved in the IWCA.


 
How did they square the IWCA's approach to elections through almost all of its history with their anarchism?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 13, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> bolshiebhoy, you have one or two people here who stick up for you now and again. But you've exasperated me beyond all sympathy with the way you put this line across again and again. It's time to provide us with some evidence or drop it as the lie that Andy quite right calls you on. Give us a link or a quote from RS that in any way argues that Leninist parties have had their day. Or duck your head in shame that you are caught smearing the opposition with the same avoidance tactics that the CC are using.


You can't have been reading very closely then to get yourself so exasperated Oisin. I've done my best on here throughout this discussion to justify with direct quotes whatever I've said about the increasingly clear politics of the platform, as well as those who've already jumped ship to Counterfire and elsewhere. That's not always easy to do as Seymour in particular is very good at saying what he's against but less clear about what he's for. Slippery chap that he is.

The feminist direction of Seymour's thought is easy enough to see. Starting with his first outburst online on the delta case which bemoaned the allegedly 'dogmatic' arguments used by the IS in the 80's against socialist feminism. And in this extended debate on the subject he makes a fairly standard feminist as opposed to marxist case for Patriarchy as a trans class category of analysis. http://left-flank.org/2013/01/15/debate-on-patriarchy-the-capitalist-mode-of-production/

The leninist thing is trickier because it's a little closer to home and harder for him to elaborate without giving the game away. But his reply to the prof's article was pretty clear in it's implication of the model of party marxists need which was basically the pre October, individually elected leadership, permanent faction model of the old RSDLP. http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/#!/2013/01/is-zinovievism-finished-reply-to-alex.html

Not like I haven't been arguing this for the last couple of hundred pages of discussion about Seymour and others and backing it with reference to what they actually say rather than taking the cc's or anyone else's word for it. I might add that all this stuff is pretty common parlance with most of the faction who as with Stack's piece clearly know what the 'nuanced' differences of Seymour et al represent. The major difference between the prof and Stack isn't on the Syriza-lite tendency gathering around Seymour, they can both see that happening clearly enough. Their differences are a) what to do about the case that triggered this crisis and b) how to deal with the challenge to IS ideas represented by the feminist, autonomist challenge, with Stack favoring the let a thousand flowers bloom approach and the prof clearly having less patience shall we say.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How did they square the IWCA's approach to elections through almost all of its history with their anarchism?


 
They were all called Murray Bookchin.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 13, 2013)

No sorry they were all called Jose Gutierrez.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2013)

> I did not suggest that anarchism necessarily leads to proposing drop out communes as political solutions. Most anarchists aren't stupid enough for that (although some are). I did suggest that "pre-figurative" arguments about political organisation, ie arguments that political organisation under capitalism should be little models of a post-revolutionary society, have more in common with the desire to live in a commune than with serious strategic thinking. And further, that such arguments are a key part of why anarchist organisations are so marginal, so trivial and so ineffectual even by the marginal, trivial and ineffectual standards of the revolutionary left and why they are out-organised over and over and over again.


 
So we have

a) most anarchists don't want to live in communes as prefigurations of future society
followed by
b) all anarchists - and all anarchists organisations see their organisations as prefigurations of future society
and
c) and their embrace of this prefiguration stuff is why they are marginalised today and suffered historical defeats.

Can you see where this is a little confused?

a) glad you see that
b) Nope, anarchists do not seek to form organisations that are little models of future society (not that this is really a problem, why would you not, as far as possible, try and organise along lines which reject capitalist conceptions?) because they recognise that there are all sorts of restraints that capitalism places on them, and that it places on the wider w/c. And this point from you rather suggests that you don't believe a) as strongly as you may think you do in point a)
c)They don't embrace it. But let's say they did - how does it lead to marginalisation and defeats? What horrors has your mind invented about this?

(edit: going to watch football now)


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 13, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Its no good justifying bullying as a legitimate form of political discourse bolshie. Socialists need to be about the prospect of the strong defending the weak, the able protecting the less so etc etc. Any internal process that places the big stick in the hands of a placeman (or woman) to wave over perceived recalcitrants is an abuse of authority and delegitimates that authority in any event.
> 
> Politics is served by rational persuasion. Bullying, as you know from your own account here, can be extremely unpleasant. But when it has become the main method for curtailing dissent then those perpetrating the intimidation have lost any entitlement to any respect.
> 
> On the evidence for bullying within the swp currently, there is some on the IS site. As you state, much of it is pretty vague, but my own experience tells me to believe what i have read there. It sounds as though your experiences ought to alert you to the strong possibility that it is indeed an actuality. Marxists ought to have no room for bullying our side, don't we reserve the strong arm for our well healed and tyrannical opponents?


You know what, I think neither I nor anyone else on here who isn't a member has much to offer on the current dispute and just how abusive things are. I feel genuinely torn on this one cause I've heard from very decent people I trust and respect in the opposition of some very nasty goings on. And I've also heard denials from people I trust and respect who are shall we say less hackish loyalists who you wouldn't (well I wouldn't anyway) expect to lie about this stuff. But benefit of the doubt surely goes to the people in the opposition who have otherwise sought to preserve some sort of comradely feelings with the loyalists and as they're saying some over the top stuff is happening I'm inclined to believe them. Can't say I'm surprised as people on all sides feel that their adult political life's work is being threatened but it's not excusable :-(


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The leninist thing is trickier because it's a little closer to home and harder for him to elaborate without giving the game away. But his reply to the prof's article was pretty clear in it's implication of the model of party marxists need which was basically the pre October, individually elected leadership, permanent faction model of the old RSDLP. http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/#!/2013/01/is-zinovievism-finished-reply-to-alex.html


so, the bolsheviks weren't bolsheviks til after october? also, do you then believe that a revolutionary party in existence now should organise itself along the lines of a party in power and fighting a civil war in a country with little industrial development and a huge peasantry?

also, are you suggesting that seymour, a member of the swp, is less of a leninist than you, a member of the labour party?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

I have got no problem accepting that some people are more knowledgeable than others on eg politics etc, but that doesn't always translate into actions does it? (look at the number of lefties that have "sold out" after getting successful positions etc) And also does being a member of a leninist party mean you are more advanced and more "right" than somebody who isn't the member of such a party? I don't think that it does really.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You know what, I think neither I nor anyone else on here who isn't a member has much to offer on the current dispute and just how abusive things are. I feel genuinely torn on this one cause I've heard from very decent people I trust and respect in the opposition of some very nasty goings on. And I've also heard denials from people I trust and respect who are shall we say less hackish loyalists who you wouldn't (well I wouldn't anyway) expect to lie about this stuff. But benefit of the doubt surely goes to the people in the opposition who have otherwise sought to preserve some sort of comradely feelings with the loyalists and as they're saying some over the top stuff is happening I'm inclined to believe them. Can't say I'm surprised as people on all sides feel that their adult political life's work is being threatened but it's not excusable :-(


 
OK bolshie, i understand.

But behaviour within the party is to a significant degree set by the 'tone' that emerges from the leadership isn't it? And i assume that the current Party Notes have contributed to the somewhat sharp notes that are apparently becoming the commonplace of comradely behaviour?

If the CC do not want an atmosphere of rancour and recrimination they are well positioned to establish a good example no?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Also I don't really accept that being say a Tory or a fascist means you're less advanced in terms of your knowledge of politics and the class struggle etc. You might know all the theory but disagree with it, or you might think that what marxists view as bad was actually a good thing. And your actions might be completely contradictory to your beliefs (I'm thinking of tory union reps etc) think the whole idea of being "advanced" is a bit of a simplistic and unhelpful way of looking at things tbh.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It is a bit of an un-marxist idea isn't it, the idea that some people are more "advanced" than others.



Yes, I think so. As soon as you start talking about "more advanced elements" it's almost as if you are starting to create a new form of class system.

My experience of the SWP was that it was in many ways very hierarchical. The ordinary foot soldiers were great people, some of the best I have ever met, but most of the "leading lights" were condescending and/or bullying.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 13, 2013)

What we really need is the sort of organisation that we can give some dosh to, participate in when we want and  on what we want and one that doesn't involve flogging papers


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> *Also I don't really accept that being say a Tory or a fascist means you're less advanced in terms of your knowledge of politics and the class struggle etc.* You might know all the theory but disagree with it, or you might think that what marxists view as bad was actually a good thing. And your actions might be completely contradictory to your beliefs (I'm thinking of tory union reps etc) think the whole idea of being "advanced" is a bit of a simplistic and unhelpful way of looking at things tbh.


 
Fair point. Thatcher was one of the best instinctive class warriors of the last fifty years.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> What we really need is the sort of organisation that we can give some dosh to, participate in when we want and on what we want and one that doesn't involve flogging papers


i suppose that rules out the Sally Army then?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Yes, I think so. As soon as you start talking about "more advanced elements" it's almost as if you are starting to create a new form of class system.


i worked with a feller who is in the edl and did time for manslaughter, which he admits privately was murder, of a black man. he also claimed he was a member of combat 18. he also grovels in front of any authority, bosses, screws, etc.
also, he reckoned his prison psychiatrist described him as a sexual predator.

i can fairly safely say, most people are more advanced than him.

if you disagree i can pm you his number and you can go camping with the eighteen stone five foot eleven freak.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i worked with a feller who is in the edl and did time for manslaughter, which he admits privately was murder, of a black man. he also claimed he was a member of combat 18. he also grovels in front of any authority, bosses, screws, etc.
> also, he reckoned his prison psychiatrist described him as a sexual predator.
> 
> i can fairly safely say, most people are more advanced than him.
> ...


 
Didn't realise you used to be on the CC?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

But if you think you're part of an advanced layer won't that mean that you might - might - be less likely to reflect on your beliefs and be critical of yourself and those of the party because you'd think you were right anyway?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

i am right.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

although i was wrong when i said ade akinbiyi would score more goals in the premier league than emile heskey.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The feminist direction of Seymour's thought is easy enough to see. http://left-flank.org/2013/01/15/debate-on-patriarchy-the-capitalist-mode-of-production/


 
You score a goal here bolshiebhoy. I hadn't seen this before and don't agree with Seymour. bb 1 - oisin 0

I don't concede anything on this one though. http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/is-zinovievism-finished-reply-to-alex.html . I read it as correcting the factual record by pointing out the RSDLP's pre-October practice, but not necessarily implying that is what he would want to see in the SWP now. Then I read a critique of how the SWP's current application of democratic centralism is over centralised, at the expense of democracy, with two case studies: conference as ratification not decision making and an overly-narrow composition of the CC. They seem valid to me and his rallying cry at the end is that of Widgery, in favour of Leninism: '... the problem is not that Leninism has failed, but that it has not been tried.' Which is hardly an attempt to say that Leninist parties have had their day.

And if you'll allow me the equaliser, then here's my extra-time effort to win, by bringing on a substitute question. Did the SWP in your view make a mistake in how they dealt with the rape accusation? If so, what was it?


----------



## Plastic Red (Feb 13, 2013)

[quoteHealy cokermit, post: 11973690, member: 28161"]although i was wrong when i said ade akinbiyi would score more goals in the premier league than emile heskey.[/quote]
Leave hesky out of it. He provided great comedy.  Smiles are something villa are in sore need of now


----------



## redcogs (Feb 13, 2013)

i can remember as a younger person when i first encountered the ideas of Marx in the manifesto, and then Lenny in - i don't know, was it 'What Is To Be Done'?  Both works seemed at the time to appeal to an egotistical sense that i might have some valuable input to make that might change the world.  i'm not here making the traditional (and insulting) point that communism is for the idealistic youth which you then grow out of as yer wisdom develops, far from it.  i think what i'm suggesting is that there is something about being a part of a 'vanguard', part of an advanced element which might lead us out of the wilderness which has strong emotional appeal, as well as being intellectually convincing for some (many?). 

Of course, i'd have to own up to being a bit cynical these days, but i hope that the spirit for the emancipatory struggle hasn't entirely withered.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> But if you think you're part of an advanced layer won't that mean that you might - might - be less likely to reflect on your beliefs and be critical of yourself and those of the party because you'd think you were right anyway?


 
People have been a part of what they think are advanced layers for decades and it means fuck all to most people.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> People have been a part of what they think are advanced layers for decades and it means fuck all to most people.


 
well yeah, that's my point!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> People have been a part of what they think are advanced layers for decades and it means fuck all to most people.


 
you have to make it relevant with t34's


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> People have been a part of what they think are advanced layers for decades and it means fuck all to most people.


i don't agree. we might still have the poll tax, for one thing.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> well yeah, that's my point!


 
You were on about arrogant self-regard.  That can be a dangerous problem in a situation where such orgs have a chance to influence or win power.   Here?  Lots of officers looking for an army to order about.  What they think  about themselves doesn't really matter.  The 'army' never gave a shit.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> you have to make it relevant with t34's


 
No.  That's just embarrassing.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> You were on about arrogant self-regard. That can be a dangerous problem in a situation where such orgs have a chance to influence or win power. Here? Lots of officers looking for an army to order about. What they think about themselves doesn't really matter. The 'army' never gave a shit.


 
People might see the way some of em act and be completely put off any kind of politics though - in no small part because of people who say they represent them, and i don't see that as a good thing at all


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

some of the army, not giving a shit,


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

I was referring to Leninist parties specifically.  If arrogant self-regard can be a problem, perhaps it is in action right now?  Class struggle is only done through them.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Class struggle is only done through them.


who ever said that?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

I was on about Leninist parties, and most people in this country not giving a shit about them. Want to to elaborate on what you are on about?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I was referring to Leninist parties specifically. If arrogant self-regard can be a problem, perhaps it is in action right now? Class struggle is only done through them.


 
fair enough, sorry think i misunderstood you there.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I was on about Leninist parties, and most people in this country not giving a shit about them. Want to to elaborate on what you are on about?


apparently, they haven't given a fuck for decades. the pictures, for example the first one of the picket at saltley, show's a mass mobilisation of birmingham engineers who also took a days strike action. this was a fairly important part of the miners victory which got rid of heath. it was argued for and passed in birmingham trades council by leninists. the same ones who argued and built for it with their workmates.

even now, with leninist parties barely visible, some individual comrades will be making an impact in their workplaces for the better. their workmates might give a shit.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> apparently, they haven't given a fuck for decades. the pictures, for example the first one of the picket at saltley, show's a mass mobilisation of birmingham engineers who also took a days strike action. this was a fairly important part of the miners victory which got rid of heath. it was argued for and passed in birmingham trades council by leninists. the same ones who argued and built for it with their workmates.
> 
> even now, with leninist parties barely visible, some individual comrades will be making an impact in their workplaces for the better. their workmates might give a shit.


 
I have known people (some great, some not so) active in trades unions at my old and current workplaces.  Not a single one of them a Leninist ...


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I have known people (some great, some not so) active in trades unions at my old and current workplaces. Not a single one of them a Leninist ...


the odds are they aren't going to be. what's your point? your experience is the only one and has been for decades?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

Nope. That was rather disingenuous of you. What's your point? That only Leninists (some individual comrades you might or might not know who're active in trade unions) 'do' class struggle?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Nope. That was rather disingenuous of you. What's your point? That only Leninists (some individual comrades you might or might not know who're active in trade unions) 'do' class struggle?


nobody has ever said that though.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

And what did you think i said?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Nope. That was rather disingenuous of you. What's your point? That only Leninists [...] 'do' class struggle?


yeh they do class struggle like they do places abroad on holiday, just there for a short while, miss out where the locals are, get pissed and make an arse of themselves.


----------



## newbie (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> People might see the way some of em act and be completely put off any kind of politics though - in no small part because of people who say they represent them, and i don't see that as a good thing at all


might?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh they do class struggle like they do places abroad on holiday, just there for a short while, miss out where the locals are, get pissed and make an arse of themselves.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> And what did you think i said?


you said most people hadn't given a shit for decades. i'm saying, since the war, leninists have played key parts in various struggles that have affected everyone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you said most people hadn't given a shit for decades. i'm saying, since the war, leninists have played key parts in various struggles that have affected everyone.


that's not necessarily something to be proud of, so have capitalists.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> that's not necessarily something to be proud of, so have capitalists.


yes, people have also given a shit about those.



edit, saltley, nothing to be proud of, lol!


----------



## emanymton (Feb 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Also I don't really accept that being say a Tory or a fascist means you're less advanced in terms of your knowledge of politics and the class struggle etc. You might know all the theory but disagree with it, or you might think that what marxists view as bad was actually a good thing. And your actions might be completely contradictory to your beliefs (I'm thinking of tory union reps etc) think the whole idea of being "advanced" is a bit of a simplistic and unhelpful way of looking at things tbh.


I don't think the 'less or more advanced' stuff is about knowledge so much as having the right politics. So the SWP would describe a militant trade unionist who had never read a word of Marx as more advanced than a right wing university professor who had read the complete works. Of course the two things can come together, having more knowledge tends to lead to better politics. just to be clear this is how I understand the SWP line, it is not my personal view as I don't know what my personal view is at the moment. 
Something that was often repeated within the SWP is that these relations are not fixed and that often the more backward sections can leap ahead of the more advanced. 

I have been following the Butchers vs Nigel Debate with interest, but still don't feel I have quite grasped butchers point. I tend to think Nigel was right with his point about the language used being part of the problem. Such terms as 'advanced' and 'vanguad*' tend to be interpreted as implying  a degree of inherent superiority, but I don't think this is what lies behind the idea. However, in practice many vanguardist parties act in this way, so I suppose you could say I agree with the theory but think it is not being applied correctly. The question then becomes: is this an invertible result of adopting the theory. Where I would part with Nigel is that I am starting to thin it is .


----------



## emanymton (Feb 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The leninist thing is trickier because it's a little closer to home and harder for him to elaborate without giving the game away..


Come on his blog is called 'Lenin's Tomb' he has obviously been looking forward to the death of Leninism for years.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2013)

fair enough, i'm bit torn on this stuff myself!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> edit, saltley, nothing to be proud of, lol!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you said most people hadn't given a shit for decades. i'm saying, since the war, leninists have played key parts in various struggles that have affected everyone.


 
I think that most working class people in this country since the war haven't opted for, wanted or cared for Leninist organisation, leadership or revolution.  Or am I wrong?  And there are many reasons for this.   My specific point earlier was with regard to frogwoman talking about the arrogance of those who see themselves as being a vanguard, advanced, above, over, better able to think and act than me, my partner, mum, mates, neighbours, the non-Leninist trade union rep at work etc ...  And how laughable that is, when people do not see them in that way, if they have even ever heard of them.  I am not coming from a teenage anarchist position of _all_ Leninists are cunts by the way.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>


you saying it wasn't? scargills finest moment, one of the high points of british class struggle, nothing to be proud of?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you saying it wasn't? scargills finest moment, one of the high points of british class struggle, nothing to be proud of?


could you point to where i said it wasn't anything to be proud of?

that's where the strawman comes in, because you can't.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Captain Hurrah said:


> I think that most working class people in this country since the war haven't opted for, wanted or cared for Leninist organisation, leadership or revolution. Or am I wrong? And there are many reasons for this. My specific point earlier was with regard to frogwoman talking about the arrogance of those who see themselves as being a vanguard, advanced, above, over, better able to think and act than me, my partner, mum, mates, neighbours, the non-Leninist trade union rep at work etc ... And how laughable that is, when people do not see them in that way, if they have even ever heard of them. I am not coming from a teenage anarchist position of _all_ Leninists are cunts by the way.


i think you're wrong. you deserve a better answer but i can't really be arsed at the minute and don't seem to be making myself clear. if you don't mind, i'll try to get back to it tomorrow.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> could you point to where i said it wasn't anything to be proud of?
> 
> that's where the strawman comes in, because you can't.


oh fuck off you twat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> oh fuck off you twat.


i'll take that as a 'no' then.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

ugh.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> ugh.


grand


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i think you're wrong. you deserve a better answer but i can't really be arsed at the minute and don't seem to be making myself clear. if you don't mind, i'll try to get back to it tomorrow.


 
Fair enough.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you said most people hadn't given a shit for decades. i'm saying, since the war, leninists have played key parts in various struggles that have affected everyone.


capitalists have played key parts in various struggles that have affected everyone. often, it's true, on the capitalist side. so saying that leninists have played key parts in various struggles that have affected everyone leaves one important question unanswered: which side were they on? objectively there have been a number of occasions when they've been very much on the side of reaction, on the capitalist side. taking the party which is the subject of this thread, i think many people would say that objectively their pursuit of the growth of the party and their pursuit of the maintenance of the swp's dominant role on the left led them to do things which were reactionary. their smashing of the socialist alliance. their promotion of the respect: the unity coalition. their role in the anl mk2. their role in the stop the war coalition. and that's just the most obvious parts off the top of my head. other leninist parties at other times played less than sparkling revolutionary roles. so, what could have been popular and broad-based campaigns, like the anti-war movement, were undermined by self-proclaimed leninists. the presence of leninists, therefore, not always something to boast about. btw, i don't think saltley was a leninist success: i'd be really rather surprised if more than 5% of the people there were leninists, and quite taken aback if it was that proportion.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

you're not that thick? surely?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you're not that thick? surely?


perhaps you could point out the bits you particularly disagree with.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 13, 2013)

i really can't be arsed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i really can't be arsed.


you never can.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 13, 2013)

No one here - except possibly bolshiebhoy - relishes being bossed around by someone who thinks they have all the answers, in any walk of life. But equally, there is an undeniable spectrum of political understanding in the working class. A racist, or a Tory voting worker, is politically mistaken and it is not arrogant to say so. Nor to argue over more complex matters with your partner, mum, mates, neighbours, etc. The arrogance comes in, I think, not when like-minded people form revolutionary parties. But when they say, for example, 'because I've fought oppression for thirty years, I'm a person of integrity and I can judge a rape accusation when the accused is a senior member of my party and a friend of mine. I can put aside possible biases. I can ignore how this might look.' In other words, when they stop listening and when it does not occur to them that they might be mistaken. In theory, the SWP 'learns from the class' and ought to be listening. Probably many of them are. But not the CC and those responsible for the recent frenetic NC motions.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 13, 2013)

Complex matters have been and are argued over, outside a party.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 14, 2013)

I don't know how the discussion got onto discussing (presumably working-class) fascism and Toryism - it's a truism that these are backward ideas, but that truism tells us nothing.

I agree with Oisin I think. I would be willing to take the idea of the vanguard of the advanced w/c more seriously if they actually had some actual content to what they were saying that was so advanced that didn't involve some explanation that the advanced are found in the party/parties hence the reason that they are advanced.

If you actual look at the content - what's really being said strip away the endpoint stuff (communist classless society) and the Marxist guff there's precious little apart from re-hashing ideas from the past and hoping for some kind of 1960s/70s Keynesian settlement to restored on the basis of uniting with people who leave the Labour Party now. No one (including me I'll grant that) really seems to be preparing for what happens if that Keynesian settlement doesn't happen, when the union bureaucracy doesn't accede to "pressure"/"voices" from below, when strikes amongst low union density sectors don't break out, when urban Britain does become an increasingly polarised, potentially gang-heavy USA-style society.


What is so "advanced" about saying 'the Tebbitt trade union laws should be repealed, they don't help trade unions' or saying 'the party unites the struggles like no other organisation can' or 'the class needs leadership'?

This is what advanced sections of the working-class look like to 'ordinary' people (the mums and dads from posters with non-political families): large voices, lots of hands, but content-wise little of genuine substance. Not edited, just transcribed from Molyneux's talk with the hand gestures used during that bit from this SWP full-timer (don't want to pick on this person in particular, it could be any SWP full-timer):






I dunno, this whole SWP thing feels odd - the prospects for resolution of W's case seem more remote as time goes on. Delta remains in post in U.A.F. according to the website.
The "advanced elements" line just makes no sense - if the SWP was so advanced would they have so monumentally screwed up a rape investigation? 
I feel if all this is advanced, then I want to be a simple Simon. We can't know but many believe the DC made up its procedure as it went along - being a rape counsellor to rape victims in your day job doesn't mean anything in terms of conducting an investigation into a friend of yours. It all just stinks so bad - and after over a month, the smell isn't getting any better.


----------



## cesare (Feb 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Very helpful cesare. I was obviously mistaken when I thought I might try and involve some posters on here who were either members of other groups or still are members of other groups , you know a sort of collective/collaborationist approach to sharing knowledge.
> 
> Still waiting for Afed to get back to me. Do they have business standards in terms of customer care?



Well, I really don"t know what else to suggest  Some of your questions can be answered by looking at their websites. And/or emailing them to see if they'll answer if nothing's forthcoming from any anarchist posters that might be following this thread. But I've already told you that I'm not a member of any of these groups and I've specifically told you that I've got no connection to AFED at all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> (edit: going to watch football now)


 
Fair enough, we'll complete the ritual exchange some other time.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> . their role in the anl mk2.


 
That was almost a porn film starring a certain Urban poster


----------



## love detective (Feb 14, 2013)

poor mat 

was that when they took him up the hill to do a human respect sign?


----------



## Plastic Red (Feb 14, 2013)

It seems to me that the lack of responsiviness created bythe sort of organisational structure the SWP has is illustrated by the SWP's seeming suspision of the internet. I realise that I'm preaching to the choir but I'm stunned they have no forum on their website. Admittedly it would be a pretty huge task to moderate. But what better tool to make your argument? You can respond at length and in as much detail as you like, plug you books or other peoples, gather e-mail address' for organising etc etc. Yet they insist on using the paper as the main platform. Based on the activities of a party before much radio, television, phones, internet, texting, internet etc.

Russia had less than 40% litercay when the Bolsheviks used the paper as their main platform for argument.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/82/feat-educationandrevolution.shtml

Britan today has about 80% internet coverage

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2...access--households-and-individuals--2012.html

I can't see any reason the obsesssion with paper sales. Unless they need the money to pay their own wages.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 14, 2013)

I'd be surprised if they do much more than break even on the papers, it's certainly no money spinner.


----------



## Andy Wilson (Feb 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The leninist thing is trickier because it's a little closer to home and harder for him to elaborate without giving the game away. But his reply to the prof's article was pretty clear in it's implication of the model of party marxists need which was basically the pre October, individually elected leadership, permanent faction model of the old RSDLP. http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/#!/2013/01/is-zinovievism-finished-reply-to-alex.htm.


 
So, in answer to the direct question - where do the Democratic Renewal people reject Leninism, you don't offer any evidence whatsover... BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY. None. None at all. The worst you can come up with is that, reading some comments by Richard seymour, you conclude that the opposition follow a 'pre-October' version of Leninism. This is historical and political nonsense, and cannot possibly be borne out with evidence, because no such evidence exists. In short, in order to cover up allegations of rape, and the disgusting treatment of very young women complaining of sexual harassment in your party, you are prepared to make up a political argument as you go along. There is no surprise there though, because that is exactly what Professor Callinicos is doing.

What HAS been rejected by the platform opposition is the SWP's inflexible commitment, in all historical circumstances, to the militarised concept of party organisation that the Bolsheviks adopted at the height of the civil war. I think they were wrong to abolish factions then, but at least they weren't stupid enough to argue that this was the 'perfected' form of Leninism that should be followed for all time.

Consider this rubbish: there is no evidence of Seymour abandoning Leninism but only because he is too ashamed to admit it, because that would be "giving the game away". So, there is no evidence against the accused because they have hidden it. All the same, you can tell just by looking at them that they are Mensheviks. What a crock of shit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

On top of that, you have chosen Richard Seymour to pick on because that is what your CC have done. Like them, you assume that since he is a public intellectual, therefore he must be in charge. He isn't - he is simply a well-known member of the platform. The people leading the platform are mostly long-term members of the SWP. The people expelled for fighting the bureaucratic cover-up were all full-timers with years of time int he party. The idea that they have all decided to 'abandon Leninism' in response to a sexual scandal is just blowing smoke.

By the way - do you remember back in the day, when Tony Cliff used to argue that Rosa Luxemburg was a batter guide on questions of party organisation than Lenin? Perhaps that's where all this 'abandoning Leninism' started - with the formation of the Socialist Review Group.


----------



## cesare (Feb 14, 2013)

So when the SWP expel a full timer (and by "full timer" I'm presuming they're employed full time) this is another way of saying "dismiss" is it? They lose their job?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 14, 2013)

Well if so, I hope they were given two written warnings first.


----------



## cesare (Feb 14, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Well if so, I hope they were given two written warnings first.


Gross misconduct offence I imagine - summary dismissal. But all that's the bourgeois court system, so no-one would ever pursue the matter further. Until the great day dawns when someone actually does, of course.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 14, 2013)

cesare said:


> So when the SWP expel a full timer (and by "full timer" I'm presuming they're employed full time) this is another way of saying "dismiss" is it? They lose their job?


 
I think we should try to unionise the FTers.


----------



## cesare (Feb 14, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I think we should try to unionise the FTers.





They'd have  to be in a management union like AMPS though


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 14, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'd be surprised if they do much more than break even on the papers, it's certainly no money spinner.


The Paper is a totem of Leninist organisation, its role is not to create revenue for the party but as organiser and political Voice linking the centre to its periphery. Historically, the first action following any split or rupture within a Leninist group has been to secure a press and produce its own paper. The paper is a one way conduit of information and control from the top down.
 Indeed, so important is the paper to Leninism that when a few years back, the cpgb WW had an influx of young students who wondered why they were slogging with a print paper when everyone really read online, and voted at their conference to do away with the printed paper, the pcc simply ignored the vote and carried on regardless. ( the crash of the cpgb website at the same time, and the length of time to reset it was very convenient for the leadership)
 Eventually the majority of new members drifted away and business could continue as usual.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 14, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The Paper is a totem of Leninist organisation, its role is not to create revenue for the party but as organiser and political Voice linking the centre to its periphery. Historically, the first action following any split or rupture within a Leninist group has been to secure a press and produce its own paper.


im only now slowly reading up on aspects of the russian revolutions and the number of papers lenin and trotsky started/wrote for is mind-boggling


----------



## ska invita (Feb 14, 2013)

Plastic Red said:


> I can't see any reason the obsesssion with paper sales.


its a fetishisation of the russian revolution. A belief that all true paths can be learned from studying the period (ad nauseum)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

ska invita said:


> its a fetishisation of the russian revolution. A belief that all true paths can be learned from studying the period (ad nauseum)


Not really, it's fetishisation of the methods of the _early workers movements_ _as a whole_ at a time before mass democracy could establish itself as 'proper politics' with widespread participation (however weak) - and when the technological and communication options open to that unenfranchised mass were severely limited.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not really, it's fetishisation of the methods of the _early workers movements_ _as a whole_ at a time before mass democracy could establish itself as 'proper politics' with widespread participation (however weak) - and when the technological and communication options open to that unenfranchised mass were severely limited.


 
you have to be contrary don't you!
im sticking with what i said


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 14, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I don't think the 'less or more advanced' stuff is about knowledge so much as having the right politics.


 
This is how Lenin talked about advanced workers in the context of the party paper; he is pretty specific and it's not just about having the right politics:

The history of the working class movements in all countries shows that the better situated strata of the working class respond to the ideas of socialism more rapidly and more easily. From among these come, in the main, the advanced workers that every working class movement brings to the fore, those who can win the confidence of the labour masses, who devote themselves entirely to the education and organisation of the proletariat, who accept socialism consciously, and who even elaborate independent socialist theories. Every viable working class movement has brought to the fore such working class leaders, its own Proudhons, Vaillants, Weitlings, and Bebels . . . who despite their wretched living conditions, despite the stultifying penal servitude of factory labour possess so much character and will power that they study, study, study, and turn themselves into conscious Social Democrats -- 'The working class intelligentsia'. . . We must make every effort to ensure that its ranks are regularly reinforced, tat its lofty requirements are met . . . The newspaper that wants to become the organ of all Russian Social Democrats must, therefore, be at the level of the advanced workers; not only must it not lower its level artificially, but, on the contrary it must raise it constantly, it must follow up all the tactical political and theoretical problems of world Social Democracy.​​After the numerically small stratum of advanced workers comes the broad stratum of average workers. These workers too, strive ardently for socialism, participate in study circles and agitation, and differ from the preceding stratum only in that they cannot become fully independent leaders of the Social Democratic working class movement. The average worker will not understand some of the articles in a newspaper that aims to be the organ of the party, he will not be able to get a full grasp of an intricate theoretical or practical problem. This does not at all mean that the newspaper must lower itself to the level of the mass of its readers. The newspaper, on the contrary, must raise their level and help promote advanced workers from the middle stratum of workers. Such workers, absorbed by local, practical work and interested mainly in the events of the working class movement and the immediate problems of agitation, should connect their every act with thoughts of the entire Russian working class movement, is historical task, and the ultimate goal of socialism, so that the newspaper, the mass of whose readers are average workers, must connect socialism and the political struggle with every local and narrow question.​​Lastly, behind the stratum of average workers comes the mass that constitutes the lower strata of the proletariat. It is quite possible that a socialist newspaper will be completely or well-nigh incomprehensible to them . . . but it would be absurd to conclude from this that the newspaper of the social democrats should adapt itself to the lowest possible level of the workers. The only thing that follows from this is that different forms of agitation must be brought to bear on these strata -- pamphlets written in more popular language, oral agitation, and chiefly -- leaflets on local events . . . arousing the consciousness of the lower strata of the workers may have to take a form of legal educational activities.​(Collected Works, vol.4, pp.282-84).​​The question arises, is this the Leninism that the Prof et. al. are appealing to, or is it a historically specific past its sell by date Leninism that can be ignored? If the answer is the latter, then what marks it out from democractic centralism or the ban on factions (both products of a particular time and place)?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> capitalists have played key parts in various struggles that have affected everyone. often, it's true, on the capitalist side. so saying that leninists have played key parts in various struggles that have affected everyone leaves one important question unanswered: which side were they on? objectively there have been a number of occasions when they've been very much on the side of reaction, on the capitalist side. taking the party which is the subject of this thread, i think many people would say that objectively their pursuit of the growth of the party and their pursuit of the maintenance of the swp's dominant role on the left led them to do things which were reactionary. their smashing of the socialist alliance. their promotion of the respect: the unity coalition. their role in the anl mk2. their role in the stop the war coalition. and that's just the most obvious parts off the top of my head. other leninist parties at other times played less than sparkling revolutionary roles. so, what could have been popular and broad-based campaigns, like the anti-war movement, were undermined by self-proclaimed leninists. the presence of leninists, therefore, not always something to boast about. btw, i don't think saltley was a leninist success: i'd be really rather surprised if more than 5% of the people there were leninists, and quite taken aback if it was that proportion.


 
To be fair to the SWP they din't smash the Socialist Alliance, in the same way that the Socilaist Party walking away from it didn't smash the Socialist Alliance. The demise of the Socialist Alliance wasn't a reactionary or even a step backwards imo.

Similarly their role in ANL mak2 wasn't reactionary, ANL Mark 2was a step backwards in my view but  hardly reactionary.

Where I disagree with Discokermit is simply this. the examplhe gave would no doubt have taken place or similar examples occured if Lenin hadn't succeeded in 1917.The syndicalist movements and the second international which were the majority workers organsiations were all central to workers militancy , and played a key role in both victories and defeats pre the formation of Communist parties. If the formation of Lenin based communist parties had not occured and a diffrent tradition had emerged Saltly Gate, the Poll Tax victory etc would still have been possible.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> To be fair to the SWP they din't smash the Socialist Alliance, in the same way that the Socilaist Party walking away from it didn't smash the Socialist Alliance. The demise of the Socialist Alliance wasn't a reactionary or even a step backwards imo.
> .


 It most certainly was from where I was in Preston.  They went from saving a deposit in a parliamentary by-election, to an SWP promoted turn to the mosques as "Socialist Alliance against the War" followed by Respect.   It went from an organisation which made a credible start in beginning to build support from across w/c communities, to an ethnically divisive opportunist dead-end.  Ok Lavalette's still on the council - but the whole episode was one massive wasted opportunity. 

Fair enough, in some areas (primarily those where SWP were always the dominant bloc) it was still-born from the outset.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2013)

Unbelievably Jack Conrad's written piece this week is actually more boring than his podcasts.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Unbelievably Jack Conrad's written piece this week is actually more boring than his podcasts.


 
Try spending a day with just him and Mark Fisher...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Try spending a day with just him and Mark Fisher...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 14, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I think we should try to unionise the FTers.


 
I recruited my SP fulltimer to Unite


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Try it the other way round.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 14, 2013)

Don't think I'd have much luck with that one - he's an anarchist 

He's done stuff with the NSSN though.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Where I disagree with Discokermit is simply this. the examplhe gave would no doubt have taken place or similar examples occured if Lenin hadn't succeeded in 1917.The syndicalist movements and the second international which were the majority workers organsiations were all central to workers militancy , and played a key role in both victories and defeats pre the formation of Communist parties. If the formation of Lenin based communist parties had not occured and a diffrent tradition had emerged Saltly Gate, the Poll Tax victory etc would still have been possible.


i don't disagree with that at all. my point was specific about no one giving a shit in decades. if syndicalists occupied the space the leninist left has occupied those events may well have happened, greater things may even have happened over the decades and then people would have given a shit.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 14, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It most certainly was from where I was in Preston.  They went from saving a deposit in a parliamentary by-election, to an SWP promoted turn to the mosques as "Socialist Alliance against the War" followed by Respect.   It went from an organisation which made a credible start in beginning to build support from across w/c communities, to an ethnically divisive opportunist dead-end.  Ok Lavalette's still on the council - but the whole episode was one massive wasted opportunity.
> 
> Fair enough, in some areas (primarily those where SWP were always the dominant bloc) it was still-born from the outset.



Well ok a step backwards for those who see/ saw the future as saving a deposit or trying to emulate the SSP.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i don't disagree with that at all. my point was specific about no one giving a shit in decades. if syndicalists occupied the space the leninist left has occupied those events may well have happened, greater things may even have happened over the decades and then people would have given a shit.


 Ok I obviously misunderstood your point


----------



## discokermit (Feb 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Ok I obviously misunderstood your point


s'alright. i think everyone did. i was a bit stoned.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 14, 2013)

Good use of pictures though


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 14, 2013)

Andy Wilson said:


> So, in answer to the direct question - where do the Democratic Renewal people reject Leninism, you don't offer any evidence whatsover... BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY. None. None at all. The worst you can come up with is that, reading some comments by Richard seymour, you conclude that the opposition follow a 'pre-October' version of Leninism. This is historical and political nonsense, and cannot possibly be borne out with evidence, because no such evidence exists. In short, in order to cover up allegations of rape, and the disgusting treatment of very young women complaining of sexual harassment in your party, you are prepared to make up a political argument as you go along. There is no surprise there though, because that is exactly what Professor Callinicos is doing.
> 
> What HAS been rejected by the platform opposition is the SWP's inflexible commitment, in all historical circumstances, to the militarised concept of party organisation that the Bolsheviks adopted at the height of the civil war. I think they were wrong to abolish factions then, but at least they weren't stupid enough to argue that this was the 'perfected' form of Leninism that should be followed for all time.
> 
> ...


It is quite funny how you can take the boy out of the SWP but not etc....Not sure how putting things in capitals makes you any more cogent than the next ex member Andy but if it makes you feel superior carry on. it's not my cc, the only party I pay subs to these days is Labour. Seymour is picked as the 'target' you say? Think you might have joined the thread late but some of us had plenty to say about other people who've broken ranks with the mainstream IS during the debate. What eats you up more than anything is the fact that the Platform, for all your claims about its veteran leadership, has very little traction over the very real veterans who have signed up to the far more cogent Faction. 

What I find funniest about your and Oisin's defence of RS on Leninism is the dancing around the edges of what he's actually saying. if he quotes approvingly the pre October practice of individual leadership elections and permanent factions that's not because he actually supports those things, oh no he's just showing that there is an alternative to the cc's definition of Leninism. Which has the virtue of allowing RS to not actually say anything substantive beyond 'more democracy less centralism please' without concretely explaining what that means. But as with his suggestion that the sclerotic cc self-immolate itself without proposing an alternative leadership it's so much irresponsible hot air. And as nature abhors a vacuum you'll have to excuse the rest of us for extrapolating from his timid hints.

Why stop with Cliff on Luxemburg Andy? Lets go the full hog and use Lenin pre 1914 on Kautsky and Bebel as the intellectual fathers of the RSDLP to prove that the rot set in with the formation of the Bolshevks. Must try harder fella.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i worked with a feller who is in the edl and did time for manslaughter, which he admits privately was murder, of a black man. he also claimed he was a member of combat 18. he also grovels in front of any authority, bosses, screws, etc.
> also, he reckoned his prison psychiatrist described him as a sexual predator.
> 
> i can fairly safely say, most people are more advanced than him.
> ...


 
With this extreme example that you've given, yes, of course, I agree that most people are more "advanced" than him.

But when we are comparing more subtle things, it is less clear who is "advanced" and who isn't, or who is "ahead" of whom. To me, the way of talking about some people as being more "advanced" implies some sort of continuum: so what are the criteria that are applied to decide where somebody is on this continuum? Are the CC more advanced than the foot soldiers? Are full timers more advanced than "lay members"? Are party members more advanced than non-party members? Are anarchists more advanced than Marxists or vice versa? Is the SP more advanced than the SWP? etc, etc.

Just another note: has anyone here read Wild Swans by Jung Chang? Her parents were both in the Communist Party of China, and active in achieving the Chinese revolution, after which, she describes, they lived on an elite street, and her and her siblings went to an elite school (if I remember correctly). Thing is, doesn't this idea of being politically advanced then foster another elite?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

The prof is more advanced than me. The party membership says so. If it doesn't then the rationale for the party seeing longer and further dies.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm the most advanced person there is. If everyone would just listen to me we'd have communism by tomorrow tea time.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2013)

The CPGB missed their publication deadline with the juicy story this week. Not that it makes much difference, given that nobody reads the print version anyway:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/callinicos-threatens-lynch-mobs


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What I find funniest about your and Oisin's defence of RS on Leninism is the dancing around the edges of what he's actually saying. if he quotes approvingly the pre October practice of individual leadership elections and permanent factions that's not because he actually supports those things, oh no he's just showing that there is an alternative to the cc's definition of Leninism.


 
How is this dancing around the edges? How is saying that the Bolsheviks in Lenin's time had, for instance, individual election or permanent factions "an attack on Leninism"? For that matter, what makes you think that there's any confusion about whether Seymour supports those things, or any attempt to disguise it? He does support those things.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 14, 2013)

"Gareth Dale: Disagrees with Sheila’s argument that nothing’s changed in the outside world. First, it has. Generally, to the detriment of the SWP’s reputation, but not simply that. For example, anarchist friends of mine have congratulated us on the seriousness with which we’ve approached the issue, and mentioned that they—who experienced similar difficulties in dealing with sexual harassment—have found our campaign inspiring. But even if the outside world is oblivious, a special conference is still necessary, due to the tumult in the organisation etc."
Ones. Jaw. Drops.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Feb 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i don't disagree with that at all. my point was specific about no one giving a shit in decades. if syndicalists occupied the space the leninist left has occupied those events may well have happened, greater things may even have happened over the decades and then people would have given a shit.


 
You misunderstood what I said. Admittedly being very crude, in response to frogwoman's post about issues of organisation and accountability I was specifically on about people who consider themselves 'advanced,' and being active in organisations which consider themselves a vanguard in the Leninist sense, and most working class people for multi-factorial reasons not really giving a shit about _that_, and/or as frogwoman said too, being put off by such arrogant, self-regarding behavior (these people being advanced and would-be leaders, being part of a tendency that best represents them, holding the key to unlocking socialism etc). Not that many many working class people haven't given a shit about anything that affects them or been willing to fight for things. There has been a rejection of the above. Yes, some of the _best_ organised political activity has come from working class people, and those people have been Leninists, have not denied that.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

THis is paranoid madness:



> There are two types of group that are trying to change the party by fait accompli. The first group seeks to create external pressures. China, and I suspect Richard, encouraged Laurie Penny to write in the Independent.


 
I would have loved to have made this up.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

They are lost lost lost:



> Joseph Choonara: Why are the students in revolt? Because we made a mistake in 2011, when students joined around the Millbank etc movement. We should have made a sharp turn toward SWP theory in the SWSS groups.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Enjoy the new swp.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 14, 2013)

When I was in the party I was told Choonara had a scrap book full of pictures of road kill. Didn’t stop him getting on the CC even if it was true.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2013)

I think it might be my favourite leak of the whole row. The stuff about the Historical Materialism editorial board is just golden.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

It's all so shit now, there's no rip it up  and start again faction, it's just the do what you were doing one second before you changed faction.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think it might be my favourite leak of the whole row. The stuff about the Historical Materialism editorial board is just golden.


That's so telling. And they put him on the board i think. Two aristocrats deciding what is trotskyism and its future.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

> Alex then summed up the session: The crisis has been driven from within the party. Richard Seymour is the principal culprit. He is an eclectic thinker; he grabs ideas from everywhere—including even Bob Jessop!—and throws them into an “incoherent mess


 
S/he's right but the _including even Bob Jessop!_ has more than hint of the amish about it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's so telling. And they put him on the board i think. Two aristocrats deciding what is trotskyism and its future.


 Who's the other one?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

> If party members refuse to accept the legitimacy of the decisions taken at the special conference, “lynch mobs” (his words) will be formed. [He didn’t say whether or not he’d give a green light to such organisations.]


 
Whose square brackets are these?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Who's the other one?


Big boi Budgen.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Big boi Budgen.


 
Is he an aristocrat? I just thought he was French.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 14, 2013)

kavenism said:


> When I was in the party I was told Choonara had a scrap book full of pictures of road kill. Didn’t stop him getting on the CC even if it was true.


That would be a rather odd thing for a Vegan to do. The scrapbook, not going on the CC.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

> but also it reflects the political ambitions of the Historical Materialism editorial board: it’s a repeat of ‘NLR syndrome’—Perry Anderson sought to profile himself as self-appointed generalissimo of the class struggle; these HM editors see themselves in a similar light.


 
This is crazy emo-scene stuff it really is. (Note that the prof's allthusserims was not deemed structural enough for NLR in the 70s)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is he an aristocrat? I just thought he was French.


He's not even french mate.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He's not even french mate.


 
Really? Where the hell did I get that idea from? So what's his aristo background?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 14, 2013)

Does anyone call bullshit on this?

_Gareth Dale: For example, anarchist friends of mine have congratulated us on the seriousness with which we’ve approached the issue, and mentioned that they— who experienced similar difficulties in dealing with sexual harassment— have found our campaign inspiring. _


This is just mad on many levels.

_Alex then summed up the session: The crisis has been driven from within the party. Richard Seymour is the principal culprit. He is an eclectic thinker; he grabs ideas from everywhere—including even Bob Jessop!—and throws them into an “incoherent mess.”_
_Martin Smith must be allowed to fully return to political activity. Hannah’s analysis of the students is wrongheaded._
_The students are not some vanguard on issues of oppression, as she implies; rather, they’ve lost their way as a result of our flawed approach in 2011—as Joseph outlined. There’s no way a 3 month discussion period before the special conference will be allowed. It would “destroy” us. If party members refuse to accept the legitimacy of the decisions taken at the special conference, “lynch mobs” (his words) will be formed._

"The students have lost their way." I think the Counterfire split hit them hard. Even though it was only Rees and German of the big names, a lot of the people were student leaders former elected NUS people who had standing in the SWSS branches.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Really? Where the hell did I get that idea from? So what's his aristo background?


Because he's a big posho who lives in france. Next part: forthcoming.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2013)

Well, it's good to know that our movement is in well bred hands.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think it might be my favourite leak of the whole row. The stuff about the Historical Materialism editorial board is just golden.


 
Jesus, how many people were in the room whilst this meeting was being surreptitiously 'minuted'? If they can't find the source of this leak, then they're not my vanguard.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Jesus, how many people were in the room whilst this meeting was being surreptitiously 'minuted'? If they can't find the source of this leak, then they're not my vanguard.


It wouldn't be difficult to record the meeting for anyone with a smartphone.

It looks to me that Alex Callinicos is leading the Vanguard in a rearguard action. Or to put it more crudely trying to cover their backsides. It won't work, lynch mobs or no.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 15, 2013)

> Martin Smith must be allowed to fully return to political activity.


 
Madness utter madness. One of the consequences of the mess the SWP made of this is that even if he is innocent he will always carry this with him, any chance of him being 'exonerated' was destroyed by them. If I was him and if I believed I was innocent I would be seriously pissed off with them.
ETA: This is not the only thing mad about it of course. 

Now I probably shouldn't say anything but there is something about this report from the ISJ meeting that has really pissed me of, but I don't think anyone else would spot it and I don't want to say any more. So a bit of a useless thing to say really, but I am a very angry.


----------



## andysays (Feb 15, 2013)

I'm new here, but this thread and the issues it deals with are fascinating. One question:



Nigel Irritable said:


> I think it might be my favourite leak of the whole row. The stuff about the Historical Materialism editorial board is just golden.


 
Is the the place to discuss favourite leaks related to this row, or should that go on another thread?


----------



## andysays (Feb 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Madness utter madness. One of the consequences of the mess the SWP made of this is that even if he is innocent he will always carry this with him, any chance of him being 'exonerated' was destroyed by them. If I was him and if I believed I was innocent I would be seriously pissed off with them.


 
For that pissed-off-ness to be valid, wouldn't we have to assume that all through this process "comrade delta" has been arguing to his CC colleagues that the party should conduct its investigations in a more open manner (whatever we might mean by that), but that the majority (believing in their more advanced position and more correct analysis?) have steadfastly over-ruled him?

Seriously, how likely is that?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 15, 2013)

4 things stand out to me from this transcript.

One the faction all insist on clear blue water between themselves and the platform, even while defending the latter against expulsions they make plain they don't agree with their mishmash of ideas.

Two the admission of a mistake in not educating the student influx in 2011 was kind of inevitable once you start saying the students are influenced by feminism etc.

Three how can the prof possibly be arguing that delta return to full public activity?! That's the most shocking thing in it.

Finally is anyone surprised they are threatening retaliation if people still carry this on after the conference?! Agree with them or not at some point they have to get on with normal business and put this to bed. If people still aren't happy with the outcome after that then they surely need to either accept they've lost or move on and do something new for themselves outside the SWP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How is this dancing around the edges? How is saying that the Bolsheviks in Lenin's time had, for instance, individual election or permanent factions "an attack on Leninism"? For that matter, what makes you think that there's any confusion about whether Seymour supports those things, or any attempt to disguise it? He does support those things.


I know he does but Oisin wanted to throw some sand in our eyes "
 I read it as correcting the factual record by pointing out the RSDLP's pre-October practice, but not necessarily implying that is what he would want to see in the SWP now"

The only caveat I'd have is we can't be sure who actually wrote this or a lot of the Platform stuff cause of the group signature they put after each blog piece.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

andysays said:


> I'm new here, but this thread and the issues it deals with are fascinating. One question:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the the place to discuss favourite leaks related to this row, or should that go on another thread?


Bung it all on here mate.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know he does but Oisin wanted to throw some sand in our eyes "
> I read it as correcting the factual record by pointing out the RSDLP's pre-October practice, but not necessarily implying that is what he would want to see in the SWP now"
> 
> The only caveat I'd have is we can't be sure who actually wrote this or a lot of the Platform stuff cause of the group signature they put after each blog piece.


Why would they do such a thing? I don't know anyone who would try to pick off and target individual members to suggest that thee rest of them are following the orders of someone who was never in the tradition and was moving away form them anyway. Do you?


----------



## mk12 (Feb 15, 2013)

> Joseph Choonara: *Why are the students in revolt?* Because we made a mistake in 2011, when students joined around the Millbank etc movement. We should have made a sharp turn toward SWP theory in the SWSS groups


 
Maybe because they're not happy with how the W v Delta case was handled?


----------



## killer b (Feb 15, 2013)

latest leak is incredible. they're totally fucked aren't they?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 15, 2013)

Yep is all great stuff, particularly things like:

"Alex then summed up the session: The crisis has been driven from within the party. Snowball is the principal culprit. He is an eclectic thinker; he grabs ideas from everywhere—including even Mr. Jones!—and throws them into an “incoherent mess.”


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 15, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> But when we are comparing more subtle things, it is less clear who is "advanced" and who isn't, or who is "ahead" of whom.


This is very true. The most radical ideas and practices can quickly become conservative and sometimes certain strands of conservative thought can be transformed into their opposite too. I've noticed that whenever you have a discussion about something that is dialectical, you always get people arguing either extreme: in this case either that the CC of the SWP are the most advanced leaders vs leave it to the working class to spontaneously figure things out. In an ideal situation, you have an organisation of revolutionaries that has the modesty to appreciate there are always new developments and experiences to learn from, while at the same time, undertaking arguments and taking initiatives that are generalised from actual successes in the working class movement. I don't think any of us have really tasted something like this since the Miners' Strike. Although it is possible to read about the historical experience of revolutionary parties with real connections to the working class and with an open and vibrant internal life. And doing so helps put the SWP today in (a very poor) perspective.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2013)

Advanced meaning consciously engaged in/leading the class struggle, not having a bunch of clever progressive ideas in your head.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Are the two not the same - or at least grow out of the same roots, the same understanding?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> But if you think you're part of an advanced layer won't that mean that you might - might - be less likely to reflect on your beliefs and be critical of yourself and those of the party because you'd think you were right anyway?


 
Maybe an advanced layer is a layer of people who do just that. And in fairness that's a bit discursive; you're no less likely to be self critical if you don't view yourself to be "advanced" than if you do. The main thing in any political organisation is to follow the method and not the faith.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2013)

ba

Yes, I think so, but the emphasis in most posts has been on ideas, education, rather than learning from experience. Of course, theory, history, education, help us make sense of that experience.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 15, 2013)

Good grief it's worse than I thought, they won't even countenance any discussion - we're all going down the plug hole at this rate the SWP will be 2 wo/men & a dog


----------



## killer b (Feb 15, 2013)

They should have a belt system for class warriors, like with karate. Just to avoid any confusion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> In the SWP world the working class exists as a series of "layers"...


 
Partially borrowed from Max Weber's century-old idea of "stratification", bent to suit Swappite ends.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> ba
> 
> Yes, I think so, but the emphasis in most posts has been on ideas, education, rather than learning from experience. Of course, theory, history, education, help us make sense of that experience.


But by what right do they appoint themselves to that role _before_ it taking place - they aren't leading the class struggle and if the argument is that the most advanced section does that, that this is _why_ they are the most advanced, this then makes them backward. They are not advanced - by their own lights and logic. What's their get out here?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

killer b said:


> They should have a belt system for class warriors, like with karate. Just to avoid any confusion.


PD are producing a series of 25/50/75/98% class conscious badges and iron on patches as we speak. (100% reserved for the founders i'm afraid)


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But by what right do they appoint themselves to that role _before_ it taking place - they aren't leading the class struggle and if the argument is that the most advanced section does that, that this is _why_ they are the most advanced, this then makes them backward. They are not advanced - by their own lights and logic. What's their get out here?


 
They aren't leading it, no. Hence the constant haranguing by the CC about how backward most of the party are and how behind the class they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> They aren't leading it, no. Hence the constant haranguing by the CC about how backward most of the party are and how behind the class they are.


So, they in fact offer no logic as to why or how they are sort of more advanced in the future but not right now (nor why by rights they should be) - beyond shouting at kids?


----------



## mk12 (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But by what right do they appoint themselves to that role _before_ it taking place - they aren't leading the class struggle and if the argument is that the most advanced section does that, that this is _why_ they are the most advanced, this then makes them backward. They are not advanced - by their own lights and logic. What's their get out here?


 
What, you're saying that others have had more experience in the class struggle than the son of Hon. Ædgyth Bertha Milburg Mary Antonia Frances Lyon-Dalberg-Acton?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So, they in fact offer no logic as to why or how they are sort of more advanced in the future but not right now (nor why by rights they should be) - beyond shouting at kids?


 
Oh, they shout at everybody.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> What, you're saying that others have had more experience in the class struggle than the son of Hon. Ædgyth Bertha Milburg Mary Antonia Frances Lyon-Dalberg-Acton?


It's the _quality_ of the experience that counts!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Oh, they shout at everybody.


_Come on! Get advanced!_


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They are lost lost lost:


 


> _Joseph Choonara: _*Why are the students in revolt?*_ Because we made a mistake in 2011, when students joined around the Millbank etc movement. We should have made a sharp turn toward SWP theory in the SWSS groups_


 
Just out of curiousity, if you take at face value what Choonara is quoted as saying - that part of this crisis stems from the above - who carries the can for not properly educating the new intake? Surely that was an executive decision?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Just out of curiousity, if you take at face value what Choonara is quoted as saying - that part of this crisis stems from the above - who carries the can for not properly educating the new intake? Surely that was an executive decision?


The german person who has now resigned from the CC - that's who they're pointing directly at. It's his failure.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The german person who has now resigned from the CC - that's who they're pointing directly at. It's his failure.


 
seriously? wow.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Yep, you're fucked bergfeld.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Well ok a step backwards for those who see/ saw the future as saving a deposit or trying to emulate the SSP.


the early achievements of the SSP were a start at least..


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, you're fucked bergfeld.


 
I think my four your old would love to be a member of the SWP's current CC. Despite being the leadership of a vanguardist organisation, any fuck ups, it's never your fault. It was the other guy's fault. (In his case, his wee brother - who happened to be born in 2011, so that ties in nicely and explains his wee brother's lack of grounding in IS theory.)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2013)

It seems that the latest leak wasn't from the person who wrote it. It was circulated to a dozen or so oppositionists as an internal thing before someone sent it on to the WW. As imposs1904 mentioned earlier it's much too easy for the CC to work out who wrote it


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I think my four your old would love to be a member of the SWP's current CC.


does your young son want everyone to despise him?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Advanced meaning consciously engaged in/leading the class struggle, not having a bunch of clever progressive ideas in your head.


 
There's only one word I take issue with in your post. It's "leading", because conscious engagement as and assumption of the mantle of  "leading" of the class struggle, outwith any form of delegation of that leadership *by* the class *to* that person or people, is a contributor to the alienation of the working class from organised left politics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are the two not the same - or at least grow out of the same roots, the same understanding?


 
Very much so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2013)

killer b said:


> They should have a belt system for class warriors, like with karate. Just to avoid any confusion.


 
Top Dan being a string belt, _a la_ Compo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> They aren't leading it, no. Hence the constant haranguing by the CC about how backward most of the party are and how behind the class they are.


 
That haranguing is a fairly standard "management" tactic, rather than a quantification by the CC of the political development of the membership.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So, they in fact offer no logic as to why or how they are sort of more advanced in the future but not right now (nor why by rights they should be) - beyond shouting at kids?


 
They're not shouting, they're "encouraging the political development of, and battle-hardening, the cadres".


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 15, 2013)

In sainsburys when a 'colleague' seriously fucks up the management 'offer support and encouragement', this is the last step before sackings. Euphemisms I am in you.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Interesting revelation that Rees and Callinicos tried to force the SWP people involved in the early Historical Materialism to shut it down.


bump on that


----------



## articul8 (Feb 15, 2013)

i thought that was known already?  Was always going to be a potential challenge so long as it solicited contributions from a wide range of marxist and marxisant contributors.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> i thought that was known already? Was always going to be a potential challenge so long as it solicited contributions from a wide range of marxist and marxisant contributors.


Known to who? And known that they wanted to shut it down?

Challenge? To what? To ISJ? Really? You must read some awful shite. They're are not even trying to do the same things.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> In sainsburys when a 'colleague' seriously fucks up the management 'offer support and encouragement', this is the last step before sackings. Euphemisms I am in you.


Similarly football clubs offer managers their vote of confidence


----------



## tony.c (Feb 15, 2013)

And Prime Ministers say they support and have full confidence in a Minister, which means they are about to be forced to resign.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2013)

According to someone on SU, the CC are now trumpeting that they have 500 signatories to their statement, as compared to a little over 400 for the IDOOP faction.

Not many for a party of "7,000" it has to be said, even allowing for the confused, the thus far neutral, the undecided and the semi-detached.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That haranguing is a fairly standard "management" tactic, rather than a quantification by the CC of the political development of the membership.


Yep I see it a lot where I work it has now become man management by disciplinary which sounds like by the talk of lynchings is the way the CC have been leaning more and more in recent years


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to someone on SU, the CC are now trumpeting that they have 500 signatories to their statement, as compared to a little over 400 for the IDOOP faction.
> 
> Not many for a party of "7,000" it has to be said, even allowing for the confused, the thus far neutral, the undecided and the semi-detached.


Did lyndsey ever stop her direct debit?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

if stalincos is saying the students have 'lost there way' which is code for 'are totally wrong here' thats seems arse about face to me- the students here have shown more backbone over the issue than some. What goes through his head.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> PD are producing a series of 25/50/75/98% class conscious badges and iron on patches as we speak. (100% reserved for the founders i'm afraid)



A bit like being in the Brownies - you could collect badges as you reached ever higher levels of advancement. Plus badges for selling papers, collecting money, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> A bit like being in the Brownies - you could collect badges as you reached ever higher levels of advancement. Plus badges for selling papers, collecting money, etc.


Please be aware, you may be asked to remove your badges with Rees' face on.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

And if you haven't got a badge then you're just a backward layer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> A bit like being in the Brownies - you could collect badges as you reached ever higher levels of advancement. Plus badges for selling papers, collecting money, etc.


 


Special badges for the veg wedge, advanced chuckleism badge- skies the limit relly


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 15, 2013)

Have they split yet?


----------



## chilango (Feb 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Have they split yet?



No. They're going from strength to strength.

There's never been a better time to be a socialist.

Brilliant!


----------



## mk12 (Feb 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Have they split yet?


 
It's like someone on the Titanic saying "have we sunk yet?" over and over.


----------



## chilango (Feb 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to someone on SU, the CC are now trumpeting that they have 500 signatories to their statement, as compared to a little over 400 for the IDOOP faction.
> 
> Not many for a party of "7,000" it has to be said, even allowing for the confused, the thus far neutral, the undecided and the semi-detached.



My guess is that'd be about right. They can only have 1,000 to 1,200 active members these days.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Have they split yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Have they split yet?


This is supposed to be triumphal. These are the material they work with.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

happy was that day when kilroy silk overstepped the mark and revealed him self as a naked islamaphobe. The orange cunt


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> It's like someone on the Titanic saying "have we sunk yet?" over and over.



If watching the swp disintegrate is like watching the Titanic sink, I must be one of the people watching horrified from the lifeboats.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> In sainsburys when a 'colleague' seriously fucks up the management 'offer support and encouragement', this is the last step before sackings. Euphemisms I am in you.


 
support as in' like a hanged man'?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> If watching the swp disintegrate is like watching the Titanic sink, I must be one of the people watching horrified from the lifeboats.


 
The Titanic only had enough lifeboats for about a third of their passengers.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It seems that the latest leak wasn't from the person who wrote it. It was circulated to a dozen or so oppositionists as an internal thing before someone sent it on to the WW. As imposs1904 mentioned earlier it's much too easy for the CC to work out who wrote it


Aren't we pretty much told who wrote it in the text itself?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's the _quality_ of the experience that counts!


 
His dad fought for the KKE, doesn't that count for something, he had a head-start, it's natural Callinicos is number one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The Titanic only had enough lifeboats for about a third of their passengers.


 

and the officers got prime place on it. analogy holds!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> If watching the swp disintegrate is like watching the Titanic sink, I must be one of the people watching horrified from the lifeboats.


I'm on the iceberg


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> and the officers got prime place on it. analogy holds!


 
electric avenue is an officer?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm on the iceberg


 
I am the fox on the iceberg
I am the walrus


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I am the fox on the iceberg
> I am the walrus


Coo coo clarks shoes


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The Titanic only had enough lifeboats for about a third of their passengers.



At least in the case of the swp you can disembark when you want.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> electric avenue is an officer?



No, electric isn't.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 15, 2013)

There is something very sad indeed about witnessing all this in frame by frame technicolour.

Time was when the SWP meant hope and possibility.  Even at this distance (20 years) i have so many cherished memories of comradely friendship with some truly excellent  people.  Who could forget the Skegness days, or the linking of arms at Warrington, the combining to create the ANL, or the political relationships forged in the struggle of the great miners strike etc?

Can it really be that this implosion will leave only a cyborg Leninist rump devoid of the very qualities that gave the party its edge over the rest?


----------



## sihhi (Feb 15, 2013)

redcogs said:


> There is something very sad indeed about witnessing all this in frame by frame technicolour.
> 
> Time was when the SWP meant hope and possibility. Even at this distance (20 years) i have so many cherished memories of comradely friendship with some truly excellent people. Who could forget the Skegness days, or the linking of arms at Warrington, the combining to create the ANL, or the political relationships forged in the struggle of the great miners strike etc?


 

The Labour Party once meant hope and possibility too.

The increasing twists and turns in the post-Iraq world meant that some kind of split was likely to happen at some point. But the nature of this and the fact that it's being played out over the botched sexual harassment/rape case due to the CC fuck-up is a particularly bitter taste in the mouth.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 15, 2013)

Callinicos wants Delta reintegrated fully into party activities??

Can't wait to see the breakdown of voting figures on that one.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 15, 2013)

Just got this in my inbox from Kimber - I'm obviously still counted among the SWP membership!




> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> *From:* Charlie Kimber <Charlie@swp.org.uk>
> *To:* Charlie Kimber ext email <joeeamon@aol.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, 15 February 2013, 11:01
> ...


 
The list of the 'first 500' CC signatories is intended to create a certain impression isn't it? First, that since that's only the _first _500 there must be loads and loads more. Second, that since there's no corresponding list for the faction they don't have any real support.

I must say I'm looking forward to the internal bulletins - they promise to be very interesting indeed.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Aren't we pretty much told who wrote it in the text itself?


 
If we were I missed it. Who?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 15, 2013)

...


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2013)

redcogs said:


> There is something very sad indeed about witnessing all this in frame by frame technicolour.
> 
> Time was when the SWP meant hope and possibility. Even at this distance (20 years) i have so many cherished memories of comradely friendship with some truly excellent people. Who could forget the Skegness days, or the linking of arms at Warrington, the combining to create the ANL, or the political relationships forged in the struggle of the great miners strike etc?
> 
> Can it really be that this implosion will leave only a cyborg Leninist rump devoid of the very qualities that gave the party its edge over the rest?


 
which branch were you in? there are a few ex SWP vets on here, some stretching back to the 70s!


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's only one word I take issue with in your post. It's "leading", because conscious engagement as and assumption of the mantle of "leading" of the class struggle, outwith any form of delegation of that leadership *by* the class *to* that person or people, is a contributor to the alienation of the working class from organised left politics.


 
I added leading because that's what it means to the SWP.


----------



## mutley (Feb 15, 2013)

the faction has 400+. So 500 for the cc ain't all that.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If we were I missed it. Who?


I was thinking of this, but my memory seems to have been faulty, I remembered it as saying she carried on regardless, but reading it again it seems to imply she stooped.  


> At the start of the discussion, incidentally, Alex barked at Amy Gilligan, insisting she stop taking notes. He, however, continued to cheerfully fill his notebook with copious notes throughout the meeting, as well as typing into his Blackberry


----------



## emanymton (Feb 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just got this in my inbox from Kimber - I'm obviously still counted among the SWP membership!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have seen the same email, is it said that I read all the names? Haven't done a count thought.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Callinicos wants Delta reintegrated fully into party activities??
> 
> Can't wait to see the breakdown of voting figures on that one.


 
I am intrigued if the person who asked for the investigation  is still fully integrated into party activities.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> joeeamon@aol.com?


 
Fuck knows, assuming it's the email address of the SWP admin person or something.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 15, 2013)

mutley said:


> the faction has 400+. So 500 for the cc ain't all that.


 
Yeah but the email is intended to give the impression that those are just the _first _500 - the whole list would be too long to fit on an email.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I have seen the same email, is it said that I read all the names? Haven't done a count thought.


 
Yes, yes it is. But you're not alone, I was sad enough to do exactly the same (and got disappointed when I saw the names of people I once respected).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Whereas it makes people go, is that all you got after a month of whipping? Potemkin party.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, yes it is. But you're not alone, I was sad enough to do exactly the same (and got disappointed when I saw the names of people I once respected).


There is one person I am very disappointed with but i already new his position, other than that of the names i recognised there were no surprises


----------



## tony collins (Feb 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> joeeamon@aol.com?


 
His kids' names.


----------



## pansalar (Feb 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> There is one person I am very disappointed with but i already new his position, other than that of the names i recognised there were no surprises


Since receiving this little list I have been humming the Mikado


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is supposed to be triumphal. These are the material they work with.


 is it?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 15, 2013)

mk12 said:


> It's like someone on the Titanic saying "have we sunk yet?" over and over.


 as it is a prediction made almost monthly over the last 10 years, one has had a lot of opportunity to take the piss.

PS. not been on board for over 10 years. So it is nothing like it.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 15, 2013)

THIS SUCKER'S GOING DOWN


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 15, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> THIS SUCKER'S GOING DOWN



But it's not over till it's over.

Probably they'll lose a significant part of their younger end, and lose much of the pulling power they once had, but be left with a rump that knows no other home and has nowhere else to go.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

With no youth input they'll have to rely on the manufacturing sector.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 15, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> THIS SUCKER'S GOING DOWN


 So what IF it does?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> With no youth input they'll have to rely on the manufacturing sector.


where as you and tHe IWCA rely on?????


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> With no youth input they'll have to rely on the manufacturing sector.



Which, in the UK at least, is much smaller than it once was.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> joeeamon@aol.com?


Sorry but haven't you just crossed a line?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry but haven't you just crossed a line?


 
wasn't me who posted it


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 15, 2013)

tony collins said:


> His kids' names.


Apologies Spanky, this is the one. What you on tc?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Trick #2 suggest a line has been drawn and that old defenders of the party are on this side of it, who the fuck are those renegades on the other side?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 15, 2013)

No I just want to know who this fucker is bringing people kids into it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2013)

Why?

How did they? OR is that just a hint of what the mugs will be told happened?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No I just want to know who this fucker is bringing people kids into it.


It's like watching an auld soak trying to pick a fight, any fight.


----------



## killer b (Feb 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Apologies Spanky, this is the one. What you on tc?


it isn't that sinister. spanky asked what the name in the email address was about (presumably 'cause it wasn't the name of the apparent sender), tc told him. if the email address i used to send political bulletins to hundreds of people was in the the name of my two kids, i'd expect people to wonder about it too tbf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry but haven't you just crossed a line?


Is there any significance to this line?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 15, 2013)

killer b said:


> it isn't that sinister. spanky asked what the name in the email address was about (presumably 'cause it wasn't the name of the apparent sender), tc told him. if the email address i used to send political bulletins to hundreds of people was in the the name of my two kids, i'd expect people to wonder about it too tbf.


No I'd expect nobody to bring it up. Come on folks I'm in Sandy Row right now and they know how to treat families, with respect. They call me a Fenian but not my son.

There are limits.


----------



## killer b (Feb 15, 2013)

you're mental.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

Yes it is insane to ask for people not to involve other peoples kids in these sometimes amusing political debates. Why would somebody jump on here just to say that? What possible, justifiable reason is there ?


----------



## killer b (Feb 16, 2013)

No ones involved anyones kids you hysterical prick.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

So somebody correct me if I'm wrong but this scumbag tony Collins seems to be a Socialist Unity character yes? at least that seems to be the case by his previous posts which seem to revolve around how nasty people are to the SU website, denying them service etc. Oooh Andy Newman must be crying in his milk. Does Andy know you're revealing fellow socialists kids names online you little shit? If you aren't in fact Andy Newman in disguise that is.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> No ones involved anyones kids you hysterical prick.


I invented the post that said his email was his kids names?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

This an external enforcer, beating up kiddies. You are so fucked.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I invented the post that said his email was his kids names?


You are gone - the kids that you depend on -gone. Get your arse and rejoin. That'll help.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This an external enforcer, beating up kiddies. You are so fucked.


If you're suggesting I'm being used here I dont follow. Mind you I have had a beer or three but the sequence of events seems clear to me butchers. be glad if you spelt out what you think is afoot in plain English.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So somebody correct me if I'm wrong but this scumbag tony Collins seems to be a Socialist Unity character yes? at least that seems to be the case by his previous posts which seem to revolve around how nasty people are to the SU website, denying them service etc. Oooh Andy Newman must be crying in his milk. Does Andy know you're revealing fellow socialists kids names online you little shit? If you aren't in fact Andy Newman in disguise that is.


It's a pity the people of sandy row will call you a fenian but they won't call you a dr


----------



## killer b (Feb 16, 2013)

No. But how does that involve them? He explained where the email address came from, that's all. You might be justified in perhaps suggesting the poster edit, but huffily claiming some sacred line has been crossed? Please. Grow up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> No. But how does that involve them? He explained where the email address came from, that's all. You might be justified in perhaps suggesting the poster edit, but huffily claiming some sacred line has been crossed? Please. Grow up.


He's at best tired and emotional


----------



## two sheds (Feb 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If you're suggesting I'm being used here I dont follow. Mind you I have had a beer or three but the sequence of events seems clear to me butchers. be glad if you spelt out what you think is afoot in plain English.


 
Look back to where the e-mail address first appeared.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

Yes ok please edit tc whoever you are, edit and not say what you said. No fuck that, you never ever mention other people's personal circumstances, especially not their kids. This thread is fecked up enough without that. sorry if that sounds hysterical but really...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

***


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 16, 2013)

Is mentioning progeny some sort of cliffite Candyman-summoning technique or something?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yes ok please edit tc whoever you are, edit and not say what you said. No fuck that, you never ever mention other people's personal circumstances, especially not their kids. This thread is fecked up enough without that. sorry if that sounds hysterical but really...


This is a lie fuck off. I can mention whatever i like - so can the class - how dare you try to impose your parties petty internal rules on the class


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Is mentioning progeny some sort of cliffite Candyman-summoning technique or something?


They have a worldwide injuinction. Behave.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

So now that we've put that to bed.On a lighter note, Mrs BB in Sandy Row earlier:







Funnily enough not one Ballymena person I met tonight (all two of them) had ever heard of RS. But they had heard of Eamonn McCann. Cheap shot I know.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is a lie fuck off. I can mention whatever i like - so can the class - how dare you try to impose your parties petty internal rules on the class


Isn't it just a normal person's rule like? The class dont care about my kids or yours. And frankly the class dont have a fucking right to know about them.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Isn't it just a normal person's rule like? The class dont care about my kids or yours. And frankly the class dont have a fucking right to know about them.


Of course they might, how you tremble when it comes close. The class have a duty to see what their leaders are doing.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

You do talk shit sometimes ba. The vanguardist stuff is fine as a stick to beat people but not their kids. Surprised you're pushing this particular button, thought you might be the voice of reason here and not let immediate political point scoring take over. It was wrong, shouldn't have been said. End of. Now let's all move on and have some more useful bunfights.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 16, 2013)

I see a few pints have been had on this thread tonight.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You do talk shit sometimes ba. The vanguardist stuff is fine as* a stick to beat people but not their kids.* Surprised you're pushing this particular button, thought you might be the voice of reason here and not let immediate political point scoring take over. It was wrong, shouldn't have been said. End of. Now let's all move on and have some more useful bunfights.


 

spare the cooling rod, spoil the child

-PD Proverb Division


----------



## tony collins (Feb 16, 2013)

The guy uses his kids' names in emails that are sent to every single SWP member, anyone who has registered as a member, whether or not they have paid subs, at a time when everything they do is being leaked. If you're annoyed, I don't think it should be at me - I think you should be having a word with Charlie. The truth is, his kids' names aren't secret, it's not something he's ever hidden (the clue is in the fact that he uses them as the name of his *main email address*), so it didn't seem out of the ordinary. By answering the question about what the email meant, I wasn't targetting anyone, and I can't believe the paranoia in people who think I must've had some motive other than answering a question. life on the fucking far left messes your head up.

As for the stuff I've said about SU, c'mon, I've tried to be light-hearted cos I know Andy isn't popular round here. He's a fun target - me and the other SU people regularly throw eggs at his windows. Well, wouldn't you?

Listen, if people think I should edit out the post, I'll do it. But I kinda baulk at doing it after being called a "scumbag". Only my mother is allowed to call me that.

And I'm only *nearly* as fat as Andy Newman. I'm not him in disguise. Me: https://www.facebook.com/evilplan, embarrassing old SW articles and proof that no one really uses Google+

And anyway, isn't the real issue here that Charlie is _still using AOL for his email?_


----------



## two sheds (Feb 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see a few pints have been had on this thread tonight.


 
A couple of times coming in of a morning has been like seeing the remnants of a party with beer bottles and full ash trays all over.

Did we find out whether the bloke sending the e-mail actually used his kid's e-mail address to respond to? If it's aol it's more likely to be his granddad's address surely.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2013)

Most people go to the pub Friday, have a few beers, either get something to eat, make something to eat , think about another beer, try and watch a film or a TV programme or listen to music. Some though debate the SWP split till 2.30 am on the internet even though they are not members.


----------



## killer b (Feb 16, 2013)

some of us do all of them things


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 16, 2013)

Our 4 month old foster baby has some issues and I haven't got a night sleep for 16 weeks, I don't know why anyone else is around at 3 am though.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 16, 2013)

http://www.heartfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/redfriars/Billy_Delta.htm


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 16, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> http://www.heartfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/redfriars/Billy_Delta.htm


"She has a pet lizard called Nick"


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> http://www.heartfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/redfriars/Billy_Delta.htm


 
Yarooh!

Who did this? Its good but it could have been brilliant. Could have turned it into a regular series.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 16, 2013)

It would be amusing if Frank 'Richards' Furedi had a hand in it. Possibly the only incidence of amusement that man could ever have been linked to, in fact.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2013)

Doubt it but Heartfield has been around long enough to know the ins and outs. Doesn't he still post on some of the Trot sites and SU?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

He's on a few email lists that i'm on - no visible RCP stuff though.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2013)

> Isn’t it up to the SWP how they organise their internal affairs? If there was a criticism of the political direction of the SWP that might be interesting, but the pointed thing about all of the recent factions is that they never criticise the SWP’s political direction, only claiming that the Central Committee has lost its way, or is unreasonably dominant, and that the point is to get back to the original conception of the International Socialists. To put it bluntly, the debate is about which personalities are in power, not about political principles. John Rees, Lindsay German, Chris Bambery et al have all left the SWP on the grounds that they are no longer in the leadership of the SWP. No doubt that is very hard for them, but of no interest to the working class. The only question worth asking is what, if any, are the political differences between these factions and their parent group.


 
which is all good stuff but then he does the cartoon which is all about personalities!


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 16, 2013)

oops! One of the oiks from the Urban 75 comp down the road beat me to it with the Refriars cartoon.

Courtesy of James Heartfield. Obviously some RCP'ers do have a sense of humour!


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 16, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> oops! One of the oiks from the Urban 75 comp down the road beat me to it with the Refriars cartoon.
> 
> Courtesy of James Heartfield. Obviously some RCP'ers do have a sense of humour!


Less of the comp. I was a grammar school drop out


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 16, 2013)

SWP leaflet from today's Unison Women's conference. Holy shit!

https://twitter.com/philbc3/status/302760987017240576/photo/1


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> SWP leaflet from today's Unison Women's conference. Holy shit!
> 
> https://twitter.com/philbc3/status/302760987017240576/photo/1


 
To be fair Scargill wasn't No Platformed when the Yorkshire NUM paper used to have a page three girl.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 16, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> To be fair Scargill wasn't No Platformed when the Yorkshire NUM paper used to have a page three girl.


 
Apparently there was a bit of a row between Cath Elliot (Guardian feminist) and the SWP at the Unison women's conference over this.

For the record, I think it's counterproductive to attempt to "no platform" people for having obnoxious views, with the solitary exception of fascists (where it is a tactical question). But really, the SWP must be completely lacking in self-awareness to put themselves at the forefront of a fight about this right now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> SWP leaflet from today's Unison Women's conference. Holy shit!
> 
> https://twitter.com/philbc3/status/302760987017240576/photo/1


Whose victory is it to get that printed?

That's from months ago though surely?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Whose victory is it to get that printed?
> 
> That's from months ago though surely?


 
Nope, according to various people on twitter it's their leaflet from today's Unison women's conference. There was a motion in on refusing to give a platform to or share platforms with "rape apologists". The SWP decided to make a big intervention (ie a specific leaflet and arguing against during the debate) against this motion.

Completely insanity, and just handing various liberals and Labour Party shitheads a stick to beat the left with. Those clowns can end up damaging the broader left if they don't wind their necks in.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2013)

Ok, looks like a retread to me - The subheadlines look great  though. Platform. Cambridge.

Never mind the outside left, if that's been published in the last few days it shows someone elses (i.e not the CC) hand on the tiller.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 16, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> http://www.heartfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/redfriars/Billy_Delta.htm


 
i've only ever met two rcpers in real life. both went to public school. that's not a good ratio.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Never mind the outside left, if that's been published in the last few days it shows someone elses (i.e not the CC) hand on the tiller.


 
That's an interesting point. Although it's possible that it was printed by particularly brazen loyalists, with no sense of how they will be perceived.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 16, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I added leading because that's what it means to the SWP.


 
I thought that might have been why.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently there was a bit of a row between Cath Elliot (Guardian feminist) and the SWP at the Unison women's conference over this.
> 
> For the record, I think it's counterproductive to attempt to "no platform" people for having obnoxious views, with the solitary exception of fascists (where it is a tactical question). But really, the SWP must be completely lacking in self-awareness to put themselves at the forefront of a fight about this right now.


Exactly, I tend to agree that no platforming Galloway is not the right thing to do. But to put out a leaflet like that, with that headline, is insane. Unless they are worried it will be them they come for next.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

tony collins said:


> The guy uses his kids' names in emails that are sent to every single SWP member, anyone who has registered as a member, whether or not they have paid subs, at a time when everything they do is being leaked. If you're annoyed, I don't think it should be at me - I think you should be having a word with Charlie. The truth is, his kids' names aren't secret, it's not something he's ever hidden (the clue is in the fact that he uses them as the name of his *main email address*), so it didn't seem out of the ordinary. By answering the question about what the email meant, I wasn't targetting anyone, and I can't believe the paranoia in people who think I must've had some motive other than answering a question. life on the fucking far left messes your head up.
> 
> As for the stuff I've said about SU, c'mon, I've tried to be light-hearted cos I know Andy isn't popular round here. He's a fun target - me and the other SU people regularly throw eggs at his windows. Well, wouldn't you?
> 
> ...


It irked because people seem to think they have a duty to reveal every last fact they know about anybody connected to the swp at the moment, no matter how irrelevant and/or confidential. Not suggesting you targetted them of course, just that everything and anyone seems to be fair game in this frenzy to publish and be damned.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's an interesting point. Although it's possible that it was printed by particularly brazen loyalists, with no sense of how they will be perceived.


Don't really have an option though do they? Not as if they can all go and hide until this is sorted. It's the sort of leaflet they'd routinely publish in the past.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Don't really have an option though do they? Not as if they can all go and hide until this is sorted. It's the sort of leaflet they'd routinely publish in the past.


 
Jesus, mate, does the expression "pick your battles" mean nothing to people in the SWP?

There were dozens of motions at that conference. They seem to have picked the one to lead on by choosing the one that would involve the most skating over thin ice. By not keeping their cake holes shut, they handed liberals and bureaucrats a stick to beat them (and the rest of the left) with. I'm sure they were about as popular with other left activists as a violent case of the shits in a wetsuit.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 16, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> To be fair Scargill wasn't No Platformed when the Yorkshire NUM paper used to have a page three girl.


 
Don't forget that Scargill's non SWP membership affords him the status of an 'unadvanced' and theoretically weak person.. probably not worth 'no platforming'.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 16, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Don't forget that Scargill's non SWP membership affords him the status of an 'unadvanced' and theoretically weak person.. probably not worth 'no platforming'.



I know you're poking fun, but I can't help but pothint out that an SWP position on who they "no platform" is largely determined by how it could affect their own short term interests. It's boring, I know, so I'll add that the comrades would do well to remember that those outside the ranks of the SWP would be incapable of passing judgement of one as advanced as Cde Smith is.


----------



## tony collins (Feb 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It irked because people seem to think they have a duty to reveal every last fact they know about anybody connected to the swp at the moment, no matter how irrelevant and/or confidential. Not suggesting you targetted them of course, just that everything and anyone seems to be fair game in this frenzy to publish and be damned.


 
God no, there's a mundane truth there - I just thought I'd stop any intrigue about whether there are a couple of gay lovers secretly running the SWP's finances.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

Counterfire review of Davidson here http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/book-reviews/16301-in-defence-of-permanent-revolution

Harmless enough review and a couple of valid observations. But the politics of it are what's interesting. Bascially Counterfire having a swipe at the nefarious Platform. Hoping to influence stragglers from the faction or just calling it as they see it? Let the audience decide.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 16, 2013)

Dunno far too long to read


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 16, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Dunno far too long to read


Lol fair enough. Mind you it's shorter than the transcripts we've all obsessed over


----------



## redcogs (Feb 16, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Dunno far too long to read


 
If you were part of the vanguards advanced layer you'd have no difficulty with long articles (or words).


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> SWP leaflet from today's Unison Women's conference. Holy shit!
> 
> https://twitter.com/philbc3/status/302760987017240576/photo/1



Gasp!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol fair enough. Mind you it's shorter than the transcripts we've all obsessed over


 

sometimes I wake up in the night and start barking out some of the more objectionable portions from said transcript. Never forgive.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 16, 2013)

I did have a nightmare with Karen Reisman in it as a Soviet submarine commander the other night


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I did have a nightmare with Karen Reisman in it as a Soviet submarine commander the other night


 

The Hunt for Red Self February


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 16, 2013)

I was told by an Irish SWP fulltimer that there is a critical motion down for their National Committee this weekend, demanding that they distance themselves from the stance of their English mothership. The top leadership are trying to keep things quiet but are, as always, backing the British CC.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 16, 2013)

Hey bolshiebhoy, were you on this one?

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...9276072928.212542.132633832928&type=1&theater

Choicemarch.jpg


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 16, 2013)

critical motion sounds like a really troublesome shit


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 17, 2013)

The SWP Ireland Facebook photo collection is utterly shameful and opportunist. Artless isn't the word. Repugnant, more like. A picture of Ahmad Sami, a 17 year old high school student, killed in Port Said by 'live ammunition' we are told, and, as the 'Irish SWP comrades' announce, he was a member of the 'Revolutionary Socialists' as well. Alongside a photo of this young man before his death is a collection of utterly banal and meaningless photos of 'the comrades' on demos against this tax, that tax, this nasty tory, that nasty tory. And so Ahmad Sami is subsumed in the general noise of SWP crap. A general lack of disrespect, even for one of their own 'comrades' is bad enough, but the whole manner of presentation alone speaks volumes about the SWP worldview.

Utterly vile.

'Alex Reggae Bwoy' made a comment under the image of Ahmad Sami, which just about sums up the state of SWP groupthink. It reads: 'IT´S A SHAME... VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN! What utter utter morons. Seriously, who would want to associate with a 'party' like this?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Hey bolshiebhoy, were you on this one?


Hey Oisin yes in fact I found that picture recently for them  We clearly knew each other so I'll show you mine first, I share initials with the big fella, JC.

Your turn!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Jesus, mate, does the expression "pick your battles" mean nothing to people in the SWP?
> 
> There were dozens of motions at that conference. They seem to have picked the one to lead on by choosing the one that would involve the most skating over thin ice. By not keeping their cake holes shut, they handed liberals and bureaucrats a stick to beat them (and the rest of the left) with. I'm sure they were about as popular with other left activists as a violent case of the shits in a wetsuit.


Probably so but why would you tweet about it then and make the stick bigger ;-)


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I was told by an Irish SWP fulltimer that there is a critical motion down for their National Committee this weekend, demanding that they distance themselves from the stance of their English mothership. The top leadership are trying to keep things quiet but are, as always, backing the British CC.


'As always' isn't strictly true is it mate? I've been in the room and seen Cliff call Kieran a contra for disagreeing with the 'mothership' before. The Irish org has its own dynamic which is more complex than the stereotype you're painting here.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> The SWP Ireland Facebook photo collection is utterly shameful and opportunist. Artless isn't the word. Repugnant, more like. A picture of Ahmad Sami, a 17 year old high school student, killed in Port Said by 'live ammunition' we are told, and, as the 'Irish SWP comrades' announce, he was a member of the 'Revolutionary Socialists' as well. Alongside a photo of this young man before his death is a collection of utterly banal and meaningless photos of 'the comrades' on demos against this tax, that tax, this nasty tory, that nasty tory. And so Ahmad Sami is subsumed in the general noise of SWP crap. A general lack of disrespect, even for one of their own 'comrades' is bad enough, but the whole manner of presentation alone speaks volumes about the SWP worldview.
> 
> Utterly vile.
> 
> 'Alex Reggae Bwoy' made a comment under the image of Ahmad Sami, which just about sums up the state of SWP groupthink. It reads: 'IT´S A SHAME... VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN! What utter utter morons. Seriously, who would want to associate with a 'party' like this?


Is that all you've got fella? Their photos document struggles on a timeline with local and international ones interspersed depending on when they happened.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Is that all you've got fella? Their photos document struggles on a timeline with local and international ones interspersed depending on when they happened.


an auld soak picking a fight, any fight...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> an auld soak picking a fight, any fight...


Nah just depressed at how quickly the level of criticism goes downhill when yous all get going egging each other on.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> 'As always' isn't strictly true is it mate? I've been in the room and seen Cliff call Kieran a contra for disagreeing with the 'mothership' before. The Irish org has its own dynamic which is more complex than the stereotype you're painting here.



Let's be strictly accurate then. Once, three decades ago, Kieran Allen disagreed with the British CC about a war a very great distance away. This solitary "rebellion" has served as the sole evidence of his independence (and by extension the independence of the organisation he controls) over the thirty years since. In every dispute within the British SWP, or within the IST, Allen and his shifting cast of sidekicks have served as loyal camp followers of the British CC, even importing most of their get rich quick quick schemes. They are the least independent organisation in the IST, due to location, the regular stream of cadre who get sent over to help them out, and, Allen's supine posture.

I will eat my shoe if the Irish SWP passes their motion and takes a critical stance. I'll even let you pick the sauce. We both know that this wont happen.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 17, 2013)

In other not shocking news, the disputes committee rejected the appeals of the Facebook Four.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 17, 2013)

Any news yet of the Famous Five?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Nah just depressed at how quickly the level of criticism goes downhill when yous all get going egging each other on.


So what was all that nonsense about involving people's kids in aid of?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 17, 2013)

Not sure I would have chosen IDOOP as a faction name myself.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 17, 2013)

Any more sexy revelations?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 17, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Any more sexy revelations?


Oh for fucks sake piss of. The SWP is in a mess over mishandling a rape allegation and you come out with shit like that? To you an allegation of rape against a CC member is just a sexy revelation?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 17, 2013)

According to someone on another list who has generally been reliable on SWP related stuff, the Guardian is preparing a hit piece with new dirt involved.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 17, 2013)

" Developing a critique of the issue of privilege and whether men, white people or straight people benefit from social oppression"
Oh dear.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to someone on another list who has generally been reliable on SWP related stuff, the Guardian is preparing a hit piece with new dirt involved.


 
i know what it is!

The coppers have discovered an arms cache, including grenades, kalashnikovs (and this months issue of Nuts and Babes) under the Profs bed?

Imminent arrests are anticipated, but in an audacious counter action Delta has organised a mass solidarity picket of the Alex's central London Penthouse?

If you don't laugh you weep..


----------



## emanymton (Feb 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to someone on another list who has generally been reliable on SWP related stuff, the Guardian is preparing a hit piece with new dirt involved.


They may be reliable on SWP stuff, but how do they know what the guardian is up to? Any indication on what this 'new dirt' might be?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i know what it is!
> 
> The coppers have discovered an arms cache, including grenades, kalashnikovs (and this months issue of* Nuts and Babes*) under the Profs bed?
> 
> ...


 

always had him down as an _Asian Babes_ and _Razzle_ man tbh


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

Asian lads was delta's fav.


----------



## DrRingDing (Feb 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to someone on another list who has generally been reliable on SWP related stuff, the Guardian is preparing a hit piece with new dirt involved.


 
I wouldn't project so fiercely from Guardian hack sniffing around.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> always had him down as an _Asian Babes_ and _Razzle_ man tbh


 
As a particularly fine example of the advanced layer of the vanguard Party the Prof probably dips in to all sorts of dialectically appropriate erotica..


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2013)

asian student babes


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Oh for fucks sake piss of. The SWP is in a mess over mishandling a rape allegation and you come out with shit like that? To you an allegation of rape against a CC member is just a sexy revelation?


 not to me, to you lot. Wanking and wanking over politically 'sexy' revelations.

To me, you lot are like the tabloid media reporting stuff for your OWN political titillation, rather than any interest for the woman involved.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> not to me, to you lot. Wanking and wanking over politically 'sexy' revelations.
> 
> To me, you lot are like the tabloid media reporting stuff for your OWN *political titillation*, rather than any interest for the woman involved.


 

a niche publication


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> " Developing a critique of the issue of privilege and whether men, white people or straight people benefit from social oppression"
> Oh dear.


 
Those motions are, I believe, from a rather odd character who has been through a bunch of left groups. I very much doubt if they reflect anything more than his own views.

More interesting is the "our strategy" document, which combines sensible tactical advice with a clear orientation towards reigning in the more radical oppositionists, narrowing the grounds of dispute, and avoiding a split when/if the CC beats them.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 17, 2013)

Is the guy who wrote these the same Graeme who used to be in the fourth in Leeds?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Faction meeting in ULU, London today. Loyalists turned away by a vote of 60-40. Which depending on how you look at the swp's defintion of how factions should comport themselves is either unconstitutional or not.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Let's be strictly accurate then. Once, three decades ago, Kieran Allen disagreed with the British CC about a war a very great distance away. This solitary "rebellion" has served as the sole evidence of his independence (and by extension the independence of the organisation he controls) over the thirty years since. In every dispute within the British SWP, or within the IST, Allen and his shifting cast of sidekicks have served as loyal camp followers of the British CC, even importing most of their get rich quick quick schemes. They are the least independent organisation in the IST, due to location, the regular stream of cadre who get sent over to help them out, and, Allen's supine posture.
> 
> I will eat my shoe if the Irish SWP passes their motion and takes a critical stance. I'll even let you pick the sauce. We both know that this wont happen.


You know what NI. For a trot you can be very apolitical, "a war a very great distance away" is not something an internationalist would normally feel comfortable saying. That debate was majorly important for the IS cause it defined how we related to subimperialisms and political Islam among other things. I know it didn't matter to the Militant one world socialist federation club but that says more about your tradition's lack of a politics on imperialism than ours.

What I've always found about you is  - and no disrespect here as although I've never met you personally I reckon you're a decent head as we say in Dublin and your heart is in the right place as my Bennite mum would say - you are more interested in the gossip of politics and the minutiae of revolutionary organisations than the substance. You could probably tell me now how many Fourth International members there were in Iraq on the 1st of January 1990 but the politics of the era interests you far less. Never understood that I have to say.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You know what NI. For a trot you can be very apolitical, "a war a very great distance away" is not something an internationalist would normally feel comfortable saying.


 
Don't be so fucking stupid, you disingenuous clown. There is a difference in urgency between a war your country is actively and directly involved in and a war on the far side of the world. This is a statement of the bleeding obvious, as you would understand if you weren't looking for some way to avoid engaging with what I said.

You implied that the Irish SWP was very independent of the British organisation. I pointed out that it was not and that you are still using a solitary disagreement from thirty years ago as if it was representative of the relationship. It isn't and you know it.

As for my interest in sectariana, how many posts do you have on this thread again?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Ah but I don't see the swp as a sectarian org 

I'm playing a small(tiny actually) part in defending Britain's best far left party.

Less of the name calling though, I was nice to you :-(


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to someone on another list who has generally been reliable on SWP related stuff, the Guardian is preparing a hit piece with new dirt involved.


It is solid evidence-based information like this with specific names dates and locations backed up with eyewitness accounts, documents and photographs that is the strength of this thread.


----------



## Random (Feb 17, 2013)

Gulf war mk one wasn't thirty years ago. I assumed you meant Falklands


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 17, 2013)

Random said:


> Gulf war mk one wasn't thirty years ago. I assumed you meant Falklands


 
Iran Iraq war, 1980 - 1988.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Asian lads was delta's fav.


Just a wee bit beneath you.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> " Developing a critique of the issue of privilege and whether men, white people or straight people benefit from social oppression"
> Oh dear.


 
"white people"and "men" don't benefit as a whole from oppression ffs.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Back on topic, Anna Gluckstein had this to say tonight about the faction meeting at ULU earlier today:

"As you know I never do facebook, but today I feel compelled to. Today there was a faction meeting in central London. I went along with a couple of comrades and others and we were barred from entry! This was not only me, this was two CC members and two of our journalists. I had invited my mum to the meeting and then I had to tell her she wasn't allowed to come. I understand that there will be organisational points that the comrades in the faction may wish to discuss and we would have left at that point, but they were having a five hour meeting in which general political perspectives were to be discussed. 
Chanie was very upset about this situation as we have never had closed political discussions from other members. We are all in the same organisation, how can this happen? where is the democracy in this?"

Some very harsh words for the organisers of the meeting from several loyalists followed.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 17, 2013)

Are CC meetings open to any SWP member who fancies turning up?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Are CC meetings open to any SWP member who fancies turning up?


Course not. Not sure many swpers would argue they should be either.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 17, 2013)

So the CC should be able at attend any meeting the factions members have to discus strategy but the members of the faction don't have the same right? I think they should have been allowed in but only as observers, but I don't think they have a very high horse to climb onto over the issue.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Course not. Not sure many swpers would argue they should be either.


 
No doubt minutes of CC meetings are distributed, the membership obviously need to able to scrutinise decisions that might affect them?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

And minutes of the faction meeting are available where redcogs?

If the pro cc lot have a broader-than-the-cc-meeting about political perspectives then everyone should be welcome yes. As Anna said the technical meetings are private , cc meetings too.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> So the CC should be able at attend any meeting the factions members have to discus strategy but the members of the faction don't have the same right? I think they should have been allowed in but only as observers, but I don't think they have a very high horse to climb onto over the issue.


If you read that account of the break up of the WRP I posted about earlier in the thread, the meeting of the WRP cc were accompanied by large numbers of WRP members who awaited reports from within the meeting centre.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Back on topic, Anna Gluckstein had this to say tonight about the faction meeting at ULU earlier today:
> 
> "As you know I never do facebook, but today I feel compelled to. Today there was a faction meeting in central London. I went along with a couple of comrades and others and we were barred from entry! This was not only me, this was two CC members and two of our journalists. I had invited my mum to the meeting and then I had to tell her she wasn't allowed to come. I understand that there will be organisational points that the comrades in the faction may wish to discuss and we would have left at that point, but they were having a five hour meeting in which general political perspectives were to be discussed.
> Chanie was very upset about this situation as we have never had closed political discussions from other members. We are all in the same organisation, how can this happen? where is the democracy in this?"
> ...


 
Obviously some of the weasels think the SWP is a hereditary monarchy


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

People who try to understand the way the swp works by reference to the wrp are either on one or woefully ignorant.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> So the CC should be able at attend any meeting the factions members have to discus strategy but the members of the faction don't have the same right? I think they should have been allowed in but only as observers, but I don't think they have a very high horse to climb onto over the issue.


 
You're only allowed in if you pass the class consciousness exam.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> People who try to understand the way the swp works by reference to the wrp are either on one or woefully ignorant.


Seems like the WRP were more open than your favourite cult, socialdemocratbhoy


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> People who try to understand the way the swp works by reference to the wrp are either on one or woefully ignorant.


 
Once I would have agreed with you, but the behaviour of the slime on and around the CC in the last couple of months demonstrates they are indeed similar.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Obviously some of the weasels think the SWP is a hereditary monarchy


Oh so only the faction are allowed to drop names?


----------



## mutley (Feb 17, 2013)

BB if you're lining up with the loyalists on this then you're going even further out on a limb. The caucus today was a clearly necessary process that would allow 400 comrades who have signed up to a brief statement to clarify their ideas. That process was never going to involve allowing cc loyalists to throw in all of the straw men that they are so fond of ('there was a 4 month period of full discussion' yeah right). It was a* caucus* with a very full and packed agenda, and it is not undemocratic to not allow in those who will waste time by dragging up basic questions. It was not a party meeting.
If you're that concerned are u going to rejoin? The loyalists might be glad of your vote.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

Like a lot of people mutley I'm waiting to see what happens. Be wrong of anyone who hasn't been part of this to join now just to have a pop on either side. Still hoping the majority of both factions can end up in the same organisation :-(


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 17, 2013)

mutley said:


> BB if you're lining up with the loyalists on this then you're going even further out on a limb. The caucus today was a clearly necessary process that would allow 400 comrades who have signed up to a brief statement to clarify their ideas. That process was never going to involve allowing cc loyalists to throw in all of the straw men that they are so fond of ('there was a 4 month period of full discussion' yeah right). It was a* caucus* with a very full and packed agenda, and it is not undemocratic to not allow in those who will waste time by dragging up basic questions. It was not a party meeting.
> If you're that concerned* are u going to rejoin*? The loyalists might be glad of your vote.


 
doing labour party entryism atm


----------



## mutley (Feb 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Like a lot of people mutley I'm waiting to see what happens. Be wrong of anyone who hasn't been part of this to join now just to have a pop on either side. Still hoping the majority of both factions can end up in the same organisation :-(


  well to be fair i can't disagree with any of that, here's hoping!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> doing labour party entryism atm


Absolutely. Getting ready to go and knock doors on behalf of my mum's campaign for council shortly. To be honest given what Swindon is like even if I had rejoined the swp by then I'd probably do the same. Swindon needs more Bennite councillors!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> People who try to understand the way the swp works by reference to the wrp are either on one or woefully ignorant.


 
Yes. There is no comparison.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 17, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Obviously some of the weasels think the SWP is a hereditary monarchy


 
The use of Chanie Rosenberg's name here is a bit transparent. Although, BB has a certain point about the way the faction listed the House of Lords first.

The key thing here though is that the CC are implying that the faction are preparing for the split and are no longer loyal party members.


----------



## chilango (Feb 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> People who try to understand the way the swp works by reference to the wrp are either on one or woefully ignorant.



Dream on.


----------



## newbie (Feb 18, 2013)

Anna Gluckstein said:
			
		

> I went along with a couple of comrades and others and we were barred from entry! This was not only me, this was two CC members and *two of our journalists*.


have I got this right? no journalists are allowed at the AGM or EGM but "our" journalists expect to attend opposition meetings.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> have I got this right? no journalists are allowed at the AGM or EGM but "our" journalists expect to attend opposition meetings.


Why the quotes around our? SW journos at SWP meetings. That's uncontroversial across all the factions. What the faction presumably would say was this was a caucus meeting closed to non faction members.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 18, 2013)

[url]http://simplykingdom.org/eating-your-first-born-part-1/eating-shoes/[/URL]http://[/FONT][FONT=Verdana][URL]ht...g/eating-your-first-born-part-1/eating-shoes/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 18, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> http://simplykingdom.org/eating-your-first-born-part-1/eating-shoes/


 
Are you implying here that the Irish SWP really did pass their critical motion and will be making a critical statement about the British situation?

That would be quite possibly the second most astonishing turn of events in this whole row, following just after the House of Lords forming a faction.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Are you implying here that the Irish SWP really did pass their critical motion and will be making a critical statement about the British situation?
> 
> That would be quite possibly the second most astonishing turn of events in this whole row, following just after the House of Lords forming a faction.


if true, the next astonishing thing will be when you eat your shoes.

wanna bit of salt and pepper, nige?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 18, 2013)

And we insist on a video.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 18, 2013)

We get to choose the sauce?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> if true, the next astonishing thing will be when you eat your shoes.
> 
> wanna bit of salt and pepper, nige?


 
It will be up to Bolshiebhoy to choose the condiments. I won't start chewing until they put out their statement, mind you.

I can't decide if the notion of Allen going against head office in London or the alternative of him losing control of the cadre would be more astonishing.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Some very harsh words for the organisers of the meeting from several loyalists followed.


some absolute belters on there.

"The IS tradition is worth defending, don't let it disappear into some Syriza-like mash up."

this one is a beaut! sounds like i've heard it before though, on here maybe?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 18, 2013)

Think I already outed myself dk 

Still waiting for Oisin to do the same mind


----------



## newbie (Feb 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Why the quotes around our? SW journos at SWP meetings. That's uncontroversial across all the factions. What the faction presumably would say was this was a caucus meeting closed to non faction members.


only because it's so possessive. "_two CC members and two of our journalists_".  If she'd written 'SW journalists' it wouldn't have quite the same ring.  But she didn't, she said 'our'.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 19, 2013)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2013)

In Defence of Our Party: timidity in the face of provocations



> We publish a report of the caucus of the SWP's opposition faction, and the disappointingly soft approach they look to be taking in the struggles to come


 


> A motion to include the reinstatement of the four comrades as a demand in the faction statement was voted down by the meeting. Speakers for and against the motion said that they personally opposed the expulsions and would support challenging them at national Conference when the disputes committee report is formally heard.
> 
> The session on students went through the problems that have arisen post-conference for the student fraction as a result of the DC case. After contributions from students around the country the document submitted by Amy G and Mark B was accepted.
> 
> The discussion on the internet was a contested, but fraternal, debate on the role of the internet. It was agreed in a near unanimous vote to stop the commentary on blogs and Facebook and use the channels opened up by the faction to conduct the argument internally within the party.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2013)

How many the CC secretly got in the IDOP then?


----------



## killer b (Feb 19, 2013)

> It was agreed in a near unanimous vote to stop the commentary on blogs and Facebook and use the channels opened up by the faction to conduct the argument internally within the party.


this in particular is disappointing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 19, 2013)

internets is bourgeois deviation obvs


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 19, 2013)

killer b said:


> this in particular is disappointing.


 
That bit's actually pretty sensible, given the looming special conference date. They can justify publishing up until now to the middle ground types because the CC had effectively barred internal discussion. Continuing to publish right now, when there is actually a brief period of internal discussion, would benefit them little and give the CC a perfect "don't look at this, look at that!" argument. Everything will be leaked anyway.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 19, 2013)

The Platform must be spitting fur. Every chance of a sensible outcome and no place for the diehards.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The Platform *must be spitting fur*. Every chance of a sensible outcome and no place for the diehards.


 

were there no refreshments provided? Get these comrades a fucking oringina for lenins sake


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 19, 2013)

Some anonymous comment on a blog broke down the CC 500 by area. It's not perfect, as even a quick scan shows anomalies (like Leytonstone being listed separately from London, or Edinburgh appearing twice), but it gives a reasonable sense of the geography of CC loyalism.

The short version is that London is by far the main centre of CC support, but that doesn't tell us very much given that London is also the main centre of SWP membership! Manchester seems to be the main provincial Loyalist centre, along with Leeds. Birmingham is divided. No Loyalism to speak of in the North East.

*Location Count*
London 183
Manchester 33
Sheffield 30
Leeds 21
Glasgow 19
Birmingham 18
Chesterfield 17
Edinburgh 12
Leicester 12
Cardiff 10
Bristol 9
Lancaster 9
Leytonstone 8
South Wales 8
Coventry 7
Swansea 7
Nottingham 6
Dundee 5
Northampton 5
Portsmouth 5
Rotherham 5
Doncaster 4
Essex 4
Liverpool 4
Luton 4
Barnsley 3
Brighton 3
Fife 3
Huddersfield 3
Plymouth 3
Aberdeen 2
Bradford 2
Home Counties 2
Ipswich 2
Newcastle 2
Oxford 2
Southampton 2
Walsall 2
Ashfield and Mansfield 1
Blackburn 1
Cambridge 1
Crewe 1
Derby 1
Devon 1
Dorset 1
Dudley 1
Edinburgh 1
Exeter 1
Halifax 1
Merseyside 1
Newport 1
No location given 1
Norwich 1
Preston 1
Scunthorpe 1
Stoke-on-Trent 1
Swansea 1
Telford 1
Tyneside 1
Waltham Forest 1
Wigan 1
Wolverhampton 1
Total Result 500


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The Platform must be spitting fur. Every chance of a sensible outcome and no place for the diehards.


 
What do you mean by "a sensible outcome"?

The Platform are a minority strand, so their tactical position would be weak no matter what. As it stands though they have the protection of the Faction, and are clearly considered to be a legitimate part of it given that a bunch of them were elected onto the Faction steering committee.

The vacillators are clearly very keen to avoid a split, that's not a shock.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What do you mean by "a sensible outcome"?
> 
> The Platform are a minority strand, so their tactical position would be weak no matter what. As it stands though they have the protection of the Faction, and are clearly considered to be a legitimate part of it given that a bunch of them were elected onto the Faction steering committee.
> 
> The vacillators are clearly very keen to avoid a split, that's not a shock.


What you call vacillators I call folk not wanting to throw the baby out along with the dirty water of the delta case. As opposed to the Seymour types for whom delta was just the excuse. Sensible is anything that leaves the latter high and dry.


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The short version is that London is by far the main centre of CC support, but that doesn't tell us very much given that London is also the main centre of SWP membership! Manchester seems to be the main provincial Loyalist centre, along with Leeds.
> *Location Count*
> London 183
> Manchester 33
> ...


have you something against Sheffield? Quite a few more sigs than Leeds. All of those have pretty strong showings - and that must be almost everyone in Chesterfield branch as well


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> have you something against Sheffield? Quite a few more sigs than Leeds. All of those have pretty strong showings - and that must be almost everyone in Chesterfield branch as well


So you are aligning yourself with the loyalists? Meanwhile, three cheers for scousers. Also, the divide between the main Scottish cities implies that Scotland is going to be a mess. From the heat and vitriol of the loyalists I'm fairly pessimistic that a split can be avoided.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 19, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> So you are aligning yourself with the loyalists? Meanwhile, three cheers for scousers. Also, the divide between the main Scottish cities implies that Scotland is going to be a mess. From the heat and vitriol of the loyalists I'm fairly pessimistic that a split can be avoided.


Belboid a loyalist, have you read his posts?! I'm guessing he was just put off by NI's partial take on the numbers.


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2013)

I'll be sure to tell Maxine I'm a loyalist next time I speak to her - I suspect she'll disagree


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> have you something against Sheffield? Quite a few more sigs than Leeds. All of those have pretty strong showings - and that must be almost everyone in Chesterfield branch as well


 
Just overlooked Sheffield. And yes, I'm surprised that they have 17 members in Chesterfield to start with.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Just overlooked Sheffield. And yes, I'm surprised that they have 17 members in Chesterfield to start with.


 
17 real life active members in Chesterfield? Does sound like bollocks.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 19, 2013)

2 in Newcastle, Basher must be fuming lol


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 19, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> 17 real life active members in Chesterfield? Does sound like bollocks.


 
The world capital of Cliffism it seems.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 19, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> 17 real life active members in Chesterfield? Does sound like bollocks.


 
The left has always been strong in Chesterfield.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> 2 in Newcastle, Basher must be fuming lol


It's ok there a few Geordies I recognised on the London list too.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'll be sure to tell Maxine I'm a loyalist next time I speak to her - I suspect she'll disagree


 
*Trying to work out who Belboid is. He/She has to be a student member...?*


----------



## treelover (Feb 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> have you something against Sheffield? Quite a few more sigs than Leeds. All of those have pretty strong showings - and that must be almost everyone in Chesterfield branch as well


 

30 SWP defending the indefensible, not surprised though, always been a lot of fanatics in the local party...


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The left has always been strong in Chesterfield.


 
what's that got to do with the swp's membership in chesterfield?





I'll get my coat.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 19, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> *Trying to work out who Belboid is. He/She has to be a student member...?*


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 19, 2013)

Any bets on how long RS will respect the faction ban on blogging the debate? All this collective responsibility lark must be killing him.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 19, 2013)

i think you fancy him, the way you go on.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 19, 2013)

Jeesus I'd be talking about China or Bergfeld in that case not the wee mon.


----------



## belboid (Feb 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Any bets on how long RS will respect the faction ban on blogging the debate? All this collective responsibility lark must be killing him.


I suppose his latest post isn't explicitly factional, tho I wouldnt trust Alex & co to take it as such


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> I suppose his latest post isn't explicitly factional, tho I wouldnt trust Alex & co to take it as such


He can hardly be scolded for talking about rape when party leaflets are doing it. But the male 'real privilege' stuff will of course be a Pavlovian bell to those of us who cut our teeth on male benefits debates in the 'dogmatic' 80's. Including many in the faction.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He can hardly be scolded for talking about rape when party leaflets are doing it. But the male 'real privilege' stuff will of course be a Pavlovian bell to those of us who cut our teeth on male benefits debates in the 'dogmatic' 80's. Including many in the faction.


 
He's not agreeing with "privilege" theory.

As for the faction's decision not to directly publish factional material, I don't see why you'd expect him to be unable to deal with it. He did after all avoid publishing polemics against the party leadership for years on end. I doubt if he'll go full omerta, particularly given that loyalists regularly goad him on social media, but it's in his interests not to go churning out blog polemics for a few weeks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 20, 2013)

5 loyal swappies in northampton eh. First we take manhattan...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 20, 2013)

1 in Merseyside?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He's not agreeing with "privilege" theory.
> 
> As for the faction's decision not to directly publish factional material, I don't see why you'd expect him to be unable to deal with it. He did after all avoid publishing polemics against the party leadership for years on end. I doubt if he'll go full omerta, particularly given that loyalists regularly goad him on social media, but it's in his interests not to go churning out blog polemics for a few weeks.


Yes he is, as with Patriarchy he says he's not then goes on to let it in the back door. 'seems to be addressing a real problem' is his eclectic way of saying its the material root of sexism. The reference to Du Bois and psychological wage takes us right back to the 80's arguments about patriarchal states on a par with racist or (as in ulster) sectarian states structured to materially tie a group of workers to the status quo. This stuff is all familiar to old lags, it's just that RS never gets round to saying things as explicitly as older critics, as is his a little bit of this theory a little bit of that way.

The reason I'm doubtful he can hold himself in check until the conference is  the attack dog way he reacted to perfectly reasonable criticisms on FB over the last few weeks. Some of his fellow factionalists might put that down to his lack of social skills but the visceral hate is about more than that.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 20, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


>


 
Maybe not then!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 20, 2013)

He might be a (a very) mature student


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

That said, the party does have lots of 40-50 year old students. Or at least people who never left the university.


----------



## belboid (Feb 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He might be a (a very) mature student


no one has _ever_ called me mature....



butchersapron said:


> Or at least people who never left the university.


Hallam, not _the_ University.......oops, blown my cover!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> have you something against Sheffield? Quite a few more sigs than Leeds. All of those have pretty strong showings - and that must be almost everyone in Chesterfield branch as well


 
Dead right re: Chesterfield - they must have gone round all the inactive members too cos there's not more than 10 active in that branch. Sheffield is a bit different cos it's split between students and non-students, with the latter being the loyalists.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> no one has _ever_ called me mature....
> 
> 
> Hallam, not _the_ University.......oops, blown my cover!



Apologies Belboid! Somehow got the idea you were in the SWP


----------



## belboid (Feb 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Apologies Belboid! Somehow got the idea you were in the SWP


I will try to be more careful in the future.

btw - it's 'belboid' not 'Belboid' - I may not be in the SWP any more, but I am still anti-capitalist.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> 5 loyal swappies in northampton eh. First we take manhattan...


 
Northampton has a very radical history actually!

That's my old branch. I'd be very surprised if they had 5 members, unless they've recruited a couple of students this term.


----------



## the button (Feb 20, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Northampton has a very radical history actually!
> 
> That's my old branch. I'd be very surprised if they had 5 members, unless they've recruited a couple of students this term.


You were expelled before it went mainstream.


----------



## belboid (Feb 20, 2013)

ooh, Dickie Seymour is promoting Unhitched at Sheffield Uni tomorrow evening, could be...deeply tedious

http://www.shef.ac.uk/union/subsite-event.php?contentID=18389&contentFolderID=671


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 20, 2013)

It is well written but bits are uncanny. Seymour quotes Hitchens on his departure from the IS:

"Thus not only had the comrades moved from Luxemburg to the worst of Lenin,
but in making this shift of principle they had also changed ships on a
falling tide. Time to go. Still, I recollect the empty feeling I had when I
quietly cancelled my membership and did a fade. I remember trying to
tell myself that I was leaving for the same reasons I had joined. But the
relief - at ceasing to hear about 'rank and file' and 'building links' - soon
supplanted the guilt."

Can't see him fading but otherwise could have been written for RS himself.


----------



## pansalar (Feb 20, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Northampton has a very radical history actually!
> 
> That's my old branch. I'd be very surprised if they had 5 members, unless they've recruited a couple of students this term.


 
When was that?  Hope you don't mind me asking


----------



## mk12 (Feb 20, 2013)

Late 19th century. It was a radical, Liberal non-conformist town for a long time and had an active branch of the Marxist SDF pre-1900. It's also renowned for sending the atheist Charles Bradlaugh to Parliament four times in quick succession after he was refused to take his seat (for refusing to take the oath). There's a history of both urban and rural trade unionism around this time too, mainly based around the boot and shoe industry.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 20, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Late 19th century. It was a radical, Liberal non-conformist town for a long time and had an active branch of the Marxist SDF pre-1900. It's also renowned for sending the atheist Charles Bradlaugh to Parliament four times in quick succession after he was refused to take his seat (for refusing to take the oath). There's a history of both urban and rural trade unionism around this time too, mainly based around the boot and shoe industry.


An interesting time to be a member of the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

Don't forget the civil war (the real one) - nor the Diggers of Wellingborough!


----------



## ReturnOfElfman (Feb 20, 2013)

Had a dream last night that I saw a bunch of SWSS having a stall, maybe in Manchester. When I walked past I shouted "fuck off SWSS, go bum Trotsky" 

If I only remembered the classic 'I'd rather be a Maoist than Trot' (sung along to She'll be coming round the mountains tune). I'm just not witty enough, even in my dreams...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 20, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Late 19th century. It was a radical, Liberal non-conformist town for a long time and had an active branch of the Marxist SDF pre-1900. It's also renowned for sending the atheist Charles Bradlaugh to Parliament four times in quick succession after he was refused to take his seat (for refusing to take the oath). There's a history of both urban and rural trade unionism around this time too, mainly based around the boot and shoe industry.


 
Fucking hell - didn't realise you were that old


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 21, 2013)

The main CC motion for the Special Conference has (of course) been leaked: http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-central-committee-motion-to-special-conference

Little of interest. IDOOP are taking the piss by forming a faction. Condemns people talking outside the party. Reaffirms DC decision. Students shut up and do as your told. Delta a member in good standing. Take down the blogs etc immediately. Etc.

The only slight concession to the IDOOP is a single sentence indicating that other changes to DC procedure might be considered by a body which is to be set up to consider how to limit DC leaks and reports to conference. There is also no explicit mention of disciplinary action, which might be seen as a second concession, at least in terms of tone.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 21, 2013)

"Student work has always been the lifeblood of the SWP." 

Should the CC be saying that, even if it is true.


----------



## killer b (Feb 21, 2013)

Probably not, but they're done for either way. After the special conference they'll either be sent packing or left presiding over a skeleton party of deluded rape apologists that no-one else wants to talk to.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 21, 2013)

good riddance


----------



## chilango (Feb 21, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> good riddance



To who?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 21, 2013)

swaps. also:

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
West Ham United and warm woolen mittens
Dodgy rape cases all tied up with strings
These are a few of me favourite things!

Fucked-over comrades and crisp apple strudels
Doorbells and sleigh bells and porn mags with noodles
Loads of Ben Sherman and working-class bling
These are a few of me favourite things!

SWP girlies with red satin sashes
I ogle them all through my big, stupid glasses
Internal oppositions who melt into spring
These are a few of me favourite things!

After conference, now the bees sting
When I'm feeling sad, 
I simply remember 
me favourite things
and then I don't feel so bad!

http://rotteneels.blogspot.it/2013/01/blog-post_22.html?zx=3433f1f4937f08b4


----------



## chilango (Feb 21, 2013)

Oh Das Uberdog I remember when you were a foul mouthed Swappie loyalist...what happened? Same as to the rest of us?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 21, 2013)

didn't you read me all at the beginning of this thread?


----------



## chilango (Feb 21, 2013)

Nah. I missed the start of this cos it was when I had no wifi!

I'll go back and have a look...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 21, 2013)

I see that the Weekly Worker has now decided that the Socialist Party's disgraceful lack of public gloating and grave dancing is no longer a 1,000 word essay sort of issue. It needs a full 2,500 words. They even manage to spend a thousand or so of those words explaining what the Socialist Meme Caucus is (and are much too generous to its level of wit).


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see that the Weekly Worker has now decided that the Socialist Party's disgraceful lack of public gloating and grave dancing is no longer a 1,000 word essay sort of issue. It needs a full 2,500 words. They even manage to spend a thousand or so of those words explaining what the Socialist Meme Caucus is (and are much too generous to its level of wit).


 
they mentioned the socialist meme caucus? wow, I'll have to check it out. 

my two meagre contributions to the smc phenomenon:


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 21, 2013)

mk12 said:


> There's a history of both urban and rural trade unionism around this time too, mainly based around the boot and shoe industry.


 
Cobblers


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 21, 2013)

fuck off with your shit puns, go on shoo


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 21, 2013)

Kick out the tories
the con-dem coalition need to be given the boot

etc


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 21, 2013)

Sockialist Waders Party.









I'll get my coat.


----------



## manny-p (Feb 21, 2013)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/callinicos-threatens-lynch-mobs

"This report of a recent 'International Socialism Journal' meeting gives a taste of the bullying, intimidating atmosphere that is building in the Socialist Workers Party as the beleaguered central committee and its supporters feel the crisis escalating out of control and take out their rage on the opposition and its legitimate concerns."

Has this been mentioned yet?


----------



## discokermit (Feb 21, 2013)

yep. sorry.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 21, 2013)

Hello chums. Being away from me normal place of domicile I thought I'd make a brief appearance given I've been mentioned once or twice.

First the idea expressed somewhee back in this thread that AMM and Revolutionary History are organising centres for the opposition in the SWP is silly. I serve on the EB of the latter with Ian Birchall who is also a friend but despite that there is no way on this Earth that Ian would discuss intenal SWP matters with anybody not a member. 

One point worth making is that by no means all or even the majority of members of the Democratic Renewal Platform support Seymours views on either Syriza or Patriarchy theory. But every supporter of the Platform is comrade for comrade more committed to the IS Tradition and is better read in it than are the followers of the apparat faction.

Another point of interest is that the succesive crises which have hit the SWP since it dived headfirst into the cesspit of populism that was Respect have been related on the new Soviet Goon Boy blog by an anonymous poster. I've not read it yet so cannot comment on its value.

Thats all from me now I need some kip!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 21, 2013)

hello


----------



## belboid (Feb 21, 2013)

good to see you back, neppers


neprimerimye said:


> One point worth making is that by no means all or even the majority of members of the Democratic Renewal Platform support Seymours views on either Syriza or Patriarchy theory. But every supporter of the Platform is comrade for comrade more committed to the IS Tradition and is better read in it than are the followers of the apparat faction.


how do you know this?  I can well believe it of Davison, but haven't seen anything from anyone else in the faction to disavow me of the notion ythat they are supportive of seymour


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 22, 2013)

neprimerimye said:
			
		

> First the idea expressed somewhee back in this thread that AMM and Revolutionary History are organising centres for the opposition in the SWP is silly. I serve on the EB of the latter with Ian Birchall who is also a friend but despite that there is no way on this Earth that Ian would discuss intenal SWP matters with anybody not a member.




i believe it's my claim you're responding to here, so let me defend it! the AMM was, without a doubt, an external source of party discussion which was utilised by those campaigning for democracy within the organisation before the current scandal unfolded - and they had been making incremental progress in that regard. i really don't see how the republication of Jim Higgins, plus the myriad of other posts on the AMM site devoted to swapping anecdotes from time in the SWP and discussing IS theory can be regarded as anything other than a subversive attempt to impact on the internal culture of the organisation.. and even if it wasn't it worked as one!

i agree that the link with RH is less obvious, but from my own direct experience i used your organisation to justify my 'abstract' studies into the history of the IS (which i blogged at the time) and i know that it's not just me either! though it's not necessarily your aim, the proximity of both organisations to the SWP (both of you continue to book your yearly Marxism stalls - though maybe no more?) did create platforms of 'acceptable' discourse within the SWP which were used by those seeking to influence change inside the organisation.


----------



## Random (Feb 22, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> Hello chums. Being away from me normal place of domicile I thought I'd make a brief appearance given I've been mentioned once or twice.


 Hope you'll stick around a bit neppers


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 22, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> One point worth making is that by no means all or even the majority of members of the Democratic Renewal Platform support Seymours views on either Syriza or Patriarchy theory. But every supporter of the Platform is comrade for comrade more committed to the IS Tradition and is better read in it than are the followers of the apparat faction.


Hi there.

Think I'd find that easier to believe if you said the faction rather than the platform. If anything other members of the platform who've had something to say have seemed less connected to the classic IS ideas than Seymour. No disrespect but a lot of the platform seem to be recentish recruits with the usual student politics baggage. Now if we were talking Stack, Barker, Birchall then that'd be a different matter but we're not.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2013)

Classic Bhoy, stuff that assumes "the usual student politics baggage" - (it's been your bread and meat since 92), crude attempts to divide into good and bad parts of the faction  - the classic managerial tactics of the CC and the office, not a revolutionary socialist party. Oh, hang on.


----------



## Pilum (Feb 22, 2013)

The SWP, to paraphrase Voltaire, no Socialists, no Workers, no Party


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2013)

That's the Collective of English Prostitutes.

Bye.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 22, 2013)

Chums learn to read!

Of course Andy Wilson and AMM have sought to have an influence on debate within the SWP. Why else would they have republished material by Jim Higgins and Ray Challinor? Why else post articles concerning the SWP on the AMM website. But they are not an organising centre for the opposition or any part of it.

Somethng similar can be said of some members of the Revolutionary History EB. But I do need to make this crystal clear the likes of John Plant would find it intensely annoying to hear the suggestion that they, as good comrades who have never had any connection with IS/SWP, would seek to influence an opposition within the group. Moreover my friend Ian Birchall refuses, on principle, to even discuss the internal affairs of the SWP with the rest of us. Finally the entire board is united in the belief that Revolutionary Histry exists to serve the entire revolutionary movement in this country and eslewhere and is therefore neutral in any internal party disputes. Which is why we rarely even cover events of recent years as they would be divisive of the board.

I will say that some members of the board have sught to influence members of the SWP. Which is why I wrote the intial draft of the index of the ISJ and have digitised many articles from that journal. Additional articles from my smal library have been digitised by fellow board member and good friend Ted Crawford. But this is the limit that we have sought to influence members of the SWP politically.

The only tiny exception to this have been my own personal and largely private conversations with comrades in the SWP. I have found it depressing, to give one example, to have to argue with a comrade I recruited nearly twenty years ago to remain in a party the leadership of which he now regards as corrupted beyond recuperation


----------



## sihhi (Feb 22, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> The only tiny exception to this have been my own personal and largely private conversations with comrades in the SWP. I have found it depressing, to give one example, to have to argue with a comrade I recruited nearly twenty years ago to remain in a party the leadership of which he now regards as corrupted beyond recuperation


 
I don't get you, do you want him to resign or to stay in the SWP?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2013)

Some people read RH and dream about AMM and then-->baM!


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 22, 2013)

How do I know the political convictions of the Platform comrades? Well I know many of them for one thing and have done political work with some.

Certainly none of them have disavowed Seymour and to do so would be rank disloyalty and this is a group best characterised by their loyalty to each other, the IS tradition and the SWP.

I have developed considerable respect for Seymour, whose writings usually bored me in the past, and all the Platform comrades who have saved the revolutionary honour of IS. I would also extend the same sentiments to the Faction comrades whose only fault it is to act like comrades when it is the apparat and their befuddled followers who no longer acknowledge, except in the breach, ordinary decency.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Classic Bhoy, stuff that assumes "the usual student politics baggage" - (it's been your bread and meat since 92), crude attempts to divide into good and bad parts of the faction  - the classic managerial tactics of the CC and the office, not a revolutionary socialist party. Oh, hang on.


You found your voice then now that a vague friend turned up. get a grip this is pretty low level aggro, no disrespect to the fellow.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 23, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> How do I know the political convictions of the Platform comrades? Well I know many of them for one thing and have done political work with some.
> 
> Certainly none of them have disavowed Seymour and to do so would be rank disloyalty and this is a group best characterised by their loyalty to each other, the IS tradition and the SWP.
> 
> I have developed considerable respect for Seymour, whose writings usually bored me in the past, and all the Platform comrades who have saved the revolutionary honour of IS. I would also extend the same sentiments to the Faction comrades whose only fault it is to act like comrades when it is the apparat and their befuddled followers who no longer acknowledge, except in the breach, ordinary decency.


I have major respect for you fellow, we've spoken often down the years. But really the notion that the IS needed a self important eclectic like Seymour to save its honour is just well...silly. He's not one of us, he's headed to a different place.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He's not one of us


 
The most damning indictment of all.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 23, 2013)

Lol. The idea of the IS as the Simpsons works, dysfunctional family that unites when attacked. Always seen myself as one of the unwanted sisters in law, though objectively I might be Mr Burns.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 23, 2013)

Minor spat on twitter between Seymour and Simon Assaf, a leading loyalist who called someone (an anonymous tweeter) a spook. Seymour demanding an apology for said anon.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Minor spat on twitter between Seymour and Simon Assaf, a leading loyalist who called someone (an anonymous tweeter) a spook. Seymour demanding an apology for said anon.


 
I bet the real 'spooks' within the SWP are pissing themselves at that minor spat.


----------



## chilango (Feb 23, 2013)

I bet there are no spooks in the SWP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol. The idea of the IS as the Simpsons works, dysfunctional family that unites when attacked. Always seen myself as one of the unwanted sisters in law, though objectively I might be Mr Burns.


 
Don't flatter yourself. You're Milhouse.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 23, 2013)

chilango said:


> I bet there are no spooks in the SWP.


 
seriously? I would have thought it was a given. And to be clear, I'm not throwing mud at the SWP.


----------



## chilango (Feb 23, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> seriously? I would have thought it was a given. And to be clear, I'm not throwing mud at the SWP.



At one time, yeah.

Now with budget cuts, the SWP shrinking into obscurity and the focus on Islamism as the "new enemy", I doubt it. They probably just have some poor sod in an office reading all the blogs.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 23, 2013)

chilango said:


> I bet there are no spooks in the SWP.


 
According to former MI5 officer, David Shayler, there were once 14 spooks monitoring the SWP. This number was later reduced, with the involvement of Shaylor's former colleague, Annie Machon.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 23, 2013)

Butchers tweeted it I think.......the SWPs intervention at Unison's  Women Conference didn't go down too well  http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/20...the-swp-and-the-vote-to-support-rape-victims/
Having said that its generally the sort of conference that neither the CC supporters or the platform or the faction would go down well, or perhaps any one on the trot left.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 23, 2013)

audiotech said:


> According to former MI5 officer, David Shayler, there were once 14 spooks monitoring the SWP. This number was later reduced, with the involvement of Shaylor's former colleague, Annie Machon.


 
Pretty much any group from any spectrum that supports any form of direct action home or abroad is monitored these days. If any area really suffers from its its not the left its the far right ,the Islamists and dissident republicans.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 23, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Pretty much any group from any spectrum that supports any form of direct action home or abroad is monitored these days. If any area really suffers from its its not the left its the far right ,the Islamists and dissident republicans.


That should exempt the SWP from being monitored then. They do not agree with individual acts of terrorism. Unspecified calls for a revolution do not amount to direct action.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 23, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That should exempt the SWP from being monitored then. They do not agree with individual acts of terrorism. Unspecified calls for a revolution do not amount to direct action.


 
The point about whether they agree or disagree with individual acts of terrorism isn't the point. The SWP like any other left group has carried out and been involved in direct action in the past however flawed but i guess you are a bit of a purist?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 23, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The point about whether they agree or disagree with individual acts of terrorism isn't the point. The SWP like any other left group has carried out and been involved in direct action in the past however flawed but i guess you are a bit of a purist?


As the driven snow mate, as the driven snow. I must have blinked in the past.


----------



## chilango (Feb 23, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Pretty much any group from any spectrum that supports any form of direct action home or abroad is monitored these days. If any area really suffers from its its not the left its the far right ,the Islamists and dissident republicans.



Yeah.

There's a difference between being monitored and having spooks inside.

Not that it matters.


----------



## october_lost (Feb 23, 2013)

I would have thought the SWP was a spooks wet dream: easy access, centralised, suffering from group-think, lack of spontaneity etc.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 23, 2013)

october_lost said:


> I would have thought the SWP was a spooks wet dream: easy access, centralised, suffering from group-think, lack of spontaneity etc.


 
Whilst some are arguing on here that the CC is an insular cabal removed from its membership? The ability of the state to infiltrate just about any  political organisation should not be underestimated and consequently I woldn't overestimate any type of groups resilience to this, and that's without police informers, sleepers from other groups etc.

From the CP, to the BUF, to Animal Libbers, eco types, the anarchist scene, republicans, the present far right; there are lots of examples.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 23, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Whilst some are arguing on here that the CC is an insular cabal removed from its membership? The ability of the state to infiltrate just about any political organisation should not be underestimated and consequently I woldn't overestimate any type of groups resilience to this, and that's without police informers, sleepers from other groups etc.
> 
> From the CP, to the BUF, to Animal Libbers, eco types, the anarchist scene, republicans, the present far right; there are lots of examples.


Well if there are any spooks inside the SWP at the moment you can bet they will be working on behalf of the CC to keep the organisation together. It will complicate their job if it breaks up. Worst of all if the SWP goes into meltdown that will mean the threat of redundancies at MI5. That more or less guarantees that something new will be set up to replace it and it will be aided by the security services. There must already be logistical problems for the spooks since the setting up of Counterfire. It must be so difficult for the State assets these days.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 23, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Well if there are any spooks inside the SWP at the moment you can bet they will be working on behalf of the CC to keep the organisation together. It will complicate their job if it breaks up. Worst of all if the SWP goes into meltdown that will mean the threat of redundancies at MI5. That more or less guarantees that something new will be set up to replace it and it will be aided by the security services. There must already be logistical problems for the spooks since the setting up of Counterfire. It must be so difficult for the State assets these days.


 
Comforting to know that we have such insight on our side


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Minor spat on twitter between Seymour and Simon Assaf, a leading loyalist who called someone (an anonymous tweeter) a spook. Seymour demanding an apology for said anon.


 
It was pretty insane stuff. Someone on Twitter disagreed with him and then Assaf announced, out of nowhere, that she was "a spook". And as more and more people told him that it really wasn't accepable to throw that sort of accusation around, he just got more and more stubborn. The closest thing to "evidence" he came up with was that she used a pseudonym on Twitter, and why would she do that if she didn't have something to hide? eh? eh?


----------



## october_lost (Feb 23, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Whilst some are arguing on here that the CC is an insular cabal removed from its membership?


Leninist sects usually talk about capturing the best assests of the organisation and defending their advanced ideas. Unless I am not much mistaken the SWPs CC are formed from a core academic public schoolboy network. Which, surprisingly, is also where the state recruits. 



The39thStep said:


> The ability of the state to infiltrate just about any  political organisation should not be underestimated and consequently I woldn't overestimate any type of groups resilience to this, and that's without police informers, sleepers from other groups etc.


I have an ex-maoist reflections on organisational form somewhere, it discusses these things at length, and while I agree with you main, groups like the ALF have  punched above their weight because their decentralised form makes it difficult to infiltrate them. The drawbacks? - Can such a model be used as mass action? Can it disseminate ideas to a much wider audience? 

I guess these are the organisational questions facing libertarian activists from the outset.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 23, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Comforting to know that we have such insight on our side


Yes all of this information is in the MI5 Internal Bulletin and also the MI5 Operators Notes which are published in Wikileaks.



probably


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 23, 2013)

october_lost said:


> Leninist sects usually talk about capturing the best assests of the organisation and defending their advanced ideas. Unless I am not much mistaken the SWPs CC are formed from a core academic public schoolboy network. Which, surprisingly, is also where the state recruits.
> 
> 
> I have an ex-maoist reflections on organisational form somewhere, it discusses these things at length, and while I agree with you main, groups like the ALF have punched above their weight because their decentralised form makes it difficult to infiltrate them. The drawbacks? - Can such a model be used as mass action? Can it disseminate ideas to a much wider audience?
> ...


 
To be fair to the SWP CC  the background of its membership are not from a core academic public school network. Try the present left commentariat for that and swathes of the anarchist scene.


----------



## october_lost (Feb 23, 2013)

Is there a list of their CC members knocking about?


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 23, 2013)

october_lost said:


> Is there a list of their CC members knocking about?


I'd bet a tenner none of them went to a comprehensive. Not that this disqualifies them from leading a revolutionary party. It's failing to admit they handled the rape accusation properly which does that.


----------



## pir (Feb 23, 2013)

It's on Wikipedia:


> As of 2013 the central committee members were: Weyman Bennett, Michael Bradley, Alex Callinicos, Joseph Choonara, Charlie Kimber, Amy Leather, Judith Orr, Julie Sherry and Mark L Thomas. Two trade union activists, whose names are withheld to protect them from their employers, were also elected.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 23, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I'd bet a tenner none of them went to a comprehensive. Not that this disqualifies them from leading a revolutionary party. It's failing to admit they handled the rape accusation properly which does that.


I'd bet a lot more than a tenner that Oisin knows them a lot better than he's letting on and that he knows at least one of them was very much a comp boy.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'd bet a lot more than a tenner that Oisin knows them a lot better than he's letting on and that he knows at least one of them was very much a comp boy.


 
*Edited:* Scrub that. I'm just being a cheeky bastard.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 23, 2013)

The faction's motions are up on the CPGB/WW site. Again, not a whole of interest, they are still hoping for peace and reconciliation. There is an updated membership list though with 473 names on it. They are also conveniently grouped by district so you can get a sense of the geography of the divide.

For instance, the faction appear to have more support in London than the CC (without taking into account any additional names the apparatus has scrounged up for the loyalist faction in the last week). That's rather remarkable, given that it's where the apparatus is based.

There are still some weird anomalies though, like a couple of branches that passed opposition motions while only having one faction member each in them. Which suggests that there are still some people independent of either faction out there. Although in rapidly decreasing numbers. The faction appears to have two members in all of Wales by the way, which is pathetic even taking into account the weakness of the SWP in Wales these days.

473 is a lot, but it also indicates that new sign up are slowing to a trickle. I doubt if they'll be much over 500 by the time the aggregates are held. The apparatus faction had been going for less time when we got word of their numbers, so they probably still had a bit more growth ahead that point. I'd guess that they might make 750 by the start of the aggregates. Of course, given that there are so many completely inactive people on the membership lists, how many of them get signed up to anything by determined apparatus people (or local oppositionists with access to those lists) isn't really particularly relevant.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 23, 2013)

Neither Marx, Lenin or Trotsky were working class, all being born into wealthy middle class families and going to University which in those days was something that the working class could not do. So the SWP are following in a long tradition. They will look down on Stalin because apart from not approving of 'socialism in one country', he was skint and came from a poor background. He would bring down the tone of the SWP.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 23, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Neither Marx, Lenin or Trotsky were working class, all being born into wealthy middle class families and going to University which in those days was something that the working class could not do. So the SWP are following in a long tradition. They will look down on Stalin because apart from not approving of 'socialism in one country', he was skint and came from a poor background. He would bring down the tone of the SWP.


 

Uncle joes mum had _gentleman friends _which allowed him access to the very best dirt poor georgia could offer. He affected peasant manners all of his days but even he was not as dirt poor as he'd have liked to have made out- his old man had apprentices! before the drink.


----------



## JimW (Feb 23, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> ... He would bring down the tone of the SWP.


He'd have sorted this faction business out a lot sooner, mind.


----------



## october_lost (Feb 23, 2013)

> Michael Bradley


 Can now put a name to a face, what a thoroughly nasty little cunt


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 23, 2013)

october_lost said:


> Can now put a name to a face, what a thoroughly nasty little cunt


Remember him from Southampton, what a shit.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 23, 2013)

He can't be all bad if barney dislikes him so much.


----------



## SLK (Feb 23, 2013)

I only knew him as West London district organiser when I moved to London originally - and lived on the RAF barracks at Uxbridge but was a member. Seemed competent, but I was 18.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 23, 2013)

Spent years working with him in Dublin and Camden, total commitment but also rarely for a professional revolutionary quite capable of talking to people who aren't.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'd bet a lot more than a tenner that Oisin knows them a lot better than he's letting on and that he knows at least one of them was very much a comp boy.


I know Weyman, Alex, Charlie, and Judith from that list, but couldn't vouch for their education. The rest are after my time. Which one is the 'comp boy'?
_Weyman Bennett, Michael Bradley, Alex Callinicos, Joseph Choonara, Charlie Kimber, Amy Leather, Judith Orr, Julie Sherry and Mark L Thomas. _


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 23, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It was pretty insane stuff. Someone on Twitter disagreed with him and then Assaf announced, out of nowhere, that she was "a spook". And as more and more people told him that it really wasn't accepable to throw that sort of accusation around, he just got more and more stubborn. The closest thing to "evidence" he came up with was that she used a pseudonym on Twitter, and why would she do that if she didn't have something to hide? eh? eh?


One side effect of twitter anonymity is claims and counter claims like this. To be fair though the person being 'slandered' had been spending their time insulting anyone who defended the cc as 'rape apologists'. Slander comes in many flavours.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Spent years working with him in Dublin and Camden, total commitment but also rarely for a professional revolutionary quite capable of talking to people who aren't.


Wasn't he expelled from the Irish SWP for violence towards another member?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 23, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I know Weyman, Alex, Charlie, and Judith from that list, but couldn't vouch for their education. The rest are after my time. Which one is the 'comp boy'?
> _Weyman Bennett, Michael Bradley, Alex Callinicos, Joseph Choonara, Charlie Kimber, Amy Leather, Judith Orr, Julie Sherry and Mark L Thomas. _


From what you say about when you were active in Dublin I suspect you may missed MB who had probably gone home to London by then but I'm surprised you wouldn't know of him.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 23, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Wasn't he expelled from the Irish SWP for violence towards another member?


Crikey, no.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 23, 2013)

The person being attacked on twitter is Seymours fiancee hence the incredible bitterness.


----------



## neprimerimye (Feb 23, 2013)

This might be worth a read given that it appears on a new blog from Splintered Sunrise who has form for publishng similar 'anonymous' material about the SWP.

http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...nd-fileism-principles-and-recent-experiences/


----------



## belboid (Feb 23, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Neither Marx, Lenin or Trotsky were working class, all being born into wealthy middle class families and going to University which in those days was something that the working class could not do. So the SWP are following in a long tradition. They will look down on Stalin because apart from not approving of 'socialism in one country', he was skint and came from a poor background. He would bring down the tone of the SWP.


If only they had Kropotkin with them!


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Crikey, no.


I never met MB and since Ireland doesn't have quite the same comp vs grammar school thing going on, I quibble that I'm still in the running to win my bet. So does your connection to MB explain your political position on this topic? Also, if you are still in touch with him, you might ask him was he ever expelled from the Irish SWP.


----------



## SLK (Feb 24, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> This might be worth a read given that it appears on a new blog from Splintered Sunrise who has form for publishng similar 'anonymous' material about the SWP.
> 
> http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...nd-fileism-principles-and-recent-experiences/


 
It is worth a read. The article after struck a chord with me as well - about why age can matter: http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/the-age-gap-and-why-it-matters/


----------



## emanymton (Feb 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> It is worth a read. The article after struck a chord with me as well - about why age can matter: http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/the-age-gap-and-why-it-matters/


A few very good piece, sums up my own thinking quite well.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I never met MB and since Ireland doesn't have quite the same comp vs grammar school thing going on, I quibble that I'm still in the running to win my bet. So does your connection to MB explain your political position on this topic? Also, if you are still in touch with him, you might ask him was he ever expelled from the Irish SWP.


You do see conspiracies everywhere. It's much simpler than that, I read what everyone has to say and have arrived at the position I've arrived at, nobody 'got' to me or whatever you think the process is. I speak to people from both sides now and I dont automatically agree with any of them. I worked closely with people who are now loyalists as well as oppositionists in my time in the party, one leading oppositionist stayed at my house in Dublin for a time and I'm pretty sure I must have worked closely with you given the timeline, you were clearly very active at the same time I was over there. Which makes your tone on all this all the harder for me to understand. Mind, I left so long ago that I still can't comprehend a universe in which the prof, Rees and Bambi aren't still thick as thieves. So clearly people change.

You misunderstand though, MB is a working class London boy born and bred, as salt of the earth as they come (not that this shit matters but as you have a tenner riding on it!). He worked with us in Dublin for a while before returning to England. I'm not going to bother anyone with daft questions about gossip flung about by someone who won't even come clean with who they are and what their relationship is to all this. You're very interested in other peoples motivation and influences but you're very shy about your own.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 24, 2013)

I'd be amazed if Weyman Bennett didn't go to a comp...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> A few very good piece, sums up my own thinking quite well.


It manages to make a few valid points about appropriateness but ruins it with the final paragraph and it's disgusting 'analysis' of the age profile of pro cc folk and the clear implication that we all have the same 'jailbait fetish'  he accuses delta of.

The bit about teachers and others in positions of power not having sex with those in their care of a vulnerable age is more than fair. But I did find the discussion of teenage women and their alleged inability to make sexual choices a tad patronising. Especially as I had (from the age of 22) a long standing relationship with a woman who was 17 when we got together and who was definitely my senior in sexual and emotional maturity throughout our relationship.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> It is worth a read. The article after struck a chord with me as well - about why age can matter: http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/the-age-gap-and-why-it-matters/


 That is very good. I remember Smith up at the front during the 2009 conference saying how he wanted "his army of angry FE students", only now we find out why he was so interested. Of course all this is just bourgeois moralising.


----------



## newbie (Feb 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> It is worth a read. The article after struck a chord with me as well - about why age can matter: http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/the-age-gap-and-why-it-matters/


thanks for pointing that one out, definitely worth reading.

so she was seventeen when their relationship started (19 when the alleged rape happened, early 20s now). Fresh out of school, or maybe still there, while he was in his later 40s and in a position of authority and trust.  hmm.



> For a party leader pushing fifty – and not a well-preserved fifty either – to be conducting a sexual relationship with a teenage girl in the ranks is not appropriate for a party leader. Given the extreme age gap and the power relations involved, it’s definitely sleazy and it certainly seems predatory.


 


> it really is extraordinary that the CC is willing to drive the party onto the rocks to protect one man who has comprehensively revealed himself to be a sleazy old pervert.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> The person being attacked on twitter is Seymours fiancee hence the incredible bitterness.


Ah in fairness that does explain Seymour's reaction. Mind you would Assaf know this?


----------



## newbie (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It manages to make a few valid points about appropriateness but ruins it with the final paragraph and it's disgusting 'analysis' of the age profile of pro cc folk and the clear implication that we all have the same 'jailbait fetish' he accuses delta of.
> 
> The bit about teachers and others in positions of power not having sex with those in their care of a vulnerable age is more than fair. But I did find the discussion of teenage women and their alleged inability to make sexual choices a tad patronising. Especially as I had (from the age of 22) a long standing relationship with a woman who was 17 when we got together and who was definitely my senior in sexual and emotional maturity throughout our relationship.


17/22 is not the same as 17/47.

it just isn't, even if it's two randoms who meet in a club, let alone leader and recruit.


----------



## tony collins (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Ah in fairness that does explain Seymour's reaction. Mind you would Assaf know this?


 
Seymour's was a tame reaction - everyone else who replied to Assaf made similar, but stronger points. The guy used to be brilliant, but was turned into a hackish bruiser during the Respect split - the party used him to ratchet things up. That's now his MO - even before the 2013 conference, Assaf was on FB using similar language about faction opponents. He's performing his role marvellously, making sure people fall out with each other and can't work together again in the future - that's how they did it in 2007 and before, and it's why so many people end up with so much hatred about the party. Scorched earth.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

newbie This whole area is a minefield. Each relationship is different and has to be judged on it's own merits. 17/47 is not automatically abusive or are we saying on the left that the age of consent is too low?! I know a woman who had a fling at 16 with a woman well into her late 30's and she never regretted it. Every teen is different of course and the job of the dc was to try and decide whether this teen's relationship with this older man (who was also her senior in the party) was abusive. A majority decided it wasn't but as we know Stack demurred on the balance of probability.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

tony collins said:


> Seymour's was a tame reaction - everyone else who replied to Assaf made similar, but stronger points. The guy used to be brilliant, but was turned into a hackish bruiser during the Respect split - the party used him to ratchet things up. That's now his MO - even before the 2013 conference, Assaf was on FB using similar language about faction opponents. He's performing his role marvellously, making sure people fall out with each other and can't work together again in the future - that's how they did it in 2007 and before, and it's why so many people end up with so much hatred about the party. Scorched earth.


There is a certain logic of entrenchment and dehumanisation in these splits yes. Obviously people will take people as they find them and my only interaction with him recently was when he patiently explained his position on Syria to me on FB when I was arguing the Counterfire position quite aggressively (and his patient argument persuaded me). Didn't strike me as hackish then but maybe that's cause he was talking to a non member


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2013)

of course it should be judged on its merits. That's what people are doing, and concluding that smith is (at best) a sleazy old fuck who abused his position.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> of course it should be judged on its merits. That's what people are doing, and concluding that smith is (at best) a sleazy old fuck who abused his position.


But that's the point, how can any of us judge from this distance the merits of a messy human relationship we don't know enough about? I knew delta very well years ago and have my own prejudices about his character and what he might be capable of but I would'nt dream of saying I know whether he is or isn't guilty of anything here. The only people who know are those who have access to the full facts of what went on. Which is 0.01% of the people commenting on this mess.


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2013)

I dont know whether he's guilty. Sleazy old fuck is the best case scenario here, the bare fucking minimum.


----------



## cesare (Feb 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> I dont know whether he's guilty. Sleazy old fuck is the best case scenario here, the bare fucking minimum.


Yep.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Wasn't he expelled from the Irish SWP for violence towards another member?


 
No but I think at one time someone  told me he had been suspended for biting someone's ear.God knows where.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 24, 2013)

This bit to me makes very good sense.



> I think only Pat Stack grasped on the DC, is that it makes sense to apply a civil rather than a criminal standard. That is, determining that something is probable rather than that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
> So, even if the DC feels it can’t establish rape – which, as we’ve discussed, is a crime even the state’s criminal justice system finds difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt – that shouldn’t close the case. The proper thing for the DC to adjudicate is whether or not a party member has behaved in a way that would bring the party into disrepute. And common sense dictates that party leaders should be held to a higher standard than the rank and file, though in the SWP it often seems like it’s the other way around.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> I dont know whether he's guilty. Sleazy old fuck is the best case scenario here, the bare fucking minimum.


 
I bet his partner felt the same.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> I dont know whether he's guilty. Sleazy old fuck is the best case scenario here, the bare fucking minimum.


Thing is without proof of abuse this phrase "sleazy old fuck" is as meaningless as the throwaway line in the article above "and not a well-preserved fifty either". How dare an old, not very attractive man have sex with a young woman.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thing is without proof of abuse this phrase "sleazy old fuck" is as meaningless as the throwaway line in the article above "and not a well-preserved fifty either". How dare an old, not very attractive man have sex with a young woman.


 
see post 6890


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thing is without proof of abuse this phrase "sleazy old fuck" is as meaningless as the throwaway line in the article above "and not a well-preserved fifty either". How dare an old, not very attractive man have sex with a young woman.


 
It's not the attractiveness or otherwise that's at issue; it is the imbalance in power between a middle aged man, longstanding party leader, central committee member in a democratic centralist organisation and a teenage new recruit. In what world did he think having a relationship with her was any sort of good idea?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

This wasn't the first article that mentioned his appearance. It was the first I've seen to disgracefully smear everyone over 40 on the pro cc list as potential abusers sympathising with one of their own.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 24, 2013)

It seems unbelievable that no one at any stage ( before the allegation was made) took him on one side and said 'whether you think this is an intrusion on your personal life we think there is a political and reputational issue here and that is we cannot have a leading member of your age in a relationship with someone this age. You have one last opportunity choose what is important before we do.'


----------



## killer b (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> This wasn't the first article that mentioned his appearance. It was the first I've seen to disgracefully smear everyone over 40 on the pro cc list as potential abusers sympathising with one of their own.


you're hyperventilating again.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> see post 6890


Yeap the standards do have to be higher for him and the burden of proof should be less rigorous. I read Candy's description of the dc process as agreeing with that but the fact Stack disagrees is a huge concern. Though why he didn't speak out more clearly at the time isn't clear.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> you're hyperventilating again.


No I'm just disappointed moral outrage is only allowed to work one way.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> No but I think at one time someone told me he had been suspended for biting someone's ear.God knows where.


Ahem. Yes well it was a fair fight by all accounts.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeap the standards do have to be higher for him and the burden of proof should be less rigorous. I read Candy's description of the dc process as agreeing with that but the fact Stack disagrees is a huge concern. Though why he didn't speak out more clearly at the time isn't clear.


You really are grasping. Burden of proof, as is being repeatedly pointed out to you, doesn't need to come into the equation. There is a matter of fact as to whether an age gap of that size skews the power relation towards the male partner; there is a matter of fact as to whether his position in the party and her position reinforce and further aggravate that disparity. It doesn't need anything to have reportedly gone wrong for those facts to obtain and for someone in the party to have pointed out that this may not be the most appropriate conduct for a party secretary. I fail to see why you, even in your guise of permanent apologist for the loyalist position can’t acknowledge this. This is to do with power not morality.


----------



## Ben Sorin (Feb 24, 2013)

kavenism said:


> You really are grasping. Burden of proof, as is being repeatedly pointed out to you, doesn't need to come into the equation. There is a matter of fact as to whether an age gap of that size skews the power relation towards the male partner; there is a matter of fact as to whether his position in the party and her position reinforce and further aggravate that disparity. It doesn't need anything to have reportedly gone wrong for those facts to obtain and for someone in the party to have pointed out that this may not be the most appropriate conduct for a party secretary. I fail to see why you, even in your guise of permanent apologist for the loyalist position can’t acknowledge this. This is to do with power not morality.


 

Surely the misuse of power is a moral issue? It sounds like you think it is from the tone of what you write in any case. Surely 'not the most appropriate conduct' means you think it was 'wrong' morally for him to engage in that behaviour?

The issue of whether MS sexually harrassed the young member is one issue.

The issue of whether a relationship of the _type_ MS had with the younger party member, even if it were entirely consensual and involved no harrassment, was still 'inappropriate' for the reasons you've given, is another.

While I can entirely see why people are saying the relationship was 'inappropriate', period, I think it's a very dangerous path to go down. In all relationships there is a power differential of some kind. Once you go down the route of saying some consenting adult relationships are 'inappropriate' then you need to answer what kind of power differential is 'appropriate' and accpetable and who gets to decide that. What age differential is appropriate? Would have it been OK if MS had been an older, more senior woman and the younger party member a man? Or if she had been a less junior party member? On what basis? Who are you to decide? Surely context and detail is important and no generalised rule can account for that context?


----------



## kavenism (Feb 24, 2013)

Can you edit that, I'm confused.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

There is a creeping tendency here to see this relationship as a priori abusive cause of the age/seniority things. That's a load of tosh, it could have been completely blameless (leaving aside the infidelity issue which is nobody's business but delta and his partner). Deciding if it was actually abusive or not is all that counts. Mind you I agree with The39thStep that someone with a bit of sense should have had a word with him earlier.


----------



## Ben Sorin (Feb 24, 2013)

1) I don't think your comment 'this is about power not morality' holds up. I think it's about both. The tone of your post suggests you actually think it's a moral issue as well.

2) You seemed to be saying that any sexual relationship between MS and the younger SWP member, given the presumed power differential, would have been inappropriate. I think when you start pronouncing consenting sexual realtionships between adults as 'inappropriate' (especially from a distance without knowing detail and context) you move on to dangerous ground.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There is a creeping tendency here to see this relationship as a priori abusive cause of the age/seniority things.


 
Only in your apologic imagination, I suspect.

"Creeping tendency", though. What an absolute classic of Swappite obfusco-speak!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 24, 2013)

Ben Sorin said:


> 1) I don't think your comment 'this is about power not morality' holds up. I think it's about both. The tone of your post suggests you actually think it's a moral issue as well.
> 
> 2) You seemed to be saying that any sexual relationship between MS and the younger SWP member, given the presumed power differential, would have been inappropriate. I think when you start pronouncing consenting sexual realtionships between adults as 'inappropriate' (especially from a distance without knowing detail and context) you move on to dangerous ground.


 
It's a moral issue insofar as the CC might be said to represent the "moral centre" of the SWP, from whence the example of "Swappite good behaviour" proceeds, although I'd contend that the SWP CC have for so long set a rather lackadaisical example of good behaviour that I'm surprised we don't trip over male and female Trots fucking in the streets.
In my opinion the power relationship between "delta" and comrade W is the more important issue, given the above. It's absolutely the case that Smith, as a human being and in his role as a member of the SWP CC, should have known better. It's absolutely the case that on those bases alone, the DC should have skelped him. It's absolutely the case that they didn't. It's about power-relations much more than it's about morality. Comrade W wouldn't have been subjected to the abuses she suffered if Smith hadn't been able to exercise power over her beyond his (doubtless plentiful) attractions as a middle-aged, leisure-clothed male jazz fan.


----------



## newbie (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> newbie This whole area is a minefield. Each relationship is different and has to be judged on it's own merits. 17/47 is not *automatically* abusive or are we saying on the left that the age of consent is too low?! I know a woman who had a fling at 16 with a woman well into her late 30's and she never regretted it. Every teen is different of course and the job of the dc was to try and decide whether this teen's relationship with this older man (who was also her senior in the party) was abusive. A majority decided it wasn't but as we know Stack demurred on the balance of probability.


minefield, aye, there's no absolute rights and wrongs, each case on its merits, teenage girls and middle aged men is a potent brew, but few people judge harshly if both parties are happy.

So there's nothing automatic about this- the relationship resulted in a complaint followed by an accusation of rape. Neither the power imbalance nor the age difference would be subject to an inquiry if there hadn't been a complaint, but there was so they are.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There is a creeping tendency here to see this relationship as a priori abusive cause of the age/seniority things. That's a load of tosh, it could have been completely blameless (leaving aside the infidelity issue which is nobody's business but delta and his partner). Deciding if it was actually abusive or not is all that counts. Mind you I agree with The39thStep that someone with a bit of sense should have had a word with him earlier.


 
I don't think it's a priori abusive, I do think it's a priori inappropriate in exactly the same way as I would feel if I found out my daughter's teacher was messing around with his pupils.




			
				Ben Sorin said:
			
		

> Surely the misuse of power is a moral issue? It sounds like you think it is from the tone of what you write in any case. Surely 'not the most appropriate conduct' means you think it was 'wrong' morally for him to engage in that behaviour?
> 
> The issue of whether MS sexually harrassed the young member is one issue.
> 
> ...


 
I guess I should be a bit more specific at the risk of being called a pointy head. Firstly I don’t think that the age gap alone constitutes the relationship as inappropriate, as several people have said relationships of this kind are very common and often entirely equitable. However, combine the age gap, which does entail a disparity of power on the basis of experience, authority, means, etc., with the institutional authority that MS had over the woman as secretary of the party then the relationship becomes inappropriate. It blurs the lines between private individuals negotiating their own private relations with each other and relations between persons that are governed by intuitional rules and lines of authority. I’m not sure duty of care is quite the right term in this case, but I do think that it’s problematic for a woman to be in a relationship with an older man who by virtue of his age, experience etc., has a degree of de facto power in relation to her, and for that man to also have de jure power over her in so far as they are both members of an institution. It make the woman’s ability to contest that power in either sense far more difficult and in my mind constitutes that relationship as inappropriate.

To make this clear I find it inappropriate on the basis of this argument which is to do with the conjunction of these two power relations; the personal non-institutional one, and the institutional party one. So you can see I don’t need to appeal to any morality, bourgeois or otherwise to make this claim.

A question which has been somewhat overlooked in all this is that since the SWP as a revolutionary organisation accepts the legitimacy of arbitrary power as a means to bring about a better world (dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie), would it even be possible for them to reject the sorts of dominating relationships which many claim are in evidence here without bringing into question the legitimacy of their entire project? I guess this boils down to the question of whether you think a world without that kind of arbitrary power can be brought about by a force which is very similar to it. I think a lot of Seymour’s recent writing suggests that he is beginning to think the answer is NO, which perhaps explains the loyalist’s antipathy to him; they know where this leads.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 24, 2013)

i don't write off ideas like democratic centralism but still think that the age gap issue is inappropriate. there's no particular reason to logically extrapolate a universalist analysis of power which is applicable in every arena of life from a political strategy utilised in the sphere of formal 'politics'. an idea which is designed to be effective in seizing control of a government or society is not also one which should be used as a template in relationships - surely that's obvious to almost everybody


----------



## SLK (Feb 24, 2013)

I accept there are some regrettable emphases in the post I quoted BB. I agree that the reference to his appearance gives something of the author's motivations away. I'm not quoting the provenance approvingly. What I am saying is that it is quite correctly illegal for me to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old who I taught - even if s/he has left my school. It's illegal because even the bourgeois legal system we have has managed to grasp something about the inequal power relationship that I _could_ be taking advantage of _even when I was a 21 year old teacher_. That doesn't mean I would be, but it is correctly considered to be something that could happen and it is forbidden.

That power relationship, as we both experienced, is a similar one inside a political organisation. You can see it explicitly in the allegations the Liberal Democrats are dealing with, and I'm saying it applies here. This is not me saying Delta _did_ abuse a power relationship - it's really impossible to say as these things are a matter of degree. But he _could_ have, and hence the age difference given their relative positions *is* relevant - and in itself does make me (and clearly others) think 'sleaze'. 

I worked with Delta a lot in the past and had a lot of time with him - as well you know. The most mystifying part of this is why he doesn't make a significant part of the demands of the opposition irrelevant by explicitly stating he will not take part in political activity for the foreseeable.


----------



## SLK (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There is a creeping tendency here to see this relationship as a priori abusive cause of the age/seniority things. That's a load of tosh, it could have been completely blameless (leaving aside the infidelity issue which is nobody's business but delta and his partner). Deciding if it was actually abusive or not is all that counts. Mind you I agree with The39thStep that someone with a bit of sense should have had a word with him earlier.


 
But it could have been because of the power disparity, and hence anyone with a bit of sense would hold the CC to a very high standard of account here.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> I accept there are some regrettable emphases in the post I quoted BB. I agree that the reference to his appearance gives something of the author's motivations away. I'm not quoting the provenance approvingly. What I am saying is that it is quite correctly illegal for me to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old who I taught - even if s/he has left my school. It's illegal because even the bourgeois legal system we have has managed to grasp something about the inequal power relationship that I _could_ be taking advantage of _even when I was a 21 year old teacher_. That doesn't mean I would be, but it is correctly considered to be something that could happen and it is forbidden.
> 
> That power relationship, as we both experienced, is a similar one inside a political organisation. You can see it explicitly in the allegations the Liberal Democrats are dealing with, and I'm saying it applies here. This is not me saying Delta _did_ abuse a power relationship - it's really impossible to say as these things are a matter of degree. But he _could_ have, and hence the age difference given their relative positions *is* relevant - and in itself does make me (and clearly others) think 'sleaze'.
> 
> I worked with Delta a lot in the past and had a lot of time with him - as well you know. The most mystifying part of this is why he doesn't make a significant part of the demands of the opposition irrelevant by explicitly stating he will not take part in political activity for the foreseeable.


Or sexual activity with young members


----------



## kavenism (Feb 24, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i don't write off ideas like democratic centralism but still think that the age gap issue is inappropriate. there's no particular reason to logically extrapolate a universalist analysis of power which is applicable in every arena of life from a political strategy utilised in the sphere of formal 'politics'. an idea which is designed to be effective in seizing control of a government or society is not also one which should be used as a template in relationships - surely that's obvious to almost everybody


 
The history of actually existing socialism suggests that your mere 'formal political strategy' has a habit of leeching into all other areas of life. Society tends to push back and the road to hell is paved with good intensions.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 24, 2013)

kavenism said:


> The history of actually existing socialism suggests that your mere 'formal political strategy' has a habit of leeching into all other areas of life. Society tends to push back and the road to hell is paved with good intensions.


 
you mean the history of the Soviet Union? in what way does that have anything to do with this?


----------



## kavenism (Feb 24, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> you mean the history of the Soviet Union? in what way does that have anything to do with this?


 Just a general point about the record of Marxist-Leninist parties in power. Their strategy withers away no more than does the state they aim to dismantle. This is old hat, but my two pence worth is that the lack of a theory of government and an instrumentalist approach to ethics is a fatal combination. But I admit that that's a broad brush.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 24, 2013)

the SWP, independently of any theory, has a terrible leadership culture. i don't think that's inherently related to democratic centralism though in this instance democratic centralism was the mechanism by which the SWP got to the point it did get to


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> I accept there are some regrettable emphases in the post I quoted BB. I agree that the reference to his appearance gives something of the author's motivations away. I'm not quoting the provenance approvingly. What I am saying is that it is quite correctly illegal for me to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old who I taught - even if s/he has left my school. It's illegal because even the bourgeois legal system we have has managed to grasp something about the inequal power relationship that I _could_ be taking advantage of _even when I was a 21 year old teacher_. That doesn't mean I would be, but it is correctly considered to be something that could happen and it is forbidden.
> 
> That power relationship, as we both experienced, is a similar one inside a political organisation. You can see it explicitly in the allegations the Liberal Democrats are dealing with, and I'm saying it applies here. This is not me saying Delta _did_ abuse a power relationship - it's really impossible to say as these things are a matter of degree. But he _could_ have, and hence the age difference given their relative positions *is* relevant - and in itself does make me (and clearly others) think 'sleaze'.
> 
> I worked with Delta a lot in the past and had a lot of time with him - as well you know. The most mystifying part of this is why he doesn't make a significant part of the demands of the opposition irrelevant by explicitly stating he will not take part in political activity for the foreseeable.


That comrade/mate is it to a tee. I agree wholeheartedly he should. God knows better people have fallen on their swords for less. The party has, constitutionally, no choice in this matter, he has been exonerated by the only due process they have. And it is destroying them. he should have done the decent thing ages ago, not because I assume his guilt, I don't by the way. But the party is more important than him.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But the party is more important than him.


not according to the dc.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 24, 2013)

newbie said:


> , but few people judge harshly if both parties are happy.


i bet her parents were chuffed to bits.

can you imagine, normal young couple, mid to late thirties/early forties. it's christmas day, your daughter, the promising sixth former, is bringing her boyfriend round for christmas dinner.

the doorbell goes, you open it, there's harry worth with a pile of gilad atzmon records under his arm. all through dinner he's bellowing about "faahkin ee dee eww caaahnts" and getting up to mime kung fu moves and performing headlocks on imaginary people, all the while leering over your daughter. then when you're sat watching the telly, he turns off the queens speech and puts his records on, grooving about the living room in his hush puppies with his eyes closed playing air sax.

i bet you'd be almost as pleased as the day you hold her in your arms in tears as she told you he'd raped her.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i bet her parents were chuffed to bits.
> 
> can you imagine, normal young couple, mid to late thirties/early forties. it's christmas day, your daughter, the promising sixth former, is bringing her boyfriend round for christmas dinner.
> 
> ...


 
Would have been funnier without the last line.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 24, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Would have been funnier without the last line.


i know.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i bet her parents were chuffed to bits.


Sorry but now that I've laid my cards on the table and said he should resign all party positions (because it's become bigger than him) I have to say, this is just bourgeois morality at it's worst. The age thing matters nothing.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry but now that I've laid my cards on the table and said he should resign all party positions (because it's become bigger than him) I have to say, this is just bourgeois morality at it's worst. The age thing matters nothing.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The age thing matters nothing.


jog on, saft taeter.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

kavenism Says the man who believes in actually existing socialism. Get a grip lad.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> jog on, saft taeter.


like it. don't agree with it but amused.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> kavenism Says the man who believes in actually existing socialism. Get a grip lad.


I'd sooner believe in actually existing socialism than use the term bourgeois morality with a straight face.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> like it. don't agree with it but amused.


you're a dick, but i can't help but like you.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry but now that I've laid my cards on the table and said he should resign all party positions (because it's become bigger than him) I have to say, this is just bourgeois morality at it's worst. The age thing matters nothing.


There's a place in the spartacists league waiting for you


----------



## SLK (Feb 24, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> There's a place in the spartacists league waiting for you


 
Hang on - all the other abuse he's taken is fine, he can deal with that, but this is an insult that goes way beyond that!


----------



## chilango (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I have to say, this is just bourgeois morality at it's worst. The age thing matters nothing.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> There's a place in the spartacists league waiting for you


No chance, I laughed when the one US born TCD member told me in all seriousness how he was appalled at ex-Maosits for firing RPGs at the Chinese embassy in Washington. Sometimes leninst phrases fit...but you wouldnt get that pal.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I have to say, this is just bourgeois morality at it's worst. The age thing matters nothing.


 
Are you for real?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Are you for real?


I am because I've explained until I'm fucking (Scots) blue in the face that unless people can prove abuse the mere fact of an age diference is just that...a bourgeois prejudice. I also said he should stand down but not because he's actually done anything wrong.

And Christ you can feck off, when I first met Joe Higgins (SP supremo in Ireland) he assumed I was shagging my mother (he actually said you and your partner to me) cause he couldn't understand a man and woman in Ireland at that age difference together sharing politics. Irish women stay at home and cook the dinner post march appaently. Maybe Joe's mum does but mine didn't.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> are we saying on the left that the age of consent is too low?!


 
You can think that something is sleazy, dodgy, unacceptable, creepy, unpleasant or otherwise to be disapproved of without it necessarily following that you want to see it criminalised.

There are for instance many people on the left who want to see prostitution and surrounding acts decriminalised for harm reduction reasons. Now whether you agree or disagree with that line of argument, it does not flow from it that they think it's fine to hire prostitutes. And indeed anyone I know who takes that sort of view on prostitution would be fucking horrified if a friend of theirs announced that they paid women for sex. Without getting into this particular case and leaving aside the actually criminal allegations made, as a general principle you don't have to want to raise the age of consent to think that much older men trying it on with teenage girls are pretty distasteful.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I am because I've explained until I'm fucking (Scots) blue in the face that unless people can prove abuse the mere fact of an age diference is just that...a bourgeois prejudice.


 
So if you were to encounter some middle aged manager chatting up teenage temps at an office party, you wouldn't think "creepy bastard"?




			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> And Christ you can feck off, when I first met Joe Higgins (SP supremo in Ireland) he assumed I was shagging my mother (he actually said you and your partner to me) cause he couldn't understand a man and woman in Ireland at that age difference together sharing politics. Irish women stay at home and cook the dinner post march appaently. Maybe Joe's mum does but mine didn't.


 
This is a bizarre non sequitur, although the insight into your habit of attributing views they are very unlikely to hold to others is interesting in a way.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You can think that something is sleazy, dodgy, unacceptable, creepy, unpleasant or otherwise to be disapproved of without it necessarily following that you want to see it criminalised.
> 
> There are for instance many people on the left who want to see prostitution and surrounding acts decriminalised for harm reduction reasons. Now whether you agree or disagree with that line of argument, it does not flow from it that they think it's fine to hire prostitutes. And indeed anyone I know who takes that sort of view on prostitution would be fucking horrified if a friend of theirs announced that they paid women for sex. Without getting into this particular case and leaving aside the actually criminal allegations made, as a general principle you don't have to want to raise the age of consent to think that much older men trying it on with teenage girls are pretty distasteful.


I now claim my fiver from decades ago when I said that the Militant represented some of the most backward, bourgeois family oriented ideas of the working class. Can I introduce you to my Tory wife and her 'normal family' cause you would have a lot to agree on. Human relationships are a lot more complex than is dreamt of in world SP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So if you were to encounter some middle aged manager chatting up teenage temps at an office party, you wouldn't think "creepy bastard"?
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bizarre non sequitur, although the insight into your habit of attributing views they are very unlikely to hold to others is interesting in a way.


No I didn't attrtibute anything. The TD said it, we were highly amused by his workerist assumption. And don't get me wrong , my mum was then and still is a Labout stalwart. But Labour with a bit of sense about sexual politics as is my Workers Party ex RTE shop steward dad. Something not to be found among the SP. My point being that the SP/Millies have always pandered to the most backward ideas among working class people even when other less ortho Trot people were capable of rather broader outlooks.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I now claim my fiver from decades ago when I said that the Militant represented some of the most backward, bourgeois family oriented ideas of the working class. Can I introduce you to my Tory wife and her 'normal family' cause you would have a lot to agree on. Human relationships are a lot more complex than is dreamt of in world SP.


 
Tell me, which precise issue is it that you feel so strongly about: The right of men in their fifties to try it on with teenage girls without being judged? Or the right to use prostitutes without being judged?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I now claim my fiver from decades ago when I said that the Militant represented some of the most backward, bourgeois family oriented ideas of the working class. Can I introduce you to my Tory wife and her 'normal family' cause you would have a lot to agree on. Human relationships are a lot more complex than is dreamt of in world SP.


 

does she know you're writing that she has backward bourgeois ideas of the family to strangers on the internet?have you thought about divorce?

and as far as i know, this isn't about age, and whether the SP are backward has little to do with comrade delta being an alleged rapist


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Tell me, which precise issue is it that you feel so strongly about: The right of men in their fifties to try it on with teenage girls without being judged? Or the right to use prostitutes without being judged?


I think I was saying that if TD Joe had a teenage partner I couldn't care less as long as it was consensual. He and you have notions of what the normal working class family looks like and it's pretty far behind the reality of working class life.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> does she know you're writing that she has backward bourgeois ideas of the family to strangers on the internet?have you thought about divorce?
> 
> and as far as i know, this isn't about age, and whether the SP are backward has little to do with comrade delta being an alleged rapist


She does. And yes it is about age, all that's been said today. Get real.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No I didn't attrtibute anything.


 
Yes you did. According to your account, he was under the misapprehension that the woman he met you with was your partner. You then attributed a whole series of ideas to him to explain that assumption to your own satisfaction. Ideas which have no basis in anything you report him saying, but quite a lot of basis in stupid SWP self-regard.




			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Something not to be found among the SP. My point being that the SP/Millies have always pandered to the most backward ideas among working class people even when other less ortho Trot people were capable of rather broader outlooks.


 
It really is amazing that no experience, no shock, no scandal, seems enough to shake that sneering SWP self-regard out of you. Even after you leave the organisation behind, you still keep the idiot prejudices.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> She does. And yes it is about age, all that's been said today. Get real.


 
she must have the tolerance of jesus, are you sure she's a tory?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> she must have the tolerance of jesus, are you sure she's a tory?


Apart from the odd vote for UKIP yes she is  And yes she does!


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

she doesn't exist


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes you did. According to your account, he was under the misapprehension that the woman he met you with was your partner. You then attributed a whole series of ideas to him to explain that assumption to your own satisfaction. Ideas which have no basis in anything you report him saying, but quite a lot of basis in stupid SWP self-regard.
> 
> 
> 
> It really is amazing that no experience, no shock, no scandal, seems enough to shake that sneering SWP self-regard out of you. Even after you leave the organisation behind, you still keep the idiot prejudices.


Sneer? from you. Get over yourself. We were always more open to discussiona and mutual understanding than you lot. Still are I'd argue. Cause we have better ideas and not afriad of honest debate but there you go it's all in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I think I was saying that if TD Joe had a teenage partner I couldn't care less as long as it was consensual. He and you have notions of what the normal working class family looks like and it's pretty far behind the reality of working class life.


 
I think that you have no idea what my "notions of what the normal working class family looks like" are, or if I have any such notions, and you have even less knowledge of what views Joe has on those issues. You are attributing views to other people based on nothing but idiot SWP self-regard, a self-regard that really seems quite laughable in the context of this thread.

Now, if we can get back to the question you avoided.

Tell me, which precise issue is it that you feel so strongly about: The right of men in their fifties to try it on with teenage girls without being judged? Or the right to use prostitutes without being judged?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> she doesn't exist


Love it. But no I put a picture of her on this thread pages ago when our bourgeois family visited Belfast ;-)


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Love it. But no I put a picture of her on this thread pages ago when our bourgeois family visited Belfast ;-)


 

picture of her with the latest copy of the Socialist Worker or gtfo


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sneer? from you. Get over yourself. We were always more open to discussiona and mutual understanding than you lot. Still are I'd argue. Cause we have better ideas and not afriad of honest debate but there you go it's all in the eye of the beholder.


 
There is little content to any of these posts from you. You mostly present the rather sad sight of a man in his fifties clinging desperately to the my gang is better than your gang stupidity of his vanished youth.

In so far as I can extract anything meaningful from the above at all it amounts to a claim that the SWP are more open to discussion and mutual understanding than the Socialist Party are. That claim certainly doesn't fit with the available evidence, including for instance the different ways in which public events are run by the two organisations.

If we want to discuss, for instance, the ideas of anarchism, we call up the local anarchist group and ask them to debate. If the SWP want to have the same discussion they will set up their own straw man anarchism to knock down to their own satisfaction. If we hold a public event, we don't exclude others on the left (or our own ex-members), and we don't use "speaker slips" or other even cruder means of carving people out of the discussion. The SWP send people along to our public meetings in the certain knowledge that if they stick their hands up, they'll get called in order and they'll get enough time to develop their point, and for that matter that they can sell their paper and leaflet inside the building without getting hassle. As can anyone else. The reverse is not something that can be safely assumed.

Even on the internet, you'll find SP members all over the place arguing with people. The SWP despite having a membership on a similar sort of scale stick to themselves. Lenin's Tomb was about the only place they engaged regularly and in numbers with debates with others (and even that was somewhere that they controlled).

I really should learn not to make off topic responses to your deliberately diversionary posts.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There is little content to any of these posts from you. You mostly present the rather sad sight of a man in his fifties clinging desperately to the my gang is better than your gang stupidity of his vanished youth.
> 
> In so far as I can extract anything meaningful from the above at all it amounts to a claim that the SWP are more open to discussion and mutual understanding than the Socialist Party are. That claim certainly doesn't fit with the available evidence, including for instance the different ways in which public events are run by the two organisations.
> 
> ...


Blah blah blah. 50's? Now you're starting a fight!

Now there were always Millies prepared to discuss politics after our meetings and yours course there were cause there's open minded people in all parties. But always the minority mind you and mostly the ones who've left or been expelled since then. And even then they didn't like the way our women comrades swore, apparently it's not working class to do that. I've tried to debate with you lot at many of your meetings in my youth and beyond the "we're more working class than thou" shit t here was little argument. Wouldn't know Karl Marx if he bit your lot in the arse.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> picture of her with the latest copy of the Socialist Worker or gtfo


Apparently she'd rather eat shit!


----------



## emanymton (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry but now that I've laid my cards on the table and said he should resign all party positions (because it's become bigger than him) I have to say, this is just bourgeois morality at it's worst. The age thing matters nothing.


I agree with some of what you have posted over the last couple of pages, but while a relationship of the type in question could be perfectly happy and healthy the potential for abuse is far greater and this justifies a more skeptical appraisal of the relationship. I think this is hoe most people in 'the real world' approach relationships involving large age differences and/or power imbalances. Considering that most relationships, even ones that end badly, don't result in allegations of rape, it seems likely that this was not a very healthy relationship, and I think MS has to be held responsible for that. Regardless of his guilt over the charge of rape this alone should disqualify him from holding a position of leadership.

I am a little worried when you say age doesn't matter at all though, how young would she have to be before it did become an issue for you? 16? 15?


----------



## manny-p (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Apparently she'd rather eat shit!


fetish?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I agree with some of what you have posted over the last couple of pages, but while a relationship of the type in question could be perfectly happy and healthy the potential for abuse is far greater and this justifies a more skeptical appraisal of the relationship. I think this is hoe most people in 'the real world' approach relationships involving large age differences and/or power imbalances. Considering that most relationships, even ones that end badly, don't result in allegations of rape, it seems likely that this was not a very healthy relationship, and I think MS has to be held responsible for that. Regardless of his guilt over the charge of rape this alone should disqualify him from holding a position of leadership.
> 
> I am a little worried when you say age doesn't matter at all though, how young would she have to be before it did become an issue for you? 16? 15?


Age really isn't the issue surely? And I'm not saying that cause of this issue, thought it was common sense among lefties. Women have been having consensual relationships before they were 17 for centuries. I do totally agree that the minute the woman involved felt the need to raise a complaint this became something else. After that moment the party had a duty of care and a responsibility to investigate. If they didn't or didn't do it properly then fuck em and all who defend them. If they did and the result was messy then fuck us all :-(


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Blah blah blah. 50's? Now you're starting a fight!
> 
> Now there were always Millies prepared to discuss politics after our meetings and yours course there were cause there's open minded people in all parties. But always the minority mind you and mostly the ones who've left or been expelled since then. And even then they didn't like the way our women comrades swore, apparently it's not working class to do that. I've tried to debate with you lot at many of your meetings in my youth and beyond the "we're more working class than thou" shit t here was little argument.


 
Good God, this is the best you can do? Just more making up views to attribute to other people, and more idiot self-regard. This time leavened with an added dash of invented easy victories in old arguments, with your opponents scared to engage or incapable of it and leaving with their tails between their legs. This isn't even irritating, just pitiful. It's a little bit sad, like listening to a slightly senile great uncle boast about some half-remembered shit from his youth, when you are well aware that he's making most of it up, but you don't want to hurt his feelings.

Look, did it never strike you as odd that this place is teeming with SP people and has perhaps one current SWP member about? Or that the same is true of the main left wing Irish blog sites? Or that half of Dublin's SP members, WSM members and random independent socialists are facebook friends, but few of them are with SWP members?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

Isn't it cause the swp doesn't regard this 'filth' as the normal way to discuss politics? FB is a different matter, think we're all friends on there no? I have loads of wsm mates on it in any case, not you though, just haven't assumed the right to ask.

I have noticed. Idiot is your favorite word. Have to say I wouldn't say that about you cause I wouldn't say anything on here that I'd regret saying face to face.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Isn't it cause the swp doesn't regard this 'filth' as the normal way to discuss politics?


 
Yes, part of it is the SWP's internet allergy. But it's not much different in real life. The SWP almost never attend political events put on by anyone else on the left (with the solitary exception occasional interventions at SP public meetings), almost never attend social or commemorative events and rarely engage in organised debate either. They simply aren't encouraged to engage on any level. As for facebook, there was a brief moment early in the ULA period where the SWP started becoming "friends" with other leftists, but they rather quickly pulled back.

As organisations go, it very much concentrates on ploughing its in furrow and takes relatively little interest in what anyone else is doing in public. Internally, it's a different matter as can be seen from last years national round of internal discussions on the politics of the Socialist Party, and the occasional leaks of documents slagging everyone else off.

Anyway, this is still off topic. And friend request away!


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 24, 2013)

teeming with SP people?


----------



## newbie (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry but now that I've laid my cards on the table and said he should resign all party positions (because it's become bigger than him) I have to say, this is just bourgeois morality at it's worst. The age thing matters nothing.


that fails the common sense test.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> teeming with SP people?


 
We're like cockroaches.


----------



## tony.c (Feb 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> We're like cockroaches.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> We're like cockroaches.


You will survive the workers bomb then


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> We're like cockroaches.


 

I think workers power set the benchmark when they had 8 on here which must have been getting on for 10% of their membership


----------



## comrade spurski (Feb 24, 2013)

Re age... I find it hard to understand how I (as a 46 yr old man) would want to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old. Maybe it's cos I got a 15 year old daughter or maybe just maybe I'm attracted to other adults.
I have no problem with large age gaps in relationships...but surely the youngest needs to have been out of compulsory education for more then a few months! The power dynamic is so dangerous and easy to abuse.

Re SWP investigation ... ???? Did no one seriously ask what they were going to do as a punishment if they felt the accused was guilty? Expel him? so he'd get the same punishment as someone who broke a SWP rule such as forming a faction? Did no one suggest that the SWP was not equipped to deal with such a complaint? Surely, once the complaint was made he should have been sacked from his positions and told that he needed to leave the SWP (as others have been told to do in the past for the breaking of other party rules) and the female member be supported to get whatever counselling / support etc. that she needed.
The SWP committee is not capable of investigating this type of issue...socialists demand that experts are used to support victims and investigate their rape allegations and are extremely critical of the police when they don't...and no one in power within the SWP could figure out that having his mates investigating him was not a good idea?

I hope the woman finds some kind of resolution to this horrible situation and can go on to play a roll in fighting against the things that made her a socialist.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Apparently she'd rather eat shit!


----------



## october_lost (Feb 24, 2013)

My feeling is that this happened prior and is possibly all to common, meaning spurski and The39thStep's quiet word is a non-starter. If MS is a full blown abusive cunt, he's not exactly going to advertise as such is he.

I could sit on this and make all kinds of gleeful comments, because it involves the SWP and someone whose part of the inner party abusing their position, but this shit is sadly replicated everywhere. And if it's not institutions or structures, it's formed from personality cliques and knowledge.


----------



## comrade spurski (Feb 24, 2013)

october_lost said:


> My feeling is that this happened prior and is possibly all to common, meaning spurski and The39thStep's quiet word is a non-starter. If MS is a full blown abusive cunt, he's not exactly going to advertise as such is he.
> 
> I could sit on this and make all kinds of gleeful comments, because it involves the SWP and someone whose part of the inner party abusing their position, but this shit is sadly replicated everywhere. And if it's not institutions or structures, it's formed from personality cliques and knowledge.


 
My suggestion about telling him to leave was only because of the claims from the SWP that the woman didn't wish to go to the police. If she wished to do so they should have supported her. 
I was a member of the SWP for a long time (20 yrs)...I always worked with anyone and tried to discuss and learn from those I worked with. I worked with some great trade unionists, anti racists, etc. and enjoyed collecting for strikes and various campaigns. I always disliked the "we know best" sectarian rubbish that many on the left have (including a lot of people in the SWP) and made sure that I always talked and listened to mates in work, in the union and elsewhere so I could have a handle on what was ultra left nonsense etc. I made mistakes though but was never a know it all. I left 4 years ago because they (SWP) seemed more interested in fighting each other and Galloway and the rest of the left more than looking to be part of a movement. I saw and heard nothing like this in my time in the party but feel like it has dirtied and invalidated  many of the things I was part of.

As for it being replicated everywhere...tragically true.


----------



## chilango (Feb 25, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I think workers power set the benchmark when they had 8 on here which must have been getting on for 10% of their membership



I miss them.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 25, 2013)

Perhaps because I work with vulnerable children , but I picked up n the age issue when the original transcript was leaked. Why would the SWP make an issue of not making an issue about bourgeois morality unless there was something immoral going on?
 That bb feels comfortable defending this, then it is legitimate to ponder what level of behaviour by the leaders, of a party he isn't a member of, he wouldn't defend? Beastiality? Necrophilia? Coprophilia?


----------



## newbie (Feb 25, 2013)

I think that's a bit unfair tbh.  bb is obviously clutching at straws but his case is there to be put, however unconvincing it is. 

Meanwhile I can't help thinking the SWP is coming out of this with slightly more credibility than respectable, bourgeois institutions.  At least they tried some sort of formal process, flawed, ridiculous, wrong, but they tried.  Compared with the Libdems, the Vatican, the BBC they've been remarkably open in their handling of a sex scandal.


----------



## cesare (Feb 25, 2013)

They've only been open because someone leaked the transcript.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 25, 2013)

newbie said:


> I think that's a bit unfair tbh.  bb is obviously clutching at straws but his case is there to be put, however unconvincing it is.
> 
> Meanwhile I can't help thinking the SWP is coming out of this with slightly more credibility than respectable, bourgeois institutions.  At least they tried some sort of formal process, flawed, ridiculous, wrong, but they tried.  Compared with the Libdems, the Vatican, the BBC they've been remarkably open in their handling of a sex scandal.


You are joking aren't you?
 The SWP lied to their own members about the nature of the allegations two years ago. Then expelled four members for discussing the investigation o n Facebook, after the conference discussion they ordered delegates not to report the issue to branches, and after the transcript was published on su Kimber sent an email demanding its retraction.
 At every stage they have attempted to shut down and silence any and all discussion of the case and the investigation. Jimmy Saville would have. Been safe and sound in the SWP.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 25, 2013)

Seymour on FB earlier talking about the age issue.



> But of course, power relations, of which age may be one, has a lot of bearing on why the rapist may not have to use physical force. There's something else. If we're evaluating the plausibility of these rape allegations, not as legalists but as socialists, we naturally take into account the preponderance of sexual assaults and attempted assaults. It's very clear from the statistics, as far as I can tell, that most such attempts take place when the intended victim is in adolescence or young adulthood. For that reason also, age is relevant. It's not about maturity or experience, it's about power in a given situation.
> 
> I know I'm stating the obvious to a degree. But the problem here is that the Disputes Committee explicitly stated that they did not consider such issues as a matter of principle - on the absurd grounds that to do so would be a concession to bourgeois morality. That's the issue here. And for the CC to win, that line has to win to an extent. And that line takes our gender politics back to the 1970s.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 25, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> You are joking aren't you?
> The SWP lied to their own members about the nature of the allegations two years ago. Then expelled four members for discussing the investigation o n Facebook, after the conference discussion they ordered delegates not to report the issue to branches, and after the transcript was published on su Kimber sent an email demanding its retraction.
> At every stage they have attempted to shut down and silence any and all discussion of the case and the investigation. Jimmy Saville would have. Been safe and sound in the SWP.


You know Barney you could think about toning it down a bit. I am not going to tackle this assortment of half truths but you mange to make me feel I want to defend the SWP, which is a bit of an achievement. Any vacillating SWP members who see stuff like this are likely yo be pushed towards the loyalists, which you probably don't care about I guess


----------



## audiotech (Feb 25, 2013)

Homeless dude in US gives his take on it.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 25, 2013)

Hey, Bolshiebhoy, I checked the MB case with someone, which you will recall denying (rather than saying 'I don't know') and it is true. He was expelled from the Irish SWP for a fight that involved him biting his opponent's ear.


----------



## belboid (Feb 25, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Hey, Bolshiebhoy, I checked the MB case with someone, which you will recall denying (rather than saying 'I don't know') and it is true. He was expelled from the Irish SWP for a fight that involved him biting his opponent's ear.


i have a feeling I know this case - through being in the branch with the person missing half an ear (unless there was a spate of ear biting among comrades around then).  If so, he was suspended from the British party for a time, six months, iirr


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> (unless there was a spate of ear biting among comrades around then).


 
makes a change from back biting I suppose


----------



## belboid (Feb 25, 2013)




----------



## barney_pig (Feb 25, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You know Barney you could think about toning it down a bit. I am not going to tackle this assortment of half truths but you mange to make me feel I want to defend the SWP, which is a bit of an achievement. Any vacillating SWP members who see stuff like this are likely yo be pushed towards the loyalists, which you probably don't care about I guess


I don't wish to be bloody minded about this but which of the points I put are half truths?
 When these allegations are first raised two years ago the conference were given a doctored version and responded by giving Martin smith a standing ovation!
The Facebook four were expelled for discussing whether to form a faction in opposition to the way in which the investigation was being handled.
At the end of the conference delegates were instructed not to include details of the dc discussion.
Charlie Kimber did send an email demanding that Newman take down the transcript.
Emanymton, you have been a far more subtle a defender of the SWP than bb, but pleases stop the 'honest neutral pushed into the arms of the party' act, its getting tired.


----------



## belboid (Feb 25, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> but pleases stop the 'honest neutral pushed into the arms of the party' act, its getting tired.


stop pushing people then. 



barney_pig said:


> Jimmy Saville would have. Been safe and sound in the SWP.


is hardly an attempt to move debate forwards, is it?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 25, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I don't wish to be bloody minded about this but which of the points I put are half truths?
> When these allegations are first raised two years ago the conference were given a doctored version and responded by giving Martin smith a standing ovation!
> The Facebook four were expelled for discussing whether to form a faction in opposition to the way in which the investigation was being handled.
> At the end of the conference delegates were instructed not to include details of the dc discussion.
> ...


Which is way I will not bother to reply to your points, the SWP CC has done indefeasible things and they are not worth my time.
ETA: I am having real life discussions with SWP members and while it is very unlikely they would come across this thread, if they did your posts would not help.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> stop pushing people then.
> 
> 
> is hardly an attempt to move debate forwards, is it?


Only repeating what I said on post #482
'Btw Saville should have a SWP member, as he would be perfectly ok under their watch.
"We also however thought it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were whether the comrade was monogamous, whether they were having an affair, whether the age differences in their relationahip, because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those.
barney_pig, Jan 7, 2013 Report#482Reply"'


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 25, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Which is way I will not bother to reply to your points, the SWP CC has done indefeasible things and they are not worth my time.
> ETA: I am having real life discussions with SWP members and while it is very unlikely they would come across this thread, if they did your posts would not help.


You are right i am getting obsessed. I will stop.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 25, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Which is way I will not bother to reply to your points, the SWP CC has done indefeasible things and they are not worth my time.
> ETA: I am having real life discussions with SWP members and while it is very unlikely they would come across this thread, if they did your posts would not help.


 
I'm puzzled emanymton - I had understood that each of barney pig's statements were actually true rather than an "assortment of half truths".

Fair enough if you feel that this would not help SWPers who read this thread but that's asking him to not say what happened because SWPers couldn't handle it, which is different from not saying it because of the statements not being true.


----------



## belboid (Feb 25, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Only repeating what I said on post #482
> 'Btw Saville should have a SWP member, as he would be perfectly ok under their watch.
> "We also however thought it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were whether the comrade was monogamous, whether they were having an affair, whether the age differences in their relationahip, because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those.
> barney_pig, Jan 7, 2013 Report#482Reply"'


oh yes, because a stupid comment becomes brilliantly witty and insightful when  its repeated


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I am because I've explained until I'm fucking (Scots) blue in the face that unless people can prove abuse the mere fact of an age diference is just that...a bourgeois prejudice. I also said he should stand down but not because he's actually done anything wrong.
> 
> And Christ you can feck off, when I first met Joe Higgins (SP supremo in Ireland) he assumed I was shagging my mother (he actually said you and your partner to me) cause he couldn't understand a man and woman in Ireland at that age difference together sharing politics. Irish women stay at home and cook the dinner post march appaently. Maybe Joe's mum does but mine didn't.


 
Maybe your mum just looks pretty good for her age and you look like shit?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 25, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I'm puzzled emanymton - I had understood that each of barney pig's statements were actually true rather than an "assortment of half truths".
> 
> Fair enough if you feel that this would not help SWPers who read this thread but that's asking him to not say what happened because SWPers couldn't handle it, which is different from not saying it because of the statements not being true.


What Barnye said was not exactly false but he/she was presenting a rather distorted version of the facts with no context that could lead to some people getting the wrong impression.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 25, 2013)

emanymton said:


> What Barnye said was not exactly false but he/she was presenting a rather distorted version of the facts with no context that could lead to some people getting the wrong impression.


 
How were they distorted, though? He seemed to be just presenting the version of the events that the SWP had omitted and so distorted the narrative, and he was adding for balance.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 25, 2013)

two sheds said:


> How were they distorted, though? He seemed to be just presenting the version of the events that the SWP had omitted and so distorted the narrative, and he was adding for balance.


Sigh, OK He said 



> after the conference discussion they ordered delegates not to report the issue to branches


 
This gives the impression that the SWP tried to stop any discussion of the issue after the conference, which is not the case. Every district had a district wide report back meeting where it was discussed, but delegates were asked not to report back to their branches until *after* the district meetings.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Apparently she'd rather eat shit!


 
Was her maiden name Oaten?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Maybe your mum just looks pretty good for her age and you look like shit?


 
I've always thought that his mum looks good for her age.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 25, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Hey, Bolshiebhoy, I checked the MB case with someone, which you will recall denying (rather than saying 'I don't know') and it is true. He was expelled from the Irish SWP for a fight that involved him biting his opponent's ear.


He wasn't and he didn't which is why I denied it. Belboid is right and I would have corrected your mistake at greater length if I hadn't thought you were trying to score some worthless point about a loyalist that had no relevance to the current mess. Like most people who were active in the past I know all sorts of embarrassing episodes from the pasts of people in the swp on all sides of this debate. All sides! So what? If you were more honest about your own identity and involvement in all this I could probably dish the dirt on you too but what's the point?!

Not that it's hard to work out who you are given the bits and bobs you've revealed about yourself. Clearly I wouldnt dream of outing you if you'd rather stay anonymous but I have to say when I first knew you I was very impressed by you as a Marxist thinker. Never thought I'd see you scrabbling around in the dirt like this.


----------



## october_lost (Feb 25, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> My suggestion about telling him to leave was only because of the claims from the SWP that the woman didn't wish to go to the police. If she wished to do so they should have supported her.
> I was a member of the SWP for a long time (20 yrs)...I always worked with anyone and tried to discuss and learn from those I worked with. I worked with some great trade unionists, anti racists, etc. and enjoyed collecting for strikes and various campaigns. I always disliked the "we know best" sectarian rubbish that many on the left have (including a lot of people in the SWP) and made sure that I always talked and listened to mates in work, in the union and elsewhere so I could have a handle on what was ultra left nonsense etc. I made mistakes though but was never a know it all. I left 4 years ago because they (SWP) seemed more interested in fighting each other and Galloway and the rest of the left more than looking to be part of a movement. I saw and heard nothing like this in my time in the party but feel like it has dirtied and invalidated  many of the things I was part of.
> 
> As for it being replicated everywhere...tragically true.


My response made more sense in my head, somehow.

Anyone could have had a word with MS, that's not the issue.  There will always be inertia with stuff like this, because all the sordid details are not exactly out in the open, are they? 

I was involved briefly in a small activist group with staff and students on a campus. There was no more than a handful of us. And we did conscious raising stuff around cuts, and tried to imbue some kind of politics in a campus that has none. Six months in, one of the guys drops out and there are accusations abound that he is a serial sex pest. 

Did I know prior to the accusation? There were hints; no women in our group, even though there were active leftists on campus, he was an intense guy and talked about inappropriate stuff sometimes, but its difficult to see how I, or anyone could pick this up prior to one of the victims speaking out.

We never saw him again to go over any of this, so he pereempted us.

With MS, I am not sure how common knowledge it was. Were they moving people about because of his behaviour? Was it a subject of jokes and commentary? 

BTW welcome to the boards comrade spurski.


----------



## newbie (Feb 25, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> You are joking aren't you?
> The SWP lied to their own members about the nature of the allegations two years ago. Then expelled four members for discussing the investigation o n Facebook, after the conference discussion they ordered delegates not to report the issue to branches, and after the transcript was published on su Kimber sent an email demanding its retraction.
> At every stage they have attempted to shut down and silence any and all discussion of the case and the investigation. Jimmy Saville would have. Been safe and sound in the SWP.


aye, they've sought to confine the embarrassment to within the party and under their control (& failed, as they were bound to).  But that wasn't what I was thinking about. 

A complaint was made and a formal process of interviewing both sides took place.  Subsequently another, somewhat more serious, complaint was made and again there was a formal process where evidence was gathered, questions asked and so on. That process was conducted by the wrong people, his mates, and doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, but it was at least done.

by contrast the Vatican just shuffles abusers round when they're found out, or organises their retirement, and just today I read that  Clegg sat on his hands and the beeb actively stopped people posting accusations against Savile on their boards. It goes on and on and on.  The _bourgeois morality_ framework of wider society is crystal clear: no formal process except cover-up, no attempt, however badly done, to be even handed, no apparent concern for the alleged victims, just all-round closing of ranks to protect the accused.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 25, 2013)

october_lost said:


> My feeling is that this happened prior and is possibly all to common, meaning spurski and The39thStep's quiet word is a non-starter. If MS is a full blown abusive cunt, he's not exactly going to advertise as such is he.
> 
> I could sit on this and make all kinds of gleeful comments, because it involves the SWP and someone whose part of the inner party abusing their position, but this shit is sadly replicated everywhere. And if it's not institutions or structures, it's formed from personality cliques and knowledge.


 
I would rather you just stuck to gleeful comments instead of wild speculation about what happened prior what ever that means. The point that I made still stands.


----------



## SLK (Feb 25, 2013)

Nick Cohen really is horrible.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/02/sexual-abuse-dont-toe-the-party-line/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 25, 2013)

SLK said:


> Nick Cohen really is horrible.
> 
> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/02/sexual-abuse-dont-toe-the-party-line/


 
Yes, his axe grinding is distracting and distasteful. But the account he publishes has to be taken seriously. It seems, from the very limited details given, to involve an overlapping but in some ways different set of issues. It seems a bit odd that someone ended up "suspended" given the nature of those allegations, for starters.

(I note also his reference to "on the far left", which may simply be a way for Cohen to put the boot into the wider left, but is still a reminder not to start assuming that the SWP are the only people capable of botching a difficult situation)


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, his axe grinding is distracting and distasteful. But the account he publishes has to be taken seriously. It seems, from the very limited details given, to involve an overlapping but in some ways different set of issues. It seems a bit odd that someone ended up "suspended" given the nature of those allegations, for starters.
> 
> (I note also his reference to "on the far left", which may simply be a way for Cohen to put the boot into the wider left, but might conceivably not be. A reminder not to start assuming that the SWP are the only people capable of botching a difficult situation)



Remarkable article which on the face of it argues that all political parties who have a hierarchy have the potential to become a rapists playground. 

Nigel is absolutely on the button re future journalism equating far left with sexual abuse. Nicks own little anecdote ? Would an ex member be invited to go to the control commission?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 25, 2013)

> My colleagues are working on more stories of rape on the far left


Classy pre-announcement of a shitstorm, that.


----------



## october_lost (Feb 25, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I would rather you just stuck to gleeful comments instead of wild speculation about what happened prior what ever that means. The point that I made still stands.


It's already in the thread that cover-ups happened previously.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 25, 2013)

It is quite possible for a complaint by a non member to end up before the DC. What I found odd is the bit about her getting in trouble if she went to the media (cos yeah that is the first instinct of most rape victims), she had already left the party, what could they do? Tut aggressively at her? It might just be because I think Nick Cohen is a despicable shit of the highest order, but for the moment I am filing that little story under bullshit


----------



## killer b (Feb 25, 2013)

didn't a poster have a similar tale about his ex-girlfriend - earlier in this thread? certainly some of the details sounded similar.


----------



## cesare (Feb 25, 2013)

.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 25, 2013)

cesare said:


> Kavenism, iirc.


I think it was, there is some way of searching for all of someone's posts on a particular thread, but I can't figure out how to do it. And I am not reading the whole thread looking for it.

Eta: of course as I am posting using my tablet, if it involves right clicking on something then I am never going to find it.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 25, 2013)

SLK said:


> Nick Cohen really is horrible.
> 
> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/02/sexual-abuse-dont-toe-the-party-line/


Shit. I think that's my ex he's quoting half way through that piece. Fuck knows I want her to get justice for what happened to her but going to that ubercunt is hardly the best way surely?


----------



## cesare (Feb 25, 2013)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2013)

kavenism said:


> **


Best not to respond this way either.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Best not to respond this way either.


 
Yes. Seriously.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 25, 2013)

What? me or him?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 25, 2013)

kavenism said:


> What? me or him?


 
I think you should delete all your comments referring to it on this thread tbh


----------



## kavenism (Feb 25, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think you should delete all your comments referring to it on this thread tbh


Why? I've not put any names up here. It's common knowledge in parts of the SWP and now it's out in the public domain.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 25, 2013)

kavenism said:


> What? me or him?


 
Your post there looks like you are criticising the complainant for going to the wrong person to complain, which probably isn't an ideal tone to set.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Why? I've not put any names up here. It's common knowledge in parts of the SWP and now it's out in the public domain.


You might want to _be a bit more sure_ than sounds like then.

This was common knowledge in which parts of the SWP?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2013)

**


----------



## kavenism (Feb 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Your post there looks like you are criticising the complainant for going to the wrong person to complain, which probably isn't an ideal tone to set.


Oh for Christ sake that's not what I meant as my posts throughout this thread should make clear. I just meant to say that sending that kind of information to a prick like Nick Cohen was bound to have it used as part of his axe grinding rather than benefit her in any way.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You might want to _be a bit more sure_ than sounds like then.
> 
> This was common knowledge in which parts of the SWP?


The middle parts.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 25, 2013)

october_lost said:


> It's already in the thread that cover-ups happened previously.


 
This is the thread that covers covers ups that  happened previously.Set up your own gleeful comments threads or a thread when we can all post about some anecdote about someone we knew turning out to be a serial sexual abuser but we didn't suspect a thing.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 25, 2013)

What's Cohen's deal with the far left? Usually someone with that sort of visceral hatred directed towards the far left is either an ex-Trot who's hating on his or her youth or an NOLS type who still thinks it's 1977.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> What's Cohen's deal with the far left? Usually someone with that sort of visceral hatred directed towards the far left is either an ex-Trot who's hating on his or her youth or an NOLS type who still thinks it's 1977.


All seven.


----------



## october_lost (Feb 25, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> This is the thread that covers covers ups that  happened previously.Set up your own gleeful comments threads or a thread when we can all post about some anecdote about someone we knew turning out to be a serial sexual abuser but we didn't suspect a thing.


You have a bee in your bonnet about someone harping on about context?


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> All seven.


 
Is that your final answer?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 26, 2013)

october_lost said:


> You have a bee in your bonnet about someone harping on about context?


 
Just a mild case of irritation.Tell us a bit more about this activity you did around campus and the beast.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

Apparently, I will be dining on shoes after all.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently, I will be dining on shoes after all.


I can help you with sauce.


----------



## october_lost (Feb 26, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Just a mild case of irritation.Tell us a bit more about this activity you did around campus and the beast.


Glad to see you're on hand to police us all about it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently, I will be dining on shoes after all.


Guess I should be pleased.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Guess I should be pleased.


I don't think the position adopted by the Irish SWP is yours. I asked you this a while back, but let's recap. What, if anything, do you think the UK SWP did wrong in this whole affair? And I"m not inviting you to say they didn't attack the Seymourites hard enough. I mean, what is your view on how they dealt with the rape accusation?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

Have the Irish SWP said anything yet?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I don't think the position adopted by the Irish SWP is yours. I asked you this a while back, but let's recap. What, if anything, do you think the UK SWP did wrong in this whole affair? And I"m not inviting you to say they didn't attack the Seymourites hard enough. I mean, what is your view on how they dealt with the rape accusation?


I think the dc followed the procedures they had as best they could but that those procedures need updating. I can't see how the faction can argue that the case is closed AND call for delta's removal but I think he should voluntarily stand down for the good of the organisation. If he doesn't then the party is in a bit of a bind.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I think the dc followed the procedures they had as best they could but that those procedures need updating. I can't see how the faction can argue that the case is closed AND call for delta's removal but I think he should voluntarily stand down for the good of the organisation. If he doesn't then the party is in a bit of a bind.


I think the faction position would be that the original DC hearing really only considered his fitness to be an SWP member and did not consider his fitness to hold a full time position.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I think the dc followed the procedures they had as best they could but that those procedures need updating.


Most of us on this thread and in the wider world think that it was an unfair procedure, because the DC were friends and close associates of Delta. Do you think that also? 'Procedures need updating' is a bit vague.


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> What's Cohen's deal with the far left? Usually someone with that sort of visceral hatred directed towards the far left is either an ex-Trot who's hating on his or her youth or an NOLS type who still thinks it's 1977.


 

you mean 1997?


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 26, 2013)

Cohen's family were East End CPGBers, I think.

Maybe he inherited grandfather's icepick collection.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Cohen's family were East End CPGBers, I think.
> 
> Maybe he inherited grandfather's icepick collection.


That's some trick to pull off in manchester.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

To answer the question, mentally he is still at Oxford - for a lot of oxbridge types blair and the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan thrust them back to their student days and they have never left since.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 26, 2013)

Perhaps Cohen, is Pickman


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 26, 2013)

treelover said:


> you mean 1997?


 
no, '77. I was thinking about 'Operation Ice Pick', which (I think) dates from the late 70s/early 80s.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's some trick to pull off in manchester.


----------



## Shepp (Feb 26, 2013)

Not sure we can get much further in understanding the behaviour of the SWP without looking a the whole context of left-wing cults.

The following writings, mostly by disillusioned ex-members, are a good starting point for understanding why so many decent revolutionaries end up in cults that reproduce many of the worst aspects of capitalist society:

*Understanding Left Cults (SWP, SP, Spiked, WRP) - a reading list*


----------



## two sheds (Feb 26, 2013)

Shepp said:


> Not sure we can get much further in understanding the behaviour of the SWP without looking a the whole context of left-wing cults.
> 
> The following writings, mostly by disillusioned ex-members, are a good starting point for understanding why so many decent revolutionaries end up in cults that reproduce many of the worst aspects of capitalist society:
> 
> *Understanding Left Cults (SWP, SP, Spiked, WRP) - a reading list*


 
Interesting, thanks. One of the links in the first article goes to:
http://madammiaow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/swp-sex-implosion-its-dehumanisation-in.html

Which goes into one SWP cult member's experience of working for them. Very similar to scientology (including things like:"In the eighteen months of love-bombing it took to recruit me").

Plus this:

[EDIT 24 Feb 2013: I was just asked this question — "Is it true there are an estimated ninety SWP staff employed at below Living Wage rates and with no workplace trade union representation?" Well, SWP, is it?]


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

Shepp said:


> Not sure we can get much further in understanding the behaviour of the SWP without looking a the whole context of left wing cults



What is it about this thread and first time posters? It really does seem to attract a disproportionate number of drive by posts from shit heads.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm not sure they can be called a "cult", but there was certainly some 'odd' behaviour in the SWP that I encountered. The most uncomfortable (for my girlfriend) was probably the forceful line of people that greeted you at the end of a Marxism talk/debate.

"Join the SWP?" they'd all ask, one after the other. As if you'd reject the first 10 requests, but agree to sign up on the 11th.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 26, 2013)

List of cult characteristics from* Captive Hearts, Captive minds*



> 1) The group is focused on a living leader to whom members display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.
> 
> 2) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members and/or making money.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.anandainfo.com/cult_checklist.html

I'd disagree with the leader having to be alive, and I don't think having to give up personal goats is always a requirement but otherwise that looks reasonable to me. (It is of course not really a black/white decision since pretty well any group you'd imagine would score on at least one).

Scientology for example would meet all 12, interested to see what other people feel.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 26, 2013)

two sheds said:


> List of cult characteristics from* Captive Hearts, Captive minds*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

My personal goat is actually very important to me, and I certainly wouldn't be giving him up in a hurry.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 26, 2013)

How personal do these goats have to be? I'd describe her as more of an acquaintance than a friend; does she still have to go?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (Feb 26, 2013)

You both say that but how many people in the SWP have a personal goat? Tell me that. Case proven I'd say.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

I get it - the leaders get to keep their own escape goats.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 26, 2013)

After the revolution, private property in goats will be abolished.

The Glorious People's Goat Collective will meet the needs of all.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 26, 2013)

two sheds said:


> List of cult characteristics from* Captive Hearts, Captive minds*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I am allowed to award 1/2 points I get about 3 for the SWP.

It is a stupid test anyway, question 8 doesn't even make sense.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 26, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> After the revolution, private property in goats will be abolished.
> 
> The Glorious People's Goat Collective will meet the needs of all.


 
I was encouraged to give up my personal goat when I joined the party. But owing to the much vaunted “sex circuit” failing to materialise I decided to hang on to her.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> If I am allowed to award 1/2 points I get about 3 for the SWP.
> 
> It is a stupid test anyway, question 8 doesn't even make sense.


 
I presume 8 means that the group wouldn't hand the leaders over to the police if they broke the law.

Just 3? From what I've seen as an outsider I'd say at the very least:

2) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members and/or making money.

3) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged.

6) The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, it's leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).

7) The group has a polarized we-they mentality that causes conflict with the wider society.

11) Members'subservience to the group causes them to give up previous personal goats and interests while devoting inordinate amounts of time to the groups."
I've also seen examples of most of the other characteristics on this thread, goats and all, but am giving the benefit of the doubt that they're from overenthusiastic members. Come on, though, from mk12:



> The most uncomfortable (for my girlfriend) was probably the forceful line of people that greeted you at the end of a Marxism talk/debate.
> 
> "Join the SWP?" they'd all ask, one after the other. As if you'd reject the first 10 requests, but agree to sign up on the 11th.


 
That is seriously fucking cult-like. Replace the words with 'Have you been saved?' and you're up there with the fundie christians.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It is a stupid test anyway, question 8 doesn't even make sense.


 
Well it's "stupid" in the sense that it doesn't hang together. But it's not stupid in the sense that that the goals of this stuff were never really to clarify anything but to delegitimise New Religious Movements for the benefit of large established denominations, which is where this shit was originally coming from. Note for instance the part about the leadership not being part of a wider system of authority, a completely meaningless distinction introduced only to exclude larger religions, militaries and other establishment bodies.

Seriously though, best ignored. If our drive by troll or the one person who is biting really want to discuss this, they should fuck off to another thread.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 26, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I presume 8 means that the group wouldn't hand the leaders over to the police if they broke the law.
> 
> Just 3? From what I've seen as an outsider I'd say at the very least:
> 
> ...


2 - Members yes, money not so much hence I went for 0.5
3 - Is allowed within certain limits, even encouraged to some extent so again I gave it a 0.5
6 - is a really difficult one and there was a whole discussion around this earlier on in the thread, but I don't think this does apply to the SWP at all, so 0
7 - Another stupid question, what counts as wider society? It is a revolutionary organisation so of course it opposes the system we live under. This question essentially presupposes that 'wider society' as it currently exist is correct, well I disagree and therefore reject this question and give the SWP a 0.
8 - This does not apply to the SWP at all in my experience so 0 again.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

Dispatches are starting to come in from early aggregates, and so far it looks like the CC's machine gun positions have been massacring the opposition human waves.

In an amusingly shameless move, the CC has awarded its member two introductory speeches at each aggregate and also a right to reply at the end, totaling 45 minutes of speaking time for its official speakers. The faction has been awarded a whopping single speech of 6 minutes with no right to reply.

And there are lots of reports of the apparatus mobilising people on membership lists who haven't been seen at a meeting or activity in ten years to pack meetings. I'm a little surprised that Bolshiebhoy hasn't gotten the call yet.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well it's "stupid" in the sense that it doesn't hang together. But it's not stupid in the sense that that the goals of this stuff were never really to clarify anything but to delegitimise New Religious Movements for the benefit of large established denominations, which is where this shit was originally coming from. Note for instance the part about the leadership not being part of a wider system of authority, a completely meaningless distinction introduced only to exclude larger religious, militaries and other establishment bodies.
> 
> Seriously though, best ignored. If our drive by troll or the one person who is biting really want to discuss this, they should fuck off to another thread.


Well exactly it complete ignores the fact that the Pope, for example, fits to a tea. It really is a silly test to try and apply to far left groups. I was just having fun to see what I would score the SWP as. I also tried the Catholic church as a whole and got a 6.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Dispatches are starting to come in from early aggregates, and so far it looks like the CC's machine gun positions have been massacring the opposition human waves.
> 
> In an amusingly shameless move, the CC has awarded its member two introductory speeches at each aggregate and also a right to reply at the end, totaling 45 minutes of speaking time for its official speakers. The faction has been awarded a whopping single speech of 6 minutes with no right to reply.
> 
> And there are lots of reports of the apparatus mobilising people on membership lists who haven't been seen at a meeting or activity in ten years to pack meetings. I'm a little surprised that Bolshiebhoy hasn't gotten the call yet.


There were a lot of names on the CC list who I know have not been active for years.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> There were a lot of names on the CC list who I know have not been active for years.


 
I'm sure that there are some on the opposition list too, but the apparatus were always going to have a huge advantage when it comes to systematic raising of the dead. They have the, ahem, "membership" lists and contact details and a rather top heavy team of full time workers to work the phones and get on people's doorsteps.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Dispatches are starting to come in from early aggregates, and so far it looks like the CC's machine gun positions have been massacring the opposition human waves.
> 
> In an amusingly shameless move, the CC has awarded its member two introductory speeches at each aggregate and also a right to reply at the end, totaling 45 minutes of speaking time for its official speakers. The faction has been awarded a whopping single speech of 6 minutes with no right to reply.
> 
> And there are lots of reports of the apparatus mobilising people on membership lists who haven't been seen at a meeting or activity in ten years to pack meetings. I'm a little surprised that Bolshiebhoy hasn't gotten the call yet.


Sorry Nigl 3 replies in about 5 minutes. 
You would think that so shamelessly stitching up the aggregates, would have the effect of driving people to support the opposition, but the sad fact is that despite what I said above a lot of SWP members do struggle to apply critical reasoning to their own party.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You would think that so shamelessly stitching up the aggregates, would have the effect of driving people to support the opposition, but the sad fact is that despite what I said above a lot of SWP members do struggle to apply critical reasoning to their own party.


 
I suspect that there's a supremely polarised and emotional atmosphere at those meetings, which is not conducive to critical thinking.

Can anyone tell me when the SWP developed this system of aggregates electing delegates rather than branches, by the way? Is there any reason for it apart from making oversight (and intervention) from the central leadership easier?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Sorry Nigl 3 replies in about 5 minutes.
> You would think that so shamelessly stitching up the aggregates, would have the effect of driving people to support the opposition, but the sad fact is that despite what I said above a lot of SWP members do struggle to apply critical reasoning to their own party.


That's exzactly what i wouldn't expect. The CC knew when establishing the system that any challenge to them would almost necessarily be from a minority of the party, so they established an utterly crude majoritarian tool that allowed them to use as cannon fodder the members they had cultivated as useful idiots. Why would the idiots then revolt? This is how it works.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

It's been a while since we've had statements from bizarre little groups pushing and shoving to get their say on the SWP's problems, so here's one from Gerry Downing's Socialist Fight for old time's sake:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/121778571/Socialist-Fight-No-12


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's been a while since we've had statements from bizarre little groups pushing and shoving to get their say on the SWP's problems, so here's one from Gerry Downing's Socialist Fight for old time's sake:
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/121778571/Socialist-Fight-No-12


 
I'm not reading that, got about four paragraphs in and wanted to die. Skim read enough to gather that according to Socialist Fight basically if only the SWP adopted an orthodox view on the Soviet Union Martin Smith wouldn't be a rapist, or something...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not reading that, got about four paragraphs in and wanted to die.


 
The layout skills of whoever puts together the organ of Gerry Downing's Socialist Fight have been known to cause readers to tear out their own eyes.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

The CPGB/WW has the latest Faction circular:

1) "...it is likely that the CC will win most or all votes at the special conference, given the nature of the operation by CC supporters...

2) The CC has indeed awarded itself 45 mins versus 6 for the Faction at the aggregates.

3) The CC supporters have been using inactive and non-subs paying "members" to vote through delegate lists consisting entirely of CC supporters, even if that means putting the inactive "members" forward as delegates themselves. Such lists have already been passed at Glasgow, Hackney, Leicester and Home Counties aggregates.

4) Some mysterious mischief maker has been going around cancelling faction room bookings the night before their meetings.

5) Still talking about dissolving and about how to "keep members in" the SWP after the kicking they get at conference.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/caucus-documents-and-idoop-update


----------



## mk12 (Feb 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The CPGB/WW has the latest Faction circular:
> 
> 1) "...it is likely that the CC will win most or all votes at the special conference, given the nature of the operation by CC supporters...
> 
> ...


 
_"This is what democracy looks like!"_


----------



## audiotech (Feb 26, 2013)

Blimey, this is one comprehensive piece of work.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Blimey, this is one comprehensive piece of work.


 
Yes. It's not always very fast, but pretty much everything ends up there.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It manages to make a few valid points about appropriateness but ruins it with the final paragraph and it's disgusting 'analysis' of the age profile of pro cc folk and the clear implication that we all have the same 'jailbait fetish'  he accuses delta of.
> 
> The bit about teachers and others in positions of power not having sex with those in their care of a vulnerable age is more than fair. But I did find the discussion of teenage women and their alleged inability to make sexual choices a tad patronising. Especially as I had (from the age of 22) a long standing relationship with a woman who was 17 when we got together and who was definitely my senior in sexual and emotional maturity throughout our relationship.



Yeah, but 17 and 22 isn't that big a difference.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 26, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Blimey, this is one comprehensive piece of work.


 
There's a thread on mumsnet


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> 2) The CC has indeed awarded itself *45 mins versus 6* for the Faction at the aggregates.
> 
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/caucus-documents-and-idoop-update


 
Does anyone know how the CC are able to justify this disparity? I want to hear their version of why they need 45 minutes and the opposition only get 6 minutes.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 26, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Does anyone know how the CC are able to justify this disparity? I want to hear their version of why they need 45 minutes and the opposition only get 6 minutes.


 
The CC cannot justify this disparity. What they are saying is that the CC runs the party and will tell you what you should be thinking and that the reason the Faction has very little time is that they, the Faction has little to say!


----------



## emanymton (Feb 26, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Does anyone know how the CC are able to justify this disparity? I want to hear their version of why they need 45 minutes and the opposition only get 6 minutes.


At a guess only the second CC speaker will officially be speaking against the faction and they may only get 6 minutes as well. The main CC speaker will 'only' be introducing and summing up the discussion.

A 30 minute 'introduction' followed by a 6 minute speech for the faction then a 6 minute speech against (by the second cc member), then 20-30 minutes of contributions from the floor (3 minute max each probably) and finally a 10 minute 'summing up'. This would be my guess for the format.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> At a guess only the second CC speaker will officially be speaking against the faction and they may only get 6 minutes as well. *The main CC speaker will 'only' be introducing and summing up the discussion.*
> 
> A 30 minute 'introduction' followed by a 6 minute speech for the faction then a 6 minute speech against (by the second cc member), then 20-30 minutes of contributions from the floor (3 minute max each probably) and finally a 10 minute 'summing up'. This would be my guess for the format.


 
 oh dear


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 26, 2013)

Santiagotalk said:


> The CC cannot justify this disparity. What they are saying is that the CC runs the party and will tell you what you should be thinking and that the reason the Faction has very little time is that they, the Faction has little to say!


 
Ensure you have an experienced *chair person* agreed in advance. Where you have 2 CC members coming to your aggregate one will introduce the discussion and speak for *20-25 minutes.* The other one will speak from the floor – they should be given extra time to speak.
*Factions: *Any factions formed in the run up to the conference will also have the right to speak at aggregates. This will be arranged through the National Office. Faction material should only be distributed through the National Office. Any queries about this should be discussed with the National Office.

The CC member will speak for 20 to 25 minutes. The Faction speaker will speak for 6 minutes. The second CC member will also be allowed to speak from the floor. Only the first CC member can sum up.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

So hang on, one minute half the party has signed up to the faction and the next those same people are voting for the cc cause the cc had more time at the meeting?! Is that really the best analysis folk on here can manage? Maybe just maybe the factions motions don't actually make sense to people when they hear the argument laid out. The motion on delta in particular, as I've said, is just self contradictory.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 26, 2013)

fucking hell you are awful


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So hang on, one minute half the party has signed up to the faction and the next those same people are voting for the cc cause the cc had more time at the meeting?! Is that really the best analysis folk on here can manage? Maybe just maybe the factions motions don't actually make sense to people when they hear the argument laid out. The motion on delta in particular, as I've said, is just self contradictory.


 
In short, you can't explain either why the CC has so much more time than the opposition but you thought you'd comment on it anyway. Cheers.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 26, 2013)

My God they are completely losing it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think the faction position would be that the original DC hearing really only considered his fitness to be an SWP member and did not consider his fitness to hold a full time position.


And the loyalist position I guess would be that as long as he was deemed a comrade in good standing which was the result of the conference it's up to the cc to nominate who it likes to leading positions in other organisations. The motion on delta really was the most flawed of them all I thought.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Most of us on this thread and in the wider world think that it was an unfair procedure, because the DC were friends and close associates of Delta. Do you think that also? 'Procedures need updating' is a bit vague.


Most of us on this thread aren't members of the IS like you but I'd have hoped you'd prefer to let the special conference decide what dc process reform was needed rather than letting everyone from Cohen to Butchers decide for you.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> fucking hell you are awful


dick emery?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 26, 2013)

don't you agree that the timetabling there is completely out of whack with having a supposedly balanced debate?


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2013)

Apparently SWP are the key player behind the new and crucial 'Benefit Justice Campaign', see other threads, I just hope they don't fuck it up..


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2013)

'It can take years to establish SWSS groups on campus in which vast sections of the student campus gravitate around SWSS, for example Sussex University is currently in a 4 week occupation, with SWSS taking a lead.'

oh yeah?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

These people have done nothing but debate this bloody mess for several months now, does 20 mins either way make that much difference, really? Bearing in mind nearly everywhere they turn they will hear people outside the party only too happy to tell them how wrong they are to agree with their cc. They are effectively fighting for the soul of their organisation, which many of them on all sides have given most of their adult lives for in the pursuit of a better world, I don't think they'll be that worried about all the niceties of debate. Maybe they should be but....


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 26, 2013)

i'll repeat: don't you agree that the timetabling there is completely out of whack with having a supposedly balanced debate?


----------



## cesare (Feb 26, 2013)

It'll make a great deal of difference to how fair it seems, internally and to the outside world (when the inevitable transcript is leaked).


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2013)

Apparently Nick Cohen is really going to put the boot in with next weeks Observer, he has been contacted by a number of former SWP members, going to be a disaster for them and by association WILOTL...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> My God they are completely losing it.


 
It's worth noting that the motion with the "cavalier attitude" towards losing "the students" is from two individuals rather than from the CC faction as a whole. There are also complaints about what can essentially be described as destructively factional behaviour by the CC towards important SWSS groups and SWSS leaders, but that's not quite the same thing. The other complaint, that the CC have effectively completely rewritten the student work perspective since the recent conference is also a serious one but not quite the same as the motion.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

I start to worry about fairness and balance and then I read another tweet from Anna Chen retweeted by anonymous factionalists applauding this torrent of Cohen shit and I think no fuck it, the opposition are lucky to still have membership cards. I look at the faction's motions and I wonder if passing them or not passing them is really worth ignoring the cesspit being thrown at the SWP and I suspect that's influencing the undecided faction member more than hearing a random cc member for an extra few minutes.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 26, 2013)

do you think the balance of the minutes is indicative of a fair debate?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm hearing that shoes may be off the menu tonight.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I start to worry about fairness and balance and then I read another tweet from Anna Chen retweeted by anonymous factionalists applauding this torrent of Cohen shit and I think no fuck it, the opposition are lucky to still have membership cards. I look at the faction's motions and I wonder if passing them or not passing them is really worth ignoring the cesspit being thrown at the SWP and I suspect that's influencing the undecided faction member more than hearing a random cc member for an extra few minutes.


we've seen the fucking cess pit, mate. a central committee with a bloke who bites chunks out of people and a bloke in his fifties shagging a seventeen year old.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

There's definitely a rather offensive Mike Tyson joke to be made.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> These people have done nothing but debate this bloody mess for several months now, does 20 mins either way make that much difference, really? Bearing in mind nearly everywhere they turn they will hear people outside the party only too happy to tell them how wrong they are to agree with their cc. They are effectively fighting for the soul of their organisation, which many of them on all sides have given most of their adult lives for in the pursuit of a better world, I don't think they'll be that worried about all the niceties of debate. Maybe they should be but....


 
Mate, I enjoy your posts and sometimes agree with you, but you're fucking losing it now. We get it, the opposition is based on a lot of dodgy politics, but thats hardly surprising because everything that's ever come out of the IS is too. You're no longer making sense.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> These people have done nothing but debate this bloody mess for several months now, does 20 mins either way make that much difference, really? Bearing in mind nearly everywhere they turn they will hear people outside the party only too happy to tell them how wrong they are to agree with their cc. They are effectively fighting for the soul of their organisation, which many of them on all sides have given most of their adult lives for in the pursuit of a better world, I don't think they'll be that worried about all the niceties of debate. Maybe they should be but....


 
hack


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

The people who are getting excited about this ear nonsense tell me all I need to know about this debate. There was a one off physical altercation over 20 years ago between two grown blokes over something totally non political and yet people are somehow trying to drag it into this current mess?! it's shit like this is convincing the people in the middle ground and ensuring the cc wins all of these votes.


----------



## past caring (Feb 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's definitely a rather offensive Mike Tyson joke to be made.


 
To be honest, the problem with the Bradley thing isn't so much his taste for human flesh (there's an even more offensive joke in that vein to be made about Gareth Jenkins - he wasn't known as 'The Count' for nothing) so much as the fact that he's a complete tool who never had an original idea in his life. Quite how a CC which includes individuals like him can kid itself on that it is the vanguard _of the vanguard_ demonstrates both an infinite capacity for self-delusion and an organisation entirely lacking in talent.


----------



## pansalar (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I start to worry about fairness and balance and then I read another tweet from Anna Chen retweeted by anonymous factionalists applauding this torrent of Cohen shit and I think no fuck it, the opposition are lucky to still have membership cards. I look at the faction's motions and I wonder if passing them or not passing them is really worth ignoring the cesspit being thrown at the SWP and I suspect that's influencing the undecided faction member more than hearing a random cc member for an extra few minutes.


Anonymous factionalists retweeting or anonymous tweeters?

This is all getting rather paranoid.  Everything is the fault of Richard/ China.  The issue is that they were found out by the outside world.  My daughters like to blame each other for snitching; they don't consider the behaviour that got them into trouble in the first place.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The people who are getting excited about this ear nonsense tell me all I need to know about this debate.


 
Is anyone getting excited about it? As opposed to finding it mildly entertaining?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 26, 2013)

just delusional conspiracy theories from bolshieboy. i haven't seen a single oppositionist re-blog or tweet it


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is anyone getting excited about it? As opposed to finding it mildly entertaining?


Well dk might have been mentioning it in an ironic way just now, not sure, but Oisin who is one of the only actual members of the IS on this thread has been unsuccessfully trying to nail me to a tree on here over this non issue for days now.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well dk might have been mentioning it in an ironic way just now, not sure, but Oisin who is one of the only actual members of the IS on this thread has been unsuccessfully trying to nail me to a tree on here over this non issue for days now.


i'm not excited but i'm quite serious.

having someone on the central committe who has bitten a chunk out of someone's ear show's the arrogance of the cc. biters and sleazy cunts, that's what you expect to lead the class? fuck off.


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2013)

''Queasy is just my starting point. Try anger, disgust and embarrassment. I spent many years building the SWP because I honestly believed they were the best left wing party in Britain. I left after the standing ovation of 2011 when Delta point blank lied to us, and Lord Alex and his cronies spent the entire weekend running around whispering to people that Comrade W was unstable and that the complaint was a pack of lies. I knew she was telling the truth, and to watch their maneuvering as they tried to cover for Delta was and is sickening.''


This was posted by an ex member on SU, very damning...


----------



## treelover (Feb 26, 2013)

''I used to wonder why when people left the party they then hated it so much !
They’re having meetings in my area on “Women’s Liberation, how to get it”. I would say the first step would be to not go anywhere near the SWP !
If they dare to show up on the International Women’s Day march they’re going to get a mouthful from me and some other pissed off men and women.'


more...

they are finished...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i'm not excited but i'm quite serious.
> 
> having someone on the central committe who has bitten a chunk out of someone's ear show's the arrogance of the cc. biters and sleazy cunts, that's what you expect to lead the class? fuck off.


Cause the workers or other progressive movements have never had leaders who had a regrettable violent episode (involving a fair fight between two young men of the same age and general physical condition over the sort of shit young men often ruck about) in their past?!? Young working class people who behave violently are barred for life from playing any role on our side? And this shitstorm isn't about bourgeois morality?!


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2013)

stuff coming out from ex members is very revealing, the anger is very very palpable...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Mate, I enjoy your posts and sometimes agree with you, but you're fucking losing it now. We get it, the opposition is based on a lot of dodgy politics, but thats hardly surprising because everything that's ever come out of the IS is too. You're no longer making sense.


Sorry you feel that way fella but I've found when people have reacted to me like this on here it's usually because the loyalists are making headway in the debate and the general level of anti-SWP hysteria on here ramps up in response.


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2013)

''The CC has decided that it will have up to 45 minutes to speak at aggregates, granting itself a lengthy introduction, an extended contribution from a second CC speaker, and a right of reply. Faction speakers have been granted just 6 minutes with no right of reply.”


talk about gerrymandering, how can people stay in such a group?


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 27, 2013)

*Rupert von Hentzau* ‏@*SplinterSunrise* 
Glasgow district elects 28 delegates, every single one of them a CC supporter? Heck, they'll be giving Dave Sherry the Order of Lenin.


----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2013)

rumour going around, they, the LMF(lynch mob faction), may bring in some 'outside security'


----------



## past caring (Feb 27, 2013)




----------



## treelover (Feb 27, 2013)

the RCP certainly used to do this, the thugs holding the massive Victory to Iraq banner at the Gulf War demo certainly seemed to be hired hands..


----------



## sihhi (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Did anyone think the cc was going to say oh you know what, our elected dc didn't convict delta, our conference backed the dc's procedures but here you are here's his head on a platter, suit you? No they couldn't, constitutionally and democratically they couldn't! But they could and have given everyone a chance to trash it out properly again once and for all.


 
Is 45 minutes to 6 minutes thrashing it out properly?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry you feel that way fella but I've found when people have reacted to me like this on here it's usually because the loyalists are making headway in the debate and the general level of anti-SWP hysteria on here ramps up in response.


 
delusional... delusional... you think that fixing the aggregate debates well in favour of the CC classes as them 'making headway' in the debate. tbh, i'm as critical of IDOOP as anyone. they've already conceded too much even by accounting for the idea that they may not win outright and perform a complete purge on the entire existing leadership - as such a purge is literally the only thing which could possibly keep the party afloat. they essentially condemned the facebook four by refusing to demand their reinstatement as a fundamental goal and significantly weakened their position by restricting themselves to internal party mechanisms of discussion controlled entirely by the CC - as well as being full of identity politics Syriza types you vent your ire on.

but none of this in any way makes the actions of the CC remotely defensible - none of it. why you even play the game of claiming that 45 minutes to 6 minutes in a meeting is neither here nor there is just staggering hackery - just be truthful. you're not even concerned about having a debate with them you just want them gone (suicidal and fundamentally still insane)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well dk might have been mentioning it in an ironic way just now, not sure, but Oisin who is one of the only actual members of the IS on this thread has been unsuccessfully trying to nail me to a tree on here over this non issue for days now.


 
Perhaps, but the general response to it has been less than serious.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> rumour going around, they, the LMF(lynch mob faction), may bring in some 'outside security'


No there isn' t there is one person on SU speculating, and it is total bollocks


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

The cc has always had more time at aggregates than others, what's the point of having a political leadership if they don't lead? There sems to be an assumption that the swp should organise these aggregates as if they've already split and give both 'leaderships' the right to equal time so people can decide which wing of the party they want to be in. The fact is the faction haven't suggested such an alternative leadership (and won't cause a fair chunk of the faction as opposed to the platform don't want one).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The cc has always had more time at aggregates than others, *what's the point of having a political leadership if they don't lead?*
> 
> *There sems to be an assumption that the swp should organise these aggregates as if they've already split* and give both 'leaderships' the right to equal time so people can decide which wing of the party they want to be in. T
> 
> he fact is the faction haven't suggested such an alternative leadership (and won't cause a fair chunk of the faction as opposed to the platform don't want one).


 
1. One of the fundamental problems being addressed is what a significant proportion of the SWP see as poor leadership by the cc. Trying to address that problem by packing meetings with pro-cc delegates and giving hugely disproportionate time to pro-cc speakers doesn't seem to be an honest or effective way of debating the problem. 

2. It will certainly draw the lines more firmly between 'them and us', but for that to be a good thing you need to have made the a priori assumption that the leadership is right. Given the state of the SWP that seems like a hell of an assumption to make. Perhaps a better assumption to base the debate on would be that something has gone seriously wrong; what that is (be it organisation, individuals, perspectives or culture...), needs identifying and then subsequently solutions need to be proposed, discussed, decided on and put into practice.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry you feel that way fella but I've found when people have reacted to me like this on here it's usually because the loyalists are making headway in the debate and the general level of anti-SWP hysteria on here ramps up in response.


 
C'mon man, that doesn't really fly does it? People react badly to you because the loyalists are winning the argument?

And besides, it should be obvious that I think the loyalists are the worst kind of hacks and and that the opposition are at best a bunch of muppets and at worst a group of people using a rape allegation to further their own political agenda.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> No there isn' t there is one person on SU speculating, and it is total bollocks


 
Well called. That was just some cunt on SU. From the way people are speaking their you'd think it was the fall of Rome and the last days of Saigon all in one.


----------



## Santiagotalk (Feb 27, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1. One of the fundamental problems being addressed is what a significant proportion of the SWP see as poor leadership by the cc. Trying to address that problem by packing meetings with pro-cc delegates and giving hugely disproportionate time to pro-cc speakers doesn't seem to be an honest or effective way of debating the problem.
> 
> 2. It will certainly draw the lines more firmly between 'them and us', but for that to be a good thing you need to have made the a priori assumption that the leadership is right. Given the state of the SWP that seems like a hell of an assumption to make. Perhaps a better assumption to base the debate on would be that something has gone seriously wrong; what that is (be it organisation, individuals, perspectives or culture...), needs identifying and then subsequently solutions need to be proposed, discussed, decided on and put into practice.
> 
> ...


----------



## two sheds (Feb 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well it's "stupid" in the sense that it doesn't hang together. But it's not stupid in the sense that that the goals of this stuff were never really to clarify anything but to delegitimise New Religious Movements for the benefit of large established denominations, which is where this shit was originally coming from.


 
I chose Captive Hearts Captive Minds because it was one quoted a lot on scientology. I'm happy if you can come up with a better list.



> Note for instance the part about the leadership not being part of a wider system of authority, a completely meaningless distinction introduced only to exclude larger religions, militaries and other establishment bodies.


 
Again, I'd see this as the leadership being taken by the followers as being outside the wider (for example .... "bourgeois") legal system.



> Seriously though, best ignored. If our drive by troll or the one person who is biting really want to discuss this, they should fuck off to another thread.


 
I can see why you wouldn't like being compared to religious types, but I think there are fair comparisons here. It is whether an organization uses other than purely rational discussion to (1) attract converts (2) keep converts and stop them from finding out what is actually going on and (3) stop converts leaving when they've found out what is actually going on.

We've seen plenty of examples of each of those three on this thread. Any form of persuasion which systematically appeals to peoples’ vanity (love bombing for example) or takes advantage of peoples’ weaknesses is cult-like behaviour.

I hadn’t for example seen about conditions for people working for SWP. That link I put up shows several more parallels with the 12 points.

http://madammiaow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/swp-sex-implosion-its-dehumanisation-in.html



> In my own case, working full-time for no pay on the SWP's press over several years while being subjected to their own form of obedience training left me heavily in debt and marvelling at my own stupidity.
> 
> I established and ran the press for their Globalise Resistence, Socialist Alliance (SA) and Stop the War Coalition (STWC) campaigns when I should have been working on my own writing, but however many hours I worked, it was never enough for them. You may be behind the computer from 8am to gone midnight on their behalf when everyone else is earning a living, but if the district organiser demands you attend a paper sale at 6am you must do it — even if only she and one other turn up and no-one else in the whole of West London does — and you only sell one paper. If the central committee head honcho tells you, f'rinstance, to screw over friends and sympathisers Paul Mason and Dave Osler and, later, RMT's Greg Tucker out of bloody mindedness when they've done an excellent job, to refuse to obey their authorit-eye as I did is to invite the SWP's collective wrath.
> 
> ...


 
Revisiting the 12 points

_1) The group is focused on a living leader to whom members display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. _

I give you the CC who cannot be criticized  plus of course Lenin if we allow dead leaders.

_2) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members and/or making money._

Emanymton remarks that SWP aren’t after money but it’s an “and/or” point, and I think that the pressure to find new members counts a whole point against SWP here. Flooding demonstrations with SWP banners to make it look as if it is a huge groundswell movement (cf. Scientology and its “6 million members”) for example. And having the people in line mentioned above each asking to join the SWP is a corker. There’s one proper answer to the second person in line asking that, which is “Are you fucking deaf or something?” Meekly saying ‘no’ time after time shows them taking advantage of peoples’ weakness and politeness.

_3) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged._

I think we’ve seen all three fully discouraged on this thread by the CC: their treatment of factions, the whole concept of democratic centralism is somewhat dodgy for suppressing dissent, their labeling of people unhappy with the CC’s behaviour as being not proper Leninists etc. etc.

_6) The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, it's leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity)._

A special mission to save humanity is right up there. The CC’s position I’d say definitely counts as elitist (they pride themselves on being vanguardist).

_7) The group has a polarized we-they mentality that causes conflict with the wider society._

Anyone doubt this? Wider society = society wider than SWP in case people have difficulty understanding this cryptic phrase.

_8) The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations)._

I’d delete the phrase between brackets (and would also count this as a strike against the Catholic Church for example), but just referring to the legal system as “bourgeois” puts you in danger of this. The way this whole episode has been handled verges on that.

_10) The group's leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control then_

I doubt whether they are totally innocent of this, particularly with the statements from former members above about having to go out and sell Socialist Worker. I was talking to (as I recall) an SWPer on a demo I went on in the 70s and he wanted to know my commitment to left wing causes and when I remarked that I was on that particular demo he asked me “ah but were you on the demo last week?” I doubt the leadership are free of this sort of pressurizing when trying to get the party faithful out.

_11) Members'subservience to the group causes them to give up previous personal goats and interests while devoting inordinate amounts of time to the groups."_

Meetings, demos, selling papers, being forced to sell their goats?

_12) Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members._

I’m sure I’ve seen remarks that people tending to socialize with other SWPers (which is going to make it difficult to leave if your whole social circle is the SWP).

Which gives a good score of 9 that I can see – or to be charitable 8 with a couple of halves at least. If that puts it up with the Catholic church - which I’d say definitely displays cult behaviour – then it’s a bit ironic for an organization that is supposed to be showing us all the way to revolutionary class consciousness but is actually trying to act like the opium of the masses.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> Apparently Nick Cohen is really going to put the boot in with next weeks Observer, he has been contacted by a number of former SWP members, going to be a disaster for them and by association WILOTL...



It's not going to a disaster for anyone really. No matter how much of a smear Cohen tries.

The SWP is finished, has been for a few years now. All that's left is a few hundred people arguing about the manner of it's final demise.

As for WILOTL. There isn't is there?


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I will eat my shoe if the Irish SWP passes their motion and takes a critical stance. I'll even let you pick the sauce. We both know that this wont happen.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 27, 2013)

It happened. The recent NC in Dublin voted that the UK SWP handled the rape accusation 'wrongly'.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> It happened. The recent NC in Dublin voted that the UK SWP handled the rape accusation 'wrongly'.


 
WASABI


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 27, 2013)

I wish I had a personal goat to give up


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 27, 2013)

Come the glorious day of freedom, ALL will have personal goats.

But what about people who don't like goats, like me?

Come the glorious day of freedom, you'll do as you're damn well told.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 27, 2013)

is personal goat like the yin to drama llamas yang?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 27, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Come the glorious day of freedom, ALL will have personal goats.
> 
> But what about people who don't like goats, like me?
> 
> Come the glorious day of freedom, you'll do as you're damn well told.


 
Idris I think both you and I know what will happen to people who don't like goats; it will quite rightly be the loathing that dare not speak its name.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## JimW (Feb 27, 2013)

Make mine The Black Goat of the Woods With a Thousand Young: http://www.yog-sothoth.com/wiki/index.php/Shub-Niggurath

Kids today, eh?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 27, 2013)

All this talk of individual caprine ownership is just nanny state capitalism writ large.

_I'll get me goat..._


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The cc has always had more time at aggregates than others, what's the point of having a political leadership if they don't lead? There sems to be an assumption that the swp should organise these aggregates as if they've already split and give both 'leaderships' the right to equal time so people can decide which wing of the party they want to be in. The fact is the faction haven't suggested such an alternative leadership (and won't cause a fair chunk of the faction as opposed to the platform don't want one).


Having more time to put your position forward is not 'leading.' If you are a good leader, you don't even need more time (obviously no one would think this applies in relation to the SWP). That, together with the shameful exclusion of faction members from conference slates (something which goes explicitly against their supposed principles and theories about how democratic centralism works) is a very simple and obvious sign of an clique going into clamp down mode, not prepared to listen or learn, still less admit they did anything wrong. It is the mark of a doomed organisation that can never and will never change its course on anything. All hail the new Titanic.


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> All this talk of individual caprine ownership is just nanny state capitalism writ large.
> 
> _I'll get me goat..._


why so gruff, billy?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> why so gruff, billy?


Too many trolls under the bridge


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 27, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> _I'll get me goat..._


 
You've certainly got mine.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 27, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> You've certainly got mine.


_Wait four hours before applying second goat_


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Too many trolls under the bridge


dang.  Sorry.  i'll pacca ma bags...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 27, 2013)

Nigel - can you film and put on youtube or vimeo please?


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> dang. Sorry. i'll pacca ma bags...


 
Shall i hold yur goat while yur doin that?


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2013)

At the end of the day the split will be down to cash, mere money. That's all.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

It was only a matter of time before someone started* bleating* on about the money..


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> At the end of the day the split will be down to cash, mere money. That's all.


At the end of the day it gets dark. I think it is getting very dark for the SWP. The way they are handling their problems makes everything so much worse than it need have been. It really does look like the effective end of the party as anything more than a talking shop for a few hundred people out on the edge of left politics.

If there is a revolution I wouldn't want it to be led by the current 'vanguard' that is the SWP cc and their acolytes. They claim to be Leninist and are described as Trots but really they are behaving more like ruthless Stalinists.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2013)

I'll give you all a few minutes...


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> At the end of the day the split will be down to cash, mere money. That's all.


 
When the CPGB split, the Marxism Today set ran off with the chequebook, right? I presume Callinicos and chums will have made sure to avoid that?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2013)

chilango said:
			
		

> I'll give you all a few minutes...



I think they're all having one of their slow days today.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> At the end of the day the split will be down to cash, mere money. That's all.


 
So you think the cc will be pulling the wool over the membership's eyes?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Random (Feb 27, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So you think the cc will be pulling the wool over the membership's eyes?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


The IS tradition is unravelling before our eyes


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So you think the cc will be pulling the wool over the membership's eyes?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I kid you not.


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> When the CPGB split, the Marxism Today set ran off with the chequebook, right? I presume Callinicos and chums will have made sure to avoid that?


With the CPGB, and even the WRP, different groups did control different, significant, parts of the party apparatus, each having its own steady stream of income, and each of which could make _some_ legitimate claim to the part's assets.  Each component was fairly strong simply because they had their own sphere of influence.  I don't think it works that way with the SWP. They don't have any strong product other than 'the SWP' - none of the paper, the journal or the pisspoor magazine have any significant readership or influence outside the party, nor any significant income.  So even if they were controlled by a different party faction, they'd have no position to nick things from.  I doubt any of the faction(s) have their names on any chequebooks (SWSS/student office _maybe_), so they couldn't take hold of anything.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2013)

Thing is SWSS members could be spotted a mile off if they tried to walk off with he cheque book. Y'know the combination of "ironic" mo, hair and daft outfit...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> Thing is SWSS members could be spotted a mile off if they tried to walk off with he cheque book. Y'know the combination of "ironic" mo, hair and daft outfit...


 
If it was a lass people would just assume she was the latest girlfriend of one of the CC


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2013)

*sighs*

It's wasted on you lot innit?


----------



## JimW (Feb 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> *sighs*
> 
> It's wasted on you lot innit?


Worsted, actually. Hard-wearing and doesn't show the dirt.


----------



## Random (Feb 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> *sighs*
> 
> It's wasted on you lot innit?


No, it's worsted on me.

Edit: BAH! BAAAAAAA


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

JimW said:


> Worsted, actually. Hard-wearing and doesn't show the dirt.


You could probably weave a goat of many colours from such material?


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2013)

Not a flash in the Pan then?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 27, 2013)

Random said:


> No, it's worsted on me.


You need to up your codliver intake


----------



## JimW (Feb 27, 2013)

Random said:


> No, it's worsted on me.
> 
> Edit: BAH! BAAAAAAA


Hah.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 27, 2013)

redcogs said:


> You could probably weave a goat of many colours from such material?


 
The cc is spinning a yarn while their heavies loom in the background.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

The collapse into goat references suggests a threadbare approach.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2013)

...it's almost like the plot of a Frank Capra movie.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

More than top quality *mending* will be required to rescue the swp now.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 27, 2013)

Surely descent into punning is part of the warp and weft of Urban75.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

Can't comment until i've teased out the detail.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

Does anyone know whether the Prof's family has a goat of arms?


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2013)

apparently the shenannygans are being turned into a movie by Frank Capra Jr!


(look it up)


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

i'd wager the Prof's nanny is a party member.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 27, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i'd wager the Prof's nanny is a party member.



Isn't he grown up enough to look after himself ?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I chose Captive Hearts Captive Minds because it was one quoted a lot on scientology. I'm happy if you can come up with a better list.


 
Fuck off you tedious prick, I'm not playing your game.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

T


----------



## two sheds (Feb 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Fuck off you tedious prick, I'm not playing your game.


 


Can't even confront the possibility that they use mind-control-type techniques, eh?

I went through a similar phase for a couple of years when i came out of scientology so I know what you're going through.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I went through a similar phase for a couple of years when i came out of scientology so I know what you're going through.


 
I'm genuinely pleased to discover that you were a Scientologist. It makes sense on a number of levels.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm genuinely pleased to discover that you were a Scientologist. It makes sense on a number of levels.


 
You still are  .


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2013)

two sheds said:


> You still are  .


 
So what was your Midichlorian count?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So what was your Midichlorian count?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2013)

two sheds said:


> View attachment 29504


surely 'get the horn'


----------



## leyton96 (Feb 27, 2013)

I find 'A Goat To Win' a fair and well written account of the life of that well known showman Yigael Goatstein.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 27, 2013)

How is this still being debated by some people as if it's somehow not that bad. As if the worst you can say is that Martin Smith should have stood down voluntarily?

We have a 48 year old leader of the SWP sleeping with a 17 year old who is a new recruit. But any criticism of this is bourgeois morals? But anyone with any morals would think this is totally out of order, and the bloke is a sleaze bag. As people have pointed out how can the whole of the leadership stood by and not stopped this? How can they think it's ok to give him a standing ovation when they knew this had gone on.

Also if he did it behind his partners back I don't think it's as simplistic as saying it is just a private issue. It may be that is the case, or it may be that he is acting in a totally emotionally abusive way to his partner.

Then when a rape allegation is made it is investigated by seven of his mates?

You would have to be in one strange mindset to not think this is wrong and that there is something seriously wrong with an organisation who defended this. Can you imagine if in the Lib Dem crisis their leaders had turned around and given these excuses? As far as I know they are getting outside people to investigate. It comes to something when the procedures that a socialist organisation uses are worse than the Lib Dems.

There is a separate debate about the politics of the SWP. Personally I think they are stalinist in many ways, and the methods they use in united fronts, trade unions, local communities and generally do a lot of harm to pro-working class politics, and lead to them being totally divorced from the working class, and even reality. It's also a shame in a way that these questions are now secondary because of how bad the scandal is.

But you don't have to have a political critique of the SWP to realise how bad this has got and it is a madness that some people are still sticking by them, including on this thread. If there was anything positive in the tradition of the SWP it will be totally tarnished by those who carry on defending the leadership and you are doing those ideas more harm than good by doing so.


----------



## Random (Feb 27, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> But you don't have to have a political critique of the SWP to realise how bad this has got and it is a madness that some people are still sticking by them, including on this thread. If there was anything positive in the tradition of the SWP it will be totally tarnished by those who carry on defending the leadership and you are doing those ideas more harm than good by doing so.


Only bolshy is defending the SWP, and he's sticking by them because he's guilty that he's not in the party, like an embarrassed New Hamshire Zionist.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 27, 2013)

It's only fair to also give the characteristics that the SWP don't look like they have:



> 4) Mind-numbing techniques (for example: meditation, chanting, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used to suppress members' doubts.


 
although I've not been to one of their Conferences 



> 5) The group's leadership dictates how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, or get married leaders may determine types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth.
> 
> 9) The group teaches or implies that its "superior" ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).


 
although having loads of your mates decide on a rape accusation would have to be classed as borderline on that one.

And with cults, in my experience it is no use hammering against someone who's still in. When they are ready they'll leave - otherwise they just react more strongly because it becomes stronger them/us.

I'll leave off with this now, I just wanted to make the point.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 27, 2013)

Random said:


> Only bolshy is defending the SWP, and he's sticking by them because he's guilty that he's not in the party, like an embarrassed New Hamshire Zionist.


 
Is the New Hamshire comment and anti-semitic pun?


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I'll leave off with this now, I just wanted to make the point.


Shame it wasn't a point worth making.


----------



## Random (Feb 27, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Is the New Hamshire comment and anti-semitic pun?


Southampton swine, are you going to boar us all with twisting tales about how pig-ignorant I am?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 27, 2013)

Random said:


> Only bolshy is defending the SWP, and he's sticking by them because he's guilty that he's not in the party, like an embarrassed New Hamshire Zionist.


 
That's who I meant. But outside this thread loyal SWP members who I know are just carrying on as if nothing has happened, and are defensive and upset that anyone should dare criticise them, rather than with what has gone on.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 27, 2013)

Random said:


> Southampton swine, are you going to boar us all with twisting tales about how pig-ignorant I am?


 
No need to be so sow-er, gammon 'av a go if you think you're hard enough


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> That's who I meant. But outside this thread loyal SWP members who I know are just carrying on as if nothing has happened, and are defensive and upset that anyone should dare criticise them, rather than with what has gone on.


yeah, cos I'd really expect them to be telling you about any discussions they were having


----------



## sihhi (Feb 27, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> How can they think it's ok to give him a standing ovation when they knew this had gone on.


 
Gave him a standing ovation _and_ transferred him to be leader of a left-wing anti-fascism campaign. It's because the allegations weren't disclosed and the fact that Callinicos mate of Delta helped investigate them (in 2011) wasn't disclosed either.


----------



## Random (Feb 27, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No need to be so sow-er, gammon 'av a go if you think you're hard enough


 Are you getting rasher and rasher? Stop trying to flitch my good name.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

i must be remedial - i didn't notice precisely when and how the goat thing morphed into a piggy thing.

This site must be too quick for lesser types..  There's probably an IQ based entrance exam?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 27, 2013)

Random said:


> Are you getting rasher and rasher? Stop trying to flitch my good name.


 
I've not seen you bristle like this since you were accused of porking that bloke's porcine looking mum, what a tail this will make, I wonder what the twist will be

etc


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 27, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i must be remedial - i didn't notice precisely when and how the goat thing morphed into a piggy thing.
> 
> This site must be too quick for lesser types.. There's probably an IQ based entrance exam?


 
It happened in New Hamshire


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 27, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I've not seen you bristle like this since you were accused of porking that bloke's porcine looking mum, what a tail this will make, I wonder what the twist will be
> 
> etc


 
Have you heard of a man called trotters


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Have you heard of a man called trotters


 
You've got chops frogwoman I'll give you that


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 27, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i must be remedial - i didn't notice precisely when and how the goat thing morphed into a piggy thing.
> 
> This site must be too quick for lesser types.. There's probably an IQ based entrance exam?


 
What do you get if you cross a pig with a sheep?

A crackling good yarn


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

i get it now, you just throw in a random animal, and before you know it..

Duck billed koala bear.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> It happened. The recent NC in Dublin voted that the UK SWP handled the rape accusation 'wrongly'.


Not denying this at all as you would know better than us but shouldn't they have issued a public statement by now? Honest question, don't get why they would keep it quiet.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> yeah, cos I'd really expect them to be telling you about any discussions they were having


I know what you mean but I think there is a fair bit of ostrich behaviour going on too. There are many different responses among the loyalists. One is keeping your head down and hoping this goes away. Don't think that's dominant but I'd imagine it's got a certain appeal for many.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 27, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i get it now, you just throw in a random animal, and before you know it..
> 
> Duck billed koala bear.


 
sorry you have just failed the test


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not denying this at all as you would know better than us but shouldn't they have issued a public statement by now? Honest question, don't get why they would keep it quiet.


 
If Oisin is correct, which I suspect he is although I'm not fully convinced yet, I'd guess it's a sort of compromise.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

When i glanced at the 'loyalist' sheet of shame there were a few names conspicuous by their absence - ie, hacks who probably retain the hack mentality, but who are personally too indecisive  to reveal themselves ("ostrich behaviour").  Perhaps contemptuous cowardice is playing a role also.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 27, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Rupert von Hentzau ‏@SplinterSunrise
> Glasgow district elects 28 delegates, every single one of them a CC supporter? Heck, they'll be giving Dave Sherry the Order of Lenin.


 
How inaccurate is all this Fedayn? Is Bambery stronger than the SWP in Glasgow?
How many members make up a delegate?

Reminds me in general of Mark Steel:

"Tenacious comrades have tried to maintain branches that barely function, often with little success, then receive circulars telling them we’re in the midst of unprecedented opportunities and are generally thriving. But when your efforts result in little reward, to hear a series of super-optimistic claims about how well we’re doing isn’t inspiring, it’s depressing. Because either we’re being deceived, or it means everyone else is achieving success except you. The gap between the rhetoric and the reality has left countless comrades feeling it must be them that’s failing. If only they were more organised, or understood the perspective better, they’d be enjoying successes such as those they’re being told about. And so we arrive at the remarkable outcome in which the party designed to embolden socialists, to make them feel stronger and more capable of intervening in daily conflicts, makes them feel helpless and demoralised"


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How inaccurate is all this Fedayn? Is Bambery stronger than the SWP in Glasgow?
> How many members make up a delegate?


 
It is apparently true about the CC supporters taking all 28 spots in Glasgow. It's probably one delegate per ten paper members, judging by the claimed membership nationally and the attendance at the recent conference. So they have roughly 280 members in Glasgow, of whom a minimum of 230 are fictitious.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 27, 2013)

It's their modes-operandi - have a hostile aggregate then make sure that any opposition even if they have regularly been voted as delegates in previous years are out & the CC supporters are voted as delegates & the motion put forward by the CC is voted through on the nod as the discussion goes round & round in favour of the CC's position.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It is apparently true about the CC supporters taking all 28 spots in Glasgow. It's probably one delegate per ten paper members, judging by the claimed membership nationally and the attendance at the recent conference. So they have roughly 280 members in Glasgow, of whom a minimum of 230 are fictitious.


 
So I guess this all comes down to the general failure to keep membership records proper and up to date. Do people get culled after a year or longer of non-payment of subs? If the SWP CC loyalist wing is stacking the conference in this way, surely the IDOOP wing should start demanding proper lists of members.

Incidentally, the membership numbers alone would tend against any idea that the SWP is a cult, cults are usually zealously proper with actual membership. It's a very small political body basing itself on being the vanguard - that's it.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So they have roughly 280 members in Glasgow, of whom a minimum of 230 are fictitious.


 
You can't mean that John Maclean, James Connolly and James Maxton et al are not members!


----------



## sihhi (Feb 27, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> It's their modes-operandi - have a hostile aggregate then make sure that any opposition even if they have regularly been voted as delegates in previous years are out & the CC supporters are voted as delegates & the motion put forward by the CC is voted through on the nod as the discussion goes round & round in favour of the CC's position.


 
Are you an ex-member KeeperofDragons? Is this done on a branch or regional basis? How exactly do the aggregates get handled? Are they all done on the same day? I presume everyone has to vote in person to select the delegates at the aggregate meeting. Is that right?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 27, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Are you an ex-member KeeperofDragons? Is this done on a branch or regional basis? How exactly do the aggregates get handled? Are they all done on the same day? I presume everyone has to vote in person to select the delegates at the aggregate meeting. Is that right?


I am a member & I was at an aggregate where this happened, it was obviously stitched up before the meeting between members of one of the branches.  The timings of aggregates in cases like this are decided centrally as spokespersons from both sides need to be able to attend & the meetings need to be fitted around their availability - loads of meetings not many spokespeople.


----------



## Random (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know what you mean but I think there is a fair bit of ostrich behaviour going on too.


 That's an absolutely massive exeggeration. It's your own nest you're trying to feather, duster pamphlets and all.


----------



## belboid (Feb 27, 2013)

Aren't there still a couple of factionalists on the CC? Are they getting to lead any half hour intros?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2013)

sihhi said:


> So I guess this all comes down to the general failure to keep membership records proper and up to date. Do people get culled after a year or longer of non-payment of subs?


 
No. In theory, after two years of no contact, no money, no turning up to meetings or doing activities, you get bumped to "unregistered" member. Although even that doesn't seem to happen reliably. There are multiple posters on this thread who are still getting sent internal emails despite having left years ago. I actually suspect that most of the leaks were directly down to head office sending stuff out to people who are now in the CPGB or otherwise hostile.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> Aren't there still a couple of factionalists on the CC? Are they getting to lead any half hour intros?


 
Only J. Choonara out of the "dissident" four still seems to be there. He hasn't signed up to the faction as far as I can see, and in fact he doesn't seem to have surfaced at all over the last few weeks.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Only J. Choonara out of the "dissident" four still seems to be there. He hasn't signed up to the faction as far as I can see, and in fact he doesn't seem to have surfaced at all over the last few weeks.


Except to offer this finger at Bergfeld:



> Joseph Choonara: Why are the students in revolt? Because we made a mistake in 2011, when students joined around the Millbank etc movement. We should have made a sharp turn toward SWP theory in the SWSS groups.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 27, 2013)

two sheds said:


> It's only fair to also give the characteristics that the SWP don't look like they have:
> 
> "4) Mind-numbing techniques (for example: meditation, chanting, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used to suppress members' doubts."
> 
> although I've not been to one of their Conferences


 
Actually, I think the "debilitating work routines" does apply. New members in particular are absolutely run into the ground in terms of activity, and other former members have mentioned this, feeling like they were being "tested out". My own experience on first joining the swp was that I was expected to be out almost every day doing paper sales and stuff, despite the fact that I lived out of town. I also knew long-standing comrades (in other areas) who were worn out with early morning paper sales, meetings, demos, etc, on top of their jobs and other commitments, and they worried about "burn out" which was spoken of quite a lot (unofficially, obviously).

Additionally, the swp hierarchy sometimes seemed to do things almost deliberately to make life harder for the ordinary members. Instead of papers being delivered by a member with transport (at this time we had no car), we had to travel by two buses a round trip of over thirty miles to collect papers. This was eventually sorted by a new district paper organiser with a car who just dropped the bundles to comrades without transport. (Needless to say, he was later expelled!)

Going back to when I did have the car, (which later died): another weird idea from on high was that instead of the branch paper organiser (me) dropping the papers to comrades by car and having done with it in a few hours, I was to sit in a pub all night and wait for people to come and collect their papers. This was thought to be more in keeping with the idea of people making an effort to get their papers. At the time we were on benefits and could not afford a weekly pub night. I also did not relish sitting in a pub all night on my own waiting for people to collect papers. Not only that, but because the area is semi-rural and the paper readers living far from each other, there was no one pub that everyone could get to. Oh, and add to that the fact that some paper buyers had mobility problems and could not get out easily. Needless to say, our branch quietly shelved this idea and carried on as before. But I did feel that centre were just trying to make life hard for us.

So, yes, it almost seems that getting people to run around like headless chickens is part of the process.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 27, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I am a member & I was at an aggregate where this happened, it was obviously stitched up before the meeting between members of one of the branches. The timings of aggregates in cases like this are decided centrally as spokespersons from both sides need to be able to attend & the meetings need to be fitted around their availability - loads of meetings not many spokespeople.


 
Blimey. I think a lot of people on the outside are confused as to how successfully the SWP CC side are winning, the IDOOP are not deviating in any major way, are not trying to readmit old expellees yet they are heavily down in the aggregates.

How exactly can this below happen?

"In the Home Counties and Leicester CC supporters prevented any IDOOP members being elected - even using inactive and non-subs-paying members to block key party activists from going to conference."

Can't the Leicester IDOOP members reject a spolied aggregate due to non-subs members screwing it up, and hold another one?

Converting an aggregate with IDOOP-aligned delegates from last year into a CC unanimous branch seems crazy. Not least because plenty of students - more likely to be IDOOP - live in that branch area.

"In Hackney CC supporters voted off all IDOOP members, including comrades with detailed knowledge of Disputes Committee procedures."

Will IDOOP make their case at events linked to women's day such as here: "International Women's Day—how do we win liberation? With Judith Orr (SWP, author of A Rebel's Guide to Women's Liberation), Lena Verde (socialist journalist from Greece) and an Egyptian revolutionary socialist Thu 7 Mar, 7.30pm Swiss Church in London, 79 Endell St, WC2H 9DY"


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 27, 2013)

Yep the usual stitch up


----------



## emanymton (Feb 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It is apparently true about the CC supporters taking all 28 spots in Glasgow. It's probably one delegate per ten paper members, judging by the claimed membership nationally and the attendance at the recent conference. So they have roughly 280 members in Glasgow, of whom a minimum of 230 are fictitious.


It would be interesting to see how many delegates are elected and how many actually atened.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 27, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> How is this still being debated by some people as if it's somehow not that bad. As if the worst you can say is that Martin Smith should have stood down voluntarily?
> 
> We have a 48 year old leader of the SWP sleeping with a 17 year old who is a new recruit. But any criticism of this is bourgeois morals? But anyone with any morals would think this is totally out of order, and the bloke is a sleaze bag. As people have pointed out how can the whole of the leadership stood by and not stopped this? How can they think it's ok to give him a standing ovation when they knew this had gone on.
> 
> ...


 Just as a matter of interest his now ex-partner is on the CC.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Except to offer this finger at Bergfeld:


 
Ah yes, how deep loyalty runs.


----------



## andysays (Feb 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Just as a matter of interest *his now ex-partner* is on the CC.


 
She didn't swallow all that stuff about bourgeois morality, then?

Could this be another example of how the CC's attitude is "don't do as I do, do as I say"?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Just as a matter of interest his now ex-partner is on the CC.


edit: sorry get it now.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

andysays said:


> She didn't swallow all that stuff about bourgeois morality, then?
> 
> Could this be another example of how the CC's attitude is "don't do as I do, do as I say"?


suppose it's pointless asking for some things to be left private? and not treated as an excuse to point score.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> suppose it's pointless asking for some things to be left private? and not treated as an excuse to point score.


Unfortunately it looks like they are just sitting up and begging for it - if pointing this out is point scoring so be it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> Unfortunately it looks like they are just sitting up and begging for it - if pointing this out is point scoring so be it.


Not sure how she's begging people to talk about her love life :-( And before someone mentions W how can ignoring one woman's privacy help another?


----------



## andysays (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> suppose it's pointless asking for some things to be left private? and not treated as an excuse to point score.


 
Surely this comment itself is worthy of dismissal as bourgeois morality.

Let's not forget that had the CC had their way (aka been so arrogant as to think they could cover this shit up), the whole thing would have been "left private".


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not sure how she's begging people to talk about her love life :-( And before someone mentions W how can ignoring one woman's privacy help another?


I was talking about the way the CC are behaving in general & was making a point about your comment that us making comments on the CC's & loyalists crappy behavior is point scoring.


----------



## chilango (Feb 27, 2013)

squalid


----------



## october_lost (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> suppose it's pointless asking for some things to be left private? and not treated as an excuse to point score.


The flipant post aside, you have made similar points previously about bourgeois morality, but I do believe that it's consistent within the Lenin and Bolshevik tradition to criticise people's conduct if it brings the party into wider disrepute. I am not sure why you don't think this is relevant at this moment.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

andysays said:


> Surely this comment itself is worthy of dismissal as bourgeois morality.
> 
> Let's not forget that had the CC had their way (aka been so arrogant as to think they could cover this shit up), the whole thing would have been "left private".


The only 'marxists' I know of who derided sexual privacy as bourgeois were the Stasi/KGB. And some (emphasis on some) current opponents of this cc.


----------



## kavenism (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The only 'marxists' I know of who derided sexual privacy as bourgeois were the Stasi/KGB. And some (emphasis on some) current opponents of this cc.


Oh it gets better and better with you doesn't it. Now you're drawing a subtle comparison between those opposing this monumental fuck-up of a scandal and the Stasi/KGB. Are you sure you don't want to accuse any of them of being agents of the state while you're at it?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

october_lost said:


> The flipant post aside, you have made similar points previously about bourgeois morality, but I do believe that it's consistent within the Lenin and Bolshevik tradition to criticise people's conduct if it brings the party into wider disrepute. I am not sure why you don't think this is relevant at this moment.


I did indeed mention bourgeois morality. In the context of age differences between sexual partners being a cause of outrage and violence in people's younger pasts making them untouchables now. Bourgeois horror at sexual and social deviance is the opposite of defending people's right to have a modicum of privacy in their lives. And drawing conclusions about people's politics from who they shag is just stupid and prurient.


----------



## andysays (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The only 'marxists' I know of who derided sexual privacy as bourgeois were the Stasi/KGB. And some (emphasis on some) current opponents of this cc.


 
Except that your argument for sexual privacy has also been used, utterly hypocritically, in an attempt to cover this squalid little affair up.

The whole of the CC, including Delta's now-ex partner, are equally responsible and equally tainted by this.

Delta's ex-partner, however, appears even more hypocritical than the rest, given that she has publicly gone along with the public/party position that he is totally exonerated, while apparently deciding privately/personally to give him the elbow.

(To make my position absolutely clear, I'm criticising her not for giving him the elbow, but for going along with the CC position that he is totally exonerated, which is dishonest and hypocritical, the perfect example of genuine bourgeois "morality")


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Oh it gets better and better with you doesn't it. Now you're drawing a subtle comparison between those opposing this monumental fuck-up of a scandal and the Stasi/KGB. Are you sure you don't want to accuse any of them of being agents of the state while you're at it?


Course not, that's just silly (although some people are doing it I know). My point is that those claiming to be most concerned about a young woman's pain should be a little better at respecting women's privacy when that's appropriate rather than having such a casual approach to other folks' private lives. Not rocket science really. Nothing to do with bourgeois morality and normally, ie if there wasn't a chance to have a pop at the swp, the only people on the left who'd say it was would be defenders of the worst Stalinist regimes.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 27, 2013)

andysays said:


> Delta's ex-partner, however, appears even more hypocritical than the rest, given that she has publicly gone along with the public/party position that he is totally exonerated, while apparently deciding privately/personally to give him the elbow.


So yes you are saying that her personal life makes her politics unacceptable. Wouldn't occur to you at all that she might think he's innocent AND have personal (ie the sort of stuff we have no business even discussing) reasons for not wanting to remain his partner? Can't believe I have to make these points :-(

Not being snide here but judging by your tone and close observance of cc happenings would I be right in assuming you were a platform supporter?


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 27, 2013)

andysays said:


> Delta's ex-partner, however, appears even more hypocritical than the rest, given that she has publicly gone along with the public/party position that he is totally exonerated, while apparently deciding privately/personally to give him the elbow.


 
No hypocrisy at all: it's perfectly possible she thinks he is not guilty of rape, but nevertheless wants to end the relationship.


----------



## october_lost (Feb 27, 2013)

The age thing is hit and miss. The problem is primarily the context of power and sway he holds over woman in question. I am surprised for a class struggle activist you're seeing this in such atomised and personalised terms. The single fact remains he has caused an uproar among his, for the most part, peers and this can't be written off as 'bourgeois morality' or angst on the part of people. The relationship is skewed towards him. I think trying to paint this has a reaction to the age difference is bordering on a strawman. That's a dynamic that simply makes the abuse all the more unpalatable for the most part. But if MS was 25 it would still attract the Sam kind of outrage.

I just find it characteristically un-Leninist of you to ask for a veil to be drawn around his private conduct. Thats just thoroughly absurd. Do you think women's lib is just for bashing Miss World pagents? And criticising the media? Don't you think you should concern yourself with the conduct and activity of members who internalise oppressive norms and reproduce it in their lives?

Not to mention the disrepute he's brought on the party...


----------



## andysays (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So yes you are saying that her personal life makes her politics unacceptable.


 
I'm not saying that; you are saying that I'm saying that, which is a different thing



bolshiebhoy said:


> _Wouldn't occur to you at all that she might think he's innocent AND have personal (ie the sort of stuff we have no business even discussing) reasons for not wanting to remain his partner?_


 
She might well believe he's innocent of rape and still have personal reasons for not wanting to remain his partner. I don't agree we have no business discussing these in a hypothetical way. There are two hypothetical reasons which spring immediately to my mind:

She feels she has been personally betrayed by his sexual activities. This would be entirely understandable for those of us subject to creeping bourgeois morality, but to a member of the SWP CC, guardians of the highest revolutionary morality, this is clearly impossible.
She thinks that by his exploiting his position of power within the Party (and arguably his multiple positions of power if we take into account his age and gender, which I don't think can be as easily dismissed as you have attempted to do), to conduct a clandestine affair which he has then attempted to cover up, and when that became impossible to maintain, to minimise the significance and seriousness of, he has proved himself to be entirely lacking in both personal and political judgement, as well as guilty of a remarkable level of arrogance in assuming that, providing he can persuade his mates and political cronies to rally round, he is entitled to simply ride the whole thing out as if it's a matter of no importance. Except if she thinks that, I don't quite understand why she's happy for him to remain on the CC, unless they're all such monsters that one more or less really doesn't matter...



bolshiebhoy said:


> _Can't believe I have to make these points :-(_


 
Can't believe you think you have to make them



bolshiebhoy said:


> _Not being snide here but judging by your tone and close observance of cc happenings would I be right in assuming you were a platform supporter?_


 
You can draw what conclusions you like from my tone, but my "close observance" of CC happenings and indeed this whole shit storm is no more than reading what's in the public domain.

As I'm not now, nor have I ever been, an SWP member, it would, as you've pointed out yourself, be inappropriate for me to describe myself as a platform supporter, but I think you can safely conclude that I'm definitely not supportive of the CC faction...

(edited to clarify quotes)


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 27, 2013)

apparently they won't expel Martin Smith because he is sitting on £70,000 worth of cash that the party can't access without his say so


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> The SWP don't have any strong product other than 'the SWP' - none of the paper, the journal or the pisspoor magazine have any significant readership or influence outside the party, nor any significant income. So even if they were controlled by a different party faction, they'd have no position to nick things from. I doubt any of the faction(s) have their names on any chequebooks (SWSS/student office _maybe_), so they couldn't take hold of anything.


 
You haven't heard of the Hallas Foundation then, obviously?

No, and neither have many of the members either.

What was it Lenin said, about the revolutionary party not having a rank and file?  Ha ha ha. Yeah, right.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 27, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> apparently they won't expel Martin Smith because he is sitting on £70,000 worth of cash that the party can't access without his say so


 
Rumour? True? How do you know this?

Also tell us more about the Hallas Foundation. It wouldn't surprise me that Duncan Hallas set up a foundation. Who administers it is the point. So who does?

I always thought the fight was going to end up being about the money.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 27, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Also tell us more about the Hallas Foundation. It wouldn't surprise me that Duncan Hallas set up a foundation. Who administers it is the point. So who does?


directors a. t. callinicos and j. choonara.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2013)

I'm fairly profoundly skeptical of that claim, at least in the absence of any supporting evidence. Quite apart from anything else, I don't think 70K is enough money to have that much impact on the SWP leadership's decisions. Not to the point where they'd risk the future of the organisation for it.


----------



## love detective (Feb 27, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Also tell us more about the Hallas Foundation. It wouldn't surprise me that Duncan Hallas set up a foundation. Who administers it is the point. So who does?


 
was setup a month after Hallas died and has one significant asset 'an investment property' valued at 'historic cost' at £617,000 and then around £400k of borrowings secured on that property (property is likely to be worth far more than that but they decline to revalue it in the accounts)

The company SIC code (which classifies what industry/activity the company does) is:-

_Renting and operating of Housing Association real estate _

presume Hallas left his/a house to the SWP in his will?

any ideas what the 400 grand that was secured against it was used for?


----------



## Sean Delaney (Feb 27, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Rumour? True? How do you know this?
> 
> Also tell us more about the Hallas Foundation. It wouldn't surprise me that Duncan Hallas set up a foundation. Who administers it is the point. So who does?
> 
> I always thought the fight was going to end up being about the money.


 
I think the foundation was set up after Hallas died. It has just recently been wound up. WIthin the last couple of weeks. I wonder why?
Of course the fight is all about money! If the oppostion faction had a backbone, they would be limbering up for a fight over control of the cash and revenue. But they are rolling over like pussycats, so the CC will be ok for now to hold onto the cash. Anyone without access to the cash are irrelevant. The SWP is who controls the money, honey. Its forty plus years worth of revenue. Apparently, the trail of golden breadcrumbs leads all the way up to ....the Glucksteins/Rosenbergs...that is the royal family of the SWP after all....


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 27, 2013)

discokermit said:


> directors a. t. callinicos and j. choonara.


 
And a net worth of around 130k. Interesting that it seems to be a property company, though not surprising either.

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04578973

http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/the-hallas-foundation


----------



## newbie (Feb 27, 2013)

I misread.


----------



## electric.avenue (Feb 27, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> I think the foundation was set up after Hallas died. It has just recently been wound up. WIthin the last couple of weeks. I wonder why?
> Of course the fight is all about money! If the oppostion faction had a backbone, they would be limbering up for a fight over control of the cash and revenue. But they are rolling over like pussycats, so the CC will be ok for now to hold onto the cash. Anyone without access to the cash are irrelevant. The SWP is who controls the money, honey. Its forty plus years worth of revenue. Apparently, the trail of golden breadcrumbs leads all the way up to ....the Glucksteins/Rosenbergs...that is the royal family of the SWP after all....


 
The company's status is listed as active, unless the stuff available online is out of date. What evidence do you have that it has been wound up? If it has then that is extremely interesting.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> edit: sorry get it now.


I was on my phone before with a bad signal so could only manage a quick post. This is not really a reply to you more a general point. 
I was hesitant about posting that detail up as I don't see the political relevance of it, but I was not happy with speculation about the nature of their relationship and was hoping to at least stop from wandering too far from reality. While I may disagree with the political position she has taken I do feel a great deal of sympathy for her, the last two years must have been horrendous for her.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 27, 2013)

In order to try and get the thread back on track, I have only just found out that the 'Facebook 4' have not been expelled, only suspended. 2 of them for 18 months and 2 for 24 months, was this common knowledge and I missed it somehow? 

I guess they are explosion in all but name as I can't see them rejoining, although I know someone who did that a couple of years after he was permanently expelled.


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If Oisin is correct, which I suspect he is although I'm not fully convinced yet, I'd guess it's a sort of compromise.


There was no ambiguity at all about the fact that the NC position was that the UK SWP handled the rape case 'wrongly'. The only sense in which you might term the resulting resolution a compromise, is that it also contained the view that no public statement, internet statement, press release etc would be made by the party on the subject. This was mainly so as not to be seen as taking sides in the UK SWP faction fight, although speakers in favour of that particular point also were concerned not to assist the right wing media. This answers bolshiebhoy's 'honest question' (you mean, sometimes you ask disingenuous ones?): don't get why they would keep it quiet.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

> I was hesitant about posting that detail up as I don't see the political relevance of it, but I was not happy with speculation about the nature of their relationship and was hoping to at least stop from wandering too far from reality. While I may disagree with the political position she has taken I do feel a great deal of sympathy for her, the last two years must have been horrendous for her.


 
I agree that it must have been horrendous. But the point I was making was a general one. I think it's all too easy to just write off affairs as just a private matter, but where do you draw the line? Often this is emotionally abusive behaviour that can totally destory people, is it just ok to say this is all private? If someone was physically abusive then no-one would say it is just a private matter, so why is emotional abuse so different?

As for BBs statement that age differences are just bourgeous morals, sorry but it's total nonsense. A 48 year old political leader going out with a 17 year old member clearly has big potential issues. And I can't imagine many parents out there wouldn't be concerned if their 17 year old daughter brought home a 48 year old bloke, and I don't think it's good enough to just write them all off as bourgeois moralists. Doing this just totally excuses anything that has happened and ignores any power relations that exist. All too convenient to just write it off so filippantly. Most people would think this is potentially very seedy.

Of course the issue of seven of his mates overseeing a rape allegation is just explained as that was the formal process. Well that's ok then! Can you imagine if the Lib Dems got seven mates of that bloke to investigate him and tried to palm it off as being the internal procedures so that's just the way it had to be.

In terms of the four being suspended I believe one of the complaints is that they got an equal sentence as people who had been found guilty of things far more serious.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> In order to try and get the thread back on track, I have only just found out that the 'Facebook 4' have not been expelled, only suspended. 2 of them for 18 months and 2 for 24 months, was this common knowledge and I missed it somehow?
> 
> I guess they are explosion in all but name as I can't see them rejoining, although I know someone who did that a couple of years after he was permanently expelled.


 
they were suspended at the time pending a disciplinary hearing which came and went without much of a murmer from IDOOP - they're officially expelled now as far as i know.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 28, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> they were suspended at the time pending a disciplinary hearing which came and went without much of a murmer from IDOOP - they're officially expelled now as far as i know.


This is the result of the disciplinary hearing, suspension not expulsion, so I am told anyway.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> I'm not saying that; you are saying that I'm saying that, which is a different thing
> 
> 
> 
> ...


sorry you're clearly not a member, you do know he's not on the cc right despite what you say in 2 above? I must admit you lost me on 'clandestine affair' and 'lacking in personal and political judgement'. For the record I don't think socialists should give a fiddler's about other peoples affairs, clandestine or not. And that goes for our leaders or even Paddy Pantsdown. The only time other people's sex lives matter is if they're abusive or politically hypocritical and even then the sexual partner of the sinner' deserves as much privacy as can be mustered. You're free of course to speculate all you like about why two people would break up but I'm still not convinced that speculation belongs in a public political debate. I have a lot more respect for emanymton who can differentiate between someone's political position on something and their personal distress. Again this stuff should be basic for lefties...

Ironically enough this ISO article (http://socialistworker.org/2011/06/14/real-scandal-is-the-media) on the Weinergate non-story makes most of the points I just have about nonsense re 'personal judgement' being used to bring down (in this case quite objectionable) political leaders. And yes the crucial difference is of course the claims about delta and abuse. But none of that excuse applies to discussing his partner's sex life.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 28, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> There was no ambiguity at all about the fact that the NC position was that the UK SWP handled the rape case 'wrongly'. The only sense in which you might term the resulting resolution a compromise, is that it also contained the view that no public statement, internet statement, press release etc would be made by the party on the subject. This was mainly so as not to be seen as taking sides in the UK SWP faction fight, although speakers in favour of that particular point also were concerned not to assist the right wing media. This answers bolshiebhoy's 'honest question' (you mean, sometimes you ask disingenuous ones?): don't get why they would keep it quiet.


Honest as in not trynig to score a point, just looking for info despite our previous fractious exchanges  So yes what you describe makes perfect sense.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

> The only time other people's sex lives matter is if they're abusive


 
But this is the point. You are just dismissing all affairs as a private matter, when many affairs do involve emotional abuse and involve behaviour that shouldn't just be accepted or swept under the carpet as it can often be a form of domestic abuse, although obviously I agree that people shouldn't talk about their partner's sex life which is neither here nor there.

And there is the issue with a 48 year old political leader having a relationship with 17 year old recruit. There is more likelihood of there being abusive behaviour based on both the age difference and the power relations in that organisation. I have never met a 17 year old who was emotionally fully mature, in the vast majority of cases you are not an adult in a meaningful emotional sense. I can accept that you might have a 22 year old who is as immature as a 17 year old, but age differences mean more and more the younger someone is, so at 17 even someone a few years older than them can have issues. But when it becomes someone who is 48 and 17 most people would have concerns, that doesn't make them all bourgeois moralists. The reason Pat Stack had concerns I imagine was for a variety of reasons, including the age difference, status/leadership in the SWP of Comrade Delta and the fact that there was alleged abuse.

This is bad enough in and of itself but to think it's ok to have seven mates judging an allegation of rape becomes a total madness.


----------



## andysays (Feb 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I must admit you lost me on 'clandestine affair' and 'lacking in personal and political judgement'


 
Given your performance on this thread so far, I can't say that surprises me in the slightest



bolshiebhoy said:


> The only time other people's sex lives matter is if they're abusive or politically hypocritical


 
I agree, but are you seriously *still* trying to argue that Martin Smith's sex life *isn't* abusive or politically hypocritical? Utterly disengenuous; utterly shameless...



bolshiebhoy said:


> I have a lot more respect for emanymton who can differentiate between someone's political position on something and their personal distress


 
I'm not here seeking your respect, in fact I'd be doubting myself if I felt I had accidently gained it. I too can differentiate between someone's political position on something and their personal distress, but I can also recognise who is responsible for causing MS's now-ex-partner distress, so don't accept your crude attempt to suggest that its me who might be causing it, even in the unlikely event she reads what I've posted here.



bolshiebhoy said:


> Again this stuff should be basic for lefties...


 
It may surprise you to learn this, but I certainly think of myself as a leftie. If this whole squalid affair in general, and your performance on this thread in particular, have reminded me of anything, it's that not all of us who declare themselves to be lefties share the same basic principles, so what's basic for lefties is obviously not as clear cut as you'd like to think.




bolshiebhoy said:


> But none of that excuse applies to discussing his partner's sex life.


 
I'm not interested in discussing his partner's sex life (or indeed his partners' sex lives, which ever of them we might hypothetically be referring to), and again it's utterly disengenuous and utterly shameless for you to attempt to smear me with that, but keep right on digging yourself into the hole you're in if you're not able to do any better...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> Given your performance on this thread so far, I can't say that surprises me in the slightest
> 
> 
> 
> ...


bolshie's an awful gobshite, we've all started by knocking his flimsy 'argument' apart: but i fear you too will find yourself ground down on his seemingly endless stream of pisspoor wank.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> But this is the point. You are just dismissing all affairs as a private matter, when many affairs do involve emotional abuse and involve behaviour that shouldn't just be accepted or swept under the carpet as it can often be a form of domestic abuse, although obviously I agree that people shouldn't talk about their partner's sex life which is neither here nor there.


 
What are you actually suggesting here? That the SWP should judge its members on their romantic fidelity? That it should blur the lines of what constitutes "domestic abuse", by which I assume you mean "domestic violence" by including infidelity in that category?

If you aren't suggesting these things, then what on Earth are you wittering on about?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 28, 2013)

Nothing of even the slightest interest in the Weekly Worker this week.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What are you actually suggesting here? That the SWP should judge its members on their romantic fidelity? That it should blur the lines of what constitutes "domestic abuse", by which I assume you mean "domestic violence" by including infidelity in that category?
> 
> If you aren't suggesting these things, then what on Earth are you wittering on about?


Exactly. The same goes for andysays and his outrage at clandestine affairs.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> The reason Pat Stack had concerns I imagine was for a variety of reasons, including the age difference, status/leadership in the SWP of Comrade Delta and the fact that there was alleged abuse.


I think it had more to do with the actual evidence he heard. Not your generic preconceptions about age difference and the alleged immaturity of teen women. The facts, about this man and this woman and what happened between them. All these other generalisations are irrelevant and frankly backward.

Evidence none of us have heard and without which we can't judge one way or the other.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What are you actually suggesting here? That the SWP should judge its members on their romantic fidelity? That it should blur the lines of what constitutes "domestic abuse", by which I assume you mean "domestic violence" by including infidelity in that category?
> 
> If you aren't suggesting these things, then what on Earth are you wittering on about?


 
I don't mean domestic violence, as having an affair isn't violence, is it. I mean that affairs can be a form of emotional abuse. Obviously all affairs aren't like this, but there are instances where it can be. Obviously this would be a difficult area for a political organisation to deal with, but if a leading member of a socialist organisation was treating women like crap by having an affairs, then I don't think it would out of the question for other people to have a word with them and tell them they are being totally out of order i.e. it's not totally just a private matter.

However the main issue here is the fact that the woman was 17, there was a huge age gap, the power relations by him being a leader of the SWP and the fact that a rape allegation was dealt with by seven of his mates.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I think it had more to do with the actual evidence he heard. Not your generic preconceptions about age difference and the alleged immaturity of teen women. The facts, about this man and this woman and what happened between them. All these other generalisations are irrelevant and frankly backward.
> 
> Evidence none of us have heard and without which we can't judge one way or the other.


 
I can't judge the evidence, no. But I can say that a bloke who is 48 having an affair with a 17 year old is almost certainly wrong and sleazy, but for a leading member of a socialist organisation to do it is even worse. You might think that's backward, I think you are backward for thinking that someones age is irrelevant.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I don't mean domestic violence, as having an affair isn't violence, is it. I mean that affairs can be a form of emotional abuse.


 
Do you think that the SWP should get involved in whether or not its members are faithful in their sexual relationships? This is really quite straightforward. If the answer is no, you should stop muddying the waters.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 28, 2013)

Thoughts on 24 year old strippers marrying Texas oil billionaires in their 80's?


----------



## JimW (Feb 28, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Thoughts on 24 year old strippers marrying Texas oil billionaires in their 80's?


Not an appropriate part of a transitional programme towards socialism.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 28, 2013)

One hell of a way of expropriating the expropriators though.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Do you think that the SWP should get involved in whether or not its members are faithful in their sexual relationships? This is really quite straightforward. If the answer is no, you should stop muddying the waters.


 
I actually agree this is a side issue, so lets just leave it. My only point was a general one that affairs aren't just a private issue in all circumstances. If someone wanted to take a bloke up on the fact that he was being out of order for treating someone like shit by having affairs then I think that's ok. Anyway lets just leave that point, it's not specific to this thread.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 28, 2013)

if the term 'emotional abuse' can be extended to 'having affairs' then it's meaningless.

tbh i think the term is verging on meaningless by anyone's definition anyway. not a particularly useful concept in this case or in any others.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I can't judge the evidence, no. But I can say that a bloke who is 48 having an affair with a 17 year old is almost certainly wrong and sleazy, but for a leading member of a socialist organisation to do it is even worse. You might think that's backward, I think you are backward for thinking that someones age is irrelevant.


I'm glad you weren't in charge of my household when I was a kid or my parents wouldn't have let me watch Harold and Maude. Or Eastwood's thoroughly charming Breezy. Moral guardians like you would have protected me from filth like that, all that age mixing urgghghhh!

I grew up in the Irish educational system, with Franciscan monks and Christian Brothers, so I'm certainly not denying the reality of unhealthy sexual relations between the generations based on power. What I'm saying is you can't decide a relationship is of that nature from a distance and based on your own prejudices, you have to know the facts which despite everyone on this thread having read a transcript none of us do!


----------



## newbie (Feb 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I can't judge the evidence, no. But I can say that a bloke who is 48 having an affair with a 17 year old is almost certainly wrong and sleazy,


I was with you until this post but I don't think this is reasonable.  While friends and rellies of both parties may have reservations, it's ultimately up to the couple.  If they're happy no-one else should be crying 'sleaze' (or indeed 'golddigger').  It's a wholly different matter if a complaint is made, because at that point someone else has to try to understand the dynamics of their relationship and it's utterly ludicrous to simply ignore the age difference.


----------



## newbie (Feb 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Do you think that the SWP should get involved in whether or not its members are faithful in their sexual relationships? This is really quite straightforward. If the answer is no, you should stop muddying the waters.


If a complaint of sexual harrassment, or rape, is made to them they should accept their duty to the complainant and deal with the matter responsibly and honestly. If no complaint is made there's nothing to formally discuss.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

BB you can be ridiculous if you want and make comparisons with watching TV programmes, but the fact is that a woman has made a rape accusation against a 48 year old leader of the SWP and said it happened when she was 17. This was then investigated by his mates. Your response has been to try cover for the leadership at every turn, by either trying to find any angle you can to dismiss the power relations that are involved or by just dismissing all criticism as a betrayal of the IS tradition. A tradition that has made so many zig zags that who knows what it is anymore. Your posts come across like you aren't really concerned about what has gone on, you are just desperate for the leadership to prevail no matter what.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> BB you can be ridiculous if you want and make comparisons with watching TV programmes, but the fact is that a woman has made a rape accusation against a 48 year old leader of the SWP and said it happened when she was 17. This was then investigated by his mates. Your response has been to try cover for the leadership at every turn, by either trying to find any angle you can to dismiss the power relations that are involved or by just dismissing all criticism as a betrayal of the IS tradition. A tradition that has made so many zig zags that who knows what it is anymore. Your posts come across like you aren't really concerned about what has gone on, you are just desperate for the leadership to prevail no matter what.


She has and it is a hugely serious accusation that everyone in the swp had a duty to treat with the utmost seriousness. If they didn't then that needs exposing and sorting. But when people like you start blurring the distinction between affairs/age difference per se and abuse/rape then I reserve the right to make fun of you as a frightened moral guardian determined to protect us from adultery and May-December romances. These distinctions matter but you and I seem to differ over that. We also differ in that I don't honestly know what happened between the two people at the heart of this case whereas you seem to already know without having the slightest clue of the facts.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I think it had more to do with the actual evidence he heard. Not your generic preconceptions about age difference and the *alleged immaturity of teen women*. The facts, about this man and this woman and what happened between them. All these other generalisations are irrelevant and frankly backward.
> 
> Evidence none of us have heard and without which we can't judge one way or the other.


 
what's with the business of mentioning her "alleged immaturity"? What about Delta's immaturity? 

Your hackishess really does leave a sour taste in the mouth. I can't even laugh at it anymore.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 28, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> what's with the business of mentioning her "alleged immaturity"? What about Delta's immaturity?
> 
> Your hackishess really does leave a sour taste in the mouth. I can't even laugh at it anymore.


Sorry but you've got this ase about face. I was quoting the moral guardian's notion that teens are immature. I'm more than prepared to believe the woman in this case was more emotionally mature than MS.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> She has and it is a hugely serious accusation that everyone in the swp had a duty to treat with the utmost seriousness. If they didn't then that needs exposing and sorting. But when people like you start blurring the distinction between affairs/age difference per se and abuse/rape then I reserve the right to make fun of you as a frightened moral guardian determined to protect us from adultery and May-December romances. These distinctions matter but you and I seem to differ over that. We also differ in that I don't honestly know what happened between the two people at the heart of this case whereas you seem to already know without having the slightest clue of the facts.


 
This is where your dishonesty keeps kicking in. I've never said I know what happened, I've never said affairs are all wrong (I've said they can be, and can involve treating people like shit, do you disagree with this?), and that age differences can matter and often do (where would you draw the line, would it be ok if she had been 15 or 16 and he had been 48, does the accusation of being a bourgeois moralist cover everything?). What I have said is that there are various problems that have happened that you can look at without having to know the details of what happened. Those revolve around power relations that are far more likely when a woman is very young, they are also more likely if the age gap is very big and they are also more likely if there is a power relation such as someone being a teacher/pupil, manager/young apprentice, leader of a political organisation/new young recruit.

Also how anyone can think investigating the allegation via seven of his mates is treating it with the utmost seriousness is slightly bizarre to say the least.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry but you've got this ase about face. I was quoting the moral guardian's notion that teens are immature. I'm more than prepared to believe the woman in this case was more emotionally mature than MS.


 
fair enough. apologies. you're still a hack, though.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry but you've got this ase about face. I was quoting the moral guardian's notion that teens are immature. I'm more than prepared to believe the woman in this case was more emotionally mature than MS.


 
Again this is your dishonesty. I said I can believe that many older people are immature. What I also said was that a lot, and probably most people at 17 aren't emotionally mature adults. Not sure that makes me a moral guardian, it more makes you look like you will do anything to put the SWP leadership and Comrade Delta in a good light.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Again this is your dishonesty. I said I can believe that many older people are immature. What I also said was that a lot, and probably most people at 17 aren't emotionally mature adults. Not sure that makes me a moral guardian, it more makes you look like you will do anything to put the SWP leadership and Comrade Delta in a good light.


Look all I can do is quote your claim that "a bloke who is 48 having an affair with a 17 year old is almost certainly wrong and sleazy" and your belief that 17 years olds aren't mature enough to have relations with others above a certain age and let everyone else decide if you're being a tad bourgeois in your moralism.

I really haven't got an axe to grind on anyone's behalf, I'm calling it as I see it. If I was delta I certainly wouldn't be feeling good about myself right now.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

Again you are just totally twisting what I've said. And you obviously have got an axe to grind as you are a total loyalist for the SWP central committee, you are hardly approaching this from some kind of neutral position. You just ignore most things that are said, and twist other things that are said.

Where have I said anywhere that 17 years old aren't mature enough to have relations with others above a certain age? I haven't, have I. What I did say is that in my view most 17 year olds are not fully mature adults, and I hardly see anything controversial in saying that, and it's certainly not bourgeois morals, which seems to be your catch all for defending the SWP leadership no matter what they have done. There are reasons why the vast majority of 48 year olds wouldn't want to try and sleep with or have a relationship with a 17 year old, and it doesn't make them all bourgeois moralists. Let alone when they have a power relationship over them like Comrade Delta did.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Again you are just totally twisting what I've said. And you obviously have got an axe to grind as you are a total loyalist for the SWP central committee, you are hardly approaching this from some kind of neutral position. You just ignore most things that are said, and twist other things that are said.


Think I try to address most points. On the current subject I'm clearly not the only one to feel you've let your argument take you a little too far down the moral guardian path. But hey ho.

I'm not neutral about the demise of the SWP you're right. I think it would be a bad thing. But I don't have any personal stake in the outcome and don't have anyone to answer to, other than lapsed Catholic-Trot guilt of course.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Think I try to address most points. On the current subject I'm clearly not the only one to feel you've let your argument take you a little too far down the moral guardian path. But hey ho.
> 
> I'm not neutral about the demise of the SWP you're right. I think it would be a bad thing. But I don't have any personal stake in the outcome and don't have anyone to answer to, other than lapsed Catholic-Trot guilt of course.


 
I don't mind if you label me a moral guardian, just do it honestly 

On balance I think the SWP has probably done more harm than good over the years, can't say I'd be too unhappy about its demise. I think your personal stake is, as you say, an increased level of guilt. From that point of view I think you should re-join. The leadership of the SWP, and Comrade Delta in particular, would welcome you back with open arms at this time. With a catholic-trot guilt I can't decide whether on re-joining you should burst in to song with Oh come all ye faithful or So comrades, come rally, and the last fight let us face. Given the way things are going I suspect the second would be better.


----------



## comrade spurski (Feb 28, 2013)

If a 20 year old was to have a relationship with a 51 yr old then so what? Ain't what I'd want (writing as a 46 yr old bloke) but that's my personal morals/likings but I have no right to judge others as it non of my business.
But in my opinion this is very very different to a 48 yr old with a 17 yr old who's only been out of school 6 months or so and has spent the vast majority of their life (bar a few months) pretty much being told what to do by adults (ie guardians and teachers etc.)
The power dynamic is so loaded in favour of the 48 yr old that I find it hard to believe that such a relationship could be equal.
When you add in that the 48yr old was in a position of authority in an organisation that the 17 yr old was a member of it increases this inequitity.

This has been born out by the 17 yr olds complaint  a couple of years ago and her more recent complaint.

As for the SWP's investigation ... I would have thought that his behaviour (which led to the originalcomplaint) was grounds enough for removing him from the CC and suspending him from the party. 
And as for the rape complaint it beggars belief that they felt equipped to deal with it. He should of been suspended and the complainant should have been offered support to seek advice etc. from a counsellor and rape experts. They should have been clear that they were not able to investigate such a complaint. 
What bothers me (as a person AND as an ex member - of 20 yrs) is that no one appeared to consider;
a) what the fuck were they going to do if they "found" him guilty? Expel him? (the same punishment given for setting up a permanent faction) 
or
b) what the fuck would it look like to the woman if they "found" him innocent? (would it look like they were calling her a liar?)

But instead of thinking they held an "investigation" with a group of people including at least 5 who'd know him for years and some of whom had considered him a friend.

The entire CC should be got rid of for being blatantly fucking stupid at best and sexist, self interested, bureaurocratic, power hungry fuckers at worst.

I left 4 years ago as I go bored and disillusioned with all the in fighting and the increasing amount of time spent slagging off other socialists who the SWP deemed unworthy. That and the ego mad lunatics who turned on each other ... and then split.

This situation and the shit response has made me look back on all the thousands of pounds I collected in work for the UAF/ANL; For strikers; for countless campaigns and for SW itself as being tainted. I never thought I was better than anyone but I thought I was doing something worth while...I don't regret supporting strikers and campaigns but I do regret be a representative for the SWP. I feel a bit dirtied by it all.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 28, 2013)

Just in a pub in And a load of swap turned up. They'd just been at an aggregate, but there were Loyalists and oppositionists drinking together in a very friendly fashion, if anyones interested.


----------



## belboid (Feb 28, 2013)

This week Sheffield Unison sent out a mailing urging members to give in on the latest fight against council changes to pay and T&C's. Did they want to discuss this at their monthly meeting?  Or to discuss any ongoing campaigning against cuts?  No, they wanted to discuss a motion demanding the left caucus in the branch denounce the SWP's treatment of a complaint of rape, as 'our women members' take sexual violence very seriously (article from Workers Power attached as 'background, not from the bourgeois press.'


----------



## comrade spurski (Feb 28, 2013)

october_lost said:


> My response made more sense in my head, somehow.
> 
> Anyone could have had a word with MS, that's not the issue. There will always be inertia with stuff like this, because all the sordid details are not exactly out in the open, are they?
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the welcome ... have been looking at different boards but many I looked at were just spiteful so I chose this one.
I really hope this is not going to do a lot of damage to the left


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

belboid said:


> This week Sheffield Unison sent out a mailing urging members to give in on the latest fight against council changes to pay and T&C's. Did they want to discuss this at their monthly meeting? Or to discuss any ongoing campaigning against cuts? No, they wanted to discuss a motion demanding the left caucus in the branch denounce the SWP's treatment of a complaint of rape, as 'our women members' take sexual violence very seriously (article from Workers Power attached as 'background, not from the bourgeois press.'


 
Not surprised. The UNISON bureaucrats will do anything to cover themselves and distract from what they are doing, or not doing should I say. Isn't Sheffield UNISON run by the region? If so I'm surprised they even allow monthly meetings.

Members at our place have just voted, in a mass meeting, for strike action against the threat to halve our sick pay entitlement from 6 to 3 months. I'm sure the SWP was a burning issue for members, but surprisingly no-one brought it up.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Feb 28, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Just in a pub in And a load of swap turned up. They'd just been at an aggregate, but there were Loyalists and oppositionists drinking together in a very friendly fashion, if anyones interested.


 
The opposite round our way. They drink seperately after branch meetings now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2013)

They couldn't fill  a table round here now.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They couldn't fill a table round here now.


 
Since this mess began, or was this a long term decline anyway?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Since this mess began, or was this a long term decline anyway?


Bit of both. SWP organisationally absent since the october/nov 2011 student stuff. Now just absent as individuals as well.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 28, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Thanks for the welcome ... have been looking at different boards but many I looked at were just spiteful so I chose this one.
> I really hope this is not going to do a lot of damage to the left


 
Do you mind revealing which boards were the spiteful ones?


----------



## belboid (Feb 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Isn't Sheffield UNISON run by the region?


not any more, the officers are actually to the right of the regional ones.


----------



## treelover (Feb 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bit of both. SWP organisationally absent since the october/nov 2011 student stuff. Now just absent as individuals as well.


 
there are hardly any SWP in a city the size of Bristol ,

wish it was the same here...


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Do you mind revealing which boards were the spiteful ones?


To be honest I read through posts and saw posters from different organisations slagging each other off and never went back. They were like the Life of Brian....only without the humour!
I put socialist blog , socialist forum and socialist debate in google and just worked my way through.
I tried over a period of months on and off. 
I've never understood the fascination of hating other socialists more than the right so I steered clear of most of what I came across.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 1, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> To be honest I read through posts and saw posters from different organisations slagging each other off and never went back. They were like the Life of Brian....only without the humour!
> I put socialist blog , socialist forum and socialist debate in google and just worked my way through.
> I tried over a period of months on and off.
> I've never understood the fascination of hating other socialists more than the right so I steered clear of most of what I came across.


Humour can be a bit rough and tough here, and there are long running feuds, and trolls and nudity, but it is a nicer brand of board.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They couldn't fill a table round here now.


 
Not a single swappie round here now (where previously there was one reasonably thriving branch in small town): all gone to Counterfire, SP, or no org.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 1, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Humour can be a bit rough and tough here, and there are long running feuds, and trolls and nudity, but it is a nicer brand of board.


 
I can handle humour and people taking the piss outta me (I have a teen daughter...a 10 year daughter and I'm a spurs fan so I've got a thick skin!) and at least there are plenty of items up for discussion


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Humour can be a bit rough and tough here, and there are long running feuds, and trolls and nudity, but it is a nicer brand of board.


 
Though to be fair, the nudity is not actually on this thread ...


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> there are hardly any SWP in a city the size of Bristol ,
> 
> wish it was the same here...


 
They can't muster a half decent sized branch in Bristol and yet still claim 7000 on the books?


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 1, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Not a single swappie round here now (where previously there was one reasonably thriving branch in small town): all gone to Counterfire, SP, or no org.


In 2001 we had a reasonably vibrant branch, which broke itself attempting to run an general election campaign. Even afterwards there were a dozen or so people around the SWP branch in reading.
 On the idoop list I was pleased to see a reading name, yet very aware that for the past 8 years there has existed a branch of two people who haven't even been able to maintain a regular paper sale.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 1, 2013)

There is something inimical to Cliffism about this stretch of train line alright. A couple in Reading, not much more in Bristol and nothing at all in between the two here in Swindon. If we didn't have so much decent rugby round here I'd have committed suicide years ago.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 1, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Humour can be a bit rough and tough here, and there are long running feuds, and trolls and nudity, but it is a nicer brand of board.


It is in fairness. You do get the impression people actually listen to and ifluence each other. Which is miles ahead of anywhere else I've seen.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> They can't muster a half decent sized branch in Bristol and yet still claim 7000 on the books?



They probably claim a couple of dozen members in Bristol still.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> In 2001 we had a reasonably vibrant branch, which broke itself attempting to run an general election campaign. Even afterwards there were a dozen or so people around the SWP branch in reading.
> On the idoop list I was pleased to see a reading name, yet very aware that for the past 8 years there has existed a branch of two people who haven't even been able to maintain a regular paper sale.



I've never seen a papersale in Reading.


----------



## october_lost (Mar 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They couldn't fill  a table round here now.


I have seen them twice in as many months in east London, which is more often than I usually see them and with quite a bit of vigor. 

I imagine there are bills to pay somewhere.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bit of both. SWP organisationally absent since the october/nov 2011 student stuff. Now just absent as individuals as well.



I'd suggest that the real blow was the whole Respect thing. After that, barring the odd exception, they've been hit by disaster after disaster each costing them dozens to hundreds of members. Left List, Bamberry, Counterfire, and now this.

Each split,it cost them, what, a couple of dozen active splitters. Plus probably the same again in people dropping out, plus probably the same again in people who had no intention of leaving but who found their branch/mates/people who they'd do stuff with gone thus rendering them inactive too.

Death spiral.

There's no way back now.

'Specially if they fuck off their last few remaining student bases.

Numbers wise, when the dust settles, it'll be interesting (well, for "enthusiasts" like ourselves) to see how they compare to the rest of the left. After the SP, who'll essentially, have the field to themselves, who are the next biggest groups? CPB? AWL? Respect? I dunno...anybody in the mid to high three figures region?


----------



## tony.c (Mar 1, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Just in a pub in And a load of swap turned up. They'd just been at an aggregate, but there were Loyalists and oppositionists drinking together in a very friendly fashion, if anyones interested.


They're drinking in pubs again then? A few years ago when they were in Respect mode they moved their meetings from pubs to community centres, coffee bars, and cafes so as not to offend people who didn't drink alcohol.
I thought it was a step backwards for the Left, and the beginning of the end for the swp! Most union activists and socialists I know like to have a couple of pints after a meeting.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 1, 2013)

chilango said:


> I've never seen a papersale in Reading.


You won't have done, when we moved to reading in 1992, there was a small group of older, less active members. I restarted paper sales, and managed to pick up a few new people and tried various things to gain a wider audience, including a Friday night sale outside the railway station, but nothing really worked until the start of the SWPs involvement in the socialist alliance. We were able to draw to us the remnants of the much larger old slp branch as well as a number of others, though Julie watersons wizard wheeze of asking me to stand as candidate soured relations with the sp. ( and this was the difference in the SA period, suddenly relationships with others socialists mattered).
The election broke the branch, but we picked up the pieces and tried to carry on, then I was victimised at work and lost my job, the lack of support I received from the party, which was busy denigrating the SA experience was especially noticeable in comparison with the campaign in defence of Greg tucker which beat attempts of management to victimise him.
With me withdrawn the branch collapsed, and only began to revive with the march to war.
I reapplied myself, somewhat less enthusiastically, and we achieved some stuff, most noticeably the anti war march through reading on 31st October 2002-( the swpers at the stw head office really did not want to allow us a Halloween against the war march, as this would 'upset the Christians') 
 There were two triggers which decided me in leaving the SWP, the first was the arrival of a new comrade, who was a Egyptian doctor, and who immediately became the conduit for all information from the centre, and was it seemed seen as leader of the branch, even though he wouldn't do paper sales nor any public activity.

The second was the arrival of John Rees at our Halloween protest, after the parade of vicars and liberal peaceniks, having Rees on the speakers list was a coup for the doctor, and I looked forward to having the revolutionary position laid out. However, Rees proceeded to give a banal ' if we all stand together the government have to stop the war' liberal guff.
When the Egyptian doctor then turned up at a reading anti war group meeting declaring himself to be 'Berkshire Stop the War' an entirely fictitious group, to forbid us from standing candidates in the local elections.
He was politely ignored by the group, and when he attempted to impose party discipline on me was less politely rebuffed.
Since then I have known of only three paper sales in reading, two outside the station on a Friday night, and one, bizarrely, outside Riley's pool hall on the Oxford road. The purpose of this I have never been able to establish, though the hall has since closed down and is being turned into a church.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2013)

There's no SWSS either is there?

Odd for such a big Uni.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 1, 2013)

No swss, I think there never has been, when a student organiser came over to do a freshens fair, I did not even know how to get to the university!
 When I went to university ther was a socialist group being started, I think inspired by sp members, but I kept clear, a cynical old sod like me probably isn't who they were looking for.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 1, 2013)

chilango said:


> There's no SWSS either is there?
> 
> Odd for such a big Uni.


The Christian union is the largest group on campus, the lib dems were very public but disappeared entirely, assisted by my one person defacing campaign of their posters.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2013)

There's zero political presence on campus these days. Xtians are still very visible though.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

tony.c said:


> They're drinking in pubs again then? A few years ago when they were in Respect mode they moved their meetings from pubs to community centres, coffee bars, and cafes so as not to offend people who didn't drink alcohol.
> I thought it was a step backwards for the Left, and the beginning of the end for the swp! Most union activists and socialists I know like to have a couple of pints after a meeting.



To be fair, the move away from having meetings in pubs was well underway prior to Respect, and for a number of reasons:

1. skint people (as self, partner, and a number of other branch members were then) often can't afford pub nights 

2. more difficult for young people to come to pubs 

3. people might avoid pubs for religious reasons 

4. reformed alcoholics avoid pubs 

Basically, a non- pub venue for a meeting makes the meeting more accessible, and more likely to get new people along (in the case of a public mtg). Accessibility is what is important, not the personal preferences of some of the existing members.

I think it's important for activists to be clear about what is politics and what is simply their own rest and relaxation.

After the mtg of course what people do is up to them.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2013)

Moving away from pubs is/was a good idea.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 1, 2013)

I see that OSS continues his epic quest to get someone to send him a copy of the Socialist Party's constitution over on Socialist Unity.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 1, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see that OSS continues his epic quest to get someone to send him a copy of the Socialist Party's constitution over on Socialist Unity.


 
Best of luck to him, _once more unto the breach, dear friends..._


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2013)

I can think of why somebody might avoid going to pubs that might be nothing to do with islam. What if you are an ex alcoholic or can't drink alcohol for other medical reasons?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 1, 2013)

It was partially due to Islam and partially about a general change of image and the recognition that pubs do not always make the best meeting places, for the various reasons already given. Not to mention that it is getting quite difficult to find decent pubs to have meetings in anyway.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2013)

also you can't have a snout in a pub now which makes the whole thing shit


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 1, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It was partially due to Islam and partially about a general change of image and the recognition that pubs do not always make the best meeting places, for the various reasons already given. Not to mention that it is getting quite difficult to find decent pubs to have meetings in anyway.


 
Nowt worse than trying to have a meeting in a gastro-pub.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Nowt worse than trying to have a meeting in a gastro-pub.



Yeah. Why ruin a good meal?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> there are hardly any SWP in a city the size of Bristol ,


 
A friend of mine and a leading member of the SWP lives in Bristol, so I know that to be untrue.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 1, 2013)

I'm not joining any party that doesn't meet in pubs. I know all the arguments but Duncan Hallas was right, Marxism and alcohol are inseparable. I only go canvassing for my mum in the Labour party cause she runs the campaign from her house and she always has supplies in.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 1, 2013)

chilango said:


> Yeah. Why ruin a good meal?


 
A _good_ meal? In a gastropub?

Better off going to McDonalds.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I can think of why somebody might avoid going to pubs that might be nothing to do with islam. What if you are an ex alcoholic or can't drink alcohol for other medical reasons?


 
I actually had a contact turn down coming to a meeting because it was in a pub - he explained that he was a recovering alcoholic and that it would just be a difficult place for him to be.

I also remember that for people on the dole going to the pub was a bit awkward because they could not afford to buy a round. Having a meeting in a cafe or community centre meant less financial pressure.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It was partially due to Islam and partially about a general change of image and the recognition that pubs do not always make the best meeting places, for the various reasons already given. Not to mention that it is getting quite difficult to find decent pubs to have meetings in anyway.


 
Loads of pubs here shut down now. Passed another one today. Also some of the pubs in town here have a bit of a rep for being "rough".


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> also you can't have a snout in a pub now which makes the whole thing shit


 
Smoking in swp meetings was also generally banned way before the smoking ban came in. Again it was about making meetings more accessible: you can't really attend a smokey meeting if you have respiratory problems as loads of people do around here. Plus people don't want to come along to a meeting and then risk their health due to secondary smoking.


----------



## andysays (Mar 1, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm not joining any party that doesn't meet in pubs


 
You're deliberately misquoting Emma Goldman now, right?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 1, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Loads of pubs here shut down now. Passed another one today. Also some of the pubs in town here have a bit of a rep for being "rough".


It's not just pubs, it seem to be getting really hard to find meeting venues for a reasonable price, I've heard of one SWP branch that ended up meeting in the back room of a Subway!


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It's not just pubs, it seem to be getting really hard to find meeting venues for a reasonable price, I've heard of one SWP branch that ended up meeting in the back room of a Subway!


 
We used to have SWP and SA meetings in a room at the local squash club: it satisfied everybody - no pressure to get drinks in, coffee and tea available, and bar afterwards for those that felt like it.

If you're on a low income it's easier to find the cash for one drink after than have to stump up for drinks throughout the meeting and after.

Also, there was a local pub/hotel that was more like a cafe where you could have coffee, etc, where we used to meet. Also just had some meetings at each other's houses, though not the public ones, obviously.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 1, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It's not just pubs, it seem to be getting really hard to find meeting venues for a reasonable price, I've heard of one SWP branch that ended up meeting in the back room of a Subway!


 
There's a serious issue here about whether or not this is indicative of the decline in people participating in civil society (Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone is a worthwhile read on this) ie there's less public meeting places cos there's less demand for public meetings of all kinds, political or otherwise, or whether or not the internet has made routine face-to-face meetings like the ones commonplace on the far left redundant. That people are still getting involved in debates but online, not in person. Why participate in a choreographed meeting run by distant and shadowy forces when you can engage in a permanent conversation online for no effort in the comfort of your own home? Where you can drink and smoke without alienating anyone! Whilst wearing just your underwear, if you please. I bet there's people on this thread now who aren't even fully dressed and who are pissed/stoned and it's only 6:23pm! You can't get away with that a meeting.*

And if you're talking about pubs you could make a case for both of the above, not to mention the economic pressure of competition from nightclubs and cheap supermarket booze. Why go to the pub when you can get two bottles of wine for a tenner, go home to your empty lonely life, get smashed on your own whilst stalking your old school friends on facebook and drowning yourself in self-hatred?

* I once left a meeting early to pick up weed. I'm a very bad comrade.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 1, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm not joining any party that doesn't meet in pubs.


i agree completely.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's a serious issue here about whether or not this is indicative of the decline in people participating in civil society (Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone is a worthwhile read on this) ie there's less public meeting places cos there's less demand for public meetings of all kinds, political or otherwise, or whether or not the internet has made routine face-to-face meetings like the ones commonplace on the far left redundant. That people are still getting involved in debates but online, not in person. Why participate in a choreographed meeting run by distant and shadowy forces when you can engage in a permanent conversation online for no effort in the comfort of your own home? Where you can drink and smoke without alienating anyone! Whilst wearing just your underwear, if you please. I bet there's people on this thread now who aren't even fully dressed and who are pissed/stoned and it's only 6:23pm! You can't get away with that a meeting.*
> 
> And if you're talking about pubs you could make a case for both of the above, not to mention the economic pressure of competition from nightclubs and cheap supermarket booze. Why go to the pub when you can get two bottles of wine for a tenner, go home to your empty lonely life, get smashed on your own whilst stalking your old school friends on facebook and drowning yourself in self-hatred?
> 
> * I once left a meeting early to pick up weed. I'm a very bad comrade.


 
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll take a look.

Some people think that the rise of the internet is leading to a decline in face-to-face contact, but I'm not convinced. Even in the heyday of pubs there were a lot of people who rarely went to them. I think people in general are doing loads more stuff besides going to the pub now, like going to gyms, sports clubs and other activities.

Just a digression on the decline of pubs: when I was late teens/twenties, pubs were the main thing that we went out to, with an occasional visit to a nightclub or eatery after. Talking to my friends' son who is twenty, he says they don't go to pubs: they meet up at someone's house for drinks then go out clubbing from around 11 till 4 or 5. I think part of the decline of pubs is due to a change in tastes of young people and the rise of clubbing. I think young people were always what kept the pubs in business mainly.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Mar 1, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Smoking in swp meetings was also generally banned way before the smoking ban came in. Again it was about making meetings more accessible: you can't really attend a smokey meeting if you have respiratory problems as loads of people do around here. Plus people don't want to come along to a meeting and then risk their health due to secondary smoking.


Never was in our meetings but as I was the only smoker at the time & if I fancied a puff I used to go outside so whether there was a edict from on high banning smoking at meetings was a moot point for our branch 

ETA: Now if they'd have banned drinking at meetings there would have been a riot


----------



## discokermit (Mar 1, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Smoking in swp meetings was also generally banned way before the smoking ban came in. Again it was about making meetings more accessible: you can't really attend a smokey meeting if you have respiratory problems as loads of people do around here. Plus people don't want to come along to a meeting and then risk their health due to secondary smoking.


the smoking ban in meetings was the beginning of the end.

once we started capitulating to whiny fake asthmatics, with their insistent cough and martyr face within hundredths of a second of sparking up, there was no going back.
next came the ban on pubs. "but the alkies and teetotalers won't come...", don't these people go to fucking tesco? it's full of booze! "the unemployed won't want to come...", yeh right, like they ever got asked to put their hand in their pocket for beer.

the reality was that the ban on meeting in pubs happened because the party was being run by a bunch of joyless cunts who just wanted to suck the fun out of everything. that's why they stopped skegness for some wanky ally pally rally.


----------



## chilango (Mar 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the smoking ban in meetings was the beginning of the end.
> 
> once we started capitulating to whiny fake asthmatics, with their insistent cough and martyr face within hundredths of a second of sparking up, there was no going back.
> next came the ban on pubs. "but the alkies and teetotalers won't come...", don't these people go to fucking tesco? it's full of booze! "the unemployed won't want to come...", yeh right, like they ever got asked to put their hand in their pocket for beer.
> ...



Good stuff! 

In all seriousness there is a place for pub meetings, but in the main they only suit a small number of people...and funnily it's exactly those people who have dominated, and fucked up, the Left for the last couple of decades.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> Never was in our meetings but as I was the only smoker at the time & if I fancied a puff I used to go outside so whether there was a edict from on high banning smoking at meetings was a moot point for our branch
> 
> ETA: Now if they'd have banned drinking at meetings there would have been a riot


 
Drinking was banned at some of the branch meetings I went to, so that two young Muslim women could attend. There was not a riot.    This was well before the Respect project.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Mar 1, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Drinking was banned at some of the branch meetings I went to, so that two young Muslim women could attend. There was not a riot.  This was well before the Respect project.


I was talking about my branch - no one on high is going to take our drink from us without a bloody huge fight 

The bizarre thing about banning drinking so as not to offend Muslims is that most that I know couldn't give a monkeys they just have a coke or juice, the exchange of ideas is more important.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 1, 2013)

Of course, no muslims ever go to pubs. Ever. It's haram to set foot inside one. Or to be in the same room as alcohol. And if you're a Muslim who had the misfortune to be born and raised in Britain clearly drinking is something utterly and totally alien and offensive to you.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 1, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Drinking was banned at some of the branch meetings I went to, so that two young Muslim women could attend. There was not a riot.  This was well before the Respect project.


when they told you they couldn't come because of the alcohol they were just being polite.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 1, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> The bizarre thing about banning drinking so as not to offend Muslims is that most that I know couldn't give a monkeys they just have a coke or juice, the exchange of ideas is more important.


We used to have a young Muslim women coming to meeting, and she usually lead the rush to the bar.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 1, 2013)

You can tell that nothing has leaked in a day or two when the Socialist Unity threads start going off on even crazier tangents than usual. Right now, Andy Newman is treating the world to a critique of the dress sense of Socialist Party members. Apparently they all shop in Primark and uniformly dress like drunks down the bus station.

There are people I'm willing to listen to fashion tips from, but it has to be said that Andy Newman is not one of them.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Mar 1, 2013)

emanymton said:


> We used to have a young Muslim women coming to meeting, and she usually lead the rush to the bar.


I wonder if she was a mate or reli of one of our members before she moved, she used to trample over everyone to be first at the bar


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the smoking ban in meetings was the beginning of the end.
> 
> once we started capitulating to whiny fake asthmatics, with their insistent cough and martyr face within hundredths of a second of sparking up, there was no going back.
> next came the ban on pubs. "but the alkies and teetotalers won't come...", don't these people go to fucking tesco? it's full of booze! "the unemployed won't want to come...", yeh right, like they ever got asked to put their hand in their pocket for beer.
> ...


 
We had one Stop the War public meeting that was meant to be non-smoking, but one heavy smoker (long standing SWP member) lit up and then other smokers thought it was ok to as well. Trouble was, there was one former health worker who I had been trying to get along to a meeting for ages - she has severe respiratory problems and had to leave immediately.

Politics and meetings are about building a movement and pushing outwards to get new people involved - it's not about creating a personal comfort zone for existing activists.

And as for the unemployed never having to pay for beer - pull the other one. Of course everyone is expected to buy their own drinks, as most others are on a low income too. I was unemployed and so was my partner - pub meetings made a big dent in our finances. Yes, sometimes one in-work comrade bought us the occasional drink, but he couldn't have been expected to buy everybody's drinks all the time.

I think Skeggy stopped because they couldn't get the venue any more?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Of course, no muslims ever go to pubs. Ever. It's haram to set foot inside one. Or to be in the same room as alcohol. And if you're a Muslim who had the misfortune to be born and raised in Britain clearly drinking is something utterly and totally alien and offensive to you.


 
I have never had a bacon sandwich in my life, ever*

*some of the information in this post may not be entirely accurate


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I was talking about my branch - no one on high is going to take our drink from us without a bloody huge fight
> 
> The bizarre thing about banning drinking so as not to offend Muslims is that most that I know couldn't give a monkeys they just have a coke or juice, the exchange of ideas is more important.


 
I don't think it is a case of offend: the young Muslims who came along to our meetings explained that they were not supposed to sit with people who were drinking alcohol. We had one public meeting at a local theatre and after, in the bar area, they could only sit at tables where people were not drinking.

I think there are different variants of Islam.

I think the objective for any socialist movement is to get new, interested people along to meetings, not create a comfortable space for long-standing members.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> when they told you they couldn't come because of the alcohol they were just being polite.


 
But they did come to the meeting.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2013)

I like pub meetings myself but I largely agree with chilango on this I've got to say. Surely "a democratic decision has to be reached" on a case by case basis?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 1, 2013)

Here's an astonishing article from the World Socialist Website (Who are, if I'm not mistaken, one of the remnants of the WRP? Is it the Socialist Equality Party?)

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/01/unis-m01.html

Some choice cuts:



> The resolution passed by the UNISON trade union women’s conference denying what it terms “rape deniers” a public platform is a reactionary move underscoring the right-wing and anti-democratic character of identity politics.
> The conference took place amid a major assault on working class living standards and social provision. Yet not a single concrete measure to beat back this offensive was adopted. Nor was a word said about the role of Britain’s major public sector union in facilitating the destruction of tens of thousands of public sector jobs and the ripping up of pension rights. Instead motion after motion eulogised the work conducted by UNISON in “gender-specific” areas.
> The event was a set piece for the union bureaucracy and its apologists to conceal their hostility to the social concerns of working people behind the façade of women’s rights. This accounts for the motion passed overwhelmingly by conference, entitled, “Support rape victims not rape deniers”.


 
But it gets better!



> For this, the motion urges that “UNISON spokespeople” be encouraged (!) to “refuse to share a platform with George Galloway”. It builds on the precedent set last year by decision of the Executive of the National Union of Students to bar Galloway from its platforms and the initial threat to do the same to the long-time leader of the Labour Party’s left Tony Benn—also for defending Assange—before Benn abased himself before his critics.


 
This abasement is otherwise known as "apologising" for being in the wrong to normal people



> The motion is as spurious as it is slanderous. Assange is the target of a frame-up, concocted by the Swedish authorities in league with Washington and London, whose purpose is to silence him and close down WikiLeaks because of their exposure of the criminal conspiracies of the US and its allies.
> The allegations of sexual misconduct against Assange were made by two women who had sought out the WikiLeaks founder and engaged in consensual sex with him separately on several occasions, including after the alleged incidents that led to their complaints. The specific accusations—involving a torn condom and initiating sex while one of the women was asleep—only became allegations of rape after the intervention of politically motivated parties seeking a pseudo-legal pretext to extradite Assange to Sweden and his subsequent transfer to the US for prosecution on charges of espionage.
> The pseudo-left and feminists behind the motion are as indifferent to the filthy manoeuvres of the imperialist powers as they are to the fact that Assange has not even been charged with an offence.


Not been charged with an offence _because he's on the run_ y'know the same way Lord Lucan never got charged.



> The wealth of evidence that Assange is the victim of a “dark and covert plot” is dismissed. The slaughter and devastation committed by the imperialist powers in Iraq doesn’t rate a mention, or the fact that the revival of neo-colonialism it heralded now extends to interventions against Libya, Syria and Mali—facilitated in no small part by the nobbling of Assange and WikiLeaks.


 
Anti-imperialism strikes again



> The implications were made clear at the UNISON conference when the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) was threatened that it could be next to be barred from platforms.
> The SWP is characterised by its essential loyalty to the trade union apparatus. It has long promoted identity politics based on race, gender and sexual-preference as a counter-weight to class-based politics and has even lined up behind the campaign against Assange, demanding he go to Sweden to stand trial.


 
Of course you couldn't characterise that abased and besmearched victim of this, Tony Benn, as being essentially loyal to the trade union apparatus. Oh no.



> In the most cynical manner, allegations of sexual impropriety against a leading member of the SWP have been seized on by pro-Labour Party ideologues such as the warmonger Nick Cohen, Owen Jones, and blogs such as _Socialist Unity_ to launch a scathing attack on “Leninism” and “Trotskyism” as the root cause of the SWP’s anti-democratic practices and proof of the futility of building any party separate from Labour and the trade unions.
> 
> They have found fertile ground for this campaign amongst various feminists and former and current members of the SWP and other pseudo-left groups.


That's my favourite bit.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2013)

Yeah Socialist Equality Party, strike-breakers owned by a multi millionaire paper factory owner and members of the rump WRP


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2013)

amazed there is still an WRP tbf


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2013)

they dont really exist any more IIRC apart from the website, and ive seen them doing the odd (in both sense of the word) stall in oxford


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 1, 2013)

Fashion plate Andy Newman's other observation on left wing style:

The SWP dress in "a sort of student jumble sale chic".


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Fashion plate Andy Newman's other observation on left wing style:
> 
> The SWP dress in "a sort of student jumble sale chic".


 


How do the SP members dress then? I hope I havent been photographed in one of my "throw any old shit on and run out the door coz i have to go and do this paper sale in 5 seconds" days


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How do the SP members dress then?


 
He claims that they all shop in Primark, and have adopted a uniformly dowdy look, so as to be able to blend in with alcoholics at bus stations. He thinks it's a subcultural thing.

I'm tempted to respond just by posting that photo of him over and over again.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> But they did come to the meeting.


 
Actually, come to think of it, they came to quite a lot of meetings, and demos. They were relatively recently arrived from Iraq, and so culturally different from British born Muslims.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 1, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He claims that they all shop in Primark, and have adopted a uniformly dowdy look, so as to be able to blend in with alcoholics at bus stations. He thinks it's a subcultural thing.
> 
> I'm tempted to respond just by posting that photo of him over and over again.


 
Do it.

He's a lovely chap Andy Newman, as this comment shows:




> Don’t be ridiculous, the commentary about the boring style of Socialist Party members, who dress as if they are off for a lively night out at a substance abuse survivors meeting, is a widespread source of humour in the left and the unions.


 
It was "dowdy" and "they all shop at Primark" before he backpedalled to "boring".


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He claims that they all shop in Primark, and have adopted a uniformly dowdy look, so as to be able to blend in with alcoholics at bus stations. He thinks it's a subcultural thing.
> 
> I'm tempted to respond just by posting that photo of him over and over again.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 1, 2013)

Anyway back to the important stuff.

The SP constitution.
I am now quite intrigued to catch a glimpse of this obviously rare and  precious document. So come on Nigel, Frogy what have you got to hide? Or is there only one copy kept under secure lock and key somewhere and only brought out for conferences where you all file pass and kiss it?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2013)

Of course Andy Newman's appearance is anything but "boring" and i would rather look like an alcoholic at a bus station than a refugee from Horsham Magistrate's Court on a bad day


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Anyway back to the important stuff.
> 
> The SP constitution.
> I am now quite intrigued to catch a glimpse of this obviously rare and precious document. So come on Nigel, Frogy what have you got to hide? Or is there only one copy kept under secure lock and key somewhere and only brought out for conferences where you all file pass and kiss it?


 
I don't know. You've got me curious now as well.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 1, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Or is there only one copy kept under secure lock and key somewhere and only brought out for conferences where you all file pass and kiss it?


 
Bloody hell, now we're as leaky as the SWP. How did you find out?

I've a copy of the Irish SP constitution around here somewhere. It's exactly as exciting as you'd expect.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 1, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Anyway back to the important stuff.
> 
> The SP constitution.
> I am now quite intrigued to catch a glimpse of this obviously rare and precious document. So come on Nigel, Frogy what have you got to hide? Or is there only one copy kept under secure lock and key somewhere and only brought out for conferences where you all file pass and kiss it?


 
it is inscribed on a grain of rice which can be read using a microfiche reader


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 1, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Bloody hell, now we're as leaky as the SWP. How did you find out?
> 
> I've a copy of the Irish SP constitution around here somewhere. It's exactly as exciting as you'd expect.


 
I think the question we're all dying to know is _Are they still called the Revolutionary Socialist League?_


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2013)

well obviously it's better than meeting at "Percy's Pork Restaurant" (pork, alcohol and shellfish served with every meal and served with a liberal helping of milk)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 1, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I think the question we're all dying to know is _Are they still called the Revolutionary Socialist League?_


 
The current Irish one was written when the Socialist Party was founded in 1997 and has been amended a couple of times since. So no. Then again, the Irish group was never called the RSL in the first place, so unless we just copy and pasted the English constitution at some time (far from unimaginable) it probably never had anything about the RSL in it .


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> it is inscribed on a grain of rice which can be read using a microfiche reader


 
No, it's encoded in DNA, like this:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428922/an-entire-book-written-in-dna/


----------



## emanymton (Mar 1, 2013)

Ah, so if you are a real SP member you don't need to see a copy it is quite literally part of you DNA.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How do the SP members dress then?


trackie bottoms and an england top.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> well obviously it's better than meeting at "Percy's Pork Restaurant" (pork, alcohol and shellfish served with every meal and served with a liberal helping of milk)


a liberal helping of soft soap more like.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> trackie bottoms and an england top.


But only when they are going somewhere posh.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> trackie bottoms and an england top.


 
I turned up to a meeting once in a Thor Steinar coat and no-one batted an eyelid.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> trackie bottoms and an england top.


 
The ones I know do not dress like this at all.  

Combats or jeans, tee shirt, sensible fleece.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 2, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the smoking ban in meetings was the beginning of the end.
> 
> once we started capitulating to whiny fake asthmatics, with their insistent cough and martyr face within hundredths of a second of sparking up, there was no going back.
> next came the ban on pubs. "but the alkies and teetotalers won't come...", don't these people go to fucking tesco? it's full of booze! "the unemployed won't want to come...", yeh right, like they ever got asked to put their hand in their pocket for beer.
> ...


I knew there was a reason I liked you!


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see that OSS continues his epic quest to get someone to send him a copy of the Socialist Party's constitution over on Socialist Unity.


 
Is someone posting as one_stop_shop on socialist unity???? It's not me!


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 2, 2013)

"the reality was that the ban on meeting in pubs happened because the party was being run by a bunch of joyless cunts who just wanted to suck the fun out of everything. that's why they stopped skegness for some wanky ally pally rally."

Yes!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> There's a serious issue here about whether or not this is indicative of the decline in people participating in civil society (Robert Putnam's book Bowling Alone is a worthwhile read on this) ie there's less public meeting places cos there's less demand for public meetings of all kinds, political or otherwise, or whether or not the internet has made routine face-to-face meetings like the ones commonplace on the far left redundant. That people are still getting involved in debates but online, not in person. Why participate in a choreographed meeting run by distant and shadowy forces when you can engage in a permanent conversation online for no effort in the comfort of your own home? Where you can drink and smoke without alienating anyone! Whilst wearing just your underwear, if you please. I bet there's people on this thread now who aren't even fully dressed and who are pissed/stoned and it's only 6:23pm! You can't get away with that a meeting.*
> 
> And if you're talking about pubs you could make a case for both of the above, not to mention the economic pressure of competition from nightclubs and cheap supermarket booze. Why go to the pub when you can get two bottles of wine for a tenner, go home to your empty lonely life, get smashed on your own whilst stalking your old school friends on facebook and drowning yourself in self-hatred?
> 
> * I once left a meeting early to pick up weed. I'm a very bad comrade.


 
Once I had promised a really nice person that I would attend an SWP public meeting on X subject at a trendy arthouse cinema on a Saturday afternoon, but then my partner at the time and a friend procured some magic mushrooms and proposed a trip to the local park instead... Not wanting to disapoint the SWP I ate the mushrooms and went to the park for half an hour - then nipped off to the meeting where I came up properly while some CC member (might have been Bambery) was talking about something or other while radiating an impressive halo. During Q&As I asked somthing so as to appear cogent and engaged with the subject (but I suspect it was burbling rubbish) and then dashed back to the park to finish the fun.

ETA: now I remember it was Bamberry and he looked like a sacred icon from a Russian church - the first time anyone has said he was an oil painting I expect


----------



## articul8 (Mar 2, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Is someone posting as one_stop_shop on socialist unity???? It's not me!


sounds very like a certain Delroy


----------



## manny-p (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I knew there was a reason I liked you!


I don't particularly like you.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 2, 2013)

manny-p said:


> I don't particularly like you.


he's alright. he's just wrong. and a hack. a confused hack.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> sounds very like a certain Delroy


 
Just found it, that is fantastic. The best thing is that people are taking it seriously, there must be about ten requests from Deloy and Jay Blackwood.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> sounds very like a certain Delroy


 
100% not me I posted under my own name (and got banned for it! haha)


----------



## treelover (Mar 2, 2013)

just reported on SU that Delta will not stand again for UAF positions..


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> 100% not me I posted under my own name (and got banned for it! haha)


I can't decide to want extent you were trolling and to what extent you were serous????


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I can't decide to want extent you were trolling and to what extent you were serous????


 
Neither can I sometimes


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2013)

treelover said:


> just reported on SU that Delta will not stand again for UAF positions..


You got a link? I can never find owt on that site


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

belboid said:


> You got a link? I can never find owt on that site


Post 205, by Tony Collins. And that's it.

If true I think this would mean that the factions demand for him not to represent the party or to hold any full time positions would be in place even though the CC have not formally conceded it


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Post 205, by Tony Collins. And that's it.
> 
> If true I think this would mean that the factions demand for him not to represent the party or to hold any full time positions would be in place even though the CC have not formally conceded it


He is not listed as one of the speakers.


----------



## tony collins (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> 100% not me I posted under my own name (and got banned for it! haha)


 
No you didn't. I just told you not to bring that kind of shit to the site. You're more than welcome to post there; you always have been. But trying to draw a comparison between a ribbing about clothing and racism/homophobia, that's way below standard for Friday night trolling.


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2013)

Cheers. Anything else would be kinda mad, they don't want the issue spilling over into UAF


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

Before it gets started tony collins Delroy Booth any chance you could do us all a favor and not have the same argument on here? As much as I enjoyed reading it on SU.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

belboid said:


> Cheers. Anything else would be kinda mad, they don't want the issue spilling over into UAF


Yeah, if he was to speak or stand for any positions then the whole UAF conference would become about that issue. Even the SWP CC aren't quite that mad yet.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yeah, if he was to speak or stand for any positions then the whole UAF conference would become about that issue. Even the SWP CC aren't quite that mad yet.


 
Shame it would have been good if they'd taken UAF down as well


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

tony collins said:


> No you didn't. I just told you not to bring that kind of shit to the site. You're more than welcome to post there; you always have been. But trying to draw a comparison between a ribbing about clothing and racism/homophobia, that's way below standard for Friday night trolling.


 
You removed a load of my posts you fucking spoilsport bastard!  And other people's who were sticking up for me! Funny definition of the word welcome you have Tony.

Anyway I still think that the comment of "dowdy members of the Socialist Party dressing like the povs at Primark" was genuinely a nasty bit of class bigotry, and quite revealing about what sort of "socialist" Andy Newman is, I was completely serious about that, even if I was ramping up the histrionics for my my own pathetic narcissistic amusement. And I'm absolutely right you wouldn't react that way if it was a off-colour racist joke, or a sexist one, but class bigotry seems quite another matter. It is out of line, and what's more revealing you reacted to it with totally predictable "shut up, get a thicker skin, stop trying to be offended" shite that's seems to be the default reaction when someone gets upset by the stupid witless crass "jokes" from the boorish middle-aged white men who overwhelm and dominate the left. _Top banter lads, epic bants, fuckin' primark wearing bus-wankers and smackheads_ etc etc ad nauseum. Obviously those who don't like this sort of thing are the ones with the problem, not you guys.

I'm probably not at all as thin skinned as you reckon btw. But I'm still pretty young and I'll have it with anyone. Anyway I'm done it's far too nice of a day for this. Remember to vote Labour, primark scum! Know your place!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 2, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Shame it would have been good if they'd taken UAF down as well


WTF! Typical


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Post 205, by Tony Collins. And that's it.
> 
> If true I think this would mean that the factions demand for him not to represent the party or to hold any full time positions would be in place even though the CC have not formally conceded it


Good. Sensible decision.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 2, 2013)

Sadly, it only means the SWP CC were forced to keep 'Delta' off UAF posts by orgs outside SWP kicking off: CC still determined, I understand, to give him a role - currently at LMHR -(presumably they want to do this to demonstrate their authority) Most certainly CC at present seem determined not to give in to any demands 'Delta' is barred from full time or 'united front' roles. Sensibleness merely forced on them by non-SWP actors in this case.


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2013)

as probably the front where students are most important, LMHR would seem a pointedly terrible choice.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 2, 2013)

What is LMHR?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

Love Music Hate Racism


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

I have no idea how LMHR is structured, does it have any kind of conference to elect officers?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

aw


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I have no idea how LMHR is structured, does it have any kind of conference to elect officers?


Answering myself, not a good sign I'm sure.
It looks like they have joint conferences with UAF


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Post 205, by Tony Collins. And that's it.
> 
> If true I think this would mean that the factions demand for him not to represent the party or to hold any full time positions would be in place even though the CC have not formally conceded it


 
Quite remarkable to see prianikoff, ie Rob Sewell, quote a woman threatening moon unit on a thread like that....


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Shame it would have been good if they'd taken UAF down as well


 
This is an example of why the left is regarded as a joke by a lot of my "normal" (ie non affiliated) mates, both in work, in my union and my personal mates.
The UAF is an anti Nazi organisation and it would be good if it was brought down?
Seriously?
It's enough to make me weep and give up.
Fair enough mate...hate the SWP...God knows they seem to now hate a lot of the left but I think you need a little perspective. I'm mixed raced asian...I live with a white woman and we have 2 kids together (one light kinned with blue eyes and the other dark skinned with brown eyes)...I couldn't give a shit about who runs an anti Nazi group or to be honest how many there are. If some wanna sing songs, some wanna pray, if some wanna march, petition, have meetings or physically oppose the Nazis when they march then good for them ...at least they are ALL openly opposing them.
My kids carried a banner on a UAF march about 4 years ago...it said "one of us is brown and one of us is pink but we both think the BNP stink." They've still got it and still remember going on the demo. Surely that is a good thing for the future. Or is it only good if you can go beat the shit out of them so everyone else bar the brave and tough should stay away?
Sorry for being liberal but surely it's the scum in the BNP and EDL etc. that need to be taken down?


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 2, 2013)

Well said Comrade Spurski, but I don't think Spanky's "bring down the UAF " represents "the left", joke or otherwise


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> This is an example of why the left is regarded as a joke by a lot of my "normal" (ie non affiliated) mates, both in work, in my union and my personal mates.
> The UAF is an anti Nazi organisation and it would be good if it was brought down?
> Seriously?
> It's enough to make me weep and give up.
> ...


No it's not. It's an example of you using an argument against a particular form of pro-status quo anti-fascism to try and argue that anything outside of it doesn't take account of or try to appeal to broad anti-facsist or anti-racist themes. It's not true historically and it's certainly not true now

The reason the left and the new posters here are alienated from the wider working class are not to do with someone saying fuck the UAF - and if you think that they are then you're not even close to understanding what a hole you are in.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Well said Comrade Spurski, but I don't think Spanky's "bring down the UAF " represents "the left", joke or otherwise


 
Keep the UAF going - it's great does then? That's the left - what it should be?


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not. It's an example of you using an argument against a particular form of pro-status anti-fascism to try and argue that anything outside of it doesn't take account of or try to appeal to broad anti-facsist or anti-racist themes. It's not true historically and it's certainly not true now
> 
> The reason the left and the new posters here are alienated from the wider working class are not to do with someone saying fuck the UAF - and if you think that they are then you're not even close to understanding what a hole you are in.


 
I have no idea what you are referring to and I ain't in a hole mate...I'm in no organisation and ain't alienated from anyone in my union or in work. I think that some of the lefts "it's my way or fuck you" is a very unfunny joke that damages some great causes.
Fuck the UAF???? Like I said a little perspective is needed. You may not like some of those who formed it and you may think there are other tactics that are better to beat the fascists but to want to see an anti Nazi organisation go down the toilet is plainly nonsense.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> This is an example of why the left is regarded as a joke by a lot of my "normal" (ie non affiliated) mates, both in work, in my union and my personal mates.
> The UAF is an anti Nazi organisation and it would be good if it was brought down?
> Seriously?
> It's enough to make me weep and give up.
> ...


 
The UAF are a dreadful, uttery ineffective, undemocratic and pitiful organisation that have done precious little to build a coherent anti-fascist movement in this country. This is view based on bitter personal experience, not sectarianism. What successes there have been in beating back in the EDL and the BNP are in spite of, not because of, the UAF.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I have no idea what you are referring to and I ain't in a hole mate...I'm in no organisation and ain't alienated from anyone in my union or in work. I think that some of the lefts "it's my way or fuck you" is a very unfunny joke that damages some great causes.
> Fuck the UAF???? Like I said a little perspective is needed. You may not like some of those who formed it and you may think there are other tactics that are better to beat the fascists but to want to see an anti Nazi organisation go down the toilet is plainly nonsense.


No it's not. It only been kept alive by inflating the edl for the last three years. A wrecking yard for people the cc don't want and useless in terms of anything else. Fuck the uaf.

You may not be alienated from anything or anyone - the wider left is, your whole point rested on this being the case. Yet you put this situation down to someone on this board saying the UAF is shit? It's not. It's due to a membership and leadership pursuing their own immediate interests to the detriment of the sort of immediate class interests that, if fought for consistently, would make those wider aims a practical possibility.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I have no idea what you are referring to and I ain't in a hole mate...I'm in no organisation and ain't alienated from anyone in my union or in work. I think that some of the lefts *"it's my way or fuck you"* is a very unfunny joke that damages some great causes.
> Fuck the UAF???? Like I said a little perspective is needed. You may not like some of those who formed it and you may think there are other tactics that are better to beat the fascists but to want to see an anti Nazi organisation go down the toilet is plainly nonsense.


 
That's exactly what you're doing in regards the UAF. Any criticism of them is met with exasperated criticism from you.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> The UAF are a dreadful, uttery ineffective, undemocratic and pitiful organisation that have done precious little to build a coherent anti-fascist movement in this country. This is view based on bitter personal experience, not sectarianism. What successes there have been in beating back in the EDL and the BNP are in spite of, not because of, the UAF.


 


butchersapron said:


> No it's not. It only been kept alive by inflating the edl for the last three years. A wrecking yard for people the cc don't want and useless in terms of anything else. Fuck the uaf.
> 
> You may not be alienated from anything or anyone - the wider left is, your whole point rested on this being the case. Yet you put this situation down to someone on this board saying the UAF is shit? It's not. It's due to a membership and leadership pursuing their own immediate interests to the detriment of the sort of immediate class interests that, if fought for consistently, would make those wider aims a practical possibility.


 
Like I said mate ... you need a little perspective. My kids experience of the UAF has been different to yours. Going on the demo and feeling that they had their say was a very positive experience for them... If they heard your view (fuck the UAF) they'd stay well away from you ... my point being that you'd have alienated your anti nazi argument, experiences and ideas from them cos they'd think you were a prick.
I think that every person who is fighting for a better world...or who is fighting against war, injustice, discrimination etc. has a responsibility to debate in a way that brings as many people together as possible without betraying key ideals. I'd never compromise with some one who was scabbing on a strike but I would work against racism and fascism with a labour party member or a UAF member. It's the inability to do this that also damages the left in my opinion


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> That's exactly what you're doing in regards the UAF. Any criticism of them is met with exasperated criticism from you.


 
I have no issue with criticising the UAF...I ain't a member of it and ain't precious about it....I am "exasperated" at reading people write that because they hate Martin Smith and or the SWP that it would be great if it (the UAF) was taken down by the rape crisis and reading comments like fuck the UAF.

EVERY organisation should be open to criticism as should any person. My only point is that these comments are part of what makes people stay well away from the "left".

I


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Like I said mate ... you need a little perspective. My kids experience of the UAF has been different to yours. Going on the demo and feeling that they had their say was a very positive experience for them... If they heard your view (fuck the UAF) they'd stay well away from you ... my point being that you'd have alienated your anti nazi argument, experiences and ideas from them cos they'd think you were a prick.
> I think that every person who is fighting for a better world...or who is fighting against war, injustice, discrimination etc. has a responsibility to debate in a way that brings as many people together as possible without betraying key ideals. I'd never compromise with some one who was scabbing on a strike but I would work against racism and fascism with a labour party member or a UAF member. It's the inability to do this that also damages the left in my opinion


 
Listen i've quite happily worked alongside UAF and SWP members on many different occasions, but that's the not the same thing as supporting UAF as an organisation, is it? As a organisation it's utterly ineffective as an anti-fascist group, that weakness has been exposed dozens of times where the UAF has had derisory turnouts and relied entirely on the police to protect them from severe beatings. And you have to remember that the UAF's main purpose is not to defeat fascism or the EDL, but to recruit on the behalf of the Socialist Workers Party. That's it's primary function, anti-fascism comes 2nd to that.

And you say I'd never compromise with someone scabbing on a strike, well I'd never compromise with an organisation that hands over information on militant anti-fascists to the police (which UAF have done) or an organisation that actively colludes with the police and the EDL to choreograph their demos (as they did in Bolton, and many subsequent demo's thereafter)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Like I said mate ... you need a little perspective. My kids experience of the UAF has been different to yours. Going on the demo and feeling that they had their say was a very positive experience for them... If they heard your view (fuck the UAF) they'd stay well away from you ... my point being that you'd have alienated your anti nazi argument, experiences and ideas from them cos they'd think you were a prick.
> I think that every person who is fighting for a better world...or who is fighting against war, injustice, discrimination etc. has a responsibility to debate in a way that brings as many people together as possible without betraying key ideals. I'd never compromise with some one who was scabbing on a strike but I would work against racism and fascism with a labour party member or a UAF member. It's the inability to do this that also damages the left in my opinion


So, by definiton the UAF can't be criticised because your kids had a good time at one of their events. Great. And anyone who thinks different is a prick. You really do sound like the open to anyone sort that your next paragraph tried to paint you as 

What is the political purpose of that last paragraph? Is it to suggest that my characterisation of why the left is, in your words, "regarded as a joke" is wrong? That not wanting to work with,and pointing out the problems of, working with a group that has David Cameron and similar people as founding signatories is sectarian? That this is the only way to organise anti-racist or anti-fascist activity (you already hinted at your answer with your crude "Or is it only good if you can go beat the shit out of them so everyone else bar the brave and tough should stay away?" btw). Their way or the highway.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I have no issue with criticising the UAF...I ain't a member of it and ain't precious about it....I am "exasperated" at reading people write that because they hate Martin Smith and or the SWP that it would be great if it (the UAF) was taken down by the rape crisis and reading comments like fuck the UAF.
> 
> EVERY organisation should be open to criticism as should any person. My only point is that these comments are part of what makes people stay well away from the "left".
> 
> I


No they are a not, if you think that they are then try and establish how and why.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 2, 2013)

Jeezus folks spurski was quite right. 'fuck the uaf' is a shit position for anyone on the left. Criticize the uaf, replace them, do what you want but don't let your hatred of the swp leadership get you to the point where you can say it would be a good thing for any left organisation to just collapse and make our side weaker. I saw a Morning Star guy selling his paper in downtown Swindon today (quite shocked me!). If I'd walked past and said 'fuck you' he would have assumed I was a rightwinger. I have issues with his politics but I think it's good he was there not a bad thing. The anarchists wishing the uaf would just 'fuck off' need to think about where that would leave our side.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The anarchists wishing the uaf would just 'fuck off' need to think about where that would leave our side.


 
I'm not an anarchist but imo it'd leave us much better off, it'd give people opportunity to build an anti-fascist movement that firstly) actually effective and secondly ) not linked to a parasitic Leninist cult run by rape apologists.

There's nothing worse than seeing the SWP loyalists using the UAF as a shield to justify their shit party and their shit way of operating, as if the decline in the EDL and BNP had anything to do with them. It's utterly dishonest.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Listen i've quite happily worked alongside UAF and SWP members on many different occasions, but that's the not the same thing as supporting UAF as an organisation, is it? As a organisation it's utterly ineffective as an anti-fascist group, that weakness has been exposed dozens of times where the UAF has had derisory turnouts and relied entirely on the police to protect them from severe beatings. And you have to remember that the UAF's main purpose is not to defeat fascism or the EDL, but to recruit on the behalf of the Socialist Workers Party. That's it's primary function, anti-fascism comes 2nd to that.
> 
> And you say I'd never compromise with someone scabbing on a strike, well I'd never compromise with an organisation that hands over information on militant anti-fascists to the police (which UAF have done) or an organisation that actively colludes with the police and the EDL to choreograph their demos (as they did in Bolton, and many subsequent demo's thereafter)


 
This is a different thing to someone wanting the UAF to go down due to the rape crisis in the SWP. Criticism is entirely valid. If you think that the SWP use it to recruit so their tactics in it are hindering the fight against fascism then people like my daughters will listen and could develop their ideas and understanding of how to fight the Nazi's ... they may or may not agree with you but they'd definitely hear you out. That is a very different explanation  and point of view to "Fuck the UAF" or "It would be good if it goes down" ... I have no knowledge re the things you said re handing names over etc. so would not tell you (or anyone else) that a little perspective is needed I'd have asked what happened and how did this info get out cos I'd want to learn about it. In my opinion that's very different from the comments I have brought up


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Listen i've quite happily worked alongside UAF and SWP members on many different occasions, but that's the not the same thing as supporting UAF as an organisation, is it? As a organisation it's utterly ineffective as an anti-fascist group, that weakness has been exposed dozens of times where the UAF has had derisory turnouts and relied entirely on the police to protect them from severe beatings. And you have to remember that the UAF's main purpose is not to defeat fascism or the EDL, but to recruit on the behalf of the Socialist Workers Party. That's it's primary function, anti-fascism comes 2nd to that.
> 
> And you say I'd never compromise with someone scabbing on a strike, well I'd never compromise with an organisation that hands over information on militant anti-fascists to the police (which UAF have done) or an organisation that actively colludes with the police and the EDL to choreograph their demos (as they did in Bolton, and many subsequent demo's thereafter)


Sorry but the bit about Bolton is nonsense, if they were colluding with the police why did the police dive into the demo to arrest people like Smith and Bennett? Bolton was possible the last time UAF/SWP tried to organise any attempt at all to actually confront the EDL directly. There were major problems but collusion with the police was not one of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jeezus folks spurski was quite right. 'fuck the uaf' is a shit position for anyone on the left. Criticize the uaf, replace them, do what you want but don't let your hatred of the swp leadership get you to the point where you can say it would be a good thing for any left organisation to just collapse and make our side weaker. I saw a Morning Star guy selling his paper in downtown Swindon today (quite shocked me!). If I'd walked past and said 'fuck you' he would have assumed I was a rightwinger. I have issues with his politics but I think it's good he was there not a bad thing. The anarchists wishing the uaf would just 'fuck off' need to think about where that would leave our side.


In the same situation as now but without people running around going _OMG the EDL are coming! The edl are coming! _

Did you two decide that the long running criticisms of the UAF and how they operate are due not to informed analysis but to dislike of Martin Smith btw? Thanks for doing that.

How handy, bolshie saw someone who illustrated his point. (He even winked as if to say look i know i make up loads of examples but this one is true, it really really is)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> This is a different thing to someone wanting the UAF to go down due to the rape crisis in the SWP. Criticism is entirely valid. If you think that the SWP use it to recruit so their tactics in it are hindering the fight against fascism then people like my daughters will listen and could develop their ideas and understanding of how to fight the Nazi's ... they may or may not agree with you but they'd definitely hear you out. That is a very different explanation and point of view to "Fuck the UAF" or "It would be good if it goes down" ... I have no knowledge re the things you said re handing names over etc. so would not tell you (or anyone else) that a little perspective is needed I'd have asked what happened and how did this info get out cos I'd want to learn about it. In my opinion that's very different from the comments I have brought up


Tell you what, spurksi - don't just jump in uniformed. Wait and see what people mean and why when they say things like "Fuck the UAF" or "It would be good if it goes down". This board and the discussion ongoing did not start the second that you joined.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Sorry but the bit about Bolton is nonsense, if they were colluding with the police why did the police dive into the demo to arrest people like Smith and Bennett? Bolton was possible the last time UAF/SWP tried to organise any attempt at all to actually confront the EDL directly. There were major problems but collusion with the police was not one of them.


 
It's absolutely true. I don't care if you don't believe me coz I _know_ it's true. They've done it since too. They met up in a hotel with Greater Manchester Police and a representatve of the EDL about a week or so before the Bolton EDL demo, where an arragement was made to divide the area in front of the town hall into two pens, two pre-emptive kettles in other words.

The reason why Smith and Bennet got arrested is because, being the tactical geniuses they were, they didn't inform any of the regular SWP or UAF people who were turning up that this was going to be the arrangement. This is obviously great for the UAF coz it gives them a captive audience of UAF people to hard-sell papers too punters all day, which I suspect is what attracted them to the idea. So several hundred anti-fascists arrived into a police kettle, were told once you're in you're not getting out until the EDL have left, and within about an hour of it starting everyone went "Hang on, I'm not spending all day being fucking kettled in by the police whilst the EDL roam the town with impunity" and so a group of a few hundred or so people tried to charge out of the exits. This was right at the start. Once this happened, GMP considered this a breach of their prior arrangement with Smith and Bennett, and so arrested them, and then spent the rest of the day kicking the shit out of the assembled anti-fascists.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'm not an anarchist but imo it'd leave us much better off, it'd give people opportunity to build an anti-fascist movement that firstly) actually effective and secondly ) not linked to a parasitic Leninist cult run by rape apologists.
> 
> There's nothing worse than seeing the SWP loyalists using the UAF as a shield to justify their shit party and their shit way of operating, as if the decline in the EDL and BNP had anything to do with them. It's utterly dishonest.


 
There is nothing worse than have racist scum attacking you and your very young daughter as you shop in your local co-op (as happened to me and my kids nearly 10 years ago) and having to argue with the shop to call the police and then argue with the police to escort you home when they tried to send us across a common in the dark not knowing where the scum were.
The UAF experience was an invaluable part of rebuilding my kids confidence and their belief that they and we belong here. 
I ain't saying the UAF is the only way or is the best way...(in my first post I mentioned all sorts of views I've come across) but the UAF is clearly not just full of SWP loyalists. As for the link to a parasitic cult of rape apologists I take it you would not fail to support a strike simply cos the SWP and its parasitic cult of rape apologists also supported it.
Dislike or hate the SWP mate ... put across your disagreements with the UAF too...my ONLY point was that shouting fuck the UAF and claiming it would be good if the SWP crisis dragged them down is alienating to most "normal non aligned" people


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> In the same situation as now but without people running around going _OMG the EDL are coming! The edl are coming! _
> 
> Did you two decide that the long running criticisms of the UAF and how they operate are due not to informed analysis but to dislike of Martin Smith btw? Thanks for doing that.
> 
> How handy, bolshie saw someone who illustrated his point. (He even winked as if to say look i know i make up loads of examples but this one is true, it really really is)


God you may be the most sophisticated anarchist I've listened to but you have very little that isn't ad hominem to say.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

Odd - 





emanymton said:


> Sorry but the bit about Bolton is nonsense, if they were colluding with the police why did the police dive into the demo to arrest people like Smith and Bennett? Bolton was possible the last time UAF/SWP tried to organise any attempt at all to actually confront the EDL directly. There were major problems but collusion with the police was not one of them.


 
That's exactly what happened in Bristol. Two separate meetings that they were negotiating with the police about one, they agreed to one then the night before pulled the rug and said the other - a  proper pen (along with we don't do what the police tell us rhetoric) was off when they knew that it wasn't and marched everyone into it. Leaving Smith (again, arrested - but how could this happen!!!) to shout at people in town beforehand.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Tell you what, spurksi - don't just jump in uniformed. Wait and see what people mean and why when they say things like "Fuck the UAF" or "It would be good if it goes down". This board and the discussion ongoing did not start the second that you joined.


 
I don't assume any thing - I thought this was a discussion board which welcomed people (so I obviously realise that it existed long long before I piped up)
I am not uninformed ...I simply think it is off putting to write FUCK the UAF. 
Respond to my points and disagree but don't patronize... you are one step away from calling me sonny!
People have a right to disgree in a fraternal friendly manner...that's all I have done...I've defended no body and no organisation. If I make a statement then you have the right to challenge it. I have the right to do the same no matter how long I've been on this board


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> God you may be the most sophisticated anarchist I've listened to but you have very little that isn't ad hominem to say.


If you invent many handy examples over a very long period, then pointing it is not ad hominem - it's actually necessary to point it out. A morning star seller, in swindon. Illustrating your case. My arse.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If you invent many handy examples over a very long period, then pointing it is not ad hominem - it's actually necessary to point it out. A morning star seller, in swindon. Illustrating your case. My arse.


Ha ha you are a joke, I invent nothing you idiot. Come and meet me in central Swindon next Saturday at lunchtime the guy will be there again.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I don't assume any thing - I thought this was a discussion board which welcomed people (so I obviously realise that it existed long long before I piped up)
> I am not uninformed ...I simply think it is off putting to write FUCK the UAF.
> Respond to my points and disagree but don't patronize... you are one step away from calling me sonny!
> People have a right to disgree in a fraternal friendly manner...that's all I have done...I've defended no body and no organisation. If I make a statement then you have the right to challenge it. I have the right to do the same no matter how long I've been on this board


No one denied you that right and your posts were challenged. You've yet to comeback with anything other than all anti-nazi groups should be supported and your kid liked the UAF stuff they were involved with. The political points that maybe it doesn't make sense to support a sort of anti-fascism that promotes the status quo, that supports the conditions that breeds racism and that your kids might well be interested in or that another form of anti-fascism exists or could exist were ignored (thus far anyway).


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said: ↑
_In the same situation as now but without people running around going OMG the EDL are coming! The edl are coming! 

*Did you two decide that the long running criticisms of the UAF and how they operate are due not to informed analysis but to dislike of Martin Smith btw? Thanks for doing that.*_​_*The original comments I responded to are below so it's not an unreasonable assumption to make*_​_
belboid said: ↑
Cheers. Anything else would be kinda mad, they don't want the issue spilling over into UAF​Yeah, if he was to speak or stand for any positions then the whole UAF conference would become about that issue. Even the SWP CC aren't quite that mad yet.​emanymton, Today at 1:35 PM​Report​​#7400​Like​Reply​​ 

*Spanky Longhorna paw, a boot, a baseball bat*​emanymton said: ↑
Yeah, if he was to speak or stand for any positions then the whole UAF conference would become about that issue. Even the SWP CC aren't quite that mad yet.​Shame it would have been good if they'd taken UAF down as well​ 
_​


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

No it's not.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> It's absolutely true. I don't care if you don't believe me coz I _know_ it's true. They've done it since too. They met up in a hotel with Greater Manchester Police and a representatve of the EDL about a week or so before the Bolton EDL demo, where an arragement was made to divide the area in front of the town hallinto two pens, two pre-emptive kettles in other words.
> 
> The reason why Smith and Bennet got arrested is because, being the tactical geniuses they were, they didn't inform any of the regular SWP or UAF people who were turning up that this was going to be the arrangement. This is obviously great for the UAF coz it gives them a captive audience of UAF people to hard-sell papers too punters all day, which I suspect is what attracted them to the idea. So several hundred anti-fascists arrived into a police kettle, were told once you're in you're not getting out until the EDL have left, and within about an hour of it starting everyone went "Hang on, I'm not spending all day being fucking kettled in by the police whilst the EDL roam the town with impunity" and so a group of a few hundred or so people tried to charge out of the exits. This was right at the start. Once this happened, GMP considered this a breach of their prior arrangement with Smith and Bennett, and so arrested them, and then spent the rest of the day kicking the shit out of the assembled anti-fascists.


I honestly don't know if the meeting you describe took place or not. I do know that if you want to hold a demo you have to meet with the police so it is very possible. Has it occurred to you that maybe they never intended to stick to the agreement and that is why they never told anyone (I challenge you to give me a better explanation) I do know that the main UAF bod from Manchester tried (badly) to get people to occur the EDL space before the official start of the demos and I know that it was UAF that tried to organise the break from the police kettle, again they did it very badly. My issue with Bolton is that they were tactically inept but they did try. I think it was after Bolton that they tried to tone things down, maybe because there were worried about being sent down. Now I am not trying to suggest that they attempted some great militant demo, but to suggest they colluded is simply not true.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 2, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> prianikoff, ie Rob Sewell,



Wait. What?


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No one denied you that right and your posts were challenged. You've yet to comeback with anything other than all anti-nazi groups should be supported and your kid liked the UAF stuff they were involved with. The political points that maybe it doesn't make sense to support a sort of anti-fascism that promotes the status quo, that supports the conditions that breeds racism and that your kids might well be interested in or that another form of anti-fascism exists or could exist were ignored (thus far anyway).


 
My answer on post 7428 says that my kids may well agree with a well put across alternative.

I don't pretend to have the answers mate I just disagreed with one thing ...my above post 7428 states that I would have asked a question if real issues had been said (rather than fuck the UAF)...and that is all ignored.

I left the SWP cos of it's insistence that it was always right and everything else was shit and the ORIGINAL comments I challenged came across like that


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I honestly don't know if the meeting you describe took place or not.


 
Well I do know it took place coz I've had it confirmed from the police, on the day, and the EDL and members of the SWP.

Just before we get into the rest of your post, where you actually there?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 2, 2013)

I'm quite glad the guard has slipped and the naked hatred of everyone in the swp and uaf (kids included) is out in the open. I was getting bored of all the "yes we know the swp is full of good people who've done a lot for our side but their leaders are shit" half truths so it's refreshing to have butchers and others make explicit their contempt for a huge portion of the existing left. This attitude would be the filth Pat Stack referred to and why active swpers don't touch sites like these with a barge pole.


----------



## chilango (Mar 2, 2013)

Tsk.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm quite the guard has slipped and the naked hatred of everyone in the swp and uaf (kids included)


 
What guard? I've hated 'em for years. Especially the fucking kids. Little shits.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm quite the guard has slipped and the naked hatred of everyone in the swp and uaf (kids included) is out in the open. I was getting bored of all the "yes we know the swp is full of good people who've done a lot for our side but their leaders are shit" half truths so it's refreshing to have butchers and others make explicit their contempt for a huge portion of the existing left. This would be the filth Pat Stack referred to and why active swpers don't touch sites like these with a barge pole.


Drive the wedge home BB - _these are the sort of people who criticise the SWP, do you really want to join hands with this filth? _This bog-standard hackery doesn't work anymore though BB. The last few months should have just shown you this.

Yours,
the dark side of the internet.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

OMG!!!!! the guard has slipped and the naked hatred of everyone in the swp and uaf (kids included) is out in the open!!!!!


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well I do know it place coz I've had it confirmed from the police, on the day, and the EDL and members of the SWP.
> 
> Just before we get into the rest of your post, where you actually there?


In Bolton? Yes. Felt like I spent most of the day as part of that line between the demo and those fucking police wolfs, I swear they were wolves not dogs. As for the meeting what I meant was while I am sure they meet with the cops I've no idea if the EDL were at the same meeting or not.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 2, 2013)

BB where do you get the energy to defend the swp at every twist and turn of this thread?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> My answer on post 7428 says that my kids may well agree with a well put across alternative.
> 
> I don't pretend to have the answers mate I just disagreed with one thing ...my above post 7428 states that I would have asked a question if real issues had been said (rather than fuck the UAF)...and that is all ignored.
> 
> I left the SWP cos of it's insistence that it was always right and everything else was shit and the ORIGINAL comments I challenged came across like that


Well, to get to that point we have to agree that criticisms of the UAF can be legitimately made (by people inside or outside) without suggestions that doing so is the reason why the left is regarded as a joke - or that to make those criticisms means that you hate the children of SWP members right? We agree on that start point yes?


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So, by definiton the UAF can't be criticised because your kids had a good time at one of their events. Great. And anyone who thinks different is a prick. You really do sound like the open to anyone sort that your next paragraph tried to paint you as
> 
> What is the political purpose of that last paragraph? Is it to suggest that my characterisation of why the left is, in your words, "regarded as a joke" is wrong? That not wanting to work with,and pointing out the problems of, working with a group that has David Cameron and similar people as founding signatories is sectarian? That this is the only way to organise anti-racist or anti-fascist activity (you already hinted at your answer with your crude "Or is it only good if you can go beat the shit out of them so everyone else bar the brave and tough should stay away?" btw). Their way or the highway.


 
Criticism is different to the TWO yep 2 comments I challenged.
One was it would be great if it (the SWP rape crisis) dragged it (the UAF) down and Fuck the UAF. At NO point have I said you can not criticise what ever you want. I have no idea what is the best way to beat the Fascists...I just ain't going to waste my time hating anti nazi's to be honest. 
If you can't bear being challenged then I have no idea how the left can build. At no point did I say anyone who disgrees is a prick...I said a little perspective is needed...I did say that if some one approached my daughters and say fuck the UAF they'd think the person was a prick and wouldn't listen to anything else so could not learn from their proper ideas and experiences.

I have stated time and time again in the last hour that criticism is fine.
I have to say I find this "debate" sad ... like I said before... it's enough to make me weep.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> In Bolton? Yes. Felt like I spent most of the day as part of that line between the demo and those fucking police wolfs, I swear they were wolves not dogs. As for the meeting what I meant was while I am sure they meet with the cops I've no idea if the EDL were at the same meeting or not.


 
Well can I just say, unless we're confusing a couple of seperate things here, some of the stuff in your previous post is inaccurate. Quickly:



emanymton said:


> I do know that if you want to hold a demo you have to meet with the police so it is very possible. Has it occurred to you that maybe they never intended to stick to the agreement and that is why they never told anyone (I challenge you to give me a better explanation)


 
I think a much better explanation is they were quite happy with the idea of kettling their own supporters because it gave them an opportunity to sell papers.



emanymton said:


> I do know that the main UAF bod from Manchester tried (badly) to get people to occur the EDL space before the official start of the demos


 
Are you sure about that? Because, unless we're talking about seperate incidents, then I'm quite it was me, @RedStorm, and the couple of dozen or so non-UAF antifa who tried to occupy the EDL space, very much to the annoyance of UAF. Not suggesting that I was leading the thing for a single moment, but we left the UAF kettle early on and formed a line in the EDL area, and then I remember being taken to one side by the police having my photo and details taken and being read some Section XYZ that said if I left the UAF pen again I'd be arrested. I think @RedStorm was arrested that day infact. Wasn't that the occasion where after being jailed together he asked Martin Smith for a lift home and he declined, leaving him in the middle of nowhere?



emanymton said:


> and I know that it was UAF that tried to organise the break from the police kettle, again they did it very badly.


 
Was it really? Coz I could've sworn I saw the "Main UAF bod from manchester" (who's name I can't remember but who's face I'll never forget) screaming at the top of his lungs "no, please god no what are you doing, get back in the area please NOOOOOO!" as about 100 or so tried to push our way out.




emanymton said:


> but to suggest they colluded is simply not true.


 
Yes it is true, and btw after that demo I had the police come round my house on a few occasions to try and question me about stuff. Luckily I wasn't in but it frightened by poor old mother to bits. So did a few other non-UAF people as it happens. Funny that.

Final point there's a lot more detail I could go into here but it's probably not wise on a public forum, so please try to remember that if I'm not being specific enough.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 2, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> BB where do you get the energy to defend the swp at every twist and turn of this thread?


That's easy mate, I don't get much control over the tv remote in my house. And this is the only politics I get in my life, something that also forced me to give an extra couple of quid to the Morning Star bloke I met earlier for his fighting fund when Mrs BB was distracted by the pasty shop. Well I would have done if I hadn't invented him


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Well can I just say, unless we're confusing a couple of seperate things here, some of the stuff in your previous post is inaccurate. Quickly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is possible we are confusing a number of separate incidents, days like that one are very confusing with a lot going on. The person I am thinking of has initials MK and grabbed me right at the start of the day to try and occupy the EDL space, it was pretty pointless as there was not enough of us and eventually the police made us move on. Maybe we were there before you? In all honesty I was not there for the attempt to break police lines (picked the wrong side of the demo to stand in) but people who were told we it was UAF people who where leading it and we're pissed of at the lack of coordination, as I was. But I think there were a few scuffles throughout the day, so if yours was 'unsanctioned' no wonder you got shouted at.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

Oh forgot to say there are things I know about that day that I won't but on a public board so no worries about that.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *Well, to get to that point we have to agree that criticisms of the UAF can be legitimately made (by people inside or outside) without suggestions that doing so is the reason why the left is regarded as a joke* - or that to do make those criticisms means that you hate the children of SWP members right? We agree on that start point yes?


 
Of course I agree with that...the first comments I challenged and said were reasons as to why my mates regarded the left as a joke and that a little perspective was needed were not criticisms ... they were I hope this (the SWP rape crisis) drags them (UAF) down and fuck the UAF. I didn't respond in the same way when the issue of the SWP just use the UAF to recruit or that the UAF colluded with the police ... I said I couldn't comment on them as I did not know about them and that they were valid things to discuss


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Oh forgot to say there are things I know about that day that I won't but on a public board so no worries about that.


Well as long as that's kept quiet/loudly proclaimed.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It is possible we are confusing a number of separate incidents, days like that one are very confusing with a lot going on.


 
I suspect that's probably right.



emanymton said:


> The person I am thinking of has initials MK and grabbed me right at the start of the day to try and occupy the EDL space, it was pretty pointless as there was not enough of us and eventually the police made us move on. Maybe we were there before you? In all honesty I was not there for the attempt to break police lines (picked the wrong side of the demo to stand in) but people who were told we it was UAF people who where leading it and we're pissed of at the lack of coordination, as I was. But I think there were a few scuffles throughout the day, so if yours was 'unsanctioned' no wonder you got shouted at.


 
MK wasn't who I was thinking of to be honest. It might've been that some UAF people tried to occupy that space before we had a go, or after, but I didn't see it happen, and we were there right from the start of the day I think we might've been the first people in the town centre that morning. I remember getting bollocked by a current SWP CC member (loyalist) for doing it though. I had to explain quite politely that that they're not my fucking vanguard and I hadn't agreed to be kettled all day in that spot so they can hardsell papers to me.

We only did it to prove a childish point, that we weren't there to wave placards and chant slogans we were there to prevent them from getting in Bolton _at all_.

The attempt to break the police lines was interesting. We turned up with about 50 hi-vis jackets to distribute to people beforehand, and those in the crowd who weren't happy with the UAF and what the plan was. If you've got a hi-vis jacket on at a demo people pay actually do what you ask them too. So we went round speaking to people, some of which will have been UAF and SWP supporters (no problem there btw) who weren't happy about the idea of being kettled all day, and dishing out these hi-vis jackets to those who weren't happy with what was going on, and then there was a call "right we're leaving the kettle" and all the hi-vis jacket people made a move for the exits. I remember the UAF guy desperately trying to hold people back in the kettle and screaming "stop what you're doing" coz I presume he knew that this would break the arrangement they'd come to with the police beforehand.

In the weeks running upto it y'see me and my friends had been running a series of fake facebook profiles that had been accepted by the EDL that we were using for surveillance, and it just so happened that one of the people I was following on there was the EDL representative at the meeting. He very kindly kept updating everyone to what was being discussed and so we had a real-time view of these discussions between GMP, EDL and UAF as they took place. Coz we knew this was going on beforehand we alerted people to what was going on what the UAF were doing. However the people the UAF had brought on their coaches had no idea they were going to be kettled, or that the SWP had arranged this beforehand with the police, and I think it came as quite a shock to them when they arrived.

This is far too much detail to be going into y'know so sorr if I don't reply again. And it's been a few years perhaps my recollection of events isn't perfect, but it's pretty much on the money.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I suspect that's probably right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah my memory isn't really up to this discussion either. I think we can at least agree that 'official' leadership on the day was crap for whatever reason. May be worth bearing in mind that despite what people say there is a distinction between SWP and UAF I was also there for the La Pen demo in Manchester and there was a big row between the local SWP full timer and someone from the UAF office as the UAF bod just wanted us to sit outside and shout. And that is before we get to the fact that individual SWP members are often singing from different hymn sheets, and that the SWP's position has been all over the place for the last few years.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yeah my memory isn't really up to this discussion either. I think we can at least agree that 'official' leadership on the day was crap for whatever reason. May be worth bearing in mind that despite what people say there is a distinction between SWP and UAF I was also there for the La Pen demo in Manchester and there was a big row between the local SWP full timer and someone from the UAF office as the UAF bod just wanted us to sit outside and shout. And that is before we get to the fact that individual SWP members are often singing from different hymn sheets, and that the SWP's position has been all over the place for the last few years.


 
That's probably fair you've got me questioning whether what I'm saying is right now 

And it's definitely the case that there's alsorts of internal disagreements with what the UAF/SWP should've been doing, the actual membership is systematically lied to by their leaders, and that was obvious back in the day. I'd argue that's one of the reasons why it's such a poor organisation. But yes let's stop the digression.


----------



## chilango (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm quite glad the guard has slipped and the naked hatred of everyone in the swp and uaf (kids included) is out in the open. I was getting bored of all the "yes we know the swp is full of good people who've done a lot for our side but their leaders are shit" half truths so it's refreshing to have butchers and others make explicit their contempt for a huge portion of the existing left. This attitude would be the filth Pat Stack referred to and why active swpers don't touch sites like these with a barge pole.



This attitude is a far more damning indictment of "the left" than any "fuck the UAF" comment.

Shocking stuff bolshie.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That's easy mate, I don't get much control over the tv remote in my house. And this is the only politics I get in my life, something that also forced me to give an extra couple of quid to the Morning Star bloke I met earlier for his fighting fund when Mrs BB was distracted by the pasty shop. Well I would have done if I hadn't invented him


 
Fair enough BB - the telly is crap anyway...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

chilango said:


> This attitude is a far more damning indictment of "the left" than any "fuck the UAF" comment.
> 
> Shocking stuff bolshie.


But, it's not is it?


----------



## chilango (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But, it's not is it?



Not shocking?

...or not a damning indictment of the left?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

Shocking.


----------



## chilango (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Shocking.



No. Given his eagerness to defend the SWPs at this point, it's probably not.

...and it's not defending the SWPs that's telling. It's the eagerness of the defence.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

> the guard has slipped and the naked hatred of everyone in the swp and uaf (kids included) is out in the open


 
Close the party border down, teach our remaining lot the basics of IS thought - no enagagment, no contamination (apart from late efforts as in the miners), no contact. This is what they did in the 80s. Guess when BB was a member.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 2, 2013)

Yeap I was an 80's downturn member. And I was terrified of contamination. Mind you I've grown a bit since then and can talk to most anyone without fear of losing my way from the chosen path. Sometimes they even change my mind! But let's be fair, blogs and forums like this aren't where the debate is most interesting, that's still face to face. half of the stuff we all say to each other on here would cause fistfights in person cause we're free not to engage with each other properly or constructively in this medium.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Close the party border down, teach our remaining lot the basics of IS thought - no enagagment, no contamination (apart from late efforts as in the miners), no contact. This is what they did in the 80s. Guess when BB was a member.


 
very cosy


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm quite glad the guard has slipped and the naked hatred of everyone in the swp and uaf (kids included) is out in the open. I was getting bored of all the "yes we know the swp is full of good people who've done a lot for our side but their leaders are shit" half truths so it's refreshing to have butchers and others make explicit their contempt for a huge portion of the existing left. This attitude would be the filth Pat Stack referred to and why active swpers don't touch sites like these with a barge pole.


Oh get stuffed. 

I know you're a hack but even you must be able to do better than that ^ pile of crap.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> This is an example of why the left is regarded as a joke by a lot of my "normal" (ie non affiliated) mates, both in work, in my union and my personal mates.
> The UAF is an anti Nazi organisation and it would be good if it was brought down?
> Seriously?


 
UAF's structures are non-democratic, dominated by the SWP and basically focused on an odd political lash-up to vote anyone but BNP ie Labour. (Although that didn't stop them inviting strikebreaking-with-East-European-contractors Lib Dem Council leaders onto their rallies.) Energy for the UAF could as well be spent on openly pro-working class and-or class-based anti-racist political activity.
Is it wrong for people to argue against union branch donations to UAF, but to say give it to a local trades council or anticuts organisation instead.



> I couldn't give a shit about who runs an anti Nazi group or to be honest how many there are. If some wanna sing songs, some wanna pray, if some wanna march, petition, have meetings or physically oppose the Nazis when they march then good for them ...at least they are ALL openly opposing them.


 
Petition for what? State bans on marches? State bans on BNP members within the education sector or the health sector? Petitions against PR in Mayoral Elections, because it allows BNP candidates. What's the content of the anti-far-right organising, that's what matters.

If you don't care how many there are, then having one less won't be a loss. The antifascism won't go down, simply one less national organisation.

And to be honest, people do care - even if it's not expressed openly - who runs Anti-Nazi groups as much they care who runs charities helping the homeless, or local social services or Food Banks, or farming unions, or anti-cuts-to-the-hospital campaigns, or youth boxing sessions, or free training events. 

If no one cares, and no one needs to care, why was the ANL created? Why was ANL Mark 2 created? Why was UAF created? Before the ANL was created, there already was ALCARAF, why did ANL denounce it bitterly and try (largely successfully, on the back of Carnival 1 and Lewisham) to replace it?
If the content of the antifascism doesn't matter why were Red Action expelled from the SWP, why were squaddists denounced in the SWP press?

Right now there is Hope Not Hate and Searchlight as separate national antifascist organisations. Are people wrong to think them a meaningless waste of printing resources (at best) or counterproductive (most of the time)? Is it just the UAF that should remain separate and special. If someone says 'F*** Hope not hate' does this actually matter?

Do you think an antifascist saying 'F*** Hope not hate' makes them beyond the pale for people or that this makes other people less "anti-Nazi"? I don't understand your point.



> My kids carried a banner on a UAF march about 4 years ago...it said "one of us is brown and one of us is pink but we both think the BNP stink." They've still got it and still remember going on the demo. Surely that is a good thing for the future.


 
Is this impossible without a UAF? Why are local ad hoc groups unable to call marches where (your and other) children can participate? What does the UAF provide that different formations are unable to sort out?
Or is it only good if you can go beat the shit out of them so everyone else bar the brave and tough should stay away?
Sorry for being liberal but surely it's the scum in the BNP and EDL etc. that need to be taken down?[/quote]

What "needs to be taken down" is official(state) chauvinism and neoliberalism. This is the source of the pool where the far-right grow. The "Union Movement" were taken down, lost support and the NF emerged. The NF were "taken down", lost support and the BNP emerged.
It can't "be taken down" by appealing to the (neoliberal, discriminating on the basis of birthplaces and passports) state to proscribe marches by one fraction of Britain's racists and classists.

Have the UAF taken down the BNP? Bearing in mind the UAF was formed in SWP minds in late 2003, then launched in 2004? Are the UAF tactics helping to "take down" BNP - their own mission statement.

I'd urge careful examination of the UAF approach and tactics - no antiracist organisation needs to last forever or be supported for ever. Posters here have had a stab at it on occasion. (10 threads there, many others).


----------



## sihhi (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeap I was an 80's downturn member. And I was terrified of contamination.


 
Did you support Tony Cliff closing down Flame for this reason?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> If you can't bear being challenged then I have no idea how the left can build. At no point did I say anyone who disgrees is a prick...I said a little perspective is needed...I did say that if some one approached my daughters and say fuck the UAF they'd think the person was a prick and wouldn't listen to anything else so could not learn from their proper ideas and experiences.
> 
> I have stated time and time again in the last hour that criticism is fine.
> I have to say I find this "debate" sad ... like I said before... it's enough to make me weep.


 
I don't get your daughters comments. What point exactly are you making? They can read the arguments on this board as well as anyone else, can't they? No one has approached them and said 'Hi there... Fuck the UAF'.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 2, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Did you support Tony Cliff closing down Flame for this reason?


Christ alive how old do you reckon I am  No Flame and Women's Voice were gone before I joined in 86 but those debates and the fact they happened were often used by Cliff in particular to beat the Irish org as examples of how the uk SWP was better at 'having the hard arguments' than we were.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Christ alive how old do you reckon I am


 
I assumed it was a subtle follow up to my "man in his fifties" trolling earlier in the thread.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 2, 2013)

There's a reasonable chance that tomorrow's Observer might be where the much threatened new claims are made. Although, I suppose there's no reason that it has to be - mainstream papers won't be choosing their moment based on the SWP's internal calendar.


----------



## Gumbert (Mar 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm quite glad the guard has slipped and the naked hatred of everyone in the swp and uaf (kids included) is out in the open. I was getting bored of all the "yes we know the swp is full of good people who've done a lot for our side but their leaders are shit" half truths so it's refreshing to have butchers and others make explicit their contempt for a huge portion of the existing left. This attitude would be the filth Pat Stack referred to and why active swpers don't touch sites like these with a barge pole.


 
Spot on BB. 

Btw stay solid on here BB has you have been. This thread throws up classic stuff. That most of the respondents to you don't know jack about how the SWP operates or its history, but think they do. That includes you too Das Uberdog. Anyway BB's got you licked all over.

Hiya butch, longtime no joust. See your still sailing in the trade winds with your rusty cannons. See you in the next few years on here folks.

Oh and rebel warrior says hello again BB.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 2, 2013)

Sihhi
I have read plenty of things I disagree with on the AFA history thread. I have also learnt plenty. I would not and have not said anything about peoples views of various anti racist and anti nazi organisations and the politics and practice of those organisations. I have simply said that wishing the failure of the UAF while linking it the the rape crisis in the SWP and then following this up with fuck UAF lacks perspective.

Criticism of the tactics of the UAF and every other group is valid...how many more times can I say this? The point about my daughters is simply that criticism needs to be properly explained in context otherwise the person making it comes across like a nutter. That is why many stay away from the "left" ... they say few wish to listen, most wish to preach and everyone says they and only they are right. This is a common view...one that the left encourages with it's seeming hatred of other groups on the left which borders on the psychotic with its rabid sectarianism.

I ain't a member of anything other than my union and have no allegiance to any organisation I think that there are many valid criticisms of the UAF and other groups. I just don't think FUCK THE UAF represents a debate.

My daughters have been on the TUC anti cuts marches (they chose to go as their mum was made redundant and I faced redundancy) which was called by the TUC. The TUC and the unions have been awful in fighting the cuts etc. Me saying fuck the TUC seems a really bad starting place for encouraging my daughters to get involved in class politics. Explaining why I disagree with their tactics seems far better.

A coherent argument at a union meeting about whether to support the UAF or support the local Trades Council would be a legitimate debate regardless of whether or not I agree. It is not the same as standing up and saying I hope the rape crisis in the SWP causes the UAF to go under or fuck the UAF.

I don't understand your reference to petitions being about state bans on marches etc.
When we had threats to burn us out of our house (me and my partner had committed the crime of supporting asylum seekers) from the BNP and letters with razorblades on it our neighbours were petitioned by local anti racists to gain support for us. I have been involved in similar petitioning for others as well as petitioning to demand that the local council removed racist graffiti. I don't understand what the problem is with that? It may not bring down fascism but it does raise the issue and seeks to get others involved.

I have worked with CRE group; socialists in different groups; my trade union and various anti nazi groups...their were many weird ideas suggested and I didn't agree with some...I just could not and can not drum the venom for them that would lead me to make statements like those I originally challenged

From the responses I'm obviously missing the point so had best call it a day.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

Gumbert said:


> Spot on BB.
> 
> Btw stay solid on here BB has you have been. This thread throws up classic stuff. That most of the respondents to you don't know jack about how the SWP operates or its history, but think they do. That includes you too Das Uberdog. Anyway BB's got you licked all over.
> 
> ...


Who is this loon? _Full steam ahead. _


Any politics?


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Who is this loon? _Full steam ahead. _
> 
> 
> Any politics?


 
Fuck the politics. Twelve years, two thousand odd posts but no likes?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 2, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Fuck the politics. Twelve years, two thousand odd posts but no likes?


I don't think we had 'likes' on the board when he last posted.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 2, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Fuck the politics. Twelve years, two thousand odd posts but no likes?


 
In fairness the like function is relatively recent.

(Edit) SNAP!


----------



## Buckaroo (Mar 2, 2013)

kavenism said:


> In fairness the like function is relatively recent.
> 
> (Edit) SNAP!


 
I just liked him for the hell of it.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 2, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I have read plenty of things I disagree with on the AFA history thread. I have also learnt plenty. I would not and have not said anything about peoples views of various anti racist and anti nazi organisations and the politics and practice of those organisations.


 





> I have simply said that wishing the failure of the UAF while linking it the the rape crisis in the SWP and then following this up with fuck UAF lacks perspective.


 





> Criticism of the tactics of the UAF and every other group is valid...how many more times can I say this?


Criticise away, others criticise how they want. 



> The point about my daughters is simply that criticism needs to be properly explained in context otherwise the person making it comes across like a nutter. That is why many stay away from the "left" ... they say few wish to listen, most wish to preach and everyone says they and only they are right. This is a common view...one that the left encourages with it's seeming hatred of other groups on the left which borders on the psychotic with its rabid sectarianism.


The context is there on the threads where the UAF has been discussed in (_not_ the AFA thread you referred to). 

Seeming hatred - seeming is the operative word. 'Fuck the UAF' doesn't mean 'I hate all UAF members'.




> I ain't a member of anything other than my union and have no allegiance to any organisation I think that there are many valid criticisms of the UAF and other groups. I just don't think FUCK THE UAF represents a debate.


 
It's the culmination of a eight-year debate about the UAF and its failures on these boards.



> My daughters have been on the TUC anti cuts marches (they chose to go as their mum was made redundant and I faced redundancy) which was called by the TUC. The TUC and the unions have been awful in fighting the cuts etc. Me saying fuck the TUC seems a really bad starting place for encouraging my daughters to get involved in class politics. Explaining why I disagree with their tactics seems far better.


 
OK. Do that then, explain why sticking with UAF is better than abandoning it.



> A coherent argument at a union meeting about whether to support the UAF or support the local Trades Council would be a legitimate debate regardless of whether or not I agree. It is not the same as standing up and saying I hope the rape crisis in the SWP causes the UAF to go under or fuck the UAF.


 
The Delta debacle is a serious failure on the part of the UAF - the structures and the set-up. He was even sent as their representative to Greece after all this stuff came out in the open. Are people wrong to say stuff the SWP and stuff the SWP-led-and-controlled UAF in the wake of Delta scandal? How many more botched rape investigations of UAF-SWP leaders would this need? There's two victims of Delta in this instance, you want people to hold off, although it's not clear why. Something meaningless about your daughters being put off the left for good or something.




> I don't understand your reference to petitions being about state bans on marches etc.
> When we had threats to burn us out of our house (me and my partner had committed the crime of supporting asylum seekers) from the BNP and letters with razorblades on it our neighbours were petitioned by local anti racists to gain support for us.


 
You know exactly what it's about. UAF petitions calling on local authorities to push police to cancel EDL gatherings.

I don't understand the relevance of your example. Petitioned for what?
Support for you - how? A petition against threats? You're going to have to explain.



> I have been involved in similar petitioning for others as well as petitioning to demand that the local council removed racist graffiti.


 
The first ANL was 100% against this kind of call. It organised its own activities - the graffiti would be whitepainted out and slogans against the social contract or government cuts be painted over the top - not something a local council does.



> I don't understand what the problem is with that? It may not bring down fascism but it does raise the issue and seeks to get others involved.


 
For what tho'? Involved for petitioning. Discussion and action can take place without the _petitions._




> I have worked with CRE group; socialists in different groups; my trade union and various anti nazi groups...their were many weird ideas suggested and I didn't agree with some...I just could not and can not drum the venom for the that would lead me to make statements like those I originally challenged


 
OK, so.



> From the responses I'm obviously missing the point so had best call it a day.


 Ok. There's no animosity here. Read the UAF threads, and make your points, if possible without an 'appeal to my daughters' it makes me sort of itch to want to argue on the basis of my family and I don't want to do that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 2, 2013)

Apparently the "students, we don't need no stinking students" motion put forward by a couple of freelancing CC faction enthusiasts and passed by Tottenham Branch has now been withdrawn.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 2, 2013)

Gumbert said:


> Spot on BB.
> 
> Btw stay solid on here BB has you have been. This thread throws up classic stuff. That most of the respondents to you don't know jack about how the SWP operates or its history, but think they do. That includes you too Das Uberdog. Anyway BB's got you licked all over.
> 
> ...


 
This is what I always imagine those made up "plenty of people have private messaged to me to show their support" messages look like.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2013)

> That most of the respondents to you don't know jack about how the SWP operates or its history, but think they do.


 
Do we not gumbert?


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 2, 2013)

Gumbert said:


> Spot on BB.
> 
> Btw stay solid on here BB has you have been. This thread throws up classic stuff. That most of the respondents to you don't know jack about how the SWP operates or its history, but think they do. That includes you too Das Uberdog. Anyway BB's got you licked all over.
> 
> ...


 
post of the year


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's a reasonable chance that tomorrow's Observer might be where the much threatened new claims are made. Although, I suppose there's no reason that it has to be - mainstream papers won't be choosing their moment based on the SWP's internal calendar.


Had a quick look, can't find it. Just Cohen defending the Iraq War and the toppling of Saddam on the anniversary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> ....but I would work against racism and fascism with a labour party member or a UAF member. It's the inability to do this that also damages the left in my opinion


 
So, not wishing to form a broad front with individuals who are members of groups who wish to hegemonise political discourse as, for example, UAF does with regard to anti-fascism, damages the left?
I'd argue that it actually preserves a bit of basic integrity with regard to representation of certain matters (such as racism) by making sure that issues aren't drowned in a soup of homogeneous opinion, so that different "takes" on strategy and tactics, on the very discourses behind racism, ensure a heterogeneity of opinion, from which the best approaches can be drawn. UAF and its' members don't do that, they say "work our way or not at all, use our language or don't speak at all".  As someone who's been an anti-fascist since the 1970s, I've lived through the Trots failing to help deal with local racism when the NF was trying it on, on countless council estates in the '70s. I watched those who actually took on the boneheads get expelled from the SWP (UAF's big brother) in the '80s. I facepalmed with despair seeing eejits screaming "no platform for the fascist BNP" in engagements that often merely reinforced stereotypes of trot fuckwittery.
If you want people to rally round such decorative but ultimately-useless bodies and individuals, fair enough. Don't expect "the left" to agree wholeheartedly with you, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I'm not an anarchist but imo it'd leave us much better off, it'd give people opportunity to build an anti-fascist movement that firstly) actually effective and secondly ) not linked to a parasitic Leninist cult run by rape apologists.
> 
> There's nothing worse than seeing the SWP loyalists using the UAF as a shield to justify their shit party and their shit way of operating, as if the decline in the EDL and BNP had anything to do with them. It's utterly dishonest.


 
You mean the BNP whose actual vote almost doubled at Barking and Dagenham (which was held by Labour thanks to the judicious application of a "vote Labour to keep out the BNP" canvassing rhetoric put out by the activists that parachuted in for the last week before the election) despite the UAF? 
And you're absolutely right, of course. The "decline" of the EDL and BNP is to do with poor leadership and inept strategy, not to do with any efficacy on the part of Weyman's Warriors.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm quite glad the guard has slipped and the naked hatred of everyone in the swp and uaf (kids included) is out in the open. I was getting bored of all the "yes we know the swp is full of good people who've done a lot for our side but their leaders are shit" half truths so it's refreshing to have butchers and others make explicit their contempt for a huge portion of the existing left. This attitude would be the filth Pat Stack referred to and why active swpers don't touch sites like these with a barge pole.


 
I bet you wish you were as adept as manufacturing propaganda as the CC. If you were, the blatant shite above might have a chance of being taken seriously, at least by people who share your rather sad obsession for taking the reactionary line with regard to the worth of the SWP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> OMG!!!!! the guard has slipped and the naked hatred of everyone in the swp and uaf (kids included) is out in the open!!!!!


 
The guard has indeed slipped, and BB has fallen face-first into the fire.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2013)

_As it happens_, i met a man who fell into a fire yesterday - he told me i was right to slip on the coal and burn half my face off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

Gumbert said:


> Spot on BB.
> 
> Btw stay solid on here BB has you have been. This thread throws up classic stuff. That most of the respondents to you don't know jack about how the SWP operates or its history, but think they do. That includes you too Das Uberdog. Anyway BB's got you licked all over.
> 
> ...


 
Poor old gumball.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _As it happens_, i met a man who fell into a fire yesterday - he told me i was right to skip on the coal and burn half my face off.


 
Was he or you selling the _Morning Star_, though?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> post of the year


 
Which section, "most arselicking"?


----------



## chilango (Mar 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _As it happens_, i met a man who fell into a fire yesterday - he told me i was right to skip on the coal and burn half my face off.


 
I'm sure this could be re-jigged.

Now, I neither know, nor care, whether Bolshie met a _Morning Star_ seller on the street. I'm happy to believe him. But it does beg the question, why was he selling them on the street when you can buy it in Smiths?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> I'm sure this could be re-jigged.


Forgot all about that:

"Last week, I met a black burglar, who told me that the Jews couldn't be stopped."


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> I'm sure this could be re-jigged.
> 
> Now, I neither know, nor care, whether Bolshie met a _Morning Star_ seller on the street. I'm happy to believe him. But it does beg the question, why was he selling them on the street when you can buy it in Smiths?


You don't sound that....happy


----------



## chilango (Mar 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You don't sound that....happy


 
I've got a cold.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jeezus folks spurski was quite right. 'fuck the uaf' is a shit position for anyone on the left. Criticize the uaf, replace them, do what you want but don't let your hatred of the swp leadership get you to the point where you can say it would be a good thing for any left organisation to just collapse and make our side weaker. I saw a Morning Star guy selling his paper in downtown Swindon today (quite shocked me!). If I'd walked past and said 'fuck you' he would have assumed I was a rightwinger. I have issues with his politics but I think it's good he was there not a bad thing. The anarchists wishing the uaf would just 'fuck off' need to think about where that would leave our side.


 no one! No one celebrated the demise of the Russian Empire, and the subsequent demise of associated communist parties in the UK and around the world, more than the SWP. They felt vindicated in their state capitalism analysis.
But, EVEN THEY acknowledged that the demise of the Communist Party in Britain, left the workers movement weaker. That whole group of activists who could be relied upon at any moment to stand up against the fascists, the government, whole plethora of working class issues, would most likely fall into inactivity. The SWP warned of this at the time, and it came to pass.
So many people on here seem to talk talk, but not walk the walk. It is our GOOD THING when different groups, come at the same problem, from different angles. This one size fits all attitude, is counterintuitive.


----------



## chilango (Mar 3, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So many people on here seem to talk talk, but not walk the walk. It is our GOOD THING when different groups, come at the same problem, from different angles. This one size fits all attitude, is counterintuitive.


 
What if, one group attempting to "come at the problem" is blocked by another group standing in the way?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2013)

_straight through the cunts._


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> What if, one group attempting to "come at the problem" is blocked by another group standing in the way?


 that my friend, is politics.  Organise better.  Find a way round the problem.  If you can't compete with the nonentities on the left, how are you ever going to compete with the ruling class?

As an SWP member, the Labour Party consistently screwed us over. some of them displayed hatred worse than the people on here. still, "vote Labour with no illusions, build a socialist alternative".   When you are stood on the picket line, you even link arms with the racist against the bosses.


----------



## chilango (Mar 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> What if, one group attempting to "come at the problem" is blocked by another group standing in the way?


 
...or what if  one group attempting to "come at the problem" finds another group threatening to call the cops on them?


----------



## chilango (Mar 3, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> that my friend, is politics. Organise better. Find a way round the problem. If you can't compete with the nonentities on the left, how are you ever going to compete with the ruling class?


 
Exactly. So, quit whining when we do.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _straight through the cunts._


 whatever the tactical differences, I don't consider any other group of activists on the left the enemy.  In fact I consider them comrades, comrade.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> Exactly. So, quit whining when we do.


 Whining when?


----------



## chilango (Mar 3, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> whatever the tactical differences, I don't consider any other group of activists on the left the enemy. In fact I consider them comrades, comrade.


 
Attempting to stop people doing stuff is not a "tactical difference".

Threatening to call the cops is not a "tactical difference".

Knowingly building up the fascists is not a "tactical difference".

It's an act of aggression.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> Attempting to stop people doing stuff is not a "tactical difference".
> 
> Threatening to call the cops is not a "tactical difference".
> 
> ...


'Saints' calling the sinners?
 you still not give an example of me whining.


----------



## chilango (Mar 3, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> 'Saints' calling the sinners?
> you still not give an example of me whining.


 
Not at all.

Just showing that all the platitudes in the world won't alter the situation on the ground. We're not _always_ on the same side. 

You could make the same point using "black bloc" types kicking off on a "Peaceful demonstration".

It's not the end of the world, but let's not pretend it's merely tactical differences.

As for the whining, it's more of an impression I'm getting (and not just from you) than a quote.


----------



## chilango (Mar 3, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> It is our GOOD THING when different groups, come at the same problem, from different angles. This one size fits all attitude, is counterintuitive.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Just showing that all the platitudes in the world won't alter the situation on the ground. We're not _always_ on the same side.
> 
> ...


 we are always on the same side, have the same grand objectives imo. Our differences are tactical, how we achieve those grand objectives imo comrade.

I don't know anybody in the SWP who considers the non-Bolshevik left more than an obstacle  AT
TIMES, definitely not THE enemy. [They are not always an obstacle, sometimes we work arm in arm  ]





Your impression of whining is wrong.  I have said things like , "making shit up undermines your arguments against the SWP", to that person in the other thread you and I were contributing to, but that isn't whining about groups getting in our way.


(Rushed post, got to go. ) O


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 3, 2013)

chilango said:


>


 good point well made.  my comments were in reference to the topic of the thread, and the groups involved.

PS. in the other thread it was suggested the politics of the Bolshevik party led to state capitalism  .I would seriously suggest the politics of some groups in the Spanish Civil War, led to the situation pictured.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2013)

Amazing, what happened happened because the groups who did it, did it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 3, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I would seriously suggest the politics of some groups in the Spanish Civil War, led to the situation pictured.


 
Probably wore short skirts too.


----------



## chilango (Mar 3, 2013)

Ffs. Wish I hadn't said anything.

...anyone want to post up the latest leaks from SU and get this thread back on track?


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 3, 2013)

Not much apart from this
http://polpotology.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> I'm sure this could be re-jigged.
> 
> Now, I neither know, nor care, whether Bolshie met a _Morning Star_ seller on the street. I'm happy to believe him. But it does beg the question, why was he selling them on the street when you can buy it in Smiths?


As I said it shocked me too. But there he was big as life. Not the first time butchers has called me a liar on this thread rather than make a political answer. The Boss thinks he has everyon'e number and has the right to pigeon hole us as he sees fit but sometimes the Emperor has no clothes.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 3, 2013)

chilango said:


> Ffs. Wish I hadn't said anything.
> 
> ...anyone want to post up the latest leaks from SU and get this thread back on track?


 
There is this.


----------



## manny-p (Mar 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently the "students, we don't need no stinking students" motion put forward by a couple of freelancing CC faction enthusiasts and passed by Tottenham Branch has now been withdrawn.


Have they *bale*d out?


----------



## belboid (Mar 3, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Have they *bale*d out?


I Hale your punning


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 3, 2013)

emanymton said:


> There is this.


Whatever else you can say this character knows a lot about the party and how it works.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 3, 2013)

So who is "Comrade Sigma", the pseudonymous writer of this lament?

http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...-and-the-guillotine-our-tendency-after-cliff/


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I have no issue with criticising the UAF...I ain't a member of it and ain't precious about it....I am "exasperated" at reading people write that because they hate Martin Smith and or the SWP that it would be great if it (the UAF) was taken down by the rape crisis and reading comments like fuck the UAF.
> 
> EVERY organisation should be open to criticism as should any person. My only point is that these comments are part of what makes people stay well away from the "left".
> 
> I


 
You don't think the way the SWP treated a possible rape victim and still has little problem with martin smith puts people off? A tad more of a worry than a few lines of 'fuck the UAF' wouldn't you say?


----------



## kenny g (Mar 3, 2013)

The SWP have been the enemy as long as I can remember. Their idea of socialism, if at all related to their idea of a party, sounds like a living hell.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 3, 2013)

You are distressed that your daughters might hear someone say fuck the Uaf, but happy for them to associate with Martin smith?


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 3, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> You don't think the way the SWP treated a possible rape victim and still has little problem with martin smith puts people off? A tad more of a worry than a few lines of 'fuck the UAF' wouldn't you say?


 
I have done nothing but criticise the swp and it's handling of the womens complaints...criticise what i say but don't make shit up.
I've written very few posts as I am a new member so it's easy enough for you to check


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> You are distressed that your daughters might hear someone say fuck the Uaf, but happy for them to associate with Martin smith?


No...go back and read my previous posts which clearly criticise the SWP handling of the case...I have not said anything about being happy to have my daughters around him.
I find it incredible that anyone can write shit like this in response to me saying fuck the UAF lacks a bit of perspective...I never claimed my kids would be distressed I said that they'd think that someone who said it was being a prick.
This is why I stay the fuck away from the organised left and ...one disagreement and personal shit is thrown around...so far I've been criticised for mentioning my daughters...you've suggested I'm happy for for my kids to associate with someone accused of rape...some one else has mentioned the swps handling of the rape case even though my comments were I THINK SAYING FUCK THE UAF & HOPING THE RAPE CRISIS BRINGS DOWN THE UAF lacks perspective. Personally I hope anyone who is a rapist is jailed but hey ho ... maybe this is me being a wooly liberal again.

Most people I know have never heard of the SWP...none have heard of martin smith  and none of them know fuck all about what has been going on ... so saying FUCK THE UAF & HOPING THE RAPE CRISIS BRINGS DOWN THE UAF would push them away...that was and is all I am saying...what the fuck is wrong with that? Or are more moronic things going to be made up?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So who is "Comrade Sigma", the pseudonymous writer of this lament?
> 
> http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...-and-the-guillotine-our-tendency-after-cliff/


that's what i was wondering. they've obviously been around a long time and quite close to cliff. maybe even ex cc?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 3, 2013)

discokermit said:


> that's what i was wondering. they've obviously been around a long time and quite close to cliff. maybe even ex cc?


 
The piece gives the strong impression that this is someone who was prominent enough in the 90s to be speaking at rallies with Cliff, but also someone who is still a member. Assuming that neither of those things are misdirection, I suspect that it would probably be easy enough for a longstanding SWP member to work out the writer's identity.


----------



## SLK (Mar 3, 2013)

What position has Jonathan Neale taken on the current crisis (that's my guess, but he might have taken a more public position contrary to that article)?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The piece gives the strong impression that this is someone who was prominent enough in the 90s to be speaking at rallies with Cliff, but also someone who is still a member. Assuming that neither of those things are misdirection, I suspect that it would probably be easy enough for a longstanding SWP member to work out the writer's identity.


based on no evidence whatsoever and very little thought, the name that popped into my head was dave hayes. dunno why, except i thought the "whatever happened to dave hayes" bit could have been a little gag and/or a weak (possibly deliberately so) attempt at misdirection.


i also wondered if it could be bambery.


----------



## SLK (Mar 3, 2013)

I don't think it's Bambery. The liberal references to the ISO split made me think of Neale I don't really know how he feels about Callinicos though.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 3, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i also wondered if it could be bambery.


 
I doubt if Bambery has the self-awareness to analyse the regime he ran as secretary in those terms. And he's probably not quite egomaniacal enough to throw in the great Marxist stuff about himself - if only because it would be embarrassing when he was revealed as the author.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 3, 2013)

SLK said:


> I don't think it's Bambery. The liberal references to the ISO split made me think of Neale I don't really know how he feels about Callinicos though.


i don't think it's bambery either. too laid back and funny. more like jonathan neale.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I doubt if Bambery has the self-awareness to analyse the regime he ran as secretary in those terms. And he's probably not quite egomaniacal enough to throw in the great Marxist stuff about himself - if only because it would be embarrassing when he was revealed as the author.


that would be funny though.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2013)

Neale sounds right, his writing style is similar enough. He almost had me when he wrote "we have lost too many of our very best people and promoted too many third-rate figures." Not the most ideological of arguments but something we can all see happening in the last decade and more (personally I think Harman's death is the biggest blow the swp has had as he was a perfect intelectual commpanion for the prof). But then he cites Seymour as one of those who "might make up for the terrible drain of so many of our best people" and he lost me :-(


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 4, 2013)

Was Neale ever that senior? My guess is Paul McGarr. No fool and close enough to Harman to take this informed line. Other than the Bambery anomaly, I thought the praise for KO and EH quirky, to say the least. I'm trying to remember who else was part of that knot of London organisers back in the day. Hmmm. Sue C, Seth H, Moria N... none of whom could have written this.


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 4, 2013)

There is no reason to assume that Sigma is a comrade from Britain. In fact if the comrade is a member or former member of another IST group the slightly odd opinions that s/he holds as t the character or abilities of certain leading figures is easily explained by lack of fist hand knowledge.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 4, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I have done nothing but criticise the swp and it's handling of the womens complaints...criticise what i say but don't make shit up.
> I've written very few posts as I am a new member so it's easy enough for you to check


 

But your ire is far stronger with a few throw away lines that it is for the way this has been dealt with. Why is that?

You should check them yourself, your pathetic schoolboy tantrums about 'fuck the UAF' say plenty.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Was Neale ever that senior? My guess is Paul McGarr. No fool and close enough to Harman to take this informed line. Other than the Bambery anomaly, I thought the praise for KO and EH quirky, to say the least. I'm trying to remember who else was part of that knot of London organisers back in the day. Hmmm. Sue C, Seth H, Moria N... none of whom could have written this.


I think contrary to nep that this must have been a UK based head from everything they say.

Neale or Mcgarr sounds reasonable. Cause I'm sad I just did a Gunning-Fog Readability Index check on the document above which yields a score of 9.3. Two articles by Neale yield 8.2 and 9 while two of Mcgarr's score 11 and 11.9 (with a decade between their publication) so on this not entirely scientific basis I'm sticking with Neale!


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 4, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> There is no reason to assume that Sigma is a comrade from Britain. In fact if the comrade is a member or former member of another IST group the slightly odd opinions that s/he holds as t the character or abilities of certain leading figures is easily explained by lack of fist hand knowledge.


A revealing Freudian slip about the nature of SWP relationships


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 4, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> There is no reason to assume that Sigma is a comrade from Britain. In fact if the comrade is a member or former member of another IST group the slightly odd opinions that s/he holds as t the character or abilities of certain leading figures is easily explained by lack of fist hand knowledge.


 
It would also explain the concentration on the "tendency" as opposed to the "party". That's a rather rare angle for anyone in the British SWP to take. The international sister groups just aren't seen as all that significant or relevant to the past and present of the SWP, by and large.

Almost certainly someone for whom English is their first language. So either someone from another Anglophone section or one of the English people who founded sections elsewhere, more likely the former given the numbers of people in each category.

Doesn't seem to be an ISOer from the way the ISO is discussed, which is sympathetic in tone but not really the langauge of a member. The official Austrialian group is led by pro-CC people, the rival IS style group would be unlikely to produce someone who writes of the IST as if they were still members, while the NZ group is defunct. There aren't many likely culprits in Ireland, but I suppose someone like C. Kostick, who has already made his pro-faction sympathies clear, could have produced it.

That is, of course, assuming that it is from a former overseas section leader rather than simply the work of an SWP old hand.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2013)

If my suspicions on another matter are correct there's no way this is CK!


----------



## emanymton (Mar 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It would also explain the concentration on the "tendency" as opposed to the "party". That's a rather rare angle for anyone in the British SWP to take. The international sister groups just aren't seen as all that significant or relevant to the past and present of the SWP, by and large.
> 
> Almost certainly someone for whom English is their first language. So either someone from another Anglophone section or one of the English people who founded sections elsewhere, more likely the former given the numbers of people in each category.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a really good set of arguments for it being Neale


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2013)

Dont forget Neale is a New Yorker by birth so the IS in the US is likely a subject close to his heart as the Irish group is to Dublin ex pats like me


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If my suspicions on another matter are correct there's no way this is CK!


 
Cryptic even by the standards of this thread!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Cryptic even by the standards of this thread!


Pretty sure I've heard that CK doesn't know who Sigma is either, that's all.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 4, 2013)

This someone writes with humour, subtlety and sophistication. S/he can write. That excludes everyone in the SWP... apart from Neale.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 4, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> This someone writes with humour, subtlety and sophistication. S/he can write. That excludes everyone in the SWP... apart from Neale.


 
Eamonn McCann?

Edit: Played by an actor in the film Bloody Sunday, which I've just come across on YouTube, and will watch later.


----------



## Lower Ground (Mar 4, 2013)

Twittering Popinjays


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2013)

_...drink soaked former trotskyist popinjay._

Hello georgie.


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 4, 2013)

Not an American but the author, if my guess is correct, was a Shact.


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 4, 2013)

For the record there are a fair few comrades in both the Tendency and the Tradition who can write with humour and style. Obviously not in party publications.....


----------



## chilango (Mar 4, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> For the record there are a fair few comrades in both the Tendency and the Tradition who can write with humour and style. Obviously not in party publications.....


 
I like the way you've capitalised "Tradition" there. Nice touch.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 4, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> Not an American but the author, if my guess is correct, was a Shact.


 
Surely there can't be too many of those who aren't Americans?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2013)

Or CIA.


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 4, 2013)

I can do Trotskyist bullit points and exclamation marks too!!!!

1/ It adds impact!!!

2/ It's transitional!!!

3/ It's impactful and transitional!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2013)

Did we ever clear up why SEYMOUR! claimed to have met the real david rose that hari mocked up?


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Did we ever clear up why SEYMOUR! claimed to have met the real david rose that hari mocked up?


i don't think we did. but now is definitely the time to ask...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 4, 2013)

He may be a little distracted at the moment, due to an unexpected promotion awarded by Forbes magazine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2013)

chilango said:


> Attempting to stop people doing stuff is not a "tactical difference".
> 
> Threatening to call the cops is not a "tactical difference".
> 
> ...


 
Self-serving, too.
Still, you're not allowed to mention these rather obvious factors to rmp3, unless you want to be accused of being a conspiracy theorist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2013)

belboid said:


> I Hale your punning


 
Could have been worse, it could have been bignose1 punning.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 4, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> No...go back and read my previous posts which clearly criticise the SWP handling of the case...I have not said anything about being happy to have my daughters around him.
> I find it incredible that anyone can write shit like this in response to me saying fuck the UAF lacks a bit of perspective...I never claimed my kids would be distressed I said that they'd think that someone who said it was being a prick.
> This is why I stay the fuck away from the organised left and ...one disagreement and personal shit is thrown around...so far I've been criticised for mentioning my daughters...you've suggested I'm happy for for my kids to associate with someone accused of rape...some one else has mentioned the swps handling of the rape case even though my comments were I THINK SAYING FUCK THE UAF & HOPING THE RAPE CRISIS BRINGS DOWN THE UAF lacks perspective. Personally I hope anyone who is a rapist is jailed but hey ho ... maybe this is me being a wooly liberal again.


Grow up, no one has thrown any "personal shit" at you.

You brought up the fact that your daughters attending a UAF march as some sort of proof it it's success. You can't then complain when other people also mention them - an no one has attacked them or made any out of order comments. People have just taken apart your incoherent argument.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 4, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Grow up, no one has thrown any "personal shit" at you.
> 
> You brought up the fact that your daughters attending a UAF march as some sort of proof it it's success. You can't then complain when other people also mention them - an no one has attacked them or made any out of order comments. People have just taken apart your incoherent argument.


 
I said my mates and kids would not know anything about the internal politics so saying those things would make them avoid the left. For this Barney Pig ( hope this has been spelt correctly) said that I am happy to have my daughters associated with a man who is accused and strongly believed to be a rapist...that is NOT a deconstruction of my view nor is telling me to grow up (which people can and do disagree with) ... accusing me of being happy to have my daughters associated with a possible rapist is well fucking out of order....

I hope you all enjoy your forum ... I am off back to my normal mates who can discuss and debate without all the usual sectarian bollocks that destroys the left. Many slate the SWP for being mindlessly sectarian (which I agree with) but some of you act the same way to some one who you disagree with for no reason that makes sense to me.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 4, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> For the record there are a fair few comrades in both the Tendency and the Tradition who can write with humour and style. Obviously not in party publications.....


 

Obviously not! But why not? I never understood that.


----------



## andysays (Mar 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So who is "Comrade Sigma", the pseudonymous writer of this lament?
> 
> http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...-and-the-guillotine-our-tendency-after-cliff/


 
I find it curious that there seems to be far more interested in *who* wrote this that in *what* whoever-the-fuck-it-is has written.

Maybe it's just because, not knowing the various suggested authors, I'm unable to join in the guessing game, but isn't it at least of some interest to address what they've written, irrespective of who exactly they are?

This is a genuine question - I'm not trying to have a poke at either Nigel for posing the question or the many who have responded, and I'm not saying the question shouldn't be addressed, but it appears to be the only aspect people are interested in exploring.

To me, and I admit I'm something of an outsider here, that seems kind of strange.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He may be a little distracted at the moment, due to an unexpected promotion awarded by Forbes magazine.


Bizarre wasn't it, his tweet was hilarious.


----------



## belboid (Mar 4, 2013)

andysays said:


> I find it curious that there seems to be far more interested in *who* wrote this that in *what* whoever-the-fuck-it-is has written.


In part, at least, it is down to it being so straightforwardly, unarguably, correct.  Okay, it is highly generous to certyain people that most of us here wouldn't be generous to, but as an overall analysis of things from an SWP perspective (or, perhaps, an IS perspective), there just isn't much that can be argued with.


----------



## Lower Ground (Mar 4, 2013)

Bugger this Iam off to read my Internal Bulletin for the "Special Conference" can it be worse than this ?.....yep


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 4, 2013)

Lower Ground said:


> Bugger this Iam off to read my Internal Bulletin for the "Special Conference" can it be worse than this ?.....yep


That was quick


----------



## andysays (Mar 4, 2013)

belboid said:


> In part, at least, it is down to it being so straightforwardly, unarguably, correct. Okay, it is highly generous to certyain people that most of us here wouldn't be generous to, but as an overall analysis of things from an SWP perspective (or, perhaps, an IS perspective), there just isn't much that can be argued with.


 
Fair enough (and there was me thinking people were refraining from commenting until they knew the author so they'd also know what side to take...)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 4, 2013)

andysays said:


> Fair enough (and there was me thinking people were refraining from commenting until they knew the author so they'd also know what side to take...)


 
Definately not the case with most people here, who I imagine would agree with some of it and not other parts, or disagree with most of it whoever wrote it.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 4, 2013)

i agree with most of it.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2013)

Going back to what Rmp3 said earlier about the SWP don't regard the rest of the left as their enemies. If that's the case they don't have a very funny way of showing it in terms of the dishonesty and sectarianism that they routinely show. It's just not true to say some on the left aren't our enemies. For instance because the class struggle is so low in the UK at the moment the left can be largely ignored. However when working class militancy rises how can you not say that social democrats and left social democrats won't be an enemy? The social democrats that murdered Rosa Luxemburg were far to the left of the current Labour Party lot. But even in the here and now the trade union bureaucracy is the enemy, even sections of it that call themselves left, like the leadership of the NUT.

Also there is the obvious example of stalinists.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 4, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i agree with most of it.


 
If it was written by Jonathan Neale I'm agin it


----------



## emanymton (Mar 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> That was quick


Apparently it is 137,000 words as well!!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 4, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Going back to what Rmp3 said earlier about the SWP don't regard the rest of the left as their enemies. If that's the case they don't have a very funny way of showing it in terms of the dishonesty and sectarianism that they routinely show. It's just not true to say some on the left aren't our enemies. For instance because the class struggle is so low in the UK at the moment the left can be largely ignored. However when working class militancy rises how can you not say that social democrats and left social democrats won't be an enemy? The social democrats that murdered Rosa Luxemburg were far to the left of the current Labour Party lot. But even in the here and now the trade union bureaucracy is the enemy, even sections of it that call themselves left, like the leadership of the NUT.
> 
> Also there is the obvious example of stalinists.


 
burble burble


----------



## sevenstars (Mar 4, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> The social democrats that murdered Rosa Luxemburg were far to the left of the current Labour Party lot. But even in the here and now the trade union bureaucracy is the enemy, even sections of it that call themselves left, like the leadership of the NUT.


 
Rosa Luxembourg and comrades were Social-Democrats once too though, part of the labour movement and separated from the mainstream under the pressure of revolutionary events. Maybe they should have done so earlier, but without these roots they'd have just been irrelevent to begin with.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 4, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Going back to what Rmp3 said earlier about the SWP don't regard the rest of the left as their enemies. If that's the case they don't have a very funny way of showing it in terms of the dishonesty and sectarianism that they routinely show. It's just not true to say some on the left aren't our enemies. For instance because the class struggle is so low in the UK at the moment the left can be largely ignored. However when working class militancy rises how can you not say that social democrats and left social democrats won't be an enemy? The social democrats that murdered Rosa Luxemburg were far to the left of the current Labour Party lot. But even in the here and now the trade union bureaucracy is the enemy, even sections of it that call themselves left, like the leadership of the NUT.
> 
> Also there is the obvious example of stalinists.


So basically, your enemies are everyone but yourself.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2013)

andysays said:


> Fair enough (and there was me thinking people were refraining from commenting until they knew the author so they'd also know what side to take...)


I don't need to wait that long. Minute the author made SEYMOUR! the happy ending I knew where he was coming from.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 4, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Going back to what Rmp3 said earlier about the SWP don't regard the rest of the left as their enemies. If that's the case they don't have a very funny way of showing it in terms of the dishonesty and sectarianism that they routinely show. It's just not true to say some on the left aren't our enemies. For instance because the class struggle is so low in the UK at the moment the left can be largely ignored. However when working class militancy rises how can you not say that social democrats and left social democrats won't be an enemy? The social democrats that murdered Rosa Luxemburg were far to the left of the current Labour Party lot. But even in the here and now the trade union bureaucracy is the enemy, even sections of it that call themselves left, like the leadership of the NUT.
> 
> Also there is the obvious example of stalinists.


And Those pesky Russian social democrats that betrayed the Russian revolution.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I don't need to wait that long. Minute the author made SEYMOUR! the happy ending I knew where he was coming from.


 
Where does he or she do that?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Where does he or she do that?


When he or she says that this crisis "shows a surprising core of healthy spirit and very good people left inside this organism" and namechecks RS and China. Then gushes  "I am damn grateful that this shadow of our once proud party managed to recruit such prolific representatives of a new radical generation. They might make up for the terrible drain of so many of our best people."


----------



## mk12 (Mar 4, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Going back to what Rmp3 said earlier about the SWP don't regard the rest of the left as their enemies. If that's the case they don't have a very funny way of showing it in terms of the dishonesty and sectarianism that they routinely show. It's just not true to say some on the left aren't our enemies. For instance because the class struggle is so low in the UK at the moment the left can be largely ignored. However when working class militancy rises how can you not say that social democrats and left social democrats won't be an enemy? The social democrats that murdered Rosa Luxemburg were far to the left of the current Labour Party lot. But even in the here and now the trade union bureaucracy is the enemy, even sections of it that call themselves left, like the leadership of the NUT.
> 
> Also there is the obvious example of stalinists.


 
What about the Leninists who imprisoned and executed workers and peasants?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 4, 2013)

mk12 said:


> What about the Leninists who imprisoned and executed workers and peasants?


 
they're ok


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 4, 2013)

i seen a posted from socialist workers party advertising some event they've got going for international womens day. gotta admire the gall they've got..


----------



## emanymton (Mar 4, 2013)

For those who are interested the IB is leaked already, all 108 pages of it.

ETA, there is one contribution called building an active branch 

ETA again, A certain Jonathan N has a contribution.


----------



## tony collins (Mar 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Dont forget Neale is a New Yorker by birth so the IS in the US is likely a subject close to his heart as the Irish group is to Dublin ex pats like me


 
He made a mistake about the ISO tho - he said it "rejoined the tendency in the wake of the first gulf war in 1990". This isn't the case - the ISO was a member of the IST from the start, and never left until its expulsion.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "Comrade Sigma"


could this be an alexander trocchi reference?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2013)

Not enough minds.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 4, 2013)

Chanie's short contribution is detached and a bit sad.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2013)

emanymton said:


> So basically, your enemies are everyone but yourself.


 
Obviously not. I'm talking about social democratic leaders. The same with stalinist organisations.


----------



## cesare (Mar 4, 2013)

108 pages


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 4, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Obviously not. I'm talking about social democratic leaders. The same with stalinist organisations.


Lets have a united front from below


----------



## emanymton (Mar 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> 108 pages


I have had a very quick skim over it, i don't know if I have the will to read it all, or even half of it.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> 108 pages


 
and its not even on a large font with pictures in it!!!


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 4, 2013)

Penny, Donny and terry p.77 & 78 are definitely my favourite


----------



## cesare (Mar 4, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I have had a very quick skim over it, i don't know if I have the will to read it all, or even half of it.


p78/9 is the Stop Digging part. Other than that, it'd be useful to know whether it's just a collection of all the blog articles I suppose.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 4, 2013)

i like how it starts with a message that its only to be circulated amongst members, an article on 'openness in the age of the internet', but then its circulated as a pdf thus making it easy as fuck to be read on forums like this


----------



## cesare (Mar 4, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> i like how it starts with a message that its only to be circulated amongst members, an article on 'openness in the age of the internet', but then its circulated as a pdf thus making it easy as fuck to be read on forums like this


I suppose that circulating it as a PDF makes it harder for any mischievous person/s to alter it


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 4, 2013)

just copy and paste onto open office and then insert whatever gifs one has in mind and then save as a pdf. sorted!


----------



## october_lost (Mar 4, 2013)

> In a small number of cases we have had to edit some of these documents where there are issues of libel or confidentiality.


Can't fault them for trying...


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 4, 2013)

cesare said:


> 108 pages


 
2013 reading challenge here I come.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Chanie's short contribution is detached and a bit sad.


 
Yes.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 4, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> 2013 reading challenge here I come.


----------



## cesare (Mar 4, 2013)

Souvenir edition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> That was quick


 
As the actress said to the bishop.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> As the actress said to the bishop.


Priest to the cardinal


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2013)

mk12 said:


> What about the Leninists who imprisoned and executed workers and peasants?


 
Obviously fifth columnists of reactionary forces attempting to sabotage the peoples' revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, comrade.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Priest to the cardinal


 
TBF I was thinking more Anglican than Catholic.


----------



## belboid (Mar 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> When he or she says that this crisis "shows a surprising core of healthy spirit and very good people left inside this organism" and namechecks RS and China. Then gushes  "I am damn grateful that this shadow of our once proud party managed to recruit such prolific representatives of a new radical generation. They might make up for the terrible drain of so many of our best people."


Do you think he (or she) really thinks all the other people praised are brilliant intellectual minds? That Elaine H was a masterful [sic] analyst of late feminism? Or is s/he using them as examples of people who were at least good at thinking critically, at least, and being able to actually answer questions raised from things happening in the here and now? That is what I take from that praise for SEYMOUR! And China. Who on the CC can you imagine really tackling any theoretical questions seriously* apart from his Lordship? If the party drives away people of that ability - even if they would eventually leave anyway - why would anyone at all critical ever join?


* oddly, my spellchecker wanted to replace my initial attempt at 'seriously' with 'sexually'. Comrade Delta is the ghost in my machine....


----------



## belboid (Mar 4, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> i seen a posted from socialist workers party advertising some event they've got going for international womens day. gotta admire the gall they've got..


All over the country!  And proper public meetings. 7.30 at the Showroom in Sheffield, with Jo Cardwell as speaker.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 4, 2013)

Internal Bulletin Bristol contribution:

_*"Leadership is a practical question.*_ The sales of Socialist Worker on the question of the NHS have been reminiscent of the Stop the War period. Over 80 in Bristol last Saturday, around 150 in 3 days at various sales. The demonstration in Lewisham of 25,000 people shows the potential. There already exist a number of vehicles which could be used to _*call a National Demonstration*_. Keep the NHS Public, 38 Degrees, London Health Emergency could be used. I believe that the Party should now throw the kitchen sink at it. We should aim to leaflet streets, hospitals, workplaces and communities. Motions at union branches and anti-cuts groups, posters and electronic means are all essential. We should approach it in the way we approached the Stop the War Demo of 2002.
In doing this we would strengthen the hand of our comrades in the health unions to overcome the passivity in the bureaucracy of the unions, whether it is left leaning leaders or right.
However, I believe that _*we must learn the lessons of the Stop the War movement*_. _*We must not drop the profile of the Party*_. We must aim to build Socialist Worker supporters groups in every hospital. We must aim to build Socialist Worker sales at new workplaces.
We _*need to find the militants we can pull into*_ Unite the Resistance and this could be the _*perfect vehicle*_."

What are the lessons of the Stop the War movement? Consider people as lego blocks you _pull into _crap things, like how you drive a _vehicle_.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 4, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Internal Bulletin Bristol contribution:
> 
> _*"Leadership is a practical question.*_ The sales of Socialist Worker on the question of the NHS have been reminiscent of the Stop the War period. Over 80 in Bristol last Saturday, around 150 in 3 days at various sales. The demonstration in Lewisham of 25,000 people shows the potential. There already exist a number of vehicles which could be used to _*call a National Demonstration*_. Keep the NHS Public, 38 Degrees, London Health Emergency could be used. I believe that the Party should now throw the kitchen sink at it. We should aim to leaflet streets, hospitals, workplaces and communities. Motions at union branches and anti-cuts groups, posters and electronic means are all essential. We should approach it in the way we approached the Stop the War Demo of 2002.
> In doing this we would strengthen the hand of our comrades in the health unions to overcome the passivity in the bureaucracy of the unions, whether it is left leaning leaders or right.
> ...


I am sure the people involved will be thrilled that they are "to be used"


----------



## sihhi (Mar 5, 2013)

Thames Valley Pete says:




> Participants in Occupy Wall Street reportedly had to deal with occurrences of assault, rape and various other forms of abuse. The forms of consensus decision making proved inadequate in dealing with these issues. Laurie Penny reported on a short film posted by a supporter of Occupy Wall Street called “Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street”. Anarchist groups too are far from immune to similar problems.
> None of this is intended to question the seriousness of such instances in our organisation, (Note: these comments aren’t intended imply guilt in the case discussed in December at conference), but it does indicate that democratic centralism can’t be the flaw which makes this type of *event* possible. Indeed democratic centralism potentially provides a solid basis for opposing such tendencies.


 
Did Occupy Wall Street set up a rigged judge and jury disputes commissions with all mates of the male accused? That's the event that this Conference should focus on. There's lots wrong with OWS I'm sure, but the democratic centralism system means imbalances of power (CC versus new recruit) result in cases against the CC being handled in a less than satisfactory manner.
The less power there is in one individual (vis-a-vis the rest of the group) the better and more conducive an environment for taking accusations against the more respected (or more heavily mandated etc) member seriously.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 5, 2013)

Rob from East London are you blaming the current CC or the 4 who left, be careful unless you become the new mk12!



> We cannot repeat the mistake of the Respect debacle of 2008/9. Four members of the CC left the party as a consequence of political adaptation arising from leading the mass anti-capitalist and anti-war movements. As the momentum of these movements ebbed these leading comrades flipped between sectarianism, substitutionism and opportunism in rapid order. The core tension of a united front strategy – that of fighting both ‘with and against’ opposing political traditions – crumbled.


 
Likewise Damon from Tyneside:




> Any organisation with a robust democratic regime and culture would not permit its leadership to carry out such an act. It should be unthinkable. Our party rank-and-file needs to adopt the slogans “We are all the Facebook Four!” and “An injury to one is an injury to all!” We need those comrades back inside our organisation, pronto.
> 
> Here are few proposals to consider in the meantime: • Abolish the slate-system and elect the CC
> on individual merit • Air differences on the CC openly. • Regional elections for regional full-time
> party workers • More IBs of shorter length, with less CC input. • Greatly reduce the powers of the CC to expel comrades • Make space within Socialist Worker and Party Notes for minority opinion within the party


----------



## cesare (Mar 5, 2013)

How has this IB been compiled, does anyone know?


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

The contribution from the Sheffield stalwarts just sums up the whole CC faction brilliantly/appallingly. Carry on Regardless. 

The film has a disturbingly similar plot... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_On_Regardless


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> How has this IB been compiled, does anyone know?


Anyone is free to submit contributions to the central office. 'twas detail about the precise procedure a few pages back.


----------



## cesare (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> Anyone is free to submit contributions to the central office. 'twas detail about the precise procedure a few pages back.


Cheers. So I imagine much of it has been resubmitted from various blog articles, there's much that looks familiar.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> In part, at least, it is down to it being so straightforwardly, unarguably, correct. Okay, it is highly generous to certyain people that most of us here wouldn't be generous to, but as an overall analysis of things from an SWP perspective (or, perhaps, an IS perspective), there just isn't much that can be argued with.


 
Really? It seems to me that it's quite extraordinarily apolitical, treating the central issue as a decline in the quality of CC fodder over the years.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 5, 2013)

The best parts of the bulletin are the letters from simpletons. Which is to say all of many and various contributions which can be summed up as follows: "What crisis? Everything's just fine here in Clacton branch, where we signed up two new members and sold 32 papers last week".


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The best parts of the bulletin are the letters from simpletons. Which is to say all of many and various contributions which can be summed up as follows: "What crisis? Everything's just fine here in Clacton branch, where we signed up two new members and sold 32 papers last week".


 
They're the people I mentioned at the begining who were never capable of independent or original thought and simply wouldn't know what to do with out the CC telling them.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Really? It seems to me that it's quite extraordinarily apolitical, treating the central issue as a decline in the quality of CC fodder over the years.


Yeah totally agree, that's what I meant by not very ideological. people are impressed by it cause the author knows a lot of inner workings stuff but the analysis is pretty shit and personalities based as in the worst Kremlinology.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> 108 pages


Anyone who says after all this there hasn't been enough discussion of these issues needs to simply get to fuck.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> Do you think he (or she) really thinks all the other people praised are brilliant intellectual minds? That Elaine H was a masterful [sic] analyst of late feminism? Or is s/he using them as examples of people who were at least good at thinking critically, at least, and being able to actually answer questions raised from things happening in the here and now? That is what I take from that praise for SEYMOUR! And China. Who on the CC can you imagine really tackling any theoretical questions seriously* apart from his Lordship? If the party drives away people of that ability - even if they would eventually leave anyway - why would anyone at all critical ever join?
> 
> 
> * oddly, my spellchecker wanted to replace my initial attempt at 'seriously' with 'sexually'. Comrade Delta is the ghost in my machine....


There's critical and then there's 'destructive' as paragraph 8 of the CC's opening piece in the IB says about RS. He has in fairness driven himself away in the manner he's handled all this.


----------



## cesare (Mar 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Anyone who says after all this there hasn't been enough discussion of these issues needs to simply get to fuck.



Is the IB unexpurgated?

There's been lots of submission of written material, and I'm sure that there's been lots of discussion on receiving/seeing it; but the discussion hasn't necessarily been held between the people with opposing views.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeah totally agree, that's what I meant by not very ideological. people are impressed by it cause the author knows a lot of inner workings stuff but the analysis is pretty shit and personalities based as in the worst Kremlinology.


Which is why the discussion here focused on who wrote it rather than the content, there really wasn't much content to talk about. 

Interestingly the IB was up on the CPGB site before it had been mailed to all members, a mate of mine got his email about 9.30, but I found it about an hour before that and it could have been there all day for all I know. Also the CPGB are missing a bit there is one more contribution that was late 'but it wasn't the comrades fault' so has been published separately, makes you wonder just where the leek is.


----------



## cesare (Mar 5, 2013)

The emails were possibly sent out in batches because of the size of the file attachment.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> The emails were possibly sent out in batches because of the size of the file attachment.


Yeah I know which is why I said it was up before all members got it. I am more interested in the fact that they are missing a bit. I am not suggesting that the CC leaked it, although it would be one possibility, but someone who got an early copy of the pdf. Not important just intrigues me a bit.


----------



## cesare (Mar 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yeah I know which is why I said it was up before all members got it. I am more interested in the fact that they are missing a bit. I am not suggesting that the CC leaked it, although it would be one possibility, but someone who got an early copy of the pdf. Not important just intrigues me a bit.



I wonder if the distribution list was broken down alphabetically or geographically (by branch).


----------



## emanymton (Mar 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> I wonder if the distribution list was broken down alphabetically or geographically (by branch).


Based on the two emails I am aware of, it is not alphabetical so I would guess branch. 

This is possibly the dullest speculation even undertaken.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> I wonder if the distribution list was broken down alphabetically or geographically (by branch).


 
Presumably they use a mail merge from an excel worksheet of the entire memberlist which presumably would for the purposes of a mass non geographically relevant email would be sorted alphabetically or on membership number...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 5, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This is possibly the dullest speculation even undertaken.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 5, 2013)

SU has the extra bit if anyone cares.


----------



## cesare (Mar 5, 2013)




----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 5, 2013)

Not relevant (I hope) but the prof just had an FB update that read "China boosts defence spending..."


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not relevant (I hope) but the prof just had an FB update that read "China boosts defence spending..."


 
veiled reference to the hiring of private security goons by the Lynch Mob Faction as some on SU might say?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> veiled reference to the hiring of private security goons by the Lynch Mob Faction as some on SU might say?


Lol no. From the sound of the contributions even by faction members the hard platformists are pretty isolated, no need for any 'special measures', a puff of wind will blow them over.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeah totally agree, that's what I meant by not very ideological. people are impressed by it cause the author knows a lot of inner workings stuff but the analysis is pretty shit and personalities based as in the worst Kremlinology.


 
I think it was 'impressive' because it's well written.

I think it was a weak argument. On rereading, the conclusion (get rid of Callinicos) doesn't follow from what precedes it, which is largely a series of descriptions rather than analyses. That being said, I think personality and group dynamics should be part of a political analysis.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 5, 2013)

On the "isolation" of the "hard platform" who are "Pretty isolated" - well the "soft platform" say they shouldn't be expelled, which is nice. But the CC say ""every member is bound to uphold and defend the decision of conference in any public forum in which it is discussed, including online. If these norms of party behaviour are breached, we expect comrades to support and defend disciplinary action up to and including expulsion to enforce the will of the party as a whole.” - That is, they want every member to "uphold and defend" the "investigation" into rape (which is what they mean by the "decision of conference")  in "any public forum" or be expelled. That is surely a recipe for reducing the party as a whole to a smaller, more isolated  bunch.


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Really? It seems to me that it's quite extraordinarily apolitical, treating the central issue as a decline in the quality of CC fodder over the years.


Really?  you should learn to read then Nigel.

If you think slating the entire industrial strategy, the failure of political leadership over two decades, the failure to retain the ISO (for wholly political - albeit unclear and probably dishonest - reasons), implicit (it seems to me) acceptance that 1989 led to far more serious setbacks than previously accepted, and the anti-fascist strategy has been seriously over-stated...if you think all of that is 'extraordinarily apolitical' well, that's your problem.



Nigel Irritable said:


> The best parts of the bulletin are the letters from simpletons.


oh yes, sorry,  I was wrong above.  your problem isnt not being able to read.  Its being a superior snot-nosed cunt who thinks he's better than everyone else, especially those thickies not in the SP.  Remind me of those magnificent theoretical contributions and insights from the SP again?  Oh yes, thats right. None. Ever.


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What are the lessons of the Stop the War movement? Consider people as lego blocks you _pull into _crap things, like how you drive a _vehicle_.


Campaigns absolutely explicitly _are_ vehicles. There is nothing wrong with saying so.  An organisatin isn't a worthwhile thing in itself, it is only any use in terms of what it achieves.  It is absolutely a vehicle for change, and quite right too.  You'll note how they include SWP fronts as 'vehicles' as well as non-party bodies.

The lego bricks is a simple continuation of Lenin, who always said how workers had no problems being seen as cogs in the machine, because that is what we do every day.


----------



## Random (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> The lego bricks is a simple continuation of Lenin, who always said how workers had no problems being seen as cogs in the machine, because that is what we do every day.


 Oh well that's all right then


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Internal Bulletin Bristol contribution:
> 
> _*"Leadership is a practical question.*_ The sales of Socialist Worker on the question of the NHS have been reminiscent of the Stop the War period. Over 80 in Bristol last Saturday, around 150 in 3 days at various sales. The demonstration in Lewisham of 25,000 people shows the potential. There already exist a number of vehicles which could be used to _*call a National Demonstration*_. Keep the NHS Public, 38 Degrees, London Health Emergency could be used. I believe that the Party should now throw the kitchen sink at it. We should aim to leaflet streets, hospitals, workplaces and communities. Motions at union branches and anti-cuts groups, posters and electronic means are all essential. We should approach it in the way we approached the Stop the War Demo of 2002.
> In doing this we would strengthen the hand of our comrades in the health unions to overcome the passivity in the bureaucracy of the unions, whether it is left leaning leaders or right.
> ...


 
Now i know what the phrase 'Keep calm and carry on' means...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> Really? you should learn to read then Nigel.
> 
> If you think slating the entire industrial strategy, the failure of political leadership over two decades, the failure to retain the ISO (for wholly political - albeit unclear and probably dishonest - reasons), implicit (it seems to me) acceptance that 1989 led to far more serious setbacks than previously accepted, and the anti-fascist strategy has been seriously over-stated...if you think all of that is 'extraordinarily apolitical' well, that's your problem.
> 
> ...


 
Did your Mother write the article in question, or did someone just take a dump in your rice crispies?

The core thesis of the "Sigma" piece is that Cliff was a great man, but he left behind him a succession of epigones of gradually decreasing quatlity. And its rousing call to action is a call to remove Callinicos personally. That you have to start inventing from whole cloth "implicit" arguments about anti-fascism or the collapse of the Soviet Union, _neither of which are actually mentioned in the article_, should really be evidence enough that it's a personalised, soap operatic, account of characters at the top. It reads like one of those old histories of Medieval dynasties, founded by a great man but doomed to gradually decline because of the frailties of his grandchildren. Except writ laughably small.

As for my comment about the "letters from simpletons", the SWP may have more than its fair share of the kind of clown who prefers to talk about how many papers their branch sold this week than the crisis facing their organisation. And those clowns are currently on public display. But I certainly wouldn't argue that such head in the sand idiocy is unique to the SWP. Every organisation above a certain size will have its own quota of deeply closed minded punters, obsessed with their routine and actively hostile to any challenge to it. I'm quite sure that when Socialist Appeal split from Militant that there was some fool earnestly sending pieces to the internal bulletin about how all this talk was irrelevant and divisive and really we need to copy the example of Crewe branch's new paper sale technique.

It's completely irrelevant to either of the posts you were frothing about, but I'll stack the Socialist Party's theoretical heritage up against that of the SWP any day, although it too has its elements which are irrelevant now or were wrong all along. I realise that in the SWP's version of history, still accepted unthinkingly by some ex-members who really should know better, their were two basic strands of Trotskyism in the 20th Century, their allegedly iconoclastic, fresh thinking, "tradition" and their dismal caricature of the disoriented post war Fourth International. But in fact just about every strand of revolutionary, Trotskyist or otherwise, had to grapple with much the same questions. This is hardly a thread for the ritual exchange of "our 1950s theoretical work was better than your 1950s theoretical work" jibes however.


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Did your Mother write the article in question, or did someone just take a dump in your rice crispies?


No, I just dont like superior wankers who think they're better than everyone else without offering any reason behind there thought.  You and Callinicos are cut from exactly the same cloth.  Examples of what is wrong with what is lefty of the rump of trotskyism, and why it well never go anywhere.



> That you have to start inventing from whole cloth "implicit" arguments about anti-fascism or the collapse of the Soviet Union, _neither of which are actually mentioned in the article_,


well, fascism is mentioned explicitly in the article, so I come back to my point that you arent a very attentive reader.  To talk of the BNP's 'implosion' is very clearly against the argument that it was the UAF what beat them. And the whole thing goes on about the mistakes that were made - after the collapse.  You may think that that is a coincidence, but no decent kremlinologist would maker that mistake.



> As for my comment about the "letters from simpletons", the SWP may have more than its fair share of the kind of clown who prefers to talk about how many papers their branch sold this week than the crisis facing their organisation. And those clowns are currently on public display. But I certainly wouldn't argue that such head in the sand idiocy is unique to the SWP. Every organisation above a certain size will have its own quota of deeply closed minded punters, obsessed with their routine and actively hostile to any challenge to it. I'm quite sure that when Socialist Appeal split from Militant that there was some fool earnestly sending pieces to the internal bulletin about how all this talk was irrelevant and divisive and really we need to copy the example of Crewe branch's new paper sale technique.


Lol, yeah, come and convince me that Syria was a deformed workers state. Good luck with that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 5, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> On the "isolation" of the "hard platform" who are "Pretty isolated" - well the "soft platform" say they shouldn't be expelled, which is nice. But the CC say ""every member is bound to uphold and defend the decision of conference in any public forum in which it is discussed, including online. If these norms of party behaviour are breached, we expect comrades to support and defend disciplinary action up to and including expulsion to enforce the will of the party as a whole.” - That is, they want every member to "uphold and defend" the "investigation" into rape (which is what they mean by the "decision of conference")  in "any public forum" or be expelled. That is surely a recipe for reducing the party as a whole to a smaller, more isolated  bunch.


Sorry but does anyone really expect SEYMOUR! to get a second free pass to shit all over his own party in public after this special conference!? No chance, the faction won't defend a repeat after this one. Assuming they haven't passed over into hard platformists themselves as a result of the decisions it makes.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> No, I just dont like superior wankers who think they're better than everyone else without offering any reason behind there thought. You and Callinicos are cut from exactly the same cloth. Examples of what is wrong with what is lefty of the rump of trotskyism, and why it well never go anywhere.


 
Have you been drinking this morning, or is this just your delightful personality on full display?




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> well, fascism is mentioned explicitly in the article, so I come back to my point that you arent a very attentive reader. To talk of the BNP's 'implosion' is very clearly against the argument that it was the UAF what beat them. And the whole thing goes on about the mistakes that were made - after the collapse.


 
So, your defence of the political content of the Sigma article is now grounded in the following evidence: Zero mention of 1989, and a single mention of the BNP in a quote from Cliff, which, incidentally doesn't talk about the BNP's "implosion" at all. You are reading a great man and his sub-standard followers soap opera narrative, fitting it into your own world view and then attributing your own political explanations to the article which contains nothing of the sort.

Or perhaps you are conflating other articles on the same blog, which do actually go into detailed arguments about anti-fascism, industrial strategy and the like, with the "Sigma" piece and then getting confused and irate.




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> Lol, yeah, come and convince me that Syria was a deformed workers state. Good luck with that.


 
Why would I try and persuade you of that? If I was going to try to argue for one of Ted Grant's less than brilliant ideas, I'd pick a funnier one than that. Are you going to try to convince me of every one of the many and varied hair-brained notions Tony Cliff came out with?


----------



## chilango (Mar 5, 2013)

...ace. The thread is back!


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Have you been drinking this morning, or is this just your delightful personality on full display?


Oh gosh, if only I had the personality to be so superior and condescending. That would be just _lovely_



> So, your defence of the political content of the Sigma article is now grounded in the following evidence: Zero mention of 1989, and a single mention of the BNP in a quote from Cliff, which, incidentally doesn't talk about the BNP's "implosion" at all. You are reading a great man and his sub-standard followers soap opera narrative, fitting it into your own world view and then attributing your own political explanations to the article which contains nothing of the sort.


Are you inherently dishonest or just incapable of reading? I gave several clearly political judgements that come from that article, and you are simply ignoring them (because it suits your pisspoor argument to do so). The mention of the BNP isn't a quote from Cliff, it really does appear you have difficulty reading. It IS a disagreement with the official party line, isnt it? Same as the slating of the industrial strategy is political. The disagreements with the ISO are political.



> Why would I try and persuade you of that? If I was going to try to argue for one of Ted Grant's less than brilliant ideas, I'd pick a funnier one than that. Are you going to try to convince me of every one of the many and varied hair-brained notions Tony Cliff came out with?


I cant think of a single other contribution the SP made, I'm afraid.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> Oh gosh, if only I had the personality to be so superior and condescending. That would be just _lovely_


 
How entertaining to have someone launch into an entirely unprovoked rant about how I'm a cunt and then start whining about being condescended to in response.




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> Are you inherently dishonest or just incapable of reading? I gave several clearly political judgements that come from that article, and you are simply ignoring them (because it suits your pisspoor argument to do so). The mention of the BNP isn't a quote from Cliff, it really does appear you have difficulty reading. It IS a disagreement with the official party line, isnt it? Same as the slating of the industrial strategy is political.


 
The following is the only mention of the BNP in the Sigma article: "So, when Cliff and I spoke at a rally shortly before Tony Blair’s election, he declared his conviction that there would be “no honeymoon at all” for Blair – but “a race between the SWP and the BNP”, starting the very day after election night, to win over the myriads of rapidly frustrated Labour voters." This does not come after a discussion of fascism, or anti-fascist strategy, and it is not followed by one. The word fascism never appears at all in fact, nor fascists, far right, British National Party, etc. There is no mention at all of the collapse of Stalinism or "1989", nor is there anything much about industrial strategy, rank and fileism, the unions or anything closely related.

That you somehow managed to read this stuff into a 5,000 word article, largely concerned with the quality of Cliff's heirs and slightly squalid maneuvering in the international tendency, gives the conversation the slightly surreal edge of an argument with someone who thinks that there are messages from the Devil audible when you play Beatle's records backwards.

Either you are confusing the "Sigma" article with some other article or you are imagining things.



			
				belboid said:
			
		

> I cant think of a single other contribution the SP made, I'm afraid.


 
Some people wouldn't regard ignorance as a point of pride.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> I cant think of a single other contribution the SP made, I'm afraid.


 
The National Question, particularly as it applies to Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka and Nigeria.

The effects of the collapse of Stalinism on consciousness, something the great intellectuals of the IS tradition still haven't managed to get their heads around 24 years later (I guess they are busy?)

The move to the right of the ex-social democratic parties and the rise of new formations to name but a few.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> The lego bricks is a simple continuation of Lenin, who always said how workers had no problems being seen as cogs in the machine, because that is what we do every day.


 
I knew a bloke who built a lego recreation of that scene on the steps from Battleship Potemkin, but he used pirates for the sailors and stormtroopers for the guards and he didn't have a lego baby for the pram so he used Yoda.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 5, 2013)

This thread has given me a great idea: Trotskyist Top Trumps.

Each card represents a different Trot sect. The different values could be:

*Number of members at their peak
*Number of splits
*Number of ideological contributions to Marxist thought
*United fronts created
*Fashion (out of 10)


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

> Either you are confusing the "Sigma" article with some other article or you are imagining things.


i had just written a stunning retort to this outrageous nonsense.  But then realised I had managed to move onto the following article, and had pulled several of my points from that.   Ahem, sorry about that.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 5, 2013)

Player 1: "Workers Power, members 80"

Player 2: "Damn, AWL, 78 members."


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> The National Question, particularly as it applies to Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka and Nigeria.
> 
> The effects of the collapse of Stalinism on consciousness, something the great intellectuals of the IS tradition still haven't managed to get their heads around 24 years later (I guess they are busy?)
> 
> The move to the right of the ex-social democratic parties and the rise of new formations to name but a few.


are you kidding?  The SP were notoriously awful on Ireland, the analysis of Stalinism (in the run to to the demise and since) is laughable, and the rationale behind the move to the right is a combination of the obvious and the dubious as hell.


----------



## chilango (Mar 5, 2013)

mk12 said:


> This thread has given me a great idea: Trotskyist Top Trumps.
> 
> Each card represents a different Trot sect. The different values could be:
> 
> ...




Been done. Been discussed on here too. I had a homemade version back in 94 or so.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 5, 2013)

chilango said:


> Been done. Been discussed on here too. I had a homemade version back in 94 or so.


 
For fuck's sake. I'm never going to make it on Dragons' Den.


----------



## chilango (Mar 5, 2013)

mk12 said:


> For fuck's sake. I'm never going to make it on Dragons' Den.



What you need to do is a Trot version of World of Warcraft or FarmVille or something.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 5, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Player 1: "Workers Power, members 80"
> 
> Player 2: "Damn, AWL, 78 members.
> 
> Player 3. CPC 80 million...mine I think!"


 
Why not have marxist leninist top trumps? Obviouly trotskyists aren't going to do so well on the membership side when compared to some of their 3rd international cousins, but they should recover some ground when it comes to number of splits.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> are you kidding? The SP were notoriously awful on Ireland


 
How so?

(not that I accept your other criticisms either)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 5, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> How so?
> 
> (not that I accept your other criticisms either)


 
If you would like to discuss this subject please do it on another thread, this one is for discussing toys and games


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> How so?
> 
> (not that I accept your other criticisms either)


Shhh!  Dont mention the border!

But, yeah, another thread.


----------



## Random (Mar 5, 2013)

chilango said:


> What you need to do is a Trot version of World of Warcraft or FarmVille or something.


PetrogradVille: You start off with just one regional organiser and ten newspapers and have to set up branches and win Revolution Points by taking part in liberal single issue campaigns. Student branches are cheaper to set up, but give you fewer points.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 5, 2013)

That's pretty much Republic: The Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic:_The_Revolution


----------



## Random (Mar 5, 2013)

World of TrotCraft: you start off as a student member in the St Ives College of Fine Arts and have to eventually become powerful enough to travel though dangerous areas full of high-level enemies, like Washington and Cairo. An easy way to level up is to start by fighting imaginary opponents, like the Autonomists that Wizard Callinicos can magic up for you to spar against.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 5, 2013)




----------



## Random (Mar 5, 2013)

mk12 said:


>


 John Molyneux has finally shaved?


----------



## Random (Mar 5, 2013)

mk12 said:


> That's pretty much Republic: The Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic:_The_Revolution


That sounds amazing. Is it actually any good?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> i had just written a stunning retort to this outrageous nonsense. But then realised I had managed to move onto the following article, and had pulled several of my points from that.  Ahem, sorry about that.


 
No problem. I was beginning to think that either I was going mad or you were.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 5, 2013)

Random said:


> John Molyneux has finally shaved?


 
I was going to put a quote mentioning that name, but felt bad. 

It was OK - it was pretty slow on my old machine so it was virtually unplayable for me, but I'd like to give it another go.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> If you would like to discuss this subject please do it on another thread, this one is for discussing toys and games


 
Fair enough. I'll just say that Belboid may be confusing 'significant' with 'things that I agree with', an unfortunate mental tic of those coming from the IS tradition.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> are you kidding? The SP were notoriously awful on Ireland, the analysis of Stalinism (in the run to to the demise and since) is laughable, and the rationale behind the move to the right is a combination of the obvious and the dubious as hell.


 
And flirting with the Irps isn't being "awful on Ireland"?

In other news, my "It's complicated on Facebook" had a go at me the other day, "I suppose they're all defending the SWP on that awful Urban75 thing you read".

I replied thusly: "I venture to say I think not, madam, rather the reverse in fact".

I then leapt onto my personal goat and made good my escape (are we still doing the goat thing? I've been away for a few days).


----------



## Random (Mar 5, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> In other news, my "It's complicated on Facebook" had a go at me the other day, "I suppose they're all defending the SWP on that awful Urban75 thing you read".


 Sounds like she should meet up with bolshyboy's Tory in a support group


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 5, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Fair enough. I'll just say that Belboid may be confusing 'significant' with 'things that I agree with', an unfortunate mental tic of those coming from the IS tradition.


No belboid is right. Whether you agree with the Millies economist position on the National Question or not it certainly wasn't a significant contribution because it wasn't new. It's near as dammit identical to Rosa luxemburg's position as demolished by Lenin.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 5, 2013)

Random said:


> Sounds like she should meet up with bolshyboy's Tory in a support group


 
No, she hates Tories.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 5, 2013)




----------



## leyton96 (Mar 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It's near as dammit identical to Rosa luxemburg's position as demolished by Lenin.


 
Really? She predicted the IRA's campaign would be a complete failure almost as soon as it started? That an inability to understand conflicting national aspirations would result in greater divisions of the working class? That was perspicuous of her. 

Did she write anything on horse racing I could use down the bookies?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 5, 2013)

Seriously, put a sock in it. There have been a dozens of threads dominated by set piece squabbles about the national question in Ireland here and there will be dozens more. Save it for the next one.


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Really? She predicted the IRA's campaign would be a complete failure almost as soon as it started?


to for evidencing my earlier point


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 5, 2013)

Random said:


> That sounds amazing. Is it actually any good?


 
No it should have been but was really fiddly and tedious


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 5, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Fair enough. I'll just say that Belboid may be confusing 'significant' with 'things that I agree with', an unfortunate mental tic of those coming from the IS tradition.


 
Thinking that Militant weren't the sharpest tool in the box when it came to Irish politics is by no means confined to the IS tradition.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> i had just written a stunning retort to this outrageous nonsense.  But then realised I had managed to move onto the following article, and had pulled several of my points from that.   Ahem, sorry about that.


It is this sort of reasonableness that will get us a bad name. I have a good mind to report you


----------



## belboid (Mar 5, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> It is this sort of reasonableness that will get us a bad name. I have a good mind to report you


I'm sorry.


I mean, fuck you, fucker!


----------



## DrRingDing (Mar 5, 2013)

Wimmin take heed!

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=30740


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 5, 2013)

Random said:


> Sounds like she should meet up with bolshyboy's Tory in a support group


My Mrs don't do support groups. The social worker we were offered when our boy was born poorly was given short shrift. Working class Tory who doesn't need any help, not even mine


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 5, 2013)

Just read the Defence of Blogging piece by China and others. They're not even trying to help themselves. Whittering on about "Bakhtinian parade of memes and parodies" when people are furious at the sheer level of vitriol directed at the organisation and it's procedures doesn't suggest they understand the stakes.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 5, 2013)

the special conference in pictures
the aim





the constituency




the opposition






the danger




the central commitee




the loyalist


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 5, 2013)

So having read most of that I have to say the whole thing is very flat, most of it is bitty and tangential (though I'm sure my arguments have been a lot more hackish than most of the contributions) and even the angry pieces - from all sides - seem lacking shall we say in world historical stance taking. I'd like to think that's cause the faction arent playing fair, by refusing to talk about their differening perspectives to those of the cc (instead concentrating almost exclsuively on the procedural points) which in turn means loyalists have to aim at a submerged target. Or maybe it's just that everyone is bored with the whole thing and wants to get it over with ASAP which would be understandable. I did enjoy Talat's piece if only cause it had proper venom and made me reconsider the honest broker image of Stack. It was the only piece that made me sit up and think yes you know what there are definite ideological sides to this debate. But perhaps the mess that is the delta case is just so horrible that it's preventing that ideological schism from appearing. It will though, maybe it'll take months after the conference but it will.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So having read most of that I have to say the whole thing is very flat


 
Ever thought about taking up a hobby? It's never too late to learn to crochet....


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 6, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Ever thought about taking up a hobby? It's never too late to learn to crochet....


Thankfully Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider have just come out!


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 6, 2013)

all the negativity on this thread is what killed chavez....


----------



## JimW (Mar 6, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> all the negativity on this thread is what killed chavez....


If he'd earthed himself properly he'd be dancing a jig as we type.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So having read most of that I have to say the whole thing is very flat, most of it is bitty and tangential


 
Yes. There was very little worth reading in it from either side. And the shortness of the contributions probably had something to do with that - it renders everything slightly crude, and means that all kinds of logical jumps are made along with arguments by amalgam and caricature. It has neither the virtues of concision, due to the number of contributions, nor the virtues of fully elaborated argument.




			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> I did enjoy Talat's piece if only cause it had proper venom and made me reconsider the honest broker image of Stack.


 
It did have more passion to it than most, but there really wasn't much to it beyond that. I did enjoy her peddling some atrocity story about unnamed "older women" in unspecified branches being told they had nothing of interest to say by unnamed younger ones in the same article that gives out yards about the alleged "innuendo, rumour, half-truths, personal attacks, point scoring and inflated egotism" in the internet commentary of the oppositionists. In fact, quite a lot of her argument is laughably disingenuous.


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I did enjoy Talat's piece if only cause it had proper venom and made me reconsider the honest broker image of Stack.


are there two pieces?  Cos the one I jsut read was dire.  And I dont see what it had to do with Stack.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 6, 2013)

I think he was killed by the weight of Seymour's illusions in him. And yes it is a bit mean to use such a major event in Latin American politics as an excuse to pop at RS but what the fuck.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I did enjoy Talat's piece if only cause it had proper venom


so much venom it's an incoherent rant.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 6, 2013)

belboid said:


> are there two pieces?  Cos the one I jsut read was dire.  And I dont see what it had to do with Stack.


Oh it's terribly badly written but is full of passion and politics which made it stand out to me. The quoute about people dusting off their Women's Voice notes and haranguing  is Stack's no? And if her description of the session is accurate then Stack has adapted to the feminists a lot worse than I'd thought.

edit: yeah having checked his letter it's deffo Stack she's quoting and laying into.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh it's terribly badly written but is full of passion and politics which made it stand out to me. The quoute about people dusting off their Women's Voice notes and haranguing is Stack's no? And if her description of the session is accurate then Stack has adapted to the feminists a lot worse than I'd thought.
> 
> edit: yeah having checked his letter it's deffo Stack she's quoting and laying into.


 
Yes, that was aimed at Stack. It might be argued however that the tone of her article tends to provide some implicit support for Stack's point, even while her argument attacks it. Not that I've got anything against a bit of bile, mind you.


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2013)

aah yes,  and the 'healthy scepticism and distrust of all authority' was him too.  And her answer to that really is terrible!

As Nigel says, everything other than those particular words in that article rather supports Stacks claim more than hers


----------



## audiotech (Mar 6, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Thinking that Militant weren't the sharpest tool in the box when it came to Irish politics is by no means confined to the IS tradition.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
"Those that live by the gun shall die by the gun" was one classic I heard from a Militant supporter back in the day.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 6, 2013)

audiotech said:


> "Those that live by the gun shall die by the gun" was one classic I heard from a Militant supporter back in the day.


 
Take it elsewhere.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 6, 2013)

belboid said:


> aah yes, and the 'healthy scepticism and distrust of all authority' was him too. And her answer to that really is terrible!
> 
> As Nigel says, everything other than those particular words in that article rather supports Stacks claim more than hers


Can't agree at all with either of you. Up to now I've had this mental image of how the factions weigh up: a small hard rump of anti-IS iconoclasts who are protected by an ideologically sound but less disciplinarian faction who want to protect the former from expulsions by the cc majority. But Talat paints a very different picture. Branches full of people who've never been exposed to the tradition's ideas (as Chanie argues) telling experienced (and generally older) female comrades that the ideas of the 80's fights with socialist feminists aren't relevant. And that explains to me why RS in his first article on all this used the phrase about "dogmatic arguments from the 80's" to rally those people. In that context the faction around Stack and Birchall aren't saving the Platform from unnncessary sanctions they're helping a very large chunk of backward people attempt to push the inheritors of the tradition's most developed arguments into the background. That's less than acceptable.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 6, 2013)

A name check for urban on harrys place,


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 6, 2013)

There is a reason Talat couldn't find anyone else to sign her piece, and it is not "passion" or whatever: It's because (a) the piece isn't written in a way that could help build the party - part of a socialists job is persuading other people, not just mouthing off. and (b) The piece is full of holes. The CC have badly mishandled not one but two investigations into "rape" allegations. They can't defend this, so try and look for all sorts of "submerged" fights instead, but they are at least a bit careful with the nonsense they churn out. Not so Talat. She says "If a lie is repeated often enough it becomes a kind of ‘truth’"Indeed. She also says "X decided to stand down from the CC in October and this was printed in IB 1 in November. So he does not work for the party and is not paid by the party and everyone in the party knows this". This is wrong twice over (1)- "x" has a position with LMHR, so he has been found a berth in the Party's gift - if he really was removed from all full time or united front work, the CC could simply announce it and end the argument. But they haven't, they've done something silly and sly, and only Talat seems to be taken in and (2) X "deciding" to stand down was due to a dodgy stitch up by the CC which even the DC said was "wrong". The truth is, this row is precisely about the CC's mishandling of rape allegations - something very serious which can't be covered up with a lot of standard socialist waffle. The way the CC is digging in - the ones who haven't resigned or gone silent - does show deeper "submerged" issues - what kind of CC wants to have a fight about their right to badly mishandle investigations into allegations of rape ? - but it really starts with the shocking issue at hand.


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can't agree at all with either of you. Up to now I've had this mental image of how the factions weigh up: a small hard rump of anti-IS iconoclasts who are protected by an ideologically sound but less disciplinarian faction who want to protect the former from expulsions by the cc majority. But Talat paints a very different picture. Branches full of people who've never been exposed to the tradition's ideas (as Chanie argues) telling experienced (and generally older) female comrades that the ideas of the 80's fights with socialist feminists aren't relevant. And that explains to me why RS in his first article on all this used the phrase about "dogmatic arguments from the 80's" to rally those people. In that context the faction around Stack and Birchall aren't saving the Platform from unnncessary sanctions they're helping a very large chunk of backward people attempt to push the inheritors of the tradition's most developed arguments into the background. That's less than acceptable.


You have an odd way of reading then!

It is clear from Talat's article that at the relevant conference session newer women _were_ harangued by the older women - the fact that there were only two of them is irrelevant. From the lack of actual political argument in her article, I'd guess she (if not Sheila) didn't do a very good job at putting her argument forward.  The whole piece reads like me denouncing someone for claiming I swore at them - despite me obviously never dreaming of stooping to such foul abuse. As SS points out, the fact that she couldnt get anyone - not Sheila, not anyone in her own branch - to sign it shows she is rather isolated.  Frankly, it looks like she won the vote at last years conference, but lost the argument. And that they lost said argument after not really taking it that seriously.  If there were a whole stream of people making one set of arguments, to 'answer' them with a mere two is plain insulting 'oh, we dont need to spend much time on this, its just the same old stuff.'  Everything she writes completely and utterly backs up Stack.

And, again, him saying 'we need a _proper_ debate, where we argue openly, honestly and fairly' is hardly the same as him saying 'we need to change our policies to keep these people.'


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can't agree at all with either of you. Up to now I've had this mental image of how the factions weigh up: a small hard rump of anti-IS iconoclasts who are protected by an ideologically sound but less disciplinarian faction who want to protect the former from expulsions by the cc majority.


And here's how the factions line up, outside the mental world of those who believe in the infalible CC. A small hard rump of inflexible bureaucratic leaders, who are protected from the impact of their mistakes by a layer of staff and older members who have long forgotten - and in most cases who never knew - how to learn 'from the class'. Against them are veterans of the party who understand that circling the wagons will hurt the party badly, but who are driven by expediency rather than principle. And then there are another minority, who are young, less steeped in party culture and who have one great strength to compensate for any political weaknesses: they tell the truth. God love 'em. I hope they find a way to remain a coherent force after 10 March.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 6, 2013)

I have now read maybe a quarter of the thing and a couple of quick observations 

1, someone will be along in a minute to point out why I am wrong but I thought the contribution titled the Disputes committee case and our politics on Women was very good. 

2, There seems to be a bit of a concession offered over the dc case with this committe to look into have the dc works, I know this was already out there but a few of the loyalist contributions seem to be acknowledging that mistakes were made. 
3 Apparently the faction calling for a recall conference is undemocratic, but the CC tearing up the aggred student perspective is simply a sharp turn. 

Sorry for any errors and crap formating, posting from my phone.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 6, 2013)

What is this nonsense about Talat being isolated? Half the contributions don't have more than one signature so what? Not everyone needs their hand held when putting pen to paper. For what it's worth the prof has been putting up on fb this morning links to all the male benefits debates from the 80's ISJ between macgregor, German and Molyneux. Timely hey! And Sheila has been only too happy to comment and explain the relevance of those arguments to today's debates. She even had a little dig at harmans original article on womens oppression for not being explicit enough. Talat is far from isolated on these arguments, inside or outside the party. What is true is that there is a concerted move to undermine the intelectual heritage on these questions. Consciously pursued by the likes of Seymour and unwittingly (cause many of them don't know the heritage) taken up by many younger comrades.


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What is this nonsense about Talat being isolated? Half the contributions don't have more than one signature so what? Not everyone needs their hand held when putting pen to paper. For what it's worth the prof has been putting up on fb this morning links to all the male benefits debates from the 80's ISJ between macgregor, German and Molyneux. Timely hey! And Sheila has been only too happy to comment and explain the relevance of those arguments to today's debates. She even had a little dig at harmans original article on womens oppression for not being explicit enough. Talat is far from isolated on these arguments, inside or outside the party. What is true is that there is a concerted move to undermine the intelectual heritage on these questions. Consciously pursued by the likes of Seymour and unwittingly (cause many of them don't know the heritage) taken up by many younger comrades.


You seem to have difficulty understanding any of the arguments against the CC.  I dont think anyone would argue that Talat's basic position was widely supported by others in the party.  The question was whether they would support her vitriolic, clearly haranguing tone. Most seem to recognise that that tone is not in any way helpful (except to excite a few of those who weren't there, perhaps). 

And again, you miss the point of Stacks contribution (one supported, I assume, by a large part of the faction) that the problem with the previous debates wasn't that the CC politics were fundamentally wrong, it was that they made no serious attempt to convince opponents of their position.  It seems to have been - as Talat herself strongly implies - a simple denunciation of the younger comrades' views.

You do seem to be supporting the Prof's accidental comment earlier, that he wants to create a small Marxist party.  If that is all you want, well, it doesn't matter if you ride roughshod over opponents, because you still have a small Marxist party. And so brilliantly Marxist too!Not a spot of vacillation in sight.

But, as we both well know, the world does not need yet another small Marxist party.


----------



## chilango (Mar 6, 2013)

At least when Workers Power split we got memes.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 6, 2013)

A feminist group in Sheffield (which is heavily dominated by the AWL) are holding a protest outside the SWP's talk on women's liberation today


----------



## chilango (Mar 6, 2013)

J Ed said:


> A feminist group in Sheffield (which is heavily dominated by the AWL) are holding a protest outside the SWP's talk on women's liberation today


Pics?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 6, 2013)

chilango said:


> Pics?


 
Sorry, should have said are going to hold a protest - 

*JOIN THE PROTEST! 

The SWP are holding a public International Women's Day Event at the Showroom at 7pm today, where a member of their Central Committee will be speaking. A number of people will be protesting this event because we believe that the SWP (and particularly their Central Committee) have no right to speak about women's liberation until they have challenged their own institutional misogyny. 

We encourage others to join us, make their feelings known and ask the difficult questions which the CC are currently trying to dodge and bury.*


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2013)

J Ed said:


> A feminist group in Sheffield (which is heavily dominated by the AWL) are holding a protest outside the SWP's talk on women's liberation today


Jesus, i knew they were going (there has been a terrible discussion about it on the local IWW elist), but a 'formal' protest?


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 6, 2013)

belboid said:


> Jesus, i knew they were going (there has been a terrible discussion about it on the local IWW elist), but a 'formal' protest?


Black tie and dress dungarees?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 6, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Black tie and dress dungarees?


Yeah cause that's how all feminists dress, jeezus.


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2013)

belboid said:


> the Prof's accidental comment earlier, that he wants to create a small Marxist party.


Maybe tht comment wasn't so accidental after all. I was just flicking thru the marvellous Revolutionary Road to Socialism, where he writes explicitly that the SWP membership is 'unlikely to rise above a few thousand'. Limited aims indeed. 

What happened to Dave McNally and Pete Binns,btw? Just saw their names in the back of the book and realised I'd forgotten all about them. DMs Socialism from Below was a darn good read, iirr


----------



## rioted (Mar 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeah cause that's how all feminists dress, jeezus.


They've got no sense of humour, either.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 6, 2013)

Looking at the Internal Bulletin I  think you can treat the Talat piece much like the Donny G piece (although he has found a friend or two) or the Anna G “there’ll be more students next term “ piece (the latter so bad that it was withdrawn) – boneheaded screams or moans that are perfectly in tune with CC thought , but expressing it in such an embarrassing , unconvincing way that they appear on the fringe.

To understand what’s going on, I suggest concentrate on (1) The CC's own piece. It offers some discussion of ‘reform’ of the Disputes Committee in the future (but beware they also say that the Disputes Committee should be made even more secret as well). The main point there is “every member is bound to uphold and defend the decision of conference in any public forum in which it is discussed, including online. If these norms of party behaviour are breached, we expect comrades to support and defend disciplinary action up to and including expulsion to enforce the will of the party as a whole.”. So it means any SWP member who doesn’t “uphold” the justness off the disputes committee and the rightness of Comrade X, who moans about the kangaroo court or bad treatment of women bringing accusations – in any forum-  should be expelled. The CC commit everyone to defending them, when they have never actually defended the case themselves in any “forum” apart from leaning on members to shut up (unless you count Alex’s pathetic Socialist Review piece) . Apart from that, worth reading the pieces written (partly) by Comrade W herself and by Pat S. They show that Pat was trying to work with a Disputes Committee procedure that was designed to allow the CC to expel members. He tried to make it fairer for the members being expelled. Ironically this meant the one time a member went to the Disputes Committee to complain about one of the CC’s mates, it all went even more wrong. Pat S tried to make it fairer, but it doesn’t seem any of the other members of the Disputes Committee stepped in to help change the way the committee looked at this very difficult issue. The piece by Comrade W and others is pretty measured – but you really need to read it (P 46-7) and think, do you really believe all those assertions that the Committee was perfectly fine ?


----------



## SLK (Mar 6, 2013)

Edit: ignore that - mistaken!


----------



## neprimerimye (Mar 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can't agree at all with either of you. Up to now I've had this mental image of how the factions weigh up: a small hard rump of anti-IS iconoclasts who are protected by an ideologically sound but less disciplinarian faction who want to protect the former from expulsions by the cc majority. But Talat paints a very different picture. Branches full of people who've never been exposed to the tradition's ideas (as Chanie argues) telling experienced (and generally older) female comrades that the ideas of the 80's fights with socialist feminists aren't relevant. And that explains to me why RS in his first article on all this used the phrase about "dogmatic arguments from the 80's" to rally those people. In that context the faction around Stack and Birchall aren't saving the Platform from unnncessary sanctions they're helping a very large chunk of backward people attempt to push the inheritors of the tradition's most developed arguments into the background. That's less than acceptable.


 
You are talking out of your arse. And your apologias for the CC Faction are both noxious and in stark contradiction to the IS Tradition.

The entire opposition has been motivated and driven by one thing only to obtain revolutionary justice for comrades seen to have been wronged by Martin Smith and by a flawed system of disputes resolution. That last term is not exactly what i would like to convey in meaning but the nearest I can reach right now when I find myself angry at your idiocy.

Certainly there is a hard core of comrades who wish to resolve these cases in a manner that would provide justice for the comrades who have been wronged and would preserve the unity of the party. In the first instance this is the youth of the party and a number of well known public intellectuals. To suggest as you have more than once that this group has any other motivation or purpose is both false and insulting.

It is also wrong to claim that the comrades in question are seeking to revise the IS tradition on various questions and are ideologically alien to the SWP. In fact some of the comrades in this grouping are far more conversant with the IS Tradition than some members of the CC and certain of their camp followers. It is because they are loyal to the iconoclastic traditions of IS that they have been led to question not just the mismanagement of the CC of the cases concerning Martin Smith but other questions too. Are the answers they arrive at always right? Of course not but asking those questions is the right thing to do and it is the way IS developed. So one might not agree with say Seymour on Greece but at least he tries to think the bloody question through. (Although he is wrong on this one)

And again it is idiocy to suggest that the layers of comrades mentioned above are 'backward' and not among the chosen 'inheritors' of the traditions most developed arguments. Make no mistake it is the 'chosen', how curious that a true believer resorts to religious terminology, who are backward and who have inherited only the weakest aspects of the IS Tradition. It is the 'chosen' who have broken with the iconoclasm of IS and its opposition to substitutionism. Only the 'chosen' of the revolutionary party will be saved let all other abandon hope! Oh you pitiful pathetic joke!

Earlier today I learned that a comrade, Pete Shaw, who joined IS in 1971 resigned from the party. He was present at Saltley Gates and Orgreave and a member of the Unite rank and file Sparks committee. Must one conclude that he was a 'backward' element?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 7, 2013)

If you're gonna dump the contents of your colostomy bag all over the thread at least check what I've said first nep. Chosen is your word not mine. People like Sheila and Talat are inheritors (because they bloody well helped develop them) of a precious set of ideas which need defending against the backward mishmash of identity politics represented by Seymour. 

Its all about the method is it? Well not every iconoclast is a Widgery you know fella, sometimes they're just eclectic followers of every fad thrown up. And that's what RS is. An 'iconoclast' who adapts to Syriza and current feminist ideas isn't "bloody thinking things through" he's bolting random bits of other peoples quite fashionable - and not very iconoclastic at all - thoughts together. The ideas always need developing, absolutely. Developing not dumping. Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution for example takes the abc of Marx's theory of historical stages and shows how they can be combined in uneven ways at an international level. That's iconoclasm at its best, using the method and core ideas of the giants whose shoulders you stand on to account for novel developments. And sometimes you arrive at seemingly heretical conclusions, like whole countries skipping historical stages. That's essential and we need more of that iconoclastic method cause if all people did was defend unchanging ideas then the tradition would be dead on its feet. But looking around for any old bits and pieces of theory that you can stick in the pot with Marxism and see what comes out is the other side of the coin of conservatism. It's what you do when you can't see how to develop your own ideas and settle for having a bit of everyone's. The proof is in the pudding and the fact is RS nearly always gets these things wrong. I'm all for constructive revolutions within the tradition but the inability of this opposition to actually say anything of substance beyond the disciplinary case gives the lie to your claims for it.

And once again, MS is guilty. Cause you say he has been seen to have done wrong. QED then, no need for a disciplinary process at all.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> People like Sheila and Talat are inheritors (because they bloody well helped develop them) of a precious set of ideas which need defending.


I rather think that Barker, Birchall and Stack had, at the very least, as much to do with the development of those ideas than those two.

And 'seen to be' is not the same as 'is'


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

without going through the whole thing myself....

does any contributor dare to bring up the fact that the party is shariking and has been for years?

or the role of sean matgamna et al in introducing DC and 'leninism' into the party in the first place?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> I rather think that Barker, Birchall and Stack had, at the very least, as much to do with the development of those ideas than those two.
> 
> And 'seen to be' is not the same as 'is'


Yes these ideas are theirs too, all the more reason to defend them and not celebrate an empty iconoclasm.

The faction says the women need justice for what's 'seen' but also say the case is closed. Which is it?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> Maybe tht comment wasn't so accidental after all. I was just flicking thru the marvellous Revolutionary Road to Socialism, where he writes explicitly that the SWP membership is 'unlikely to rise above a few thousand'. Limited aims indeed.
> 
> What happened to Dave McNally and Pete Binns,btw? Just saw their names in the back of the book and realised I'd forgotten all about them. DMs Socialism from Below was a darn good read, iirr


Not sure what happened to those two but yes there are a lot of names who have disappeared who leave a huge gap.

On limited aims. Surely anyone who's ever listened to the Redskins album has heard Cliff say breathlessly "this side of a socialist revolution, the revolutionaries are a minority."


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> What happened to Dave McNally and Pete Binns,btw? Just saw their names in the back of the book and realised I'd forgotten all about them. DMs Socialism from Below was a darn good read, iirr


 
I presume that's the same McNally who is a leader of the New Socialist Group in Canada. Which is to say he was involved in a more "libertarian" split from the IST years ago. Unsurprisingly that DMcN has been putting the boot into the CC faction on facebook.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm all for constructive revolutions within the tradition but the inability of this opposition to actually say anything of substance beyond the disciplinary case gives the lie to your claims for it.


 
all kinds of things are being said beyond the disciplinary. all the core IS oppositionists have been all over soviet goon boy's postings on the history and theory of the tradition, the nature of democracy, the history of the Bolshevik party and the bastardized, undemocratic tradition adopted by the SWP. you shouldn't confuse the entire opposition with the leadership of IDOOP (who are indeed guilty of what you say) with the broader membership of the faction who still have their ears open to a whole raft of ex-SWP and current SWP voices. the evidence is all over the web and easy to find - despite IDOOP's stupid commitment to limiting their conversations to internal party mechanisms still utterly controlled by the apparatus.

where i would tend to agree with you over nep is that i think the opposition is layered and chequered, and amongst its elements there are indeed some of the best elements of IS culture and tradition (who to a certain extent are pursuing their own discourses on future plans of action) as well as a whole generation of mainly youngsters who have indeed had their theoretical education defined by Lenin's Tomb over the past 10 years. then there are also a bunch of mild reformists based primarily around the apparatus in London (the core leadership of IDOOP) with incredibly limited objectives and no theoretical perspective whatsoever.



> And once again, MS is guilty. Cause you say he has been seen to have done wrong. QED then, no need for a disciplinary process at all.


 
'Delta', 'MS', or whatever we're calling him now is _at the very least_ guilty of harassment, for which he was removed from his post in the CC 2 years ago. his behaviour, by any rational account, was not acceptable for a member of the party and he personally has presided over the expulsions of many others for far less.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

This IS tradition - a commitment to cliff's version of state capitalism, a commitment to argue that military keynsianism used to be central to post-war capital, that in the same period that revolutions could become deflected permanent revolutions - what else?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> I cant think of a single other contribution the SP made, I'm afraid.


 
There was also the thing about big bang theory being wrong cos it was undialectical 

I assume that's one of the funnier ones nigel was talking about.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> There was also the thing about big bang theory being wrong cos it was undialectical


Have you read Alan Woods and Ted Grants dialectical reading of the history of philosophy? Bordiga, of course, decided that space travel was dialectiaclly impossible in the 50s.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> a commitment to argue that military keynsianism used to be central to post-war capital,


 
Ooo I think I finally understand a bit ... is that saying that wars are actually profitable and therefore worth while? If so then Normal Angel argued against that with The Great Illusion in 1912. My dad had the board game  .


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yes these ideas are theirs too, all the more reason to defend them and not celebrate an empty iconoclasm.


Ideas aren't like shoes, you can't leave them under the bed for years and hope they'll still fit you. They have to develop or they will die. Sheila and Talat are treating them like wholly writ. I'd have thought any discussion would leave them 99.742% in place, but those little changes still help the ideas grow, and prosper. 



> The faction says the women need justice for what's 'seen' but also say the case is closed. Which is it?


Justice through a thorough reassessment of procedures and the sex pest standing down. It's not rocket science.


----------



## andysays (Mar 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> There was also the thing about big bang theory being wrong cos it was undialectical
> 
> I assume that's one of the funnier ones nigel was talking about.


 
I can't believe anyone is claiming the depiction of the relationships between Sheldon, Leonard, Penny etc is anything other than dialectical 

Nigel, would you like to clarify?


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This IS tradition - a commitment to cliff's version of state capitalism, a commitment to argue that military keynsianism used to be central to post-war capital, that in the same period that revolutions could become deflected permanent revolutions - what else?


Not even them, necessarily. As Lukacs taught us, the key thing is the method, rather than the specifics. The IS tradition is (according to Hallas at least) simply that the emancipation if the working class is the act of the working class, no one can do it for them. Thus, anti labourism, state cap, permrev deflected, all flow from that. 

Oh, and a healthy disregard for 'tradition'


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have you read Alan Woods and Ted Grants dialectical reading of the history of philosophy? Bordiga, of course, decided that space travel was dialectiaclly impossible in the 50s.


 
I haven't, no - will have to take a look 

The big bang dialectical madness has thankfully been completely abandoned now - and in a recent book they published on science and the big bang the blurb on the back might as well have said, 'it was well mental, sorry about that.'


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> Not even them, necessarily. As Lukacs taught us, the key thing is the method, rather than the specifics. The IS tradition is (according to Hallas at least) simply that the emancipation if the working class is the act of the working class, no one can do it for them. Thus, anti labourism, state cap, permrev deflected, all flow from that.
> 
> Oh, and a healthy disregard for 'tradition'


So it's essentially a mirage - it doesn't really exist beyond all sides in a faction fight trying to use it to batter each other with in fight to the death to _save it._

And "the emancipation if the working class is the act of the working class" surely isn't a method is it, it's a slogan. And one that has been used for example to support auto-labourism and anti-labourism, one that has been used to support the results of deflected perm rev, state capitalism and so on.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I haven't, no - will have to take a look
> 
> The big bang dialectical madness has thankfully been completely abandoned now - and in a recent book they published on science and the big bang the blurb on the back might as well have said, 'it was well mental, sorry about that.'


Don;t know why i said Alan Woods and Ted Grants dialectical reading of the history of philosophy there, i meant Alan Woods and Ted Grants dialectical reading of the history of science.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This IS tradition - a commitment to cliff's version of state capitalism, a commitment to argue that military keynsianism used to be central to post-war capital, that in the same period that revolutions could become deflected permanent revolutions - what else?


 
as belboid says, none of them so far as i'm concerned. the primary aspect, certainly amongst those who are discussing things currently, is the cultural atmosphere and approach of the IS rather than any specific canonical sacrement. if there's any integral text denoting the nature of the IS tradition it's probably Hallas 'Two Souls of Socialism'

edit: corrected below, i meant Hal Draper


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> as belboid says, none of them so far as i'm concerned. the primary aspect, certainly amongst those who are discussing things currently, is the cultural atmosphere and approach of the IS rather than any specific canonical sacrement. if there's any integral text denoting the nature of the IS tradition it's probably Hallas 'Two Souls of Socialism'


You mean Hal Draper?

So this tradition effectively just dissappears when questioned and becomes an atmosphere? And one that the IS uniquely produced? So why are we sitting here having this thread then?

I'm sure BB can actually outline what the tradition is in clear political terms - which is the CC is going to win.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 7, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Ooo I think I finally understand a bit ... is that saying that wars are actually profitable and therefore worth while? If so then Normal Angel argued against that with The Great Illusion in 1912. My dad had the board game  .


 
not quite! more that a 'military-industrial complex' emerged post-war with so much investment into weaponry, hardware etc that it took up the function of Keynesian 'pyramid building' post-war... only unlike pyramid building, making military hardware doesn't leave behind any denotable social 'value' (that military spending is essentially waste spending - what is created can only either go into cold storage or be used to destroy existing human or social capital). the ramifications of this being an institutionalised arms trade upon which the world economy was reliant for the continued circulation of capital, necessitating the continued development and production of weaponry, which in turn needed to be sold encouraging pointless conflicts in the third world and influencing the arms race with the SU, etc etc etc...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You mean Hal Draper?
> 
> So this tradition effectively just dissappears when questioned and becomes an atmosphere? And one that the IS uniquely produced? So why are we sitting here having this thread then?
> 
> I'm sure BB can actually outline what the tradition is in clear political terms - which is the CC is going to win.


 yes i mean hal draper! and it's more about the operating principles of the former IS, and they're of interest to the opposition because many of them were actively involved in that organisation and so it's understandably their point of reference


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Don;t know why i said Alan Woods and Ted Grants dialectical reading of the history of philosophy there, i meant Alan Woods and Ted Grants dialectical reading of the history of science.


 
Do you mean this one?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> yes i mean hal draper! and it's more about the operating principles of the former IS, and they're of interest to the opposition because many of them were actively involved in that organisation and so it's understandably their point of reference


I'm genuinely not being funny or awkward, but what on earth does this mean? How does this 'thing' translate into politics? If the IS tradition really boils down to being nice and not nasty _like we used to be (_which really isn't even true_)_ then it isn't a tradition at all, so why the febrile defence of it by all sides in this dispute?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Do you mean this one?


Yep.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep.


 
I've not read it all (just the chapter on the big bang) but I fully intend to, looks like absolute gold to me, must be stuff in there that can be adapted for the PD blog.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> yes i mean hal draper! and it's more about the operating principles of the former IS, and they're of interest to the opposition because many of them were actively involved in that organisation and so it's understandably their point of reference


Without a series of positions to defend  - to say they they are a result of the workings of the IS tradition they defend  - they are being/going to get massacred.They haven't got those positions. And they can't really have those positions anyway because the really existing IS tradition will not allow them to develop within the party. They hung themselves with this IS tradition nonsense.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 7, 2013)

it is more than that. some of the defence i will grant you is emotive and symbolic - 'where the organisation really started' is quite a useful prop to claim in an internal flare up, tradition flexes an innate authority in most debates (it has an 'actually existing' point of reference!)

but then there are some theoretical themes which are central... the two souls of socialism approach, for example, links into the IS's core theorisations on operating within Trade Unions (utterly ignored by the SWP for 20+ years or so) that the basis for organisation should not be focussed around seizing institutional control, but in converting individuals on the factory floor into actual communist and socialist workers. hence the traditional ban on holding bureaucratic union positions which used to be enforced (i couldn't tell you when it was that dissolved but the period has a legendary status within the party in certain circles, whispered down the generations like a voice on the wind). the approach was more broadly instituted in the IS's broader work too, and imo yielded some significant successes (particularly prior to Cliff's 'student turn')

the approach also aided a generally exciting intellectual atmosphere within the organisation from many accounts, and was partially responsible for the organisation's interesting 'post-Trot' analyses of Luxembourg and Gramsci which i think still have lots of merit, even if the conclusions reached in the party's traditional literature aren't massively complex (i think the tradition began to intellectually decline before much further work was incorporated).


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Without a series of positions to defend - to say they they are a result of the workings of the IS tradition they defend - they are being/going to get massacred.They haven't got those positions. And they can't really have those positions anyway because the really existing IS tradition will not allow them to develop within the party. They hung themselves with this IS tradition nonsense.


 
i think they'll still form the basis for something interesting post-party, but only if they throw themselves open to new 'forces'


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm genuinely not being funny or awkward, but what on earth does this mean? How does this 'thing' translate into politics? If the IS tradition really boils down to being nice and not nasty _like we used to be (_which really isn't even true_)_ then it isn't a tradition at all, so why the febrile defence of it by all sides in this dispute?


 
Because being vanguardists the fight has to be over the party; it's a fight for the real party the one that stands in the genuine tradition (however invented/empty that tradition is).

Trying to define the tradition and the party in terms of the self emancipation of the working class is an intellectually dishonest nonsense; if the defining characteristic of socialism is the revolutionary transformation of society through self-emancipation of the working class, then it makes no sense to proscribe the organisational form the working class must employ. If they need a Leninist vanguard party then they'll make it, if not they won't.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. I'm not meaning to lecture you...rather I'm thinking out loud.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

The two souls of socialism is the key-start point for schatmanite third campism (that's who it was written for, not the IS). So to use this is to say that the IS tradition is shared by groups not in the IS tradition, the tradition again sort of doesn't exist if defined by this - and the _really existing_ operations of the IS post 68 never actually operated along the lines that draper outlined judging by the writings of the key players, except apart from when they were_ imposed on Cliff and co_, i.e when there was an influx of manufacturing or industrial workers they couldn't boss around (at least not straight away).

The intellectual stuff was also not a unique result of any IS tradition, it was part of a broad re-interpretation of revolutionary history and theory following 1968 (not that i can put my finger on anything intellectually substantial or original from the party on these people you mention anyway - good useful general intros, sure but they are ten a penny and nothing to base a tradition on).


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i think they'll still form the basis for something interesting post-party, but only if they throw themselves open to new 'forces'


Well i really do hope so, and i hope part of that new start is the questioning of the idea of an IS tradition - or they might as well call themselves, The Real SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

Herbert Morrison - Socialism is what a Labour government does.
Alex Callinicos - International Socialism is what the SWP CC does.

Not ground that any opposition could ever win on.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 7, 2013)

If the IS tradition were reducible to the self emancipation of the working class and an exciting intellectual athmosphere then life would be a lot simpler. Certainly they're grand things to live by but sorry they're not sufficient by a long chalk. Both those things were a necessary corrective to the previous ortho trot and stalinoid left. But what this account of the IS omits is the massively hard headed materialist analysis that the best people operating in it insist on. A metrialism applied to the economy, the state, workers organisations and crucially, given the current debates, questions of oppression. A one sided self emancipation credo would and did suggest Womens Voice and Flame. A materialist analysis, rooted in class and the capitalist division of labour, such as people like Sheila developed on male benefits in the 80's gives you a very different answer. Telling one side of the IS story and that side only can be used to justify all sorts of concessions to movementism and voluntarism today but that's not exactly honest accounting.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> A one sided self emancipation credo would and did suggest Womens Voice and Flame.


only if you ignore the class part!  By simply recognising the dominance of class as the key factor in society, it does straightforwardly support that materialist analysis.  Everything flows from it.  Of course, it could flow in a variety of ways, but the centrality of class is always the starting point.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

The centrality of class does not simply or necessarily equal a politics based on self emancipation of the working class though . A seemingly minor point, but one absolutely key to the whole post-1917 leninist and trot traditions - including the famous IS _atmosphere_.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

J Ed said:


> *JOIN THE PROTEST!*
> 
> *The SWP are holding a public International Women's Day Event at the Showroom at 7pm today, where a member of their Central Committee will be speaking. A number of people will be protesting this event because we believe that the SWP (and particularly their Central Committee) have no right to speak about women's liberation until they have challenged their own institutional misogyny. *
> 
> *We encourage others to join us, make their feelings known and ask the difficult questions which the CC are currently trying to dodge and bury.*


apparently the AWL and (ex) CPGB were barred from this 'public' meeting.  This led to a standoff within the cinema, almost fisticuffs and a threat of a barring to all leftie groups using the venue again!  The barrred people were still standing around an hour and a half after the meeting was meant to start, for the purposes of......fuck knows.

The SWPs there didnt look very happy.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The centrality of class does not simply or necessarily equal a politics based on self emancipation of the working class though . A seemingly minor point, but one absolutely key to the whole post-1917 leninist and trot traditions - including the famous IS _atmosphere_.


absolutely true, but the self-emancipation does imply the centrality.

And I must say, I dont know where this 'atmosphere' thing comes from.  Sounds like tosh to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

Was this the first ant-mysoginy picket that you've been on since the infamous one?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 7, 2013)

> the famous IS _atmosphere_.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

I think Joy Division's cover of the same song is more apt for advanced layers today:


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Was this the first ant-mysoginy picket that you've been on since the infamous one?


I didnt go!  

I was in the screen next door, watching A Canterbury Tale.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> I didnt go!
> 
> I was in the screen next door, watching A Canterbury Tale.


Not picketing _glueman_?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think Joy Division's cover of the same song is more apt for advanced layers today:




Sand people travel single file to hide their numbers.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 7, 2013)

Martin Hannett and a gun.


> They were a gift to a producer, because they didn't have a clue....


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> only if you ignore the class part! By simply recognising the dominance of class as the key factor in society, it does straightforwardly support that materialist analysis. Everything flows from it. Of course, it could flow in a variety of ways, but the centrality of class is always the starting point.


Well no at best you'd arrive at the socialist feminist argument that working class women need to emancipate themselves from working class men. As only women are oppressed, not men (although they are exploited) then only women can self emancipate from oppression while all workers can self emancipate from exploitation. The socialist feminists will apply class to the point of saying ruling class women aren't part of the solution but they can't easily, just from the logic of self emancipation argue for working class men being part of the solution either. Only a deeper argument about the role ofthe family within the capitalist division of labour gets you to that point. And that's where the IS parted company with the left feminists and where Seymour with his concessions to patriarchy theory sides with them. And that debate can't be decided by just referring to the party's tradition of working class self emancipation. You need a more thorough going materialist analysis to get to that. There are plenty of left traditions which value the self activity of the working class but don't share a Marxist analysis of oppression. This really deserves a separate discussion but as we're talking tradition I don't feel too bad for waffling.

Sheila McGregor put it much better than I am 28 years ago: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/1985/no2-030/mcgregor.html


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 7, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> There was also the thing about big bang theory being wrong cos it was undialectical


This idea comes from Engels, who on a priori grounds argued that the universe could not have had a beginning. Is he obviously wrong? Doesn't Hawkings make a case for saying that because time changes towards a singularity it is no more valid to treat the Big Bang as the start of everything than to treat the North Pole as different to any other point on the Earth's surface?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2013)

There is no distinct IS tradition of any substance. It's Trotskyism with three ideas (of dubious original merit and almost no current application) tacked on and the idea of a programme abandoned in favour of party-building oriented "flexibility". The rest is just so much self-regard.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> This idea comes from Engels, who on a priori grounds argued that the universe could not have had a beginning. Is he obviously wrong?


 
The issue isn't that the Big Bang Theory is unassailable, nor that the various other scientific ideas Woods and Grant argued against should be treated as holy writ. The issue is that attempting to disprove significant elements of modern science on the grounds that they don't agree with our metaphysics rather than on scientific grounds is madness. It is religious thinking plain and simple.

It's worth noting, by the way, that Militant never actually adopted Grant's ideas on science, although he did present them at educational meetings, summer camps etc from time to time. Where they tended to get a rather mixed reception.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There is no distinct IS tradition of any substance. It's Trotskyism with three ideas (of dubious original merit and almost no current application) tacked on and the idea of a programme abandoned in favour of party-building oriented "flexibility". The rest is just so much self-regard.


 
Which of the socialist groups would you say had the most coherent set of ideas?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2013)

By the way, I saw a reference on facebook to an apparently rather hair raising 1950s article on homosexuality by Chanie Rosenberg. Has anyone seen or read this?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Which of the socialist groups would you say had the most coherent set of ideas?


 
Lots of groups have more or less coherent ideas, which is different from having ideas so distinctive as to constitute a "tradition" of substance, and different again from having ideas that are any bloody good to anyone.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> By the way, I saw a reference on facebook to an apparently rather hair raising 1950s article on homosexuality by Chanie Rosenberg. Has anyone seen or read this?


Oh god yes. Tatchell reprints it in A Queer Reader. I think sewers get a mention.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> Oh god yes. Tatchell reprints it in A Queer Reader. I think sewers get a mention.


 
Was it originally from Socialist Review?


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The issue is that attempting to disprove significant elements of modern science on the grounds that they don't agree with our metaphysics rather than on scientific grounds is madness.


Well, yes except that I wouldn't detach science completely from politics. And Lenin, Trotsky, etc certainly took an interest in the subject and offered opinions on certain debates (e.g. the turgid Monism and Empirico-Criticism). This isn't entirely off topic since an early sign of the rot at the top of the SWP was the expulsion of Andy Wilson in part for pointing out that John Rees's supposed expertise in the dialectic did not extend beyond a reading of Lukacs.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Was it originally from Socialist Review?


Not sure, I think it was an internal thing. Annoyingly, I can't find my copy of the Tatchell book, but it must be around somewhere - I'll keep looking!


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The issue is that attempting to disprove significant elements of modern science on the grounds that they don't agree with our metaphysics rather than on scientific grounds is madness. It is religious thinking plain and simple.


I've just remembered an RCP meeting from the eighties, insisting chaos theory was wrong, because it would mean we couldn't have a planned economy.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well no at best you'd arrive at the socialist feminist argument that working class women need to emancipate themselves from working class men. As only women are oppressed, not men (although they are exploited) then only women can self emancipate from oppression while all workers can self emancipate from exploitation. The socialist feminists will apply class to the point of saying ruling class women aren't part of the solution but they can't easily, just from the logic of self emancipation argue for working class men being part of the solution either. Only a deeper argument about the role of the family within the capitalist division of labour gets you to that point. And that's where the IS parted company with the left feminists and where Seymour with his concessions to patriarchy theory sides with them. And that debate can't be decided by just referring to the party's tradition of working class self emancipation. You need a more thorough going materialist analysis to get to that. There are plenty of left traditions which value the self activity of the working class but don't share a Marxist analysis of oppression. This really deserves a separate discussion but as we're talking tradition I don't feel too bad for waffling.


 
I don't have a position either way on your waffle.

But we shouldn't forget the real reason Women's Voice was closed down. As Lindsey German put it in the main SWP text on women's issues for years _Sex, Class and Socialism:_

_"Women’s Voice, far from winning a layer of women ‘put off’ by male-dominated organisation towards a revolutionary party, was itself becoming a bridge out of the party.” _(p224)

ie we had to destroy the actual women's organisation to save the women's organisation.

Others might also argue. On matters of internal democracy, the score was: women's liberation groups 1 - 0 SWP. Women started seeing this (via more interaction due to Women's Voice) and began leaving crucially _they still retained their socialist principles and a socialist worldview_.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 7, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I don't have a position either way on your waffle.
> 
> But we shouldn't forget the real reason Women's Voice was closed down. As Lindsey German put it in the main SWP text on women's issues for years _Sex, Class and Socialism:_
> 
> ...


Aha silenced you almost!

But come on. You're saying it's wrong for a revolutionary to argue its a bad thing for separate women's org to take women out of revolutionary politics? what else would she have said?!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> Justice through a thorough reassessment of procedures and the sex pest standing down. It's not rocket science.


Sorry missed this earlier. So he is a sex pest not seen as one?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> _But come on. You're surprised that a revolutionary would say it was a bad thing for separate women's orgs to take people away from revolutionary_


 
1. Women's Voice was a women's section_._ It still did everything that other parts of the SWP did, but also tackled some specific problems exactly how its Bengali and black British sections/papers did.

_2._ Many would see women's liberation groups as revolutionary. Women's Voice didn't take people away from revolutionary politics. The SWP simply mobilised against the kernel of members having a different understanding of internal democracy (not for the first time, see the Red Action expulisons). Nothing wrong with that but let's simply be more honest about it.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry missed this earlier. So he is a sex pest not seen as one?


in  my opinion, he absolutely is.  and i suspect you know it too


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Was it originally from Socialist Review?


Yes it was! December 1957. The book was rather easier to find when I remembered that it wasn't a hardback, or edited by Peter Tatchell. Sewers dont get a mention, the only bit reprinted goes:

"It is only when there is complete equality between the sexes in all respects, beginning with economic equality between the sexes and extending through al aspects of life ... that homosexuality would disapear naturally. If nature then produced an abnormality, which it might do in a number of cases, medical treatment would take good care of it"

(C. Dallas, Equality)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2013)

Bloody hell belboid, that is indeed some rum stuff.

On another note, Nick Cohen has been announcing on twitter that there's a new SWP story in the papers tomorrow. Almost as if they timed it for maximum impact, assuming he's telling the truth.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> On another note, Nick Cohen has been announcing on twitter that there's a new SWP story in the papers tomorrow. Almost as if they timed it for maximum impact, assuming he's telling the truth.


a few people getting very excited about it...

new sovietgoonboy post too.  tho that one is less interesting


----------



## discokermit (Mar 7, 2013)

belboid said:


> new sovietgoonboy post too. tho that one is less interesting


i thought it was quite good. the quote from the prof's great grandad made me laugh.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i thought it was quite good. the quote from the prof's great grandad made me laugh.


there's nowt actively wrong with it, it just seemed rather like a retread of other posts.  S/he's clearly been saving the quote for a while now


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2013)

Apparently the faction have 535 or so members, only a little short of the CC non-faction, but they got walloped at the majority of aggregates and will have 120 or so delegates.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

Yeah 500 or so delegates for loyalists and 20 odd undecided.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

Main question now is if the CC go blood crazy or if they try to play the suddenly magnanimous divide and conquer card. Their ability to reign in some of the frothing sorts amongst their support has to be in a bit of doubt.

Also the Weekly Worker claims there was an attendance of 90 at the London Revolt! event, which is absolutely dire if true.


----------



## treelover (Mar 8, 2013)

How many were at the anti-SWP protest?


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 8, 2013)

Hurray for International Women's Day!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Hurray for International Women's Day!


Well said!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

Cohen is now saying it'll be tomorrow.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 8, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Hurray for International Women's Day!


 
Further to the discussion up thread about Steve Hedley (parallels here with SWP case and how it was handled) - she's chosen IWD to go public:
http://carolineleneghan.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/3/


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 8, 2013)

... and with great timing the RMT launches a model domestic violence policy.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 8, 2013)

do as we say not as we do


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 8, 2013)

this is fucked.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 8, 2013)

SP member too - not sure what steps they have taken to investigate, and with what result


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Cohen is now saying it'll be tomorrow.


_hoping_ its tomorrow, it looks like. Sounds as if the lawyers are less convinced of his accuracy than David Osler or Anna Chen.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 8, 2013)

"When I raised the assault with the union, I was subjected to what is known as as ‘victim blaming’. I was distressed and astonished at the questions I was asked and the investigating officer displayed a total lack of respect and sensitivity, and a lack of understanding of domestic violence. The investigator tried to make a link between my mental health and the assault and deemed it appropriate to inquire about my personal history, but has not deemed it necessary to look into Steve’s, despite the fact that it is his behaviour that is being called into question and not mine. The investigatior attempted to focus his attention on anything about me which could exonerate or mitigate Steve’s behaviour.

I was also shocked that the investigator asked to explain how someone of Steve Hedley’s build and proficient at boxing did not cause me more injuries. The investigator also accused me of causing the injuries myself. It is outrageous that when a woman reports an assault it would be considered feasible that she severely beat up her own face and further to also attempt to make a link with her mental health is collusion with the tactics of manipulation that abusers use to silence their victims. I felt degraded and that I had done something ‘wrong’ in reporting the attack.

These actions contribute to a culture where perpetrators of violence are never punished for their behaviour. It is a well known fact that women do not come forward when they have faced abuse because they fear the treatment they will get. Since receiving help from Victim Support I have learnt that it is common for perpetrators of domestic abuse to deflect blame for their actions onto their victims and attempting to discredit their claims and to shame them into remaining silent."

The similarities between this case and the delta one are striking and disturbing. I am angry but less than surprised by the response of my old union


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 8, 2013)

(a) BBC Daily Politics (Andrew Neil & co) saying they will cover "Socialist Worker’s Party have been consumed by scandal involving a senior party figure and allegations of rape" today . (b)I would think the potential Guardian piece Nick Cohen refers to won't be written by him  - note that (1) He isn't a Guardian journalist  and (2) He said in his piece on the Spectator website that "My colleagues are working on more stories" on this issue - "my colleagues" = Guardian journalists. The case he referred to in his Spectator piece, which he suggested was passed to the Guardian, is real, and is acknowledged in the CC's own report to the IB, although only in passing. But there are always legal issues about how a story is presented. They may of course have other stories as well.


----------



## treelover (Mar 8, 2013)

on now...
 apparently, the SWP ''don't talk to the bourgois media''

oh, the ironing, biggest media whores going...


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 8, 2013)

That was as expected, but interesting as AN et al can't understand why the left is so marginal during this 'crisis of capitalism'


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> SP member too - not sure what steps they have taken to investigate, and with what result


 



articul8 said:


> SP member too - not sure what steps they have taken to investigate, and with what result


 
I've just asked a fulltimer to find out what the centre's doing about it. I'll wait to hear back before I say anything more about what I think _should _be done but obviously I think this needs to be taken very seriously indeed.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> (a) BBC Daily Politics (Andrew Neil & co) saying they will cover "Socialist Worker’s Party have been consumed by scandal involving a senior party figure and allegations of rape" today .


have they announced where the conference will be? sounds like there be an actual media scrum outside of it


----------



## treelover (Mar 8, 2013)

now they will need hired hands...


----------



## chilango (Mar 8, 2013)

Coup de grace.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> SP member too - not sure what steps they have taken to investigate, and with what result


 
As I understand it, they took the entirely appropriate approach of getting out of the way and letting competent investigative authorities look into it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> have they announced where the conference will be? sounds like there be an actual media scrum outside of it


 
If they want to, it would take them about five minutes to find out where. There really aren't all that many public halls for 700 people available for rent in London.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As I understand it, they took the entirely appropriate approach of getting out of the way and letting competent investigative authorities look into it.


 


> In the past week my case against him was dropped by the police due to falling foul of their timescale for submitting a complaint. Steve has made an official statement to the RMT that the case was dropped and he was found innocent and exonerated. This is completely untrue. The investigating officer said the CPS would not prosecute because the incident had not happened in the past 6 months. Furthermore, I have been told that, had I reported it within 6 months, they would have had enough evidence to charge him with common assault. But due to the lapse in time, they instead had to arrest him on suspicion of ABH. However, the CPS sets a very high bar for chances of conviction (I was informed that they will only bring forward to trial cases that they believe have a 90 per cent chance of conviction).


 
So, now there seems to be a decision not to prosecute what will the SP do?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> So, now there seems to be a decision not to prosecute what will the SP do?


 
What do you think they should do, in the wake of a police investigation (which seems to have resulted in a decision not to prosecute) and an RMT investigation (of thus far undisclosed outcome)? Are you suggesting that ever less competent bodies, with ever less to do with the allegation and ever less power to do anything significant about it should launch new investigations until a certain outcome is achieved?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2013)




----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What do you think they should do, in the wake of a police investigation (which seems to have resulted in a decision not to prosecute) and an RMT investigation (of thus far undisclosed outcome)? Are you suggesting that ever less competent bodies, with ever less to do with the allegation and ever less power to do anything significant about it should launch new investigations until a certain outcome is achieved?


 
It's not up to me what the SP does, and it's a question, perhaps you can answer it?. Or i'll make it easier for you, what would you like the SP to do now?  Or are you content that because the authorities haven't prosecuted because of a time lapse then that is the end of the matter?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What do you think they should do, in the wake of a police investigation (which seems to have resulted in a decision not to prosecute) and an RMT investigation (of thus far undisclosed outcome)? Are you suggesting that ever less competent bodies, with ever less to do with the allegation and ever less power to do anything significant about it should launch new investigations until a certain outcome is achieved?


 
Has he been suspended pending the outcome of investigations? The RMT investigation seems flawed, to say the least. Again, the investigating body lacks the competence to judge. The police apparently say that the incident was reported too late for a common assault charge, but - in the absence of independent witnesses - probably falls short of the 90% chance of a successful conviction that the CPS demand for a charge of ABH.

But that does not mean - as he's apparently claiming - that he's been "totally exonerated".


----------



## articul8 (Mar 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've just asked a fulltimer to find out what the centre's doing about it. I'll wait to hear back before I say anything more about what I think _should _be done but obviously I think this needs to be taken very seriously indeed.


 
They were made aware of it some time ago.  I know that much.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> It's not up to me what the SP does, and it's a question, perhaps you can answer it?.


 
I'm not in the English Socialist Party, so it's not up to me either.

I asked you what you would like them to do, given the following facts:

1) The alleged incident was between two people who weren't in the SP.
2) The complainant, quite sensibly, went to the actually competent investigative authorities with the power to do something meaningful about it, rather than to a small political group she's not involved with.
3) There has now been a police investigation, apparently resulting in a decision not to prosecute.
4) There has also been an investigation by the employer, apparently also leaving the complainant dissatisfied.
5) The SP has no powers to gather evidence, a distinctly limited disputes process, and no power to impose any meaningful penalties.

In my view, they were entirely correct to stay out of the way and allow competent authorities to investigate. I'm not entirely sure what the SP can reasonably do about such a situation after those authorities have reached their decisions. Particularly as there appears to still be a substantial chance that the whole issue will end up before the (civil) Courts.

If you have a different view, please share it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> They were made aware of it some time ago. I know that much.


 
Yes, they were. Third hand. And, quite sensibly, they allowed the appropriate investigative authorities to do their thing without getting in the way.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not in the English Socialist Party, so it's not up to me either.
> 
> I asked you what you would like them to do, given the following facts:
> 
> ...


 
I'm not disagreeing with that and yes I think the idea of some SWP-esque investigation is unacceptable. However Hedley is I believe a member of the SP is he not? Is that it? Does he simply carry on as a member with nothing done or said?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> I'm not disagreeing with that and yes I think the idea of some SWP-esque investigation is unacceptable. However Hedley is I believe a member of the SP is he not? Is that it? Does he simply carry on as a member with nothing done or said?


 
It is of course a very awkward position to be put in, but I don't see what they can reasonably do. I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 8, 2013)

why no suspension pending the outcome of the investigation(s)?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It is of course a very awkward position to be put in, but I don't see what they can reasonably do. I'm open to suggestions.


 
Given socialist groups have expelled people in the past without waiting or wanting a legal decision would you think that, ie expulsion, a suitable response?

Have you asked internally what is being 'done' or what is being discussed in relation to this issue? Have you asked, as a member of the same international as the SP what is being done or looked at?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 8, 2013)




----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> why no suspension pending the outcome of the investigation(s)?


 
No idea.

I note that you haven't made any suggestions as to what you think the SP should be doing.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I note that you haven't made any suggestions as to what you think the SP should be doing.


 
Have you?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Given socialist groups have expelled people in the past without waiting or wanting a legal decision would you think that, ie expulsion, a suitable response?


 
Are you saying that the SP should expel someone without investigation, after two more competent authorities have already investigated? That would probably be the most convenient thing for the SP to do, mind you.




			
				Fedayn said:
			
		

> Have you asked internally what is being 'done' or what is being discussed in relation to this issue?


 
I asked informally at the time, and was told that their view was that given the nature of the allegation and given that complaints had been made to the police and the union that those bodies were the ones best placed to deal with it. I thought that was the correct stance.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

If no formal complaint has been made to the SP, they couldn't be expected to have acted on third hand knowledge. Clearly, that has now changed tho, so you'd have thought a suspension pending... would be about the only immediate option available


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Are you saying that the SP should expel someone without investigation, after two more competent authorities have already investigated? That would probably be the most convenient thing for the SP to do, mind you.


 
Socialist groups have done it in the past, are you saying you have to wait for legal niceties? Are you saying that because no investigation is to take place it's all over and done with and there's nothing to see hear? Simple question, do you think Steve Hedley is acceptable as a member of the SP, yes or no?



> I asked informally at the time, and was told that their view was that given the nature of the allegation and given that complaints had been made to the police and the union that those bodies were the ones best placed to deal with it. I thought that was the correct stance.


 
So, now you know that contrary to Mr Hedley's claims he was exonerated but that no investigation is to take place what do you intend to ask?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 8, 2013)

The problem is that the union is no more competent than the SWP to deal with these issues internally.  I gather that there are existing claims of bullying out against him, and at least one other woman in the union has claimed he was abusive (though not physically violent) towards her. 

So in terms of what the SP could have done, I'd suggest the very least was suspended his membership whilst proceedings against him are concluded.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

How to deal with someone against whom there are accusations but nothing has been proved. Not always as easy as one thinks is it.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> How to deal with someone against whom there are accusations but nothing has been proved. Not always as easy as one thinks is it.


 
Who says it is?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> If no formal complaint has been made to the SP, they couldn't be expected to have acted on third hand knowledge. Clearly, that has now changed tho, so you'd have thought a suspension pending... would be about the only immediate option available


 
As I understand it, there still has been no formal complaint to the SP, nor a request that they investigate.

Leaving that aside, most people here would expect them to have immediately followed the decision of the Courts and the RMT had the person complained of been found to have done something wrong. I know I'd have expected them to do so. Is the suggestion being made that new investigations should be launched by ever less competent bodies with ever less to do with the complaint until such a finding is made?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Socialist groups have done it in the past


 
Yes, they have. And when they do throw people out arbitrarily most of us here give out about it.




			
				Fedayn said:
			
		

> are you saying you have to wait for legal niceties?


 
I think it's a good idea to let appropriate bodies deal with serious allegations.




			
				Fedayn said:
			
		

> Are you saying that because no investigation is to take place it's all over and done with and there's nothing to see hear?


 
I'm saying that (a) the SP has been put in a very awkward position, that (b) I don't really see what they can do about it and that (c) there haven't been many useful suggestions coming from anyone else here. But I'm willing to listen.

As for the person complained of, I've never met him and have no reasonable basis for forming an opinion of him.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> How to deal with someone against whom there are accusations but nothing has been proved. Not always as easy as one thinks is it.


 
Did anyone suggest it was easy?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm saying that (a) the SP has been put in a very awkward position, that *(b) I don't really see what they can do about it and that* (c) there haven't been many useful suggestions coming from anyone else here. But I'm willing to listen.
> .


 
In reality what you're saying here is that you think it's finished, nothing to see and carry on as before, whether you like it or not. Why don't you make some suggestions? Why don't you ask what your organisation is doing, or if they intend to do anything?.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As I understand it, there still has been no formal complaint to the SP, nor a request that they investigate.


but it is no longer a third hand complaint. a direct accusation from the victim has been publically made. that does change the picture.



> Leaving that aside, most people here would expect them to have immediately followed the decision of the Courts and the RMT had the person complained of been found to have done something wrong. I know I'd have expected them to do so. Is the suggestion being made that new investigations should be launched by ever less competent bodies with ever less to do with the complaint until such a finding is made?


 
The SP isnt a trainspotters society, its an organisation with a principled position on violence against women. SH is a well known SP member, therefore it does impact upon the organisation. If they have any reason to believe the other investigations were in any way inadequate, or halted on purely technical reasons, then they have a responsibility, I would have thought, to take some action, if only to ensure the SP isnt brought into disrepute.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2013)

would it not be on the conscience of the person to not speak rather than on the union to deny someone who has not actually been found guilty?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> If they have any reason to believe the other investigations were in any way inadequate, or halted on purely technical reasons, then they have a responsibility, I would have thought, to take some action, if only to ensure the SP isnt brought into disrepute.


 
What makes you think that they would be in a position to set up a more "adequate" investigation than the police or the union? I'm not personally all that confident in their ability to do so, even assuming the best of intentions.

Nonetheless, I suspect that they'll decide on a course of action soon.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What makes you think that they would be in a position to set up a more "adequate" investigation than the police or the union? I'm not personally all that confident in their ability to do so, even assuming the best of intentions.


Thats the wrong question. It isnt whether you can carry out a procedure which would, by the power of the dialiectic, reveal all, it's whether you can do something. If you dont have confidence in the other procedures, you can't simply accept their decisions.  If you do think (one of) their investigations was adequate, fine stand by that. But if not....

What could you do? Nothoing more than expel him, of course.  Which would be inadequate. But a punishment being inadequate is hardly a reason not to do anything.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> What could you do? Nothoing more than expel him, of course. Which would be inadequate. But a punishment being inadequate is hardly a reason not to do anything.


 
The Socialist Party is not the SWP. Members can not be arbitrarily expelled. If a process of expulsion is begun that means the SP has to launch an investigation. Are you saying the SP should launch an investigation?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> it's whether you can do something. If you dont have confidence in the other procedures, you can't simply accept their decisions. If you do think (one of) their investigations was adequate, fine stand by that. But if not...


 
I don't think that any of us are currently in a position to make a judgment on that. And I very much doubt if anyone in the SP in London is either. Having made the (correct) decision to leave the issue to the appropriate authorities in the first place, I suspect that they will be somewhat taken aback at the contents of that blog post and will have to make some difficult decisions in the near future.

Beyond that, and in the absence of more information, I don't really have much to say at this point, beyond noting that the allegations are horrifying.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Are you saying the SP should launch an investigation?


 
Yes, that is what he's saying. He's pretty clear about it too.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 8, 2013)

BBC report on the current problems within the SWP:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21706292

It's woeful.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, that is what he's saying. He's pretty clear about it too.


If the party thinks the other investigations were inadequate, then yes, exactly as you say.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> If the party thinks the other investigations were inadequate, then yes, exactly as you say.


 
The first issue is what the RMT has to say about the blog's claims.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> If the party thinks the other investigations were inadequate, then yes, exactly as you say.


 
How does the Party determine that? Does it investigate the investigation of the police and the RMT? Ask the CPS and RMT officialdom to give evidence? Why would a Socialist Party investigation be more adequate than a police investigation or an RMT investigation?

Bear in mind the RMT has also been accused here. Shouldn't the SP give the RMT the space to put their side of the story before rushing to pass judgement?


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> How does the Party determine that? Does it investigate the investigation of the police and the RMT? Ask the CPS and RMT officialdom to give evidence? Why would a Socialist Party investigation be more adequate than a police investigation or an RMT investigation?
> 
> Bear in mind the RMT has also been accused here. Shouldn't the SP give the RMT the space to put their side of the story before rushing to pass judgement?


Your defensive attitude is a tad worrying. And you ask the same wrong question I answered before,

I have made no mention of 'rushing to judgement', far from it.  It is up to the SP how to decide on disciplining SP members, and what processes you choose to use. But you are capable of making judgements. If it is true the prosecution only failed because of time limits, that is inadequate, no?  If the RMT decision was based simply on the case having been dropped by the CPS, then that also becomes inadequate, no?

Sure, the RMT's response must be heard before making any definite move. But it isn't really good enough to simply _rely_ upon their response.


----------



## october_lost (Mar 8, 2013)

Caroline L is known to quite a few posters on here, so this is, I am sure,  quite close to home for some people. 

I think what stands out about this and what I pull out from the SWPs case is the bravery the women have in coming forward. Thats despite being knocked back through various procedural biases. 

It's up to all and sundry to not really allow, what is a basic call for justice, to not go unheeded.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> BBC report on the current problems within the SWP:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21706292
> 
> It's woeful.


the InternationalSocialism blog shown oh so clearly too. In their IB article CM & RH could at least point to how the bourgeois media hadn't bothered doing research, and they couldn't blame the platform for any leaks, but now...


----------



## DrRingDing (Mar 8, 2013)

What's the venue for the conference this Sunday?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Your defensive attitude is a tad worrying.


 
It's completely counterproductive to be defensive. The SP has acted reasonably so far, which is to say it stayed out of the way of investigations by the appropriate authorities of allegations against a member stemming from a time before he joined. The more recent allegations are of investigative failures by those bodies. We should wait and see what the RMT have to say for themselves (I'm assuming that the CPS aren't going to explain their decisions). Which does not of course mean necessarily taking what they say at face value.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Your defensive attitude is a tad worrying.


 
There's nothing worrying or defensive about attempting to clarify what the other person is asking. 

I think the way you have posed things are a bit one sided. This is something that has happened at third hand to the Socialist Party. The full facts are not know to the party. This applies to the original allegations, the investigation of the police and the investigation of the RMT. In these circumstances it will take time for the SP to get all the facts before it can make any decision on the matter. The way you posed matters is that the SP must 'do something' otherwise it is brought into disrepute. I am pointing out that the SP has a number of serious matters to weigh up before it decides what to do.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> I am pointing out that the SP has a number of serious matters to weigh up before it decides what to do.


which _is_ doing something.  Or is starting to do something, at least.


----------



## october_lost (Mar 8, 2013)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-...ership-sham-conference-i-will-not-be-silenced


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

october_lost said:


> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-...ership-sham-conference-i-will-not-be-silenced


"They're [the CC] the most pathetic shower."


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

Reports back from aggregates are up too.

I see Sheffield voted to send 26 (really??!!) loyalists to conference, and 0 oppositionists, despite there being a 3-2 split in signatories to the two factions


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

october_lost said:


> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-...ership-sham-conference-i-will-not-be-silenced


"Implicitly, we would also be saying that the strategy of the 'moderates' has failed. But that will be obvious." oh yeah baby how to win friends and influence people...


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "Implicitly, we would also be saying that the strategy of the 'moderates' has failed. But that will be obvious." oh yeah baby how to win friends and influence people...


I'd have thought you'd admire his directness!

(and no one could say he was wrong, either)


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 8, 2013)

Posted this a few minutes ago but it disappeared for some reason.



belboid said:


> Your defensive attitude is a tad worrying.
> 
> Sure, the RMT's response must be heard before making any definite move. But it isn't really good enough to simply _rely_ upon their response.


 
There is nothing worrying or defensive in seeking to clarify what the other person is asking.

I think you are posing things in a bit of a one sided fashion. You say the SP must 'do something' otherwise it will be brought into disrepute. The reality is that this has all happened at third hand to the SP. The Party does not know the full facts of the original allegations, the police investigation, the CPS decision or the RMT investigation. Ascertaining those facts will take time as will deciding what to do once they are known. I don't think you have put this across in the way you have interacted with SP members here, for example demanding an Irish SP member comment on what should be done.

The SP have a lot of serious matters to weigh up before deciding what to do.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'd have thought you'd admire his directness!
> 
> (and no one could say he was wrong, either)


 
Yes, exactly.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> the InternationalSocialism blog shown oh so clearly too. In their IB article CM & RH could at least point to how the bourgeois media hadn't bothered doing research, and they couldn't blame the platform for any leaks, but now...


Indeed.

Plus "no activists wanted to speak to us either although I chatted to one on the phone who said 'this is what happens when you have an all knowing leadership who treat party members as useful and disposable'." SEYMOUR! speaks.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Posted this a few minutes ago but it disappeared for some reason.


no, its still there - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-263#post-12038059


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'd have thought you'd admire his directness!
> 
> (and no one could say he was wrong, either)


Oh I do. And whoever it was in the faction - you know who you are  - who told me RS wasn't half 'political' enough in the canny sense to run an opposition was right! This boy is no leader or anyone you'd want to work with for long.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Plus "no activists wanted to speak to us either although I chatted to one on the phone who said 'this is what happens when you have an all knowing leadership who treat party members as useful and disposable'." SEYMOUR! speaks.


doesnt sound like seymour to me. In fact, what it sounds like is what an _archetypal_ oppositionist would say, without it actually sounding anyone specific.  Owen Jones if its anyone (or 'via' him)


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> doesnt sound like seymour to me. In fact, what it sounds like is what an _archetypal_ oppositionist would say, without it actually sounding anyone specific. Owen Jones if its anyone (or 'via' him)


No I didn't mean RS himself, I was using his 'ironic' SEYMOUR! as totem for general opositionist.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No I didn't mean RS himself, I was using his 'ironic' SEYMOUR! as totem for general opositionist.


pathetic. really. that's all you've got. you need to take a good look at yourself.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

Crikey bobs what's my sin now?! If I'd meant he actually said it I'd have said RS, but cause it was such a generic thing to say I used SEYMOUR. Not rocket science.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 8, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> So, now there seems to be a decision not to prosecute what will the SP do?


 
I'm wondering what they _can _do. Is the woman really likely to want to discuss it with the SP? It's a fucking mess.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Crikey bobs what's my sin now?! If I'd meant he actually said it I'd have said RS, but cause it was such a generic thing to say I used SEYMOUR. Not rocket science.


clearly beyond both of us tho, i'm afraid


----------



## cesare (Mar 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm wondering what they _can _do. Is the woman really likely to want to discuss it with the SP? It's a fucking mess.


Perhaps they could at least have a chat with Caroline to see what she thinks?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> clearly beyond both of us tho, i'm afraid


I knew I'd get in trouble when I started copying butchers use of SEYMOUR!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

Bambery's lot will soon launch into outer space if they hyperventilate any more: http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2013/03/sexual-violence-and-the-greek-left/


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm wondering what they _can _do. Is the woman really likely to want to discuss it with the SP? It's a fucking mess.


Even if she doesn't, if it is in the public domain, concerning someone who is a well known member, _something_ should be done, or it would look like you were acting (without wanting to sound racist) like the three wise monkeys


----------



## cesare (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Even if she doesn't, if it is in the public domain, concerning someone who is a well known member, _something_ should be done, or it would look like you were acting (without wanting to sound racist) like the three wise monkeys


I would have thought that just out of concern for her general well being ( without even making any commitment about whether or not to progress an investigation) someone from the SP would contact her now it's in the public domain.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Even if she doesn't, if it is in the public domain, concerning someone who is a well known member, _something_ should be done, or it would look like you were acting (without wanting to sound racist) like the three wise monkeys


 
It was correct to leave allegations of that nature in the hands of the competent authorities, without interfering. Should it later be shown that those authorities were not competent, that would change things. Lets wait and see what they have to say for themselves.

As an aside, I see that the story has been taken down from Socialist Unity.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> "They're [the CC] the most pathetic shower."


 
It does look like the CPGB are setting Seymour up for expulsion by posting that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It does look like the CPGB are setting Seymour up for expulsion by posting that.


True but at least they're ecumenical in their tell the class all approach.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> True but at least they're ecumenical in their tell the class all approach.


 
There is a distinction between believing that political arguments should be made openly and snitching.


----------



## SLK (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It does look like the CPGB are setting Seymour up for expulsion by posting that.


 
As if that wasn't already guaranteed and reinforced by some of the loyalist motions and contributions. They were only one step off "Richard Seymour should be expelled".


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It does look like the CPGB are setting Seymour up for expulsion by posting that.


but it will be his own fault for not having gone public in the first place!


I only just saw how the CPBG were havng to pay out a fairly hefty whack for not bothering to check their facts again, irt the Unite bloke.  eejits


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

SLK said:


> As if that wasn't already guaranteed and reinforced by some of the loyalist motions and contributions. They were only one step off "Richard Seymour should be expelled".


 
They already have the intent, but the CPGB just handed them the knife. And they knew they were doing it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 8, 2013)

cesare said:


> Perhaps they could at least have a chat with Caroline to see what she thinks?


 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they will be doing to be honest. Is it right that there's likely to be civil action taken? If so I've got a good idea what I think they ought to do.


----------



## cesare (Mar 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure they will be doing to be honest. Is it right that there's likely to be civil action taken? If so I've got a good idea what I think they ought to do.


First I've heard of it was today, so no idea about any other action, sorry.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Even if she doesn't, if it is in the public domain, concerning someone who is a well known member, _something_ should be done, or it would look like you were acting (without wanting to sound racist) like the three wise monkeys


 
But what might that something be? How can you investigate if you can only get one side of the story? (Yes, I know her side is in the blog but he's going to respond to those claims and they'd need to see how she responded to his response if you get what I mean).

I'm not trying to make any excuses for inaction or anything else, I'm just trying to figure out what can be done.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

SLK said:


> As if that wasn't already guaranteed and reinforced by some of the loyalist motions and contributions. They were only one step off "Richard Seymour should be expelled".


They were one step off he should be hung from a tree.


----------



## SLK (Mar 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They were one step off he should be hung from a tree.


 
Whereas you have taken that step a while ago!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There is a distinction between believing that political arguments should be made openly and snitching.


You'll have to pardon me if I don't count this breach of confidence higher than many, many others we've had on this thread


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You'll have to pardon me if I don't count this breach of confidence higher than many, many others we've had on this thread


 
Fair point.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

SLK said:


> Whereas you have taken that step a while ago!


Totally true, but a) I never liked his tone even when he had the prof's ear and b) I know that in one sense this is all bollox. We're talking about a group of people at each others throats who compared to the general populace are within a mere hairs breath of each other politically. And in that sense Owen Jones is right in that BBC piece, it is crazy, this trot hair splitting. But if us all hugging each other and agreeing to disagree made revolutions we'd be there by now cause most sane socialists first instinct is to agree with and support each other and THEN disagree.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 8, 2013)

Is this Seymour intentionally getting himself expelled? I may be straying into conspiraloon like thinking here, but bear with me.

He's going to be expelled and he knows it. The CC probably would like to do it over something unspectacular and procedural, like secret factionalism or something. He doesn't want that - he wants maximum martyrdom. So he gets something published by the weekly worker relating to a rape related anti-democratic stitch up safe in the knowledge that they'll have to expel him whether they want to or not because the loyalists will demand it. He looks like a hero, expelled for sticking to his principles (and, as he'll no doubt put it, his loyalty to the IS tradition). Maximum martyrdom achieved.

Maybe I'm just reading a little bit too much into it


----------



## cesare (Mar 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure they will be doing to be honest. Is it right that there's likely to be civil action taken? If so I've got a good idea what I think they ought to do.


In any event, the very least *immediate* response should be for someone senior in the SP to contact her to check she's (relatively) OK and see what support she needs.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 8, 2013)

cesare said:


> In any event, the very least *immediate* response should be for someone senior in the SP to contact her to check she's (relatively) OK and see what support she needs.


 
That might well be a good idea. But she might well say "Fuck off, I don't want to speak to you, why should I?" And she'd have every right too.


----------



## cesare (Mar 8, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> That might well be a good idea. But she might well say "Fuck off, I don't want to speak to you, why should I?" And she'd have every right too.


Yep, of course. But better to be rebuffed than give the impression of not caring.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 8, 2013)

Looks like I certain person I best not name who is a member of both the RMT and the SP has had their lawyer on the phone to Mr Newman, because someone happened to post a link to a certain blog post on SU


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Looks like I certain person I best not name who is a member of both the RMT and the SP has had their lawyer on the phone to Mr Newman, because someone happened to post a link to a certain blog post on SU


 
Not according to SU.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not according to SU.


yeah I should have know better than to take one post on SU as gospel.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not according to SU.


wow, 'Let us look at all the facts' sure looks like an utter twat


----------



## emanymton (Mar 8, 2013)

Has the document by Megan T and Mike G been leaked anywhere yet? I expect BB will be calling for there expulsion considering the following passage. 



> That means that while the faction will cease to exist – and on that we’re all agreed – the debate can and must continue, in the branches, the colleges, the day schools, the coffee shop discussions, the conversations after a sale or a demonstration; and it needs to continue in all our publications and meetings. There must be no separation between the theorists and the activists and, while we accept party discipline, we can’t accept the reimposition of control under threat of expulsion or sanctions or exclusion from this conference or that party event.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

Where's that from? Certainly Mike's style, love it, especially when he speaks, it just all keeps flowing in waves that crash over your head, can't expel that man :-(


----------



## emanymton (Mar 8, 2013)

From a document called After Sunday that has been emailed out to all members, just had it forwarded to me. I would imagine either SU or the CPGB will have it up in full by the end of the night.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 8, 2013)

For some reason the email also came with the report from the democracy commission from a few years ago. There is a section on the internet which includes this.




> Any access to secure Internet sites only works if you can trust everyone not to pass on access to others, or the documents they access.
> For us, this is the largest problem with using new technology to improve access to the SWP’s internal debates.
> There are a number of obvious ways in which a leak could happen:
> A disaffected existing member with a grudge.
> ...


 

Do you think they had anyone in particular in mind?


----------



## SLK (Mar 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Has the document by Megan T and Mike G been leaked anywhere yet? I expect BB will be calling for there expulsion considering the following passage.


 
I was talking to a friend who is an ex-member on facebook the other night. I was shocked to find she's (a) still in touch with a few people in the SWP (b) the people she's in touch with are people I thought might be loyalists (which does them a disservice to be fair) - Megan T was one of them and (c) she's following the crisis on Urban 75 despite not being signed up here.

When I mentioned U75, (d) she thought I might be bolshiebhoy.


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

Megan was threatened with expulsion for her interest in a certain _cultural magazine_ to be set up by a Mr A Wilson, iirr


----------



## SLK (Mar 8, 2013)

I don't get the reference, probably because I'm thick.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 8, 2013)

SLK said:


> I was talking to a friend who is an ex-member on facebook the other night. I was shocked to find she's (a) still in touch with a few people in the SWP (b) the people she's in touch with are people I thought might be loyalists (which does them a disservice to be fair) - Megan T was one of them and (c) she's following the crisis on Urban 75 despite not being signed up here.
> 
> When I mentioned U75, she thought I might be bolshiebhoy.


Hi Lurker.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 8, 2013)

SLK said:


> I don't get the reference, probably because I'm thick.


Andy Wilson


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

SLK said:


> I don't get the reference, probably because I'm thick.


Andy Wilson, expelled (in part) for trying to set up a magazine called _The Assassin_. Around thirty odd other members who had said they were interested in being involved were likewise threatened with expulsion. Apparently doing so would mean we would never have time for party work, and it was bound to be oppositional to the only existing left wing magazine that talked about culture - Socialist Review. Later, one of the then Disputes Cmte, a P Stack, said they wouldnt have given a toss if it wasn't Andy.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2013)

SLK said:


> I was talking to a friend who is an ex-member on facebook the other night. I was shocked to find she's (a) still in touch with a few people in the SWP (b) the people she's in touch with are people I thought might be loyalists (which does them a disservice to be fair) - Megan T was one of them and (c) she's following the crisis on Urban 75 despite not being signed up here.
> 
> When I mentioned U75, (d) she thought I might be bolshiebhoy.


 Hope you were suitably insulted


----------



## emanymton (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Andy Wilson, expelled (in part) for trying to set up a magazine called _The Assassin_. Around thirty odd other members who had said they were interested in being involved were likewise threatened with expulsion. Apparently doing so would mean we would never have time for party work, and it was bound to be oppositional to the only existing left wing magazine that talked about culture - Socialist Review. Later, one of the then Disputes Cmte, a P Stack, said they wouldnt have given a toss if it wasn't Andy.


To be frank coming up with such a stupid name would have been grounds for expulsion in my book.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Where's that from? Certainly Mike's style, love it, especially when he speaks, it just all keeps flowing in waves that crash over your head, can't expel that man :-(


 
You're going soft now. How can you avoid expelling these eclectic intellectuals who never really grasped "the tradition"? Have the courage of your convictions man.


----------



## SLK (Mar 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> Andy Wilson, expelled (in part) for trying to set up a magazine called _The Assassin_. Around thirty odd other members who had said they were interested in being involved were likewise threatened with expulsion. Apparently doing so would mean we would never have time for party work, and it was bound to be oppositional to the only existing left wing magazine that talked about culture - Socialist Review. Later, one of the then Disputes Cmte, a P Stack, said they wouldnt have given a toss if it wasn't Andy.


 
Thanks.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 8, 2013)

SLK said:


> When I mentioned U75, (d) she thought I might be bolshiebhoy.



Ouch.


----------



## SLK (Mar 8, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Ouch.


Quite.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2013)

I am so bored, I am half:

a: watching Spain v Puerto Rico at _baseball_
b: looking over a list of who's online now. Funnily enough, by far the most popular thread for 'guest' to be watching is this one. Over a dozen right now!

Hello all of you (bourgeois media, excepted)


----------



## J Ed (Mar 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> I am so bored, I am half:
> 
> a: watching Spain v Porto Rico at _baseball_
> b: looking over a list of who's online now. Funnily enough, by far the most popular thread for 'guest' to be watching is this one. Over a dozen right now!
> ...


 
How on earth are you watching Spain v Puerto Rico at baseball? Streaming?


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> How on earth are you watching Spain v Puerto Rico at baseball? Streaming?


Eurosport2 - channel 525 on Virgin


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 9, 2013)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...missing-attack-claim-by-activist-8527208.html

Why haven't the Socialist Party or the RMT suspended Steve Hedley while the investigation is carried out. Especially as the police have said they would have prosecuted if the six month limit hadn't been passed. People are suspended in workplaces for far less serious accusations. What reason does the Socialist Party give for not suspending him? I'm presuming they haven't as no SP member will answer the question and he is still listed as a "prominent person" on their website.

Also given it is a fact he has told a young woman on facebook that she looks like a bulldog swamped by a wasp, told her he can't tell whether she's a man or woman, told her that she needs to go out there and get a partner and mocked her mental health issues, wouldn't that alone be enough to take some action over in terms of the Socialist Party, given he did make those comments while a member. Or is that a non-issue?


----------



## SLK (Mar 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> I am so bored, I am half:
> 
> a: watching Spain v Puerto Rico at _baseball_
> b: looking over a list of who's online now. Funnily enough, by far the most popular thread for 'guest' to be watching is this one. Over a dozen right now!
> ...


 
It's a good summary of arguments.

You're watching the WBC! Nice! You should get into baseball - awesome sport.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> It's a good summary of arguments.
> 
> You're watching the WBC! Nice! You should get into baseball - awesome sport.


'summary' - its 265 pages long!

and, why do you think i'm watching it at all?


----------



## SLK (Mar 9, 2013)

It's a summary for anyone following who wants to see what has happened that day. 

I don't know.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2013)

tends to be ten pages to say 'not a lot'

because i quite like baseball


----------



## SLK (Mar 9, 2013)

How in heaven's name did you never reveal this to me before?
Do you follow mlbtraderumors?
What are the Yanks going to do with Arod (and Teix and Granderson out for 1/6 of the season)?
And Cano for that matter?
Dodgers for the WS?
etc


----------



## SLK (Mar 9, 2013)

I ignored the "quite"
My tip is the BlueJays - if they get out of the AL East they've the pitching for a WS push.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...missing-attack-claim-by-activist-8527208.html
> 
> Why haven't the Socialist Party or the RMT suspended Steve Hedley while the investigation is carried out. Especially as the police have said they would have prosecuted if the six month limit hadn't been passed. People are suspended in workplaces for far less serious accusations. What reason does the Socialist Party give for not suspending him? I'm presuming they haven't as no SP member will answer the question and he is still listed as a "prominent person" on their website.
> 
> Also given it is a fact he has told a young woman on facebook that she looks like a bulldog swamped by a wasp, told her he can't tell whether she's a man or woman, told her that she needs to go out there and get a partner and mocked her mental health issues, wouldn't that alone be enough to take some action over in terms of the Socialist Party, given he did make those comments while a member. Or is that a non-issue?


 
No it's not a non-issue. I can't answer for anyone else but the reason why I've not commented on any of those things yet is because I've queried them myself and am waiting for a response. That's what people who take these things seriously do - try and get the known facts before jumping to conclusions. Obviously that's not necessary when all you're bothered about is using it to score political points over a group you've got a bizarre and slightly unhealthy obsession with.


----------



## SLK (Mar 9, 2013)

Spiney, are you an SP member?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 9, 2013)

Yes.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> I ignored the "quite"
> My tip is the BlueJays - if they get out of the AL East they've the pitching for a WS push.


 
I have refused to care about Arod since he left the Mariners. (he'll not recover from his injury)
I fancy the Nationals.

Dnt have time to keep up any more, but enjoy a game occasionally. this ones a bit crap


----------



## SLK (Mar 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes.


oh


----------



## SLK (Mar 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> I have refused to care about Arod since he left the Mariners. (he'll not recover from his injury)
> I fancy the Nationals.
> 
> Dnt have time to keep up any more, but enjoy a game occasionally. this ones a bit crap


 
I nearly said the Nats, but they seem so obvious. I think they'll win 2 or 3 of the next 7 or 8 WS - though I love Strasburg who is out (isn't he?) Anyway, sorry for derail. It's quite literally my favourite sport (even ahead of football).

Arod hasn't recovered from realising that people are now actually testing for PEDs. And he can't use PEDs to come back. He'll be the 12th best 3rd baseman in the league this year when he comes back - on 30 mill.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 9, 2013)

Baseball is like rounders only not as good.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No it's not a non-issue. I can't answer for anyone else but the reason why I've not commented on any of those things yet is because I've queried them myself and am waiting for a response. That's what people who take these things seriously do - try and get the known facts before jumping to conclusions. Obviously that's not necessary when all you're bothered about is using it to score political points over a group you've got a bizarre and slightly unhealthy obsession with.


 
I haven't got a particular issue with the Socialist Party. They are no worse than the SWP for instance. I have got an issue with the way the far left groups have become ever more isolated from the working class and the way those groups go about things.

Fair enough if you are waiting for a response but how long does it take to look in to the fact that he made these comments? I couldn't care a less what far left group he was a member of, I'd say the same thing whatever group it was. Making sexist and misogynistic comments can surely be met with a swift response? The facts are known. He wrote the comments.

I don't know if the RMT knows that he made such comments, but if they do know, they should also act on it. If someone made those comments in most workplaces, it would be a disciplinary offence, and probably gross misconduct, and rightly so.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You're going soft now. How can you avoid expelling these eclectic intellectuals who never really grasped "the tradition"? Have the courage of your convictions man.


What can I say, he stayed in my house in Dublin once when I was younger. Drank all our best whiskey mind, but he was the only SWPer my mum, who used to be an RTE film critic, trusted to say anything cultural at the time.


----------



## SLK (Mar 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Baseball is like rounders only not as good.


 
The SP is like the SWP only...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I haven't got a particular issue with the Socialist Party. They are no worse than the SWP for instance. I have got an issue with the way the far left groups have become ever more isolated from the working class and the way those groups go about things.
> 
> Fair enough if you are waiting for a response but how long does it take to look in to the fact that he made these comments? I couldn't care a less what far left group he was a member of, I'd say the same thing whatever group it was. Making sexist and misogynistic comments can surely be met with a swift response? The facts are known. He wrote the comments.
> 
> I don't know if the RMT knows that he made such comments, but if they do know, they should also act on it. If someone made those comments in most workplaces, it would be a disciplinary offence, and probably gross misconduct, and rightly so.


 
The facts might be known to you but they're not to me. Was it on facebook? Have you got a link to the post/comment?

This stuff is serious, it's not a game - this is peoples' lives we're talking about. I can't really just say some anonymous bloke on the internet who seems to have a weird obsession with the SP says he made some dodgy comments can I?

I suspect they'll be dealing with the far, far more serious complaint before they even look at that anyway.

Out of interest, what would you do in their shoes? There's been a police investigation (which is what you said should have happened with Delta) so that one's not an option here. Serious question cos unless she takes civil proceedings I just don't know what they can do. And until I hear back I don't know what they _are _doing.

The RMT will have to make some kind of statement I would imagine, I want to know what they have to say about it too.

I'm waiting to get as much information as possible before I make any kind of assessment. Don't you think that's how it should be? Or would you rather we just assumed his guilt right now with hardly any information whatsoever?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> The SP is like the SWP only...


 
with fake scouse accents?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 9, 2013)

MT and MG's piece is up now. Strong stuff indeed. But some things are hinted at rather than made clear. I mean what does this mean: "In just a few weeks, the desire to analyse how we got to this point has resulted in many faction members, both longstanding and new cadre, starting the process of attempting to fill some theoretical gaps." What gaps and where can we see their conclusions?


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What can I say, he stayed in my house in Dublin once when I was younger. Drank all our best whiskey mind, but he was the only SWPer my mum, *who used to be an RTE film critic,* trusted to say anything cultural at the time.


 
ah, so Bolshie is another scion of the working class

not....


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2013)

Spiney been trying to contact you, no replies...


----------



## discokermit (Mar 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What can I say, he stayed in my house in Dublin once when I was younger. Drank all our best whiskey mind, but he was the only SWPer my mum, who used to be an RTE film critic, trusted to say anything cultural at the time.


did he get his guitar out?


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2013)

its alarming that the only time the left has had such a high profile its in relation to these appalling accusations

the direct action scene has a number of these issues as well, as well as lotharios who just used the scene to serial pick up young woman..


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2013)

Go away treelover


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2013)

No, its an open board, i say the above in sadness and dismay, the last time they had such a high profile was during the iraq war,now this...


----------



## bamalama (Mar 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What can I say, he stayed in my house in Dublin once when I was younger. Drank all our best whiskey mind, but he was the only SWPer my mum, who used to be an RTE film critic, trusted to say anything cultural at the time.


 
bit of a sticky wicket


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The facts might be known to you but they're not to me. Was it on facebook? Have you got a link to the post/comment?
> 
> This stuff is serious, it's not a game - this is peoples' lives we're talking about. I can't really just say some anonymous bloke on the internet who seems to have a weird obsession with the SP says he made some dodgy comments can I?
> 
> ...


 
Why do you have to put in it's not a game. Who would think that? Obviously it's serious, and no-one has said otherwise in any, shape or form. Just as people on here discussing the SWP case don't think it's a game. Again I've probably commented far more on the SWP than the Socialist Party, as have many people on here and on many other threads about the SWP. Maybe that makes everyone on this thread as having a weird obsession with the SWP. It's about far more than the SWP and SP though, and about how the left deals with situations like this in general.

I thought you already saw some time back when I said this was on facebook and I gave the exact quotes, but I stopped discussing it because people said it wasn't appropriate because of the police investigation. I accepted that, but obviously the circumstances have changed.

I agree they should look at the more serious case, but my point was that even if they can't or no-one could think of what to do, they could at least look at this. I'm assuming the various comments by SP members asking well what would you do means they are lost for ideas about what can be done about it. Well even if that was so this could be looked in to.

In terms of what to do about the more serious case, I don't understand why Steve Hedley hasn't been suspended by both the RMT and the Socialist Party.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 9, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> with fake scouse accents?


A friend of mine from school became a Millie full timer and got one of those. Mind you, new SWP organiser quickly picked up the one-hand-chopping-into-the-other 'what we have to understand' gesture.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 9, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> A friend of mine from school became a Millie full timer and got one of those. Mind you, new SWP organiser quickly picked up the one-hand-chopping-into-the-other 'what we have to understand' gesture.


Did they start saying 'actually' every third word as well?

Just had a quick look and I can't see anything on the guardian website.

Eta this is two completely unrelated points


----------



## emanymton (Mar 9, 2013)

Ah think I found it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

> Another woman – who cannot be named for legal reasons – has told the Guardian that she also faced a welter of inappropriate questions during her own disputes committee hearing after] she reported being raped by another man in the party.
> 
> The young female member in the latest case says that the senior party member had physically abused her in front of other party members. Then, she claims, in early 2011 the male organiser pressured her into meeting and then raped her in her bedroom.
> 
> ...


----------



## emanymton (Mar 9, 2013)

Can someone please explain the logic of these two paragraphs to me.



> She felt that if she'd gone to the authorities, she would have be expelled from the party, because of the SWP's hostility to the police. "If you go to the police you get kicked out automatically," she said.
> Following the incident she quit the party but a local organiser then persuaded her to take her allegations to party's internal disputes committee.


So all Cohen has is a longer version of the story he put in his New Statesman article. I know kavenism thinks this is his ex but this story just doesn't ring true to me. Of course that could just be Cohen massively distorting what he has been told.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 9, 2013)

Go away and read about women's liberation


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Can someone please explain the logic of these two paragraphs to me.
> 
> So all Cohen has is a longer version of the story he put in his New Statesman article. I know kavenism thinks this is his ex but this story just doesn't ring true to me. Of course that could just be Cohen massively distorting what he has been told.



Do you really think that's all that's there (taking it as true)?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 9, 2013)

I honestly don't understand this story. Is it saying the bloke was found guilty of rape but slapped on the wrist or that he was found guilty of something else?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do you really think that's all that's there (taking it as true)?


What do you mean? There is nothing new in the article just a quick summary of the Delta case, then a longer version of the story from the new Statesman article with a couple of quotes from CK at the end.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 9, 2013)

Weeks of digging and this is all they have?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> What do you mean? There is nothing new in the article just a quick summary of the Delta case, then a longer version of the story from the new statement article with a couple of quotes from CK at the end.


 
Ok:

1) going to the police with rape claims = automatic expulsion = internal pressure to cover up rape claims to the potential danger of others inside and outside the party.
2) acceptance of public physical abuse.
3) demonstration that the total fuck up of the DC's first publicised inquiry and the sort of bullshit _what were you wearing that night? had you been drinking _was not a one off and did in fact also happen at least once when - for some reason - two CC members alone -carried out an inquiry - that this sort of thing appears to now be part of the central leaderships culture. This happens because the CC makes it happen.
4) That there are at least one (quite probably two) other allegations of rape against the person the woman says raped her that these CC members were informed of.
5) That pressure not to talk about her experience - either of the alleged rape or the SWPs internal process = internal pressure to cover up rape claims to the potential danger of others inside and outside the party.
6) All this = massive lack of social responsibility and shows utter contempt for those outside the party.
edit: I'd add another couple
7) that leading party members _cannot_ be justifiably accused of rape in the party
8) That this is what women's liberation looks like

And you don't see any of this - really?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I honestly don't understand this story. Is it saying the bloke was found guilty of rape but slapped on the wrist or that he was found guilty of something else?


Of course you don't bb, of course you don't. I don't understand why on this weekend of all weekends you would put on an eh? face and say n_othing to see here_ etc do i?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ok:
> 
> 1) going to the police with rape claims = automatic expulsion = internal pressure to cover up rape claims to the potential danger of others inside and outside the party.
> 2) acceptance of public physical abuse.
> ...


Apart from 2 (which did stand out to me) none of that is a new.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Mar 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...missing-attack-claim-by-activist-8527208.html
> 
> Why haven't the Socialist Party or the RMT suspended Steve Hedley while the investigation is carried out. Especially as the police have said they would have prosecuted if the six month limit hadn't been passed. People are suspended in workplaces for far less serious accusations. What reason does the Socialist Party give for not suspending him? I'm presuming they haven't as no SP member will answer the question and he is still listed as a "prominent person" on their website.


 
The RMT presumably can't suspend him for police (allegedly - I've only seen that comment on Carolines blog) saying that they would prosecute if it wasnt for the 6 month time limit?  What with 2nd hand police promises that they "would have done something" being quite different from a conviction for assault, which would merit further action.

Do you think it is right to suspend someone from their work based upon a single unproven allegation?  I'd feel uncomfortable with that.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Apart from 2 (which did stand out to me) none of that is a new.


Should add that this is one of the parts of the story that does not ring true to me, I don't believe a man in the SWP could physical abusing a women in front of other SWP members and 'get away with it' the other way round however...


----------



## emanymton (Mar 9, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> The RMT presumably can't suspend him for police (allegedly - I've only seen that comment on Carolines blog) saying that they would prosecute if it wasnt for the 6 month time limit? What with 2nd hand police promises that they "would have done something" being quite different from a conviction for assault, which would merit further action.
> 
> Do you think it is right to suspend someone from their work based upon a single unproven allegation? I'd feel uncomfortable with that.


It is perfectly acceptable to suspend someone on full pay pending the outcome of an investigation.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Apart from 2 (which did stand out to me) none of that is a new.


There is no new statesman piece - there was a spectator piece which contained this:



> I wanted to tell you that I was in the SWP a few years ago, and was physically and sexually abused. Following the rape, I left the party, but was encouraged to take the complaint to the disputes committee to make sure he didn’t do it to other women in the party. The disputes committee meeting lasted 5 hours. I was asked if I had been drinking. They said that if {the alleged assailant} and I had recently broken up my case would be invalid. They constantly asked me if I was still attracted to him, and referred to instances of him hitting me as ‘shaking’. They also constantly asked if I was sure I had not consented to sex.
> 
> The disputes committee also told me that if I talked to the media or anyone else that I was in trouble. {The man} was allowed to bring two character witnesses who claimed I was a convincing slut, and he had my statement for a month before the meeting, but I had no idea what he would say in his
> statement.”


 
So comparing, the quick list i made on this new article then:

the original doesn't contain 1)
it doesn't contain 2)
the new one beefs up 3)
and adds info not contained in the original as to who held the hearing and that they were both on the CC it adds two other rape allegations, so making 4) new
it also beefs up 5)
and suggests the claim 7) which wasnot contained in the original so new
6) and 8) we can leave to _politics_ for now.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 9, 2013)

1) and 2) i find hard to believe

edit: 1) may be true only as a lie 'Delta' cast himself to prevent the issue arising within the party, but i'd say not true as a part of a 'cultural' element of the party


----------



## emanymton (Mar 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is no new statesman piece - there was a spectator piece which contained this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I need to go out now but adding more points to your original post then coming back and saying see these weren't there is a bit shit don't you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Should add that this is one of the parts of the story that does not ring true to me, I don't believe a man in the SWP could physical abusing a women in front of other SWP members and 'get away with it' the other way round however...


Well apparently whatever happened, the two CC members who investigated suggested it constituted 'shaking' her.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course you don't bb, of course you don't. I don't understand why on this weekend of all weekends you would put on an eh? face and say n_othing to see here_ etc do i?


I know Cohen has an agenda and that the timing isn't accidental. Do you? But I honestly don't understand the allegation. If the story is saying the guy was found guilty of rape but wasn't dealt with properly that's appalling. But is it saying that? It's badly written and ambiguous but I can't work out if that's cause the journalism is shit or the facts don't add up.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I need to go out now but adding more points to your original post then coming back and saying see these weren't there is a bit shit don't you think?


No i do not as i clearly said that they were edited in - if i had prodded you in the chest and said why have you ignored these edited in points then you might have a point yourself here - but as i didn't...Also given that i then included them in my reply to you i think it is fair to say that i, in fact, again _highlighted that i had edited in these points _for you


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Mar 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It is perfectly acceptable to suspend someone on full pay pending the outcome of an investigation.



Acceptable, but 1SS seems to assume that it is the only correct thing to do. 

Given that the police are taking no further action, it would seem a bizarre and unfair way of dealing with the situation.  It's going to come down to one persons word against another's, in the RMT investigation. If there was damning and conclusive evidence that Hadley was/is the wrong un, then a suspension would seem sensible, but given that there isn't I just cannot see justification for a suspension.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know Cohen has an agenda and that the timing isn't accidental. Do you? But I honestly don't understand the allegation. If the story is saying the guy was found guilty of rape but wasn't dealt with properly that's appalling. But is it saying that? It's badly written and ambiguous but I can't work out if that's cause the journalism is shit or the facts don't add up.


It explicitly says that he wasn't found guilty of rape - because the CC members weren't judging on the truth of the rape allegation - which is why you've brought it up, so that you can say _well he wasn't found guilty of rape, what do you want the SWP to have done if this is the case?  They followed all their rules._


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well apparently whatever happened, the two CC members who investigated suggested it was 'shaking her'.


Which could be something very bad or very minor. I got a world of shit from other members and an organiser for publicly shouting at a woman I was involved with (and no Im not making this up, its something im not proud of) and I would be amazed if the party turned a blind eye to anything more physcial than that, something that publicly hurt or frightened a woman.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It explicitly says that he wasn't found guilty of rape - because the CC members weren't judging on the truth of the rape allegation - which is why you've brought it up, so that you can say _well he wasn't found guilty of rape, what do you want the SWP to have done if this is the case?  They followed all their rules._


No sorry, it's only now after reading it three times that I've managed to put it together. So the committee didn't rule on the rape accusation in this case, not clear why though?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

Point 7) is pretty clearly the suggestion in the article and that the woman is making.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Which could be something very bad or very minor. I got a world of shit from other members and an organiser for publicly shouting at a woman I was involved with (and no Im not making this up, its something im not proud of) and I would be amazed if the party turned a blind eye to anything more physcial than that, something that publicly hurt or frightened a woman.


 
*Well, the party gave him a recommended reading list, that's not turning a blind eye.*

Farce.

Edited: due to conflation of two separate rapes.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 9, 2013)

There isn't a great deal of extra information, but what is there re-inforces who I think it is. In particualar the claim that she was physically abused in front of comrades who did nothing. I know some specifics of that.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

kavenism said:


> There isn't a great deal of extra information, but what is there re-inforces who I think it is. In particualar the claim that she was physically abused in front of comrades who did nothing. I know some specifics of that.


 
You are absolutely right kavenism. It reinforces it all.

"During the hearing two other women made allegations against the senior figure including attempted rape and sexual impropriety. She says she was called back that afternoon and told the verdict. The committee did not rule on the truth of the rape allegation, she said. She claims she was told the alleged rapist was going to be suspended and encouraged to read up on women's liberation. She then says she was warned against speaking about the hearing. "They said, if you go around calling him a rapist, you'll be in trouble. If you tell anyone, you'll be in trouble … They didn't elaborate. They're not the kind of people to get on the wrong side of."

It's sickening as is Hedley's behaviour.


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2013)

this new case is about a different person, not smith, sihhi.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 9, 2013)

killer b said:


> this new case is about a different person, not smith, sihhi.


Indeed. Though the latest piece doesn't help with peoples confusion.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

killer b said:


> this new case is about a different person, not smith, sihhi.


 
Yes it is, I got passed the link by email saying more information about the earlier case so I read it all as if it was all about him, sorry to all.

Re-reading carefully - not a well written piece - It is worse than I feared. It bears all the hallmarks of the transcript case, however.

Farce: "She claims she was told the alleged rapist was going to be suspended and encouraged to read up on women's liberation" 

If there is rape, time off for some encouraged reading. Farce.


----------



## belboid (Mar 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Farce: "She claims she was told the alleged rapist was going to be suspended and encouraged to read up on women's liberation"
> 
> If there is rape, time off for some encouraged reading. Farce.


Assuming that is true, stinks of bullshit to me. Umpteen bits do not read true. And it's just badly written, too.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 9, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Indeed. Though the latest piece doesn't help with peoples confusion.


 Yeah the way it's written isn't great.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> Assuming that is true, stinks of bullshit to me. Umpteen bits do not read true. And it's just badly written, too.


 
It is poorly written but this is confusing and/or damning:

"_But participants in the disputes committee hearing described the line of questioning as "disgusting" and described the suspension as a travesty. "The fact that he got basically a slap on the wrist was just appalling.""_

Who are these participants in the DC? The only judges mentioned are Pat Stack and Amy Leather.


----------



## Before Theory (Mar 9, 2013)

Yes, this is a different case but utilising the same method of dealing with complaints against party leaders. 

Cohen has been hamstrung by the Guardian lawyers, but everyone in Sheffield knows about the case, and yes apology boy, two other young people did witness the physical assault of this women, and yes they did not intervene. The man in question is 6'3/6'4 and a scary fucker when he's angry.

He then went off to work in the SWP national office, so obviously they thought he was worth promoting.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 9, 2013)

One major difference between the two allegations is that they made a much better job of covering this one up.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Yes, this is a different case but utilising the same method of dealing with complaints against party leaders.
> 
> Cohen has been hamstrung by the Guardian lawyers, but everyone in Sheffield knows about the case, and yes apology boy, two other young people did witness the physical assault of this women, and yes they did not intervene. The man in question is 6'3/6'4 and a scary fucker when he's angry.
> 
> He then went off to work in the SWP national office, so obviously they thought he was worth promoting.


 
Cheers BT.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 9, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I don't understand why Steve Hedley hasn't been suspended by both the RMT and the Socialist Party.


I can. It is not within the remit of a trade union or a political party to try to control or judge the behaviour of their members outside the purpose of the organisation. That would have totalitarian implications. People join a trade union to get higher wages, etc. People join a political party to achieve some political objective. It's only a part of their life. What they do outside this in their private life is not a matter for these organisations. It may be a matter for the law or moral condemnation (and obviously the allegations that have been made are) but not for a trade union or a political party (or a gardening club or whatever or, for that matter, a church) to deal with. The mess that the SWP has got itself into (and which the RMT and SPEW can avoid) is a result of acceptance of the flawed doctrine that "the personal is political". No, it isn't. The personal is personal and the political is political.


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2013)

did you really just type that out? fucking hell.


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2013)

'rapists & wife beaters welcome, as long as you keep it at home'?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

Can anyone supply details of the reading list given for a rapist-assaulter?
Will it be completely the SWP's own literature?







What kind of messages will this kind of reading give to SWP class-conscious Marxist male members who have also committed rape?


----------



## Belushi (Mar 9, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can. It is not within the remit of a trade union or a political party to try to control or judge the behaviour of their members outside the purpose of the organisation. That would have totalitarian implications. People join a trade union to get higher wages, etc. People join a political party to achieve some political objective. It's only a part of their life. What they do outside this in their private life is not a matter for these organisations. It may be a matter for the law or moral condemnation (and obviously the allegations that have been made are) but not for a trade union or a political party (or a gardening club or whatever or, for that matter, a church) to deal with. The mess that the SWP has got itself into (and which the RMT and SPEW can avoid) is a result of acceptance of the flawed doctrine that "the personal is political". No, it isn't. The personal is personal and the political is political.


 
Bollocks.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 9, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Yes, this is a different case but utilising the same method of dealing with complaints against party leaders.
> 
> Cohen has been hamstrung by the Guardian lawyers, but everyone in Sheffield knows about the case, and yes apology boy, two other young people did witness the physical assault of this women, and yes they did not intervene. The man in question is 6'3/6'4 and a scary fucker when he's angry.
> 
> He then went off to work in the SWP national office, so obviously they thought he was worth promoting.


If there was a physical assault and they didn't intervene verbally or physically then they are gutless wonders. I have no idea who we're talking about or what exactly happened and it's a bit difficult to say more when people are telling parts of a story.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> People join a political party to achieve some political objective. It's only a part of their life. What they do outside this in their private life is not a matter for these organisations. It may be a matter for the law or moral condemnation (and obviously the allegations that have been made are) but not for a trade union or a political party (or a gardening club or whatever or, for that matter, a church) to deal with.


 
I hope never to join your kind of political party, would urge any female relatives and associates I knew to steer clear of it too.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can. It is not within the remit of a trade union or a political party to try to control or judge the behaviour of their members outside the purpose of the organisation. That would have totalitarian implications. People join a trade union to get higher wages, etc. People join a political party to achieve some political objective. It's only a part of their life. What they do outside this in their private life is not a matter for these organisations. It may be a matter for the law or moral condemnation (and obviously the allegations that have been made are) but not for a trade union or a political party (or a gardening club or whatever or, for that matter, a church) to deal with. The mess that the SWP has got itself into (and which the RMT and SPEW can avoid) is a result of acceptance of the flawed doctrine that "the personal is political". No, it isn't. The personal is personal and the political is political.


Wow. Please, please don't bother regaling us with the horrible things that SPGB members have got up to that members voted not to expel them for - i can see you polishing up your badges on this score already. Clueless, clueless and dangerous.

(of course, being 'undemocratic' _is_ an expellable offence)


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> It may be a matter for the law or moral condemnation (and obviously the allegations that have been made are) but not for a trade union or a political party (or a gardening club or whatever or, for that matter, _*a church*_) to deal with.


 
I like this inclusion - the Catholic hierarchy had no duty over its rapist and assaultive priests, the personal is personal - the twelve-year old victims should have gone to the police.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can. It is not within the remit of a trade union or a political party to try to control or judge the behaviour of their members outside the purpose of the organisation. That would have totalitarian implications. People join a trade union to get higher wages, etc. People join a political party to achieve some political objective. It's only a part of their life. What they do outside this in their private life is not a matter for these organisations. It may be a matter for the law or moral condemnation (and obviously the allegations that have been made are) but not for a trade union or a political party (or a gardening club or whatever or, for that matter, a church) to deal with. The mess that the SWP has got itself into (and which the RMT and SPEW can avoid) is a result of acceptance of the flawed doctrine that "the personal is political". No, it isn't. The personal is personal and the political is political.


Of course, both of these organisations reject such a crude approach - so you are just wrong from the start - whilst trying to impose that crude approach on those who have already rejected it because it is naive, dangerous and fucking stupid.


----------



## Before Theory (Mar 9, 2013)

two sheds said:


> One major difference between the two allegations is that they made a much better job of covering this one up.



One major difference between the two allegations is that they made a much better job of covering this one up.[/quote]

In this case he was suspended for two years,so while that was totally inadequate and quite laughable really, at least something was "seen to be done".

Delta stayed as prominent as ever and infact ended up gaining control of the industrial department as well as anti fascist work.

Also, in the Delta case the CC had briefed against Comrade W and spread a bunch of lies about her, so when the real story came out, the people who had swallowed this and given him the standing ovation of 2011 were absolutely incensed.

The rest is history.


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2013)

[/QUOTE]They said, if you go around calling him a rapist, you'll be in trouble. If you tell anyone, you'll be in trouble … They didn't elaborate. *They're not the kind of people to get on the wrong side of."*[/QUOTE]

so, its not just the accused she was fearful of, just how do the SWP operate when they are threatened*?*

and who were ''they''?


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2013)

having said that i must have come across about SWP ten full timers in my time here and very few could be described as threatening, some were actually OK, like Jo...


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Can anyone supply details of the reading list given for a rapist-assaulter?
> Will it be completely the SWP's own literature?
> 
> 
> ...


 
You tell us Sihhi. I normally enjoy many of your posts but this one is just weird. There is nothing in this extract which is outside that of a basic marxist position whether you lke it or not.I might disagree with the SWP on a whole number of things but wouldn't stoop to your Newmanesque SWP membership =rapist drivel.


----------



## Before Theory (Mar 9, 2013)

treelover said:


> having said that i must have come across about SWP ten full timers in my time here and very few could be described as threatening, some were actually OK, like Jo...



You are absolutely right, the majority of people in the SWP are decent folks who want to change the world for the better. I should know, I was one of them for 10 years until the standing ovation of 2011.

However what's telling is how the leadership react to the sexist and violent  behaviour of a tiny minority of their membership.

They react by trying to undermine and silence the complainants and their supporters.

That's the way the Catholic Church and the LibDems deal with complaints of sexual violence, I had come to expect better from the revolutionary party I had spent 10 years building and funding.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Go away and read about women's liberation


 
Given your recent record of unfortunately-sexist comments, that'd probably be a bit of advice that *you* should take to heart.


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2013)

well, i didn't actually say that, where I am the majority behaved appallingly, gerrymandering meetings, whipping up schoolchildren to a frenzy during Iraq war demos, accusing people of having MH issues if they proposed different strategies, nationally I saw them undermine the principles and structures of the ESF, i could go on...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I like this inclusion - the Catholic hierarchy had no duty over its rapist and assaultive priests, the personal is personal - the twelve-year old victims should have gone to the police.


 
Or just thanked the Lord for the divine attention, then gone away and read the Bible.


----------



## cesare (Mar 9, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can. It is not within the remit of a trade union or a political party to try to control or judge the behaviour of their members outside the purpose of the organisation. That would have totalitarian implications. People join a trade union to get higher wages, etc. People join a political party to achieve some political objective. It's only a part of their life. What they do outside this in their private life is not a matter for these organisations. It may be a matter for the law or moral condemnation (and obviously the allegations that have been made are) but not for a trade union or a political party (or a gardening club or whatever or, for that matter, a church) to deal with. The mess that the SWP has got itself into (and which the RMT and SPEW can avoid) is a result of acceptance of the flawed doctrine that "the personal is political". No, it isn't. The personal is personal and the political is political.



Apart from the obvious fact that this trade union, and political party, are also employers and therefore have the same duty of care to their employees as any other employer; you've just said that trade unions and political parties don't have a wider duty to their members and the working class - that includes women, the young, the old, people with disabilities  and minorities. Unless you somehow think that the working class consists of fucking thugs and anyone that doesn't meet that description can be disregarded/oppressed in the process of your fucking politics.

Makes me want to fucking vomit.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2013)

Surely if you're a Marxist you don't have a duty to "the party" or "the left" you have a duty to the working class and if something the party is doing is actually harming the working class in some way then you have to do something about it.


----------



## sptme (Mar 9, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> It is not within the remit of a trade union or a political party to try to control or judge the behaviour of their members outside the purpose of the organisation......People join a political party to achieve some political objective.


 
Is it not one of the objectives of the SP to fight against sexism and end women's oppression?



> What they do outside this in their private life is not a matter for these organisations.....
> The mess that the SWP has got itself into (and which the RMT and SPEW can avoid) is a result of acceptance of the flawed doctrine that "the personal is political". No, it isn't. The personal is personal and the political is political.


 
What about if a member did a bit of gay-bashing or paki-bashig, would that be OK too? Or is violence agaisnt women private and non political where as racial and homophobic violence is considered political by you?

Are you really going to insist that rape, domestic violence and and sexual harassment are not political issues, that their are no oppressive power relationships there?

As to what the SP should do - I think the guy should be 'suspend without prejudice' while they investigate. there is no presumption of guilt in this. the remit of the investigation should not be to find the guy guilty or not guilty of domestic violence, rather to judge on the balance of probability whether his behaviour is compatible with the membership of an organisation that fights against sexism and women's oppression.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> You tell us Sihhi. I normally enjoy many of your posts but this one is just weird. There is nothing in this extract which is outside that of a basic marxist position whether you lke it or not.I might disagree with the SWP on a whole number of things but wouldn't stoop to your Newmanesque SWP membership =rapist drivel.


 
Is that what I've said, SWP membership=rapist?
Around 1 in 20 or 30 males are rapists, I'd expect it to be much, much lower in a self-selective revolutionary body like the SWP. It would be at the same level for anarchists, other Trotsykists, Marxist Leninists, republicans, left communists or whatever. 
There are better ways of dealing with abusers and harassers within the movement, if we saw ourselves _as a movement_ instead of discrete, closed parties. You do see yourself as part of movement, don't you? The botching of the investigation conducted within SWP DC procedure is a testament to trying to do it as a party. 

My point is on these lines: To someone who was a rapist or a sexual harasser but a member of the SWP, being given reading material on women's liberation _*from the same party*_, is a mistake.
At best it would do nothing, at worst, it would stabilise the assumption that their behaviour was a minor foible within the struggle. A struggle rests _*in the party*_, leading the working-class to a future revolution, whilst the workplace slowly subsumes everyone to be a worker (male and female).
Hence the purity of the party must be maintained, let's not tell anyone anything.
In the very worst cases, it could lead to the conclusion that _as long as the party isn't harmed_, minor sexist behaviour towards, say, non-members, is a meaningless issue, hence they should shift their approach in that direction.

I can try to dig up other SWP material I have, like where feminist organisations in the US are blamed in the 1980s for moving away from the workplace to concentrating on rape and sexual violence. It was what I had to hand, so what if it's Marxist- its basic point are: no female sections within the party and with the workplace struggle led by the party, we can and will win just as we did in Russia. It's not surprising that women choose non-struggle or purely a cross-class focus on all women when faced with the practice of the party, and a careful reading of the literature behind the party that says 'we're too good for women's sections, we're leading a revolution don't you know'.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Surely if you're a Marxist you don't have a duty to "the party" or "the left" you have a duty to the working class and if something the party is doing is actually harming the working class in some way then you have to do something about it.


 
You are deviating into bourgeois deontological notions of duty comrade. On reflection you will see that there is no abstract concept of duty but only a single concrete necessity; the necessity that the party survive to complete its task no matter how many unavenged rapes, abuses, scandals, crises, and crushed individuals pile up around the faithful. It is not for you to enquire into the mystery of the divine economy.

Or something like that


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2013)

kavenism said:


> You are deviating into bourgeois deontological notions of duty comrade. On reflection you will see that there is no abstract concept of duty but only a single concrete necessity; the necessity that the party survive to complete its task no matter how many unavenged rapes, abuses, scandals, crises, and crushed individuals pile up around the faithful. It is not for you to enquire into the mystery of the divine economy.
> 
> Or something like that


 
And people wonder why stalinism developed.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> However what's telling is how the leadership react to the sexist and violent behaviour of a tiny minority of their membership.
> 
> They react by trying to undermine and silence the complainants and their supporters.


 
The party is the key to the revolution - things that grow the party are good, things that weaken it are bad. Wider knowledge of sexual harassment from that minority, the CC has deemed a very bad thing. Wider knowledge of sexual harassment from a minority within the CC, the CC has deemed a very bad thing indeed.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> And people wonder why stalinism developed.


It's frightening just how smoothly a defence of the party can start to sound like a totalitarian liturgy.

(Edit)
Actually that's a bit strong. I should say Toytown totalitarian liturgy. Try saying that after a few jars.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

kavenism said:


> It's frightening just how smoothly a defence of the party can start to sound like a totalitarian liturgy.
> 
> (Edit)
> Actually that's a bit strong. I should say Toytown totalitarian liturgy. Try saying that after a few jars.


 
Nothing you say will change the outlook:

"Declaration of Principles

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN HOLDS:

7. That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.
8. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom."

Members of other political bodies of alleged labour need _*war*_ waging on them.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 9, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Nothing you say will change the outlook:
> 
> "Declaration of Principles
> 
> ...


 
Except at elections where those same political bodies of alleged labour need *voting for* (without illusions)!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2013)

the SP and SPGB are two different parties tbf.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 9, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Except at elections where those same political bodies of alleged labour need *voting for* (without illusions)!


 
No you need to write 'World Socialism' on your ballot paper, if you just not turn up, expect hostility.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the SP and SPGB are two different parties tbf.


 
All parties are bad apparently


----------



## treelover (Mar 9, 2013)

“The party’s recent difficulties don’t begin with what our old National Secretary did (whatever that was), or who it was on the CC who rang up the DC to persuade the comrades on it to reverse their original, interim verdict of misconduct inappropriate of an SWP member (whatever textile of jacket he wears)”


on Seymours FB page, this was posted by a commenter, I wonder who they mean...


----------



## articul8 (Mar 9, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given your recent record of unfortunately-sexist comments, that'd probably be a bit of advice that *you* should take to heart.


 unlike certain others I have demonstrated my concern for women's rights in action, not in pc moralising


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 9, 2013)

People have been missing the point I was trying to make. Of course sexual assault, wife-beating, etc should be condemed, but my point is that it is not up to a trade union or a political party to constitute itself a court and decide whether or not someone has done something like this. This is not only unnecessary but dangerous as "miscarriages of justice" (one way or the another) are more likely. If somebody in an organisation makes an allegation of this kind against some other member the advice should be "go to the police" not to an internal disciplinary committee with an appeal to a conference. It's unbelievable that allegations of this sort should be discussed and decided on at a trade union or political conference (and in fact that the details should be discussed on a bulletin board like this, with anyone putting in their penny's worth as if they were members of a jury). What the SWP should be condemned for is not for having reached the wrong verdict, but for having presumed to judge such a serious allegation.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 9, 2013)

So when the SWP had a complaint of rape made against one of the CC by a fellow member what they should have done is just shrug their shoulders and tell her that they couldn't do anything.

Christ, is this official SPGB policy?


----------



## killer b (Mar 9, 2013)

No one missed the point you were making.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 9, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Christ, is this official SP policy?


 
SPGB. Not a thread for ambiguity.


----------



## SLK (Mar 9, 2013)

Seymour's fb comments on the Nick Cohen article have a lot more detail, including a post from the woman in Sheffield who went to the DC. I don't want to reproduce it but suffice to say Cohen really hasn't been able to print it all and it's horrific. I have no idea how anyone could defend the "able to reapply to rejoin in 2 years" part.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> Seymour's fb comments on the Nick Cohen article have a lot more detail, including a post from the woman in Sheffield who went to the DC. I don't want to reproduce it but suffice to say Cohen really hasn't been able to print it all and it's horrific. I have no idea how anyone could defend the "able to reapply to rejoin in 2 years" part.


You have the advantage over the rest of us in that you are friends with RS on FB. And as you can't reproduce it we will have to just accept that it is horrific. And true. This trial by internet stuff is fun innit.


----------



## chilango (Mar 9, 2013)

articul8 said:


> unlike certain others I have demonstrated my concern for women's rights in action, not in pc moralising


 
Not everybody's posting from a PC...


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> SPGB. Not a thread for ambiguity.


Aye sorry, edited.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 9, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> So when the SWP had a complaint of rape made against one of the CC by a fellow member what they should have done is just shrug their shoulders and tell her that they couldn't do anything.


No, of course not. You're still not getting my point. Of course they shouldn't just shrug their shoulders, but they shouldn't set out to judge whether or not the complaint is valid. They should tell the person to go to the police. Otherwise they will end up having to ask embarrasing questions of the complainant (as the SWP seems to have done) or to question the accused without him being able to plead the Fifth Amendment or invoke any of the protections that civil rights lawyers have fought for over the years. If the accused is convincted in a proper court of law, then something could be done but not before. Anyway, that's my personal view.


----------



## Lower Ground (Mar 9, 2013)

http://hurryupharry.org/2013/03/09/...-workers-party-figure/#comments#disqus_thread
perp.named in comments


----------



## Before Theory (Mar 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You have the advantage over the rest of us in that you are friends with RS on FB. And as you can't reproduce it we will have to just accept that it is horrific. And true. This trial by internet stuff is fun innit.



Yes and your apologies for your CC by Internet are also fun innit.


----------



## treelover (Mar 10, 2013)

not long now....


----------



## treelover (Mar 10, 2013)

SLK said:


> Seymour's fb comments on the Nick Cohen article have a lot more detail, including a post from the woman in Sheffield who went to the DC. I don't want to reproduce it but suffice to say Cohen really hasn't been able to print it all and it's horrific. I have no idea how anyone could defend the "able to reapply to rejoin in 2 years" part.


 
When i went on his FB page , it said you had to be a 'friend' to view it, is this correct?


----------



## october_lost (Mar 10, 2013)

Who is the second allegation against? Is it in the public domain and I just missed it?

ETA I think I got it off the previous blog.


----------



## Before Theory (Mar 10, 2013)

It





october_lost said:


> Who is the second allegation against? Is it in the public domain and I just missed it?
> 
> ETA I think I got it off the previous blog.




It's against the ex Sheffield organiser, who coincidentally shares a surname with Delta (who the first allegation was against).


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, of course not. You're still not getting my point. Of course they shouldn't just shrug their shoulders, but they shouldn't set out to judge whether or not the complaint is valid. They should tell the person to go to the police. Otherwise they will end up having to ask embarrasing questions of the complainant (as the SWP seems to have done) or to question the accused without him being able to plead the Fifth Amendment or invoke any of the protections that civil rights lawyers have fought for over the years. If the accused is convincted in a proper court of law, then something could be done but not before. Anyway, that's my personal view.


And when the accuser doesn't want to go to the police, _like in this very case, _what should people do then?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can. It is not within the remit of a trade union or a political party to try to control or judge the behaviour of their members outside the purpose of the organisation. That would have totalitarian implications. People join a trade union to get higher wages, etc. People join a political party to achieve some political objective. It's only a part of their life. What they do outside this in their private life is not a matter for these organisations. It may be a matter for the law or moral condemnation (and obviously the allegations that have been made are) but not for a trade union or a political party (or a gardening club or whatever or, for that matter, a church) to deal with. *The mess that the SWP has got itself into (and which the RMT and SPEW can avoid) is a result of acceptance of the flawed doctrine that "the personal is political". No, it isn't. The personal is personal and the political is political.*


 
Not only doesn't it follow what you wrote above, its also wrong....unless you believe that we act (including personally) in circumstances of our own choosing or you choose to define the political so narrowly that it is useless. So which are you going for, stupid or useless?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 10, 2013)

Lower Ground said:


> http://hurryupharry.org/2013/03/09/...-workers-party-figure/#comments#disqus_thread
> perp.named in comments


 
The political level of debate in those comments is astounding.


----------



## SLK (Mar 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> When i went on his FB page , it said you had to be a 'friend' to view it, is this correct?


Yes, but it's going to get out now the victim is saying she's formulating a blog post.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> And when the accuser doesn't want to go to the police, _like in this very case, _what should people do then?


Personally, I'd be inclined to say if you don't go to the police there's nothing we can do. Unsatisfactory, I agree, as leaving the complainant unsatisfied and the accused with this hanging over their head. But this would not be as bad as a party committee trying to be police investigator, judge and jury and their findings going before a conference of delegates to accept or reject. What would you do?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Personally, I'd be inclined to say if you don't go to the police there's nothing we can do. Unsatisfactory, I agree, as leaving the complainant unsatisfied and the accused with this hanging over their head. But this would not be as bad as a party committee trying to be police investigator, judge and jury and their findings going before a conference of delegates to accept or reject. What would you do?


You know those utopian socialists and communists that marx criticised for building abstract models out of their own heads rather than out of real conditions, real experience and the possibilities the meeting of the two contained?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2013)

articul8 said:


> unlike certain others I have demonstrated my concern for women's rights in action, not in pc moralising


 
I'd say that most people with any decency *live* our involvement in womens' rights, so we don't have to "demonstrate" anything, whereas you....


...you keep successfully demonstrating that you're like a repro piece of furniture. A thin veneer concealing the structure of crap that lies beneath.

BTW, pulling Hilary's chair out for her - not "demonstrating your concern for womens' rights in action". Neither is going on an occasional protest.

HTH.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Personally, I'd be inclined to say if you don't go to the police there's nothing we can do. Unsatisfactory, I agree, as leaving the complainant unsatisfied and the accused with this hanging over their head. But this would not be as bad as a party committee trying to be police investigator, judge and jury and their findings going before a conference of delegates to accept or reject. What would you do?


 
So you choose useless...glad you cleared that up.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The political level of debate in those comments is astounding.


 
I suspect you're confusing "debate" and "mutual reacharound".


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So you choose useless...


Probably. But not as bad as being part of a lynch mob as here.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect you're confusing "debate" and "mutual reacharound".


 
I have high expectations which are often dashed


----------



## cesare (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Probably. But not as bad as being part of a lynch mob as here.


You think a no tolerance approach to DV and sexual abuse is a "lynch mob". Good grief.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> You think a no tolerance approach to DV and sexual abuse is a "lynch mob".


Of course not, but many people here are assuming that, in the individual cases that are being discussed, the accused are guilty and should be punished when they are in no position to know whether or not they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Probably. But not as bad as being part of a lynch mob as here.


Your defence of your idiot-utopianism (and the perfect bourgeois separation into private life/citizen life that marx railed against as one of the worst characteristics of capitalist social relations) is_ actually getting worse._


----------



## cesare (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Of course not, but many people here are assuming that, in the individual cases that are being discussed, the accused are guilty and should be punished when they are in no position to know whether or not they are.


No. People are saying that the matter should be investigated as a matter of urgency - and that the police can do their thing which includes nothing if outside legislative timeframe; but that doesn't necessarily prevent internal sanctions arising out of a proper investigation.

* internal sanctions can include (but are not necessarily limited to) dismissal (if an employee), demotion, expulsion etc


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Personally, I'd be inclined to say if you don't go to the police there's nothing we can do. Unsatisfactory, I agree, as leaving the complainant unsatisfied and the accused with this hanging over their head. But this would not be as bad as a party committee trying to be police investigator, judge and jury and their findings going before a conference of delegates to accept or reject. What would you do?


 
Personally, if I were a member of a revolutionary party and had been sexually assaulted, but didn't want the sheer utter hassle and general waste of time that is the UK criminal justice system's take on prosecuting sex crimes, I'd *want* to shout the assaulter's name from the rooftops, and let them take me through the _"bourgeois_ courts if they felt that I had traduced them. Unfortunately, many people in revolutionary parties are indoctrinated into believing that the "good of the party" must come first, hence the farragos of "revolutionary justice" we've been treated to.
You see, for the complainant, this is a no-win situation, and that's untenable to anyone with even a shred of conscience or the faintest stirrings of a desire for justice. Compel the complainant to go to the police, and there's only *at most* a one-in-twelve chance that the case will result in a successful prosecution. Do the "right" thing by your political organisation, and that assaulter will likely assault again, with all the guilt that would bring to the complainant. Expose the assaulter for what they are, and watch your revolutionary party split into "do what's best for the party" and "expel the perve with a good kicking!" camps.

What everything reduces to is that the assaulter is unlikely to have to pay any significant price for their crime. Me, I'd make sure that my organisation had strong and clear rules in place about sexual assault in the workplace, as well as a suspension policy for any member being investigated for a sex offence. That's pretty much in line with extant workplace regulations in many large workplaces, as a part of "disrepute" rules. It's not a great stretch for revolutionary political organisations to adopt a similar set of regulations on their membership, including the party heirarchy.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 10, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The political level of debate in those comments is astounding.


 
This one I thought was interesting: "This is just about the essence of cults, I think: to report the abuse to outside authorities may or may not involve physical danger, but certainly does present the prospect of losing your entire social and emotional world."

[/scarpers to shouts of 'Fuck off two sheds']


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Probably. But not as bad as being part of a lynch mob as here.


 
I don't know whether you're a TUist, or if you've ever been a union rep, but one of the most nauseating things I encountered as a rep for two different unions was the prevalence of sexual harrassment complaints - they were about 70% of the entire caseload I dealt with, everything from unwelcome "dirty talk" to full-on sexual assaults. I took all such cases *very* seriously, because if you let even one go, you enable the perpetrator to possibly do it again. What most members wanted wasn't money, it was an apology and a clear message that it wouldn't happen again.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 10, 2013)

two sheds said:


> This one I thought was interesting: "This is just about the essence of cults, I think: to report the abuse to outside authorities may or may not involve physical danger, but certainly does present the prospect of losing your entire social and emotional world."
> 
> [/scarpers to shouts of 'Fuck off two sheds']


 
Not really convinced with the party = cults as a narrative tbh. Don't mind it as occasional abuse but it really doesn't stand up to anything else. There is a conclusion at the end of Against the Stream ( the history of pre war and early post war Trotskyism) which pretty much says there is life without the party. If that was the conclusion then when the far left and anarchist scene was minute  and the CP a very big fish then its a conclusion now. Essentially you might fall out some mates who were comrades and lose some baby sitters.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't know whether you're a TUist, or if you've ever been a union rep,


Yes, I have been an office rep and there was a groper who everybody knew about but the women took it in their stride and laughed it off, but that was years ago and times have changed. What you say above makes sense (except I'm not sure about automatic suspension as this might give rise to malicious complaints).

Edit: Forgot to add. I wouldn't want to handle a case of alleged rape. Have you ever had to?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

sptme said:


> As to what the SP should do - I think the guy should be 'suspend without prejudice' while they investigate. there is no presumption of guilt in this. the remit of the investigation should not be to find the guy guilty or not guilty of domestic violence, rather to judge on the balance of probability whether his behaviour is compatible with the membership of an organisation that fights against sexism and women's oppression.


 
I actually agree with this. But it can only be done if there _is _an investigation, which cannot take place if the woman concerned isn't willing to cooperate with a political party (I assume) she's never been a member of and may have serious disagreements with. I'm waiting to find out whether this will be possible.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yes, I have been an office rep and there was a groper who everybody knew about but the women took it in their stride and laughed it off, but that was years ago and times have changed.


 
You must be trolling. So are you suggesting that these days women are all soft and go running to the authorities the first time someone calls them "love"? Not like your experience where women knew their place and understood their role as always available object for a bit of handsy male action. After all if they don't like it they can always stay at home with the kids!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2013)

kavenism said:


> You must be trolling. So are you suggesting that these days women are all soft and go running to the authorities the first time someone calls them "love"? Not like your experience where women knew their place and understood their role as always available object for a bit of handsy male action. After all if they don't like it they can always stay at home with the kids!


 


> In their cry for "equality" do not their methods betray them? Every move on their part is an appeal not to sex equality but to sex fetishism. Their tactics rely upon and appeal to the worship of sex. They know that their sex gives them privileges before the magistrate and protects them from the usual police brutality, and that any strong measures against them would immediately raise a storm in their favour amongst the sex worshippers. Hence their peculiar tactics, which have no other explanation. Let anyone compare mentally the treatment that would be meted out to working men did they pursue a similar policy to these Suffragettes. Let them compare the way the suffragist invasions of Downing Street or the House of Commons were dealt with, with that which would follow persistent forcible entries of the Commons by bands of unemployed. Broken heads, bullets, and long terms of imprisonment—and not in the second division—would be their lot, and instead of hysteric sympathy being created for the ill-treated unemployed, horror at their audacity and a determination to repress them brutally would take its place. And the middle class examples of sex arrogance rely upon this very woman worship and sex inequality to further their demands.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 10, 2013)

i'd say that while identity politics is a load of shite any "working class" group that seeks to ignore half of the working class is ... well ...


----------



## kavenism (Mar 10, 2013)

Perhaps this is Jean-Luc's era? Thank fuck times have changed.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 10, 2013)

fucking hell (at that article).

I've read the whole thing.


_ What are the facts regarding the Suffragettes? Under the pretence of sex equality they are buttressing class privilege. Under the guise of democracy they are endeavouring to strengthen the political power of property. They plausibly propose that women be admitted to the franchise on the same terms as men, and since all Socialists want sex equality this looks attractive. But wait. What does it really mean? Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands'. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so._

_ The limited suffrage movement is consequently only a means of providing votes for the propertied women of the middle class, and faggot votes for the wealthy; possibly tipping the balance of votes against the workers—men and women. Yet the Suffragettes pretend that this is a movement for the benefit of working women! The huge sums spent in this agitation prove that it is not a workers' movement. It is a movement by women of the wealthy and middle class to open up for themselves more fully careers of exploitation, and to share in the flesh-pots of political office, to get sinecures, position and emoluments among the governing caste._


while the suffragettes were frequently made up of middle class women there were trade union movements for the vote and this surely isn't a reason to reject the entire thing


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

kavenism said:


> So are you suggesting that these days women are all soft and go running to the authorities the first time someone calls them "love"? Not like your experience where women knew their place and understood their role as always available object for a bit of handsy male action. After all if they don't like it they can always stay at home with the kids!


Of course not. I was just describing what the situation was in the past, not defending it. Of course the change since then has been for the better.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> fucking hell (at that article).
> 
> I've read the whole thing.
> 
> ...


 
Exactly. Though for balance it's probably worth pointing out that some of the suffragettes propaganda was along the lines of 'how come these dirty smelly prole men get the vote and we superior, morally upright middle class women don't? give us the vote and we'll be a bulwark against socialism'. There was also one that talked about votes for m/c women being necessary to maintain white supremacy. It was all a bit messy back then.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> while the suffragettes were frequently made up of middle class women there were trade union movements for the vote and this surely isn't a reason to reject the entire thing


I don't want to continue to derail this discussion but, for the record, I don't think you understand what the situation was in the early 1900s. Only men who had a minimum property qualification were allowed to vote. This disfranchised about a third of men. The main suffragette movement was demanding, not universal suffrage, but votes for women on the same terms as men. This would have still left most women without the vote and would in fact have increased the proportion of rich people in the electorate. That's why that particular demand was opposed (and should have been). As you point out, some trade unionists and others were demanding universal suffrage. That was more in line with working-class interests and should not have been opposed (and wasn't).

Now back to the topic of the thread


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

Oh dear.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 10, 2013)

The article doesn't make that very clear, it seems like it's opposing the whole of the suffragette movement and using sexist language to do so.


----------



## killer b (Mar 10, 2013)

We dont seem to understand very much do we. Thank god you're here to put us straight.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The article doesn't make that very clear, it seems like it's opposing the whole of the suffragette movement and using sexist language to do so.


Ah well, let's carry on. Here's another article from 1910 giving another flavour of the time. And here's an extract which is still valid today:


> The agitation for Woman’s Suffrage as at present constituted is one that depends for its success upon the increasing antagonism between the sexes. Instead of the political and economic separation of men and women, we, as Socialists, want a closer political and economic union; we want the organisation of men and women, not in opposite camps, but in one world-wide body, out for the overthrow of Capitalism and the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth, which alone can give economic emancipation to the workers of the world, male and female. The oft-quoted lines by Tennyson (who by some unaccountable means did occasionally say something that was worth saying):
> 
> “The woman’s cause is man’s: they rise or sink
> Together, dwarf’d or godlike, bond or free”;
> ...


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

killer b said:


> We dont seem to understand very much do we. Thank god you're here to put us straight.


Actually I wasn't needed in this instance as SpineyNorman had already put Frogwoman straight before me.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Exactly. Though for balance it's probably worth pointing out that some of the suffragettes propaganda was along the lines of 'how come these dirty smelly prole men get the vote and we superior, morally upright middle class women don't? give us the vote and we'll be a bulwark against socialism'. There was also one that talked about votes for m/c women being necessary to maintain white supremacy. It was all a bit messy back then.


 
You are absolutely right, on one hand many of the Liberals thought that giving the vote to women would mean increased votes for the Conservatives, on the other hand many Tories thought that it would mean votes for communism . The suffragettes like any single issue campaign had all sorts of people in it with a wide range of views.You couldn't knock their level of direct action , these days it would border on domestic terrorism, Both wings of the suffragettes called a halt to direct action when the WW! broke out  and some campaigned vigorously in favour of the war. Some of the best activists  became communists , some joined the BUF . Sylvia Pankurst was a very active early communist and republican ( before ending up supporting Haili Selassie , Emily and Christabel formed a womens party which wanted equal pay, maternity provision etc but campaigned for the abolition of trade unions and Emily ended up as a Tory candidate .


----------



## discokermit (Mar 10, 2013)

isn't all this a bit of a derail?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> isn't all this a bit of a derail?


Yes, but butchers started it. A parting shot: Adela Pankhurst became a fascist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yes, I have been an office rep and there was a groper who everybody knew about but the women took it in their stride and laughed it off, but that was years ago and times have changed. What you say above makes sense (except I'm not sure about automatic suspension as this might give rise to malicious complaints).
> 
> Edit: Forgot to add. I wouldn't want to handle a case of alleged rape. Have you ever had to?


 
No, "only" a violent sexual assault (would be classified as rape nowadays, under current legislation, but this was the '80s). Fortunately, we convinced the woman to go to the police, and supported her through her complaint, including running interference when the bosses tried various tactics to undermine her and bringing complaints against them further up the management food-chain for doing so.


----------



## JimW (Mar 10, 2013)

To continue it a bit, watched a doc on Western interest in Asian martial arts not long back and there was a squad of women who's job it was to protect one of the Pankhursts from arrest at mass meetings who became some of the first practitioners of jiu-jitsu, apparently.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> isn't all this a bit of a derail?


 
On one hand yes .I have been away for a week was in need of a quick fix of some intellectual stimulation and got bored with pages 265- 269.
On the other hand part of the SWP discussion has been on their tradition and its relationship to feminism.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 10, 2013)

JimW said:


> To continue it a bit, watched a doc on Western interest in Asian martial arts not long back and there was a squad of women who's job it was to protect one of the Pankhursts from arrest at mass meetings who became some of the first practitioners of jiu-jitsu, apparently.


 
*Edith Garrud: the Suffragette who knew jujutsu *

http://www.lulu.com/shop/tony-wolf/...l;jsessionid=203D7F27A27A226CC749EA624ECE56D3

(With 29 illustrations; suggested for readers aged 12 and older.)


----------



## discokermit (Mar 10, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> On one hand yes .I have been away for a week was in need of a quick fix of some intellectual stimulation and got bored with pages 265- 269.
> On the other hand part of the SWP discussion has been on their tradition and its relationship to feminism.


even the loyalists aren't arguing jean luc's position. for them, rape and physical abuse warrants a two year suspension and being told to read some books.

this second case seems to be even worse than the delta case. the sheffield organiser has harrassed and hit female comrades and raped at least one and has been suspended for two years. andy wilson, who proposed the setting up of a cultural magazine, was expelled, quite specifically, _for life_! the priorities of the cc are truly fucked up.
oh, and when a cc member was invited up to let the district know the reason for the dismissal, they were told the fulltimer had "done a lot for the party, was a great organizer and they hoped he's be back soon.". also, he had been dismissed for "serious sexist behaviour".


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> even the loyalists aren't arguing jean luc's position. for them, rape and physical abuse warrants a two year suspension and being told to read some books.
> 
> this second case seems to be even worse than the delta case. the sheffield organiser has harrassed and hit female comrades and raped at least one and has been suspended for two years. andy wilson, who proposed the setting up of a cultural magazine, was expelled, quite specifically, _for life_! the priorities of the cc are truly fucked up.
> oh, and when a cc member was invited up to let the district know the reason for the dismissal, they were told the fulltimer had "done a lot for the party, was a great organizer and they hoped he's be back soon.". also, he had been dismissed for "serious sexist behaviour".


 
I wasn't saying they were. I was getting into the suffragette debate.

Re priorities.Can see the point you are making but there are loads of people who have been expelled (presumably be for life)What is the case to single out Andy Wilson aside form the fact that you were a mate of his?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 10, 2013)

.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 10, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I wasn't saying they were. I was getting into the suffragette debate.
> 
> Re priorities.Can see the point you are making but there are loads of people who have been expelled (presumably be for life)What is the case to single out Andy Wilson aside form the fact that you were a mate of his?


in andy's case, they made it specific that it was for life. which, when you consider how trivial the accusation was, made it a good example to contrast against a two year suspension for harrasment and violence against female comrades.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> in andy's case, they made it specific that it was for life. which, when you consider how trivial the accusation was, made it a good example to contrast against a two year suspension for harrasment and violence against female comrades.


 
I agree with you re the difference.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 10, 2013)

oh, and apparently, the sheffield rapist still has a hundred and fifty swp friends on facebook.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> oh, and apparently, the sheffield rapist still has a hundred and fifty swp friends on facebook.


 
how many has Andy got?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 10, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> how many has Andy got?


what's the relevance?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> even the loyalists aren't arguing jean luc's position. for them, rape and physical abuse warrants a two year suspension and being told to read some books.
> 
> this second case seems to be even worse than the delta case. the sheffield organiser has harrassed and hit female comrades and raped at least one and has been suspended for two years. andy wilson, who proposed the setting up of a cultural magazine, was expelled, quite specifically, _for life_! the priorities of the cc are truly fucked up.
> oh, and when a cc member was invited up to let the district know the reason for the dismissal, they were told the fulltimer had "done a lot for the party, was a great organizer and they hoped he's be back soon.". also, he had been dismissed for "serious sexist behaviour".


The Sheffield case sounds much worse, one of the reason why I am still not sure I believe it, at least not the version Cohen puts forward. I struggle to accept that the SWP is that bad, it sounds like a totally different party to the one I was a member of.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The Sheffield case sounds much worse, one of the reason why I am still not sure I believe it, at least not the version Cohen puts forward. I struggle to accept that the SWP is that bad, it sounds like a totally different party to the one I was a member of.


i friended richard seymour on facebook to find out more. one of the women who posted there had put in a complaint about the fulltimer. from what she says, it was worse than the guardian article makes out.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 10, 2013)

Anyone got any news on how conference is going? Have they passed the motion on 'slow fire' for SEYMOUR! yet?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> even the loyalists aren't arguing jean luc's position.


For the record, my position is that allegations of rape should not be judged by a party committee but that the complainant should be encouraged to take the matter to the police.

I can see a case for a code of conduct governing non-criminal sexual harassment and for decisions after a member has been convicted, but not for a party committee to judge allegations of rape and serious sexual assault.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i friended richard seymour on facebook to find out more. one of the women who posted there had put in a complaint about the fulltimer. from what she says, it was worse than the guardian article makes out.


The situation seems to be confused by the fact that there are at least two women, possibly more whose experiences are now in the public domain. The Cohen source is the one known to me, and everything she has passed on is true to the best of my knowledge. The woman from Shefield I don't know anything about. The guy in question was organiser in a couple of regions.

There is still a lot to come out about the fulltimer accused, he really is a piece of shit. An interesting fact, and perhaps one which colours the perspective of some of those friends he retains from the party is that while a member is was subject to a false accusation from the police, which the party invested significant resources in defending him from.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The Sheffield case sounds much worse, one of the reason why I am still not sure I believe it, at least not the version Cohen puts forward. I struggle to accept that the SWP is that bad, it sounds like a totally different party to the one I was a member of.


I really, really fucking hope it isn't.


----------



## Before Theory (Mar 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The Sheffield case sounds much worse, one of the reason why I am still not sure I believe it, at least not the version Cohen puts forward. I struggle to accept that the SWP is that bad, it sounds like a totally different party to the one I was a member of.



That's exactly how I felt when I first heard about Comrade W's complaint, this couldn't be my Party, I was sure the leadership would deal with it sensitively and supportively. 

I then watched over a period of nearly two years as the CC put pressure on her not to take the case to the DC, and eventually we had the 2011 conference where Delta got to stand up and lie for 10 minutes about Comrade W and his "relationship" with her.

On the basis of those lies he got a standing ovation, and Comrade W's friends and supporters were shouted at and intimidated quite openly in the conference hall.

It took me two full years to accept that the party I had built in good faith for over 10 years really was this corrupt. So, emanymton, I can understand your unwillingness to accept these horrific stories as part and parcel of the SWP of today. I am still devastated by it all, as are many of the other comrades who left around the same time.

The Sheffield case came to light after I left the SWP but having met the young woman and also worked with her attacker, I know who I believe.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Probably. But not as bad as being part of a lynch mob as here.


 
Several people pointing out your useless stupidity doesn't constitute a lynch mob.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## emanymton (Mar 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i friended richard seymour on facebook to find out more. one of the women who posted there had put in a complaint about the fulltimer. from what she says, it was worse than the guardian article makes out.


Worse, it's hard to imagine how it could be. :-(


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 10, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> useless


Well, but what's your practicable, useful solution to a problem like this when it arises?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 10, 2013)

A lot of SWP fulltimers have come and gone in Sheffield, which one is this?


----------



## treelover (Mar 10, 2013)

"News from Hammersmith:I hear Calinicos is calling for the IDOP motions to be “treated with the contempt they deserve” and that calls from the podium for further expulsions are being met with applause.The Facebook Four are set to be expelled again at 2.30.
The SWP CC Faction has clearly gerrymandered today’s event – but they failed to win a majority among the whole membership. They got 512 supporters compared to the IDOP’s latest figure of 540 as of this morning, with people still joining"

Looks ugly, can't believe people can join/stay in this oufit...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Well, but what's your practicable, useful solution to a problem like this when it arises?


 
Well you posting useless idiocy doesn't make any demand on me to come up with a solution (I'm not the one posting the useless idiocy); rather the responsibility is on you to stop posting rubbish. However, there have been many constructive repsosnes made on this thread; so do some work, go back and look for them and while you're doing that, do some thinking as well and ditch your 'the personal isn't politcal' tripe. Also an apology for handing me a ptichfork and burning torch with no justification what so ever, wouldn't go amiss.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 10, 2013)

an infantile disorder


----------



## laptop (Mar 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> The Facebook Four are set to be expelled again at 2.30.


 

After that, does the Party dig them up and expel them a third time?


----------



## laptop (Mar 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect you're confusing "debate" and "mutual reacharound".


 






??


----------



## belboid (Mar 10, 2013)

<name removed>





SpackleFrog said:


> A lot of SWP fulltimers have come and gone in Sheffield, which one is this?


----------



## belboid (Mar 10, 2013)

Dp


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Actually I wasn't needed in this instance as SpineyNorman had already put Frogwoman straight before me.


 
I wasn't 'putting her straight' - I agreed with what she said and just added in a bit more context.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

belboid said:


> <name removed>


 
In addition to the rumours mentioned upthread, there are also some err... compromising pictures of him floating around the net. He wears comrade delta style specs too.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> In addition to the rumours mentioned upthread, there are also some err... compromising pictures of him floating around the net. He wears comrade delta style specs too.


Links please, People on SU keep saying Google him, I do and find nothing. 

It's the same with Seymour's Facebook page, I am so unless I can't even find him on Facebook.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 10, 2013)

belboid said:


> Dp


 

they've gone too far now


----------



## belboid (Mar 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Links please, People on SU keep saying Google him, I do and find nothing.
> 
> It's the same with Seymour's Facebook page, I am so unless I can't even find him on Facebook.


Just google his name +SWP - you'll find it in a really shitty piece all about the party. I opened the page, but fortunately it took ages to load, giving me enough time to go 'why the fuck do I want to see that?'


----------



## emanymton (Mar 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> "News from Hammersmith:I hear Calinicos is calling for the IDOP motions to be “treated with the contempt they deserve” and that calls from the podium for further expulsions are being met with applause.The Facebook Four are set to be expelled again at 2.30.
> The SWP CC Faction has clearly gerrymandered today’s event – but they failed to win a majority among the whole membership. They got 512 supporters compared to the IDOP’s latest figure of 540 as of this morning, with people still joining"
> 
> Looks ugly, can't believe people can join/stay in this oufit...


It's all rather odd you quote this directly from socialist unity and then someone quotes you back on the same thread. Makes my brain hurt.


----------



## belboid (Mar 10, 2013)

Btw, anyone know if MB was on his DC hearing?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 10, 2013)

belboid said:


> Btw, anyone know if MB was on his DC hearing?


Why you ask?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 10, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> For the record, my position is that allegations of rape should not be judged by a party committee but that the complainant should be encouraged to take the matter to the police.
> 
> I can see a case for a code of conduct governing non-criminal sexual harassment and for decisions after a member has been convicted, but not for a party committee to judge allegations of rape and serious sexual assault.



I would prefer if someone would be able to go to the police, but belboid made me think about what if they won't or can't and you have to take this in to account. As sihhi said what if someone hasn't got leave to remain in the country so can't go to the police. Doing nothing just wouldn't be acceptable.

This poses the question in one ongoing case that what do you do if the police can't act. Or if the people investigating, in this case the RMT, have a flawed investigation. By the way in this case the RMT would be suspending him and investigating him as his employer, not as his trade union. He is full time and deputy general secretary. A neutral suspension is carried out to protect those involved, including those making the accusations. It isn't acceptable in my view that he wasn't suspended. In this case there are also sexist and misogynist comments in the public domain


----------



## tony collins (Mar 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It's all rather odd you quote this directly from socialist unity and then someone quotes you back on the same thread. Makes my brain hurt.


 
It's the internet eating itself. It's like that new channel 4 programme which  shows what people do when they watch TV.


----------



## SLK (Mar 10, 2013)

Seymour's fb status: "disgust, nausea, contempt, rage"

Not really sure what he was expecting to be honest.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Links please, People on SU keep saying Google him, I do and find nothing.
> 
> It's the same with Seymour's Facebook page, I am so unless I can't even find him on Facebook.


 
Don't want to link cos the site's associated with 4chan and comes with all the dodginess that entails, but it's on the SWP entry on encycolpedia dramatica. The article it's a part of, as belboid rightly points out, is one of the least funny 'funny' pages on the entire internet. It's on a par with taffboy's 'funny' EDL site.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

SLK said:


> Seymour's fb status: "disgust, nausea, contempt, rage"
> 
> Not really sure what he was expecting to be honest.


 
While some may be interested in the emotions he feels when looking in the mirror, I'm more interested in his reaction to the special conference


----------



## emanymton (Mar 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Don't want to link cos the site's associated with 4chan and comes with all the dodginess that entails, but it's on the SWP entry on encycolpedia dramatica. The article it's a part of, as belboid rightly points out, is one of the least funny 'funny' pages on the entire internet. It's on a par with taffboy's 'funny' EDL site.


Yeah I have now thanks, to be honest I had already found it but didn't think there could be anything real on that page so only give it a very quick look.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> While some may be interested in the emotions he feels when looking in the mirror, I'm more interested in his reaction to the special conference


Thanks, you've brightened my day.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 10, 2013)

Yes the Sheffield case, the JS case is much worse than already described in the Guardian - btw Hi Kavenism, I contacted you on FB about this -, I've since spoken to some Sheffield people: Where it is worse is that the 2 yr suspension for him was real, not theoretical - they really were preparing for him to return as a fulltimer in the full knowledge he had abused members - they really did think 2 yrs of him reading Lindsey German books would make him fit to be around - in charge of - students and young recruits, in the full knowledge of his behavior. More of this story is going to come out (i'm going to give it a go, I am sure others will), and it will look very ugly - like a small scale reenactment of the catholic church, with "troubled" priests shifted from diocese to diocese, and given ineffectual prayer to deal with their "inner demons", while the heirarchy covered up and bamboozled the laity. Thankfully only adults (albeit young ones) involved. At the same time, Callinicos is winding members up to run around shouting "lies" at Nick Cohen - they seem to stupid to understand this means they are calling a woman who was hit by and raped by a party fulltimer a liar as well. Callinicos must know there is more , darker stuff here, so its a kamikaze strategy


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2013)

*Jen Izaakson* @Izaakson
@OakScott It's what you'd guess. CC loyalists crushed the faction. Defend the line or go. Have to accept votes at conference, so must go.

Now, can't tell if she was there or not, or if that's been passed on to her by people that were...


----------



## Before Theory (Mar 10, 2013)

I saw the fb pictures last year, add those to the proven accusations of rape against him, it is obvious the man is a dangerous sexual predator.

And yet the SWP wants him to work for them again !!!!! 

They really are in a parallel universe.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 10, 2013)

*Revolution cancelled due to bad weather*

Currently the SWP is in a very weak condition with very few members so the revolution won't be happening this month.

The long term strategy of the SWP is as follows: 

Act like insufferable wankers.
Slag off the activities and principles of useful people while being useless.
Take all the fun of everything they are involved in.
Meetings. So many meetings. Oh dear god the meetings.
Keep printing that fucking awful paper.
When the revolution finally happens despite their knack for stagnating genuine popular movements like a fat bloke with a rucksack at the front of a punk gig, they take all the credit. Then they have all the real revolutionaries rounded up and shot and promptly set about rebuilding hierarchy, beuraucracy and oppression until they are much the same as they were before but with more gulags. And more meetings.
Repeat until the sun explodes.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 10, 2013)

The CC , in the shape of Amy Leather, Joseph Choonara and Hanna Dee systematically misled members. Those members who knew about rape and assault were told it was "confidential". Those members who did not know were told it was mysteriously undefined "serious sexist behaviour" . Members who had complained were consequently seen by some of those who weren't "in the know" to be troublemakers drawn by feminism who had caused bother for a popular organiser. Because people were not told - they weren't gathered in a room and given an explanation - some  continued inviting him to  Party linked social events, to the shock of those who understood the full gravity of the affair. The CC really did think that a weekly visit from an assigned member and a reading list of Lindsey German books would make him fit to return in two years. Anyone who isn't at least threatened with expulsion will feel deep shame about their involvement when this story comes out - which it will.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 10, 2013)

This has already gone up on SU bit thought I'd post here as well. This is the email sent out to SWP members following the Guardian story.




> Dear comrade,
> 
> Some of you may have seen an article on the Guardian website today that makes allegations about a disputes committee case in 2011.
> 
> ...


 
Can't say I find it a very strong defense.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 10, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> The CC really did think that a weekly visit from an assigned member and a reading list of Lindsey German books would make him fit to return in two years.


 
Vanguard probation.



> Anyone who isn't at least threatened with expulsion will feel deep shame about their involvement when this story comes out - which it will.


 
The base of the CC faction have been being misled for a long time.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 10, 2013)

if the allegations are true thats really shameless.


----------



## SLK (Mar 10, 2013)

OK, Scirbbling S is SH.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 10, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This has already gone up on SU bit thought I'd post here as well. This is the email sent out to SWP members following the Guardian story.
> 
> Can't say I find it a very strong defense.


 
“The person accused was removed from the party, and the members of the party heard a full report on the case at our annual conference.“
Wasn't he removed but then reinstated?


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 10, 2013)

The Kimber denial is a non-denial, but the loyal party members have convinced themselves it 'shoots holes' through the Guardian story. The main point is Kimber says "*The person accused was removed from the party" , but carefully avoids the question "for how long". *


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 10, 2013)

He wasn't reinstated ....yet - 2 yr suspension from 2011.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 10, 2013)

This really is much worse then the Delta case, for one thing there was no suggestion of physical violence being used in that case but mainly as this guy was found guilty and only got a two year suspension.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 10, 2013)

Yes that's me - happy not to be anonymous if it helps, but nicknames seem the style round here - solomon


----------



## killer b (Mar 10, 2013)

I think claiming one rape case as 'worse' than another is unhelpful fwiw.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 10, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Yes that's me - happy not to be anonymous if it helps, but nicknames seem the style round here - solomon


 
Out of interest, when was Delta "one of the SWP’s best union militants"?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2013)

*Jim Jepps* @Jim_Jepps
Impressed by friend of mine just getting back from SWP special conf. Lost 400 to 140 (-ish, according to him) but still holding his head up


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 10, 2013)

Third hand report on Twitter says the votes were roughly 400 to 140. Which would seem to indicate that the "undecided" handful of delegates went with the opposition, while a substantial number of the inactive people pushed through as pro-CC delegates at aggregates didn't actually show up to the conference.

(edited to add: beaten to it)


----------



## sihhi (Mar 10, 2013)

Has this been posted yet: 

http://theredneedle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/swp-crisis-opposition-smashed-at.html




> Another activist wrote on facebook: "If it's the case that socialist organisations get the leaderships they deserve, then I don't know what that says for the SWP and the majority of delegates to today's Special "Conference".
> 
> "Another organisation retreating into the abyss of the sect, all the time dressing up their contemptable behaviour in the language of Proletarian Virtue. Well guess what? Working class people aren't interested in rape apologists, bureaucrats, petty bullies, middle class wanna-be's and tin-pot dictators.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 10, 2013)

SLK said:


> OK, Scirbbling S is SH.


 
Which is meaningless except to those in the know. Pssst, taps nose, nudge nudge


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Which is meaningless except to those in the know. Pssst, taps nose, nudge nudge


 
I don't feel it's fair to name him outright but SH himself gives a none too subtle hint in this post:



Scribbling S said:


> Yes that's me - happy not to be anonymous if it helps, but nicknames seem the style round here - solomon


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't feel it's fair to name him outright but SH himself gives a none too subtle hint in this post:


 
I'm not expecting it but it's ironic that a thread dealing with secrecy and cover ups is being so secretive itself. And the post you quote is also meaningless expect, yet again, the trainspotters amongst you au fait with swp names/nicknames. Rather funny really....


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 10, 2013)

Amazing ain't it? Only in a trotskyist/stalinoid party in 2013 would members be fearful of speaking their mind in public in case of repercussions. From the IDOOP circular:
"
We will each have to be incredibly disciplined after conference, in the face of provocations and likely expulsions.  If significant numbers of us fail to hold our nerve or succumb to the pressures we will leave the revolutionary left weakened.  We each have a responsibility not to make this mistake.
Party members will also need to look after each other and keep talking.  This will be a tough time."


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> I'm not expecting it but it's ironic that a thread dealing with secrecy and cover ups is being so secretive itself. And the post you quote is also meaningless expect, yet again, the trainspotters amongst you au fait with swp names/nicknames. Rather funny really....


 
To be honest I'd never heard of him either, had to do a bit of google detective work. On a completely unrelated note, this article on the international socialism blog is quite interesting.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 10, 2013)




----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 10, 2013)

This second claim is utterly appalling, if it is true then I don't see how anyone with any decency can defend/remain in the SWP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Third hand report on Twitter says the votes were roughly 400 to 140. Which would seem to indicate that the "undecided" handful of delegates went with the opposition, while a substantial number of the inactive people pushed through as pro-CC delegates at aggregates didn't actually show up to the conference.


Beware 3rd hand reports on twitter then! 483 for cc. 133 against 3 abstained.


----------



## belboid (Mar 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Why you ask?


Cos I think it would be...how to put it...worthy of note, if my union branch chair - a branch which includes women's aid workers - has _twice_ sat on rape hearings where the accused is someone she personally knows very well.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Beware 3rd hand reports on twitter then! 483 for cc. 133 against 3 abstained.



My first thought on reading this was "who the duck went to this conference and abstained?". 

My second thought was whether or not my first thought made me a bad person.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 10, 2013)

For clarity, I'm Solomon Hughes, a journalist, not especially someone to be "heard of" . Martin Smith joined the SWP, as I recall,  when he was a really good union militant around the passport office. He probably had more direct experience of union work , I think , than many other members of the CC when he was on it. I am certainly not suggesting one rape is better or worse than the other - I am saying the "case", ie how the SWP responded seems more obviously worse in the second case - in that they don't deny there was a rape , but really were trying to bring the person they felt had assaulted a member back into a full time leadership role. minor ego moment over, ta.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

Everybody has heard of me. Even those who haven't. There's a sense of awe when my name is mentioned - usually in guarded whispers - my reputation as a dangerous subversive provokes both fear and a sense of inadequacy in those who hear or utter it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Martin Smith joined the SWP, as I recall, when he was a really good union militant around the passport office. He probably had more direct experience of union work , I think , than many other members of the CC when he was on it.


And he was of course red baited by the Evening Standard for his role as a union militant. He was rightly proud of that when I knew him.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

He's a bit of a tosser though, isn't he? Even if we disregard the allegations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2013)

laptop said:


> ??


 
The "mutual reacharound" doesn't usually involve *pens* in hands.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's a bit of a tosser though, isn't he? Even if we disregard the allegations.


Not in my experience, thoroughly decent organiser who would never ask you to do something that he wasn't prepared to do himself. But I'm sure he's pissed off his fair share of opponents and wouldn't lose much sleep over that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The "mutual reacharound" doesn't usually involve *pens* in hands.


 
Might be a cryptic one - the penis mightier than the sword.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not in my experience, thoroughly decent organiser who would never ask you to do something that he wasn't prepared to do himself. But I'm sure he's pissed off his fair share of opponents and wouldn't lose much sleep over that.


 
He pissed me off no end and I certainly didn't see myself as an opponent at the time. Mostly around him deliberately misrepresenting what other people had said when he was speaking, but I guess this isn't really the place for a long discussion over that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Might be a cryptic one - the penis mightier than the sword.


 
Thanks for saying that so that I didn't have to!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2013)

laptop said:


> After that, does the Party dig them up and expel them a third time?


 
I believe that they're given a pseudo-Papal anathematisation.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> And he was of course red baited by the Evening Standard for his role as a union militant. He was rightly proud of that when I knew him.


 
So was John Prescott when he was an NUS activist........


----------



## discokermit (Mar 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But I'm sure he's pissed off his fair share of opponents and wouldn't lose much sleep over that.


he's got plenty already to keep him awake.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> So was John Prescott when he was an NUS activist........


Difference being one of them isn't a traitor to his class.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Difference being one of them isn't a traitor to his class.


 
And one isn't a possible rapist, which frankly when done against one of your own comrades, or anyone for that matter, is a betrayal of your class.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Everybody has heard of me. Even those who haven't. There's a sense of awe when my name is mentioned - usually in guarded whispers - my reputation as a dangerous subversive provokes both fear and a sense of inadequacy in those who hear or utter it.


 
Aren't you that racist misogynist bloke I read about on Laurie Penny's twitter feed?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> And one isn't a possible rapist, which frankly when done against one of your own comrades is a betrayal of your class.


One of the results of this mess is that he will now forever be unable to clear his name of that to everyone's satisfaction. Not everyone accused of rape is guilty of course, but doubt about the fairness of the dc process means most people will always assume he did something wrong quite possibly unfairly. I honestly think we'll never know as none of us are privy to the full facts, ironically because the dc will do the decent thing and keep what evidence they heard that convinced them he was no rapist confidential.


----------



## sptme (Mar 10, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's a bit of a tosser though, isn't he? Even if we disregard the allegations.


He was District Organiser for my district when I was a member.  Even back then he was quite capable for using emotional blackmail and guilt trips to get you to do things you didn't really want to, wasn't the sort of guy to take no for an answer, though I never got any sense of sexual impropriety from him.  He seems to have gotten worse with age from what I've heard but he already had the personality of a bully.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> One of the results of this mess is that he will now forever be unable to clear his name of that to everyone's satisfaction.


 
Whose fault is this? The SWP CC and DC system botching the investigation into and then smearing accusers against him. The SWP CC system and culture he helped sustain for so long.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 11, 2013)

Its maybe even more direct than that, he could have, off his own bat, in 2009 or 2010 or whenever it was, said "I haven't behaved well" and , instead of having that odd conference event with all the cheering and sob story, gone off to work in a regular office for a couple of years. He'd be coming back into the party leadership now. Callinicos wouldn't be trying to save a shrinking party from the dangerous Bob Jessop Conspiracy. The other case would have stayed hidden. Authors of their own destruction, along with the party.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

Workers Power have issued a statement

http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2013/03/swp-after-the-conference-the-struggle-must-continue/

The Workers Power ten-point manifesto makes a call for:




> 5. Control Commission not Disputes Committee
> The Disputes Committee should be abolished since it covers up the responsibility of the leading bodies for discipline. Disciplinary measures are the responsibility of the sovereign body and the leading committees it elects but they must then be able to be appealed against to the superior body to the one enacting the measures up to the conference itself. The CC should have the power only to suspend a member. Expulsions should be the sole prerogative of the NC or the conference itself.


 
In the case of rape or sexual harassment - that would mean expulsion at the very least, it seems the details would probably have to be discussed at Conference which might not necessarily work well, since the National Committee of around 50 is close to and has former members as the Central Committee.




> 6. Special investigations
> The CC or NC might appoint an investigative body to assist it but (a) it should be selected in a way appropriate to the specific case and (b) it should make a recommendation but not a judgement. The latter must be the responsibility of the leading bodies. Major penalties – suspension or expulsion – shall by default have the right to be appealed against to either a control commission elected by conference, or to conference itself. The control commission (the name refers to the fact that it controls or checks the actions of the executive to ensure they are not violations of the members’ rights nor motivated by political convenience) should have the power to suspend any disciplinary action until the next conference.


 
No6 is about separating investigation from weighing up/judgement. A control commission examining the behaviour of the CC is a solid idea - trying to separate out the concentration of power in the CC.
Although if it is to have weight people shouldn't interchange from one to the other - they have to be serious and distinct not really socialising or being mates with one another as far as possible.



> 7. Right to caucus
> Members of oppressed groups above all women and the racially oppressed, but also LGBT people, youth (under 18), the disabled etc. shall have the right to caucus, i.e. call meetings of all members belonging to the appropriate category to discuss examples of oppressive or discriminatory behaviour or just to encourage greater participation by its members. It must have the right of confidentiality for its discussion though it must make a report of any requests to the appropriate bodies.


 
No7 is more obvious. But it means going back against the decision Cliff took in the 1980s about Women's Voice and Flame. Is this kind of thing likely?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Workers Power have issued a statement


 
Thank fuck for that, I'd been a bit concerned about this but now we know the 5th international is on the case we can all rest easy in our beds!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> No7 is more obvious. But it means going back against the decision Cliff took in the 1980s about Women's Voice and Flame. Is this kind of thing likely?


 
I don't think so no. From what my loyalist acquaintances have told me this has been called for by large parts of the opposition and denounced as federalist separatism or something - not just by loyalists but by others in the faction too.

Resigantions appear to have (predictably) begun already. I don't think I've got any of the student swaps from round here on my facebook (this is deliberate on my part!) but my flatmate does and he tells me there have been plenty of TLR resignation letters posted on there this evening.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Workers Power have issued a statement
> 
> http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2013/03/swp-after-the-conference-the-struggle-must-continue/


 More Bolshevik bullshit. There's a Menshevik perspective here.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 11, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Its maybe even more direct than that, he could have, off his own bat, in 2009 or 2010 or whenever it was, said "I haven't behaved well" and , instead of having that odd conference event with all the cheering and sob story, gone off to work in a regular office for a couple of years. He'd be coming back into the party leadership now. Callinicos wouldn't be trying to save a shrinking party from the dangerous Bob Jessop Conspiracy. The other case would have stayed hidden. Authors of their own destruction, along with the party.


And that sounds quite reasonable. Unless he believed he wasn't guilty of the sexual harassment charge, let alone expect a further charge of rape and saw no reason to step away from politics over an affair.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 11, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> More Bolshevik bullshit. There's a Menshevik perspective here.


The spgb are not in any possible way a Menshevik party


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 11, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The spgb are not in any possible way a Menshevik party


But that's what Steve Hedley reportedly claimed at a recent TUSC meeting.


----------



## Before Theory (Mar 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> And that sounds quite reasonable. Unless he believed he wasn't guilty of the sexual harassment charge, let alone expect a further charge of rape and saw no reason to step away from politics over an affair.



So why was he forced to resign from the National Secretary position by the rest of the CC in 2011 ?

How likely is it that Callinicos and co would have made him take that step over a mere affair if they didn't have evidence of something much worse. ?

Use your brain apology boy, stop defending the indefensible.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 11, 2013)

Interesting little diversion via Wiki, ta: hadn't realised 'Bolsheviks' came originally from disagreement between Lenin and Martov. Martov's supporters were minority and called "Mensheviks" from *меньшинство* (_men'shinstvo_, "minority"), whereas Lenin's were known as "Bolsheviks", from _bol'shinstvo_ ("majority").



> Lenin argued for a small party of professional revolutionaries with a large fringe of non-party sympathizers and supporters, whereas Martov believed it was better to have a large party of activists with broad representation.


 
You wouldn't call SWP a Menshevik party then 



> Martov's proposal was accepted by the majority of the delegates. After several delegates, including representatives of the Jewish Bund, stormed out of the Congress in protest for unrelated reasons, Lenin's supporters won a slight majority, which was reflected in the composition of the Central Committee and the other central Party organs elected at the Congress. That was also the reason behind the naming of the factions. (It was later hypothesized that Lenin had purposely offended some of the delegates in order to have them leave the meeting in protest, giving him a majority.) Despite the outcome of the congress, the following years saw the Mensheviks gathering considerable support among regular Social Democrats and effectively building up a parallel party organization.


 
Yes I know you all know this. I'm posting it for my benefit.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 11, 2013)

Anyone else hearing that Hannah Dee has been kicked off the CC and had her party employment terminated?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 11, 2013)

Oooh, wait, I have a source

http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/order-prevails-in-vauxhall/


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 11, 2013)

I seriously hope that this bullshit backfires on Callinicos in the context of his academic employment.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oooh, wait, I have a source
> http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/order-prevails-in-vauxhall/


I notice that the blogger makes this point in relation to the Disputes Committee:


> If a woman comrade makes an allegation of rape, the DC should gently explain that they aren’t in a position to hold a rape investigation, and should encourage her to go to a rape crisis centre and/or the police. The DC, as something analogous to a professional ethics body, is only competent to rule on whether or not an individual is fit to be a member of the party, or at least to hold a leading role in it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I notice that the blogger makes this point in relation to the Disputes Committee:


Why don't you read the thread? Or at least the more recent bits?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why don't you read the thread? Or at least the more recent bits?


Yes, I did notice that somebody had argued that:


> allegations of rape should not be judged by a party committee but that the complainant should be encouraged to take the matter to the police.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 11, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I notice that the blogger makes this point in relation to the Disputes Committee:


 
Do you think that blog would say that the personal isn't political? If not - as is pretty obvious - then why are posting it as some sort of support for your nonsense?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. still no sign of an apology for your lynch mob comment...cat got your tongue?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yes, I did notice that somebody had argued that:


You didn't notice anyone saying that a party _was_ the correct body to judge allegations of rape - did you? The sheer arrogance involved in coming onto the end of a thread and insisting that everyone is actually arguing what you have decided that they have is staggering - staggering and insulting.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Ian Birchall, soft faction member today, CC member 1995: "And I shall recommend Comrade Tulayev rather than King Lear to a new SWP member." As what, an instruction manual?


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 11, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Interesting little diversion via Wiki, ta: hadn't realised 'Bolsheviks' came originally from disagreement between Lenin and Martov. Martov's supporters were minority and called "Mensheviks" from *меньшинство* (_men'shinstvo_, "minority"), whereas Lenin's were known as "Bolsheviks", from _bol'shinstvo_ ("majority").
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's one of those good old "irony of history" things we all love so much that although all revolutionery socialists today automatically spit in the metaphorical political contempt spittoon whenever the name "Menshevik" is mentioned, if we look at what actually happened in Russia since 1917, an objective assessment could be argued to conclude that Lenin and Trotsky pinning all their hopes on the rescue of the "historically premature" worker and peasant revolution in economically and socially backward Russia by the expected German socialist revolution, turned out to be a tad optimistic. The consequence of the failure of the wider German and European revolutionery wave from 1917 until the early 1920's (and the eventual emergeance of fascism as a counterweight to socialist revolution), of course produced Stalinism in the USSR, and all the consequent death and oppression , and later Stalinist-model dictatorships across the world. Ending up of course in the eventual full capitalist restoration in the USSR and eastern Bloc, and China well on that path too.

The Menshevik argument was that the Russian Czarist empire was simply not ready to sustain a working- class-led socialist revolution, and that the most that could be expected was a bourgeois democratic end to Czarist autocracy. They predicted that to carry out a premature socialist revolution on the social and economic base of Czarist Russia could only end in a need to rule by "Jacobin Terror" by a tiny working class and its political party. So who turned out right ? The optimistic, "let's wing it and hope for rescue by the German socialist revolution before the shit hits the fan" Bolsheviks, or the cautious, much more formally "orthodox Marxist" Mensheviks ? I have extreme doubt that there actually was a "bourgeois democratic" option available as a counterpose to a continuation of Czarist autocracy ,as Bourgeois critics of the Bolshevik revolution or "coup" usually suggest. Nevertheless, given the colossal human disaster that was Stalinism, The fact today of a complete bourgeois capitalist restoration in Russia and the Eastern bloc countroes, after all that blood spilt, and the negative impact on the perception of Socialism that Stalinism still represents on a world historical scale, and perhaps a little more nuanced understanding of the "Menshevik" position by radical Lefties might be in order nowadays. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I would have sided with the Bolshevik position in 1917 too - hoping for the Germans to hurry up and carry out their "historical destiny". But then, I like Lenin, would have been harbouring serious, fatal, illusions in the German Social Democracy of the time. The revolutionery Left today seems to be so stuck in the ideological dogma built up since 1917 that it is generally incapable of grasping that the Bolshevik high risk strategy actually resoundingly FAILED. The October 1917 workers and peasants revolution wasn't the END of the process, and a conclusiove refutation of the Menshevik positition....it was only the beginning - and the final outcome was TOTAL DISASTER and eventual full capitalist restoration ! Trotsky remained friendly with the Menshevik leader , Martov, a sign perhaps that he didn't view the Mensheviks as the dastardly villains that later Stalinist historical revision chooses to paint them.

I'm not suggesting any contemporary historical resonance of the Menshevik/Bolshevik debate in today's world capitalist crisis, as the world generally, and the West particularly is completely economically and socially "mature" for a genuine working-class socialist revolution, and has been for a long, long time. The point, though,is to analyse each historical opportunity anew, in the light of current knowledge, not to be trapped in the semi religious, 1917 Revolution obsessed, dogmas which still dominate the thinking of most of the "marxist" radical Left today.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Workers Power have issued a statement
> 
> http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2013/03/swp-after-the-conference-the-struggle-must-continue/
> 
> ...


 
Just sent a snitty e-mail to Workers' Power about the language of No7, specifically "...the disabled etc". What's it coming to when even Trots use essentialist labels?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just sent a snitty e-mail to Workers' Power about the language of No7, specifically "...the disabled etc". What's it coming to when even Trots use essentialist labels?


 
I have always found a letter to the Weekly Worker about Workers Power normally bucks their ideas up.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> I seriously hope that this bullshit backfires on Callinicos in the context of his academic employment.


 
Why/How should it? I see it that as even more unlikely than a return to Flame.

The people who have started resigning are the IDOOP faction, it looks like the SWP will remain with its resources and funds.

A public resignation letter:




> “The SWP is not a safe place for women. The revelations that appeared in Saturday’s Guardian indicate that repeatedly where women have come forward to report rapes by senior party members, their experience has been one of being horrifically mistreated. ... I do not believe that any woman can now have confidence in bringing a similar complaint before the Disputes Committee, and abusive men will know they can get away with these acts. Having appeared as a witness at the DC hearing of the Facebook Four, I can confirm that the Kangaroo Court analogy is more than apt. How can I stay in such an organisation? Who would I ever want to recruit to it?"
> 
> "I value much of what I have learned from other SWP members in that time – even in recent years where I have had significant differences with the party’s perspectives, my relationships and discussions with comrades have remained fraternal. However, since December there has been a marked shift in this. I have been personally abused at every branch meeting I have attended in that time, as have other oppositional comrades. Vicious rumours have been spread about me by long-standing party members in an attempt to personally discredit me. I have been physically threatened. All of this because I stood in solidarity, first with the victims of rape and sexual harassment (who party members have happily lied about), and secondly with four comrades who were expelled on a trumped-up charge shortly before conference for their attempts to stop the CC from damaging the SWP in this way. This is not the behaviour of a revolutionary party, it is the behaviour of a cult. I have no intention of remaining in a cult.
> Andy Lawson, Hackney East (a creeping feminist)"


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I have always found a letter to the Weekly Worker about Workers Power normally bucks their ideas up.


The equivalent of having a quiet word with mr Brown about the behaviour of young William.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why/How should it?


 
Don't think anybody should be rooting for someone to lose their job but.... when i look at that list of 500 supporters of the CC and so many of them are teachers, academics etc, it does seem a bit dodgy that they have no problem with questions to do with relationships that have a few dimensions of unequal power relations going on. You would think being in such professions that such questions would be a no-brainer but obviously not. Such values i dont think are compatable with those kinda professions - i would not be so chuffed if my soon to be teenager daughters teacher was activly espousing justifications for what took place.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Don't think anybody should be rooting for someone to lose their job but.... when i look at that list of 500 supporters of the CC and so many of them are teachers, academics etc, it does seem a bit dodgy that they have no problem with questions to do with relationships that have a few dimensions of unequal power relations going on. You would think being in such professions that such questions would be a no-brainer but obviously not. Such values i dont think are compatable with those kinda professions - i would not be so chuffed if my soon to be teenager daughters teacher was activly espousing justifications for what took place.


 
This is all true, but large parts of society - including teachers as much as anyone else - do victim-blaming or excuse victim-blaming and botched investigations in the present criminal justice system on spurious argument that 'police are friends of all women adult and teenagers now' hence if someone doesn't report within the time slot allowed, they're an idiot and/or probably exaggerating anyway.

What guarantee is there that a replacement will be any better?


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 11, 2013)

none whatsoever - im under no illusions that people in such professions harbour such views, its just them being so explicit about it and the fact that such ideas are antithetical to what would be considered good practice/professional ethics thats a bit astounding for me personally. But then again, you would think people imbibed in basic principles of left wing ideology would not come out with stuff like that...


----------



## emanymton (Mar 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Anyone else hearing that Hannah Dee has been kicked off the CC and had her party employment terminated?


Urm, yeah we all have this happened at the last conference.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 11, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The equivalent of having a quiet word with mr Brown about the behaviour of young William.


 
Which reminds me of the better days of the 5th International........



> The Dog Days of the Left Opposition
> 
> It was quiet at 1917 Lev Bronstein Close. Not too quiet for Mr Rebel, Cockers’ father sat smoking his pipe reading the Sunday Express in his favourite armchair. But for the most senior junior leader of the tiniest revolutionary party in the world it was too quiet. Cockers was upstairs anxiously looking out of the window, half in hope and half in habit. It was two days ago when he had shared with Ginger his plan to liberate from the 5th International Shares club the money he had faithfully donated each week. He had been falsely advised that there was to be a crisis in world capitalism and that there would be a pre - revolutionary period. In fact the opposite had happened and rather than losing money Cockers was now under the impression that he was in fact owed some money. The money was by chance stashed in the same premises of the Cheadle High Street after school Revo club that Cockers and Ginger attended. Ginger had not turned up and despite Cockers flashing Morse code signals with a mirror across the road to Gingers house there had been no reply.
> 
> ...


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 11, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Don't think anybody should be rooting for someone to lose their job but.... when i look at that list of 500 supporters of the CC and so many of them are teachers, academics etc, it does seem a bit dodgy that they have no problem with questions to do with relationships that have a few dimensions of unequal power relations going on. You would think being in such professions that such questions would be a no-brainer but obviously not. Such values i dont think are compatable with those kinda professions - i would not be so chuffed if my soon to be teenager daughters teacher was activly espousing justifications for what took place.


 
What would you do if your daughters teacher was a member of the SWP? Just be 'not chuffed'?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I have always found a letter to the Weekly Worker about Workers Power normally bucks their ideas up.


 
I stopped writing letters to comics when I was about 13.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> none whatsoever - im under no illusions that people in such professions harbour such views, its just them being so explicit about it and the fact that such ideas are antithetical to what would be considered good practice/professional ethics thats a bit astounding for me personally. But then again, you would think people imbibed in basic principles of left wing ideology would not come out with stuff like that...


 
People are also imbibed with all sorts of other ideologies as well as the left-wing ideology - plus there's little engagement beyond what the paper says, no room for debate in the paper etc.

Leading to lunacy:




> The SWP now find themselves facing the same allegations that had previously been leveled against Julian Assange. Too many members of the SWP simply went along with the prevailing current peddled by a pro-NATO mass media vis-a-vis Assange, one that refused to defend his right to a fair trial, one that tapped into a fertile reservoire of ‘feminism’ in the universities that was anything but conducive to a fair trial. That was a very serious mistake in my opinion, and I made of point of saying so at the time.
> Now the SWP and the SP are both being accused by those same ‘feminists’ (particularly in the universities and colleges of further education) who smeared anyone who wanted to examine the evidence, and the possibility that Assange may indeed have been the victim of a CIA honey-trap. Just because this may be a ploy resorted to by a desperate guilty man, that does not prove a priori that it should not be given credence as one possible explanation of what may have happened between Assange and his accusers.


 


> Now that the SWP and SP are facing the same anti-democratic smear campaigners (including from within their own ranks!), every one of us has to give serious thought as to how we can identify and deal with the genuine offenders while ensuring that innocent people are not victimised, possibly framed by those who are in the pay of British Intelligence or some other intelligence agency.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just sent a snitty e-mail to Workers' Power about the language of No7, specifically "...the disabled etc". What's it coming to when even Trots use essentialist labels?


 
Sorry, should we not say "disabled"?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sorry, should we not say "disabled"?


 
You can cut that sort of language out for a start


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 11, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Urm, yeah we all have this happened at the last conference.


 
Well that was embarrassing. Rereading the thread tells me I did know this but seem to have forgotten it. I am getting fully confused with this right now. Let's bring on the split and see if anyone is worth salvaging from the wreckage.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 11, 2013)

sihhi said:


> People are also imbibed with all sorts of other ideologies as well as the left-wing ideology - plus there's little engagement beyond what the paper says, no room for debate in the paper etc.


 
Of course, what i'm meaning is that it would be fair to say that leftie chat, is usually ordered around ideas of being opposed to structural power relations being embedded in society. Thus, one would think an explicit declaration of assenting to something that is manifestly contradictory towards such a set of principles would be problematic.

Yes, the prevailing ideologies of society will influence peoples actions and such actions will be inconsistent with the particular set of leftie chat that they explicitly state directs their life, but then you would think they would be very aware of such contradictions when they express such views as a set of propositions. (or add their signature to something that supports such content)


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> What would you do if your daughters teacher was a member of the SWP? Just be 'not chuffed'?


 
Never said that being a member of SWP would be problematic; i said that if a person activly espoused views wherein an abuse of a stuctural power relationship to gain sexual access to youngsters was fine and well,(and clearly apologists for what took place did so), then if someone who was activly stating such views was a teacher of my daughter then yeah it would be a problem.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 11, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Never said that being a member of SWP would be problematic; i said that if a person activly espoused views wherein an abuse of a stuctural power relationship to gain sexual access to youngsters was fine and well,(and clearly apologists for what took place did so), then if someone who was activly stating such views was a teacher of my daughter then yeah it would be a problem.


 
The 500 SWP members on the list you refered , do  they  espouse 'views wherein an abuse of a stuctural power relationship to gain sexual access to youngsters was fine and well'?


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 11, 2013)

The ones who belong to the teaching profession are versed in what constitutes good practice, child protection etc. Whats gone down with the SWP are antithetical to such ethics and practice where condemnation of such events are derided as 'bourgiouse' (50 plus man - school age person/ position of power within party/new recruit) -  think that would meet the criteria of an abuse of a structural pwer relationship" in anybodies book. Adding ones name to explicitly support such proceedings is assenting to the implications of such proceedings - and for a teacher or any professional working with vulnerable people that is seriously problematic.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sorry, should we not say "disabled"?


 
We call them "disables" now. Like Blacks and Gays.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The 500 SWP members on the list you refered , do they espouse 'views wherein an abuse of a stuctural power relationship to gain sexual access to youngsters was fine and well'?


 
Agree with this, they probably didn't know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sorry, should we not say "disabled"?


 
Suppose you're one of say 100 deaf people gathered together, would you care for someone to refer to you in such a way that your personhood isn't recognised, only the fact that you happen to have a disability?If so, you're welcome to be one of "*the* disabled", someone acknowledged only by the fact of their disability(s).
Me, as someone who's been subject to physical impairment for more than half my life, I prefer to be acknowledged as a person who happens to have (in my case) physical impairments - i.e. I'm a person, an individual first, who happens to have disabilities that mean that part of my identity is that of a person with disabilities. What they *don't* mean is that I'm a member of some homogeneous mass of people with impairments who can or should be defined *only* through reference to our disabilities. That is what referring to us as "*the* disabled" does. It essentialises who we are down to a single characteristic - disability.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Agree with this, they probably didn't know.


 
Quite a lot of them might not even know they're on it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> We call them "disables" now. Like Blacks and Gays.


 
We prefer "crip muthafuckas", thank you very much!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Suppose you're one of say 100 deaf people gathered together, would you care for someone to refer to you in such a way that your personhood isn't recognised, only the fact that you happen to have a disability?If so, you're welcome to be one of "*the* disabled", someone acknowledged only by the fact of their disability(s).
> Me, as someone who's been subject to physical impairment for more than half my life, I prefer to be acknowledged as a person who happens to have (in my case) physical impairments - i.e. I'm a person, an individual first, who happens to have disabilities that mean that part of my identity is that of a person with disabilities. What they *don't* mean is that I'm a member of some homogeneous mass of people with impairments who can or should be defined *only* through reference to our disabilities. That is what referring to us as "*the* disabled" does. It essentialises who we are down to a single characteristic - disability.


 
Fair enough, but is there some other shorthand term I can use? 

Have to say I was expecting a different argument - someone I know is very against this term, because she doesn't believe that being blind, deaf or in a wheelchair actually disadvantages anyone. By calling them disabled you are turning them into victims, so she tells me.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Agree with this, they probably didn't know.


 
Most probably wont. But the ones who are teachers and/or the ones who work with vulnerable groups will know fine well that there is a disconnect between what is considered to be good practice in their profession (and the reasons for such practices) and the shoddy state of affairs that has gone down in the SWP.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> We prefer "crip muthafuckas", thank you very much!


 
That could get a cap in your ass in the wrong bit of LA though


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Quite a lot of them might not even know they're on it.


 
Fair enough, ill keep the pitchfork in the cupboard for the moment ....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That could get a cap in your ass in the wrong bit of LA though


 
Fortunately, I dislike Los Angeles with a passion.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Suppose you're one of say 100 deaf people gathered together, would you care for someone to refer to you in such a way that your personhood isn't recognised, only the fact that you happen to have a disability?If so, you're welcome to be one of "*the* disabled", someone acknowledged only by the fact of their disability(s).
> Me, as someone who's been subject to physical impairment for more than half my life, I prefer to be acknowledged as a person who happens to have (in my case) physical impairments - i.e. I'm a person, an individual first, who happens to have disabilities that mean that part of my identity is that of a person with disabilities. What they *don't* mean is that I'm a member of some homogeneous mass of people with impairments who can or should be defined *only* through reference to our disabilities. That is what referring to us as "*the* disabled" does. It essentialises who we are down to a single characteristic - disability.


 
The other side of this is the use of disabled as a comment on society rather than the person; i.e. it is the way society is organised that disables, therefore it is not the individuals who are essentially disabled but society which is disabling.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The other side of this is the use of disabled as a comment on society rather than the person; i.e. it is the way society is organised that disables, therefore it is not the individuals who are essentially disabled but society which is disabling.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
Yup, the social model of disability. I didn't want to get into that because it's kind of an involved subject all on it's own.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough, but is there some other shorthand term I can use?
> 
> Have to say I was expecting a different argument - someone I know is very against this term, because she doesn't believe that being blind, deaf or in a wheelchair actually disadvantages anyone. By calling them disabled you are turning them into victims, so she tells me.


 
I think what VP's talking about is very different from the weird liberal 'nobody is vulnerable and the only reason some people can't do things others can is they say they cant'. That leads to all kinds of weird shit, like for example claiming someone was engaged in 'victim culture' because when she asked them to stand up so she could hear her the person said I can't because I'm disabled. I'm assuming the implication is that if that word hadn't been used the person's legs might have been miraculously cured. It's only one step away from 'get on yer bike' IMO.

But from my understanding there's a bit of a debate among more sensible people over this - in the social model the term 'disabled people' is used to emphasise that society disables them in various ways, and on the other hand there's 'people with disabilities' which emphasises that they're people first and foremost but just happen to have impairments of various kinds. I think most people would say either is acceptable because they don't imply an undifferentiated homogenous group in the same way as 'the disabled' does.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Agree with this, they probably didn't know.


The issue being, they didn't care, they just did what they were told.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 11, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The issue being, they didn't care, they just did what they were told.


 
No, some of them may not even be aware they're still counted on membership lists.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> No, some of them may not even be aware they're still counted on membership lists.


Is there any evidence that some of the signatories were fabricated?


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 11, 2013)

could workers girder not do some investigative journalism into this question. and if it turns out they were active signatories could they please print photos and address details of 'teachers in your area that signed that document'. ta


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 11, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> could workers girder not do some investigative journalism into this question. and if it turns out they were active signatories could they please print photos and address details of 'teachers in your area that signed that document'. ta


 
Given this latest statement from PD this is highly unlikely:

*SWP - join us on the road to a workers world!*

PD and the international working class welcomes the signs of a healthy new beginning for the SWP.

Perhaps as it stands fore square with Martin Smith in his rejection of bourgeois morality, and shows the door to the degenerate elements rallying behind the reactionary liberal banner of 'the personal is political', the SWP can make itself fit for the task of proletarian revolution?

Only time will tell, but PD holds itself ready to enter into serious negotiations with those best elements who have been tested by the fire and not found themselves wanting.

We are ready, willing and able to help you develop the revolutionary consciousness that the international proletariat are crying out for. But be warned failure to take your responsibilities seriously, will see you condemned to slide back into the counter revolutionary swamp from which you have so recently emerged.

The personal isn't political!
Down with bourgeois morality!​​Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

maybe a rival faction?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 11, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Is there any evidence that some of the signatories were fabricated?


It is irrelevant really, what mattered where the votes at the aggregates, and while they may have a dragged some inactive members out for them they could hardly pack them with non members. 

Incidentally party notes is claiming over 1000 members attended the aggregates which was the most 'for years'


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It is irrelevant really, what mattered where the votes at the aggregates, and while they may have a dragged some inactive members out for them they could hardly pack them with non members.
> 
> Incidentally party notes is claiming over 1000 members attended the aggregates which was the most 'for years'


The could certainly pack them with non-member members. You slapped yourself out of your lenin august 1914 torpor yet - it couldn't have happened! It didn't happen!


----------



## emanymton (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The could certainly pack them with non-member members. You slapped yourself out of your lenin august 1914 torpor yet - it couldn't have happened! It didn't happen!


Sorry non-member members? You mean ones not paying subs? I think they did, but these people still have to identify with the SWP in some way in order to turn out to defend it, as they would see it.

As for my 1914 torpor, yeah I am starting to, I can even see the chains of logic they would use to defend themselves over the Sheffield case.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 11, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Incidentally party notes is claiming over 1000 members attended the aggregates which was the most 'for years'


 
Which is actually pretty revealing. IIRC, Rees or one of his supporters pointed out that there were only about 800 members who participated in pre-conference discussions and the like a couple of years ago. Now, with the survival of the org at stake and a full court press to get the inactive out they hit 1,000.


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2013)

And vote for its destruction.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Which is actually pretty revealing. IIRC, Rees or one of his supporters pointed out that there were only about 800 members who participated in pre-conference discussions and the like a couple of years ago. Now, with the survival of the org at stake and a full court press to get the inactive out they hit 1,000.


When you consider that the two faction statements only got about 500 names each, although I think there were a fare number of independents as well. And allowing for the members who could not make the aggregates I think we can put the number of people who identify as SWP members at about 1,300, certainly less than 1,500. How many has the SP got?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 11, 2013)

emanymton said:


> How many has the SP got?


 
Last public membership claim was 2,000. I don't live in England, so can't really say how accurate that is. There will, presumably, be a layer of complete inactive, semi-active, etc in there because there always is in any organisation over a certain size.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 11, 2013)

There was an article in the Times today covering the special conference. Nothing in it that would be news to anyone here, except that there were reporters outside the conference. They were refused entry to the Town Hall on the basis that it was private property and delegates, unsurprisingly, were under strict orders not to talk to the journalists outside.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 11, 2013)

A bizarre aside: andy Newman quoting kinnock's 1985 conference speech with approval, as an example of incisive left wing leadership ( or something)


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 11, 2013)

*Jen Izaakson* ‏@*Izaakson*
I've just resigned from the #*SWP*.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 11, 2013)

And there's more....... Resignations


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

70 odd there - seymour and mielville included.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

Thats the Platform gone then - exactly what the Central Rapist's Committee wanted.


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2013)

they can now preside over a party of empty chairs. whoo!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 11, 2013)

They've obviously decided that they need to set up some form of organisation to attract those who have already gone and those who will be going over the next few months.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Thats the Platform gone then - exactly what the Central Rapist's Committee wanted.


what will the idoop ditherers do?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Last public membership claim was 2,000. I don't live in England, so can't really say how accurate that is. There will, presumably, be a layer of complete inactive, semi-active, etc in there because there always is in any organisation over a certain size.


 
I reckon that's not far off right to be honest - probably about 2,000 subs paying members, though obviously there's some in that number who aren't especially active. I know we check our branch membership list once a year and take anyone off who hasn't been involved or paid subs over the year unless there's some kind of unusual circumstance that leads us to believe they'll be back.

I'm pretty sure I'm still counted among the SWP membership, despite sending a resignation to the centre. Otherwise I wouldn't still be getting the internal bulletins. That said I think before this shitstorm, even taking into account the questionable membership figures, the SWP were definitely still a fair bit bigger than us. I hadn't realised just how many members they had round here until they packed out a meeting a bit back. There's a section of the membership that you don't generally see at the usual events but who can be mobilised when they really need it and I think that's been the real difference.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 11, 2013)

Branch breakdown of the initial signatories:


Bradford
Brent and Harrow
Brighton 5
Bristol East
Bristol North 4
Bristol South
Brixton 4
Camden
Canterbury 2
Cardiff 2
Edinburgh 4
Euston 4
Hackney East 2
Hastings
Hornsey and Wood Green
Islington
Lancaster
Leeds Central 3
Leicester
Liverpool 5
LSE
Manchester Central 2
Newcastle
Norwich
Oxford 5
Portsmouth 3
Sheffield 2
Sheffield North 3
Sheffield South
Tottenham 2
Walthamstow
Wandsworth 2
York 3

The various lists that have been published or leaked during this dispute really shows the impact of the internet on factional warfare. Not simply the fact that they've all been leaked, but the way in which alignments fail to map onto geographical areas in the way they would once have done. It's as easy for people in Edinburgh to communicate with others in Portsmouth as it is for them to argue with people in Glasgow.


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> . There's a section of the membership that you don't generally see at the usual events but who can be mobilised when they really need it and I think that's been the real difference.


who are these members who aren't engaged enough to be involved with regular campaigns, but are loyal enough to side with the rape apologists without question? It doesn't make sense.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 11, 2013)

killer b said:


> who are these members who aren't engaged enough to be involved with regular campaigns, but are loyal enough to side with the rape apologists without question? It doesn't make sense.


they're nutters.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 11, 2013)

From Party Notes 11 Mar 2013:

"The IDOOP faction that was set up before the conference has now dissolved.
As the CC made clear at conference, if comrades in the former faction accept the decisions of the conference then they can continue to play a full and equal part in the organisation on the same basis as everyone else.
However, continuing factionalism will be ruinous for the SWP and is not acceptable. We can’t continue with the attacks on the party and its members on blogs and Facebook and Twitter.
The conference elected four people to the body mentioned in section seven of the CC motion. This will look at the Disputes Committee procedures and suggest changes where necessary.
There are also important debates we need to have in our publications and meetings, as section ten of the motion says.
The party has been through an intense period of internal debate. It is now crucial we turn outwards and ensure that the party is at the centre of the resistance.
This needs to be the main theme of the conference report-backs this week. Ring the national office to talk about speakers."


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 70 odd there - seymour and mielville included.


 

Mieville. You are thinking of Moby Dick.



Thats some list of resignees though. That has to do some real damage to the party as a whole. It'll limp on in some form obviously but thats surely got to be a proper knell


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 11, 2013)

The staying for the moment / leaving right now divide doesn't entirely map onto the hard / soft divide as far as I can tell. There are very oppositional people who are staying for the moment, which is going to add to the leadership's problems.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> You are thinking of Moby Dick.


callinicos as ahab. smith, the whale.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 11, 2013)

http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-new-network.html

And here's the new organisation.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 11, 2013)

So a "network" and a discussion list. Note also the appeal to previous generations of ex-SWPers to join. I suspect that Counterfire will not be welcome however.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 11, 2013)

Is it going to be called International Socialist Network then? Coz that's very much like Independent Socialist Network ie these guys http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/ who are affiliated to TUSC as independents.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 11, 2013)

killer b said:


> who are these members who aren't engaged enough to be involved with regular campaigns, but are loyal enough to side with the rape apologists without question? It doesn't make sense.


 
Sorry, should have been clearer - I meant those people have been the difference (in terms of membership numbers) between the SP and SWP. I have no idea whether they're the same people who were mobilised to defend the CC. Although there are some Sheffield names on the notorious list of 500 that I don't recognise so there's probably some crossover.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 11, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Is it going to be called International Socialist Network then? Coz that's very much like Independent Socialist Network ie these guys http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/ who are affiliated to TUSC as independents.


 
There's a long tradition of that on the left!


----------



## kavenism (Mar 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> callinicos as ahab. smith, the whale.


If only!
"_And he piled upon the whale's great white hump the sum of all the rage_
_and hate felt by his whole race; if his chest had been a cannon, he'd have_
_shot his heart upon it."_


----------



## discokermit (Mar 11, 2013)

kavenism said:


> If only!
> "_And he piled upon the whale's great white hump the sum of all the rage_
> _and hate felt by his whole race; if his chest had been a cannon, he'd have_
> _shot his heart upon it."_


isn't that a startrek quote?

the original: "He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough, but is there some other shorthand term I can use?


 
Just say "people with disabilities", because that's who we are.



> Have to say I was expecting a different argument - someone I know is very against this term, because she doesn't believe that being blind, deaf or in a wheelchair actually disadvantages anyone. By calling them disabled you are turning them into victims, so she tells me.


 
The disability or impairment you have does not necessarily disable you, what disables you is the way society treats you and reacts to you *because of* your impairment. Society most often does exactly what you unwittingly did, and reduces a person with disabilities to being a member of "the disabled", someone whose identity is governed by their disability, rather than their disability merely being a single facet of their identity. *That* disadvantages you the most.
Acknowledging the fact of a person's disability doesn't turn them into a victim, it only does that if you treat them as if their disability/impairment is their defining characteristic, and so treat them differently than anyone else for reasons unrelated to their *particular* impairment (you'd be amazed how many people still do the old "slow talking very loudly" to just about any person with a visible physical disability, as though we're all deaf and/or stupid).


----------



## kavenism (Mar 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> isn't that a startrek quote?
> 
> the original: "He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it".


That's a better rendering. I couldn't remember the exact wording and I think Google brought up the Star Trek version! Popular culture corrupts everything.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just say "people with disabilities", because that's who we are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The person he's talking about actually does seem to think that acknowledging the disability turns people into victims. She also thinks that if people acknowledge their own vulnerability (which can mean all kinds of things, ex addicts and alcoholics are vulnerable to certain things, mentally ill people can be vulnerable in particular ways etc) they're indulging in victim culture. It's like she's heard the more sensible stuff you're talking about and taken it to an absurd conclusion. She does seem like quite a confused person though to be fair. It's pretty frustrating because it makes it virtually impossible to do anything constructive when she's around.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 11, 2013)

kavenism said:


> That's a better rendering. I couldn't remember the exact wording and I think Google brought up the Star Trek version! Popular culture corrupts everything.


yeh, the original is much better. it is a crap analogy though, apart from the monomania and utter destruction.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 11, 2013)

A couple of CC loyalists I know are convinced that Rees and German have been pulling strings in this - and one of the Sheffield oppositionists has joined counterfire. Complete and utter paranoia or might there be an element of truth to it? I don't believe for a second they've been directing it lizard like but it's possible they've had the ear of some of them isn't it?


----------



## kavenism (Mar 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> A couple of CC loyalists I know are convinced that Rees and German have been pulling strings in this - and one of the Sheffield oppositionists has joined counterfire. Complete and utter paranoia or might there be an element of truth to it? I don't believe for a second they've been directing it lizard like but it's possible they've had the ear of some of them isn't it?


They're too busy raising money for a new espresso machine.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 11, 2013)




----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> A couple of CC loyalists I know are convinced that Rees and German have been pulling strings in this - and one of the Sheffield oppositionists has joined counterfire. Complete and utter paranoia or might there be an element of truth to it? I don't believe for a second they've been directing it lizard like but it's possible they've had the ear of some of them isn't it?


 
If they're involved then why would they be setting up a new org, instead of recruiting them to counterfire?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> A couple of CC loyalists I know are convinced that Rees and German have been pulling strings in this - and one of the Sheffield oppositionists has joined counterfire. Complete and utter paranoia or might there be an element of truth to it? I don't believe for a second they've been directing it lizard like but it's possible they've had the ear of some of them isn't it?


doubtful.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 11, 2013)

Throughout all this the Seymour lot have had a funny relationship with Counterfire. The public utterances seemed to dwell on Rees and German's alleged bad faith for not having broken with the prof's model of dem cen earlier. And obviously so long as Seymour was at least pretending to want to stay he couldn't say nice things about them. But in all honesty don't they match his ideas pretty closely? They shared his enthuasiasm for Syriza as a 'new formation' and even a 'left centrism'. They are at least open to his identity politics tendencies. And all the precariat stuff is right up his alley. Can't be that long before they come to some sort of accommodation?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Throughout all this the Seymour lot have had a funny relationship with Counterfire. The public utterances seemed to dwell on Rees and German's alleged bad faith for not having broken with the prof's model of dem cen earlier. And obviously so long as Seymour was at least pretending to want to stay he couldn't say nice things about them. But in all honesty don't they match his ideas pretty closely? They shared his enthuasiasm for Syriza as a 'new formation' and even a 'left centrism'. They are at least open to his identity politics tendencies. And all the precariat stuff is right up his alley. Can't be that long before they come to some sort of accommodation?


 
What I want to know is how all this is going to affect the Firebox menu


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 11, 2013)

Anyhows the really interesting question now is with the hard opposition gone what becomes of the majority of the faction. Can bridges be built?


----------



## treelover (Mar 11, 2013)

Syriza formation, the new precariat, sounds ok to me...


----------



## treelover (Mar 11, 2013)

J Ed said:


> What I want to know is how all this is going to affect the Firebox menu


 

Counterfire/COR are organising the massive People's Assembly in June which could be a seminal event



or just the usual with a demo in October, all too late as the deaths increase...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> If they're involved then why would they be setting up a new org, instead of recruiting them to counterfire?


 
Exactly. Counterfire have certainly been sticking their oar in, and they are certainly looking to recruit oppositionists. But the "hard" oppositionists were amongst the loudest people against Rees and German. There is a real hostility there. They won't be merging with Counterfire any time soon.

In the longer term, you never know though. In Scotland in particular, Bambery's lot will heavily outnumber them and may exert a certain draw. But for the moment at least I'd be extremely surprised if they went anywhere near Counterfire beyond possibly switching anti-cuts allegiances to the CoR. And the ex-SWP people they are attracting are, if anything, even more hostile to Rees and Co.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Anyhows the really interesting question now is with the hard opposition gone what becomes of the majority of the faction. Can bridges be built?


 
Worth noting that the hard opposition isn't entirely gone. There are some extremely disgruntled people intending on staying in for the moment.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Exactly. Counterfire have certainly been sticking their oar in, and they are certainly looking to recruit oppositionists. But the "hard" oppositionists were amongst the loudest people against Rees and German. There is a real hostility there. They won't be merging with Counterfire any time soon.
> 
> In the longer term, you never know though. In Scotland in particular, Bambery's lot will heavily outnumber them and may exert a certain draw. But for the moment at least I'd be extremely surprised if they went anywhere near Counterfire beyond possibly switching anti-cuts allegiances to the CoR. And the ex-SWP people they are attracting are, if anything, even more hostile to Rees and Co.


 
Yeah there's no love lost between Seymour and the counterfire lot. Depressing to see how counterfire are involved in this People's Assembly stuff, surely the experience of the Stop the War Coalition would be a warning of letting those particular people be involved in organising a new poiltical formation. What's that quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results every time being the definition of madness?


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 12, 2013)

I tried to persuade the angry SWP people I spoke to that if it all became completely hopeless that they should try a hostile takeover of Counterfire - that they  probably  had more folk, and that they plus some of the good people in Counterfire (and surely some of them are pretty ok ?) that they could run the place. This went down like a bucket of sick - so I think hostility to Counterfire as a German/Rees production is genuine, not "tactical" (I don't fully know why, but I haven't really grasped the SWP's internal politics since Respect). My other suggestion, a physical occupation of the "Centre" didn't appeal either. Personally I would also get myself expelled rather than resign if necessary by wearing a "Bob Jessop, my main man" t-shirt and distributing pamphlets I'd written called "Callinicos=Stallinicos". So maybe my tactical skills are a bit shaky.


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Yeah there's no love lost between Seymour and the counterfire lot. Depressing to see how counterfire are involved in this People's Assembly stuff, surely the experience of the Stop the War Coalition would be a warning of letting those particular people be involved in organising a new poiltical formation. What's that quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results every time being the definition of madness?


 
People are desperate, really desperate for something to happen, a number would prefer some kind of more libertarian(those who know anything about the different perspectives) movement, but absolutely no sign of that, my worry is they will do the usual call a mass protest for October, they need to start planning now and vote at the P/A for one in July.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

One of those who resigned put this comment under the ISN announcement:

Just to say that we've had a heck of a response to this post, so do please all be patient and we will be getting round to adding everyone to the network as soon as we can.

Thanks


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2013)

Scribbling, you sound very unlike the 'typical SWP hack/trotbot, when did you join?

Millbank time?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Worth noting that the hard opposition isn't entirely gone. There are some extremely disgruntled people intending on staying in for the moment.


There are but arguably they really were primarily enraged at the dc cases and not keen on the political direction of Seymour and other Platformists.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 12, 2013)

1981-1997


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There are but arguably they really were primarily enraged at the dc cases and not keen on the political direction of Seymour and other Platformists.


 
Some of them yes, but there are others still in who have "Platform" type views more generally. Some of whom were in the Platform (eg Davidson), some of whom weren't but were close to them on the IDOOP spectrum (and it was a spectrum).


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2013)

Oh right....

anyway, if this new network grows, there will be more resignations

I just hope it all coalesces with all the different groups and we get something like Sryiza


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> Oh right....
> 
> anyway, if this new network grows, there will be more resignations
> 
> I just hope it all coalesces with all the different groups and we get something like Sryiza


 
All you have to do is find a semi-mass left eurocommunist party hiding under some rock first and you can have your dream.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

It was a spectrum but those left in will have to make a call now. Between their distaste for the regime and their certain knowledge that the ISN will be another centrist swamp outfit. Personalities and egos aside the ISN is just Counterfire II. Fair enough if some of them think the SWP has degenerated to the point where it's become an obstacle but they ned to think long and hard about what they will be jumping to...


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> Scribbling, you sound very unlike the 'typical SWP hack/trotbot, when did you join?
> 
> Millbank time?


 
  Did you read any of this thread? 

He had left in the 1990s around Blair, it would be interesting to hear why and how exactly he left, though.
I disagree with Scribbling on the SWP doing great work by maintaining UAF, I posted this in response to a different new poster, but his analysis of the SWP as a party has been solid.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Did we ever clear up why SEYMOUR! claimed to have met the real david rose that hari mocked up?


 
1. Why do people capitalise his name like that?

2. It _could_ have been Hari sending one of his mates as "David Rose", after having written in him as a master stroke sockpuppet.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It was a spectrum but those left in will have to make a call now. Between their distaste for the regime and their certain knowledge that the ISN will be another centrist swamp outfit.


 
I think you underestimate their ability to stay in and stay disgruntled. Next pre-conference period is six months away and there will be more rows before then. Eventually they'll all be gone, but there's a long way to go yet.


----------



## Before Theory (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It was a spectrum but those left in will have to make a call now. Between their distaste for the regime and their certain knowledge that the ISN will be another centrist swamp outfit. Personalities and egos aside the ISN is just Counterfire II. Fair enough if some of them think the SWP has degenerated to the point where it's become an obstacle but they ned to think long and hard about what they will be jumping to...





bolshiebhoy said:


> It was a spectrum but those left in will have to make a call now. Between their distaste for the regime and their certain knowledge that the ISN will be another centrist swamp outfit. Personalities and egos aside the ISN is just Counterfire II. Fair enough if some of them think the SWP has degenerated to the point where it's become an obstacle but they ned to think long and hard about what they will be jumping to...



They just need to get the f*** out of the SWP, stop being tainted by association with it, and work out the rest of it later.

No more apologies, no more defending the indefensible.

There is political life outside the SWP, despite what the leadership keep telling you.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> All you have to do is find a semi-mass left eurocommunist party hiding under some rock first and you can have your dream.


 
That and far,far higher trade union membership, a decades long tradition of people's war against a military junta, much worse conditions...


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2013)

Sryiza were only getting around 4% of the national vote before the economic crisis, i will settle for that initially....


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It was a spectrum but those left in will have to make a call now. Between their distaste for the regime and their certain knowledge that the ISN will be another centrist swamp outfit.


 
I like how you've set the only two possible options for them. There is literally nothing else they can do except stay as SWP (drones while the CC lie and rig the elections) or join the ISN.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I reckon that's not far off right to be honest - probably about 2,000 subs paying members, though obviously there's some in that number who aren't especially active. I know we check our branch membership list once a year and take anyone off who hasn't been involved or paid subs over the year unless there's some kind of unusual circumstance that leads us to believe they'll be back.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm still counted among the SWP membership, despite sending a resignation to the centre. Otherwise I wouldn't still be getting the internal bulletins. That said I think before this shitstorm, even taking into account the questionable membership figures, the SWP were definitely still a fair bit bigger than us. I hadn't realised just how many members they had round here until they packed out a meeting a bit back. There's a section of the membership that you don't generally see at the usual events but who can be mobilised when they really need it and I think that's been the real difference.



You're a shit branch sec, we do ours every 6 months! And Every branch I've been in has been ruthless too-6 months of no subs and no activity and you're off the lists. 

Worth remembering that the SP has separate Scottish and NI sections too, while the SWP has British and Irish sections, so a straight comparison is slightly more complicated. Our membership in Scotland is low, but in England and Wales we're definitely over 2000 now.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 12, 2013)

(Me, I just got older, had kids, drifted a bit . Nothing very political. Helped out a bit with Socialist Alliance, sort of politically active elsewhere. After STWC was ready to rejoin, but put off by Respect) .


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Worth remembering that the SP has separate Scottish and NI sections too


 
Oh no we don't!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> A couple of CC loyalists I know are convinced that Rees and German have been pulling strings in this - and one of the Sheffield oppositionists has joined counterfire. Complete and utter paranoia or might there be an element of truth to it? I don't believe for a second they've been directing it lizard like but it's possible they've had the ear of some of them isn't it?



They will definitely have had some involvement, or tried too. But WHO is this in Sheffield? Spill!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/on-resigning-from-swp.html

Seymour speaks.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Oh no we don't!



Eh? There's a Northern Ireland and a Rep of Ireland section right? If not why do the buggers always try to sell me two papers?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Eh? There's a Northern Ireland and a Rep of Ireland section right? If not why do the buggers always try to sell me two papers?


 
Two papers, one section.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Two papers, one section.



Bleedin' Irish con artists  I stand corrected.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I tried to persuade the angry SWP people I spoke to that if it all became completely hopeless that they should try a hostile takeover of Counterfire - that they probably had more folk, and that they plus some of the good people in Counterfire (and surely some of them are pretty ok ?) that they could run the place. This went down like a bucket of sick - so I think hostility to Counterfire as a German/Rees production is genuine, not "tactical" (I don't fully know why, but I haven't really grasped the SWP's internal politics since Respect).


 
I'm no expert but _I believe_ the SWPers who stayed after Rees and German left, held Rees and German primarily responsible for pushing and expanding the initial moves to "resist" Galloway's expulsion, extend the Lavalette example and form RESPECT. Hence in the catastrophe as RESPECT collapsed and the Left List formed and then was rescinded, then a kind of headless chicken feeling because they had no proper United Front. All this they blamed on the CC figures who 'got us involved with the Gallowayites in the first place'.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I'm no expert but _I believe_ the SWPers who stayed after Rees and German left, held Rees and German primarily responsible for pushing and expanding the initial moves to "resist" Galloway's expulsion, extend the Lavalette example and form RESPECT. Hence in the catastrophe as RESPECT collapsed and the Left List formed and then was rescinded, then a kind of headless chicken feeling because they had no proper United Front. All this they blamed on the CC figures who 'got us involved with the Gallowayites in the first place'.


 
There's an underlying hostility to the style of leadership that Rees and German personify for them. Also, remember that the first big opportunity for people concerned with democracy in the SWP came in the form of the Rees/German factional row. Those proto-oppositionists and the leadership majority united around putting the boot into them.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> You're a shit branch sec, we do ours every 6 months! And Every branch I've been in has been ruthless too-6 months of no subs and no activity and you're off the lists.
> 
> Worth remembering that the SP has separate Scottish and NI sections too, while the SWP has British and Irish sections, so a straight comparison is slightly more complicated. Our membership in Scotland is low, but in England and Wales we're definitely over 2000 now.


 
My approach is generally do as little as possible and hope for the best. It's served me well in all other areas of my life so I'm fucked if I'm breaking a habit of a lifetime just for politics.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> They will definitely have had some involvement, or tried too. But WHO is this in Sheffield? Spill!


 
Your mum.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2013)

J Ed said:


> What I want to know is how all this is going to affect the Firebox menu


 

a stew made of exPLUSEsions. A soup made of regret and seasoned with biterness. All rounded off with a soupcon of wafer thin regret as the rest of us watch the whole org slow-mo cacrash. We here and that may never have been fans of their politics, their methods and their dubious results but I dunno, I just can't really take any joy out of watching an avowedly leftwing org come undone and under such grim circumstances. Its just depressing.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> a stew made of exPLUSEsions. A soup made of regret and seasoned with biterness. All rounded off with a soupcon of wafer thin regret as the rest of us watch the whole org slow-mo cacrash. We here and that may never have been fans of their politics, their methods and their dubious results but I dunno, I just can't really take any joy out of watching an avowedly leftwing org come undone and under such grim circumstances. Its just depressing.


 
There is no need to fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 12, 2013)

Brighton swss resignation statement on is blog.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 12, 2013)

The new Network seems to be implicitly encouraging some supporters or sympathisers to stay in the SWP presumably to report back and try to influence softer oppositionists in their (the Network's) direction.

Which makes sense.

Nigel Irritable is spot on about the principal reasons this lot won't join Counterfire because they sided with the CC against Rees & German in the previous split for reasons that are in at least part consistant with their current position.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 12, 2013)

I'm going to make a prediction for the trajectory of the ISN - I think Seymour wants to form a loose organisation around himself, a website, and possibly a journal that can intervene in issues and wider campaigning groups and that is clearly similar in style if not substance to Counterfire - however at least half those involved initially won't end up in it, they will scatter in different directions as they start reading and debating what to them are fresh ideas.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 12, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm going to make a prediction for the trajectory of the ISN - I think Seymour wants to form a loose organisation around himself, a website, and possibly a journal that can intervene in issues and wider campaigning groups and that is clearly similar in style if not substance to Counterfire - however at least half those involved initially won't end up in it, they will scatter in different directions as they start reading and debating what to them are fresh ideas.


I predict a rash of new posters raving about Maurice Brinton in the near future ((( bless)))


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Bleedin' Irish con artists  I stand corrected.


That would be Irish in one paper and Scots Irish in t'other.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I like how you've set the only two possible options for them. There is literally nothing else they can do except stay as SWP (drones while the CC lie and rig the elections) or join the ISN.


Good god no, I realise they'll eventually head in all directions. More than a few will end up in Labour with me!

People who say the ISN and Counterfire can't merge because of the history may be right. But given the political transformation of Rees and German since the split it will be very hard to maintain a real difference between the two ex IS currents. In a years time if they both still exist how do you convince someone totally knew to join ISN by explaining that people they've never heard of in Counterfire did unspeakable things to other people they've never heard of in the ISN, years ago when they were all in another party? Like I say personalities and egos aside the political logic is at least collaboration.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/on-resigning-from-swp.html
> 
> Seymour speaks.


Not quite as eloquent as Hitchins description of his own resignation. So he says he has much, much more to say about all this. That'll be fun and will serve to set the outward looking tone of the ISN from day one.

"I also want to register my gratitude to those in the International Socialist tendency who supported the fight" Ah. London branch of the ISO anyone?


----------



## chilango (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Good god no, I realise they'll eventually head in all directions. More than a few will end up in Labour with me!
> 
> People who say the ISN and Counterfire can't merge because of the history may be right. But given the political transformation of Rees and German since the split it will be very hard to maintain a real difference between the two ex IS currents. In a years time if they both still exist how do you convince someone totally knew to join ISN by explaining that people they've never heard of in Counterfire did unspeakable things to other people they've never heard of in the ISN, years ago when they were all in another party? Like I say personalities and egos aside the political logic is at least collaboration.



You could say that about all the tiny little left groups.

History suggests they'll stay very separate and probably splinter further.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 12, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Brighton swss resignation statement on is blog.


 
Its like Czechoslovakia in 1968


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

I bet red pepper and the whole let's go beyond the fragments crew again are rubbing their hands.


----------



## Random (Mar 12, 2013)

J Ed said:


> That and far,far higher trade union membership, a decades long tradition of people's war against a military junta, much worse conditions...


Far higher? Since when? http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=UN_DEN


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

The post-conference analysis is only just beginning. 

The Guardian's has the unfortunate title 'The SWP and rape: why I care about this Marxist-Leninist implosion' almost suggesting the SWP is a ML group - ie anti-revisionist.




> Sexism on the left is the punch you weren't expecting. This week the Socialist Workers party, Britain's largest far-left organisation, is on the brink of collapse after a rape scandal. The scandal is not just that a senior party member was accused of raping a young female activist, but that the party responded by convening its own court, comprised chiefly of the alleged attacker's friends, to decide whether rape had occurred. They decided that it hadn't. At a special conference this weekend its members voted for the second time to uphold that decision.
> So far, so throat-closingly vile – but why should we care about the implosion of a Marxist-Leninist party with a few thousand members? Here's why. The SWP is small, but it has been a significant organising force on the British left for more than 30 years, taking a leading role in coalitions like Stop the War, Unite Against Fascism and, recently, the fight against austerity in the nation's poorest communities. Its affiliate parties in Europe and the Middle East, like Germany's Die Linke, also punch above their weight in terms of influence. Lots of writers, thinkers and journalists have been members of the party; some still are. I've never been a member, but it matters that it is disintegrating because its leadership cannot confront its own misogyny.


 
It doesn't explain the Conference aggregates were rigged and the outcome doesn't reflect the membership. Also the SWP is smaller than the SP.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 12, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The new Network seems to be implicitly encouraging some supporters or sympathisers to stay in the SWP presumably to report back and try to influence softer oppositionists in their (the Network's) direction.
> 
> Which makes sense.
> 
> Nigel Irritable is spot on about the principal reasons this lot won't join Counterfire because they sided with the CC against Rees & German in the previous split for reasons that are in at least part consistant with their current position.



I agree they won't touch Counterfire, but are they so different politically? I mean it was the identity politics/popular front politics that characterised STWC/Respect, and Seymour et al don't seem far removed from that...


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I bet red pepper and the whole let's go beyond the fragments crew again crew are rubbing their hands.


 
Into the swamp as the SWP put it at the time


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Into the swamp as the SWP put it at the time


 
And as bolshie is already repeating 

I don't hold much hope for the majority of the faction leaving - not after leading light Pat Stack, without the factions refusal to condemn it -  called all non-swp people commenting on this 'filth'.

Nor do i buy the argument that if the swp split fatally, then hundreds or thousands of people will be lost to left-wing activity - frankly, if they can only operate under the _aegis_ of an undemocratic, top-down, authoritarian non-participatory organisation then i'm not sure they'd be much use anyway. And who does the blame for producing such mutilated understandings of the possibilities of political organisation that the choices appear to be either the former or nothing? With whom does the blame lie for producing such demoralisation that they cannot face being politically active as this necessarily entails the former?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

_It'll be like the 80s in slow motion._


----------



## cesare (Mar 12, 2013)

They won't even realise for the most part.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I agree they won't touch Counterfire, but are they so different politically? I mean it was the identity politics/popular front politics that characterised STWC/Respect, and Seymour et al don't seem far removed from that...


 
They're not _that_ different politically. But were Militant and the IMT, or Workers Power and Permanent Revolution etc?

The point is Rees-German-Nineham are seen as being responsible for the SWP's past errors that shrunk them down. So some people leaving them now are still angry at them.

When the Delta-Callinicos crew was seeking to eject the Rees-German grouping, they did so by throwing barbs over RESPECT, criticising  Rees-German for being too slow to get together and organise a Right to Work style United Front. In 2008, 2009 the start of the recession was already evident, whilst Afghanistan was far from people's mind, RESPECT had taken most of the resources the SWP had done the legwork for - leaving the SWP without a meaningful united front (front organisation).



> "But the CC, in another document in IB No2, titled 'Right to work ' the road from Brighton', write: '' in the wake of the collapse of Respect and the 'Offu cheque' [in 2007 John Rees accepted on behalf of the SWP front, Organisation For Fighting Unions, a $10,000 donation from a Dubai businessman] many in the party believed we were not in a position to simply kick off what some saw as an 'overarching united front against the recession".


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

And Rees/German pavlovian response was..._to argue for a proper Leninism_, exactly as the prof did this time. What a pathetically shriveled political repertoire all sides seem to share in this.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I bet red pepper and the whole let's go beyond the fragments crew again crew are rubbing their hands.


<rubs hands>


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> <rubs hands>


No need for you to rub your hands, you already are exactly where this sort of stuff ends up - in the labour party.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And as bolshie is already repeating
> 
> I don't hold much hope for the majority of the faction leaving - not after leading light Pat Stack, without the factions refusal to condemn it - called all non-swp people commenting on this 'filth'.
> 
> Nor do i buy the argument that if the swp split fatally, then hundreds or thousands of people will be lost to left-wing activity - frankly, if they can only operate under the _aegis_ of an undemocratic, top-down, authoritarian non-participatory organisation then i'm not sure they'd be much use anyway. And who does the blame for producing such mutilated understandings of the possibilities of political organisation that the choices appear to be either the former or nothing? With whom does the blame lie for producing such demoralisation that they cannot face being politically active as this necessarily entails the former?


 
My general feeling is they are not going to be lost to left-wing activity. Most appear to be students with their adult lives ahead of them, facing shrinking job opportunities and have experienced some sort of anti-cuts, anti-fees efforts in some fashion not totally controlled by the SWP. They want to be accepted more by wider non-SWP members, don't want the questions about the SWP hanging around their necks.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> My general feeling is they are not going to be lost to left-wing activity. Most appear to be students with their adult lives ahead of them, facing shrinking job opportunities and have experienced some sort of anti-cuts, anti-fees efforts in some fashion not totally controlled by the SWP. They want to be accepted more by wider non-SWP members, don't want the questions about the SWP hanging around their necks.


I hope that you're right - and that way that the oppositions arguments were framed i terms of defence of the IS tradtion and leninism and all that was something that came from the longer standing members as senior faction members rather than them. I think i've read suggestions from people involved that the high profile resigners tend to be ex-students, people who were at uni in the last 15 years or so (many still there in some capacity - or mental headspace) rather than classsic18-22 year old students.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And Rees/German pavlovian response was..._to argue for a proper Leninism_, exactly as the prof did this time. What a pathetically shriveled political repertoire all sides seem to share in this.


 
Shriveled - Exactly. Another one used when challenging bureaucratic procedure by a leadership is proper Leninism by _not being a debating society_. (By not debating! )



> CC member Judith Orr won the prize for being the only speaker to roll out the phrase so beloved of bureaucratic centralists: “We are not a debating society.” Neither is the SWP “a co-op” - “we want to lead”.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No need for you to rub your hands, you already are exactly where this sort of stuff ends up - in the labour party.


in and against


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> in and against


In and up.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I don't hold much hope for the majority of the faction leaving - not after leading light Pat Stack, without the factions refusal to condemn it - called all non-swp people commenting on this 'filth'.


 
I thought he meant filth as another word for dirt as in 'dishing the dirt'. Even if he thought the people were filth in private he'd have to be pretty stupid to say it in public.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I thought he meant filth as another word for dirt as in 'dishing the dirt'. Even if he thought the people were filth in private he'd have to be pretty stupid to say it in public.


He put it in writing - but not public! I believe it was chosen due to its ambiguity. it's dual ability to refer to either non-party criticisms of the party and its behaviour as filth and to the people making those criticisms as filth - he even puts who the filth is in brackets so that his audience know:



> My real fear is their case will be the next big cause celebre to set the bloggers off once more and probably trigger resignations. I think a lot of comrades would like some respite from the filth that is out there (here I’m talking about non-party bloggers), but these expulsions will only give that filth fresh impetus.


 
And this is probably the lead light of the IDOP faction. And if this is what the are saying in private to each other about people they claim to want to work with on a broader front...


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I thought he meant filth as another word for dirt as in 'dishing the dirt'. Even if he thought the people were filth in private he'd have to be pretty stupid to say it in public.


 
Stack's position was separate from demanding a non-botched investigation of the 3 victims' experiences (2 of Delta, 1 of the Sheffield fulltimer). His purpose was to ensure all discussion of internal abuse just stopped without too many members leaving.



> "Like everybody else I am sure I have observed the goings on since conference with feelings of alarm and dismay, and feel I cannot simply say nothing when comrades seek my view. In light of that I feel I should make clear my views to you/the CC at the present time. My starting point is that I want the essentials of our politics to be maintained whilst loss of membership is minimised. I realise getting that balance right is going to prove very tricky to say the least. Anyway, here goes."


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He put it in writing - but not public! I believe it was chosen due to its ambiguity. it's dual ability to refer to either non-party criticisms of the party and its behaviour as filth and to the people making those criticisms as filth - he even puts who the filth is in brackets so that his audience know:


 
He knew it would become public.

You may be right about it having been chosen for ambiguity. He's not someone I feel the need to defend so I won't pursue the point.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 12, 2013)

I don't think that is entirely fair on Pat Stack - you can see that he attempted to make the investigation into "Delta" better in that he stood back and said that while "rape" could not be proved, "Delta" had done something wrong (standards of conduct below that expected of leading member or whatever formula), which as he was chair of the DC, you'd think should have swung the rest around - it would have been the best result possible within that structure. And the "filth" can obviously have those two different meanings (and also if he hadn't said it, we'd never have got Anna Chen's very insightful and moving poem - I'm hoping that will be set to music soon). It looks to me like Pat Stack was trying to do the right thing within a system that was going the wrong way. On the Counterfire issue - it's not impossible that there might be quite a few Counterfire people tempted to move towards the "Platform" people, rather than the other way round ?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> On the Counterfire issue - it's not impossible that there might be quite a few Counterfire people tempted to move towards the "Platform" people, rather than the other way round ?


Fair point. Now there's a thought that would keep Rees awake at night.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I don't think that is entirely fair on Pat Stack - you can see that he attempted to make the investigation into "Delta" better in that he stood back and said that while "rape" could not be proved, "Delta" had done something wrong (standards of conduct below that expected of leading member or whatever formula), which as he was chair of the DC, you'd think should have swung the rest around - it would have been the best result possible within that structure. And the "filth" can obviously have those two different meanings (and also if he hadn't said it, we'd never have got Anna Chen's very insightful and moving poem - I'm hoping that will be set to music soon). It looks to me like Pat Stack was trying to do the right thing within a system that was going the wrong way. On the Counterfire issue - it's not impossible that there might be quite a few Counterfire people tempted to move towards the "Platform" people, rather than the other way round ?


Interesting last point - might well be more activisty types in CF a bit pissed off at just providing support for the big twos media performances and making the tea.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And as bolshie is already repeating


Thanks for noticing 

Maybe it's just cause I'm having a bad morning but having read that Penny piece I'm actually more depressed about all this than at any time. There is a real possibility here that the swp image will be too tarnished to recover from this or that being on the defensive about it saps their energy here on out. Which is doubly depressing cause none of the splits are going to reclaim the tradition or anything so noble, they're all headed into the swamp. I've been open enough about who I've supported throughout all this but the unfortunate fact is this is going to make life very difficult for every hard working swp activist here on out. I never minded getting abuse at paper sales about the politics but how much can people take of being constantly accused of being complicit in the abuse of teenage women?!


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting last point - might well be more activisty types in CF a bit pissed off at just providing support for the big twos media performances and making the tea.


 
I could be wrong, but Counterfire doesn't appear to much weight amongst students anywhere in the country _except_ central London. At Middlesex Uni for instance there's some non-aligned left, and a SWSS but no Counterfire.

If people care, this is Counterfire's analysis of their split from SWP:




> Respect was launched on the back of profound disenchantment amongst Labour’s supporters at Blair’s support for Bush’s wars. This disenchantment was deepest amongst working-class Muslims but was spread far more widely, creating a minority prepared to look elsewhere for political organisation and representation. Respect, for the first time in 50 years, won Parliamentary representation for left of Labour and produced spectacular results elsewhere. But as the anti-war tide receded, and with the suddenly plausible threat of a Conservative government understandably frightening many into supporting Labour, it fell into serious divisions and splits from late 2007.
> 
> The SWP, which had played so important a role in establishing first the Stop the War Coalition and then Respect, retreated in turn. A majority were won to the belief that nothing had been gained from the anti-war movement or Respect, and that a turn to “party-building” was now necessary. This meant, in practice, a turn away from engagement with the movements. Significant political divisions appeared between a minority who had attempted to build the movements and now saw the possibilities inherent in a wider political radicalisation, and a majority who believed that a “turn to industry” and a concentration on the clear routines of branch meetings and paper sales were necessary.


 
their conclusions are



> The road ahead is clear. First, in conditions of Britain today, work in united fronts is of the primary strategic importance. Openness, internal democracy, a willingness to act constructively as a minority in bigger organisations, and an ability to maintain long-term relationships with others not sharing our politics are critical. Second, understanding the transformations that neoliberalism has wrought on the British working class means understanding how political radicalisation can coexist with a still quiescent industrial struggle, and responding to it. It means understanding how changes in the workplace, and the role of the internet, have changed how it is possible for us to organise. Third, it means a reassertion of the central importance of strategy within the movement: that the key tasks for socialists in Britain today, a declining imperial power, are in opposing the British state’s drive to war and in building an effective anti-austerity movement – joined, in Scotland, by the fight for a radical independence. Campaign-hopping cannot substitute for serious work in the movements.
> To have an effective strategy for revolution means having also an effective organisation. The need for that organisation is as strong as it ever was. Austerity and the crisis will grind on for the immediately foreseeable future. Labour, the historic party of the British working class, accepts the need for austerity. New organisations of the radical left, akin to Syriza, can be built in these circumstances and in those likely to prevail after the next general election, and within which revolutionaries can play a decisive role. But for them to be effective, they themselves must also be organised.



so presumably they are happy to subsume themselves as part of a larger whole as in Syriza.
One question: what will happen to non-SWP parts of TUSC, will they be completely happy for the SWP to stay in? The toxicity level of SWP to people doing legwork has probably increased significantly after the Special Conference.


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There is a real possibility here that the swp image will be too tarnished to recover from this


yep. as it should be.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

Why is Delta reposting this if he doesn't support government bans?

https://twitter.com/martinuaf/status/311154578454376449

"Theresa May, Home Secretary 
Ban the English Defence League’s proposed march in Newcastle on 25 May 2013
Sincerely,"


----------



## two sheds (Mar 12, 2013)

> Significant political divisions appeared between a minority who had attempted to build the movements and now saw the possibilities inherent in a wider political radicalisation, and a majority who believed that a “turn to industry” and a concentration on the clear routines of branch meetings and paper sales were necessary.


 
Mensheviks versus Bolsheviks all over again. 

I don't know the writer's politics but that "The road ahead is clear ..." piece that sihhi quoted is refreshingly free of the jaded rhetoric of 'far left' analyses. It's a pleasant surprise to be able to fucking understand what they're saying.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Throughout all this the Seymour lot have had a funny relationship with Counterfire. The public utterances seemed to dwell on Rees and German's alleged bad faith for not having broken with the prof's model of dem cen earlier. And obviously so long as Seymour was at least pretending to want to stay he couldn't say nice things about them. But in all honesty don't they match his ideas pretty closely? They shared his enthuasiasm for Syriza as a 'new formation' and even a 'left centrism'. They are at least open to his identity politics tendencies. And all the precariat stuff is right up his alley. Can't be that long before they come to some sort of accommodation?


 
Even before I started reading the thread today, I was fairly certain you'd spout something like this, something insinuatory.

Glad to see you lived down to my expectations, bb.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> They just need to get the f*** out of the SWP, stop being tainted by association with it, and work out the rest of it later.
> 
> No more apologies, no more defending the indefensible.


 
So basically you want to deprive bolshiebhoy of his _raison d'etre_?


----------



## mk12 (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why is Delta reposting this if he doesn't support government bans?
> 
> https://twitter.com/martinuaf/status/311154578454376449
> 
> ...


 
This is the guy who said the police should "ban the BNP."


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> in and against


 
Ah, that's right, you're fighting the system from inside. 

Hows that going, by the way?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 12, 2013)

there needs to be a realignment of the left, but it won't happen this side of a general election


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> there needs to be a realignment of the left, but it won't happen this side of a general election


 
Any more utterly-obvious points you wish to share?


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2013)

mk12 said:


> This is the guy who said the police should "ban the BNP."


bourgeois justice has it's uses.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 12, 2013)

Sorry, I should have said "arrest the BNP." Not sure how that'd work


----------



## JimW (Mar 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> there needs to be a realignment of the left, but it won't happen this side of a general election


But enough about how you wear your trousers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Sorry, I should have said "arrest the BNP." Not sure how that'd work


 

First we impound Griffins Skoda


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> bourgeois justice has it's uses.


 
That is precisely the problem; what uses would bans on poltical parties be put to?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The Guardian's " but that the party responded by convening its own court, comprised chiefly of the alleged attacker's friends, to decide whether rape had occurred. They decided that it hadn't."


Just on a pure technicality, and not at all to defend what the SWP did, wasn't the verdict of their Disputes Committee that the allegation was "not proven" rather than that "not guilty"? I'm not an expert in Scottish law but there appears to be a significant difference. According to wikipedia:


> The result is the modern perception that the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the defendant's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as "not guilty and don't do it again"


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 12, 2013)

How's the lynch mob apology coming Jean-Luc?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That is precisely the problem; what uses would bans on poltical parties be put to?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


ah. i wasn't endorsing smith's suggestion, merely pointing out the contrast between where he would trust the bourgeois justice system (to ban a political party) and where he wouldn't (to try himself for rape).


----------



## J Ed (Mar 12, 2013)

Random said:


> Far higher? Since when? http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=UN_DEN


 
My mistake.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> ah. i wasn't endorsing smith's suggestion, merely pointing out the contrast between where he would trust the bourgeois justice system (to ban a political party) and where he wouldn't (to try himself for rape).


 
Oops sorry for being thick!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 12, 2013)

I just posted an event which will no doubt be of interest to SWP watchers. Two members of AMM and two of the original 'facebook four' are speaking, alongside an eclectic variety of others.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/sat-11th-may-2013-spring-conference-manchester-m2-5ns.307477/


----------



## J Ed (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I could be wrong, but Counterfire doesn't appear to much weight amongst students anywhere in the country _except_ central London. At Middlesex Uni for instance there's some non-aligned left, and a SWSS but no Counterfire.


 
There was an attempt to set up a Counterfire group at the start of the year Sheffield Uni, I assume that it didn't go well because I've heard nothing about them since.

Edit - http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...nterfire-work-at-sheffield-hallam-university- - just making sure it wasn't a figment of my imagination!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> I just posted an event which will no doubt be of interest to SWP watchers. Two members of AMM and two of the original 'facebook four' are speaking, alongside an eclectic variety of others.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/sat-11th-may-2013-spring-conference-manchester-m2-5ns.307477/


Good luck with it, but when you say eclectic, the timetable/program suggests that you mean trotskyist (and of a special kind)


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> They won't even realise for the most part.


 
Callinocos was wearing the same jacket then


----------



## chilango (Mar 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> in and against




Up and and against.



*cocks trigger*


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Good luck with it, but when you say eclectic, the timetable/program suggests that you mean trotskyist (and of a special kind)


 
hoping to push it away from any kind of predictable discourse!


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I could be wrong, but Counterfire doesn't appear to much weight amongst students anywhere in the country _except_ central London. At Middlesex Uni for instance there's some non-aligned left, and a SWSS but no Counterfire.
> 
> If people care, this is Counterfire's analysis of their split from SWP:
> 
> ...


 
 a)TUSC needs anyone it can lay its hands on
b)The SP case (Hedley) will be used in excatly the same way to criticise the far left


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I reckon that's not far off right to be honest - probably about 2,000 subs paying members, though obviously there's some in that number who aren't especially active. I know we check our branch membership list once a year and take anyone off who hasn't been involved or paid subs over the year unless there's some kind of unusual circumstance that leads us to believe they'll be back.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm still counted among the SWP membership, despite sending a resignation to the centre. Otherwise I wouldn't still be getting the internal bulletins. That said I think before this shitstorm, even taking into account the questionable membership figures, the SWP were definitely still a fair bit bigger than us. I hadn't realised just how many members they had round here until they packed out a meeting a bit back. There's a section of the membership that you don't generally see at the usual events but who can be mobilised when they really need it and I think that's been the real difference.


So I'm just interested, your organisation, the Socialist party, encouraged its members not to go to the said meeting?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "I also want to register my gratitude to those in the International Socialist tendency who supported the fight" Ah. London branch of the ISO anyone?


 
The ISO aren't in the IST, so probably not a direct reference to them. However, I would certainly expect the ISO to show the benevolent side of its countenance to this new group. Which should be something you'd welcome - after all the ISO are essentially rather orthodox Cliffites and in so far as they influence the new group it will be an attempt to stop them ranging too far ideologically.

It will be interesting to see how the split effects the rest of the IST however.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> there needs to be a realignment of the left, but it won't happen this side of a general election


 
There needs to be a realignment of the left to the working class rather than the non aligned left realigning itslef with other bits of a non aligned  left.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Throughout all this the Seymour lot have had a funny relationship with Counterfire. The public utterances seemed to dwell on Rees and German's alleged bad faith for not having broken with the prof's model of dem cen earlier. And obviously so long as Seymour was at least pretending to want to stay he couldn't say nice things about them. But in all honesty don't they match his ideas pretty closely? They shared his enthuasiasm for Syriza as a 'new formation' and even a 'left centrism'. They are at least open to his identity politics tendencies. And all the precariat stuff is right up his alley. Can't be that long before they come to some sort of accommodation?


Absolutely not. On the key issue - which you tends to always slide away from, in your own head as well as in posts - Counterfire are seen as even more wedded to top-down bureaucratic 'leadership'.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough, but is there some other shorthand term I can use?
> 
> Have to say I was expecting a different argument - someone I know is very against this term, because she doesn't believe that being blind, deaf or in a wheelchair actually disadvantages anyone. By calling them disabled you are turning them into victims, so she tells me.


 it's up to you, might be worth googling, "the social model of disability", and a writer called Vic Finklestein


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> yep. as it should be.


I certainly dont agree with that. But for the first time I'm feeling less than confident that they will find a way out if this. And that's not cause SEYMOUR! has done one, that's a good thing. But I was hopeful the special conf would do more tangibly to find ways to resist the growing media campaign. Right now you'd struggle to see how this can be turned around. Maybe this dc reform body will provide sone answers but...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Absolutely not. On the key issue - which you tends to always slide away from, in your own head as well as in posts - Counterfire are seen as even more wedded to top-down bureaucratic 'leadership'.


 
Quite apart from anything else, they seem to have brought in Andy Wilson's little crew straight away and Wilson was essentially expelled from the SWP in the first place for saying that John Rees had no clothes.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> a)TUSC needs anyone it can lay its hands on
> b)The SP case (Hedley) will be used in excatly the same way to criticise the far left


 
I'd say that the issue that causes the SWP serious difficulty in collaborating with others is less likely to be TUSC and more the ability of union bureaucracies to smear union left bodies over their recent behaviour. As for the other allegations you mention, there will certainly be people using them to try to damage the socialist left, but that damage will only stick if the SP botches the issue.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "I also want to register my gratitude to those in the International Socialist tendency who supported the fight" Ah. London branch of the ISO anyone?


I believe this to be more of an Irish reference, but the ISO are certainly going to keep in touch with those leaving the SWP, as well as offer some of them the opportunity to speak and to publish in the USA.


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I certainly dont agree with that. But for the first time I'm feeling less than confident that they will find a way out if this. And that's not cause SEYMOUR! has done one, that's a good thing. But I was hopeful the special conf would do more tangibly to find ways to resist the growing media campaign. Right now you'd struggle to see how this can be turned around. Maybe this dc reform body will provide sone answers but...


the death of the SWP (if that's what this is to be) is by it's own hand. fuck 'em.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 12, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> I just posted an event which will no doubt be of interest to SWP watchers. Two members of AMM and two of the original 'facebook four' are speaking, alongside an eclectic variety of others.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/sat-11th-may-2013-spring-conference-manchester-m2-5ns.307477/


 


> and ask fundamental questions pertinent to all on the radical left. As an essential human construct, what is art and culture?


 
Good to see that the priorties facing the working class are built around the availability of speakers


----------



## chilango (Mar 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Good to see that the priorties facing the working class are built around the availbality of speakers



I hope it's not going to clash with one of the massive People's Assembles that are coming up....


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I believe this to be more of an Irish reference, but the ISO are certainly going to keep in touch with those leaving the SWP, as well as offer some of them the opportunity to speak and to publish in the USA.


And not forgetting the Serbian section.

I'm sure the ISO will be doing just that. Arguably folks like Sharon Smith have already gone down the same road as RS on identity politics so there may be a meeting of minds.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

A mercifully brief reading of the practicalities of degeneration (or some other pompus title):



> The other thing that happened in the 90s was that then-National Secretary of the SWP Chris Bambery started splitting the branches. The logic was impeccable, if the 90s were like the 1930s in slow motion, then we must organize like the Communist Parties did in the 1930s (in slow motion?). Of course the CPs were mass parties with deep roots inside the working classes of their countries. And nobody asked if maybe the CP model of organizing after the parties were fully subordinate to Stalin’s Moscow might not be more than a bit problematic. But, in either case, making branches tiny made them more reliant upon the full-timers for material support and made members even more isolated from each other. This tendency was deepened when branches were dissolved in their entirety at the beginning of the new decade in order to “break” the conservatism of the membership and push them into the movements. Now the only organized, active element within the party was the apparatus. The leadership had, in a Brechtian turn, dissolved an unworthy membership.
> 
> As I said, no one can escape history, not even Tony Cliff. Cliff understood that the 80s had made the party conservative and that it needed to be shaken up. But the effects of conservatism were not experienced solely by the membership and were, arguably, felt more acutely by the party machine. That distortionn explains why the cure for conservatism was directed solely at the membership. It was they who were the problem. The Party by now was the machine, what was needed was a better membership. Of course, we now see precisely what that means. And there’s no use pretending that this was a process that was resisted all along the line by the membership. Certainly there were individuals who were unlucky enough to attrack the tender mercies of the full-timers and the CC. I remember John Rees gleefully telling us how he had expelled some workers who were contemptuous of him. But the majority of old time cadre were committed to the IS tradition and to the party. They internalized this degeneration and outlook, having long since lost any memory of a different kind of organization in a different kind of context. It’s a bit like the Stockholm Syndrome or the way in which the oppressed internalize their own oppression


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thanks for noticing
> 
> Maybe it's just cause I'm having a bad morning but having read that Penny piece I'm actually more depressed about all this than at any time. There is a real possibility here that the swp image will be too tarnished to recover from this or that being on the defensive about it saps their energy here on out. Which is doubly depressing cause none of the splits are going to reclaim the tradition or anything so noble, they're all headed into the swamp. I've been open enough about who I've supported throughout all this but the unfortunate fact is this is going to make life very difficult for every hard working swp activist here on out. I never minded getting abuse at paper sales about the politics but how much can people take of being constantly accused of being complicit in the abuse of teenage women?!


 
Is this really only sinking in now?

A clear victory for the opposition, with an attendant fanfare about how all things right and proper had been fought for and all wrongs corrected, was in my view the only real chance the SWP had to recover. To borrow a phrase from PR pricks, that's the only thing that would have let them change the narrative. That's what the House of Lords understood and you didn't. That's why the more clear sighted SWP first people were in the opposition.

As it is, they will face years of goading about this from media types, from sectarians, from feminists, from union bureaucrats, from just about every opponent in just about every field. It will be used over and over again to undermine them, both by people who are genuinely outraged and by people with an axe to grind. Meanwhile, the campuses are going to have most of their former SWSS members still there and still hostile and Google helpfully adds the word "rape" automatically when you type in SWP.

After the inevitable short term burst of "outward looking" hyperactivism, demoralisation is going to set in. And there will still be a sullen, disgruntled, minority in there, more splits, more resignations, more people just walking away.

If you are really worried about your "tradition", your best bet would be to hope that the new group falls firmly under ISO tutelage. That's how you are most likely to end up with a viable group of a not wildly different sort to the SWP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Absolutely not. On the key issue - which you tends to always slide away from, in your own head as well as in posts - Counterfire are seen as even more wedded to top-down bureaucratic 'leadership'.


But how much of that is down to how Rees and German personally behaved within the cc of the swp vs how Counterfire operates now? I don't know anything about their internal regime but they certainly make a great show of their openness and ability to engage with (some might say adapt to) people to their right which is a huge part of the SEYMOUR! argument with the cc about feminists and others.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

Another post about SWP's paranoia opposition to "creeping feminism":

http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/swp-and-their-fear-of-feminism




> ‘The IS (precursor to the SWP) ostensibly committed to learning from workers’ struggles, the initiator of rank and file groups, opposed to bureaucracy in the labour movement, baulked at extending these ideas into the wider issues of everyday life or at applying them within their own organisation’.
> 
> The SWP still wallows in this limited and simplistic dogma. I think the SWP are afraid of feminism precisely because it’s alternative power structure, an alternative source of organisational strength, this will inevitably undermine the culture of political obedience in the SWP which they have been careful to impose on the membership for decades. It’s not creeping feminism what has created the woes in the SWP,  it’s a corrupt political culture, where powerful men are/were excused for sexual exploitation and violence towards women.
> 
> The SWP leadership and loyalists may indulge in distracting people from the bleeding obvious but the reality is about abuse of power and of power dynamics between men and women (let’s throw in some understanding of patriarchy too). If you stifle debate within your organisation and only use a top-down method of education then isn’t it any wonder sexism, exploitation, violence and unequal relationships between men and women exist within the SWP. And let’s be clear this isn’t an internal matter for the SWP this has impacted on the whole of the Left.


----------



## cesare (Mar 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Callinocos was wearing the same jacket then




Leather elbow patches?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 12, 2013)

we are all the swamp


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> we are all the swamp


You fucking are.

edit: actually, no you're not. You're not a vacillating centrist - you went straight through that and came out on the other bank.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But how much of that is down to how Rees and German personally behaved within the cc of the swp vs how Counterfire operates now?


 
The core point there is that the IS people simply aren't interested in finding out how Rees and German operate now as long as the deposed royals maintain that they operated correctly when they were running the SWP.

And perhaps just as importantly, the ex-members they are recruiting tend to hate Rees even more than the SWP oppositionists do.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Good to see that the priorties facing the working class are built around the availability of speakers


 
i genuinely don't get you


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The core point there is that the IS people simply aren't interested in finding out how Rees and German operate now as long as the deposed royals maintain that they operated correctly when they were running the SWP.
> 
> And perhaps just as importantly, the ex-members they are recruiting tend to hate Rees even more than the SWP oppositionists do.


 
Who is the IS people?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The core point there is that the IS people simply aren't interested in finding out how Rees and German operate now as long as the deposed royals maintain that they operated correctly when they were running the SWP.
> 
> And perhaps just as importantly, the ex-members they are recruiting tend to hate Rees even more than the SWP oppositionists do.


Noticeable their seeming total reliance on donations and luvvy largesse. Doesn't exactly suggest a broad committed group.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Who is the IS people?


 
Sorry, the ISN people.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i genuinely don't get you


 
Really?

"Association of Musical Marxists" 

Seeing the question "As an essential human construct, what is art and culture?" as a "_fundamental question pertinent to all on the radical left"_


----------



## articul8 (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You fucking are.
> 
> edit: actually, no you're not.


 vacillating centrist


----------



## Das Uberdog (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Really?
> 
> "Association of Musical Marxists"
> 
> Seeing the question "As an essential human construct, what is art and culture?" as a "_fundamental question pertinent to all on the radical left"_


 
it's not pretty vital to think about these things?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Sorry, the ISN people.


 
"And perhaps just as importantly, the ex-members they are recruiting tend to hate Rees even more than the SWP oppositionists do."

The ex-members the ISN is recruiting or Counterfire is recruiting?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> "And perhaps just as importantly, the ex-members they are recruiting tend to hate Rees even more than the SWP oppositionists do."
> 
> The ex-members the ISN is recruiting or Counterfire is recruiting?


 
The ISN. They've specifically appealed to ex-members to join, and facebook has a load of them doing just that. Mostly people who really, really, really don't like Rees.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So I'm just interested, your organisation, the Socialist party, encouraged its members not to go to the said meeting?


 
Why on earth is that relevant you utter loon?


----------



## mk12 (Mar 12, 2013)

Someone needs to update the British Trotskyist family tree.


----------



## Random (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why on earth is that relevant you utter loon?


Cut that out ffs.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The ISN. They've specifically appealed to ex-members to join, and facebook has a load of them doing just that. Mostly people who really, really, really don't like Rees.


 
I can understand that because many, as butchers pointed out, are the older end of student masters or postgraduate or of that mindset and Rees must have behaved - in a similar way but on a smaller scale - to how he behaved to mk12 as he was being isolated then expelled for posting completely harmlessly on this very forum!

From the earlier link:



> Certainly there were individuals who were unlucky enough to attrack the tender mercies of the full-timers and the CC. I remember John Rees gleefully telling us how he had expelled some workers who were contemptuous of him.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I can understand that because many, as butchers pointed out, are the older end of student masters or postgraduate or of that mindset and Rees must have behaved - in a similar way but on a smaller scale - to how he behaved to mk12 as he was being isolated then expelled for posting completely harmlessly on this very forum!


 
Rees seems to have made a point of playing the "hard leader" in practice, and he churned out most of the arguments for "interventionist leadership" in theory. So not only did he make a significant number of personal enemies amongst ex-SWP members, the people who are rebelling against all that in the SWP are profoundly hostile to him. As he seems to be incapable of performing any kind of mea culpa, it's very hard to see how he could win them over.

If Counterfire had any sense, they'd be trumpeting their current "openness" and putting out some reflective commentary about how much they've learned from their mistakes in the SWP. But they are too arrogant, even when it's the self-interested thing to do.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2013)

Random said:


> Cut that out ffs.


 
It's irritating though - in his enthusiasm to defend the SWP he's completely oblivious to the fact that I wasn't having a dig (it was their meeting so they had every right to pack it out) - I was explaining how although it might not look always that way the SWP did have a bigger membership. It's what he always does - don't bother understanding what's being said - just assume everything's a conspiracy against the SWP and go on the defensive. It's why nobody can be bothered to take him seriously.


----------



## laptop (Mar 12, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Sorry, I should have said "arrest the BNP." Not sure how that'd work


 
Well, that's at least half of how the Brick Lane fascist paper sales stopped. A week or two after Red Action (wasn't it?) piled into the BNP/NF crowd, the police put an Inspector of South Asian origin in charge, with a "fuck it, enough already" policy.

They nicked all the fascists off the District Line at Mile End.

When I the Inspector knocked on my door the following week I asked on what grounds they'd held them. "We lost the paperwork for the afternoon."


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's why nobody can be bothered to take him seriously.


 
Please just stop responding to him on this thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

The 'more i could have said' stuff from seymour starts:



> This is the first in a series of posts where I explain the crisis in the party from my own perspective.  Necessarily, it's a highly personal and therefore partial take.  But I have to put it into words - a lot of words - and hope some of it will be useful.  And then, on to other things.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The 'more i could have said' stuff from seymour starts:


 
I was expecting something a bit more juicy than that tbh, nothing in there we don't already know really is there?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I was expecting something a bit more juicy than that tbh, nothing in there we don't already know really is there?


It's not going to be an expose as such i think - although it's clearly leading to a meeting with people who did know, and who knew well before the 5th december - and who knew in more detail. I think there's plenty more to come.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I was expecting something a bit more juicy than that tbh, nothing in there we don't already know really is there?


 
He's not going to go into details of the case because the CC that are still in control of the party will say "that's the ISN game all along exploiting a woman and bringing up salacious details just to form a new syriza".


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The 'more i could have said' stuff from seymour starts:


 
Worth examining the full list he gives in a comment earlier:




> 1) 2011 conference lied to, told nothing of the real nature of the allegations;
> 
> 2) party members not allowed to discuss the issues in aggregates before 2013 conference, with 'confidentiality' used as the
> excuse;
> ...


 
The key point is there - _something to hide_, why expel the 4 if all is appropriate and has been handled appropriately?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's irritating though - in his enthusiasm to defend the SWP he's completely oblivious to the fact that I wasn't having a dig (it was their meeting so they had every right to pack it out) - I was explaining how although it might not look always that way the SWP did have a bigger membership. It's what he always does - don't bother understanding what's being said - just assume everything's a conspiracy against the SWP and go on the defensive. It's why nobody can be bothered to take him seriously.


 it is irritating though, that you only think people are trying to defend the SWP, when in actual fact they are pointing out how you are undermining your own criticisms of the SWP, by talking about a practice which is common to every political organisation/grouping, and pretending it's something peculiar to the SWP. Why use the term packing out? It wasn't essential to your point.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Worth examining the full list he gives in a comment earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes - why thepanicky stuff? Why the over the top reaction? Why such aggression otherwise? Because _they_ knew the rock had been lifted - or at least someone had started to pick it up. More rocks will be lifted very soon i feel.


----------



## Random (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's irritating though - in his enthusiasm to defend the SWP he's completely oblivious to the fact that I wasn't having a dig (it was their meeting so they had every right to pack it out) - I was explaining how although it might not look always that way the SWP did have a bigger membership. It's what he always does - don't bother understanding what's being said - just assume everything's a conspiracy against the SWP and go on the defensive. It's why nobody can be bothered to take him seriously.


 I'm not saying take him seriously, I'm saying leave out the abuse.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes - why thepanicky stuff? Why the over the top reaction? Why such aggression otherwise? Because _they_ knew the rock had been lifted - or at least someone had started to pick it up. More rocks will be lifted very soon i feel.


 
Harsh Rees-like counter-responses right now:




> SocialistDawn • 3 hours ago : Certain members of the party haven't gotten their own way and are resigning. Well boo-hoo. Out of curiosity Richard, how many paper sales have you done? How active are you within your branch? You seem to assume that the walkout of you and 71 others will be a great loss to the party. Well, the 71 others yes perhaps they will be a loss to the party but your walking out will not damage the party. You have not shown "restraint" when discussing the SWP, you do not seem to understand the basic principles of Democratic Centralism (critical to the party's and class's success) and you do not contribute to the party in a meaningful way.


 
Seymour explains halting the International Socialism blog was necessary to bring the thing to special conference, and get a unified vote
there:



> We made an agreement with the wider IDOOP faction that we would suspend blogging. That was the price of achieving a unified faction. I certainly think it was mistaken of IDOOP leaders to think that stopping the blogging would help. It actually ceded an important advantage and counterweight to the CC's control of the apparatus. Nonetheless, writing an article after that agreement would probably have resulted in a split in the faction, and that wouldn't have been productive.
> In the end, I don't think most IDOOP members did fall for divide and rule tactics. A minority did, but I also noticed the eye rolling contempt that IDOOP documents expressed for the attempt to scapegoat myself and others for this crisis. The problem was not that, as such. Rather, I think IDOOP leaders underestimated their own potential strength; they still do.


 
Who were the IDOOP leaders in full? Richard Seymour, China Mieville,  Mike Gonzalez, Megan Trudell, Pat Stack???


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Sorry, I should have said "arrest the BNP." Not sure how that'd work


 
Coppers arresting people who share their basic beliefs? Perish the thought!!!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it is irritating though, that you only think people are trying to defend the SWP, when in actual fact they are pointing out how you are undermining your own criticisms of the SWP, by talking about a practice which is common to every political organisation/grouping, and pretending it's something peculiar to the SWP. Why use the term packing out? It wasn't essential to your point.


 
1) I wasn't making a criticism of the SWP and you're making my point for me by claiming I was- again your assumption that anyone talking about the SWP must be part of a conspiracy against the SWP leads you to not engage with what's actually being said - this is why nobody wants to discuss anything with you, it's pointless because you respond to what's being said in your head rather than on the board.

2) Whether that 'practice' is unique to them is irrelevant (as it happens me and a couple of others from the SP went but we didn't encourage people to go or not to go but yes, all groups encourage members to go to important meetings - who has denied that?)

3) It was central to my point because I was talking about how their membership is bigger it normally appears to be and didn't know those additional members existed until I saw packing out the meeting (they may well have packed it out of their own volition rather than being 'mobilised' for it - it was Terry Eagleton on 'Why Marx was Right' - an SWP meeting and a pretty good one at that).

4) That's the last response you're going to get from me because we'll end up disrupting the thread and spoiling it for everyone else.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Harsh Rees-like counter-responses right now:
> 
> <few snips>
> 
> ...


 
He should be able to bat away the above by marxsplaining what this attitude has produced today.

Who want's to respond to junior trots shouting? It has to be part of their response for the next period if they're going anywhere though.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> there:
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the IDOOP leaders in full? Richard Seymour, China Mieville, Mike Gonzalez, Megan Trudell, Pat Stack???


 
Not sure CM did a thing really, just accepted it and put his name to the wheel. Stack and Birchall - not convinced they were there for the right reasons myself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> marxsplaining


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He's not going to go into details of the case because the CC that are still in control of the party will say "that's the ISN game all along exploiting a woman and bringing up salacious details just to form a new syriza".


 
Yeah I get that, thought there might be more about the cover-up and the like though. Maybe he's saving that stuff - serialising it will mean more blog hits after all.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> 3) It was central to my point because I was talking about how their membership is bigger it normally appears to be and didn't know those additional members existed until I saw packing out the meeting (they may well have packed it out of their own volition rather than being 'mobilised' for it - it was Terry Eagleton on 'Why Marx was Right' - an SWP meeting and a pretty good one at that).


 and my point is the SWP do pack out meetings, as does everybody else, but I only see the term used on here with reference to the SWP.  If that is not true, point to an example of it being used with reference to other organisations...
Secondly, that in my opinion, organisations should  mobilise as many people as possible to meetings they care about.  Why the bloody hell would you not try to win a vote you were interested in the outcome of?   I am not defending the SWP, I am questioning a crazy nonsensical notion.


> 4) That's the last response you're going to get from me because we'll end up disrupting the thread and spoiling it for everyone else.


 don't be so bloody precious, it's a chit chat board.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He should be able to bat away the above by marxsplaining what this attitude has produced today.
> 
> Who want's to respond to junior trots shouting? It has to be part of their response for the next period if they're going anywhere though.


 
Analysis from last week's Socialist Worker:

"We need to fight where we are strong— and fighting oppression makes our side stronger. Socialists oppose sexism wherever it is directed. Any form of oppression can be used by our rulers to divide us. Russian revolutionary Lenin argued that a socialist should be a “tribune of the people, who is able to react to any manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects”."

Fellow comrade is "questioned about why she went for a drink with him, her witnesses were repeatedly asked whether she’d been in a relationship with him, and you know, she was asked about... sexual relationships... she hasn’t been told what evidence was presented against her by Comrade Delta... she was being interrogated and felt they were trying to catch her out in order to make her out to be a liar. She did not accept the line of questioning, saying ‘they think I’m a slut who asked for it’. Rita, a comrade who is experienced in working with rape victims and was supporting her in the questioning – she had to actually go back into the room and have a go at the DC for their inappropriate questions.
Her treatment afterwards has been worse. She feels completely betrayed. No one on the CC has ever contacted her voluntarily, not even to tell her that Comrade Delta was standing down, and she feels she’s been treated as this non-person. The disgusting lies and gossip going round about her has been really distressing and disappointing for her to hear, and the way her own witnesses have been treated in Birmingham hasn’t been much better... so bad that the CC received two formal complaints from comrades, and a formal complaint has been lodged with the disputes committee. Recently the complainant wanted to attend a meeting and tried to talk to a local member. He told her that it wasn’t appropriate for him to speak to her and he walked away... if you have a serious allegation to bring against a leading member, don’t bother because you’ll be victimised for doing so? ... a young woman has to plan her route to work avoiding paper-sellers, or that she comes away from a meeting crying because people refuse to speak to her... her witnesses are questioned about their commitment to the party because they missed a branch meeting?"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

Beneath the rock, the sewer?


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 12, 2013)

makes you sick... whats the second part from ?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 12, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So I'm just interested, your organisation, the Socialist party, encouraged its members not to go to the said meeting?



Don't be deliberately thick.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

That's the DC transcript from the first SWP conference.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 12, 2013)

cheers butchersapron


----------



## DrRingDing (Mar 12, 2013)

> "The nightmare scenario is an attack piece by Laurie Penny."


 
http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/the-crisis-in-swp-part-i.html


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

Part 2


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

_We caucused._


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

Who and where are they then after this epic two month fight?



> The fact is, I didn't really need to have made my speech.  I wasn't saying anything that people didn't know.  The students, it turned out, were miles ahead of me and every other presuming old git.  Their speeches were crisp, politically lucid, tactically sharp.  They fully understood the responsibility they were undertaking. Contrary to what some might have feared, they had no desire to fly off in ultra-left directions, or simply resign the party if they didn't win overnight.  They were digging in for a long fight.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _Do you want to buy a paper? No thanks i'm a communist. _They love that.


 
Updated version: _Do you want to buy a paper? No thanks, I'm a creeping feminist._


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _We caucused._


 
must be borne in mind in connection with the slightly ouvrieriste strain in Hitchens's politics


----------



## dennisr (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Please just stop responding to him on this thread.


actually - please stop responding to the troll on any thread


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2013)

''Later that week, I spoke to a member of the CC, one of those nurturing a secret dissent, over coffee. He seemed sane, and gave the impression that he was ready to take a stand and lose his job. But he defended the expulsion of the four members - even though, when I suggested that it looked like a bureaucratic manoeuvre to stymy debate, he gave me a look which suggested that this wasn't implausible. He also tried to say that "the reach of attack blogs like Socialist Unity and the Association of Musical Marxists is not very big". I said, "if there are people on the CC who are making this argument, they are _out of their minds_. They couldn't conceal Gerry Healy's actions back in the 1980s, before the internet; this is going to be in the Daily Mail! All the papers that hate our guts will love this." "Yeah, I know," he said. "The nightmare scenario is an attack piece by Laurie Penny."



There really is the Millwall attitude in all that and what on earth are 'attack publications'?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> There really is the Millwall attitude in all that and what on earth are 'attack publications'?


 
1. It says there. Sites like AMM and Socialist Unity that share the same Trotsykist worldview but attack the SWP with a special vengeance because they were unfairly expelled from it in the past.

2. Socialist Worker not _a trace_ of the Special Conference.

Its letters page has its obligatory shielding pro-feminist but quite bland letter.




> Sexism isn’t a natural thing
> I was sorry to see the treatment of women taking part in a recent debate at the Glasgow University Union.
> Male students shouted sexist insults. Thankfully, many other people are against sexism. The women have received messages supporting them from all over the world.
> Helena Rowe, Dundee


 
It's interesting, although SWP members can't associate with one another via facebook to discuss politics, submissions to the weekly publication can be made for or via facebook. So that people can then follow the link to sign a petition:




> Fight to save fire services
> Fight fire cuts—sign and share a petition at epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/39494
> 
> Jim Wedgbury, on Facebook


 
Lots of details of various celebratory events for Women's Day but only this snippet of discussion about any further action:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=30800



> There was a lively discussion particularly around how to oppose the “Unilad” culture in the colleges where lads’ mags on sale in the students’ union.


----------



## tony collins (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 1. It says there. Sites like AMM and Socialist Unity that share the same Trotsykist worldview but attack the SWP with a special vengeance because they were unfairly expelled from it in the past.


 
None of us on SU have been expelled from the SWP.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

tony collins said:


> None of us on SU have been expelled from the SWP.


 
Didn't Andy Newman join the SWP at some point in the mid 1980s? And then get expelled or at least leave before expulsion at some later point


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

That was the DPK.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 12, 2013)

From part II, confirming Nigel's analysis, don't you think, bb?
"It was clear he thought that Counterfire and ISG had something to offer.  Pleasant and insightful as he was, most of us thought his strategy wouldn't work, and we had no particular desire to go chasing after the two groups that had just split from the party.  If the critique of the leadership was partly that it was undemocratic, the leaders of those split-away organisations hardly had clean hands.  We made a point of opposing and attacking that strategy wherever we could."


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 1. It says there. Sites like AMM and Socialist Unity that share the same Trotsykist worldview but attack the SWP with a special vengeance because they were unfairly expelled from it in the past.
> 
> 2. Socialist Worker not _a trace_ of the Special Conference.
> 
> ...


 
The AMM might share the same view but that bunch of misfits, anoraks and obsessives on SU aren't even on the same planet


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> leading light Pat Stack, without the factions refusal to condemn it - called all non-swp people commenting on this 'filth'


 



The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce, or maybe vice versa...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

andysays said:


> The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce, or maybe vice versa...


 
Done your prep for the spring conference andy?


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2013)

i just caucused. had to open the window for a bit straight after, the cat didn't look happy.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There is a real possibility here that the swp image will be too tarnished to recover from this or that being on the defensive about it saps their energy here on out... the unfortunate fact is this is going to make life very difficult for every hard working swp activist here on out. I never minded getting abuse at paper sales about the politics but how much can people take of being constantly accused of being complicit in the abuse of teenage women?!


 
At last!!! It's only taken 278 pages and nearly three months for you to get it. Well done!!!


----------



## sihhi (Mar 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> From part II, confirming Nigel's analysis, don't you think, bb?
> "It was clear he thought that Counterfire and ISG had something to offer. Pleasant and insightful as he was, most of us thought his strategy wouldn't work, and we had no particular desire to go chasing after the two groups that had just split from the party. If the critique of the leadership was partly that it was undemocratic, the leaders of those split-away organisations hardly had clean hands. We made a point of opposing and attacking that strategy wherever we could."


 
Key people behind the formation of the faction for January and the new one for March were the Facebook 4. 
This is what Paris thinks of Rees and German.




> The right of comrades to propose slates should remain, but the election of comrades to the Central Committee should be on an individual basis. The monolithic style of leadership advocated and practised by Rees/German, while possibly serving a purpose in a period of working class defeat, has no place in a revolutionary party with the class in ascendency. Political differences should be openly acknowledged, with the debates open to the party. Different political tendencies should be represented on the CC, not suppressed behind a veil of “unity”. This would be an important step to fostering a culture of open and honest debate within the party.
> 
> Paris (Leeds & West Yorkshire)


 
http://www.unkant.com/2012/12/paris-political-engagement-and-party.html

They see them as monolithic leaders - something which on paper they want to get away from.


----------



## andysays (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Done your prep for the spring conference andy?


 


(what I'm really looking for is a gobbing emoticon, but that will have to do)


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2013)

oh, i seem to know one of the lads who's organising this spring conference thing. is markus on here?


----------



## Before Theory (Mar 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So basically you want to deprive bolshiebhoy of his _raison d'etre_?



Lol, yes, he'll need to find something else to justify and apologize for, although I think even he is starting to realize the enormity of the consequences for the SWP.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 12, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i genuinely don't get you


 
Part of the vanguard trawling trolling these parts.


----------



## treelover (Mar 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 1. It says there. Sites like AMM and Socialist Unity that share the same Trotsykist worldview but attack the SWP with a special vengeance because they were unfairly expelled from it in the past.
> 
> 2. Socialist Worker not _a trace_ of the Special Conference.
> 
> ...


 
Sheffield SWP have organised a major 'Unite The Resistance' Conference with Serwotka, and other big names a week on saturday, lots of SWP sympathisers are apparently going...


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2013)

treelover said:


> the Association of Musical Marxists


 

Shouldn't crack up really but...


surely they must concentrate on jazz, the most unorthodox of musical forms


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2013)

is it a coincidence they share an acronym with cornelius cardew's old free improv outfit? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMM_(group)


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2013)

there are no coincidences


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 12, 2013)

The troll has stopped asking if they've split yet.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 12, 2013)

who would have thought i would be seeing that old is group pamphlet popping up everywhere nearly twenty years later. funny old world, eh?


----------



## IC3D (Mar 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> surely they must concentrate on jazz, the most unorthodox of musical forms


 
Nice..


----------



## two sheds (Mar 12, 2013)

That's all done automatically now  .


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure CM did a thing really, just accepted it and put his name to the wheel. Stack and Birchall - not convinced they were there for the right reasons myself.


 
Mieville was on the faction steering committee and, apparently went to a bunch of meetings, branch, aggregate, faction, etc to argue the Platform (ie "hard" opposition) case.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Mieville was on the faction steering committee and, apparently went to a bunch of meetings, branch, aggregate, faction, etc to argue the Platform (ie "hard" opposition) case.


Ta for info, that this is what he did says it though. IS tradition.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ta for info, that this is what he did says it though. IS tradition.


 
To be fair, he also spoke to the press and put his name to most of the documents on the IS blog, so he didn't simply confine himself to the things you are supposed to do in the "tradition".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

Goddammit are we ever going to catch up with that Callinicos / Penny thread.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 12, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The troll has stopped asking if they've split yet.


life after the swp yet?


----------



## durruti02 (Mar 12, 2013)

interested to see Tony Collins of SU on here. SU deleted my posts about the SWP's behaviour in Tower Hamlets, below, a few days back and then barred me from SU, . [see other thread ] ... said it was absurd nonsense ( or some other ignorent phrase ) but of course could not provide a single word of refutation ... as tragically it is all true 
.. and of course the irony of opposing the SWP leadership yet trying to shut down debate on the internet, as the SWP leadership tried to do.. hey ho. Tony you will be pleased to know SU provided 23 visits out of the 450 visitors and 650 views the blog has had.  
http://durruti02.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/the-swp-rape-opportunism-power-and-ideology-how-the-swp-ended-up-working-in-tower-hamlets-with-fascists-war-criminals-and-those-who-carried-out-mass-rape-in-bangladesh/


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> From part II, confirming Nigel's analysis, don't you think, bb?
> "It was clear he thought that Counterfire and ISG had something to offer.  Pleasant and insightful as he was, most of us thought his strategy wouldn't work, and we had no particular desire to go chasing after the two groups that had just split from the party.  If the critique of the leadership was partly that it was undemocratic, the leaders of those split-away organisations hardly had clean hands.  We made a point of opposing and attacking that strategy wherever we could."


Well you've quoted just after the sentences where he says that this guy was advocating an immediate split. And later RS calls the desire to leave at once ultra left. I think the antipathy directed towards the former splitters was as much about that desire to stay in and win as many as possible (before leaving anyway!) which required putting the breaks on those who wanted to jump ship too early, as it did with the Platform's dislike of Rees, German and Bambery. So yes they detest each other as well. And that might well stop them ending up in the same organisation for some time. And then what? Two organisations with basically similar politics will stare each other out for the next five to ten years? Do they have to wait until the principal dramatis personae are dead or too doddery to shout at each other and then the membership can admit they should merge? Maybes so. Do they have major differences over dem cen and internal regime issues? Beyond the bad faith of Rees and German over their own previous practice, probably not.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well you've quoted just after the sentences where he says that this guy was advocating an immediate split. And later RS calls the desire to leave at once ultra left. I think the antipathy directed towards the former splitters was as much about that desire to stay in and win as many as possible (before leaving anyway!) which required putting the breaks on those who wanted to jump ship too early, as it did with the Platform's dislike of Rees, German and Bambery. So yes they detest each other as well. And that might well stop them ending up in the same organisation for some time. And then what? Two organisations with basically similar politics will stare each other out for the next five to ten years? Do they have to wait until the principal dramatis personae are dead or too doddery to shout at each other and then the membership can admit they should merge? Maybes so. Do they have major differences over dem cen and internal regime issues? Beyond the bad faith of Rees and German over their own previous practice, probably not.


You defend a cesspit of a party.
No, i was going to , but there is no point. You are a shithole.

Socialist - say yes.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 12, 2013)

Haven't really got the time or inclination to go into detail right now but Steve Headley is no longer a member of the SP.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 12, 2013)

durruti02 said:


> interested to see Tony Collins of SU on here. SU deleted my posts about the SWP's behaviour in Tower Hamlets, below, a few days back and then barred me from SU, . [see other thread ] ... said it was absurd nonsense ( or some other ignorent phrase ) but of course could not provide a single word of refutation ... as tragically it is all true
> .. and of course the irony of opposing the SWP leadership yet trying to shut down debate on the internet, as the SWP leadership tried to do.. hey ho. Tony you will be pleased to know SU provided 23 visits out of the 450 visitors and 650 views the blog has had.
> http://durruti02.wordpress.com/2013...hose-who-carried-out-mass-rape-in-bangladesh/


 
I would be interested to see how they would justify banning you for this! Does Newman think that it is okay for socialists to collaborate with Jamaat-e-Islami while they murder socialists in Bangladesh and attack them in Britain?


----------



## cesare (Mar 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Haven't really got the time or inclination to go into detail right now but Steve Headley is no longer a member of the SP.



Good.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

Look who has won.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

andysays said:


> At last!!! It's only taken 278 pages and nearly three months for you to get it. Well done!!!


Lol. But no, there is a balance between the measures the party adopts to rescue the situation and the mounting campaign of shit directed at them. That balance had to and still has to play itself out, the cc still hasn't lost all room for manoeuvre yet. but it's narrowing.

Plus the exit of SEYMOUR! et al should give the cc more room for manoeuvre. These people would have toppled the cc if they could have and the replacements would have buried the SWP as a Leninist organisation. So quite rightly the cc made beating them the priority. But now they've toddled off to do their own thing the remaining sets of people need to have a quieter, less acrimonious discussion about how the fuck they turn the image of the party round. The dc reform body is crucial to that, though it's not ideal that apparently all 11 (I think) places on it have gone to the loyalist faction. Not that I think the faction (minus the platform) are right on all this, I don't. But if the loyalists are serious about "listening" then there need to be some olive branches soon.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The dc reform body is crucial to that, though it's not ideal that apparently all 11 (I think) places on it have gone to the loyalist faction.


 
Jesus fucking Christ.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol. But no, there is a balance between the measures the party adopts to rescue the situation and the mounting campaign of shit directed at them. That balance had to and still has to play itself out, the cc still hasn't lost all room for manoeuvre yet. but it's narrowing.
> 
> Plus the exit of SEYMOUR! et al should give the cc more room for manoeuvre. These people would have toppled the cc if they could have and the replacements would have buried the SWP as a Leninist organisation. So quite rightly the cc made beating them the priority. But now they've toddled off to do their own thing the remaining sets of people need to have a quieter, less acrimonious discussion about how the fuck they turn the image of the party round. The dc reform body is crucial to that, though it's not ideal that apparently all 11 (I think) places on it have gone to the loyalist faction.


you really are an idiot if this is what you believe. they can't turn the image round because they've covered up various thoroughly disgusting shit and voted to accept it. twice.
they've also shown that the majority of the party can only get a small minority at conference. what a disgusting stitch up.

and you're still sticking up for these corrupt, manipulating and lying individuals? you clown.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Do they have major differences over dem cen and internal regime issues? Beyond the bad faith of Rees and German over their own previous practice, probably not.


That's an interesting question, but more because Counterfire haven't really said anything about organisational questions so it's actually hard to know what they advocate.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you really are an idiot if this is what you believe. they can't turn the image round because they've covered up various thoroughly disgusting shit and voted to accept it. twice.
> they've also shown that the majority of the party can only get a small minority at conference. what a disgusting stitch up.
> 
> and you're still sticking up for these corrupt, manipulating and lying individuals? you clown.


That's pretty much it. Nice knowing you bb. Bye.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You defend a cesspit of a party.
> No, i was going to , but there is no point. You are a shithole.
> 
> Socialist - say yes.


Look be honest you don't give a fuck about the folks who've stayed or the ones who've left. You think they're all shitholes. The ones who've left are only useful in your eyes in so far as they shit on their own previous ideas.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Look be honest you don't give a fuck about the folks who've stayed or the ones who've left. You think they're all shitholes. The ones who've left are only useful in your eyes in so far as they shit on their own previous ideas.


that's a disgusting slur.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's pretty much it. Nice knowing you bb. Bye.


crikey, sounds ominous.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> that's a disgusting slur.


No it's not. He's been saying it in various ways throughout this thread. Every turn they're inspected to see if they've 'cured' themselves yet or not.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Look be honest you don't give a fuck about the folks who've stayed or the ones who've left. You think they're all shitholes. The ones who've left are only useful in your eyes in so far as they shit on their own previous ideas.


You're right, i am not daft about these new boys but still, you are fucked.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

The sound of it all  collapsyng.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 12, 2013)

They probably just need a corporate relaunch with a new logo.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's an interesting question, but more because Counterfire haven't really said anything about organisational questions so it's actually hard to know what they advocate.


Yeah their constitution tells us very little on that score and they don't often discuss it. But in various FB chats over the last four months with SWP oppositionists I've seen them argue that they've broken with the 'mistaken' bureaucratic regime of the party. Some of that is way back on this thread somewhere but I haven't the energy to find it!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Look be honest you don't give a fuck about the folks who've stayed or the ones who've left. You think they're all shitholes. The ones who've left are only useful in your eyes in so far as they shit on their own previous ideas.


Already set up stuff to attract them  (don't like the aim of angle)


----------



## discokermit (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> i am not daft about these new boys


i'm tempted to go to the meeting. fucked if i'm going to listen to any zappa though.


----------



## killer b (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But now they've toddled off to do their own thing the remaining sets of people need to have a quieter, less acrimonious discussion about how the fuck they turn the image of the party round.


they can't. it's over now.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're right, i am not daft about these new boys but still, you are fucked.


Quite possibly.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeah their constitution tells us very little on that score and they don't often discuss it. But in various FB chats over the last four months with SWP oppositionists I've seen them argue that they've broken with the 'mistaken' bureaucratic regime of the party. Some of that is way back on this thread somewhere but I haven't the energy to find it!


Is the constitutions failing? Did it fail to COVER UP RAPES enough?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is the constitutions failing? Did it fail to COVER UP RAPES enough?


Sorry I honestly don't follow that question, I was talking Counterfire's constitution.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Quite possibly.


And all you needed to was not cover up a rape allegation. Wait till the rock is really lifted. Sewer.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> They probably just need a corporate relaunch with a new logo.


 
A World to Win mk2?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 12, 2013)

Sounds good - but also rebrand themselves as something less toxic and with mass appeal: drop the 'Workers' out of SWP and stress their roots as being the party of Great Britain.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Sounds good - but also rebrand themselves as something less toxic and with mass appeal: drop the 'Workers' out of SWP and stress their roots as being the party of Great Britain.


 
Great Britain is pandering to unionism, I think they should just stick to England and Wales myself.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And all you needed to was not cover up a rape allegation. Wait till the rock is really lifted. Sewer.


Yeah I know Harry's Place is right, the party was always a conspiracy to provide nubile teens to middle aged men. And Sheila and Judith and Talat are the fluffers. Jesus wept, how many actual swpers have you ever met to think so low of fellow anti-capitalists?!


----------



## laptop (Mar 12, 2013)

two sheds said:


> They probably just need a corporate relaunch with a new logo.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeah I know Harry's Place is right, the party was always a conspiracy to provide nubile teens to middle aged men. And Sheila and Judith and Talat are the fluffers. Jesus wept, how many actual swpers have you ever met to think so low of fellow anti-capitalists?!


You have time to change this post. You'd lie if you do. There is nothing beyond Winning your campus fights.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 12, 2013)

it's just fucking flailing now from bolshie. and this in victory?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

I met a man whom etc


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it's just fucking flailing now from bolshie. and this in victory?


This is, their victory this is it


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jesus wept, how many actual swpers have you ever met to think so low of fellow anti-capitalists?!


 
Please don't conflate the entire membership of the SWP with the few dozen or so tin-pot dictators and control freaks who systematically covered up rape to save their comrades arse, that's utterly unfair. I might disagree with a lot of SWP members on their politics, i might even dislike a few personally or have a low opinion of them for whatever reason, but I wouldn't hold them in the sort of contempt that I reserve for the CC for what they've done. It's like you're trying to shield the CC from criticism by hiding behind the membership, a substantial section of which is clearly very unhappy with what's gone on.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Please don't conflate the entire membership of the SWP with the few dozen or so tin-pot dictators and control freaks who systematically covered up rape to save their comrades arse, that's utterly unfair. I might disagree with a lot of SWP members on their politics, i might even dislike a few personally or have a low opinion of them for whatever reason, but I wouldn't hold them in the sort of contempt that I reserve for the CC for what they've done. It's like you're trying to shield the CC from criticism by hiding behind the membership, a substantial section of which is clearly very unhappy with what's gone on.


How you going to sieve then out?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it's just fucking flailing now from bolshie. and this in victory?


Flailing? No actually the less rational and abusive butchers gets the more I'm cheering up  Cogent arguments about flawed if well meaning dc processes hit home. Chest thumping about rape cults is just laughable. And I needed a laugh!


----------



## J Ed (Mar 12, 2013)

laptop said:


>


 
Speaking of LM, the CC can at least find solace in support from Brendan O'Neill!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brendan-oneill/radical-left-feminists-_b_2848852.html


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How you going to sieve then out?


Thats right, they've all got the lenin contagion. Keep it up boss, this is enjoyable to watch.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 13, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Please don't conflate the entire membership of the SWP with the few dozen or so tin-pot dictators and control freaks who systematically covered up rape to save their comrades arse, that's utterly unfair. I might disagree with a lot of SWP members on their politics, i might even dislike a few personally or have a low opinion of them for whatever reason, but I wouldn't hold them in the sort of contempt that I reserve for the CC for what they've done. It's like you're trying to shield the CC from criticism by hiding behind the membership, a substantial section of which is clearly very unhappy with what's gone on.


although, it turns out almost half are dickheads. when i was a member i would have put it at a quarter.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 13, 2013)

Look at where this goes... www.internationalsocialistnetwork.org.uk


----------



## laptop (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You have time to change this post. You'd lie if you do. There is nothing beyond Winning your campus fights.


 
Comrade Harry had never existed...


----------



## discokermit (Mar 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Look at where this goes... www.internationalsocialistnetwork.org.uk


the _darkside_ of the internet.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeah their constitution tells us very little on that score and they don't often discuss it. But in various FB chats over the last four months with SWP oppositionists I've seen them argue that they've broken with the 'mistaken' bureaucratic regime of the party. Some of that is way back on this thread somewhere but I haven't the energy to find it!


 
Counterfire shat the bed with their intervention halfway through the dispute. Their article provided a potted history of the SWP's difficulties but instead of using the opportunity to talk about how much they'd learned since jumping ship, and playing to the gallery, they doubled down on the we were right all along more interventionist leadership stuff.

In a way it was sort of principled of them not to adapt their argument but it pretty much ended any chance they had of making progress with the bulk of the hard opposition. In retrospect that piece signaled that they were concerned with picking up the odd stray rather than any type of corporate union with the oppositionists.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the exit of SEYMOUR! et al should give the cc more room for *manoeuvre*. These people would have toppled the cc if they could have and the replacements would have buried the SWP as a Leninist organisation. So quite rightly the cc made *beating them* the *priority*. But now they've toddled off to do their own thing the remaining sets of people need to have a quieter, less acrimonious discussion about how the fuck they turn the image of the party round. The dc reform body is crucial to that, though it's not ideal that apparently all 11 (I think) places on it have gone to the loyalist faction. Not that I think the faction (minus the platform) are right on all this, I don't. But if the loyalists are serious about "listening" then there need to be some olive branches soon.


 
Not having a go but 

1. A manoeuvre for what? To do what?

2. It's not just Seymour who can point to dozens of instances of planned irregularities at best, total rigging otherwise, in the run up to both Conferences but specifically the March Conference. Won't this effect perceptions of the CC


----------



## laptop (Mar 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Look at where this goes... www.internationalsocialistnetwork.org.uk


 
Who is Simon Hickman from Manchester?


----------



## emma goldman (Mar 13, 2013)

apologies if already posted. please sign.

http://womeninthelabourmovement.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/our-movement-must-be-a-safe-space-for-women

*Our movement must be a safe space for women *

We the undersigned labour movement activists stand in solidarity with all women opposing all forms of male violence against women. We recognise that male violence against women is endemic in society, and that our movement is obviously and unfortunately not exempt.
We believe that our trade union and labour movement has the potential to transform society for the better. Therefore we have a particular responsibility to confront and challenge male violence against women within our movement.
Male violence against women is not acceptable in any case. It must not be tolerated from those who hold office or power in our movement.
We recognise the enormous challenges faced by women victims of male violence, and the pressures which women face, including from abusive men, not to complain about violence and abuse. We therefore believe that, when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of believing women.
We believe that all women who complain of male violence have the right to be listened to and supported.
All labour movement activists have a responsibility to work to ensure that our movement is a safe space for women. Because we stand in solidarity with all women opposing male violence we accept that we have a responsibility to women throughout our movement, whether or not we are members of the same trade union or the same political organisation.
We therefore address these demands to all trade unions and political organisations which are part of our labour movement.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *Jen Izaakson* @Izaakson
> @OakScott It's what you'd guess. CC loyalists crushed the faction. Defend the line or go. Have to accept votes at conference, so must go.
> 
> Now, can't tell if she was there or not, or if that's been passed on to her by people that were...


 
She was there I believe, now the twitter is set to private.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2013)

At least the new "improved" SWP will still have at least two members

eta: or rather "ex-members on the point of rejoining"


----------



## J Ed (Mar 13, 2013)

Wow, it isn't just the .org.uk domain http://www.123-reg.co.uk/order/?dom...stnetwork.com&ajax_enabled=true&search=search


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Yes the Sheffield case, the Smith case is much worse than already described in the Guardian - btw Hi Kavenism, I contacted you on FB about this -, I've since spoken to some Sheffield people: Where it is worse is that the 2 yr suspension for Smith was real, not theoretical - they really were preparing for him to return as a fulltimer in the full knowledge he had abused members - they really did think 2 yrs of him reading Lindsey German books would make him fit to be around - in charge of - students and young recruits, in the full knowledge of his behavior. More of this story is going to come out (i'm going to give it a go, I am sure others will), and it will look very ugly - like a small scale reenactment of the catholic church, with "troubled" priests shifted from diocese to diocese, and given ineffectual prayer to deal with their "inner demons", while the heirarchy covered up and bamboozled the laity. Thankfully only adults (albeit young ones) involved. At the same time, Callinicos is winding members up to run around shouting "lies" at Nick Cohen - they seem to stupid to understand this means they are calling a woman who was hit by and raped by a party fulltimer a liar as well. Callinicos must know there is more , darker stuff here, so its a kamikaze strategy


 

Thinking back, Nick Cohen was by far and away the worst figure to have had in a byline for something like this because of his attacks over the SWP over the war in Iraq in What's Left - which were full of slander and half-truths. The fact that Nick Cohen has written it, has made some - I'm thinking of loyalists in the comments section of Socialist Unity - reject those claims as pure exaggeration.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

Here is where we stand now - Sarah Vine rightwing Times columnist, wife of Michael Gove, dunking on Michael Rosen:

@MichaelRosenYes  asks "Genuine non-ironic question: what do Osborne et al say about the many billions of private debt - much bigger than the 'deficit'?"

@SarahVine says "Genuine non ironic questiion - As an SWP supporter, are you happy with the handling of recent comrade delta rape allegation"
Rosen fails to respond  - unsurprisingly, it's a tight corner being a man in support of the SWP and a woman (of any political background) brings up the Delta question tactfully.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 13, 2013)

emma goldman said:


> We therefore believe that, when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of believing women.


 
I get where you're coming from and maybe it's just a matter of emphasis, but wouldn't something like '...should start from a position of taking complaints seriously, treating complainants with respect and dignity and considering the feelings and needs of the complainant at every stage' or something like that?

I think I know what you mean - that it shouldn't be the criminal law starting point of innocent until proven guilty and I agree. But I don't think guilt _or _innocence should be assumed - everything should be taken on the balance of the evidence. I think that in the way complainants are treated and supported it should be assumed from the start that they are telling the truth, but in terms of the investigation I think it's a dodgy road to go down.


----------



## laptop (Mar 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Wow, it isn't just the .org.uk domain http://www.123-reg.co.uk/order/?dom...stnetwork.com&ajax_enabled=true&search=search


 
internationalsocialistnetwork.eu is free


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think I know what you mean - that it shouldn't be the criminal law starting point of innocent until proven guilty and I agree. But I don't think guilt _or _innocence should be assumed - everything should be taken on the balance of the evidence. I think that in the way complainants are treated and supported it should be assumed from the start that they are telling the truth, but in terms of the investigation I think it's a dodgy road to go down.


 
It hasn't mentioned guilt or innocence.

It's sort of pointing out the truth that because of this reality "We recognise the enormous challenges faced by women victims of male violence, and the pressures which women face, including from abusive men, not to complain about violence and abuse" - false reporting of domestic violence is _much rarer_ than false reporting of other crimes.

It's suggesting, I think, along the lines that when an allegation of violence is made, solo contact between the male and the woman be cut out, that people are informed of the allegation, and opportunities for that male to interfere with accuser witnesses or rope in acquaintances to bend the truth also be minimised.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It hasn't mentioned guilt or innocence.
> 
> It's sort of pointing out the truth that because of this reality "We recognise the enormous challenges faced by women victims of male violence, and the pressures which women face, including from abusive men, not to complain about violence and abuse" - false reporting of domestic violence is _much rarer_ than false reporting of other crimes.
> 
> It's suggesting, I think, along the lines that when an allegation of violence is made, solo contact between the male and the woman be cut out, that people are informed of the allegation, and opportunities for that male to interfere with accuser witnesses or rope in acquaintances to bend the truth also be minimised.


 
I think it might be worth clarifying in that case because if that's what it means I'd like to sign it but it seems a bit ambiguous - surely if we start from a position of believing women that implies that we also start from a position of assuming any accusations are true. Which they usually are but not always.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> 2. Socialist Worker not _a trace_ of the Special Conference.


 
Scratch that - CC man Charlie Kimber has this which was posted later than the other articles for some reason so I missed it:

Delegates meet and discuss the way forward for the SWP by Charlie Kimber, national secretary, Socialist Workers Party




> The SWP has faced strong criticism from people outside and inside the party over its handling of serious allegations against a leading party member. This was the catalyst for the formation of an organised group, or faction, critical of the party’s leadership. But it is also clear that wider political debates are involved over many issues. These include what sort of party revolutionary socialists need, women’s oppression, democracy and the shape of the working class. These questions confront the revolutionary left across the world.


 
Sort of says a lot but nothing at all.





> Clarify
> The SWP is part of a vibrant Marxist tradition that constantly tests its theory against reality. We are committed to having discussions that clarify ideas so that we can be as effective as possible in the fight against capitalism. On Sunday 77 percent of delegates backed a motion from the party’s leading body, the central committee. It expressed confidence in the SWP’s democratic method of full discussion before making major decisions and then every member implementing them. The conference made clear that this applied to all party members. Slurs against fellow socialists and the party on blogs and Facebook are not how we should conduct debate. The motion passed expressed delegates’ belief in the integrity of the party members who were involved in handling the disciplinary case and of their investigation.


 
'Slurs against the party' that's how they saw the IDOOP blog.




> The conference set up an elected body to look at particular problems of confidentiality, the disciplinary process more generally, and to propose changes where necessary.


 
> Confidentiality for who, for what, for where?




> The party has been through an intense period of internal debate. It is now crucial it turns outwards. Some 250,000 civil service workers in the PCS union are set to strike on Wednesday of next week. This is budget day, when chancellor George Osborne will announce further attacks on working people. The SWP must be at the centre of building solidarity and demonstrations on the day.
> More generally the party will play a full part alongside others in the Unite the Resistance
> initiative.


 




> We need to build on the successes of Unite Against Fascism and take on the arguments over who is really to blame for the lack of jobs, housing and services. The working class needs socialists to unite against attacks


 
Fails to explain that the senior party member is also a senior member of Unite Against Fascism.
What about if the sexual violence attacks come from within the camp of socialist leaders?

I sort of get the the feeling that the SWP thinks if it is not there and looking outward the PCS will be unable to conduct its one-day strike if left to its own devices.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think it might be worth clarifying in that case because if that's what it means I'd like to sign it but it seems a bit ambiguous - surely if we start from a position of believing women that implies that we also start from a position of assuming any accusations are true. Which they usually are but not always.


 
You 'assume' accusations are true only in so far as you take appropriate initial action against it. 

If someone reports a burglary to an insurance company and police - they (theoretically) send victim support, take all details carefully, immediately provide replacement items, begin processing the claim. They don't come with the analysis that there are two sides to each and every story and begin hunting for evidence that the burglar was possibly told that they could borrow one of the items for as long as they liked, or that victim is possibly perpetuating an insurance fraud by lying. 
So violence against women could be investigated with the accuser as victim and accused as a possible danger - different to most law cases where the power balance is normally the other way - strong accuse the weak.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> You 'assume' accusations are true only in so far as you take appropriate initial action against it.
> 
> If someone reports a burglary to an insurance company and police - they (theoretically) send victim support, take all details carefully, immediately provide replacement items, begin processing the claim. They don't come with the analysis that there are two sides to each and every story and begin hunting for evidence that the burglar was possibly told that they could borrow one of the items for as long as they liked, or that victim is possibly perpetuating an insurance fraud by lying.
> So violence against women could be investigated with the accuser as victim and accused as a possible danger - different to most law cases where the power balance is normally the other way - strong accuse the weak.


 
I understand all that, I just think the current wording is ambiguous and could benefit from rewording.


----------



## sptme (Mar 13, 2013)

http://internationalsocialismnetwork.wordpress.com/


> *Somebody spent hundreds of pounds buying up domain names, whereas I made this one for free.*
> 
> 
> If the International Socialism Network want to use this wordpress url, post a comment and permissions will be set up.
> Until then, this can be a friendly reminder that you can spend all the time and money in the world on being petty and childish, but on the internet somebody will undercut your entire project for free. And that is priceless.



LOL


----------



## emanymton (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Thinking back, Nick Cohen was by far and away the worst figure to have had in a byline for something like this because of his attacks over the SWP over the war in Iraq in What's Left - which were full of slander and half-truths. The fact that Nick Cohen has written it, has made some - I'm thinking of loyalists in the comments section of Socialist Unity - reject those claims as pure exaggeration.


To be honest me as well, this whole story is tainted by its association with him. I have only come to accept there is any truth to it since the victims post on Seymour's Facebook page, and as I have not been able to read her post myself I am still unsure about some of the details in Cohen's story.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Not having a go but
> 
> 1. A manoeuvre for what? To do what?
> 
> 2. It's not just Seymour who can point to dozens of instances of planned irregularities at best, total rigging otherwise, in the run up to both Conferences but specifically the March Conference. Won't this effect perceptions of the CC


Yes but only the Platform had a wider agenda of ditching whole areas of the party's politics. By leaving the Sino-Seymourists have made it possible at some point for the loyalists and factionalists to talk about the dc without every conversation becoming a different one about leninism/feminism and the rest. But that can't start immdiately one would have thought, this early into the formation of the ISN people will still be looking at each other wondering "you staying or going?" And with RS serialising his 'revelations' about the horrid things the loyalists said and did over the last 4 months no chance right now. Once the dust of the split has settled maybe things will be different. Or maybe I'm fooling myself but there's no alternative for those who want the swp to survive.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Shouldn't crack up really but...
> 
> 
> surely they must concentrate on jazz, the most unorthodox of musical forms


 
More like


----------



## chilango (Mar 13, 2013)

How many hundreds are left in the SWP now then?

They must be freefalling down the lefty league table now.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 13, 2013)

I can understand  the whole "Nick Cohen is reporting this [the second case] so it probably isn't true" attitude, but I find it very disappointing : the point is, he was quite clearly from the beginning quoting from a letter he got, so suggesting he was lying really meant suggesting the woman was lying, which isn't ground you want to be on without being very sure: If you  read through his two articles carefully, it wasn't hard to see where he relied on quotation, and where not (actually the first piece he wrote in the Spectator was clearer). Equally, Charlie Kimber's "denial" was such a non denial to anyone who cared to look properly. Both Nick & Shiv Malik have misreported in the past, but they have done so by relying on unreliable witnesses, not by 'making things up' , so the credibility of the witness is the issue. There have been high profile accusations of sexual assault which were products of complete confusion - the completely untrue accusation against Neil & Christine Hamilton for example - but nobody suggested that was the case here. The fact that the woman in question wanted to go to the most implacable opponent of the SWP might be regrettable, but it is completely understandable. As I've said, from where I've looked into this independently, it seems substantially worse than Nick  reported , in the way the SWP dealt with the aftermath. I'm going to see if I can write this up somewhere, but  it makes me sad that some SWP members used Kimber's "non denial" to start shouting "Lies" !


----------



## Lilith Morris (Mar 13, 2013)




----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

sptme said:


> http://internationalsocialismnetwork.wordpress.com/
> 
> LOL


 
That is about the most petty thing I've ever seen - talk about scraping the barrell.  People know it was a pro-CC hack that did this, right?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> That is about the most petty thing I've ever seen - talk about scraping the barrell. People know it was a pro-CC hack that did this, right?


Some bloke called Simon Hickman


----------



## Joneser (Mar 13, 2013)

The SWP was never as cult-like as the Workers Revolutionary Party, but, unfortunately, recent SWP resignation statements show that it is going in that direction.

Andy Lawson has said: *‘This is not the behaviour of a revolutionary party, it is the behaviour of a cult. I have no intention of remaining in a cult.’ *

Meanwhile, Richard Seymour has compared some SWPers to ‘Scientologists’ and has even compared the recent SWP conference decision to ‘Jonestown’ (in that it was clearly suicidal for the party).

So, how can revolutionaries organise without creating cults?

Ex-WRP and Solidarity founder, Maurice Brinton raised this question many years ago in his classic article: ‘Suicide for Socialism’. There he made credible comparisons between Jim Jones’ socialist suicide cult and Gerry Healy’s WRP. Later, of course, it was revealed that Healy had been even more abusive than Brinton suspected.

Other interesting articles on left cults can be found here: 
*Understanding left cults (SWP, SP, Spiked, WRP) - a reading list*

*Feminism has to be at the centre of any genuinely revolutionary project, e.g. see: ‘Feminism is a dirty word’. What would Marx and Engels think today? - Camilla Power*

*… but so does anti-authoritarianism.* As Marlene Dixon’s Democratic Workers Party showed, a ‘Marxist’ cult dominated by an authoritarian woman is no improvement over one dominated by men. See this interview with an ex-DWP member: 'The power of cults - How Janja Lalich went from cult member to author'.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 13, 2013)

I've drawn the parallels too, but I have to say that what has happened within the SWP (from the material I've seen) is a pale shadow of what's gone on in scientology. And until we get mass SWPers jumping off cliffs it's nowhere near Jonestown either. Similar mechanisms but nowhere near the same effects yet.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 13, 2013)

Joneser said:


> . See this interview with an ex-DWP member: 'The power of cults - How Janja Lalich went from cult member to author'.


And this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you really are an idiot if this is what you believe. they can't turn the image round because they've covered up various thoroughly disgusting shit and voted to accept it. twice.
> they've also shown that the majority of the party can only get a small minority at conference. what a disgusting stitch up.
> 
> and you're still sticking up for these corrupt, manipulating and lying individuals? you clown.


 
See, the rest of us are missing the point, disco.
The point being that War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Bolshie, unlike many others, is willing to give himself over to the revolution wholly and uncritically.

He really is either that gullible, or that scheming.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Sounds good - but also rebrand themselves as something less toxic and with mass appeal: drop the 'Workers' out of SWP and stress their roots as being the party of Great Britain.


 
Adopt a socialist yet nationalist approach?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeah I know Harry's Place is right, the party was always a conspiracy to provide nubile teens to middle aged men. And Sheila and Judith and Talat are the fluffers.


 
Except no-one here has even insinuated such a thing.



> Jesus wept, how many actual swpers have you ever met to think so low of fellow anti-capitalists?!


 
The SWP are about as "anti-capitalist" in the broad generic sense as it is necessary for them to be to attract new studes to the membership. No more, no less. The SWP's anti-capitalism is, however, slightly less broad, isn't it, bb?


----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol. But no, there is a balance between the measures the party adopts to rescue the situation and the mounting campaign of shit directed at them. That balance had to and still has to play itself out, the cc still hasn't lost all room for manoeuvre yet. but it's narrowing.
> 
> Plus the exit of SEYMOUR! et al should give the cc more room for manoeuvre. These people would have toppled the cc if they could have and the replacements would have buried the SWP as a Leninist organisation. So quite rightly the cc made beating them the priority. But now they've toddled off to do their own thing the remaining sets of people need to have a quieter, less acrimonious discussion about how the fuck they turn the image of the party round. The dc reform body is crucial to that, though it's not ideal that apparently all 11 (I think) places on it have gone to the loyalist faction. Not that I think the faction (minus the platform) are right on all this, I don't. But if the loyalists are serious about "listening" then there need to be some olive branches soon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2013)

andysays said:


>


you haven't worked out how to post a video yet i see. to the right of the insert image icon is the insert video one, and it's there you can put in a youtube video of eg britney spears performing her famous song.


----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you haven't worked out how to post a video yet i see. to the right of the insert image icon is the insert video one, and it's there you can put in a youtube video of eg britney spears performing her famous song.


 
Thanks for the advice, but it's actually unnecessary:

http://urban75.net/forums/threads/life-after-the-swp.200781/page-22#post-12035421 for one I did earlier


----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you haven't worked out how to post a video yet i see. to the right of the insert image icon is the insert video one, and it's there you can put in a youtube video of eg britney spears performing her famous song.


 
But if you've got some advice on how to link to a previous post on another thread, I obviously still need help with that...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

Joneser said:


> The SWP was never as cult-like as the Workers Revolutionary Party, but, unfortunately, recent SWP resignation statements show that it is going in that direction...


 
And yet again this thread attracts a drive by first post from an arsehole pushing that drivel on libcom.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 13, 2013)

Ohh, you mean like this? Thanks Pickman. This is for bb ...  and sptme.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thats right, they've all got the lenin contagion. Keep it up boss, this is enjoyable to watch.


This is what you need isn't it? You need an anti-party narrative, and in your shriveld political imagination this can only mean anti-leninism.

The more rocks that are picked up the more the use of the phrase 'creeping feminism' can be seen as tactical rather than political, dismissive and part of the cover-up rather then rooted in real differences. When your political justification is a cover up then it's over.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> that drivel on libcom.


Is this the libcom thread you are referring to:
http://libcom.org/history/understanding-left-cults-swp-sp-spiked-wrp-reading-list


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

Lilith Morris said:


> View attachment 30123


 
have they occupied yet?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> See, the rest of us are missing the point, disco.
> The point being that War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Bolshie, unlike many others, is willing to give himself over to the revolution wholly and uncritically.
> 
> He really is either that gullible, or that scheming.


Oh definitely scheming. Me and the prof caucus daily.


----------



## mlyp (Mar 13, 2013)

http://rapeapologists.org


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

This bit?
Response to attacks on the SWP
From Jan?

edit: just got it


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 13, 2013)

Joneser said:


> Ex-WRP and Solidarity founder, Maurice Brinton raised this question many years ago in his classic article: ‘Suicide for Socialism’. There he made credible comparisons between Jim Jones’ socialist suicide cult and Gerry Healy’s WRP. Later, of course, it was revealed that Healy had been even more abusive than Brinton suspected.
> 
> ]


Me: "predict a rash of new posters raving about Maurice Brinton in the near future"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Me: "predict a rash of new posters raving about Maurice Brinton in the near future"


You speak from experience though barney


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

I think this new lot should form a Marxist-Humanist party called the Red Party


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 13, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Ohh, you mean like this? Thanks Pickman. This is for bb ...  and sptme.


That's cool, how did you know I was addicted to COD! Though currently loving Tomb Raider and it's strong woman lead battling a crazed cult of rapists led by a deranged teacher.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

'Laurie Penny in Lenin's Tomb'


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You speak from experience though barney


Yes, but I was the first!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

The milkman speaks.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yes but only the Platform had a wider agenda of ditching whole areas of the party's politics. By leaving the Sino-Seymourists have made it possible at some point for the loyalists and factionalists to talk about the dc without every conversation becoming a different one about leninism/feminism and the rest. But that can't start immdiately one would have thought, this early into the formation of the ISN people will still be looking at each other wondering "you staying or going?" And with RS serialising his 'revelations' about the horrid things the loyalists said and did over the last 4 months no chance right now. Once the dust of the split has settled maybe things will be different. Or maybe I'm fooling myself but there's no alternative for those who want the swp to survive.


 
What is/should be the SWP CC plan now? To stay in TUSC or to leave and concentrate on Unite-The-Resistance? Does the behaviour leading up to and over the past weekend make sense on any level?

Do you not think there is a conversation to be had about feminism and the SWP? How some of its vanguardist tendencies smothered aspects of its commitment to gender equality _in practice_.

Even the In Defence of Our Party Faction - the leadership that has now resigned and which you claim is "in the sewer", declared in its documentation:

"Regardless of our position on the current arguments in the party, most comrades are in agreement that the party's record on fighting for women's liberation is exceptional. We do not need to list here the interventions that the party has led and the arguments that it has won, often with our students at the helm, by putting class at the heart of the struggle against women's oppression."

I think you categorisation is wrong and I do not believe the party's record is exceptional - as in better than other people's. Back in 1980s after purposefully ending Women's Voice, chief theoretician Harman (the Callinicos of the time) declared of women's self-organisation that is basically inevitably right-wing in character.

He states the women's movement is not rooted in "production" meaning it loses out very easily and falls in strength as compared to the workers' movement (Same could be applied to workers' movements. What happens when production shifts abroad? Does that movement stay as strong) Also, future or current housework, childbirth and childcare _is_ production.
He says
"Then all the pressure is on the movements’ activists to move to the right. They make concessions to existing society because they find they cannot achieve their goals by fighting it. Revolutionaries who have made _concessions to the arguments of the movements_ get drawn along by this rightward pull. It is bad enough dissolving your politics into a movement that is dynamic, enthusiastic and growing. It is even worse doing so in a movement that is tired, demoralised and increasingly inward looking. This explains the connection between ‘movementism’ and what we in the SWP call the ‘swamp’ – the milieu of ex-leftists who have drifted to the right as they adapt to reformism, the trade union bureaucracy and the mysticism of feminist separatism."

It is fixated upon _not making concessions to the arguments of the movements_ (principally feminist movement but also anti-racist movement and anti-nuclear movement). It also creates a scarecrow with little basis in reality about "separatism":
"reformism and separatism reinforced one another. The bourgeois feminist prejudice against the working class helped create a ‘common sense’ within the movement which treated any talk of women’s liberation through working class revolution as ‘crude workerism’ and ‘old fashioned Leninism’. And the separatist objection to collaboration with men meant, in practice, keeping well clear of rank and file workers’ struggles – and this in turn, meant rejecting involvement in the only struggles that could gain more than _the most marginal things from the system._"

I think the record is fairly clear that so-called "separatist" organisations did not keep "well clear of rank and file workers' struggles" - women's groups in north London for instance were wholly and practically supportive of the Miners Wives, visits and holidays for children, assistance to people.

It also suggests things like freedom from sexual violence, from having to worry about domestic violence - part of the concerns of many separatist groups - are "marginal things", that overturning the law about the impossibility of rape under a marriage was not an important step forward etc.

I believe RESPECT was the end result of this stuff in the 1980s (the double standards applied to women's organisaton versus all male union branches, I don't have a problem with either organising and doing pro-working class activity, SWP had a problem with the first but not the latter)

The RESPECT era saw political principles on gender equality being abandoned as _shibboleths_. Women's autonomy in reproduction _was_ abandoned and sidelined, however softly.

"SWP members sitting dumbstruck and powerless to object when George Galloway slammed abortion as an “abomination” at a Respect rally at Leeds University. Even the deliberately vague position Respect as an organisation held in relation to “a woman’s right to choose” was too much for Galloway, and the SWP all too willingly conceded more ground. The issue was made a matter of conscience, so that, regardless of any policy Respect had, George could - as Respect’s sole representative in Parliament - do and say as he pleased. The CPGB’s motion calling for accountability of representatives at the 2005 Respect conference was dutifully voted down by SWP comrades."

"Respect has not a word to say on the subject... this question should be regarded as a matter of 'conscience' for individual candidates." (Weekly Worker on RESPECT trials and tribulations)

There were other sorts of examples.

So I think it's wrong to say
1 the party has an exceptional record on gender equality and
2 that feminism/leninism cropping up in faction statements and conversations means the CC have done OK in the past 3 months.

Of course the internal culture of the party is crucial in cases of sexual violence within parties - and that internal culture has deteriorated the longer the leadership positions have not been rotated (Is this anti-Leninist?) The demented nature of having long-term close friends of Delta, who've indulged him on his Atzmon, on the single Disputes Committee investigating rape of a very young adult - is testament to it.

This is not anti-SWP post, similar analysis could well be done of other parties and other leftist groups claiming to lead us.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 13, 2013)

It's a clusterfuck!

From what I understand - and please correct me if I'm wrong - several woman accused a senior figure in the SWP of sexual assault - they decided to deal with this internally, not trusting the Police - and decided there was no case to answer - so feminists are fucked off - and a load of members have left as a result - how am I doing so far?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The milkman speaks.


 




> the SWP began to shrink, probably due to socialism becoming a harder product to sell. But it refused to acknowledge it was shrinking, preferring to insist it was constantly growing. Then, if anyone pointed out this clearly wasn’t true, they were told sharply that they were mistaken.
> 
> Like Basil Fawlty, rather than admit to telling small lies, they decided to protect them, by telling bigger and more ridiculous lies. And once that happens, internal democracy is under threat. Contest the distortions and you have to be denounced as an enemy.


 
Lots of lies in the early 1990s - about the BNP and its growth, ANL's "crucial" role, about the end of downturn and the rise of the rank and file resistance leading the awkward squad against a future Labour government.



> Or maybe it came from such a determination to defend socialist ideas, against all orthodox thinking, that they became impervious to any criticism at all. They became so defensive that any suggestion of doing things differently was met with the phrase that this would “Betray the tradition.” Even the internet was treated with heavy suspicion, with blogs and websites set up or contributed to by members frowned upon or banned.


 
This probably did happen with the rise of the internet.



> Whatever the reasons, debate with people outside the party was replaced with vitriol. A trade unionist who usually backed the SWP disagreed with them on an issue, so a story was invented that they’d rigged the vote to get their union position. Often when people left the SWP, it was announced that they’d never been members in the first place.


 
Wow - this is pretty damning.



> Effective characters such as Owen Jones, Salma Yaqoob, Caroline Lucas, Laurie Penny, along with Unite and other unions, and organisers of UK Uncut are launching the People’s Assembly, which could represent the most encouraging attempt for years, to create a movement that can attract the heaps of people appalled by the current order that’s running society.


 
But not this nonsense again  .


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2013)

yeah, i was finding lots to agree with until that last paragraph you quoted...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

One part of the whole row that remains something of a mystery to me is just what is so special about Delta that the rest of the SWP leadership were willing to destroy the reputation of their organisation to protect his.

They crucified Rees and German as soon as it became advantageous to do so. Why not Delta? I'd generally expect the SWP CC to ruthlessly prioritise the good of the party as they see it over any individual.


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2013)

marty21 said:


> It's a clusterfuck!
> 
> From what I understand - and please correct me if I'm wrong - several woman accused a senior figure in the SWP of sexual assault - they decided to deal with this internally, not trusting the Police - and decided there was no case to answer - so feminists are fucked off - and a load of members have left as a result - how am I doing so far?


this is probably as good a rundown as any...



butchersapron said:


> The milkman speaks.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

www.rapeapologists.org

ETA: it wasn't me by the way


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

marty21 said:


> It's a clusterfuck!
> 
> From what I understand - and please correct me if I'm wrong - several woman accused a senior figure in the SWP of sexual assault - they decided to deal with this internally, not trusting the Police - and decided there was no case to answer - so feminists are fucked off - and a load of members have left as a result - how am I doing so far?


Halfway there marty, there is now two cases (or, two that are formally talked about, there is at least one other rape allegation) - the second where the reported rapist was given two years exile.


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2013)

do we have to call him delta still? it feels slightly embarrassing...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The milkman speaks.


 



> Over the last few weeks I’ve almost dared to be optimistic. Effective characters such as Owen Jones, Salma Yaqoob, Caroline Lucas, Laurie Penny, along with Unite and other unions, and organisers of UK Uncut are launching the People’s Assembly, which could represent the most encouraging attempt for years,


 
to the barricades




/dc


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2013)

apart from that bit.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> www.rapeapologists.org
> 
> ETA: it wasn't me by the way


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

killer b said:


> do we have to call him delta still? it feels slightly embarrassing...


you could call him Martin Smith the alleged rapist?


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2013)

or just martin smith?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2013)

I've got some time for salma yaqoob but she's hardly the new lenin


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I've got some time for salma yaqoob but she's hardly the new lenin


selma jacobs?


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I've got some time for salma yaqoob but she's hardly the new lenin


good.  There are already more than enough 'new Lenins'


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I've got some time for salma yaqoob but she's hardly the new lenin


do we need a new lenin?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> good. There are already more than enough 'new Lenins'


And old ones. Which is partly why this thread exists.


----------



## chilango (Mar 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> you could call him Martin Smith the alleged rapist?



Surely no need.

He doesn't believe in bourgeois justice.

We could just get a group of us lot together and decide that he's not being libelled.

That's how it works, right?


----------



## chilango (Mar 13, 2013)

killer b said:


> do we need a new lenin?



Nah. The old one is still lying around in pretty good nick if anyone wants him.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 13, 2013)

killer b said:


> do we need a new lenin?


 

We still have the original one, don't forget. (feck, Chilango beat me to it)

Oh and it looks like Mad Vlad may not have died of syphilis after all:

http://io9.com/5987331/new-theory-suggests-lenin-died-from-a-rare-genetic-brain-disorder


----------



## marty21 (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Halfway there marty, there is now two cases (or, two that are formally talked about, there is at least one other rape allegation) - the second where the reported rapist was given two years exile.


 definitely a clusterfuck then - sounds like the Catholic Church in their approach - just move them away - people will forget about the 'problem'


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

''And it matters to me, because I can’t claim to be entirely innocent. I was in this party for 28 years. I must have accepted claims that didn’t make sense, and ignored accounts of appalling behaviour, or sighed and hoped the tricky issue I heard about would go away of its own accord. Somehow the critical faculties that led me to join a socialist group deserted me with regard to the group itself'


FROM MARK'S BLOG:

One for Bolshie and perhaps some other ex members...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2013)

chilango said:


> Nah. The old one is still lying around in pretty good nick if anyone wants him.


needs a new carbueretteur mind, and the exhaust could do with some work.


----------



## chilango (Mar 13, 2013)

Might be alright for spares and parts though?


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 13, 2013)




----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2013)

_The yellower and more leathery the skin of the mummified Lenin grows, and the higher the statistically determined number of visitors to the Lenin Mausoleum climbs, the less are people concerned about the real Lenin and his historical significance. More and more monuments are erected to his memory, more and more motion pictures turned out in which he is the central figure more and more books written about him, and the Russian confectioners mould sweetmeats in forms which bear his features. And yet the fadedness of the faces on the chocolate Lenin’s is matched by the unclarity and the improbability of the stories which are told about him. Though the Lenin Institute in Moscow may publish his collected works, they no longer have any meaning beside the fantastic legends which have formed around his name. As soon as people began to concern themselves with Lenin’s collar-buttons, they also ceased to bother about his ideas. Everyone then fashions his own Lenin, and if not after his own image, at any rate after his own desires._

http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1935/lenin-legend.htm


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

The Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL) have released a statement:



> Many SWP and ex-SWP dissidents say they don’t want “another left group”. But a network is a group. Organising it very loosely may diminish its ability to formulate sharp ideas, to learn from criticism of the past, to mobilise compactly and with energy, or to have political control over its members who get trade union or student union positions. It won’t stop it being a group.
> 
> And what would we say to a doctor who, when many medical treatments have failed to fix a disease, and some have made it worse, responded: we don’t want yet another medicine?


 

 What proportion of the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts NCAFC is AWL? Does anyone know?





> In any case, for the ISN, and for all the activists now being shaken loose from the SWP, there should be two main priorities now.
> 
> First, join in united action with other socialists. You are no longer bound by the comminations of the SWP. Student ex-SWPers, for example, are now free to unite in action with the major force of the radical left in the student world, the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts.
> 
> Second, discuss. Where you have differences with other socialists, like Workers’ Liberty, deal with them by dialogue and debate


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2013)

Chocolate Lenins all round


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not quite as eloquent as Hitchins description of his own resignation. So he says he has much, much more to say about all this. That'll be fun and will serve to set the outward looking tone of the ISN from day one.
> 
> "I also want to register my gratitude to those in the International Socialist tendency who supported the fight" Ah. London branch of the ISO anyone?


more clearly the Candians, if the support of Abbie Bakan & P Kellog is anything to go by.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 13, 2013)

I enjoyed Mark Steel's piece and it chimes with my thoughts on it all, especially as we're both ex-members. Apart from the People's Assembly bit!


----------



## mk12 (Mar 13, 2013)

chilango said:


> Surely no need.
> 
> He doesn't believe in bourgeois justice.
> 
> ...


 
He believes in bourgeois justice if it is directed at the BNP.


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

genuine question, why do posters( many I respect) see the P/A's as a negative thing?, very little else is happening, ´(the bt protests being non left led)


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2013)

did you see the list of names? it'll end up in jazz hands, mark my words


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL) have released a statement:


 
There's something rather unseemly about the inevitable long winded statements from every little group offering "advice" to the new split. The Workers Power one was particularly desperate. At least the AWL are sharp enough to realise that they have zero chance of recruiting the dissidents and so instead they concentrate on trying to lure them into its NCAFC front. That really would put the NCAFC into a dominant position on the NUS left, for the little that's worth.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> genuine question, why do posters( many I respect) see the P/A's as a negative thing?, very little else is happening, ´(the bt protests being non left led)


 
Because they will just be vacuous rallies for the usual suspects


----------



## chilango (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> genuine question, why do posters( many I respect) see the P/A's as a negative thing?, very little else is happening, ´(the bt protests being non left led)



As I said in the original thread:

Thing is with all of these initiatives it's the same ever decreasing circle of people whose entire lives revolve around being a Left activist.

Putting it harshly, the main objective of stuff like this is to give 'em all something to do for the next few months.

If we were looking at big gatherings called from below, from street level assemblies, from neighbours, workmates and friends getting together and deciding they need to link up on a city- wide or national scale it'd be a whole different kettle of fish.

But it ain't. It's a pastime. And a conscience salve.

If anybody, and I mean anybody, I come across in my daily life even mentions one of these assemblies I'll come on here and perform a forfeit of the thread's choice. Hell, I'll even buy, and read, a Laurie Penny book. they won't though.

Nowr's happened to change my mind on this yet.


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Workers Power one was particularly desperate.


are thry the first to get in with the need for the new organisation to have a programme immediately?  Even if only a programme referring to the next few months.  That'd be a really good way to start a new org


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

The Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB)/ World Socialist Movement have released a statement.

It notes how they are real "socialists in a socialist party where genuine internal democracy is valued and does not have a leaders [sic] to betray its principles"


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> did you see the list of names? it'll end up in jazz hands, mark my wordsn see


 
I can see that, but if we are to have such mass events, where would alternative rosters come from?, we don't have high profile non face speakers, no Negri for instance, maybe its time for some of the libertarians to come out of the shadows, can't see why Paul Stott for example can't be on the platform..


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

What on earth makes you think paul would go near this?


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2013)

why do we need these 'high profile' speakers? half of them are journalists ffs.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> are thry the first to get in with the need for the new organisation to have a programme immediately?


 
Yes, I think so. That particular hoary old reliable has generally been replaced by mewling about the need for  new "broad" parties as the preferred cliche.


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What on earth makes you think paul would go near this?


 
So, cmon BA, how would you build a new mass movement rather than staying on the sidelines?, the IWCA model hasn't worked...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> So, cmon BA, how would you build a new mass movement rather than staying on the sidelines?, the IWCA model hasn't worked...


Well clearly, paul stott needs to talk to loads of left-liberals from a stage. That should be our start point. Might not be paul's though.

The IWCA model has barely been tried btw - or do you in your miserablism now reject the ideas of it? The flip-side of such a rejection, of course, is running after shite like this with your tongue hanging out.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> So, cmon BA, how would you build a new mass movement rather than staying on the sidelines?, the IWCA model hasn't worked...


 
Well if you want to play that game, the going to see speeches by Tony Benn and other apologists for the Labour Party model hasn't worked either.


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

I'm not completely endorsing it, but people are desperate, they will accept 'short cuts' if they think they can be supported/defended..


----------



## chilango (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> So, cmon BA, how would you build a new mass movement rather than staying on the sidelines?, the IWCA model hasn't worked...



Again, as I said before, meetings like this are the sidelines. Not those criticising hem from the POV of daily life.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> I'm not completely endorsing it, but people are desperate, they will accept 'short cuts' if they think they can be supported/defended..


Hence the massive public interest in this peoples assembly.

If you want to discuss this i suggest its done on the thread about it.


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

ok, but plenty of threads deviate..


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

chilango said:


> As I said in the original thread:
> 
> Thing is with all of these initiatives it's the same ever decreasing circle of people whose entire lives revolve around being a Left activist.
> 
> ...


 it just seems so harsh, the way you express it. "Putting it harshly, the main objective of stuff like this is to give 'em all something to do for the next few months."  As if, they are not motivated by progressive ideas?


"If we were looking at big gatherings called from below, from street level assemblies, from neighbours, workmates and friends getting together and deciding they need to link up on a city- wide or national scale it'd be a whole different kettle of fish."  But that isn't happening is it?  Hasn't been happening for years [barring rare exceptions to the rule]. what should people like Mark to do?  Nothing?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

there will be no deviation


> I'm in charge!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> ok, but plenty of threads deviate..


 do you have any extracts from comics about Lenin?


----------



## redcogs (Mar 13, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I enjoyed Mark Steel's piece and it chimes with my thoughts on it all, especially as we're both ex-members. Apart from the People's Assembly bit!


 

Yes, Steel's take describes very well how many ex'ers must be feeling.  i can't imagine where the party will go now?  Even those of the brain dead hackery must be feeling very exposed indeed, with the realisation that they are signed up for mission impossible and long haul circuitous defence of sex abuse.


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2013)

Labour types having another crack at a union based anti-SWP petition.

http://womeninthelabourmovement.wordpress.com/

All looks very nice at first glance, but at a second... it actually says absoluely nothing. There is no suggestion about how to go forward to actually protect women in the labour movemente, its so vague even the SWP DC could sign up to it.

Also, it lists Heather Wakefield as a signatory. This is the Heather Wakefield (Unison head of local government) who promoted <ed: name removed> to South Yorks Local Govt officer for Unison, despite his _conviction_ for domestic violence. He was forced to resign as Donny labour councillor following his conviction, but is apparently fine to represent un ion members - most of whom (in his section) are women. Another Unison senior officer has also got a DV conviction. They are, aparently, fine.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well clearly, paul stott needs to talk to loads of left-liberals from a stage. That should be our start point. Might not be paul's though.
> 
> The IWCA model has barely been tried btw - or do you in your miserablism now reject the ideas of it? The flip-side of such a rejection, of course, is running after shite like this with your tongue hanging out.


 so the IWCA IS YOUR alternative?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> ok, but plenty of threads deviate..


 
Not this one. Take it elsewhere.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not this one. Take it elsewhere.


 is this a thread of a special kind?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> Also, it lists Heather Wakefield as a signatory. This is the Heather Wakefield (Unison head of local government) who promoted -- to South Yorks Local Govt officer for Unison, despite his _conviction_ for domestic violence. He was forced to resign as Donny labour councillor following his conviction, but is apparently fine to represent un ion members - most of whom (in his section) are women. Another Unison senior officer has also got a DV conviction. They are, aparently, fine.



Jesus.


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Jesus.


oh, and, I should add, Wakefield has been directly challenged about this by Unison members. She refused to respond.


----------



## chilango (Mar 13, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it just seems so harsh, the way you express it. "Putting it harshly, the main objective of stuff like this is to give 'em all something to do for the next few months."  As if, they are not motivated by progressive ideas?
> 
> 
> "If we were looking at big gatherings called from below, from street level assemblies, from neighbours, workmates and friends getting together and deciding they need to link up on a city- wide or national scale it'd be a whole different kettle of fish."  But that isn't happening is it?  Hasn't been happening for years [barring rare exceptions to the rule]. what should people like Mark to do?  Nothing?



Look at the big thread on it.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

chilango said:


> Look at the big thread on it.


 okey-dokey


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> oh, and, I should add, Wakefield has been directly challenged about this by Unison members. She refused to respond.


 
I'd assumed that the Unison bureaucracy would be the first to use this SWP madness as a weapon against the left, particularly with NEC elections coming up. But if what you said above is accurate, it might be difficult for them to do that.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> Labour types having another crack at a union based anti-SWP petition.
> 
> .


Labour types like Alex Gordon and Toby Abse?  And it's not specifically SWP either - I'm sure it was at least in part occasioned by issues in the RMT


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

Abse, the negri-smearer, is a classic soft-labour type. Outside and in.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 13, 2013)

mlyp said:


> http://rapeapologists.org



Registrant Name: Alex Callinicos 

Surely not ?!!


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> 'Laurie Penny in Lenin's Tomb'


 
Lenin, I am in you.


----------



## chilango (Mar 13, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Lenin, I am in you.



Like a lefty jimmy saville?


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 13, 2013)

chilango said:


> Like a lefty jimmy saville?


 
Lefty John Christie, surely..?


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 13, 2013)

The main story on international women's day in mysogenist worker is worth a close read- the photo, from a protest in Glasgow, shows only one, rather amateur, SWP placard ( from a group that soaks protests with placards) the text makes no mention of SWP nor swss involvement, either in the organisation or as speakers. Do any of the groups mentioned as being involved know that the SWP claim Their protest as their own?


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Registrant Name: Alex Callinicos
> 
> Surely not ?!!


definitely him. he's well known for having a sparkling sense of humour, specially wrt this stuff.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Abse, the negri-smearer, is a classic soft-labour type. Outside and in.


 
I always thought he was Socialist Resistance. Nice bloke on a personal level, or at least he was on the couple of occasions I chatted with him years ago.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I always thought he was Socialist Resistance. Nice bloke on a personal level, or at least he was on the couple of occasions I chatted with him years ago.


He is one of the rare people who seems much more convincing when speaking on a platform than when talking one-to-one


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I always thought he was Socialist Resistance. Nice bloke on a personal level, or at least he was on the couple of occasions I chatted with him years ago.


Green socialist type thing whatever it's called. Son of a labour MP is always in labour's orbit.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Green socialist type thing whatever it's called. Son of a labour MP is always in labour's orbit.


 
Didn't know that. Why did I think he was in or around SR then? Was he around them for a while when Socialist Resistance was supposedly a "broad" paper involving people outside the then ISG?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> its so vague even the SWP DC could sign up to it.


 


> We therefore believe that, when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of believing women.


 
ie not saying "do you like a drink?" etc...


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'd assumed that the Unison bureaucracy would be the first to use this SWP madness as a weapon against the left, particularly with NEC elections coming up. But if what you said above is accurate, it might be difficult for them to do that.


 
You are exactly right about using this against the left. The labour bureaucracy won't distinguish between the democratic centralism/rape apologists/cult  left from the but we are not rape apologists or a cult or democratic centralist left.

Beyond the Fragments and then back to Labour


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

it is a statment of basic political principle that shouldn't really need making but clearly does.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

I note that there are now around 100 names on the resignation letter. When you add whoever they pick up amongst those who resigned over the last few months and whoever they manage to attract from older ex-SWP people, they will certainly have enough to form a viable group. Even without relying on the inevitable people still to follow them out of the SWP.

That doesn't mean that they'll actually prove to be viable, but they do have the numbers.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Didn't know that. Why did I think he was in or around SR then? Was he around them for a while when Socialist Resistance was supposedly a "broad" paper involving people outside the then ISG?


May well have been, can't say to be honest. 

Not above a few smears himself though, that i do know.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> You are exactly right about using this against the left. The labour bureaucracy won't distinguish between the democratic centralism/rape apologists/cult left from the but we are not rape apologists or a cult or democratic centralist left.
> 
> Beyond the Fragments and then back to Labour


And actually, the most blatant attempt to use it has been to discredit Jerry Hicks' campaign by the McCluskey side in UNITE - but Nigel_I won't be for criticising that


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> And actually, the most blatant attempt to use it has been to discredit Jerry Hicks' campaign by the McCluskey side in UNITE - but Nigel_I won't be for criticising that


 
I certainly won't be for criticising anything until I know what you are talking about, no.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

See kebab bum finger's twitter feed for examples


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> See kebab bum finger's twitter feed for examples


 
I'm not entirely keen on Googling that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

Can't you just explain whatever it is you are talking about?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> May well have been, can't say to be honest.
> 
> Not above a few smears himself though, that i do know.


 
Toby Abse was involved with the Green Socialist Network which was a partly ex-(proper)CPGB splinter and ex-Green Party and he was responsible for steering it into the Socialist Alliance on the very day the Socialist Party walked out - much to his upset and embarrassment.

Following this the GSN merged with the Leeds Based Left Alliance and they both split from the Socialist Alliance to form the Alliance for Green Socialism which the ISG/SR did sniff around and want to use as the basis for somthing for the ISG/SR to dissolve into as a tendency though my understanding is that never happened.

Now he regularly contributes to the Weekly Worker, but they'll publish any old loon.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

> I think the 400,000 women of #*uniteunion* should @*Unite4Len*.


etc


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Now he regularly contributes to the Weekly Worker, but they'll publish any old loon.


 
In fairness, his articles are the only readable non-gossip parts. The real loons actually pay them for space.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> etc


 
bit naughty given the allegations that leaked out of the Cartmail camp last time


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Can't you just explain whatever it is you are talking about?


 
The Len McCluskey campaign are using the SWPs official support for Jerry Hicks to suggest he's "not sound" on womens equality issues and that Len somehow is. (see tweet above as example)


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> bit naughty given the allegations that leaked out of the Cartmail camp last time


 I've only been aware of general, indirect, non-specific allegations


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In fairness, his articles are the only readable non-gossip parts.


 
I do find his articles on Italian politics interesting sometimes


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The labour bureaucracy won't distinguish between the democratic centralism/rape apologists/cult left from the but we are not rape apologists or a cult or democratic centralist left.


 
I agree. Shouldn't the SWP CC have suspected this response from earlier experience in the 1980s - what with being the memory of the class and all?

I expect the Delta fallout will appear in PCS's 4TheMembers.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Len McCluskey campaign are using the SWPs official support for Jerry Hicks to suggest he's "not sound" on womens equality issues and that Len somehow is. (see tweet above as example)


 
What the official McCluskey campaign, or some random anonymous type on twitter posting slightly cryptic allusions to it?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> The Len McCluskey campaign are using the SWPs official support for Jerry Hicks to suggest he's "not sound" on womens equality issues and that Len somehow is. (see tweet above as example)


 
Ellie Kebab would probably be sacked or certainly marginalised if she wasn't seen to be frantically supporting Lenin with every breath.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What the official McCluskey campaign, or some random anonymous type on twitter posting slightly cryptic allusions to it?


 
She's not random she's a full time Unite organiser - currently running an office that the Islamist crook in Tower Hamlets has given Unite for free


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> You are exactly right about using this against the left. The labour bureaucracy won't distinguish between the democratic centralism/rape apologists/cult left from the but we are not rape apologists or a cult or democratic centralist left.
> 
> Beyond the Fragments and then back to Labour


 
I agree entirely. The enemies of the left will use it as best they can to smear everyone on the socialist left, not only by failing to distinguish between the SWP and everyone else but by actively seeking to obscure the distinction.

That's one of the (numerous) reasons why the saner organisations on the left aren't gloating about the SWP coming a cropper in the most spectacular fashion. Their disaster is in many fields going to make things harder for everyone.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

That's Jerry Hicks who left the SWP over this sort of behaviour.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I agree entirely. The enemies of the left will use it as best they can to smear everyone on the socialist left, not only by failing to distinguish between the SWP and everyone else but by actively seeking to obscure the distinction.
> 
> That's one of the (numerous) reasons why the saner organisations on the left aren't gloating about the SWP coming a cropper in the most spectacular fashion. Their disaster is in many fields going to make things harder for everyone.


And because they too have many rocks.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I agree. Shouldn't the SWP CC have suspected this response from earlier experience in the 1980s - what with being the memory of the class and all?
> 
> I expect the Delta fallout will appear in PCS's 4TheMembers.


 
I made a point earlier about how they should have confronted him at an early stage with an ultimatum about his behaviour.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> And actually, the most blatant attempt to use it has been to discredit Jerry Hicks' campaign by the McCluskey side in UNITE - but Nigel_I won't be for criticising that


 
He's referring to Len McCluskey supporters in Unite, particularly within the officialdom, smearing Jerry Hicks because he has SWP backing. This is the worst example of the negative tactics used by some leading members in United Left.

Socialist Party members in Unite, particularly Rob Williams have been quite clear with United Left that these campaigning tactics are wrong and counter-productive. It would be far better to emphasise the positives of Len's leadership of Unite rather than this nasty smearing of Jerry who is still , in the view of SP Unite members, a fine trade union activist what ever political differences we might have with him.

Rob has said this in UL meetings and to the faces of Unite officials backing Len.
SP members have no problem with criticising shit tactics of people we happen to be working with. You should know this articul8, dunno why you need to take that insinuating tone.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I made a point earlier about how they should have confronted him at an early stage with an ultimatum about his behaviour.


 
I agree with it. It makes the question Nigel posted here:



Nigel Irritable said:


> One part of the whole row that remains something of a mystery to me is just what is so special about Delta that the rest of the SWP leadership were willing to destroy the reputation of their organisation to protect his.
> 
> They crucified Rees and German as soon as it became advantageous to do so. Why not Delta? I'd generally expect the SWP CC to ruthlessly prioritise the good of the party as they see it over any individual.


 
an important one. _Why not Delta?_


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> She's not random she's a full time Unite organiser - currently running an office that the Islamist crook in Tower Hamlets has given Unite for free


 
Wait, Unite have a full time organiser posting on twitter under the name "Kebab Bum Finger"? Every time someone starts to explains this little tangent to me, I get more confused.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ellie Kebab would probably be sacked or certainly marginalised if she wasn't seen to be frantically supporting Lenin with every breath.


 he's got all the f/t officials on the gen sec vote?   Meanwhile, the sec of the Grassroots left/Hick campaign has been fired from his job


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Wait, Unite have a full time organiser posting on twitter under the name "Kebab Bum Finger"? Every time someone starts to explains this little tangent to me, I get more confused.


Sorry for U75 lingo (the official twitter account is @misselliemae) - KBF was a name Lustbather made up for her


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

Someone asked a question earlier, why didn't they just ditch him, like John Rees Lindsey German?  Not seen a response.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Wait, Unite have a full time organiser posting on twitter under the name "Kebab Bum Finger"? Every time someone starts to explains this little tangent to me, I get more confused.


 
That's not her nickname that's Mr Lustbather's unpleasant nickname. She is paid chief of Unite's Community Branch for London - a massive task given how many unemployed and underemployed there are in the fringes of the city.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

I presume that I would regret asking for an explanation of that nickname, given that it's pretty gross and it originated with the late, lamented, lustbather..


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That's not her nickname that's Mr Lustbather's unpleasant nickname. She is paid chief of Unite's Community Branch for London - a massive task given how many unemployed and underemployed there are in the fringes of the city.


 
she's not the chief of it, she's pretty much a caseworker


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> she's not the chief of it, she's pretty much a caseworker


 
Someone reliable told me she was London Community head, so who is?


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Labour types like Alex Gordon and Toby Abse? And it's not specifically SWP either - I'm sure it was at least in part occasioned by issues in the RMT


various non-labour types have _signed_ it, but it was set up by Labourites, the two women whose name appears at the end.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 13, 2013)

I think she's the one who does the PR stuff.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I think she's the one who does the PR stuff.


 
I don't think that's right. Big Tom posted elsewhere



BigTom said:


> Ellie Mae O'Hagan is the unite community branch organiser for London. In Birmingham they are still in the talking phase and haven't advertised let alone appointed anyone to be branch organiser for Birmingham or west mids, but it is supposed to be happening.
> 
> In wider terms it doesn't look as good as I'd hoped, there won't apparently be access to solicitors for benefit appeals, just a phone line you can call for advice. I don't know what budgets there would be for training people in the union to give advice on benefits stuff or to be available to help members fill in forms etc.
> Without the above I can't see how the community branch will be useful and therefore grow. With the above it could be very useful for people who can afford the membership fee, which I can't remember what it was maybe 50p/month?, it wasn't huge but there has to be a reason for people to pay it, and that'll only be if the union starts giving people advice and representation, like they do with workers & union reps.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Someone reliable told me she was London Community head, so who is?


 
Pilgrim Tucker - however due to being a relentless self publicist everyone assumes it's Ellie Bum-Finger


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

So _so_ close.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I agree with it. It makes the question Nigel posted here:
> 
> 
> 
> an important one. _Why not Delta?_


 just looking back, I thought I had asked the same question a long time ago


ResistanceMP3 said:


> Has somebody already explained in this thread, why the leadership would be so desperate to keep hold of this guy in the leadership, desperate enough to "cover something up", when they have jettisoned so many IE John Rees, German, etc?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So _so_ close.


ehem. Is this strictly on topic?  Are we allowed to discuss this?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Pilgrim Tucker - however due to being a relentless self publicist everyone assumes it's Ellie Bum-Finger


 
I also refuse to believe that there's a UNITE official called "Pilgrim" either.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Pilgrim Tucker - however due to being a relentless self publicist everyone assumes it's Ellie Bum-Finger


 
OK, it's odd because Unite's website has him as chief of East Anglia/East Region.

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/newcommunitycoordinatorforeastanglia/


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> OK, it's odd because Unite's website has him as chief of East Anglia/East Region.
> 
> http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/newcommunitycoordinatorforeastanglia/


 
East Anglia is part of their London and Eastern Region and Pilgrim is a woman.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

Still this is off topic...


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> OK, it's odd because Unite's website has him as chief of East Anglia/East Region.
> 
> http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/newcommunitycoordinatorforeastanglia/


 


Spanky Longhorn said:


> East Anglia is part of their London and Eastern Region and Pilgrim is a woman.


 
creeping feminism and Londonism


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Still this is off topic...


 at last, some sanity.

ETA I take it back.  Just received a p.m.  instructing me this allowed.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 13, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Beyond the Fragments and then back to Labour


 
The SWP CC were heading back to Labour in a soft sense before any of the stuff about Delta or the Facebook 4 came into the open. See this poster for here last summer.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 13, 2013)

Facts I'm not sure about.
1. Isn't the disputes committee elected, not decided upon for each case? And isn't it likely, whoever was on the disputes committee in such a small organisation, they would be likely to know Delta?
2. The woman chose to go to disputes committee?
3. The woman chose not to go to the police, and is still choosing not to?
4. The central committee has jettisoned many members, so why not Delta?
5. Has anybody got any proof that he is guilty?
6. Delta was sacked in 2011, so no real reason they couldn't have done it earlier beyond;

Doesn't this all point to the possibility, the likelihood, instead of a convoluted and complicated cover-up, the DC didn't believe the accusations?

PS. These are not statements of fact, just five out of the thousands of suggestions as to what happened. If anybody can prove any of them points to be wrong, please do.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I do find his articles on Italian politics interesting sometimes


 
"I only read it for the articles on Italian politics"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> She's not random she's a full time Unite organiser - currently running an office that the Islamist crook in Tower Hamlets has given Unite for free


 
The taxi-loving friend of 'retired' spycop Bob Lambert, or a different crook?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> ''And it matters to me, because I can’t claim to be entirely innocent. I was in this party for 28 years. I must have accepted claims that didn’t make sense, and ignored accounts of appalling behaviour, or sighed and hoped the tricky issue I heard about would go away of its own accord. Somehow the critical faculties that led me to join a socialist group deserted me with regard to the group itself'
> 
> 
> FROM MARK'S BLOG:
> ...


He was one of my favorite comrades on a personal level when we were both members. And this piece is funny in parts. But the analysis stinks. First, why did he leave, be good to know as that would inform his argument surely. Secondly, he blames the 90's when it was hard to be a socialist apparently for the degeneration. But he and I were members during the much harsher 'downturn' 80's and none of these splits or crises happened. Why that?


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 13, 2013)

new pope looks like a barrel of laughs


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 13, 2013)

What's worse? Roman Catholic CC or SWP CC? There's a rizla paper in it I reckon


----------



## kavenism (Mar 13, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> new pope looks like a barrel of laughs


That's what Jon Snow said. He also made the comment that the new Pope was "straight out the Boondocks" which doesn't seem entirely in keeping with the mood of the event. Also noted that the poor guy had to move house! I wish my place had interior design like his new house.


----------



## SLK (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He was one of my favorite comrades on a personal level when we were both members. And this piece is funny in parts. But the analysis stinks. First, why did he leave, be good to know as that would inform his argument surely. Secondly, he blames the 90's when it was hard to be a socialist apparently for the degeneration. But he and I were members during the much harsher 'downturn' 80's and none of these splits or crises happened. Why that?


 
Because in the 80s, there wasn't the pretence that it was all brilliant despite our experiences as members.

Actually, the early 90s isn't the period he's referring - it's the early 2000s I think (he says it might have started in the 1990s). I think the issue was that we _should_ have carried on growing in the late 90s if the analysis of the period was correct, so rather than say "why aren't we growing" the paper was filled every week with how much we were. It was only after 3 years of growth (when I was at LSE) that I started to question why we were still claiming 10000 members - the same as at the start. Even when our branch wasn't getting significantly bigger, I remember being desperate to work out how Glasgow, West London, Sheffield, Liverpool or Newcastle were doing it.

I like Steel's article as it summarises how I feel about this whole ugly mess. I also think he has pointed at why he left (though I don't know what the straw that broke the back was I suspect RESPECT/ Galloway/ etc) in his pointing to the late 90s onwards. He was always the type to question the leadership or ignore stuff he didn't want to trumpet to be fair, and drifted away several times if I remember correctly - but didn't we all.


----------



## october_lost (Mar 13, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Someone asked a question earlier, why didn't they just ditch him, like John Rees Lindsey German?  Not seen a response.


Callinicos responded by saying it was essentially about party discipline and I'm inclined to agree. A retreat to a rebellion of this nature would have set a terrible precedent and it's not like the opposition where just making noises about the rape, was it? Loyalty to MS may have also played a small part.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the much harsher 'downturn' 80's


 
Yeah the 80s were hard for a lot of people, but they were great days too. The quality of the membership of the SWP was gold standard back then.  So many comrades I remember were as hard as nails - they had this gut reaction to things. By the 1990s most of them had dropped out and the cult quality was creeping in - I remember someone telling me that 'if you get chosen to work fulltime for the party its an incredible honour' without the slightest whiff of irony. In previous times, comrades would have laughed like drains at such hack nonsense. A healthy disrespect for the fulltimers was par for the course - you really had to earn your stripes and there was none of this 'leading comrade' crap. Lenin didn't do or say much that was useful, but one quote of his worth repeating is that  in the revolutionary party 'there is no rank and file.'


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He was one of my favorite comrades on a personal level when we were both members. And this piece is funny in parts. But the analysis stinks. First, why did he leave, be good to know as that would inform his argument surely. Secondly, he blames the 90's when it was hard to be a socialist apparently for the degeneration. But he and I were members during the much harsher 'downturn' 80's and none of these splits or crises happened. Why that?



You know he wrote a book called  "Why I left the SWP", don't you?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> The taxi-loving friend of 'retired' spycop Bob Lambert, or a different crook?


 
Lutfur Rahman don't know who you mean??


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 13, 2013)

Anyone remember Chris Wright? What that guy didn't know about the 17th Century wasn't worth knowing. He used to lecture on that stuff, fantastic. He brought it alive, and you could see it all being played out in front of your very eyes, as he explained it, like. Pete Green wrote brilliantly about economics in the 1980s - Socialist Review was a proper journal in those days.  I wouldn't wipe my arse on it today.

Ian Birchall is still creaking along. He's one of the few old guard left who is human; knows his arse from his elbow.

We need a proper Marxist humanist party again, minus the Leninist crap. Such a party can't be conjured out of thin air, the times themselves create the people who make it happen.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 13, 2013)

october_lost said:


> Callinicos responded by saying it was essentially about party discipline.


This is my view too. The other examples of people being unceremoniously dumped off the CC are very different, because it was the CC majority in charge  of the dumping. The size of IDOOP shows that there might even be a majority of the party with a mistrustful attitude towards the CC. Once you allow conference to instigate the picking off of CC members, the control of the apparatus can fragment quickly. So the Facebook 4 had to be expelled and the lynch mob formed. From this perspective, the CC will think they've done well and the party will remain a coherent tight knit force. But so were the WRP.


----------



## october_lost (Mar 13, 2013)

The majority doesnt have to yield anything under these circumstances, which is the fallacy I saw behind a lot of IDOOPs thinking. Primarily the exit letter from Seymour states this. They expected some ground to be given away, because of the level opposition, but that was never going to be the case was it?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 13, 2013)

To be fair the WRP were a spent force long before the Healey scandal.


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Yeah the 80s were hard for a lot of people, but they were great days too. The quality of the membership of the SWP was gold standard back then. So many comrades I remember were as hard as nails - they had this gut reaction to things. By the 1990s most of them had dropped out and the cult quality was creeping in - I remember someone telling me that 'if you get chosen to work fulltime for the party its an incredible honour' without the slightest whiff of irony. In previous times, comrades would have laughed like drains at such hack nonsense. A healthy disrespect for the fulltimers was par for the course - you really had to earn your stripes and there was none of this 'leading comrade' crap. Lenin didn't do or say much that was useful, but one quote of his worth repeating is that in the revolutionary party 'there is no rank and file.'


Absolutely.  It always bemuses me when other lefties say the SWP had a dreadful tradition of theory within the party, with nothing read bar [arty material.  Far far from it from my experience of the eighties especially. We were encouraged to read anything and everything - barring other lefty _papers_. Certainly all the Marxist classics (or the trot version of Marxist classics at least), other left critics, I even read Mandel at some point.  Because it was, in large part, quite good. And you had to argue back, cos, as Cliff put it, the branches had to be prepared for the day the CC was all arrested and locked up. The branches had to be able to anaylse and lead themselves, not rely on the centre to do their thinking for them.

And arguing with/taking the piss out of Millies could be _fun_.

Happy days.


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> You know he wrote a book called "Why I left the SWP", don't you?


It was called _What's Going On?_

"In 2007 he left the SWP and justified his decision in his book _What's Going On?_ In the book he wrote that he left the party because whilst the membership base had become smaller and smaller, the members that remained became increasingly deluded regarding the size and relevance of the organisation. He also condemned the manner in which, at a time when there was broad public support for socialist ideals, increasingly bitter and futile in-fighting on the left made political success impossible. Alex Callinicos, International Secretary of the SWP, reviewed the book in the _Socialist Review_, arguing that it "evinces a kind of grandiose ignorance" and that "the only principle one can detect here is that the SWP is always in the wrong".[7] Literary critic Nicholas Lezard praised the book in _The Guardian_, particularly for its discussion of the break-up of Steel's relationship, which "gives it a poignancy and depth which at its outset one might not have expected".[8]"


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> We were encouraged to read anything and everything - barring other lefty _papers_ (...) And you had to argue back, cos, as Cliff put it, the branches had to be prepared for the day the CC was all arrested and locked up. The branches had to be able to anaylse and lead themselves, not rely on the centre to do their thinking for them.
> 
> And arguing with/taking the piss out of Millies could be _fun_.
> 
> Happy days.


 
Party comrades in the 80s used to wipe the floor with everyone else from all the other marxist groups whenever there were discussions. I remember one organisation called 'Proletarian' turning up at Marxism in the late 1980s and they were just chewed up and spat out theoretically by my mates, who were just ordinary SWP members, but their theoretical range and knowledge was awesome. No disrespect to Militant/SP people, but it was the same with them too back in the day. They couldn't hold a candle to the rank and file SWP members in terms of theory (although respect where respect is due - Militant were always in the frontline at Wapping and at other hardcore events of the era. They had genuine roots and respect in the working class. They could genuinely relate to working class people.) This theoretical cutting edge lead to hubris in the SWP and developed a very suspect culture and attitude in the party in the longer run. Without the old guard to temper this crap, it all went Pete Tong by the 1990s. Before you knew it, a whole modus operandi, style of delivery, and outlook took over the party. It had to in a way, because it was a case of battening down the hatches and getting on with the grind. Then neo-liberalism literally ripped up and tore apart the traditional working class and the party didn't have a clue about how to cope with this. It still doesn't, so you get all this Third Worldism/Orientalist crap, which Seymour is going to take with him into whatever new organisation he and China brew up.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

According to Tom Walker, the resignation statement now has 115 signatories.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 13, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> We need a proper Marxist humanist party again, minus the Leninist crap. Such a party can't be conjured out of thin air, the times themselves create the people who make it happen.


 
The times themselves perhaps create at least the opportunities for radical change (not though always the opportunities for the desirable sort of radical change, witness the successful rise of fascism not revolutionery socialism in 1920's Italy and 1930's Germany as just two examples of this caveat). In hindsight , despite the radical Left trumpeting the imminent crisis of capitalism quite regularly since 1945, we were simply profoundly wrong for that entire period- even in the impressively militancy-filled early to mid 70's when I had most fun as a Leftie expecting a revolutionery breakthrough imminently. So actually expecting the "revolutionery" Left in most of that postwar period, in the UK anyway, to be anything but prone to endless infighting, cultism, posturing, self-deluding fantasy, and domination by semi-religious "holders and interpreters of the true faith and scriptures" was actually a tall order. Fast forward to NOW though and capitalism actually IS in world wide systemic crisis, and the Left has all but disappeared up its own over-analysed arse.

Like you though, Sean Delaney, my inspiring, uplifting experience of the rising tide of industrial militancy in the 70's (as an IS/SWP member), and my anti fascist experiences of the same period does indeed suggest that with the right, flexible approach from the Left "the real militants, rather than lifestyle posers, do indeed appear as if from nowhere and join the struggle. Gawd, I remember the IS fronted Rank and File Movement was actually bloody impressive for a year or so in the mid 70's - real workers, real militants, and an actual impact in workplace struggle all over the UK - until Wilson managed to demobilise it all. I hope that eventually the hardest of times since the 1930's which are fast approaching will indeed force workers who have never before been politically active into struggle, as so many briefly were in the 70's and even early 80's. Can't see the believable political "vehicle" yet to mobilise this struggle in a coherent way I have to admit.

If it is eventually built, no doubt during very hard times indeed, in competition with a rising fascist tide, like you I hope that the worship of Lenin, Trotsky, and all their works are mostly relegated to the view that , " they were dedicated revolutioneries, but weren't all-knowing sages at all, just revolutioneries who decided to wing it via an opportunistic power grab coup on a (then very non-orthodox Marxist ) hunch in 1917, achieving briefly a revolution that was actually pretty quickly LOST , not won". Because that's what Stalinism represents, the utter DEFEAT of the 1917 revolution. Lenin in fact was profoundly, world historically disastrously WRONG to think that the German working class would arrive in time to save the wing and a prayer 1917 Workers and Peasants State from collapsing into reaction. Not much of an all-knowing sage then, whose every word needs to be memorised and spouted to the faithful as a guide to action NOW, and forever !" And that's just the Trots ! The lightly concealed Stalinist apologists constantly writing favourably about the past and present "socialist" states (ie stalinist dictatorships) on blogs like "Socialist Unity" should remind us that there are plenty of politicos about claiming to be "on the Left" far more sinister in political intent than the petty bureaucratic posers of the dying SWP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 13, 2013)

SLK said:


> Because in the 80s, there wasn't the pretence that it was all brilliant despite our experiences as members.
> 
> Actually, the early 90s isn't the period he's referring - it's the early 2000s I think (he says it might have started in the 1990s). I think the issue was that we _should_ have carried on growing in the late 90s if the analysis of the period was correct, so rather than say "why aren't we growing" the paper was filled every week with how much we were. It was only after 3 years of growth (when I was at LSE) that I started to question why we were still claiming 10000 members - the same as at the start. Even when our branch wasn't getting significantly bigger, I remember being desperate to work out how Glasgow, West London, Sheffield, Liverpool or Newcastle were doing it.
> 
> I like Steel's article as it summarises how I feel about this whole ugly mess. I also think he has pointed at why he left (though I don't know what the straw that broke the back was I suspect RESPECT/ Galloway/ etc) in his pointing to the late 90s onwards. He was always the type to question the leadership or ignore stuff he didn't want to trumpet to be fair, and drifted away several times if I remember correctly - but didn't we all.


Ok that makes sense, why the 90's or the 2000's and not the 80's. Inflated expectations and not very honest accounting would be enough to drive a lot of sane people away. And I can see how emotionally this article appeals to a lot of ex members. But it still doesn't quite work as an analysis of why the regime became so top down if that's what actually happened. If the 80's were marked by a well read, confident membership that had a healthy disrespect for the leadership what happened to change that? This matters cause if Mark and others are saying that the regime is now beyond reform then what caused that? Rees being a controlling bastard doesn't strike me as an explanation so much as a statement of what happened. The point being why was he able to behave like that? Cause to be honest I'm not sure I buy this golden era of the 80's malarkey. I know people aren't saying the objective situation outside the party was golden but there does seem to be a nostalgia for the regime which was allegedly more open. Really? A higher percentage of the membership understood more of the politics for sure and being hyper active wasn't enough to get you places in the org, you had to sound like you had a clue about Marxism too. But this was still a party that prided itself on the leaderships willingness and ability to argue with and at times cajole the membership. In fact I remember at an International meeting of the IST leaderships in 88 or 89 (can't remember exactly but it was the only one I ever attended) Cliff berating us in the Irish org for not having the balls to openly attack the left republican and feminist ideas prevalent in our membership. The 80's for the SWP was all about hardening the arguments and not caring who you fucked off inside or outside the party. Arguably the splits of the last few years have less to do with regime and more to do with unsuccessful engagements with the movements that have been thrown up and in which the party has so energetically intervened. In one case the people leading the intervention in those movements (Rees and German) went native (forgetting much of the politics in the process) and in this most recent crisis a section of the membership who had been recruited from the movement but not sufficiently argued with and convinced of the politics by the old lags, eventually found an issue to hang their opposition to old fashioned Leninist ideas on and they are now walking out behind RS who would have been eaten alive by the hard marxists of the 80's party. Personally then I don't blame it all on regime (which I'm not convinced changes that much in the SWP from about 79) but more on how the party has dealt with opening up to the broader movement in a period where the class struggle just hasn't matched the more political struggles that have developed.

Freely admit though I never read Mark's book as I expected it would make me feel less fond of someone I really liked and I didn't want that!


----------



## SLK (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Ok that makes sense, why the 90's or the 2000's and not the 80's. Inflated expectations and not very honest accounting would be enough to drive a lot of sane people away. And I can see how emotionally this article appeals to a lot of ex members. But it still doesn't quite work as an analysis of why the regime became so top down if that's what actually happened. If the 80's were marked by a well read, confident membership that had a healthy disrespect for the leadership what happened to change that? This matters cause if Mark and others are saying that the regime is now beyond reform then what caused that? Rees being a controlling bastard doesn't strike me as an explanation so much as a statement of what happened. The point being why was he able to behave like that? Cause to be honest I'm not sure I buy this golden era of the 80's malarkey. I know people aren't saying the objective situation outside the party was golden but there does seem to be a nostalgia for the regime which was allegedly more open. Really? A higher percentage of the membership understood more of the politics for sure and being hyper active wasn't enough to get you places in the org, you had to sound like you had a clue about Marxism too. But this was still a party that prided itself on the leaderships willingness and ability to argue with and at times cajole the membership. In fact I remember at an International meeting of the IST leaderships in 88 or 89 (can't remember exactly but it was the only one I ever attended) Cliff berating us in the Irish org for not having the balls to openly attack the left republican and feminist ideas prevalent in our membership. The 80's for the SWP was all about hardening the arguments and not caring who you fucked off inside or outside the party. Arguably the splits of the last few years have less to do with regime and more to do with unsuccessful engagements with the movements that have been thrown up and in which the party has so energetically intervened. In one case the people leading the intervention in those movements went native (forgetting much of the politics in the process) and in this most recent crisis a section of the membership who had been recruited from the movement but not sufficiently argued with and convinced of the politics by the old lags, eventually found an issue to hang their opposition to old fashioned Leninist ideas on and they are now walking. Personally I don't blame it all on regime (which I'm not convinced changes that much in the SWP from about 79) but more on how the party has dealt with opening up to the broader movement in a period where the class struggle just hasn't matched the more political struggles that have developed.
> 
> Freely admit though I never read Mark's book as I expected it would make me feel less fond of someone I really liked and I didn't want that!


 
I don't have experience of the 80s. Mark wasn't the hardest member, I admit that. But then neither was I really - you'd have done more flyposting if I was! So I find it hard to comment. However, the key difference might be Cliff. I remember him saying that he'd become more centralist as he got older, and to be fair (though those reading this who have always been critical of Cliff won't agree) that's fine to a point when it's Cliff. It's not so fine when it's Rees and Bambery, and less so when it's Joe Cardwell - who I actually had a lot of respect for.

But all of what you write isn't really disagreeing with Mark saying "it might be because...." - you seem to be annoyed because he doesn't have a complete analysis of what went wrong. I don't actually think he should or can have - he's just saying what it's like from his perspective. It's not dissimilar from mine.

The first point at which I thought the leadership might be wrong as a member was when MM (who was my partner at the time) went back to America in 1998 and found out from the American organisation that there was some difference (problems, she said) between the ISO and the SWP. She said she didn't want to spread rumours if I hadn't heard it but they were having branch meetings over there (and some SWP CC were invited to speak and did). I remember she and I agreed that we'd probably see it debated in the ISJ. It never was, and this seemed utterly wrong. The ISO told their membership - we were presented with one side when the ISO were expelled. 

I don't know what happened, but I do think the SWP is over. There is no-one on the left who doesn't know about this. I can find no-one on the left who isn't angry about it (maybe except you) so even those who join demonstrations or are pulled by the SWP will hear about it early on. They're only going to decline now.

I do think that's tragic for the SWP I knew. It's not tragic for an SWP that tries to deal with this crisis in the way that Steel describes.


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2013)

Do you mean Jo Cardwell, best of a bad bunch...


----------



## SLK (Mar 13, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Yeah the 80s were hard for a lot of people, but they were great days too. The quality of the membership of the SWP was gold standard back then. So many comrades I remember were as hard as nails - they had this gut reaction to things. By the 1990s most of them had dropped out and the cult quality was creeping in - I remember someone telling me that 'if you get chosen to work fulltime for the party its an incredible honour' without the slightest whiff of irony. In previous times, comrades would have laughed like drains at such hack nonsense. A healthy disrespect for the fulltimers was par for the course - you really had to earn your stripes and there was none of this 'leading comrade' crap. Lenin didn't do or say much that was useful, but one quote of his worth repeating is that in the revolutionary party 'there is no rank and file.'


 
I remember being on the Marxism Team in 1997 and arriving late on one of the weekdays having been hungover. YP (still a member) pulled me to oneside and said that Bambery had told him to see if I was organiser material. Arriving half an hour late meant that he thought I looked bad. 

I was actually gutted. WTF?


----------



## SLK (Mar 13, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> You know he wrote a book called "Why I left the SWP", don't you?


 
I haven't read that. Not sure I want to.


----------



## SLK (Mar 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> It was called _What's Going On?_
> 
> "In 2007 he left the SWP and justified his decision in his book _What's Going On?_ In the book he wrote that he left the party because whilst the membership base had become smaller and smaller, the members that remained became increasingly deluded regarding the size and relevance of the organisation. He also condemned the manner in which, at a time when there was broad public support for socialist ideals, increasingly bitter and futile in-fighting on the left made political success impossible. Alex Callinicos, International Secretary of the SWP, reviewed the book in the _Socialist Review_, arguing that it "evinces a kind of grandiose ignorance" and that "the only principle one can detect here is that the SWP is always in the wrong".[7] Literary critic Nicholas Lezard praised the book in _The Guardian_, particularly for its discussion of the break-up of Steel's relationship, which "gives it a poignancy and depth which at its outset one might not have expected".[8]"


 
My partner has really got into Steel's books recently from following him on twitter, and she was the one who told me he was no longer with BM. She was in my branch, and though they were polar opposites, I was more sad to hear of them breaking up than him leaving the SWP.


----------



## SLK (Mar 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> Do you mean Jo Cardwell, best of a bad bunch...


 
Yes, I actually liked her - she was my student organiser - I just couldn't think of anyone else on the CC apart from Callinicos and the 4 dissidents. But my point stands with JC.


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 13, 2013)

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13442/
I like this summary was a member for 2 years back in 79-81 in Guildford - it was run by a sociology lecturer at Surrey University - his female partner ran the Women's Voice group separately (there were 3 members I seem to recall and refused to join in with the all male claque) - we all brought drink to the meeting at his flat and retired to the pub afterwards - not sure we achieved much except for getting fired up for rucks on street demos - oh and Rock Against Racism gigs and ANL - great logos and very popular at the time. Happy days indeed.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 13, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> What's worse? Roman Catholic CC or SWP CC? There's a rizla paper in it I reckon


A Jesuit Pope at last! Now we're talking. No messing about with those boys. I know I'm just giving ammunition to the enemy here but old Ignatius Loyola could teach a party hack a thing or two: " if [the Church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."


----------



## J Ed (Mar 13, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13442/
> I like this summary was a member for 2 years back in 79-81 in Guildford - it was run by a sociology lecturer at Surrey University - his female partner ran the Women's Voice group separately (there were 3 members I seem to recall and refused to join in with the all male claque) - we all brought drink to the meeting at his flat and retired to the pub afterwards - not sure we achieved much except for getting fired up for rucks on street demos - oh and Rock Against Racism gigs and ANL - great logos and very popular at the time. Happy days indeed.


 
Brendan O’Neill is a 'libertarian' misogynist psychopath. Him and the SWP CC belong together.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Yeah the 80s were hard for a lot of people, but they were great days too. The quality of the membership of the SWP was gold standard back then.


after the squadists had been ejected you mean.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 13, 2013)

SLK said:


> But all of what you write isn't really disagreeing with Mark saying "it might be because...." - you seem to be annoyed because he doesn't have a complete analysis of what went wrong. I don't actually think he should or can have - he's just saying what it's like from his perspective. It's not dissimilar from mine.


I am angry with him for it though. Fine, we all have a personal perspective and personal reasons for leaving or not rejoining (in my case it's to avoid divorce!) but if you're going to make very grandiose claims about the possible future of the left and the failure of the SWP, as Mark does, then you have a duty to explain why things happened the way they did. Otherwise you can't be sure the mistakes won't be repeated. Impressionistic broad brush stroke remarks from on high (as the prof rightly accused him of in his review of the book) just won't do :-(


----------



## SLK (Mar 13, 2013)

No, I don't agree. I think he's writing personally. He makes claims about his experience (which are clearly true) but makes it very clear (to me) he's not really sure why the SWP has declined in general - "it might be" being a pointer. I don't think he expects anyone to read his article (I have not read his book but I wouldn't be surprised) as a complete analysis of what is wrong with the SWP. As I've said, he was never the most highly politicised member so that's not a surprise. 

I think the one of the most telling things about his piece is after nearly 30 years of being a member he simply does not seem arsed about whether they survive or not.


----------



## SLK (Mar 13, 2013)

Seymour: "What we need is TUSC"


----------



## discokermit (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> (as the prof rightly accused him of in his review of the book)(


so, you'll read the cc members review, and agree with it, but you won't read the actual book?

it's like alice in fucking wonderland.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2013)

SLK said:


> Seymour: "What we need is TUSC"


 
Unfortunately he was joking. He did however make the more serious claim that there has been another round of resignations tonight after the first set of post conference branch meetings.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 13, 2013)

The expulsions,and some resignations around squadism took place over a number of months.even then there was still some tolerance to those who sided and supported those who left. in Harlesden branch for example a number if us were still engaged with attacks on the fash , sometimes with those who had been expelled, sometimes without for a few years after.We even set up a branch meeting to invite Mick O'F to speak after his expulsion. ( Holborrow invited himself to the branch committee to change the meeting)

The 80s were tough and on one hand although the downturn period enabled a higher level of political education it also led to a ridiculous initial line on the miners strike which was summed up by a contribution from some hack at a national committee that the miners strike shouldn't interfere with the routine of paper sales. There was then the completely ' revolutionary' but abstract money collected for the miners should only be used for picketing not passive food collections. whilst no admirer of Militant , I thought we were sectarian in London for not really putting any effort into supporting Liverpool city council. The ' blood on the carpets' period in which everyone flexed their muscles over being politically hard internally did my head in although it must be said that it led to recruitment especially from the labour left.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ... But he and I were members during the much harsher 'downturn' 80's and none of these splits or crises happened. Why that?


 
There was a more sober and realistic assessment of the period activists found themselves in and education was prioritised. It all started to go wrong at the time the CPGB began to dissolve and delusions about the SWP becoming hegemonic on the left, replacing the Communist party, began to be promoted. 'With the CP out of the way it's now between us and the Labour party' the ISJ announced. All illusory and unsustainable.

Edit: Yeah, the miners. I was opposed to the line the party initially took on the miners strike and to be fair me and another argued in the local branch, as others argued too in branches nationally and it was changed. A reason for expulsion in later times probably, or no one daring to question more likely.


----------



## SLK (Mar 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Unfortunately he was joking. He did however make the more serious claim that there has been another round of resignations tonight after the first set of post conference branch meetings.


 
He made that announcement like it was news. I suspect he knows that was always going to happen. He probably got one or two phone calls.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Lutfur Rahman don't know who you mean??


----------



## SLK (Mar 13, 2013)

Had a conversation with a, by his own words, "Straight IDOOPer". He said he's staying because he believes there is a "substantial middle ground to be won". He hinted that he'd leave if he thought the fight was over. Bolshie, I'll pm you his id


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

SLK said:


> He made that announcement like it was news. I suspect he knows that was always going to happen. He probably got one or two phone calls.


 
According to people on twitter, Queen Mary SWSS resigned en masse.


----------



## SLK (Mar 14, 2013)

Buy they've already accepted almost all student members will be gone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to people on twitter, Queen Mary SWSS resigned en masse.


according to people on twitter there was a bloody great riot on holloway road the other year. you'll want independent confirmation of that "mass" resignation before you go further touting it round the internet.


----------



## SLK (Mar 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> according to people on twitter there was a bloody great riot on holloway road the other year. you'll want independent confirmation of that "mass" resignation before you go further touting it round the internet.


 
Hasn't it already been touted round the internet if it's on twitter?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

SLK said:


> Buy they've already accepted almost all student members will be gone.


 
I agree that the SWP CC have in effect conceded that most of the students will be lost. It's still worth tracking what they manage to hold on to though, and also how much seems to be going over to the ISN as opposed to just disappearing.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> - barring other lefty _papers_.


 
Other lefty papers, or not, I will not accept from anyone what I can read and what I cannot and that nonsense played a part in my leaving the SWP when I did.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Other lefty papers, or not, I will not accept from anyone what I can read and what I cannot and that nonsense played a part in my leaving the SWP when I did.


 
What, the SWP tried to tell you not to read stuff?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What, the SWP tried to tell you not to read stuff?


 
They frowned upon you buying other left-wing papers, so one gathers reading them too and a local hack (in academia and a professor now ironically) pulled me up for discussing a Marxism Today article with another party member. I immediately referenced Orwell and thought sod that. In hindsight, the rot had begun to set in at that time.


----------



## treelover (Mar 14, 2013)

audiotech said:


> They frowned upon you buying other left-wing papers,* so one gathers reading them too and a local hack (in academia and a professor now ironically) pulled me up for discussing a Marxism Today article with another party member.* I immediately referenced Orwell and thought sod that. In hindsight, the rot had begun to set in at that time.


 
Sickening, words fail, now he is an academic?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 14, 2013)

She is, was then.


----------



## IC3D (Mar 14, 2013)

Sorry if repost


> Donnacha DeLong talks to Laurie Penny and Zoe Stavri about the recent revelations about how organisations - from the Lib Dems and the police to the SWP and RMT - have dealt with allegations of rape and sexual assault. Is gender equality possible in an unequal organisation; or, to put it another way, is hierarchy the enemy of women's rights?


https://soundcloud.com/resonance-fm/21-00-00-the-circled-a-6

fill your boots


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...mocracy-in-the-international-socialists-1975/

Molyneux in happier times.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...mocracy-in-the-international-socialists-1975/
> 
> Molyneux in happier times.


So the regime and arbitrary or self serving leadership behaviour was something people always had an issue with. Which goes to show that the latest crises aren't necessarily about a lack of democracy. People may frame their departure in those terms (be funny if they didn't ) but to explain these splits you have to look at other causes too.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> so, you'll read the cc members review, and agree with it, but you won't read the actual book?
> 
> it's like alice in fucking wonderland.


Fair point but once I saw the link in Belboids post I had to click on it out of curiosity. Five years ago I wasn't reading anything by the SWP or it's malcontents so this all passed me by.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What, the SWP tried to tell you not to read stuff?


Not sure I see the problem. A certain IS prof in Dublin used to tell me off for reading too much classical Marxism and not enough contemporary stuff from all traditions. I'm glad he did now. He also encouraged me to have friends outside the party which I didn't back then. If I'd listened to him I might have stayed in the organisation a lot longer. Is it really that different to any trusted academic influencing your choice of reading as an undergrad?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> *Not sure I see the problem.* [with the SWP telling members not to read stuff] A certain IS prof in Dublin used to tell me off for reading too much classical Marxism and not enough contemporary stuff from all traditions. I'm glad he did now. He also encouraged me to have friends outside the party which I didn't back then. If I'd listened to him I might have stayed in the organisation a lot longer. Is it really that different to any trusted academic influencing your choice of reading as an undergrad?


 
Really? Wow!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 14, 2013)

why don't you think it's a problem? the writings of tony cliff aren't the bible!


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 14, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Party comrades in the 80s used to wipe the floor with everyone else from all the other marxist groups whenever there were discussions. I remember one organisation called 'Proletarian' turning up at Marxism in the late 1980s and they were just chewed up and spat out theoretically by my mates, who were just ordinary SWP members, but their theoretical range and knowledge was awesome. No disrespect to Militant/SP people, but it was the same with them too back in the day. They couldn't hold a candle to the rank and file SWP members in terms of theory (although respect where respect is due - Militant were always in the frontline at Wapping and at other hardcore events of the era. They had genuine roots and respect in the working class. They could genuinely relate to working class people.) This theoretical cutting edge lead to hubris in the SWP and developed a very suspect culture and attitude in the party in the longer run. Without the old guard to temper this crap, it all went Pete Tong by the 1990s. Before you knew it, a whole modus operandi, style of delivery, and outlook took over the party. It had to in a way, because it was a case of battening down the hatches and getting on with the grind. Then neo-liberalism literally ripped up and tore apart the traditional working class and the party didn't have a clue about how to cope with this. It still doesn't, so you get all this Third Worldism/Orientalist crap, which Seymour is going to take with him into whatever new organisation he and China brew up.



Interesting post, Sean - but what do you mean about orientalism ?


----------



## killer b (Mar 14, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Party comrades in the 80s used to wipe the floor with everyone else from all the other marxist groups whenever there were discussions. I remember one organisation called 'Proletarian' turning up at Marxism in the late 1980s and they were just chewed up and spat out theoretically by my mates, who were just ordinary SWP members, but their theoretical range and knowledge was awesome.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Other lefty papers, or not, I will not accept from anyone what I can read and what I cannot and that nonsense played a part in my leaving the SWP when I did.


 
We never had any pressure not to read other lefty papers. In fact there was a regular speaker in London who used to do a talk called Trot around the Left going through their arguments.Can't see how you can argue with people unless you read their stuff anyway. its not that you recruit people with no ideas or political views  or previous political history.

I was a member from the mid 70s to the early 90s  and took very faithfully Cliff's  slogan, which I think I heard right  that 'Democratic centralism is the misorganised trust of the centre'. I had genuine pity for our full timers as to be frank our branches in West and North West London took the piss.


----------



## andysays (Mar 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the writings of tony cliff aren't the bible!


 
*Heresy* is any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of one's religion, principles or cause, and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion.
Heresy is usually used to discuss violations of religious or traditional laws or legal codes, although it is used by some political extremists to refer to their opponents

(thanks to wiki)


----------



## belboid (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> We never had any pressure not to read other lefty papers. In fact there was a regular speaker in London who used to do a talk called Trot around the Left going through their arguments.


I remember that session at Skeggy, tho it always more of a pisstake than a serious analysis of other views.

We were never explicitly told not to read other papers, but there was a distinct air of 'what are you bothering with that for?'


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 14, 2013)

My experience of Militant in the mid 1980s was one where reading other left publications and talking to members of other left groups was definitely discouraged...I didn't last that long.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Mar 14, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13442/
> I like this summary


why do you like it? Its complete shit.

 ‘You have a pervert in your ranks and therefore your whole institution must be perverted!’

Is the articles claim, but its a claim that - surprise, surprise - completely and utterly misses the point. It isn't about the SWP having one vile rapist as a member, its about the party _at large_ failing to investigate claims properly, and covering up for their failures.


----------



## sptme (Mar 14, 2013)

*"Fleas on a dogs hind legs" was how other left wing groups were described to me by a long standing member and I was explicitly told "don't talk to them" (the reason? because they, the other groups, were sectarian). Or "don't read that" referring to other theories and philosophers because "its a waste of time".*

*If they had know me better they would have realised that telling me not do something would only make me more curious as to why it was taboo.*


----------



## Random (Mar 14, 2013)

sptme said:


> *"Fleas on a dogs hind legs" was how other left wing groups were described to me by a long standing member and I was explicitly told "don't talk to them" (the reason? because they, the other groups, were sectarian). Or "don't read that" referring to other theories and philosophers because "its a waste of time".*
> 
> *If they had know me better they would have realised that telling me not do something would only make me more curious as to why it was taboo.*


Your tiny font size makes me hear your post in a crotchety crabby little voice


----------



## sptme (Mar 14, 2013)

don't know whats up with the font size. is this better?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 14, 2013)

october_lost said:


> Callinicos responded by saying it was essentially about party discipline and I'm inclined to agree. A retreat to a rebellion of this nature would have set a terrible precedent and it's not like the opposition where just making noises about the rape, was it? Loyalty to MS may have also played a small part.


 I'm talking about in the original disciplinary meeting.  I'm suggesting, there wasn't a cover-up in the original disciplinary, they just honestly didn't believe the accusations.  Is that possible?  Is it possible, they weren't true?

PS.  Must add, I am playing devil's advocate.  Like everybody else, I don't want to know the truth.  Summary people are adding 2+2 and coming go with 999, phone the police.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 14, 2013)

sptme said:


> don't know whats up with the font size. is this better?


 love your avatar


----------



## redcogs (Mar 14, 2013)

When D Hallas stayed following some public meeting c 1988 he came out of the bathroom and declared "its years since I read the sectarian press, I quite enjoyed it".  The trouble is I can't remember which organ may have been laying around in there - could it have been Weekly Worker or its precursor, it was full of densely organised type, and a bit gossipy?  i believe i picked it up from some London demo or other.

Duncan didn't seem remotely concerned about the matter.  But i always found him to be very unhackish and amiable.  Probably my favourite 'top table' person. 

Fuck knows what he would have made of all this disgusting shit.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 14, 2013)

SLK said:


> Because in the 80s, there wasn't the pretence that it was all brilliant despite our experiences as members.
> 
> Actually, the early 90s isn't the period he's referring - it's the early 2000s I think (he says it might have started in the 1990s). I think the issue was that we _should_ have carried on growing in the late 90s if the analysis of the period was correct, so rather than say "why aren't we growing" the paper was filled every week with how much we were. It was only after 3 years of growth (when I was at LSE) that I started to question why we were still claiming 10000 members - the same as at the start. Even when our branch wasn't getting significantly bigger, I remember being desperate to work out how Glasgow, West London, Sheffield, Liverpool or Newcastle were doing it.
> 
> I like Steel's article as it summarises how I feel about this whole ugly mess. I also think he has pointed at why he left (though I don't know what the straw that broke the back was I suspect RESPECT/ Galloway/ etc) in his pointing to the late 90s onwards. He was always the type to question the leadership or ignore stuff he didn't want to trumpet to be fair, and drifted away several times if I remember correctly - but didn't we all.


MPOV specific to Manchester, I would pinpoint the watershed as a exactly the war in Yugoslavia and the response we made to it good, the lessons learned from that nationally and the subsequent move into the socialist Alliance bad.

I've said for some time I think that probably the Socialist Parties model for the Socialist Alliance was probably better.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> Absolutely. It always bemuses me when other lefties say the SWP had a dreadful tradition of theory within the party, with nothing read bar [arty material. Far far from it from my experience of the eighties especially. We were encouraged to read anything and everything - barring other lefty _papers_. Certainly all the Marxist classics (or the trot version of Marxist classics at least), other left critics, I even read Mandel at some point. Because it was, in large part, quite good. And you had to argue back, cos, as Cliff put it, the branches had to be prepared for the day the CC was all arrested and locked up. The branches had to be able to anaylse and lead themselves, not rely on the centre to do their thinking for them.
> 
> And arguing with/taking the piss out of Millies could be _fun_.
> 
> Happy days.


 to be fair, I cannot remember exactly.  Is definitely less than 10, don't think it less than five years ago are pretty sure Chris Harman asked me to put this on my website;
***Some new digital recordings of 1969 debate between Ernest Mandel and Mike Kidron. Kidron and Mandel debate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> One part of the whole row that remains something of a mystery to me is just what is so special about Delta that the rest of the SWP leadership were willing to destroy the reputation of their organisation to protect his.
> 
> They crucified Rees and German as soon as it became advantageous to do so. Why not Delta? I'd generally expect the SWP CC to ruthlessly prioritise the good of the party as they see it over any individual.


 
His impeccable proletarian credentials?
I mean, obviously they're not *actually* impeccable by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly more so than some of his contemporaries on the CC.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> good. There are already more than enough 'new Lenins'


 
Decent band name, is "The New Lenins".


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2013)

SLK said:


> Hasn't it already been touted round the internet if it's on twitter?


i said 'before you go FURTHER touting it round the internet'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Decent band name, is "The New Lenins".


better band name is the new lennons.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

mk12 said:


> He believes in bourgeois justice if it is directed at the BNP.


 
Revolutionary justice is more satisfying, though.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Decent band name, is "The New Lenins".


 
battle of the bands?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> I'm not completely endorsing it, but people are desperate,* they will accept 'short cuts'* if they think they can be supported/defended..


 
And therein lies the problem, surely?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> better band name is the new lennons.


 
Not sure anyone would wish to announce/present themselves as retreads of a wife-beater.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 14, 2013)

SLK said:


> I don't have experience of the 80s. Mark wasn't the hardest member, I admit that. But then neither was I really - you'd have done more flyposting if I was! So I find it hard to comment. However, the key difference might be Cliff. I remember him saying that he'd become more centralist as he got older, and to be fair (though those reading this who have always been critical of Cliff won't agree) that's fine to a point when it's Cliff. It's not so fine when it's Rees and Bambery, and less so when it's Joe Cardwell - who I actually had a lot of respect for.


 said something similar to this the other day in the, "life after the SWP" thread.

The stories about Cliff  interventions to change the direction of the party,  were always about him going outside the party and learning from the class. did Rees etc go outside the bubble?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> why do you like it? Its complete shit.
> 
> ‘You have a pervert in your ranks and therefore your whole institution must be perverted!’
> 
> Is the articles claim, but its a claim that - surprise, surprise - completely and utterly misses the point. It isn't about the SWP having one vile rapist as a member, its about the party _at large_ failing to investigate claims properly, and covering up for their failures.


 so you accept that the initial failure was most likely fuckup, rather than cover up??? And then suggest they went on to cover up, the fuckup?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> better band name is the new lennons.


 where is butchers when you need him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> where is butchers when you need him.


fuck off you turgid auld bore.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not sure anyone would wish to announce/present themselves as retreads of a wife-beater.


or the neil lennons...

e2a: i'm not having much luck with the lennons.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

Apparently, the SPGB has sent the oppositionists a letter. This caused some confusion as at least some of them thought it was from the SP and were baffled by the contents.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

Meanwhile, the CPGB/WW in its desperation to have a go at the Socialist Party failed to notice that the SP's rather peripheral connection to an allegation of domestic violence in the RMT had already been severed.

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16319


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2013)

Rosen speaks - (and its his usual centrist fudge)



> So, the position that I'm in now is that I guess it's a matter of  waiting (for the time being) for the organisation to declare that a) it got this one completely wrong  b) it got it wrong precisely because it acted beyond its terms of reference and c) in the event of anything like this happening again, they would behave in a completely different way and that in society,'out there', in unions, rape crisis centres and the like, people have worked out better ways of dealing with such things and that the SWP could and should learn from that experience.
> 
> In the meantime, some of the people I respect seem to have left the organisation, so again, I wonder what kinds of re-shaping, what kinds of new alliances and organisations will emerge. I'll rephrase that: ever since the 70s people I've respected have left IS or the SWP. Sometimes they have stayed interested in campaigning for peace and justice for all and I'll always work with that...


----------



## mk12 (Mar 14, 2013)

Rosen said: "So, the position that I'm in now is that I guess it's a matter of waiting (for the time being) for the organisation to declare that a) it got this one completely wrong..."

They've had two conferences to do just that. Why does he think they're going to do this in the future?


----------



## redcogs (Mar 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Rosen speaks - (and its his usual centrist fudge)


 Does "centrist fudge" mean fucking frustrating waffling twaddle, cos that's how it reads to me.

i spotted a few of his earlier interventions across at the Tomb, and they were slightly finger wagging in tone (is that possible?), but not, as you would have hoped, towards delta or the sex abuse apologists etc, rather his rebuking was directed towards those seeking justice and explanation and discussion.

i lost a bit of respect for Mr Rosen as a consequence.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Does "centrist fudge" mean fucking frustrating waffling twaddle, cos that's how it reads to me.
> 
> i spotted a few of his earlier interventions across at the Tomb, and they were slightly finger wagging in tone (is that possible?), but not, as you would have hoped, towards delta or the sex abuse apologists etc, rather his rebuking was directed towards those seeking justice and explanation and discussion.
> 
> i lost a bit of respect for Mr Rosen as a consequence.


Yes it does!  He was doing the same finger wagging from above on socialist unity threads, and doing it at people rather more up to speed with the facts as well. This is the sort of thing his semi-distant role is designed to deal with i feel - but why bother going to all that effort to establish some front of critical independence if all you're going to bother saying is the above? It's more interesting that he feels he now had to say something publicly i think - that means the heat is starting to effect people like him.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 14, 2013)

http://kettshead.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/a-shower-of-bastards/



> A ancient evil, long thought lost, has stirred in the vast expanse of the lands beyond the Wall. With dwindling numbers and resources, the gallant men of the Night’s Watch desperately hold the Wall against the evil that would destroy all. They call it, ‘creeping feminism’.
> The internet is coming.
> Elsewhere the Seven Kingdoms are in turmoil. The Mad King Delta sits on the Red Throne. A cruel and depraved man, he is accused of many heinous crimes and abuses against his subjects. Across the Narrow Sea the men and women of the Free Cities have stood aghast at the foul practices of the Mad King, and urge the people of Westeros to take up arms against their oppressive leadership and join them in their crusade for a better world.
> The Mad King had grown bitter and paranoid in age. Many lords grumbled but most did nothing. A brave band of knights known as the Four dared to meet on the ancient holy site of Facebook to express their concerns. The Mad King cried treason, and had them burnt at the stake without trial. For some this was a step too far. The mighty Lord Seymour of Lenin’s Tomb and his companion the Ser China the Bard raised their banners in rebellion against the Mad King, and in defence of honour and the oppressed.
> ...


 
an embittered blog post from I assume an ex swappie - giving it a game of thrones twist

If it wasn't for the rape stuff - there might be mileage in a SWPish sitcom


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Meanwhile, the CPGB/WW in its desperation to have a go at the Socialist Party failed to notice that the SP's rather peripheral connection to an allegation of domestic violence in the RMT had already been severed.
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16319


i like the way that there's a link to join the sp just below the article. it could - perhaps should - have said 'now hedley's gone, what about joining us?' which was the message i took from the sp's juxtaposition of the article and the link.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2013)

marty21 said:


> http://kettshead.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/a-shower-of-bastards/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it wouldn't be the land of westeros, it would be the land of troteros.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i like the way that there's a link to join the sp just below the article. it could - perhaps should - have said 'now hedley's gone, what about joining us?' which was the message i took from the sp's juxtaposition of the article and the link.


more concerningly there seems little place for anyone over the age of 20 in the sp:


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i like the way that there's a link to join the sp just below the article. it could - perhaps should - have said 'now hedley's gone, what about joining us?' which was the message i took from the sp's juxtaposition of the article and the link.


 
I think that might be automatic Pickman's doesn't it appear at the bottom of every article (just as how, in real life, every sentence ends with "subscription to the Socialist comrade?")


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I think that might be automatic Pickman's doesn't it appear at the bottom of every article (just as how, in real life, every sentence ends with "subscription to the Socialist comrade?")


aw  don't ruin it


----------



## cesare (Mar 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> aw  don't ruin it


Spoilt it for everyone


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 14, 2013)

That reminds me I need to try and dig out that "day in the life of a Socialist seller" booklet/guide thingy they gave me when I first joined, and when I suspect they harboured some minor hope I might end up being an organiser for them, it's amazing. Have you got a copy of it Froggy? That's the one that got the line "10pm - There's a film showing at the local independent cinema about Hugo Chavez, I manage to sell 4 copies standing outside as the film ends" amongst other crackers


----------



## redcogs (Mar 14, 2013)

Who is going to be first with the learned tome 'Sex, Feminism, Power Relations and Corruption - The Long Decline of British Bolshevism'?  Seymour Lenin or I' Birchall?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> That reminds me I need to try and dig out that "day in the life of a Socialist seller" booklet/guide thingy they gave me when I first joined, and when I suspect they harboured some minor hope I might end up being an organiser for them, it's amazing. Have you got a copy of it Froggy? That's the one that got the line "10pm - There's a film showing at the local independent cinema about Hugo Chavez, I manage to sell 4 copies standing outside as the film ends" amongst other crackers


 
I didn't get a copy of that, I've got the branch organisers' guide though


----------



## chilango (Mar 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> That reminds me I need to try and dig out that "day in the life of a Socialist seller" booklet/guide thingy they gave me when I first joined, and when I suspect they harboured some minor hope I might end up being an organiser for them, it's amazing. Have you got a copy of it Froggy? That's the one that got the line "10pm - There's a film showing at the local independent cinema about Hugo Chavez, I manage to sell 4 copies standing outside as the film ends" amongst other crackers



Serious?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Who is going to be first with the learned tome 'Sex, Feminism, Power Relations and Corruption - The Long Decline of British Bolshevism'? Seymour Lenin or I' Birchall?


i finished writing it last week. it's a rip-roaring ride through conspiratorial cabals and unseemly antics at the heart of british trotdom.


----------



## redcogs (Mar 14, 2013)

Who will distribute it?  Bookmarks?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 14, 2013)

chilango said:


> Serious?


 
Oh yeah 100% and the funniest part was it started again the next day with "6am - sold 8 copies to public sector workers on a stall outside local government building" and with other makework activities pencilled in at every waking hour of the day. They don't give you much chance to like, have a job, or a family, or a life, if you follow it word for word.

When I got given it at the branch the senior(ish) SP person who was handing it out to the assembled ranks of Huddersfield 2010 cadre it was funny, they very slowly and trepidatiously handed me a copy, I started leafing through it, and the moment I looked up from the booklet and made eye contact with the person who gave it to me before I'd even said a word they'd come back with "I _knew_ you start kicking off when you read it! It's only meant to be some suggestions!"


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 14, 2013)

So, now that the SWP is apparently in its death throes this thread seems to have turned into one about the SP. How many green bottles are hanging on the wall now?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I didn't get a copy of that, I've got the branch organisers' guide though


 
One of these ?







_(Feed them shit and keep them in the dark)_


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 14, 2013)

I'll dig it out when I get home. If I've still got it! I was given it a few years ago at the SP conference.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

Hocus Eye has a bit of a point about us getting off topic here again.


----------



## chilango (Mar 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Oh yeah 100% and the funniest part was it started again the next day with "6am - sold 8 copies to public sector workers on a stall outside local government building" and with other makework activities pencilled in at every waking hour of the day. They don't give you much chance to like, have a job, or a family, or a life, if you follow it word for word.
> 
> When I got given it at the branch the senior(ish) SP person who was handing it out to the assembled ranks of Huddersfield 2010 cadre it was funny, they very slowly and trepidatiously handed me a copy, I started leafing through it, and the moment I looked up from the booklet and made eye contact with the person who gave it to me before I'd even said a word they'd come back with "I _knew_ you start kicking off when you read it! It's only meant to be some suggestions!"



You HAVE to scan and PDF this and post it.

You have to!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

I wish Seymour would get his finger out and get the next bit of his account up.


----------



## chilango (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I wish Seymour would get his finger out and get the next bit of his account up.



What?

And distract us all from this ace SP "day in the life of a paper seller" work of genius?

No chance!


----------



## dennisr (Mar 14, 2013)

*Steve Hedley resignation from Socialist Party*
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16319

_"The Socialist Party has received a message from Steve Hedley, assistant general secretary of the RMT, resigning from the Socialist Party. Steve feels it is necessary to resign in order to concentrate on dealing with an allegation of domestic violence which has been made against him. Steve refutes this allegation, which is currently being investigated by the *RMT*."_


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 14, 2013)

Steve Hedley resignation from Socialist Party
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16319​His partner's side of the story...​*http://carolineleneghan.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/3/*​


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 14, 2013)

Yes let's just talk about the SP for a bit as there is nothing to see on the SWP story.

EDITED: Or better still lets have a thread where people who know about domestic violence cases can discuss how to deal with it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

chilango said:


> What?
> 
> And distract us all from this ace SP "day in the life of a paper seller" work of genius?
> 
> No chance!


 
I'm a bit curious about that too! But it's definitely for another thread. SP members should really avoid "talking shop" on this thread except in so far as it's actually relevant to the SWP dispute. Anarchos too.

RMT allegations = relevant at least peripherally. How allegations of sexual misconduct or domestic violence have been handled by anarchist groups or scenes = relevant. Diary of a Paper Seller = take it elsewhere.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Meanwhile, the CPGB/WW in its desperation to have a go at the Socialist Party failed to notice that the SP's rather peripheral connection to an allegation of domestic violence in the RMT had already been severed.
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16319


Is it wrong I'm tempted to send a prank solicitors letter to "Peter Manson" threatening them with liable proceedings?


----------



## chilango (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm a bit curious about that too! But it's definitely for another thread. SP members should really avoid "talking shop" on this thread except in so far as it's actually relevant to the SWP dispute. Anarchos too.
> 
> RMT allegations = relevant at least peripherally. How allegations of sexual misconduct or domestic violence have been handled by anarchist groups or scenes = relevant. Diary of a Paper Seller = take it elsewhere.



Fair enough.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 14, 2013)

The Weekly Worker is out - really boring. No scoops or anything new in there this week at all. I don't know why I waste paying good money for that rag - aw, just remembered, I don't


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 14, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> The Weekly Worker is out - really boring. No scoops or anything new in there this week at all. I don't know why I waste paying good money for that rag - aw, just remembered, I don't


It's not been so good since Lenin died.


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 14, 2013)

There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin


----------



## two sheds (Mar 14, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.
> -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin


 
Sounds a mistake to me - you'd call Stalin a bit of a scoundrel.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Oh yeah 100% and the funniest part was it started again the next day with "6am - sold 8 copies to public sector workers on a stall outside local government building" and with other makework activities pencilled in at every waking hour of the day. They don't give you much chance to like, have a job, or a family, or a life, if you follow it word for word.
> 
> When I got given it at the branch the senior(ish) SP person who was handing it out to the assembled ranks of Huddersfield 2010 cadre it was funny, they very slowly and trepidatiously handed me a copy, I started leafing through it, and the moment I looked up from the booklet and made eye contact with the person who gave it to me before I'd even said a word they'd come back with "I _knew_ you start kicking off when you read it! It's only meant to be some suggestions!"


 
You can laugh, but personally I'm grateful that some our members have no lives - they're not great at recruitment, speeches or political education but they'll leaflet a housing estate like nobodies business. Leaving me free to waste my time on the internet... 

At the risk of "talking SP shop", has anyone come across a single ex-SWoP that is considering joining the SP? A few Wobbly mates of mine are convinced all this will mean lots of them "flock to us" (their term not mine). I'm sceptical -  SWoP training 101 seems to include convincing new recruits that the SP is openly reformist, sexist and uninterested in anti-fascist work. In fact in all the stuff that's been written about this, I don't think anyone I've come across has suggested that joining the SP might be an option for some leaving the SWP. Am I being unneccessarily pessimistic in assuming not a single one of them would want to join us? Thoughts please - particularly from ex or current SWP members.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> You can laugh, but personally I'm grateful that some our members have no lives - they're not great at recruitment, speeches or political education but they'll leaflet a housing estate like nobodies business. Leaving me free to waste my time on the internet...
> 
> At the risk of "talking SP shop", has anyone come across a single ex-SWoP that is considering joining the SP? A few Wobbly mates of mine are convinced all this will mean lots of them "flock to us" (their term not mine). I'm sceptical - SWoP training 101 seems to include convincing new recruits that the SP is openly reformist, sexist and uninterested in anti-fascist work. In fact in all the stuff that's been written about this, I don't think anyone I've come across has suggested that joining the SP might be an option for some leaving the SWP. Am I being unneccessarily pessimistic in assuming not a single one of them would want to join us? Thoughts please - particularly from ex or current SWP members.


 
How would you convince potential recruits that you are not 'openly reformist, sexist and uninterested in anti-fascist work' ?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> when I suspect they harboured some minor hope I might end up being an organiser for them,


haha! fuck off, they wouldn't even tell you where the meetings were!


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm a bit curious about that too! But it's definitely for another thread. SP members should really avoid "talking shop" on this thread except in so far as it's actually relevant to the SWP dispute. Anarchos too.
> 
> RMT allegations = relevant at least peripherally. *How allegations of sexual misconduct or domestic violence have been handled by anarchist groups or scenes* = relevant. Diary of a Paper Seller = take it elsewhere.


 

Speaking of which I have yet to receive a reply from the email to A-Fed about the one they had in Sheffield . I know they are probably very busy and have other priorities other than responding to what they  probably saw as creeping feminism from me but I won't give up the fight to ensure that they take these issues seriously.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> has anyone come across a single ex-SWoP that is considering joining the SP? A few Wobbly mates of mine are convinced all this will mean lots of them "flock to us" (their term not mine).


 
The SP will probably pick up a few waifs and strays, most likely in towns where the organised left consists of just the SWP and the SP. But it will not attract any significant number. And neither will anyone else. The oppositionists who are leaving have their own project and if they aren't interested in that will drop out of organised left wing activity entirely.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> How would you convince potential recruits that you are not 'openly reformist, sexist and uninterested in anti-fascist work' ?


 
By explaining our politics, but past experience has convinced me this can be long and arduous. It takes a lot of work just to get an SWP member to accept that we might have principled reasons for not working within UAF. Unless you mean that in your opinion we are all of the above?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> How would you convince potential recruits that you are not 'openly reformist, sexist and uninterested in anti-fascist work' ?


 
Getting some women members to wallop a fascist with "One Solution Revolution" placards seems like the simplest plan.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The SP will probably pick up a few waifs and strays, most likely in towns where the organised left consists of just the SWP and the SP. But it will not attract any significant number. And neither will anyone else. The oppositionists who are leaving have their own project and if they aren't interested in that will drop out of organised left wing activity entirely.


 
I think the 'drop out' scenario is unfortunately most likely for a lot of them - as has been the case for the vast majority of people leaving the SWP for the last 20 years.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think the 'drop out' scenario is unfortunately most likely for a lot of them - as has been the case for the vast majority of people leaving the SWP for the last 20 years.


 
True, but in fairness it's also been the case for the vast majority of people leaving any left wing group.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 14, 2013)

I am diasppointed by Michael Rosen

"we still live in a society which *treats women* who have been raped with* hypocrisy*, *disdain* and *distrust*. This is true from the newspapers to the church and the courts... where (although not required legally) over 60 percent of rape victims *have their past sexual history* *brought up* in court. Where in 82 percent of all rape cases which reach the courts it is *a question of consent* – *did she really say no*? It is a society where *women are taught to blame themselves for rape*, ‘was it *something I said/did*’, ‘maybe *I shouldn’t have taken that drink*’ and where this *attitude is embodied* into every institution surrounding rape." Julie Waterson, June 1986



A fellow comrade - in theory an equal and key member of the party-vanguard within the working-class is "questioned about *why she went for a drink* with him, her witnesses were *repeatedly asked whether she’d been in a relationship with him*, and you know, *she was asked about sexual relationships*... she *hasn’t been told what evidence was presented against her* by Comrade Delta... she *was being interrogated* and felt they were *trying to catch her out* in order to make her out to be a liar. She did not accept the line of questioning, saying ‘*they think I’m a slut who asked for it*’. Rita, a comrade who is experienced in working with rape victims and was supporting her in the questioning – she *had to actually go back into the room and have a go at the DC for their inappropriate questions*. Her treatment afterwards has been worse. She feels completely betrayed. *No one on the CC has ever contacted her voluntarily*, *not even to tell her *that Comrade* Delta was standing down*, and she feels she’s been treated as this non-person. The *disgusting lies and gossip going round about her* has been really distressing and disappointing for her to hear, and the way her own witnesses have been treated in Birmingham hasn’t been much better... so bad that the CC received two formal complaints from comrades, and a formal complaint has been lodged with the disputes committee. Recently the complainant wanted to attend a meeting and tried to talk to a local member. He told her that it wasn’t appropriate for him to speak to her and he walked away... if you have a serious allegation to bring against a leading member, don’t bother because you’ll be victimised for doing so? ... a young woman has to plan her route to work avoiding paper-sellers, or that she comes away from a meeting crying because people refuse to speak to her... her witnesses are questioned about their commitment to the party because they missed a branch meeting?" SWP leadership behaviour in 2010 before the 2011 January Conference

Another fellow comrade: "Finally – [voice breaks] in my opinion the worst part was the nature of some of the questioning. I was asked if it was fair to say I liked to have a drink.... I shouldn’t be punished for bringing forward a complaint. Within days of the hearing I *asked to be allowed to return* *to work*, but in many meetings and appeals to the central committee I was repeatedly told that I’d *disrupt the harmony of the office. *The worst part and the most stressful part of this is the *motivations *that have been* ascribed to people* *coming forward*. We’ve had accusations of the state"


"I don’t want to discuss this in public, but I’ve heard that Martin Smith was having an affair with Bruce Forsyth. Don’t tell anyone, keep it under wraps but if people would like to discuss it, I won’t stand in their way. I think it could turn out to be of great significance to the…er… movement… " Michael Rosen (in public) in 2011

"shocked and saddened to hear the news that socialist and antifascist campaigner Julie Waterson died on Friday 16 November. Julie was a formidable opponent of fascism Under Julie’s guidance the ANL helped defeat the growing threat of the Nazi British National Party. ...
We have lost a dear friend and brilliant campaigner." Delta (and Weyman Bennett) as joint secretaries of UAF, Nov 2012

" " Delta (in public) on his behaviour against two separate women
Behaviour against SWP fellow members trying to secure minimum responsiveness to Julie Waterson's points in 1986, SWP's own principles:
"1) 2011 conference lied to, told nothing of the real nature of the allegations;
2) party members not allowed to discuss the issues in aggregates before 2013 conference, with 'confidentiality' used as the
excuse;
3) a legitimate faction including W prevented from being formed before conference;
4) four party members with known concerns expelled on spurious grounds without any investigation or even preliminary interview in the run up to conference;
5) W prevented from speaking at conference;
6) Party Notes and CC falsely claiming after conference that the *party had voted never to discuss it any more*;
7) CC members telling people at report-backs and aggregates that they had to defend the line or leave the party;
8) the CC imposing, and gaining NC approval for, an arbitrary unconstitutional deadline for branch motions for a special conference;
9) the CC using party publications and Party Notes to slander the opposition, with no right of reply.
10) the CC imposing, when forced to accept a special conference, a curtailed debating period of one month (the norm is three months).
11) the CC imposing, at district aggregates (where members are elected to go to conference), bizarre debating procedures allowing the faction only six minutes to speak with no reply, while up to two CC speakers take as long as they need and get a right of reply.
12) the CC stacking aggregates with 'the living dead' (members hitherto totally unknown to anyone in local branches) to get a bare majority sufficient to deny any faction members in that area the right to go to conference. This meant that while the faction was as big as, if not bigger than, the CC's not-a-faction, it represented less than 20% of delegates. They ensured at at conference, there would be no real debate: the idea was to numerically 'smash' the opposition. There's more one could say, but the point is this pathetic shower ducked a debate from the very beginning, because they had something to hide." Richard Seymour, early March 2013


"I guess *it's a matter of waiting (for the time being) for the organisation to declare that a) it got this one completely wrong* b) it got it wrong precisely because it acted beyond its terms of reference and c) in the event of anything like this happening again, they would behave in a completely different way", Michael Rosen in mid-March 2013.
What planet is he on?


----------



## chilango (Mar 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> True, but in fairness it's also been the case for the vast majority of people leaving any left wing group.



Yep.

Why would you want what amounts, essentially, to "more of the same"?

On occasion, there might be something else more attractive going on to attract the dropouts, for example in the 90s a pretty vibrant DA/Anarcho scene, but most times? Especially now, what else is there?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> By explaining our politics, but past experience has convinced me this can be long and arduous. It takes a lot of work just to get an SWP member to accept that we might have principled reasons for not working within UAF. Unless you mean that in your opinion we are all of the above?


 
Well if its too much effort don't bother yourself. 

Seriously start again , lets just say for example that my opinion based on contact with the SWP is that you are all of the above. Explain your politics and try and persuade me  otherwise . I know some reasonably ok people in the SP who don't think  is as bad as what the SWP say.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 14, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> ...,<snip>
> ...At the risk of "talking SP shop", has anyone come across a single ex-SWoP that is considering joining the SP? A few Wobbly mates of mine are convinced all this will mean lots of them "flock to us" (their term not mine). I'm sceptical - SWoP training 101 seems to include convincing new recruits that the SP is openly reformist, sexist and uninterested in anti-fascist work. In fact in all the stuff that's been written about this, I don't think anyone I've come across has suggested that joining the SP might be an option for some leaving the SWP. Am I being unneccessarily pessimistic in assuming not a single one of them would want to join us? Thoughts please - particularly from ex or current SWP members.


 
I don't think that the SWP ascribe to the SP anything like sexism or lacking in anti-fascism. What is incontestable is that the SP in its days as Militant was a parliamentary party it being necessarily so for it to be within the Labour Party. The SWP has always been a revolutionary party and only occasionally dabbled in parliamentary politics for recruitment purposes.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

chilango said:


> Yep.
> 
> Why would you want what amounts, essentially, to "more of the same"?
> 
> On occasion, there might be something else more attractive going on to attract the dropouts, for example in the 90s a pretty vibrant DA/Anarcho scene, but most times? Especially now, what else is there?


 
Del Boy falling through a gap in the bar?


----------



## chilango (Mar 14, 2013)

Forever.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

or the Association of Musical Marxists


----------



## sihhi (Mar 14, 2013)

On the young leaving the SWP - they are motivated by the lack of internal democracy and botched investigations but also by what feels to them an old condescending leadership.

A sample face off:

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/swp?language=en_US




> “Students are not workers” — Weyman Benett at Portsmouth aggregate this evening.
> If that’s true, then why do I hang around the same shop regularly every week? For fun?


 
People in early twenties who have worked or are looking for work, who hear this, feel a disconnect. There might well be something generational - a feeling that the older leadership lived through university and polytechnics in another era - now there are no polytechnics and most students are doing or looking for evening and/or weekend work.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 14, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> At the risk of "talking SP shop", has anyone come across a single ex-SWoP that is considering joining the SP? A few Wobbly mates of mine are convinced all this will mean lots of them "flock to us" (their term not mine). I'm sceptical - SWoP training 101 seems to include convincing new recruits that the SP is openly reformist, sexist and uninterested in anti-fascist work. In fact in all the stuff that's been written about this, I don't think anyone I've come across has suggested that joining the SP might be an option for some leaving the SWP. Am I being unneccessarily pessimistic in assuming not a single one of them would want to join us? Thoughts please - particularly from ex or current SWP members.


 
Mindful of "talking shop" (hints of entryism there, old habits die hard) I doubt very many would join. Even those who've just left are still deeply in love with the party - it's just been betrayed by some corrupt elements. Hence all the navel gazing over the "IS tradition" and the mountains of words written in defense of it. It's specific to the culture in that party, to try and bury a load of bad shit under mountains of dense Leninist jargon. They had Jack Brindelli writing poetry and putting it on youtube. Couldn't see that happening in many other left groups to be honest.

It's gonna take years to de-program some of these ex SWP'ers, it's like they've just emerged from the bunker and have seen sunlight for the first time, or when Neo gets unplugged from the matrix. They still unquestioningly take the party line on things like UAF and working with other left groups.



discokermit said:


> haha! fuck off, they wouldn't even tell you where the meetings were!


 
I'll have you know I was headhunted and fast-tracked as elite cadre material at first.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> On the young leaving the SWP - they are motivated by the lack of internal democracy and botched investigations but also by what feels to them an old condescending leadership.
> 
> A sample face off:
> 
> ...


 
Students at FE colleges will be but to be honest you can't move for university students out on the piss in  most bars in south manchester


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> His impeccable proletarian credentials?
> I mean, obviously they're not *actually* impeccable by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly more so than some of his contemporaries on the CC.



But what exactly are "impeccable proletarian credentials" ? What do they depend upon ?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Well if its too much effort don't bother yourself.
> 
> Seriously start again , lets just say for example that my opinion based on contact with the SWP is that you are all of the above. Explain your politics and try and persuade me otherwise . I know some reasonably ok people in the SP who don't think is as bad as what the SWP say.


 
Take your point. If I'm honest I'm trying to gee myself up to have some of these conversations as I might need to over the next few weeks... The point about sexism I've never really understood, I mean if for example the claim was that the Militant/SP were homophobic I could understand that given the whole 'no position' thing on LGBT issues. The UAF arguments are dull to the point of tedium, but lets face it they're well rehearsed - need for independent working class opposition to fascism, only way to stem rise of BNP/EDL is to pose a Socialist alternative, political demands far more effective than liberal moralising etc. The revolutionary vs reformist issue is harder but obvs you'd have to explain reasons for entryist work in Labour: where working class were, attempt to find audience for Marxist ideas, fight for every concession possible from capitalism while posing revolutionary change and socialism as alternative. But I've never been sure how to deal with the sexist accusation because I don't understand where it comes from - particularly now - I don't see a reason to say "the SP are sexist and the SWP aren't". From the Campaign Against Domestic Violence to the role our young members played in lobbying Parliament against the Nadine Dorries bill, I think our record is alright.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Take your point.


 
Please not here.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Students at FE colleges will be but to be honest you can't move for university students out on the piss in most bars in south manchester


 
That's not what most leftist / SWP students are like in my experience, but I'm not claiming it's true of Manchester.

Here is a statement that an another blog quoted:

"If it’s the case that socialist organisations get the leaderships they deserve, then I don’t know what that says for the SWP and the majority of delegates after Special “Conference”. The special conference was called due to the crisis in the party after the mishandling of rape cases. I had fought the disgraceful way female comrades had been treated over their reports of rape and sexual misconduct

During conference, people referred to Black and lgbt comrades as “special interest groups”. Faction got smashed on every single vote (70% + of delegates voting with cc motions) and there were so called _*comrades going red in the face screaming “COUNT, COUNT” because they wanted nothing but to humiliate us*_. They completely _*fetishised* *votes instead of arguments*_. Alex Callinicos called for the faction’s motions to be ‘treated with the contempt they deserve’, comrades calling the last two months of debate ‘nonsense’ (the treatment of rape accusations is nonsense? ) and comrades *cheering and stamping their feet at calls for greater disciplinary action and expulsions against those who make public their disagreements* as they had nowhere else to speak. The level of politics, debate and attitudes to liberation was appalling."

http://choongcommunist.tumblr.com/post/45319947942/i-have-resigned-from-the-swp

Entirely rigged votes - but obviously it had to be rubbed in.

Good end-point. _*red in the face screaming “COUNT, COUNT”.*_


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That's not what most leftist / SWP students are like in my experience, but I'm not claiming it's true of Manchester.
> 
> Here is a statement that an another blog quoted:
> 
> ...


 
Ah .. getting the newer members  "just wanting so much to BELONG to ones recently joined "revolutionery" party.. by showing crazed levels of LOYALTY to the LEADERSHIP cadre" ,to scream for the expulsion of the ThoughtCrime oppositionists ! Lets be honest, how many of us have also  been those young loyalist dupes at one time or another ?  I'm ashamed to admit, that in late 1971 , at about my second IS meeting in Manchester, as a brand new cardholder, I had the dubious task of voting to expel the last remnants of  the Workers Fight faction (though they actually WERE shit stirring entrists admittedly - Sorry  they were ). I had no idea what the politics of the issue were .. but Colin Barker  said they were evil splittists.. not part of "our tradition"...... sooooo,  "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !"   I suspect a lot of the "red faced screamers" at the Special Purge Conference of the SWP were  very similar.

At least I  (expelled late 1981 - "Squadism"   - specific charge "handing out anti fascist leaflets on a big working class housing estate - in direct contravention of local district committee instruction to avoid provocative activity" ) have had the pleasure over the ensuing years in seeing pretty much everyone involved in our expulsions themselves expelled in turn ! Unfortunately there just aint enough time left for the SWP  before it implodes completely for everyone "red faced and screaming" for the count on Sunday to be purged in their turn.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That's not what most leftist / SWP students are like in my experience, but I'm not claiming it's true of Manchester.
> 
> Here is a statement that an another blog quoted:
> 
> ...



Christ. Why would anyone put up with this? The mind boggles.


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 14, 2013)




----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 14, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Ah .. getting the newer members  "just wanting so much to BELONG to ones recently joined "revolutionery" party.. by showing crazed levels of LOYALTY to the LEADERSHIP cadre" ,to scream for the expulsion of the ThoughtCrime oppositionists ! Lets be honest, how many of us have also  been those young loyalist dupes at one time or another ?  I'm ashamed to admit, that in late 1971 , at about my second IS meeting in Manchester, as a brand new cardholder, I had the dubious task of voting to expel the last remnants of  the Workers Fight faction (though they actually WERE shit stirring entrists admittedly - Sorry  they were ). I had no idea what the politics of the issue were .. but Colin Barker  said they were evil splittists.. not part of "our tradition"...... sooooo,  "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !"   I suspect a lot of the "red faced screamers" at the Special Purge Conference of the SWP were  very similar.
> 
> At least I  (expelled late 1981 - "Squadism"   - specific charge "handing out anti fascist leaflets on a big working class housing estate - in direct contravention of local district committee instruction to avoid provocative activity" ) have had the pleasure over the ensuing years in seeing pretty much everyone involved in our expulsions themselves expelled in turn ! Unfortunately there just aint enough time left for the SWP  before it implodes completely for everyone "red faced and screaming" for the count on Sunday to be purged in their turn.



Got to disagree. We've all been young and naive, but I don't see how that alone explains that kind of behaviour. Unless of course I'm too young and naive to realise It does I suppose...


----------



## discokermit (Mar 14, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Ah .. getting the newer members "just wanting so much to BELONG to ones recently joined "revolutionery" party.. by showing crazed levels of LOYALTY to the LEADERSHIP cadre" ,to scream for the expulsion of the ThoughtCrime oppositionists !


have you actually been following all of this? if you have, you have completely misread the entire thing. those aren't the ones stamping their feet. the new members seem to be in the opposition.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Ah .. getting the newer members "just wanting so much to BELONG to ones recently joined "revolutionery" party.. by showing crazed levels of LOYALTY to the LEADERSHIP cadre" ,to scream for the expulsion of the ThoughtCrime oppositionists ! Lets be honest, how many of us have also been those young loyalist dupes at one time or another ? I'm ashamed to admit, that in late 1971 , at about my second IS meeting in Manchester, as a brand new cardholder, I had the dubious task of voting to expel the last remnants of the Workers Fight faction (though they actually WERE shit stirring entrists admittedly - Sorry they were ). I had no idea what the politics of the issue were .. but Colin Barker said they were evil splittists.. not part of "our tradition"...... sooooo, "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !" I suspect a lot of the "red faced screamers" at the Special Purge Conference of the SWP were very similar.
> 
> At least I (expelled late 1981 - "Squadism" - specific charge "handing out anti fascist leaflets on a big working class housing estate - in direct contravention of local district committee instruction to avoid provocative activity" ) have had the pleasure over the ensuing years in seeing pretty much everyone involved in our expulsions themselves expelled in turn ! Unfortunately there just aint enough time left for the SWP before it implodes completely for everyone "red faced and screaming" for the count on Sunday to be purged in their turn.


 
was it Strouthous who was the organiser in Manchester when you were expelled


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> was it Strouthous who was the organiser in Manchester when you were expelled


 
No. The Organiser before Strouthous, Lindsey Gregg it was. Expelled by phonecall. The bozo wanted to discuss all sorts of things on the phone one just DOESN'T in a supposed "revolutionery" organisation - especially as I was just about to stand trial with 9 others  for the "Rochdale Farrago", and my phone could well have been tapped.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Take your point. If I'm honest I'm trying to gee myself up to have some of these conversations as I might need to over the next few weeks... The point about sexism I've never really understood, I mean if for example the claim was that the Militant/SP were homophobic I could understand that given the whole 'no position' thing on LGBT issues. The UAF arguments are dull to the point of tedium, but lets face it they're well rehearsed - need for independent working class opposition to fascism, only way to stem rise of BNP/EDL is to pose a Socialist alternative, political demands far more effective than liberal moralising etc. The revolutionary vs reformist issue is harder but obvs you'd have to explain reasons for entryist work in Labour: where working class were, attempt to find audience for Marxist ideas, fight for every concession possible from capitalism while posing revolutionary change and socialism as alternative. But I've never been sure how to deal with the sexist accusation because I don't understand where it comes from - particularly now - I don't see a reason to say "the SP are sexist and the SWP aren't". From the Campaign Against Domestic Violence to the role our young members played in lobbying Parliament against the Nadine Dorries bill, I think our record is alright.


 
I can see you are getting into role here. You persuaded me a bit but can you explain how  Militants strong record of anti sexism led it to print and sell badges with  'Ditch the Bitch' (Thatcher) on. Also  why aren't you building a united front against fascism or was Trotsky wrong on that? If Militant were in the Labour party because the working class were how come you left Labour as a significantly smaller and weaker organisation ?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> No. The Organiser before Strouthous, Lindsey Gregg it was. Expelled by phonecall. The bozo wanted to discuss all sorts of things on the phone one just DOESN'T in a supposed "revolutionery" organisation - especially as I was just about to stand trial with 9 others for the "Rochdale Farrago", and my phone could well have been tapped.


 
I remember Phil Pyatt telling me about it now when I first moved up here.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> have you actually been following all of this? if you have, you have completely misread the entire thing. those aren't the ones stamping their feet. the new members seem to be in the opposition.


 
I've certainly been trying , and sometimes admittedly struggling, to follow it , and keep track of which oppositional grouping is which. If it indeed is this time the newer members who are mainly in the opposition, then there are plenty of ancient ones too that even I recognise in the Opposition listings, and it  would be  a break with all previous IS/SWP purges, where the newer member "blind loyalty" tactic has always been a major weapon in the entrenched CC's opposition-crushing armoury ----and always has been in Stalinoid parties - from Stalins's "Lenin Levy" party enlargement ruse onwards.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I can see you are getting into role here. You persuaded me a bit but can you explain how  Militants strong record of anti sexism led it to print and sell badges with  'Ditch the Bitch' (Thatcher) on. Also  why aren't you building a united front against fascism or was Trotsky wrong on that? If Militant were in the Labour party because the working class were how come you left Labour as a significantly smaller and weaker organisation ?



I had no idea Militant did print those badges, I was 3 when Thatcher was forced out. We certainly do agree with building a united front against Fascism, but UAF is a Popular Front, and there's a difference. As for why we didn't take more people out with us when we left, well we did! Militant was tiny when it began. Of course we would have liked to have taken a really signicant number with us. But the split about whether to leave didn't help, and to be fair there a lot of potential reasons why we didn't.

I don't want to wind up Nigel too much but if you want to discuss it further feel free to i box me


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 14, 2013)

It's sad to see the Left imploding - but truth be told the nut job David Icke can get 6500 folk to part with £65 a head for a 10 hour marathon in Wembley Arena leading up to the conclusion that world is controlled by shape-shifting reptilians - could the combined forces of the 'British Left' compete with that ?  If not why not - these aren't revolutionary times more like end times.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 14, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> It's sad to see the Left imploding - but truth be told the nut job David Icke can get 6500 folk to part with £65 a head for a 10 hour marathon in Wembley Arena leading up to the conclusion that world is controlled by shape-shifting reptilians - could the combined forces of the 'British Left' compete with that ? If not why not - these aren't revolutionary times more like end times.


 
That's not really a helpful way of looking at it I don't think. Anyway these small parties are quite capable of between them stripping a few thousand people of £65 a year, every year, more in some cases.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I had no idea Militant did print those badges, I was 3 when Thatcher was forced out. We certainly do agree with building a united front against Fascism, but UAF is a Popular Front, and there's a difference. As for why we didn't take more people out with us when we left, well we did! Militant was tiny when it began. Of course we would have liked to have taken a really signicant number with us. But the split about whether to leave didn't help, and to be fair there a lot of potential reasons why we didn't.
> 
> I don't want to wind up Nigel too much but if you want to discuss it further feel free to i box me


 
Don't worry about  Nigel , he's  got no jurisdiction over here on the mainland.He is in a separate organisation so he tells us.

No doubt someone with 'explain' the Ditch The Bitch badge at some point. I'm not going to go to a meeting yet but I will occasionally buy a paper off you.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> It's sad to see the Left imploding - but truth be told the nut job David Icke can get 6500 folk to part with £65 a head for a 10 hour marathon in Wembley Arena leading up to the conclusion that world is controlled by shape-shifting reptilians - could the combined forces of the 'British Left' compete with that ? If not why not - these aren't revolutionary times more like end times.


 
To be fair it was good value for £65 quid, me and Spanky had a good day out.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 14, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> If it indeed is this time the newer members who are mainly in the opposition, then there are plenty of ancient ones too that even I recognise in the Opposition listings, and it would be a break with all previous IS/SWP purges, where the newer member "blind loyalty" tactic has always been a major weapon in the entrenched CC's opposition-crushing armoury ----and always has been in Stalinoid parties - from Stalins's "Lenin Levy" party enlargement ruse onwards.


not this time. obviously the oppositions contain various elements but swss members make up a good chunk of it, especially the platform. two swss branches have resigned en masse.


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 14, 2013)

His - David Icke's advantage is he is a one man band with no democratic centralism or sex abuse claims to account for as far as I know. It's this internet thingy that''s a game changer - everything is speeded up now - thoughts morph and evolve at the speed of broadband. I suspect the Deita affair would have been effectively covered up pre-internet - when I was in the SWP back in 70-81 our small group was pretty sexist when a few bevies had gone down. The Women's Voice group refused to meet with us.I remember a meeting at the Surrey University lecturers house when he was reading through the internal bulletin about drinking at meetings and the need for the cadre to remain sober being greeted by boozy jeers. Not sure how typical it was of the SWP at the time but we were very much a creature of the organiser in terms of approach and discipline. It was more of a left wing social club with paper selling and marches than building a sustainable left wing organisation - or that's how it seemd to me as an impressible 19 year old.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

The most unforgivable political decision the SWP ever made was getting rid of the beer break at meetings


----------



## J Ed (Mar 14, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> His - David Icke's advantage is he is a one man band with no democratic centralism or sex abuse claims to account for as far as I know. It's this internet thingy that''s a game changer - everything is speeded up now - thoughts morph and evolve at the speed of broadband. I suspect the Deita affair would have been effectively covered up pre-internet - when I was in the SWP back in 70-81 our small group was pretty sexist when a few bevies had gone down. The Women's Voice group refused to meet with us.I remember a meeting at the Surrey University lecturers house when he was reading through the internal bulletin about drinking at meetings and the need for the cadre to remain sober being greeted by boozy jeers. Not sure how typical it was of the SWP at the time but we were very much a creature of the organiser in terms of approach and discipline. It was more of a left wing social club with paper selling and marches than building a sustainable left wing organisation - or that's how it seemd to me as an impressible 19 year old.


 
IMO if British left-wing groups put half as much effort into social media and creating original content on, for example, youtube as they did into selling a minuscule amount of newspapers to people who are already convinced of the message of those newspapers, they would do a lot better. 

Look at groups that are doing well right now, the entire libertarian movement in the US has had phenomenal success through savvy use of social media.

Stuff like this but tailored to Britain and linked to whatever group produced it would do very well I think


----------



## chilango (Mar 14, 2013)

They've all put plenty of stuff on YouTube etc.

It's just rubbish though.


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 14, 2013)

J Ed said:


> IMO if British left-wing groups put half as much effort into social media and creating original content on, for example, youtube as they did into selling a minuscule amount of newspapers to people who are already convinced of the message of those newspapers, they would do a lot better.
> 
> Look at groups that are doing well right now, the entire libertarian movement in the US has had phenomenal success through savvy use of social media.
> 
> Stuff like this but tailored to Britain and linked to whatever group produced it would do very well I think


 
Bang on the money there.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The most unforgivable political decision the SWP ever made was getting rid of the beer break at meetings


the strangest was possibly when cliff told skinhead party members that they had to grow their hair.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 14, 2013)

chilango said:


> They've all put plenty of stuff on YouTube etc.
> 
> It's just rubbish though.


 
The SWP sit on so much money, can't they pay a few people to come up with something decent? It's almost as if they don't actually care about growing the party and they use things like paper sales as a form of social control...


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 14, 2013)

The SWP channel looks like death by Powerpoint - filmed lengthy lectures given at meetings - like JEd says preaching to the converted.

Such as ..


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

J Ed said:


> The SWP sit on so much money, can't they pay a few people to come up with something decent? It's almost as if they don't actually care about growing the party and they use things like paper sales as a form of social control...


What sort of social control does selling papers deliver?


----------



## chilango (Mar 14, 2013)

It's not even the "professionalism" or otherwise of the stuff.

Look at Counterfire. They appear to be pretty "with it" with a nice looking website, cafe and social media videos etc. spewing everywhere. But it's just so...unappealing.

And that's as much down to the content as to the form.

...and that brings us back to the SWP's latest split. There are absolutely no grounds to suggest that they'll be doing anything differently (apart from maybe not covering for rapists) and thus, frankly, once the dust settles they'll be of precious little interest.

I mean how often do we discuss Bambery's ISG? Or Permanent Revolution?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> What sort of social control does selling papers deliver?


 
Keeps people busy and working alongside party members?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

Is that what social control is ? Hardly 1984


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

chilango said:


> It's not even the "professionalism" or otherwise of the stuff.
> 
> Look at Counterfire. They appear to be pretty "with it" with a nice looking website, cafe and social media videos etc. spewing everywhere. But it's just so...unappealing.
> 
> ...



Where are cockers lot these days?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 14, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Keeps people busy and working alongside party members?


 
This, and as a tool to control the flow of information to the party membership about what the party's upto.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> This, and as a tool to control the flow of information to the party membership about what the party's upto.


 
So the paper sale is actually the only way that members find out what the party is up to? The crafty buggers. This is beginning to get as good as ten hours of David Icke


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 14, 2013)

What they need is a bonfire of their delusions,,


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

chilango said:


> They've all put plenty of stuff on YouTube etc.
> 
> It's just rubbish though.



The French far right group bloc identity do some well produced stuff


----------



## belboid (Mar 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the strangest was possibly when cliff told skinhead party members that they had to grow their hair.


when I had a mohican my branch was split between those who said i should get rid cos it put off ordinary workers, and those who pointed out that that would mean i'd have a skinhead so I better keep it as it was.


----------



## durruti02 (Mar 14, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Party comrades in the 80s used to wipe the floor with everyone else from all the other marxist groups whenever there were discussions. I remember one organisation called 'Proletarian' turning up at Marxism in the late 1980s and they were just chewed up and spat out theoretically by my mates, who were just ordinary SWP members, but their theoretical range and knowledge was awesome. No disrespect to Militant/SP people, but it was the same with them too back in the day. They couldn't hold a candle to the rank and file SWP members in terms of theory (although respect where respect is due - Militant were always in the frontline at Wapping and at other hardcore events of the era. They had genuine roots and respect in the working class. They could genuinely relate to working class people.) This theoretical cutting edge lead to hubris in the SWP and developed a very suspect culture and attitude in the party in the longer run. Without the old guard to temper this crap, it all went Pete Tong by the 1990s. Before you knew it, a whole modus operandi, style of delivery, and outlook took over the party. It had to in a way, because it was a case of battening down the hatches and getting on with the grind. Then neo-liberalism literally ripped up and tore apart the traditional working class and the party didn't have a clue about how to cope with this. It still doesn't, so you get all this Third Worldism/Orientalist crap, which Seymour is going to take with him into whatever new organisation he and China brew up.



not sure I agree with this .. I was around from 77 to 85 and yes education was strong but only in fairly narrow areas. Knowledge of working class politics outside of Trotskyist tradition was poor e.g. of Spanish anarchism, CNT etc they knew they prefered them to the CP but knew nothing of e.g Friends of Durruti and worse at the time the understanding of Italisn Autonomist Marxism, Negri, Della Costa, was abysmal. And knowledge of any non Trot Marxism tbh whether Bookchin, Castoriadis, Pannekoek, Sylvia Pankhurst, or the rest was piss poor. It was embaressing trying to discuss ideas outside of Trotskyism with SWP members back then so I dread to think what it is now ..


----------



## J Ed (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Is that what social control is ? Hardly 1984


 
I'm not at all saying that paper sales exert a worrying level of social control, just that it seems like an arbitrary exercise and a waste of time that would have been gotten rid of if it weren't for the fact that it does give the high ups a means of exerting at least some social control over members.


----------



## past caring (Mar 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> when I had a mohican my branch was split between those who said i should get rid cos it put off ordinary workers, and those who pointed out that that would mean i'd have a skinhead so I better keep it as it was.


 
Whereas anyone sensible would have told you to ditch it cos you looked like a twat.

And the leather strides.


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 14, 2013)

apropos of nothing the Wikipedia entry for SWP in Wordle..


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> and those who pointed out that that would mean i'd have a skinhead so I better keep it as it was.


 
Yet more evidence of the wankers in that organisation....


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I'm not at all saying that paper sales exert a worrying level of social control, just that it seems like an arbitrary exercise and a waste of time that would have been gotten rid of if it weren't for the fact that it does give the high ups a means of exerting at least some social control over members.



So if you were running a political organisation you would just dispense with them?


----------



## belboid (Mar 14, 2013)

past caring said:


> Whereas anyone sensible would have told you to ditch it cos you looked like a twat.
> 
> And the leather strides.


knew you couldnt resist mentioning the strides

You are right tho


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

Too much Julian cope


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 14, 2013)




----------



## past caring (Mar 14, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Yet more evidence of the wankers in that organisation....


 
Too right - if he'd shaved it all off he might have looked like an ugly (and slightly more androgynous) Sinead O'Conner. But a skinhead? - not a chance.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 14, 2013)

AWL have further analysis. Ending with some sort of 'come, update our socialist feminism with us' appeal:




> The AWL is socialist feminist. We draw on Marxist socialism to understand oppressions and how they are interwoven with capitalist exploitation and continually reconfigured by historical development. We take inspiration from much of the work of the Second Wave socialist feminists. Unfortunately, for many reasons, socialist feminism was only able to take theoretical understanding so far.
> 
> The AWL will not have a monopoly on reviving socialist feminism. All we can do is be open minded about the “many feminisms” of today, and critical where necessary. We work with other feminists in concrete campaigns and try to learn from experience. We think we have a lot of work to do to “update” our socialist feminism. The SWP on the other hand does not even recognise what is at stake here, they think only about self-preservation. That is why they will play no part in reviving interest in or developing socialist understandings of oppression.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 14, 2013)

Thing about the AWL is, not one person in the org. has read Capital. Bit of an essential starting point if you are going to form a Marxist group, no?


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 14, 2013)

Fondly remember the Jesuits of the Socialist movement the impossibilists of the SPGB - been going since 1904 ...
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/proposed-spgb-statement-swp-2013


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

The thing about the awl is that no none reads them anyway.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Too much Julian cope


No such thing!


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2013)

Belboid in Trampoline phase leather trousers is


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Don't worry about Nigel , he's got no jurisdiction over here on the mainland.He is in a separate organisation so he tells us.


 
I don't even have jurisdiction over those in my own organisation, I'm sad to report.


----------



## newbie (Mar 14, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


>


let's not get carried away here, this stuff isn't confined to the SWP. 

I've never been a member of either Militant or the Labour Party, but for various reasons I was at both the big Militant national rally at the Albert Hall in the mid 80s and, a few years later, at one of the Kinnock rallies that lost him the '92 election. 

I've no idea why people leave skepticism and decorum at the door when they go to these things, but it's self evident that good organisation and rousing speeches can persuade a fervent audience to behave in the strangest ways.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 14, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Don't worry about Nigel , he's got no jurisdiction over here on the mainland.



Erm ... mainland? Would you say that to someone in Belgium or Denmark say?

During this crisis I considered what my options would be if the Irish SWP failed this test. Fortunately, they didn't, because I really wasn't taken with any of the established alternatives. I did look at the SP and I probably have more respect for them here than most SWP members. But when it comes to the crunch I anticipate the SP baulking at a revolution in Ireland - in a kind of Menshevik way - for several reasons, in particular because of their approach in the north (and I don't want to start a discussion of that topic here, I'm just flagging which issue most alienates me from the SP). So I was looking afresh at the WSM. At least they will go all the way. But they don't strike me as able to adapt anarchism in a non-sectarian way and in a way that builds mass movements. I think they will remain marginal to Irish revolutionary struggles and not even play the kind of role that Victor Serge types played in the Russian revolution. So my prediction is that very few of those leaving the SWP in the UK will move to the SP or the Wobblies, not because they have been brought up to despise mindlessly the other organisations and refuse to read their papers, but because they don't agree with certain important political positions held by these parties.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> in particular because of their approach in the north (and I don't want to start a discussion of that topic here, I'm just flagging which issue most alienates me from the SP).


 
[Taking a hypocritical one sentence break from my on topic joyless puritanism, sorry]

That's a bit cheeky, given that the Irish SWP after wandering all over the place on that question have ended up adopting the essentials of our position on the North!


----------



## rioted (Mar 15, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Party comrades in the 80s used to wipe the floor with everyone else from all the other marxist groups whenever there were discussions.


I'm not a marxist, but remind us of the SWP line on the Poll Tax. The Millies stole the march from you on that one didn't they? Only the biggest working class victory for a generation and you completely misread it. What was it that Cliff said?



Sean Delaney said:


> Thing about the AWL is, not one person in the org. has read Capital.


Not true. Why make up something that ridiculous?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Don't worry about  Nigel , he's  got no jurisdiction over here on the mainland.He is in a separate organisation so he tells us.
> 
> No doubt someone with 'explain' the Ditch The Bitch badge at some point. I'm not going to go to a meeting yet but I will occasionally buy a paper off you.



Out of interest, how do you feel about the "witch" Badges, which are still around now?

Thank you for buying our paper occasionally.  If you went to a meeting you'd have the chance to ask critical questions/make critical points though...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Erm ... mainland? Would you say that to someone in Belgium or Denmark say?
> 
> During this crisis I considered what my options would be if the Irish SWP failed this test. Fortunately, they didn't, because I really wasn't taken with any of the established alternatives. I did look at the SP and I probably have more respect for them here than most SWP members. But when it comes to the crunch I anticipate the SP baulking at a revolution in Ireland - in a kind of Menshevik way - for several reasons, in particular because of their approach in the north (and I don't want to start a discussion of that topic here, I'm just flagging which issue most alienates me from the SP). So I was looking afresh at the WSM. At least they will go all the way. But they don't strike me as able to adapt anarchism in a non-sectarian way and in a way that builds mass movements. I think they will remain marginal to Irish revolutionary struggles and not even play the kind of role that Victor Serge types played in the Russian revolution. So my prediction is that very few of those leaving the SWP in the UK will move to the SP or the Wobblies, not because they have been brought up to despise mindlessly the other organisations and refuse to read their papers, but because they don't agree with certain important political positions held by these parties.


Make yor mind up Oisin. You're playing both ends against each other. And be honest wih the irish SWP and stop fuckimg about. Leave or dont. You were better than this not really sure what i'.m doing bullshit. There is no choice, the SP and WSM are shit. You know it, they know it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Make yor mind up Oisin. You're playing both ends against each other. And be honest wih the irish SWP and stop fuckimg about. Leave or dont. You were better than this not really sure what i'.m doing bullshit. There is no choice, the SP and WSM are shit. You know it, they know it.



There is no choice but to remain in the SWP? Can we have some of what you're smoking please?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> How would you convince potential recruits that you are not 'openly reformist, sexist and uninterested in anti-fascist work' ?


They shouldn't have much problem showing they are not sexist and that "anti-fascist work" is not the most pressing issue, but they'd fail on not being "openly reformist", eg

http://www.scribd.com/doc/125311046/TUSC-leaflet-for-Maltby-Town-Council-Election


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 15, 2013)

As for the AWL's inability to critique political economy (i.e., having a functioning org. with a grasp of a critique of political economy)

Can you point to anywhere they have actually done this?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't even have jurisdiction over those in my own organisation, I'm sad to report.


 
Turning into Cockneyrebel


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 15, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> They shouldn't have much problem showing they are not sexist and that "anti-fascist work" is not the most pressing issue, but they'd fail on not being "openly reformist", eg
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/125311046/TUSC-leaflet-for-Maltby-Town-Council-Election



Ha Ha, very funny. But I was involved in that election so I know you've cut a 4 page leaflet down to one page, conveniently missing out the anti cuts/new workers party/socialist stuff. Of course for people like you who deal purely in whimsical abstract, I guess it would be openly reformist to put anything short of Abolish Money Now!!! on a town council leaflet.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Turning into Cockneyrebel


 
I'm willing to put up with a lot of things, but sometimes people can go too far.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Ha Ha, very funny. But I was involved in that election so I know you've cut a 4 page leaflet down to one page, conveniently missing out the anti cuts/new workers party/socialist stuff. Of course for people like you who deal purely in whimsical abstract, I guess it would be openly reformist to put anything short of Abolish Money Now!!! on a town council leaflet.


 
Looks fair enough leaflet to me - the sort of information I'd say that you want to put over to people. Is Jean-Luc's criticism that it didn't talk about jack-booted fascism or the 3rd International Comitern?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Ha Ha, very funny. But I was involved in that election so I know you've cut a 4 page leaflet down to one page, conveniently missing out the anti cuts/new workers party/socialist stuff. Of course for people like you who deal purely in whimsical abstract, I guess it would be openly reformist to put anything short of Abolish Money Now!!! on a town council leaflet.


 
Abolish money now via passing a bill in the houses of parliament.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 15, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Looks fair enough leaflet to me - the sort of information I'd say that you want to put over to people. Is Jean-Luc's criticism that it didn't talk about jack-booted fascism or the 3rd International Comitern?


 
Jean Luc's criticism is as useless as his 'the personal isn't political' gem and as sneering as his lynch mob accusations (still no sign of an apology). He's now added misrepresentation - only linking to half the leaflet is a pretty cheap shot - but maybe that's where a century of irrelevance and the hostility clause get you.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2013)

Can't we start with a transitional demand? I dunno like abolishing fivers or something?


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Abolish money now via passing a bill in the houses of parliament.


via the enabling act...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Looks fair enough leaflet to me - the sort of information I'd say that you want to put over to people. Is Jean-Luc's criticism that it didn't talk about jack-booted fascism or the 3rd International Comitern?


 
It was good enough to win the election anyway.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 15, 2013)

chilango said:


> Can't we start with a transitional demand? I dunno like abolishing fivers or something?


 

what ever happened to the sliding scale?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm willing to put up with a lot of things, but sometimes people can go too far.


 
I always smiled at WP's view that they were sharing the top table in the call for the new workers party with your lot.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 15, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Yeah the 80s were hard for a lot of people, but they were great days too. The quality of the membership of the SWP was gold standard back then. So many comrades I remember were as hard as nails - they had this gut reaction to things. By the 1990s most of them had dropped out and the cult quality was creeping in - I remember someone telling me that 'if you get chosen to work fulltime for the party its an incredible honour' without the slightest whiff of irony. In previous times, comrades would have laughed like drains at such hack nonsense. A healthy disrespect for the fulltimers was par for the course - you really had to earn your stripes and there was none of this 'leading comrade' crap. Lenin didn't do or say much that was useful, but one quote of his worth repeating is that in the revolutionary party 'there is no rank and file.'


 
This and your later assertions about the theoretical supremacy of SWP members in the 1980's is interesting as a example of the ability to look at an organisation in an era and see exactly opposite things. Now OK I, and the the other "Squadists" were all expelled by early 1982. But my contacts with SWP members during the 80's left a vivid constant impression simply of extreme inward looking organisational arrogance and sectarianism -( equalled only by my unfruitful contacts with Militant members in Liverpool) - not "ideological mastery" or "hard as nailishness". I certainly found anarchists and non aligned people much easier to work with on a range of issues, particularly anti fascist work, in the 1980's. In fact by the early 1980's onwards I think any objective analysis of the SWP would be that its brief "moment in the historical sun" was well over . The SWP's (as IS) "historical moment" was exclusively in the 1970's , alongside and feeding off the unprecedented industrial and political militancy of the time. The extraordinary industrial/political militancy of the anti-Heath years died away soon after the Wilson government took office in 1974 with its Social Contract bollocks - and IS , I think, really started dying with it - massively aided by Tony Cliff's ridiculously premature, self-destructive "Downturn" theory (which he even tried to impose on sister organisations overseas despite their very different domestic political situations - it was as if Cliff started suffering from personal depression issues after the decline of the often thrilling militancy during the Heath years , so the rest of the world had to follow suit !). The massively successful 1977 to 1980 main ANL Mk I period gave a brief period of continued dynamism, recruitment, and mass impact to SWP work - but it was always seen as a short term "stunt" by Cliff - and indeed couldn't compensate for the collapse of working class industrial struggle.

I would argue that for the rest of its entire lifespan the SWP has been essentially a slowly failing political cult of the WRP type. In the context of the era of neoliberal hegemony the only real priority for Cliff and the CC was organisational survival.- which often produced bizarre tactical decisions - such as the effective abstention of the SWP during one of the most historically significant strikes of the entire postwar era, the 84/85 Miners strike. So what "triumphs" can the SWP point to since the ANL Mk I, way back in the 70's ? None I would argue. I absolutely dismiss the Stop the War mobilisations as any sort of coherent Left political triumph, as, despite the huge numbers put on the streets, (and buckets of cash collected of course !) it was so completely compromised by the dreadful unprincipled political alliances made to sustain it , and the SWP was so unprincipled during this campaign as to call into question anybody in the SWP at the time's "political compass"..


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 15, 2013)

"creeping anarchism"


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Ha Ha, very funny. But I was involved in that election so I know you've cut a 4 page leaflet down to one page, conveniently missing out the anti cuts/new workers party/socialist stuff. Of course for people like you who deal purely in whimsical abstract, I guess it would be openly reformist to put anything short of Abolish Money Now!!! on a town council leaflet.


I think you forgot to scroll down. As to what would be a revolutionary local election leaflet see here.


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> As to what would be a revolutionary local election leaflet see here.


Capitalism's bad. m'kay.....


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 15, 2013)

Time for a TRB revival - massively underated IMHO - wore out Power In the Darkness as did most of my contemporaries - not sure whether he was in the SWP or not he was a staple of RAR 79 -81


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I think you forgot to scroll down. As to what would be a revolutionary local election leaflet see here.


 
Looks great! What is the councilor who clearly must have been elected on the back of that getting up to in the chambers?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> "creeping anarchism"
> 
> 
> View attachment 30197


 
TBH that's a lot better than some of the other logos they're producing. They seem to be obsessed with the Red Army Faction - there's a few of them who've replaced 'RAF' with 'international socialist network' on the star/ak logo. Hint to a would be new revolutionary group: adopting the logo of a terrorist group that killed workers probably isn't a good move, even if the logo does look cool as fuck.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2013)

er...just to check, that black flag one isn't real is it?


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> TBH that's a lot better than some of the other logos they're producing. They seem to be obsessed with the Red Army Faction - there's a few of them who've replaced 'RAF' with 'international socialist network' on the star/ak logo. Hint to a would be new revolutionary group: adopting the logo of a terrorist group that killed workers probably isn't a good move, even if the logo does look cool as fuck.


 
I haven't seen the 'RAF' one. I don't mind their version of the Black Flag logo. I was just chuffed to bits that someone as ancient as me spotted the reference. It means I don't have to reach for my Daniel O'Donnell cds just yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2013)

Wow, it is real then!


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> er...just to check, that black flag one isn't real is it?


 
No idea. Andy Wilson posted it on Facebook, and as he's the mastermind behind this whole split I took it as bona fide.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 15, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> This and your later assertions about the theoretical supremacy of SWP members in the 1980's is interesting as a example of the ability to look at an organisation in an era and see exactly opposite things. Now OK I, and the the other "Squadists" were all expelled by early 1982. But my contacts with SWP members during the 80's left a vivid constant impression simply of extreme inward looking organisational arrogance and sectarianism -( equalled only by my unfruitful contacts with Militant members in Liverpool) - not "ideological mastery" or "hard as nailishness". I certainly found anarchists and non aligned people much easier to work with on a range of issues, particularly anti fascist work, in the 1980's. In fact by the early 1980's onwards I think any objective analysis of the SWP would be that its brief "moment in the historical sun" was well over . The SWP's (as IS) "historical moment" was exclusively in the 1970's , alongside and feeding off the unprecedented industrial and political militancy of the time. The extraordinary industrial/political militancy of the anti-Heath years died away soon after the Wilson government took office in 1974 with its Social Contract bollocks - and IS , I think, really started dying with it - massively aided by Tony Cliff's ridiculously premature, self-destructive "Downturn" theory (which he even tried to impose on sister organisations overseas despite their very different domestic political situations - it was as if Cliff started suffering from personal depression issues after the decline of the often thrilling militancy during the Heath years , so the rest of the world had to follow suit !). The massively successful 1977 to 1980 main ANL Mk I period gave a brief period of continued dynamism, recruitment, and mass impact to SWP work - but it was always seen as a short term "stunt" by Cliff - and indeed couldn't compensate for the collapse of working class industrial struggle.
> 
> I would argue that for the rest of its entire lifespan the SWP has been essentially a slowly failing political cult of the WRP type. In the context of the era of neoliberal hegemony the only real priority for Cliff and the CC was organisational survival.- which often produced bizarre tactical decisions - such as the effective abstention of the SWP during one of the most historically significant strikes of the entire postwar era, the 84/85 Miners strike. So what "triumphs" can the SWP point to since the ANL Mk I, way back in the 70's ? None I would argue. I absolutely dismiss the Stop the War mobilisations as any sort of coherent Left political triumph, as, despite the huge numbers put on the streets, (and buckets of cash collected of course !) it was so completely compromised by the dreadful unprincipled political alliances made to sustain it , and the SWP was so unprincipled during this campaign as to call into question anybody in the SWP at the time's "political compass"..


I was a party member from 1985- 2003, I remember how, within our branch meetings, and Marxisms, we impressed ourselves with our intellectual and theoretical sophistication, and failed entirely to notice that the world around us was changing, and the audience willing to listen was shrinking. I was never instructed not to read non party literature, but it was considered unhealthy, ( the aggression and antipathy which was displayed toward the small groups outside Marxism was well beyond their threat to to the SWP, and displayed a closed mind attitude), and it is noticeable how I self censored my reading, and never strayed beyond leninisms.
 I remember being at a Marxism I think in the early 1990s, and cliff declaring that everyone over 30 was 'rubbish'; in a mass rally full of comrades who had struggled and sacrificed through the dark days of the 1980s, and were at last being offered the chance that a new decade might finally give us some reward, some victories after so many defeats, here was our leader telling us that WE were the impediment preventing the SWP from succeeding!
And yet, did anyone protest? I was pissed off and looked around the hall, and all of these same people were laughing and applauding and shouting their agreement.
I remained a party member for another ten years, but that moment, when Cliff stood and insulted virtually his entire party, and they lapped it up, has stuck with me ever since.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, it is real then!


 
I don't think any of them are 'official' - it's just logos students have made and posted on facebook AFAIK


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 15, 2013)

Y


----------



## two sheds (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It was good enough to win the election anyway.


 
Did it stop the hospital cuts?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 15, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Now OK I, and the the other "Squadists" were all expelled by early 1982.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 15, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Jean Luc's criticism is as useless as his 'the personal isn't political' gem and as sneering as his lynch mob accusations (still no sign of an apology). He's now added misrepresentation - only linking to half the leaflet is a pretty cheap shot - but maybe that's where a century of irrelevance and the hostility clause get you. Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I see you are quick to condemn someone without bothering to check the evidence. So here's the link again (which was provided by a SPEW member on another thread):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/125311046/TUSC-leaflet-for-Maltby-Town-Council-Election

Scroll down for the back pages and TUSC/Tory cuts (and the bowling green and tennis court) stuff.

No apology required.

As to the other business, I see a photo of one of the accused has appeared here. I'm just waiting for someone to publish his address. Anyway, I didn't have you in mind as your posts are generally so abstract and airy-fairy that it's not possible to grasp the point you are trying to make. You'd have thought a poet could do better.

On whether or not the personal is political, where do you draw the line? I think that SWP disciplinary committee report also dealt with somebody for brawling in a night club and other contributors here have reminisced about their policy on hairstyles. Is a person's hairstyle personal or political?


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> TBH that's a lot better than some of the other logos they're producing. They seem to be obsessed with the Red Army Faction - there's a few of them who've replaced 'RAF' with 'international socialist network' on the star/ak logo. Hint to a would be new revolutionary group: adopting the logo of a terrorist group that killed workers probably isn't a good move, even if the logo does look cool as fuck.



Way back I did an Earth First! Version of the RAF logo. EF! And a monkey wrench on a green star. It did indeed look cool as fuck. For pretty obvious reasons we never used it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> But what exactly are "impeccable proletarian credentials" ? What do they depend upon ?


 
Speaking with a proletarian accent; being a fan of "the peoples' music" (jazz); wearing sportswear "like the proletarians do"; being a beer-swilling sexist (like all proletarian males are).
I hope that has set your mind at rest, comrade.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> or the Association of Musical Marxists


 
Dig that funky bear playing the vibes, maaaan!"


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Speaking with a proletarian accent; being a fan of "the peoples' music" (jazz); wearing sportswear "like the proletarians do"; being a beer-swilling sexist (like all proletarian males are).
> I hope that has set your mind at rest, comrade.


 
No football though. In a socialist society the days when 22 men kicked a ball around a pitch will be gone.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2013)

Interesting to see how many (if any) SWP go on the bedroom tax protests tmw and what reception they get if they do.


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> No football though. In a socialist society the days when 22 men kicked a ball around a pitch will be gone.


Quite right, it'll be 22 men _and women_.  And they'll still be able to play football, its just that every match must end in a draw.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Hocus Eye has a bit of a point about us getting off topic here again.


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting to see how many (if any) SWP go on the bedroom tax protests tmw and what reception they get if they do.


Lots will, matter of principle.  And they'll be largely ignored.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> Lots will, matter of principle. And they'll be largely ignored.


Not sure myself, given that most of the people here have left anyway - london or brum might be a different picture.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> You can laugh, but personally I'm grateful that some our members have no lives - they're not great at recruitment, speeches or political education but they'll leaflet a housing estate like nobodies business. Leaving me free to waste my time on the internet...
> 
> At the risk of "talking SP shop", has anyone come across a single ex-SWoP that is considering joining the SP? A few Wobbly mates of mine are convinced all this will mean lots of them "flock to us" (their term not mine). I'm sceptical - SWoP training 101 seems to include convincing new recruits that the SP is openly reformist, sexist and uninterested in anti-fascist work. In fact in all the stuff that's been written about this, I don't think anyone I've come across has suggested that joining the SP might be an option for some leaving the SWP. Am I being unneccessarily pessimistic in assuming not a single one of them would want to join us? Thoughts please - particularly from ex or current SWP members.


Im inclined to.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think the 'drop out' scenario is unfortunately most likely for a lot of them - as has been the case for the vast majority of people leaving the SWP for the last 20 years.


 and every other organisation/political etc?

Having said that, I met plenty of ex- anarchists in SWP.   LOL


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 15, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I was a party member from 1985- 2003, I remember how, within our branch meetings, and Marxisms, we impressed ourselves with our intellectual and theoretical sophistication, and failed entirely to notice that the world around us was changing, and the audience willing to listen was shrinking. I was never instructed not to read non party literature, but it was considered unhealthy, ( the aggression and antipathy which was displayed toward the small groups outside Marxism was well beyond their threat to to the SWP, and displayed a closed mind attitude), and it is noticeable how I self censored my reading, and never strayed beyond leninisms.
> I remember being at a Marxism I think in the early 1990s, and cliff declaring that everyone over 30 was 'rubbish'; in a mass rally full of comrades who had struggled and sacrificed through the dark days of the 1980s, and were at last being offered the chance that a new decade might finally give us some reward, some victories after so many defeats, here was our leader telling us that WE were the impediment preventing the SWP from succeeding!
> And yet, did anyone protest? I was pissed off and looked around the hall, and all of these same people were laughing and applauding and shouting their agreement.
> I remained a party member for another ten years, but that moment, when Cliff stood and insulted virtually his entire party, and they lapped it up, has stuck with me ever since.


 
Good to see you don't bear a grudge though


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 15, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Is Jean-Luc's criticism that it didn't talk about jack-booted fascism or the 3rd International Comitern?


No, it's that it didn't mention even mention capitalism, let alone the need to get rid of it and replace it by socialism (not even as they define it). It just blamed the Tories. Openly reformist Old Labour stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> It's sad to see the Left imploding - but truth be told the nut job David Icke can get 6500 folk to part with £65 a head for a 10 hour marathon in Wembley Arena leading up to the conclusion that world is controlled by shape-shifting reptilians - could the combined forces of the 'British Left' compete with that ? If not why not - these aren't revolutionary times more like end times.


 
The left has been in a constant state of implosion as long as I can remember (40 years of being politically-aware), and I'd hazard the opinion that while it might be destructive, it's also creative in a way that modes of conservatism and rightism have not been (and haven't needed to be since they jumped on the neo-liberal bandwagon).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 15, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I see you are quick to condemn someone without bothering to check the evidence. So here's the link again (which was provided by a SPEW member on another thread):
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/125311046/TUSC-leaflet-for-Maltby-Town-Council-Election
> 
> ...


 
Apologies for the misrepresentation jibe (see it's that easy to do).

It is a shame that you can't be as straight forward regarding your lynch mob rubbish.

It's even more of a shame that you can't see the bloody obvious line, painted in glowing luminous orange which would alert any observant person to the fact that at times the personal is political; therefore it's just plain stupid to state the opposite.

Perhaps your regrettable attempt to draw a comparison between a hair cut and rape allegation is blurring your vision?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Where are cockers lot these days?


 
Workers' Power?
They sent me a charming e-mail a few days ago, thanking me for correcting their use of the phrase "the disabled".


----------



## cesare (Mar 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Workers' Power?
> They sent me a charming e-mail a few days ago, thanking me for correcting their use of the phrase "the disabled".


I rather like that, that they can be bothered


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Thing about the AWL is, not one person in the org. has read Capital. Bit of an essential starting point if you are going to form a Marxist group, no?


 
Surely the don't need dusty old Marx when they have the Great Prophet Matgamma?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> I rather like that, that they can be bothered


 
Yep, I was tickled about that, too!


----------



## emanymton (Mar 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting to see how many (if any) SWP go on the bedroom tax protests tmw and what reception they get if they do.


They are pushing it hugely localy I did find it quite amusing a couple of weeks ago when a real hack offered up being told to start orginsing around the bedroom tax as an example of how important the leadership of the CC is. I didn't bother to point out that as a so called socialist you shouldn't really need to be told, you should just be doing it.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2013)

while i think the SP are a bit reformist and this is one of the problems/disagreements I've got, I think the SP being accused of reformism by a member of an organisation who thinks that you can get socialism just by voting it through parliament is quite amusing tbh


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure myself, given that most of the people here have left anyway - london or brum might be a different picture.


 
I think the ISN types will try and be nice to most of them - as they still will see some of those who have remained in the party, even "loyalists" as potential recruits.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Out of interest, how do you feel about the "witch" Badges, which are still around now?


 
Totally insulting to witches.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 15, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I was a party member from 1985- 2003, I remember how, within our branch meetings, and Marxisms, we impressed ourselves with our intellectual and theoretical sophistication, and failed entirely to notice that the world around us was changing, and the audience willing to listen was shrinking. I was never instructed not to read non party literature, but it was considered unhealthy, ( the aggression and antipathy which was displayed toward the small groups outside Marxism was well beyond their threat to to the SWP, and displayed a closed mind attitude), and it is noticeable how I self censored my reading, and never strayed beyond leninisms.
> I remember being at a Marxism I think in the early 1990s, and cliff declaring that everyone over 30 was 'rubbish'; in a mass rally full of comrades who had struggled and sacrificed through the dark days of the 1980s, and were at last being offered the chance that a new decade might finally give us some reward, some victories after so many defeats, here was our leader telling us that WE were the impediment preventing the SWP from succeeding!
> And yet, did anyone protest? I was pissed off and looked around the hall, and all of these same people were laughing and applauding and shouting their agreement.
> I remained a party member for another ten years, but that moment, when Cliff stood and insulted virtually his entire party, and they lapped it up, has stuck with me ever since.


 
18 fucking years ! Blimey barney pig, you certainly put the time in .. and weren't purged during all that time ?  Did you just leave  ?  And the ENTIRE period you were in was a period of massive working class defeat,or at least retreat,  pretty much worldwide. Poor sod. In the early 70's when I joined,every week seemed to bring up another mass strike or political strike in the UK , and in Portugal in 74 they even seemed on the brink of a socialist revolution ! And the IS (from nothing of course - the old percentage increase illusion) appeared to be entering a period of unlimited growth ( I remember Wendy Henry, eventually to be editor of the Sun, in a casual pub conversation, calculating that at the then  early 70's rate of of exponential growth we'd have a million members in a few years and could seize POWER ! )  Delusional, yep... but motivating ? Not half !


----------



## treelover (Mar 15, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> 18 fucking years ! Blimey barney pig, you certainly put the time in .. and weren't purged during all that time ? Did you just leave ? And the ENTIRE period you were in was a period of massive working class defeat,or at least retreat, pretty much worldwide. Poor sod. In the early 70's when I joined,every week seemed to bring up another mass strike or political strike in the UK , and in Portugal in 74 they even seemed on the brink of a socialist revolution ! And the IS (from nothing of course - the old percentage increase illusion) appeared to be entering a period of unlimited growth ( *I remember Wendy Henry, eventually to be editor of the Sun*, in a casual pub conversation, calculating that at the then early 70's rate of of exponential growth we'd have a million members in a few years and could seize POWER ! ) Delusional, yep... but motivating ? Not half !


 

But doesn't that say everything about these sort of groups, or just some of the people who join them...

I can proudly say i have never joined the SWP and indeed have spent my political life in the past attempting to counteract their baleful consequences of much of their actions, sometimes at personal cost...


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> while i think the SP are a bit reformist and this is one of the problems/disagreements I've got, I think the SP being accused of reformism by a member of an organisation who thinks that you can get socialism just by voting it through parliament is quite amusing tbh


I don't think you can get socialism "just" by voting it through parliament. It requires a lot more than that, including mass organisation outside of parliament in workplaces and communities. Anyway, as SPEW contests elections to parliament presumably they too see a role for it in changing society to what they want, eg an Enabling Act to nationalise the top 200 companies. Or are they committed to armed insurrection and street battles as the way?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 15, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, it's that it didn't mention even mention capitalism, let alone the need to get rid of it and replace it by socialism (not even as they define it). It just blamed the Tories. Openly reformist Old Labour stuff.


 
Funny how these things work. I read through the leaflet you gave in response, and the word that jarred with me was 'capitalist' as in 'This capitalist system is in an economic crisis'. I think it just puts people-in-the-street off.  ("You're fooling yourself. We're livin' in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy, in which the working class--" "Oh, there you go, bringing class into it again--"). 

What's wrong with just 'The system is in an economic crisis"? It's more direct, and you don't sound like axe grinding. I think that's a basic mistake that the left makes - throwing in the multisyllabic buzz words that they think will resonate with people but actually don't - that the right definitely doesn't make.

And as for replacing capitalism by socialism then it depends what you mean by socialism. The effect that Stalin has had on popular consciousness I'm not sure that just rooting for socialism is going to help.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Did it stop the hospital cuts?


Yes. Maltby is now a people's republic 8)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> and every other organisation/political etc?
> 
> Having said that, I met plenty of ex- anarchists in SWP.   LOL




You know that theres a difference between anarchism and not listening to your mum when she tells you to tidy your room, right? [/quote]


----------



## two sheds (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You know that theres a difference between anarchism and not listening to your mum when she tells you to tidy your room, right?


 
ooo i know this one - the second one's anarchy isn't it


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

Although to be fair, if the ones at Sheffield uni are anything to go on, there's plenty of anarchists who don't get this subtle distinction either.


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 15, 2013)

Some wise words from Peter Tatchell in How Masculinity Undermines Left Politics

http://www.petertatchell.net/masculinity/masculinisation.htm

_It is also evident in the way much of the self-proclaimed vanguardist Left makes a particular virtue of its commitment to tough policies, no compromises, confrontation tactics and the glorification of the armed struggle. To them, being tolerant or conciliatory is an inherent sign of weakness and can never be countenanced. Those who deviate from the correct line - however slightly or sincerely are ferociously denounced as traitors and sell-outs._
_Even worse, some on the revolutionary Left extol this masculinisation of socialism as a litmus test to distinguish themselves as true socialists from others whom they dismiss as mere liberals and reformists. For these people, toughness has been elevated into a tenet of socialist commitment._


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 15, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Funny how these things work. I read through the leaflet you gave in response, and the word that jarred with me was 'capitalist' as in 'This capitalist system is in an economic crisis'. I think it just puts people-in-the-street off.  ("You're fooling yourself. We're livin' in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy, in which the working class--" "Oh, there you go, bringing class into it again--").


Fair point but since the Occupy movement of a year or so ago the word "capitalism" has come back into a more general usage, by supporters as well as critics and even by people in the street (and the man on the Clapham Omnibus). Maybe "the profit system" would have been better, but the Maltby leaflet didn't even mention this or the economic system at all, only with some of its effects treated in isolation from the system..



two sheds said:


> What's wrong with just 'The system is in an economic crisis"? It's more direct, and you don't sound like axe grinding. I think that's a basic mistake that the left makes - throwing in the multisyllabic buzz words that they think will resonate with people but actually don't - that the right definitely doesn't make.


Nothing wrong with that. The point the leaflet was trying to make was that it's the economic system that's to blame for current problems, not the politicians who try or want to run it. They're the monkeys, not the organ-grinder. The Maltby leaflet didn't blame the economic system but merely one set of politicians (the Tories).



two sheds said:


> And as for replacing capitalism by socialism then it depends what you mean by socialism. The effect that Stalin has had on popular consciousness I'm not sure that just rooting for socialism is going to help.


Yes, the association of the word with state-capitalist Russia does cause problems, so you do always need to define what you mean by it. Which the leaflet did: a society where productive resources are owned in common, under democratic control, so that they can be used to produce to meet people's needs and not for profit and where the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" applies.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You know that theres a difference between anarchism and not listening to your mum when she tells you to tidy your room, right?


 mummy never tells me to tidy my room, no need to I am a mumbot.


Still a fact though.  Lots.  I remember at a district wide educational, as a joke the organiser fixed it so one of the latest recruits, an anarchist, got the question on Kronstadt. Oh how we laughed.

PS. you're in trouble now.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Although to be fair, if the ones at Sheffield uni are anything to go on, there's plenty of anarchists who don't get this subtle distinction either.


 so what's an anarchist them?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> Some wise words from Peter Tatchell in How Masculinity Undermines Left Politics
> 
> http://www.petertatchell.net/masculinity/masculinisation.htm
> 
> ...


What a pile of shit. He's clearly never met Sheila McGregor, Julie Waterson or any number of other hard as nails women comrades in the swp. How dare he suggest they're being 'masculine' for not suffering fools. That doesn't mark them out as less or more feminine, it's just a trait of many revolutionaries.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Fair point but since the Occupy movement of a year or so ago the word "capitalism" has come back into a more general usage, by supporters as well as critics and even by people in the street (and the man on the Clapham Omnibus). Maybe "the profit system" would have been better, but the Maltby leaflet didn't even mention this or the economic system at all, only with some of its effects treated in isolation from the system..
> 
> Nothing wrong with that. The point the leaflet was trying to make was that it's the economic system that's to blame for current problems, not the politicians who try or want to run it. They're the monkeys, not the organ-grinder. The Maltby leaflet didn't blame the economic system but merely one set of politicians (the Tories).
> 
> Yes, the association of the word with state-capitalist Russia does cause problems, so you do always need to define what you mean by it. Which the leaflet did: a society where productive resources are owned in common, under democratic control, so that they can be used to produce to meet people's needs and not for profit and where the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" applies.


 I don't really share two shed's objections capitalism, socialism, class.  But I wouldn't really object to replacing socialism and communism/anarchism with the plain word democracy.  In some ways it kind of encapsulating what we are about, in a more accessible fashion.  However,,,,,,,,,,,,, [next Post]


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What a pile of shit. He's clearly never met Sheila McGregor, Julie Waterson or any number of other hard as nails women comrades in the swp. How dare he suggest they're being 'masculine' for not suffering fools. That doesn't mark them out as less or more feminine, it's just a trait of many revolutionaries.


 
This post is the perfect illustration of an SWP understanding of feminism, masculinity, and women's liberation


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Funny how these things work. I read through the leaflet you gave in response, and the word that jarred with me was 'capitalist' as in 'This capitalist system is in an economic crisis'. I think it just puts people-in-the-street off.  ("You're fooling yourself. We're livin' in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy, in which the working class--" "Oh, there you go, bringing class into it again--").
> 
> What's wrong with just 'The system is in an economic crisis"? It's more direct, and you don't sound like axe grinding. I think that's a basic mistake that the left makes - throwing in the multisyllabic buzz words that they think will resonate with people but actually don't - that the right definitely doesn't make.
> 
> And as for replacing capitalism by socialism then it depends what you mean by socialism. The effect that Stalin has had on popular consciousness I'm not sure that just rooting for socialism is going to help.


 I really really appreciate what you're trying to do, but I'm not sure dumbing down, so to speak, is a solution.

One of the reasons, just one of the reasons, people vote BNP is because it is a two fingers to the system  [in the  eyes of the people I have spoke to].
Now don't get me wrong, I was a wholehearted supporter of the SWP 'pandering' or dumbing down of the socialist Alliance material, to take on a shade of old Labour.  Basically a reformist position.  But my experience was, this had very little resonance with people.  Mimicking the reformists has been tried by revolutionaries over and over, and it hasn't really worked out it?
If I was going to have anything do with an election, think I would much rather be openly revolutionary, than hide it behind any transitionary demands.

PS.  Got to say my experience with elections was awful.  Bloody awful.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> This post is the perfect illustration of an SWP understanding of feminism, masculinity, and women's liberation


 why?


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Speaking with a proletarian accent; being a fan of "the peoples' music" (jazz); wearing sportswear "like the proletarians do"; being a beer-swilling sexist (like all proletarian males are).
> I hope that has set your mind at rest, comrade.





So these so called "credentials" are based upon fairly superficial things then ? Plus a hefty dose of stereotype.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> why?


Presumably cause not going along with stereotypes about nurturing women an aggressive men marks me out as a sexist!


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> and every other organisation/political etc?
> 
> Having said that, I met plenty of ex- anarchists in SWP.   LOL



Me too. But I think I've met more anarchists who are ex-swp.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> This post is the perfect illustration of an SWP understanding of feminism, masculinity, and women's liberation


 look at the SWP's track record. In the socialist Alliance they bent over backwards to accommodate the 'reformist' working class, in the material and composition of the socialist Alliance, in order to attract them into the socialist Alliance. And what happened, fuck all. The same again in Respect, bent over backwards. The UAF, the same.

The SWP has always been accused of selling out, precisely because they have been being tolerant or conciliatory [let me be clear here. They weren't tolerant and conciliatory to everyone. Not to fellow revolutionaries. They kept their tolerance and conciliatory actions, in fact their complete concentration was always focused on the working class. The reformist working class. Whether this was right or wrong is another issue. Whether this was a correct definition of the English working class, is another issue. But they were always tolerance and conciliatory to non-revolutionaries amongst who they considered were the English working class.)

The only reason Vanguard party's support the armed revolution, is because it is most likely going to be necessary. If we could shag the ruling class into submission, what the heck, I'd even do Boris Johnson


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Me too. But I think I've met more anarchists who are ex-swp.


 you're probably right mate.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> His impeccable proletarian credentials?
> I mean, obviously they're not *actually* impeccable by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly more so than some of his contemporaries on the CC.


 you mean like Marx and Engels.  Workerist.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 15, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I don't think you can get socialism "just" by voting it through parliament. It requires a lot more than that, including mass organisation outside of parliament in workplaces and communities. Anyway, as SPEW contests elections to parliament presumably they too see a role for it in changing society to what they want, eg an Enabling Act to nationalise the top 200 companies. Or are they committed to armed insurrection and street battles as the way?


 
If you think the capitalist class (yep them, the ones who actually do  own and control  the means of production and exchange , not the Jews, the illuminati, the lizard creatures from the Planet Zog)  will allow a mere  Parliamentary majority to expropriate their centuries of wealth and power from them - even with maybe  "mass organisation" outside of Parliament in workplaces  and communities as a "back up" , without trying to drown us all in blood via economic sabotage, fascism and/or a military coup, then I'd say you haven't been paying attention during history classes !

  Sadly, defensive  armed struggle and street battles will undoubtedly be required by the working class simply to defend any majority decision of the population expressed through "democratic" institutions to radically transform the economic and social status quo - in any country at all where this is attempted.  For  socialists committed to genuine root and branch social transformation (ie, expropriating the current ruling class of their wealth and entirely self-serving control - rather than Labourist reformist tinkering ) Parliamentary struggle is indeed a necessary part of the much wider socio economic  struggle, but cannot be viewed as invalidating the harsh reality of absolutely guaranteed  ruling class violent resistance to this expropriation.

Name me a single  country  where this has not been so ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 15, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> If you think the capitalist class (yep them, the ones who actually do own and control the means of production and exchange , not the Jews, the illuminati, the lizard creatures from the Planet Zog) will allow a mere Parliamentary majority to expropriate their centuries of wealth and power from them - even with maybe "mass organisation" outside of Parliament in workplaces and communities as a "back up" , without trying to drown us all in blood via economic sabotage, fascism and/or a military coup, then I'd say you haven't been paying attention during history classes !
> 
> Sadly, defensive armed struggle and street battles will undoubtedly be required by the working class simply to defend any majority decision of the population expressed through "democratic" institutions to radically transform the economic and social status quo - in any country at all where this is attempted. For socialists committed to genuine root and branch social transformation (ie, expropriating the current ruling class of their wealth and entirely self-serving control - rather than Labourist reformist tinkering ) Parliamentary struggle is indeed a necessary part of the much wider socio economic struggle, but cannot be viewed as invalidating the harsh reality of absolutely guaranteed ruling class violent resistance to this expropriation.
> 
> Name me a single country where this has not been so ?


utopia


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 15, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Jean Luc's criticism is as useless as his 'the personal isn't political' gem and as sneering as his lynch mob accusations (still no sign of an apology). He's now added misrepresentation - only linking to half the leaflet is a pretty cheap shot - but maybe that's where a century of irrelevance and the hostility clause get you.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
I wonder will the SWP look like the SPGB in 100 years time?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What a pile of shit. He's clearly never met Sheila McGregor, Julie Waterson or any number of other hard as nails women comrades in the swp. How dare he suggest they're being 'masculine' for not suffering fools. That doesn't mark them out as less or more feminine, it's just a trait of many revolutionaries.


 
It's funny, this reminds me that Trotsky himself used the argument that Kollantai was too soft to understand hard political choices like NEP


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> This post is the perfect illustration of an SWP understanding of feminism, masculinity, and women's liberation


It _is_ a shit piece tho.  Tired gender stereotypes dont become suddenly correct just because they're made by a gay man.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I wonder will the SWP look like the SPGB in 100 years time?


They and all the other groups do already, except that their members are ten years younger.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> It's funny, this reminds me that Trotsky himself used the argument that Kollantai was too soft to understand hard political choices like NEP


 you remind me of Morrisey waving his flowers


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> It _is_ a shit piece tho. Tired gender stereotypes dont become suddenly correct just because they're made by a gay man.


 
I was rather taken with the notion that those silly miners could have won if they'd only their preferred tactic had been to set up a camp full of hippies rather than all that nasty aggressive picketing.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you remind me of Morrisey waving his flowers


thats the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me on here - ta


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I was rather taken with the notion that those silly miners could have won if they'd only their preferred tactic had been to set up a camp full of hippies rather than all that nasty aggressive picketing.


if they'd only _hugged_ those Notts miners, none would have ever crossed a picket line.

Maybe throw them a Tanita Tikaram gig into the mix too, just to make sure.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I was rather taken with the notion that those silly miners could have won if they'd only their preferred tactic had been to set up a camp full of hippies rather than all that nasty aggressive picketing.


 
Someone obviously forgot to tell Mr. Tatchell that women also took part in 'aggressive picketing'.




			
				Hippy Tatchell said:
			
		

> If they had opted for Greenham Common-style tactics of non-violent civil disobedience, the NUM would have almost certainly found it much easier to win public support for their cause throughout the country.


 
Would they bollocks. The old bill would have found it a lot easier to kick the shit out of them though. And as it happens some NUM activists, Dave Douglass for example, _did _use the sit down tactic (though they were very clear that this wasn't used as a 'pacifist' tactic):



> However, one item which went out with the programme cannot go unchallenged. This is the legend deriving from Harry, a former Hatfield branch treasurer, according to which I undertook some sort of pacifist deviation in the form of a mass sit-down at the top of the pit lane. Activists, including Harry, will know well my attitude to physical resistance during the strike, so I need not labour that one (actually the producer chose not to include the most violent parts of our resistance - maybe to protect us from prosecution). Harry, to be right, has always taken the piss out of me and the sit-down tactic, accusing me of ‘peace, man’ hippyism - although it has usually been tongue in cheek. Unfortunately the way BBC2 shot the resulting police charge and riot, straight after Harry’s statement, made it look like I had somehow caused the assault on the miners and their families.
> 
> I claim a short, indulgent response here for the reason that certain unscrupulous groups on the left (and one in particular) may already have filed this story for future use against me, when the need comes up for the kind of political slander they often engage in. So, for the record, I never suggested the police would not attack because you were sitting down! I cut my teeth in the Tyneside Committee of 100 and numerous such sit-downs at nuclear bases, and the bumps on my head by the time I was 16 had led me to believe they would hit you with as much glee if you were sitting down as if you were standing up. So I had no illusions on that score and neither had anyone else.
> 
> ...


 
Link


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> thats the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me on here - ta


ha, my pleasure. 

Never understood the need for all the macho insults, no compromises, confrontation tactics and the glorification of the keyboard struggle on here.


----------



## SLK (Mar 15, 2013)

Seymour part 3 is up.


----------



## cesare (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> ha, my pleasure.
> 
> Never understood the need for all the macho insults, no compromises, confrontation tactics and the glorification of the keyboard struggle on here.


Not happy to condone or compromise re fucked up rape/sex abuse/ DV complaints - thanks very much.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> Not happy to condone or compromise re fucked up rape/sex abuse/ DV complaints - thanks very much.


 sorry? What?

ETA. Ahhhhh, ok, a bit of leftfield logic.  

Fine, if you know those are the facts, I wouldn't Expect you to compromise,  and neither would I.


----------



## cesare (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> sorry? What?
> 
> ETA. Ahhhhh, ok, a bit of leftfield logic.
> 
> Fine, if you know those are the facts, I wouldn't Expect you to compromise,  and neither would I.


They fucked up the investigation whether or not he's guilty.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

SLK said:


> Seymour part 3 is up.


 
A not very veiled pair of digs at mini Choonara and Bergfeld at the end.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> So these so called "credentials" are based upon fairly superficial things then ? Plus a hefty dose of stereotype.


 
In Smith's case, absolutely!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you mean like Marx and Engels. Workerist.


 
No, I don't mean like Marx and Engels, I mean like some _faux_-proletarian Mockney-accented wankshafts with no more original political thought in their heads than a weak lemon drink.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> It _is_ a shit piece tho. Tired gender stereotypes dont become suddenly correct just because they're made by a gay man.


 
I wasn't defending the article - I haven't read it and don't need to in order to criticise bb's boneheaded Swappie "hard as nails" women example.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 15, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> This and your later assertions about the theoretical supremacy of SWP members in the 1980's is interesting as a example of the ability to look at an organisation in an era and see exactly opposite things.
> 
> I would argue that for the rest of its entire lifespan the SWP has been essentially a slowly failing political cult of the WRP type.


 
You are right. As someone pointed out to me the other day, both factions involved in the SWP dispute are claiming impeccable Leninist credentials! I was an easily impressionable youth in the 1980s, and with the benefit of hindsight now, I can see that the 'theoretical brilliance' of the SWP was really cribbed from an incredibly limited tunnel vision of what Marxian ideas were - essentially Tony Cliff's volumes on Lenin plus a boilerplate critique of political economy, fashioned in the first instance by Kidron, then polished up in the later years by Harman. There was never an attempt to borrow down into the philosophical underpinning of the ideas in any meaningful way. This hysterical obsession with 'activism' and 'building the party' has partly lead to where the SWP finds itself today: a sinking ship without a rudder.

If there is to be a renaissance of Marxian ideas, it has much more to gain from the Luxemburgist tradition of the IS, when ideas could be more wide ranging and not what followed after Cliff's putsch in the mid 1970s. But the concept of tolerance and pluralism is seen as a weakness in SWP la la land.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> They fucked up the investigation whether or not he's guilty.


YEAH, all, including themselves, seemed to agree upon that.

I don't have a clue what the right way to deal with it would have been, as much in the account just seems very odd.
SWP kangaroo court


----------



## cesare (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> YEAH, all, including themselves, seemed to agree upon that.
> 
> I don't have a clue what the right way to deal with it would have been, as much in the account just seems very odd.   http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/09/socialist-workers-party-rape-kangaroo-court


The link doesn't work


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I wasn't defending the article - I haven't read it and don't need to in order to criticise bb's boneheaded Swappie "hard as nails" women example.


What's boneheaded about it? Thatchell is saying in-your-face-bolshevism is proof of machismo. Women who behave that way are at least a problem for that analysis no?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What's boneheaded about it?


 
Saying that some women can gleefully adopt a "hard" style too is not an argument against the idea that the fetishisation of toughness reflects political machismo. The Thatchell article is woeful, but that doesn't mean that every hostile response to it is correct or reasonable.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What's boneheaded about it?


 
It's an unthinking ripost to anyone who says that a certain political/social environment may not be an attractive place to others particularly women because of the culture.

It's also very reminiscant in my view of the arguments used by right-wing women who are successful in politics or business against women and others who complain about board room or House of Commons culture and working proceedures.

It's boneheaded because it basically uses extremely simplistic reactionary arguments that celebrate sterotypically masculine behaviour in a couple of women to demonstrate why the given environment is not alienating to women.

_"But look at Margaret Thatcher, why do we need to make it easier for women to get involved in parliamentary politics?"_

The president of the US is a black man.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> The link doesn't work


sorry about that, just changed it.

  Can you just clarify where you're coming from with this, as you actually quoted a bit of banter originally.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

This nonsense so reminds me of the senior Millie who used to tell our comrades off after public meetings for swearing during our speeches as it would offend women. The irony that he was telling it to women swpers swearing back at him was lost on him.


----------



## cesare (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> sorry about that, just changed it.
> 
> Can you just clarify where you're coming from with this, as you actually quoted a bit of banter originally.


Which banter did I quote?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> This nonsense so reminds me of the senior Millie who used to tell our comrades off after public meetings for swearing during our speeches as it would offend women. The irony that he was telling it to women swpers swearing back at him was lost on him.


 
While I don't agree with the Millie in question - this post in another reminder of what's wrong with the SWP mindset.

It's quite an impressive feat to have a least three wrong things in a two line post.


----------



## cesare (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> YEAH, all, including themselves, seemed to agree upon that.
> 
> I don't have a clue what the right way to deal with it would have been, as much in the account just seems very odd.
> SWP kangaroo court


Hang on. When did Kimber start saying they found against the accused? They found "not proven" which is not the same thing.




> Responding to the allegations of mishandling an investigation, Charlie Kimber, the party's national secretary said: "The SWP strongly contests major elements of this account of the disputes committee hearing. The woman concerned brought serious accusations to our attention, we investigated, found against the accused and took prompt action. Those are the facts of this case."


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> This nonsense so reminds me of the senior Millie who used to tell our comrades off after public meetings for swearing during our speeches as it would offend women. The irony that he was telling it to women swpers swearing back at him was lost on him.


 
I can't tell if this laughable bit of evasion is meant as self-parody.

"My story begins in nineteeen dickety two when I was still surrounded by my super hard gang. One of my endless supply of apocryphal Militant members said something vaguely backwards none of which has any real bearing on anything, but it's as good a way as any to change the subject..."


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

cesare said:


> Hang on. When did Kimber start saying they found against the accused? They found "not proven" which is not the same thing.


 
He's talking about the other case this time where they found Smith guilty of rape so suspended him for two years before giving him a job as an organiser again.


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He's talking about the other case this time where they found Smith guilty of rape so suspended him for two years before giving him a job as an organiser again.


they refused to rule on the rape in his case, he was found guilty of assaulting women, wasnt he?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 15, 2013)

ibilly99 said:


> Time for a TRB revival - massively underated IMHO - wore out Power In the Darkness as did most of my contemporaries - not sure whether he was in the SWP or not he was a staple of RAR 79 -81


 
Robinson (I was never a fan, but met a few who were - enthusiastic mostly) wasn't in the SWP. Spoke to him briefly at a music unconference last year, where he was the keynote speaker and he remembers those times fondly.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's an unthinking ripost to anyone who says that a certain political/social environment may not be an attractive place to others particularly women because of the culture.
> 
> It's also very reminiscant in my view of the arguments used by right-wing women who are successful in politics or business against women and others who complain about board room or House of Commons culture and working proceedures.
> 
> ...


So a robust political athmosphere makes an organisation unattractive to women does it? Bollox. One of the best things about the SWP imho is the way it has throughout it's history produced (not by accident mind but consciously and with concerted effort and encouragment from experienced comrades) strong, articulate female (and often working class) cadre at all levels of the party who can stand toe to toe with anyone in a debate. Working class women who were a hell of a lot more demure and lacking in confidence when they first joined. To have them accused of 'masculine' behaviour or compared with successful business women (or Thatcher for god's sakes!!!) is too fucking ironic by half.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He's talking about the other case this time where they found Smith guilty of rape so suspended him for two years before giving him a job as an organiser again.


Are you sure. The term "not proved" is used here.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> they refused to rule on the rape in his case, he was found guilty of assaulting women, wasnt he?


 
Fair enough.

OK he's talking about the other case where an organiser was found to have assulted women and suspended for two years before being reappointed as a full time organiser


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> To have them accused of 'masculine' behaviour is too fucking ironic by half.


 
Who is accusing them of masculine behaviour?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Who is accusing them of masculine behaviour?


 
I know this one! It was a made up Militant member back in Bolshiebhoy's glory days. Do I get a prize?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I know this one! It was a made up Militant member back in Bolshiebhoy's glory days. Do I get a prize?


 
Why does he keep banging on about before he joined the Labour party instead of dealing with the issue at hand?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 15, 2013)

The SWP recruited some formidable women it should be said, some I know are still holding membership cards for now.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

audiotech said:


> The SWP recruited some formidable women it should be said, some I know are still holding membership cards for now.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why does he keep banging on about before he joined the Labour party instead of dealing with the issue at hand?


 
His defence of the SWP is intimately bound up with nostalgia for his youth. He can't separate the two.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why does he keep banging on about before he joined the Labour party instead of dealing with the issue at hand?


Mmm. Are arguments ad hominem like that not machismo behaviour ;-)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> His defence of the SWP is intimately bound up with nostalgia for his youth. He can't separate the two.


 
Fair enough I won't hear a bad word said about X-Men comics despite not having read one for about 15 years


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> His defence of the SWP is intimately bound up with nostalgia for his youth. He can't separate the two.


Brining my old age into it is a bit machismo too innit! Not that I'm saying your wrong mind


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Mmm. Are arguments ad hominem like that not machismo behaviour ;-)


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

Actually what this little diversion has made clear in my head is how the differences between the older swp women comrades and the younger student feminists in the party which several of the IB contributions talked about aren't just political. It's deeply cultural too. There is a brand of feminism that regards argument, actually disagreeing with someone as opposed to 'engaging' with them (that engage word crops up in the FB debates between loyalists and platformists constantly) as in itself Patriarchal behaviour. They just can't abide the bolshie women comrades who regard telling someone they're talking shit as a basic human right! If Sheila tells them that socialist feminism is a contradiction in terms they don't just find the analysis abhorrent, they object to her being so rude as to disagree with them rather than just saying 'well yes what you say is interesting'. Disagreement is oppressive.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

Apart from the digs at Choonara and Bergfeld, Seymour's latest also contains a pretty sharp account of the leadership's debating tactics: Trying to turn the issue into a debate about the personal integrity of DC members, the "false flag" denial of claims that were never made and the reliance on loyalist women to put a less male face on the defense of the indefensible.

Also, he says that in the run up to the December conference that "People really believed that there was a plot to wreck the party, stirred up by sleeper agents of the ISG or Counterfire." Which is astonishing if true.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In Smith's case, absolutely!



Smith's meteoric rise only occurred after I had left (2004, I think), so I only got to know about him since the scandal broke.

Sounds like he fulfils a certain stereotype.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

There are people in the swp who are sympathetic to the arguments of the ISG and Counterfire. Quite a few less now mind. But it's not astonishing to say that or believe it.


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Actually what this little diversion has made clear in my head is how the differences between the older swp women comrades and the younger student feminists in the party which several of the IB contributions talked about aren't just political. It's deeply cultural too. There is a brand of feminism that regards argument, actually disagreeing with someone as opposed to 'engaging' with them (that engage word crops up in the FB debates between loyalists and platformists constantly) as in itself Patriarchal behaviour. They just can't abide the bolshie women comrades who regard telling someone they're talking shit as a basic human right! If Sheila tells them that socialist feminism is a contradiction in terms they don't just find the analysis abhorrent, they object to her being so rude as to disagree with them rather than just saying 'well yes what you say is interesting'. Disagreement is oppressive.


where the fuck are you getting that from?  It's a bizarre reading.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

"...even some of those who were on our side about the rape allegations were absolutely horrified by some of the discussions favouring radical changes to the party's structures." RS always knew he wasn't going to take the majority of the faction with him.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "...even some of those who were on our side about the rape allegations were absolutely horrified by some of the discussions favouring radical changes to the party's structures." RS always knew he wasn't going to take the majority of the faction with him.


 
He certainly always knew that the democratic opening he wanted wasn't going to get majority support. How is that news?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> where the fuck are you getting that from? It's a bizarre reading.


No it's not 

I don't know how many FB discussions you've seen between them all but the dominant tone of the platformists when talking about the feminist debates is "stop disagreeing and engage". That bloody word is omnifuckingpresent.  And of course there is the RS quote I have used about 10 times on this thread about the "overly dogmmatic 80's arguments". It's not just the content of the older women's arguments he was objecting to. It's their style. Namely their tendency to say something clearly and not waffle around the edges like what he does and so many of the student feminists do.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He certainly always knew that the democratic opening he wanted wasn't going to get majority support. How is that news?


A week ago we were being told on here that the cc had lost the argument with a majority of the members.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> A week ago we were being told on here that the cc had lost the argument with a majority of the members.


 
This is yet another non-sequitur.

Seymour clearly thought that a majority could be won on the issue of the DC dispute. He also clearly thought it unlikely that at the same time there would be a majority for a democratic restructuring of the SWP. He argued for both nonetheless because he believed in both. How is this news? Or even slightly surprising?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Are you sure. The term "not proved" is used here.


 
They are referring to Martin Smith there.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> They are referring to Martin Smith there.


 

Do you know anything about this J Ed:




> Then there was the tone of the leadership's contributions.  "The elephant in the room," a CC member had reportedly explained, "is what has happened to the student movement since Millbank.  The students are turning inward because the movement has collapsed.  The current debates are a symptom of pessimism arising from that collapse."  This was a stunningly delusional and self-serving analysis, but it would be repeated in other contexts by other CC members.  The emerging line was that the students had lost their way because the party had failed to take an 'ideological turn' after Millbank, and effectively argue the party's politics on women's liberation, among other things, in SWSS groups.  This foreshadowed a series of doomed, miserable, finger-wagging SWSS events staged after conference.


 
Didn't the party leaderships always dominate the SWSS group leaderships?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I know this one! It was a made up Militant member back in Bolshiebhoy's glory days. Do I get a prize?


 
Aaaahhh, a harking back to Julie Waterson's 'white macho heterosexuals' and 'dads army' jibe at the YRE stewards and the 'Away team'.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

http://internationalsocialismuk.blo...etwork-national-meeting-on-13th.html?spref=tw

And the ISN is off and running.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2013)

for fuck's sake. it's ironic when my impression of the SWP was of supporting the worst kind of apolitical identity politics and "anti-imperialism" and so on, now this rape case and its mishandling is justified with a load of bollocks about feminists and autonomists. the party doesn't seem to have an real politics and just seems to exist for the purposes of perpetuating itself.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Didn't the party leaderships always dominate the SWSS group leaderships?


 
Yes, but you are missing a key distinction in SWP court politics. The elements of the "party leadership" who had been in charge of SWSS were now out of favour dissidents. Whenever you see SWP loyalist arguments at any point seeming to put the boot into decisions by the CC, that is almost always a sign that some particular CC member or members are out of favour and the hacks are queueing up to demonstrate their loyalty by shivving them.


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> my impression of the SWP was of supporting the worst kind of apolitical identity politics


really??!!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> really??!!


 
yep. the respect debacle etc ...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> for fuck's sake. it's ironic when my impression of the SWP was of supporting the worst kind of apolitical identity politics and "anti-imperialism" and so on, now this rape case and its mishandling is justified with a load of bollocks about feminists and autonomists. the party doesn't seem to have an real politics and just seems to exist for the purposes of perpetuating itself.


With respect that says more about your total lack of a clue about the politics of the swp. Why would anyone put anti-imperialism in quotes. Ah yes of course an SPer might well do that.

The politics of the swp is quite straightforward. On the side of those fighting imperialism but against their nationalism. On the side of those fighting sexism but against their feminism.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Do you know anything about this J Ed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No idea really, in Sheffield the SWSS organised a 'Sheffield Against Sexism' event alongside mostly university based Radical Feminists in early 2012 but I don't think that the leadership had any real problem with it at the time, they just used it as a stick to beat the students with because they didn't fall into line over Martin Smith.

I personally think that the 'Sheffield Against Sexism' event was pretty awful because it involved mostly middle-class students (some with some very dodgy views about sex workers) protesting against strip clubs without making any effort whatsoever to talk to the women who worked in them. If anyone needs to be unionised then it's the women who work in strip clubs, but when some of the people that you are marching alongside think that sex workers are traitors to their gender then that probably won't be part of your overall strategy. Again, while this event was problematic I don't recall the main SWP having any problem with it at the time.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No it's not
> 
> I don't know how many FB discussions you've seen between them all but the dominant tone of the platformists when talking about the feminist debates is "stop disagreeing and engage". That bloody word is omnifuckingpresent. And of course there is the RS quote I have used about 10 times on this thread about the "overly dogmmatic 80's arguments". It's not just the content of the older women's arguments he was objecting to. It's their style. Namely their tendency to say something clearly and not waffle around the edges like what he does and so many of the student feminists do.


 
To be fair to bb some of the identity politics types on university campuses actually do go off like this. I see it as a kind of left version of the right wingers who claim you're denying their right to free speech when you point out they're talking utter bollocks. It's tended to be the non-aligned anarcho-liberal ones rather than SWP I've noticed doing it though so it could just be another smear.


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> yep. the respect debacle etc ...


aah, okay, I think of that as having shit identity politics, rather apolitical IP


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

In fact, I remember now that Maxine Bowler was at the Sheffield Against Sexism event, so the non-SWSS SWP actually participated in the event...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2013)

Fair enough - but that's the overwhelming impression of them I've always got from things like UAF, Respect, etc.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, but you are missing a key distinction in SWP court politics. The elements of the "party leadership" who had been in charge of SWSS were now out of favour dissidents. Whenever you see SWP loyalist arguments at any point seeming to put the boot into decisions by the CC, that is almost always a sign that some particular CC member or members are out of favour and the hacks are queueing up to demonstrate their loyalty by shivving them.


 
So does this all boil down to "it was Bergfeld's fault"?

Given that the SWP leadership think the students are entering "the swamp" so-called, the structures aren't a problem and 11 out of 11 loyalists are on the Committee to investigate aspects of disputes processes. The only explanation is Bergfeld leading the students wrong because he either fell from the moon and hid himself as a loyal SWP figure, or was somehow infected by a virus which however much the SWP CC tried they couldn't innoculate against.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

"Moreover, there was a real sense of debacle around how some of the Democratic Centralism Faction had intervened in the conference. One of their members spoke both for and against his own motion. Another spoke against expulsions by denouncing those who had been expelled." These things might well be true but yet again the Seymour lack of political acumen shines through. Why the fuck would you insult the people you're hoping to win over to the ISN? He really is a liability to any faction he joins.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> No idea really, in Sheffield the SWSS organised a 'Sheffield Against Sexism' event alongside mostly university based Radical Feminists in early 2012 but I don't think that the leadership had any real problem with it at the time, they just used it as a stick to beat the students with because they didn't fall into line over Martin Smith.
> 
> I personally think that the 'Sheffield Against Sexism' event was pretty awful because it involved mostly middle-class students (some with some very dodgy views about sex workers) protesting against strip clubs without making any effort whatsoever to talk to the women who worked in them. If anyone needs to be unionised then it's the women who work in strip clubs, but when some of the people that you are marching alongside think that sex workers are traitors to their gender then that probably won't be part of your overall strategy. Again, while this event was problematic I don't recall the main SWP having any problem with it at the time.


 
They definitely didn't have a problem with it at the time - some of the people who signed the CC statement were on that march. I didn't really understand what it was all about and still don't.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I know this one! It was a made up Militant member back in Bolshiebhoy's glory days. Do I get a prize?


Nope as he was very real. Dermot Connolly, I'm sure you remember him NI. Most likeable and politically worked out member of yours I ever met.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> In fact, I remember now that Maxine Bowler was at the Sheffield Against Sexism event, so the non-SWSS SWP actually participated in the event...


 
She wasn't the only one. At least one other of the ones who signed the CC statement was there.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> They definitely didn't have a problem with it at the time - some of the people who signed the CC statement were on that march. I didn't really understand what it was all about and still don't.


 
It wasn't very coherent, originally the march was supposed to be against Spearmint Rhino (isn't it weird how they never target the brothels in Attercliffe?) but they changed it to being a march against any more stripclubs opening. Other than that I think it was supposed to be an exercise in feminist consciousness raising or something.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> for fuck's sake. it's ironic when my impression of the SWP was of supporting the worst kind of apolitical identity politics and "anti-imperialism" and so on, now this rape case and its mishandling is justified with a load of bollocks about feminists and autonomists. the party doesn't seem to have an real politics and just seems to exist for the purposes of perpetuating itself.


what the swp really said. The _*politics*_ of _*identity*_ cannot point the way towards building the kind of movement which can actually end oppression.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> So does this all boil down to "it was Bergfeld's fault"?


 
Yes.

Bergfeld and I believe Dee also had responsibilities in the student department. Both dissidents and therefore perfect patsies. The whole line of argument provides everything the SWP leadership faction needs: an explanation for the youth revolt, an ability to cast things in terms of the oppositionists failure to absorb "our tradition", and perfect scapegoats.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be fair to bb some of the identity politics types on university campuses actually do go off like this. I see it as a kind of left version of the right wingers who claim you're denying their right to free speech when you point out they're talking utter bollocks. It's tended to be the non-aligned anarcho-liberal ones rather than SWP I've noticed doing it though so it could just be another smear.


Oh spiney you give with one hand but take with the other.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> No idea really, in Sheffield the SWSS organised a 'Sheffield Against Sexism' event alongside mostly university based Radical Feminists in early 2012 but I don't think that the leadership had any real problem with it at the time, they just used it as a stick to beat the students with because they didn't fall into line over Martin Smith.
> 
> I personally think that the 'Sheffield Against Sexism' event was pretty awful because it involved mostly middle-class students (some with some very dodgy views about sex workers) protesting against strip clubs without making any effort whatsoever to talk to the women who worked in them. If anyone needs to be unionised then it's the women who work in strip clubs, but when some of the people that you are marching alongside think that sex workers are traitors to their gender then that probably won't be part of your overall strategy. Again, while this event was problematic I don't recall the main SWP having any problem with it at the time.


 
I think a tougher line (not sure how) should be inflicted against males who sustain strip clubs, so the intentions of this protest seem worthwhile. The Socialist Party report doesn't mention any protest against strip clubs.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Fair enough - but that's the overwhelming impression of them I've always got from things like UAF, Respect, etc.


 
It definitely is/was identity politics - you only had to listen to the justifications to know that. This is where some of the problems with their student membership comes from IMO (although BB is exaggerating it like the worst kind of hack it is true that SWSS is full of identity politics crap). Their politics in theory (against ID politics) just doesn't fit with their politics in practice. So for a long time it suited them for younger members not to understand their theoretical tradition. And now the CC are using this - something of their own creation - as a stick to beat people who don't like botched rape investigations with.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I think a tougher line (not sure how) should be inflicted against males who sustain strip clubs, so the intentions of this protest seem worthwhile. The Socialist Party report doesn't mention any protest against strip clubs.


 
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/495515.html

"Sheffield Against Sexism wants to: 
• Fight sexism in Sheffield 
• Campaign against more strip clubs opening in the city 
• Save our local women’s services"


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> No idea really, in Sheffield the SWSS organised a 'Sheffield Against Sexism' event alongside mostly university based Radical Feminists in early 2012 but I don't think that the leadership had any real problem with it at the time, they just used it as a stick to beat the students with because they didn't fall into line over Martin Smith.


 
Also are you sure they were Radical Feminists and not just socialist feminists with a focus on women's issues who happened to be outside of the various left parties?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

Has anyone mentioned Leeds SWSS have gone?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> what the swp really said. The _*politics*_ of _*identity*_ cannot point the way towards building the kind of movement which can actually end oppression.


 
We're talking about what they _do _rather than what they _say _though. You get that the two things aren't necessarily the same, right?

Or do you believe that workfare is all about helping people into work? That the Lib Dems are progressive? That the EDL just want to stop terrorism? Or do you only leave your critical faculties at the door when it comes to the SWP?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "Moreover, there was a real sense of debacle around how some of the Democratic Centralism Faction had intervened in the conference. One of their members spoke both for and against his own motion. Another spoke against expulsions by denouncing those who had been expelled." These things might well be true but yet again the Seymour lack of political acumen shines through. Why the fuck would you insult the people you're hoping to win over to the ISN? He really is a liability to any faction he joins.


 
He's not trying to win over anyone who still thinks that the half-hearted "opposition" of the original DCF was sufficient. I doubt if there are many people who take that kind of line any more anyway.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Also are you sure they were Radical Feminists and not just socialist feminists with a focus on women's issues who happened to be outside of the various left parties?


 
They certainly weren't all radfems, just there is a pretty active and reasonably large contingent of them in Sheffield.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/495515.html
> • Campaign against more strip clubs opening in the city


 
That seems a perfectly sensible demand (one which both SP and SWP would support) and doesn't suggest anyone - student or non-student - who is working in a strip club elsewhere is some kind of traitor.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Has anyone mentioned Leeds SWSS have gone?


 
Where did you see that?


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Nope as he was very real. Dermot Connolly, I'm sure you remember him NI. Most likeable and politically worked out member of yours I ever met.


 (emphasis mine)

I've long suspected that you've been posting from a parallel universe, this just confirms it. It's obviously a completely inverted universe where the SWP doesn't have an appallingly undemocratic culture and malleable political principles AND Dermot Connolly actually has social skills.

I shall now call it bizzaro-world.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That seems a perfectly sensible demand (one which both SP and SWP would support) and doesn't suggest anyone - student or non-student - who is working in a strip club elsewhere is some kind of traitor.


 
I agree with you completely that it's a reasonable demand, but my friends who go along to feminist events in Sheffield tell me about some pretty fucking dodgy views being aired about sex workers by some.

There was some discussion around Sheffield Against Sexism about promoting unionising workers but it was shot down. I suspect that anti-sex worker sentiment is why.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Has anyone mentioned Leeds SWSS have gone?


 
Yes, and this is now real:




> IS Network - National Meeting on 13th April
> We believe that there is now, more than ever, a clear necessity for the living, non-conformist spirit of the International Socialist tradition, which celebrated democracy, plurality and openness. The economic crisis has not only created the opportunity for socialist organisations to root themselves within the class and labour movement, it has made the self-organisation of working class socialists on this basis absolutely imperative. We believe this can only be done on the most democratic basis, with an organisation built from the bottom up.
> 
> For these reasons, we have decided to call a meeting to discuss the way forward. This meeting is designed to discuss openly the best way to build a socialist alternative in Britain today. The purpose of this meeting is not the creation of SWP Mark II. Instead, it is an attempt to regroup those that have been understandably disgusted by the direction that the SWP has been taken in by its leadership. We particularly invite all those who have resigned from the SWP over recent events to attend.
> ...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That seems a perfectly sensible demand (one which both SP and SWP would support) and doesn't suggest anyone - student or non-student - who is working in a strip club elsewhere is some kind of traitor.


 
J Ed is right. There were some rad fem types who do think like that on the march. I've spoken to a couple of them. Of course that doesn't mean the organisers of the march agree with them.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Where did you see that?


 
Facebook

*Statement of Disaffiliation* 
In response to the recent crisis engulfing the SWP over its mishandling of rape allegations, Leeds University Socialist Workers Student Society would like to announce our disaffiliation from the organisation.
We feel this step is necessary because of the party’s inherent sexism and bureaucratised democratic structure, which has also historically subordinated the role of Socialist Workers Student Society. The treatment of dissident voices within the party and subsequent bullying and intimidation of young members has made our continued affiliation untenable.
We believe democracy and women’s liberation are the foundations of a truly revolutionary movement. As such, we have decided to reconstitute our group with these principles at our core, under the name Revolutionary Socialists (RevSoc).
We are committed to the fight against capitalism, oppression and imperialism and will work with all those in the movement who share these goals, in a non-sectarian manner.
As a group, want to work towards left unity on campus, building on our recent successes of working with other activists. We extend our invitation to all staff and students to contact us who share our dedication to creating a viable socialist alternative.
Solidarity,
Leeds University Revolutionary Socialists (RevSoc)
luurevsoc@yahoo.co.uk
Signed
Augusta
Dave
Dick
Eleanor 
Hester
Kady
Martin
Matthew
Paris
Shelley
Simon
Wandia


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> It wasn't very coherent, originally the march was supposed to be against Spearmint Rhino (isn't it weird how they never target the brothels in Attercliffe?) but they changed it to being a march against any more stripclubs opening. Other than that I think it was supposed to be an exercise in feminist consciousness raising or something.


oh blimey.... I first came onto these boards to discuss the _opening_ of Spearmint Rhino ten years ago.  The SWP were really confused about what attitude to take then too...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It definitely is/was identity politics - you only had to listen to the justifications to know that. This is where some of the problems with their student membership comes from IMO (although BB is exaggerating it like the worst kind of hack it is true that SWSS is full of identity politics crap). Their politics in theory (against ID politics) just doesn't fit with their politics in practice. So for a long time it suited them for younger members not to understand their theoretical tradition. And now the CC are using this - something of their own creation - as a stick to beat people who don't like botched rape investigations with.


so did the cc ban students from reading the ISJ-identity politics


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Also are you sure they were Radical Feminists and not just socialist feminists with a focus on women's issues who happened to be outside of the various left parties?


it was mostly ther Feminist Fightback lot, wasnt it?  A right mixture, but with some decent socfems in it.  Or they were till the AWL started digging their claws in...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> so did the cc ban students from reading the ISJ-identity politics


 
It's pointless discussing anything with you isn't it? Where did I say the CC had banned anyone from reading anything? How's about trying, just for once, to respond to what is actually being said? You never know, you might actually like it.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> so did the cc ban students from reading the ISJ-identity politics


 
I can't tell you what reading the CC does or doesn't promote but I can tell you that I've heard bullshit about identity politics and privilege theory bandied about by SWSS members a decent amount.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I agree with you completely that it's a reasonable demand, but my friends who go along to feminist events in Sheffield tell me about some pretty fucking dodgy views being aired about sex workers by some.
> 
> There was some discussion around Sheffield Against Sexism about promoting unionising workers but it was shot down. I suspect that anti-sex worker sentiment is why.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I can't tell you what reading the CC does or doesn't promote but I can tell you that I've heard bullshit about identity politics and privilege theory bandied about by SWSS members a decent amount.


pmsl


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I can't tell you what reading the CC does or doesn't promote but I can tell you that I've heard bullshit about identity politics and privilege theory bandied about by SWSS members a decent amount.


I don't doubt it. Explains a lot about the present crisis.

That Leeds statement is hilarious. Oh the horror, subordinating the role of swss....


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


>


 
Before you get too excited, I wouldn't suggest for a minute that the nasty stuff was being suggested by SWP members.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> oh blimey.... I first came onto these boards to discuss the _opening_ of Spearmint Rhino ten years ago. The SWP were really confused about what attitude to take then too...


Took a time to work it out true enough.

I'd love to live in a town that had marches against strip clubs even if the ideas were all over the shop. My workmates (men and women) don't consider the night out complete unless we go to Foxies :-(


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Took a time to work it out true enough.
> 
> I'd love to live in a rown that had marches against strip clubs even if the ideas were all over the shop. My workmates (men and women) don't consider the night out complete unless we go to Foxies :-(


 
And do you go with them?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's pointless discussing anything with you isn't it? Where did I say the CC had banned anyone from reading anything? How's about trying, just for once, to respond to what is actually being said? You never know, you might actually like it.


never said he did, just wanted you to double underlined to frog woman the *REAL* SWP theoretical position.





SpineyNorman said:


> It definitely is/was identity politics - you only had to listen to the justifications to know that. This is where some of the problems with their student membership comes from IMO (although BB is exaggerating it like the worst kind of hack it is true that SWSS is full of identity politics crap).


how do you possibly take on this





> Their politics in theory (against ID politics) just doesn't fit with their politics in practice. So for a long time it suited them for younger members not to understand their theoretical tradition. And now the CC are using this - something of their own creation - as a stick to beat people who don't like botched rape investigations with.


how do I convince you, it is possible that your impression of events, is maybe different to somebody else's impression of events?  You have no hard evidence for that.  You have no statements from the SWP stating that.  That is just your impression, you state as if hard fact.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And do you go with them?


Don't be a silly billy.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> never said he did, just wanted you to double underlined to frog woman the *REAL* SWP theoretical position.how do you possibly take on this
> how do I convince you, it is possible that your impression of events, is maybe different to somebody else's impression of events? You have no hard evidence for that. You have no statements from the SWP stating that. That is just your impression, you state as if hard fact.


 
It is hard fact. I don't need statements - statements only give you the SWP in theory, and I've been clear from the start that they're against ID politics _in theory_. We _can't _judge their actions by what they say can we? So statements are irrelevant. They won't tell you anything. Instead, to judge the SWP in practice, we must look at what they _do _in practice. I therefore present to you as evidence: Respect and UAF.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> It wasn't very coherent, originally the march was supposed to be against Spearmint Rhino (isn't it weird how they never target the brothels in Attercliffe?) but they changed it to being a march against any more stripclubs opening. Other than that I think it was supposed to be an exercise in feminist consciousness raising or something.


 
But Spearmint Rhino was the strip club expanding to open yet another branch - and the council had given the go ahead, hence attacking them might have sharpened the protest - but then you run the danger of "evil socialists taking away people's existing jobs" (something magically remembered by "centrists" when it comes to the global arms, tobacco and sex industry )


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Before you get too excited, I wouldn't suggest for a minute that the nasty stuff was being suggested by SWP members.


ok, thanks for clarifying.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> But Spearmint Rhino was the strip club expanding to open yet another branch - and the council had given the go ahead, hence attacking them might have sharpened the protest - but then you run the danger of "evil socialists taking away people's existing jobs" (something magically remembered by "centrists" when it comes to the global arms, tobacco and sex industry )


 
Surely most centrists don't really give a shit about sex workers?

I don't really know what to think of strip clubs, they seem like horrible inherently exploitative places but I feel uncomfortable stigmatising people and telling them where they can and can't work. Surely it would be better to focus on unionising sex workers rather than shutting down strip clubs?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Surely most centrists don't really give a shit about sex workers?


 
Sure, but many people, mostly men, care a great deal about the continued existence of the sex industry and will use sex workers as a weapon in argument.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 15, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> (emphasis mine)
> 
> I've long suspected that you've been posting from a parallel universe, this just confirms it. It's obviously a completely inverted universe where the SWP doesn't have an appallingly undemocratic culture and malleable political principles AND Dermot Connolly actually has social skills.
> 
> I shall now call it bizzaro-world.


You just made mrs bb spit her dinner out. She's on the phone now telling her brother I live in bizzaro-world. I knew we should have gone to the pub.

In fairness I liked him partly cause unlike all the other Millies he actually deigned to talk to us like we were human beings.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> In fairness I liked him partly cause unlike all the other Millies he actually deigned to talk to us like we were human beings.


 
If so, you were the only ones! Dermot has many attributes. Charm, however, is not numbered amongst them.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It is hard fact. I give you as evidence: Respect and UAF.


so what you're saying is, I cannot genuinely hold different point of view to you about respect and the UAF? because I do.

in my opinion the socialist workers party were wrong in the socialist Alliance and respect, for being too tolerant and conciliatory [ I actually believe the socialist parties position in the socialist Alliance was probably more realistic.]. Which is quite ironic as were also being charged with





ibilly99 said:


> Some wise words from Peter Tatchell in How Masculinity Undermines Left Politics
> 
> http://www.petertatchell.net/masculinity/masculinisation.htm
> 
> ...


see what I mean? Damned if you do damned if you don't.
PS. You need to see my post earlier on this issue.
PPS. I'm sorry Norman, but I am equally vexed by yours and frog woman is contributions.
PPPS. THIS IS FROM SOMEONE who after reading what SWP comrades have said on this topic, has come to the mind that the leaving factions arguments, have a great deal of merit.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Surely it would be better to focus on unionising sex workers rather than shutting down strip clubs?


 
Or both. Time for a Lucas Aerospace of the sex industry?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I don't really know what to think of strip clubs, they seem like horrible inherently exploitative places but I feel uncomfortable stigmatising people and telling them where they can and can't work. Surely it would be better to focus on unionising sex workers rather than shutting down strip clubs?


 
I get your point - I'm not blaming the workers, but the owners, partners, shareholders, architects and visitors do bear responsibility.

As it was I think the Spearmint Rhino in Sheffield got given the go ahead but the one West Street was rejected (though that might have been more to do with traffic and pedestrian crowding/through-flow)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> so what you're saying is, I cannot genuinely hold different point of view to you about respect and the UAF? because I do.
> 
> in my opinion the socialist workers party were wrong in the socialist Alliance and respect, for being too tolerant and conciliatory. Which is quite ironic as were also being charged with
> see what I mean? Damned if you do damned if you don't.
> ...


 
Please stop it, I get a little bit stupider every time I read one of your posts.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Sure, but many people, mostly men, care a great deal about the continued existence of the sex industry and will use sex workers as a weapon in argument.


 
Fair point, I have a friend who worked as a stripper and a lot of the people who go to strip clubs really do seem like the scum of the earth. I don't know if that's a good enough of a point on its own though, I mean there are a lot of not very nice drug addicts who would favour a more sensible drug policy for selfish reasons but I'm not going to oppose that because of who supports it.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Please stop it, I get a little bit stupider every time I read one of your posts.


sorry, you're right.  Your interpretation of events, is the only one possible.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Or both. Time for a Lucas Aerospace of the sex industry?


 
A Lucas Plan would be ideal, but I can't be vehemently against anyone who justs want to see the places shut down, the poles used as anything else - bannisters, gates, abstract art - and those sites being given back to the community male and female - young and old alike.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> a lot of the people who go to strip clubs really do seem like the scum of the earth.


 
Here's a tip: they start probably tolerable maybe a bit iffy, but get worse reaching the level you describe.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 15, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> (emphasis mine)
> 
> I've long suspected that you've been posting from a parallel universe, this just confirms it. It's obviously a completely inverted universe where the SWP doesn't have an appallingly undemocratic culture and malleable political principles AND Dermot Connolly actually has social skills.
> 
> I shall now call it bizzaro-world.


 
Funny how when folk leave the CWI how often we find out from people still in the CWI that those who left are are lacking personal skills.....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> A Lucas Plan would be ideal, but I can't be vehemently against anyone who justs want to see the places shut down, the poles used as anything else - bannisters, gates, abstract art - and those sites being given back to the community male and female - young and old alike.


 
I know where you're coming from but the needs of the workers must have equal weight to those of the community in my opinion.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Funny how when folk leave the CWI how often we find out from people still in the CWI that those who left are are lacking personal skills.....


 
A bit like when ex-SWP members are said to lack political understanding?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

the fact of the matter is this.  The SWP clearly stated their position.  Of all people, of all people you would think students would read.  There was no proof, absolutely none of a Machiavellian tactic to let the SWSS students believe a load of bollocks. there is nothing in their actions that the SWP  cannot explain from a different perspective from the one Norman gave.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> A bit like when ex-SWP members are said to lack political understanding?


 
Probably very similar.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Funny how when folk leave the CWI how often we find out from people still in the CWI that those who left are are lacking personal skills.....


 
Have you ever met Dermot?

I've never heard of anyone suddenly recast as a charmless oaf when they leave. I have heard the occasional zealot badmouth someone unfairly in retrospect, but that would generally be about politics.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It is hard fact. I don't need statements - statements only give you the SWP in theory, and I've been clear from the start that they're against ID politics _in theory_. We _can't _judge their actions by what they say can we? So statements are irrelevant. They won't tell you anything. Instead, to judge the SWP in practice, we must look at what they _do _in practice. I therefore present to you as evidence: Respect and UAF.


ok explain how Respect and the UAF [ also, is to UAF distinct in your eyes from the ANL Mark one and two)prove this;





SpineyNorman said:


> It definitely is/was identity politics - you only had to listen to the justifications to know that. This is where some of the problems with their student membership comes from IMO (although BB is exaggerating it like the worst kind of hack it is true that SWSS is full of identity politics crap). Their politics in theory (against ID politics) just doesn't fit with their politics in practice. So for a long time it suited them for younger members not to understand their theoretical tradition. And now the CC are using this - something of their own creation - as a stick to beat people who don't like botched rape investigations with.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I know where you're coming from but the needs of the workers must have equal weight to those of the community in my opinion.


 
In which case hiring at other workplaces must be increased. I mean if the 'community' was able to exert pressure to defend and increase jobs locally then 'my strip club right or wrong' would soon disappear. If the 'community' is simply a religious backlash movement saying no more strip club, no more wages, no training, no jobs, crocodile tears - then yes something is wrong.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> In which case hiring at other workplaces must be increased. I mean if the 'community' was able to exert pressure to defend and increase jobs locally then 'my strip club right or wrong' would soon disappear. If the 'community' is simply a religious backlash movement saying no more strip club, no more wages, no training, no jobs, crocodile tears - then yes something is wrong.


 
Unfortunately the 2nd option is the more common isn't it?

Though I do remember a campaign in Haringey years ago which combined both sets of demands...


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> it was mostly ther Feminist Fightback lot, wasnt it? A right mixture, but with some decent socfems in it. Or they were till the AWL started digging their claws in...


 
Are the AWL big in Sheffield at least within the left/progressive groups?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Are the AWL big in Sheffield at least within the left/progressive groups?


 
They do have a small but active presence


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Have you ever met Dermot?


 
I have yes, a fair few times, never had a problem or found him difficult. 



> I've never heard of anyone suddenly recast as a charmless oaf when they leave. I have heard the occasional zealot badmouth someone unfairly in retrospect, but that would generally be about politics.


 
I joined in 1987, i've heard it a fair few times since.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

Grrrrr, so are you saying people like, hate to name names, Colin Barker know that what they  say about identity politics, doesn't fit with their actions in Respect and the UAF?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> I have yes, a fair few times, never had a problem or found him difficult.


 
I suspect you haven't had enough dealings with him yet. Give it some time.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Unfortunately the 2nd option is the more common isn't it?
> 
> Though I do remember a campaign in Haringey years ago which combined both sets of demands...


 
Not very well based on how many jobs are being lost now.   

In Hornsey Crouch End later there was an existing nightclub trying to turn adult that was blocked.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect you haven't had enough dealings with him yet. Give it some time.


 
Sounds like something someone would say about someone they had a slow falling out with to be fair


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It definitely is/was identity politics - you only had to listen to the justifications to know that. This is where some of the problems with their student membership comes from IMO (although BB is exaggerating it like the worst kind of hack it is true that SWSS is full of identity politics crap). Their politics in theory (against ID politics) just doesn't fit with their politics in practice. So for a long time it suited them for younger members not to understand their theoretical tradition. And now the CC are using this - something of their own creation - as a stick to beat people who don't like botched rape investigations with.


so why did it suit the CC for their own members not to understand their politics?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Sounds like something someone would say about someone they had a slow falling out with to be fair


 
I didn't have a falling out with him, because that would entail liking him in the first place. I had and have respect for him. He's very sharp. But that's an entirely different issue to my opinion of him as a person.


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Meanwhile, the CPGB/WW in its desperation to have a go at the Socialist Party failed to notice that the SP's rather peripheral connection to an allegation of domestic violence in the RMT had already been severed.
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16319


Just read that CPGB article. You'd have thought they'd update it to clarify the point they admit they're unclear on!

But, the best bit, was when I read that Taafe still gets to say 'sects on the outskirts of the labour movement'


----------



## sihhi (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They do have a small but active presence


 
Are they still with Labour or not - it's hard to tell these days.

From 2010:


belboid said:


> AWL are one step ahead of them. Of 20 people at the South Yorks LRC meeting the other day, 8 were from them! I dont know who to feel more sorry for


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Are the AWL big in Sheffield at least within the left/progressive groups?





Spanky Longhorn said:


> They do have a small but active presence


small and very irritatingly active, fuckers get everywhere. Cant be more than...eight? Tops. But they keep themselves bloody busy.

edit:  maybe a couple more than eight then, given that quote from me above...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> Just read that CPGB article. You'd have thought they'd update it to clarify the point they admit they're unclear on!
> 
> But, the best bit, was when I read that Taafe still gets to say 'sects on the outskirts of the labour movement'


 
AWL are a suburb, the SWP a commuter town, and the anarchists are an illegal shanty town under the main flyover out of the movement.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> small and very irritatingly active, fuckers get everywhere. Cant be more than...eight? Tops. But they keep themselves bloody busy.


 
In Newcastle there is one of them, but he does enough for ten people (nice bloke as well as it happens).


----------



## belboid (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> AWL are a suburb


Broomhall...


----------



## J Ed (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> In Newcastle there is one of them, but he does enough for ten people (nice bloke as well as it happens).


 
Do they give them base or something? It would explain a lot...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Do they give them base or something? It would explain a lot...


 
I would believe it


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> Just read that CPGB article. You'd have thought they'd update it to clarify the point they admit they're unclear on!


 
Facts have always been secondary to sectarian point scoring in the Weekly Worker.




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> But, the best bit, was when I read that Taafe still gets to say 'sects on the outskirts of the labour movement'


 
Well, he still got to say it 16 years ago. That's quite possibly the last published use of that famous catchphrase. Certainly, by the time I was in London I never once saw it or heard it except when people were making self-parodying jokes.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

I had sects on the outskirts of Romford once


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 15, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> You are right. As someone pointed out to me the other day, both factions involved in the SWP dispute are claiming impeccable Leninist credentials! I was an easily impressionable youth in the 1980s, and with the benefit of hindsight now, I can see that the 'theoretical brilliance' of the SWP was really cribbed from an incredibly limited tunnel vision of what Marxian ideas were - essentially Tony Cliff's volumes on Lenin plus a boilerplate critique of political economy, fashioned in the first instance by Kidron, then polished up in the later years by Harman. There was never an attempt to borrow down into the philosophical underpinning of the ideas in any meaningful way. This hysterical obsession with 'activism' and 'building the party' has partly lead to where the SWP finds itself today: a sinking ship without a rudder.
> 
> If there is to be a renaissance of Marxian ideas, it has much more to gain from the Luxemburgist tradition of the IS, when ideas could be more wide ranging and not what followed after Cliff's putsch in the mid 1970s. But the concept of tolerance and pluralism is seen as a weakness in SWP la la land.


 
I think you make some very pertinent points here , Sean Delaney. Although I obviously read Cliff's "Lenin" books at the time like a true believer, Its only been really whilst reading some of the better stuff put up, or re-put up on the blogosphere, criticising/reevaluating Cliffs role and legacy, that I've quite grasped just how much Cliff obviously thought he was directly "channelling"  Lenin. So just as Cliff always claimed that, though a solid bourgeois in origin, Lenin could somehow tap into the entire working class mindset from moment to moment (!) he, Cliff, thought  he could pull off this spooky trick too ! and so we got constant IS/ SWP  bonkers tactical turns, driven purely by Cliff's whims, prejudices, and mental state. Sad, sad, stuff - but only really possible in a grouplet so tiny and unimbedded in the working class that it could always really be said to have been run from Cliff's front parlour in his lifetime (once he'd killed off the 70's Rank & File Movement and all those Bolshie independent minded shop stewards that is).Presumeably now the ENTIRE SWP will in future be able to fit into Prof Alex Callinicos' no doubt palatial front parlour !


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 15, 2013)

Just a quick note, this thread and the discussions on it have encouraged me to get Lars T Lih's Lenin Rediscovered, which I've just started reading, and is great. It really shows how what I, and a lot of people, take for granted as Leninism was something cobbled together by Cliff and those guys in the mid-70's, or even earlier with guys like James P Cannon and so on. I can't recommend it enough.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 15, 2013)

Is it available online?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 15, 2013)

I hope not I just paid £20 for the bastard


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Just a quick note, this thread and the discussions on it have encouraged me to get Lars T Lih's Lenin Rediscovered, which I've just started reading, and is great. It really shows how what I, and a lot of people, take for granted as Leninism was something cobbled together by Cliff and those guys in the mid-70's, or even earlier with guys like James P Cannon and so on. I can't recommend it enough.


 
What's his (her?) key points Delroy ? (yeh, yeh, I know "just read the thing yourself" ... but to encourage me/us to read it, what are the standout points made that got you recommending it ?) Because I have to admit as a former fervant "Leninist" I'm ever more in the camp of thinking Lenin was actually one of the truly great fuck up merchants of world history. I still love "State & Revolution" , but am increasingly of the view that Lenin actually only wrote it as a cynical tactic- of- the- moment document, perhaps to encourage and promote yet more chaos in the Russian Empire - which a well organised Bolshevik Party could exploit. In other words I think the permanent , in places neo-anarchist , certainly inspiring revolutionery democratic, brilliance of the book was an accident, an aberration from the entire drift of Lenin's usual thought and practice !


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I had sects on the outskirts of Romford once


I always said you'd gone to the dogs.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I had sects on the outskirts of Romford once


 I don't think you will be able to stop that story dogging you.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 15, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> What's his (her?) key points Delroy ? (yeh, yeh, I know "just read the thing yourself" ... but to encourage me/us to read it, what are the standout points made that got you recommending it ?) Because I have to admit as a former fervant "Leninist" I'm ever more in the camp of thinking Lenin was actually one of the truly great fuck up merchants of world history. I still love "State & Revolution" , but am increasingly of the view that Lenin actually only wrote it as a cynical tactic- of- the- moment document, perhaps to encourage and promote yet more chaos in the Russian Empire - which a well organised Bolshevik Party could exploit. In other words I think the permanent , in places neo-anarchist , certainly inspiring revolutionery democratic, brilliance of the book was an accident, an aberration from the entire drift of Lenin's usual thought and practice !


 
I'm about 20 pages into it so far so probably better off asking butchers or someone else who's read the full thing if you want a proper summary, but I've already flicked through various sections and it's contradicted a lot of my assumptions about Lenin. It's a bit of an epic tome, 700 pages or something, and there's a lot of historical information about the way the RSDLP functioned, and how Lenin group functioned within it, that I was utterly unaware of from the trot-centric version of events I've managed to pick up in my few years of involvement.

EDIT - oh and as an aside, totally agree with you about State and Revolution. You've made some really good posts recently too and I've enjoyed reading them.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> What's his (her?) key points Delroy ? (yeh, yeh, I know "just read the thing yourself" ... but to encourage me/us to read it, what are the standout points made that got you recommending it ?) Because I have to admit as a former fervant "Leninist" I'm ever more in the camp of thinking Lenin was actually one of the truly great fuck up merchants of world history. I still love "State & Revolution" , but am increasingly of the view that Lenin actually only wrote it as a cynical tactic- of- the- moment document, perhaps to encourage and promote yet more chaos in the Russian Empire - which a well organised Bolshevik Party could exploit. In other words I think the permanent , in places neo-anarchist , certainly inspiring revolutionery democratic, brilliance of the book was an accident, an aberration from the entire drift of Lenin's usual thought and practice !


 but it looks like a pretty extensive review. Lenin Revisited
www.erudit.org/revue/ttr/2005/v18/n2/015775ar.*pdf*

*I think if you copy and paste that address , it will download.  otherwise just Google.  *


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 15, 2013)

Lenin RediscoveredJohn Molineux


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 15, 2013)

5.0 out of 5 stars  *pathbreaking work on the early Lenin*, December 21, 2006
By​*Paul LeBlanc* (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)​*This review is from: Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? in Context (Historical Materialism Book Series,) (Hardcover)*
This fat and expensive book is an amazingly thorough work of scholarship. It overturns what author Lars Lih terms "the textbook version" of the early Lenin.

The standard story of the founder of modern Communism, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, (advanced during the Cold War both by anti-Communist ideologues and by supporters of the Stalin dictatorship) is that Lenin advocated a super-centralized, hyper-disciplined "party of a new type" which would lead the working class in overturning capitalism, then rule in the name of the working class through a one-party dictatorship. This allegedly is what Lenin wrote about in his 1902 classic "What Is To Be Done," and this is what he accomplished through Russia's 1917 revolution and in the years after (until he died in 1923) -- which paved the way for the totalitarian regime of Joseph Stalin.

Through painstaking work with Russian-language sources plus a good deal of other material as well, Lih demolishes this story. One of the reasons this book is so huge is that it includes a completely new English translation of "What Is To Be Done." Lih critically scrutinizes the scholarship of many different scholars associated with "the textbook version" and essentially blows most of them out of the water (often with considerable humor). This is definitely not light reading, nor is it designed for novices in the field Russian history. But the writing is clear and quite interesting, the documentation generally compelling and persuasive, and the points made quite important for an understanding of Marxism, Communism, and Russian history.

Lih argues that Lenin was committed to overthrowing the tsarist autocracy and establishing democracy and freedom in Russia (through a "bourgeois-democratic revolution") as a precondition for organizing a working-class movement that would eventually carry out a revolution to replace capitalism (understood as an economic dictatorship) with socialism (understood as an economic democracy). As Lih shows, this orientation was consistent with the ideas of Karl Marx and of the democratic-socialist orientation of the German Social-Democratic Party of the early 20th century. The split in the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in 1903, between Lenin's Bolshevik (majority) faction and the Mensheviks (minority) was NOT over his comrades' opposition to his allegedly undemocratic ideas, but over the refusal of a large cluster to party members to go along with a democratically-made decision over who would be on the organization's editorial board. Lih argues that Lenin was actually more democratic and less elitist than his factional opponenets!

One limitation of the book is that is stops in 1905. A related, and quite serious, limitation is that it doesn't really deal with the question of why a revolutionary like Lenin and an organization such as the Bolshevik party, so committed to democracy, should carry out a revolution which really did result in a terrible dictatorship -- and which under Stalin (who claimed to be doing it all "under the banner of Lenin") certainly became one of the worst dictatorships in the history of the world.

This problem is addressed by one of Lih's teachers, Robert C. Tucker, in a fine two-volume biography of Stalin. I also address this problem in MARX, LENIN, AND THE REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIENCE (New York: Routledge, 2006). It will be interesting to see how Lih himself deals with this in some of his future work.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 15, 2013)

http://www.internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/statement-of-disaffiliation.html

Leeds University statement


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Just a quick note, this thread and the discussions on it have encouraged me to get Lars T Lih's Lenin Rediscovered, which I've just started reading, and is great. It really shows how what I, and a lot of people, take for granted as Leninism was something cobbled together by Cliff and those guys in the mid-70's, or even earlier with guys like James P Cannon and so on. I can't recommend it enough.


I'm not sure that it was (and it wasn't just Cliff and Cannon but the whole Trotskyist movement since the 1930s including Ernst Mandel, Ted Grant, etc, as well as the world's Communist parties whether pro-Moscow or pro-Peking or pro-Albania). It is the opposite, historical revisionist view that Lenin wasn't really a Leninist but just a leftwing Social Democrat, that seems the less plausible.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 16, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Funny how when folk leave the CWI how often we find out from people still in the CWI that those who left are are lacking personal skills.....


 
Nope, I disliked Dermot Connolly almost from the moment I met him. I'm a hipster Dermot Connolly hater in that regard.
I get on well with 95% of people who've left the CWI and there's a fair few still in I'd happily feign an injury to avoid speaking to.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 16, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Nope, I disliked Dermot Connolly almost from the moment I met him. I'm a hipster Dermot Connolly hater in that regard.
> I get on well with 95% of people who've left the CWI and there's a fair few still in I'd happily feign an injury to avoid speaking to.


 
Christ, I hope the poor sod doesn't have his own name on google alert.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 16, 2013)

I wouldn't worry. He'd probably take it as a compliment.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> I rather like that, that they can be bothered


 
Still waiting a reply from A-Fed


----------



## cesare (Mar 16, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Still waiting a reply from A-Fed



You can be Estragon.


----------



## october_lost (Mar 16, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the fact of the matter is this.  The SWP clearly stated their position.  Of all people, of all people you would think students would read.  There was no proof, absolutely none of a Machiavellian tactic to let the SWSS students believe a load of bollocks. there is nothing in their actions that the SWP  cannot explain from a different perspective from the one Norman gave.


Slightly more complicated than your making out. The organisational structure, specifically of allowing anybody and their dog to join, without vetting their politics, allows for people to hold contradictory positions at odds with your theory. Partly, the election of a slate, for the CC is a reflection that the leadership don't trust the membership or the education level of the membership. Meaning there is probably a greater gulf in political understanding, between leadership and rank and file, in the SWP than probably any other organisation on the left.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> You can be Estragon.


 
Only if I don't shave and not wash my clothes


----------



## belboid (Mar 16, 2013)

discokermit said:


> based on no evidence whatsoever and very little thought, the name that popped into my head was dave hayes. dunno why, except i thought the "whatever happened to dave hayes" bit could have been a little gag and/or a weak (possibly deliberately so) attempt at misdirection.


Just realised I know what happened to DH. He works at Sheffield Hallam Uni, still in the party, signed the CC statement


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 16, 2013)

october_lost said:


> Slightly more complicated than your making out. The organisational structure, specifically of allowing anybody and their dog to join, without vetting their politics, allows for people to hold contradictory positions at odds with your theory. Partly, the election of a slate, for the CC is a reflection that the leadership don't trust the membership or the education level of the membership. Meaning there is probably a greater gulf in political understanding, between leadership and rank and file, in the SWP than probably any other organisation on the left.


 
How would prospective recruits politics be vetted. Some form of candidate membership/assessment?


----------



## cesare (Mar 16, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> How would prospective recruits politics be vetted. Some form of candidate membership/assessment?


SPGB style?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> SPGB style?


 
slipping standards


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 16, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> How would prospective recruits politics be vetted. Some form of candidate membership/assessment?


 
How about asking people to be involved in things with the party without trying to recuit them? If they want to join they can ask to join.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> never said he did, just wanted you to double underlined to frog woman the *REAL* SWP theoretical position.how do you possibly take on this
> how do I convince you, it is possible that your impression of events, is maybe different to somebody else's impression of events? You have no hard evidence for that. You have no statements from the SWP stating that. That is just your impression, you state as if hard fact.


 
How would you know?
After all, you reckon you haven't been a Swappie for years, that you have little contact with them, and that you don't keep up with the latest dogma.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 16, 2013)

october_lost said:


> Slightly more complicated than your making out. The organisational structure, specifically of allowing anybody and their dog to join, without vetting their politics, allows for people to hold contradictory positions at odds with your theory. Partly, the election of a slate, for the CC is a reflection that the leadership don't trust the membership or the education level of the membership. Meaning there is probably a greater gulf in political understanding, between leadership and rank and file, in the SWP than probably any other organisation on the left.


  essentially I agree with you.  Just nitpicking a few points.

SW argue Everybody, everybody from anarchists through to the CC of the SWP has contradictory levels of consciousness.  Not only that, it's not a one-way street.  Because everybody is in a dynamic relationship with the dominant ideas in society, people are pulled this way that constantly. <That point, does not negate the point you are making.  Yes indeed, there will always, always be people that hold contradictory positions at odds with our theory.
Is it greater, the contradiction, in the SWP than any other organisation on the Revolutionar (R) left?  Probably.  Do the CC set out to create that contradiction in the way Norman suggested?  PMSL no!  There is quite obvious logical and less Machiavellian explanation for this.


> Partly, the election of a slate, for the CC is a reflection that the leadership don't trust the membership or the education level of the membership. Meaning there is probably a greater gulf in political understanding, between leadership and rank and file, in the SWP than probably any other organisation on the left.


 
I've been listening to people's complaints about the SWP on here for 10 years.  Because they tend to hyperbole, sociological, and Machiavellian explanations like Norman's, for someone like me, they are easy to dismiss.  However, having read SWP comrades criticism of the party, I find their explanations much easier to understand.  And they are not too far away from what people are saying on here, they just explain it in a more political language FMPOV, that is easier for me to comprehend. http://redioactive.blogspot.co.uk/2...ter&utm_campaign=Feed:+Redbedhead+(RedBedHead
Comrades are basically agreeing with you, that there is too big a gap between the CC and the membership, but more importantly between the CC and reality.  Between the CC and the reality of the class struggle.
I believe the CC drew the wrong conclusions from events in Manchester around the war in Yugoslavia, regarding the way forward to working with all the left wing organisations, and the working class.  This manifested in our move into the socialist Alliance, and a wrong tactic.  This itself compounded an earlier mistake about the "upturn in class struggle".  "1930s in slow motion".
In my opinion, Another important factor is people need to be clear about what they mean when they say SWP actions contradict their theory.
(R) Anybody who would like to see an end to capitalist mode of social organisation and a transition to a classless mode of social existence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I had sects on the outskirts of Romford once


 
In a Ford Capri 1.6?


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 16, 2013)

The Daily Mail's just made things a lot worse:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-teenage-member-scandal-goes-far-deeper.html


----------



## two sheds (Mar 16, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> How about asking people to be involved in things with the party without trying to recuit them? If they want to join they can ask to join.


 


You'll be suggesting asking people what they want to do and seeing how the party can help them next.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2013)

Only new thing in that mail re-hash is:



> We have also learned of a third alleged rape case in London, which went before the disputes committee and resulted in the accused — a party member also in his 20s — being expelled from the SWP.


 
Presumably this was part of the the 9 cases we knew about already, but does - if true of course - open up again questions about the parties responsibilities to people outside the party as well as inside.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 16, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I've been listening to people's complaints about the SWP on here for 10 years. .


No you haven't listened at all, you simply knee jerk defend the party whatever the circumstances.
 For most of the past three months you have not even acknowledged that this crisis was caused by an allegation of serious sexual assault, and instead trolled " have they split yet? Inanities.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Only new thing in that mail re-hash is:
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably this was part of the the 9 cases we knew about already, but does - if true of course - open up the questions about the parties responsibilities to people outside the party as well as inside.


I am still wondering whether the case I heard about in the early 1990s will come out.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 16, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> How about asking people to be involved in things with the party without trying to recuit them? If they want to join they can ask to join.


 
Fine but then if they want to join how do we avoid the issue that Octoberlost raised


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> No you haven't listened at all, you simply knee jerk defend the party whatever the circumstances.
> For most of the past three months you have not even acknowledged that this crisis was caused by an allegation of serious sexual assault, and instead trolled " have they split yet? Inanities.


 
Well said, barney.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Only new thing in that mail re-hash is:
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably this was part of the the 9 cases we knew about already, but does - if true of course - open up again questions about the parties responsibilities to people outside the party as well as inside.


And we've already talked about one such case earlier in this thread. Given that the woman in that case didn't want to go to the police either I'm not sure what the party could reasonably be expected to have done differently to expelling the guy.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> How would you know?
> After all, you reckon you haven't been a Swappie for years, that you have little contact with them, and that you don't keep up with the latest dogma.


 

I am talking about historic examples.  ie the way people interpret the SWP's actions in the socialist Alliance. it is just so easy for me to dismiss the interpretation that we just wanted to control, because 1.   It wasn't worth controlling. 2.   The real reason is there in black-and-white in their publications. the erroneous belief the working class were just waiting for a reformist 'party', that would reflect their level of consciousness, which new Labour had abandoned.  If you look at the Constitution structure et cetera that we engineered, it wasn't there to give us control, it was there to bend over backwards to the 'reformist' working class. if anything it was to give them control of a 'working class' organisation, in which revolutionaries would have a foothold.  


(You know like Trotsky's argument about the little cog, turning the big cog?   Socialist Alliance, respect, UAF, are all contradictory to revolutionary theory, but the contradiction is explainable as revolutionary socialist from this POV.)


----------



## belboid (Mar 16, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> No you haven't listened at all, you simply knee jerk defend the party whatever the circumstances.


that _is_ listening according to SWP mindset, its what the faction have been saying the whole time!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I am talking about historic examples. ie the way people interpret the SWP's actions in the socialist Alliance. it is just so easy for me to dismiss the interpretation that we just wanted to control, because 1. It wasn't worth controlling. 2. The real reason is there in black-and-white in their publications. the erroneous belief the working class were just waiting for a reformist 'party', that would reflect their level of consciousness, which new Labour had abandoned. If you look at the Constitution structure et cetera that we engineered, it wasn't there to give us control, it was there to bend over backwards to the 'reformist' working class. if anything it was to give them control of a 'working class' organisation, in which revolutionaries would have a foothold.
> 
> 
> (You know like Trotsky's argument about the little cog, turning the big cog? Socialist Alliance, respect, UAF, are all contradictory to revolutionary theory, but the contradiction is explainable as revolutionary socialist from this POV.)


 
I suspect you actually believe that's what you're doing too. That's how far gone you are.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 16, 2013)

Happier days when Cliff was king of hip hop

https://soundcloud.com/jonny-favourite


----------



## october_lost (Mar 16, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://redioactive.blogspot.co.uk/2...ter&utm_campaign=Feed:+Redbedhead+(RedBedHead





> A number of years ago, when I was on the IS Steering Committee, there was a debate in the SWP about who would appoint party full-timers. The old way had been for them to be democratically appointed from the district in which they were to work. But sometime in the 1990s (at least this was when I became aware of it) an argument was raised that the full-timers ought to be appointed by the party centre because, otherwise, the full-timers would feel beholden to the district and not the national party. This, it was argued would hinder the implementation of national perspectives and thus be anti-democratic.


This is interesting.



> Things are moving fast inside the SWP with last night’s announcement of the mass resignation of over 70 members, probably to be joined by numerous others who resigned individually. As is probably apparent from my analysis, I am sympathetic to the reasons why they have done so. The real danger is that they have played into the plan of the CC – which was, I believe, to make the environment so hostile that hardcore opposition would leave, weakening any wavering elements inside the party to continue the struggle. My fear is that this will weaken the struggle against the party bureaucracy and lead to the loss of what, in my view, was the most profound reclamation of the real Marxist tradition since the profound defeat of the Russian Revolution by Stalinism almost 90 years ago.


The SWP being the best thing to come out of Marxism in the last 90 years! It's hard to know where to begin...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> And we've already talked about one such case earlier in this thread. Given that the woman in that case didn't want to go to the police either I'm not sure what the party could reasonably be expected to have done differently to expelling the guy.


Which case? And why are you sure that the woman didn't want to go to the police in this case? I wasn't talking about the police anyway - i was talking about circulating info about the person expelled for rape - surely that a sort of basic responsibility here in order to allow others (inside and out of the party) to prepare and to potentially defend themselves? Or was that too high a price to pay for the trouble it would bring to the parties door?


----------



## october_lost (Mar 16, 2013)

Re: Socialist Alliance, the SWP were more about soaking up any new forces in this arena, rather than controlling it explicitly. If the SP had had stayed in there, the SWP would have been the biggest faction, but couldn't have got everything their own way.


----------



## belboid (Mar 16, 2013)

october_lost said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> 
> The SWP being the best thing to come out of Marxism in the last 90 years! It's hard to know where to begin...


the first quote is just bollocks tho - organisers were never 'democratically appointed,' and the system didnt change in the nineties/


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 16, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Lenin RediscoveredJohn Molineux


 
Yeh, a fascinating review. The review by Paul LeBlanc mentioned by ibilly99 in post 9126 is also interesting, but does make the point about Lars' book that ;

"One limitation of the book is that is stops in 1905. A related, and quite serious, limitation is that it doesn't really deal with the question of why a revolutionary like Lenin and an organization such as the Bolshevik party, so committed to democracy, should carry out a revolution which really did result in a terrible dictatorship -- and which under Stalin (who claimed to be doing it all "under the banner of Lenin") certainly became one of the worst dictatorships in the history of the world".

My "problem with Lenin" isn't actually that I think he was a sinister authoritarian all along. So I can probably buy into most of the , up to 1905, stuff by Lars vis a vis "what is to be Done, etc" . My problem with Lenin is that he took a disastrous world historically significant gamble in October 1917, supposedly (some argue) AFTER he had finally twigged (because of the devastating betrayal of German Social Democracy, particularly its Marxist luminaries like Kautsky, in supporting their ruling class and voting for war in 1914) that German Social Democracy wasn't revolutionery after all, and , with Trotsky, persuaded the Bolshevik Party to carry out what was essentially an adventurist politico/military coup . This carried the aims of the revolution waaaaay beyond the orthodox Marxist (and of course Menshevik) "Bourgeois Democratic" limits that the economic/social backwardness of Russia presupposed in orthodox Marxist Theory. He did this, partly because the total chaos in the Russian Empire simply provided an opportunity to do so, but ostensively because it could be argued to be a premature, but useful contributory part of the Europe-wide socialist revolution then very much on the cards. However if Lenin had already "seen through" the non-revolutionery posturing of German Social Democracy by 1917 (as others argue) , how could he justify this huge break with Marxist orthodoxy in seizing power for a tiny working class in a backward peasant-filled country , if there was no realistic prospect of the German working class soon coming to the rescue ? If Lenin in fact still had big illusions in German Social Democracy's ability to deliver a socialist revolution in 1917, then actually his understanding of German Social Democracy was crap - but at least his huge revolutionery gamble was more justifiable . Though with the benefit of nearly 100 years of 20/20 hindsight it surely is now clear that the gamble not only failed, but may have , because of the rise of Stalinism as a result of the unsustainability of socialist working class democracy in an isolated Soviet Union, condemned Humanity forever to a rejection of Socialism.

By either interpretation of Lenin's understanding of the potential of German Social Democracy by 1917, the critical point, I think, is that Lenin, far from being the font of all political/tactical wisdom, stands condemned as either an incompetent and naive political analyst, or as an extraordinary political gambler, or both . He certainly doesn't come across as the all-seeing sage, finger on the pulse of history, whilst all around him twist and turn in confusion. The continuing obsession with Lenin and "Leninism" today is rooted , I think, in the still powerful weight of the Stalinist message , then also adopted by Trotskyism in all essentials, that Lenin's amazing non-orthodox-Marxist power grab gamble "PAID OFF", and created a Socialist State ( even if "deformed") in the overthrown Czarist Empire. End of argument... IT WORKED, QED. Of course it didn't - it created a very short-lived , unstable, "workers and peasants " state, totally dominated by the Communist Party bureaucracy - very quickly overthrown by a hitherto unthought of new oppressive social form - "Stalinism". The gamble completely FAILED. In hindsight the much sneered at Menshevik warning that to hold power in an isolated backward Russia a socialist party would have eventually to rule by "Jacobin Terror" , has proved to be only too true. I'm not suggesting this was inevitable - the German , and other European,socialist revolutionery wave of 1918 to the mid 20's could just possibly have succeeded - but given what we now know about the treachery of Social Democracy , unlikely.

I think we all really need to just stop interpreting and reinterpreting Lenin ad infinitum. Stop identifying ourselves as "Leninists" or "non-Leninists". There has now been a full bourgeois capitalist restoration in the USSR - soon to follow in China. Let the man and his mouldering corpse be buried. He was a flawed but sincere revolutionery. His (and Trotsky's) sincere, understandable, but with 100 years of hindsight, mistaken, 1917 political gamble failed, with huge disastrous consequences for world history. We need to use the revolutionery socialist tradition, the disastrous mistakes, and the writings of past revolutioneries in a much more open-minded, rather than "scriptural reverential" way, move on, and try to use the brains in our heads to chart the way forward now, on the basis of OUR understanding of the problems and challenges ahead.


----------



## october_lost (Mar 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> the first quote is just bollocks tho - organisers were never 'democratically appointed,' and the system didnt change in the nineties/


Has it always been the same?


----------



## belboid (Mar 16, 2013)

Could have been different in the seventies, but its been the same since at least '84


----------



## october_lost (Mar 16, 2013)

> For, according to a former veteran party member of 18 years standing, the SWP’s internal court — otherwise known as the disputes committee — has been convened on no fewer than nine separate occasions to investigate allegations of rape against nine different men in the party.



Are the names of the nine known? Are they still in the party?


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> Could have been different in the seventies, but its been the same since at least '84


 
In Manchester (from my 1971 onwards experience) organisers were always appointed by the Centre. However, given the small size and pool of potential organisers then, the local bod appointed could be "interesting". In 1971 the Manchester Organiser, Glynn Carver was a strange  "Trotsky/Maoist"hybrid  !


----------



## articul8 (Mar 16, 2013)

october_lost said:


> Re: Socialist Alliance, the SWP were more about soaking up any new forces in this arena, rather than controlling it explicitly. If the SP had had stayed in there, the SWP would have been the biggest faction, but couldn't have got everything their own way.


nah, they demanded simple majority votes on everything - basically "our way or the highway"


----------



## emanymton (Mar 16, 2013)

This figure of 9 cases has cropped up a few times, but I have lost track of where it ordinates from. Also it does not say very much by itself, 9 cases over how long a time period? Has than be stated anywhere?


----------



## october_lost (Mar 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> nah, they demanded simple majority votes on everything - basically "our way or the highway"


Are you talking about the steering committee?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> Could have been different in the seventies, but its been the same since at least '84


 
Appointed in the late 70s when I joined.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 16, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> In Manchester (from my 1971 onwards experience) organisers were always appointed by the Centre. However, given the small size and pool of potential organisers then, the local bod appointed could be "interesting". In 1971 the Manchester Organiser, Glynn Carver was a strange "Trotsky/Maoist"hybrid !


I was never sure that electing organisers was a good idea anyway. And this impression that to be one you have to be ultra loyal is not true either. Many are but I have come across a significant number who aren't. Paris T of course was one while having massive disagreements with the SWP leadership. E en with the limited gossip I here during the current crises I know of 2 who were faction supporters, although at least one of the was sacked straight after conference.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This figure of 9 cases has cropped up a few times, but I have lost track of where it ordinates from. Also it does not say very much by itself, 9 cases over how long a time period? Has than be stated anywhere?


Here


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 16, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> No you haven't listened at all, you simply knee jerk defend the party whatever the circumstances.
> 
> For most of the past three months you have not even acknowledged that this crisis was caused by an allegation of serious sexual assault, and instead trolled " have they split yet? Inanities.


 absolutely true that I have not listened to, addressed the issue of the rape allegations until the last week. I thought I would let more facts come out before jumping to conclusions. If you look through the thread you will see I have pointed out some ambiguities about the allegation of cover-up.

However, Even though it is difficult to work out what is the truth, everybody including members of the CC seem to have agreed things should have been handled better.

If you want a really really honest opinion, really honestly I don't know. I don't know the truth about the rape allegation. I don't know what questions should have been asked. I don't know at all how this should have been handled. If you were only interested in the interests of the party, it would have been better if the woman had gone straight to the police.

However, if you actually read my post, you would see that I have moved significantly on my position of support for the SWP as they are now. THAT was the topic of that post. The reference to the past 10 years, was in reference to discussions before this incident.

If you want me to discuss the rape allegations, I will do. But I will have to ask you for information, I don't have.

ie would comrades assess it as fair, if the SWP had refused to handle the rape allegation, and told the comrade to go to the police?


----------



## belboid (Mar 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Here


and, given the author, it is probable that it refers to nine in the _lifetime_ of the SWP


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 16, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> I think we all really need to just stop interpreting and reinterpreting Lenin ad infinitum. Stop identifying ourselves as "Leninists" or "non-Leninists". There has now been a full bourgeois capitalist restoration in the USSR - soon to follow in China. Let the man and his mouldering corpse be buried. He was a flawed but sincere revolutionery. His (and Trotsky's) sincere, understandable, but with 100 years of hindsight, mistaken, 1917 political gamble failed, with huge disastrous consequences for world history. We need to use the revolutionery socialist tradition, the disastrous mistakes, and the writings of past revolutioneries in a much more open-minded, rather than "scriptural reverential" way, move on, and try to use the brains in our heads to chart the way forward now, on the basis of OUR understanding of the problems and challenges ahead.


couldn't agree more.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 16, 2013)

october_lost said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> 
> The SWP being the best thing to come out of Marxism in the last 90 years! It's hard to know where to begin...


fair enough, but do you accept my point?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> and, given the author, it is probable that it refers to nine in the _lifetime_ of the SWP


Is it? Seems to me that this were only the ones that she was recently informed about this 9 by someone maybe from the DC, but certainly someone in some authority - and i see no reason at all to believe that this could not mean 9 that this (DC) member knows about, so it could be read as 9 at least.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> And we've already talked about one such case earlier in this thread. Given that the woman in that case didn't want to go to the police either I'm not sure what the party could reasonably be expected to have done differently to expelling the guy.


it would be interesting for somebody to highlight how this should have been dealt with.  Whether it should have been refused to be handled  by the party?  If they do handle it, how?  What questions should have been asked?

  These questions are not about defending the party, but learning what is the right way to deal with the situation.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is it? Seems to me that this were only the ones that she was recently informed about this 9 by someone maybe from the DC, but certainly someone in some authority - and i see no reason at all to believe that this could not mean 9 that this (DC) member knows about, so it could be read as 9 at least.


 it could mean this, and it could mean that.  We don't know.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I suspect you actually believe that's what you're doing too. That's how far gone you are.


What??


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 16, 2013)

On the "number 9" , this is what the SWP Central Committee say in their perspectives document for the Special Conference "Our position is that in these kinds of cases (and we know of only one other that the party has dealt with in recent memory—we do not know where the figure of “nine rape cases” that has circulated on the Internet comes from) is that it is up to the woman to decide whether she wishes to take the matter to the police." The use of "recent memory" is an odd phrase: Guessing, I assume they mean there are only two recent cases - "Delta" and the Sheffield Organiser. But they do leave the possibility there were 7 more going further back.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 16, 2013)

fuck off troll (not scribbling)


----------



## belboid (Mar 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is it? Seems to me that this were only the ones that she was recently informed about this 9 by someone maybe from the DC, but certainly someone in some authority - and i see no reason at all to believe that this could not mean 9 that this (DC) member knows about, so it could be read as 9 at least.


On re-reading it you are quite right. And from what scribblnig has just written, it sounds like a rather rumour mongered number anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> On re-reading it you are quite right. And from what scribblnig has just written, it sounds like a rather rumour mongered number anyway.


Quite possibly - someone seems to have used it in argument though and i think she'd only have made it public if she thought it was someone who would be in a position to know. Or it could be total bollocks.


----------



## october_lost (Mar 16, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> fair enough, but do you accept my point?


Which is what? That the SWP is organisationally baggy as opposed to being opportunistic and hostile to others? Many a silly point is made about the SWP, but I would have thought it was un-Marxist to try and separate content and form in this manner.

I also think you really need to work out thinking beyond binaries all the time.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 16, 2013)

october_lost said:


> Which is what? That the SWP is organisationally baggy as opposed to being opportunistic and hostile to others? Many a silly point is made about the SWP, but I would have thought it was un-Marxist to try and separate content and form in this manner.
> 
> I also think you really need to work out thinking beyond binaries all the time.


organisational baggy?
  Separate content and form in this manner?
  Thinking beyond binaries?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> that _is_ listening according to SWP mindset, its what the faction have been saying the whole time!


but I've already said I wasn't talking about this issue on purpose.  What he quoted wasn't referring to this issue.  People constantly take what I'm saying to a different topic, and then complain when I reciprocate in kind.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2013)

october_lost said:


> That the SWP is organisationally baggy .


 






or


----------



## newbie (Mar 16, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it would be interesting for somebody to highlight how this should have been dealt with. Whether it should have been refused to be handled by the party? If they do handle it, how? What questions should have been asked?
> 
> These questions are not about defending the party, but learning what is the right way to deal with the situation.


 
the usual form of words is "_bringing the <organisation> into disrepute_".

Even noting what cesare et al said much earlier in the thread about best practice workplace investigations of wrongdoing I'm personally very doubtful a small voluntary body can pronounce on anything beyond reputation.

And tbh I don't have a scooby how they're supposed to protect the alleged perpetrator if they find his (her) actions did not bring them into disrepute. The entire internet shouting 'cover-up' is hardly a great outcome, for the accused (whose reputation is utterly trashed) or for those doing the investigation.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 16, 2013)

newbie said:


> the usual form of words is "_bringing the <organisation> into disrepute_".
> 
> Even noting what cesare et al said much earlier in the thread about best practice workplace investigations of wrongdoing I'm personally very doubtful a small voluntary body can pronounce on anything beyond reputation.
> 
> And tbh I don't have a scooby how they're supposed to protect the alleged perpetrator if they find his (her) actions did not bring them into disrepute. The entire internet shouting 'cover-up' is hardly a great outcome, for the accused (whose reputation is utterly trashed) or for those doing the investigation.


 
Convicted or not, the outside world was never supposed to know.


----------



## newbie (Mar 16, 2013)

not a chance, not in the web 2 age, not for anyone high profile.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 16, 2013)

newbie said:


> not a chance, not in the web 2 age, not for anyone high profile.


 
No shit but these people don't understand the internet


----------



## newbie (Mar 16, 2013)

they're idiots then.  there's probably lots of reasons why they're not fit to run an allotment society but incidentals like the guy and the boxer last week ought to give them pause for thought.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> originally the march was supposed to be against Spearmint Rhino (isn't it weird how they never target the brothels in Attercliffe?)


 
Not weird at all. SR (Spearmint Rhino, not the Social Revolutionary party) represents probably the most repugnant side of contemporary pornography/sex work - a fully functioning sex factory. The smaller dives are run by criminals and gangsters, and short of a fully emancipatory revolutionary situation, a la Barcelona 1936, I can't see these being a very logical target.

Not that I think picketing women in any sex club is a great idea - censorship and prudery don't make great bedfellows for a politics of emanipation. Something of the 60s New Left spirit has definitely to be rediscovered again one day. Trots have always been happy to work with sexual conservatives (Lyndsay German's famous: 'gay rights are not a shibboleth' comes to mind). I wonder why?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 16, 2013)

And Socialist Resistance make their pitch:
http://socialistresistance.org/4929/lets-get-some-good-out-of-this-comrades

The old and tired hungering for delicious young blood. The short version is please please please please work with us. We'll do whatever you want, just please let us be involved.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 16, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Not weird at all. SR (Spearmint Rhino, not the Social Revolutionary party) represents probably the most repugnant side of contemporary pornography/sex work - a fully functioning sex factory. The smaller dives are run by criminals and gangsters, and short of a fully emancipatory revolutionary situation, a la Barcelona 1936, I can't see these being a very logical target.


 
Whilst I agree in a general sense - at the end of the day both will need to be pressured - even to have success against just one. The way Speamint Rhino resists community pressure against a council planning go-ahead is it says you should let us open a proper, regulated, taxpaying, fully licensed venue - criminal venues are meeting "the demand" right now, open us up and make the police deal with these bad ones.



> Not that I think picketing women in any sex club is a great idea - censorship and prudery don't make great bedfellows for a politics of emanipation. Something of the 60s New Left spirit has definitely to be rediscovered again one day. Trots have always been happy to work with sexual conservatives (Lyndsay German's famous: 'gay rights are not a shibboleth' comes to mind). I wonder why?


 
No one feminist or socialist - as far I know - pickets the women workers in a sex club, only right-wing religious forces do this, people have gathered outside entrances to ward off or cause commotion against customers/clients, with general leaflets about the profits secured from and damage caused by the sex industry.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 16, 2013)

See Mike Rosen has posted his thoughts - saying he thinks they'll have to acknowledge a total fuck up from start to finish over this


----------



## sihhi (Mar 16, 2013)

It's terrible when Woodhead did it (Woodhead began a romantic relationship with a 17-year-old female student in 1976 when Woodhead was a 30 year-old teacher):
"Members of the National Union of Teachers are receiving ballot papers for a boycott of appraisal. The vote is for action against a central plank of the performance related pay scheme the government wants to impose on teachers. It comes as education ministers are digging their heels in defending the man who sums up New Labour's vision of education—chief inspector of schools Chris Woodhead.... Now he is in trouble over allegations by his ex-wife, Cathy Woodhead that he lied about an affair with one of his pupils 20 years ago. David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, says, "The chief inspector, who is responsible for moral and spiritual standards in schools, is the subject of allegations that he has lied publicly." Woodhead says he only began an affair with Amanda Johnston after she ceased to be a pupil. But colleagues of his at the time have now broken their silence and backed Cathy Woodhead's claim that the affair began while Amanda Johnston was still her then husband's pupil. Education secretary David Blunkett, along with papers like the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, are standing by Woodhead. The hypocrisy stinks." (Socialist Worker, 24 Apr 1999)

It's healthy and cannot be criticised when Delta did it (Delta began a romantic relationship with a 17-year-old female new SWSS recruit in 2008 when Delta was ?? years old)
"it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were ... whether the age differences in their relationship because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those"


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 16, 2013)

never seems to be much coherance with anything the SWP says or does as witnessed by the above discussion over its homage to/opposition to identity politics and by the hypocracy demonstrated in the last post. Probably the only way one can explain it is if one principle - the principle of recruitment - is the only one posited that they pay any homage too. One cannot help but be reminded of St Pauls (Badious wonderful father of universalism)infamous "I am all things to all men" speech when it came towards how he tailored the xtian message to different audiences...

*1 Corinthians 9:19-22*


19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 16, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I see you are quick to condemn someone without bothering to check the evidence. So here's the link again (which was provided by a SPEW member on another thread):
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/125311046/TUSC-leaflet-for-Maltby-Town-Council-Election
> 
> ...



Apologies Jean-Luc, genuine mistake. I think the leaflet was pretty good though, and your criticisms of it a tad bizarre


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> It wasn't very coherent, originally the march was supposed to be against Spearmint Rhino (isn't it weird how they never target the brothels in Attercliffe?) but they changed it to being a march against any more stripclubs opening. Other than that I think it was supposed to be an exercise in feminist consciousness raising or something.



Quite a lot of the people involved don't know where Attercliffe is and would be horrified to learn that brothels 
exist in Sheffield.

As an aside, I don't think many of the organisers thought much about the campaign beyond having a demo, and the reason that there were a few issues lumped in together without any suggestion of how to tackle them was that there wasn't much focus on what the march was for. This didn't seem to stop people having fun on the march
 There's been no real follow up to it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which case? And why are you sure that the woman didn't want to go to the police in this case? I wasn't talking about the police anyway - i was talking about circulating info about the person expelled for rape - surely that a sort of basic responsibility here in order to allow others (inside and out of the party) to prepare and to potentially defend themselves? Or was that too high a price to pay for the trouble it would bring to the parties door?


Circulate to who you idiot?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Circulate to who you idiot?


 
One approach would be to circulate to organisations that have working-class people male or female, or women of any class in them, and particularly those that allow a chance for their rape to be repeated - those that have socials together etc.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> One approach would be to circulate to organisations that have working-class people or women of any class in them, and particularly those that allow a chance for their rape to be repeated - those that have socials together etc.


Given that I said in this case the guy went back to Ireland butchers might have paused to question the context. The kid was a republican. work it out whether people were informed or not.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

I know the woman didn't want to go to the police because I heard her arguments against doing that. Check the earlier part of the thread. This is a case where the SWP behaved with exemplary morality. no doubt some would say it was cause the guy was relatively new to the party but I'd say that was irrelevant .


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Quite a lot of the people involved don't know where Attercliffe is and would be horrified to learn that brothels
> exist in Sheffield.


 
This is a big part of the problem isn't it? They live in a student bubble (very nearly typed brothel then lol) with no idea what's going on around them. Which is potentially very, very harmful.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

Statement from York Anarchists. Highlights:



> The central committee meanwhile have, predictably, pointed the blame at everyone but themselves – the internet (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12210), “feminists” (use of the term as an insult being disturbing in itself), “autonomists”, the media and a host of other scapegoats. The SWP’s pet jazz musician and notorious racist Gilad Atzmon, on the other hand, decided to go the whole hog and pin it on the global Jewish conspiracy (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/sax-offender-vs-progressive-rapists.html) – something which, to our knowledge, the SWP has not responded to despite having given Atzmon a stage at Marxism and other events for years.


 



> The problems which created this crisis – sexual abuse, the disbelief of survivors, hostility towards feminism and the tendency to close ranks around friends – are not unique to the SWP, nor to the left. And the anarchist movement is not immune either (http://libcom.org/files/Betrayal - a critical analysis of rape culture in anarchist subcultures.pdf). They are problems which exist throughout society. Equally, institutional corruption enabling this behaviour exists across the board, from trade unions and socialist groups to churches, schools, political parties and more, and the eagerness of some on the left to score political points throughout this affair has been shameful.
> 
> However, while the problems may be universal, the way those problems were addressed – and the resulting fallout – is inextricably linked to the SWP’s party structure and ideology, and the tendency of political cliques to protect their position whatever the cost.


 

All OK ish. But this last one is a bit weird - how can the good SWP / bad SWP line be drawn much less enforced? 




> Both comradeship and friendship are, and have to be, built on trust. And that trust has been grossly violated beyond repair.
> If you are a member of the SWP and reading this, and if you find the party’s recent actions as repulsive as we do, then you continue to be both our comrade and our friend.
> If you do not, however, then with all due respect: do not speak to us again.
> 
> ...


 
It all sounds like bluster. SWP were out with newspaper sellers and identikit card posters once again at the Whittington demo, it's impossible to tell who is and who isn't repulsed by SWP's actions, because if questioned just about all ordinary members probably would assert they are repulsed but that the CC has learnt its lesson, and that left unity is the important thing.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Given that I said in this case the guy went back to Ireland butchers might have paused to question the context. The kid was a republican. work it out whether people were informed or not.


 
Why does where the adjudged rapist went to matter? It's such an odd statement from you there. Why don't you explain what the whole context was, seeing as you are claiming it makes a crucial difference.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why does where the adjudged rapist went to matter? It's such an odd statement from you there. Why don't you explain what the whole context was, seeing as you are claiming it makes a crucial difference.


How about I don't. I did this conversation once. The party did everything right, go back and check if it matters to you and the boss.


----------



## treelover (Mar 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Only new thing in that mail re-hash is:
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably this was part of the the 9 cases we knew about already, but does - if true of course - open up again questions about the parties responsibilities to people outside the party as well as inside.


 
Its interesting how much of the DM commenters think the SWp and all left groups are unemployed scroungers, the SWP members usually have very good well paid jobs: teachers, nurses/health workers, doctors, higher level public sector workers, etc, and fwik most work very hard indeed


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the guy was relatively new to the party but I'd say that was irrelevant


 
So you've based your attack on butchers point:




> Presumably this was part of the the 9 cases we knew about already, but does - if true of course - open up again questions about the parties responsibilities to people outside the party as well as inside.


 
on the basis of one example which you were you were there for, of a new entrant to the party rapist.

There's little doubt that if a newish young male entrant to the SWP was to have behaved in a sexist or inappropriate manner to any to of the CC members they would be heavily disciplined be subject to a DC without any friends on board, not be allowed to be anywhere near where the CC member was working or attending talks.

So the SWP acting impeccably in some situations, does not tackle the wider problem of the power concentrations and imbalances within the party that do lead to cases like W, X, Sheffield full-timer's victim and another London victim. 

I'm struggling with your general point now bolshie after the March conference, what should the remaining SWP do, and what should the SWP leadership do?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

What fucking 9 cases. Nobody acknowledges that number no matter how many times the boss repeats it.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What fucking 9 cases. Nobody acknowledges that number no matter how many times the boss repeats it.


 
Linda Rogers Edinburgh SWP, Scottish Women's Aid, wrote that she has heard this from supporters of the CC, presumably pro-DC nonfaction people at the original January conference:



> I have also faced the argument that the DC has investigated 9 rapes in the past (I’m not clear on how recently these ‘investigations’ were conducted).  I believe this argument is put forward to reassure comrades of the competency of the DC.  I don't find it reassuring in the slightest; in fact I find it terrifying.  But it illustrates my points above.  Our understanding of rape has developed over the years.  Rape within marriage was only recognised in law in the 1990’s (England) / 1980’s (Scotland), date rape (acquaintance rape) is an issue that we are continuingly developing our understanding of and we have the women's movement to thank for the progress made in changing attitudes towards these issues.  If the party, in the past has underestimated the seriousness of rape and has attempted to investigate it, surely it is valid to suggest that that time has now passed and we understand enough about rape to understand that it is not a dispute between two people that can be resolved through a disputes committee?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 17, 2013)

That's where the number was first mentioned, but I don't think it's ever been confirmed since, either by the SWP or by oppositionists. In the original article, it appears as a figure raised by a loyalist or loyalists in argument rather than as a statement of fact.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's where the number was first mentioned, but I don't think it's ever been confirmed since, either by the SWP or by oppositionists. In the original article, it appears as a figure raised by a loyalist or loyalists in argument rather than as a statement of fact.


Six seem to have been identified by various people, so nine seems a distinctly plausible number


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's where the number was first mentioned, but I don't think it's ever been confirmed since, either by the SWP or by oppositionists. In the original article, it appears as a figure raised by a loyalist or loyalists in argument rather than as a statement of fact.


 
Well they're hardly going to re-confirm it now, are they?

They genuinely thought it was a good argument that would convince people, otherwise they wouldn't have said it in the first place!!


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's where the number was first mentioned, but I don't think it's ever been confirmed since, either by the SWP or by oppositionists. In the original article, it appears as a figure raised by a loyalist or loyalists in argument rather than as a statement of fact.


 

Why are loyalists mentioning that number in argument if it's got no basis in reality?
It gets responded to in pre-special conference factionalising, as they would expect.
And then it is picked up a national newspaper (obviously without Linda Rodgers' input), so it begins to get treated as based on fact given that it asks: 





> The SWP insists there have been only two such cases. But we have already highlighted three in this article, so you must decide who to believe: The Socialist Workers Party, or Linda Rodgers, a woman who has spent her life helping abused women.


 
The Mail obviously waited until after Rodgers had resigned so it could counterpose SWP versus a non-member.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why are loyalists mentioning that number in argument if it's got no basis in reality?


 
Who knows? If you look at the article, the source of the claim is some unknown loyalist, not the writer herself. And we don't know if that loyalist was someone likely to have had direct knowledge or if the source was someone further along the line.

I am not saying that the number is implausible, just that everyone should be careful of simply assuming that it's accurate in the absence of any confirmation or more direct claim of knowledge. It's odd, for instance, that the number hasn't appeared in any other oppositionist documents.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Who knows? If you look at the article, the source of the claim is some unknown loyalist, not the writer herself. And we don't know if that loyalist was someone likely to have had direct knowledge or if the source was someone further along the line.
> 
> I am not saying that the number is implausible, just that everyone should be careful of simply assuming that it's accurate in the absence of any confirmation or more direct claim of knowledge. It's odd, for instance, that the number hasn't appeared in any other oppositionist documents.


 
I agree entirely no one is simply assuming. The number itself is fairly meaningless because the timescale is totally unspecified, so the loyalist hasn't really given anything concrete. Instead it was an attempt to downplay the Delta botching on a clumsy basis, which itself suggests something about the loyalist argument - not focused on their poor handling but on 9 other cases assumed to be handled in an unblemished fashion with 9 rapists correctly neutralised etc (of course this is all in camera, no real reports are published).
You could make a very strong case against any left party/grouping or the anarchist movement for exactly similar faults - details of past cases are not published.

It doesn't necessarily reflect badly upon the SWP, other cross sections of society will probably have more instances and far fewer reportings I'd have thought.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

They have fixed (after some prompting from yours truely!) the link on the internet marxist archive to a 1980 ISJ review of Beyond the Fragments: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/1980/no2-009/goodwin.html

Although the ISN folk would like to believe they have nothing to do with earlier debates between soc fems and the IS what is striking is how Pete Goodwin's arguments against Rowbotham et al could have been written last week to answer the ISN anti-Leninist turn. Even on questions of style there is a synergy beyween the BtF authors and the latest exiles. One of the latter's big themes is how we need a dialogue with the modern feminist movement and not to look for ready made answers in the sacred texts. And Goodwin says of BtF : " ‘They do not offer any “answers”,’ the blurb on the back proudly announces, ‘indeed their distinct concerns and emphases would make that impossible ...’ (Note, by the way, how the word ‘answers’ appears in inverted commas, as if the concept itself was a figment of the deranged Leninist imagination)"

He goes on to say how after reading certain passages on the dangers of Leninism "The reader is supposed to shudder with visions of machismo and misanthropy." Is there any criticism of leninist parties that isn't a rehash of earlier arguments?

And this warning applies too, with suitable name changes. "Far more likely is that the assault *Beyond the Fragments* wages on the hard faced Leninist politics with our ‘obsession’ with workplace struggle will simply be used as a ‘theoretical’ prop for dropping one rung further out of the struggle and trying to cultivate one’s own lifestyle. And if the need for a national political alternative is felt then Tony Benn is ready smiling in the wings to satisfy it. He’s quite willing to make the overtures. Remember Peter Hain’s remarks about ‘the _seminal_ work of socialist theory’ at the _Great Debate_. Remember his indulgence from the chair." There's a reason Owen Jones and Laura Penny are courting SEYMOUR!


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They have fixed (after some prompting from yours truely!) the link on the internet marxist archive to a 1980 ISJ review of Beyond the Fragments: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/1980/no2-009/goodwin.html
> 
> Although the ISN folk would like to believe they have nothing to do with earlier debates between soc fems and the IS what is striking is how Pete Goodwin's arguments against Rowbotham et al could have been written last week to answer the ISN anti-Leninist turn. Even on questions of style there is a synergy beyween the BtF authors and the latest exiles. One of the latter's big themes is how we need a dialogue with the modern feminist movement and not to look for ready made answers in the sacred texts. And Goodwin says of BtF : " ‘They do not offer any “answers”,’ the blurb on the back proudly announces, ‘indeed their distinct concerns and emphases would make that impossible ...’ (Note, by the way, how the word ‘answers’ appears in inverted commas, as if the concept itself was a figment of the deranged Leninist imagination)"
> 
> ...


That's right, if it wasn't for those pesky feminists and their cursed book 33 years ago, nobody would bat an eye about silly little girls crying rape.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

John Molynuex takes a swipe at Owen Jones, left reformists and centrist vacilators in his latest blog entry. Namechecks Seymour and his excitement about Syriza.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Circulate to who you idiot?


Firstly, you're _talking about the wrong case entirely_, i'm talking about the third case mentioned in the Mail yesterday - and sihhi has answered. Secondly, yesterday i said that the 9 cases claims may well be "total bollocks", i wasn't repeating it as fact as you say. Thirdly, from your response to your misreadings of a handful of short posts can we take it that you would support the circulation of info about expelled rapists along the lines sihhi outlined in cases other than the one you thought I was talking about as those 'special conditions' would not exist? Or is this the line a flat out no circulation of info in any cases?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know the woman didn't want to go to the police because I heard her arguments against doing that. Check the earlier part of the thread. This is a case where the SWP behaved with exemplary morality. no doubt some would say it was cause the guy was relatively new to the party but I'd say that was irrelevant .


 
Where were her arguments against going to the police? I missed them.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> That's right, if it wasn't for those pesky feminists and their cursed book 33 years ago, nobody would bat an eye about silly little girls crying rape.


This mess would still be a mess of course. But the ISN comrades are kidding themselves if they think this path hasn't been thread before.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> That's right, if it wasn't for those pesky feminists and their cursed book 33 years ago, nobody would bat an eye about silly little girls crying rape.


I am getting feed up of people (not you) talking as if the crises in the SWP must have some deeper political cause. I have a mate (and he is still a mate) in the SWP and before the conference he kept going on about wanting to know what the 'real' politics were. Now I don't doubt there are a number of various political disagreements being played out here, but surely how the SWP handles rape allegations is a serious political issue in itself? It is not some petty internal squabble.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 17, 2013)

If a wannabe revoutionary leader cant even control his trouser snake cant see him leading the proles anytime soon.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Fine but then if they want to join how do we avoid the issue that Octoberlost raised


 
I think it's less likely that someone will join because they've been around the party without being in some agreement with the politics than if they join because someone has asked them to on the basis that they've signed a petition.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Firstly, you're _talking about the wrong case entirely_, i'm talking about the third case mentioned in the Mail yesterday - and sihhi has answered. Secondly, yesterday i said that the 9 cases claims may well be "total bollocks", i wasn't repeating it as fact as you say. Thirdly, from your response to your misreadings of a handful of short posts can we take it that you would support the circulation of info about expelled rapists along the lines sihhi outlined in cases other than the one you thought I was talking about as those 'special conditions' would not exist? Or is this the line a flat out no circulation of info in any cases?


Apologies, realise now you were talking a different case.

So what are we saying here. That left orgs should share info on proven rapists/abusers with each other or more widely? By printing their names in the papers or a discreet letter to each other? Not being snide just trying to understand what you are suggesting practically.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2013)

I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of a revolutionary leadership to be able to come up with some way of passing info onto other potentially vulnerable groups - how about the sec of the disputes committee contacts the national sec of other groups on the phone and outlines what they uncovered? Of course, where this is going is for you to say this will a) threaten the confidentiality of the victim and b) place the rapist in danger of extra-legal (it's bad in this case  remember) actions. So effectively making the circulation of info impossible even with the best of wills but without you having to say that you actually oppose it- i'm sure some would oppose it because of the damage and inquiry it would bring to the parties door.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> John Molynuex takes a swipe at Owen Jones, left reformists and centrist vacilators in his latest blog entry. Namechecks Seymour and his excitement about Syriza.


pathetic whining of an isolated dogmatist (and de facto rape apologist) in a risible sect - treating the Communist International as though it were a model to be repeated, when in actual fact it's interventions helped to fuck up the development of the left across Europe.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I am getting feed up of people (not you) talking as if the crises in the SWP must have some deeper political cause. I have a mate (and he is still a mate) in the SWP and before the conference he kept going on about wanting to know what the 'real' politics were. Now I don't doubt there are a number of various political disagreements being played out here, but surely how the SWP handles rape allegations is a serious political issue in itself? It is not some petty internal squabble.


You're right, it's not. And it has to be sorted. I really wish it was possible to talk about it in isolation and give it the sensitive response it deserves. But the people leaving are themselves raising other issues, have been since the beginning and those issues are important too.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 17, 2013)

likesfish said:


> If a wannabe revoutionary leader cant even control his trouser snake cant see him leading the proles anytime soon.


 
A deep and well thought out insight


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of a revolutionary leadership to be able to come up with some way of passing info onto other potentially vulnerable groups - how about the sec of the disputes committee contacts the national sec of other groups on the phone and outlines what they uncovered? Of course, where this is going is for you to say this will a) threaten the confidentiality of the victim and b) place the rapist in danger of extra-legal (it's bad in this case remember) actions. So effectively making the circulation of info impossible even with the best of wills but without you having to say that you actually oppose it- i'm sure some would oppose it because of the damage and inquiry it would bring to the parties door.


What you're suggesting doesn't sound mad at all. The confidentiality of the victim is something worth considering no? But I can see that's got to be balanced against the possibility of other people being attacked. Surely that comes down to the nature of the offence, whether it was part of a pattern of behaviour etc no? Can't say I'd lose much sleep about the safety of the rapist. Damage to the party doesn't come into it, stuff that consideration. So yeah what you suggest ought to be possible and in certain extreme cases I'd be surprised if informal contacts like that haven't happened in the past.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> John Molynuex takes a swipe at Owen Jones, left reformists and centrist vacilators in his latest blog entry. Namechecks Seymour and his excitement about Syriza.


21 lenins. 
1,109 at Forest Green for Mansfield's visit yesterday.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They have fixed (after some prompting from yours truely!) the link on the internet marxist archive to a 1980 ISJ review of Beyond the Fragments: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/1980/no2-009/goodwin.html


What on earth makes you think this has anything to say to current debates.  It's basic thrust is


> *Beyond the Fragments* was not being read on the steel picket lines nor was it being passed around among militants at Longbridge seeking for some way forward after the Derek Robinson debacle


 
ie. it's worldview is based on an old model of organising in heavy industry which was already on its way when it was written.   Only yer man and his comrades hadn't woken up to that yet.  Good luck finding your way back to the steel picket lines....


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What on earth makes you think this has anything to say to current debates.  It's basic thrust is
> 
> 
> ie. it's worldview is based on an old model of organising in heavy industry which was already on its way when it was written.   Only yer man and his comrades hadn't woken up to that yet.  Good luck finding your way back to the steel picket lines....


But obviously the labour party way of doing things yet has life.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> pathetic whining of an isolated dogmatist (and de facto rape apologist) in a risible sect - treating the Communist International as though it were a model to be repeated, when in actual fact it's interventions helped to fuck up the development of the left across Europe.


Says the isolated centrist (and de facto war apologist) in the international that sent its members to war with each other!


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> John Molynuex takes a swipe at Owen Jones, left reformists and centrist vacilators in his latest blog entry. Namechecks Seymour and his excitement about Syriza.


 
This is a powerful and convincing polemic from Molyneux against the Owen Jones reformist "that wraps it all up for revolutionery socialist change then - from now on its vaguely leftish reformism or nothing " positions, and well worth reading, However , as with almost all the Trotskyism-derived radical Left, Molyneux is still locked immoveably in the fascination with "Leninism" and the "lessons of the October 1917 Revolution". The counterposing of the claimed " lessons" of October 1917 ,with the quite correct need to fight bland leftish reformism - aimed only at boosting up Labour's voting strength through sowing illusions in its potential to become an agent for mildly radical change, is fundamentally false and misleading. For a start Molyneux takes it as read that the Bolshevik Revolution (or coup as it actually was) was a "success".

"_The left wing argument for a ‘government of the left’ is that even if it did not break immediately with capitalism or with the capitalist state it would nevertheless be able to ‘open the way’ or ‘point the way’ to the socialist transformation of society. The historical experience suggests otherwise._

_Consider first the example of the Provisional Government in Russia that issued from the February Revolution. Formed on the basis of a mass popular insurrection and involving Mensheviks and SRs, this government must have seemed at the time to be the very incarnation of a left government[1], and at the beginning it commanded near universal popular support, including from the moderate wing of Bolshevism (Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin). When, in April, Lenin arrived at the Finland Station and proclaimed no confidence in the Provisional government most of ‘the left’ thought he had taken leave of his senses. But Lenin was right. In practice this government continued its collaboration with the bourgeoisie, continued the imperialist war, failed to give land to the peasants and failed even to call a constituent assembly. Far from ‘opening things up’, in reality it opened the way to the counter revolutionary Kornilov coup. Had it not been overthrown from the left, by the workers led by the Bolsheviks, the probability is, as Trotsky observed, that fascism would bear a Russian, not an Italian name."_

Now I do buy totally into Molyneux's critique of the inevitable 1936 Spain or "Salvadore Allende's Chile" type failure of any purely Left Reformist attempt to radically attack capitalism in any developed capitalist state TODAY. But why oh why does he have to use the completely inappropriate example of the Bolshevik coup in an economically backward semi-feudal peasant -based state like Czarist Russia to try and prove his point ? Firstly Molyneux ahistorically claims the alternative to the Bolshevik revolution was a "proto fascist" regime. Now I don't think the Kerensky-led bourgeois democratic government would have survived either, but what would have replaced it wasn't "fascism" but simply a return to the completely authoritarian semi-feudal Czarist autocracy that already existed, NOT "fascism". Secondly Molyneux just assumes that Lenin and Trotsky's gamble "paid off" and the revolution was a "success". This simply imports wholesale the Stalinist myth of the "Revolution" , which of course legitimises their bureaucratic class rule , into the wider socialist historical narrative. For Fuck Sake, the October 1917 Revolutions was actually comprehensively LOST by the mid 1920's - that's what the eventual complete victory of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the Purges/murders of all the old Bolsheviks, actually means ! And we all now know, with the hindsight of nearly 100 years, that the Stalinist bureaucracy were in fact not even a permanent bureaucratic "New Class", as some neo-Trotskists" claimed, but just a "proxy stand-in " for the conventional bourgeoisie. How do we know this ? Because there has been a complete conventional bourgeois capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, and it is also underway in China and Cuba too as we sit here.


Owen Jones and all his petty reformist ilk are indeed pure poison to the building of an effective mass radical resistence movement against capitalism. However the apparently immoveable tendancy of revolutionery socialists to cite the failed Bolshevik 1917 Revolution as the key evidence to support revolutionery anti capitalist politics against this reformist drivel is a depressing example of how far the revolutionery Left has to go ideologically to reorient itself to the undoubtedly non-reformist needs of our times, with politics that can break decisively from "Lenin-worship" . For a start it is nonsense to counterpose "bolshevik party structures", and the particularities of the revolutionery situation in 1917, war-torn, semi-feudal, Czarist Russia, in a debate about the usefulness or otherwise of building broad, radical anti austerity and anti capitalist "Syriza" type movements. Of course the Owen Jones Labourite reformists want to co-opt a Syriza-type movement into supporting Labour electorally . But the job of revolutioneries surely is to be in there, at the building of any such large movement, specifically arguing the futility of any linkage to Labour, or reformism in the longer term. Ignore any" Syriza-type" development though and the revolutionery Left just condemns itelf to irrelevence. a "Syriza" type radical movement would inevitably buckle in a revolutionery situation, as the Greek Syriza will do. However no proto-revolutionery situation will even develop unless the widespread growing opposition to austerity can be built into a mass movement - we need to operate at the ideological level most people are at TODAY. In other words the entire Syriza-type movement is a "TRANSITIONAL" one, making economic and political demands and relating to people on the basis of pretty limited, essentially reformist demands, but which capitalism cannot meet in a worldwide capitalit crisis. Eventually in this situation, reformist demands can lead to revolutionery ones. Unfortunately if the mobilisation of masses of people around essentially reformist demands are left to the utterly reformist likes of Owen Jones, whilst revolutioneries sit in glorious ideologically pure isolation in their various mini "Bolshevik" reenactment Parties , polishing their busts of Lenin, memorising his timeless pearls of wisdom, it will be a movement leading nowhere fast.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

And if all these people don't learn how to actually listen to people rather than just going around talking at people and going on about "layers" and "consciousness" it will go even faster.

great post ayatollah.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

Kornilov had no interest in restoring the Tsar, his regime would have been (indistinguishable from) fascism. The idea that Russia would just return to how it was before is ahistorical nonsense.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I am still wondering whether the case I heard about in the early 1990s will come out.



Which area ?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

Interesting discussion of the 70's crisis in the revolutionary left by Harman from 79.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1979/xx/eurevleft.html
Some weird shit went on back then:

"The destructive dialectic at work showed itself first in Lotta Continua. LC was the most left wing of the revolutionary organisations in 1976, and the one that turned its back least on the ‘movements’. But it had also tried to cast itself in a Marxist-Leninist (i.e. Maoist) mould. In December 1975 this still meant the party as the repository of Mao’s thought laying down the line to the masses. The women’s movement organised a large demonstration against the reactionary abortion laws. It was on a women only basis – and so Lotta Continua’s all male servizio d’ordine (stewards) broke into the demonstration on the grounds that abortion was an issue for both men and women. The result was a departure of large numbers of women from Lotta Continua in disgust."


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2013)

Total purposeful misreading of L.C as maoist there by Harman - nice to see some things never change in the party. That sort of dismissive glib labeling played the same role in the party and their press that autonomist has done since the early 2000s (_stay away from then stay away from, them, they are abandoning class). _All part of_ the tradition._


The stewards thing did happen and led to the dissolution of the group at Rimini a year and a bit later - the SWP loyalists play the role of the stewards in this particular farce.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> How would prospective recruits politics be vetted. Some form of candidate membership/assessment?





cesare said:


> SPGB style?


See here.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

Hang on butchers. This anarchist (I think) account which Chris cites says LC modelled it's constitution on that of the Chinese CP. http://libcom.org/book/export/html/26059


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Kornilov had no interest in restoring the Tsar, his regime would have been (indistinguishable from) fascism. The idea that Russia would just return to how it was before is ahistorical nonsense.


 
Kornilov wouldn't have been the sole Russian ruling class determinant of that now would he belboid ? But even if what transpired after the very likely failure of the bourgeois democratic government had been a return to semi feudal, militarist, autocracy , with a small but growing industrial capitalist sector, and a small working class, and a vast peasant majority ("fascism" if you like - but how historically useful is that term  in the Russian context ?  Not all authoritarian regimes are "fascist"),   what's your actual point ? A quibble about the labelling of  a possible reactionery restorationist regime ?  Or actually a disagreement with my main point, ie, that for genuine revolutionery socialists the October 1917 Revolution was not "won", but in fact briefly staggered from a interregnum period as a revolutionery Workers and Peasants State held together by the Bolshevik Party,  to  complete world historic DEFEAT, represented by the victory of the Stalinist Bureaucracy, and decades later complete capitalist bourgeois restoration. At a cost of tens of millions of workers, peasants,  and revolutioneries killed by purges and famines, the establishment of similar Stalinist regimes across the globe, and a political and particularly IDEOLOGICAL setback for the working class which  is still to be calculated . Do you disagree with THAT ?

Do you have any doubt that if in September 1917 Trotsky had had the opportunity to time travel to today and saw what the outcome of October 1917 actually was, in human cost and global political terms, that he wouldn't have had second thoughts about the adventurist Bolshevik coup of October 1917 ?


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is a big part of the problem isn't it? They live in a student bubble (very nearly typed brothel then lol) with no idea what's going on around them. Which is potentially very, very harmful.



Given that a lot of students now have to work as well as study (in shops, petrol stations, etc, for example), and most are surviving on a low income, I am not convinced that students live in a "bubble". Add to that the fact that some students are parents, carers, have family responsibilities, etc, the idea that they are living in a "bubble" doesn't always fit.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 21 lenins.


 
Brilliant Portugese heist film that.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 17, 2013)

Its irrevlevant the only media coverage its got is its cak handed dealing with a sex abuse issue.
 A revolutionary party should be seen as a threat rather than a joke tommy sherdian or deeply dsturbing.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Given that a lot of students now have to work as well as study (in shops, petrol stations, etc, for example), and most are surviving on a low income, I am not convinced that students live in a "bubble". Add to that the fact that some students are parents, carers, have family responsibilities, etc, the idea that they are living in a "bubble" doesn't always fit.


 
I think that's completely true of most students, but specifically not true of a lot of those involved in student politics. It's doubly not true of the ones involved in student politics who are obsessed with identity politics.

I'll never forget one lad who was very much that sort telling me how he was too good to ever do any kind of "menial work" or be part of the working-class. He's an elected student officer now.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Hang on butchers. This anarchist (I think) account which Chris cites says LC modelled it's constitution on that of the Chinese CP. http://libcom.org/book/export/html/26059


That's not by an anarchist it's by an ex LC member - and without any further info it doesn't say anything about how or why the party was maoist  - what aspects was it supposed to be modeled on and so on. You'd expect a maoist organisation to declare itself one wouldn't you? Anf or the members to realise that this was the case? Or Harman to provide some examples in his piece? And Harman himself can't make his mind up whether it's maoist (and so "the repository of Mao’s thought" charged with "laying down the line to the masses.") or semi-maoist, and in the process of abandoning "the old notions of the party which had contained large doses of Maoist-Stalinism ". Thye key thing is to get them into the maoist camp, get the label on them, then the dismissal of them and the other groups in the piece can begin.

I note Harman's next lines weren't included:



> The women who remained inside the organisation began to feel that there was some connection between the leadership style of the organisation and what had happened.


 
What a thing to think!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Kornilov wouldn't have been the sole Russian ruling class determinant of that now would he belboid ? But even if what transpired after the very likely failure of the bourgeois democratic government had been a return to semi feudal, militarist, autocracy , with a small but growing industrial capitalist sector, and a small working class, and a vast peasant majority ("fascism" if you like - but how historically useful is that term in the Russian context ? Not all authoritarian regimes are "fascist"), what's your actual point ? A quibble about the labelling of a possible reactionery restorationist regime ? Or actually a disagreement with my main point, ie, that for genuine revolutionery socialists the October 1917 Revolution was not "won", but in fact briefly staggered from a interregnum period as a revolutionery Workers and Peasants State held together by the Bolshevik Party, to complete world historic DEFEAT, represented by the victory of the Stalinist Bureaucracy, and decades later complete capitalist bourgeois restoration. At a cost of tens of millions of workers, peasants, and revolutioneries killed by purges and famines, the establishment of similar Stalinist regimes across the globe, and a political and particularly IDEOLOGICAL setback for the working class which is still to be calculated . Do you disagree with THAT ?
> 
> Do you have any doubt that if in September 1917 Trotsky had had the opportunity to time travel to today and saw what the outcome of October 1917 actually was, in human cost and global political terms, that he wouldn't have had second thoughts about the adventurist Bolshevik coup of October 1917 ?


Trotsky and Lenin knew the revolution was doomed if it remained isolated. But it was only premature if you ignored the possibility of it spreading to the more advanced west. They might not have forseen exactly how the revolution would be subverted (by the stalinist bureaucracy) but they knew it couldn't survive if isolated. Lenin: "It is not open to the slightest doubt that the final victory of our revolution, if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary movement in other countries, would be hopeless... Our salvation from all these difficulties, I repeat, is an all-European revolution." Trotsky: "Without the direct state support of the European proletariat the working class of Russia cannot remain in power and convert its temporary domination into a lasting socialistic dictatorship.Of this there cannot for one moment be any doubt. But on the other hand there cannot be any doubt that a socialist revolution in the West will enable us todirectly convert the temporary domination of the working class into a socialist dictatorship."


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Given that a lot of students now have to work as well as study (in shops, petrol stations, etc, for example), and most are surviving on a low income, I am not convinced that students live in a "bubble". Add to that the fact that some students are parents, carers, have family responsibilities, etc, the idea that they are living in a "bubble" doesn't always fit.


 
Nobody said it did. We're talking about a specific section of the student population.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Hang on butchers. This anarchist (I think) account which Chris cites says LC modelled it's constitution on that of the Chinese CP. http://libcom.org/book/export/html/26059


 
It adopted that constitution in December 1974 and survived like that for about a year - at which point after the attempt to enter the women's march by force in December 1975, branches started effectively dropping off and acting independently leading to its final end as a constituted group in November 1976.


----------



## Nigel (Mar 17, 2013)

Has Jerry Hicks who the SWP are backing for Gen. Secretary for UNITE fallen out with them. In the article below it mentions something about opportunism: Has this something to do woth promoting their front organisations.
"*It wasn’t me* who invited political ‘left’ groups including the Socialist Workers Party [SWP], to meetings to offer cash support for their causes in return for support in the General Secretary election. The SWP only became an enemy when they refused the offer. 
If any of the statements against me were true, the easiest [and cheapest] way *to make members aware would be for* *Unite to hold a ‘Husting’* where both candidates could be subjected to full scrutiny on all matters and televised and published on Unite’s web site, so that every member can make their own minds up.  *So why is it Len McCluskey embarks on his ‘Grand Tour’ yet fails to reply to every request for a ‘Hustings’.* While I am willing to meet anytime, any where, any place."
http://www.jerryhicks4gs.org/2013/03/unite-union-inclusive-and-tolerant.html?spref=tw&m=1


----------



## andysays (Mar 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of a revolutionary leadership to be able to come up with some way of ...


 
I'd like to think so too but



butchersapron said:


> ... some would oppose it because of the damage and inquiry it would bring to the party's door


 
Will *always* trump any other consideration


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I think that's completely true of most students, but specifically not true of a lot of those involved in student politics. It's doubly not true of the ones involved in student politics who are obsessed with identity politics.
> 
> I'll never forget one lad who was very much that sort telling me how he was too good to ever do any kind of "menial work" or be part of the working-class. He's an elected student officer now.


 
The too good for menial work cos I have a degree surfaces on this site from time to time


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Nobody said it did. We're talking about a specific section of the student population.


 
Im an old git at uni just now, and yeah despite the fact that a lot of students do have to engage with the rest of what the rest of life's struggles entails a lot of them do seem to be stuck in the bubble of the campus....


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 17, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> Which area ?


Harrys place have been sniffing around it but nothing solid has appeared there.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Im an old git at uni just now, and yeah despite the fact that a lot of students do have to engage with the rest of what the rest of life's struggles entails a lot of them do seem to be stuck in the bubble of the campus....


 
Me too mate, I'm in my third year now but when I started I was shocked at just _how _detached from the reality most of us know some students, especially liberal lefty ones, are.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 17, 2013)

i was actually going to add that the most detached im my experience are the lefty ones!


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Me too mate, I'm in my third year now but when I started I was shocked at just _how _detached from the reality most of us know some students, especially liberal lefty ones, are.


 
I went to North London Polytechnic in my late 20s and found most students who had never had a full time job irritating at best and unbearable at worst.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Kornilov wouldn't have been the sole Russian ruling class determinant of that now would he belboid ? But even if what transpired after the very likely failure of the bourgeois democratic government had been a return to semi feudal, militarist, autocracy , with a small but growing industrial capitalist sector, and a small working class, and a vast peasant majority ("fascism" if you like - but how historically useful is that term in the Russian context ? Not all authoritarian regimes are "fascist"), what's your actual point ? A quibble about the labelling of a possible reactionery restorationist regime ? Or actually a disagreement with my main point, ie, that for genuine revolutionery socialists the October 1917 Revolution was not "won", but in fact briefly staggered from a interregnum period as a revolutionery Workers and Peasants State held together by the Bolshevik Party, to complete world historic DEFEAT, represented by the victory of the Stalinist Bureaucracy, and decades later complete capitalist bourgeois restoration. At a cost of tens of millions of workers, peasants, and revolutioneries killed by purges and famines, the establishment of similar Stalinist regimes across the globe, and a political and particularly IDEOLOGICAL setback for the working class which is still to be calculated . Do you disagree with THAT ?
> 
> Do you have any doubt that if in September 1917 Trotsky had had the opportunity to time travel to today and saw what the outcome of October 1917 actually was, in human cost and global political terms, that he wouldn't have had second thoughts about the adventurist Bolshevik coup of October 1917 ?


My point was clear, I thought.  It was the one I made, no more no less.

As to the rest, I dont believe it was a coup, far from it, even the Mensheviks agreed it had the support of the vast majority of the working class. And a time travelling Trotsky would (as bb implies) be more concerned with what went wrong in Germany etc.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They have fixed (after some prompting from yours truely!) the link on the internet marxist archive to a 1980 ISJ review of Beyond the Fragments: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/1980/no2-009/goodwin.html
> 
> Although the ISN folk would like to believe they have nothing to do with earlier debates between soc fems and the IS what is striking is how Pete Goodwin's arguments against Rowbotham et al could have been written last week to answer the ISN anti-Leninist turn. Even on questions of style there is a synergy beyween the BtF authors and the latest exiles. One of the latter's big themes is how we need a dialogue with the modern feminist movement and not to look for ready made answers in the sacred texts. And Goodwin says of BtF : " ‘They do not offer any “answers”,’ the blurb on the back proudly announces, ‘indeed their distinct concerns and emphases would make that impossible ...’ (Note, by the way, how the word ‘answers’ appears in inverted commas, as if the concept itself was a figment of the deranged Leninist imagination)"
> 
> ...


there is some good criticism in tht,review, but there is plenty of easily responded too as well.  He gets what a 'professional revolutionary' wrong, he equates revolutionary _organisation_ with Leninist DC Party. SR & HW get plenty wrong too - the fact that it _is_ fine to say 'I dont know' about a bunch of stuff doesn't mean you should say 'I dont know' about _everything_. Quite a useful doc tho, quite easy to go through and improve upon.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 17, 2013)

Bolshiebhoy, is there any chance that the Mail's third rape case, the one that led to an expulsion, is the same one you've mentioned here?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Bolshiebhoy, is there any chance that the Mail's third rape case, the one that led to an expulsion, is the same one you've mentioned here?


Dunno. The guy I knew of had only been a member for a few months when expelled. But yeah he was in his 20's. It was fairly common knowledge in certain London branches; it also showed the swp in a good light, in how it was handled, imho.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The too good for menial work cos I have a degree surfaces on this site from time to time


I prefer to look at it the other way round, that menial work's too good for them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 17, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Brilliant Portugese heist film that.


You're thinking of 'lenin's 11'


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> You're thinking of 'lenin's 11'


No, it was _Dialectic Hard_.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Trotsky and Lenin knew the revolution was doomed if it remained isolated. But it was only premature if you ignored the possibility of it spreading to the more advanced west. They might not have forseen exactly how the revolution would be subverted (by the stalinist bureaucracy) but they knew it couldn't survive if isolated. Lenin: "It is not open to the slightest doubt that the final victory of our revolution, if it were to remain alone, if there were no revolutionary movement in other countries, would be hopeless... Our salvation from all these difficulties, I repeat, is an all-European revolution." Trotsky: "Without the direct state support of the European proletariat the working class of Russia cannot remain in power and convert its temporary domination into a lasting socialistic dictatorship.Of this there cannot for one moment be any doubt. But on the other hand there cannot be any doubt that a socialist revolution in the West will enable us todirectly convert the temporary domination of the working class into a socialist dictatorship."


 
I think we're locked in vicious agreement here ! I agree Lenin and Trotsky knew it was a huge gamble. I have no doubt at all that if I'd been around at the time I'd have supported Lenin and Trotsky's position -  it looked like a gamble worth taking . Europe was entering years of socialist  revolutionery struggle, particularly the key state of Germany, but right across Eastern Europe too. But we know with the benefit of hindsight that  the wave receded into counter revolutionery DEFEAT - massively aided by the total treachery of German social Democracy. Events then progressed disastrously as history records. So in contradiction to the triumphalist message of both the Stalinist and Trotskist " historyographies" of 1917, the briefly existing revolutionery  Workers and Peasants State was drowned in blood ( first in the Civil War first of course) then in the blood-soaked Stalinist bureaucratic counter  revolution, which eventually  reproduced its dictatorial state form across the world - soiling in the process the whole concept of  "socialism" as a liberation of the working class. So given that Lenin and Trotsky's gamble totally failed -- why does the supposedly non-Stalinist "revolutionery" Left still hold their every word up as gospel wisdom ?

That's the issue and question I pose to you, and others, bolshieboy.. and I find it extremely  amusing that you think two  quotations from the canon of Lenin's  and Trotsky's sayings to be in any way a coherent "reply" to the issue. It in fact proves my point ! We've all just gotta let go of those holy scripture quotations. Lenin and Trotsky actually fucked it up bigtime - from the very best of revolutionery motivations. We need to recognise that, mourn the gigantic scale of that defeat, and move on and build something relevant to TODAY, a movement revolutionery, democratic,  and effective from the wreckage of the failed past.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 17, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Owen Jones and all his petty reformist ilk are indeed pure poison to the building of an effective mass radical resistence movement against capitalism. _However the apparently immoveable tendancy of revolutionery socialists to cite the failed Bolshevik 1917 Revolution as the key evidence to support revolutionery anti capitalist politics against this reformist drivel is a depressing example of how far the revolutionery Left has to go ideologically to reorient itself to the undoubtedly non-reformist needs of our times, with politics that can break decisively from "Lenin-worship" . For a start it is nonsense to counterpose "bolshevik party structures", and the particularities of the revolutionery situation in 1917, war-torn, semi-feudal, Czarist Russia, in a debate about the usefulness or otherwise of building broad, radical anti austerity and anti capitalist "Syriza" type movements._ (...) In other words the entire Syriza-type movement is a "TRANSITIONAL" one, making economic and political demands and relating to people on the basis of pretty limited, essentially reformist demands, but which capitalism cannot meet in a worldwide capitalit crisis. Eventually in this situation, reformist demands can lead to revolutionery ones. Unfortunately _if the mobilisation of masses of people around essentially reformist demands are left to the utterly reformist likes of Owen Jones, whilst revolutioneries sit in glorious ideologically pure isolation in their various mini "Bolshevik" reenactment Parties , polishing their busts of Lenin, memorising his timeless pearls of wisdom, it will be a movement leading nowhere fast._


I don't agree that "reformist demands can lead to revolutionary" ones. It's too like the Trotskyist doctrine and strategy of "transitional demands", i.e raising demands knowing that capitalism can't concede them in the expectation that the reform-mind workers will then turn anti-capitalist. History shows that they are just as likely to turn nationalist and xenophobic. It's already beginning to happen again.

But you are right that a Syriza-type reformist movement will never get off the ground in Britain as long as Leninist groups exist or at least are involved in it. Look at what has just happened to the "United Left Alliance" in Ireland and, before that, to the "Socialist Alliance" and the SLP in England. Rival Leninist groups of all shapes and sizes will just infilitrate it and try to hi-jack it for their own ends, as "cogs" or a "transmission belt" for their own plans.

The fact that we are having to discuss here the rights and wrongs of the Russian revolution of 1917 shows how remote from reality are those who think that this can be a model for a revolution today. As you say, the organisational structures and techniques developed to organise clandestinely under a semi-feudal autocracy and then to control a country in which a minority ruled without majority support are utterly irrelevant today. If the SWP falls so much the better, but there will still be 56 more varieties to go.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I prefer to look at it the other way round, that menial work's too good for them.


I have been working for Sainsburys for the past 5 years whilst I was at university doing my BA and my MA, the place has gone downhill rapidly over the past six months as a new manager has come in and has forced out the old team.
 I went for a internal job as store trainer recently, and in the interview the hr manager was surprised to find I had two degrees 
We have a new dick department manager, who thinks he's something special- been really snotty with me.
 I had my performance assessment the other day, and his first words were, "i hear you have just completed a masters degree, I am not an educated man." And so I understood his hostility, he'd been with Sainsburys since leaving school and got to his position through backstabbing, scabbing and brown tonguing all he was worth, yet knew that there was no further he could go, as the company fast tracks graduate trainees into area manager positions. 
 He saw me as another student who looked down on manual work as somehow beneath me,.
 I soon put him right, by showing him I had been a manual worker since before he was born. 
And the reason I am better than him is that I am not a snivelling little right wing turd


----------



## andysays (Mar 17, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> No, it was _Dialectic Hard_.


 
I thought it was interesting how for the third and fourth films in the series, the makers explored first Leninist, then Anarchist approaches: "Dialectic Hard with the Vanguard", then "Live Free or Dialectic Hard"


----------



## andysays (Mar 17, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> I think we're locked in vicious agreement here ! I agree Lenin and Trotsky knew it was a huge gamble. I have no doubt at all that if I'd been around at the time I'd have supported Lenin and Trotsky's position - it looked like a gamble worth taking . Europe was entering years of socialist revolutionery struggle, particularly the key state of Germany, but right across Eastern Europe too. But we know with the benefit of hindsight that the wave receded into counter revolutionery DEFEAT - massively aided by the total treachery of German social Democracy. Events then progressed disastrously as history records. So in contradiction to the triumphalist message of both the Stalinist and Trotskist " historyographies" of 1917, the briefly existing revolutionery Workers and Peasants State was drowned in blood ( first in the Civil War first of course) then in the blood-soaked Stalinist bureaucratic counter revolution, which eventually reproduced its dictatorial state form across the world - soiling in the process the whole concept of "socialism" as a liberation of the working class. So given that Lenin and Trotsky's gamble totally failed -- why does the supposedly non-Stalinist "revolutionery" Left still hold their every word up as gospel wisdom ?
> 
> That's the issue and question I pose to you, and others, bolshieboy.. and I find it extremely amusing that you think two quotations from the canon of Lenin's and Trotsky's sayings to be in any way a coherent "reply" to the issue. It in fact proves my point ! We've all just gotta let go of those holy scripture quotations. Lenin and Trotsky actually fucked it up bigtime - from the very best of revolutionery motivations. We need to recognise that, mourn the gigantic scale of that defeat, and move on and build something relevant to TODAY, a movement revolutionery, democratic, and effective from the wreckage of the failed past.


 
This, totally. Perhaps it deserves a new thread?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 17, 2013)

The former Leeds Uni SWSS haven't been slow to act in identifying the real priorities facing the working class in higher education and beyond in Leeds judging by their manifesto as posted on Facebook.




> Platform and Constitution of LUU Revolutionary Socialists (LUU RevSoc)
> 
> Our Platform
> 
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

1. Membership of the Revolutionary Socialists is open to all students, youth under 27 and workers in education institutions who accept the policies of our Platform.

not very inclusive!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

27 seems like an arbitrary age - I don't suppose by sheer coincidence that's the age of the oldest founding member?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

I can see 'open the borders' going down really well if they ever emerge from their university bubble and try and take their program to 'the class'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2013)

\m/ 27 club \m/


----------



## andysays (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> 1. Membership of the Revolutionary Socialists is open to all students, youth under 27 and workers in education institutions who accept the policies of our Platform.
> 
> not very inclusive!


 
Just as a matter of interest, who is eligible to join a SWSS group? I assume it's just students at a particular college/uni/whatever, but maybe it's wider than that


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I can see 'open the borders' going down really well if they ever emerge from their university bubble and try and take their program to 'the class'.


 
Almost as bad as "revolutionary defeatism" as an arguement why people shouldn't play/enjoy sports or celebrate the defeat of fascism in WWII


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> Just as a matter of interest, who is eligible to join a SWSS group? I assume it's just students at a particular college/uni/whatever, but maybe it's wider than that


 
I don't know about SWSS itself but they'll be holding their meetings in university rooms. They are usually free of charge so long as only students attend (though exceptions are made for outside speakers the audience usually has to be 100% student, otherwise they'll charge you). So I expect, regardless of what they _want _to do, they'll only get students attending. Especially with a program like that.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> You're thinking of 'lenin's 11'


 
Is Urban lying to me again? I just twenty minutes on imdb looking for it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2013)

one state solution eh...i dunno...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> 1. Membership of the Revolutionary Socialists is open to all students, youth under 27 and workers in education institutions who accept the policies of our Platform.
> 
> not very inclusive!


 
I think we need clarification on this - I'm a student but I'm err... a little bit older than 27. Can I join? If not I'm gonna find them on twitter and get all intersectional with them. I notice they don't mention ageism in their list of oppressions


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

I like how supporting one state in palestine is above fighting the cuts


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 17, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Is Urban lying to me again? I just twenty minutes on imdb looking for it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2013)

So you don't need to be a student to join this student group?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I like how supporting one state in palestine is above fighting the cuts


 
That was the bit that most impressed me


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2013)

they don't get to living wage till pnt 7


is one-state solution in line with ordinary swappie doctrine?


----------



## andysays (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't know about SWSS itself but they'll be holding their meetings in university rooms. They are usually free of charge so long as only students attend (though exceptions are made for outside speakers the audience usually has to be 100% student, otherwise they'll charge you). So I expect, regardless of what they _want _to do, they'll only get students attending. Especially with a program like that.


 
That's what I would have thought. We can, of course, criticise their program, but looking at their constitution, I don't think ayatollah can accuse them of clinging to Leninist forms of organising.

Still, at least they're trying to be inclusive, and good to see that the age criteria means they can include Kurt and Amy as members from (way) beyond the student body.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I like how supporting one state in palestine is above fighting the cuts


 
Why just Palestine anyway? I want to know their position on the Cabinda question!


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 17, 2013)

treelover said:


> Its interesting how much of the DM commenters think the SWp and all left groups are unemployed scroungers, the SWP members usually have very good well paid jobs: teachers, nurses/health workers, doctors, higher level public sector workers, etc, and fwik most work very hard indeed


 
My experience was that it really varied: some cdes had pretty good jobs, some in low paid work, some studying, some looking after families, some long term ill, some out of work. About as varied as much of wider society in opinion.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Is Urban lying to me again? I just twenty minutes on imdb looking for it.


There is a bizarre Romanian film called The Great Communist Bank Robbery which was about the forced filmed re-enactment of a 50s heist _by the actual robbers_ - who were then shot after they completed filming. That was crying out for a title like Lenin's 11.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> they don't get to living wage till pnt 7
> 
> 
> is one-state solution in line with ordinary swappie doctrine?


 
No idea about doctrine but I've been told by SWSS members that a 'two state solution' is inherently racist


----------



## andysays (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think we need clarification on this - I'm a student but I'm err... a little bit older than 27. Can I join? If not I'm gonna find them on twitter and get all intersectional with them. I notice they don't mention ageism in their list of oppressions


 
"_1. Membership of the Revolutionary Socialists is open to *all students*, youth under 27 and workers in education institutions who accept the policies of our Platform_"

Yet more evidence that academic standards are slipping


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That was the bit that most impressed me


 
clearly at the cutting edge of working class consciousness!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

why make it into a students/education thing, why not just say everyone who agrees with our platform?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

To be honest I can see major problems in both one _and _two state solutions.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> is one-state solution in line with ordinary swappie doctrine?


 
Yes.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

Are students and education workers an advanced layer now? And what counts as an educational institution for these purposes? would a primary school be an educational institution or a nursery?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

Rev Soc is presumably a nod to the Egyptians.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

5. Members who self-identify into an oppressed group (including women) have the right to create or attend caucuses. The caucuses have the right to hear questions relating to their oppression and report to the General Meeting.

what does this mean?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> "_1. Membership of the Revolutionary Socialists is open to *all students*, youth under 27 and workers in education institutions who accept the policies of our Platform_"
> 
> Yet more evidence that academic standards are slipping


 
Yeah but I reckon they'd still use the 27 thing to oppress me. And I'm paying my respects to the late SWSS society by deliberately misinterpreting things in order to take offence, which has always been their MO.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> 5. Members who self-identify into an oppressed group (including women) have the right to create or attend caucuses. The caucuses have the right to hear questions relating to their oppression and report to the General Meeting.
> 
> what does this mean?


 
Women, LGBT, ethnic minority etc stoodents have the right to organise in groups that exclude people who aren't of their group


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> 5. Members who self-identify into an oppressed group (including women) have the right to create or attend caucuses. The caucuses have the right to hear questions relating to their oppression and report to the General Meeting.
> 
> what does this mean?


Separatism-lite. It was funny that they had to explicitly say women might be a group who would self identify as oppressed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah but I reckon t*hey'd use the 27 thing against me.* And I'm paying my respects to the late SWSS society by deliberately misinterpreting things in order to take offence, which has always been their MO.


 

spney, being denied from the luu revsoc


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> 5. Members who self-identify into an oppressed group (including women) have the right to create or attend caucuses. The caucuses have the right to hear questions relating to their oppression and report to the General Meeting.
> 
> what does this mean?


 
Assuming it means they can have womens, LGBT etc groups that discuss issues relating to their oppression and then report back to the main meetings. I'm not completely against this kind of thing - I don't think it should be taken as a key organisational principle, more as a tool, but it has its uses - we've got a womens group that meets once a month in Sheffield and it's definitely helped some of the less confident female members.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Assuming it means they can have womens, LGBT etc groups that discuss issues relating to their oppression and then report back to the main meetings. I'm not completely against this kind of thing - I don't think it should be taken as a key organisational principle, more as a tool, but it has its uses - we've got a womens group that meets once a month in Sheffield and it's definitely helped some of the less confident female members.


 
I'm not against the women's caucus either at all. I think they can actually be a really good thing.


----------



## andysays (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah but I reckon they'd still use the 27 thing to oppress me. And I'm paying my respects to the late SWSS society by deliberately misinterpreting things in order to take offence, which has always been their MO.


 
At least they'll allow you to create or attend caucuses - that's got to be something to cling to in your old age


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Separatism-lite. It was funny that they had to explicitly say women might be a group who would self identify as oppressed.


Which self identifications would be valid, and who decides?
Would this mean a separate white straight male caucus, if they so wished to identify themselves as oppressed?


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Almost as bad as "revolutionary defeatism" as an arguement why people shouldn't play/enjoy sports or celebrate the defeat of fascism in WWII


open borders is bad??!!  Well, I alwahys knew the SP were a bit reactionary on that point. It may be a bit badly phrased, but the priniciple is a basic internationalist, socialist one.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

It's not bad - but like just putting it the way they have without much of an explanation


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Separatism-lite. It was funny that they had to explicitly say women might be a group who would self identify as oppressed.


It isnt 'separatism- lite,'  it's a basic recognition that the oppressed have a right to self-organise.  Its pretty straight-forward.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I think that's completely true of most students, but specifically not true of a lot of those involved in student politics. It's doubly not true of the ones involved in student politics who are obsessed with identity politics.
> 
> I'll never forget one lad who was very much that sort telling me how he was too good to ever do any kind of "menial work" or be part of the working-class. He's an elected student officer now.


 
That lad's attitude sounds pretty bad. Unfortunately A levels and higher ed tend to be "sold" to people on the basis "do this course, get these qualifications, and you'll get a really good, secure job". A lot of people my own age I meet who went through higher ed said they had been a bit brainwashed into thinking it would give them a very secure and well off future.

In response to your first point: the students I knew who were juggling quite a lot, ie: part time work, family, etc, tended not to be involved in politics. It could be down to the fact they simply didn't have a lot of time for extra activity, but I can't really surmise about other peoples choices.

Think I'm trying to make the point that students can have very varied circumstances, and aren't necessarily school leavers.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The too good for menial work cos I have a degree surfaces on this site from time to time


 
When I joined the swp two of the guys in the branch were working at the Post Office together, sorting mail. One of them was a bit leading lightish. Some time later I said to Mr LL, "Oh, you work at the Post Office, don't you?", (I think something had been going on there). He looked genuinely shocked and drew himself up to his full height, "Oh no, I'm a *********ist", he said, mentioning some academicy professional job (I won't say what as I don't want to identify him!  ) It turned out that his stint at the PO had been temporary while completing studies. I think he was rather put out that I'd thought that was his permanent job. I noted the irony, but said nothing.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 17, 2013)

Fair enough if ts a student society 
 Wonder  who in mi5 is claiming a bonus in april for the swp imploding?
  i dont think the spooks had anything to do with it but there not belo taking credit fir the mayhem


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> open borders is bad??!! Well, I alwahys knew the SP were a bit reactionary on that point. It may be a bit badly phrased, but the priniciple is a basic internationalist, socialist one.


 
It's not 'bad' by definition but simply calling for open borders, without any kind of qualification or clarification, isn't the smartest thing to do.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Fair enough if ts a student society
> Wonder who in mi5 is claiming a bonus in april for the swp imploding?
> i dont think the spooks had anything to do with it but there not belo taking credit fir the mayhem


 
Why would the secret services want the SWP to implode?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> At least they'll allow you to create or attend caucuses - that's got to be something to cling to in your old age


 
They won't though - ageism isn't on their list of oppressions and I can't form a caucus if they won't let me in.

I'm gonna write to the weekly worker about this, that'll learn 'em!


----------



## likesfish (Mar 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Why would the secret services want the SWP to implode?


They probably wouldnt but if it does hey take the credit 

There spooks being a dishonest unprincilped git and proving it  means bonus time


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's not 'bad' by definition but simply calling for open borders, without any kind of qualification or clarification, isn't the smartest thing to do.


 

'no to racist border controls' sort of implies all border controls are racist?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Why would the secret services want the SWP to implode?


 
They might actually want to _stop _them imploding. Has anyone ever seen Pat Stack and Stella Rimmington together in the same room?


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's not 'bad' by definition but simply calling for open borders, without any kind of qualification or clarification, isn't the smartest thing to do.


No, cos them thick workers wont like it, will hey?  Deary me


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> Just as a matter of interest, who is eligible to join a SWSS group? I assume it's just students at a particular college/uni/whatever, but maybe it's wider than that


 
It is a student society of the Students' Union of the university or college, so anyone registered at that institution can join. There is a generic joining form for all the societies at any one institution, I think.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> 'no to racist border controls' sort of implies all border controls are racist?


 
When it's allied to a call of 'open borders' it certainly looks that way. I think it's sometimes used as a kind of compromise between open borders and some controls though - ie. no to racist border controls but we might consider ones that aren't racist.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> No, cos them thick workers wont like it, will hey? Deary me


 
No, that's not my point at all. Nice try though


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Lenin and Trotsky actually fucked it up bigtime - from the very best of revolutionery motivations.


How?  According to you, by trying to have a revolution!  What drivel.  As no one has ever made a succesful world revolution, the logic of your argument is thaty we should reject every notion about party building and revolution making that has gone before - as they havent succeeded. But that would be nonsensical.

The point is surely to learn from the RR, work out what worked and what didnt.  Same as for Germany. Its not about dumping everything to fit with modern fads, or to become simple reformists because of the defeats.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

Open borders as an aim = great. Open borders right now = not so great. I'm in agreement with the 'thick workers' on that one.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, that's not my point at all. Nice try though


Sorry, but it is _absolutely_ the subtext of your argument. Its not 'smart' is what you wrote.  You introduced the term.   It is what the SP has always said, essentailly that the class arent prepared to accept it so bluntly stated, so lets not push it too far.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Sorry, but it is _absolutely_ the subtext of your argument. Its not 'smart' is what you wrote. You introduced the term. It is what the SP has always said, essentailly that the class arent prepared to accept it so bluntly stated, so lets not push it too far.


 
No it isn't, and it doesn't matter how many times you assert that it is, it won't be so. It's about how and under what conditions you want open borders.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Open borders as an aim = great. Open borders right now = not so great. I'm in agreement with the 'thick workers' on that one.


Socialism as an aim = great.  Socialism now - not so great.

Tis the SPs reformism laid out plainly.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> The point is surely to learn from the RR, work out what worked and what didnt. Same as for Germany. Its not about dumping everything to fit with modern fads, or to become simple reformists because of the defeats.


 
Of course, but don't be blind to what's new in the present conjuncture because your only template is one that is nearly 100 years old.  That - as I intepret it - was the point Owen Jones, amongst others, was trying to make - not that revolution was somehow old hat.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Socialism as an aim = great. Socialism now - not so great.
> 
> Tis the SPs reformism laid out plainly.


classic Kautskyite line that


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No it isn't, and it doesn't matter how many times you assert that it is, it won't be so. It's about how and under what conditions you want open borders.


Nonsense. But if you want to defend bourgeois immigration controls, well, go on then.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Socialism as an aim = great. Socialism now - not so great.
> 
> Tis the SPs reformism laid out plainly.


 
You're an idiot. Open borders under socialism = great. Open borders under neoliberalism = not great.

Socialism now = bring it on.

Nothing to do with the SP by the way, it's what I've always thought.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Open borders as an aim = great. Open borders right now = not so great. I'm in agreement with the 'thick workers' on that one.


 
Mexican 'thick workers' might disagree?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Nonsense. But if you want to defend bourgeois immigration controls, well, go on then.


 
Jesus Christ.

frogwoman - we were talking about why the left repeatedly fails. Here you go.


----------



## chilango (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Mexican 'thick workers' might disagree?



Probably depends whether you're talking about the US or Guatemalan border.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Mexican 'thick workers' might disagree?


 
Yes, there's loads of them in Sheffield.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Open borders as an aim = great. Open borders right now = not so great. I'm in agreement with the 'thick workers' on that one.


 
Why pick only on no5? Exactly the same thing/quasi-problem with the other points "No to cuts – fund jobs and services by taxing the rich" as an aim is great. "fund jobs and services" right now without mass working-class struggle = not so great - all the jobs and services will be in high-profitability (or ultimately profit-generating) sectors, particularly defence and biomedical services.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

chilango said:


> Probably depends whether you're talking about the US or Guatemalan border.


 
It's more complex than simple sloganeering, I agree.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why pick only on no5? Exactly the same thing/quasi-problem with the other points "No to cuts – fund jobs and services by taxing the rich" as an aim is great. "fund jobs and services" right now without mass working-class struggle = not so great - all the jobs and services will be in high-profitability (or ultimately profit-generating) sectors, particularly defence and biomedical services.


 
Good point.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, there's loads of them in Sheffield.


 
Undocumented?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Undocumented?


 
What?


----------



## chilango (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> It's more complex than simple sloganeering, I agree.



Ain't it always?


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You're an idiot. Open borders under socialism = great. Open borders under neoliberalism = not great.
> 
> Socialism now = bring it on.
> 
> Nothing to do with the SP by the way, it's what I've always thought.





SpineyNorman said:


> Jesus Christ.
> 
> frogwoman - we were talking about why the left repeatedly fails. Here you go.


lol, so you dont support open borders in capitalism. We live in a capitalist society, so you oppose open borders.  Therfore, you support bourgeois immigration controls.  You cant have it both ways.

You're right, this is why the left fails, the refusal of left reformists to think their politics through.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

Anyway, some more SWP analysis here:



> I felt really uncomfortable with the way that so much of the coverage consisted of equally anti-feminist rivals gloating over the demise of one of their competitors. As vile as the SWP leadership have shown themselves to be, I don’t think the Galloway fanboys who hosted that leaked transcript are much better, and the publication that carried Tom Walker’s brave and important letter of resignation also gave space to an unspeakably awful article arguing that “rape is not the problem”, and concluding that “far from being insufficiently feminist, the SWP has been too soft on feminism”. To write anything about the political situation on the left in the UK at the moment without mentioning the SWP would be to ignore the elephant in the room, but I felt like if I wrote anything substantial on the topic, I might accidentally say something that would give even the slightest bit of comfort to either the loyalists still defending the indefensible, or the Newman/Demarty misogynist boys’ club eagerly celebrating the fact that a rape had led to some difficulties for a political organisation that they disagree with.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, there's loads of them in Sheffield.


there are more Chileans than Mexicans, but there are a few.  PLenty of other migrants too, of course.  Not sure what your point is, really.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> lol, so you dont support open borders in capitalism. We live in a capitalist society, so you oppose open borders. Therfore, you support bourgeois immigration controls. You cant have it both ways.
> 
> You're right, this is why the left fails, the refusal of left reformists to think their politics through.


 
You can call me a reformist all you want, I doesn't bother me one jot. I'm not part of the more wadical than thou brigade.

No to the bourgeois NHS. No to the bourgeois welfare state.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> there are more Chileans than Mexicans, but there are a few. PLenty of other migrants too, of course. Not sure what your point is, really.


 
That economic migration under capitalism isn't something to be uncritically celebrated. Most 'thick workers' already get this. Shame you don't.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Undocumented?


 
"Illegals".


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> classic Kautskyite line that


I'm not sure that even Kautsky would have been equivocal about border controls on migrants. In fact there weren't any in his day, at least not until 1914.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> "Illegals".


 
I still have no idea what you're on about.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

They'll be calling me a bennite soon


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> lol, so you dont support open borders in capitalism. We live in a capitalist society, so you oppose open borders. Therfore, you support bourgeois immigration controls. You cant have it both ways.
> 
> You're right, this is why the left fails, the refusal of left reformists to think their politics through.


 
What should the response be to Scotland's independence? Should there be "bourgeois immigration controls" between Scotland and the rump UK, or should all current citizens liable to a passport be able to be citizens in both countries?


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You can call me a reformist all you want, I doesn't bother me one jot. I'm not part of the more wadical than thou brigade.
> 
> No to the bourgeois NHS. No to the bourgeois welfare state.


I note you have refused to actually respond, just thrown your rattle out of the pram.

Point out where my argument goes wrong if you can.


SpineyNorman said:


> That economic migration under capitalism isn't something to be uncritically celebrated. Most 'thick workers' already get this. Shame you don't.


Where has anyone - even that RevSoc statement - said it should be 'uncritically celebarated'. Dont make things up, it only weakens your (already weak) argument.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I still have no idea what you're on about.


 
Foreign workers who have overstayed their student visas, and are working to send money back to their families. I'd be surprised if there are 0 in Sheffield.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Mexican 'thick workers' might disagree?


 
I know that you are being flippant but actually if you look at the history of, for example, Californian agricultural labour you will find that the mostly Hispanic agricultural labour activists campaigned very hard to limit immigration. Agricultural labour in California was only able to make any gains after labour and civil rights activists managed to curtail Mexican immigration.

http://www.ufw.org/_page.php?menu=research&inc=history/03.html may be of interest

Under neoliberalism, open borders are a boss' tool.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Under neoliberalism, open borders are a boss' tool.


_Borders_ are a bosses tool, full stop.  Protectionism does not help improve workers living standards, it helps improve bosses profits.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> That economic migration under capitalism isn't something to be uncritically celebrated. Most 'thick workers' already get this. Shame you don't.


economic migrants are workers. i doubt even they are celibrating uncritically, but nevertheless, they could be starving without it.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I'm not sure that even Kautsky would have been equivocal about border controls on migrants. In fact there weren't any in his day, at least not until 1914.


no i meant the form of the argument, "of course socialism is the ultimate goal but for now...."


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I still have no idea what you're on about.


 
The present immigration control system has some foaming at the mouth and others unsure of their position. Instead of focusing on immigrants, well migrants really, the concerns are to do with the failure of politics, where and how migrants are allocated. Not about the migrants themselves. Direct resources needed to help integrate people. Ensure migrants identify with that society. Feel part of it. Feel like they are wanted and needed. Have a place in its future. Not marginalisation and disaffection. Migrants, mostly from A8 European countries, have been coming here to work hard, filling gaps in the labour market, picking, packing and processing foodstuff for example. They then return home when the work is done. Furthermore, in all environments, with regards to tax, considerably more is put into an economy than is taken out in benefits. Migrants are healthier and are extremely law-abiding. Fertility rates here and in the developed countries generally are collapsing. It's forecast that the rich countries labour force will decline in the future. The questions then that need to be asked are, whose going to look after you? Whose going to pay for your pension? Whose going to provide services? Meanwhile, millions of British people continue to live and work in other countries. Sadly, when there's a crisis people can begin to blame the "other", it doesn't help when politicians join in the chorus. The crisis will surely last longer if people follow nationalism and xenophobia. The message should be migrants are good for society, are future depends on them, are jobs depend on them, we embrace them and by the way we are all migrants.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> I note you have refused to actually respond, just thrown your rattle out of the pram.
> 
> Point out where my argument goes wrong if you can.


 
Because sometime the bourgeois state does things that favour workers because it's also in the interests of capital to do so. Just the same as the NHS and the welfare state. So those are also bourgeois and not to be supported. I wasn't throwing my rattle out of the pram. You're just too daft to understand anything more subtle than a lump hammer.



belboid said:


> Where has anyone - even that RevSoc statement - said it should be 'uncritically celebarated'. Dont make things up, it only weakens your (already weak) argument.


 
Jesus. It's certainly being uncritically advocated.

Anyway, if you want to talk about this start a thread about it.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> lol, so you dont support open borders in capitalism. We live in a capitalist society, so you oppose open borders. Therfore, you support bourgeois immigration controls. You cant have it both ways.
> 
> You're right, this is why the left fails, the refusal of left reformists to think their politics through.


 
You could throw this right back in your face. I'm not anti-immigration either. Nations and states might be bourgeois contructs, ultimately I don't consider them legitimate, but it doesn't make them any less real, and you can't just pretend they don't exist. Do you just walk straight through customs then when you go through the airport, freeman of the land style, because you're against bourgeois immigration controls?

And Spiney's right, state's immigration controls are one thing, but global capital's need for cheap, easily exploitable labour are another. Are you telling that immigration, both legal and illegal, doesn't result in rampant exploitation and misery? That it doesn't exist to serve the class interests of global capital? Immigration in and of itself is fine, of course I have no problem with immigration and open borders on principle, but the idea that the patterns of immigration we currently experiencing aren't shaped by the interests of capital first and foremost, long before the interests of the people themselves, is patent nonsense.

Of course under socialism it'd be totally different, and it might sound cheesy but it's logical, because first one of the major drivers in economic migration (ie massive global inequailty and a hegemonic global capitalist class that can play the race to the bottom between nations) would no longer exist, utterly transforming the context which immigration takes place in. And of course, under socialism, nation states would eventually wither away and end up in the dustbin of history, to be replaced by the as yet unspeficied democratic institutions of working class (which in no way would be a de facto replacement state, certainly wouldn't ever be organised on nominally national, ethnic, or linguistic lines)  Just incidentally, presuming all this takes place, how long do you think it's going to take, post-revolution, for bourgeois notions of the nation-state to wither away? weeks? months? years?

You can call me a reformist too I don't mind that at all.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> The present immigration control system has some foaming at the mouth and others unsure of their position. Instead of focusing on immigrants, well migrants really, the concerns are to do with the failure of politics, where and how migrants are allocated. Not about the migrants themselves. Direct resources needed to help integrate people. Ensure migrants identify with that society. Feel part of it. Feel like they are wanted and needed. Have a place in its future. Not marginalisation and disaffection. Migrants, mostly from A8 European countries, have been coming here to work hard, filling gaps in the labour market, picking, packing and processing foodstuff for example. They then return home when the work is done. Furthermore, in all environments, with regards to tax, considerably more is put into an economy than is taken out in benefits. Migrants are healthier and are extremely law-abiding. Fertility rates here and in the developed countries generally are collapsing. It's forecast that the rich countries labour force will decline in the future. The questions then that need to be asked are, whose going to look after you? Whose going to pay for your pension? Whose going to provide services? Meanwhile, millions of British people continue to live and work in other countries. Sadly, when there's a crisis people can begin to blame the "other", it doesn't help when politicians join in the chorus. The crisis will surely last longer if people follow nationalism and xenophobia. The message should be migrants are good for society, are future depends on them, are jobs depend on them, we embrace them and by the way we are all migrants.


 
Don't you think that xenophobia vs completely open borders is a false dichotomy?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 17, 2013)

now we're debating the lack of details and order of points in a founding statement of a student society?

this thread has gone proper shit.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> The present immigration control system has some foaming at the mouth and others unsure of their position. Instead of focusing on immigrants, well migrants really, the concerns are to do with the failure of politics, where and how migrants are allocated. Not about the migrants themselves. Direct resources needed to help integrate people. Ensure migrants identify with that society. Feel part of it. Feel like they are wanted and needed. Have a place in its future. Not marginalisation and disaffection. Migrants, mostly from A8 European countries, have been coming here to work hard, filling gaps in the labour market, picking, packing and processing foodstuff for example. They then return home when the work is done. Furthermore, in all environments, with regards to tax, considerably more is put into an economy than is taken out in benefits. Migrants are healthier and are extremely law-abiding. Fertility rates here and in the developed countries generally are collapsing. It's forecast that the rich countries labour force will decline in the future. The questions then that need to be asked are, whose going to look after you? Whose going to pay for your pension? Whose going to provide services? Meanwhile, millions of British people continue to live and work in other countries. Sadly, when there's a crisis people can begin to blame the "other", it doesn't help when politicians join in the chorus. The crisis will surely last longer if people follow nationalism and xenophobia. The message should be migrants are good for society, are future depends on them, are jobs depend on them, we embrace them and by the way we are all migrants.


 
What exactly does that lengthy and unattributed cut and paste have to do with what I've been saying?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I know that you are being flippant..


 
No I wasn't.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> classic Kautskyite line that


 
Am I being accused of reformism by a labour party hack?


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Because sometime the bourgeois state does things that favour workers because it's also in the interests of capital to do so. Just the same as the NHS and the welfare state. So those are also bourgeois and not to be supported. I wasn't throwing my rattle out of the pram. You're just too daft to understand anything more subtle than a lump hammer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


christ, you are all over the shop.  You equate immigration controls with the NHS!!!  Wow....Do tell me which controls you support tho, you are bienhg very shy on that one.

Not surprised you want to start a new thread, you're having your arse handed to you on this one.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I know that you are being flippant but actually if you look at the history of, for example, Californian agricultural labour you will find that the mostly Hispanic agricultural labour activists campaigned very hard to limit immigration. Agricultural labour in California was only able to make any gains after labour and civil rights activists managed to curtail Mexican immigration.
> 
> http://www.ufw.org/_page.php?menu=research&inc=history/03.html may be of interest
> 
> Under neoliberalism, open borders are a boss' tool.


 
No offence to you, but that's a desperately official history full of oversimplification and distortion

Here is Loren Goldner's review of a recent work:



> This approach, pitting US-born workers against imported labor in California’s rural economy was, to put it mildly, not the only possibility. As Bardacke shows, there was already a long tradition of much more militant struggle in the California fields, including the IWW prior to US entry into World War I, the Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM) of Magonista revolutionaries who fled repression during the Mexican Revolution and who worked with the IWW on both sides of the border (the red flag briefly flew over Tijuana in 1911), as well as the great strikes of 1933, organized in part by Communist Party trade union militants. PLM influence remained alive in Los Angeles and other Mexican-American centers into the 1950s. The Filipino-based Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC) around Larry Itliong (about which more below) was in favor of reaching out to the braceros as class brothers. But for the cursillo adept and Alinsky-trained Cesar Chavez in 1950s Cold War America, this classwide approach was not only an “unknown past,” as Bardacke points out, it was a past he would have viscerally rejected, and did reject when it later re-erupted in his periodic purges of “leftists” and real or imagined “Communists” from the UFW, or finally when “in 1979, the ghost of Ricardo Flores Magon”[5] made “a cameo appearance at one of the most dramatic moments in UFW history.” This antagonism between braceros and Mexican-Americans even began to crack during a rural strike wave of 1959–1962. At the Dannenburg Ranch labor camp in the Imperial Valley in February 1961, a thousand UPWA pickets striking nearby lettuce fields confronted hundreds of braceros, potential scabs, through a fence topped with barbed wire designed to keep the braceros from escaping. After calling on the braceros to join them, and confronting the local sheriffs who arrived to clear the strikers away, the militants watched as hundreds of braceros jumped out of the scab-herding growers’ trucks and more than a hundred of them climbed the fence in solidarity.


 
The official UFW approach 'up the loyal Hispanic-American boo the migrant Mexicans' doesn't need celebration.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

discokermit said:


> economic migrants are workers. i doubt even they are celibrating uncritically, but nevertheless, they could be starving without it.


 
I know - I'm not anti-immigration. But seriously, can this not be discussed on another thread?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What exactly does that lengthy and unattributed cut and paste have to do with what I've been saying?


 
Yeah, but I wrote and posted that there, so not as you assert. You haven't been saying much as it happens and you're not clear on your position it seems to me.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> christ, you are all over the shop. You equate immigration controls with the NHS!!! Wow....Do tell me which controls you support tho, you are bienhg very shy on that one.
> 
> Not surprised you want to start a new thread, you're having your arse handed to you on this one.


 
No, I'm not equating the two. I'm pointing out your four legs good two legs bad idiocy for what it is.

Sorry I'm not as wadical as you belboid, it must be a real disappointment.

The kind of controls I'm in favour of are trade union controls (bourgeois unions though! ) with unions controlling who gets work - not direct border controls but it would clearly have an effect on migration.

New thread is about not derailing this one. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Yeah, but I posted that, so not as you assert. You haven't been saying much as it happens and you're not clear on your position it seems to me.


 
It seems to me that you're not clear on anything much. None of that speaks to anything I've said on this thread. Nothing at all.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Don't you think that xenophobia vs completely open borders is a false dichotomy?


 
Open borders is an aspiration. Not realistic presently.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 17, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I have been working for Sainsburys for the past 5 years whilst I was at university doing my BA and my MA, the place has gone downhill rapidly over the past six months as a new manager has come in and has forced out the old team.
> I went for a internal job as store trainer recently, and in the interview the hr manager was surprised to find I had two degrees
> We have a new dick department manager, who thinks he's something special- been really snotty with me.
> I had my performance assessment the other day, and his first words were, "i hear you have just completed a masters degree, I am not an educated man." And so I understood his hostility, he'd been with Sainsburys since leaving school and got to his position through backstabbing, scabbing and brown tonguing all he was worth, yet knew that there was no further he could go, as the company fast tracks graduate trainees into area manager positions.
> ...


 
Supermarket managers are generally cunts, not forgetting the obsequious, two-faced, backstabbing management-wannabe toads in supervisory roles.   And I've got five more years' worth of experience than you!  

Don't know about your spot, but it's becoming more degree-level oriented for entry into management training, whereas years ago it could be quite easy for those deemed promising and without much in the way of formal qualifications to work their way up to GM level through an internal fast-track program.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> christ, you are all over the shop. You equate immigration controls with the NHS!!! Wow....Do tell me which controls you support tho, you are bienhg very shy on that one.
> 
> Not surprised you want to start a new thread, you're having your arse handed to you on this one.


 
There _are_ immigration controls bound up within the NHS. I can't find it but there was a study on Malawian medical workers in Britain something like there are more Malawi nurses with senior qualifications in Manchester (often working as agency or bank nurses) than senior nurses in Mandala, yet the niece of a Malawian nurse working for the NHS can't receive NHS renal medicine because... the ConDems and Labour have been busy saving the British working-class for neoliberalism's open borders or something.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Open borders is an aspiration. Not realistic presently.


 
Why, then, when this is precisely what I've been saying, did you jump in with a weird general purpose post about how great immigration is for the economy and society in general?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> No offence to you, but that's a desperately official history full of oversimplification and distortion
> 
> Here is Loren Goldner's review of a recent work:
> 
> ...


 
I'm not an apologist for Cesar Chavez, he pretty clearly destroyed the UFW because he had some bizarre quasi-religious ideas (reading about the role of The Game in the union is bizarre!) about what a union should be. He had some very, very strange ideas and his ostensible anti-Communism was as much about having an excuse to get rid of people who opposed his bizarre ideas about turning the union into some sort of commune/social movement.

Yes, there was a history of militant agricultural labour in California prior to the end of the bracero programme but it was distinctly unsuccessful, in fact the literature on the subject is pretty unanimous about quite how unsuccessful it was compared with elsewhere in the Western world. Agricultural workers had to wait until 1975 to benefit from legislation equivalent to those given to industrial workers in 1935.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It seems to me that you're not clear on anything much. None of that speaks to anything I've said on this thread. Nothing at all.


 
I thought I was pretty clear on the issue of migrant workers. Trying to be a clever, to undermine a post I'd made smacks of desperation.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The kind of controls I'm in favour of are trade union controls (bourgeois unions though! ) with unions controlling who gets work - not direct border controls but it would clearly have an effect on migration.


 
That is basically what an 'open borders' or 'non-borders' position is, provided that unions from both areas agree in the process, and it's not just the more powerful country's union deciding we'll have X temporary workers, without full citizenship rights etc as was the case in Federal Germany.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why, then, when this is precisely what I've been saying, did you jump in with a weird general purpose post about how great immigration is for the economy and society in general?


 
Do I need your permission?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 17, 2013)

Open borders is part of the process of socialist transformation. If you don't support it you're not a socialist. If on the other hand, you think it's an appropriate demand to raise in current circumstances then you have quite a lot in common with the kind of people who think that proposing worker's militias or soviets makes sense in current circumstances.

Seriously, this is the wrong thread for this. There are many other threads where this has been discussed to death here. Please resurrect one or start a new one rather than starting an endless exchange of set piece arguments here.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> That is basically what an 'open borders' or 'non-borders' position is, provided that unions from both areas agree in the process, and it's not just the more powerful country's union deciding we'll have X temporary workers, without full citizenship rights etc as was the case in Federal Germany.


 
And if people were calling for open borders, with the qualification that the allocation of work would be in the hands of the unions, I'd not have a problem. They're not though - it's an _unqualified _call for open borders. You have to be careful about this stuff when there's not enough jobs, homes, etc for everyone.

And if that's really the SWP open borders position it might be a good idea for them to tell the membership.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Seriously, this is the wrong thread for this. There are many other threads where this has been discussed to death here. Please resurrect one or start a new one rather than starting an endless exchange of set piece arguments here.


 
I have been trying!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Do I need your permission?


 
Are you being deliberately stupid? You made that post in reply to mine, clearly implying that it had some relevance to what I said, that it refuted something I'd said. Admit it - you assumed I was making a completely different argument from the one I _was _making.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I have been trying!


 
You keep responding.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I'm not an apologist for Cesar Chavez, he pretty clearly destroyed the UFW because he had some bizarre quasi-religious ideas (reading about the role of The Game in the union is bizarre!) about what a union should be. He had some very, very strange ideas and his ostensible anti-Communism was as much about having an excuse to get rid of people who opposed his bizarre ideas about turning the union into some sort of commune/social movement.


Then don't cite a UFW history as proving the need for migration control!



> Yes, there was a history of militant agricultural labour in California prior to the end of the bracero programme but it was distinctly unsuccessful, in fact the literature on the subject is pretty unanimous about quite how unsuccessful it was compared with elsewhere in the Western world. Agricultural workers had to wait until 1975 to benefit from legislation equivalent to those given to industrial workers in 1935.


It was unsuccessful in part because it _was_ so divided by country of origin. Not too far from the present day case with temporary Slovakian and Polish asparagus pickers versus British pickers now, although there are the general problems of massive large areas, workplaces and strikebreaking options in supply chains etc.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You keep responding.


 
So do you.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And if people were calling for open borders, with the qualification that the allocation of work would be in the hands of the unions, I'd not have a problem. They're not though - it's an _unqualified _call for open borders. You have to be careful about this stuff when there's not enough jobs, homes, etc for everyone.
> 
> And if that's really the SWP open borders position it might be a good idea for them to tell the membership.


 
Yes, I agree, but an _unqualified_ call for 'open borders controlled by unions' will lead to the scenario of "bourgeois" (as you called them) unions in Germany collaborating heavily with German capital to ensure a skill-split workforce in the factories, defending the skilled workforce, dumping further on the unskilled component.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are you being deliberately stupid? You made that post in reply to mine, clearly implying that it had some relevance to what I said, that it refuted something I'd said. Admit it - you assumed I was making a completely different argument from the one I _was _making.


 
You are against open borders and for workers immigration controls. Is that it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Yes, I agree, but an _unqualified_ call for 'open borders controlled by unions' will lead to the scenario of "bourgeois" (as you called them) unions in Germany collaborating heavily with German capital to ensure a skill-split workforce in the factories, defending the skilled workforce, dumping further on the unskilled component.


 
Not if you add in what you said about including unions in other countries.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> You are against open borders and for workers immigration controls. Is that it?


 
I'm not against open borders full stop. But I'm only _for _open borders _under current circumstances_ if it comes with workers control of the allocation of work and resources.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

I'll leave it there.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not against open borders full stop. But I'm only _for _open borders _under current circumstances_ if it comes with workers control of the allocation of work and resources.


ie, you're a bit all over the shop 

Its funny how workers militias are _just silly_ whilst union control of work is just dandy.

But yeah, I'll leave it there. We need some better bloody stuff than one SWSS statement to talk about!


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not if you add in what you said about including unions in other countries.


 
The problem of course becomes that _almost always_ whenever capital does need immigrant labour from a particular source the bourgeois unions in the receiver country have greater density/more of a collaborative relationship compared to the state of unions in the labour emitting country. Hence it is very easy for the strong to dictate to the weak all with the trade union fig-leaf, so that militants in both countries. 

Out of interest, what is the Pakistan CWI position on Pakistani overstayers in Britain? A search for immmigration on the website gives nothing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> ie, you're a bit all over the shop
> 
> Its funny how workers militias are _just silly_ whilst union control of work is just dandy.
> 
> But yeah, I'll leave it there. We need some better bloody stuff than one SWSS statement to talk about!


 
Hey, what can I say? It's not so long since I was just one of yer stupid workers so my consciousness is bound to be a little flawed.

There are differences between those two though - an important one being that one of them will likely get you shot and the other won't.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Its funny how workers militias are _just silly_ whilst union control of work is just dandy.


 
That did me lol.  It's a good point.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> There are differences between those two though - an important one being that one of them will likely get you shot and the other won't.


 
If union control over work is effective it can get you shot/arrested in the process of trying to achieve it - remember that you're talking about a union imposing a union-run hiring agenda onto a management, not simply a closed shop principle of everyone who works here must be a union member.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The problem of course becomes that _almost always_ whenever capital does need immigrant labour from a particular source the bourgeois unions in the receiver country have greater density/more of a collaborative relationship compared to the state of unions in the labour emitting country. Hence it is very easy for the strong to dictate to the weak all with the trade union fig-leaf, so that militants in both countries.


 
Then the issue is about democratising the unions - and I'd be more hopeful of success in that than I would be in democratising the state.



sihhi said:


> Out of interest, what is the Pakistan CWI position on Pakistani overstayers in Britain? A search for immmigration on the website gives nothing.


 


If I had to guess it would be to defend their right to stay but I've not seen anything about that specifically so can't say for sure - can find out for you if you're really interested though?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Out of interest, what is the Pakistan CWI position on Pakistani overstayers in Britain? A search for immmigration on the website gives nothing.


 
I very much doubt if they have one, other than the standard issue opposition to all deportations common to all CWI sections. The CWI is in favour of open borders - it just thinks that posing the issue in those terms rather than by concentrating on solidarity with those threatened by anti-migrant laws will be counterproductive in current circumstances. It plays into the hands of bigots.

I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this, by the way. Can we take it to another thread please? Here's a distraction for you all of slightly more relevance: Seymour has a piece up on "intersectionality". This should have bolshiebhoy jumping up and down with glee.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> If union control over work is effective it can get you shot/arrested in the process of trying to achieve it - remember that you're talking about a union imposing a union-run hiring agenda onto a management, not simply a closed shop principle of everyone who works here must be a union member.


 
This is a derail of a derail of a derail so I don't want to dwell on it for too long, but unions have managed this (albeit imperfectly) without people getting shot.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Seymour has a piece up on "intersectionality".


 
*This* is what we've all been waiting for!


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Hey, what can I say? It's not so long since I was just one of yer stupid workers so my consciousness is bound to be a little flawed.


They're _your_ thick workers I'm afraid.



> There are differences between those two though - an important one being that one of them will likely get you shot and the other won't.


saying you want a workers militia will get you shot? No it wont. They'll both just get you looked at a bit funny


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

Trying to actually set one up will.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Seymour has a piece up on "intersectionality". This should have bolshiebhoy jumping up and down with glee.


phew, just when I thought I might have to go back to writing my job application...


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Trying to actually set one up will.


Not even the IBT are that silly...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 17, 2013)

I don't think Seymour's piece on intersectionality is as awful as half the people here will be hoping. In particular, his reframing of the term as a way to raise an important set of questions rather than as a theoretical solution undermines many of the more objectionable parts of the concept as it is often deployed.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I very much doubt if they have one, other than the standard issue opposition to all deportations common to all CWI sections. The CWI is in favour of open borders - it just thinks that posing the issue in those terms rather than by concentrating on solidarity with those threatened by anti-migrant laws will be counterproductive in current circumstances. It plays into the hands of bigots.
> 
> I can't believe I'm getting dragged into this, by the way. Can we take it to another thread please? Here's a distraction for you all of slightly more relevance: Seymour has a piece up on "intersectionality". This should have bolshiebhoy jumping up and down with glee.


 
Just read it. Seymour is a really, really bad writer.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Then the issue is about democratising the unions - and I'd be more hopeful of success in that than I would be in democratising the state.


 
Yes, democratising the unions is a crucial aim and (in the weaker/poorer country at least, if not the stronger country) it might have to involve belboid's point about workers' militia - unions often having been set up precisely as yellow unions and functioning as such due to legal resitrictions.



> If I had to guess it would be to defend their right to stay but I've not seen anything about that specifically so can't say for sure - can find out for you if you're really interested though?


In which case that's once again 'open borders'.

If you want to carry on your quibble about the SWP (and its splits) stand on open borders it would be an idea to present the complete CWI approach - so we can compare and contrast - it might be interesting.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Yes, democratising the unions is a crucial aim and (in the weaker/poorer country at least, if not the stronger country) it might have to involve belboid's point about workers' militia - unions often having been set up precisely as yellow unions and functioning as such due to legal resitrictions.
> 
> 
> In which case that's once again 'open borders'.
> ...


 
I think that's probably something for another thread. Could be a good debate - when I can set aside an hour or 2 to present it properly I probably will.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> In which case that's once again 'open borders'.


 
The CWI is in favour of open borders. Where it differs from some others on the far left is that it thinks that in many circumstances posing the issue in that way will be counterproductive and will stir up fear rather than encourage solidarity. It also differs from those who think that genuine open borders can come about under capitalism rather than as part of a transition to socialism.




			
				sihhi said:
			
		

> If you want to carry on your quibble about the SWP (and its splits) stand on open borders it would be an idea to...


... go to a more appropriate thread and discuss it there.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 17, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> Supermarket managers are generally cunts, not forgetting the obsequious, two-faced, backstabbing management-wannabe toads in supervisory roles. And I've got five more years' worth of experience than you!
> 
> Don't know about your spot, but it's becoming more degree-level oriented for entry into management training, whereas years ago it could be quite easy for those deemed promising and without much in the way of formal qualifications to work their way up to GM level through an internal fast-track program.


 
It's disgusting that you have to have a degree now to get almost any reasonable job. Interesting to see vintage teenage mags from the seventies with plenty of ads trying to tempt readers to get a few O levels and then apply to work in their bank or whatever, with training, opportunities and reasonable pay.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think Seymour's piece on intersectionality is as awful as half the people here will be hoping. In particular, his reframing of the term as a way to raise an important set of questions rather than as a theoretical solution undermines many of the more objectionable parts of the concept as it is often deployed.


No, its a fairly pretentious but bland piece really. Not unlike the criticism of post-modernism as a whole - it may provide a useful tool or two, but isnt a new way of resolving anything.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I very much doubt if they have one, other than the standard issue opposition to all deportations common to all CWI sections. The *CWI is in favour of open borders* - it just thinks that posing the issue in those terms rather than by concentrating on solidarity with those threatened by anti-migrant laws will be counterproductive in current circumstances.


 
 Glad you've expressed in those terms. I agree, as it goes, just spiney choosing point 5 to pounce on started this thing.
I might try a thread about Romanians/Bulgarians and British multiple house-owners in Bulgaria, if I can think of a useful way in.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> just spiney choosing point 5 to pounce on started this thing.


aye, nothing to do with _certain other posters_ just being bored and fancying an argument...


----------



## likesfish (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> They might actually want to _stop _them imploding. Has anyone ever seen Pat Stack and Stella Rimmington together in the same room?



Remember somebody ranting the SWP were an invention of Mi5 explains why. They are so shit.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Glad you've expressed in those terms. I agree, as it goes, just spiney choosing point 5 to pounce on started this thing.
> I might try a thread about Romanians/Bulgarians and British multiple house-owners in Bulgaria, if I can think of a useful way in.


 
To be fair I also pounced on the seemingly arbitrary age limit of 27 - does anyone know any of them well enough to find out how they arrived at that one?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be fair I also pounced on the seemingly arbitrary age limit of 27 - does anyone know any of them well enough to find out how they arrived at that one?


 
One of them is probably 26.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think we need clarification on this - I'm a student but I'm err... a little bit older than 27. Can I join? If not I'm gonna find them on twitter and get all intersectional with them. I notice they don't mention ageism in their list of oppressions


 
i know bastards!!!!


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

Bringing it back on topic (SWP expulsion)



belboid said:


> aye, nothing to do with _certain other posters_ just being bored and fancying an argument...


 
I didn't think it was fair to knock that part (point 6 as it happens) just about every left group has a list of demands of some shape or form.

Spiney said: 





> I can see 'open the borders' going down really well if they ever emerge from their university bubble and try and take their program to 'the class'.


 
Like it or not foreign students on student visas and restrictions placed upon them and higher fees imposed upon them are an issue for the students that the SWP split comes from. It means universities are chasing the foreign student dollar and forming partnerships abroad, and foreign students are largely separated from student campaigns as working-class students are - because both have greater time pressures placed upon and more balls to juggle.

Should these students pretend they're not students and make a 10-point manifesto _as if_ they are X or Y workers? I hope they don't turn into 'Upping the Anti'. But we can only really judge that after their conference they might decide let's try our manifesto out there beyond students, in fact let's listen to what people out there are saying and start again on that basis. I hope I'm not being over-naive.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> spney, being denied from the luu revsoc


one of the things i hate the most about going to uni at my age is feeling like an old duffer... but to have that put into a fucking constitution......


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be fair I also pounced on the seemingly arbitrary age limit of 27 - does anyone know any of them well enough to find out how they arrived at that one?


 
One possible explanation is that they want to avoid Deltas, John Reeses and Lindey Germans telling them what to.
W and her supporters are a core group within this split.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> One possible explanation is that they want to avoid Deltas, John Reeses and Lindey Germans telling them what to.
> W and her supporters are a core group within this split.


 
Just intrigued as to how they arrived at 27 rather than 25 or 30 - not that it's really important.

Just seen your reply to Nigel's post by the way - I'll remember to preface any comments I make on immigration by pointing out that I'm in favour of open borders - I'd assumed that I'd been commenting on this kind of stuff on here for long enough for that not to be necessary but now I know otherwise.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think Seymour's piece on intersectionality is as awful as half the people here will be hoping. In particular, his reframing of the term as a way to raise an important set of questions rather than as a theoretical solution undermines many of the more objectionable parts of the concept as it is often deployed.


 
You're right it's not awful, it's calm and measured (doesn't really seek to stick the boot in to the middle-class academics who came up with the term and used in pro-capitalist methods and means), but still feels sort of professory English.

Its conclusion is smart and measured, though if it's _just_ a term posing a problem then an "intersectional feminism" is a meaningless contradictory term there should only be intersectional examinations of sexism.




> The objection one might have, thinking about this concept, is that it could imply that the various axes of oppression that 'intersect' at a particular location are somehow conceived of as discrete, separate; that it does not allow one to grasp their unity in a given social formation.  Whether it does or not, however, depends entirely on the wider theoretical articulations that the concept is embedded in.  The concept of 'intersectionality' is a way of posing a problem, not an ultimate theoretical solution.  And the problem it poses is, I think, a specific instance of the global problem addressed by Gramsci: that of achieving effective political unity among the oppressed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

Sorry for another derail, but it's sort of linked to what's being discussed - does anyone know whether/how intersectionality theory would deal with the fact that there are some people in certain groups in society who benefit from the oppression of others within those groups? For example, female capitalists benefit from a sexist society (unpaid women's labour going towards the reproduction of labour power and so on)?

My only real engagement with this has been through 1) advocates of intersectionality who I suspect don't know the theory all that well and 2) that wheel thing. In both cases the assumtion seemed to be that different groups are oppressed and that those who are not in those groups benefit from that oppression and so they couldn't give a satisfactory or even coherent answer.

Or is it the case that it simply cannot deal with that kind of thing?


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Bringing it back on topic (SWP expulsion)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


unlike workers militia's,, immigration controls are absolutely already on the agenda, so saying wht you believe openly and explicitly doesnt strike me as an unreasonable thing to do



SpineyNorman said:


> Just intrigued as to how they arrived at 27 rather than 25 or 30 - not that it's really important.


 
I wonder if the youngest SWP member nearby is 28...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> unlike workers militia's,, immigration controls are absolutely already on the agenda, so saying wht you believe openly and explicitly doesnt strike me as an unreasonable thing to do


 
My issue isn't with the call for open borders per se but an unqualified call for open borders, especially since it appears they're trying to appeal not just to students but to young workers too. But when I can lay it all out properly in a way that can't be (deliberately or not) misconstrued I'll start a thread with what I think about this so we can have a proper debate. I don't trust myself to do it properly right now cos I'm knackered and I've had a couple of shandies.





belboid said:


> I wonder if the youngest SWP member nearby is 28...


 
That's my suspicion too - that it's been done with specific people or a specific person in mind - either that their oldest member graduates when he/she is 27 or what you said.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just seen your reply to Nigel's post by the way - I'll remember to preface any comments I make on immigration by pointing out that I'm in favour of open borders - I'd assumed that I'd been commenting on this kind of stuff on here for long enough for that not to be necessary but now I know otherwise.


 
I haven't assumed that you were anti-immigration or anti-opening borders. It's just a question of how we make the case, what we're saying and doing - not an ideal topic for debate across two different parts of the country via the internet. It comes up in some fashion in other contexts often when we wouldn't like it to - in leafleting outside HPUs, attempted trade union recruitment of foreign EU workers who complain about the union not giving a damn about their being on emergency tax, disputes about noisy neighbours, anti-social behaviour, a resident's group opposing a batting shop application because it attracts foreign men who don't even place any bets but hang around outside  etc etc. 

Labour Left say they are in favour of open borders (ultimately, yes they are) then go on to sit on Immigration Select Committees that inevitably sustain immigration controls - hopeless and hypocritical. The pure anarchist position is sloganising and "activism" based around migrant camps and the suffering transit/limbo migrant population, good but not able to go anywhere wider provoking an 'idiots trying to help the foreigners get here illegally' line. 

Miliband's line now is that Labour under Blair _was_ open borders, and now he is correcting it and will clear the surplus of illegals - and that the working-class in Britain was specifically immiserated by this open border immigration. (Instead of the point that the working-class didn't gain the fruits of capitalist activity that involved migrant labour over 1997-2010, _because it was capitalist_ not because migrants were part of it).


----------



## october_lost (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> One possible explanation is that they want to avoid Deltas, John Reeses and Lindey Germans telling them what to.
> W and her supporters are a core group within this split.


One friend of mine has a rule - 'half your age, plus seven' - someone should suggest that to them.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> But obviously the labour party way of doing things yet has life.


 
Well, it might have escaped your admittedly limited attention span but the Labour party (unlike the steel picket lines) happens to still exist, and therefore you can't avoid some form of relation to it.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 17, 2013)

On the failure of revolution to spread internationally after 1917, an interview with Boris Groys at the Charnel House:

"On the other hand, I was and still am very interested in the institutional and official traditions of communism. As with the early Protestants who saw the Catholic Church as the church of Satan, communists today claim, “All these decades and centuries of communist movements — that was not real communism. Communism will begin with us.” It is a claim that one can understand, but it seems to me historically, ideologically, politically, and philosophically problematic. All of the theorists of communism today say: “We start anew. We reject everything that came before. We don’t interpret or correct it — we just reject it as a fundamental failure.”


----------



## emanymton (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just intrigued as to how they arrived at 27 rather than 25 or 30 - not that it's really important.
> 
> Just seen your reply to Nigel's post by the way - I'll remember to preface any comments I make on immigration by pointing out that I'm in favour of open borders - I'd assumed that I'd been commenting on this kind of stuff on here for long enough for that not to be necessary but now I know otherwise.


Maybe there is 28 year old they really don't like?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> One possible explanation is that they want to avoid Deltas, John Reeses and Lindey Germans telling them what to.
> W and her supporters are a core group within this split.


Do we even know if W has even split from the SWP?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> On the failure of revolution to spread internationally after 1917, an interview with Boris Groys at the Charnel House:
> 
> "On the other hand, I was and still am very interested in the institutional and official traditions of communism. As with the early Protestants who saw the Catholic Church as the church of Satan, communists today claim, “All these decades and centuries of communist movements — that was not real communism. Communism will begin with us.” It is a claim that one can understand, but it seems to me historically, ideologically, politically, and philosophically problematic. All of the theorists of communism today say: “We start anew. We reject everything that came before. We don’t interpret or correct it — we just reject it as a fundamental failure.”


 
I once read a book by Groys about the history of Soviet art - think it was called the total art of Stalinism or something. It was one of the strangest history books I've ever read.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I once read a book by Groys about the history of Soviet art - think it was called the total art of Stalinism or something. It was one of the strangest history books I've ever read.


Just tried reading the interview. They fucking love them longue words


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well, it might have escaped your admittedly limited attention span but the Labour party (unlike the steel picket lines) happens to still exist, and therefore you can't avoid some form of relation to it.


 
Well, it might have escaped your admittedly limited attention span but the Tory party (unlike steel picket lines) happens to still exist, and therefore you can't avoid some form of relation to it.


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 17, 2013)

october_lost said:


> One friend of mine has a rule - 'half your age, plus seven' - someone should suggest that to them.


 
Obviously an xkcd fan: http://xkcd.com/314/


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 17, 2013)

to be fair spiney, we could start the SWSCSS (Socialist Workers Senior Citizens Students Society) for the over 27s as a response...


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 17, 2013)

Last of the Socialist Wine


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2013)

*Phil BC*@philbc3
Coming in the morning, some awful, historical SWP allegations.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> It isnt 'separatism- lite,'  it's a basic recognition that the oppressed have a right to self-organise.  Its pretty straight-forward.


It's a shame the open borders thing dominated this evening's discussion cause this notion of separate organisations within a revolutionary party for oppressed groups is the really interesting point about this Leeds manifesto. I'd be willing to bet a lot that it's repeated in some more or less open form in the future manifesto of the ISN. Self organising within capitalist society is one thing. Creating different sections within arevolutionary party is another. Whether people agree with it or not, and I know most on here will likely agree, it should be noted that its something which has been alien to the SWP since the early 80's. And the dominant thinking in the IS is that it's something alien to the Lenin/Kollontai tradition as well. The language about self identifying groups having their own space inside the party brought to mind for me the Cliff quip, when discussing Lenin's opposition to the Jewish Bund operating as a separate entity within Russian marxism, about needing a special group for say Jewish women as neither the Jewish nor women's caucus would be adequate. Depending on how many members, with how many oppressions, this Leeds group has they could end up needing an awful lot of extra rooms to meet in by the time all the possible intersecting oppression permutations are worked out.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> to be fair spiney, we could start the SWSCSS (Socialist Workers Senior Citizens Students Society) for the over 27s as a response...


 
I'm in!


----------



## J Ed (Mar 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *Phil BC*@philbc3
> Coming in the morning, some awful, historical SWP allegations.


 
On his website or elsewhere?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

I do think there's a place for women's caucuses though to be honest - as others have said it can really do wonders for increasing people's confidence in what are often largely male dominated organisations.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> On his website or elsewhere?


Don't know - he was moaning that he had managed to accidentally delete a new blog post an hour ago though...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I do think there's a place for women's caucuses though to be honest - as others have said it can really do wonders for increasing people's confidence in what are often largely male dominated organisations.


Thing is, most of the women involved in the SWP's experiment along those lines, Women's Voice, concluded the opposite which was one reason they scrapped it after much debate in the early 80's.


----------



## belboid (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It's a shame the open borders thing dominated this evening's discussion cause this notion of separate organisations within a revolutionary party for oppressed groups is the really interesting point about this Leeds manifesto. I'd be willing to bet a lot that it's repeated in some more or less open form in the future manifesto of the ISN. Self organising within capitalist society is one thing. Creating different sections within arevolutionary party is another. Whether people agree with it or not, and I know most on here will likely agree, it should be noted that its something which has been alien to the SWP since the early 80's. And the dominant thinking in the IS is that it's something alien to the Lenin/Kollontai tradition as well. The language about self identifying groups having their own space inside the party brought to mind for me the Cliff quip, when discussing Lenin's opposition to the Jewish Bund operating as a separate entity within Russian marxism, about needing a special group for say Jewish women as neither the Jewish nor women's caucus would be adequate. Depending on how many members, with how many oppressions, this Leeds group has they could end up needing an awful lot of extra rooms to meet in by the time all the possible intersecting oppression permutations are worked out.


some of those issues are hinted at in the stuff on intersectionality. You'll love it 

And, you would hope that oppressed groups didnt feel any need to organise within a revolutionary group, but given what's happened, its hardly surprising that some do. And they have that _right_ in all organisations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> 5. Members who self-identify into an oppressed group (including women) have the right to create or attend caucuses. The caucuses have the right to hear questions relating to their oppression and report to the General Meeting.
> 
> what does this mean?


 
Identity politics.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> some of those issues are hinted at in the stuff on intersectionality. You'll love it
> 
> And, you would hope that oppressed groups didnt feel any need to organise within a revolutionary group, given what's happened, its hardly surprising that some do. And they have that _right_ in all organisations.


Lol can't wait to read it then 

There's a difference between having a right and thinking its sound to exercise it of course.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

Apologies for extended quote but Harman summarises the argument over Women's Voice quite well.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1984/xx/women.html

"For the SWP these are not just ideas that have come to us on the basis of theoretical discussion (although that has been immensely important). They fit in with our own experience as an organisation. For more than ten years we tried to produce a separate women’s Women’s Voice, and for a period we also tried to build a separate organisation, the Women’s Voice Organisation. At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of women involved in the attempt decided it was misconceived.

They found they were all the time being forced to concentrate on issues which stressed women’s weakness and not the strength which working class women can discover in the course of the class struggle of all workers. When working class women began to move as workers, we found a women-only organisation was not at all suited to intervening. Because in any strike it is necessary to get solidarity and blacking strikes cannot be approached as a women-only issue. So Women’s Voice Organisation was only ever able to organise around community issues (hospital closures, abortion, etc.)

Of course, these can sometimes be important to building a revolutionary organisation, but only if they are linked to the struggle of organised workers. A separate organisation actually makes this link impossible. Instead of teaching them to lead, our women comrades decided, the experience of Women’s Voice was merely leaving them to lag behind the main course of the struggle. Our best women members came to see they were being forced into the ghetto of women-only community politics, and that this had serious consequences for our party. It separated the struggle for women’s liberation off from the rest of our political work.

The party as a whole rarely discussed or worked around issues on which women were moving. These were left to the Women’s Voice groups. And women comrades were not being trained or encouraged to take a leading role in the party. Instead, they were sent off to build Women’s Voice. So we produced a whole generation of women who were unable to argue total socialist politics and were never trained to run branches, intervene in disputes – in short, to lead. Women’s Voice tended to produce a male dominated SWP!"

Yeah but what if people feel the party is sexist or that it's led by sexist? Well kick them out and reform the org or split and form a new one where anti-sexist women and men are in charge. But that's no reason to have separate oppression based organisation within a party dedicated to fighting all exploitation and oppression.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thing is, most of the women involved in the SWP's experiment along those lines, Women's Voice, concluded the opposite which was one reason they scrapped it after much debate in the early 80's.


 
How did this work? The womens group we've got definitely _has _helped, there's absolutely no doubt - those of us not involved in the group have noticed an increase in confidence and those who are involved say it's helped them. But our women members attend the group in addition to branch meetings and all the other stuff we do - was this the case with womens voice? I think I can see how it might not be so effective if those are the _only _things they're involved in. Kind of like getting into a comfort zone.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *Phil BC*@philbc3
> Coming in the morning, some awful, historical SWP allegations.


 
TBF, "coming in the morning" sounds like an awful historical SWP allegation!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I do think there's a place for women's caucuses though to be honest - as others have said it can really do wonders for increasing people's confidence in what are often largely male dominated organisations.


 
It might also ensure that diverse ideas from across the entire membership are allowed to develop, rather than just the intellectual pecadilloes of a chosen few party hacks.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

There is a huge pressure in a party like the SWP for people to become the 'experts' on niche subjects because of their background or knowledge. Roughly half of the talks I ever did at branch meetings were on Ireland and the Troubles cause I had the right accent and a bit of knowledge (not actually a lot as I was bored by the National Question from about the second day I joined in Dublin) to have a go at defending the line against any republicans in the room. But I am eternally grateful to Rees for letting me do my only meeting ever at Marxism on the City and Finance capital and I pretty much knew that was an attempt to help me avoid being stuck in a ghetto in my role in the party. That meeting, and the suggested reading etc that the prof and others helped me with, did more for my general confidence as a young Marxist arguing the whole politics, than any number of Irish or 2nd generation Irish comrade gatherings in pubs did.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thing is, most of the women involved in the SWP's experiment along those lines, Women's Voice, concluded the opposite which was one reason they scrapped it after much debate in the early 80's.


 
Interesting. I don't so much remember "much debate" as I remember nudges and winks of a "the CC doesn't approve of this sort of thing" type. It's not like that was an uncommon mode of shutting down internal debate at the time (or more recently, for that matter), either.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thing is, most of the women involved in the SWP's experiment along those lines, Women's Voice, concluded the opposite which was one reason they scrapped it after much debate in the early 80's.


cliff concluded the opposite, everyone else either towed the line, fucked off or got kicked out.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There is a huge pressure in a party like the SWP for people to become the 'experts' on niche subjects because of their background or knowledge. Roughly half of the talks I ever did at branch meetings were on Ireland and the Troubles cause I had the right accent and a bit of knowledge (not actually a lot as I was bored by the National Question from about the second day I joined in Dublin) to have a go at defending the line against any republicans in the room. But I am eternally grateful to Rees for letting me do my only meeting ever at Marxism on the City and Finance capital and I pretty much knew that was an attempt to help me avoid being stuck in a ghetto in my role in the party. That meeting, and the suggested reading etc that the prof and others helped me with, did more for my general confidence as a young Marxist arguing the whole politics, than any number of Irish or 2nd generation Irish comrade gatherings in pubs did.


 
Well why didn't you say before? That watertight argument that's definitely not just based on a single personal anecdote proves these groups can never be of any value at all.


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 17, 2013)

I think caucuses are a good compromise and allow people who would otherwise have to turn to identity politics a space within political parties.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Well why didn't you say before? That watertight argument that's definitely not just based on a single personal anecdote proves these groups can never be of any value at all.


Well I'd just given the more general Harman argument and was trying to flesh it out with personal experience. Was told early doors in the party that I read too much Marx and didn't pepper my contributions with enough concrete examples. Probably been trying too hard ever since to correct that! So much so that people sometimes don't even believe me ;-)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol can't wait to read it then
> 
> There's a difference between having a right and thinking its sound to exercise it of course.


 
Great stuff, a straight white man being able to be so firm against self organisation - I think that demonstrates the lack of need for self organisation for all of us.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well I'd just given the more general Harman argument and was trying to flesh it out with personal experience. Was told early doors in the party that I read too much Marx and didn't pepper my contributions with enough concrete examples. Probably been trying too hard ever since to correct that!


 
Fair enough - but could you answer my question about womens voice please?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Great stuff, a straight white man being able to be so firm against self organisation - I think that demonstrates the lack of need for self organisation for all of us.


I used to love it when Sinn Feiners attacked us at meetings for trying to import alien ideas dreamt up by our larger English (oppressive Anglo Saxon) sister party. Led by a Palestinian Jewish man who had the temerity to write a book on feminism. Appalling of him.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 17, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> I think caucuses are a good compromise and allow people who would otherwise have to turn to identity politics a space within political parties.


 
well yes, but it says a lot that even in these "revolutionary" organisations the whole idea of a caucus etc is even necessary. And it is necessary despite what the likes of bolshiebhoy say. Not a very convincing argument given what's just happened.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I used to love it when Sinn Feiners attacked us at meetings for trying to import alien ideas dreamt up by our larger English (oppressive Anglo Saxon) sister party. Led by a Palestinian Jewish man who had the temerity to write a book on feminism. Appalling.


 
What the fuck has this to do with owt you loon?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 17, 2013)

I had all the IB's from the period when Women's Voice (WV) was no more and lent them to someone whose daughter was doing a dissertation on the issue and never got them back, which I'm a bit miffed about now. Anyway, from my recollections, I had the impression it was not a process to which was in anyway a smooth one. Cliff had decided to close down WV and that was that as far as I could see. Get a few women party hacks to follow the line and job done. It was a very hot topic and members did not simply acquiesce to the new CC line so easily, accepting the closing down of WV. I remember a number of women, experienced activists at that, in the branch I was in, leaving over this, who were still annoyed enough about it in the mid 80's and beyond come to that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What the fuck has this to do with owt you loon?


They were saying we were an English party telling them they shouldn't be nationalists. just as you're berating me for daring to say something to the oppressed when I'm clearly not oppressed. Guess it comes down to earning the right to say anything by having fought for the same things as the people you're daring to disagree with.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I once read a book by Groys about the history of Soviet art - think it was called the total art of Stalinism or something. It was one of the strangest history books I've ever read.



An examination of Socialist Realism by way of Sots Art?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fair enough - but could you answer my question about womens voice please?


The argument was before my time by a couple of years but the leading women I spoke to about it all agreed that while it lasted WV made them very confident at arguing on women's issues but left them lagging behind their male counterparts on the general politics. perhaps because it wasn't just a regular discussion group, it was a paper and an agitational group that became the focus of their political lives and didn't fit into their general struggles as party members against the system as a whole.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

audiotech said:


> I had all the IB's from the period when Women's Voice (WV) was no more and lent them to someone whose daughter was doing a dissertation on the issue and never got them back, which I'm a bit miffed about now. Anyway, from my recollections, I had the impression it was not a process to which was in anyway a smooth one. Cliff had decided to close down WV and that was that as far as I could see. Get a few women party hacks to follow the line and job done. It was a very hot topic and members did not simply acquiesce to the new CC line so easily, accepting the closing down of WV. I remember a number of women, experienced activists at that, in the branch I was in, leaving over this, who were still annoyed enough about it in the mid 80's and beyond come to that.


 
Maybe you'll be able to answer the question bb seems unwilling to answer - did participants in the womens voice groups end up doing womens voice stuff to the exclusion of other things? If that's the case then it's easy to see how it might not have helped with confidence, or even had the opposite effect (if we take bb's assertion that this was the case as true of course). It's an honest question - I'm not trying to point score or anything.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The argument was before my time by a couple of years but the leading women I spoke to about it all agreed that while it lasted WV made them very confident at arguing on women's issues but left them lagging behind their male counterparts on the general politics. perhaps because it wasn't just a regular discussion group, it was a paper and an agitational group that became the focus of their political lives and didn't fit into their general struggles as party members against the system as a whole.


Thanks, but it's this question I'm most interested in:


SpineyNorman said:


> How did this work? The womens group we've got definitely _has _helped, there's absolutely no doubt - those of us not involved in the group have noticed an increase in confidence and those who are involved say it's helped them. But our women members attend the group in addition to branch meetings and all the other stuff we do - was this the case with womens voice? I think I can see how it might not be so effective if those are the _only _things they're involved in. Kind of like getting into a comfort zone.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> An examination of Socialist Realism by way of Sots Art?


 
Sounds about right - this one. He seems to argue that the seeds of totalitarianism were already present in the avant-garde even before October. I rushed reading it in preparation for a presentation so I'm a bit sketchy as to the arguments but it seemed like he was implying that avant-garde artists were in some way responsible for totalitarianism.

As I said, I'm a bit sketchy on it but he also argued something along the lines that the USSR was in a way outside history and that even with the fall of the berlin wall it couldn't be re-inserted into history. Also something about how there can be no history if there's no God.

It was all really odd, made even odder by the fact I had to read it in a couple of hours so I probably misunderstood a fair bit of it.

Got the impression that he was very conservative too. I've got it on pdf somewhere if you've not read it and fancy a look.


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> well yes, but it says a lot that even in these "revolutionary" organisations the whole idea of a caucus etc is even necessary. And it is necessary despite what the likes of bolshiebhoy say. Not a very convincing argument given what's just happened.


 
I can't see why people wouldn't realise that it's more harmful to not have them. They encourage networking between people facing similar issues, it means that more time in actual branch meetings can be spent discussing other things - particularly important in my local branch, which seems to run over every week, and it means people who are attracted to politics by a specific issue can take part in wider struggles, whether it's because they've built up their confidence, they become more aware of them or just because they see how it's better for their own cause. I'd argue that caucuses mean unity between groups of people who might be arguing amongst themselves elsewhere. Yes, there are disadvantages, such as some people feeling excluded, but if there's democracy and discussion within the wider party, I would imagine that's kept to a minimum.

But then again, I also can't see why we have a Tory government or why people don't shop in charity shops so yeah


----------



## audiotech (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Maybe you'll be able to answer the question bb seems unwilling to answer - did participants in the womens voice groups end up doing womens voice stuff to the exclusion of other things? If that's the case then it's easy to see how it might not have helped with confidence, or even had the opposite effect (if we take bb's assertion that this was the case as true of course). It's an honest question - I'm not trying to point score or anything.


 
I realise that SpineyNorman and it's a fair question. All I can base this on is the branch I was in and what was coming out of the centre. It's fair to say however that the Women's Voice group did, it was true, operate on their own, well they would being a women's group, but that didn't deflect from the 'exclusion of other things', as being expressed here and specifically in the piece from Harman et al at the time.

In fact I would go further and say that WV had an important impact on the newer, male, working class members, who had been recruited around ANL mk1 and Rock Against Racism. Making them more aware politically of issues affecting working class women, in the workplace and in the home - exploitation, discrimination, abuse and rape, who then went out and were more able to challenge on these issues.

Edit: I would also add that I believe it was a cynical move too, because looking at it now, working class women in the branch were being used to attack Women's Voice, who were being portrayed as autonomist feminists, middle-class and therefore implicit in this is the view that women involved around WV couldn't understand fully the oppression faced by working class women. Dispicable tactics.


----------



## rioted (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> And if people were calling for open borders,


What people? Those people coming? Oh no, you mean "the working class" don't you? Yet another patronising, paternalistic arsehole. Speak for yourself or speak for no-one. Anyone claiming to speak for the class is either a charlatan or a marxist. Most probably both.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

rioted said:


> What people? Those people coming? Oh no, you mean "the working class" don't you? Yet another patronising, paternalistic arsehole. Speak for yourself or speak for no-one. Anyone claiming to speak for the class is either a charlatan or a marxist. Most probably both.


 
Oh christ, another complete and utter fuckwit. What on earth are you talking about? Where did I claim to be speaking for 'the class'? How on earth did you get that from the text you've quoted?

I don't need to call you patronising or anything else - you're just a thick tosser.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

audiotech said:


> I realise that SpineyNorman and it's a fair question. All I can base this on is the branch I was in and it's fair to say that the Women's Voice group did it was true operate on their own, well they would being a women's group, but that didn't deflect from the exclusion of other things, as being expressed here and in the piece from Harman and others at the time. In fact I would go further and say that WV had an impact on the newer, male, working class members, who had been recruited around ANL mk 1 and Rock Against Racism. Making them more aware of issues affecting working class women, in the workplace and in the home - exploitation, discrimination, abuse and rape, who then went out and were more able to challenge on these issues.


 
Thanks audiotech, that's exactly what I was after.


----------



## rioted (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> you're just a thick tosser.


Coming from a marxist, especially of the lenin/trotsky/stalin tradition, I consider that a compliment. Thankyou. Peace. 

Of course, anyone outside of your narrow, bigoted, sectarian, blinkered position wouldn't have a clue, would they?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

rioted said:


> Coming from a marxist, especially of the lenin/trotsky/stalin tradition, I consider that a compliment. Thankyou. Peace.
> 
> Of course, anyone outside of your narrow, bigoted, sectarian, blinkered position wouldn't have a clue, would they?


 
I'm not of the 'Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin tradition', I'm a Marxist of the Spiney tradition - in terms of historical perspectives I find more to agree with in autonomist writings than Trotskyist or Leninist ones but nevermind that. I've got plenty of respect for people who disagree with me if they at least make sense and disagree with what I've actually said. So I don't think you're a fuckwit because you disagree - it would be difficult to think that because you've clearly not understood a word I've said so how could you know whether you disagree or not? It's just you who hasn't got a clue - I can tell that because basic comprehension seems to be completely beyond your capabilities.

You do realise that the 'people' I was talking about were the ones who drafted the statement right? I don't need to claim to speak for them, they spoke for themselves.

And now I'm apparently a bigot I guess we can add slander to idiocy on your list of personal failings.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

Got it so wrong about Spiney there , me reckons...

rioted..


----------



## audiotech (Mar 18, 2013)

rioted said:


> Thankyou. Peace.


 
Anything to say apart from gross simplifications and name calling, littered with smillies?


----------



## rioted (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm not of the 'Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin tradition', I'm a Marxist of the Spiney tradition - in terms of historical perspectives I find more to agree with in autonomist writings than Trotskyist or Leninist ones but nevermind that. I've got plenty of respect for people who disagree with me if they at least make sense and disagree with what I've actually said. So I don't think you're a fuckwit because you disagree - it would be difficult to think that because you've clearly not understood a word I've said so how could you know whether you disagree or not? It's just you who hasn't got a clue - I can tell that because basic comprehension seems to be completely beyond your capabilities.
> 
> You do realise that the 'people' I was talking about were the ones who drafted the statement right? I don't need to claim to speak for them, they spoke for themselves.
> 
> And now I'm apparently a bigot I guess we can add slander to idiocy on your list of personal failings.


Apologies. 

Shouldn't post when I'm pissed. Especially after drinking with trots.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 18, 2013)

rioted said:


> drinking with trots.


 
The book _Cider with Rosie_ wishes it could've been.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well, it might have escaped your admittedly limited attention span but the Labour party (unlike the steel picket lines) happens to still exist, and therefore you can't avoid some form of relation to it.


That's a fucking shit post, even for someone of your low standards.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 18, 2013)

This been mentioned yet? http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/rosa-luxemburg-and-revolutionary-party.html

Tim Nelson attempts to re-Luxemburg the IS.

For a bunch of people who spend a lot of time saying how they don't care about the finer points of IS history, the splitters are very quickly reviving a lot of older debates. Separate womens org, Luxemburg.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 18, 2013)

Any word yet of the awful, historical SWP allegations alleged to be coming this morning?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> some of those issues are hinted at in the stuff on intersectionality. You'll love it
> 
> *And, you would hope that oppressed groups didnt feel any need to organise within a revolutionary group*, but given what's happened, its hardly surprising that some do. And they have that _right_ in all organisations.


 
Why not turn that on its head; you would hope that a revolutionary group would be convincing and coherent enough in its theory and practice that it would be able to accommodate/learn from the self-organisation  of oppressed groups within itself.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Sounds about right - this one. He seems to argue that the seeds of totalitarianism were already present in the avant-garde even before October. I rushed reading it in preparation for a presentation so I'm a bit sketchy as to the arguments but it seemed like he was implying that avant-garde artists were in some way responsible for totalitarianism.
> 
> As I said, I'm a bit sketchy on it but he also argued something along the lines that the USSR was in a way outside history and that even with the fall of the berlin wall it couldn't be re-inserted into history. Also something about how there can be no history if there's no God.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks, I'll take a look.


----------



## andysays (Mar 18, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> you would hope that a revolutionary group would be convincing and coherent enough in its theory and practice that it would be able to accommodate/learn from the self-organisation of oppressed groups within itself


 
I agree, you _would_ hope that, but the hopes of this particular group have been pretty much dashed by their direct experience (if I understand this correctly) of how one specific self-proclaimed revolutionary group does things.

In all the circumstances, I think their programme and constitution is understandable, if naive in part and arguably getting its priorities wrong in places - it's a reaction _against_ their experience within the SWP, which they have found not to be convincing and coherent enough in its theory and practice.

Fair play to them...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Why not turn that on its head; you would hope that a revolutionary group would be convincing and coherent enough in its theory and practice that it would be able to accommodate/learn from the self-organisation  of oppressed groups within itself.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


The only oppressed group allowed to self-organise in the swp is the cc.

And like the bourbons they learn nothing and forget nothing.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 18, 2013)

Ever decreasing circles. Lets not start with the fact that the far left is seen as irrelevant to most workers , or what working class communities see as key issues but lets start with what the far left see as key issues and the win students to that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Ever decreasing circles. Lets not start with the fact that the far left is seen as irrelevant to most workers , or what working class communities see as key issues but lets start with what the far left see as key issues and the win students to that.


9500 posts in.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> 9500 posts in.


 
The rev student manifesto is at 9450 .

Did ALARM have a no borders , caucuses for the oppressed, up the Palestinians line? Or did it focus more locally?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

danny la rouge said:
			
		

> Any word yet of the awful, historical SWP allegations alleged to be coming this morning?


 
This seems to be it /them


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> Thanks, I'll take a look.


If you want to have a look at the PDF let us know and I'll stick it on the net somewhere for you.


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> If you want to have a look at the PDF let us know and I'll stick it on the net somewhere for you.



Okay, post a link later mate.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

rioted said:


> Apologies.
> 
> Shouldn't post when I'm pissed. Especially after drinking with trots.


No worries mate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The rev student manifesto is at 9450 .
> 
> Did ALARM have a no borders , caucuses for the oppressed, up the Palestinians line? Or did it focus more locally?


you'll have to ask someone in alarm.


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> This been mentioned yet? http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/rosa-luxemburg-and-revolutionary-party.html
> 
> Tim Nelson attempts to re-Luxemburg the IS.
> 
> *For a bunch of people who spend a lot of time saying how they don't care about the finer points of IS history*, the splitters are very quickly reviving a lot of older debates. Separate womens org, Luxemburg.


where did they say that?  Nowhere, you just made it up.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

They said the opposite, in fact. That article itself is evidence of it. Bizarre line of attack.


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This seems to be it /them


well thats...weak, and bizarre.  Spitting chocolate cake into other comrades' mouth?  What? Makes no sense.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> well thats...weak, and bizarre. Spitting chocolate cake into other comrades' mouth? What? Makes no sense.


I expect the thing that they thought might cause trouble was the revelation of adults allowing teenagers to get drunk and then encouraging them to play spin the bottle and other type stuff at their houses. Position of trust and all that stuff. Don't really know what to say about this one in all honesty.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> well thats...weak, and bizarre. Spitting chocolate cake into other comrades' mouth? What? Makes no sense.


 
That certainly wasn't what you'd have expected from the way he hyped it up was it?

This line:



> I think now all those who have stories like these need to air them somehow, the more of this stuff gets out there, the less likely it is the SWP will recover.


 
will play right into the hands of the ultra loyalist types - it's all about destroying 'the Party'.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

40 somethings inviting teenagers to a party with booze and low level sex games, that isn't a problem?

the tabloids are going to pick up on all this...

Its WRP territory...


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I expect the thing that they thought might cause trouble was the revelation of adults allowing teenagers to get drunk and then encouraging them to play spin the bottle and other type stuff at their houses. Position of trust and all that stuff. Don't really know what to say about this one in all honesty.


And the marginalising of her because of the affair with older, married comrade.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> And the marginalising of her because of the affair with older, married comrade.


Yep, married _male_ comrade...

Also the suggestion that female members had taken on the role of covering up classical misogyny through their rejection of mainstream feminism. Few things maybe worth teasing out there.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> And the marginalising of her because of the affair with older, married comrade.


 
It's not their job to police bourgeois morality comrade.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

Btw, who were the 14 yr olds?, relatives, party members, local kids, incredible really...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

Do you know what i'm finding really pathetic over this is that during the 'rebel warrior years' we had, what 8 years, of the most vacuous hardcore identity politics aggressively thrown at us by the swp members on here (usually students or people who had finished their degree and still hanging around campus in one form or another) - every criticism of the party, of its actions, of RESPECT, of pretty much anything at all was met with cries of racist, islamophobe, or sexist etc. Now we find that this sort of politics really had nothing to do with the SWP or their views during this period, the members recruited post seattle weren't really identity obsessed lightweights at all, in fact they have always and did always reject all that stuff during their time on here. And now, they are CC loyalists - see the rat rebel warriors pathetic blog for an example. Ratfuckers always.


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's not their job to police bourgeois morality comrade.



! 

Since this thread, every time I see something prefaced with "bourgeois" I start expecting something unpleasant and not particularly characterised by working class mores to follow.


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> And the marginalising of her because of the affair with older, married comrade.


if its true.  I suspect it isnt.

There was a brief thing of doing stuff like fundraising meals at peoples homes in the early nineties. But they werent only attended by students after the cheap beer, they were attended by the usual hotchpotch of keen swappies. 

And 14 year olds? How many 14 year olds does the party attract?  Not many. I doubt many members woyld be keen on letting a bunch of teenagers run riot round their house either.


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> if its true.  I suspect it isnt.
> 
> There was a brief thing of doing stuff like fundraising meals at peoples homes in the early nineties. But they werent only attended by students after the cheap beer, they were attended by the usual hotchpotch of keen swappies.
> 
> And 14 year olds? How many 14 year olds does the party attract?  Not many. I doubt many members woyld be keen on letting a bunch of teenagers run riot round their house either.



Why do you approach this by automatically assuming it's not true?


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Why do you approach this by automatically assuming it's not true?


I dont do it automaticlly at all.

But in this case its because it reaks of bullshit.  It just doesnt make sense.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> well thats...weak, and bizarre. Spitting chocolate cake into other comrades' mouth? What? Makes no sense.


There was a group of so-called comrades in ___ who were very fond of holding SWP fundraising social events in their homes. This invariably involved* the hosts* and their immediate circle, all being *in their late 30s early 40s*. The sensible comrades never attended these events, only *skint teenagers* attracted by the 50p per bottle of beer and free food would go to these things. By the end of the night when all the kids were drunk the adults would then suggest party games, spin the bottle, truth or dare that sort of stuff. I made a complaint to the Party HQ after an event I didn't attend but an old school mate of mine did. He was interested in politics and was considering joining, no chance after what he was subjected to. The comrades, most of them women i'm ashamed to say, got the twister board game out. The conventional rules were not applied, in this version i*f you fell over you weren't out, you were instructed to remove an item of clothing and nominate another comrade to rub baby oil into that part of your body.*​​If these teenagers were as young as 14, then that does, in my view, constitute a serious allegation.  If true, then those adults in their 30s and 40s were abusing their power and trust,  and behaving abominably.  Even if the teenagers were 16 and over, it is still a shocking abuse of their power differential.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

Using _pre-existing power relations within the party_ to smear and besmirch younger women who pose a problem due to the poor judgement (at the very best) of older males.



> He basically had me excluded from my local geographical branch, made out I was a stalker, and I did hear accusations levelled against me that I was a mentally disturbed heroin addict who had relentlessly pursued him. I was told by S I had to go to another branch. When I asked why me? It was the man who really was mostly at fault being as I had no broken any vows to anybody? I was told that he was a trade unionist in the civil service and I was just a student. S also indicated his belief that I was basically asking for it, though he didn't use those exact words, he said I had brought it on myself.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

danny la rouge said:


> If these teenagers were as young as 14, then that does, in my view, constitute a serious allegation. If true, then those adults in their 30s and 40s were abusing their power and trust, and behaving abominably. Even if the teenagers were 16 and over, it is still a shocking abuse of their power differential.


 
It would have you struck off the General Teaching Council even if the teenagers were 16-18, even if adults just set the thing up.


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> I dont do it automaticlly at all.
> 
> But in this case its because it reaks of bullshit.  It just doesnt make sense.


If someone makes an allegation of this nature, surely it's best to try and keep an open mind til you find out more.


----------



## danny la rouge (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:
			
		

> It would have you struck off the General Teaching Council even if the teenagers were 16-18, even if adults just set the thing up.



Indeed.


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It would have you struck off the General Teaching Council even if the teenagers were 16-18, even if adults just set the thing up.


does it strike you as actually plausible, tho? It would clearly be outrageous if it happened, but I really just dont see anyone allowing that kind of twaddle. If it was just youngsters after cheap beer, it wouldnt even raise much money (and subsidising marxism was the point), so why would they do it?  Aha! Only because the money wasnt the point, the point was.....


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> If someone makes an allegation of this nature, surely it's best to try and keep an open mind til you find out more.


its a vague story on the internet.  When it comes to vague stories on the internet, i start from a point of cynicism. Show me some evidence, or at least make the whole thing hang together sensibly.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

I have to say that this line makes me think belboid *might* have a point here:



> I think now all those who have stories like these need to air them somehow, the more of this stuff gets out there, the less likely it is the SWP will recover.


 
That doesn't mean they're not true though - need to be taken seriously and investigated.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> does it strike you as actually plausible, tho? It would clearly be outrageous if it happened, but I really just dont see anyone allowing that kind of twaddle. If it was just youngsters after cheap beer, it wouldnt even raise much money (and subsidising marxism was the point), so why would they do it? Aha! Only because the money wasnt the point, the point was.....


 
I'm taking it seriously on the basis that AVPS's blog is a reliable source. Yes the author is now an important figure in Stoke Labour Party, but his postings make sense.


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> its a vague story on the internet.  When it comes to vague stories on the internet, i start from a point of cynicism. Show me some evidence, or at least make the whole thing hang together sensibly.


It's not a vague story though.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

btw, haven't seen anyone as angry about the SWP as Anna Chen, though the people she thinks treated her like dirt have moved on


to counterfire...


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's not a vague story though.


Really?  Where did it happen then?  When did it happen?  Over what time peroiod?  What were the actuall ages of those involved.  What was the final outcome?  You obviously know all these things.

"Do let me know if you hear anymore, as you can imagine I'm keen to hear of the organisation's demise."


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> Really?  Where did it happen then?  When did it happen?  Over what time peroiod?  What were the actuall ages of those involved.  What was the final outcome?  You obviously know all these things.
> 
> "Do let me know if you hear anymore, as you can imagine I'm keen to hear of the organisation's demise."


Those are questions you should have asked before making a conclusion that the allegation's bullshit.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> "Do let me know if you hear anymore, as you can imagine I'm keen to hear of the organisation's demise."


 
Do you not think why someone might feel that way - after being labelled a mentally disturbed heroin addict when they had nothing wrong, simply to save the bacon of the more powerful senior male.


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Those are questions you should have asked before making a conclusion that the allegation's bullshit.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 18, 2013)

> I think now all those who have stories like these need to air them somehow, the more of this stuff gets out there, the less likely it is the SWP will recover.


 
Exactly - hopefully more people will come out (assuming there is more).


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


>


Asked, and waited for an answer.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 18, 2013)

http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/the-crisis-in-swp-part-iv.html

Nothing new but I thought what was interesting was the timeline of people breaking rank over what happened at conference. If it wasn't for the intervention of others, Seymour would have kept everything hushed up. What does that say about his attitude towards any further potential victims of disputes committee deliberations when nothing had been resolved?


----------



## mk12 (Mar 18, 2013)

Sorry if I've missed it, but where did the 9 number of potential victims come from? My stepdad mentioned this to me yesterday as he'd read it in the Daily Mail (he has never mentioned the SWP to me before, but he remembered that I was once a member).


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Do you not think why someone might feel that way - after being labelled a mentally disturbed heroin addict when they had nothing wrong, simply to save the bacon of the more powerful senior male.


Of course. If it is true it is way beyond grotsque. But there is so much of it that just doesnt ring true - can you think of any older female comrades believing forty year old blokes telling teenagers to strip and rub baby oil into them was in any way 'sexually liberated?'  I mean, anyone would run a fucking mile and scream if they saw that happening, surely?


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Asked, and waited for an answer.


You've had your answer. The story is vague, it has various aspects which are hard to believe and therefore require a bit more than a simple allegation to be sustained.

And I haven't made ANY assumptions. You have. I haven't said it IS false, I have said I find it hard to believe.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

The basic point is here



> The crisis had gone public; it was not because of us, and there was no way that we could avoid responding to it.


 
This is stunning however:



> For example, it quickly became clear that 'Comrade Delta' was being finessed back into full-time politics. This, days after the Disputes Committee transcript had been leaked. Then it emerged that full-time party workers were being called into individual meetings with CC members, and made to swear loyalty oaths: you defend the party line, or you're out. Those who didn't either quit, or were sacked.


 


> So we had a CC that was even more nuts than before, a slavish Lords, a purge of the full-timers, a fracturing tendency and, amid the leaking of the party's shameful business, an attempt to restore the accused to full-time work.


 



mk12 said:


> Sorry if I've missed it, but where did the 9 number of potential victims come from? My stepdad mentioned this to me yesterday as he'd read it in the Daily Mail (he has never mentioned the SWP to me before, but he remembered that I was once a member).


 
Here http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-308#post-12061285


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> You've had your answer. The story is vague, it has various aspects which are hard to believe and therefore require a bit more than a simple allegation to be sustained.
> 
> And I haven't made ANY assumptions. You have. I haven't said it IS false, I have said I find it hard to believe.






belboid said:


> I dont do it automaticlly at all.
> 
> But in this case its because it reaks of bullshit.  It just doesnt make sense.


Ie you don't believe it.


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Ie you don't believe it.


saying that, on present evidence, I am not convinced is quite different to me making any 'assumptions.'  Come on, you know the difference.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> Of course. If it is true it is way beyond grotsque. But there is so much of it that just doesnt ring true - can you think of any older female comrades believing forty year old blokes telling teenagers to strip and rub baby oil into them was in any way 'sexually liberated?' I mean, anyone would run a fucking mile and scream if they saw that happening, surely?


 
Let me repeat, the content on his blog - on the basis of who he is and what he has posted before - can be trusted, in my opinion. The SWP leadership did give them a "bollocking" as the email account makes clear. I am not sure what your point is.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/the-crisis-in-swp-part-iv.html
> 
> Nothing new but I thought what was interesting was the timeline of people breaking rank over what happened at conference. If it wasn't for the intervention of others, Seymour would have kept everything hushed up. What does that say about his attitude towards any further potential victims of disputes committee deliberations when nothing had been resolved?


^

" I can’t claim to be entirely innocent. I was in this party for 28 years. I must have accepted claims that didn’t make sense, and ignored accounts of appalling behaviour, or sighed and hoped the tricky issue I heard about would go away of its own accord. Somehow the critical faculties that led me to join a socialist group deserted me with regard to the group itself.”

from SU blog


exactly, a lot of the ex SWP are also damaged goods, this is what a former member, Foom, with 28 years membership(28 years, ffs) has to say of his own behaviour...


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Let me repeat, the content on his blog - on the basis of who he is and what he has posted before - can be trusted, in my opinion. The SWP leadership did give them a "bollocking" as the email account makes clear. I am not sure what your point is.


 
Sorry, but 'makes clear' involves an _assumption_ that it is all true. It is a _claim_, not a fact. 

And, while I take what you say about Phil, that just means he has taken and posted it in good faith. The motivation of the emailer, we have no idea about. Given the nature of the allegations involved, I dont see how I am being unreasonable in saying it requires something to back it up before I wholly believe it.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

tbh, my experience of all the various groups has been quite poor in terms of emotional literacy, imo, AWL, yes them, have been the most successful in terms of empathy, understanding of people's needs, and briefly climate camp...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover - Can't say that's been my experience of them - they seem even more obsessed with lefty trainspotting than we are on these boards - more interested in what the other left groups are doing than trying to work their way out of the lefty bubble we're all stuck in to varying degrees. One of them once told me they were establishing a base within the working class in Sheffield, and the evidence they gave me for that was that they were working with AFED. No disrespect to AFED but working with them isn't the same as establishing a w/c base.

And as far as I know they've never admitted they were wrong to support the Iraq war.


----------



## killer b (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> ^
> 
> " I can’t claim to be entirely innocent. I was in this party for 28 years. I must have accepted claims that didn’t make sense, and ignored accounts of appalling behaviour, or sighed and hoped the tricky issue I heard about would go away of its own accord. Somehow the critical faculties that led me to join a socialist group deserted me with regard to the group itself.”
> 
> ...


or indeed what ex-member mark steel had to say, as discussed in detail on this thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 18, 2013)

I find the AWL are quite good sometimes on things like anti-semitism. Unfortunately they often confuse opposition to it with apologias for the Israeli state though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I find the AWL are quite good sometimes on things like anti-semitism. Unfortunately they often confuse opposition to it with apologias for the Israeli state though.


worked with them once or twice, and although they're very worthy they're often ok.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

Awful people whose mag, oddly enough, used to be quite good.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> treelover - Can't say that's been my experience of them - they seem even more obsessed with lefty trainspotting than we are on these boards - more interested in what the other left groups are doing than trying to work their way out of the lefty bubble we're all stuck in to varying degrees. One of them once told me they were establishing a base within the working class in Sheffield, and the evidence they gave me for that was that they were working with AFED. No disrespect to AFED but working with them isn't the same as establishing a w/c base.
> 
> And as far as I know they've never admitted they were wrong to support the Iraq war.


 
I really mean the older ones who tbh are not very active now, except in their unions, etc...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 18, 2013)

They're also still doing the entryist thing inside the Labour party ...


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

killer b said:


> or indeed what ex-member mark steel had to say, as discussed in detail on this thread.


 
having a go again?


----------



## killer b (Mar 18, 2013)

yeah.


----------



## chilango (Mar 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do you know what i'm finding really pathetic over this is that during the 'rebel warrior years' we had, what 8 years, of the most vacuous hardcore identity politics aggressively thrown at us by the swp members on here (usually students or people who had finished their degree and still hanging around campus in one form or another) - every criticism of the party, of its actions, of RESPECT, of pretty much anything at all was met with cries of racist, islamophobe, or sexist etc. Now we find that this sort of politics really had nothing to do with the SWP or their views during this period, the members recruited post seattle weren't really identity obsessed lightweights at all, in fact they have always and did always reject all that stuff during their time on here. And now, they are CC loyalists - see the rat rebel warriors pathetic blog for an example. Ratfuckers always.


 What's rebel warriors blog?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> What's rebel warriors blog?


This shite.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> tbh, my experience of all the various groups has been quite poor in terms of emotional literacy, imo, AWL, yes them, have been the most successful in terms of empathy, understanding of people's needs, and briefly climate camp...


 
Not my experience of them at all.


----------



## belboid (Mar 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This shite.


love the way he is condemning support for Syriza in one post and then, mmm, promoting Syriza in the very next one!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> I really mean the older ones who tbh are not very active now, except in their unions, etc...


 
Ah right, I've probably never spoken to them then.


----------



## chilango (Mar 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This shite.



Yuk.

Ta. Noted new alias too.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> They're also still doing the entryist thing inside the Labour party ...



 Hows that possibly seen as a good idea? 
 They  did that with the trades council in brighton its now just utterly ignored every so often somebody new turns up fins the whole things been decided before the meeting and leaves in disgust.
  They got themselves kicked out of the unemployed centre by being secrative playing points of order and generally being dicks.
 If you cant win against a bunch of hippys,losers and assorted lumpen what the fuck is your point?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> Sorry, but 'makes clear' involves an _assumption_ that it is all true. It is a _claim_, not a fact.
> 
> And, while I take what you say about Phil, that just means he has taken and posted it in good faith. The motivation of the emailer, we have no idea about. Given the nature of the allegations involved, I dont see how I am being unreasonable in saying it requires something to back it up before I wholly believe it.


 
Phil's intro is:




> I met P some years ago when I was around the SWP. A couple of years older then me, she came across as strong, confident, and earnest in the way most of us were when we joined our first revolutionary organisation. I recall her kicking my arse when, after a branch down the pub, I was dumb enough to venture the idea that fascists should have the freedom to speak and to organise too. P was a trusted and well-respected SWP activist who had a militant but wise head on her shoulders. Thinking back there was no inkling whatsoever the SWP had already put her through the wringer. When I fell away from the organisation P and I didn't see each other for 10 years when, coincidentally, we ended up at the same university with an overlapping social circle. By then her SWP days were well behind her but, thankfully, her commitment to the labour movement and the cause of working people remained undimmed. She has since gone on to become a full-time union organiser. P and I have been corresponding off and on about the SWP's crisis. Nevertheless, despite all that has come to light I was shocked to read the testimony she chose to share with me, which I reproduce here with her permission.


 
He's saying that the emailer is someone he trusts. Perhaps the emailer is doing so now, because she feels she has to after what has happened to other young women such as W, to lend further weight to the fact that W was smeared and rumours spread about he, in a similar way to her as an 18-year old.
Part of the bit about the parties is second-hand:



> I made a complaint to the Party HQ after _*an event I didn't attend*_ but an _*old school mate of mine did*_. He was interested in politics and was considering joining, no chance after what he was subjected to. The comrades, most of them women i'm ashamed to say, got the twister board game out. The conventional rules were not applied, in this version if you fell over you weren't out, you were instructed to remove an item of clothing and nominate another comrade to rub baby oil into that part of your body. I think those older female comrades believed themselves to be sexually liberated by behaving this way.


 
But one house party she was present at:



> I inadvertantly stumbled across a particularly revolting game involving the passing of chocolate cake by the mouth from one comrade to another. I didn't know what was happening in the room and walked in oblivious. A 14 yr old boy then ran over to me pushed me up against a wall and spat chocolate cake in my mouth. I ran out to the bathroom and threw up.


Because it was fairly unusual activity - spitting cake from mouth to mouth - and doesn't fit a model of a one-on-one abuse - the chance of it being publicised is slim, particularly as they appear to have stopped according to that sentence: "To be fair Lindsey German and Chris Bambery took what I said about these 'socials' seriously and bollockings were issued."

Collective small-scale abuse is still treated as something of a joke. When a video of an army naked initiation ritual for new recruits - probably 18 or 19 year olds - came out it was treated as a 'funny old army' story rather than an abusive practice inflicted from middle-ranks.

She didn't want to be part of this side of the socials, hence she is writing with some force, others who were there probably feel some guilt but also feel complicit and hence are unlikely to come out and give all the details.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

likesfish said:


> If you cant win against a bunch of hippys,losers and assorted lumpen what the fuck is your point?


----------



## the button (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> love the way he is condemning support for Syriza in one post and then, mmm, promoting Syriza in the very next one!


Dialectics, innit.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

Multitudinous positionism.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

****


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> They're also still doing the entryist thing inside the Labour party ...


Have you stolen treelover's ellipsis?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> Sorry, but 'makes clear' involves an _assumption_ that it is all true. It is a _claim_, not a fact.
> 
> And, while I take what you say about Phil, that just means he has taken and posted it in good faith. The motivation of the emailer, we have no idea about. Given the nature of the allegations involved, I dont see how I am being unreasonable in saying it requires something to back it up before I wholly believe it.


 
Thing is you won't find much proof either way of anything we're discussing. As for the idea this stuff couldn't happen, well...

1) P says specifically that this was only happening in one branch, not that this behaviour was common.
2) It received a bollocking from high-ups.
3) Yeah, maybe he was 14. I've known 16/17 year olds in the SWP, I know of several who are members whose parents were members (one of whom was active from 13), and they could have had mates who were younger. Think about your average SWP organiser - they're not gonna do something as unrevolutionary as suggest that maybe under-18's should stick to lemonade, or give the fundraiser a miss? It's all about building camaraderie comrade...
4) Lots of middle aged men AND women are really not that averse to a bit of inappropriate touching of someone much younger if they can get away with it, particularly if they're pissed enough to blame the booze and particularly if it's part of a group activity - "if everyone else is doing it..." etc. I've never been in the SWP so I've no idea but it's certainly true of plenty of TU'ists, including moderately high-ups I've had the misfortune to meet.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 18, 2013)

> I met P some years ago when I was around the SWP. A couple of years older then me, she came across as strong, confident, and earnest in the way most of us were when we joined our first revolutionary organisation. I recall her kicking my arse when, after a branch down the pub, I was dumb enough to venture the idea that fascists should have the freedom to speak and to organise too.


Sounds as if he might have been ok till the SWP got at him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> I dont do it automaticlly at all.
> 
> But in this case its because it reaks of bullshit. It just doesnt make sense.


 
You know one of the biggest problems with most witness testimony? The fact (quantified by decades of criminological and psychological research) that it's rarely as consistent as people would like it to be. Instead of reading like an internally-consistent narrative, it usually contains exactly what real life contains - some _non-sequiturs_, inconsistency and sometimes even contradictions.
In other words, the fact that it "doesn't make sense" to you, doesn't mean it's necessarily "bullshit".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This shite.


 
He's a bit up his own arse, that "snowball".


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 18, 2013)

It looks like a load of old bollocks to me


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> love the way he is condemning support for Syriza in one post and then, mmm, promoting Syriza in the very next one!


 
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". For rabbit worrier that goes double!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It looks like a load of old bollocks to me


 
It appears to be written not with the principle of relating a tale or event in mind, but with the idea of pointing up the author's supposed erudition to an elite audience.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Multitudinous positionism.


 
Simultaneous multitudinous positionism, or serial multitudinous positionism? I think we should be told, comrade!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

Both - so it's multitudinous multitudinous positionism


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Both - so it's multitudinous multitudinous positionism


 
Ah, he's one of those "hedge my bets with both wings of the party" types, is he?


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, he's one of those "hedge my bets with both wings of the party" types, is he?


 
Don't think so. He comes across as a fairly hardline loyalist in his interactions on the Socviet Goonboy blog.
The "multitudinous positionism" is just a product of the general theoretical confusion common in most SWP members.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2013)

the avps story rings true for me, especially if the woman involved was in a smaller, more isolated branch.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the avps story rings true for me, especially if the woman involved was in a smaller, more isolated branch.


 
It's amazing the things that can go on in isolated branches of the SWP. Which you can't blame totally on the party but must be partly caused by a lack of communication between branches and the party and by frankly shit/non-existent regional structures.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

Part IV of SEYMOUR! has gone up.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's amazing the things that can go on in isolated branches of the SWP. Which you can't blame totally on the party but must be partly caused by a lack of communication between branches and the party and by frankly shit/non-existent regional structures.


 
Was this the Dunwich branch? Or Innsmouth?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Part IV of SEYMOUR! has gone up.


 
A reference to two affiliates resigning. The Serbs are one. Who were the others?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Was this the Dunwich branch? Or Innsmouth?


 
No in Dunwich they pass cold calamari between their mouths


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Was this the Dunwich branch? Or Innsmouth?


fuck off, pickmans.

oh, sorry.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Don't think so. He comes across as a fairly hardline loyalist in his interactions on the Socviet Goonboy blog.
> The "multitudinous positionism" is just a product of the general theoretical confusion common in most SWP members.


 it is strange though, that in a few years (three for me) the SWP explain their politics clearly enough that most members could predict what would be in socialist worker, what would be the line on many issues, before it was printed.  And yet in 10 years on here I still don't have a Scooby Doo about the politics of many of this forums leading members.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it is strange though, that in a few years (three for me) the SWP explain their politics clearly enough that most members could predict what would be in socialist worker, what would be the line on many issues, before it was printed. And yet in 10 years on here I still don't have a Scooby Doo about the politics of many of this forums leading members.


if it took the swp three years to get it through your thick skull what their simplistick politics were then people here who have more complex notions will of course take longer for you to understand.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

> "If you can't argue the line, you should consider your position in the party."


hmmm, must have been reading Urban 75 comments, that we should vet people before allowing them to join.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it is strange though, that in a few years (three for me) the SWP explain their politics clearly enough that most members could predict what would be in socialist worker, what would be the line on many issues, before it was printed. And yet in 10 years on here I still don't have a Scooby Doo about the politics of many of this forums leading members.


 
You've repeated this so many times over the last few years. It's blindingly obvious what long-term posters' politics are.

Tell you what, you come up with a list of posters and I'll give you a summary of their politics. I await your PM.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

mk12 said:


> You've repeated this so many times over the last few years. It's blindingly obvious what long-term posters' politics are.
> 
> Tell you what, you come up with a list of posters and I'll give you a summary of their politics. I await your PM.


don't waste your time on that serial loser.


----------



## chilango (Mar 18, 2013)

mk12 said:


> You've repeated this so many times over the last few years. It's blindingly obvious what long-term posters' politics are.
> 
> Tell you what, you come up with a list of posters and I'll give you a summary of their politics. I await your PM.



That's be fun. Didn't Ern used to do that?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

mk12 said:


> You've repeated this so many times over the last few years. It's blindingly obvious what long-term posters' politics are.
> 
> Tell you what, you come up with a list of posters and I'll give you a summary of their politics. I await your PM.


 violent panda.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> violent panda.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if it took the swp three years to get it through your thick skull what their simplistick politics were then people here who have more complex notions will of course take longer for you to understand.


 I've often said, that the conclusion of the understanding was the reading of the French revolution ISJ, and in particular the article by John Rees The Algebra of Revolution on the dialectic.  The dialectic, the political economy, imperialism, sectarianism, racism and very pertinently sexism not only all made sense, but inter-meshed and supported each other.  To get such an holistic analysis through my thick skull, WAS some achievement.  Beyond that, you're probably right, your ideas are just too clever for me.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>


and yet you still engage.


----------



## JimW (Mar 18, 2013)

mk12 said:


> You've repeated this so many times over the last few years. It's blindingly obvious what long-term posters' politics are.
> 
> Tell you what, you come up with a list of posters and I'll give you a summary of their politics. I await your PM.


Could you do mine for me? I have no clue where I stand these days other than I hate the bastards.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I've often said, that the conclusion of the understanding was the reading of the French revolution ISJ, and in particular the article by John Rees The Algebra of Revolution on the dialectic. The dialectic, the political economy, imperialism, sectarianism, racism and very pertinently sexism not only all made sense, but inter-meshed and supported each other. To get such an holistic analysis through my thick skull, WAS some achievement. Beyond that, you're probably right, your ideas are just too clever for me.


 
john rees, that master dialectician (is that a word?) such an advanced consciousness he's now to be found hanging around conspiracy loons and the iranian government.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> john rees, that master dialectician (is that a word?) such an advanced consciousness he's now to be found hanging around conspiracy loons and the iranian government.


   Have you read the article from the ISJ  autumn 89?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> john rees, that master dialectician (is that a word?) such an advanced consciousness he's now to be found hanging around conspiracy loons and the iranian government.


 
Have Counterfire been buttering up the conspiranauts?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

JimW said:


> Could you do mine for me? I have no clue where I stand these days other than I hate the bastards.


 Chilango said something similar about her/his politics.

  Many of the leading members on here are very very clear about what they are against, not so forthcoming on what they are for.  So, do a search for threads on the SWP, and then do a search for threads on anarchism.  The evidence is plain.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> and yet you still engage.


 
 you are in trouble Pickman.  You'll be getting a p.m. soon from the boss.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> treelover they seem even more obsessed with lefty trainspotting than we are on these boards -


----------



## chilango (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Chilango said something similar about her/his politics.
> 
> Many of the leading members on here are very very clear about what they are against, not so forthcoming on what they are for.  So, do a search for threads on the SWP, and then do a search for threads on anarchism.  The evidence is plain.



No I didn't.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> No I didn't.


my apologies.  I thought you had said you were unclear about what even Chilangoism was, let alone fit your views in any particular pigeonhole.

  But hey Ho, I unreservedly apologise if you feel I have misrepresented you.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> john rees, that master dialectician (is that a word?) such an advanced consciousness he's now to be found hanging around conspiracy loons and the iranian government.


What?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it would be interesting for somebody to highlight how this should have been dealt with. Whether it should have been refused to be handled by the party? If they do handle it, how? What questions should have been asked?


 
Here is an example of RMP3 at work. If he was serious he read the thread and engage with the alternatives presented.

He isn't serious. It's just a bit of fun fo him. It shouldn't need saying, but this is not the use most people would put a rape allegation to.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 18, 2013)




----------



## chilango (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> my apologies.  I thought you had said you were unclear about what even Chilangoism was, let alone fit your views in any particular pigeonhole.
> 
> But hey Ho, I unreservedly apologise if you feel I have misrepresented you.



I've no idea what "chilangoism" is. I do know pretty precisely where my ideas fit/come from. It's just not relevant in any practical sense.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What?


 
Here:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...arrative-of-9-11.306498/page-24#post-12017228

He never understood the IS tradition. Counterfire is not part of the SWP tradition.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

Is the Rees connection simply that he appeared on a couple of platforms organised by other groups which also included some very unsavoury people?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Here is an example of RMP3 at work. If he was serious he read the thread and engage with the alternatives presented.
> 
> He isn't serious. It's just a bit of fun fo him. It shouldn't need saying, but this is not the use most people would put a rape allegation to.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


after demanding of every politically titillating detail  bordering on tabloid fascination, after all the gleeful celebrations of the SWP demise here, you think I'm going to take that pious claptrap seriously?

the people who answered my question seriously, I agreed with.  I don't think there is seriously a way in which the SWP could have handled a rape investigation. That is the issue of rape dealt with from MPOV.

  On the other AND MANY topics of the thread, I am allowed to discuss.  Even when people bring cartoons into the thread about dead people, you hypocrite.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> I've no idea what "chilangoism" is. I do know pretty precisely where my ideas fit/come from. It's just not relevant in any practical sense.


I think Jim W knows pretty's precisely where his ideas fit/come from.


chilango said:


> There isn't a point.
> 
> _Chilangoism_ is something you're attempting to invent/define to make it easier for you to fit my ideas into your way of arguing.
> 
> Sadly, my ideas remain confused, contradictory and subject to change at any time.


 
but forget it. If you think might putting these views next to Jim W's was somehow wrong, I'm sorry.

PS.  I do know where many leading members of this forum is views come from,  they are just incoherent  TO ME,  especially when compared to the totally coherent  views of the SWP prior to 2000  (When I was a member, read their publications et cetera).


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is the Rees connection simply that he appeared on a couple of platforms organised by other groups which also included some very unsavoury people?


 
It's the logic of the BDS campaign as endorsed by Counterfire. SWP under Rees was dominated by, fixed on a UCU boycott of all Israeli academics. When Rees & Co. left that approach was quietly dropped by the SWP. Would it be wrong to speculate on a connection?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Have you read the article from the ISJ autumn 89?


 
Of course she fucking has, froggy is part of one of the most advanced layers and has reached level 9 class consciousness innit


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi - what does BDS stand for? (it's probably something dead obvious but I can't think what right now)


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> they are just incoherent TO ME, especially when compared to the totally coherent views of the SWP prior to *2000* (When I was a member, read their publications et cetera).


 
a Which month of 2000 did the break happen?
b Why 2000?


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> sihhi - what does BDS stand for? (it's probably something dead obvious but I can't think what right now)


No masochism. Although I suspect that's a matter of opinion.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> sihhi - what does BDS stand for? (it's probably something dead obvious but I can't think what right now)


 
Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions against Israel and/or Israelis outside Israel.

I am not saying it is racist, I don't think frogwoman would either, just some supporters are arguing in quite counterproductive ways.

Here's the latest example by a BDS supporter entitled White guilt, the SWP and Zionism:



> This rejection is part of what’s called “political correctness”. It operates by taking advantage of a disorder common among white European men: guilt. It has a long history of undermining movements by promoting divisive identity politics, and making unanswerable allegations of various thought-crimes, and even rape.


 


> Richard Seymour is a leading member of the SWP opposition. His p.c. credentials were established when he signed Zero Authors’ Statement on Gilad Atzmon, which claims that Atzmon tries to legitimize “anti-Semitism”.


 


> 1. The neoconservatives are not all Jewish, but most of them are: Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, David Frum, Elliot Abrams, Irving Kristol… Approximately 2½ percent of the US population is Jewish. If only 50% of the neocons were Jewish, this would be an overrepresentation of twenty times what random sampling would predict. The left notices when white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs), men, or heterosexuals, are overrepresented in a powerful sector, but not Jews. Its inhibitions prevent it discussing the issue of Jewish power in politics, academia, Hollywood, the media, and finance.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is the Rees connection simply that he appeared on a couple of platforms organised by other groups which also included some very unsavoury people?


 
No, he is also featured pretty regularly by the Iranian state broadcaster Press TV. As well as regular coverage of his activities (he returns the favour) he works for them as a pundit.

Counterfire also always seems to have something nice to say about Press TV, which they link to on their website


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> No masochism. Although I suspect that's a matter of opinion.


 
You bastard, I even googled it thinking you were serious - I'm at my mum's so I'm glad I didn't do an image search!


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You bastard, I even googled it thinking you were serious - I'm at my mum's so I'm glad I didn't do an image search!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions against Israel and/or Israelis outside Israel.
> 
> I am not saying it is racist, I don't think frogwoman would either, just some supporters are arguing in quite counterproductive ways.
> 
> Here's the latest example by a BDS supporter entitled White guilt, the SWP and Zionism:


 
Thanks.

How the hell do you manage to get this much info together in your posts so quickly? I suspect witchcraft myself


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's the logic of the BDS campaign as endorsed by Counterfire. SWP under Rees was dominated by, fixed on a UCU boycott of all Israeli academics. When Rees & Co. left that approach was quietly dropped by the SWP. Would it be wrong to speculate on a connection?


 
You don't need to speculate about whether or not Counterfire support the BDS campaign, but it's a bit of a leap to get from there to speculating about them buttering up conspiranauts and crazies. Are they putting these people on their own platforms, for instance? Rees, as a STW figurehead, probably gets invited to speak on an awful lot of platforms, sitting beside a lot of people he doesn't really agree with.

It goes without saying that I'm hardly the greatest admirer of Rees or Counterfire, and I'm pretty skeptical of the BDS movement, but is there anything solid here other than him accepting invitations to speak from third parties who have also invited someone of unsavoury views?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions against Israel and/or Israelis outside Israel.
> 
> I am not saying it is racist, I don't think frogwoman would either, just some supporters are arguing in quite counterproductive ways.
> 
> Here's the latest example by a BDS supporter entitled White guilt, the SWP and Zionism:


 
Ugh, I stumbled across deliberation.info a few months ago. Horrible site.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You don't need to speculate about whether or not Counterfire support the BDS campaign, but it's a bit of a leap to get from there to speculating about them buttering up conspiranauts and crazies. Are they putting these people on their own platforms, for instance? Rees, as a STW figurehead, probably gets invited to speak on an awful lot of platforms, sitting beside a lot of people he doesn't really agree with.
> 
> It goes without saying that I'm hardly the greatest admirer of Rees or Counterfire, and I'm pretty skeptical of the BDS movement, but is there anything solid here other than him accepting invitations to speak from third parties who have also invited someone of unsavoury views?


Bit odd given his NO PLATFORM EVER EVER position though.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

No platform - unless i'm invited?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You don't need to speculate about whether or not Counterfire support the BDS campaign, but it's a bit of a leap to get from there to speculating about them buttering up conspiranauts and crazies. Are they putting these people on their own platforms, for instance? Rees, as a STW figurehead, probably gets invited to speak on an awful lot of platforms, sitting beside a lot of people he doesn't really agree with.
> 
> It goes without saying that I'm hardly the greatest admirer of Rees or Counterfire, and I'm pretty skeptical of the BDS movement, but is there anything solid here other than him accepting invitations to speak from third parties who have also invited someone of unsavoury views?


 
I meant a connection with the trajectory of the politics of the SWP - I am NOT saying he is antisemitic or that BDS as a whole is antisemitic.

Rees, IMO, was the one pushing for the RESPECT strategy on a SWP-socialist basis, when it eventually had to split he still wanted the SWP to be RESPECT-like in its activities prioritising the STWC etc, ultimately leading to the split.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Rees, IMO, was the one pushing for the RESPECT strategy on a SWP-socialist basis, when it eventually had to split he still wanted the SWP to be RESPECT-like in its activities prioritising the STWC etc, ultimately leading to the split.


 
I think you're right, this was also the way long standing members of the SWP branch I was in saw it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I meant a connection with the trajectory of the politics of the SWP


 
You are certainly right about that. Rees wanted to continue and deepen the "turn outwards" approach of StW, Respect etc. All "united fronts" all the time. Smith and his supporters represented a back to the routine before they fall apart retrenchment.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

> He is also a guest to the Islam Channel's Global Peace and Unity Festival - its main remit is soft Muslim nationalism - hence invites to prominent Muslims and establishment *figures opposed to the war in Iraq*.


Scratch that, looking at its website it does invites people who supported the war as well like Stephen Timms, Charlie Falconer and Dominic Grieve.

http://www.theglobalunity.com/speakers/

It also does invite people such as dodgy Holocaust neo-revisionist Dr Joel Hayward, who wrote the notorious thesis _The Fate of the Jews in German Hands: An Historical Enquiry Into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism _in the early 90s in New Zealand that led to a massive row in 2000, basically saying holocaust denial should be treated as a meaningful current of historical revision work,

and prominent 9-11 truther William Rodgriguez, a chief spokesperson for the 9/11 Truth Commission

and the truly vile Mohammad Ijaz ul-Haq, son and supporter of his dad Zia


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

mk12 said:


> You've repeated this so many times over the last few years. It's blindingly obvious what long-term posters' politics are.
> 
> Tell you what, you come up with a list of posters and I'll give you a summary of their politics. I await your PM.


 
And if my name is on his list I'll link to the plethora of threads on which I've explained my politics to him!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> violent panda.


 
I tell you what, I'm not a total cunt, I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that. If it isn't gone by midday tomorrow, I'll humiliate you by posting links to threads on which I've gone to great lengths to explain my politics, several times to you personally on your request.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I tell you what, I'm not a total cunt, I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that. If it isn't gone by midday tomorrow, I'll humiliate you by posting links to threads on which I've gone to great lengths to explain my politics, several times to you personally on your request.


no  humiliate him tonight


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2013)

what's the point? why bother?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
Silly sod appears to have forgotten that he actually *thanked* me a couple of years back for explaining my politics to him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I've often said, that the conclusion of the understanding was the reading of the French revolution ISJ, and in particular the article by John Rees The Algebra of Revolution on the dialectic. The dialectic, the political economy, imperialism, sectarianism, racism and very pertinently sexism not only all made sense, but inter-meshed and supported each other. To get such an holistic analysis through my thick skull, WAS some achievement. Beyond that, you're probably right, your ideas are just too clever for me.


 
Yes, you've often regurgitated that POV, sometimes in words very close to other peoples' summaries of Rees' article.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> john rees, that master dialectician (is that a word?) such an advanced consciousness he's now to be found hanging around conspiracy loons and the iranian government.


 
This is the problem with having a consciousness so advanced that it's even out in front of the vanguard - people think you're a loonspud deluxe!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> what's the point? why bother?


For the umpteenth time this is *urban*. Not only do we not need a point, there is no point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Have Counterfire been buttering up the conspiranauts?


 
That doesn't inspire the most savoury of mental images!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, you've often regurgitated that POV, sometimes in words very close to other peoples' summaries of Rees' article.


Most of his posts remind one of something regurgitated.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> For the umpteenth time this is *urban*. Not only do we not need a point, there is no point.


i'm all for pointless arguing, if it's entertaining. with rmp it's just drivel and outright lies. nobody is entertained, nobody learns anything, it's just another boring couple of pages everyone has to skip through.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

Reading SEYMOUR'S! blogs its obvious he has a high(Reesian?) opinion of himself, lots about his bravery etc, no mention of him totally changing his position on the refinery strikes when the line came down from Vauxhall...


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> Reading SEYMOUR'S! blogs its obvious he has a high(Reesian?) opinion of himself, lots about his bravery etc,


examples?


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I tell you what, I'm not a total cunt, I'll give you the opportunity to withdraw that. If it isn't gone by midday tomorrow, I'll humiliate you by posting links to threads on which I've gone to great lengths to explain my politics, several times to you personally on your request.


 
you keep files?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> you keep files?


 
Doesn't everyone?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 18, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Doesn't everyone?


i keep flies.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

*''BBC Breakfast TV ran an item on the crisis in the SWP this morning (Sat 16/3) based on a two page spread in the Daily Mail.* The Mail alleges a third female comrade has come forward and has made allegations of rape. It also claims that the party is haemorrhaging members and is on the point of collapse.''


didn't know it had been on TV, SWP head honcho's and some ex ones must be shitting themselves now...


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Have Counterfire been buttering up the conspiranauts?


 
It's not how you put it, Islamist "conspiranauts" like MPAC have been using John Rees (not Counterfire as a whole) in order to proclaim the "truth" of a generalised assault on 'Islam' and/or 'Muslims' to a wider audience.
John Rees is acting as an unwitting dummy for these people.
When he speaks at a BDS event with Lauren Booth on one side and MPAC's chief on the other, saying similar general stuff, he's allowing his anti-racist and socialist credentials to be used as a figleaf to help _them_ (Booth and MPAC) prove they are not conspiracists focusing on battling Zionist lobby power.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That doesn't inspire the most savoury of mental images!


 
Last Tango in German?


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

meant to be Renfield, but didn't embed...




discokermit said:


> i keep flies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> you keep files?


 
Nope. You just don't forget something as mind-numbing as having to explain the basics of anarchism in terms simple enough for a dufus to understand.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 18, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Last Tango in German?


 
Christ, I wish I hadn't just eaten!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> *''BBC Breakfast TV ran an item on the crisis in the SWP this morning (Sat 16/3) based on a two page spread in the Daily Mail.* The Mail alleges a third female comrade has come forward and has made allegations of rape. It also claims that the party is haemorrhaging members and is on the point of collapse.''
> 
> 
> didn't know it had been on TV, SWP head honcho's and some ex ones must be shitting themselves now...


How very surprising that the BBC regards the Mail as a reliable source. [/tongue in cheek]


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

didn't know it was a two page spread, are their readers really that interested in the goings on of a tiny sect, especially in the paid for print edition...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> John Rees is acting as an unwitting dummy for these people.


 
Everyone who invites a speaker hopes to gain something by it. Everyone who accepts an invitation hopes to gain something by it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> didn't know it was a two page spread, are their readers really that interested in the goings on of a tiny sect, especially in the paid for print edition...


Well there is not much other  UK news except for the economy and their readers wouldn't understand that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> Reading SEYMOUR'S! blogs its obvious he has a high(Reesian?) opinion of himself, lots about his bravery etc, no mention of him totally changing his position on the refinery strikes when the line came down from Vauxhall...


And why does everything have a fucking nickname? The National Council is 'called' the House of Lords apparently. And the cc all have these hilarious Billy Bunter monikers. Maybe between RS and China they do.


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2013)

''I remain broadly a Leninist in the sense that I want to see organisation based on the most militant sections of the movement rather then simply a passive organisation reflecting the whole class (or, to put it in contemporary language, the electorate). I don't think though that democratic centralism is appropriate for the small band of socialists that exist at the moment (I do think a network is much better) and I think a new leadership should be built from the bottom up in the localities. I think the notion of a democratic centralism without such a base can only end with the absurd idea that 'leadership' can be built outside the context of class struggle.''

btl post on ISB

not the broadest possible range of people taking it upon themselves to challenge the growing poverty, inequality and petty brutalities of the modern turbo-capitalist era...


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Everyone who invites a speaker hopes to gain something by it. Everyone who accepts an invitation hopes to gain something by it.


 
We shouldn't judge on purely individual successes - yes his appearances promote a kind of anti-imperialism for a Muslim audience, OK granted, yes it builds his personal profile, yes he talks about 'the people' a lot.
But as noted above, he hosts their TV programme on the Islam Channel and I don't think he's ever put forward any kind of structural or class analysis in any of the programmes he's been introducing and chairing - not the ones about Britain Politics and Media, nor the ones about Syria or Egypt. What exactly is this doing for the wider w/c movement Counterfire claims it is desperate to engineer?
(Interestingly, Rees took the lead in expelling the CPGB-ML from the STWC on the basis of a few words of dissent on STWC tactics in its magazine _Proletarian_ - even on his own terms he is tying up his plans in knots)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> Reading SEYMOUR'S! blogs its obvious he has a high(Reesian?) opinion of himself, lots about his bravery etc, no mention of him totally changing his position on the refinery strikes when the line came down from Vauxhall...


 
That's a rather strange reading of his pieces on the dispute. He probably does have quite a high opinion of himself - most writers do - but in his account so far he's consistently portrayed himself as lagging behind other people in his understanding of what was going on, and as a bit hesitant generally. There's no hint of General Rees the master chess player in the image he's presenting.

As for the refinery strikes, well, you know my views on them, but why would anyone expect him to start talking about them in an account of this split?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

sihhi said:


> We shouldn't judge on purely individual successes - yes his appearances promote a kind of anti-imperialism for a Muslim audience, OK granted, yes it builds his personal profile, yes he talks about 'the people' a lot.


 
I've never watched his TV stuff. I wonder how much editorial discretion he has, and to what extent he's just a hired mouth doing his job?


----------



## kavenism (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've never watched his TV stuff. I wonder how much editorial discretion he has, and to what extent he's just a hired mouth doing his job?


 
It's not just him. Another Counterfire guy used to write the shows. Not sure if he still does though.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> saying that, on present evidence, I am not convinced is quite different to me making any 'assumptions.' Come on, you know the difference.


It does make Nigel's point that the way the SWP has handled this issue means that anything like this gains traction and will be used both against them and the left in general.

I really think the SWP are fucked, they might limp on for a quite some time but they're a rotting zombie.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've never watched his TV stuff. I wonder how much editorial discretion he has, and to what extent he's just a hired mouth doing his job?


 
I doubt we'll fully know, but put it this way, there seems a strong overlap with his talks for BDS and the content of his TV programmes, would he have been selected by the Islam Channel otherwise?
Take Michael Buerk was on Channel 4 earlier doing a yah-boo pensioners get too much benefits for Dispatches is he just fulfilling a documentary presenting role. If you look at what Rees is doing, the introductions he is making, the questsions he is asking etc he is not somehow an unwilling participant.
Note again I'm not saying he is antisemitic or conspiratorial.


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> *''BBC Breakfast TV ran an item on the crisis in the SWP this morning (Sat 16/3) based on a two page spread in the Daily Mail.* The Mail alleges a third female comrade has come forward and has made allegations of rape. It also claims that the party is haemorrhaging members and is on the point of collapse.''
> 
> 
> didn't know it had been on TV, SWP head honcho's and some ex ones must be shitting themselves now...


Even Government Online have included it in their bulletins

http://www.government-online.net/so...adership-under-fire-over-rape-kangaroo-court/


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Even Government Online have included it in their bulletins
> 
> http://www.government-online.net/so...adership-under-fire-over-rape-kangaroo-court/


 
that looks like a really crap website


----------



## cesare (Mar 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> that looks like a really crap website


Looks like it's run by the guardian


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 18, 2013)

If you take a paid position on that kind of channel and your not saying anything to contradict the state's line you're basically being complicit in whatever other shit they're coming out with. Just like if he was being paid to appear on programmes about benefit scroungers. It's a fucking disgrace for somebody that calls themselves a marxist to do that.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I've often said, that the conclusion of the understanding was the reading of the French revolution ISJ, and in particular the article by John Rees The Algebra of Revolution on the dialectic. The dialectic, the political economy, imperialism, sectarianism, racism and very pertinently sexism not only all made sense, but inter-meshed and supported each other. To get such an holistic analysis through my thick skull, WAS some achievement. Beyond that, you're probably right, your ideas are just too clever for me.


 
It is important to disabuse people of Rees's theoretical girth. As this article makes clear, Rees is actually hung like a hampster:

http://www.principiadialectica.co.uk/blog/?p=3003


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You don't need to speculate about whether or not Counterfire support the BDS campaign, but it's a bit of a leap to get from there to speculating about them buttering up conspiranauts and crazies.


 
It's not just with BDS or Islam/Muslims that the desire to have 'movements' gets Counterfire knotted up.
Take this recent examination of Grillo and 5 Stelle in Italy:
Apparently: "You could describe it as a movement of active citizenship, but also as a sort of _coalition of resistance_."
coalition of resistance? Yes, the same title as what Counterfire have been plugging at every opportunity as the solution for the working-class.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> It is important to disabuse people of Rees's theoretical girth. As this article makes clear, Rees is actually hung like a hampster:
> 
> http://www.principiadialectica.co.uk/blog/?p=3003


Might want to check that link sean (or is it just me?)


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Might want to check that link sean (or is it just me?)


 
No, some cocksucker is squatting on the site until we fix it. You can access it, it just takes patience.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> No, some cocksucker is squatting on the site until we fix it. You can access it, it just takes patience.


You a postone-ist then. Might have to think about this again.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 18, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Ugh, I stumbled across deliberation.info a few months ago. Horrible site.


 
The author has declared "I believe it highly unlikely that the CIA was responsible for 9/11, and very likely that the Lobby is responsible for US policy in the Middle East", nonetheless it's immediately been picked up by an even harder out and out conspiracist antisemitic website called The Rebel, so the circle continues.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 18, 2013)

fuck off. fuck off. (not you) they can get to fuck.
this shit shouldn't make me so angry but it does.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

It's fucking weird and horrible stuff. They aren't the kind of conspiracy shithead we get over here, really, so I'm a bit more thrown by it. We tend to get Freemen of the Land maniacs instead. You get the occasional SWPish leftist over here who sort of tolerates Freemen types in campaigns because they are willing to get out there and block a road or whatever, a line someone tried on me last week, leaving me almost speechless.


----------



## chilango (Mar 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I think Jim W knows pretty's precisely where his ideas fit/come from.
> 
> 
> but forget it. If you think might putting these views next to Jim W's was somehow wrong, I'm sorry.
> ...


 
 I dunno whether posting my views next to Jim W's serves any purpose. Why would you? Why wouldn't you?

There are plenty of threads where most of us state exactly what our views are. Here you go. A recent thread. I'd say that's pretty explicit.

Why would you seek to compare the views of individuals with a _party line_? Of course the SWP line is going to be more "coherent" than an individual's bulletin board postings. Does it ever occur to you that such coherence is _not_ a good thing?

...but regardless. What difference does it make?


----------



## chilango (Mar 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> *''BBC Breakfast TV ran an item on the crisis in the SWP this morning (Sat 16/3) based on a two page spread in the Daily Mail.* The Mail alleges a third female comrade has come forward and has made allegations of rape. It also claims that the party is haemorrhaging members and is on the point of collapse.''
> 
> 
> didn't know it had been on TV, SWP head honcho's and some ex ones must be shitting themselves now...


 
Didn't see that...and I watch " Breakfast" every morning.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 18, 2013)

That John Game piece on the IS Blog makes much of the socialism from below approach of the IS tradition. And goes on to argue that this needs to inform the 'ossified' position of the SWP on women's oppression. No surprises there, back we hark to Rowbotham et al again. But one thing these fans of Rowbotham and BtF need to deal with is how the notion of 'socialism from below' fits with the socialist feminists' general opposition to the crowning achievement of the IS socialism from below method, namely the theory of state capitalism. Sheila in particular broke with the IS in 71 over several issues, including crucially the fact she regarded North Vietnam as socialist.Which Is in slight contradiction shall we say with the self emancipation from below of the working class. Or is it? Cause once you talk in terms of separate struggles of the oppressed from below that can develop independently of the united class struggle then why not argue that the self emancipation of the Vietnamese people created a people's republic that has some of the features of socialism? Just as the battle against Patriarchy might create its own parallel revolution. When Chris Harman caused an uproar in 69 at a meeting on Vietnam by daring to mention the murder of socialists within Vietnam by the regime he was attacked on all sides by the Ortho Trots and Stalinists. And by the socialist feminists! Something the people in the ISN who wax lyrical on the tradition of socailism from below and breaking with the 'ossified' Marxist analysis of oppression might want to bear in mind.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 18, 2013)

The theory of state capitalism .. The crowning achievement of the IS socialism from below method?
Must be news to the spgb


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That John Game piece on the IS Blog makes much of the socialism from below approach of the IS tradition. And goes on to argue that this needs to inform the 'ossified' position of the SWP on women's oppression. No surprises there, back we hark to Rowbotham et al again. But one thing these fans of Rowbotham and BtF need to deal with is how the notion of 'socialism from below' fits with the socialist feminists' general opposition to the crowning achievement of the IS socialism from below method, namely the theory of state capitalism. Sheila in particular broke with the IS in 71 over several issues, including crucially the fact she regarded North Vietnam as socialist.Which Is in slight contradiction shall we say with the self emancipation from below of the working class. Or is it? Cause once you talk in terms of separate struggles of the oppressed from below that can develop independently of the united class struggle then why not argue that the self emancipation of the Vietnamese people created a people's republic that has some of the features of socialism? Just as the battle against Patriarchy might create its own parallel revolution. When Chris Harman caused an uproar in 69 at a meeting on Vietnam by daring to mention the murder of socialists within Vietnam by the regime he was attacked on all sides by the Ortho Trots and Stalinists. And by the socialist feminists! Something the people in the ISN who wax lyrical on the tradition of socailism from below and breaking with the 'ossified' Marxist analysis of oppression might want to bear in mind.


 
This is a pretty weird post. There's nothing inherent in disagreeing with the SWP's analysis of feminism which leads to a softness on Stalinism.

You are also being very loose with your reference to "Ortho Trots" given that (a) the "socialists within Vietnam" were what you would call "Ortho Trots" and (b) the IMG's horror at Harman's remarks would not have been shared by other Trotskyist organisations. Indeed, from an SP point of view that would be regarded as one of the high points of Cliffism.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 19, 2013)

First the Millies nick our name and now the SWP have nicked our Conference Hall. Trot bastards. 




Hat tip to Andy L. over on facebook. It's his very funny image  . . . in response to John McDonnell's recent tweet that he won't be speaking at Recruitathon this year.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's fucking weird and horrible stuff. They aren't the kind of conspiracy shithead we get over here, really, so I'm a bit more thrown by it. We tend to get Freemen of the Land maniacs instead. You get the occasional SWPish leftist over here who sort of tolerates Freemen types in campaigns because they are willing to get out there and block a road or whatever, a line someone tried on me last week, leaving me almost speechless.


 
Noticed a few of these types in Sheffield, do they really exist in any numbers?


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sheila in particular broke with the IS in 71 over several issues, including crucially the fact she regarded North Vietnam as socialist.Which Is in slight contradiction shall we say with the self emancipation from below of the working class. Or is it? Cause once you talk in terms of separate struggles of the oppressed from below that can develop independently of the united class struggle then why not argue that the self emancipation of the Vietnamese people created a people's republic that has some of the features of socialism? Just as the battle against Patriarchy might create its own parallel revolution. When Chris Harman caused an uproar in 69 at a meeting on Vietnam by daring to mention the murder of socialists within Vietnam by the regime he was attacked on all sides by the Ortho Trots and Stalinists. And by the socialist feminists! Something the people in the ISN who wax lyrical on the tradition of socailism from below and breaking with the 'ossified' Marxist analysis of oppression might want to bear in mind.


When Harman invoked the memory of the murdered Vietnamese Trotskyists, the horror of the img led VSC leadership was that a representative of the Vietnamese govt. was on the platform.
In 2004, a group of Iranian leftist a walked from Manchester to London to take part in an anti war demonstration which focused for its slogans on the threat of war against Iran. The SWP dominated leadership of the stwc denied them a speaker at the rally, as this would embarrass their guest, a representative of the Iranian govt.
Is this the proud is tradition, which once could identify a potential Stalinist bureaucrat state capitalist in a peasants black pyjamas, but now cannot see a clerical fascist when they are butchering workers on the streets?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> That John Game piece on the IS Blog makes much of the socialism from below approach of the IS tradition. And goes on to argue that this needs to inform the 'ossified' position of the SWP on women's oppression. No surprises there, back we hark to Rowbotham et al again. But one thing these fans of Rowbotham and BtF need to deal with is how the notion of 'socialism from below' fits with the socialist feminists' general opposition to the crowning achievement of the IS socialism from below method, namely the theory of state capitalism. Sheila in particular broke with the IS in 71 over several issues, including crucially the fact she regarded North Vietnam as socialist.Which Is in slight contradiction shall we say with the self emancipation from below of the working class. Or is it? Cause once you talk in terms of separate struggles of the oppressed from below that can develop independently of the united class struggle then why not argue that the self emancipation of the Vietnamese people created a people's republic that has some of the features of socialism? Just as the battle against Patriarchy might create its own parallel revolution. When Chris Harman caused an uproar in 69 at a meeting on Vietnam by daring to mention the murder of socialists within Vietnam by the regime he was attacked on all sides by the Ortho Trots and Stalinists. And by the socialist feminists! Something the people in the ISN who wax lyrical on the tradition of socailism from below and breaking with the 'ossified' Marxist analysis of oppression might want to bear in mind.



The united class struggle eh? Go on tell us what that is then. And no, these people don't have to deal with what SR did in 1971, I can see why it might be usefull for you to insist that they do though. This is a desperate line of attack. What next, that they would have rejected military Keynesianism in the 60s?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is a pretty weird post. There's nothing inherent in disagreeing with the SWP's analysis of feminism which leads to a softness on Stalinism.
> 
> You are also being very loose with your reference to "Ortho Trots" given that (a) the "socialists within Vietnam" were what you would call "Ortho Trots" and (b) the IMG's horror at Harman's remarks would not have been shared by other Trotskyist organisations. Indeed, from an SP point of view that would be regarded as one of the high points of Cliffism.


Nothing surprising about your post, a few words on theory then concentrate on the important thing, name checking who was in what org.

Separatism does indeed lend itself to stalinism as people in the IS have always argued. A stress on the need for independent women’s or black movements can easily lead you into a sort of stages theory. A theor that says that talk of working class struggle can be postponed indefinitely while other sorts of struggle are sorted out and built first. Including national liberation struggles in the Third World.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 19, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The theory of state capitalism .. The crowning achievement of the IS socialism from below method?
> Must be news to the spgb


 
Or indeed anarchists


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2013)

The reason there's a certain softness towards stalinism in the swp may of course be that trotskyism is essentially stalinism with better pr.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That John Game piece on the IS Blog makes much of the socialism from below approach of the IS tradition. And goes on to argue that this needs to inform the 'ossified' position of the SWP on women's oppression. No surprises there, back we hark to Rowbotham et al again. But one thing these fans of Rowbotham and BtF need to deal with is how the notion of 'socialism from below' fits with the socialist feminists' general opposition to the crowning achievement of the IS socialism from below method, namely the theory of state capitalism. Sheila in particular broke with the IS in 71 over several issues, including crucially the fact she regarded North Vietnam as socialist.Which Is in slight contradiction shall we say with the self emancipation from below of the working class. Or is it? Cause once you talk in terms of separate struggles of the oppressed from below that can develop independently of the united class struggle then why not argue that the self emancipation of the Vietnamese people created a people's republic that has some of the features of socialism? Just as the battle against Patriarchy might create its own parallel revolution. When Chris Harman caused an uproar in 69 at a meeting on Vietnam by daring to mention the murder of socialists within Vietnam by the regime he was attacked on all sides by the Ortho Trots and Stalinists. And by the socialist feminists! Something the people in the ISN who wax lyrical on the tradition of socailism from below and breaking with the 'ossified' Marxist analysis of oppression might want to bear in mind.


Those who talk of 1971 without mentioning arsenal's famous double, such people speak with a corpse in their mouths.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

british trotskyism emerged almost entirely from the stalinist cp. one of the reasons they've replicated its structures and processes.


----------



## andysays (Mar 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Those who talk of 1971 without mentioning arsenal's famous double, such people speak with a corpse in their mouths.


 
It certainly was a spectacular achievement...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> The reason there's a certain softness towards stalinism in the swp may of course be that trotskyism is essentially stalinism with better pr.


 
Loser Stalinism essentially.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 19, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Noticed a few of these types in Sheffield, do they really exist in any numbers?



Those cunts are the reason why I had to stop visiting the Sheffield occupy camp. Well, that and some anarcho liberal tosser whose exploits made me come over all homicidal so I had to ban myself.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> british trotskyism emerged almost entirely from the stalinist cp. one of the reasons they've replicated its structures and processes.


 
Wouldn't it be true though that most Trot groups origins were in stalinist cp's ? Do they all replicate its structures and processes?


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The theory of state capitalism .. The crowning achievement of the IS socialism from below method?
> Must be news to the spgb


You've obviously never read either then. The two theories are quite different. And Cliffs has the advantage of actually making sense.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 19, 2013)

I've written up my understanding of the second abuse allegation, the Sheffield case, here . There isn't anything that will surprise close readers of this thread, but I think I've laid out what happened - and some of the things that went so badly wrong - in a clear way , in an attempt to stop all the "it's lies" talk from some more hot headed SWP members .

http://peoplesplaindealer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/swp-we-need-to-talk-about-karl.html


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Wouldn't it be true though that most Trot groups origins were in stalinist cp's ? Do they all replicate its structures and processes?


dunno. good question, though.


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That John Game piece on the IS Blog makes much of the socialism from below approach of the IS tradition. And goes on to argue that this needs to inform the 'ossified' position of the SWP on women's oppression. No surprises there, back we hark to Rowbotham et al again. But one thing these fans of Rowbotham and BtF need to deal with is how the notion of 'socialism from below' fits with the socialist feminists' general opposition to the crowning achievement of the IS socialism from below method, namely the theory of state capitalism. Sheila in particular broke with the IS in 71 over several issues, including crucially the fact she regarded North Vietnam as socialist.Which Is in slight contradiction shall we say with the self emancipation from below of the working class. Or is it? Cause once you talk in terms of separate struggles of the oppressed from below that can develop independently of the united class struggle then why not argue that the self emancipation of the Vietnamese people created a people's republic that has some of the features of socialism? Just as the battle against Patriarchy might create its own parallel revolution. When Chris Harman caused an uproar in 69 at a meeting on Vietnam by daring to mention the murder of socialists within Vietnam by the regime he was attacked on all sides by the Ortho Trots and Stalinists. And by the socialist feminists! Something the people in the ISN who wax lyrical on the tradition of socailism from below and breaking with the 'ossified' Marxist analysis of oppression might want to bear in mind.


What is the point of this post?  It bears no relation to anything written - Rowbotham doesn't even get a mention in Games piece, so why are you bringing her up?  You're reply later makes no more sense either. One person becomes a Stalinist and it destroys and entire school of thought!

This from a man in the Labour Party. One who is defending the politics of Roger Rosewell....


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> dunno. good question, though.


 
I am at the top of my game this morning


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> dunno. good question, though.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

The39thStep said:


>



nine. see, i hardly know anything about british trotskyism, let alone the rest of the world.

i did go to a lutte ouvriere meeting in nice once though.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> nine. see, i hardly know anything about british trotskyism, let alone the rest of the world.
> 
> i did go to a lutte ouvriere meeting in nice once though.


 
member of the Socialist Party apparently


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

more thoroughly disgusting details of the smith case from scribbling s, http://peoplesplaindealer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/swp-we-need-to-talk-about-karl.html

bunch of fucking degenerates.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This shite.



So is this Snowball the same person who posted as Rebel Warrior on these boards ?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> So is this Snowball the same person who posted as Rebel Warrior on these boards ?


Yep, don't know if you remember him.


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 19, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> So is this Snowball the same person who posted as Rebel Warrior on these boards ?


 
The Histomat blog, yes.

Regarding criticism of the Swappies, Histomat is just like a laundromat. It really does wash whiter.


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Chilango said something similar about her/his politics.
> 
> Many of the leading members on here are very very clear about what they are against, not so forthcoming on what they are for.  So, do a search for threads on the SWP, and then do a search for threads on anarchism.  The evidence is plain.



"Leading members" ?! This is a forum, not the swp !!


----------



## JimW (Mar 19, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> "Leading members" ?! This is a forum, not the swp !!


I've been meaning to talk to you about this - I've checked the records and you owe seventy-five quid in back subs, which you can just post to me in used fivers as I'm P&P treasurer.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

jim is right but the money has to come through me first. i'd explain why but it's too complicated.

please include the ten pound handling charge.


----------



## JimW (Mar 19, 2013)

The forum stockpiles of baby oil, twister mats and chocolate cake don't come cheap you know.


----------



## treelover (Mar 19, 2013)

"As in other areas, Sheffield SWP succesfully built layers of friends and sympathisers and had good links with the rest of the left:"


from scribblings blog

mmm...


----------



## treelover (Mar 19, 2013)

"It is SWP members responsibility to decide how they deal with this . *But many activists work alongside them, pleased by the energy and organisation they bring to many campaigns*. The issues here are too serious to ignore'

Seriously, you really believe this?

most see them as wreckers...


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 19, 2013)

JimW said:


> The forum stockpiles of baby oil, twister mats and chocolate cake don't come cheap you know.


 
Sounds like a Led Zeppelin hotel party.

You'll be wanting a couple of free telly's and someone to visit the local fishmonger's next.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> "Leading members" ?! This is a forum, not the swp !!


 try telling that to the boss.


----------



## treelover (Mar 19, 2013)

''Sounds like a Led Zeppelin hotel party.

You'll be wanting a couple of free telly's and someone to visit the local fishmonger's next.''


The long arm of the law may be visiting them soon...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> It is important to disabuse people of Rees's theoretical girth. As this article makes clear, Rees is actually hung like a hampster:
> 
> http://www.principiadialectica.co.uk/blog/?p=3003


 the link is pretty much like your argument, redundant. :-D


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> I dunno whether posting my views next to Jim W's serves any purpose. Why would you? Why wouldn't you?
> 
> There are plenty of threads where most of us state exactly what our views are. Here you go. A recent thread. I'd say that's pretty explicit.
> 
> ...


 yes I remember your "sort of a communist" comment.  Pretty much like me then comrade.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> yes I remember your "sort of a communist" comment.  Pretty much like me then comrade.



Not really.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

Oh, ResistanceMP3 seeing as you're here...have the SWP split yet?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

Well, it's now past midday tomorrow, so time to show RMP3 up as a bit of a cunt. 

Post of RMP3 complimenting me on (to paraphrase) being communicative:
"you know, you are the only anarchist on here, who can actually talk about what you think. Every single one I have come across, define them self, by what they are against, rather than what they are for."
(from the "Griffin and BNP strategy" thread).

So, what was that you were saying about me?
Ah yes, in post #9583 you said


> it is strange though, that in a few years (three for me) the SWP explain their politics clearly enough that most members could predict what would be in socialist worker, what would be the line on many issues, before it was printed. And yet in 10 years on here I
> still don't have a Scooby Doo about the politics of many of this forums leading members.


 
When asked to name any such poster you replied in post #9589:


> violent panda


 
So, thanks for providing a fine example of your deceitful mendacity!

You plum.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> Oh, ResistanceMP3 seeing as you're here...have the SWP split yet?


 nice one comrade. 
And they cannot really have split, they cease to exist four years ago according to one for
um member Chilango :-p ;-)


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, it's now past midday tomorrow, so time to show RMP3 up as a bit of a cunt.
> 
> Post of RMP3 complimenting me on (to paraphrase) being communicative:
> "you know, you are the only anarchist on here, who can actually talk about what you think. Every single one I have come across, define them self, by what they are against, rather than what they are for."
> ...


 I wasn't actually saying anything about you, paranoid.  Someone said they could explain anybody's politics, so I just fired your name.  Could have been anybody's.

Having said that, that was a long time ago panda and,,,,,,, You've changed. :-p


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> more thoroughly disgusting details of the smith case from scribbling s, http://peoplesplaindealer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/swp-we-need-to-talk-about-karl.html
> 
> bunch of fucking degenerates.


 
It's the madness of in-house rehabilitation combined with excessive confidentiality hidingthe truth from potential vulnerable/target members of your own party, let alone the wider movement.

"A ‘disputes committee’ was held at SWP HQ in London. One woman said he spoke to her in a deeply, shockingly inappropriate way. Another woman said he tried to sexually assault her. Finally, a former member told the committee that he had in fact both hit and raped her. The Committee that heard these allegations appears to accept they were true. Some of the women say they were asked unreasonable questions , like whether they had been drinking."

"Joseph Choonara of the Socialist Workers Party Central Committee was sent to explain to a regional meeting of Yorkshire members that Karl had been suspended for “Serious Sexist Behaviour”. Members recall he said Karl had ‘done a lot for the party, was a great organizer and they hoped he'd be back soon’ Karl was expected to rehabilitate himself by reading SWP books on women’s liberation : He was to be assigned a party member to visit him regularly and check on progress..... This wasn’t a local branch out of its depth. Karl’s reading rehabilitation was discussed by Central Committee members in the Party’s London headquarters"

"Some members in Yorkshire knew about the evidence, but were told to keep it “confidential”. Others were left confused about the what Karl was accused of doing, so continued to invite him to social events: Members who knew the gravity of the accusations were shocked to see Karl at SWP ‘socials’ like a picnic, invited by their unknowing comrades."

"Eventually the SWP members who knew the true nature of the allegations told their confused comrades the full story: The “confidentiality” had caused some members to feel isolated. They felt that members who didn’t know the full truth blamed them for causing a popular organiser to be suspended."


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda you were wrong.  This is what I was asked


mk12 said:


> Tell you what, you come up with a list of posters and I'll give you a summary of their politics. I await your PM.


 he didn't give me a summary of your politics? Can't say I'm surprised. :-D


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I wasn't actually saying anything about you, paranoid. Someone said they could explain anybody's politics, so I just fired your name. Could have been anybody's.


 
Three short sentences, and yet you still manage to contradict yourself. You weren't saying it about me, but you "fired" my name.

That's because you're an ignorant mendacious trotbot fuckwit.

Having said that, that was a long time ago panda and,,,,,,, You've changed. :-p[/quote]

No, I've stayed the same. Unlike you, I don't have to keep shifting my views along with the tide of Swappite _diktat_.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Three short sentences, and yet you still manage to contradict yourself. You weren't saying it about me, but you "fired" my name.
> 
> That's because you're an ignorant mendacious trotbot fuckwit.
> 
> ...


you got it completely and utterly wrong. See above.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> in response to John McDonnell's recent tweet that he won't be speaking at Recruitathon this year.


 
It costs just £15 for 5 days and nights - if you are under 18.



> All 5 days of Marxism
> Waged: £55
> Unwaged: £30
> HE student: £30
> ...


 
And you get free accommodation at a party member's home:




> Do you want free accommodation? No Yes
> This will usually mean sleeping on a floor or sofa (see the Practicalities page for more on accommodation).


 
A full-time organiser - trusted figure appointed from above:


> Inappropriate comments. SWP Students in the city were bothered [the full-time organiser] kept inviting himself to stay overnight in their shared house because he ‘couldn’t’ get back to his own nearby town after an evening meeting or protest – especially as he on occasion *barged into bedrooms*. They even threw him out once, but he *kept coming back.*


----------



## andysays (Mar 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's because you're an ignorant mendacious trotbot fuckwit.


 
That has a certain ring to it...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It costs just £15 for 5 days and nights - if you are under 18.
> 
> And you get free accommodation at a party member's home:


 
Has he got a spare room?


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 19, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> When Harman invoked the memory of the murdered Vietnamese Trotskyists, the horror of the img led VSC leadership was that a representative of the Vietnamese govt. was on the platform.
> In 2004, a group of Iranian leftist a walked from Manchester to London to take part in an anti war demonstration which focused for its slogans on the threat of war against Iran. The SWP dominated leadership of the stwc denied them a speaker at the rally, as this would embarrass their guest, a representative of the Iranian govt.
> Is this the proud is tradition, which once could identify a potential Stalinist bureaucrat state capitalist in a peasants black pyjamas, but now cannot see a clerical fascist when they are butchering workers on the streets?


 
It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity. 

So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.

During the early stages of the Socialist Alliance the SWP is "uncompromising" on the issue of open borders and migrant rights, then when it is in a position to actually put such a position on a national platform in Respect it suddenly has nothing to say on the matter.

It is a "at the heart" of the LGBT struggle one minute but then such things become 'shibboleths' in other circumstances

It refers to the IRA as the "cutting edge" of the struggle against imperialism in the 70's and 80's but by the late 90's it has a position largely indistinguishable from the "Queens Own Socialist Party"

Now, I make no comment about the rights and wrongs of those positions in themselves, that's for another thread(s). My point is that there is no way these multiple contradictory positions can be reconciled under a political and theoretical 'tradition' beyond the fact that a certain brand name called, "The IS Traditon" held them at one point or the other.

It reminds you on a much less grander scale of Lord Palmerston's comments that Britain has no permanent allies only permanent interests. The "IS Tradition" has no permanent ideas or practice only permanent interests, which is to be as visible as possible and recruit.
Groucho Marx probably sums it up better: "Those are my principles and if you don't like them.., well, I have others!"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2013)

Yep, Neither Washington nor Moscow (itself another example of the tradition not really existing, this coming from the  Shachtmanite ISL) turned out to really just mean Not Washington.


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition.


other than Vietnam, all of the thingws you quote as being contrary to the 'tradition' have come in the last few years.  but as everyone knows, those standing in the IS Tradition reject everything since.......well, okay, there are one or two possible dates, but it certainbly includes everything in the last ten  years!

And on Vietnam, it is, of course, debatable, but that one was merely a proxy war whereas the other was a genuine NL movement is certainly something that can be argued for consistently and logically.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.


 I'm not saying the SWP is right, you pays your money and you takes your pick politically.  What I'm saying is it is completely coherent to me, an ex-member.



> So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.


 makes complete sense. 
 "With both North and South Korea sponsored by external powers, the Korean War was a proxy war."  Between Russia and America, so a curse on both your houses, neutral.
Vietnam was an independence movement, against American imperialism.  A victory for Vietnam would weaken American imperialism, and it did for over a decade or was it two decades?
Same logic as above, but this time undermining Russian imperialism.  Which it did.




> During the early stages of the Socialist Alliance the SWP is "uncompromising" on the issue of open borders and migrant rights, then when it is in a position to actually put such a position on a national platform in Respect it suddenly has nothing to say on the matter.


 I've explain this so many times, I'm not going to bore people again.



> It is a "at the heart" of the LGBT struggle one minute but then such things become 'shibboleths' in other circumstances


 again, this has been explained many many times.


> It refers to the IRA as the "cutting edge" of the struggle against imperialism in the 70's and 80's but by the late 90's it has a position largely indistinguishable from the "Queens Own Socialist Party"


 I have a problem with this one, because I'm not quite clear what you're talking about.



> Now, I make no comment about the rights and wrongs of those positions in themselves, that's for another thread(s). My point is that there is no way these multiple contradictory positions can be reconciled under a political and theoretical 'tradition' beyond the fact that a certain brand name called, "The IS Traditon" held them at one point or the other.
> 
> It reminds you on a much less grander scale of Lord Palmerston's comments that Britain has no permanent allies only permanent interests. The "IS Tradition" has no permanent ideas or practice only permanent interests, which is to be as visible as possible and recruit.
> Groucho Marx probably sums it up better: "Those are my principles and if you don't like them.., well, I have others!"


well if you want to read up on it, it's all there in black-and-white in thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of publications.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> The "IS Tradition" has no permanent ideas or practice only permanent interests, which is to be as visible as possible and recruit.


 
In 1964 and 1966 Labour Weekly calls for a Labour vote, but Socialist Worker as it becomes is against it in 1970. It is in favour of British troops into northern Ireland in 1969, but becomes Troops Out at some point in the 1970s. Again each of these things needs its own thread - but there is no unchangeable IS tradition.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, Neither Washington nor Moscow (itself another example of the tradition not really existing, this coming from the Shachtmanite ISL) turned out to really just mean Not Washington.


 we have is in actual fact the victory of the Taleban undermined Russian imperialism.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

leyton96 I think where you're going wrong is viewing it as the SWP should be cheerleading antistate capitalism?  Is nothing to do with state capitalism, it's to do with imperialism, and the interests of the international working class.
The defeat of America in Vietnam was in the interest of the international working class, because the debacle for America meant they couldn't go round the world killing people as willy-nilly as the used to do before the defeat.  Likewise for Russia, it virtually broke Russian imperialism.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> "With both North and South Korea sponsored by external powers, the Korean War was a proxy war." Between Russia and America, so a curse on both your houses, neutral.
> Vietnam was an independence movement, against American imperialism. A victory for Vietnam would weaken American imperialism, and it did for over a decade or was it two decades?
> Same logic as above, but this time undermining Russian imperialism. Which it did.


 
Afghanistan was a proxy war as well - US and Pakistani militarism on one side versus Soviet militarism on the other. But no "curse on both your houses neutral" why not?


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> The defeat of America in Vietnam was in the interest of the international working class, because the debacle for America meant they couldn't go round the world killing people as willy-nilly as the used to do before the defeat.




That worked out well.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> we have is in actual fact the victory of the Taleban undermined Russian imperialism.


 
With a victory for Pakistani and Pushtun imperialism.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> In 1964 and 1966 Labour Weekly calls for a Labour vote, but Socialist Worker as it becomes is against it in 1970. It is in favour of British troops into northern Ireland in 1969, but becomes Troops Out at some point in the 1970s. Again each of these things needs its own thread - but there is no unchangeable IS tradition.


 I can see Louis MacNeice, unless is a complete hypocrite, coming in and telling you all offer this, I mean you're not really discussing a rape allegation, you're just using the allegation to beat up the IS tradition,,,,,,,,,,, but.

Do you have a quote for that position in 1969 please?  The Nationalists supported troops in, I don't remember the IIS tradition doing so.  If they did, they soon realised why it was a big mistake, and explained it as such.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> That worked out well.


 slightly dishonest of you there.  I gave a clear indication I wasn't suggesting you had to accept the argument, just that there was a clear logic that was applied to all three conflicts.

It was either 10 years or 20 years before America invaded another country wasn't it? How is that not a good thing?

You know from several of you, it is this desperation to ridicule everything, that imho undermines your legitimate points. :-(


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> With a victory for Pakistani and Pushtun imperialism.


 you want to reject their analysis, fine.  But that was their rationale. 

Clearly they were consistent on the three cited.  Which completely destroys the point of the post.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Nothing surprising about your post, a few words on theory then concentrate on the important thing, name checking who was in what org.
> 
> Separatism does indeed lend itself to stalinism as people in the IS have always argued. A stress on the need for independent women’s or black movements can easily lead you into a sort of stages theory. A theor that says that talk of working class struggle can be postponed indefinitely while other sorts of struggle are sorted out and built first. Including national liberation struggles in the Third World.


 
The oddest thing about arguing with people who received their political education, such as it is, in the SWP is their insistence on using that organisation's idiosyncratic language. So we got endless use of the word "autonomism" to mean anything which approximates anarchism. And here we have the use of the word "separatism" to cover not actual separatist movements (which did exist) but as a dismissal of any form of self-organisation. A women's caucus for women who are also members of a mixed gender socialist group is not an example of "separatism". For the bleeding obvious reason that its members are also members of a mixed gender socialist group.

Your original post's argument can be summed up as "women's self organisation leads to Stalinism because something something Sheila Rowbotham liked North Vietnam". Now you've rowed back a bit and everything is conditional. Self-organisation could lead to issues being prioritised over "working class struggle", a category which in your use excludes the struggle for women's liberation. That in turn could lead to working class struggle being put off into distant future. And then anything at all could sneak in. That is all exceptionally tenuous, even by your standards. In fact, there is no particular connection between views on things like self-organised caucuses and views on the class character of the Stalinist states, as can be seen from the array of groups which favour such caucuses and have between them every conceivable position on Stalinism.

Your version of Sheila Rowbotham's political journey is not evidence, it's anecdote. And it's about as convincing as claims that homeopathy works because you know somebody who took water tablets and who also recovered from a disease.

And by the way, when you are using the memories of socialists murdered by Stalinists as a means to amalgamate what you call "ortho trots" with Stalinism, it is of more than minor relevance that those murdered socialists were themselves "ortho trots".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> You've obviously never read either then. The two theories are quite different. And Cliffs has the advantage of actually making sense.


 
Cliff's theory was not original but you are certainly right that it wasn't the SPGB that influenced it.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> The reason there's a certain softness towards stalinism in the swp may of course be that trotskyism is essentially stalinism with better pr.


I love this post


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The oddest thing about arguing with people who received their political education, such as it is, in the SWP is their insistence on using that organisation's idiosyncratic language.


thank you!  I have been saying for many years, though there are undoubted differences between all the political strands, language is a great barrier to people who share probably 95% of their politics having a dialogue.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I can see Louis MacNeice, unless is a complete hypocrite, coming in and telling you all offer this, I mean you're not really discussing a rape allegation, you're just using the allegation to beat up the IS tradition,,,,,,,,,,, but.


 
The title of the thread is 'SWP expulsions and squabbles' it's not restricted to what you've defined. If you wish to make suggestions as to how rapists within the movement should be dealt with, go ahead.



> Do you have a quote for that position in 1969 please? The Nationalists supported troops in, I don't remember the IIS tradition doing so. If they did, they soon realised why it was a big mistake, and explained it as such.


 
It's all over the Socialist Worker from August 1969 onwards - exactly the same as the government's rationale for the deployment - a short mission and then home: “The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists.” _Socialist Worker_, 11 September 1969




> you want to reject their analysis, fine. But that was their rationale.
> 
> Clearly they were consistent on the three cited. Which completely destroys the point of the post.


 
No it doesn't Pakistani imperialism is wholly tied to US imperialism at this point - it's a case of 'Washington not Moscow' in crude terms.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> In 1964 and 1966 Labour Weekly calls for a Labour vote, but Socialist Worker as it becomes is against it in 1970. It is in favour of British troops into northern Ireland in 1969, but becomes Troops Out at some point in the 1970s. Again each of these things needs its own thread - but there is no unchangeable IS tradition.


 seems you're wrong. http://www.marxists.de/ireland/swaug69/index.htm



> The attitude of the International Socialists to the introduction of British troops in August 1969 has been a subject of much controversy on some parts of the left. The usual allegation is along the lines that *Socialist Worker* either called for the introduction of troops or welcomed them. The articles below are from the first issue of the paper after the deployment of troops. Whether the line adopted was correct or not, it should be clear from the articles that the allegations described above are false and that the IS didn’t regard the troops as the solution of the crisis.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> thank you! I have been saying for many years, though there are undoubted differences between all the political strands, language is a great barrier to people who share probably 95% of their politics having a dialogue.


 
But how else will the pure differentiate themselves from The Other?


----------



## treelover (Mar 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Has he got a spare room?


 
it does make you wonder what has happened over the years.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I've written up my understanding of the second abuse allegation, the Sheffield case, here . There isn't anything that will surprise close readers of this thread, but I think I've laid out what happened - and some of the things that went so badly wrong - in a clear way , in an attempt to stop all the "it's lies" talk from some more hot headed SWP members .
> 
> http://peoplesplaindealer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/swp-we-need-to-talk-about-karl.html


 
So hang on, this organiser allegedly hit his partner at a social event while on the South coast and was still made an organiser in another city afterwards? Really?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2013)

At a social event that party members would have been at. How often can you say that  _it doesn't sound likely_ before it it does sound likely?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> seems you're wrong. http://www.marxists.de/ireland/swaug69/index.htm


 
It was not Troops Out in those two issues in 1969 that you've linked to, so there is a change in the IS position later so that by the time the SWP is formed Troops Out is part of its Where We Stand bit.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The oddest thing about arguing with people who received their political education, such as it is, in the SWP is their insistence on using that organisation's idiosyncratic language. So we got endless use of the word "autonomism" to mean anything which approximates anarchism.


 
Even when it is explicitly about Italian autonomists it can be quite inaccurate:



> We are therefore talking about a theory and movement which splits radically from not merely the reformist tradition, but also the revolutionary one, which sees the working class's potential control over the means of production as the key to change. Autonomism is in no sense new. Rather it is a regression to a pre-Marxist form of revolt, one which substitutes idealism for materialism, personal revolt for class action. There is one final argument that needs to be made in relation to autonomism's relevance to Britain. Some of the arguments put forward by the autonomists obviously echo those put forward by, for instance, parts of the women's movement. This is obviously the case over such things as the role of the party or the revolution as a continuing process of personal revolution. Further, the Italian autonomists have attracted one or two British intellectuals.


 
It is saying autonomism is "personal revolt" instead of "class action" - which is not right.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So hang on, this organiser allegedly hit his partner at a social event while on the South coast and was still made an organiser in another city afterwards? Really?


 
Three separate women victims:  
"*One woman* said he spoke to her in a deeply, shockingly inappropriate way. *Another woman* said he tried to sexually assault her. Finally, a *former member* told the committee that he had in fact both hit and raped her. The Committee that heard these allegations appears to accept they were true."


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Even when it is explicitly about Italian autonomists it can be quite inaccurate:
> 
> 
> 
> It is saying autonomism is "personal revolt" instead of "class action" - which is not right.


That was always a very revealing article - it either demonstrates their total failure to understand the 67-77 movement in italy or to deliberately lie about it. The rubric was, and remains, everyone else is abandoning class for either elitism, reformism or individualism. This, this is what _the tradition_ really is.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The title of the thread is 'SWP expulsions and squabbles' it's not restricted to what you've defined. If you wish to make suggestions as to how rapists within the movement should be dealt with, go ahead.


Whoa! I can agree with you more. Louis MacNeice castigated me for taking the piss out people having a wankfest about the implosion of the SWP "SWP expulsions and squabbles". So thanks for making that point for me.





> It's all over the Socialist Worker from August 1969 onwards - exactly the same as the government's rationale for the deployment - a short mission and then home: “The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists.” _Socialist Worker_, 11 September 1969


 





> No it doesn't Pakistani imperialism is wholly tied to US imperialism at this point - it's a case of 'Washington not Moscow' in crude terms.


 and didn't Cuba send "aids" to Vietnam?

You want to disagree with the logic, that's fine. You want to test your point, go and read the publications properly. But the logic had nothing to do with state capitalism. And there is a clear continuity.

What's more, it fits in to the difference in philosophy. Socialist worker putting the interests of the working class, before the 'purity' of their politics. Even to the point of supporting the horrible politically disgusting Taleban, having a victory over Russian imperialism. That is at the centre points in them post leyton96

Socialist Alliance. The SWP sees itself as a revolutionary organisation. Why would they want a second revolutionary organisation, the socialist Alliance? (Asked by John Rees at Marxism) rightly or wrongly (wrongly in my opinion) the SWP wanted the socialist Alliance to be basically a reformist organisation, in which revolutionaries had a foot hold. They wanted the socialist Alliance to be a mass "capital's workers party", in which the little revolutionary cog the SWP, could engage with of the working class. THAT is why immigration couldn't be a shibboleth  (people rarely quote all of that Lindsey German speech, in which he makes it clear she still supports gay rights)


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Cliff's theory was not original but you are certainly right that it wasn't the SPGB that influenced it.


Cliff clearly takes a lot from Dunayevskaya, but he does build upon it distinctly, rejectoing her belief that SC marked an entire new epoch. That allowed the Group to realise the revolution wasn't just around the corner, a belief she clung on to, despite all the evidence to the contrary.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That was always a very revealing article - it either demonstrates their total failure to understand the 67-77 movement in italy or to deliberately lie about it. The rubric was, and remains, everyone else is abandoning class for either elitism, reformism or individualism. This, this is what _the tradition_ really is.


 hypocrite.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> Cliff clearly takes a lot from Dunayevskaya, but he does build upon it distinctly, rejectoing her belief that SC marked an entire new epoch. That allowed the Group to realise the revolution wasn't just around the corner, a belief she clung on to, despite all the evidence to the contrary.


belboid she never believed that! She believed that the negations that produce communism are always active, not that a moment is just about to happen. I almost capitalised your name in anger then.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That was always a very revealing article - it either demonstrates their total failure to understand the 67-77 movement in italy or to deliberately lie about it. The rubric was, and remains, everyone else is abandoning class for either elitism, reformism or individualism. This, this is what _the tradition_ really is.


 
What of this:  


> The first is that the autonomists' ideas involve a break from the revolutionary Marxist tradition and its method. Of course this does not automatically disprove the ideas put forward, but they should not be posed as some kind of development of that tradition. The second point is that if we are to discuss the application of those ideas we need an honest history of the autonomous movement in Italy. That would certainly emphasise the fact that, while many of the autonomists are among the best and most sincere militants in Italy, they have not been able to develop a real threat to capitalist power and,* while still strong, appear to have reached a dead end* and certainly are isolated


 
The SWP is attacking Italian autonomists for reaching a dead end. Fine. But when will the SWP admit that in its own British heartland it might have entered a dead end of its own - a steeplechase from one united front to the next for recruits, kept in small branches fed the line by full-time organisers appointed from above, led by master tacticians who have succeeded in making three large splits over the past five years - a cobweb left, if you like.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> slightly dishonest of you there. I gave a clear indication I wasn't suggesting you had to accept the argument, just that there was a clear logic that was applied to all three conflicts.
> 
> It was either 10 years or 20 years before America invaded another country wasn't it? How is that not a good thing?
> 
> You know from several of you, it is this desperation to ridicule everything, that imho undermines your legitimate points. :-(


 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> belboid she never believed that! She believed that the negations that produce communism are always active, not that a moment is just about to happen. I almost capitalised your name in anger then.


I apologise.

She was still bloody well wrong tho.  'Active' - yes. Likely to lead to a revolutionary upturn - no.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What's more, it fits in to the difference in philosophy. Socialist worker putting the interests of the working class, before the 'purity' of their politics. Even to the point of supporting the horrible politically disgusting Taleban, having a victory over Russian imperialism.


 
I am going to have a think about this.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations


that only underlines my point. Why do you think Oliver North had to find clandestine means of funding terrorists?

America is the only country in the world to have been fined guilty by the world Court of terrorism point I picked up from Chomsky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

The American population wouldn't accept a full-blown military intervention until, if memory serves me rightly, Grenada.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I am going to have a think about this.


 I just want to make clear, I am not saying the SWP is correct.  Far from it.  But their arguments made sense to me, and everyone else in the party.

There was a massive, absolutely massive argument in the party about supporting the Taliban, not just in my branch, but in every branch in the country.  Real heated and angry discussion.  So this position wasn't won lightly, or easily.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> that only underlines my point. Why do you think Oliver North had to find clandestine means of funding terrorists?
> 
> America is the only country in the world to have been fined guilty by the world Court of terrorism point I picked up from Chomsky.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
> ...


 
Whatever.

The US changed the way it way it carried out military ops post Vietnam. It got better at it. It learnt. 

Hardly something to justify cheerleading in a war.

But that's by the by really.

Who do support out of the IS Network and the SWP?

Go on, pick a side....


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I just want to make clear, I am not saying the SWP is correct. Far from it. But their arguments made sense to me, and everyone else in the party.
> 
> There was a massive, absolutely massive argument in the party about supporting the Taliban, not just in my branch, but in every branch in the country. Real heated and angry discussion. So this position wasn't won lightly, or easily.


 
How did the SWP support the Taliban?

What form did this support take?

What was the point?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

How does he manage to sucker some of you people into arguing with him over and over again?


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How does he manage to sucker some of you people into arguing with him over and over again?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> belboid she never believed that! She believed that the negations that produce communism are always active, not that a moment is just about to happen. I almost capitalised your name in anger then.


  why are you always so angry?


----------



## eoin_k (Mar 19, 2013)

I imagine 10 years on the same bulletin board as you might be a factor...


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I just want to make clear, I am not saying the SWP is correct. Far from it. But their arguments made sense to me, and everyone else in the party.
> 
> There was a massive, absolutely massive argument in the party about supporting the Taliban, not just in my branch, but in every branch in the country. Real heated and angry discussion. So this position wasn't won lightly, or easily.


 
For what it's worth, I don't think the SWP's support to Taliban forces actually meant anything practical or physical.
But "the horrible politically disgusting Taleban, having a victory over Russian imperialism" was _not_ in the "interests of the working class" as you claim - that victory meant a _massive backlash_ against half the working-class and then some (all non-Pushtun minorities) - killing dead all progressive, working-class ideas as well as even slightly rebellious, slightly anti-fundamentalist people.

The only logical way to sustain this kind of 'support politics' is to also support the Islamic movement severely weakening "having a victory over US imperialism" by winning the short civil-social war in Iran in 1978-9.

I think in terms of actual politics in Britain that things such as Afghanistan were judged on the basis of a binary of US imperialism and Russian imperialism alone would be damaging. It would mean, for instance, little ability to examine crystal-clear the true nature of the growing Muslim movements - in Britain and in the Middle East - which were also anti-Soviet and ostensibly anti-US imperialist.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

The SWP supported Pol Pot too iirc.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> The SWP supported Pol Pot too iirc.


 
Only for a short while, if I remember, but that was weakening US imperialism and then weakening Russian imperialism by sustaining Chinese imperialism.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 19, 2013)

And on the horizon starts to loom....POST 10,000!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> The SWP supported Pol Pot too iirc.


The fast food wars.


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Only for a short while, if I remember, but that was weakening US imperialism and then weakening Russian imperialism by sustaining Chinese imperialism.


They placed an awful lot of faith in the work of Michael Caldwell - who was a Khmer Rouge apologist right till he died.  Quite possibly at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I wasn't actually saying anything about you, paranoid. Someone said they could explain anybody's politics, so I just fired your name. Could have been anybody's.
> 
> Having said that, that was a long time ago panda and,,,,,,, You've changed. :-p


 
You've drifted to the right Panda. Clearly you never fully grasped the ideas...


----------



## treelover (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> For what it's worth, I don't think the SWP's support to Taliban forces actually meant anything practical or physical.
> But "the horrible politically disgusting Taleban, having a victory over Russian imperialism" was _not_ in the "interests of the working class" as you claim - that victory meant a _massive backlash_ against half the working-class and then some (all non-Pushtun minorities) - killing dead all progressive, working-class ideas as well as even slightly rebellious, slightly anti-fundamentalist people.
> 
> The only logical way to sustain this kind of 'support politics' is to also support the Islamic movement severely weakening "having a victory over US imperialism" by winning the short civil-social war in Iran in 1978-9.
> ...


 
blimey, i didn't know that, sickening...


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> They placed an awful lot of faith in the work of Michael Caldwell - who was a Khmer Rouge apologist right till he died. Quite possibly at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.


 
Malcolm, wasn't it? Yes probably murdered by their lower cadre for asking too many questions about how there were armed guards controlling the fields at an incredible density,  according to testimony from the 2 journalists who accompanied him.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> They placed an awful lot of faith in the work of Michael Caldwell - who was a Khmer Rouge apologist right till he died. Quite possibly at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.


 
Malcolm.

Wait, what were the specifics of the SWP's line on Cambodia? This sounds interesting. I'm assuming here that they didn't go nuts for Pol Pot in the way a lot of Western Maoists did.


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

Malcolm!  Duh....

They denied PP carried out any bloodbaths on his way to 'liberating' Cambodia. He had the support of the mass of the masses, resisting american imperialism.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> Malcolm! Duh....
> 
> They denied PP carried out any bloodbaths on his way to 'liberating' Cambodia. He had the support of the mass of the masses, resisting american imperialism.


 
Bloody hell. For how long did they keep that line up? Did they oppose the Vietnamese invasion?

I presume that they never argued that Democratic Kampuchea was anything other than capitalist?


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

No idea I'm afraid. Not long, but I couldnt tell you when exactly.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 19, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> member of the Socialist Party apparently


More likely to be from the Militant Tendency. This is the one from the Socialist Party:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/british-trotskyism-sons-prophet


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> More likely to be from the Militant Tendency. This is the one from the Socialist Party:
> 
> http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/british-trotskyism-sons-prophet


 
Isn't he sweet?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I can see Louis MacNeice, unless is a complete hypocrite, coming in and telling you all offer this, I mean you're not really discussing a rape allegation, you're just using the allegation to beat up the IS tradition,,,,,,,,,,, but.
> 
> Do you have a quote for that position in 1969 please? The Nationalists supported troops in, I don't remember the IIS tradition doing so. If they did, they soon realised why it was a big mistake, and explained it as such.


 
This is second hand - comes from my much older brother who was in the SWP in the 80s. But he told me, and he has no reason to lie about it, that the front page of the socialist worker did carry an article supporting the introduction of British troops at least once (years before he joined too but he claims to have seen it). I think it was also him who told me that at one of the university archives (I'm thinking Leeds for some reason but might be wrong) some hack must have gone in there and done a bit of Winston Smith style 'corrections' by tearing off said front page. Again, it's second hand but he has absolutely no reason to have lied and I think it would probably be fairly easy to check too.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 19, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> More likely to be from the Militant Tendency. This is the one from the Socialist Party:
> 
> http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/british-trotskyism-sons-prophet


 
You're giving me a fucking identity crisis here - are we the Militant Tendency or are we SPEW?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 19, 2013)

I think you might be Militant Labour.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 19, 2013)




----------



## leyton96 (Mar 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> Malcolm! Duh....
> 
> They denied PP carried out any bloodbaths on his way to 'liberating' Cambodia. He had the support of the mass of the masses, resisting american imperialism.


 
To be fair to the SWP (not something I say very often!) they weren't the only ones to have an initially mistaken view of the Khemer Rouge. Chomsky's writings at the time certainly raised my eyebrows when I read them.
It's understandable people on the left may have been skeptical when the first atrocity stories started to filter out. Western news reporting on South East Asia had been a model of lies, spin and propaganda against anti-imperial movements since the insurgency in Malaya in the 50's.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So hang on, this organiser allegedly hit his partner at a social event while on the South coast and was still made an organiser in another city afterwards? Really?


 
Yup. In the presence of numerous witnesses several of whom were female party members. The incident was in London though not on the South Coast. If my memory serves me correctly I recall her saying that the other women thought she deserved it for cheating on him.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Isn't he sweet?


Here's a couple of Socialist Party pamphlets published before SPEW was even heard of (or was part of the Balham Group or maybe in the ILP):


http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/...es-mr-chamberlain-and-his-labour-critics-1938

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialist-party-and-war


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is second hand - comes from my much older brother who was in the SWP in the 80s. But he told me, and he has no reason to lie about it, that the front page of the socialist worker did carry an article supporting the introduction of British troops at least once (years before he joined too but he claims to have seen it). I think it was also him who told me that at one of the university archives (I'm thinking Leeds for some reason but might be wrong) some hack must have gone in there and done a bit of Winston Smith style 'corrections' by tearing off said front page. Again, it's second hand but he has absolutely no reason to have lied and I think it would probably be fairly easy to check too.


'the troops will provide a breathng space' was the line in the paper. It - arguably - didnt explicitly _support_ troops going in, but it certainly didnt call for an immediate withdrawal.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Here's a couple of Socialist Party pamphlets published before SPEW was even heard of (or was part of the Balham Group or maybe in the ILP)


 
I'm quite aware of the SPGB's history and its views, thanks. Perhaps you could post them in a more appropriate thread from now on?


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> To be fair to the SWP (not something I say very often!) they weren't the only ones to have an initially mistaken view of the Khemer Rouge. Chomsky's writings at the time certainly raised my eyebrows when I read them.
> It's understandable people on the left may have been skeptical when the first atrocity stories started to filter out. Western news reporting on South East Asia had been a model of lies, spin and propaganda against anti-imperial movements since the insurgency in Malaya in the 50's.


Quite. From that distance, and given the American actions, it is quite easy to see why you might believe that there was mass support for the KR, but to explicitly say 'THERE ARE NO ATROCITIES, NO MURDER IS GOING ON*' was always a tad foolish, even if you believe the tales are overwhelmingly western propaganda.



* their shouting, not mine


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm quite aware of the SPGB's history and its views, thanks. Perhaps you could post them in a more appropriate thread from now on?


 
In fairness Nigel this thread is now officially all over the shop. I blame the poster who posted that SMC fry-up pic a few pages back.

It'll be back on message if and when BB decides to log online.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> 'the troops will provide a breathng space' was the line in the paper. It - arguably - didnt explicitly _support_ troops going in, but it certainly didnt call for an immediate withdrawal.


 
It amounted to very soft support. They gave a description of anticipated positive effects (the breathing space) and raised no arguments against them being sent in. It wasn't quite a "send in our boys" demand though as it's sometimes portrayed by those of a not very charitable disposition.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> In fairness Nigel this thread is now officially all over the shop. I blame the poster who posted that SMC fry-up pic a few pages back.


 
That was on the snackbox thread!


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That was on the snackbox thread!


 
apologies. i get my IS threads confused.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> Quite. From that distance, and given the American actions, it is quite easy to see why you might believe that there was mass support for the KR, but to explicitly say 'THERE ARE NO ATROCITIES, NO MURDER IS GOING ON*' was always a tad foolish, even if you believe the tales are overwhelmingly western propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> * their shouting, not mine


 
Loud certainty where an admission that things are unclear at best would be more appropriate is something of a key part of The Tradition*. As is a marked tendency to whitewash "anti-imperialist" forces abroad.

(* To be fair, while the SWP may be particularly shouty and resistant to nuance, a pattern of adopting an inappropriately certain stance is hardly unique to them on the left).


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, don't know if you remember him.



How could I not remember Rabbit Worrier !  

btw: I think "Rebel Warrior" has to be about the most self aggrandising online handle I ever came across.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

electric.avenue said:


> How could I not remember Rabbit Worrier !
> 
> btw: I think "Rebel Warrior" has to be about the most self aggrandising online handle I ever came across.


 
I had forgotten all about his "rabbit worrier" nickname! Who can claim credit for that little bit of genius?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

I burst out laughing when I saw that he's widely known as "Zoidberg" in the SWP.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> You've obviously never read either then. The two theories are quite different. And Cliffs has the advantage of actually making sense.


What, it makes sense to say that Russia was some sort of "Workers State" till 1928 and then (after Trotsky got exiled to Central Asia) suddenly became state capitalist! Since no change took place in the position of the working class or the management of state industries in 1928, the orthodox Trotskyist position that Russia was a "Workers State" both before and after 1928 makes more sense. But, of course, the argument that Russia was capitalist both before (mixed state and private) and after 1928 (overwhelmingly state) capitalism makes the best sense.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 19, 2013)

As we are indulging in a little nostalgia, where is our little friend cockneyrebel? I last remember some very cruel boys and girls on this site being very naughty about his place in the vanguard of electronic interpersonal communication


----------



## emanymton (Mar 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> At a social event that party members would have been at. How often can you say that _it doesn't sound likely_ before it it does sound likely?


It's bizarre, when I was a new member my district organiser 'corrected' me for using sexist language when I used the phrase 'lucky bitch', and when a 16 year old girl joined our branch, we were very conscious of her age and behaved impeccably. We wouldn't even let the poor kid drink. The whole way the SWP has respond to the opposition is exactly what I would expect but the way they have handled the allegations sounds like a very different organisation to the one I was a member of. throughout my time in the SWP it was a given that domestic violence was an automatic expulsion, so assuming it is true the idea that an organiser could hit his partner and just be moved is shocking.

I wonder if the situation has got worse in recent years or if sections of the SWP have always been like this? It certainly isn't uniform throughout the party as the scale of the opposition shows.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> As we are indulging in a little nostalgia, where is our little friend cockneyrebel? I last remember some very cruel boys and girls on this site being very naughty about his place in the vanguard of electronic interpersonal communication


 
He's always present in our hearts. And occasionally in our threads.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> 'the troops will provide a breathng space' was the line in the paper. It - arguably - didnt explicitly _support_ troops going in, but it certainly didnt call for an immediate withdrawal.


As I understand it was kind of 'british out' but if not that then 'troops in'. 
It's what of the few things SWP members commonly admit the party got wrong, the initial response to the Poll Tax is another.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

Latest resignation letter on IS blog said:
			
		

> But by the end of the 80’s I had a problem: the poll tax. The SWP took a disgracefully sectarian turn, in active opposition to the non-payment campaign. Let no-one tell you this was a principled position, arguing for action by council workers. It may have started like that but it went on, long after it was obvious that there was going to be a mass campaign of non-payment, as a reflex opposition to anything the Millies were doing. So I ignored the party and worked in the anti-poll tax unions.


 
I was a bit surprised to see that put so bluntly, but yes, it is an issue where many SWPers will say they got it wrong, at least to start with. "Like refusing to pay your bus fare" etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 19, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It's bizarre, when I was a new member my district organiser 'corrected' me for using sexist language when I used the phrase 'lucky bitch', and when a 16 year old girl joined our branch, we were very conscious of her age and behaved impeccably. We wouldn't even let the poor kid drink.


 
That was my experience as a member as well, they were genuinely sensible about this sort of stuff, for years when people would talk about the rumours I was very sceptical.

Turns out I was probably wrong.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Turns out I was probably wrong.


 
Well, I doubt if you were wrong about most SWP members in most SWP branches being relatively sensible about how they treat young members.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> leyton96
> The defeat of America in Vietnam was in the interest of the international working class, because the debacle for America meant they couldn't go round the world killing people as willy-nilly as the used to do before the defeat.


 
Are you taking the fucking piss, you ahistorical wanker? Have a look at what the US were up to even immediately post-Vietnam (let alone the '80s, 90s and '00s), and even a blind man can see they didn't exactly scale back on their ambitions, they just used some proxies along with their own troops.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The SWP is attacking Italian autonomists for reaching a dead end.


 
This is what's known as "displacement activity". Accuse someone else of doing whatyou've done, in order to shift the focus from you to them. The Swappies have been quite successful at this.



> Fine. But when will the SWP admit that in its own British heartland it might have entered a dead end of its own - a steeplechase from one united front to the next for recruits, kept in small branches fed the line by full-time organisers appointed from above, led by master tacticians who have succeeded in making three large splits over the past five years - a cobweb left, if you like.


 
If one were cynical and/or conspiratastic, one might be drawn to conclude that those master tacticians have mostly just been formulating policy that brings in membership subs/pension contributions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> that only underlines my point. Why do you think Oliver North had to find clandestine means of funding terrorists?
> 
> America is the only country in the world to have been fined guilty by the world Court of terrorism point I picked up from Chomsky.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
> ...


 
An assault on another democracy is an assault on another democracy, whether that's through payola, weapons shipments to insurgents and (as has happened in just about every US "intervention") "military advisors", or through direct and open warfare. You think there weren't US troops in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Cambodia, Laos etc along with the money and guns?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> How did the SWP support the Taliban?
> 
> What form did this support take?


 
Lord Alex sent them a set of ermine robes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> You've drifted to the right Panda. Clearly you never fully grasped the ideas...


 
He's always been agin me, ever since he asked me "have you heard of a man called Trotsky?", and I replied "that cunt? I stabbed him in the head with a meat hook, then set some poor mook up with an icepick to take the fall".
No sense of humour, those Swappites!


----------



## sihhi (Mar 19, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Yup. In the presence of numerous witnesses several of whom were female party members. The incident was in London though not on the South Coast. If my memory serves me correctly I recall her saying that the other women thought she deserved it for cheating on him.


 
What do you make of this kind of letter appearing in the Socialist Worker?

"*Women in struggle*
As a feminist, I’ve always felt really proud when I see women at the front of struggles. The Grunwick strike was an early example of this for me. But the pride deepened when I saw, how the women workers were supported by miners, union branches and socialists—both men and women. We are indeed all in this together—fighting, organising, winning against every attack. Emma Hall, North London"

There's been a number of emotion-heavy type letters about women associated with the SWP fighting back. On one level I suppose the past few months have meant the SWP is forced to be positive about feminism in its publication, OTOH it seems pretty empty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Yup. In the presence of numerous witnesses several of whom were female party members. The incident was in London though not on the South Coast. If my memory serves me correctly I recall her saying that *the other women thought she deserved it for cheating on him*.


 
Looks like some Swappies are fairly into "_bourgeois_ morality" when it suits them.


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 19, 2013)

Hitchens on Trotsky who he continued to admire long after he left the shores of the International Socialists.

It [World War I] had crucially undermined the autocracy, the Romanov dynasty. And I think it had very much discredited the Russian Orthodox Church, for which he [Lenin] had a particular dislike. But he was very willing to finish those jobs, all three of them, to wipe out the Romanov family, to rebuild the army, and under Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army, and to seize the opportunity to confiscate church property and to dissolve, as far as possible, the influence of the church.
One of Lenin’s great achievements, in my opinion, is to create a secular Russia. The power of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was an absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition, is probably never going to recover from what he did to it.




The difficulty was that he also inherited, and partly by his measures created, even more scarcity and economic dislocation. The Bolsheviks had studied what had happened to the French revolution and they knew there was a danger of autocracy developing in their own ranks, and they were always on the look out for another Bonaparte. And the person who most looked like Bonaparte to them was Trotsky, who had flamboyance and military genius and charisma.​


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 19, 2013)

There's some awful rubbish going on here in between the fresh stuff. The 'in 1969 the SWP ate my hamster' type rant makes me want to a) give up on this thread and b) start sticking up for them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 19, 2013)

Always happens when there's no news for a day or two and no bolshiebhoy to keep people focused.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 19, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> There's some awful rubbish going on here in between the fresh stuff. The 'in 1969 the SWP ate my hamster' type rant makes me want to a) give up on this thread and b) start sticking up for them.


 
In 1969 the SWP DID eat my hamster!
Then in 1982 an article appeared in Socialist Worker totally condemning hamster cuisine. There quickly followed a short lived but energetic protest campaign outside local hamster eateries. 

Defend that Oisin, defend that!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> For what it's worth, I don't think the SWP's support to Taliban forces actually meant anything practical or physical.
> But "the horrible politically disgusting Taleban, having a victory over Russian imperialism" was not in the "interests of the working class" as you claim - that victory meant a massive backlash against half the working-class and then some (all non-Pushtun minorities) - killing dead all progressive, working-class ideas as well as even slightly rebellious, slightly anti-fundamentalist people.


I think the distinction between what the SWP said said, and what you're saying, is "international".
So yes you're right about the working class in Afghanistan, but the victory over Russian imperialism had effects for the working class way beyond Afghanistan.  What about the working class of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, all those working classes that gained independence from the Russian Empire, by the collapse of the Russian Empire?
The defeat in Afghanistan played a major role in the collapse of the Empire, and more importantly in the CONFIDENCE of those working classes to rise up against the obviously failing Russian Empire.
Again, I'm not saying that socialist worker is right, I'm not saying that argument is wrong.  All I'm saying is, if you look at the post and what it said about the socialist worker having no consistent line, 





butchersapron said:


> Yep, Neither Washington nor Moscow (itself another example of the tradition not really existing, this coming from the Shachtmanite ISL) turned out to really just mean Not Washington.


 I have clearly proved that is wrong.  They did have a consistent line.


Go back through the thread, someone said that the SWP were baggy.  Prepared to recruit people who hadn't been "vetted" about their politics.  I think  Chilango said "Does it ever occur to you that such coherence is not a good thing?"  You can claim that the coherence is a bad thing, but you cannot claim "there is no way these multiple contradictory positions can be reconciled under a political and theoretical 'tradition'".  I quite clearly have reconciled them from the perspective of the SWP.


leyton96 said:


> It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.
> 
> So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.
> 
> ...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> Whatever.
> 
> The US changed the way it way it carried out military ops post Vietnam. It got better at it. It learnt.
> 
> ...


 if those were better methods of military operations, why didn't use them in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It's a rubbish argument.  Not only were the American population anti-war, sections of the American ruling class were steadfastly against military invasions, and America had to build up gradually.  Grenada, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan before it could pile into Iraq in the way it did. 

Vietnam was quite clearly a major political and military defeat for the American ruling class, and American imperialism.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> I imagine 10 years on the same bulletin board as you might be a factor...


 it would give me great mirth to claim that was due to me , but he is angry when I'm not even here.

He's just a sad sad angry old man.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> You've drifted to the right Panda. Clearly you never fully grasped the ideas...


 no he just started mimicking The Boss


----------



## andysays (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Socialist worker putting the interests of the working class, before the 'purity' of their politics. Even to the point of supporting the horrible politically disgusting Taliban, having a victory over Russian imperialism.


 
WTF!!!      ...

Maybe this point has been addressed and resolved in the last seven hours (I'm catching up after being out most of the day) but in what crazy fucked up world view does "putting the interests of the working class first" equate with "supporting the" as you rightly say "horrible politically disgusting Taliban"???

Just because it involves "having a victory over Russian imperialism"??? Is this the beginning of the "my enemy's enemy is always my friend, no matter how fucking vile and objectively anti-working-class they may be" bullshit???

If you wanted a classic example of how it's all gone horribly, horribly wrong, look no further


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is second hand - comes from my much older brother who was in the SWP in the 80s. But he told me, and he has no reason to lie about it, that the front page of the socialist worker did carry an article supporting the introduction of British troops at least once (years before he joined too but he claims to have seen it). I think it was also him who told me that at one of the university archives (I'm thinking Leeds for some reason but might be wrong) some hack must have gone in there and done a bit of Winston Smith style 'corrections' by tearing off said front page. Again, it's second hand but he has absolutely no reason to have lied and I think it would probably be fairly easy to check too.


 I've asked for a link, and nobody is provided one.  Are these people lying?
seems you're wrong. http://www.marxists.de/ireland/swaug69/index.htm



> The attitude of the International Socialists to the introduction of British troops in August 1969 has been a subject of much controversy on some parts of the left. The usual allegation is along the lines that *Socialist Worker* either called for the introduction of troops or welcomed them. The articles below are from the first issue of the paper after the deployment of troops. Whether the line adopted was correct or not, it should be clear from the articles that the allegations described above are false and that the IS didn’t regard the troops as the solution of the crisis.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 19, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> There's some awful rubbish going on here in between the fresh stuff. The 'in 1969 the SWP ate my hamster' type rant makes me want to a) give up on this thread and b) start sticking up for them.


 
I though what was going on, was that people were pointing out that the SWP/IS tradition has proved itself to be so internally contradictory that it doesn't actually constitute a coherent and sustained tradition.

Taking a different tack some have also been suggesting that that there is insufficiently unique/innovative content to make it a distinctive tradition.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it would give me great mirth to claim that was due to me , but he is angry when I'm not even here.
> 
> He's just a sad sad angry old man.


 
Nope, he's really not. He's passionate.
I can see how someone as keen on dogmatic politcs as you are might wish to view that passion as anger, though, as it would mean you could (and do) brush off whatever he posts without having to analyse what he's saying and why - without having to exercise the slightest bit of reflexivity.

The above-mentioned lack of self-awareness and self-analysis is why you are treated as a joke by many posters in UK P & P. You've all the political acumen of a broken 8-track cartridge, and you repeat the same old bollocks as often as one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I though what was going on, was that people were pointing out that the SWP/IS tradition has proved itself to be so internally contradictory that it doesn't actually constitute a coherent and sustained tradition.
> 
> Taking a different tack some have also been suggesting that that there is insufficiently unique/innovative content to make it a distinctive tradition.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
So, more like a schism, then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> no he just started mimicking The Boss


 
I don't mimic anybody. I leave that to you with your constant "I agree with Cliff when he said" and "I agree with Harman when he said".

And who's "the boss"?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's always been agin me, ever since he asked me "have you heard of a man called Trotsky?", and I replied "that cunt? I stabbed him in the head with a meat hook, then set some poor mook up with an icepick to take the fall".
> No sense of humour, those Swappites!


 neither have you by the look of it, don't give up your day job,


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

andysays said:


> WTF!!!      ...
> 
> Maybe this point has been addressed and resolved in the last seven hours (I'm catching up after being out most of the day) but in what crazy fucked up world view does "putting the interests of the working class first" equate with "supporting the" as you rightly say "horrible politically disgusting Taliban"???
> 
> ...


 
As someone said earlier, defeating Russian imperialism to replace it with Pushtun imperialism.
Of course, more accurately, "defeating Russian imperialism" merely opened the door to Saudi colonialism, in terms of opening up a new frontier to which the Saudis could conveniently export their more fanatical citizens.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The above-mentioned lack of self-awareness and self-analysis is why you are treated as a joke by many posters in UK P & P. You've all the political acumen of a broken 8-track cartridge, and you repeat the same old bollocks as often as one.


and still you quote, still you engage. you know exactly what's coming, so why do it?

it's fucking this thread up (as it does any other he contributes to). you know this will happen, so i can only conclude that you're just as bad as him, if not worse.

this is pissing me off now, page after page of utterly irrelevant, boring shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> neither have you by the look of it, don't give up your day job,


 
I see that you still haven't worked out that just because *you* don't get a joke, it doesn't mean that it contains no humour.

I bet you'd have thought it was funny if Alex Callinicos had said it, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> and still you quote, still you engage. you know exactly what's coming, so why do it?


 
Because I don't believe in "no platform" in *any* form.



> it's fucking this thread up (as it does any other he contributes to). you know this will happen, so i can only conclude that you're just as bad as him, if not worse.
> 
> this is pissing me off now, page after page of utterly irrelevant, boring shit.


 
So what? Am I supposed to swoon to the floor and repent because you and irritable are pissed off? Go have a wank.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

that's it, i'm putting the pair of you wankers on ignore. fondle each other as much as you like.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> and still you quote, still you engage. you know exactly what's coming, so why do it?
> 
> it's fucking this thread up (as it does any other he contributes to). you know this will happen, so i can only conclude that you're just as bad as him, if not worse.
> 
> this is pissing me off now, page after page of utterly irrelevant, boring shit.


 if people are going to make false accusations, they have to be prepared to defend them.  Otherwise, they just look like sectarians singing Laa-Laa

I think what it is, I prick people's conscience when they try to claim that socialist worker aren't genuine socialists.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> and still you quote, still you engage. you know exactly what's coming, so why do it?
> 
> it's fucking this thread up (as it does any other he contributes to). you know this will happen, so i can only conclude that you're just as bad as him, if not worse.
> 
> this is pissing me off now, page after page of utterly irrelevant, boring shit.



It's hardly the most crucial thread is it? "SWP expulsions and squabbles" ?

Obviously all the rape allegations and so on are pretty serious in their own right. 

But the fate of the SWP? C'mon...RMP3 is simply reminding us all of how SWPies can be in case we get distracted by overly sensible discussion.

I doubt there's much more to see from the SWP/ISN splt now anyway...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> As someone said earlier, defeating Russian imperialism to replace it with Pushtun imperialism.
> Of course, more accurately, "defeating Russian imperialism" merely opened the door to Saudi colonialism, in terms of opening up a new frontier to which the Saudis could conveniently export their more fanatical citizens.


 you miss the topic of the original post.


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because I don't believe in "no platform" in *any* form.


ignoring someone is in no way 'no platform'ing them


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> It's hardly the most crucial thread is it? "SWP expulsions and squabbles" ?
> 
> Obviously all the rape allegations and so on are pretty serious in their own right.
> 
> ...


 you should set that to butchers earlier stressing about this thread being so important.  Bloody hell, it's a chit chat room, no more.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you should set that to butchers earlier stressing about this thread being so important.  Bloody hell, it's a chit chat room, no more.



Why should I? He can read what I just wrote.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I see that you still haven't worked out that just because *you* don't get a joke, it doesn't mean that it contains no humour.
> 
> I bet you'd have thought it was funny if Alex Callinicos had said it, though.


 okay, take that you 'joke' down the comedy store, and see how you get on


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

In fairness threads work better (usually) when they stay reasonably "on topic". It's just in this case RMP3 does fit neatly into a discussion of how the SWP goes wrong....


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> Why should I? He can read what I just wrote.


 yes he can.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> In fairness threads work better (usually) when they stay reasonably "on topic". It's just in this case RMP3 does fit neatly into a discussion of how the SWP goes wrong....


  Chilango you're going to hurt my feelings.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

I note you've not had much to say on the mess the SWP is in, or the (latest) split.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Chilango you're going to hurt my feelings.


I doubt that.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

chilango said:


> It's hardly the most crucial thread is it? "SWP expulsions and squabbles" ?
> 
> Obviously all the rape allegations and so on are pretty serious in their own right.
> 
> ...


rmp isn't a good example of swappies. he's a bullshitting nutcase. bb is a better example of loyalist thought.

you could say the same about all the threads on this board, should we let moronic trolls fuck them all up?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

Come come comrades, this thread is essential for the class struggle.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> rmp isn't a good example of swappies. he's a bullshitting nutcase. bb is a better example of loyalist thought.
> 
> you could say the same about all the threads on this board, should we let moronic trolls fuck them all up?


 come come comrade, this is inconsistent sectarianism towards the SWP.


----------



## chilango (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> rmp isn't a good example of swappies. he's a bullshitting nutcase. bb is a better example of loyalist thought.
> 
> you could say the same about all the threads on this board, should we let moronic trolls fuck them all up?



Well I'm out of here till some point tomorrow. We'll see what the morning brings new to the thread...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 19, 2013)

put rmp3 on ignore you nutters


----------



## andysays (Mar 19, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Come come comrades, this thread is essential for the class struggle.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 19, 2013)

Its always been a bit hairy, being a member of the SWP. My mates ear was bitten off by someone who is now on the central committee, I do believe (or at least he is an organiser of some description. What kind of revolting pathological cunt would you have to be to do that to someone? 

The victim was an incredibly dedicated and loyal party comrade. Because he swallowed the Leninist dogma he didn't kick up a fuss. He has been on a lifetime sabbatical out of the party pretty much ever since.

If that was an organiser in the  BNP there would be a big song and dance about it.

The SWP are right in once sense - horrible right wing witch-hunt going on, courtesy of Harry's Place. But they brought it on themselves with this pathological 'build the party/let any old cunt join, as-long-as-the-braindead-donut-can-prop-up-a-banner-who-gives-a-fuck?' attitude.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Its always been a bit hairy, being a member of the SWP. My mates ear was bitten off by someone who is now on the central committee, I do believe (or at least he is an organiser of some description. What kind of revolting pathological cunt would you have to be to do that to someone?
> 
> The victim was an incredibly dedicated and loyal party comrade. Because he swallowed the Leninist dogma he didn't kick up a fuss. He has been on a lifetime sabbatical out of the party pretty much ever since.
> 
> If that was an organiser in the BNP there would be a big song and dance about it.


can you imagine the treatment he'd get if it was callinicos that he'd bit?




> The SWP are right in once sense - horrible right wing witch-hunt going on, courtesy of Harry's Place. But they brought it on themselves with this pathological 'build the party/let any old cunt join, as-long-as-the-braindead-donut-can-prop-up-a-banner-who-gives-a-fuck?' attitude.


i don't for a second believe that to be the root of their problem.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i don't for a second believe that to be the root of their problem.


 
Can I ask, what in your opinion, is the root of the problem?


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I though what was going on, was that people were pointing out that the SWP/IS tradition has proved itself to be so internally contradictory that it doesn't actually constitute a coherent and sustained tradition.


The one doesnt really follow from the other.  Those 'contradictions' are simply their attempts to apply the principles of the tradition in practise. Sometimes they get it wrong and so its different next time.  Sometimes they forget the tradition they stand in, and get it really wrong.  But doing such things doesn't mean there isn't any kind of tradition.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> So what is the root of the problem in your opinion?


lack of democracy, top down structure leading to an out of touch leadership, substitutionism, lack of working class members, general state of the class struggle.

i'm a fan of open membership, more people to learn from.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 19, 2013)

Unsuprisingly - you could carve out a Psycho style family tree via the connections - Comrade Cannibal is friends with the Sheffield Rapist on FB.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 19, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What do you make of this kind of letter appearing in the Socialist Worker?
> 
> "*Women in struggle*
> As a feminist, I’ve always felt really proud when I see women at the front of struggles. The Grunwick strike was an early example of this for me. But the pride deepened when I saw, how the women workers were supported by miners, union branches and socialists—both men and women. We are indeed all in this together—fighting, organising, winning against every attack. Emma Hall, North London"
> ...


 
The letters are not necessarily untrue, but given the context their proliferation is little more than  obfuscation analogous to an attempt to pull the "I'm not X-ist I've got lots of X friends" defence. Bunch of cunts. Frankly I'm getting bored of the revelations, especially as they seem to have taken a bizarre twist into 70s "sex in a box" party games and chocolate scat orgies. This, I need not.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Looks like some Swappies are fairly into "_bourgeois_ morality" when it suits them.


 
I'm not sure. This chap had some strange power over some of the women in that group. I could never understand it, he was quite obviously a vile prick. There be dragons I fear!


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 19, 2013)

kavenism said:


> Frankly I'm getting bored of the revelations, especially as they seem to have taken a bizarre twist into 70s "sex in a box" party games and chocolate scat orgies. This, I need not.


 
I quite agree. This latest chocolate fingers 'revelation' is nothing short of a re-write of Abigail's Party for Marxists.

But there is something more fundamental emerging - the concept of 'the party' as representative of 'the elect' is bullshit that has finally been kicked into exinction.

Someone more erudite than I will ever be should write up a critique of this whole sad sorry affair at some point (needless to say, it won't be a trotskyist that writes the obit.)  2013 surely is the death of Leninism - even if it does leave the stage to the tune of a wet fart rather than to the sound of Wagner's _Valkyries_.


----------



## kavenism (Mar 19, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Unsuprisingly - you could carve out a Psycho style family tree via the connections - Comrade Cannibal is friends with the Sheffield Rapist on FB.


According to his FB he's also a fan of John Coltrane  Are all these fucking Smiths the same? Permanent Jazzz


----------



## discokermit (Mar 19, 2013)

the jazz-rape axis.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 19, 2013)

What a fan club. John Coltrane must be spinning in his grave.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 19, 2013)

kavenism said:


> According to his FB he's also a fan of John Coltrane  Are all these fucking Smiths the same? Permanent Jazzz


I have already explained on this thread how the whole thing is about jazz, does no one listen?


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> The one doesnt really follow from the other.  Those 'contradictions' are simply their attempts to apply the principles of the tradition in practise. Sometimes they get it wrong and so its different next time.  Sometimes they forget the tradition they stand in, and get it really wrong.  But doing such things doesn't mean there isn't any kind of tradition.


Well put. Or look at it the other way. Raising exactly the same slogan under all circumstances is not a sign of stern rigorous thinking, but sterility.


----------



## october_lost (Mar 20, 2013)

chilango said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations





chilango said:


> Whatever.
> 
> The US changed the way it way it carried out military ops post Vietnam. It got better at it. It learnt.
> 
> ...





chilango said:


> How did the SWP support the Taliban?
> 
> What form did this support take?
> 
> What was the point?


I order you to step away from the keyboard. You have to give other people a turn.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> The one doesnt really follow from the other. Those 'contradictions' are simply their attempts to apply the principles of the tradition in practise. *Sometimes they get it wrong* and so its different next time. *Sometimes they forget the tradition* they stand in, and get it really wrong. But doing such things doesn't mean there isn't any kind of tradition.


 
Thanks Belboid - can you point me to where the IS/SWP put their hands up to getting it wrong or forgetting? My experience of the Leninist left is that rather than make such admissions/acknowledge such short comings, they (and that includes me in the past) prefer to rewrite their histories to present a narrative of ongoing success. 

This seems to show that the an actual key enduring characteristic of the Leninist tradition (rather than the claimed specifics of a particular organisation) is the need for the vanguard to present itself as having always been right.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## eoin_k (Mar 20, 2013)

Is that not a bit harsh? I'm sure that the SWP leadership would acknowledge having been too open in the past to incorrect tendencies including workerism, autonomism, feminism and squadism. Rest assured that the lessons of history have been learned and such errors will not be repeated.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 20, 2013)

the beacon of trotskyism that never goes out


----------



## Rimbaud (Mar 20, 2013)

Never been much of a lefty trainspotter so I don't have too much to add to this discussion, but I did used to be a member of the SWP so thought I'd just share my two cents about my experience with that.

I was a member for a little bit over a year I guess, and it was quite a year - 2010/11, when all the student protests were kicking off and so on. I was aware of the criticisms of the SWP, (which is why I hadn't joined earlier) but eventually decided that they were somewhat hypocritical - it seemed to me like smaller but equally sectarian lefty groups criticising a larger and more competent organisation for behaviour which they were just as guilty of. I still think there's a lot of truth in that observation.

So, the Tories had just come to power, and I wanted to do something, but I didn't want to part of a tiny insignificant sect who couldn't get anything done. If I was to make a difference, I would be better off giving my time to the largest and apparently most effective lefty organisation, warts and all. I suppose that's a fairly common motivation for getting involved with the SWP.

But it wasn't what I had hoped for, which I'm sure won't come as a surprise to anybody here. Now that the Tories were in power and the welfare state was under threat, neoliberal ideas had been discredited, and the Labour Party commanded only very limited and half-hearted support, I envisaged the disparate and fragmented left coalescing around a united struggle against cutbacks and becoming a radical political force capable of replacing the Labour Party as the main left party. I assumed that the SWP, despite being infected with self-important sectarianism, was still fundamentally led by sincere revolutionaries who would be willing to put the cause ahead of the party. So I joined the SWP, went to all the meetings, helped out on stalls, and so on. The other members seemed like good people and the whole thing felt very exciting, and I had a feeling of belonging. Nevertheless, I was a bit disorientated and didn't really understand what was going on, what the strategy was, or on what basis decisions were made. I had hoped - perhaps arrogantly? - to have some sort of influence on the direction of the organisation, and I had hoped to be working towards building a united front. But unfortunately, debate in meetings never had anything to do with overall strategy (which is what I had initially imagined) and had a very narrow focus around who was leafleting, who was manning stalls, paper sales, and so on. At first I thought I must just not understand the logic behind this, and I hadn't been a member long enough to understand how these decisions were made. It wasn't till much later that I realised it wasn't that I didn't understand after all - it was just that the CC basically dictated our activities with very little input from ourselves.

First started to feel disillusioned when we travelled to some conference in London about building the student movement with some other activists not from the SWP. Some guy from the National Coalition Against Fees and Cuts made an impassioned speech about merging NCAFC and the SWP's Education Activist Network into one organisation. Seemed a no-brainer. So we had a vote on it, and I was shocked to see all my comrades in the SWP voting against. I asked one of the more senior members of our branch about what was the logic behind this and I just got some bullshit dismissive answer about how there's a lot of background politics that are quite complicated and would take a long time to explain. Well, great.

Nevertheless, I stuck it out in the organisation. I think I just reluctantly accepted that they weren't going to cooperate with the rest of the left, and maybe the best I could hope for was for one lefty organisation to eventually absorb all others so I may as well just resign myself to trying to build the party. Nevertheless, I felt like I was quite ineffective at this, as I couldn't really think of any good reasons to encourage others to join given that my own reasons were so half-hearted.

I never formally left the party I think, but I cancelled my direct debit when I was low on cash and never bothered renewing it. I graduated from uni, got a shitty job in a call centre and I was too busy working overtime to save up money to get out of there so I pretty much gave up on activism. Still felt some vague sympathy for the SWP, but nevertheless whenever I talked to people about them I found that I had nothing but bad words to say.

Hearing about this rape thing though, has confirmed all my worst suspicions about the SWP and makes me feel pretty depressed about the whole thing, and I feel stupid for not trusting my own intuition when it was trying to set off alarm bells and assuming that the party must surely know better. (I was also suffering from depression during my year of membership, which might explain a lot of my decisions during that time - I also remember being a little concerned that people who were emotionally weak or unhappy in some way seemed to be over-represented in the organisation, but just looked at the members who appeared to be strong individuals to assauge my worries) I think my personal experience of it - a transient and ultimately dispiriting experience, marked by disorientation and blindly following orders - is fairly representative of the typical "joined briefly as a student" ex-member. It seemed to me like the CC was pretty unaccountable and idealist grunts like myself were mainly being used as a source of income to keep the organisation going at any costs. 

It does all stem from Leninism as an organisational model I think. There were a lot of good people in the party, but it did seem like there was no time for any ideas that hadn't come from the CC and a lot of the younger members, who weren't necessarilly willing to make SWP their life rather than just a part of their life, seemed to be pretty clueless and uninformed about what was going on and just followed orders to try and make themselves fit in. As a result, only the members who were willing to follow the party line resolutely and dedicate a large part of their lives to the SWP could have any hope of shaping the organisation while the majority of members only stayed for as long as it took them to realise they weren't achieving anything but perpetuating the SWP for its own sake. The result is a rather cultish core grouping with heavy emotional investment in maintaining the organisation at all costs. Well - I don't think my analysis on it is going to tell you anything you don't already know. Suffice to say, I now realise that the failure of the USSR cannot be blamed exclusively on its backwardness but also on Leninism as an organisational model - however, it could be said that it is the backwardness of Tsarist Russia which gave rise to Leninism as a political form. Replicating it in developed western nations, where some democratic rights (however imperfect) have already been won, makes absolutely no sense and a Leninist Party does not stand any chance of attracting a significant following.

Leninism aside, there is a place for building a party, although it must be pluralist and open rather than "democratic-centralist." The problem I find with the left at the moment is that it is so scared of taking power in case it ends up creating another USSR. I think the left-communist idea of a revolution coming from occupied workplaces is unrealistic - you do need to take state control as well, and you simply must stand in elections. There is no hope of _ever, ever_ having credibility in the eyes of the general public if you do not take part in elections. I know there is TUSC, but I don't think they are really serious about getting elected - what policies do they have exactly? I don't know, and I haven't see anything to suggest that they do either. All the crap in the left over the last decade or so, from ethical consumerism to identity politics, seems like a way to avoid serious political engagement and coming up with a workable program to bring about a socialist society. You can't win people over on vague principles and the general idea of a socialist society - you can only win people over if you're fighting for identifiable goals and can explain exactly how you'd do things differently if you were in government. Until the radical left can unite as part of a pluralist political party and develop a political programme with positive content, absolutely nothing will change. Here's hoping that this crisis in the SWP really is the death of leninism on the left and will create the conditions for this to happen.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 20, 2013)

Talking to an ex SWP member last night now in the Labour Party who told me that in his opinion the Labour Party was more democratic, transparent  and more women friendly than the SWP and that this sort of thing couldn't be covered up in the Labour Party. I did point out that he had never had any experience of Salford or any other Labour Party fiefdoms.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

(Just dropping this in here as can't think where else to put it and it does sort of touch on a few issues raised on the thread - extraordinary article on the WSWS on the Steubenville case).


----------



## belboid (Mar 20, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Thanks Belboid - can you point me to where the IS/SWP put their hands up to getting it wrong or forgetting? My experience of the Leninist left is that rather than make such admissions/acknowledge such short comings, they (and that includes me in the past) prefer to rewrite their histories to present a narrative of ongoing success.
> 
> This seems to show that the an actual key enduring characteristic of the Leninist tradition (rather than the claimed specifics of a particular organisation) is the need for the vanguard to present itself as having always been right.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


therein lie another thread!  Fuck ups the left have admitted to.....


----------



## Random (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> (Just dropping this in here as can't think where else to put it and it does sort of touch on a few issues raised on the thread - extraordinary article on the WSWS on the Steubenville case).


Wake up sheeple! Stuff the WSWS disagrees with: media-manufactured and toxic. When CNN does things WSWS agrees with: it's "elementary compassion." Does the WSWS have a record of simple contrarianism? Or is this some kind of holding the line against left-feminism?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2013)

kavenism said:


> I'm not sure. This chap had some strange power over some of the women in that group. I could never understand it, he was quite obviously a vile prick. There be dragons I fear!


 
I suspect that the "strange power" is actually just the usual power-dynamic between parties playing out. It's fairly commonplace, especially in academic and political circles where, by default, the "in-group" tends to be small. This in turn makes the whole power/knowledge balance even more asymmetric in favour of the (usually male) dominant/senior person. If that person decides to abuse their power/dominance over another person, then you'll often get the sort of cleavages of opinion that the SWP revelations have produced - people siding with the abuser for various reasons (internal politics; ontological security; intellectual investment, for example), and others siding with the victims for various reasons. Those that fall in behind the abuser do tend to look like some strange power is being weilded over them, but generally the reasons for doing so are many and varied.


----------



## treelover (Mar 20, 2013)

Hi Rimbaud, welcome to P/P, I think your post sums up the path to disillusionment many young people go through with the SWP and its consequences, this is why i have no compulsion in saying I hope this is the end for them.....

bte, lots of new people on here now...


oh, and I hope you stay on the boards...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are you taking the fucking piss, you ahistorical wanker? Have a look at what the US were up to even immediately post-Vietnam (let alone the '80s, 90s and '00s), and even a blind man can see they didn't exactly scale back on their ambitions, they just used some proxies along with their own troops.


 you seriously believe there was no difference in American military policy after the Vietnam debacle?  You don't think the defeat had any effect whatsoever on the consciousness, mindset, of America?


----------



## Random (Mar 20, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you seriously believe there was no difference in American military policy after the Vietnam debacle?  You don't think the defeat had any effect whatsoever on the consciousness, mindset, of America?


Yes of course there was a difference. People like Colon Powell developed theories that the US should only ever use overwhelming force. And others worked well to control the media ever more tightly. And regarding the political elite's ambitions, I think it's Howard Zinn's history book which shows that the Carter era involved a lot of foreign interventions.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> never seems to be much coherance with anything the SWP says or does as witnessed by the above discussion over its homage to/opposition to identity politics and by the hypocracy demonstrated in the last post. Probably the only way one can explain it is if one principle - the principle of recruitment - is the only one posited that they pay any homage too. One cannot help but be reminded of St Pauls (Badious wonderful father of universalism)infamous "I am all things to all men" speech when it came towards how he tailored the xtian message to different audiences...
> 
> *1 Corinthians 9:19-22*
> 
> ...


To continue this theme - was this bolshiebhoy or John the apostle:



> They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.


 
1 John 2:19


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 20, 2013)

treelover said:


> Hi Rimbaud, welcome to P/P, I think your post sums up the path to disillusionment many young people go through with the SWP and its consequences, this is why i have no compulsion in saying I hope this is the end for them.....
> 
> bte, lots of new people on here now...
> 
> ...


 
I remember being pleased about the end of the CP on the grounds it was our turn next. I don't agree with the politics of the SWP anymore but I don't see anyone on the left's turn next.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 20, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I've asked for a link, and nobody is provided one. Are these people lying?
> seems you're wrong. http://www.marxists.de/ireland/swaug69/index.htm


 
I brought this up with an SWP fulltimer (well, he just quit to join the faction) the other day and he thinks they posed British troops as a good thing in 1969. Also, they did, we all know they did.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 20, 2013)

Random said:


> Wake up sheeple! Stuff the WSWS disagrees with: media-manufactured and toxic. When CNN does things WSWS agrees with: it's "elementary compassion." Does the WSWS have a record of simple contrarianism? Or is this some kind of holding the line against left-feminism?


 
The WSWS are basically a sham outfit run by a union busting cunt, if ever the title "left of capital" was appropriate it is them, i wouldn't trust anything they say.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> To contine this theme - was this bolshiebhoy or John the apostle:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 John 2:19


 I like this post, because it is quite typical of the analysis of the SWP on here.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 20, 2013)

Just as an aside...

I think Lenin (and Trotsky) had some genuinely brilliant things to say about political economy, class formations and how a revolutionary organisation can challenge them. They took Marxist analysis, developed it, and generated ideas about changing capitalism which are still incredibly relevant today. I've never called myself a Leninist (or a Trotskyist - though I'm a member of a 'Trotskyist' party).

The point being, if people wanna critique/slag off 'Lenism' or 'Democratic Centralism', then fine, go ahead.

But a lot of people seem to be voicing this idea that: "The SWP is in a right mess and that just goes to show that Leninism and Democratic Centralism don't work."

That's total fucking bullshit - they share no method with Lenin or anyone else, and they certainly don't practice the 'democratic' part of democratic centralism. The IS tradition, if it means anything, means "GET EXCITED! RECRUIT! DO AS CLIFF SAYS!" That's why they're fucked - stop blaming dead russians!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

Anything which produces an ossified leadership doesn't work. DC does. So it's fair enough comment.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I remember being pleased about the end of the CP on the grounds it was our turn next. I don't agree with the politics of the SWP anymore but I don't see anyone on the left's turn next.


 
The main problem with thinking "it's our turn next" about the disappearance of the CP, is that even if you were right, it wouldn't be much to aspire to.

The SWP's downward spiral will open up some minor opportunities for other groups. A few people recruited at some university stall who might otherwise have joined SWSS. The opportunity to run some single issue campaign that the SWP might have got their mitts on first. But it's not going to change anything significant for anybody else. In fact, the ability of opponents of the left to use the SWP's disaster to attack the left more generally will more than outweigh whatever benefits accrue to any other organisation.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I brought this up with an SWP fulltimer (well, he just quit to join the faction) the other day and he thinks they posed British troops as a good thing in 1969. Also, they did, we all know they did.


 and he thinks?

This is some German website.  Not sure who they are, whether they have affiliated to the SWP are not.  It was the first link on a Google search I did.  They say;
The attitude of the International Socialists to the introduction of British troops in August 1969 has been a subject of much controversy on some parts of the left. The usual allegation is along the lines that *Socialist Worker* either called for the introduction of troops or welcomed them. The articles below are from the first issue of the paper after the deployment of troops. Whether the line adopted was correct or not, it should be clear from the articles that the allegations described above are false and that the IS didn’t regard the troops as the solution of the crisis.
In the appendix are the articles on Ireland from the *Socialist Worker*, No.137, published on 11 September. These show how the position developed in the weeks after the introduction of British troops.

*But it should not be thought that the presence of British troops can begin to solve their problems.*

I don't mean any disrespect, but why should I believe you when I can see in black-and-white in the paper in the first issue after the deployment of troops?


----------



## belboid (Mar 20, 2013)

phew - some actual SWP news!

Various leading members of the Canadian IS have resigned. 

http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/statement-of-resignation-is-canada.html


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

Why not D macanlly?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I remember being pleased about the end of the CP on the grounds it was our turn next. I don't agree with the politics of the SWP anymore but I don't see anyone on the left's turn next.


 the SWP though celebrating and welcoming the end of their politics, did create a meaningful caveat saying that the end of the CP was a great loss in terms of activists who could be relied upon to act in the workers movement.  A similar situation will occur with the end of the SWP, in my opinion.  The left will get smaller.

What good do people think will come from the end of the SWP?  How will other groups on the left benefit?  How will the working class benefit?

I have my doubts there will be any benefits, to anyone.


----------



## belboid (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why not D macanlly?


cos he left several years ago


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Anything which produces an ossified leadership doesn't work. DC does. So it's fair enough comment.



Butchers, argue the point or don't post. Asserting that "DC produces an ossified leadership" as if it's a fact rather than your opinion is lazy.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 20, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> and he thinks?
> 
> This is some German website. Not sure who they are, whether they have affiliated to the SWP are not. It was the first link on a Google search I did. They say;
> The attitude of the International Socialists to the introduction of British troops in August 1969 has been a subject of much controversy on some parts of the left. The usual allegation is along the lines that *Socialist Worker* either called for the introduction of troops or welcomed them. The articles below are from the first issue of the paper after the deployment of troops. Whether the line adopted was correct or not, it should be clear from the articles that the allegations described above are false and that the IS didn’t regard the troops as the solution of the crisis.
> ...


 
"*The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists."
*You just linked to the evidence for me, you muppet.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Butchers, argue the point or don't post. Asserting that "DC produces an ossified leadership" as if it's a fact rather than your opinion is lazy.


 not going to happen.  No matter how hard you try.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why not D macanlly?


 
He led a previous split. Also over democracy etc.

[beaten to it by belboid]


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> cos he left several years ago


That would do it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He led a previous split. Also over democracy etc.
> 
> [beaten to it by belboid]


Left Abbie "kronsdat" Bakan as the gladio stay behind.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 20, 2013)

Where is the SWP recruiting atm? - when they tried to recruit me in the 1990s it was because I was a union rep at a Local Authority and voted with them on a couple of issues (can't remember the details) I still know a few Swappies in the public sector - is that their main hunting ground?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Butchers, argue the point or don't post. Asserting that "DC produces an ossified leadership" as if it's a fact rather than your opinion is lazy.


Argue the point or don't post? Have you had a look at the post i was responding to? Is that your example of what arguing the point looks like?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Left Abbie "kronsdat" Bakan as the gladio stay behind.


 
Well, it's probably relatively easy for this lot to resign as they already have somewhere obvious to go.

Which, incidentally, is one of the problems having a bunch of other "IS type" groups having around Britain now poses for the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well, it's probably relatively easy for this lot to resign as they already have somewhere obvious to go.
> 
> Which, incidentally, is one of the problems having a bunch of other "IS type" groups having around Britain now poses for the SWP.


It certainly does on the campus hunting grounds. That student monopoly has been fractured with what will prove to be real consequences a few years down the line (if they are still here).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2013)

marty21 said:


> Where is the SWP recruiting atm? - when they tried to recruit me in the 1990s it was because I was a union rep at a Local Authority and voted with them on a couple of issues (can't remember the details) I still know a few Swappies in the public sector - is that their main hunting ground?


 
No. They recruit on campus and they recruit randoms who apply over the internet or on protests etc. They don't recruit through their union work in any significant number.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> "*The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists."*
> You just linked to the evidence for me, you muppet.


Ahhhhhhhhhh! This is beginning to make some sense now where the notion that there was some kind of contradiction.


sihhi said:


> In 1964 and 1966 Labour Weekly calls for a Labour vote, but Socialist Worker as it becomes is against it in 1970. It is in favour of British troops into northern Ireland in 1969, but becomes Troops Out at some point in the 1970s. Again each of these things needs its own thread - but there is no unchangeable IS tradition.


 
I don't think the statement of fact, (do you honestly believe if the troops hadn't been there there wouldn't have been a pogrom?) Can be construed as supporting the troops as some kind of solution? It clearly states they were NOT the solution, and that is the same reason for troops out in the 1970s.

So from your point of view, are these people lying? "The usual allegation is along the lines that *Socialist Worker* either called for the introduction of troops or welcomed them. The articles below are from the first issue of the paper after the deployment of troops. Whether the line adopted was correct or not, it should be clear from the articles that the allegations described above are false and that the IS didn’t regard the troops as the solution of the crisis."

No disrespect, it just fascinates me how people can come to completely different conclusions from reading the same article.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Argue the point or don't post? Have you had a look at the post i was responding to? Is that your example of what arguing the point looks like?


 what did I tell you sparkle frog


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> The point being, if people wanna critique/slag off 'Lenism' or 'Democratic Centralism', then fine, go ahead.


OK.



SpackleFrog said:


> I've never called myself a Leninist (or a Trotskyist - though I'm a member of a 'Trotskyist' party)


1. Is the executive committe of your party elected as a slate?
2. Who proposes this slate?
3. Who sets the agenda for the party's conference?
4. Who chooses the organisers and who are they answerable to?
5. Can they issue binding instructions to ordinary members?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog, in fairness to you, it does appear that http://www.marxists.de might be something to do with the German sister organisation of the SWP, as they link to bookmarks.

This is pertinent to the thread, because the thread isn't just dwelling upon the car crash, people are claiming that this is the result of Leninism.  "Anything that leads to an ossified leadership".

This is 1969.  If you can seriously believe that a Leninist organisation could contradict its basic principles this early in the formation of the International Socialist tendency, then you should give up on Leninism.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Left Abbie "kronsdat" Bakan as the gladio stay behind.


i shared a house with her at marxism once. no sense of humour. although i'm not a hundred percent sure she could actually understand a word i was saying.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i shared a house with her at marxism once. no sense of humour. although i'm not a hundred percent sure she could actually understand a word i was saying.


Because she was french speaking or your bilston demeanour?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Because she was french speaking or your bilston demeanour?


the bilston bit.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> phew - some actual SWP news!
> 
> Various leading members of the Canadian IS have resigned.
> 
> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/statement-of-resignation-is-canada.html



This must mean they are a minority of the Canadian I. S. Shame.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> "*The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists."*
> You just linked to the evidence for me, you muppet.


 
Didn't Militant call for united workers defence squads  at the time?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Didn't Militant call for united workers defence squads at the time?


 
One of the few situations where that proposal was actually appropriate. They also opposed the sending in of British troops.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> This must mean they are a minority of the Canadian I. S. Shame.


 
Well, according to someone still in the IS on facebook, the whole organisation was opposed to the British CC. The issue they were divided on was whether or not it would be appropriate to intervene publicly into the factional dispute. (ie an Irish style, we're against but not against enough to actually say it, position).


----------



## andysays (Mar 20, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> Is that not a bit harsh? I'm sure that the SWP leadership would acknowledge having been too open in the past to incorrect tendencies including workerism, autonomism, feminism and squadism. Rest assured that the lessons of history have been learned and such errors will not be repeated.


 
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia Eurasia Eastasia etc...


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> One of the few situations where that proposal was actually appropriate. They also opposed the sending in of British troops.


 
appropriate in what way?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> appropriate in what way?


 
Something that was both a good idea in the abstract and which actually had at least some resonance at the time. The first part is often true, the second very rarely. There's an interesting document mentioned on the cedar lounge archive from an actual local trade union backed defence group, by the way.

As far as the SWP position goes, it was wrong and it's a bit embarrassing given their tendency to declare various issues linked to imperialism to be litmus tests for socialists, but I actually don't think it's something worth slagging them off about a trifling 44 years later. It was quite an understandable mistake to make, given that it reflected a widespread feeling at the time in Catholic working class areas.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 20, 2013)

That's not the point though, it's not about that issue, buit about what it says about the sort of leadership that they say that they necessarily - by their very existence - provide.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Something that was both a good idea in the abstract and which actually had at least some resonance at the time. The first part is often true, the second very rarely. There's an interesting document mentioned on the cedar lounge archive from an actual local trade union backed defence group, by the way.
> 
> As far as the SWP position goes, it was wrong and it's a bit embarrassing given their tendency to declare various issues linked to imperialism to be litmus tests for socialists, but I actually don't think it's something worth slagging them off about a trifling 44 years later. It was quite an understandable mistake to make, given that it reflected a widespread feeling at the time in Catholic working class areas.


 
This is what Militant also said in September 1969 “A slaughter would have followed in comparison with which the blood letting in Belfast would have paled into insignificance if the Labour government had not intervened with British troops"


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2013)

Well, sure, but I'm not sure that even the SWP claim to provide "the kind of leadership" that is incapable of fucking up.

There's another point to consider too, which is that at least as I understand it, during the early part of the troubles the IS were in part "contracting out" their line on Ireland to various Irish socialists who weren't members of theirs. And while those Irish leftists mostly had the advantage of being on the ground, they also tended to be very inexperienced and quite prone to wild swings in their assessments.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> This is what Militant also said in September 1969 “A slaughter would have followed in comparison with which the blood letting in Belfast would have paled into insignificance if the Labour government had not intervened with British troops"


 
Read the whole of Militant's coverage. Starting with the first sentence below the headline: Withdraw British Troops. It's pretty clear about its opposition to sending in the troops. The problem was not in the SWP pointing out some factual benefits of the troop's presence, but in the lack of a wider oppositional context. And that that was a deliberate decision, taken because of the popularity of the troops in Catholic working class areas, not an oversight. Not that I think it matters at 44 years remove.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Read the whole of Militant's coverage. It's pretty clear about its opposition to sending in the troops. The problem was not in the SWP pointing out some factual benefits of the troop's presence, but in the lack of a wider oppositional context. And that that was a deliberate decision, taken because of the popularity of the troops in Catholic working class areas, not an oversight. Not that I think it matters at 44 years remove.


 
I have read the whole lot ,haven't argued you were in favour and  agree with fact that the troops were initially welcomed by some.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Something that was both a good idea in the abstract and which actually had at least some resonance at the time. The first part is often true, the second very rarely. There's an interesting document mentioned on the cedar lounge archive from an actual local trade union backed defence group, by the way.
> 
> As far as the SWP position goes, it was wrong and it's a bit embarrassing given their tendency to declare various issues linked to imperialism to be litmus tests for socialists, but I actually don't think it's something worth slagging them off about a trifling 44 years later. It was quite an understandable mistake to make, given that it reflected a widespread feeling at the time in Catholic working class areas.


 wrong? I don't think the SWP would agree even today with you, with your point of view, that it was wrong. I will try and ask some of the older comrades.



butchersapron said:


> That's not the point though, it's not about that issue, buit about what it says about the sort of leadership that they say that they necessarily - by their very existence - provide.


 this is true. Do you trot out the socialist line whether you assess it is practical or not?

It would be much easier for a Leninist organisation to just trot out "workers militias", and stay within the fold of revolutionary politics. Not be castigated fellow revolutionaries, like they are being here, for betrayal of the "litmus tests". But here we had a leadership who was prepared to make an honest assessment, that workers militias were not practical. And that in lieu of them, British troops stopping the pogrom was better than hundreds dead.
In the rest of the articles though, in the vast majority of the articles, they make it clear that troops are not the solution. They make it clear what the problem is.
But at the end of the day, I am not really concerned about whether they are right and wrong, in this forum. I'm just trying to make one point, they were genuine socialists. They weren't doing this to recruit, they were arguing what they honestly believed to be in the best interests of the working class. Tony Cliff Duncan Hallas were seriously only considering recruitment?
Another point that is running through all these items raised, is the pragmatism. Time and time and time again when I was in the party, they were prepared to argue and debate as to how it was best to promote as much activity of the working class as possible (because ideas change in struggle). How to engage with the working class. This is one of the key features of Trotskyism.
It is these kinds of things, that do Mark out the International Socialist tendency, from many other organisations on the revolutionary left imho.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you seriously believe there was no difference in American military policy after the Vietnam debacle? You don't think the defeat had any effect whatsoever on the consciousness, mindset, of America?


 
Did I say there was "no difference"? Nope. 

The *sum* of any difference in military policy boiled down to keeping a better lid on things, which was fairly easy once the draft was over and done with. Policy stayed pretty much the same, though - intervene wherever "reds" meant the US didn't receive the tribute it felt it deserved. In other words, "intervene wherever they wanted to".


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Read the whole of Militant's coverage. Starting with the first sentence below the headline: Withdraw British Troops. It's pretty clear about its opposition to sending in the troops. The problem was not in the SWP pointing out some factual benefits of the troop's presence, but in the lack of a wider oppositional context. And that that was a deliberate decision, taken because of the popularity of the troops in Catholic working class areas, not an oversight. Not that I think it matters at 44 years remove.


sw quite clear say why the decision was taken "
"*The breathing space provided by the presence of British troops is short but vital. Those who call for the immediate withdrawal of the troops before the men behind the barricades can defend themselves are inviting a pogrom which will hit first and hardest at socialists."*​


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 20, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I like this post, because it is quite typical of the analysis of the SWP on here.


an argument just isnt an argument without a quotation from the bible ftw.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did I say there was "no difference"? Nope.


 I thought it was plain, I would be amazed if you did.



> The *sum* of any difference in military policy boiled down to keeping a better lid on things, which was fairly easy once the draft was over and done with. Policy stayed pretty much the same, though - intervene wherever "reds" meant the US didn't receive the tribute it felt it deserved. In other words, "intervene wherever they wanted to".


 so they carried on with the same policies, more efficiently?  Are you saying, even if they had been victorious in Vietnam, they would have gone to this more efficient methodology anyway?

You don't think there was a gradual process, of trying to rehabilitate Vietnam style outright invasions, à la Iraq?

So when you say "didn't receive enough tribute", financial? It wasn't about smashing a competing model of social development, (something along the lines what Chomsky was arguing?)


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> an argument just isnt an argument without a quotation from the bible ftw.


it is not so much the Bible quotation, hell, what could be more appropriate for a 'cult'?


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 20, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it is not so much the Bible quotation, hell, what could be more appropriate for a 'cult'?


 
Quotes from cliff? Id like to say Marx too but im quite fond of doing that myself at the moment and i dont want to include myself under that category ha!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Quotes from cliff? Id like to say Marx too but im quite fond of doing that myself at the moment and i dont want to include myself under that category ha!


yes precisely, the 'cult' leader Cliff.  cliff wasn't a socialist, he was a prophet?


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 20, 2013)

Never actually read any cliff stuff. what one book of his should i read?


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 20, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Never actually read any cliff stuff. what one book of his should i read?


 
Don't waste your time


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Never actually read any cliff stuff. what one book of his should i read?


 I'm not sure that would be prophetable


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

This is not a book, it's a pamphlet.  But if you were going to appraise Tony Cliff's work, an appraisal of this would have to be included.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1963/xx/permrev.htm


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 20, 2013)

Marx wrote: “Philosophers have explained the word. The point however is to change it.” Marxists are often accused by our opponents of being dogmatic and doctrinaire theorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the point is to change the world then socialist theory must always be changed and updated in the light of experience. This is what Trotsky did and this is what Tony Cliff set out to do in this re-examination of Trotsky’s theory.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> phew - some actual SWP news!
> 
> Various leading members of the Canadian IS have resigned.


 
Right so where were we folks, have I missed much 

Ah yes Abbie Bakan. Who only last year was suggesting in rather dry academic - but reasonably clear - tones that the IS has a problem (a bad problem) with understanding feminism: http://www.socialiststudies.com/index.php/sss/article/viewFile/262/228
Least I think that's what she means by saying Cliff and German are guilty of an 'epistemological dissonance' with feminism. She was more explicit in her pressentation based on the same paper.



Apparently the problem with 'a certain brand of marxism' (no prizes for guessing which one) is that it encourages 'Man with Analysis' and 'Communist Urgent Man' who just doesn't have time for womens problems. Who knew. Not that 'Anarchist Action Man' eescapes criticism mind.

And I only mention the following because it seems to amuse/annoy people when I bring up Sheila Rowbotham. But who does Abbie quote to demonstrate that this blindspot in the IS is nothing new? You got it! But of course the newest exiles from the IS share nothing with previous socialist feminists. Those old arguments are dogmatic and modern feminism is completely sui generis as Seymour would say.


----------



## killer b (Mar 20, 2013)

I have several volumes of a biography of Trotsky by cliff. I haven't read any of them.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 20, 2013)

killer b said:


> I have several volumes of a biography of Trotsky by cliff. I haven't read any of them.


not even good for bookshelf posing.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 20, 2013)

If you are gonna read a halycon version of Trotsky, surely Deutcher is the alpha and omega?
And Dunayevskaya - Cliff for grown-ups


----------



## october_lost (Mar 20, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Marx wrote: “Philosophers have explained the word. The point however is to change it.” Marxists are often accused by our opponents of being dogmatic and doctrinaire theorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the point is to change the world then socialist theory must always be changed and updated in the light of experience. This is what Trotsky did and this is what Tony Cliff set out to do in this re-examination of Trotsky’s theory.


And what can we learn from all this...?


----------



## electric.avenue (Mar 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I had forgotten all about his "rabbit worrier" nickname! Who can claim credit for that little bit of genius?



Perhaps the same person who came up with Gumboil ?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 20, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> If you are gonna read a halycon version of Trotsky, surely Deutcher is the alpha and omega?
> And Dunayevskaya - Cliff for grown-ups


 
Deutcher? No thanks ,its like reading the butler's diaries


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> They placed an awful lot of faith in the work of Michael Caldwell - who was a Khmer Rouge apologist right till he died. Quite possibly at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.


 
Going a little bit off-topic here, but it's kind of my hobby ...

From Caldwell's private notes given to Ben Kiernan (who was also denounced as pro-Pol Pot for his earlier involvement in an academic bulletin from Australia's Monash University named News from Kampuchea in the mid-1970s), it appears that while having sympathies he was fairly sceptical while on his visit to DK in December 1978, along with Richard Dudman and Elizabeth Becker.







He was most likely murdered by a RAK soldier/s, two days before the Vietnamese invasion. His positive work on DK (Cambodia: Rationale for a Rural Policy) was published posthumously. I've never read it though, so not sure if it's in a similar vein to Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution by Gareth Porter and George C. Hildebrand.



leyton96 said:


> To be fair to the SWP (not something I say very often!) they weren't the only ones to have an initially mistaken view of the Khemer Rouge. Chomsky's writings at the time certainly raised my eyebrows when I read them.
> 
> It's understandable people on the left may have been skeptical when the first atrocity stories started to filter out. Western news reporting on South East Asia had been a model of lies, spin and propaganda against anti-imperial movements since the insurgency in Malaya in the 50's.


 
Plenty of others were suckered in, people of various political stripes who were a part of the western anti-war movement wanting the US out of ex-Indochina, but also members of small, western China-oriented parties. The Chinese were behind encouragement of the CPK to go public as a Marxist-Leninist party and government in 1977, and as a new war with Vietnam was looming, by 1978 there was a drive by DK to open up more and make better ties with the outside world, in order to gather support in the event of a new conflict. It will have been through fraternal relations that these tiny sects had with the CPC that saw invitations given out to go on Potemkin tours of DK.

One such sect was the Communist Party USA (Marxist-Leninist), which followed the CPC line at the time, with the Mao-Deng Three Worlds Theory and the Soviet Union being the main danger, the imperialist power on the rise etc. After the full horror of Pol Pot's regime became undeniable, the experience of finding out they'd been fed bullshit led to its young, middle class and idealistic members left hopeful by the Communist victories in 1975 becoming disillusioned and resigning, pretty much causing the collapse of the organisation. One of them (Daniel Burstein) is now a venture capitalist. Another former member (Carl Davidson) contacted me by email a couple of years ago after I reproduced the party's English translation of Pol Pot's crap, crudely Stalinist CPK congress speech from 1977 (when the existence of the Communist Party was revealed to the Cambodian people and the outside world):



> Yes, it is the same Dan Burstein. And the correct name of our group then was simply Communist Party Marxist Leninist (CPML). When Burstein and the small group that visited Cambodia later discovered they had been mislead and lied to on their tour, it caused a crisis for them personally, and for our organization as well. Dan resigned his post, saying he was no longer a Marxist-Leninist--he was in his mid-20s at the time--and retreated into private life. Later he wrote books on Japanese economics and China for the business press, as well as other nonfiction works, and became a small-time venture capitalist. Dan's resignation started a process of liquidation within our group, and within a year, we were defunct.
> 
> I was editor of Class Struggle, our theoretical journal, and I made the decision to print Pol Pot's speech as an appendix in one of our last issues. I recall thinking that his politics were rather strange--calls for abolishing money, setting up communism immediately, etc--but since his thinking wasn't available anywhere else in English for people to study, I made it available, since he was the leader of a party that had taken power vs. the US imperialists.
> 
> I've mentioned this a few times to younger comrades and activists, to warn they [sic] against dogmatism and flunkeyism--and to take anything coming from any party regarding its achievements with a grain of salt.


 
Their booklet of the tour. Oh dear.











Earlier than that though, naivety and misunderstanding about Communist politics and how they played out during the wars was present. This ignorant student poster from the University of California, Berkeley, made an appearance back in 1975, but by the time of the Communist victories (two weeks apart) some of the CPK leadership (Pol Pot and friends) considered the Vietnamese to be irreconcilable enemies of their revolution.





The person/s who made this poster weren't up to speed with the troubled relations between the Cambodian and Vietnamese parties, perhaps relying on wartime information provided by Hanoi and the Chinese Communist press, emphasising solidarity between the national liberation forces, including glossy, English-language publications promoting the National United Front of Kampuchea (the French acronym being the slightly amusing FUNK).

Also, the poster uses the name Khmer Rouge to describe the Cambodians. CPK members didn't refer to themselves as such, it being a pejorative epithet used by Prince Norodom Sihanouk to inaccurately label his (intellectual and publicly active) leftist political opponents during the 1960s. Not all the people labelled as ‘Khmer Rouge’ were a part of the underground Communist movement at that time. The name stuck, however, to describe the Communists generally, this being in part due to its use by western journalists.

I think quite a lot of people will be feeling silly and ashamed in their old age.

That's it, I've bored you enough. I'm gone.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Never actually read any cliff stuff. what one book of his should i read?


His _Russia: A Marxist Analysis_ (1964), where he sets out his theory of why Russia was state capitalist, is good. Reviewed here. He also wrote a _book on Rosa Luxemburg_. After these it was downhill all the way for him.


----------



## Random (Mar 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> No disrespect, it just fascinates me how people can come to completely different conclusions from reading the same article.


 Party loyalties can cause the truth to bend before your eyes. Just as you understand and support why the SWP supported a Labour vote in 1997 you understand and support why they welcomed troops in Ireland in 1969. Which leads you to even be happy to deny that they even did those things, because they didn't "really" do those things. Or if they did, they did it for the right reason. Or they did it with caveats. Or...


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although there are plenty of Normans, mostly the illegitimate sons of the famed Yorkshireman, sometime comedian and avid cocksman, Norman Collier, all (very egotistically, I might add!) named for their famous dad.


 
RIP Norman Collier


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 21, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> Going a little bit off-topic here, but it's kind of my hobby ...
> 
> 
> 
> That's it, I've bored you enough. I'm gone.


 
Have we met before Pineapple?


----------



## seventh bullet (Mar 21, 2013)

My site is long gone.  Copyright problems/intellectual property issues, so got scared and pulled the plug. The ex-Commies were pretty cool about me reproducing their old stuff, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Marx wrote: “Philosophers have explained the word. The point however is to change it.” Marxists are often accused by our opponents of being dogmatic and doctrinaire theorists. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the point is to change the world then socialist theory must always be changed and updated in the light of experience. This is what Trotsky did and this is what Tony Cliff set out to do in this re-examination of Trotsky’s theory.


There seems to be a typo in your edition of marx


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 21, 2013)

he has heard the word of the lord!


----------



## two sheds (Mar 21, 2013)

No mention of a personal goat.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2013)

two sheds said:


> No mention of a personal goat.


 

I will never again be able to listen to that depeche mode tune without replacing 'jesus' with 'goat'


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 21, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I will never again be able to listen to that depeche mode tune without replacing 'jesus' with 'goat'


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2013)

Auld swappie habits die hard: up archway this morning saw 50 abandond copies of "social worker" - no canals near archway of course


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Auld swappie habits die hard: up archway this morning saw 50 abandond copies of "social worker" - no canals near archway of course


 

No aspiring young statesman journos to use them a fuel?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> His _Russia: A Marxist Analysis_ (1964), where he sets out his theory of why Russia was state capitalist, is good. Reviewed here. He also wrote a _book on Rosa Luxemburg_. After these it was downhill all the way for him.


I note you link to your parties review but not the book itself! To be read alongside this is On The Class Nature of the "People's Democracies". The Luxemburg book is a bit rubbish frankly, it was later - notoriously - revised.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Auld swappie habits die hard: up archway this morning saw 50 abandond copies of "social worker" -


I saw them yesterday and took one for free. Probably abandoned after the march to "save the Whittington hospital" on Saturday as not enough takers.



> no canals near archway of course


But suicide bridge is nearby.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> No aspiring young statesman journos to use them a fuel?


It seems not


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I saw them yesterday and took one for free. Probably abandoned after the march to "save the Whittington hospital" on Saturday as not enough takers.
> 
> But suicide bridge is nearby.


I don't know why anyone with computer access would want one anymore when it can be downloaded for free, unless it's to line a cat litter tray or some similar purpose.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I saw them yesterday and took one for free. Probably abandoned after the march to "save the Whittington hospital" on Saturday as not enough takers.
> 
> But suicide bridge is nearby.


What would you suggest the SPGB do if their recent burglary was found to be down to a member? Bearing in mind _the personal is not political._


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't know why anyone with computer access would want one anymore when it can be downloaded for free, unless it's to line a cat litter tray or some similar purpose.


 

Was on a march wrt teachers getting pensions nicked with _someone_ last year who was holding SP papers. Happy to swap with many groups, not buy. Except when it came to the SW. There was no swap or buy. I lolled.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I note you link to your parties review but not the book itself! To be read alongside this is On The Class Nature of the "People's Democracies". The Luxemburg book is a bit rubbish frankly, it was later - notoriously - revised.


I just wanted to make the point that Cliff wasn't all bad and that credit was being given where credit was due. Unlike the other Trotskyist gurus of the time like Ted Grant (who produced graphs showing how "nationalisation and planning" in Russia promoted growth quicker than in the West) and Ernst Mandel (who invented a non-Marxist theory that the Third World could develop on a non-capitalist basis), Cliff had a sense of humour. I remember one of his jokes was about waking up in the morning and looking at his watch to see if it was 19.17 only to find that it was 18.48, a shrewder point than perhaps he intended to make.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What would you suggest the SPGB do if their recent burglary was found to be down to a member? Bearing in mind _the personal is not political._


That's not what strelnikov says in dr zhivago.


----------



## Random (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Cliff had a sense of humour. I remember one of his jokes was about waking up in the morning and looking at his watch to see if it was 19.17 only to find that it was 18.48, a shrewder point than perhaps he intended to make.



Waking up in the morning? At 6:48 PM? Sounds like he'd not grasped the 24 hour clock. I'd advise him to change the joke to being about taking an after dinner nap. But he's dead so I can't.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 21, 2013)

The39thStep said:


>


 

that's a llama joke.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What would you suggest the SPGB do if their recent burglary was found to be down to a member? Bearing in mind _the personal is not political._


 

It couldn't have been a Party member. Only money and some Socialist Standards were taken.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> It couldn't have been a Party member. Only money and some Socialist Standards were taken.


Clever move on their part - the latter will allow them to cop a lunacy plea.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

This was posted late last night on sovietgoonboy (not read yet):

The bureaucratic imperative



> The flow of disclosures about the SWP’s increasingly cultish internal life has not ceased, either. Phil BC has this genuinely revolting post [trigger warning: do not read while eating], which is all the more disturbing when you realise, given the occupational makeup of the SWP, that there were very likely teachers involved. Moreover, there are other disclosures still to come which will make this look mild. The SWP leadership don’t seem to realise that there are a lot of people out there who have a lot of stories, and who aren’t under party discipline any more. This may not make sense to the Charlie Kimbers of this world who reason like “She isn’t a party member any more; therefore she can’t make a complaint to the Disputes Committee; therefore the incident which may have been complained about never happened”, but that’s the way it is in the real world.


 
Not a qute that reflects the content of the piece from a quick skim, but i use it for the 'other disclosures' piece, which sounds pretty emphatic, as if this is already in motion.


----------



## Random (Mar 21, 2013)

Trigger warning seems to mean anything nowadays. Trigger warning, this post contains the ending of Million Dollar Baby


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Clever move on their part - the latter will allow them to cop a lunacy plea.


 
my splitting sides.

see what I did there? first the llama quip *and then* the swp quip . . . and it's not even 18:48. eddie grant, your spirit lives on!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> my splitting sides.
> 
> see what I did there? first the llama quip *and then* the swp quip . . . and it's not even 18:48. eddie grant, your spirit lives on!


 
gonna rock down to electric.avenue


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 21, 2013)

_An energetic organiser without much real work to do can cause havoc by spending his time hatching grandiose schemes to impress the CC, conspiring against “problem members” (those whom the organiser has taken a dislike to for whatever reason) and generally swaggering about like a pound shop Lenin._


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> gonna rock down to electric.avenue


 
nah, the original eddie grant. a man who in all the years I knew him was never less than one line away from a groanworthy pun in conversation. lovely bloke.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 21, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> my splitting sides.
> 
> see what I did there? first the llama quip *and then* the swp quip . . . and it's not even 18:48. eddie grant, your spirit lives on!


 
slamming them tonight


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 21, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> slamming them tonight


 
this morning you mean . . . and I'm quitting whilst I'm ahead. i have to shake the rugrats from their slumbers.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Clever move on their part - the latter will allow them to cop a lunacy plea.


 Maybe they weren't so mad after all, but took this one


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 21, 2013)

Random said:


> Waking up in the morning? At 6:48 PM? Sounds like he'd not grasped the 24 hour clock. I'd advise him to change the joke to being about taking an after dinner nap. But he's dead so I can't.


 
Not if you're using proletarian decimalised time.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 21, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> this morning you mean . . . and I'm quitting whilst I'm ahead. i have to shake the rugrats from their slumbers.


 
It was a quote


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Maybe they weren't so mad after all, but took this one


The one you ripped off Solidarity? (Who may in turn have ripped it off themselves).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Maybe they weren't so mad after all, but took this one


 
October 1979, the SPGB recognise that there are lots of different Trotskyist groups, that none of them are very good  and that this is front page news; no definitely not a bit mad at all. I'm sure no one wanted to read about threats to British Leyland and the promised public sector finance cuts.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 21, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> It was a quote


 
it's early(ish).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I thought it was plain, I would be amazed if you did.
> 
> so they carried on with the same policies, more efficiently? Are you saying, even if they had been victorious in Vietnam, they would have gone to this more efficient methodology anyway?
> 
> ...


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> October 1979, the SPGB recognise that there are lots of different Trotskyist groups, that none of them are very good and that this is front page news; no definitely not a bit mad at all. I'm sure no one wanted to read about threats to British Leyland and the promised public sector finance cuts.


What did you expect? 'TUC MUST CALL A GENERAL STRIKE NOW!'


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Analysis of what was happening and why, how the class was responding (or not) and where this might lead, what opportunities it might open and what reactions it might provoke on the part of state/capital, what wider effects this would have on culture, social 'common sense' etc


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Analysis of what was happening and why, how the class was responding (or not) and where this might lead, what opportunities it might open and what reactions it might provoke on the part of state/capital, what wider effects this would have on culture, social 'common sense' etc


You mean something like this, from the same issue?



> As the days get shorter you may care to be reminded of last winter. Remember the crocodile tears shed by the Tories over the sick who were endangered because of the strikes in the NHS, the hypocrisy over schoolchildren who could not continue their studies, the nauseating cant spewed out over the dead who were not being buried because of the grave-diggers' strike, the simulated sympathies they whipped up for the OAPs and claimants who were unable to collect their weekly pittances because of civil service strikes? The humanity shown by the Tories was truly impressive. Now they are in office several people, including some union leaders, have noticed something odd. Those same humane Tories, so concerned over the young, the sick, the old and the dead, are now ruthlessly trying to reduce government expenditure with the result that services for these groups are going to be hit far worse than by any of last winter's strikes.
> 
> For example, education spending is being slashed, and long term prospects for the young in education are thus becoming far worse than anything that might result from a few short strikes. With a savage nineteenth century anachronism like Rhodes Boyson in charge (as much use as swine fever to agriculture, as one Labour MP put it), the Tories are laying about higher education like Samson in the Temple. The NHS is being drastically cut too. So workers who are suffering from illnesses (many caused by capitalism anyway) will have even less chance of being admitted to hospital, and will get even poorer services when they get there. Where are the crocodile tears now? The Tories are looking after the profit system; the tears will look after themselves.


Things don't seem to have changed in the last 35 years (except that Rhodes Boyson is now called Michael Gove). But then that's what you'd expect as capitalism continued.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Not really no. Not declamation or rhetoric - or at least not _just_ declamation or rhetoric.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Rhodes Boyson is now called Michael Gove


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Things don't seem to have changed in the last 109 years (except that the Marquess of Londonderry is now called Michael Gove). But then that's what you'd expect as capitalism continued.


 
Corrected for you and still obviously not mad.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 21, 2013)

It will continue like this for another 109 years unless the SPGB win a majority in the Houses of Parliament.


----------



## treelover (Mar 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> _An energetic organiser without much real work to do can cause havoc by spending his time hatching grandiose schemes to impress the CC, conspiring against “problem members” (those whom the organiser has taken a dislike to for whatever reason) and generally swaggering about like a pound shop Lenin._


 
Sounds like the Gaulieters of old...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It will continue like this for another 109 years unless the SPGB win a majority in the Houses of Parliament.


 
Which at their current rate of growth will be 2973


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Which at their current rate of growth will be 2973


 
We don't have to worry that they'll have any scandals though - the personal isn't political!


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Which at their current rate of growth will be 2973


What year do you calculate TUSC will win a parliamentary majority?


----------



## Random (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> What year do you calculate TUSC will win a parliamentary majority?


Checkmate, trotskyist


----------



## Random (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> You mean something like this, from the same issue?


 Do you seriously think that counts as analysis? The tories are bad, capitalism is bad, capitalism causes illness and the tories are cutting the NHS, it's bad.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

Random said:


> Do you seriously think that counts as analysis? The tories are bad, capitalism is bad, capitalism causes illness and the tories are cutting the NHS, it's bad.


Well, capitalism is "bad", isn't it, and it doesn't change basically. But what about this (also from the same issue)?


> Sections of the left have claimed to be able to bring exploitation to an end by the use of the co-operative. There are several variants on this particular version of slavery run in the interests of the slaves. The basic idea is for workers to combine with management to run a factory in the interests of the employees. It is of course a pipe-dream, and as the realities of capitalism break in on the cooperatives, their ideals go up in smoke. In the 1970s this particular dream has been pushed hard by the pipe of Tony Benn. In a smoky fog of euphoric confusion, this Labour Party answer to Noddy in Toyland helped create the Meriden motor cycle co-operative. The workers were going to run the factory, and the problems of production for a ruthlessly competitive market were to vanish. They did not. The co-operative has had to lay off workers and is under intense pressure to repay the interest due on the original loan made by the then Labour government to enable it to start.
> 
> The final irony is not that the capitalist system has defeated another Utopian scheme. The co-operative is almost certain to be shut down because it cannot pay its debts to the local Coventry Council. Coventry gave the co-operative ten days in which to pay the outstanding rates of £72,000 (The Guardian, 22 August 1979). If the co-operative does not pay (it almost certainly can't), the Council will bring court proceedings which may be the end of Meriden. The Coventry Council is Labour.


This could be today too with people like Michael Moore and Richard "When Capitalism Hits the Fan" Wolff pushing workers' co-operatives again. I'm not sure if the Institute for Workers Control is still calling for Lucas Aerospace to be run on these lines.


----------



## Random (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Well, capitalism is "bad", isn't it, and it doesn't change basically. But what about this (also from the same issue)?
> This could be today too with people like Michael Moore and Richard "When Capitalism Hits the Fan" Wolff pushing workers' co-operatives again. I'm not sure if the Institute for Workers Control is still calling for Lucas Aerospace to be run on these lines.


 That's much more interesting and useful, thanks. Although this still falls under critiques of the left, rather than info about capital or class.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> What year do you calculate TUSC will win a parliamentary majority?


 
When the Earth has supernova'd and we're all post-sentient utility dust on the last Dyson Sphere in reality


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> OK.
> 
> 1. Is the executive committe of your party elected as a slate?
> 2. Who proposes this slate?
> ...


 
1. Yes-for both national and executive committees
2. The NC and EC propose each others slates, and the membership can propose alternative slates.
3. The EC sends out documents, the branches reply - the agenda is determined from there.
4. The NC - but answerable to the membership, instant recall.
5. No. I can honestly say that nobody in the SP has ever told me to do anything, save from one branch secretary. He has since left the party and a lot of those who knew him felt he never really got over being a member of the SWP for 16 years, for some of which he worked full time for them. I've been asked to do things, and sometimes i say no.

Now answer all of the questions you asked me in relation to the glorious SPGB.


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Well, capitalism is "bad", isn't it, and it doesn't change basically. But what about this (also from the same issue)?
> This could be today too with people like Michael Moore and Richard "When Capitalism Hits the Fan" Wolff pushing workers' co-operatives again. I'm not sure if the Institute for Workers Control is still calling for Lucas Aerospace to be run on these lines.


That Marx fella talked very supportively about co-operatives, thought they were important.  They do employ more people than multinationals, worldwide.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> That Marx fella talked very supportively about co-operatives, thought they were important. They do employ more people than multinationals, worldwide.



Serious? Stat me.


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Serious? Stat me.


apparently. 100 million people, 20% more than multinationals.
http://usa2012.coop/about-co-ops/cooperatives-around-world


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Well, capitalism is "bad", isn't it, and it doesn't change basically.


 
Do socialists only have to change what they do if capitalism changes 'basically'; i.e. stops being capitalism? I would have thought that socialists would need to deal with the tactics of capital of their own time. But obviously you've been doing this for a while now so you probably know best.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> apparently. 100 million people, 20% more than multinationals.
> http://usa2012.coop/about-co-ops/cooperatives-around-world


 
Does that make them more or less successful than the SPGB and the WSM?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> > 1. Is the executive committe of your party elected as a slate?
> > 2. Who proposes this slate?
> > 3. Who sets the agenda for the party's conference?
> > 4. Who chooses the organisers and who are they answerable to?
> ...


Thanks. I think I can answer for many organisations that aspire to be democratic, eg trade union branches and voluntary associations and clubs.

1. Candidates are elected as individuals, i.e the members vote for individuals (whether the system is the first 10 or whatever past the post or the single transferable vote). Candidates are nominated by branches.
2. The slate system is not applied, particularly not by an outgoing committee proposing the slate as that means committees perpetuating themselves through co-optation.
3. The Conference agenda is set by branches proposing motions. The executive committee cannot propose motions.
4. Branches elect their own organisers who are responsible to them.
5. So your party is not as bad as the AWL whose constitution includes this rule: "Branch or fraction organisers can give binding instructions to activists in their areas on all day today matters."

The main difference between this democratic form of organisation and the Leninist model is that the executive bodies do not propose their own slate of candidates and do not set the Conference agenda and so a self-perpetuating leadership which can get the policies it favours adopted is made more difficult (as opposed to encouraged, in fact institutionalised, in the Leninist model).


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

How subject to change has your EC been over the last 20 years? This is relevant if we loo at the bureaucracy/substitution angle that the latest goonboy post was covering. Or we could move it to the hilarious SPGB thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Thanks. I think I can answer for many organisations that aspire to be democratic, eg trade union branches and voluntary associations and clubs.
> 
> 1. Candidates are elected as individuals, i.e the members vote for individuals (whether the system is the first 10 or whatever past the post or the single transferable vote). Candidates are nominated by branches.
> 2. The slate system is not applied, particularly not by an outgoing committee proposing the slate as that means committees perpetuating themselves through co-optation.
> ...


You haven't got any policy disagreements to argue over. The line is the line and if you don't like it you are out. Simple.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 21, 2013)

I think if there was a revolution the structures within revolutionary groups would also have to be overthrown.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

If there was a revolution the structures within revolutionary groups would be redundant. That's the point of revolution. Unless they're going to hang around like the bad conscience/fart of the revolution.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How subject to change has your EC been over the last 20 years? This is relevant if we loo at the bureaucracy/substitution angle that the latest goonboy post was covering. Or we could move it to the hilarious SPGB thread.


 
Fucking hell, how did people find 76 pages worth of stuff to say about the SPGB?


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Fucking hell, how did people find 76 pages worth of stuff to say about the SPGB?


I think we got every single member of the organisation on at one point!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You haven't got any policy disagreements to argue over. The line is the line and if you don't like it you are out. Simple.


 
Is it really that bad? I didn't know tbh, I thought it was more democratic than that. 

Have there been many serious splits in the SPGB?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

If prejudice prevents an intelligent discussion here on democratic as opposed to Leninist models of organisation, here instead is an extract from the constitution of the IWW which also seeks to avoid a self-perpetuating and controlling executive committee and which also rejects the slate system:



> Elections: General Administration
> 
> Sec. 3
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> If prejudice prevents an intelligent discussion here on democratic as opposed to Leninist models of organisation...


 
Is this what you think is happening Jean Luc?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 21, 2013)

At least your lot aren't as bads as the "Socialist studies group" who i've just been reading about on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Studies_(1989)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> At least your lot aren't as bads as the "Socialist studies group" who i've just been reading about on wikipedia
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Studies_(1989)


They are the same group to all intents.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> At least your lot aren't as bads as the "Socialist studies group" who i've just been reading about on wikipedia
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Studies_(1989)


 



> The court refused to recognise the group as the Socialist Party of Great Britain and instead joined the original Socialist Party of Great Britain


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Is it really that bad? I didn't know tbh, I thought it was more democratic than that.


Of course not. Don't believe a word he says. Your initial assumption was right. Nobody can be expelled without a vote (referendum) of the membership. But, as I just said, let's not let stupid prejudices get in the way of discussing democratic alternatives to the Leninist organisational model.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Of course not. Don't believe a word he says. Your initial assumption was right. Nobody can be expelled without a vote (referendum) of the membership. But, as I just said, let's not let prejudice get in the way of discussing democratic alternatives to the Leninist organisational model.


It's rather simple jean luc - the party is set up to do a)  - don't agree with that or the way you have historically choose to do it, then get out - _democratically_. I have no problem with that by the way. It's the facile opposition between this and and an undemocratic leninism that i'm highlighting.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's the facile opposition between this and and an undemocratic leninism that i'm highlighting.


Well, unless you don't believe that socialists should organise at all, you must have some ideas on organisation. What is your non-facile alternative to the undemocratic organisation form favoured by Leninism?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Well, unless you don't believe that socialists should organise at all, you must have some ideas on organisation. What is your non-facile alternative to the undemocratic organisation form favoured by Leninism?


I think some socialists should definitely not organise at all. I note the only options you can see are open-leninism (trots) and secret-leninism (spgb) - only such a reduced world view could post the above. To imagine that these are the only options possible is hideous. I know that i'm close to allowing you to do an rmp3 here (and DK will be home soon) so i again suggest this goes on the SPGB thread, unless you can tie it to the SWP.


----------



## andysays (Mar 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Ah yes Abbie Bakan


 
Why am I not surprised to discover she's American?



bolshiebhoy said:


> saying Cliff and German are guilty of an 'epistemological dissonance' with feminism


 
Ooh, harsh. That's pretty much the academic equivalent of calling them thick c*nts



bolshiebhoy said:


> 'Anarchist Action Man'


 
I always wanted one of those when I was a kid, but the nearest I could get was the French Resistance one with a black polo-neck...


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> Why am I not surprised to discover she's American?


Canadian.


----------



## andysays (Mar 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> Canadian.


 
OK, North American...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Colonialist.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

I'm not interested in discussing the spgb here or even there, but I would like you explain what you mean by "secret-leninism". You are coming across as an individualist anarchist who regards any majority decision-making as "the tyranny of the majority". Is the IWW constitution also "secret-leninism"?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I'm not interested in discussing the spgb here or even there, but I would like you explain what you mean by "secret-leninism". You are coming across as an individualist anarchist who regards any majority decision-making as "the tyranny of the majority". Is the IWW constitution also "secret-leninism"?


 
You're not interested in discussing the SPGB here or there, but in fact that's exactly what you are interested in doing. The rest of us aren't interested in having you discussing the SPGB any further here at all. Please go resurrect that 76 page thread.


----------



## andysays (Mar 21, 2013)

Random said:


> Waking up in the morning? At 6:48 PM? Sounds like he'd not grasped the 24 hour clock. I'd advise him to change the joke to being about taking an after dinner nap. But he's dead so I can't.


 
Just goes to show that these Leninist cult leaders are lazy bastards who lounge in bed all day and don't get up until after tea time. No connection with the working class at all...


----------



## discokermit (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I know that i'm close to allowing you to do an rmp3 here (and DK will be home soon) so i again suggest this goes on the SPGB thread, unless you can tie it to the SWP.


right. i'm home. clear off, pesky spgb. not imposs though. he's funny.

ignoring rmp3 is proving to be very relaxing, might i add. i should have done it sooner.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You're not interested in discussing the SPGB here or there, but in fact that's exactly what you are interested in doing.


No, I'm interested in putting the boot into Leninism. Which is clearly why you don't want me around. I've also noticed that whenever the spotlight is turned oton the similarities between the CWI and the SWP you don't want to discuss that either.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> No, I'm interested in putting the boot into Leninism. Which is clearly why you don't want me around.


 
Nah, half the people here put the boot into "Leninism" from time to time. I don't want you here because you're an obtuse bore.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Nah, half the people here put the boot into "Leninism" from time to time. I don't want you here because you're an obtuse bore.


 
don't be a prick, Nigel. if all the obtuse bores left this thread, all that would be left would be frogwoman and discokermit . . .   liking each other's posts.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 21, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> don't be a prick, Nigel.


 
I'll tell you what, I won't be a prick to that clown if he stops whining that his no doubt startlingly insightful opinions are being silenced when he's asked to take his off topic blathering to a more appropriate thread.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *How subject to change has your EC been over the last 20 years?* This is relevant if we loo at the bureaucracy/substitution angle that the latest goonboy post was covering. Or we could move it to the hilarious SPGB thread.


 

Any excuse to hide from the kids. I only have the figures from 2001 onwards, but at least* 44 different people have been on the SPGB EC during the time 2001 thru' 2013. 

The EC consists of 10 Party members.

*I may have missed a couple. The kids found me.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 21, 2013)

And finally some news. After months and months, the SWP Central Committee finally make a public defence of their record and stance. It's by Julie Sherry, who I believe is one of the new CC members brought on it December when a couple of dissidents got the boot:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/challenging-sexism-heart-swp-work


----------



## treelover (Mar 21, 2013)

ah, young, photogenic, etc...


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And finally some news. After months and months, the SWP Central Committee finally make a public defence of their record and stance. It's by Julie Sherry, who I believe is one of the new CC members brought on it December when a couple of dissidents got the boot:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/challenging-sexism-heart-swp-work


 
sorry to be spotterish but any relation to Dave Sherry? It's not the most common of surnames.


----------



## laptop (Mar 21, 2013)

Boilerplate justification, too. She could almost have striven to produce the impression that women members don't write their own copy.


----------



## laptop (Mar 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> At least your lot aren't as bads as the "Socialist studies group" who i've just been reading about on wikipedia
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Studies_(1989)


 
Oooh, look:


----------



## killer b (Mar 21, 2013)

jesus. could have tried harder. what was the point of that article?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 21, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Thanks. I think I can answer for many organisations that aspire to be democratic, eg trade union branches and voluntary associations and clubs.
> 
> 1. Candidates are elected as individuals, i.e the members vote for individuals (whether the system is the first 10 or whatever past the post or the single transferable vote). Candidates are nominated by branches.
> 2. The slate system is not applied, particularly not by an outgoing committee proposing the slate as that means committees perpetuating themselves through co-optation.
> ...



For significant periods the Bolsheviks didn't use a slate system either-why do you think a slate system is "leninist"?

I note you say that your membership votes on whether to expel someone. We've never expelled anyone for political differences as far as I'm aware.


----------



## treelover (Mar 21, 2013)

Is the CIF article the beginning of the 'fightback'?, maybe they are not going to disappear

reading it, they really are shameless...

btw, its like a paid advert, sympathisers at the G?


----------



## laptop (Mar 21, 2013)

treelover said:


> Is the CIF article the beginning of the 'fightback'?, maybe they are not going to disappear


 
If it is, they are


----------



## killer b (Mar 21, 2013)

laptop said:


> If it is, they are


innit. it's pathetic.


----------



## treelover (Mar 21, 2013)

" Julie, I'm afraid that you have missed the point. It's not that the organisation approved democratically of the way it had behaved or even that it was the complainant who wanted the organisation to deal with it. Quite simply, the organisation is unsuited to deal with this particular matter. The complainant should have been told this in the kindest possible way and been offered instead, help from a rape crisis counsellor (or any other experienced practitioner) to help her decide what to do. Delta should have been asked to step down from the SWP immediately the allegation was made and indeed from all organisations that the SWP plays an active part in. That way, it would have been clear to the world how seriously the SWP was taking the matter. Perhaps you could also have offered Delta some help from an experienced counsellor too, which he would have been at liberty to take up or refuse too.

Then you could have waited. Just waited. Given the long tailback that this issue has caused and generated anyway, this would have been no bad thing and could hardly have been worse than what has happened, and you would all have known that you had behaved ethically and properly according to the best examples of practice around rather than some of the not so good, or plain bad."


Rosen hits back...


----------



## mk12 (Mar 21, 2013)

Is Rosen actually still in the SWP?


----------



## mk12 (Mar 21, 2013)

> Open your eyes: all the energy is in anti-authoritarian *horizontal* movements. Has been like that for at least 2 decades.


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Is Rosen actually still in the SWP?


never has been (he says) - or only briefly in the seventies


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> sorry to be spotterish but any relation to Dave Sherry? It's not the most common of surnames.


daughter of


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 21, 2013)

"The hacks speak out (and say very little)." Guess whose unctuous tweet this is.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 21, 2013)

I have just found out that the full-timer for my area when I was in the Party resigned last week after the Special Conference. Some of the comments from pro-CCers on his Facebook status announcing his decision to quit are pretty laughable too.

"I am glad this person has resigned. And anyone else who shares their viewpoint should go too."


----------



## mk12 (Mar 21, 2013)

And someone else I know who worked in Head Office seems to side with him and has resigned too!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "The hacks speak out (and say very little)." Guess whose unctuous tweet this is.


You sure you have the right adjective there? And they do and do.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "The hacks speak out (and say very little)." Guess whose unctuous tweet this is.


that's actually spot on.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "The hacks speak out (and say very little)." Guess whose unctuous tweet this is.


 
Seems difficult to disagree with as a one sentence summary. I mean, it's not as if there's much substantial in the argument to engage with. They've basically said nothing in public for three months and then this is what they decide to go with?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 21, 2013)

Can I just mention that a number of you have been naming the wrong person in this case? I've just had to spend ages editing a name out. Many thanks to the poster who alerted me and even bigger thanks for sending me details of the offending posts which probably saved me about three hours work.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 21, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Can I just mention that a number of you have been naming the wrong person in this case?


 
What?


----------



## treelover (Mar 21, 2013)

http://socialistunity.com/ssp-membe...droom-tax-campaign-in-glasgow/#comment-645173

God's sake, the bickering has started with the sects on the bedroom tax...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What?


Correct surname, wrong first name.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Correct surname, wrong first name.


Not being funny but you've jumped the gun here - there are two cases, both the same surname. Everyone participating has been aware of this. I don't know whose been pming you here but they really have got it wrong.


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Correct surname, wrong first name.


sadly, there are two of them -and they share a surname


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 21, 2013)

...unless he has aliases.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 21, 2013)

....OK, I asked someone pretty active in the SWP and was told a name used here is the wrong person and I was alerted by someone else to the same thing....


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

Well they are bullshitting you. There are are two claims against two people who share a surname - as they damn well know.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well they are bullshitting you. There are are two claims against two people who share a surname - as well they damn well know.


I don't think either are mischief makers...there's obviously room for confusion here...this whole situation is an awful mess, whoever is involved, I know that much.


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well they are bullshitting you. There are are two claims against two people who share a surname - as well they damn well know.


It's quite possible someone down south wouldn't know anything about the other one


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> It's quite possible someone down south wouldn't know anything about the other one


Someone pretty active in the SWP? After the last three months? After it being in a national paper?

That in itself is pretty damning if true isn't it?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 21, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> For significant periods the Bolsheviks didn't use a slate system either-why do you think a slate system is "leninist"?


That was before they seized power. A few years ago this guy's blog (who I think had experience of a Leninist organisation other than the SWP) discussed the origins of the system:

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/origins-of-slate-system.html

This part is particularly relevant to the discussion here:



> *he Trotskyist Movement And The Slate System*
> How and why the slate system was adopted by the trotskyist movement would be a very useful subject for study. It could be that it was just carried over with the rest of the democratic centralist model imposed on individual communist parties by the Communist International. Or it could have been stalinist baggage carried into the trotskyist movement when the international left opposition was formed out of so many splits in the communist parties. Interestingly, there was a reference to its introduction into the British Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) at its conference in 1950:
> At this conference Healy introduced another novelty - a slate for election to the National Committee. The EC had drawn up this slate and if any delegate wanted to nominate someone who was not on the slate they also had to nominate someone else to be taken off!” (‘The Methods of Gerry Healy’ by Ken Tarbuck, published in Workers News No.30, April 1991, under the pseudonym of "John Walters" and with the title "Origins of the SWP")​Bear in mind that the 1950 conference of the RCP was the one where Healy was able to overcome all his opposition. The slate allowed him to get a Central Committee entirely to his liking. In previous years the RCP had operated a system where the factions in the organisations automatically had a number of seats on the CC according to the level of support they had among the membership. And the faction’s representatives on the CC were decided by the faction themselves. Compare this to _t*he situation in the rare occasions that factions were allowed i**n the Militant Tendency. Then whether a faction had representatives on the CC and who they were lay in the hands of the majority leadership when they drew up their recommended slate. A completely undemocratic situation*_.


 
I think somebody else here already made the point that as the Trotskyist movement emerged from the Stalinist Communist parties this was part of the baggage they brought with them.


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Someone pretty active in the SWP? After the last two months? After it being in a national paper? That in itself is pretty damning isn't it?


No, the _other_ one. The one whose name has just been removed (at my request btw - so deffo not a bullshitter!)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> (at my request btw - so deffo not a bullshitter!)


 
?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> No, the _other_ one. The one whose name has just been removed (at my request btw - so deffo not a bullshitter!)


I am now officially confused.


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I am now officially confused.


I could have told you that, comrade...



Mrs Magpie said:


> ....OK, I asked someone pretty active in the SWP and was told a name used here is the wrong person and* I was alerted by someone else to the same thing....*





butchersapron said:


> Well they are bullshitting you.


I'm not the one 'pretty active in the SWP'


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'm not the one 'pretty active in the SWP'


This is correct. I asked someone off the boards who I've known since God was in short trousers.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> I could have told you that, comrade...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one 'pretty active in the SWP'


I'm confused at what name has been removed - given that i thought we're were talking about the S surname, my scepticism was that anyone pretty active in the SWP would not know that there are now two cases, two alleged rapists and one common surname.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 21, 2013)

Random said:


> Party loyalties can cause the truth to bend before your eyes. Just as you understand and support why the SWP supported a Labour vote in 1997 you understand and support why they welcomed troops in Ireland in 1969. Which leads you to even be happy to deny that they even did those things, because they didn't "really" do those things. Or if they did, they did it for the right reason. Or they did it with caveats. Or...


 I do not deny the possibility of interpretation of the article.  My link clearly states that they welcomed the troops, is wrong.  Even Nigel accepts what we stated, "without the troops, there would have been a pogrom" was a statement of fact.  do you honestly believe if the troops hadn't been there there wouldn't have been a pogrom? I doubt it.

So if you accept that fact, how do you interpret the way forward from that?  Workers militias, was the easy option for revolutionaries.  However, reality demanded recognising that workers militias was an ultraleft demand.  Those who demanded the withdrawal of the troops before the Catholics were able to defend themselves, WERE putting their politics before the interests of the working class Catholics , in my opinion.

Is that wrong?  Is that right?  Is pretty irrelevant to this thread.  The only point I'm making, is that the SWP made a genuine judgement call as to the interests of the working class.  All this bullshit, as to only being motivated by recruitment, is just that, bullshit!

I will put it another way.  If you want to reject that analysis as flawed, that's fine.  I am NOT trying to convince you that the SWP was right.  I'm only arguing that in all instances given by leyton96 that initiated my response, the SWP were genuine socialists arguing what they perceived as in the best interests of the working class, NOT the best interests of the SWP.  Not only with a genuine, their line was consistent, as I demonstrated.


----------



## belboid (Mar 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm confused at what name has been removed - given that i thought we're were talking about the S surname, my scepticism was that anyone pretty active in the SWP would not know that there are now two cases, two alleged rapists and one common surname.


not Deltas. The Guardian piece only refers to one case, they are simply ignorng the stuff from the Mail, so it is possible someone wouldn't know about it.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 21, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I have just found out that the full-timer for my area when I was in the Party resigned last week after the Special Conference. Some of the comments from pro-CCers on his Facebook status announcing his decision to quit are pretty laughable too.
> 
> "I am glad this person has resigned. And anyone else who shares their viewpoint should go too."


Jumped before he was pushed? I heard the Manchester organiser was sacked right after the conference.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> not Deltas. The Guardian piece only refers to one case, they are simply ignorng the stuff from the Mail, so it is possible someone wouldn't know about it.


It's possible for them not to know about _any_ of the cases but I don't believe it for a second.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 21, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> he has heard the word of the lord!


 10 years of this kind of post, has not landed a single blow on the *politics* of the SWP.

I had no political background.  I had no educational background.  And the thing that always kept me tapped in to the SWP arguments, was their pragmatism.  That they didn't quote the revolutionaries cliches as Scripture, but moulded their response to the reality of the situation.

Should it really really be surprising that the level of revolutionary propaganda/language of the SWP as being pretty conservative "capitalist worker", in a 30 year period of almost unprecedented defeat for the UK working class?  Should not revolutionary politics reflect this reality, if you are trying to engage with where people are at, rather than where you would like them to be?


----------



## october_lost (Mar 21, 2013)

We can link you to articles which have both names in, if need be.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 21, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


>


 well at least that post makes some kind of sense.


Random said:


> Yes of course there was a difference. People like Colon Powell developed theories that the US should only ever use overwhelming force. And others worked well to control the media ever more tightly. And regarding the political elite's ambitions, I think it's Howard Zinn's history book which shows that the Carter era involved a lot of foreign interventions.


 you see no qualitive difference between the interventions in Vietnam and Iraq, and the interventions between them wars?

Come on, common sense..  Oliver North having to materialise funding from a surreptitious deal with Iran, to fund US covert intervention in Nicaragua, was not a reflection of the fact that the American ruling class feared the American people would not stand an invasion?  The Vietnam debacle was without doubt a massive factor in the consciousness of America.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/21/challenging-sexism-heart-swp-work


 
The Comical Ali of the SWP


----------



## october_lost (Mar 22, 2013)

> Contrary to reports, we deal with rape allegations properly, in line with our stand for women's rights


Do you think this article was cleared by the CC first?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 22, 2013)

See the prof has linked to the article on his FB page which prompted a long stream of abuse and counter abuse. The SEYMOUR! response is the usual mix of sneers and half truths. The non splitting/resigning opposition's line seems to be "the cc know we're right and admit it in private" so we're hanging on in there in the hope they still give more ground. The softer loyalists point out this was a good, short reply to Penny (probably as long as the Groniad would allow) but that there needs to be a longer piece somewhere else. And the harder loyalists appear to just shrug. I suppose what happens next depends on how much room for compromise there is between the 2nd and 3rd groups.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 22, 2013)

laptop that "train spotter" image of a train is a Deltic. I do hope that is just coincidence.


----------



## andysays (Mar 22, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> laptop that "train spotter" image of a train is a Deltic. I do hope that is just coincidence.


 
There are no coincidences - that's just what THEY want you to believe...


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://socialistunity.com/ssp-membe...droom-tax-campaign-in-glasgow/#comment-645173
> 
> God's sake, the bickering has started with the sects on the bedroom tax...


The far left at its best exposing sexism everywhere and in everything.


----------



## belboid (Mar 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> See the prof has linked to the article on his FB page which prompted a long stream of abuse and counter abuse. The SEYMOUR! response is the usual mix of sneers and half truths.


What Seymour response?  He hasnt made one.   The only lies or half truths are coming from you and Julie Sherry.

Come on bhoy, you can do better than this!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Someone pretty active in the SWP? After the last three months? After it being in a national paper?
> 
> That in itself is pretty damning if true isn't it?


 
It never ceases to amaze me how little SWP members sometimes know about their party. There's a guy on my union branch committee who's in the SWP, but the local SWP organisers say they've never met him. He sells Socialist Worker every week, at every union meeting we have, and get this - _he doesn't know why people suddenly don't want a copy, even for free._


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 22, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how little SWP members sometimes know about their party. There's a guy on my union branch committee who's in the SWP, but the local SWP organisers say they've never met him. He sells Socialist Worker every week, at every union meeting we have, and get this - _he doesn't know why people suddenly don't want a copy, even for free._


 
Don't let one rotten apple turn you against the whole party...he's just a maverick, not really part of the tradition.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 22, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Don't let one rotten apple turn you against the whole party...he's just a maverick, not really part of the tradition.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



It's not just one though - time and time again I come across SWP members who just don't know what their party is doing. A couple of years ago I helped organise an NSSN meeting in my hometown. I received enthusiastic support from SWP members there, who had absolutely no idea that the SWP had stormed out of the NSSN months ago, because in their view Right to Work (remember that?) was the anti-cuts movement and the NSSN shouldn't be getting involved in anti-cuts campaigning. This was a whole branch (a small one I'll admit) who were totally unaware that the line had changed and their party had pulled out of this initiative.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 22, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Don't let one rotten apple turn you against the whole party...he's just a maverick, not really part of the tradition.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



That said, they were a bit of a "maverick" branch. A well known local teacher who was a leading member in that branch, and who taught many of the young SP members in the town (including me and my partner) once told a couple of our newest recruits that "you won't like the SP, they're very boring - you can smoke weed in our branch meetings!"


----------



## belboid (Mar 22, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The WSWS are basically a sham outfit run by a union busting cunt, if ever the title "left of capital" was appropriate it is them, i wouldn't trust anything they say.


exciting news for you!

David North is doing a British speaking tour!
Sunday May 5, 2 p.m.
University of London Union, Room 3 C/D
Malet Street
Camden, London
WC1E 7HY
Sheffield
Sunday April 14, 2 p.m.
Walkley Community Centre
Fir Street (off South Road)
S6 3TG
Manchester
Wednesday April 17, 7 p.m.
Friends' Meeting House, Room 1
6 Mount St (rear of Manchester Central Library)
M2 5NS
Glasgow
Wednesday, April 17, 7 p.m.
Partick Burgh Hall, Room 10
Burgh Hall Street
G11 5LW


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 22, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Don't let one rotten apple turn you against the whole party...he's just a maverick, not really part of the tradition.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 

You rotter!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 22, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's not just one though - time and time again I come across SWP members who just don't know what their party is doing. A couple of years ago I helped organise an NSSN meeting in my hometown. I received enthusiastic support from SWP members there, who had absolutely no idea that the SWP had stormed out of the NSSN months ago, because in their view Right to Work (remember that?) was the anti-cuts movement and the NSSN shouldn't be getting involved in anti-cuts campaigning. This was a whole branch (a small one I'll admit) who were totally unaware that the line had changed and their party had pulled out of this initiative.


 
I strongly suspect Louis was being ironic with his "one bad apple"-type comment.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

Random said:


> Wake up sheeple! Stuff the WSWS disagrees with: media-manufactured and toxic. When CNN does things WSWS agrees with: it's "elementary compassion." Does the WSWS have a record of simple contrarianism? Or is this some kind of holding the line against left-feminism?


 
The fact that they have a whole sub-section devoted to explaining why sex abuse charges against Roman Polanski _shouldn't_ be heard suggests there is some kind of weirder more generalised possibly chauvinist problem.


----------



## laptop (Mar 22, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> laptop that "train spotter" image of a train is a Deltic. I do hope that is just coincidence.


 
I'm glad it is, because that's what I searched for. The locomotive in question was suspended from its organising position in the 1980s.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> exciting news for you!
> 
> David North is doing a British speaking tour!
> Sunday May 5, 2 p.m.
> ...


 
May 5th is my grandma's birthday, as for the other dates, as much as I'd like to heckle him I don't think it's worth the train fare of getting up to Glasgow and Manchester


----------



## belboid (Mar 22, 2013)

I've just noticed he's supposedly doing manchester and Glasgow at exactly the same time!

Perhaps it'll be David Green speaking at one of them


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2013)

video link up


----------



## Random (Mar 22, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I do not deny the possibility of interpretation of the article.  My link clearly states that they welcomed the troops, is wrong


 Your link interprets the SWP/IS statement in one way, lots of people interpret it in another way. At least you accept the possibility that the statement about troops being "vital" could ever be seen as welcoming them.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> video link up


eh?

Btw, is this true?



> 1) Why was it considered acceptable for Delta to be investigated by a panel of his mates (including his ex-girlfriend)?


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> eh?
> 
> Btw, is this true?


 
If that's true then we should also note that the author is the daughter of DS on the disputes committee panel that investigated the Delta case in 2012. He came out with this:

"it was very difficult to deal with incidents that happened three and a half years ago, and we never felt anyone was lying or making up (inaudible), I want to make that quite clear. But there were contradictions in what had taken place and how it had taken place. There were no witnesses to the events, and there was nothing in terms of evidence and detail that would lead us to believe that Delta - that it was proved that Delta (inaudible)
We came to a compromise. The spirit of the 'not proven' was that. (inaudible) None of the speakers have said this - and I'd like to think Viv and Hannah - but there have been accusations made against the committee that we've acted as a whitewash for Delta, or as stooges for the central committee. I speak for myself, but it applies to everybody else [on the disputes committee]. I've dealt with disputes cases where I've been involved in expelling the full timer for the district, somebody that I'd worked with for years, who'd been a former CC member, who I'd built a friendship with. It was a painful experience, it _*damaged the district*_, I can't say I'm proud of what happened, but we didn't balk at that. We would have taken action against Delta if we thought it was merited."

Bizarre mention of removing a pest from a full-timer position as 'damaging the district'


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> eh?


 
That's how David North can be in two places at once - nowadays you can have a live video link up between two locations at little or no cost.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That's how David North can be in two places at once - nowadays you can have a live video link up between two locations at little or no cost.


Sorry, thought that you meant a link to a video about the SWP had been put up somewhere.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, thought that you meant a link to a video about the SWP had been put up somewhere.


 
I suspected as much


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 22, 2013)

although not sure  DS of the Disputes Committee is saying  he was 'removing a pest'  in the past- he says  he expelled a full timer for the district who'd been a former CC member (wonder who it was ?He doesn't give a clue about when) but not what he was expelled for- I mean expulsions in my memory were more typically for political issues - so in fairness he might have been expelling this guy for some other non-pest reason.  It is bonkers, though, to have a daughter of a DC member on the CC. Also , odd that "we came to a compromise" - ie something was awry but we couldn't say what. I know everyone keeps running round this , but it is so bananas that the compromise isn't "Dear Delta, you'd better leave all leadership roles for a few years and go off to the Job Centre to get a few years working in the fields under yr belt to avoid any possible issues
"


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Btw, is this true? [Why was it considered acceptable for Delta to be investigated by a panel of his mates (including his ex-girlfriend)?]


 
It can't be; I cannot believe they would have done that.

You cannot have somebody who has been in a relationship with the person under investigation carrying out the investigation; it is completely and obviouly hugely unfair/compromising for all involed.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> although not sure DS of the Disputes Committee is saying he was 'removing a pest' in the past- he says he expelled a full timer for the district who'd been a former CC member (wonder who it was ?He doesn't give a clue about when) but not what he was expelled for- I mean expulsions in my memory were more typically for political issues - so in fairness he might have been expelling this guy for some other non-pest reason. It is bonkers, though, to have a daughter of a DC member on the CC. Also , odd that "we came to a compromise" - ie something was awry but we couldn't say what. I know everyone keeps running round this , but it is so bananas that the compromise isn't "Dear Delta, you'd better leave all leadership roles for a few years and go off to the Job Centre to get a few years working in the fields under yr belt to avoid any possible issues"


 
Oh God yes, I had in my mind it was something like domestic violence or similar, D Sherry could be comparing a political demotion with the charges against Delta.

Also, why did the SWP choose Julie Sherry to be the author the Guardian piece surely someone with a non-family connection to the DC would have been better?


----------



## belboid (Mar 22, 2013)

blimey, Guy Smallman _wasn't_ a member of the SWP.  He was always around so much when I was in London, I always assumed he must be (in ref to the latest post on the Guardian article)


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I know everyone keeps running round this , but it is so bananas that the compromise isn't "Dear Delta, you'd better leave all leadership roles for a few years and go off to the Job Centre to get a few years working in the fields under yr belt to avoid any possible issues"


 
"Compromise" for higher ups over rape/sexual harassment.

Expulsion for lower downs over political deviance




> Martin Smith: Well, you are because I'll make it for you instead. I'm not leaving this room without one answer or the other. I don't care personally. I've gone through every democratic structure in the organisation. Everyone's agreed. Everyone was completely horrified when they read that. That alone you let off a smoking gun. Secondly I know you were warned by Sean Vernell. I know you've been argued with by me. I know you've been argued with by Viv. And it goes on and on and on. And I'm sick of it. I'm sick of that Socialist Alliance which I think is absolutely rotten to the core. And I think you have been part of that. I think that you have done absolutely nothing to change it. You've gone along with every little sectarian manoeuvre by the RDG to the stage now where we have them passing motions attacking the party, which is completely out of order and completely condemned by anyone. And just think ... I've had enough of it ... We've done extremely well, we had a very good public meeting on Thursday. We've had a very good intervention around Vauxhall.
> 
> Eric Karas: I was at the public meeting.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> blimey, Guy Smallman _wasn't_ a member of the SWP. He was always around so much when I was in London, I always assumed he must be (in ref to the latest post on the Guardian article)


He might as well be with that pathetic post.


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The far left at its best exposing sexism everywhere and in everything.


 
I think SU has deleted the article, probabably for the best..


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Apparently the problem with 'a certain brand of marxism' (no prizes for guessing which one) is that it encourages 'Man with Analysis' and 'Communist Urgent Man' who just doesn't have time for womens problems. Who knew. Not that 'Anarchist Action Man' eescapes criticism mind.
> 
> And I only mention the following because it seems to amuse/annoy people when I bring up Sheila Rowbotham. But who does Abbie quote to demonstrate that this blindspot in the IS is nothing new? You got it! But of course the newest exiles from the IS share nothing with previous socialist feminists. Those old arguments are dogmatic and modern feminism is completely sui generis as Seymour would say.


 
It might be clumsily expressed, but at the risk of being called "swamp" or backward Marxist, her basic point is not inaccurate - there is sadly counterproductive and empty trivialisation of women's concern's within the various bits of 'the movement' and this overwhelmingly does come from male participants and maybe in particular its leading and/or charismatic figures.

Also Bakan makes one quote of Rowsbotham's from 1973, but repeatedly refers to other figures since that 1973 work - Adrienne Roberts, Janet Conway, Serena Bassi and Lara Coleman, Johanna Brenner. Also the economic side is well grounded by the references to Kate Bezanson and Meg Luxton's 2006 book _Social Reproduction: Feminist Political Economy Challenges Neo-Liberalism._

Yes it's very academic, yes bits of it were hard for me to understand, but that's sort of what it's like in Canadian academia - are there criticisms of Kieran Allen for being an academic, or for positively quoting a sentence from someone who is a liberal? 

Can anyone actually criticise Bakan's basic point that "Generic dismissal of feminist critique renders engagement with socialist feminist contributions to Marxism to be uninteresting or unimportant"?
When she was writing in 2008 it had to a degree become reflexive in leftist publications to either not review or basically to dismiss "bourgeois" feminist criticisms of capitalism and sexism without really analysing them seriously or giving enough space to them (simply because they come from academia / that's all the work of women's studies units detached from the working-class etc), meaning that genuine socialist feminist analysis that does break new ground such Bezanson and Luxton is also downplayed.

And when was the last time any left group gave space within its publication for a feminist or a socialist criticism of that left group by one of its members? 

Bakan's criticisms from within the left is _not_ rehashing old stuff, if it sounds old it's because the largely male behaviour in question has been around a long time and _hasn't gone away_.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> blimey, Guy Smallman _wasn't_ a member of the SWP.  He was always around so much when I was in London, I always assumed he must be (in ref to the latest post on the Guardian article)


Just read that, just assumed he was another of those non member members that pop up all over the place whenever the SWP are criticised.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2013)

Funny he claims to have been an anarchist all that time, I'm sure he was in the SLP for some of it


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He might as well be with that pathetic post.


 
Wow.




> I've never joined the SWP for a whole load of reasons (the main one being I'm an anarchist) and never will. But I have worked closely enough with them for nearly 20 years. Firstly as an organiser for the Anti Nazi League in the 90's and more recently as supplier of images (and occasional writer) for their newspaper and publications.


 
An anarchist ANL organiser in the 1990s. Is he part of the Cliffite/IS tradition? LOL



> I know them far better than most.


They're my mates, sorta, leave off them.



> Having never attended their conference I'm in no position to comment on this bloody awful mess. But I do think that things should be put in perspective here.


 
Not attending the conference means I'll attack other non-attenders who take the matter seriously by doing a "in no position to comment" approach.



> The accused individual and this committee add up to no more than 8 people in an organisation of thousands.


 
Except these figures are the leadership the power structures have moulded this into a very bitter relationship.
500+500 does not equal thousands.




> For the past few decades they have provided the framework and space for people to do something about the issues that matter. Whether it is organising those meetings and protests against the cuts, or building inclusive structures to take on the likes of the EDL, they have always delivered the goods. The goods in question may seem past their sell by date and not to everyone's taste. But what else is on offer on the shelves?


 
Remember folks - Labour or the SWP - that's all there has been, is, or ever will be.



> Some of their achievements have been occasionally spectacular. They were the beating heart of the movement that pulled off the million strong demo against the war ten years ago.


 
A movement they used to kill the Socialist Alliance to launch a shibboleth-free recruiting front which



> They helped unseat a Labour MP in the East End with a left wing alternative during the height of Blairism.


 
unseated to be seated with a rape-denying, anti-abortion, anti-lesbian parenting nutcase



> Meanwhile their sister organisation in Greece seems is one of the few groups keeping those Golden Dawn lunatics in check and offering active and consistent solidarity to refugees and migrants trapped in Athens.


 
Greek bluster.



> Because like it or lump it there is no organisation to the left of Labour (the pro war/cuts/Murdoch/police party) ,that is in any position to fill the void, if the SWP was to melt down. That means no one to build those demos, book those coaches, have the argument and be a consistent and disciplined thorn in the side of the political mainstream.


 


> Anyone who gives a shit about the issues talked about above should perhaps try and remember that.


 
ie 'Don't give a shit about the rape and sexual harassment, botching of trials, secrecy around rape and botching of trials, rigged conferences' let them carry on doing those demos with coaches so I can continue to take photographs.


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The fact that they have a whole sub-section devoted to explaining why sex abuse charges against Roman Polanski _shouldn't_ be heard suggests there is some kind of weirder more generalised possibly chauvinist problem.


 
Visited the link and was like going down a wormhole - classic Dave Spart letter on the subject.

The media spectacle around Roman Polanski is disgraceful, but also depressingly predictable. At a time when the US-led coalition in Afghanistan is facing its heaviest losses and formulating plans to bludgeon the Afghani population into submission, right wing reptiles, newspaper editors and feminists march around in high dudgeon, fulminating about Polanski. The hypocrisy is sickening.
Eric G
South Africa
8 October 2009


----------



## tedsplitter (Mar 22, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/22/swp-cover-up-rape-complaint


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 22, 2013)

tedsplitter said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/22/swp-cover-up-rape-complaint


 
Ouch. It was a mistake for the SWP to get into this row in the pages of CIF. A minor mistake, given the backdrop, but definitely a mistake.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 22, 2013)

"We will take no lessons from the Daily Mail, Sherry says. How right she is. With a record like this, who needs lessons from the Daily Mail?" What a disgusting little turd he is.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 22, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Ouch. It was a mistake for the SWP to get into this row in the pages of CIF. A minor mistake, given the backdrop, but definitely a mistake.


 
Maybe they have an over inflated idea of their ability to use the media in the party's defence.

Anyway as an exercise it has served to show exactly the sort of anti-working class, anti-socialist elements that the splitters are siding with; in doing so it will play a useful part in identifying enemies for what they really are.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. I had written the above before BB posted.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 22, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Maybe they have an over inflated idea of their ability to use the media in the party's defence.


 
I don't understand their media strategy at all. First of all they refused to engage for months, bar giving a few terse responses to inquiries. Then yesterday, they decide to defend themselves, rather weakly, in an outlet that a number of their antagonists actually write for and where the reception can be guaranteed to be extra hostile.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "We will take no lessons from the Daily Mail, Sherry says. How right she is. With a record like this, who needs lessons from the Daily Mail?" What a disgusting little turd he is.


 
Come of it, bb. You can hardly blame him for taking the rhetorical equivalent of a tap in after Sherry and the SWP had done all the work of setting him up with an open goal.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

This is the sort of ground on which they will be massacred - which is one of the reasons they require the stitch ups, the lies, the smears, the paranoia, the fear internally.

_Every Prussian carries his gendarme in his breast._


----------



## chilango (Mar 22, 2013)

Isn't this all over yet?

Let the dead bury the dead.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 22, 2013)

chilango said:


> Isn't this all over yet?


 
God no. It took two years for the relatively trivial Counterfire/ISG split to play itself out. This is going to run and run.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 22, 2013)

I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Guy Smallman piece, but I'm not sure it has the force he wants - "The SWP do loads of important stuff, so shouldn't collapse over mishandled rape allegations" is actually as much an argument for ditching 'Delta' and Callinicos and issuing all round apologies as anything : "Delta" is no longer effective, Callinicos would obviously have trouble organising a wine party in the Senior Common Room ('Professor, the college is on fire !' 'this 1000 word essay on Leninism should do the trick') , and the whole thing ain't fair anyway. They can always appoint another Alex Callinicos.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 22, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Guy Smallman piece, but I'm not sure it has the force he wants - "The SWP do loads of important stuff, so shouldn't collapse over mishandled rape allegations" is actually as much an argument for ditching 'Delta' and Callinicos and issuing all round apologies as anything : "Delta" is no longer effective, Callinicos would obviously have trouble organising a wine party in the Senior Common Room ('Professor, the college is on fire !' 'this 1000 word essay on Leninism should do the trick') , and the whole thing ain't fair anyway. They can always appoint another Alex Callinicos.


 
The arrogance of 'it's SWP or Labour' is astonishing.
If he wants it to not collapse he should join it, so that it can replace its well over 100+ and 4 branch bleeding wound - and then work from the inside to ensure that all the current CC resign and they can start over... now who could have thought of that before.


----------



## Scribbling S (Mar 22, 2013)

Or alternatively he could do the Michael Rosen thing "as a friend, can I tell you..." , which may be quite effective -  I think Michael Rosen's piece, along with the need to get speakers for the impending Marxism may well inspired Julie Sherry's attempt to come out of the shadows and make a 'reasonable' case , rather than the previous LENIN! Splitters! approach.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

Is recruitathon still going ahead this year? the fuck do they think anyone will turn up?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Funny he claims to have been an anarchist all that time, I'm sure he was in the SLP for some of it


 
There must be something in the chemicals photographers use. One of the people who has been responsible for providing the SP with photographs for years is sort of like a reverse Smallman. Instead of being a non-member who is indistinguishable from a member to the naked eye, he is actually a member but has politics which seem so far removed from those of the SP that you'd never suspect.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 22, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Or alternatively he could do the Michael Rosen thing "as a friend, can I tell you..." , which may be quite effective - I think Michael Rosen's piece, along with the need to get speakers for the impending Marxism may well inspired Julie Sherry's attempt to come out of the shadows and make a 'reasonable' case , rather than the previous LENIN! Splitters! approach.


 
There's probably also an element of them moving on from the last phase of the internal war and trying to "turn outwards". Which means doing at least a little to try to repair their reputation, something they weren't too bothered about when the war against Seymour was in full swing.

I'm still expecting a hyperactive burst of "turning outwards" now, which will probably make them quite annoying to people in campaigns, unions etc until the adrenaline wears off and demoralisation sets in.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 22, 2013)

There's a critique of Chris Harman's Leninism here which he expressed in a pamphlet he wrote drawing the conclusion that May 1968 had failed because of the lack of a vanguard party to direct operations. I wonder what would have happened if he had still been around.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> Sheffield
> Sunday April 14, 2 p.m.
> Walkley Community Centre
> Fir Street (off South Road)
> S6 3TG


 
Right, who has some decent links to stuff about this north bloke and his union busting capitalist ways? This lot have been pissing me off for a while, and this meeting just happens to be up the road from me. I think it might be payback time.

frogwoman - I seem to remember you telling me some stuff about this - don't suppose you've got any links or anything?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

I do aye

http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=30939 I haven't read all of the links in that piece but it looks pretty well referenced. There's also a piece by one of their ex members which I'll dig out shortly


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 22, 2013)

http://squirrelcommunism.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/trotskyist-scandal.html

http://www.bolshevik.org/Leaflets/GRPI_puzzle.html (from the IBT, but weirdly they're often pretty reliable when it comes to this kind of stuff)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> http://squirrelcommunism.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/trotskyist-scandal.html
> 
> http://www.bolshevik.org/Leaflets/GRPI_puzzle.html (from the IBT, but weirdly they're often pretty reliable when it comes to this kind of stuff)


 
Cheers mate - this is gonna be fun, might even video it


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 22, 2013)

Personally I don't mind discussing here the "Socialist Equality Party" as one Trotskyist organisation amongst many but there is actually a thread on them here:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/socialist-equality-party.248995/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 22, 2013)

For once I agree with Jean Luc.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 22, 2013)

Guy Smallman not a member of the SWP!? I am pretty damn sure he was my district organiser in south London, at the time Blair got elected in 1997.

We used to call him The Coathanger on account of his unfeasibly wide shoulders and long arms. Lovely bloke but devoid of personality. Turned out to order in an SWP factory for fulltimers.

I stand to be corrected. I think he went on to be the Svengali behind Globalise Resistance. Last time I saw him we were picketing Kissengers' visit to the Royal Albert Hall pre 2001. Tell me I have got the wrong GS! It would depress me that he is not only a liar, but also still an automaton swp HACK.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2013)

That's Guy Taylor.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's Guy Taylor.


 
Did he go with Counterfire?


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 22, 2013)

argh...yes...apologies to Guy Smallman. Who is a non member member of the SWP


----------



## emanymton (Mar 22, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Did he go with Counterfire?


Yep.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 22, 2013)

After reading this transcript as published on the Weekly Worker, I sympathise with M Smith and the SWP!

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/954/swp-leadership-crisis-if-you-dont-talk-about-it

It reeks of small minded group think for sure (Sean Vernell would have to be implicated in there somewhere wouldn't he!?) but the chap getting expelled comes across as a bit of a weasel.

The SWP imported the worst side of Hegelian marxism, via Lenin's lopsided critique of Hegel's Logic (the ghost of John Rees lingers) The SWP go with this whole 'mood' and 'spirit' thing. Start rapping about 'mood' and 'spirit' and it can all be very arbitrary, hence some ordinary john gets expelled for daring to pontificate on the whys and wherefores of obscurantist leninist philosophy, meanwhile some cocksucking cannibal who bites off other comrade's ears/etc. gets a slap on the wrist.

The SWP is into the cult of personality - its a macho thing about 'being hard' and 'tough.' Having such attributes are essential if you are a revolutionary, but it ends up being a DISASTER if It is bound up with this misreading of Hegelian dialectics as a semi-messianic belief in the revolution being a case of will and determination and so this is the mess they wind up in.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 22, 2013)

cocksucking?


----------



## discokermit (Mar 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> cocksucking?


yeh. that's the bad part. not the fact the bloke bit part of a comrades ear off.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 22, 2013)

ammended


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 22, 2013)

deleted


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 22, 2013)

you have to admit..it does defy all laws of rationality and reason that such a specimen should not only be allowed to rejoin the SWP, but is made into a FULL TIME ORGANISER! Is this not just unfuckingbelievable? What kind of culture does that bacterium foster exactly?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yep.


 
Think he's doing much better and more important work now to be honest, fairplay to the bloke.


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2013)

"It reeks of small minded group think for sure (Sean Vernell would have to be implicated in there somewhere wouldn't he!?) but the chap getting expelled comes across as a bit of a weasel."


was he, Vernell,  in Sheffield at some point?, if so fanatic..


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Think he's doing much better and more important work now to be honest, fairplay to the bloke.


 

waht sort of work?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> "It reeks of small minded group think for sure (Sean Vernell would have to be implicated in there somewhere wouldn't he!?) but the chap getting expelled comes across as a bit of a weasel."
> 
> 
> was he, Vernell, in Sheffield at some point?, if so fanatic..


 
Yes he was in Sheffield.

You're a fanatic by the way though so I'm not sure you should be flinging that around as an insult


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2013)

''The SWP is into the cult of personality - *its a macho thing about 'being hard' and 'tough*.' Having such attributes are essential if you are a revolutionary, but it ends up being a DISASTER if It is bound up with this misreading of Hegelian dialectics as a semi-messianic belief in the revolution being a case of will and determination and so this is the mess they wind up in.''

well image and reality are certainly at odds there...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> waht sort of work?


 
don't think it's for me to say - however he is involved in providing pracitical help and support to working class people in the UK irrespective of their politics


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yes he was in Sheffield.
> 
> You're a fanatic by the way though so I'm not sure you should be flinging that around as an insult


 

fuck you, I care about marginalised groups and in the past acted on it, you just drip cynicism all over the boards...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 22, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> you have to admit..it does defy all laws of rationality and reason that such a specimen should not only be allowed to rejoin the SWP, but is made into a FULL TIME ORGANISER! Is this not just unfuckingbelievable? What kind of culture does that bacterium foster exactly?


What exactly is your problem? I've been on demos with both the parties to the case you're talking about and they seemed a lot more grown up about it and less dramatic than you are. Get over yourself, people have rucks, make absolute idiots of themselves. Then they grow up. Or shall we have Seymour vet every future member of the London Soviet to make sure they didn't once watch Benny Hill.


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2013)

found out his occupation, its a decent line of work, but all are working class are they?


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 22, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> don't think it's for me to say - however he is involved in providing pracitical help and support to working class people in the UK irrespective of their politics


yeah he had a good heart and was a humanoid compared to the other fulltimers I had the misfortune to know. Shame he wasted his time on the cocksucking swp but then we all live and learn


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> found out his occupation, its a decent line of work, but all are working class are they?


 
The ones that go to them yes, and thats all that matters.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What exactly is your problem? I've been on demos with both the parties to the case you're talking about and they seemed a lot more grown up about it and less dramatic than you are. Get over yourself, people have rucks, make absolute idiots of themselves. Then they grow up. Or shall we have Seymour vet every future member of the London Soviet to make sure they didn't once watch Benny Hill.


 
Well maybe its normal in the circles you hang around in. *But lets try again: Rape and literally -biting- another person's ear off gets a slapped wrist.* Arguing over the finer intricate details of Leninist philosophy = expulsion for life. Lets be honest here: what kind of party are we talking about? What kind of world do these people seek to inherit? What exactly are the worst residues of Leninism that have been bequeathed?

Another world sure is possible, as they say on their demos. But is it one that is even worse than this?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> fuck you, I care about marginalised groups and in the past acted on it, you just drip cynicism all over the boards...


 
ok


----------



## killer b (Mar 22, 2013)

enough of the cocksucking please sean.


----------



## belboid (Mar 23, 2013)

treelover said:


> fuck you, I care about marginalised groups and in the past acted on it, you just drip cynicism all over the boards...


unless they're immigrants, coming here taking our funding opportunities...


----------



## shifting gears (Mar 23, 2013)

.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 23, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Well maybe its normal in the circles you hang around in. *But lets try again: Rape and literally -biting- another person's ear off gets a slapped wrist.* Arguing over the finer intricate details of Leninist philosophy = expulsion for life. Lets be honest here: what kind of party are we talking about? What kind of world do these people seek to inherit? What exactly are the worst residues of Leninism that have been bequeathed?
> 
> Another world sure is possible, as they say on their demos. But is it one that is even worse than this?


Come on Sean. What was it Guy Smallman asked for, a bit of perspective? 25+ years ago a younger, stupider version of someone was in a fight, a fight with another bloke of similar build and age, that got a bit too physical. And as socialists we should argue this guy couldn't change and is to be barred from all leading roles in the movement?! Really? Btw conflating that case with a case of alleged rape is pretty poor. There's a strategy here of listing every shit thing anyone in the SWP ever did, blaming it on the party's politics whether that's fair or not, then writing the swp off as a violent bunch of rapist thugs which for anyone who knows and has worked with the party is a laughable claim. Many, many working class people come to socialist politics with a rough and ready past. The point is whether being in socialist orgs helps them channel their anger and cast off the inter personal violence shit. Having stod next to the person you're so outraged at and been glad he was there to physically take on fascists about to rip my head off I'm glad he's stuck around and learned how to focus his hatred of the system.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 23, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> After reading this transcript as published on the Weekly Worker, I sympathise with  [x] and the SWP! http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/954/swp-leadership-crisis-if-you-dont-talk-about-it


I see what you mean. They seem to be saying that the dissidents should stay in and create a maximum of disruption before leaving. They also practise "entryism" into the SWP and I would think SPEW too. Strange they should employ this underhand tactic as they are not in the Trotskyist tradition. Aren't they rather ex-CPers or at least ex-entryists into the old CP?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I see what you mean. They seem to be saying that the dissidents should stay in and create a maximum of disruption before leaving. They also practise "entryism" into the SWP and I would think SPEW too. Strange they should employ this underhand tactic as they are not in the Trotskyist tradition. Aren't they rather ex-CPers or at least ex-entryists into the old CP?


 
Ex NCP in their very early days, although they do try very hard to paint themselves as a one time part of/true inheritors of the 'real' CPGB...but they're not.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 23, 2013)

treelover said:


> fuck you, I care about marginalised groups and in the past acted on it, you just drip cynicism all over the boards...


 
The whole thread is dripping cynicism


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 23, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Ex NCP in their very early days, although they do try very hard to paint themselves as a one time part of/true inheritors of the 'real' CPGB...but they're not.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
Didn't know they were ex-NCP, I do know that they entered the CPGB as the Leninist Faction.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 23, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Ex NCP in their very early days, although they do try very hard to paint themselves as a one time part of/true inheritors of the 'real' CPGB...but they're not.


Can't see them attracting many of the dissidents then, especially as they regard the old USSR as "bureaucratic socialism" and attribute the SWP's current troubles to Cliff's theory that Russia was state capitalist:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/944/supplement-origins-of-the-crisis-in-the-swp-part-one

I take it, incidentally, that most of the dissidents still adhere to the state capitalist analysis. Otherwise they couldn't really claim to be in "the IS tradition".


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 23, 2013)

Couple of important interventions in the IS and feminism debate. One from last year by Sharon Smith of the ISO but being resurfaced now by the antis: http://links.org.au/node/3210
Argues (like Bakan) that the IS has an unhealthy oppostion to 'Marxist Feminism'.

And the latest Socialist Review piece by Sally Campbell which I tend to sympathise with more (no shock there!) which regards the attack on the IS apporach to feminism, the talk of crude Cliff etc, as a function of an academic marxist tendency to pit a mechanistic Engles against a humanist Marx: http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12244


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Didn't know they were ex-NCP, I do know that they entered the CPGB as the Leninist Faction.


 
I think the term is external faction; i.e. not really a faction at all.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "We will take no lessons from the Daily Mail, Sherry says. How right she is. With a record like this, who needs lessons from the Daily Mail?" What a disgusting little turd he is.


Still about a million times less disgusting than you.

At least he's got the integrity be a member of a party/group he supports. You don't even have that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 23, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Still about a million times less disgusting than you.
> 
> At least he's got the integrity be a member of a party/group he supports. You don't even have that.


Not that it matters but I'm currently without a membership card for any org. Lots of personal issues in what I do next that I'm not sharing with you. But whichever left org I join next I won't be comparing any of the others unfavorably with the Mail thank you very much.


----------



## belboid (Mar 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Couple of important interventions in the IS and feminism debate. One from last year by Sharon Smith of the ISO but being resurfaced now by the antis: http://links.org.au/node/3210
> Argues (like Bakan) that the IS has an unhealthy oppostion to 'Marxist Feminism'.
> 
> And the latest Socialist Review piece by Sally Campbell which I tend to sympathise with more (no shock there!) which regards the attack on the IS apporach to feminism, the talk of crude Cliff etc, as a function of an academic marxist tendency to pit a mechanistic Engles against a humanist Marx: http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12244


I'm halfway through Campbell's bit st the moment. I hope it improves cos its pretty rubbish so far. Starting with a misrepresentation (albeit minor) of others views, and then a not particularly insightful recapitulation of very very basic Marxism. Not exactly impressive. 

The other swappie contributions are even less impressive tho. 'Great article' is about as far as they can go. Not a very impressive vanguard


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

Random said:


> Your link interprets the SWP/IS statement in one way, lots of people interpret it in another way. At least you accept the possibility that the statement about troops being "vital" could ever be seen as welcoming them.


absolutely! I have no doubt people genuinely believe that the article seems to welcome the troops. I cannot believe after all my years of talking about "language" and revolutionaries on here misinterpreting each other, that you would even question my acceptance of that possibility. I'll go further, I never doubt that the Socialists and the anarchists on here are genuine. What bugs me, is the same assumption is not applied By others to socialist worker party members.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> I do not deny the possibility of interpretation of the article. My link clearly states that they welcomed the troops, is wrong. Even Nigel accepts what we stated, "without the troops, there would have been a pogrom" was a statement of fact. do you honestly believe if the troops hadn't been there there wouldn't have been a pogrom? I doubt it.
> 
> So if you accept that fact, how do you interpret the way forward from that? Workers militias, was the easy option for revolutionaries. However, reality demanded recognising that workers militias was an ultraleft demand. Those who demanded the withdrawal of the troops before the Catholics were able to defend themselves, WERE putting their politics before the interests of the working class Catholics , in my opinion.
> 
> ...


look at the original comments by leyton96. In every single instance he/she sees illogical contradiction and inconsistency. I am supposed to be stupid and ignorant, and yet they all make complete sense to me. In explaining that, how they make sense to me, I am not even arguing the SWP is correct. That you can only view those topics, from their perspective. I am making one point. They are *A* logical socialist perspective. No more, no less.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Well maybe its normal in the circles you hang around in. *But lets try again: Rape and literally -biting- another person's ear off gets a slapped wrist.* Arguing over the finer intricate details of Leninist philosophy = expulsion for life. Lets be honest here: what kind of party are we talking about? What kind of world do these people seek to inherit? What exactly are the worst residues of Leninism that have been bequeathed?
> 
> Another world sure is possible, as they say on their demos. But is it one that is even worse than this?


 you know this is the kind of thing that frog woman is always highlighting, as some kind of anti-Vanguard argument.  The idea that people in the Vanguard party have contradictory levels of consciousness is no revelation to the proponents of the Vanguard, in fact it's an essential notion.

The important point about the Vanguard analogy, which was always massively emphasised in the socialist workers party, is that the Vanguard HAS TO BE connected to the train.  The Vanguard is part of the train.  Likewise, the Vanguard party has to be part of the working class.  And so it should be no shock whatsoever that some members of the Vanguard party, still have some of the "muck of ages", that they are still affected by "the dominant ideas in society, the ideas of the ruling class".


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 23, 2013)

I'd find an abbreviation glossary really helpful eg the only NCP I know is National Car Parks. It reminds me of the time I suggested contacting the SLP about a local issue and got admonished for involving a political party when I was referring to the South London Press.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> you have to admit..it does defy all laws of rationality and reason that such a specimen should not only be allowed to rejoin the SWP, but is made into a FULL TIME ORGANISER! Is this not just unfuckingbelievable? What kind of culture does that bacterium foster exactly?


 I know, that's the problem with the SWP, it doesn't have enough comrades with middle-class sensibilities.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'm halfway through Campbell's bit st the moment. I hope it improves cos its pretty rubbish so far. Starting with a misrepresentation (albeit minor) of others views, and then a not particularly insightful recapitulation of very very basic Marxism. Not exactly impressive.
> 
> The other swappie contributions are even less impressive tho. 'Great article' is about as far as they can go. Not a very impressive vanguard


Badly edited and hastily written as it certainly appears, it's arguments (short and laacking in detail it's true) against Gimenez, Vogel and Brown suggest a line of inquiry. Hopefully future ISJ and SR articles flesh that position out. We're gonna see a lot of this over the next year, expect to SCS by German sold cheap to everyone joining a swss group here on out.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I'd find an abbreviation glossary really helpful eg the only NCP I know is National Car Parks. It reminds me of the time I suggested contacting the SLP about a local issue and got admonished for involving a political party when I was referring to the South London Press.


 
New Communist Party - pro soviet, pro Labour split from the CPGB.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 23, 2013)

Thanks for that


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Badly edited and hastily written as it certainly appears, it's arguments (short and laacking in detail it's true) against Gimenez, Vogel and Brown suggest a line of inquiry. Hopefully future ISJ and SR articles flesh that position out.


 
Badly edited, hastily written, short on argument and lacking in detail; you must really really want to like this article. Do you think you might be trying a bit too hard.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> Starting with a misrepresentation (albeit minor) of others views, and then a not particularly insightful recapitulation of very very basic Marxism. Not exactly impressive.


 
That's how swoppies train their members to 'argue' with ideas they don't agree with.

Step 1: Misrepresent the other persons argument and present a position no sane person could possible agree with.

Step 2: Argue against this new position you have invented.

Step 3: You have 'won' the argument.

In my 15 or so years of observing and discussing with members of the IS 'Tradition' in several different countries this is the method that is followed almost without exception. It's another reason why I always smile when you get a particularly self aggrandising IS member who likes to boast about the great theoretical heritage of the IS 'Tradition' (you get some ex-members like that as well, Sebastian Budgen springs to mind).

The reality is that because the IS 'Tradition' is such a hotch-potch of contradictory positions, often the result of importing different ideas whole sale from elsewhere, that most IS members are quite often not really that confident in their own ideas. For this reason they often resort to this dishonest method of debate when discussing other ideas.

Personally speaking I often find it much more challenging to debate with an anarchist or even a Stalinist than someone from the IS 'Tradition'.
With the former two there is at least some sort of clash of ideas but with an IS person what mostly end up doing is correcting the distortions of your own position.


----------



## belboid (Mar 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Badly edited and hastily written as it certainly appears, it's arguments (short and laacking in detail it's true) against Gimenez, Vogel and Brown suggest a line of inquiry. Hopefully future ISJ and SR articles flesh that position out.


it doesnt actually deal with any arguments they make tho, does it? It just says they make an argument and then, responds to something written fifty years earlier! Now, it _might be_ a perfectly accurate version of their argument, but it isnt _actually_ their argument. This is another article that could have been written any time in the last forty years, as a way of engaging with current arguments, it fails completely, doesnt it?


----------



## belboid (Mar 23, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> That's how swoppies train their members to 'argue' with ideas they don't agree with.


hardly unique to the swappies, all the other lefties are at least as bad. Or they'll just ignore whatever the argument is and will restate their own orgs position, just slightly louder.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> it doesnt actually deal with any arguments they make tho, does it? It just says they make an argument and then, respinds to something written fifty years earlier! Now, it _might be_ a perfectly accurate version of their argument, but it isnt _actually_ their argument. This is another article that could have been written any time in the last forty years, as a way of engaging with current arguments, it fails completely, doesnt it?


Moe of an opening salvo I'd say in a year long battle of ideas as promised by the cc motion to the special conf. As I say German's book is going to be required reading for every loyalist for the next few weeks. Reading it now myself, bloody good. Especially on partiarchy, socialist feminism and two modes theory.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 yes, not all anarchists sit around criticising what everybody else is DOING.




> They're my mates, sorta, leave off them.


 basic solidarity the left shoulder each other in the face of attacks from the right.  Done it myself many times for anarchists.





> 500+500 does not equal thousands.


 interesting point that, you are claiming the SWP is smaller than it was.  Because pressure.




> A movement they used to kill the Socialist Alliance to launch a shibboleth-free recruiting front which


 but the reality was, much of the reorganisation, reorientation of the SWP has made recruitment more difficult, as they knew it would.





> unseated to be seated with a rape-denying, anti-abortion, anti-lesbian parenting nutcase


 why?  Do you care about elections?




> ie 'Don't give a shit about the rape and sexual harassment, botching of trials, secrecy around rape and botching of trials, rigged conferences' let them carry on doing those demos with coaches so I can continue to take photographs.


 because what you do is so much more prominent?  Acting to promote the struggle of the working class, how?


----------



## belboid (Mar 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Moe of an opening salvo I'd say in a year long battle of ideas as promised by the cc motion to the special conf. As I say German's book is going to be required reading for every loyalist for the next few weeks. Reading it now myself, bloody good. Especially on partiarchy, socialist feminism and two modes theory.


more of an opening fart, I'd say, but hey ho.  Is LG's book still going to be central? Didnt Shelia write owt? (other than her seminal pieces on Fair Isle Knitting Patterns, which may, I suppose, just possibly be by a different Shelia McGregor)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> because what you do is so much more prominent? Acting to promote the struggle of the working class, how?


 
This bit just shows how shit you really are - sihhi doesn't have to be doing anything to 'promote the struggle of the working class' to correctly point out that, even if the SWP really were key to 'the emancipation of the working class as the act of the working class', that wouldn't excuse the kind of stuff we've heard about on this thread.


ResistanceMP3 said:


> basic solidarity the left shoulder each other in the face of attacks from the right. Done it myself many times for anarchists.


 
You've told people to leave off criticising anarchists when they take part in botched rape investigations?

(I'm going to regret asking this question aren't I?)


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> That's how swoppies train their members to 'argue' with ideas they don't agree with.
> 
> Step 1: Misrepresent the other persons argument and present a position no sane person could possible agree with.
> 
> ...


aren't you being a bit hypocritical, having totally misrepresented the arguments of the SWP here;





leyton96 said:


> So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.
> 
> During the early stages of the Socialist Alliance the SWP is "uncompromising" on the issue of open borders and migrant rights, then when it is in a position to actually put such a position on a national platform in Respect it suddenly has nothing to say on the matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (Mar 23, 2013)

and if anyone knows anything about misrepresentation, its rmp3...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This bit just shows how shit you really are - sihhi doesn't have to be doing anything to 'promote the struggle of the working class' to correctly point out that, even if the SWP really were key to 'the emancipation of the working class as the act of the working class', that wouldn't excuse the kind of stuff we've heard about on this thread.


 that's misinterpreting my argument.
Discussion of the rape allegation, and how it was handled, is not the only discussion taking place on this thread/and in the media.  A general attack upon Leninism/Trotskyism (and on the left in the media). 
I was not asking him to excuse the rape allegations and their handling, but if he's going to make sneering comments about coaches ect, I'm entitled to ask what does he do that is so much better?
You took one comment out of context.  Please don't do that.


SpineyNorman said:


> You've told people to leave off criticising anarchists when they take part in botched rape investigations?
> 
> (I'm going to regret asking this question aren't I?)


 practice what you preach.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> more of an opening fart, I'd say, but hey ho. Is LG's book still going to be central? Didnt Shelia write owt? (other than her seminal pieces on Fair Isle Knitting Patterns, which may, I suppose, just possibly be by a different Shelia McGregor)


Lol. Don't think so. LG's is the best one in print by that group of people even if the author herself may have abandoned much of her own work now.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> that's misinterpreting my argument.
> Discussion of the rape allegation, and how it was handled, is not the only discussion taking place on this thread/and in the media. A general attack upon Leninism/Trotskyism (and on the left in the media).
> I was not asking him to excuse the rape allegations and their handling, but if he's going to make sneering comments about coaches ect, I'm entitled to ask what does he do that is so much better?
> You took one comment out of context. Please don't do that.
> practice what you preach.


 
No, you're the one trying to rip it away from its context - because the anarchist in question _was _using their hiring of coaches etc to excuse the horrendous stuff we've read about on this thread.

Again, your knee jerk defence of the SWP leads you to lose all sense of perspective.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Come on Sean. What was it Guy Smallman asked for, a bit of perspective? 25+ years ago a younger, stupider version of someone was in a fight, a fight with another bloke of similar build and age, that got a bit too physical. And as socialists we should argue this guy couldn't change and is to be barred from all leading roles in the movement?! Really? Btw conflating that case with a case of alleged rape is pretty poor. There's a strategy here of listing every shit thing anyone in the SWP ever did, blaming it on the party's politics whether that's fair or not, then writing the swp off as a violent bunch of rapist thugs which for anyone who knows and has worked with the party is a laughable claim. Many, many working class people come to socialist politics with a rough and ready past. The point is whether being in socialist orgs helps them channel their anger and cast off the inter personal violence shit. Having stod next to the person you're so outraged at and been glad he was there to physically take on fascists about to rip my head off I'm glad he's stuck around and learned how to focus his hatred of the system.


he didn't come to the party with a rough and ready past then channel his anger and cast off the inter personal violence shit though, did he?

he came to the party _then_ channelled his anger _into_ inter personal violence shit.

you are such a liar.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> and if anyone knows anything about misrepresentation, its rmp3...


many of the arguments made against socialist worker on here, from MY POINT OF VIEW are nonsense.  And I don't mean that insultingly, I mean literally they make no sense.  [I genuinely cannot understand how people can so misrepresent the SWP, i.e. shibboleth.] So it shouldn't be surprising, I misinterpret them (misrepresent them).

I am not offended by this, I'm fascinated.  I genuinely would like to comprehend it.

Whilst I am fully aware of the major major differences between all the different political strands, I do think one of the major problems is, people need to wind their neck in a bit, and try to create a common language, without hyperbole, and listen to each other.

So when I DO misrepresent what people are saying, it is either because 1. I genuinely don't understand them or 2. Get that fed up of being misrepresented, I can't be arsed.


----------



## belboid (Mar 23, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> MY POINT OF VIEW are nonsense


_is_, not are


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, you're the one trying to rip it away from its context - because the anarchist in question _was _using their hiring of coaches etc to excuse the horrendous stuff we've read about on this thread.
> 
> Again, your knee jerk defence of the SWP leads you to lose all sense of perspective.


 well that's your interpretation. The CPGB also made the point about defending socialist worker from the right, WHILST criticising socialist worker.

I would prefer you to deal with the questions I actually asked.  If everything is about recruitment, why are they so piss poor at recruiting?  Is it possible they are genuine socialists?  Is it possible I am a socialist?  Is it possible, we could GENUINELY disagree?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> _is_, not are


 and people accuse me of trolling. Trying to take the thread off topic.

Is that correct? I said arguments, which is plural. So surely you cant say the arguments is wrong. You have to say the arguments are wrong?

Look, the personal abuse is just water off a ducks back to me. But it is very NOT interesting, or enjoyable for the thread. Why cannot you just ignore what I say, or ACTUALLY take on what I say without misrepresenting it? (No offence  )


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

discokermit said:


> he didn't come to the party with a rough and ready past then channel his anger and cast off the inter personal violence shit though, did he?
> 
> he came to the party _then_ channelled his anger _into_ inter personal violence shit.
> 
> you are such a liar.


 there is no need for this personal abuse.  Why would he lie?  It's a bloody chit chat board, there is no point in lying.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

Anyway, have a nice day Norman belboid.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> well that's your interpretation. The CPGB also made the point about defending socialist worker from the right, WHILST criticising socialist worker.
> 
> I would prefer you to deal with the questions I actually asked. If everything is about recruitment, why are they so piss poor at recruiting? Is it possible they are genuine socialists? Is it possible I am a socialist? Is it possible, we could GENUINELY disagree?


 
No, sorry I'm not going to help you completely derail a thread by answering or asking irrelevant questions (nobody has claimed they're not genuine socialists - that they believe what they're doing is what's best for advancing socialism - after all, if the SWP is the one true socialist faith then it makes perfect sense to put the interests of the party before all else).

I dare say you're just incapable of seeing your own biases - people with a religious style faith in groups, political or not, are often like that.

Now, about these anarchists you've defended after they undertook botched rape investigations...


----------



## emanymton (Mar 23, 2013)

So anyway, back on topic, Seymour responds to Julie Sherry's piece. 

Just occurred to be that for all the CC's whining about the opposition and the bourgeois press, the first side to openly write about it in the bourgeois press was in fact the CC.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2013)

emanymton said:


> So anyway, back on topic, Seymour responds to Julie Sherry's piece.
> 
> Just occurred to be that for all the CC's whining about the opposition and the bourgeois press, the first side to openly write about it in the bourgeois press was in fact the CC.


 
I think you'll find you have misinterpreted the dialectic that prompted Julie Sherry's piece.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 23, 2013)

discokermit said:


> he didn't come to the party with a rough and ready past then channel his anger and cast off the inter personal violence shit though, did he?
> 
> he came to the party _then_ channelled his anger _into_ inter personal violence shit.
> 
> you are such a liar.


To make a claim like that you better have some first hand knowledge of what he was like when he joined otherwise you can fuck right off.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> To make a claim like that you better have some first hand knowledge of what he was like when he joined otherwise you can fuck right off.


eh? what the fuck are you on about? are you saying that he was actually _worse_ before he joined? that him biting lumps out of comrades ears was actually an improvement? jesus fucking christ.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)




----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 23, 2013)

jeesus. I'm saying none of that. I'm saying people don't change overnight but they do change.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 23, 2013)

But Bolshie, my original point still stands, which I think I may have missed a response from you or any other SWP sympathiser on here - which is that some poor jon whose crime is to dare discuss or question the finer details of the SWP leadership's twists and turns get expelled for life, while the kind of behaviour which is by most peoples standards grossly inhumane gets a slap on the wrist because 'they are good organisers.' What kind of party is it, that operates on such a basis?

Such a culture has nothing to do with socialism. I dread to think what kind of society the current crop of SWP loyalists would be presiding over.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 23, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> But Bolshie, my original point still stands, which I think I may have missed a response from you or any other SWP sympathiser on here - which is that some poor jon whose crime is to dare discuss or question the finer details of the SWP leadership's twists and turns get expelled for life, while the kind of behaviour which is by most peoples standards grossly inhumane gets a slap on the wrist because 'they are good organisers.' What kind of party is it, that operates on such a basis?
> 
> Such a culture has nothing to do with socialism. I dread to think what kind of society the current crop of SWP loyalists would be presiding over.


 
On the one hand questioning the theory of the leadership is questioning the very basis on which the party operates; as such it is a fundamental attack on the party. On the other, biting someones ear or sexually harassing someone needs to be set against the needs of the class; in these cases the need of the class to have good organisers/leaders if they are to fulfill their historic potential.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> On the one hand questioning the theory of the leadership is questioning the very basis on which the party operates; as such it is a fundamental attack on the party. On the other, biting someones ear or sexually harassing someone needs to be set against the needs of the class; in these cases the need of the class to have good organisers/leaders if they are to fulfill their historic potential.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
We need proletarian leaders who are unafraid to bite the ears of the bourgeois class.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

As we bite the ears of wayward comrades, so we tear a chunk off the greasy lugs of capital!


----------



## emanymton (Mar 23, 2013)

Can we leave off the ear bitting, unless the suggestion is he was acting as an enforcer for the CC at the time or something I don't see the point of it. So two young blokes who both happened to be in the Irish SWP got into a fight once and one lost a bit of his ear, so what?


----------



## JimW (Mar 23, 2013)

emanymton said:


> ... so what?


Well, his hat never sat straight again


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

And he's got nothing to hang his specs on


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 23, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Can we leave of the ear bitting, unless the suggestion is he was acting as an enforcer for the CC at the time or something I don't see the point of it. So two young blokes who both happened to be in the Irish SWP got into a fight once and one lost a bit of his ear, so what?


The voice of reason.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> (nobody has claimed they're not genuine socialists - that they believe what they're doing is what's best for advancing socialism - after all, if the SWP is the one true socialist faith then it makes perfect sense to put the interests of the party before all else).
> 
> I dare say you're just incapable of seeing your own biases - people with a religious style faith in groups, political or not, are often like that.


 by saying they are a faith group, you are denying they are socialists. You are denying Like you, they look at the world and come to some conclusions about how to change it. If socialist workers is a faith group, then so is yours.

I would say, the fact of the matter is, nobody! Not you and your political group/org, the anarchists or the SWP have the one true politics. I learned that from socialist worker. 



> Now, about these anarchists you've defended after they undertook botched rape investigations...


 hypocrite.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> by saying they are a faith group, you are denying they are socialists. You are denying Like you, they look at the world and come to some conclusions about how to change it. They make mistakes. If socialist workers is a faith group, then so is yours.
> 
> I would say, the fact of the matter is, nobody! Not you and your political group/org, the anarchists or the SWP have the one true politics. I learned that from socialist worker.
> 
> hypocrite.


 
I was once a member of the SWP - I've seen it from within. You're right that some of the more hackish elements within the SP take the party line on faith, but in my experience they're a smaller proportion of the membership than their SWP equivalents.

I do have the one true politics by the way, the SP clearly don't though, otherwise I wouldn't disagree with as much of the party line as I do. And I can say that without being threatened with expulsion or in any way disciplined.

That really is the last reply you'll get from me, I'm kicking myself for getting into this to be honest. You're an idiot, I really can't be arsed any more.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I was once a member of the SWP - I've seen it from within. You're an idiot, I really can't be arsed any more.


so you will be able to quote where they say they are the one true faith?

Actually, please don't bother responding.  After I've read of little further, I can see no point.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


>


 hypocrite


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> hypocrite


 
Fuck off weirdo - you're going on ignore now.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> As we bite the ears of wayward comrades, so we tear a chunk off the greasy lugs of capital!


 Have you considered taking up comedy writing or even just creating a blog for political and general comments? You have a talent for parody.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Have you considered taking up comedy writing or even just creating a blog for political and general comments? You have a talent for parody.


 
I have a blog, although the writing on it's probably crap, send me a PM and Ill PM you the link


----------



## emanymton (Mar 23, 2013)

Whenever RMP3 likes one of my posts, I get really really worried about myself.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

Well several of you there whine about being misrepresented, and then just look at what you are doing to the arguments of BB. No wonder most sensible people from the SWP stopped posting here


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fuck off weirdo - you're going on ignore now.


thanks Fuck for that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

Latest post by - ignored member.

Ahhh, bliss


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

there was a spate of swappie ear-biting around 8 years back if the anecdata on here is correct

why was this

/DC


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Latest post by - ignored member.
> 
> Ahhh, bliss


  we both know you read it!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> there was a spate of swappie ear-biting around 8 years back if the anecdata on here is correct
> 
> why was this
> 
> /DC


you should be able to get another 12 pages out of that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 23, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you should be able to get another 12 pages out of that.


Aye and about 2 paragraphs in total about the politics of the split. This thread is quickly losing any use value it had.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Aye and about 2 paragraphs in total about the politics of the split. This thread is quickly losing any use value it had.


Which is the fault of the SWP for becoming less interesting once the special conferree and its immediate fallout where resolved.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

We really need SEYMOUR! to say something that could be construed as support for identity politics if you squint really hard while you're reading it - I reckon that would get it moving again.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

Ear-biters and bitees should get a spoke each on the wheel of oppression


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

Surely bitee = oppression, biter = privilege?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Well several of you there whine about being misrepresented, and then just look at what you are doing to the arguments of BB. No wonder most sensible people from the SWP stopped posting here


 
Most sensible people from the SWP are no longer in the SWP


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Most sensible people from the SWP are no longer in the SWP


Looks as if conditions in the SWP/SPEW Coalition in the Trade Union & Socialists Coalition is becoming a bit like that in the Tory/LibDem Coalition in government.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 23, 2013)

fuck off kautsky

/dc


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 23, 2013)

Seriously, what is going to be the fall-out of all this on TUSC? I'm genuinely surprised to see SPEW members here line up to put the boot into the SWP.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Seriously, what is going to be the fall-out of all this on TUSC? I'm genuinely surprised to see SPEW members here line up to put the boot into the SWP.


 
You do realise that what we say on here isn't necessarily the party line, right? We're a much more diverse lot than the squeeby geebies appear to be.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 23, 2013)

Fair enough but I'm just as much a leftwing trainspotter as you (and it's not permissible to mention the spugubs here even indirectly).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2013)

My honest answer is that I don't know how it will affect TUSC. We've avoided commenting on this in our publications (sensibly IMO) but it's bound to be causing some tensions - can't see how it could be otherwise. From a purely cynical political POV I expect there are people trying to work out how bad the damage has to get before the SWP's involvement becomes more of a hindrance than a help. But that's pure speculation on my part - in all honesty your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 23, 2013)

Battling my way through the Laurie Penny thread, found this, http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...cebook-handbags.266196/page-127#post-11461702

oh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Seriously, what is going to be the fall-out of all this on TUSC? I'm genuinely surprised to *see SPEW members here line up to put the boot into the SWP*.


 

who has though? quote the bootings. Name and shame. Or else eat your hat.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You do realise that what we say on here isn't necessarily the party line, right? We're a much more diverse lot than the squeeby geebies appear to be.


 
Cheers. That raised a smile.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 24, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Battling my way through the Laurie Penny thread, found this, http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...cebook-handbags.266196/page-127#post-11461702
> 
> oh.


 
It's really horrid to read that and look at the date.

I am still very worried about how many people knew and how much they knew about the multiple attacks. Then I remember how similar things have happened in so many institutions and wonder about how many knew about those attacks too.

I'm beginning to think that there is something to 'rape culture'.

Either way, I despair of human beings sometimes.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 24, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Battling my way through the Laurie Penny thread, found this, http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...cebook-handbags.266196/page-127#post-11461702
> 
> oh.


The more recent revelations in the press were not really so much of a surprise to us who are veterans of these threads.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> who has though? quote the bootings. Name and shame. Or else eat your hat.


I was thinking of this message in particular:


frogwoman said:


> Most sensible people from the SWP are no longer in the SWP


Interpreted literally, this means that there are no sensible people left in the SWP. That's a booting if ever there was.

Can I be let off eating my hat?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

Which reminds me, did Nigel ever get around to eating his boot?


----------



## eoin_k (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> ... Interpreted literally, this means that there are no sensible people left in the SWP....


 
_Most_ and _all_ are different words with distinct meanings.  So, interpreted literally your post is just wrong.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 24, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> _Most_ and _all_ are different words with distinct meanings. So, interpreted literally your post is just wrong.


Yes, you're right. I missed that. See if I can get it right this time. To say "Most sensible people from the SWP are no longer in the SWP" implies that most people remaining n the SWP are not sensible unless more people have left the SWP than remain in it (which I don't think is the case) or that some non-sensible people have also left the SWP. Interpreting this literally is getting too complicated, so I give up on that, but the statement is still a booting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yes, you're right. I missed that. See if I can get it right this time. To say "Most sensible people from the SWP are no longer in the SWP" implies that most people remaining n the SWP are not sensible unless more people have left the SWP than remain in it (which I don't think is the case) or that some non-sensible people have also left the SWP. Interpreting this literally is getting too complicated, so I give up on that, but the statement is still a booting.


The number of ex-swp is greater than the number of current swp as the swp have been shedding members for more than 30 years


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> The number of ex-swp is greater than the number of current swp as the swp have been shedding members for more than 30 years


To continue the logic-chopping, that could mean that there could still be a majority of sensible people in the SWP, but I'm not sure that was what the original statement was meant to convey. If it was, I will have to eat my hat.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 24, 2013)

double post


----------



## andysays (Mar 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> As we bite the ears of wayward comrades, so we tear a chunk off the greasy lugs of capital!


 
THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE WON’T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST BRANCH ORGANISOR HAS BITTEN THE EAR OFF THE LAST QUESTIONING PARTY MEMBER


----------



## discokermit (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Which reminds me, did Nigel ever get around to eating his boot?


a compromise was met. just as the irish swp condemned the british swp but not in public, nigel ate his shoe but didn't tell anyone.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 24, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> On the one hand questioning the theory of the leadership is questioning the very basis on which the party operates; as such it is a fundamental attack on the party. On the other, biting someones ear or sexually harassing someone needs to be set against the needs of the class; in these cases the need of the class to have good organisers/leaders if they are to fulfill their historic potential.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
I think L M is operating at the level of deep undercover parody but I'm not sure.

Anyway, the logic in his post here is absolutely spot on. Hegel's critique of the concept of 'the beautiful soul' springs to mind.

But its clear to most people by now that the era of the Leninist party is well and truly over. Anselm Jappe, Moishe Postone and Gaspar Tamas have all made the same point in various ways: historically, Leninist state building projects have developed in parallel with the capitalist categories themselves - that far from challenging the capitalist categories Leninst parties replicate them. This isn't some inherent weakness due to fallible individuals at the helm ('the beautiful soul' thesis) but is a problem that goes to the very core of the capitalist cell form itself, the commodity.G Tamas's article here is a very straightfoward introduction to this critique. Tamas's political and philosophical origins are located in the 'Left communist' tradition, which may interest some people here, in terms of how he has developed it.

What is repugnant about the current SWP debacle is how it mirrors aspects of the Healy/WRP filth - Corin Redgrave's infamous 'if a rapist can build a party like ours with such success we need more rapists' (ear-biters, thugs, psychopaths, insert as appropriate).


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 24, 2013)

*'You're a nasty piece of work aren't you?'*

Completely unrelated, but if anyone needs cheering up, enjoy watching eddie mair absolutely annhialate boris johnson:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21916385#FBM216804


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Aye and about 2 paragraphs in total about the politics of the split. This thread is quickly losing any use value it had.


 precisely.  Ex-members or not, they seem incapable of understanding is not the criticisms of the SWP that we have a problem, it is a nonpolitical nature of those criticisms.  The claims that they are a semi-religious sect, rather than a political party, with a consistent political viewpoint.  It is the constant misrepresenting of the party position on things, ie state capitalism, rather than anti-imperialist position on Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan.

I have always had my own criticisms of the party.  But I am unable to get into admission and discussion of where you agree with people, because the attacks are just so,,,,,,,,,,,, I am trying to think of the right phrase, and I guess strawman attacks.  Exactly what they criticise the SWP for, they are guilty of themselves.



This is something, which the vast majority of the working class, and non-revolutionary politically aligned would recognise as being a two-way street.  The SWP, and everyone else, seems to be misrepresenting the arguments of each other.  Leading to a position where the Revolutionary (R) left, are constantly arguing amongst themselves, instead of engaging with the working class.


(R) Anybody who would like to see an end to capitalist mode of social organisation and a transition to a classless mode of social existence.left


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Most sensible people from the SWP are no longer in the SWP


 I love this.  10 years ago, the argument was the same.  The only sensible people, are the ones not in the SWP.  It's kind of a self-fulfilling sectarian position.  Worthy of any cult.

I'm no longer in the SWP.  My position on the current SWP and the faction, on the POLITICS, is leaning towards the faction. But my agreement with probably the majority of here, that there is a problem of ossified leadership in the SWP, will not stop me pointing out when people are telling lies or giving gays lazy sectarian analysis.

Random points out correctly, that the article from Ireland can genuinely be interpreted in different ways, by different people.  Absolutely agree with him.  Absolutely can understand how random reads it the way he does.  However, it is dishonest to suggest that was the position of the SWP, if the SWP even today categorically deny that interpretation.

This misrepresentation that some people whine about, is CLEARLY a two-way street.  Both sides feel they are being misrepresented.  Why is that?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I was thinking of this message in particular:
> Interpreted literally, this means that there are no sensible people left in the SWP. That's a booting if ever there was.
> 
> Can I be let off eating my hat?


 the thing is, ON HERE, that isn't really a new position.  For the past 10 years I've been a member on here, the only explanation of anybody being a member of the SWP has been that, they must be brainwashed, they must be idiots, or some other kind of argument along that line.

I have in the past, along time ago, bent over absolutely backwards to try and make sense of the criticisms, and try and form a common language for genuine honest discussion.  It's impossible, it seems.  Which led me to give up.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Fuck off then.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> The number of ex-swp is greater than the number of current swp as the swp have been shedding members for more than 30 years


Norman, unless is a hypocrite, is going to challenge you now for misrepresenting what Jean said.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> To continue the logic-chopping, that could mean that there could still be a majority of sensible people in the SWP, but I'm not sure that was what the original statement was meant to convey. If it was, I will have to eat my hat.


 don't worry, this misrepresenting of what you have said is something you will get used to on here.  It's something that happens amongst all the left, however I think Pickman, butchers, violent panda do it on purpose. Just a heads up 

PS.  Like you, I have also tried to take responsibility for any misunderstanding, but that doesn't appease them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Aye and about 2 paragraphs in total about the politics of the split. This thread is quickly losing any use value it had.


 
For you, it lost any value as soon as posters realised the pro-CC nature of every single post you made.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Most sensible people from the SWP are no longer in the SWP


 
Most, but not all. I'd argue that some Swappies show an idealism undimmed by the reality of Swappite practice, which on the one hand is quite sweet, but on the other shows an alarming degree of otherworldly naivety.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> *'You're a nasty piece of work aren't you?'*
> 
> Completely unrelated, but if anyone needs cheering up, enjoy watching eddie mair absolutely annhialate boris johnson:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21916385#FBM216804


 thanks very much, I enjoyed that.  HOWEVER if a whole bunch of people including Norman, Louis, frog etc don't wade in to you now whining about you taking the thread off topic, they are going to look a right bunch of hypocrites..

PS.  I actually refute any claims that my challenging people misrepresenting the positions SWP members held over certain historical events, was ME taking the thread off topic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

J Ed said:


> It's really horrid to read that and look at the date.
> 
> I am still very worried about how many people knew and how much they knew about the multiple attacks. Then I remember how similar things have happened in so many institutions and wonder about how many knew about those attacks too.
> 
> ...


 
The unfortunate fact is that people of ill-intent will always be drawn toward any structures that have the possibility of giving them power over others. That the SWP has such people within its' ranks isn't surprising. That they have handled the exposure of such people so badly is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Which reminds me, did Nigel ever get around to eating his boot?


 
I believe he's awaiting the arrival of a suitable selection of condiments.


----------



## andysays (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I believe he's awaiting the arrival of a suitable selection of condiments.


 
Bottle of SP sauce on its way then?


----------



## andysays (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I love this. 10 years ago, the argument was the same. The only sensible people, are the ones not in the SWP. It's kind of a self-fulfilling sectarian position. Worthy of any cult.


 
Talking of misrepresentation and hypocrisy, as we were...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

andysays said:


> Talking of misrepresentation and hypocrisy, as we were...


I'm all ears Andy, how have I misrepresented. I honestly don't see much difference between what frog woman said there, and what people were saying 10 years ago.

I also think it is dishonest of you to selectively quote. I have just gone back and read what I said, and I clearly balanced that you have quoted, in the last line.


ResistanceMP3 said:


> I love this. 10 years ago, the argument was the same. The only sensible people, are the ones not in the SWP. It's kind of a self-fulfilling sectarian position. Worthy of any cult.
> 
> I'm no longer in the SWP. My position on the current SWP and the faction, on the POLITICS, is leaning towards the faction. But my agreement with probably the majority of here, that there is a problem of ossified leadership in the SWP, will not stop me pointing out when people are telling lies or giving gays lazy sectarian analysis.
> 
> ...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Chomsky speaks volumes


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> don't worry, this misrepresenting of what you have said is something you will get used to on here.  It's something that happens amongst all the left, however I think Pickman, butchers, violent panda do it on purpose. Just a heads up .


Hmm, one of the reasons I continue to lurk around this thread is that most of those who post - and that includes those you mention - argue honestly held positions. You and bb don't, though bb has a different set of tricks to you.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 24, 2013)

Plus, at times it's laugh out loud fun.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> For you, it lost any value as soon as posters realised the pro-CC nature of every single post you made.


No you're talking shit, again.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Hmm, one of the reasons I continue to lurk around this thread is that most of those who post - and that includes those you mention - argue honestly held positions. You and bb don't, though bb has a different set of tricks to you.


Funny that innit, how the only people who you say are dishonest on this thread are the people defending the tradition you're a member of. Grow some honesty balls yourself and tell us all who you are. That would be 'epic' of you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No you're talking shit, again.


 
So your posts on this thread *haven't* been viewed by many posters as a whining, long-winded apologia for anything the CC does?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Hmm, one of the reasons I continue to lurk around this thread is that most of those who post - and that includes those you mention - argue honestly held positions. You and bb don't, though bb has a different set of tricks to you.


 where have I questioned their "positions".  They are genuine anarchists.  They are genuinely hostile to Lenin and Trotsky et cetera.  I have said this kind of thing many times.  But when they routinely do this


> Jean-Luc said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you're right. I missed that. See if I can get it right this time. To say "Most sensible people from the SWP are no longer in the SWP" implies that most people remaining n the SWP are not sensible unless more people have left the SWP than remain in it (which I don't think is the case) or that some non-sensible people have also left the SWP. Interpreting this literally is getting too complicated, so I give up on that, but the statement is still a booting.
> ...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So your posts on this thread *haven't* been viewed by many posters as a whining, long-winded apologia for anything the CC does?


Don't be so clueless. I know they have. People realising they felt that way wasn't the point I started feeling this thread was losing its charm. Christ that was about post 200. It lost its charm when it became people in the SP who barely understand their own party's politics sniggering about ear biting in another as indicative of something meaningful :-(


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Funny that innit, how the only people who you say are dishonest on this thread are the people defending the tradition you're a member of. grow some balls and tell us all who you are. That would be 'epic'.


 
Do you think that what you and RMP3 are doing is defending 'the tradition'; i.e. affording it some actual protection? It looks much more like defending your attachment to/investment in/nostalgia for 'the tradition'.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Do you think that what you and RMP3 are doing is defending 'the tradition'; i.e. affording it some actual protection? It looks much more like defending your attachment to/investment in 'the tradition'.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Proof will be in the pudding as always.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

And in terms of effectiveness, well, how many lost overboard this week


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Proof will be in the pudding as always.


Of what though? Of you not being a hack? Of the party surviving? Proof of what?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Proof will be in the pudding as always.


 
How's it going down at the moment?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And in terms of effectiveness, well, how many lost overboard this week


No idea. Summer holidays shortly anyway, just lost some of them early this year as Mrs Cliff said.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Let's make this clear BB.The last few months have made you leave labour and think about re-joining the SWP? This sort of stuff has attracted you, you want more of it?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No idea. Summer holidays shortly anyway, just lost some of them early this year as Mrs Cliff said.


Grow some more come sept - you are wrong, vile and 20 years out of date.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So your posts on this thread *haven't* been viewed by many posters as a whining, long-winded apologia for anything the CC does?


what members of the SWP say, and how that is interpreted it on here, are almost always to his things. ie;


leyton96 said:


> It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.
> 
> So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.
> Now, I make no comment about the rights and wrongs of those positions in themselves, that's for another thread(s). My point is that those positions not only HAVE BEEN reconciled under a political and theoretical tradition, The IS Traditon, they still are.
> Not only that, that above is a gross misrepresentation of what they actually argued.


did anybody complain about this misrepresentation?  No, they added to it.


butchersapron said:


> Yep, Neither Washington nor Moscow (itself another example of the tradition not really existing, this coming from the Shachtmanite ISL) turned out to really just mean Not Washington.


 
you could save this is butchers interpretation of their position, but you cannot say it is their position, when IN FACT they refute that bastardisation in all their publications.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Let's make this clear BB.The last few months have made you leave labour and think about re-joining the SWP? This sort of stuff has attracted you, you want more of it?


Nobody enjoys this stuff butchers. The hackiest loyalist I know wishes a certain person had kept their dick in their trousers and behaved differently. Thats obvious. Being forced to get down to brass tacks and define what you basically believe is good for the soul though. And if it hadn't been this case then SEYMOUR! Would have found another reason to have a go. The seeds were sown when the party failed to hegemonise people it recruited after Millbank.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Grow some more come sept - you are wrong, vile and 20 years out of date.


I love you too.


----------



## JimW (Mar 24, 2013)

Recruit first, hegemonise (or not, as it happens) later does point to a problem with the tradition, no?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Nobody enjoys this stuff butchers. The hackiest loyalist I know wishes a certain person had kept their dick in their trousers and behaved differently. Thats obvious. Being forced to get down to brass tacks and define what you basically believe is good for the soul though. And if it hadn't been this case then SEYMOUR! Would have found another reason to have a go. The seeds were sown when the party failed to hegemonise people it recruited after Millbank.


What does this mean? It means yes i'm going to join the SWP because what i've heard recently attracts me.

Only people like you define not doing the right thing as a final battle for communism soul. Or repeat almost word for word CC crap about bergfeld.

You see those old fat hoolies the UAF run after? The running men?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Do you think that what you and RMP3 are doing is defending 'the tradition'; i.e. affording it some actual protection? It looks much more like defending your attachment to/investment in/nostalgia for 'the tradition'.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 I have made it quite clear many times I am not defending the SWP, however people keep ascribing that intention to my post's. That's their problem, not mine.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The seeds were sown when the party failed to hegemonise people it recruited after Millbank.


 
Even this little sentence is peppered with such ignorance, instrumentality, misuse, arrogance and off the wall shit that it's revealing. *OH YEAH DON'T MENTION THE RAPES. *


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 24, 2013)

JimW said:


> Recruit first, hegemonise (or not, as it happens) later does point to a problem with the tradition, no?


What does "hegemonise" mean? How do you do it?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> What does "hegemonise" mean? How do you do it?


you are wasting your time. The SWP is criticised for being too baggy, and trying to homogenise, at every turn.

ETA and this isn't saved for the SWP, it is common practice.  The left would rather discuss the left, than concentrate on those to the right of us, who can be the gravedigger of capitalism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Don't be so clueless. I know they have. People realising they felt that way wasn't the point I started feeling this thread was losing its charm. Christ that was about post 200. It lost its charm when it became people in the SP who barely understand their own party's politics sniggering about ear biting in another as indicative of something meaningful :-(


 
Well, it *is* indicative of something - a lack of self-control on the part of the biter, although assuming that someone who did it 20 years ago might still have recourse to it in their repertoire is a bit daft, I agree.
Wasn't the original point about the lobe-gnawing, though, that any org willing to retain as a member someone who did such a thing, at *around the time they did it* could be accused of being a bit crap/unwilling to police their membership?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> What does "hegemonise" mean? How do you do it?


It means make them agree with you by trying to take over.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Even this little sentence is peppered with such ignorance, instrumentality, misuse, arrogance and off the wall shit that it's revealing. *OH YEAH DON'T MENTION THE RAPES. *


Ooh it's instrumental if you argue politics with people you recruit to your party. Get off your moral high horse you frightened liberal.


----------



## JimW (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> What does "hegemonise" mean? How do you do it?


I take it to mean something along the lines of get them fully and unswervingly on board with the programme, thinking within your framework etc., but perhaps BB can explain. Rubs me up the wrong way on the face of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Ooh it's instrumental if you argue politics with people you recruit to your party. Get off your moral high horse you frightened liberal.


I shall just repeat, the last few months have made you decide that this is the party for you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> what members of the SWP say, and how that is interpreted it on here, are almost always to his things. ie;
> 
> did anybody complain about this misrepresentation? No, they added to it.
> 
> ...


 
What has any of that got to do with what I posted, you ridiculous person?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

JimW said:


> I take it to mean something along the lines of get them fully and unswervingly on board with the programme, thinking within your framework etc., but perhaps BB can explain. Rubs me up the wrong way on the face of it.


Everyone else a pawn. Ready to moved by...this fucking rape cover uppers CC. Hegomonise that lot, move them forward to traf square. 

It's a failure to understand that you could not hegominse students in late 2011 - so redundant.


----------



## JimW (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Everyone else a pawn...


That's what it reads like - street fodder insufficiently processed to perform to expectations.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I shall just repeat, the last few months have made you decide that this is the party for you.


 he is right though, you are too wishy-washy liberal to promote your 'politics'


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

I wonder, the failure of the party to hegemonise workers - where and why that?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

JimW said:


> That's what it reads like - street fodder insufficiently processed to perform to expectations.


 you would prefer the organisation to be "baggy"?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder, the failure of the party to hegemonise workers - where and why that?


 wtf,


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Nobody enjoys this stuff butchers. The hackiest loyalist I know wishes a certain person had kept their dick in their trousers and behaved differently. Thats obvious. Being forced to get down to brass tacks and define what you basically believe is good for the soul though. And if it hadn't been this case then SEYMOUR! Would have found another reason to have a go. The seeds were sown when the party failed to hegemonise people it recruited after Millbank.


 
So not when those who should have indoctrinated the post-Millbank recruits were (fairly obviously) not themselves conditioned to attempt such a hegemonisation?
Fact is, the blame for dissent/factionalism/fracture within the SWP can't be placed at any specific juncture - it's an accumulation of events, decisions and political circumstances, and if it hadn't been the Delta issue, it'd very likely have been something else that also highlighted to the membership the failure of democratic centralism within the party.
Of course, not indoctrinating activists recruited from outside quickly and deeply enough *did* mean less of a likelihood of those people following a party line they disagreed with, which a lot of earlier Swappies would have choked down.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 24, 2013)

I see. Thanks. I'd never heard the word before. But isn't that what lots of groups do?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy you've got under butchers skin, he can't talk straight.


----------



## JimW (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you would prefer the organisation to be "baggy"?


I'd prefer it to live up to the tradition of working class self-organisation, an association of equals come together with a common purpose, which is a mile a way from herd 'em in and mould them to suit.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Damn, we should have hegenomised studes in 2011 - they would undoubtedly have loved that shit and went along with it.

Lefty management speak, that's all that is - fitting given the party is run on managerial lines.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> What does "hegemonise" mean? How do you do it?


 
In this context, politically-indoctrinate them so that the SWP's political thought is the hegemonic (dominant) position in their political mindset - their "default setting" as it were.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

JimW said:


> I take it to mean something along the lines of get them fully and unswervingly on board with the programme, thinking within your framework etc., but perhaps BB can explain. Rubs me up the wrong way on the face of it.


 Why?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I see. Thanks. I'd never heard the word before. But isn't that what lots of groups do?


Why the 'but'? 

Do you want to manage other peoples struggles?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Damn, we should have hegenomised studes in 2011 - they would undoubtedly have loved that shit and went along with it.
> 
> Lefty management speak, that's all that is - fitting given the party is run on managerial lines.


 
I prefer "Indoctrinated". It's more honest.


----------



## JimW (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Why?


I'm afraid you'll have to come to my recruitathon at a student union before I can tell you that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

I wonder just why the party" failed to hegemonise people it recruited after Millbank.".

Any ideas?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> where have I questioned their "positions".  They are genuine anarchists.  They are genuinely hostile to Lenin and Trotsky et cetera.  I have said this kind of thing many times.  But when they routinely do this


What's your point caller?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> where have I questioned their "positions". They are genuine anarchists. They are genuinely hostile to Lenin and Trotsky et cetera. I have said this kind of thing many times. But when they routinely do this


 

jean-luc isn't an anarchist tho, he's your lesser spotted squeegie iirc


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In this context, politically-indoctrinate them so that the SWP's political thought is the hegemonic (dominant) position in their political mindset - their "default setting" as it were.


 How can make something that "doesn't exist" the IS tradition, dominant?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I see. Thanks. I'd never heard the word before. But isn't that what lots of groups do?


 
Some do, some don't. Some actively encourage you to read outside of their tradition. The SWP (as an org, not as individual members of whatever standing) tend to recommend reading by authors wiithin their tradition, even commentaries written by members rather than originals written by long-dead comrades. That way you get *their* take, rather than forming your own.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

JimW said:


> I'd prefer it to live up to the tradition of working class self-organisation, an association of equals come together with a common purpose, which is a mile a way from herd 'em in and mould them to suit.


 
With the moulders often being _faux_-proletarian professionals who want to do the herding and moulding.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> What's your point caller?


 feigning stupidity is another tactic they use.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> feigning stupidity is another tactic they use.


You make no point in the post I quoted where you break off in the middle of a sentence. I ask again, what is your point.


----------



## JimW (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> With the moulders often being _faux_-proletarian professionals who want to do the herding and moulding.


Who have all the answers but for some odd reason have remained on the margins for the better part of a century. Funny old world.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

JimW said:


> Who have all the answers but for some odd reason have remained on the margins for the better part of a century. Funny old world.


Will reveal like mahdi


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> How can make something that "doesn't exist" the IS tradition, dominant?


 
Few people have said it doesn't exist, numbnuts. They've said it's too broad, and too-often interpreted as meaning whatever the interpreter wants it to mean to be a decent focus. You only need look at how many groups lay claim to the IS tradition to realise that.

So, just to make it clear, I was talking about people being indoctrinated with the SWP version of the IS tradition. Simple enough for you?


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> jean-luc isn't an anarchist tho, he's your lesser spotted squeegie iirc


He's definitely a greater spotted squeegie, the  much lesser spotted are the socialist studies lot


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> feigning stupidity is another tactic they use.


 
One that you deploy with alarming regularity.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Some do, some don't. Some actively encourage you to read outside of their tradition. The SWP (as an org, not as individual members of whatever standing) tend to recommend reading by authors wiithin their tradition, even commentaries written by members rather than originals written by long-dead comrades. That way you get *their* take, rather than forming your own.


 can you give you an example of an organisation that supplies more, and a wider range of Revolutionary (R) educational material than the SWP?
http://www.bookmarksbookshop.co.uk/cgi/store/bookmark.cgi

(R) Anybody who would like to see an end to capitalist mode of social organisation and a transition to a classless mode of social existence.


----------



## JimW (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Will reveal like mahdi


Fuck, I think I can remember his name, Benjamin Creme? Wonder how he'd handle sexual assault charges in the inner sanctum?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

That is also absent from his armoury. The thick fuck.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> He's definitely a greater spotted squeegie, the much lesser spotted are the socialist studies lot


 
It's true. You don't see SocStuds very often.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> One that you deploy with alarming regularity.


 I don't think I feign it. Nowhere near as well read as you a lot. Something I have never hidden.

But I know for fact, there is a massive gulf between what people say the SWP say, and what they actually do say.


----------



## andysays (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Don't be so clueless. I know they have. People realising they felt that way wasn't the point I started feeling this thread was losing its charm. Christ that was about post 200. It lost its charm when it became people in the SP who barely understand their own party's politics sniggering about ear biting in another as indicative of something meaningful :-(


 
Again, you're missing the point (to give you the benefit of the doubt. Actually, I suspect you are deliberately misrepresenting the point). It's not the ear biting as such, it's the fact that the biter was then seen as a worthy and valuable member of the party who should be promoted to a position of responsibility which is the issue.

And given the numerous examples which have been cited here and on other blogs currently examining the slow death of the SWP, of a combination of bureaucratic manipulation and bullying by and on behalf of the CC, it's not too ridiculous to suggest that the biter was seen by the leadership as worthy of promotion precisely *because* of his tendency to physical violence, to ensure that the pure bloody members were discouraged from stepping out of line in thought or deed.

For all you've gone on about how the criticisms detailed here are allegedly "not political", it's been argued at some length how the SWP CC in recent years hasn't had *any* sort of consistent political position or strategy (again giving them some benefit of doubt; it's also been suggested by some that they haven't had such a thing for decades, or that the much trumpeted IS tradition has only ever existed in the minds of the faithful).

The only consistency (though hardly political) appears to be the mantra that the CC is *always* right, even when it is demonstrably wrong (complete about-turns in policy; substantial parts of the CC swanning off to set up their own rival sect, still claiming undying adherence to the IS tradition of course).

And now it's gone beyond that. Not only is the CC always right, but individual members of the CC are always right, even when one of them is accused of rape, and though supposedly exonerated of that (by the all-seeing light of the IS tradition...) thought by the chair of the investigating committee to be responsible of sexual harassment. Anyone who disagrees is told to shut up, or fuck off.

You may continue to claim that none of that is political, but if so you're living in your own little fantasy world, one which thankfully most people commenting here and most people on the wider left see as such.

Not political?


*Yes It's Fucking Political*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> can you give you an example of an organisation that supplies more, and a wider range of Revolutionary (R) educational material than the SWP?
> http://www.bookmarksbookshop.co.uk/cgi/store/bookmark.cgi
> 
> (R) Anybody who would like to see an end to capitalist mode of social organisation and a transition to a classless mode of social existence.


 
What's that got to do with the price of fish? Mad biblical cunts tend to provide a plethora of one-sided commentaries on the bible. It doesn't mean their interpretations are right, you dimwit.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Can we get a collection and pay you to just go away rmp?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's that got to do with the price of fish? Mad biblical cunts tend to provide a plethora of one-sided commentaries on the bible. It doesn't mean their interpretations are right, you dimwit.


They supply plenty of the original material from "dead comrades". LOOK


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can we get a collection and pay you to just go away rmp?


 YEAH buy me the web space to store the MP3 files for Www.resistanceMP3.org.uk


----------



## eoin_k (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yes, you're right. I missed that. See if I can get it right this time. ..


 

All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's that got to do with the price of fish? Mad biblical cunts tend to provide a plethora of one-sided commentaries on the bible. It doesn't mean their interpretations are right, you dimwit.


just in case you are too thick 



> RecommendedCapital 1-student Edition
> by Marx, Karl. Published/Distributed by Central.
> ISBN-13 No: 9780853157779
> ISBN-10 No: 0853157774
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.


But after that you're taking the piss. Sort it out.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

andysays said:


> it's not too ridiculous to suggest that the biter was seen by the leadership as worthy of promotion precisely *because* of his tendency to physical violence, to ensure that the pure bloody members were discouraged from stepping out of line in thought or deed.


I don t think anybody else would suggest this.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

I would and am. The vicarious chomp of the working class within the party, as long as they don't get together and work out that we are shit houses.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Nobody enjoys this stuff butchers. The hackiest loyalist I know wishes a certain person had kept their dick in their trousers and behaved differently. Thats obvious. Being forced to get down to brass tacks and define what you basically believe is good for the soul though. And if it hadn't been this case then SEYMOUR! Would have found another reason to have a go. The seeds were sown when the party failed to hegemonise people it recruited after Millbank.


 
thats what rape is? "keeping their dick in their trousers and behaving differently"?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I would and am. The vicarious chomp of the working class within the party, as long as they don't get together and work out that we are shit houses.


I love how the promotion of a working class militant to the cc has upset so many anarchists. Says bundles about you.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> thats what rape is? "keeping their dick in their trousers and behaving differently"?


If you have evidence it was rape that the rest of us don't please enlighten us.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I love how the promotion of a working class militant to the cc has upset so many anarchists. Says bundles about you.


What does the promotion of a working class militant to the cc of the swp years ago say about me?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Class finger wagging by the very middle class bolshie  Stinks bundles.


----------



## andysays (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> just in case you are too thick


 
How do this comment and a list of Marx texts complete with prices and ISBN numbers constitute a political argument?

"Add To Cart View Basket Back to top of result"


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Class finger wagging by the very middle class bolshie  Stinks bundles.


oh dear


----------



## JimW (Mar 24, 2013)

andysays said:


> ...
> "Add To Cart View Basket Back to top of result"


The scales have fallen off me eyes! Do you have a paper front organisation I can join?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> oh dear


Your original post was to suggest that only middle class types would care so and that alternately we have the battle hardened w/c SWP here. We are not middle class. You, as people like you always do, try that first, then you run away from the implications of both your class and the make up of the party.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What does the promotion of a working class militant to the cc of the swp years ago say about me?


You're answering the wrong clause in that sentence. I'd feel bad about teaching you to read english grammar correctly if you weren't so keen on doing it to all of us boss.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Your original post was to suggest that only middle class types would care so and that alternately we have the battle hardened w/c SWP here. We are not middle class. You, as people like you always do, try that first, then you run away from the implications of both your class and the make up of the party.


What makes you an expert on my class boss?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You're answering the wrong clause in that sentence. I'd feel bad about teaching you to read english grammar correctly if you weren't so keen on doing it to all of us boss.


I have never once corrected anyone on here for their gammar. You're wrong

Now, if you can answer this:



> What does the promotion of a working class militant to the cc of the swp years ago say about me?


 
(Note i didn't answer, i asked)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What makes you an expert on my class boss?


You telling me that you were and are classicisly middle class. But i guess class-baiting only works for you when you do it and when you manage to get it right.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

I take it back, the ear stuff was more interesting than this irrelevant wank.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> In this context, politically-indoctrinate them so that the SWP's political thought is the hegemonic (dominant) position in their political mindset - their "default setting" as it were.


Would this be an example of "hegemonising" (as I said, I'd never heard the word before):


> Members will normally be admitted as candidates, to go through six months of education, training and disciplined activity before being admitted as full activists. A branch or fraction may, at the end of six months, extend the candidate period if it judges that the above requirements have not been fulfilled adequately. In such a case the candidate has the right to appeal to the Executive Committee. Candidates do not have the right to vote in the AWL.


It's not from the SWP. I don't think the SWP have candidate members, do they? Which presumably makes it easier to join/be recruited.

But I see that Weekly Worker who are among their fiercest critics do. In fact it seems to fit in perfectly with your explanation of the word:


> Also up for discussion and voting was a proposal from the Provisional Central Committee to introduce a six-month period of candidate membership for new recruits. During this time comrades would take on the duties of full members without voting rights, and go through an induction process involving study of the Draft programme.(...)
> More contentious - although in the end it was overwhelmingly carried - was the PCC motion proposing that henceforth there will be a six-month period of candidate membership for new recruits. This would involve the individual fulfilling all the duties of membership (attending party events, paying appropriate dues, accepting the Draft programme, etc), although candidate members would not have the right to vote during this period.
> The motion, introduced by PCC member John Bridge, also included the proposition that candidate members undertake a guided course of study based on the Draft programme to ensure that future members took seriously and had a good grasp of our central precepts - not least the need for democratic left unity within a party based on Marxism. Comrade Bridge proposed that the length of this period of candidate membership could be reduced or even dispensed with entirely if the PCC thought that an individual comrade already had sufficient experience and understanding.


These examples would seem to confirm what I said about lots of groups engaging in "hegemonising".


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Oh god, that dreary voice, they are all the same, apart from us


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You're answering the wrong clause in that sentence. I'd feel bad about teaching you to read english grammar correctly if you weren't so keen on doing it to all of us boss.


And you've had the gall to call me a pedant.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> And you've had the gall to call me a pedant.


He was telling me off for using the wrong adjective a few pages ago. I wasn't as it goes but regardless. Back in your box boss' pet.


----------



## Oisin123 (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I love how the promotion of a working class militant to the cc has upset so many anarchists. Says bundles about you.


Not just anarchists. And although you repeatedly define him as a working class militant, I reserve that term for those who have or had jobs and who gave a lead to other workers. Long before this crisis I cringed at the faux proletarian tough-guy culture of those around Martin Smith and I see MB as sharing the same thuggish and exaggeratedly workerist attitude. Such pose might be good for impressing former Trinity students, but it is far, far, away from the world of the miners, say, of my old branch in Doncaster, or people like Frank Henderson, the life-long organiser of car workers.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, that dreary voice, they are all the same, apart from us


Be careful or EoinK will be explaining to you the difference between "lots of" and "all".


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Not just anarchists. And although you repeatedly define him as a working class militant, I reserve that term for those who have or had jobs and who gave a lead to other workers. Long before this crisis I cringed at the faux proletarian tough-guy culture of those around Martin Smith and I see MB as sharing the same thuggish and exaggeratedly workerist attitude. Such pose might be good for impressing former Trinity students, but it is far, far, away from the world of the miners, say, of my old branch in Doncaster, or people like Frank Henderson, the life-long organiser of car workers.


Trinity students? Yes I was one of the few North Siders allowed in. Christ you're all at it. I'll almost take this ad hominem class background stuff from butchers (mainly cause he's better at it than you) but I ain't having it from a doctor of Medieval History.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

For the love of God could someone in the SWP/ISN please do/say/write something interesting!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If you have evidence it was rape that the rest of us don't please enlighten us.


 
And still you don't get it!


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Nobody enjoys this stuff butchers. The hackiest loyalist I know *wishes a certain person had kept their dick in their trousers and behaved differently.* Thats obvious. Being forced to get down to brass tacks and define what you basically believe is good for the soul though. And if it hadn't been this case then SEYMOUR! Would have found another reason to have a go. The seeds were sown when the party failed to hegemonise people it recruited after Millbank.


 
It's not about him keeping his dick in his trousers that's the problem but putting his dick where it wasn't wanted. Funny how you can't see that.....


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> It's not about him keeping his dick in his trousers that's the problem but putting his dick where it wasn't wanted. Funny how you can't see that.....


Aee you saying Sheila Rowbatham was wrong to leave in 1971?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I love how the promotion of a working class militant to the cc has upset so many anarchists. Says bundles about you.


 
Martin Smith, working class? Debatable. Middle-class Herts boy who didn't do well at school and joined the Civil Service, where he discovered a flair for trade unionism. I knew 2 people who worked with him at the Passport Office. Apparently he had a very non-Mockney accent back then.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> It's not about him keeping his dick in his trousers that's the problem but putting his dick where it wasn't wanted. Funny how you can't see that.....


I can see there was and is a debate about that. None of us know the facts which hasn't changed since post 1 in this thread. I was describing the thoughts of people who believe he is innocent. I have my own prejudices (based purely on past experience in his company) but as I don't know the facts I'm not qualified to judge. Unlike 99% of the people on this thread apparently.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Aee you saying Sheila Rowbatham was wrong to leave in 1971?


 
I don't know.... I simply find this 'defence' of Smith and it's reduction to 'keep his dick in his trousers' as nauseating.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> I don't know.... I simply find this 'defence' of Smith and it's reduction to 'keep his dick in his trousers' as nauseating.


Nor do i, but it was one of the little defences he used last week. That this is all because of Sheila NOT THE RAPES.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I can see there was and is a debate about that. None of us know the facts which hasn't changed since post 1 in this thread. I was describing the thoughts of people who believe he is innocent. I have my own prejudices (based purely on past experience in his company) but as I don't know the facts I'm not qualified to judge. Unlike 99% of the people on this thread apparently.


 
Well unless the woman in question is a liar-and you nor I have any evidence to say she is-then that's exactly what happened. And your entire position on here has been to defend what has happened re the aftermath. Says plenty about your opinion on the veracity of the womans claims.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nor do i, but it was one of the little defences he used last week. That this is all because of Sheila NOT THE RAPES.


 
Sweet jesus.....


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I can see there was and is a debate about that. None of us know the facts which hasn't changed since post 1 in this thread. I was describing the thoughts of people who believe he is innocent. I have my own prejudices (based purely on past experience in his company) but as I don't know the facts I'm not qualified to judge. Unlike 99% of the people on this thread apparently.


Or 0% of the people in the SWP. Or at least 0% of the people on the DC and 2 of the CC. Why are they now "qualified to judge"?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

OK, I'll try something.
Anyone else find it a bit odd that the ISN is bigging up Ken Loach and his appeal for left unity considering he is a supporter of alleged rapist Julian Assange. Unless he has changed his mind and I missed it. Now I don't mean we should just write Loach off because of it, but if you read the (admittedly very limited) discussion on their forum the issue does not come up at all.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

andysays said:


> How do this comment and a list of Marx texts complete with prices and ISBN numbers constitute a political argument?
> 
> "Add To Cart View Basket Back to top of result"


 myth>


ViolentPanda said:


> Some do, some don't. Some actively encourage you to read outside of their tradition. The SWP (as an org, not as individual members of whatever standing) tend to recommend reading by authors wiithin their tradition, even commentaries written by members rather than originals written by long-dead comrades. That way you get *their* take, rather than forming your own.


 
reality, the SWP as an organisation PROVIDE and actively encouraged the reading of many of the "originals written by long dead comrades".

I read capital volume 1 as part of a reading group with the SWP.

It's not really a political argument, just pointing out that violent panda said we do, is not entirely true.  In fact some may say it's a misrepresentation of reality.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I can see there was and is a debate about that. None of us know the facts which hasn't changed since post 1 in this thread. I was describing the thoughts of people who believe he is innocent. I have my own prejudices (based purely on past experience in his company) but as I don't know the facts I'm not qualified to judge. Unlike 99% of the people on this thread apparently.


Who is qualified then bb? Are the swp qualified to judge? If not, who?

And what is being judged?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What makes you an expert on my class boss?


 
Calling someone "boss" is usually an affectation adopted by members of the middle classes to seem more proletarian.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

Hang on rmp3 I wanted to hear people's thoughts on emanymton's post.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I would and am. The vicarious chomp of the working class within the party, as long as they don't get together and work out that we are shit houses.


 I was hoping you would.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> myth>
> 
> 
> reality, the SWP as an organisation PROVIDE and actively encouraged the reading of many of the "originals written by long dead comrades".
> ...


 
"We"?
But you've sworn black is blue you're *not* a Swappie!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Would this be an example of "hegemonising" (as I said, I'd never heard the word before):
> It's not from the SWP. I don't think the SWP have candidate members, do they? Which presumably makes it easier to join/be recruited.
> 
> But I see that Weekly Worker who are among their fiercest critics do. In fact it seems to fit in perfectly with your explanation of the word:
> These examples would seem to confirm what I said about lots of groups engaging in "hegemonising".


 
TBF, AWL are probably a bad example, as they fit more "cult" descriptors than just about any other political group!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> OK, I'll try something.
> Anyone else find it a bit odd that the ISN is bigging up Ken Loach and his appeal for left unity considering he is a supporter of alleged rapist Julian Assange. Unless he has changed his mind and I missed it. Now I don't mean we should just write Loach off because of it, but if you read the (admittedly very limited) discussion on their forum the issue does not come up at all.


What party is he in and what similar stuff does he support? If you're saying the SWP is the same and so there is an equivalence then you've just fucked yourself. Is there an equivalence?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Don't be so clueless. I know they have. People realising they felt that way wasn't the point I started feeling this thread was losing its charm. Christ that was about post 200. It lost its charm when it became *people in the SP who barely understand their own party's politics* sniggering about ear biting in another as indicative of something meaningful :-(


 
Has the 'never really agreed with the politics' line served you so well you've decided to use it on members of other groups now?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> OK, I'll try something.
> Anyone else find it a bit odd that the ISN is bigging up *Ken Loach and his appeal for left unity* considering he is a supporter of alleged rapist Julian Assange. Unless he has changed his mind and I missed it. Now I don't mean we should just write Loach off because of it, but if you read the (admittedly very limited) discussion on their forum the issue does not come up at all.


 

theres a radical idea that nobody has suggested ever in the history of the world


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Hang on rmp3 I wanted to hear people's thoughts on emanymton's post.


No you don't. Or do you agree with emy that this is the same as what had happened in the SWP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> For the love of God could someone in the SWP/ISN please do/say/write something interesting!!!


 
Bit of presupposition there, surely?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Would this be an example of "hegemonising" (as I said, I'd never heard the word before):
> It's not from the SWP. I don't think the SWP have candidate members, do they? Which presumably makes it easier to join/be recruited.
> 
> But I see that Weekly Worker who are among their fiercest critics do. In fact it seems to fit in perfectly with your explanation of the word:
> These examples would seem to confirm what I said about lots of groups engaging in "hegemonising".


 in fact if you go back through the thread, you will see the SWP being criticised for not carrying out these kinds of measures you have illustrated.  Kind of, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

PS.  I am not in any way defending the SWP, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the arguments marshalled against them on here.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> And you've had the gall to call me a pedant.


 oh come on, it's almost every post from you.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> OK, I'll try something.
> Anyone else find it a bit odd that the ISN is bigging up Ken Loach and his appeal for left unity considering he is a supporter of alleged rapist Julian Assange. Unless he has changed his mind and I missed it. Now I don't mean we should just write Loach off because of it, but if you read the (admittedly very limited) discussion on their forum the issue does not come up at all.


are you a member of isn? if not, you can't access their forum.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> OK, I'll try something.
> Anyone else find it a bit odd that the ISN is bigging up Ken Loach and his appeal for left unity considering he is a supporter of alleged rapist Julian Assange. Unless he has changed his mind and I missed it. Now I don't mean we should just write Loach off because of it, but if you read the (admittedly very limited) discussion on their forum the issue does not come up at all.


 
Explain exactly and slowly who here is trapped by the logic? Explain the similarity to covering rape up as a policy and condition of party membership as opposed to being a bit of dim-wit. Explain why you posted this.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He was telling me off for using the wrong adjective a few pages ago. I wasn't as it goes but regardless. Back in your box boss' pet.


 even the boss is a hypocrite.  He gives instructions not to respond to me, and then responds to me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> PS. I am not in any way defending the SWP,


 
relentlesly


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What party is he in and what similar stuff does he support? If you're saying the SWP is the same and so there is an equivalence then you've just fucked yourself. Is there an equivalence?


Seriously what?

I am just interested in peoples thoughts, my opinion of loach drooped massively because of his stance on the issue. I find it a little odd that these people left the SWP in large part because of the leaderships continued support for a man accused of rape, yet there is not evener a murmur of criticism of Loach.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> are you a member of isn? if not, you can't access their forum.


Well they let me in an I am not a member.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Hang on rmp3 I wanted to hear people's thoughts on emanymton's post.


Yes, let's, emy set up a fake account to the join the iSN and found to his outrage there was no discssusion on something he thought that there should be. S/he then tried to use that to hypocrisy hunt. What next?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

discokermit was definitely right about blocking rmp3, I thoroughly recommend it. Makes reading the thread a bit confusing though - at one point I thought I was reading an argument between VP and BA in which neither seemed to have understood what the other was on about 

If everyone else ignores him too I won't even have to deal with the confusion issue


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> are you a member of isn? if not, you can't access their forum.


Is nothing sacred on the internet.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Well they let me in an I am not a member.


the forum? or are you talking about the blog?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Explain exactly and slowly who here is trapped by the logic? Explain the similarity to covering rape up as a policy and condition of party membership as opposed to being a bit of dim-wit. Explain why you posted this.


I see you have dropped equivalence down to similarity, saves me making that point. 

For Myself and I would guess many others any attempt at a cover up is not really the point. It was the messed up investigation in the first place and the continued backing of the accused.

Why are you trying to defend Loach the ISN?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Seriously what?
> 
> I am just interested in peoples thoughts, my opinion of loach drooped massively because of his stance on the issue. I find it a little odd that these people left the SWP in large part because of the leaderships continued support for a man accused of rape, yet there is not evener a murmur of criticism of Loach.


It's quite simple - you have been rumbled. Before you've even got over your disbelief that the SWP could do what it has done you're onto _look at these hypocrites. _Why did you even leave?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 24, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> myth>
> 
> 
> reality, the SWP as an organisation PROVIDE and actively encouraged the reading of many of the "originals written by long dead comrades".


 
They don't *provide* arseache. They *SELL*, and at the cover price, rather than the (discounted) price they pay for it. No-one sells at cover price anymore, unless they're on a screw.



> I read capital volume 1 as part of a reading group with the SWP.
> 
> It's not really a political argument, just pointing out that violent panda said we do, is not entirely true. In fact some may say it's a misrepresentation of reality.


 
Except that you've misrepresented my point. I haven't claimed that the Swappies stop people reading Marx, I've said that they *don't* *tend to recommend* those authors as first-stop material.

Way to go! RMP3 shits on his own shoes yet again!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Seriously what?
> 
> I am just interested in peoples thoughts, my opinion of loach drooped massively because of his stance on the issue. I find it a little odd that these people left the SWP in large part because of the leaderships continued support for a man accused of rape, yet there is not evener a murmur of criticism of Loach.


Almost make you wonder if there was more to their exit than one case.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, let's, emy set up a fake account to the join the iSN and found to his outrage there was no discssusion on something he thought that there should be. S/he then tried to use that to hypocrisy hunt. What next?


First of all it is not a fake account at all there seems to be quite a few people on there who are not in the ISN, I have no idea of their selection process. And I am not outrages at all, I would have just expected it to come up.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's quite simple - you have been rumbled. Before you've even got over your disbelief that the SWP could do what it has done you're onto _look at these hypocrites. _Why did you even leave?


Jeesus wept and you people accuse the swp of witch hunting. Emanymton clearly doesn't automatically defend the swp, in fact has been highly critical of it, yet say something that even looks vaugely critical of the splitters and you get called a party mole. Unbelievable.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's quite simple - you have been rumbled. Before you've even got over your disbelief that the SWP could do what it has done you're onto _look at these hypocrites. _Why did you even leave?


You really have lost it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> First of all it is not a fake account at all there seems to be quite a few people on there who are not in the ISN, I have no idea of there selection process. And I am not outrages at all, I would have just expected it to come up.


Bring it up, make it an issue - as a participant.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jeesus wept and you people accuse the swp of witch hunting. Emanymton clearly doesn't automatically defend the swp, in fact has been highly critical of it, yet say something that even looks vaugely critical of the splitters and you get called a party mole. Unbelievable.


He wasn't. I noticed all previous posts, all questions, just disappeared for you  - _again_.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You really have lost it.


Hang on, did you or did you not repeatedly say that you could not believe that a whole series of swp related things could not have happened? And have they happened?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Not just anarchists. And although you repeatedly define him as a working class militant, I reserve that term for those who have or had jobs and who gave a lead to other workers. Long before this crisis I cringed at the faux proletarian tough-guy culture of those around Martin Smith and I see MB as sharing the same thuggish and exaggeratedly workerist attitude. Such pose might be good for impressing former Trinity students, but it is far, far, away from the world of the miners, say, of my old branch in Doncaster, or people like Frank Henderson, the life-long organiser of car workers.


Is the hypocrisy though. They constantly castigate the SWP for middle-class member
s.
PS. As someone from a solidly poor working class background, I've never had a problem with middle-class revolutionaries.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Mar 24, 2013)

Hang on everyone, I think this Loach row is founded on misconception - the blog that emany linked to is the Independent Socialists Network, who are part of TUSC, and I think at least partly ex-SWP, but a totally different outfit to the International Socialists Network. I don't think the new ISN has said anything about Left Unity, Loach or related subjects. Obviously choosing an acronym that's already taken by a similar group is a predictable cause of confusion but there we go.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Hang on everyone, I think this Loach row is founded on misconception - the blog that emany linked to is the Independent Socialists Network, who are part of TUSC, and I think at least partly ex-SWP, but a totally different outfit to the International Socialists Network. I don't think the new ISN has said anything about Left Unity, Loach or related subjects. Obviously choosing an acronym that's already taken by a similar group is a predictable cause of confusion but there we go.


Irrelevant, the point is to shout that_ you are not clean either._


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Hang on, did you or did you not repeatedly say that you could not believe that a whole series of swp related things could not have happened? And have they happened?


I recall being extremely skeptical about the case in Sheffield, when it was first raised by Nick Cohen and I recall saying that my experiences were very different. I have never doubted any of the events around the initial cases


----------



## discokermit (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> OK, I'll try something.
> Anyone else find it a bit odd that the ISN is bigging up Ken Loach and his appeal for left unity considering he is a supporter of alleged rapist Julian Assange. Unless he has changed his mind and I missed it. Now I don't mean we should just write Loach off because of it, but if you read the (admittedly very limited) discussion on their forum the issue does not come up at all.


the link is for the _independant_ socialist network. not _international._


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

emy as I understand it, the reason people left the SWP was not simply about the treatment of a rape in the first instance (only a small handful like Jack Brindelli did), the 100+ forming the ISN have left as a result of the massive March conference rigging - ie the party structures in general AND the specific botching of the Delta case.

The SWP via their journalist in the _Socialist Review _were bigging up the Ken Loach call for left unity back in 2009:




			
				Ken Loach said:
			
		

> My feeling is that we need to think of the regroupment of the left in Britain in terms of the European left now. The European left is a project obviously bigger than any one group. I am very encouraged by the events in France right now and the development of the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste. The European left, which is so big, will just swallow up the differences between the different groups on the left over here. I've been in meetings where we've talked about this for 45 years, and organisationally are we any further forward in all that time? If you want to be depressed, that's the depressing thing. On the optimistic side the need just gets more and more intense. It was urgent after the Iraq war, but now even more urgent with the collapse of the banks and increasing unemployment, industries closing down and so on, and the environmental disaster that's awaiting the next generation. The pressure to unite just gets bigger and bigger.


 
This was at the time that the SWP was joining/had joined TUSC.

Richard Seymour - one public figure in ISN - is no particular fan of Loach himself, although, as I understand it, he does support the call for left unity:




> Ken Loach was the next speaker, and after a couple of jokes that went down well, he repeated much of what Salma Yaqoob had just said. Then he talked about the idea of "reclaiming the Labour Party". The Labour party had always had a contradiction at its heart, he said, in that the only way it could deliver reforms in favour of working people was when employers could make big enough profits. The employers register their demands, what they require in order to be profitable, and those demands are now more extreme than ever - keep the anti-union laws, make them tougher, end welfarism, privatise what's public. Blairism is the extreme end of the cold logic of Labourism.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I recall being extremely skeptical about the case in Sheffield, when it was first raised by Nick Cohen and I recall saying that my experiences were very different. I have never doubted any of the events around the initial cases


Did you ever notice that your experiences and sheff were diff things? Did your initial scepetism disappear ? If so then what are you you doing suggesting that i've "lost it" when i remind you that this happened?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Hang on everyone, I think this Loach row is founded on misconception - the blog that emany linked to is the Independent Socialists Network, who are part of TUSC, and I think at least partly ex-SWP, but a totally different outfit to the International Socialists Network. I don't think the new ISN has said anything about Left Unity, Loach or related subjects. Obviously choosing an acronym that's already taken by a similar group is a predictable cause of confusion but there we go.


Sorry that is my error I just looked for a link to the loach thing and picked the worst possible one, you are correct it is not on the blog but is in the private forum, also Tow Walker, who seems to be talking a lead in the ISN, has been supporting it on twitter.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> OK, I'll try something.
> Anyone else find it a bit odd that the ISN is bigging up Ken Loach and his appeal for left unity considering he is a supporter of alleged rapist Julian Assange.


 
As discokermit has pointed out this ISN was a network formed in 2011 by Pete McClaren and others to encourage a wider approach for TUSC to campaign and organise as TUSC in between electoral cycles.
It's not the SWP split.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Sorry that is my error I just looked for a link to the loach thing and picked the worst possible one, you are correct it is not on the blog but is in the private forum, also Tow Walker, who seems to be talking a lead in the ISN, has been supporting it on twitter.


Now you'll lay out the strict similarities right?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Now you'll lay out the strict similarities right?


Nope cos I never said there were any.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Did you ever notice that your experiences and sheff were diff things? Did your initial scepetism disappear ? If so then what are you you doing suggesting that i've "lost it" when i remind you that this happened?


Yes and Yes, and I said you had lost it as you said I should still be a member of the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Nope cos I never said there were any.


This was the whole point of the comparison, that it was implicit there but you didn't have to - you're now backing away (where oh where has bb gone).


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

Last time I try and get this thread vaguely back on track


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Yes and Yes, and I said you had lost it as you said I should still be a member of the SWP.


I think that sort of first off denial, then later_ look, look this is the same_ sort of game (that BB is still engaged in - hence his initial interest on your posts and later abandonement) supports what i said. You're a semi-detached member.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This was the whole point of the comparison, that it was implicit there but you didn't have to - you're now backing away (where oh where has bb gone).


I am not backing away from anything, I never said there were *strict* similarities at all, but I think there are some similarities. You have one again massively overreacted, and why are you being so protective of the ISN?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I am not backing away from anything, I never said there were *strict* similarities at all, but I think there are some similarities. You have one again massively overreacted, and why are you being so protective of the ISN?


 who?  Overreact, Butchers?  Never!


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think that sort of first off denial, then later_ look, look this is the same_ sort of game (that BB is still engaged in - hence his initial interest on your posts and later abandonement) supports what i said. You're a semi-detached member.


Initial interest and later abandonment, everything is part of some grand political game to you isn't it? More likely he has just gone to spend time with his wife, or watch some TV.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I am not backing away from anything, I never said there were *strict* similarities at all, but I think there are some similarities. You have one again massively overreacted, and why are you being so protective of the ISN?


It's not an overreaction to point out they logic of your case - if you think that it then all responses are. It's not an overreaction to point out the context within which your logic exists. It's not a overreaction to point out what it means. You know, to be political.

I love the ISN, you got me.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Initial interest and later abandonment, everything is part of some grand political game to you isn't it? More likely he has just gone to spend time with his wife, or watch some TV.


Have you seen his tongue lolling posts as soon she he get a sniff? You are one naive man.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's not an overreaction to point out they logic of your case - if you think that it then all responses are. It's not an overreaction to point out the context within which your logic exists. It's not a overreaction to point out what it means. You know, to be political.
> 
> I love the ISN, you got me.


You seem to be losing the ability to write proper English, you haven't started foaming at the mouth as well have you?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 24, 2013)

Chill out everyone - I suspect emanymton wouldn't have got quite the reaction he did if bb hadn't jumped on it like the worst kind of party hack and tried to use it as a stick to beat the splitters with.

_If _the new ISN was being as uncritical as that about Loach I'd have no problem pointing out the hypocrisy. But understandably people suspect ulterior motives when some people do it.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Chill out everyone - I suspect emanymton wouldn't have got quite the reaction he did if bb hadn't jumped on it like the worst kind of party hack and tried to use it as a stick to beat the splitters with.
> 
> _If _the new ISN was being as uncritical as that about Loach I'd have no problem pointing out the hypocrisy. But understandably people suspect ulterior motives when some people do it.


I did make the mistake of thinking it would be more widely know than it is, it seems to be just me.


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 24, 2013)

Its kind of complicated round here. 

Can anyone sum up what the various disputes are between the parties posting? Are there any subtle nuances in the dialogue or is just sound and fury?
Serious question


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You seem to be losing the ability to write proper English, you haven't started foaming at the mouth as well have you?


Not sure that i have as it goes. I think what, one misspeeling? It's the concepts that have you caused you a bit of trouble. Which, of course, you ignore. The politics, ignored.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Its kind of complicated round here.
> 
> Can anyone sum up what the various disputes are between the parties posting? Are there any subtle nuances in the dialogue or is just sound and fury?
> Serious question


Just slag of RMP3 and you can't go wrong.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure that i have as it goes. I think what, one misspeeling? It's the concepts that have you caused you a bit of trouble. Which, of course, you ignore. The politics, ignored.


There was this one as well, I think the brackets are off with makes it a pain to read. But seriously it looked like you were typing with real anger and venom, as Spinny says, chill out.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> There was this one as well, I think the brackets are off with makes it a pain to read. But seriously it looked like you were typing with real anger and venom, as Spinny says, chill out.


Pathetic liberalism. WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF THAT AREN'T RAPES?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

Ok now your trolling.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

I'm not. I'm really really not.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

Has this been done? The AWL are saying the students should have read Trotsky better



> Third: the SWP machine would be a lot less likely to get away with this sort of nonsense if the SWP students had, for example, thoroughly educated themselves in the Trotskyist tradition many of them now say they want to renew.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Mar 24, 2013)

Just to add one thing about the "Engels Revistered" Socialist Review piece mentioned further up the thread. As one example of how poorly the article misrepresnts Vogel and Gimenez, in Capitalism and the Oppression of Women (article from 2005) Gimenez makes very clear that for her: Engels' "work established the theoretical foundations for Marxist feminism." Really dishonest piece designed to shore up the base against heresy, it'll probably work quite well as I doubt many SWP members know anything about marxist theories of oppression beyond the "men don't benefit from women's oppression" mantra. Interestingly Federici is a real life example of that feared creature, the Autonomist, but that doesn't get a mention.

Well two things while I'm here....I don't think this has been mentioned?  http://www.jerryhicks4gs.org/2013/03/len-mccluskeys-election-campaign.html Jerry Hicks keeps his distance!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron so, true to your word or not? http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-345#post-12082967


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> They don't provide
> 
> Except that you've misrepresented my point. I haven't claimed that the Swappies stop people reading Marx, I've said that they don't tend to recommend those authors as first-stop material.


where did I say you said they stop people reading Marx?
You haven't said anything about "first stop material" until now.





ViolentPanda said:


> What's that got to do with the price of fish? Mad biblical cunts tend to provide a plethora of one-sided commentaries on the bible. It doesn't mean their interpretations are right, you dimwit.


 you just said there SW do provide. But you were wrong, there isn't just one-sided commentaries..
In response to this,


ViolentPanda said:


> Some do, some don't. Some actively encourage you to read outside of their tradition. The SWP (as an org, not as individual members of whatever standing) tend to recommend reading by authors wiithin their tradition, even commentaries written by members rather than originals written by long-dead comrades. That way you get their take, rather than forming your own.


I asked a very simple question;





ResistanceMP3 said:


> can you give you an example of an organisation that supplies more, and a wider range of Revolutionary (R) educational material than the SWP?
> http://www.bookmarksbookshop.co.uk/cgi/store/bookmark.cgi
> 
> (R) Anybody who would like to see an end to capitalist mode of social organisation and a transition to a classless mode of social existence.


 


If you were honest, you would admit they promote and provide revolutionary books from a wide range of authors. But you're too sectarian to even concede this.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Just to add one thing about the "Engels Revistered" Socialist Review piece mentioned further up the thread. As one example of how poorly the article misrepresnts Vogel and Gimenez, in Capitalism and the Oppression of Women (article from 2005) Gimenez makes very clear that for her: Engels' "work established the theoretical foundations for Marxist feminism." Really dishonest piece designed to shore up the base against heresy, it'll probably work quite well as I doubt many SWP members know anything about marxist theories of oppression beyond the "men don't benefit from women's oppression" mantra. Interestingly Federici is a real life example of that feared creature, the Autonomist, but that doesn't get a mention.


 
It's a weak piece in the context of SWP behaviour:

"Every battle today by working class women and men defending social provision of care services is a blow against the private family."

The SWP - as the vanguard of working class women and men - defend social provision of rape victim support services by holding a set of entirely privatised, botched pseudo-investigations (specifically structured and designed more to drop the case than anything else) and edicts as to where a victim should work, how the branch's members should associate with her.

The only mention of Federici is: "In recent years there has been a return to Marx and to the works of those who have attempted to use Marxism to explain oppression. American academics Martha Gimenez and Lise Vogel and Italian theorist, Silvia Federici, are among those who see their task as taking Marx's historical materialist approach and applying it to the study of women and the family. Here lies an implicit argument, however, that Marx didn't get round to, or wasn't interested enough in dealing with women's oppression, but that they can take something useful from his method and apply it themselves."


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not. I'm really really not.


 me thinketh the lady protesteth too much.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Its kind of complicated round here.
> 
> Can anyone sum up what the various disputes are between the parties posting? Are there any subtle nuances in the dialogue or is just sound and fury?
> Serious question


how many angels can fit on needle head, kind of discussion.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Pathetic liberalism. WHAT ABOUT THE STUFF THAT AREN'T RAPES?


 
butchersapron so, true to your word or not? http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-345#post-12082967​


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Chill out everyone - I suspect emanymton wouldn't have got quite the reaction he did if bb hadn't jumped on it like the worst kind of party hack and tried to use it as a stick to beat the splitters with.
> 
> _If _the new ISN was being as uncritical as that about Loach I'd have no problem pointing out the hypocrisy. But understandably people suspect ulterior motives when some people do it.


going to help Norman ?
butchersapron so, true to your word or not? http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-345#post-12082967​


----------



## emanymton (Mar 24, 2013)

sihhi said:


> emy as I understand it, the reason people left the SWP was not simply about the treatment of a rape in the first instance (only a small handful like Jack Brindelli did), the 100+ forming the ISN have left as a result of the massive March conference rigging - ie the party structures in general AND the specific botching of the Delta case.


Sorry meant to reply. You are of curse correct.


sihhi said:


> The SWP via their journalist in the _Socialist Review _were bigging up the Ken Loach call for left unity back in 2009:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not saying they are wrong to support Loach, not that see anything coming of it, and I have not really made my own mind up yet, but I thought there might have been some discussion around it. Dissipate Butchers reaction I really wasn't trying to make a big thing of it.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Sorry meant to reply. You are of curse correct.
> 
> I am not saying they are wrong to support Loach, not that see anything coming of it, and I have not really made my own mind up yet, but I thought there might have been some discussion around it. Dissipate Butchers reaction I really wasn't trying to make a big thing of it.


 
I too don't see anything coming of it. Loach is making essentially the same point in 1998 as he was in 2003 as he was in 2009, as he is in 2013 off the back of his new film. It's not really a point that belongs to him though, it's a standard 'Let's have Left Unity' on some coalescing basis - it's hardly surprising  that Tom Walker or whoever might support this.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 24, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "We"?
> But you've sworn black is blue you're *not* a Swappie!


 sorry about that, typing error, should have read sw.

I think what I've said is I'm not particularly prepared to put the organisation, before the ideas.  See here http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/life-after-the-swp.200781/page-23#post-12037486


----------



## manny-p (Mar 24, 2013)

Can someone sum up the latest with the swp gossip. I can't be arsed to go through 20 pages. Much appreciated.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Can someone sum up the latest with the swp gossip. I can't be arsed to go through 20 pages. Much appreciated.


 

they are still the absolute perfect, logical and sane org to be trying a rape case and anyone who says different is part of the sino-SEYMOUR! axis. Sprinkled with chocolate lenins


----------



## discokermit (Mar 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> they are still the absolute perfect, logical and sane org to be trying a rape case and anyone who says different is part of the sino-SEYMOUR! axis. Sprinkled with chocolate lenins


pound shop lenin. that was a good one.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

20 pages of us all slagging each other off aimlessly really


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> 20 pages of us all slagging each other off aimlessly really


Hey, we're all in this together.

No, i'm in not that sewer with you and the remaining party members.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> they are still the absolute perfect, logical and sane org to be trying a rape case and anyone who says different is part of the sino-SEYMOUR! axis. Sprinkled with chocolate lenins


 
Not chocolate Lenins, Lenin Sherberts as sold at Bookmarks.


----------



## manny-p (Mar 24, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> they are still the absolute perfect, logical and sane org to be trying a rape case and anyone who says different is part of the sino-SEYMOUR! axis. Sprinkled with chocolate lenins


Cheers buddy


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> pound shop lenin. that was a good one.


 

strutting around like a pound shop lenin, aye that was jokes. Good times, good times.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Not chocolate Lenins, Lenin Sherberts as sold at Bookmarks.


 
talking of obscure lenin facts apparently in his exile/hiding in pre revolution russia he only trusted soso, georgias man of steel to wield the straight razor and shave him. Dunno why he couldn't shave himself ffs.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Hey, we're all in this together.
> 
> No, i'm in that sewer with you and the remaining party members.


Good god no I fully realise its middle class me and working class rmp3 against the rest! Mind you, you nearly gave yourself an embolism earlier when you thought you'd spotted emy turning, thought your head was about to explode with outrage. How will you ever live with yourself six months from now when the SWP has come out the other side of this and all the sticking of pins in dolls you could manage hasn't killed it off.


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 24, 2013)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...cebook-handbags.266196/page-250#post-11803893
Oh the irony.

Late 2012: I was in the town centre and I passed both an SWP stall and a stall from a church. From the latter I was given a leaflet with horrendous lies about abortion and the usual "We're here to help but no one else is" stuff. A few days after I showed it to a friend and in the same breath mentioned the SWP stall. Third friend turns around from another conversation, taking my last sentence out of context as a joke and said "Well the SWP have changed their line on women's rights!" We chuckled, and that was that.

Fast-forward a bit and all these jokes are like the nasty forshadowing you notice when you rewatch a film or TV series.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Good god no I fully realise its middle class me and working class rmp3 against the rest! Mind you, you nearly gave yourself an embolism earlier when you thought you'd spotted emy turning, thought your head was about to explode with outrage. How will you ever live with yourself six months from now when the SWP has come out the other side of this and all the sticking of pins in dolls you could manage hasn't killed it off.


SWP - not a class thing (NOR A RAPE THING).


----------



## discokermit (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> How will you ever live with yourself six months from now when the SWP has come out the other side of this


in your fucking dreams.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

I don't get the point about sticking pins in dolls. If anyone is guilty of voodoo, it can only be the SWP deciders who cured the Sheffield full-timer's alleged raping and domestic violence in under 2 years whilst he was still able to go to the south coast for socials with students, simply by reading bits of the Cliffite tradition on women's liberation.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 25, 2013)

Bolshiebhoy why are you reducing the cases just down to the accusation of Delta raping someone? There is also the issue of a leading party member of nearly 50 years old thinking it is ok to sleep with a 17 year old new member. This leads on to the question that despite this the SWP thinking it was ok to have a panel to investigate comprising solely of his mates, and even then one of the panel obviously thought there was some kind of wrong doing. Delta was also accussed of sexual harassment by a seperate woman. The CC knew of at least the first accusation but allowed conference to be misled and him to have a standing ovation.

There is also the case of the Sheffield organiser who the SWP thought it was ok to give a two year suspension after a number of serious accusations, some of which they accepted. They then went on to praise him, and thought that if they gave him some SWP literature on women's rights that would be enough to welcome him back to the fold.

But you reduce all this down to the fact that some bloke should keep his dick in his trousers? Don't you think that's a bit of a disgusting comment to make given we have two seperate accusations, one of rape, and one of sexual harassment? You say that this in reference to those who believe he is innocent, but by your own logic, how can anyone think this? But despite you not knowing whether he is guily or innocent, and despite the fact that a woman has alleged he raped her, you choose to think it is him just not keeping his dick in his trousers.

As for all the stuff about you thinking it is so important to protect the political tradition of the IS. What has this tradition actually achieved? Doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans it seems to me. After several decades they are a group of 1000 or so activists, with sod all influence in either the unions or working class communities and joke front organisations like Unite the Resistance, which achieve precisely sweet FA. Even historically they haven't exacty set the world on fire.


----------



## killer b (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> six months from now when the SWP has come out the other side of this


you're funny.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 25, 2013)

he's right though, this isn't the death blow it righteously should be, the evidence shows that there are many who will rally to the core and carry on rather than see the party die.

something something bacon roll in the party


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 25, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Even historically they haven't exacty set the world on fire.


Who has?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> he's right though, this isn't the death blow it righteously should be, the evidence shows that there are many who will rally to the core and carry on rather than see the party die.


Yeap.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2013)

So much for Women's Participation: the party in the future will, I suspect, have rather fewer women involved


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Yeap.



Maybe those who have been attracted to the party by its  handling of the rape claims could put out a daily paper?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Good god no I fully realise its middle class me and working class rmp3 against the rest! Mind you, you nearly gave yourself an embolism earlier when you thought you'd spotted emy turning, thought your head was about to explode with outrage. How will you ever live with yourself six months from now when the SWP has come out the other side of this and all the sticking of pins in dolls you could manage hasn't killed it off.


  Twas funny last night.  Especially after I'd asked Violent Panda about butchers being so angry all the time, and he totally denied it.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe those who have been attracted to the party by its handling of the rape claims could put out a daily paper?


 you didn't respond to my p.m. butchers


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> he's right though, this isn't the death blow it righteously should be, the evidence shows that there are many who will rally to the core and carry on rather than see the party die.
> 
> something something bacon roll in the party


proclamations of the death of the SWP have been going on for years and years. Will this be the death blow, I don't know, honestly.

The thing I would say is this, the left talking about the left on here and wherever else, isn't as important to have a heart attack about. Besides that hard-core, who always hate every other section of the left beside themselves, won't most of the working class have forgotten about this in six months time (if indeed they were ever a word of it)?

The SWP may die, but those who think Trotskyism and Leninism is dead, need to produce an alternative.  Viable alternative.  This KPD attitude, just won't do comrades.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe those who have been attracted to the party by its handling of the rape claims could put out a daily paper?


 maybe you could do anything, besides whine all day long.


----------



## killer b (Mar 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> he's right though, this isn't the death blow it righteously should be, the evidence shows that there are many who will rally to the core and carry on rather than see the party die.
> 
> something something bacon roll in the party


no new members, no one else prepared to work with them. It might take a few years to work itself out, but its all over. Everything from now is just the death throes.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Bolshiebhoy why are you reducing the cases just down to the accusation of Delta raping someone? There is also the issue of a leading party member of nearly 50 years old thinking it is ok to sleep with a 17 year old new member. This leads on to the question that despite this the SWP thinking it was ok to have a panel to investigate comprising solely of his mates, and even then one of the panel obviously thought there was some kind of wrong doing. Delta was also accussed of sexual harassment by a seperate woman. The CC knew of at least the first accusation but allowed conference to be misled and him to have a standing ovation.
> 
> There is also the case of the Sheffield organiser who the SWP thought it was ok to give a two year suspension after a number of serious accusations, some of which they accepted. They then went on to praise him, and thought that if they gave him some SWP literature on women's rights that would be enough to welcome him back to the fold.
> 
> ...


There are so many issues in there, and it's not worth going over them again.  I'm just interested how far do you take this logic.
Everybody HAS TO leave the SWP?
Everybody HAS TO give up on Leninism?
Everybody HAS TO give up on Trotskyism?


PS On the 17 + 50 affair V Marx and Maid?


----------



## belboid (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeap.


The WRP still exist.

But now, everyone knows they are scum who should just be ignored.  The SWP will fulfill that same role.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 25, 2013)

I was going to say the same thing about the WRP. The SWP will survive, but possibly in a similar vein.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> where did I say you said they stop people reading Marx?
> You haven't said anything about "first stop material" until now.


 
yes I did. If you're too stupid to see that one sentence is a paraphrase of an earlier one, it's hardly my fault, is it?



> you just said there SW do provide.


 
They "provide" by selling. That's not actually provision in the sense of disseminating materials to your membership, Oddjob. That's making money for the cause. At least your Christian nutters usually charge cost price plus a few bob to keep the pastor happy.



> But you were wrong, there isn't just one-sided commentaries..
> In response to this,
> 
> I asked a very simple question;
> ...


They don't provide, you dumb cunt, they *retail*. They *SELL*. They don't sell at cost price, they sell at FULL retail price, like the good little business that they are.

"Honest"? You wouldn't know honesty if it bit your face off.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 25, 2013)

> Twas funny last night. Especially after I'd asked Violent Panda about butchers being so angry all the time, and he totally denied it.


 
Could you be anymore obnoxious if you tried? First of all after rape allegations had been made you just carried on with your idiotic "have they split yet" comments. But then you expect people to engage with you seriously when you want to, but when you want to take the piss, even in the face of such serious allegations, you just carry on. Nothing about this is funny, and the fact that you think it is says it all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> sorry about that, typing error, should have read sw.


 
Typing error?

More like a Freudian slip, you hypocrite.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 25, 2013)

Bolshiebhoy reminds me of one of the Civil War Bolsheviks that I read about (in Sheila Fitzpatrick's books I think). The peaceful, gradual period of the 1920s distressed these Party members; they wanted a return to the siege mentality, the sacrifices, the extremities of the civil war years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> 20 pages of us all slagging each other off aimlessly really


 
Fuck you, you crypto-CPGB twat!


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 25, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> There are so many issues in there, and it's not worth going over them again. I'm just interested how far do you take this logic.
> Everybody HAS TO leave the SWP?
> Everybody HAS TO give up on Leninism?
> Everybody HAS TO give up on Trotskyism?
> ...


 
So because Marx did it, that's ok?

I think anyone with any political principles would leave the SWP at this point. They were a fairly worthless group before this happened anyway.

As for the other two questions, where have I said that?

Not surprised you don't want to go over it all again given it shows your leadership in such a bad light. Oh no, I forgot, you aren't in the SWP are you, you just spend a massive amount of time defending them.


----------



## mk12 (Mar 25, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I think anyone with any political principles would leave the SWP at this point. They were a fairly worthless group before this happened anyway.


 
They've lost any respect from their former members (apart from one), they've lost respect from a large chunk of their membership, they've alienated themselves from Trade Unionists and students that are aware of this, and they've been made to look like a joke to those that read about the saga in the mainstream media. The only way they can recruit now is to hope that potential new members haven't heard about this debacle.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The SWP (as an org, not as individual members of whatever standing) tend to recommend reading by authors wiithin their tradition, even commentaries written by members rather than originals written by long-dead comrades. That way you get their take, rather than forming your own.


what I tried to explain is, besides in your head, I don't know where this happens. It doesn't happen at Bookmarks.
I haven't been to a branch meeting, district meeting, Marxism, bookmarks bookshop, TUC bookstall where there haven't been upon their bookstalls the "originals written by long dead comrades".
The way you frame your argument, suggests sw conspired to shepherd people away from reading the original texts because sw believe, if people read the original text, people will come to different conclusions to the SWP? But this is not true, because they genuinely believe their interpretation is correct, just like you genuinely believe your interpretation is correct.
You even suggest there is a conspiracy to "screw people".  The socialist bookshop, in fact the entire organisation, exist within the financial constraints of capitalism.  If anything, I can see bookmarks going bankrupt, rather than providing a Dacha in the country.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

mk12 said:


> Bolshiebhoy reminds me of one of the Civil War Bolsheviks that I read about (in Sheila Fitzpatrick's books I think). The peaceful, gradual period of the 1920s distressed these Party members; they wanted a return to the siege mentality, the sacrifices, the extremities of the civil war years.


 
They liked the burning and looting, the pillaging and shooting! They didn't particularly like it when we (Ukrainian anarchists) stuck bayonets in Red Army officers and liberated their conscripts, though!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Could you be anymore obnoxious if you tried? First of all after rape allegations had been made you just carried on with your idiotic "have they split yet" comments. But then you expect people to engage with you seriously when you want to, but when you want to take the piss, even in the face of such serious allegations, you just carry on. Nothing about this is funny, and the fact that you think it is says it all.


 well go back and admonish other people laughing and taking the piss in this thread, and I might take your moralism a little more genuinely.

butcers = obnoxious. Whether it is me on the SWP it almost always renders down to, personal abuse.


PS.  Yes, I did initially do that.  They have cried wolf so many times on here, I thought this was another occasion.  But what I actually did, is go to a different thread, and talk about issues I was interested in.  Since Moore has come out, I've actually changed my position on the SWP.  Well, for now.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> So because Marx did it, that's ok?


wtf where did I say that?



> I think anyone with any political principles would leave the SWP at this point. They were a fairly worthless group before this happened anyway.


 so that is a yes, everybody



> As for the other two questions, where have I said that?


 so that is no?



> Not surprised you don't want to go over it all again given it shows your leadership in such a bad light.


 my position is pretty much the same as Pat Stack's.


> Oh no, I forgot, you aren't in the SWP are you, you just spend a massive amount of time defending them.


 
Where have I defended anything about the rape allegation?  You CAN defend a version of Trotskyism from distortion, without defending the org.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> what I tried to explain is, besides in your head, I don't know where this happens. It doesn't happen at Bookmarks.


 
I haven't said it happens in Bookmarks, Oddjob.



> I haven't been to a branch meeting, district meeting, Marxism, bookmarks bookshop, TUC bookstall where there haven't been upon their bookstalls the "originals written by long dead comrades".


 
Where they're sold alongside the favoured tomes, which tend to be cheaper.
You really don't understand the basics of marketing at all, do you?



> The way you frame your argument, suggests sw conspired to shepherd people away from reading the original texts because sw believe, if people read the original text, people will come to different conclusions to the SWP? But this is not true, because they genuinely believe their interpretation is correct, just like you genuinely believe your interpretation is correct.


 
I read stuff to see what it says, not to find beliefs in what I read. I don't need to interpret what's written because I don't intend to proselytise a particular viewpoint. This is where you and your ilk fall down. You assume that others must be doing what you do - that they must be seeking to shore up some set of beliefs around a text or an ideology.



> You even suggest there is a conspiracy to "screw people". The socialist bookshop, in fact the entire organisation, exist within the financial constraints of capitalism. If anything, I can see bookmarks going bankrupt, rather than providing a Dacha in the country.


 
It's quite possible to run a bookshop efficiently on an absolute shoestring, selling books at well under their RRP. You don't have to be Amazon to achieve that. What's interesting from your price list of Marx's works is that they're *all* being charged at RRP.  Books are sold to retailers by the publishers at anything between 45% and 65% of the cover price, dependent on possible sales and book format, plus volume discounts come into play - buy 30 copies of Capital bk 1 and you get them cheaper per unit than if you only bought 1-5 copies. A lot of booksellers (the vast majority, whether they're a small indie or a large chain) pass at least part of that discount on to the customer. Not the bookseller you got that pricelist from, though. They're keeping all that extracted surplus value for themselves. 

Bankrupt? If they did it'd be through ineptitude, not because they were minimising costs to comrades.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> in your fucking dreams.


 
He sort of has a point. Some *rump* of the pro-CC faction will "emerge" from this, having decided that, say, June 2013 is the Year Zero of a new and improved SWP, and they'll attempt to carry on as before, as if nothing happened.
It won't be the party that BB is hoping for, though. It'll be a narrow and even more doctrinaire party that'll be even more prone to expulsions and suspensions, and it'll draw fewer new members/activists from the ranks of students IMO.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

That's _exactly_ the party that BB is after - to complete his 80s retro bollocks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Good god no I fully realise its middle class me and working class rmp3 against the rest! Mind you, you nearly gave yourself an embolism earlier when you thought you'd spotted emy turning, thought your head was about to explode with outrage. How will you ever live with yourself six months from now when the SWP has come out the other side of this and all the sticking of pins in dolls you could manage hasn't killed it off.


 
No-one has said the SWP will be "killed off", though. Your argument/tirade is based on a false assumption.
What people have repeatedly said is that the SWP will be changed. In fact it already has been, by its' own actions pre- and post-conference, and by the internet-enabled corrspondence between elements of the membership. And it'll continue to change, because the only way for it to survive is change, even if that change is reactionary and narrow.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's _exactly_ the party that BB is after - to complete his 80s retro bollocks.


 
But who will they expel for squaddism this time round the '80s?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> But who will they expel for squaddism this time round the '80s?


I think a Asama-Sanso siege situation might be on the cards.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 25, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> well go back and admonish other people laughing and taking the piss in this thread, and I might take your moralism a little more genuinely.
> 
> butcers = obnoxious. Whether it is me on the SWP it almost always renders down to, personal abuse.
> 
> PS. Yes, I did initially do that. They have cried wolf so many times on here, I thought this was another occasion. But what I actually did, is go to a different thread, and talk about issues I was interested in. Since Moore has come out, I've actually changed my position on the SWP. Well, for now.


 
But my moralism, as you put it, comes from you defending the SWP and their leadership. The other people I mention aren't like BB trying to equate these serious allegations with "keeping your dick in your trousers", or in your case trying to avoid the topic and go on about vague discussions about the IS tradition. A tradition which you and BB seem to hold as sacred but in reality has achieved sod all. You are BB are the ones who are out of order as you are the ones defending the indefensible.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 25, 2013)

> wtf where did I say that?


 
Why mention it then?



> so that is a yes, everybody


 
Why are you repeating what I have said? I said, very clearly, that anyone with any principles would leave the SWP at this point.


> so that is no?


 
You asked the question in the first place, despite it having nothing to do with my post.


> Where have I defended anything about the rape allegation? You CAN defend a version of Trotskyism from distortion, without defending the org.


 
Well the SWP is doing a very good job of trying to discredit socialism regardless of any distortion. Also the reason these things have happened in the SWP is partly because of the whole make up of the organisation and the political method they follow, which is basically little different from stalinism in terms of the organisations make up. They are an organisation which has, over the decades, routinely operated in a fundamentally dishonest way, have an internal (and external when they can get away with it) bullying and manipulative culture and a political method which has resulted in the farce of things like Unite the Resistance, Right to Work and whatever other front you care to mention. As such they are totally isolated from the working class, both in local communities and in the unions.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> They liked the burning and looting, the pillaging and shooting! They didn't particularly like it when we (Ukrainian anarchists) stuck bayonets in Red Army officers and liberated their conscripts, though!


 
I knew you were an ow fella but didn't realise you were that old

Still at least you didn't drink yourself to death in a Citreon factory in France


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Twas funny last night. Especially after I'd asked Violent Panda about butchers being so angry all the time, and he totally denied it.


 
You did? Odd, I've just looked back over all my posts from 5pm onward last night, and not one of them has me answering that question, or you asking it.

No doubt, as usual when you're caught in a lie (which is quite often, isn't it?), you'll dissemble, lard your post with smilies and pretend you made a genuine mistake.
People know your tricks, though. They know you're a liar.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I knew you were an ow fella but didn't realise you were that old


 
"We" as in some of my forebears, you scrote! 



> Still at least you didn't drink yourself to death in a Citreon factory in France


 
A Renault factory, comrade, and the alcoholism was helped along by tuberculosis.


----------



## belboid (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He sort of has a point. Some *rump* of the pro-CC faction will "emerge" from this, having decided that, say, June 2013 is the Year Zero of a new and improved SWP, and they'll attempt to carry on as before, as if nothing happened.
> It won't be the party that BB is hoping for, though. It'll be a narrow and even more doctrinaire party that'll be even more prone to expulsions and suspensions, and it'll draw fewer new members/activists from the ranks of students IMO.


we know how many people will be in that party.  Initially there'll be the 512 who signd the CC statement. Quite how many are left a year later, when they finally notice no one else is joining, and no one is listening to them any more....

I think the thing is, out in the 'real world' they will no longer be given the benefit of the doubt. Whereas many people (not those on the P&P board, obviously) would think 'they're a bit full of shit, but are basically honest and trying to do some good', now, they will be seen simply as some sad, dishonest wankers only interested in themselves. Doomed.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 25, 2013)

I clicked on to this thread for my daily dose and the horrific sight that greeted me was a stream of posts by RMP3 even though I have him/her on ignore. Then I realised I wasn't logged in. Once I rectified this over sight, *poof* s/he was gone. Blessed relief!

ViolentPanda, O_S_S, butchersapron seriously folks, put RMP3 on ignore. Of course s/he is going to lie and fill up the comments box with insincere smilies and passive-aggresive posts, the point of his/her posts isn't to debate it's to provoke. I enjoy many of your posts and the points you make. You are all interesting and capable commenters but what you don't seem to get is that every time you engage with RMP3, every time you answer his/her lies and provocations, YOU LOSE.

If you want to wind up RMP3, get as many people as possible to ignore him, starting with yourselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> I clicked on to this thread for my daily dose and the horrific sight that greeted me was a stream of posts by RMP3 even though I have him/her on ignore. Then I realised I wasn't logged in. Once I rectified this over sight, *poof* s/he was gone. Blessed relief!
> 
> ViolentPanda, O_S_S, butchersapron seriously folks, put RMP3 on ignore. Of course s/he is going to lie and fill up the comments box with insincere smilies and passive-aggresive posts, the point of his/her posts isn't to debate it's to provoke. I enjoy many of your posts and the points you make. You are all interesting and capable commenters but what you don't seem to get is that every time you engage with RMP3, every time you answer his/her lies and provocations, YOU LOSE.
> 
> If you want to wind up RMP3, get as many people as possible to ignore him, starting with yourselves.


Mate, i've been ignoring him for years, really - i think there's one response to him from me on this thread and it's 'fuck off' - i _never_ reply to him - well very very rarely (which doesn't actually work as he just fills up more space trying to get me to reply, but that is marginally better then actually replying).


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "We" as in some of my forebears, you scrote!
> 
> 
> 
> A Renault factory, comrade, and the alcoholism was helped along by tuberculosis.


(or the cheka agents sent to kill him)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> we know how many people will be in that party. Initially there'll be the 512 who signd the CC statement. Quite how many are left a year later, when they finally notice no one else is joining, and no one is listening to them any more....
> 
> I think the thing is, out in the 'real world' they will no longer be given the benefit of the doubt. Whereas many people (not those on the P&P board, obviously) would think 'they're a bit full of shit, but are basically honest and trying to do some good', now, they will be seen simply as some sad, dishonest wankers only interested in themselves. Doomed.


 
But like a dinosaur, it'll take a long time for the message to be transmitted throughout the body.
I'm also a bit wary that this'll make 'em ever more prone to attempting to take over single-issue orgs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> (or the cheka agents sent to kill him)


 
TBF, he had 16 years of them trying, so surviving the assassin's bullet (or syringe) that long was a bloody miracle!


----------



## belboid (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> But like a dinosaur, it'll take a long time for the message to be transmitted throughout the body.
> I'm also a bit wary that this'll make 'em ever more prone to attempting to take over single-issue orgs.


annoyingly, the ones that stay in will tend to be the older buggers, who pay the high subs, and who will, therefore, keep the organisation going for a good while yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> annoyingly, the ones that stay in will tend to be the older buggers, who pay the high subs, and who will, therefore, keep the organisation going for a good while yet.


...and then the bequests...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> annoyingly, the ones that stay in will tend to be the older buggers, who pay the high subs, and who will, therefore, keep the organisation going for a good while yet.


 
Ah, the tithers.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You did? Odd, I've just looked back over all my posts from 5pm onward last night, and not one of them has me answering that question, or you asking it.
> 
> No doubt, as usual when you're caught in a lie (which is quite often, isn't it?), you'll dissemble, lard your post with smilies and pretend you made a genuine mistake.
> People know your tricks, though. They know you're a liar.


 http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-328#post-12069035


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't said it happens in Bookmarks, Oddjob.


 which was the point of my link





> Where they're sold alongside the favoured tomes, which tend to be cheaper.


 give examples.
So you think they should charge more for their own publications? Contrary bugger. 







> I read stuff to see what it says, not to find beliefs in what I read. I don't need to interpret what's written because I don't intend to proselytise a particular viewpoint.


 still haven't answered the pointThe way you frame your argument, suggests sw conspired to shepherd people away from reading the original texts because sw believe, if people read the original text, people will come to different conclusions to the SWP? But this is not true, because they genuinely believe their interpretation is correct.  In other words, why would you shepherd people away from the original text, if you believed people would come to the same conclusion as you?


But you do interpret Marx differently to the SWP. What you draw as the conclusions of what Marx wrote, are different to the conclusions the SWP draw?


> They're keeping all that extracted surplus value for themselves.


 for a house in the country?



> Bankrupt? If they did it'd be through ineptitude, not because they were minimising costs to comrades.


 I live in a small town now. The high Street is shutting down, except for charity shops. Think that will catch up eventually, even in the big cities.
.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Mate, i've been ignoring him for years, really - i think there's one response to him from me on this thread and it's 'fuck off' - i _never_ reply to him - well very very rarely (which doesn't actually work as he just fills up more space trying to get me to reply, but that is marginally better then actually replying).


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 25, 2013)

> But you do interpret Marx differently to the SWP. What you draw as the conclusions of what Marx wrote, are different to the conclusions the SWP draw?


 


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

The ear-biter is doing a talk _Thanet SWP meeting: How can the working class win?. _The pic used on the fb page is this:


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 25, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> a political method which has resulted in the farce of things like Unite the Resistance, Right to Work and whatever other front you care to mention. As such they are totally isolated from the working class, both in local communities and in the unions.


The SWP of course are not the only group to apply this political method. In fact it's standard Trotskyist tactics. What is really farcical is that when rival groups set up rival front organisations aimed at the same group of discontented people.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> But my moralism, as you put it, comes from you defending the SWP and their leadership. The other people I mention aren't like BB trying to equate these serious allegations with "keeping your dick in your trousers", or in your case trying to avoid the topic and go on about vague discussions about the IS tradition. A tradition which you and BB seem to hold as sacred but in reality has achieved sod all. You are BB are the ones who are out of order as you are the ones defending the indefensible.


  I haven't defended the handling of the rape allegation.  I have made clear I have my differences with the current SWP.  But I will defend the idea's created before I left, in 2000.  Those, are not indefensible.  Every time people say the SWP said something they didn't, why shouldn't I point it out?  Just because the SWP did something wrong, doesn't make misrepresenting them right.

So moving forward, who would you recommend an ex-member of the SWP join, at this moment?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The ear-biter is doing a talk _Thanet SWP meeting: How can the working class win?. _The pic used on the fb page is this:


 And?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 25, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> But you do interpret Marx differently to the SWP. What you draw as the conclusions of what Marx wrote, are different to the conclusions the SWP draw?


I hold no brief for SPEW (far from it!) but this might answer your question (found here):


> This orientation towards the working class is a key difference between the SP and the Socialist Worker’s Party. The Socialist Worker’s Party, while maintaining revolutionary slogans, in truth orientates towards the Middle class. That is to say its recruitment polices focus on recruiting middle class students and intellectuals. This is partly due to the influence of the supposed ‘New Left’ which argued that following the post-WW2 economic boom the working class in western, developed nations had been ‘brought off.’ These groups then turned to other minority groups – such as gender, sexual and racial equality campaigns, as well as national liberation campaigns in the third world, to look for a new force for revolutionary change. We would argue that while these groups should be supported in their struggles, they should be part of the working class struggle, they should not replace it.


and


> We also reject the tactics of groups such as ‘Unite against Fascism’ (UAF) who are prepared to work with anyone in order to enhance their cause. This is called a ‘popular front’ and we believe this to be unprincipled, and potentially a counterproductive way to work. In contrast we call for a United Front, built on a principled class basis, bringing together socialists, trade unionists, workers and community organisations.


If this appreciation of the SWP is true (I'm  not saying it is: students seem to be in all groups) one result of the present furore would be that it would lose its base amongst "middle class students and intellectuals" and so, ironically, become more of a "worker-oriented" party -- except that they kicked out a lot of non-public-service trade unionists in the 1970s for "syndicalism".


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

This is to do with the susssex uni occupation thing

*Aaron Peters*@aaronjohnpeters
Huge demo, new union, cops chased off - no NUS or union involvement, local Swp branch has disaffiliated - amazing

So who has dissafiliated from what?


----------



## articul8 (Mar 25, 2013)

sounds like SWSS has distanced itself from Occupy_Sussex?


----------



## tedsplitter (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is to do with the susssex uni occupation thing
> 
> *Aaron Peters*@aaronjohnpeters
> Huge demo, new union, cops chased off - no NUS or union involvement, local Swp branch has disaffiliated - amazing
> ...


He means that Sussex SWSS has disafilliated from the SWP.


----------



## tedsplitter (Mar 25, 2013)

http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/resignation-sussex-brighton-swss.html


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

That was weeks ago - why is he going on abut it now?


----------



## tedsplitter (Mar 25, 2013)

I guess it's background info regarding the demo in support of the occupation today.
I hear also that the insurgents have captured another position at Sussex Uni  - the regime has lost the Management Building.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 25, 2013)

He makes it sound like the proper SWP branch has disaffiliated from the occupation though.


----------



## tedsplitter (Mar 25, 2013)

Nah, I haven't heard anything about that but it's a pretty safe bet that relations between the occupiers and the SWP national office have frosted over a bit. No idea what Brighton SWP is like, I know there's been at least one non-SWSS resignation.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That was weeks ago - why is he going on abut it now?


 
He's trying to say to people 'Don't be afraid of supporting us, we don't have any SWP kicking around in Sussex Uni any longer'. It's a bit weird.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 25, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I haven't defended the handling of the rape allegation. I have made clear I have my differences with the current SWP. But I will defend the idea's created before I left, in 2000. Those, are not indefensible. Every time people say the SWP said something they didn't, why shouldn't I point it out? Just because the SWP did something wrong, doesn't make misrepresenting them right.
> 
> So moving forward, who would you recommend an ex-member of the SWP join, at this moment?


 
Yes but I would have thought there are priorities. You have said very little talking about the current situation, and a lot with abstract debates.

I wouldn't recommend you join anyone. Make your own mind up. But just because I can say that organisations like the WRP or SWP aren't what is needed, doesn't mean I have the answer to what is.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Yes but I would have thought there are priorities.


 sorry, what?


> You have said very little talking about the current situation, and a lot with abstract debates.


 abstract debates other people started, and misrepresented the truth.



> I wouldn't recommend you join anyone. Make your own mind up. But just because I can say that organisations like the WRP or SWP aren't what is needed, doesn't mean I have the answer to what is.


 yes I know the mantra, you proselytise what you are against, not what you are for.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop EG, I don't know member of the SWP who wouldn't say this is a gross misrepresentation 





leyton96 said:


> It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.
> 
> So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.
> 
> ...


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 25, 2013)

sihhi said:


> He's trying to say to people 'Don't be afraid of supporting us, we don't have any SWP kicking around in Sussex Uni any longer'. It's a bit weird.


 
He's a bit of an odd fellow. He's one of those 'Excuse me, I couldn't help noticing I'm considerably cleverer than you' types.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> He's a bit of an odd fellow. He's one of those 'Excuse me, I couldn't help noticing I'm considerably cleverer than you' types.


 pot calling kettle


leyton96 said:


> That's how swoppies train their members to 'argue' with ideas they don't agree with.
> 
> Step 1: Misrepresent the other persons argument and present a position no sane person could possible agree with.
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (Mar 25, 2013)

blimey, that Bradley bloke gets about... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-21927889


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 25, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.
> So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.


The one good thing about the SWP was that it championed the state-capitalist analysis of the old USSR, etc within the Trotskyist movement while the rest of the movement promoted the absurd theory that these were somehow "Workers" States. The fact that it failed to apply this analysis consistently and ended up taking sides in inter-imperialist wars (as did the other Trotskyist groups) does not invalidate the theory itself. Some of the writings of Nigel Harris on this were good (I know he eventually fell out with the others, for applying it more consistently than them). Beware of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-328#post-12069035


 
So you can't even differentiate between 6 days ago (when that was posted) and last night, cunt?

Fuck the fuck off, you Billy fucking Bullshitter cunt.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you can't even differentiate between 6 days ago (when that was posted) and last night, cunt?
> 
> Fuck the fuck off, you Billy fucking Bullshitter cunt.


 I didn't say when you posted it, this is what I said.


ResistanceMP3 said:


> Twas funny last night. Especially after I'd asked Violent Panda about butchers being so angry all the time, and he totally denied it.


just glad you admitted you did say it, and you were wrong. It's not my fault you forgot.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> it would give me great mirth to claim that was due to me , but he is angry when I'm not even here.
> 
> He's just a sad sad angry old man.
> 
> ...


 don't worry mate, there's no need to apologise.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> The one good thing about the SWP was that it championed the state-capitalist analysis of the old USSR, etc within the Trotskyist movement while the rest of the movement promoted the absurd theory that these were somehow "Workers" States. The fact that it failed to apply this analysis consistently and ended up taking sides in inter-imperialist wars (as did the other Trotskyist groups) does not invalidate the theory itself. Some of the writings of Nigel Harris on this were good (I know he eventually fell out with the others, for applying it more consistently than them). Beware of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


how did they fail to apply the analysis of state capitalism consistently? Just provide a link, if you don't want to explain it yourself.  I'll have a read.  

And expand on the "taking sides in inter-imperialist wars". Their position was, Korea, proxy war, support neither side. Vietnam, Vietnamese liberating themselves from US imperialism. Afghanistan, Afghans liberating them self from Russian imperialism. Again a link if you want.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you can't even differentiate between 6 days ago (when that was posted) and last night, cunt?
> 
> Fuck the fuck off, you Billy fucking Bullshitter cunt.


 
Can people stop speaking to people I've got on ignore please? It gets very confusing


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Can people stop speaking to people I've got on ignore please? It gets very confusing


 
But Spanks, surely it was obvious by the content, who I was speaking to?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

Can't we all just put rmp3 on ignore? Don't you know that you replying to his posts is why we can't have nice things - like a revolution?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Can't we all just put rmp3 on ignore? Don't you know that you replying to his posts is why we can't have nice things - like a revolution?


 nice one mate.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 25, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> But Spanks, surely it was obvious by the content, who I was speaking to?


 don't you be bossed around VP.


----------



## ayatollah (Mar 25, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> The one good thing about the SWP was that it championed the state-capitalist analysis of the old USSR, etc within the Trotskyist movement while the rest of the movement promoted the absurd theory that these were somehow "Workers" States. The fact that it failed to apply this analysis consistently and ended up taking sides in inter-imperialist wars (as did the other Trotskyist groups) does not invalidate the theory itself. Some of the writings of Nigel Harris on this were good (I know he eventually fell out with the others, for applying it more consistently than them). Beware of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.


 
Like ResistanceMP3 I'm not convinced that the IS/SWP actually did apply the State Cap theory inconsistently re. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan. However I think, , like you, that even if Cliff nicked lots of his take on "State Capitalism" from the likes of Raya Dunayevskaya, and others, it's still a vast leap forward beyond the various orthodox Trot  "deformed workers state" , "degenerated workers state", concessions to Stalinism's projected self image of its bureaucratic class regime as somehow "defending the socialised property gains of the 1917 revolution" .

For me the strange thing about the SWP and the state cap theory/analysis, is as a party that they never tried to really refine it, or move it forward in tune with the vast changes in the actual fortunes of the Stalinist bloc, ie the collapse of the USSR and Eastern bloc back into conventional Bourgeois Capitalism.  What the contemporary conventional bourgeois capitalist nature of Russia and the eastern bloc states suggests is that , even though it took many decades, the bureaucratic Communist Party elite in Stalinist regimes have proved to be , historically,  more of "a proxy  bourgeois class stand-in" awaiting the opportunity for a complete  bourgeois restoration -- rather than the completely "new class" that certainly seemed to be the case until the USSR collapsed. And China seems well on the road to the same end destination.

 I get the distinct impression that in the SWP now, the "issue" of State Capitalism is seen as a historic hangover, with little relevance now the USSR is gone, and China, Cuba, etc, are well on the way to full bourgeois capitalist restoration. And this I think is a tragedy, because potentially the State Capitalist analysis has a lot of vital things to say about what a genuine revolutionery socialist workers state should be like, the dangers  inherent from  over-centralised supposedly  revolutionery Socialist Party bureaucracies, and state bureaucracies  masquerading as "workers states" on the basis of the nationalised property form. Maybe all a bit too challenging for a Party which has itself long ago collapsed into undemocratic bureaucratic rule ?  Certainly lots of unsavoury neo Stalinists and very unreconstructed "deformed workers state" Trots are currently licking their lips in the hopes that the State Cap analysis will soon disappear from the scene - allowing them uncontested space on the radical Left to draw them  into uncritical support for any murderous dictatorial regime which has a large state-owned sector and chooses to present itself as "anti imperialist".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> Certainly lots of unsavoury neo Stalinists and very unreconstructed "deformed workers state" Trots are currently licking their lips in the hopes that the State Cap analysis will soon disappear from the scene - allowing them uncontested space on the radical Left to draw them into uncritical support for any murderous dictatorial regime which has a large state-owned sector and chooses to present itself as "anti imperialist".


 
To be fair though, the 'very unreconstructed 'deformed workers state' trots (I presume by this you mean the SP) have been far less guilty of this than the 'correct state capitalist' SWP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> To be fair though, the 'very unreconstructed 'deformed workers state' trots (I presume by this you mean the SP) have been far less guilty of this than the 'correct state capitalist' SWP.


 You cheered up a dreary Monday for me there spiney. So Syria, Burma, Somalia, Ethiopia weren't all declared workers states by the Millies/SP? Nobody in your tradition wrote of Syria that the Ba'athists had created a workers state in the 60's:"‘Faced with an imperialist-backed military counter-revolution, the regime appealed to the masses for support. In their hundreds of thousands, peasants and workers were armed. Capitalism and landlordism were crushed, with 85% of the land and 95% of industry being nationalized by the Ba’ath regime." ?!?

In 1979 the Militant didn't that argue Khomeini might create a workers state?! "The situation in Iran is still fluid. In the crisis situation facing Iran and given the flight of the Iranian capitalist class and the weakness of imperialism to intervene, it is entirely possible that Khomeini’s Committee could, under pressure, carry out the expropriation of capitalism."

Yeah that's right the SWP has loads to learn from the CWI on that score. Ooodles.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 25, 2013)

Seymour has cleared up the confusion that arose over a single line in part 4 of his account, mentioning that two groups had left the IST. One lot were the Serbs. It now transpires that the other lot were the Croats, presumably also a very small group.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Seymour has cleared up the confusion that arose over a single line in part 4 of his account, mentioning that two groups had left the IST. One lot were the Serbs. It now transpires that the other lot were the Croats, presumably also a very small group.


Pheww, Ill sleep again tonight.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You cheered up a dreary Monday for me there spiney. So Syria, Burma, Somalia, Ethiopia weren't all declared workers states by the Millies/SP? Nobody in your tradition wrote of Syria that the Ba'athists had created a workers state in the 60's:"‘Faced with an imperialist-backed military counter-revolution, the regime appealed to the masses for support. In their hundreds of thousands, peasants and workers were armed. Capitalism and landlordism were crushed, with 85% of the land and 95% of industry being nationalized by the Ba’ath regime." ?!?
> 
> In 1979 the Militant didn't that argue Khomeini might create a workers state?! "The situation in Iran is still fluid. In the crisis situation facing Iran and given the flight of the Iranian capitalist class and the weakness of imperialism to intervene, it is entirely possible that Khomeini’s Committee could, under pressure, carry out the expropriation of capitalism."
> 
> Yeah that's right the SWP has loads to learn from the CWI on that score. Ooodles.


 
Yes, that's right - instead we could have just flip-flopped between uncritical support and ultra-leftism on all anti-imperialist movements. Go Hamas! Let's face it, none of the trot/leninist groups have a clean record on this stuff.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You cheered up a dreary Monday for me there spiney.


 
I'm sure you'd love to turn this into an exchange of set-piece taunts about different critiques of Stalinism. You can harp on about some Militant article from the 70s having a bizarre analysis of Syria (one which, incidentally, was soon abandoned).

In return people would point out the arbitrary and self-serving nature of the SWP's dating of the counter-revolution in Russia, which had the effect of dating capitalism to the political victory of Stalin rather than to any social transformation just as Maoists place the creation of "capitalism" in Russia at the moment of Khrushchev's victory, and in China at the moment of Deng's. Before going on to poke fun at an analysis of "capitalism" which involves no law of value, no bourgeoisie, no inheritance and no private ownership of the means of production.

Then you can come back with some instrumental arguments about the political errors which a state capitalist analysis allegedly helps us to avoid and probably imply that other Trotskyists are soft on Stalinism. Then you'll get responses pointing out that you are slandering Trotsky while claiming to stand in his tradition and probably some jibes about a "step sideways" which somehow led to male life expectancy in Russia dropping below that of Bangladesh.

We both know how that song goes. If you want to sing it, and can find someone to do the call and response parts with you, I suggest that you fuck off to a more appropriate thread rather than trying to hijack this one for some Orthodox Cliffite rhetoric of a sort you no doubt find comforting.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

Time for some predictions to get the thread back on topic I think.

What do we reckon the ISN will turn into? Will it be restricted to a few students and Seymour lovers and then slowly die in utter irrelevance? Will it become the broad based 21st century progressive platform Seymour wants (lol)? Or will it join Workers Powers new anticapitalist initiative or something?

What will become of the rump SWP? I reckon it's probably just about dead in student politics, they've got no chance of recruiting on campus now - and I suspect they'll struggle elsewhere too. Will the people who remain stay in there or will they all fuck off when they realise it's not going to 'grow' anymore?

Will it, as some on here have already predicted, turn into a WRP style cult, avoided by anyone who's even on nodding terms with sanity?

The enquiring minds of urban demand that their thirst for knowledge on the future of the SWP is quenched!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm sure you'd love to turn this into an exchange of set-piece taunts about different critiques of Stalinism. You can harp on about some Militant article from the 70s having a bizarre analysis of Syria (one which, incidentally, was soon abandoned).
> 
> In return people would point out the arbitrary and self-serving nature of the SWP's dating of the counter-revolution in Russia, which had the effect of dating capitalism to the political victory of Stalin rather than to any social transformation just as Maoists place the creation of "capitalism" in Russia at the moment of Khrushchev's victory, and in China at the moment of Deng's. Before going on to poke fun at an analysis of "capitalism" which involves no law of value, no bourgeoisie, no inheritance and no private ownership of the means of production.
> 
> ...


By definition of course only the person defending the swp's state cap line is derailing the thread. The people before him rubishing it or accusing the swp of dumping it were iluminating the thread. Yeah right.

Actually, to answer ayatollah if anybody is in danger of diluting the state cap position it's the ISN lot not the cc. After all the Choonara-Davidson debate in the isj was at least partly about how distinct a political vs social revolution can be which is precisely the core of the 'deformed workers state' position on the need for a political (but not social) revolution in the 'post-capitalist' societies. How long before the ISN is echoing some of Counterfire's shall we say softer line on the Ba'athists than that held by the cc?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Be definition of course only the person defending the swp's state cap line is derailing the thread. The people before him rubishing it or accusing the swp of dumping it were iluminating the thread. Yeah right.
> 
> Actually, to answer ayatollah if anybody is in danger of diluting the state cap position it's the ISN lot not the cc. After all the Choonara-Davidson debate in the isj was at least partly about how distinct a political vs social revolution can be which is precisely the core of the 'deformed workers state' position on the need for a political (but not social) revolution in the 'post-capitalist' societies. How long before the ISN is echoing some of Counterfire's shall we say softer line on the Ba'athists than that held by the cc?


 
I don't think anyone on here is attempting to defend the ISN line or thinks it's accurate though (do they even have a line?) why is that even relevant?

How's about having a go at those predictions? I'm genuinely interested to hear what you think.


----------



## tedsplitter (Mar 25, 2013)

Paris Thompson on Left Unity and the IS Network
http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/left-unity-and-is-network.html


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> By definition of course only the person defending the swp's state cap line is derailing the thread. The people before him rubishing it or accusing the swp of dumping it were iluminating the thread.


 
Neither ayatollah (who raised the Cliff variant of state capitalism in a positive light) nor Spineynorman (who dismissed one of ayatollah's claims) were looking to turn the thread into that kind of set piece row. You, on the other hand, were rather obvious in taking the opportunity to do some kind of tribute act to your 1980s self. It fits with your general desire to fit the whole row into a "defending our tradition" versus the apostates mould.




			
				bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> How long before the ISN is echoing some of Counterfire's shall we say softer line on the Ba'athists than that held by the cc?


 
From where I'm sitting, both the SWP and Counterfire appear to be very soft on various bourgeois "anti-imperialist" forces when it suits, although Counterfire have been more consistent about it. There is no chance that the ISN are going to declare Syria to be something other than a capitalist state however, and if you could stop being so tendentious for half a minute and so determined to detect incipient apostasy you'd realise that making this kind of suggestion just makes you look a bit silly.


----------



## tedsplitter (Mar 25, 2013)

Naomi Jones - 'Creeping Sexism' http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/creeping-sexism.html


----------



## discokermit (Mar 25, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Will it, as some on here have already predicted, turn into a WRP style cult, avoided by anyone who's even on nodding terms with sanity?


i reckon so.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 25, 2013)

tedsplitter said:


> Naomi Jones - 'Creeping Sexism' http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/creeping-sexism.html


 
That's a reasonable article up until two thirds of the way through when it adopts the concept of patriarchy without offering a serious definition and analysis of what is meant by a highly contested term. Instead it offers a kind of feminist common sense definition which amounts to "widespread sexism" and is too loose to be useful.


----------



## past caring (Mar 25, 2013)

Bit of an odd one this morning....

.....I turn up at work to find an SWP paper sale outside the office. Two sellers, one of them works there and is a long time member who I knew vaguely when I was still in the SWP (there's another two members of a similar length of time in the party on the same floor of the office - all three of them are stewards, so have been with the council for some years). Anyway, a bit odd because there's no specific issue or workplace action that they could have justified a sale around. First time I've seen a sale there - even when there was industrial action (by the contracted out parking/traffic wardens) in the Summer last year, the SWPers were collecting for the strikers and not selling papers.

Wonder if we're now going to see a bit of a head-banger turn by the loyalists?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 25, 2013)

past caring said:


> Wonder if we're now going to see a bit of a head-banger turn by the loyalists?


 
You are definitely going to see a burst of hyperactivity, as the remaining troops are whipped up to "turn outwards".


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 26, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> how did they fail to apply the analysis of state capitalism consistently? Just provide a link, if you don't want to explain it yourself. I'll have a read.
> 
> And expand on the "taking sides in inter-imperialist wars". Their position was, Korea, proxy war, support neither side. Vietnam, Vietnamese liberating themselves from US imperialism. Afghanistan, Afghans liberating them self from Russian imperialism. Again a link if you want.


What i meant was that if you think that Russia and the Russian model was state-capitalist then, in any conflict between Russia and the Western capitalist bloc, you ought to support neither side, as "the IS tradition" did over the Korean war but not over the Vietnam war (siding with Russia and China) or over Afghanistan (siding with the West). What happened was that so-called "anti-imperialism" trumped the theory of state capitalism.

The orthodox Trotskyists at least had a coherent if completely mistaken theory as to why to support Russia -- that it was some sort of "Workers State" and therefore better than capitalism. It led to other, different aberrations to the IS tradition's ones such as the support of one group for Russian nuclear weapons as the "Workers Bomb" and of another group for the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Ernst Mandel even invented a theory of non-capitalist development and offered himself as an adviser to the Cuban government just as, later, ex=Militant Alan Woods was to do in Venezuela.

But, to give credit where it is due, Mike Gonzalez's obituary of Chavez would seem to be in the old IS tradition.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> It led to other, different aberrations to the IS tradition's ones such as the support of one group for Russian nuclear weapons as the "Workers Bomb"...


 
Aberration? I always knew the squeebies were petty bourgeois deviationists - now we have the proof!


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 26, 2013)

Here's another of Tony Cliff's jokes. But since I got the timing wrong last time I'll let him express it in his own words:


> The dominant theme of discussion in the YS was the nuclear bomb. There were three positions: the right wing, followers of leader of the Labour Party Hugh Gaitskell, who was in support of the Western powers’ bomb, and the followers of Gerry Healy, who argued that Russia should keep its bomb, as it was a workers’ bomb. The Socialist Review members denounced all bombs. We argued that we were not pacifists, and hence we did not oppose all weapons. However the H-bomb was inherently reactionary. A gun in the hands of British troops oppressing a colonial nation, is reactionary. A gun in the hands of colonial rebels is progressive. Alas, the H-bomb cannot differentiate between the two camps. It will annihilate all. I remember I used to recite a song of the Russian Red Air Force from the 1930s. The song went, ‘While we bomb your bosses, workers of the world, we distribute leaflets to you.’ I used to add, ‘The leaflet should be short, as you will have only four minutes to read it.’ You cannot have a progressive H-bomb any more than you can have progressive racism, as the bomb does not differentiate between capitalists and workers, rich and poor. Young Guard, our youth paper, carried a big headline: ‘No Bombs, No Bosses’. Another headline I remember was to an article supporting the Russian bomb. The editor, with a good sense of humour, gave it the heading ‘The Workers’ Bomb for You and Me’.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 26, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Here's another of Tony Cliff's jokes. But since I got the timing wrong last time I'll let him express it in his own words:


The workers bomb for you and I


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 26, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Here's another of Tony Cliff's jokes. But since I got the timing wrong last time I'll let him express it in his own words:


 
An early example of bourgeois deviationalism shrouded in pseudo-revolutionary phraseology. As anyone with a rudimentary grasp of Chuckle Theory knows, it should be "the Workers' Bomb, to me, to you"


----------



## 1%er (Mar 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> 20 pages of us all slagging each other off aimlessly really


Watching fundamentalist arguing about the irrelevant always has good comedy value.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The workers bomb for you and I


 
The workers bomb to me, to you


----------



## two sheds (Mar 26, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The workers bomb for you and I


 
Nope, you wouldn't say 'The workers bomb for I'

'The workers bomb for I and I'


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2013)

http://socialistunity.com/swp-you-couldnt-make-it-up/#.UVGQWByGE1M

Fuck


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 26, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> What i meant was that if you think that Russia and the Russian model was state-capitalist then, in any conflict between Russia and the Western capitalist bloc, you ought to support neither side, as "the IS tradition" did over the Korean war but not over the Vietnam war (siding with Russia and China) or over Afghanistan (siding with the West). What happened was that so-called "anti-imperialism" trumped the theory of state capitalism.
> The orthodox Trotskyists at least had a coherent if completely mistaken theory as to why to support Russia -- that it was some sort of "Workers State" and therefore better than capitalism. It led to other, different aberrations to the IS tradition's ones such as the support of one group for Russian nuclear weapons as the "Workers Bomb" and of another group for the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Ernst Mandel even invented a theory of non-capitalist development and offered himself as an adviser to the Cuban government just as, later, ex=Militant Alan Woods was to do in Venezuela.
> But, to give credit where it is due, Mike Gonzalez's obituary of Chavez would seem to be in the old IS tradition.


 thank you. A succinct and completely understandable explanation.
　


leyton96 said:


> It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.
> So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.
> During the early stages of the Socialist Alliance the SWP is "uncompromising" on the issue of open borders and migrant rights, then when it is in a position to actually put such a position on a national platform in Respect it suddenly has nothing to say on the matter.
> It is a "at the heart" of the LGBT struggle one minute but then such things become 'shibboleths' in other circumstances
> ...


the reason I found the above incomprehensible, is one because it didn't express itself as clearly as you do, but far more importantly, I've never seen the IS couch their arguments for a position on any of them wars, in that fashion. If I had seen the IS couch in that fashion, I would agree with you it would seem incoherent. I would suggest to you that the issue of state capitalism, is a red herring, muddying the waters.
I seem to remember John Rees writing on imperialism describing the period after the war as bipolar, and the period before the war as multipolar. Before the war there were several 'free' market capitalists bloc's. All competing to subjugate the resources of lands beyond their borders to their own national interests. After the war, there is just two. The fact that they are two different styles of capitalism, makes no difference to your anti-imperialist stance. Why should it?
So the Korean war, could have taken place between two 'free' market capitalist, it would still be a proxy war, and you would still say a curse on both your houses. The fact that it is between a state capitalist, and a 'free' market capitalist is of no consequence to the IS, in defining which side they support.
On Vietnam and Afghanistan, I'm not going to argue with you. I think it was perfectly valid for ViolentPanda and chilango to say socialist worker was wrong, the evidence after the Vietnam war doesn't stack up to agree with the socialist worker position. (Though I disagree with them, it's a perfectly reasonable argument to make, because it just say socialist worker are wrong, it doesn't misrepresent what they've said.) Equally, I think you make a valid argument to suggest socialist worker position on Vietnam and Afghanistan was wrong, in saying that Afghanistan had Western support, and Vietnam had Russian and Chinese.
The point is though, they clearly disagree with you in that assessment. They believe there is a qualitative difference between the Korean War, and the Vietnam and Afghan wars. If you just accept this qualitative difference for the sake of argument, then the IS tradition becomes coherent and consistent.
　
It also exposes this for what it is,




butchersapron said:


> Yep, Neither Washington nor Moscow (itself another example of the tradition not really existing, this coming from the Shachtmanite ISL) turned out to really just mean Not Washington.


a barefaced lie.
IS opposed Moscow invasions i.e. Hungary, Afghanistan et cetera, just as much as it did Washington invasions. Their position was indeed "Neither Washington or Moscow".
　
　
PS. Didn't Lenin support Britain in the war against the Ottoman Empire? He supported one imperialist block, against another imperialist block, because at times the anti-imperialism debate can become more nuanced than a simple binary choice. (He supported it on the basis many historians have supported Napoleons imperialism, it smashed Up many feudal style regimes, and allowed capitalism to develop.)


----------



## belboid (Mar 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://socialistunity.com/swp-you-couldnt-make-it-up/#.UVGQWByGE1M
> 
> Fuck


Tim's secretly in the faction....


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://socialistunity.com/swp-you-couldnt-make-it-up/#.UVGQWByGE1M
> 
> Fuck


Looks like Socialist Unity has suffered a DNS attack again. Makes you wonder if the SWP are going to end up as the North Korea of the left. Totally isolated with a team of hackers occasionally going on the rampage to fuck shit up?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Looks like Socialist Unity has suffered a DNS attack again. Makes you wonder if the SWP are going to end up as the North Korea of the left. Totally isolated with a team of hackers occasionally going on the rampage to fuck shit up?


 
Here's the pic they were linking to http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/chimage.php?image=2013/2345/tim_toon2345.jpg


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Here's the pic they were linking to http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/chimage.php?image=2013/2345/tim_toon2345.jpg


 
Kamikaze stuff.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 26, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I think it was perfectly valid for ViolentPanda and chilango to say socialist worker was wrong, the evidence after the Vietnam war doesn't stack up to agree with the socialist worker position.


Actually, for the record, I think the IS paper was called _Labour Worker_ till half way through that war.


> Didn't Lenin support Britain in the war against the Ottoman Empire? He supported one imperialist block, against another imperialist block, because at times the anti-imperialism debate can become more nuanced than a simple binary choice. (He supported it on the basis many historians have supported Napoleons imperialism, it smashed Up many feudal style regimes, and allowed capitalism to develop.)


Also for the record (and for pub quizzes) Marx supported the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France in the Crimean War against Tsarist Russia. I think I can see why (he saw Tsarist Russia as a threat to capitalist development and potential democratic political forms in the rest of Europe) but I'd still he was wrong.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 26, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Looks like Socialist Unity has suffered a DNS attack again. Makes you wonder if the SWP are going to end up as the North Korea of the left. Totally isolated with a team of hackers occasionally going on the rampage to fuck shit up?


 
Socialist Unity occupies that space as North Korea.It would be silly to change things.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Aberration? I always knew the squeebies were petty bourgeois deviationists - now we have the proof!


 


the usual anti-american yawn 













does it come in a t shirt in my size?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 26, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Socialist Unity occupies that space as North Korea.It would be silly to change things.


 
Pictures of Andy Newman looking at things


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 26, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Pictures of Andy Newman looking at things


 
SOCIALIST UNITY IS BEST UNITY


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 26, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Looks like Socialist Unity has suffered a DNS attack again. Makes you wonder if the SWP are going to end up as the North Korea of the left. Totally isolated with a team of hackers occasionally going on the rampage to fuck shit up?


It was up and running a couple of minutes ago. I don't suppose there is anybody with powerful computer hacking skills at the SWP, after all their view of the internet is that it has a "dark side". This makes them seem like American religious fundies.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 26, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> It was up and running a couple of minutes ago. I don't suppose there is anybody with powerful computer hacking skills at the SWP, after all their view of the internet is that it has a "dark side". This makes them seem like American religious fundies.


 
I'm probably giving the SWP members involved too much credit calling them hackers. However it is trivially easy for anyone with a basic IT knowledge to download malicious software from hacker sites and launch them at poorly secured sites like Socialist Unity. The admins over at Stalinist Unity have been complaining about DNS attacks for a while now. While you have to take just about everything they say with a pinch of salt there does seem to have been an increase in the amount of times SU has gone down since they published the DC report minutes.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 26, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Pictures of Andy Newman looking at things


Andy Newman crouched down looking sad/angry pointing at dog poo on the pavement


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 26, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Pictures of Andy Newman looking at things


 
The Watcher


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 26, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> I'm probably giving the SWP members involved too much credit calling them hackers. However it is trivially easy for anyone with a basic IT knowledge to download malicious software from hacker sites and launch them at poorly secured sites like Socialist Unity. The admins over at Stalinist Unity have been complaining about DNS attacks for a while now. While you have to take just about everything they say with a pinch of salt there does seem to have been an increase in the amount of times SU has gone down since they published the DC report minutes.


 
I want to believe


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 26, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I want to believe


 
thank you cadre pileggi.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 26, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> thank you cadre pileggi.


 
Mitch from Darlington WSM as I recall


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 26, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Mitch from Darlington WSM as I recall


 
Trust no one Agent Favorite.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 26, 2013)

I wonder what side Skate Boarders against the War took on the SWP crisis?


----------



## Random (Mar 26, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I wonder what side Skate Boarders against the War took on the SWP crisis?


Johnny Favourite is now presumably a settled career man with a blog that he updates while working at his job in academia and hosting the occasional DJ Against the G8 gig?


----------



## belboid (Mar 26, 2013)

Random said:


> Johnny Favourite is now presumably a settled career man with a blog that he updates while working at his job in academia and hosting the occasional DJ Against the G8 gig?


and is now known as Jonathon


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 26, 2013)

Apparently some people in India tried to undermine a forthcoming Delhi Historical Materialism conference by linking the journal with the SWP. It seems, however, that all of the HM editorial board members who were associated with the SWP have resigned from the party. They also asked the "one SWP CC member" who was scheduled to give a paper not to come.
http://www.sacw.net/article4048.html


----------



## tony collins (Mar 26, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> I'm probably giving the SWP members involved too much credit calling them hackers. However it is trivially easy for anyone with a basic IT knowledge to download malicious software from hacker sites and launch them at poorly secured sites like Socialist Unity. The admins over at Stalinist Unity have been complaining about DNS attacks for a while now. While you have to take just about everything they say with a pinch of salt there does seem to have been an increase in the amount of times SU has gone down since they published the DC report minutes.



Why would you "have to take everything [we] say with a pinch of salt?" I try pretty damned hard to be straight down the line with people on there, and I think my record's pretty solid. So why are you assuming that we're almost always dishonest?

We've been under fairly basic denial of service attacks for a few months; it's not hard for people to bring a site down. Part of what's happened is that, as a result of the attacks, I've really hardened the back-end security, which does mean we get more instances of the site refusing connections. It's a learning process and frequently I'm running to catch up, so various people can end up getting caught up in the various battles against attackers and the site's security systems - sometimes people have ended up being blocked from accessing the site. If it happens, drop me an email to office@socialistunity.com and I'll sort it. I'm a tube driver, so if I'm working I won't be able to sort it, but generally if people find the site is down, I can bring it back up within a few minutes.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently some people in India tried to undermine a forthcoming Delhi Historical Materialism conference by linking the journal with the SWP. It seems, however, that all of the HM editorial board members who were associated with the SWP have resigned from the party. They also asked the "one SWP CC member" who was scheduled to give a paper not to come.
> http://www.sacw.net/article4048.html


This is interesting, and should be worrying for the SWP. HM was one of the very few areas where an SWP inspired initiative has won wider support outside of their own ranks. That the Indian organisers felt that anger at the rape crisis within the SWP was so great that they felt it necessary to disinvite the CC speaker from attending does not bode well for the party's attempts to forget the recent past.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 26, 2013)

tony collins said:


> Why would you "have to take everything [we] say with a pinch of salt?" I try pretty damned hard to be straight down the line with people on there, and I think my record's pretty solid. So why are you assuming that we're almost always dishonest?


 
I suspect that the issue is (a) at least as much related to an  appearance of extreme tendentiousness as any notable dishonesty and (b) has more to do with Andy, John and the complete zoo that is the comments section than it does with you in the first place.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 26, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> This is interesting, and should be worrying for the SWP. HM was one of the very few areas where an SWP inspired initiative has won wider support outside of their own ranks.


 
Worrying for the remaining SWP academics and graduate students perhaps, but it's not really something that is going to impinge on other members too much. I doubt if the CC member was exactly overjoyed for instance.

I'm more curious about whether this stems primarily from Indian left wing academic politics (ie people who don't want a HM conference for other reasons) or is genuine spill over.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 26, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Andy Newman crouched down looking sad/angry pointing at dog poo on the pavement


 
White dog poo.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 26, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> White dog poo.


pooist


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 26, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The Watcher


 
sorry couldn't resist


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 26, 2013)

Thread, very much on the rails.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently some people in India tried to undermine a forthcoming Delhi Historical Materialism conference by linking the journal with the SWP. It seems, however, that all of the HM editorial board members who were associated with the SWP have resigned from the party. They also asked the "one SWP CC member" who was scheduled to give a paper not to come.
> http://www.sacw.net/article4048.html


I can see that this development must be worrying, deeply worrying, for the SWP, but is it the sort of thing we should welcome from the point of view of free and open debate? I don't know what the real reason behind the organisers' decision is but, by mentioning threats of disruption, it smacks of the cowardice of the organisers of literary events in India who have disinvited Salman Rushdie on the same grounds.

It would be ironic in view of the prominence of the SWP in the "No Platform for the BNP" campaign if they were to fall victims to a "No Platform for the SWP" campaign, but this (both in fact) would still be wrong. I don't see this as a welcome development.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 26, 2013)

I should clarify: Apparently the uninviting was done by the HM Delhi organising committee, made up of Indian academics, rather than by the HM editorial board.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 26, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can see that this development must be worrying, deeply worrying, for the SWP, but is it the sort of thing we should welcome from the point of view of free and open debate? I don't know what the real reason behind the organisers' decision is but, by mentioning threats of disruption, it smacks of the cowardice of the organisers of literary events in India who have disinvited Salman Rushdie on the same grounds.
> 
> It would be ironic in view of the prominence of the SWP in the "No Platform for the BNP" campaign if they were to fall victims to a "No Platform for the SWP" campaign, but this (both in fact) would still be wrong. I don't see this as a welcome development.


 
Refusing to offer someone a platform is not the same as censoring them. I'll leave your liberal defence of fascist organiser's rights out of this for now.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can see that this development must be worrying, deeply worrying, for the SWP, but is it the sort of thing we should welcome from the point of view of free and open debate? I don't know what the real reason behind the organisers' decision is but, by mentioning threats of disruption, it smacks of the cowardice of the organisers of literary events in India who have disinvited Salman Rushdie on the same grounds.
> 
> It would be ironic in view of the prominence of the SWP in the "No Platform for the BNP" campaign if they were to fall victims to a "No Platform for the SWP" campaign, but this (both in fact) would still be wrong. I don't see this as a welcome development.


 
Given on-going events in India you can see why they'd be hyper sensitive about it, since they are trying so hard to battle against very casual attitudes towards rape there you can see why they wouldn't want to import foreigners with those views too.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 26, 2013)

tony collins said:


> Why would you "have to take everything [we] say with a pinch of salt?" I try pretty damned hard to be straight down the line with people on there, and I think my record's pretty solid. So why are you assuming that we're almost always dishonest?



What Nigel said. 

It's not so much you Tony as the company you keep. 

For very different reasons SU is almost as divisive on the left as the SWP. A lot of people aren't going to take some one quoting from SU seriously unless certain caveats are made.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 26, 2013)

A second article from the IS blog on women's oppression. It's again interesting and useful most of the way through and it again then proceeds to adopt a bit of terminology from the feminist movement without adequately defining it.
T
his time it's "privilege" that's taken on board in a "common sense" way that doesn't examine the theoretical assumptions it imports. Or more precisely, it does tenuously start to look at some of the issues surrounding the term, but it gets them all garbled up with the SWP's "do men benefit" argument which is related but in very important aspects distinct.

http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/violence-against-women.html

Still, at least Bolshiebhoy will be overjoyed at this evidence of studenty creeping feminist autonomism.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 26, 2013)

Overjoyed bb


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A second article from the IS blog on women's oppression. It's again interesting and useful most of the way through and it again then proceeds to adopt a bit of terminology from the feminist movement without adequately defining it.
> T
> his time it's "privilege" that's taken on board in a "common sense" way that doesn't examine the theoretical assumptions it imports. Or more precisely, it does tenuously start to look at some of the issues surrounding the term, but it gets them all garbled up with the SWP's "do men benefit" argument which is related but in very important aspects distinct.
> 
> ...


God it is awful. Trace that straight line from not picking the kids up from school to domestic violence and rape.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 26, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Given on-going events in India you can see why they'd be hyper sensitive about it, since they are trying so hard to battle against very casual attitudes towards rape there you can see why they wouldn't want to import foreigners with those views too.


Let's not exaggerate. I don't think the SWP have a casual attitude to gang rape, do they?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 26, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Let's not exaggerate. I don't think the SWP have a casual attitude to gang rape, do they?


 
Well, the issue isn't just about gang rape in India, it's about casual attitudes. Then again, I'm not entirely convinced that, given what we know about Martin Smith and the full-timer in Sheffield, that the CC is above covering up a gang rape or bullying the victim of a gang rape into shutting up. They intentionally moved a full timer who was known to be abusive to another district where he had the power to prey upon young people and when he abused and raped the young people he had power over he was suspended for a couple of years and given a reading list.

BTW, I think it's really dangerous and morally suspect to suggest that certain kinds of rape are worse than others. You might want to reword questions like that in future.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 27, 2013)

Here's Callinicos's response to getting the boot from the Indian academics. It's from his facebook page but is doing the rounds now on social media. If (unlike me of course) you are a particularly cruel and heartless bastard who enjoys seeing people get their just desserts it just might raise a wry smile:

LETTER TO ORGANIZING COMMITTEE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM CONFERENCE, DELHI

25 March 2013

Dear Organizing Committee,

I was very surprised to receive your communication. You ask me ‘to withdraw [my] decision to attend’. But I only made that decision in response to an invitation to participate in your conference. So what you are in fact doing is withdrawing your invitation, as is indicated by the fact that you have already deleted me from the conference programme. I think you should take full responsibility for the decision you are actually taking.

I understand of course how important the issue of rape and sexual violence is in India, especially after last December’s gang rape and murder in Delhi. It is also a very important question in Britain, and for me personally, as it is for the Socialist Workers Party. We are strongly committed to women’s liberation. We took the rape allegations against a leading member extremely seriously; the controversy over how the party handled these allegations is indicative of that seriousness. The special conference that we recently held to resolve this controversy has set up a committee to review our procedures, and we intend to use this to reinforce our efforts to combat the oppression of women.

It is not for me to judge how grave the danger of disruption to your conference is. But an appeal circulated by an academic at JNU does not reflect well intellectually or morally on those agitating against my presence at the conference. This document is a farrago of nonsense that treats allegations as proven fact, cites tendentious opinion pieces as ‘reports’, and includes the laughable assertion that ‘the journal Historical Materialism is allied, and … is known to be principally operated by Socialist Workers Party members and supporters’.

Since this is a conference sponsored by Historical Materialism, let me remind you that I am a longstanding supporter of the journal and, along with Marxist intellectuals of many political tendencies, a member of its International Advisory Board. I have tried to support HM’s development both in Britain and internationally. Your decision damages HM’s commitment to promote Marxist theoretical development independently of organized political alignments.

So I regret your decision – not just for this reason, but also because I value my long-standing connections with the Marxist intellectual left in India. In taking this decision, based directly or indirectly on interested misrepresentations of debates inside the SWP, you run the risk of compromising your own intellectual and political integrity. 

This is to say nothing of the personal inconvenience and expense you are exposing me to by withdrawing your invitation a week after you had circulated a programme that included me as chairing one session and speaking at another, and barely a week before I was due to fly to India. This is quite unacceptable in what is meant to be an academic conference, and it is also not how socialists should behave towards one another.

In comradeship,
Alex Callinicos


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Here's Callinicos's response to getting the boot from the Indian academics. It's from his facebook page but is doing the rounds now on social media. If (unlike me of course) you are a particularly cruel and heartless bastard who enjoys seeing people get their just desserts it just might raise a wry smile:
> 
> LETTER TO ORGANIZING COMMITTEE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM CONFERENCE, DELHI
> 
> ...


 
Well, he's certainly got the tone of the nursery teacher talking down to small children down there...


----------



## tedsplitter (Mar 27, 2013)

'sheffield swss' is having a meltdown on facebook


----------



## JimW (Mar 27, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> ...not how socialists should behave towards one another...


I wonder if the Prof can think of any other recent (or indeed several over a number of years) incidents that fall into this category?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 27, 2013)

Kamal Chenoy has a bit of a cheek, considering his Left Front's record and his own defence of that record, barring the prof from this event. His CPI is in a front with the CPM whose members disguised themselves as West Bengal police officers so they could rape and kill men and women land activists protesting at the neo-liberal policies of the CPM government. And his defence at the time? Basically "the rapes are media lies" and "we're not as bad as the hindu chauvinists who killed and raped in Gujarat". Yet he wants to bar a fellow marxist because of the delta scandal?! Nonsense.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 27, 2013)

tedsplitter said:


> 'sheffield swss' is having a meltdown on facebook


In what way?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 27, 2013)

emanymton said:


> In what way?


"Why didn't we come to the Educationals? cause your bullies who treat us like children." That sort of stuff all last night.


----------



## tedsplitter (Mar 27, 2013)

"REMEMBER THAT TIME SHEFFIELD SWP BOLLOCKED ITS STUDENT MEMBERS IN PUBLIC STOOD IN A CIRCLE COS TWO OF THEM CRITICISED THE DISPUTES IN A STATEMENT. THAT WAS FUN"

that kind of stuff


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Kamal Chenoy has a bit of a cheek, considering his Left Front's record and his own defence of that record, barring the prof from this event. His CPI is in a front with the CPM whose members disguised themselves as West Bengal police officers so they could rape and kill men and women land activists protesting at the neo-liberal policies of the CPM government. And his defence at the time? Basically "the rapes are media lies" and "we're not as bad as the hindu chauvinists who killed and raped in Gujarat". Yet he wants to bar a fellow marxist because of the delta scandal?! Nonsense.


 
'Your rape allegations are worse than ours so why can't we just get along'.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "Why didn't we come to the Educationals? cause your bullies who treat us like children." That sort of stuff all last night.


 
What if they were bullies who treated them like children? I wouldn't put up with it. I wouldn't expect others to put up with. Not putting yourself in the position to get bullied seems a perfectly reasonable response.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Kamal Chenoy has a bit of a cheek, considering his Left Front's record and his own defence of that record, barring the prof from this event. His CPI is in a front with the CPM whose members disguised themselves as West Bengal police officers so they could rape and kill men and women land activists protesting at the neo-liberal policies of the CPM government. And his defence at the time? Basically "the rapes are media lies" and "we're not as bad as the hindu chauvinists who killed and raped in Gujarat". Yet he wants to bar a fellow marxist because of the delta scandal?! Nonsense.



If he's that "bad" why was Callinicos speaking for him in the first place?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> If he's that "bad" why was Callinicos speaking for him in the first place?


Cause otherwise good socialists say and defend stupid things. Doesn't mean you start barring them or treating them as toxic.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 27, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What if they were bullies who treated them like children? I wouldn't put up with it. I wouldn't expect others to put up with. Not putting yourself in the position to get bullied seems a perfectly reasonable response.


For a certain brand of feminist anyone who says anything definite is a bully. It's that 'Man with Analysis' bully Abbie Bakan opined about. You can 'engage' with people, you can have 'dialogue' with them. But never, just never, may you say they're wrong.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> a certain brand of feminist .


hysterical women.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> For a certain brand of feminist anyone who says anything definite is a bully. It's that 'Man with Analysis' bully Abbie Bakan opined about. You can 'engage' with people, you can have 'dialogue' with them. But never, just never, may you say they're wrong.


Covering up rapes shouldn't come between fellow socialists- as long as one ignores those strident harridens


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> For a certain brand of feminist anyone who says anything definite is a bully. It's that 'Man with Analysis' bully Abbie Bakan opined about. You can 'engage' with people, you can have 'dialogue' with them. But never, just never, may you say they're wrong.


 
A feminist, even one of a 'certain brand' can still be bullied; they'd still be right to complain and the bully would still be wrong.

Could a Sheffield SWSS member have been bullied? If so, would they have been wrong to avoid a situation where they thought it would happen again?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Refusing to offer someone a platform is not the same as censoring them.


What is it then? And how wide should any "No Platform for the SWP" extend? In any even,t this is (or seems to be) a case of an offer being withdrawn under threats of disruption? Do we know who or what group made these threats?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 27, 2013)

> It is not for me to judge how grave the danger of disruption to your conference is.


but hold on while I do......



> This is to say nothing of the personal inconvenience and expense you are exposing me to


 
ebay the plane tickets prof


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cause otherwise good socialists say and defend stupid things. Doesn't mean you start barring them or treating them as toxic.


 
In what way can someone who defends or covers up rapes and murders as a political tactic be described as a good socialist?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Well, the issue isn't just about gang rape in India, it's about casual attitudes. Then again, I'm not entirely convinced that, given what we know about Martin Smith and the full-timer in Sheffield, that the CC is above covering up a gang rape or bullying the victim of a gang rape into shutting up. They intentionally moved a full timer who was known to be abusive to another district where he had the power to prey upon young people and when he abused and rape the young people he had power over he was suspended for a couple of years and given a reading list.
> 
> BTW, I think it's really dangerous and morally suspect to suggest that certain kinds of rape are worse than others. You might want to reword questions like that in future.


 
Certain kinds of rape are worse than others and funnily enough are recognised as such by the bourgeois legal system that we have.


----------



## belboid (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> For a certain brand of feminist.


fuck off

now you're just acting the spoilt little cunt


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> What is it then? And how wide should any "No Platform for the SWP" extend? In any even,t this is (or seems to be) a case of an offer being withdrawn under threats of disruption? Do we know who or what group made these threats?


What confusion. How wide should any No Platform platform be? Or how wide should any platform be? Which are you asking here?


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> fuck off now you're just acting the spoilt little cunt


I can't imagine any brand of feminist regarding calling someone a cunt as an acceptable form of insult.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

I can.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can't imagine any brand of feminist regarding calling someone a cunt as an acceptable form of insult.


You're wrong. And a cunt too.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can't imagine any brand of feminist regarding calling someone a cunt as an acceptable form of insult.


 Then your imagination is sadly limited.


----------



## belboid (Mar 27, 2013)

1000 booked into Marxism already, according to the latest Party Notes.  No mention of any non-party speakers...


----------



## cesare (Mar 27, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can't imagine any brand of feminist regarding calling someone a cunt as an acceptable form of insult.


Cunt.


----------



## tedsplitter (Mar 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> 1000 booked into Marxism already, according to the latest Party Notes. No mention of any non-party speakers...


I'm pretty sure that's significantly less at this point than the last few years, and four days away from the end of March deadline for £5 off the ticket price.


----------



## Random (Mar 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> 1000 booked into Marxism already, according to the latest Party Notes.  No mention of any non-party speakers...


It's going to be the biggest huddle in the world


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Certain kinds of rape are worse than others and funnily enough are recognised as such by the bourgeois legal system that we have.


 
Do you distinguish between violent and 'non-violent' rape too?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Do you distinguish between violent and 'non-violent' rape too?


 
I see what you mean J Ed, I do, and I think this is a difficult issue which I certainly find problematic... However, something in my gut thinks that as repulsive as verbally pressuring someone into sex through emotional blackmail (which is definitely rape) is, it's not the same as, say, violently breaking into someone's home, seriously assaulting them and raping them repeatedly over a period of hours. My head isn't sure what to think, but my gut says the former is very bad and the latter is even worse. Would welcome others thoughts on this though.

Edit: It's worth considering that under the law sometimes a non-premeditated murder could be considered manslaughter for example, while premeditated murder is treated as more serious in many legal systems.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Do you distinguish between violent and 'non-violent' rape too?


 
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2013)

killer b said:


> You're wrong. And a cunt too.


 
You a feminist?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/


 
Sure, but there is a big difference between aggravating factors and sentencing guidelines and Jean-Luc's assertion that somehow the SWP wasn't _that bad_ because the rape they covered up was a 'less serious' type of rape than the recent cases of rape that have received media coverage in India.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I see what you mean J Ed, I do, and I think this is a difficult issue which I certainly find problematic... However, something in my gut thinks that as repulsive as verbally pressuring someone into sex through emotional blackmail (which is definitely rape) is, it's not the same as, say, violently breaking into someone's home, seriously assaulting them and raping them repeatedly over a period of hours. My head isn't sure what to think, but my gut says the former is very bad and the latter is even worse. Would welcome others thoughts on this though.
> 
> Edit: It's worth considering that under the law sometimes a non-premeditated murder could be considered manslaughter for example, while premeditated murder is treated as more serious in many legal systems.


 
I'm far from an expert on this, but from what reading I have done on the subject I get the distinct impression that people who work with rape survivors are pretty unanimous that there is very little difference longer term  on the effects of rape on women when it is 'stranger' rape (usually associated more with violence than other types of coercion) and rape by someone they know. If anything, the latter tends to be a lot worse.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> You a feminist?


i try. cesare definitely is though. dunno what brand.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 27, 2013)

Rather enjoying that socialist unity has the socialist worker cartoon under the title 'you couldn't make it up' and it appears that, when posting a picture of champagne being delivered to 10 Downing Street, they did.


----------



## cesare (Mar 27, 2013)

killer b said:


> i try. cesare definitely is though. dunno what brand.



I don't know what brand either. What's that creeping one consist of?


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Rather enjoying that socialist unity has the socialist worker cartoon under the title 'you couldn't make it up' and it appears that, when posting a picture of champagne being delivered to 10 Downing Street, they did.



Socialist Unity are a bunch of pricks though.


----------



## belboid (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> Socialist Unity are a bunch of pricks though.


lazy pricks too.  they couldn't even be arsed to crop the SW cartoon so that the nonsense alongside it didnt show.  I kept trying to work out how come the EDF mascot was on the National Extremist Database


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> I don't know what brand either. What's that creeping one consist of?


ASDA smart price.


----------



## tony collins (Mar 27, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Rather enjoying that socialist unity has the socialist worker cartoon under the title 'you couldn't make it up' and it appears that, when posting a picture of champagne being delivered to 10 Downing Street, they did.


 
We got the date wrong and John got annoyed about people pointing it out, but hopefully at least the fact that we don't delete our own embarrassment gives us at least a little credibilty. Also, we're qualititively different to the SWP. We're much better bullies, for a start.


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

Nope. You're still a bunch of pricks.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> I don't know what brand either. What's that creeping one consist of?


 
Probably one that flatters people


----------



## cesare (Mar 27, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Probably one that flatters people



I was hoping for one that flattened people


----------



## tony collins (Mar 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> lazy pricks too. they couldn't even be arsed to crop the SW cartoon so that the nonsense alongside it didnt show. I kept trying to work out how come the EDF mascot was on the National Extremist Database


 
That was my decision. Sometimes you just want to give it a dab of context. I didn't really like the look of it, to be honest, but it was as much "this is a main cartoon at the front of the paper" as it was "they think this is a funny thing for them to say". It felt like we were just saying "have a laugh at this funny cartoon". Also, the decision to do what we did took about 4 times as long - cos the PDF version of the cartoon pixelates out at that size, so I had to transplant a copy of the cartoon into the cropped picture and resize it to  make it faithful to the original.

See here's the problem isn't it. Quite a lot of thought went into whether, how and when to laugh at it. And when we decided it was worth it, do we simply cut out the cartoon or put it in context? But how boring would it be if I gave the political and cultural explanation for every post? I just re-read what I wrote, and even *I* think I sound like I'm trying to be clever. But it's the truth - sometimes we spend a massive amount of time on articles; sometimes we spend ages discussing it with each other. Sometimes we don't. But you're not gonna want a wiki-style talk:history entry for every article.

Also it really shouldn't need saying that SU and the SWP are entirely different - for a start, we do (painfully often) point out our own mistakes, publically; not just that, we really have tried for over a year now to gradually steer the comments away from the cess-pit that SWP anonytrolls made it (happy people like Yunus, posting anonymously for 5 or more years, always nasty and always generating a nasty response). We're not a leninist party that has a centralist approach to action, and so on.

So actually sometimes we post silly shit. There are a lot of people who think Andy posts stuff out of bile, but again here's the problem we all have when it comes to the internet: Andy is one of the post politically thoughtful people I've ever met. Online, he is sick of having had years of quite serious abuse, and he's therefore made a name for himself as someone who will dish it out. But having been involved with the site for years before taking on management duties, I had hundreds of conversations with him - I think it's fair enough for people to dislike him or me or us, but most of people's reasons for doing so just don't tally up with reality.

As in, I think it should be possible for people to really respect the differences they have with Andy, without assuming he's a total idiot or a nasty piece of work.

All of us on SU have been subject to real-life attempts to drive us out of the movement by the SWP, and of *course* that has an impact on how we act online. I don't like the fact that Tedsplitter above doesn't post on SU anymore - we used to love his posts cos he was never a wanker when he disagreed; so many of us used to try (in our own crap way) to separate people such as him from the real anonytrolls, but in the end as an SWP member, ted would've felt unable to defend aspects of our behaviour. But our "behaviour" has a material basis, and it can change: Those people really did try to destroy me in my union, they really did try to cause so much hatred so that no one would work with us again.

So, yeah, when you run a website, you're gonna bring all your baggage with you. But I still think most of what people say about SU isn't true. You think we're lazy, but you don't have any idea of the huge number of hours we all put into that site. Disagree with us, fine, but make the disagreements accurate.

FWIW, we've got decent plans for that site. We want much more of a community, where commenters moderate each other a bit; we want people to feel it's a place where you can disagree seriously but not hate each other.

Problem is, no one has achieved that yet have they? On here, there is some pretty visceral hatred going on, and yet none of you are trolls.

My experience of being a mod both on Lenin's Tomb and on SU is that you have to look beneath your surface reactions, cos it's entirely useless to just think "they're a bunch of pricks" - we've posted over 7,000 articles in the last 6 years. Surely *some of them* will be interesting enough?

Ha, I got to the end without saying "look, people, the way to give a site like SU the energy and politics you want it to have is to join in, so come one!" Cos, y'know...


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2013)

tony collins said:


> We got the date wrong and John got annoyed about people pointing it out, but hopefully at least the fact that we don't delete our own embarrassment gives us at least a little credibilty. Also, we're qualititively different to the SWP. We're much better bullies, for a start.


 
what exactly is the point of Socialist Unity website ? Does it hope to promote either socilaism or unity or is it just a title like 'same day cleaners'?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> I was hoping for one that flattened people


 
The underhand left


----------



## cesare (Mar 27, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The underhand left


Oh. I thought you were joking.


----------



## tony collins (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> Nope. You're still a bunch of pricks.


 
Well it's good that there are sites like this where people can be sure of a thoughtful, serious discussion about it, right?


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

tony collins

What is the point of SU? Really? What is your "project"?

To me, having been an occasional visitor to the site for years it has always remained an exemplar of what is wrong with the British left. Both in the articles posted and the commentators it attracts.


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

tony collins said:


> Well it's good that there are sites like this where people can be sure of a thoughtful, serious discussion about it, right?



Yes, yes it is.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> Oh. I thought you were joking.


 
I am/was.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> Oh. I thought you were joking.


 
Still no news from Afed btw. I have had to advise would be applicants be wary about their lack of transparant safeguarding proceedures.


----------



## tony collins (Mar 27, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> what exactly is the point of Socialist Unity website ? Does it hope to promote either socilaism or unity or is it just a title like 'same day cleaners'?


 
Its name does come from a time when there was an attempt to set up a "socialist unity network" of independent left wingers; so it's purely historical now - it doesn't have "unity" as a particular mission (cos what do we mean by "unity"? Whose? On what terms?). None of us would be averse to a change of name, I don't think.

It does have a very specific audience: Its audience is the broad trade union movement. It's one of the most popular sites on the left. So, roughly speaking, we publish a mixture of deep and shallow politics, deep and shallow culture, moans and groans, and some theoretical stuff, that our audience likes.

I can't give you a mission statement cos there isn't one. So it's necessarily broad and vague. We try to write about stuff going on in the union movement, for sure - and I think we worked out that 1 to 1.5% of our articles are about the SWP.

One of the reasons I'm involved is to sharpen it up a bit, to give it more focus. That all takes a long long time, cos I'm a train driver and so I can't do any work on the site during working hours. We've all got working lives, so what we do has to be done in our spare time. But over time, we want to have more direction for the site, more diverse opinions on the left, more guest posts, and much broader discussions.


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

I just checked the site. The first article was about Palestine, the second the SWP the third about a split in the Scottish anti bedroom tax movement, then iirc there was some sort of Labour Left thing...

...you think this is the way forward?


----------



## tony collins (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> tony collins
> 
> What is the point of SU? Really? What is your "project"?
> 
> To me, having been an occasional visitor to the site for years it has always remained an exemplar of what is wrong with the British left. Both in the articles posted and the commentators it attracts.


 
Well I wouldn't mind if, given that you don't know me at all, you don't start off from the assumption that I'm a prick. I don't really write much for the site - most of my words are in the comments threads, cos I'm camera shy.

So look, I'm genuinely interested. I don't know if I know you, I don't recognise your screen name, so maybe we hate each other and maybe we don't. Maybe you know me from other places, I dunno.

I've answered the "project" bit above - it's looser and vaguer than it should be, but it's a broad left site that posts a broad range of stuff for a broad left audience. And some sports stuff; Dave Zirin's had a few pieces published.

I just said all that cos, assuming you're on the left, I really do want to know what you mean when you say it's an exemplar of what's wrong on the British left. I think I might agree with you in some ways, and I think the rest of SU's people might agree with you too. There's a lot of macho posturing, there seems to be a lot of attacks on the hard left, the comments can be very aggressive - but if you're only an occasional reader, it can be hard to gauge what you've seen.

I guess if I've got a personal mission, it's to provide a really serious range of left wing voices to a really diverse audience, and one that doesn't seek to impose a way of thinking and isn't boring. But that's hard given that it's all online. I know for certain that we want to get more writing from actual union members involved in actual workplaces, and we want more political sports writing. I also want the comments to be a welcoming place, and it's possible that you haven't seen just how much that's changed since I got involved. As a general rule, comments are much more thoughtful and genuine now, cos people aren't given the chance to be big and macho all the time. You might still think that makes me a prick, but if my years in the SWP taught me anything, it's that you've got to give people a chance to work these things out rather than assume that just cos they've got a voice, they're always gonna know exactly how to use it best.

Anyway I'm guessing this is widely off-topic. I'd genuinely be happy to talk more about it, here or in private message - cos there are plenty of voices in here that I'd love to read on there. The main thrust here is, SU has a really big audience, so it's clearly got something worth preserving and developing.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

killer b said:


> You're wrong. And a cunt too.


 wow!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> I just checked the site. The first article was about Palestine, the second the SWP the third about a split in the Scottish anti bedroom tax movement, then iirc there was some sort of Labour Left thing...
> 
> ...you think this is the way forward?


 is there any way forward?


----------



## tony collins (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> I just checked the site. The first article was about Palestine, the second the SWP the third about a split in the Scottish anti bedroom tax movement, then iirc there was some sort of Labour Left thing...
> 
> ...you think this is the way forward?


 
But that's just random isn't it? There are weeks when we've got a lot of book and film reviews, there are weeks when all we're doing is reporting on stuff in other countries.

But please don't put words into my mouth, it's really unhelpful in debate. I didn't say "the latest crop of postings are the way forward"; I think we have good weeks and bad weeks, I think that our audience wants more about Palestine and much more about austerity. We've posted a lot about the anti-bedroom tax campaigns, but I can guarantee that when people talk about SU, all they'll remember is the one we posted about people trying to undermine Sheridan. We seem to generate a lot of false memories.

In my queue of things, I've got a book someone's sent me asking to review on the history of the Occupy movement, something about disability discrimination in unions, a cross-post about organising on the left. Might all be great, might all be boring.

The issue is that it's a site that runs a broad range of articles. For the last few months it's been SWP-heavy; other times it'll not feature other left wing groups for months.

And *now* I think we're way off-topic so I'm gonna leave it for a while. I'll tell you one thing though - the site tagging/categories/search is so bad, so completely messed up, I can't prove anything to you. I wish I could say "look at all this", but it's part of the long-term plan - with over 7,000 articles, we've actually got quite a good archive of material now.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Sure, but there is a big difference between aggravating factors and sentencing guidelines and Jean-Luc's assertion that somehow the SWP wasn't _that bad_ because the rape they covered up was a 'less serious' type of rape than the recent cases of rape that have received media coverage in India.


 did they cover up a rape?  Think you need to get down to the police if you have evidence of that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

tony collins said:


> But that's just random isn't it? There are weeks when we've got a lot of book and film reviews, there are weeks when all we're doing is reporting on stuff in other countries.
> 
> But please don't put words into my mouth, it's really unhelpful in debate. I didn't say "the latest crop of postings are the way forward"; I think we have good weeks and bad weeks, I think that our audience wants more about Palestine and much more about austerity. We've posted a lot about the anti-bedroom tax campaigns, but I can guarantee that when people talk about SU, all they'll remember is the one we posted about people trying to undermine Sheridan. We seem to generate a lot of false memories.
> 
> ...


You need to give _up the RAF_/North Korea and rosy-cheeked newmans stuff the heave-ho. He's holding you back.


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

I think it's on topic enough.

Tony, it's nowt personal, you might well be a nice guy. I'm probably not! We don't know each other. I don't move in lefty circles these days.

But it's not Tony Collins I'm calling a prick.

It's tony collins from Socialist Unity.

Why?

Cos SU manages to be both parasitical and irrelevant at the same time. It's divisive and provides a platform for he deluded, he sectarian, the asocial and the -putting it crudely- weirdos that typify the worst of the left.

As for the articles themselves? Flip flopping through the liturgy of the failed left from Galloway to Palestine to lefty bickering to labour apologetics. 

It's this left that the w/c has rejected. Overwhelmingly and repeatedly. And in this, you are utterly indistinguishable from the SWP. 

You say your audience is the "broad trade union movement", leaving aside for a moment the vitality of this audience, my first question to you is What are trying to say to them? And why?


----------



## belboid (Mar 27, 2013)

tony collins said:


> But that's just random isn't it? There are weeks when we've got a lot of book and film reviews, there are weeks when all we're doing is reporting on stuff in other countries.


which are the pieces that get most views and comments, tony?  I'd hazard a guess its the lefty navel gazing stuff.  People used to get the Weakly Wanker for the gossip, not for Jack Conrads articles.


----------



## killer b (Mar 27, 2013)

tony collins said:


> there are plenty of voices in here that I'd love to read on there.


can think of a few we'd like you to have too.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I'm far from an expert on this, but from what reading I have done on the subject I get the distinct impression that people who work with rape survivors are pretty unanimous that there is very little difference longer term on the effects of rape on women when it is 'stranger' rape (usually associated more with violence than other types of coercion) and rape by someone they know. If anything, the latter tends to be a lot worse.


 
I'm no expert either, but I do understand that. Obviously the emotional damage of being raped by somebody you know is a serious and real consequence of rape. But I wasn't making a specific comment on whether the victim knows their attacker or not; just because a victim knows an attacker doesn't mean at all that the rape isn't of the (for want of a better way of describing this) _more _violent type which I described. Therefore it seems to me that the scars left by rape can be both 1) deeper scars if the victim knew their attacker and 2) scars the depth of which correlates to the _level _of violence involved. It seems to me that _every _rape is a violent act, but it is also not incorrect to say that there are levels of violence... I know I'm explaining this incredibly badly because I'm struggling to explain what I mean without implying that some rapes are 'less serious', which is not what I want to say. I guess what I mean is that all rapes are by definition violent and abusive acts, but that it is wrong to say that one rape necessarily has qualitatively the same negative impact on a victim than another. At least I think that's what I'm trying to say.


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2013)

"(happy people like Yunus, posting anonymously for 5 or more years, always nasty and always generating a nasty response"

So he was the Undertaker, not surprised, nasty piece of work...


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> I just checked the site. The first article was about Palestine, the second the SWP the third about a split in the Scottish anti bedroom tax movement, then iirc there was some sort of Labour Left thing...
> 
> ...you think this is the way forward?


 
Not defending SU, but go on, tell us what is, your personal opinion, cos that's  all it is...


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 27, 2013)

Bolshiebhoy will you do anything to defend the central committee and discredit the opposition, is there no limits?

The latest is that you have dismissed accusations of bullying despite knowing absolutely about the details. But you just write it off as certain kinds of feminists whinging.

Can you imagine, for instance, if after the woman who accussed the Lib Dem Lord of sexual harrassment/assault, someone defending the Lib Dem in public had reacted with the line that he should have "kept his dick in his trousers" and that there was a problem with "certain kinds of feminists". Expect that in this case your comments, if anything, are even worse, as there has not only been an allegation towards Delta of sexual harassment, another woman has alleged that he raped her. Do you seriously see your kinds of comments as appropriate? Or does it not matter because at all costs the IS tradition has to be defended. A tradition, incidentally that appears to have achieved very little and has let to a situation where they are more isolated than ever, with even more useless fronts than ever, and no idea of how to go forward other than going around in circles.

What is certain is that Delta thought it was perfectly ok, as a 48 year old leader of the SWP, to sleep with two women, one who was 17, and the other not much older. Yet this all gets swept under the carpet by people like you from the loyalist side by the pathetic defence that it is ok because you don't accept bourgeois morals, and heh you slept with a 17 year old when you were 22 so it's all ok. As if that's the only people who would have concerns about this. Indeed you'd think that if anything, socialists would have more concern. Unless of course they think that it's ok for a socialist organisation to be used by middle aged men to sleep around with teenage women from a position of leadership.

There is still the Sheffield case, where an organiser of the SWP was accussed of rape, sexual harrassment, attacking his partner, and general sexism and misogyny. It's still not clear exactly what the central committee accepted he had done, but they suspended him for two years, the same "sentence" they gave to four people for discussing internal SWP business on facebook. They then thought it was a good idea, despite accepting at least some of the allegations were true, that they should praise him for being a great organiser, give him some SWP literature on women and say they welcome him back to the fold. This was the official position of the CC. Or does this all get swept under the carpet as well because there were "certain kinds of feminists" making the complaints, and heh hoh, everyone can change.

These cases don't come out of nowhere. They come out of the stalinist politics and method of the SWP which puts itself as an organisation before anything else, including the working class which it is ever more isolated from. The fact that SWP loyalist trade unionists I know are now going round saying that it's all lies, despite knowing fuck all about the case, is also reflective of this (I have also seen the surge of paper selling outside workplaces that Past Caring talked about).

You and RMP3 can go around all you like talking about abstract debates, but it doesn't change what has happened.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 27, 2013)

As a Socialist Party member I don't feel particularly welcome at a place that refers to the organisation I'm part of as a sect or a cult.
I'm not keen on the bullying behavior I've seen of commentators who don't fit the narrow 'in group' of opinions.

It's not just that people slag off SP posters, people do it here as well but I don't mind it at all. The reason is I never sense any sort of malevolence from people criticizing the SP here whereas that's most definitely the vibe from a lot of folks I get on SU. I think a lot of people who don't fit the mould feel the same as well.

SU is a deeply unpleasant place in much the same way Lenin's Tomb is. They're both headed by people who far too pleased with how clever they are and they both have a bullying, nasty clique of regular commentators completely intolerant of genuinely dissenting views.[/quote]


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> which are the pieces that get most views and comments, tony? I'd hazard a guess its the lefty navel gazing stuff. People used to get the Weakly Wanker for the gossip, not for Jack Conrads articles.


 
Ahem , SWP thread on here...


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 27, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> did they cover up a rape? Think you need to get down to the police if you have evidence of that.


 
I don't know either way. But they thought it was ok when an allegation of rape was made to investigate using a panel of seven of his mates and to give her evidence to the accused, but not let her know what he had said.

They also thought it was ok to suspend for the Sheffield organiser for just two years and to praise him for what a great organiser he was.


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2013)

"*These cases don't come out of nowhere. They come out of the stalinist politics and method of the SWP* which puts itself as an organisation before anything else, including the working class which it is ever more isolated from. The fact that SWP loyalist trade unionists I know are now going round saying that it's all lies, despite knowing fuck all about the case, is also reflective of this (I have also seen the surge of paper selling outside workplaces that Past Caring talked about).

Not just damaged political subcultures, but others: the rave culture/scene had plenty of this sort of power unbalanced behaviour, where especially the high priests of the scene such as D.J's and promoters, even the addicted and be-draggled, sought out the young ones...


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2013)

please note I am not referring to certain people or promoters of this parish..


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 27, 2013)

tony collins said:


> But that's just random isn't it? There are weeks when we've got a lot of book and film reviews, there are weeks when all we're doing is reporting on stuff in other countries.
> 
> But please don't put words into my mouth, it's really unhelpful in debate. I didn't say "the latest crop of postings are the way forward"; I think we have good weeks and bad weeks, I think that our audience wants more about Palestine and much more about austerity. We've posted a lot about the anti-bedroom tax campaigns, but I can guarantee that when people talk about SU, all they'll remember is the one we posted about people trying to undermine Sheridan. We seem to generate a lot of false memories.
> 
> ...


 
Tony - you'll know me under another name and I don't post as much on SU as I used to. I'm an SP member and I'd say there are three things that mean I post less:

1) The attitude towards people who see no future in the Labour Party is in my experience incredibly rude and alienating. Obviously if the people who run the site are basically pro-Labour you'd expect them to say so, but whenever I used to comment on SU and this came up people almost never suggested or argued why they think there is still a fight to be had within Labour (which I would have welcomed since I don't understand why anyone would have that position) and used to be frankly quite snide about it.
2) The articles are rarely critical of Labour. Recently, you've had articles promoting the Labour Left efforts to organise anti-bedroom tax protests and looking back at the 1983 manifesto. Don't you think the behaviour of the PLP over the workfare vote is worthy of mention? I do - I think if Newman or anyone else wants us to rejoin Labour and fight for it's soul or whatever, well, you owe us a post on their frankly disgusting position on workfare and the abstentions in Parliament. Even reposting what Michael Meacher had to say about it would be a start. You could do with addressing issues like what a Labour govt would look like if elected and this 'One Nation' Labour bullshit as well if you want the site to provide serious analysis of the circumstances facing the left in Britain.
3) I understand totally why the people who run SU have bad blood with the SWP. However, I think sometimes that results in an obsession with their organisation. I also think that quite often other sections of the far left are assumed to be exactly the same as the SWP, which is frustrating as well as unfair.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 27, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> As a Socialist Party member I don't feel particularly welcome at a place that refers to the organisation I'm part of as a sect or a cult.
> I'm not keen on the bullying behavior I've seen of commentators who don't fit the narrow 'in group' of opinions.
> 
> It's not just that people slag off SP posters, people do it here as well but I don't mind it at all. The reason is I never sense any sort of malevolence from people criticizing the SP here whereas that's most definitely the vibe from a lot of folks I get on SU. I think a lot of people who don't fit the mould feel the same as well.
> ...


[/quote]

I'd agree with all of this. On Urban there are people who fundamentally disagree with the SP and say so, but even when they're taking the piss it's always in a fairly fraternal fashion. That just isn't the case on SU, where we're constantly told that we're a cult or a sect and there's always dark hints that our internal culture is like as not just as bad as the SWP's.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 27, 2013)

And of course cardinal newman's insistence that us justice is brilliant for Gary McKinnon, but terrible. For Julian Assange.
Or his bloodthirsty witch hunting of anarchists http://socialistunity.com/anarchists-enemies-of-the-labour-movement/#.UVMNPssgGSM


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> And of course cardinal newman's insistence that us justice is brilliant for Gary McKinnon, but terrible. For Julian Assange.
> Or his bloodthirsty witch hunting of anarchists http://socialistunity.com/anarchists-enemies-of-the-labour-movement/#.UVMNPssgGSM


Or his attempt at witch-hunting BRHG, who are, according to his rosy cheeks:



> “fundamentally anti-working class and anti-trade union”


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Or his attempt at witch-hunting BRHG, who are, according to his rosy cheeks:


 


serious??

why?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

If i remember right because of this article: Tolpuddle and Swing: The Flea and the Elephant - and the SW TUC have this last week attempted to ban related people from speaking about the radical origins of mayday this year. Same mentality.


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> Not defending SU, but go on, tell us what is, your personal opinion, cos that's  all it is...




That the left as represented by the likes of SU and the SWP has failed isn't an opinion, it's an observation.

...and I've posted many, many times what I think should be done instead. But, save a pain in the ass search, put crudely I'd say starting from scratch, bottom up, rebuilding the ideas of mutual aid, solidarity and self-organisation, and then putting these not practice.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If i remember right because of this article: Tolpuddle and Swing: The Flea and the Elephant - and the SW TUC have this last week attempted to ban related people from speaking about the radical origins of mayday this year. Same mentality.


Last two pamphlets published(december 2012 and feb 2013):




> *The Origins and an Account of Black Friday – 23rd December 1892*
> 
> Autumn 1892 in Bristol saw a violent class war between employers, strike-breaking labour and police on one side and strikers and their mass of working class supporters on the other. Picketing, mass marches and public meetings of thousands of ‘new’ industrial unionists were common, culminating in the use of military and police by the local state to break up a pre-Christmas lantern parade organised to collect money for strikers and their families. This event, which popularly became known as ‘Black Friday’, is an iconic moment in Bristol’s history exposing the relations of force between ‘owners’ and ‘workers’.


 


> *Pirates to Proletarians – The Experience of the Pilots and Watermen of Crockerne Pill in the Nineteenth Century*
> 
> 
> This pamphlet charts the experiences, in the nineteenth century, of Bristol’s pilots, and their assistants, in their struggle to defend their jobs and their traditional way of working, particularly as steam power emerged to replace sail. Their relationship with the shipowners, masters and city authorities was a complex one, and broke down periodically into open conflict. They lived almost exclusively in Crockerne Pill, a small village, five miles from Bristol, situated on the south side of the river Avon. Pill people exhibited a lack of deference and were looked upon by the Bristol authorities, and many town-dwellers, as disorderly and difficult. As the nineteenth century progressed, however, the realization took hold that the interests of the pilots and watermen of Pill had much in common with trade unionists in Bristol and the wider labour movement.


 
Yet the group is:




			
				old rosy cheeks said:
			
		

> fundamentally anti-working class and anti-trade union


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If i remember right because of this article: Tolpuddle and Swing: The Flea and the Elephant - and the SW TUC have this last week attempted to ban related people from speaking about the radical origins of mayday this year. Same mentality.


 
so because they're just picking random words from the article and not really reading it?


----------



## treelover (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> That the left as represented by the likes of SU and the SWP has failed isn't an opinion, it's an observation.
> 
> ...and I've posted many, many times what I think should be done instead. But, save a pain in the ass search, put crudely I'd say starting from scratch, bottom up, rebuilding the ideas of mutual aid, solidarity and self-organisation, and then putting these not practice.


 

Unite Community?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> so because they're just picking random words from the article and not really reading it?


It's because andy newman doesn't accept that there can be any criticism of the grand w/c->unions->labour party narrative and is prepared to talk dishonest and smeary shit in response to critiques of it. Which is one of the problems that SU faces if it wants to go where Tony says it does.


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> Unite Community?



Has potential, yes.

Though I'm cautious about the top down nature of it and how the relationship to the "labour movement" might inhibit genuine self-organisation.

But certainly a positive move.


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's because andy newman doesn't accept that there can be any criticism of the grand w/c->unions->labour party narrative and is prepared to talk dishonest and smeary shit in response to critiques of it. Which is one of the problems that SU faces if it wants to go where Tony says it does.



Tony hasn't really said where he wants it to go.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> Tony hasn't really said where he wants it to go.


This sort of thing isn't compatible with Newman at the controls:


> I guess if I've got a personal mission, it's to provide a really serious range of left wing voices to a really diverse audience, and one that doesn't seek to impose a way of thinking and isn't boring.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> "(happy people like Yunus, posting anonymously for 5 or more years, always nasty and always generating a nasty response"
> 
> So he was the Undertaker, not surprised, nasty piece of work...


Not sure why you've linked him to that name but a) that person accused Ian Bone of being a cop and b) You'd think Yunus would be keeping quiet given recent events.


----------



## chilango (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This sort of thing isn't compatible with Newman at the controls:



No.

But it's pretty ambitious given that no-one has managed it even with a far more credible starting point.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2013)

tony collins said:


> Its name does come from a time when there was an attempt to set up a "socialist unity network" of independent left wingers; so it's purely historical now - it doesn't have "unity" as a particular mission (cos what do we mean by "unity"? Whose? On what terms?). None of us would be averse to a change of name, I don't think.
> 
> It does have a very specific audience: Its audience is the broad trade union movement. It's one of the most popular sites on the left. So, roughly speaking, we publish a mixture of deep and shallow politics, deep and shallow culture, moans and groans, and some theoretical stuff, that our audience likes.
> 
> ...


 
Wouldn't it benefit from an appraisal of those aims through a regime of open and transparent democracy , election of board mods from membership  etc, editorial democracy? 
One of the problems with the site is its reputation in that many active trade unionist I know think that it is just one persons self perpetuating  fiefdom  , giving the impression that its either his way or the highway. In this day and age I am not sure that such outdated , hierarchical and non inclusive structures are fit for purpose. Hope you find this helpful feedback.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Wouldn't it benefit from an appraisal of those aims through a regime of open and transparent democracy , election of board mods from membership etc, editorial democracy?
> One of the problems with the site is its reputation in that many active trade unionist I know think that it is just one persons self perpetuating fiefdom , giving the impression that its either his way or the highway. In this day and age I am not sure that such outdated , hierarchical and non inclusive structures are fit for purpose. Hope you find this helpful feedback.


it is one person's fiefdom.

next.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 27, 2013)

killer b said:


> can think of a few we'd like you to have too.


 
Captain Hurrahs stuff on Cambodia deserves a new outlet


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 27, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Wouldn't it benefit from an appraisal of those aims through a regime of open and transparent democracy , election of board mods from membership etc, editorial democracy?
> One of the problems with the site is its reputation in that many active trade unionist I know think that it is just one persons self perpetuating fiefdom , giving the impression that its either his way or the highway. In this day and age I am not sure that such outdated , hierarchical and non inclusive structures are fit for purpose. Hope you find this helpful feedback.


 
I think they should set up a temporary forum called the junta for an invited group of likeminded souls so they can come up with a genuinely democratic framework for internetz blogging


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I don't know either way. But they thought it was ok when an allegation of rape was made to investigate using a panel of seven of his mates and to give her evidence to the accused, but not let her know what he had said.
> 
> They also thought it was ok to suspend for the Sheffield organiser for just two years and to praise him for what a great organiser he was.


 that's true, we don't know either way.  To be objective, that is a very important fact to establish.  Even now, I think this matter should go to the police.  I cannot see what the woman has to lose now.  It's become full public knowledge, so there is no reason whatsoever to not go to the police.

 disputes committee is elected once a year so what would you have done, and how?
How long would you wait to deal with the issues the woman wanted dealing with? Would you hold a special conference, to elect disputes committee, in which nobody knew Martin Smith?  How would you do this, and protect the privacy of the complainant?  And Martin Smith?

PS.  Not ignoring your other comments, deal with, one at a time.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> which are the pieces that get most views and comments, tony? I'd hazard a guess its the lefty navel gazing stuff. People used to get the Weakly Wanker for the gossip, not for Jack Conrads articles.


 does the left do much else than navelgazing (including the SWP these days)?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm no expert either, but I do understand that. Obviously the emotional damage of being raped by somebody you know is a serious and real consequence of rape. But I wasn't making a specific comment on whether the victim knows their attacker or not; just because a victim knows an attacker doesn't mean at all that the rape isn't of the (for want of a better way of describing this) _more _violent type which I described. Therefore it seems to me that the scars left by rape can be both 1) deeper scars if the victim knew their attacker and 2) scars the depth of which correlates to the _level _of violence involved. It seems to me that _every _rape is a violent act, but it is also not incorrect to say that there are levels of violence... I know I'm explaining this incredibly badly because I'm struggling to explain what I mean without implying that some rapes are 'less serious', which is not what I want to say. I guess what I mean is that all rapes are by definition violent and abusive acts, but that it is wrong to say that one rape necessarily has qualitatively the same negative impact on a victim than another. At least I think that's what I'm trying to say.


 think to be honest, it's pretty impossible to know how an individual will respond to being raped (male or female). 

I think if you want to compare one to the other, the heinous nature of the crime would be dictated by the intention of the perpetrator, surely? If a gang of you set out to apprehend somebody, and rape them, that's clearly a premeditated and more despicable act, then 'stumbling into a rape' in a drunken stupor with clear signals from a partner you've been in a relationship with may be four years.

Again am not talking about the victim, I'm only talking about the level of premeditation et cetera.  And I'm not suggesting for one minute, "stumbling into a rape" in any way excuses it.  I'm just trying to explain why I would see one, as worse than the other.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 27, 2013)

i like tony collins.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Bolshiebhoy will you do anything to defend the central committee and discredit the opposition, is there no limits?
> 
> The latest is that you have dismissed accusations of bullying despite knowing absolutely about the details. But you just write it off as certain kinds of feminists whinging.
> 
> ...


 it is difficult to deal with all the issues you obviously feel passionate about, in one go.  So excuse me not dealing with them all. I will come back to other issues, if you want to raise them again to me.  (Some, I don't have answers for you, I don't know the answers.)

Are you saying there is no circumstances in which it is none of our business if a 60-year-old person, wants to have an affair, a relationship with a 17-year-old person, if it is totally mutually consensual?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> As a Socialist Party member I don't feel particularly welcome at a place that refers to the organisation I'm part of as a sect or a cult.
> I'm not keen on the bullying behavior I've seen of commentators who don't fit the narrow 'in group' of opinions.
> 
> It's not just that people slag off SP posters, people do it here as well but I don't mind it at all. The reason is I never sense any sort of malevolence from people criticizing the SP here whereas that's most definitely the vibe from a lot of folks I get on SU. I think a lot of people who don't fit the mould feel the same as well.
> ...


 oh the irony.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> "*These cases don't come out of nowhere. They come out of the stalinist politics and method of the SWP* which puts itself as an organisation before anything else, including the working class which it is ever more isolated from. The fact that SWP loyalist trade unionists I know are now going round saying that it's all lies, despite knowing fuck all about the case, is also reflective of this (I have also seen the surge of paper selling outside workplaces that Past Caring talked about).
> 
> Not just damaged political subcultures, but others: the rave culture/scene had plenty of this sort of power unbalanced behaviour, where especially the high priests of the scene such as D.J's and promoters, even the addicted and be-draggled, sought out the young ones...


I think there are plenty of statements made in this thread that look like lies, Like some of the things you have said there.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

I'd agree with all of this. On Urban there are people who fundamentally disagree with the SP and say so, but even when they're taking the piss it's always in a fairly fraternal fashion. That just isn't the case on SU, where we're constantly told that we're a cult or a sect and there's always dark hints that our internal culture is like as not just as bad as the SWP's.[/quote] oh the irony.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> That the left as represented by the likes of SU and the SWP has failed isn't an opinion, it's an observation.
> 
> ...and I've posted many, many times what I think should be done instead. But, save a pain in the ass search, put crudely I'd say starting from scratch, bottom up, rebuilding the ideas of mutual aid, solidarity and self-organisation, and then putting these not practice.


 one man's fact, is another man's opinion.

that the left as represented by SU, the SWP, and everybody else Has failed is opinion, and an observation of mine. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 27, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it is difficult to deal with all the issues you obviously feel passionate about, in one go. So excuse me not dealing with them all. I will come back to other issues, if you want to raise them again to me. (Some, I don't have answers for you, I don't know the answers.)
> 
> Are you saying there is no circumstances in which it is none of our business if a 60-year-old person, wants to have an affair, a relationship with a 17-year-old person, if it is totally mutually consensual?


 
Of course there are circumstances which are none of our business. But it doesn't make you a bourgeois moralist to think what the hell is a 48 year old leader of a socialist organisation doing trying to go to bed with a 17 year old, and another teenager not much older. Personally I think he is a tosser doing that behind his partners back as well, which I imagine must have been fairly humiliating. All in all it doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of him. Using your position as a political leader to sleep with young women, which is effectively what has happened, even in a best case scenario, is totally out of order in my view and he should be made to step down for that alone.

On a general point of age differences while I'm not saying it is always a problem, I think most parents would raise an eyebrow if their 17 year old daughter brought back a 48 bloke and said that this was their partner. I would sympathise with this, and wouldn't just denounce them as reactionaries. It might turn out that there is nothing wrong with it, but I can see at the very least why people might be concerned. At to that the power relation of someone in a teacher role, or a leader in a political orgnaisation and I can see why there would be even more concerns.

As for feeling passionate about it, the reason for this is the disgusting way in which the "loyalists" are treating the opposition. I think BB has been particuarly out of order for saying things like Delta should have kept his dick in his trousers, when there is a rape allegation. If this had been said by a leading Lib Dem then I can imagine what SWPers would have to say. There clearly is a problem with not just Delta, but the Sheffield case. To write all this off as "certain kinds of feminists" and write off bullying allegations without even knowing the facts shows someone that will blindly defend the leadership whatever they do.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

chilango said:


> Has potential, yes.
> 
> Though I'm cautious about the top down nature of it and how the relationship to the "labour movement" might inhibit genuine self-organisation.
> 
> But certainly a positive move.


 
If there was any
 significant self organisation going on about these issues, you wouldn't need any top-down initiatives. It is the complete absence of working class self organisation, that makes many revolutionaries/politicals/Labour movement activists try something. And fail, year in year out? Is this a responsibility of the people who try, of 30 years of defeat hanging over the consciousness of the working class like an albatross?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 27, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> that's true, we don't know either way. To be objective, that is a very important fact to establish. Even now, I think this matter should go to the police. I cannot see what the woman has to lose now. It's become full public knowledge, so there is no reason whatsoever to not go to the police.
> 
> disputes committee is elected once a year so what would you have done, and how?
> How long would you wait to deal with the issues the woman wanted dealing with? Would you hold a special conference, to elect disputes committee, in which nobody knew Martin Smith? How would you do this, and protect the privacy of the complainant? And Martin Smith?
> ...


 
I agree that it would be good if it was taken up by the police. But other posters on here have persuaded me that if the person doesn't want to go to the police, or can't, then something still has to be done. The reasons for not going to the police have been given on this thread. The person might not have immigration status, they might have had past terrible experiences with the police etc

I think that any responsbile leadership would look beyond some formal rule book. They could have sought independent advice from organisations that deal with rape and got legal advice. They could have found a way to have a panel to investigate that didn't have his mates on it. Loads of suggestions have been given on this thread around that issue.

The fact is that if the Lib Dems had set up an internal panel which had seven of that Lords mates on it, then they would rightly have been ripped to shreds for doing it.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 27, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> oh the irony.


 
To be fair, for all my criticisms of the Socialist Party, they seem to have dealt with the Steve Hedley issue far, far better than the SWP have with Martin Smith, the Sheffield organiser etc


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 27, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I agree that it would be good if it was taken up by the police. But other posters on here have persuaded me that if the person doesn't want to go to the police, or can't, then something still has to be done. The reasons for not going to the police have been given on this thread. The person might not have immigration status, they might have had past terrible experiences with the police etc
> 
> I think that any responsbile leadership would look beyond some formal rule book. They could have sought independent advice from organisations that deal with rape and got legal advice. They could have found a way to have a panel to investigate that didn't have his mates on it. Loads of suggestions have been given on this thread around that issue.
> 
> The fact is that if the Lib Dems had set up an internal panel which had seven of that Lords mates on it, then they would rightly have been ripped to shreds for doing it.


 I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about this woman. What reasons have been given in this thread, for this particular woman not going to the police, then or NOW? I don't know that information, do you have a link to that in this thread, or elsewhere. Especially now, it is being discussed on the Internet daily. I don't think immigrant status is an issue here, is it?

The woman involved has gone to the press. She said she didn't go to the police, for fear of being expelled. Then she left the party. The woman involved then returned to the party, and asked for disputes committee to handle it. She knew who they were, it would be people who knew Martin Smith. It would be pretty hard for people not to know Martin Smith in such a tiny organisation (I meant to raise this issue before). You say the could have found a way, how in such a tiny organisation could they do that democratically?

I actually agree with you about the Lib Dems, and that it has been dealt with badly, but given the structures of the party at the time, I come to the conclusion if you really really really wanted to put the interests of the party, before the interests of the individuals Martin Smith and the woman, you should have refused to deal with it. With the structures of the party at the time, there was no other way to safeguard the interests of the party. (You cannot just throw away a rule book in a political party. But even if you had, people would still have made this an issue.)

Looking at it from this perspective, the interests of the party, just for one moment, you could equally ask, why didn't they put the interests of the party above those of the two individuals, and refuse to handle it? What do you think the answers to this question would be?

I think you see the fairness in the arguments, it would have been impossible to restructure the party, in an adequate time frame, protecting everybody's privacy. This gives them the option of going outside the party. Have people made suggestions of organisations the party could have given this issue to deal with, outside the party, which would have guaranteed privacy not only for the individuals involved, but for the party?

I know the person that sat with the woman, if Rita is who I think it is. The woman that went back in and complained about how the situation had been dealt with by the disputes committee, and I trust her judgement. Don't think there is any excuse for this. The party should have gone outside, if they were going to handle it themselves, and find out what questions to ask, and how you asked them. But to be honest with you, even if they had handled it better, I cannot see people like the Daily Mail ever not making political capital out of this situation. The only way, and I realise this is just opinion, but the only way in my opinion they could have put the interests of the party first, was to not touch this with a barge pole.

This is all just speculation, from me. I don't know why they did this. I know at least two of the people involved, having worked closely with them for several years. Then there is Pat Stack. (Do have a full list of names of people on the disciplinary committee?) Would I consider everybody involved feminists? Absolutely!

I actually, in the end don't have answers. Only questions. Even the woman's use of the word slut, brings up questions. That's why I chose not to discuss it before now. Apparently if you don't defend them, you are wrong, and if you do defend them, you are wrong. Well what happens when you just choose to ask questions? Is that reasonable?

GTG


----------



## sihhi (Mar 27, 2013)

Andy Newman telling off South African dockworkers in refusing to unload high-tech weaponry from China to Harare, later sent by plane: “As i understand it, the dockers were following the pro-MDC position of South African leftists like Patrick Bond"


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2013)

So, while doing some research on something entirely unrelated to the SWP I came across critics of the party saying that the SWP supported the FNLA and UNTIA in Angola against the MPLA, can anyone confirm that or put it in context? This is totally bizarre.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> The woman involved has gone to the press.


Wrong.

And what a thing to get wrong.

(Don't bother replying - just clearing that up for anyone left reading your posts)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> So, while doing some research on something entirely unrelated to the SWP I came across critics of the party saying that the SWP supported the FNLA and UNTIA in Angola against the MPLA, can anyone confirm that or put it in context? This is totally bizarre.


That's the US SWP.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's the US SWP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> So, while doing some research on something entirely unrelated to the SWP I came across critics of the party saying that the SWP supported the FNLA and UNTIA in Angola against the MPLA, can anyone confirm that or put it in context? This is totally bizarre.


yes, it's totally unrelated to the swp.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


>


Mate, i've read stuff that is pages and pages long where someone has gone off on at the SWP (usually over Cuba) without even noticing their mistake


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 27, 2013)

belboid said:


> fuck off
> 
> now you're just acting the spoilt little cunt


Well I never belboid. Our relations have become very frosty over recent weeks. One of us must be digging his heels in. I'm prepared to admit it might be me but are you by any chance being seduced by the ISN?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> I can't imagine any brand of feminist regarding calling someone a cunt as an acceptable form of insult.


your imagination is very limited.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 27, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cunt.


^^ post of the thread.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 27, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Bolshiebhoy will you do anything to defend the central committee and discredit the opposition, is there no limits?
> 
> The latest is that you have dismissed accusations of bullying despite knowing absolutely about the details. But you just write it off as certain kinds of feminists whinging.
> 
> ...


They'll need a little more evidence of bullying than that weird collection of posts on the Sheffield swss FB page last night before anyone needs to genuflect before them.I've been shouted at by organisers and shouted back at them in my time in swss. Part of the normal operation of swss and the healthy tension between student life and branch/district demands. What was it Bambery used to call us and expect us to be 'intellectual hooligans'. Swss members spend their life looking for a good opportunity to annoy people in authority. Having a dreaded full timer on your case is not something that in my experience made the average swss member wet themselves. Something therefore has changed. Either the full timers have gotten scarier or the swss members have become a little less hooligan and a litle more swampish. I know where my money would be.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Or they're sick of your nauseating shit over a rape cover up and the _special measures _currently being used to keep the remaining members in the party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm no expert either, but I do understand that. Obviously the emotional damage of being raped by somebody you know is a serious and real consequence of rape. But I wasn't making a specific comment on whether the victim knows their attacker or not; just because a victim knows an attacker doesn't mean at all that the rape isn't of the (for want of a better way of describing this) _more _violent type which I described. Therefore it seems to me that the scars left by rape can be both 1) deeper scars if the victim knew their attacker and 2) scars the depth of which correlates to the _level _of violence involved. It seems to me that _every _rape is a violent act, but it is also not incorrect to say that there are levels of violence... I know I'm explaining this incredibly badly because I'm struggling to explain what I mean without implying that some rapes are 'less serious', which is not what I want to say. I guess what I mean is that all rapes are by definition violent and abusive acts, but that it is wrong to say that one rape necessarily has qualitatively the same negative impact on a victim than another. At least I think that's what I'm trying to say.


 
I think it needs to be accepted that in *any* rape, the level of physical and emotional violence will differ along a spectrum that's unique to the circumstances of the event and the psychological "make-up" of the survivor. One instance can't be weighed against another easily because the events are unique, even if the crime committed is not. The best that can be achieved is a crude equivalence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 27, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> As a Socialist Party member I don't feel particularly welcome at a place that refers to the organisation I'm part of as a sect or a cult.
> I'm not keen on the bullying behavior I've seen of commentators who don't fit the narrow 'in group' of opinions.
> 
> It's not just that people slag off SP posters, people do it here as well but I don't mind it at all. The reason is I never sense any sort of malevolence from people criticizing the SP here whereas that's most definitely the vibe from a lot of folks I get on SU. I think a lot of people who don't fit the mould feel the same as well.
> ...


[/quote]

I don't consider the SP a cult. I reserve that label for the AWL.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's the US SWP.


 
I've been reading a lot about the Angolan civil war lately - it's fascinating, not something I knew anything about before. It seems incredible to me that anyone considering themselves on the left could have supported either of those groups, UK SWP, US SWP or anyone else.

Or the MPLA for that matter, though it's at least possible to see a fairly vulgar form of anti-imperialism could have led some kind of critical support for them.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Or they're sick of your nauseating shit over a rape cover up and the _special measures _currently being used to keep the remaining members in the party.


Not sure how the cc can have any special measures to keep anyone in the party longer than they want to be. There may be special measures to win the argument with those who choose to stay. But ultimately all of us who have ever left, well we just left. Some people seem to be getting very exercised over the large numbers who currently aren't leaving.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've been reading a lot about the Angolan civil war lately - it's fascinating, not something I knew anything about before. It seems incredible to me that anyone considering themselves on the left could have supported either of those groups, UK SWP, US SWP or anyone else.
> 
> Or the MPLA for that matter, though it's at least possible to see a fairly vulgar form of anti-imperialism could have led some kind of critical support for them.


 
Really? I honestly do not understand that position, given that UNITA and the FNLA were so thoroughly backed by distasteful regimes and the former was intimately linked to the interests of apartheid South Africa and served a similar function to Portuguese colonialism during the later periods of the Portuguese Colonial War, I'm not sure how anyone on the left wouldn't want to have given critical support to the MPLA.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 27, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Or the MPLA for that matter,...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not sure how the cc can have any special measures to keep anyone in the party longer than they want to be. There may be special measures to win the argument with those who choose to stay. But ultimately all of us who have ever left, well we just left. Some people seem to be getting very exercised over the large numbers who currently aren't leaving.


Of course they have special measures, they include being impotently aggressive, aggressively lying (and not being believed anymore) and implied threats (that are laughed at). That people have previously left is no indication that they are not using these methods now or an argument as to why these 'intellectual hooligans' (My god, _this really happened didn't it_ - and you thought it was great!) should decide not to laugh in your face when you try them today.


----------



## Anudder Oik (Mar 27, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Of course there are circumstances which are none of our business. But it doesn't make you a bourgeois moralist to think what the hell is a 48 year old leader of a socialist organisation doing trying to go to bed with a 17 year old, and another teenager not much older. Personally I think he is a tosser doing that behind his partners back as well, which I imagine must have been fairly humiliating. All in all it doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of him. Using your position as a political leader to sleep with young women, which is effectively what has happened, even in a best case scenario, is totally out of order in my view and he should be made to step down for that alone.
> 
> On a general point of age differences while I'm not saying it is always a problem, I think most parents would raise an eyebrow if their 17 year old daughter brought back a 48 bloke and said that this was their partner. I would sympathise with this, and wouldn't just denounce them as reactionaries. It might turn out that there is nothing wrong with it, but I can see at the very least why people might be concerned. At to that the power relation of someone in a teacher role, or a leader in a political orgnaisation and I can see why there would be even more concerns.
> 
> As for feeling passionate about it, the reason for this is the disgusting way in which the "loyalists" are treating the opposition. I think BB has been particuarly out of order for saying things like Delta should have kept his dick in his trousers, when there is a rape allegation. If this had been said by a leading Lib Dem then I can imagine what SWPers would have to say. There clearly is a problem with not just Delta, but the Sheffield case. To write all this off as "certain kinds of feminists" and write off bullying allegations without even knowing the facts shows someone that will blindly defend the leadership whatever they do.


 
A relationship like that has got to be completely uneven. The girl, who is inexperienced and at an impressionable age, is obviously the weaker partner. The older man/leader figure is, I believe, abusing the aura around his position and latching on to easy prey in an exploitative fashion. He can control her.

It's like the teacher pupil case last year where they ran away to france. Who believes that was a balanced relationship?


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> Ahem , SWP thread on here...


One fucking thread, the focus of which has been an incident that has made the national press and could have ramifications for the left in general.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> One fucking thread, the focus of which has been an incident that has made the national press and could have ramifications for the left in general.


And if there wasn't a thread about it he'd be moaning about it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Really? I honestly do not understand that position, given that UNITA and the FNLA were so thoroughly backed by distasteful regimes and the former was intimately linked to the interests of apartheid South Africa and served a similar function to Portuguese colonialism during the later periods of the Portuguese Colonial War, I'm not sure how anyone on the left wouldn't want to have given critical support to the MPLA.


 
Depends what period. Like UNITA, the MPLA pressganged people into military and sexual (!) service. I'd certainly have given them critical support prior to the defeat of the South Africans and the liberation of Namibia, but later on things got well messy. For example, after Savimbi refused to accept the result of the election in 1992 (arguing that it wasn't free and fair - though the evidence suggests the MPLA won fair and square) they armed civilian death squads in Luanda, ostensibly to drive out UNITA, but also encouraged a pogrom against the Ovimbundu (who had formed a large part of the UNITA support but were by no means all UNITA - in fact their refusal to court their support was one of the main reasons why Savimbi split from the FNLA and formed the UNITA).

It's all very messy but certainly once the cold war had ended and South Africa had stopped funding and supporting UNITA you'd be hard pressed to find a reasonable justification for giving any support to the MPLA, critical or not.

(Edited to remove embarrassing fuck up confusing initials of the groups)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I reserve that label for the AWL.


 
Really? I've never really seen much indication of that, bar perhaps their occasional role as vanity publisher for Matgamna's poetry.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Having a dreaded full timer on your case is not something that in my experience made the average swss member wet themselves. Something therefore has changed. Either the full timers have gotten scarier or the swss members have become a little less hooligan and a litle more swampish. I know where my money would be.


 
This sets up a falsely constricted choice. The circumstances are very different - the largest and bitterest faction fight in the history of the organisation, over an incredibly emotive issue, with the apparatus seeing the heterodoxy of "the students" as a key reason for the problems. Whatever your views on the dispute - and we both know that we differ on that - the situation is simply, bleeding obviously in fact, not analogous to some hyper fulltimer bickering with a few students in normal times.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 27, 2013)

http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/a-response-to-swss-notes-national.html
The students it seems are still in revolt. 5 SWSS groups have left, others have collapsed into inactivity, and the remnant appear to have an openly antagonistic relationship to the CC and the newly appointed student organisers.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This sets up a falsely constricted choice. The circumstances are very different - the largest and bitterest faction fight in the history of the organisation, over an incredibly emotive issue, with the apparatus seeing the heterodoxy of "the students" as a key reason for the problems. Whatever your views on the dispute - and we both know that we differ on that - the situation is simply, bleeding obviously in fact, not analogous to some hyper fulltimer bickering with a few students in normal times.


Indeed but having the force of a faction behind you ought to give one more backbone before the almighty full timer rather than less. Yes a minority faction but then swss members of old were used to being in a minority in most arguments with fellow lefties. Its hard not to conclude that this latest batch have been having things far too cosy with their fellow left students and find the dreadful 'sectishness' (for which read saying something definite that goes against the common sense identity politics of much of the campus left) of their full timers just all too upsetting for words.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

Harsh truths that need to be told to young kids. You couldn't make it up. You are defending the covering up of rape allegations and whatever you decide needs covering up after all. It's really really not them kids that needs some harsh truth telling to them.

You're now just openly hacking bb. You don't need to pretend anymore.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Indeed but having the force of a faction behind you ought to give one more backbone before the almighty full timer rather than less. Yes a minority faction but then swss members of old were used to being in a minority in most arguments with fellow lefties. Its hard not to conclude that this latest batch have been having things far too cosy with their fellow left students and find the dreadful 'sectishness' (for which read saying something definite that goes against the common sense identity politics of much of the campus left) of their full timers just all too upsetting for words.


Actually the SWSS have been one of the prime gateways for identity politics in universities and among the wider young. You trained them to defend what you now pretend you reject.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Harsh truths that need to be told to young kids. You couldn't make it up. You are defending the covering up of rape allegations and whatever you decide needs covering up after all. It's really really not them kids that needs some harsh truth.
> 
> You're now just openly hacking now bb. You don't need to pretend anymore.


No I'm against covering up rape. And I'm against covering up the differences between Marxism and feminism, between Marxism and centrism. people of all ages seem to be prone to the latter type of covering up even while they condemn the former.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Actually the SWSS have been one of the prime gateways for identity politics in universities and among the wider young. You trained them to defend what you now pretend you reject.


On the contrary the party didn't train them to be that way, it didn't do a very good job of challenging the training they were getting from their identity politics professors and mates. It needs to now, though clearly that's going to lead to a certain turnover.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Indeed but having the force of a faction behind you ought to give one more backbone before the almighty full timer rather than less.


 
It's simply not the same kind of situation. It's not about how much "backbone" anyone would show in a normal row with some fulltimer enthusiast. This is a situation where the apparatus as a whole, along with key lay members in many areas, think that the battle against student "heterodoxy" is now a life and death issue for the party.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> On the contrary the party didn't train them to be that way, it didn't do a very good job of challenging the training they were getting from their identity politics professors and mates. It needs to now, though clearly that's going to lead to a certain turnover.


Rubbish - you lot hid behind them for 2 decades - you did it on here, cheering on every islamophobe! sexist! smear against people that you disagreed with.

What this shows is two things. Firstly, that the _content_ of the smears are interchangeable - they can flip from being examples of identity politics to attacks on identity politics. The _model_ remains though- hysterical shouting by junior trots, stealthily directed by people like you. And secondly, the ownership of the _real politics_ of the SWP by an small core of longer term members who do hold the real positions, but are quite happy to have a wider membership who disagree with them on pretty much everything, even to encourage these disagreements as long as they can a) do the footwork b) pay for their jobs and c) make it look like the party is progressing rather than allowing people to to see the apolitcal hollowed out potemkin party based on covert accepted elitism that it really is.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> On the contrary the party didn't train them to be that way, it didn't do a very good job of challenging the training they were getting from their identity politics professors and mates. It needs to now, though clearly that's going to lead to a certain turnover.


 
A certain turnover? Apart from the 5 groups that have left so far, the rest appear to be in such disarray that there are approximately 15 left nationally in a state where they can send two delegates to a national meeting, and those still seem to be in revolt. You aren't talking about "a certain turnover" but the near complete destruction of SWSS as it stood a year ago and an attempt to start, if not quite from scratch, then from some shattered remnants.

Now you might think that's necessary or that it's the least bad option, but you should at least be clear about what it means. Particularly given that the SWP has been largely built and reproduced through the continuous recruitment SWSS has provided.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 27, 2013)

That Sheffield SWSS status stream last night was indeed pretty weird. There's a pretty clear claim in it thought that there were a significant number of resignations in Sheffield last night.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Really? I've never really seen much indication of that, bar perhaps their occasional role as vanity publisher for Matgamna's poetry.


 
And that isn't enough? Have you tried to read the _dreck_ he calls poetry?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Actually the SWSS have been one of the prime gateways for identity politics in universities and among the wider young. You trained them to defend what you now pretend you reject.


 
I had a mate who worked in a pub who was encouraged by the management to break the rules and take a plate of chips each shift, everyone else was encouraged to do that and the manager did it too. When the management wanted an excuse to sack him, they sacked him for stealing food.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I had a mate who worked in a pub who was encouraged by the management to break the rules and take a plate of chips each shift, everyone else was encouraged to do that and the manager did it too. When the management wanted an excuse to sack him, they sacked him for stealing food.


That, comrades, is the dialectic in action...


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> On the contrary the party didn't train them to be that way, it didn't do a very good job of challenging the training they were getting from their identity politics professors and mates. It needs to now, though clearly that's going to lead to a certain turnover.


 
Identity politics professors? Uhhh, what do you think goes on in universities?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 28, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And that isn't enough? Have you tried to read the _dreck_ he calls poetry?


 
I managed one poem and since then have studiously avoided reading a second. The thing is though, that while it is weird that they publish it, it's only once AWL members start defending its artistic significance that I'll start thinking there's something actually cultish going on!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That, comrades, is the dialectic in action...


 

fryalectics


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> it didn't do a very good job of challenging the training they were getting from their identity politics professors and mates. It needs to now


 
For what though, what's the SWP plan now? - _build Marxism, build Unite the Resistance! _

Do you actually think the SWP carried out its duty to the world-wide working-class over the Sheffield affair and Delta case?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about this woman. What reasons have been given in this thread, for this particular woman not going to the police, then or NOW? I don't know that information, do you have a link to that in this thread, or elsewhere. Especially now, it is being discussed on the Internet daily. I don't think immigrant status is an issue here, is it?
> 
> The woman involved has gone to the press. She said she didn't go to the police, for fear of being expelled. Then she left the party. The woman involved then returned to the party, and asked for disputes committee to handle it. She knew who they were, it would be people who knew Martin Smith. It would be pretty hard for people not to know Martin Smith in such a tiny organisation (I meant to raise this issue before). You say the could have found a way, how in such a tiny organisation could they do that democratically?
> 
> ...


 
I have no idea why she hasn't gone to the police. The point is there could be a myriad of reasons.

Also she hasn't gone to the press. Why are you just making things up? Why are you almost putting the blame on the woman who has made the rape allegation by saying she would know who the dipsutes committee was. This is bollocks. The SWP even said that if people knew the people involved they could step aside. One person who knew the woman chose to. Martin Smith's mates chose to stay on. This didn't have to happen. They could have found people in the SWP who, even if they knew him, weren't his mates. That shouldn't have been too hard.

I think they wanted to handle it internally so they could try and minimalise any publicity about it and, as they did with the Sheffield incident, leave members not knowing the truth. Initially this was successful, and they managed to get a standing ovation for Martin Smith knowing that he had slept with a 17 year old teenager and that an allegation of sexual harassment had been made, but then this back fired massively. They could have got help from organisations that deal with rape victims. They could have got independent legal advice. Why is the privacy of the party of any significance when you are talking about a rape allegation? This in itself shows the mindset of where you are coming from.

Of course the Daily Mail would always make capital out of anything for totally the wrong reasons. But surely the important thing is the interests of the women who have alleged rape and sexual abuse? As it happens if they had put them first, it would be a lot harder for the right wing to use the incident for their own purposes.

The fact that you have people like BB making the disgusting comments that he is, and long term trade unionist SWPers selling their papers for the first time in years and calling the woman a liar says it all about how rotten the SWP has become. And that's not because they are being attacked by a "certain kind of feminist", it's because this has resulted from an organisation with stalinist methods and politics which seems to be degenerating more and more quickly. But it's political methods were always going to lead down a dead end, as their various dishonest front organisations show.

Then of course there is the shameful way the Sheffield organiser was dealt with.


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

"Jo C didn’t really contribute anything to the meeting. In fact, when an FE student made a contribution, instead of listening intently and trying to answer his question as best she could, she instead chose to heckle him. This was incredibly rude and inappropriate, not least because she’s a middle aged adult and the FE student is one of the youngest members of the organisation. When the same FE comrade asked for advice as to how we build in FE, he was told to “call a meeting” with no explanation as to how and with whom."

Oh dear, she was one of the better ones I recall...


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

"along with considering the role of EAN to relate to current struggles like the Sussex Occupation where SWSS has not been able to intervene and very few remain SWP members."


Good, that's why it is so imaginative and possibly successful...


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A certain turnover? Apart from the 5 groups that have left so far, the rest appear to be in such disarray that there are approximately 15 left nationally in a state where they can send two delegates to a national meeting, and those still seem to be in revolt. You aren't talking about "a certain turnover" but the near complete destruction of SWSS as it stood a year ago and an attempt to start, if not quite from scratch, then from some shattered remnants.
> 
> Now you might think that's necessary or that it's the least bad option, but you should at least be clear about what it means. Particularly given that the SWP has been largely built and reproduced through the continuous recruitment SWSS has provided.


 
I suspect next academic term the left unity/people's assembly student groups will be more prominent, there is already a L/U Westminster Uni group, having said that, apart from Sussex, student politics is marginal now, austerity is dominant...

http://www.facebook.com/swss.sheffield

btw, this dissident has three siblings in SWSS at various uni's, must have a pater in the SWP...


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That Sheffield SWSS status stream last night was indeed pretty weird. There's a pretty clear claim in it thought that there were a significant number of resignations in Sheffield last night.


 

"Last night we lost a large number of SWP members in Sheffield, in case you've not noticed we are in mourning."

from FB, do they mean SWP or SWSS?


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> "Last night we lost a large number of SWP members in Sheffield, in case you've not noticed we are in mourning."
> 
> from FB, do they mean SWP or SWSS?


 
SWSS I think


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

Left Unity website had 16'000 hits last night, I wonder how many the SWP's had, a party in rapid decline...

I gather the Loach film, Spirit of 45 is having quite an impact.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> I gather the Loach film, Spirit of 45 is having quite an impact.


 
I know there's absolutely no chance of getting it but I'd love to see some kind of analysis of who's going to see that film - if it's just the usual suspects then the impact will be minimal, other than maybe just offering a bit of motivation to people who might have fallen out of political activity. If it's attracting a wider audience it could be, as I think you're implying, quite significant. I suspect the former myself but then again I'm always very skeptical about these kinds of things.

I got into a bit of a discussion with Owen Jones on facebook the other day, I was explaining why I thought his peoples assemblies/left unity (or whatever it is the one he's involved in is called) looked destined to go the same way as coalition of resistance, unite the resistance, right to work, etc and I was saying that I thought you first needed a real base in w/c communities - community associations/Unite community type groups or whatever, on the back of which something like that could have a chance of success provided those groups were the ones who shaped its program, and so efforts are best put into that. He said he agreed that was the most important thing and that he spoke at a unite community meeting in Portsmouth. So I asked him if, since he was a local lad, he'd be willing to speak at a meeting in Sheffield - it would give us a massive boost just in terms of fund raising (all the students and m/c lefties would pay to hear him and we could let our members and the unwaged in for free) and we'd hopefully attract at least some people who wanted to get involved. That was when he stopped replying to me. I've asked him again, very politely, three times and he's still ignoring me. He was willing to reply to defend his baby but he's not willing to give me an answer to that - even though I said I'd understand if he couldn't. I suspect he doesn't want to do it cos he'd rather get the ego boost from a big assembly meeting but doesn't want to say cos that would look bad on him.

So if anyone gets into any kind of interractions with Owen Jones online if you ask that same question I'll be your bestest mate forever, especially if you actually manage to get an answer out of him!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> On the contrary the party didn't train them to be that way, it didn't do a very good job of challenging the training they were getting from their identity politics professors and mates. It needs to now, though clearly that's going to lead to a certain turnover.


 
It fucking did! From Stop the War ONWARDS the fucking bastard CC laid down the commands: Make a big thing about oppression - especially Muslims, cos they're super oppressed! Demand meetings be held in places with no alcohol so you don't offend Muslims - even if there are none! If people refuse to meet in "dry" meeting rooms, call them a racist! If anyone asks why you're so obsessed with Muslims, call them a racist! If anyone disagrees with you, call everybody a racist! If someone you dislike disagrees with a women over anything, even if you agree with them, call them a sexist! If someone talks about masculinity or feminity, call them a homophobe or a gender stalinist or whatever hip new term you read in the new statesmen. If you have a disagreement, don't get into a political discussion with them, pick an innocuous word and get FUCKING OFFENDED. Comrades - identity politics is here! Now we can get our own way by being hyper-offended by LITERALLY FUCKING ANYTHING!

You know what you did you bastard, what your party did, and we had to deal with it for fucking YEARS. You can reap what you damn well sow.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That Sheffield SWSS status stream last night was indeed pretty weird. There's a pretty clear claim in it thought that there were a significant number of resignations in Sheffield last night.



They are fucking weird to be fair. Like, really weird. I'm not gonna lie, the idea of them wanting to join our lot fills me with dread. Fortunately the identity politics which saturates them means they probably won't. Their only other discernible political traits are making incredibly old jokes about bacon whenever they see a copper, and sleeping in whenever there's a big demo on. A couple of them could be potentially useful, but the level of de-programming needed is mountainous. Dunno what they were like before the SWP but they're damaged goods now.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 28, 2013)

> To paraphrase Karl Marx on religion, the demand to abolish banking is a demand to abolish the state of affairs that needs banking.


So wrote Richard Seymour in an article in yesterday's _Guardian_. Pity it was SEYMOUR but it's not going to make him popular with those here who regard any talk of abolishing money and banking as wildly and hilariously utopian.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Of course there are circumstances which are none of our business. But it doesn't make you a bourgeois moralist to think what the hell is a 48 year old leader of a socialist organisation doing trying to go to bed with a 17 year old, and another teenager not much older.


I agree, but can you just for clarification. The second women you are referring to is not the women who made the second complaint, as she was not in her teens and never went to bed with Delta. So you then know of another teenager he had an affair with the women involved has made no compliant to the SWP? So there are now at least three women involved, although one of them has made no complaint?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Rubbish - you lot hid behind them for 2 decades - you did it on here, cheering on every islamophobe! sexist! smear against people that you disagreed with.
> 
> What this shows is two things. Firstly, that the _content_ of the smears are interchangeable - they can flip from being examples of identity politics to attacks on identity politics. The _model_ remains though- hysterical shouting by junior trots, stealthily directed by people like you. And secondly, the ownership of the _real politics_ of the SWP by an small core of longer term members who do hold the real positions, but are quite happy to have a wider membership who disagree with them on pretty much everything, even to encourage these disagreements as long as they can a) do the footwork b) pay for their jobs and c) make it look like the party is progressing rather than allowing people to to see the apolitcal hollowed out potemkin party based on covert accepted elitism that it really is.


The position was always more subtle than for or against identity politics per se. Resisting Islamophobia was one of the better things the SWP did in that period. But if you remember it actually meant pissing off a layer of people who had a problem with Islam's attitude to sex and gender. One of the first debates I remember having on here was about German's remark about there being no shibboleths in Respect, gay issues in particular. Standing with Muslims against the tide of shit being thrown at them meant not screaming at them at every opportunity about the treatment of women in Islam and making that a condition of working with them, a subtlety that would be lost on the current student opposition. The approach was fine, the problem was a section of the leadership - the all knowing leadership even! - went native in the anti war movement.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> "Jo C didn’t really contribute anything to the meeting. In fact, when an FE student made a contribution, instead of listening intently and trying to answer his question as best she could, she instead chose to heckle him. This was incredibly rude and inappropriate, not least because she’s a middle aged adult and the FE student is one of the youngest members of the organisation. When the same FE comrade asked for advice as to how we build in FE, he was told to “call a meeting” with no explanation as to how and with whom."
> 
> Oh dear, she was one of the better ones I recall...


Your memory is faulty.


----------



## emanymton (Mar 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The position was always more subtle than for or against identity politics per se. Resisting Islamophobia was one of the better things the SWP did in that period. But if you remember it actually meant pissing off a layer of people who had a problem with Islam's attitude to sex and gender. One of the first debates I remember having on here was about German's remark about there being no shibboleths in Respect, gay issues in particular. Standing with Muslims against the tide of shit being thrown at them meant not screaming at them at every opportunity about the treatment of women in Islam and making that a condition of working with them, a subtlety that would be lost on the current student opposition. The approach was fine, the problem was a section of the leadership - the all knowing leadership even! - went native in the anti war movement.


Don't really want to open the debate again but I thought the shibboleth thing was massively overblown. To me it was just restating the basic principle of solidarity like the old, old line about what do you do if you are on a picket line and someone makes a racist/sexist/homophobic remark, do you
A, ignore it
B, 'argue' about it but stay on the picket line 
C, Say you will not unite with them and leave the picket line. 
The best response is of course B, which is all I think Germany was saying, problem is she and the rest of the leadership tended to go for A in practice, which is probably what lead them to 'go native'


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 28, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think they should set up a temporary forum called the junta for an invited group of likeminded souls so they can come up with a genuinely democratic framework for internetz blogging


 
Perhaps some work on a Bill of Rights for board members and a watermark?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 28, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Andy Newman telling off South African dockworkers in refusing to unload high-tech weaponry from China to Harare, later sent by plane: “As i understand it, the dockers were following the pro-MDC position of South African leftists like Patrick Bond"


 
Inevitable and some would say timely intervention when you have reached the  world helicopter seat of being the fixtures secretary for Swindon Labour Party


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That Sheffield SWSS status stream last night was indeed pretty weird. There's a pretty clear claim in it thought that there were a significant number of resignations in Sheffield last night.


 
You really do need to get a girlfriend


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The position was always more subtle than for or against identity politics per se. Resisting Islamophobia was one of the better things the SWP did in that period. But if you remember it actually meant pissing off a layer of people who had a problem with Islam's attitude to sex and gender. One of the first debates I remember having on here was about German's remark about there being no shibboleths in Respect, gay issues in particular. Standing with Muslims against the tide of shit being thrown at them meant not screaming at them at every opportunity about the treatment of women in Islam and making that a condition of working with them, a subtlety that would be lost on the current student opposition.


 
Resisting Islamophobia while pissing on women and gays - nice work, and how very subtle!



bolshiebhoy said:


> The approach was fine, the problem was a section of the leadership - the all knowing leadership even! - went native in the anti war movement.


 
WTF does "went native" mean in this context?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Your memory is faulty.


 
A vile woman


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2013)

andysays said:


> Resisting Islamophobia while pissing on women and gays - nice work, and how very subtle!


 
More allegations from isolated branches?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> "Last night we lost a large number of SWP members in Sheffield, in case you've not noticed we are in morning."
> 
> from FB, do they mean SWP or SWSS?


corrected for you


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 28, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> So wrote Richard Seymour in an article in yesterday's _Guardian_. Pity it was SEYMOUR but it's not going to make him popular with those here who regard any talk of abolishing money and banking as wildly and hilariously utopian.


 
There's plenty of people here who want to abolish money and banking - me included. That's not what makes you a utopian. It's the idea that this can somehow happen overnight, with nothing in between what we have now and FULL COMMUNISM, if only we can persuade people of the need to do so that makes you a utopian.

Edit: fuck, I've bitten and now we're going to get another squeeby derail. I'll do it so that jean-luc doesn't have to - SPEW... reformists... NHS is a capitalist institution and so should not be supported... the personal is not political...


----------



## andysays (Mar 28, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> More allegations from isolated branches?


 
Figurative pissing, unless you know any different...


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 28, 2013)

Number of ex SWPs signing up to the Left Unity 'project' ( Socialist Unity Mark2)


----------



## dennisr (Mar 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Number of ex SWPs signing up to the Left Unity 'project' ( Socialist Unity Mark2)


yep, that was my thought too


----------



## J Ed (Mar 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The position was always more subtle than for or against identity politics per se. Resisting Islamophobia was one of the better things the SWP did in that period. But if you remember it actually meant pissing off a layer of people who had a problem with Islam's attitude to sex and gender. One of the first debates I remember having on here was about German's remark about there being no shibboleths in Respect, gay issues in particular. Standing with Muslims against the tide of shit being thrown at them meant not screaming at them at every opportunity about the treatment of women in Islam and making that a condition of working with them, a subtlety that would be lost on the current student opposition. The approach was fine, the problem was a section of the leadership - the all knowing leadership even! - went native in the anti war movement.


 
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=28464

"If you think Islamophobia is on a worrying rise in Europe, you should have seen the Egyptian Twitter-sphere during the week of the sit-in. Liberals and leftists were reacting in the most disgusting way."

The SWP label moderate Muslims who live in a Muslim country who do not want their country to turn into another Saudi Arabia Islamophobic. In 2012. Fucking insane.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Number of ex SWPs signing up to the Left Unity 'project' ( Socialist Unity Mark2)


 
One, two, many unities


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> There's plenty of people here who want to abolish money and banking - me included. That's not what makes you a utopian. It's the idea that this can somehow happen overnight, with nothing in between what we have now and FULL COMMUNISM, if only we can persuade people of the need to do so that makes you a utopian.
> 
> Edit: fuck, I've bitten and now we're going to get another squeeby derail. I'll do it so that jean-luc doesn't have to - SPEW... reformists... NHS is a capitalist institution and so should not be supported... the personal is not political...


You beat me to it, but that wasn't what I was going to reply (if only because I agree with SPEW's basic stance on the NHS cuts: leave it to the unions to organise the fight against them). I accept that this is not the place to discuss the views of other parties than the SWP and its dissidents. So it can't be a derail to discuss Seymour's political ideas. I don't know who this blogger from Ireland is but he seems to have got it right on this issue as well as Seymour.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 28, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> One, two, many unities





tony collins said:


> Its name does come from a time when there was an attempt to set up a "socialist unity network" of independent left wingers; so it's purely historical now - it doesn't have "unity" as a particular mission (cos what do we mean by "unity"? Whose? On what terms?).


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> One, two, many unities


 
where are you finding out about ex SWP joiníng LU?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> where are you finding out about ex SWP joiníng LU?


the interwebnet  where  you can find all the news that's fit to print, and then some.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> where are you finding out about ex SWP joiníng LU?


 
Somebody mentioned it in a post above


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I have no idea why she hasn't gone to the police. The point is there could be a myriad of reasons.
> 
> Also she hasn't gone to the press. Why are you just making things up? Why are you almost putting the blame on the woman who has made the rape allegation by saying she would know who the dipsutes committee was. This is bollocks. The SWP even said that if people knew the people involved they could step aside. One person who knew the woman chose to. Martin Smith's mates chose to stay on. This didn't have to happen. They could have found people in the SWP who, even if they knew him, weren't his mates. That shouldn't have been too hard.
> 
> ...


 the reason I am couching it in these terms "the self-interest of the party" "privacy of the party", is because people on here are couching it in those terms. You are saying, they are motivated ONLY by self-interest, cover-up. So I'm examining that. If they are really only motivated by self-interest, was it in their self-interest?

She added that she was coming forward two years later because she believes the SWP is a dangerous environment for women: "I want people to know it's a systemic thing. They've done this a few times, covered things up in the interests of the party and it's a dangerous environment to be in." You would have to be an idiot to believe cover-up is possible. More importantly, she had left the party, and not gone public. If self-interest was your only motivation, best leave it alone.
Everybody who was on that committee could be considered "his mates", couldn't they? Go through the list, and tell me which ones were acceptable. Pat Stack? Would even he have been acceptable to the Daily Mail, even though he disagreed with the conclusion of the committee? Anything that involved party members would be christened a kangaroo court by the Daily Mail, fact.
The disputes committee is elected, yes? How do you replace people, without electing them at National conference? You say they could have easily found people, but could they within the constitution? I don't think they could. But even if they could have done, would this have been acceptable, to do it non-democratically? You can't really complain about them being non-democratic, and then asked them to be non-democratic.

I asked this question at the beginning, and nobody has answered it in a way that satisfies me. They dumped John Rees. They dumped Lindsey German. Even dumped Martin Smith. So why not dump him earlier? If you really wanted to put the self-interest of the party first, dump him.
You say me and BB are typical. Well there is no way I would ever done a cover-up. EVEN FROM A POINT OF SELF INTEREST, it was absolutely the wrong thing to do. IF YOU want to put the interests of the party first, you don't do it in house. But more importantly, because you cannot be a socialist without gay rights, disabled rights, women's rights. It's completely and utterly an illogical contradiction.
Cover-up is completely and utterly illogical reason to do it in house, IMO there ARE other reasons why you would have done it in house. I would suggest them, but;


> it's because this has resulted from an organisation with stalinist methods and politics which seems to be degenerating more and more quickly. But it's political methods were always going to lead down a dead end, as their various dishonest front organisations show.


 okay, you are entitled to that point of view.


ETA I apologise, you are clearly right about me misrepresenting the woman in question going to the press.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the reason I am couching it in these terms "the self-interest of the party" "privacy of the party", is because people on here are couching it in that was terms.


perhaps you could write in english in the future instead of rmp3speak.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

rmp3 hasn't even got the right case in his quotes above. That's how seriously he's taking it.


----------



## belboid (Mar 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Well I never belboid. Our relations have become very frosty over recent weeks. One of us must be digging his heels in. I'm prepared to admit it might be me but are you by any chance being seduced by the ISN?


not particularly, bb. in case you hadn't noticed, i can be quite rude to most people, it means nothing more than 'i think the comment i was responding to was absolutely full of shit.' If you think you've been getting more than your deserved share of such comments, well, its probably because you are virtually the only person on the whole internetz making any kind of a job of defending the CC. MOst of the actual SWP members comments generally amount to no more than 'really good article.'

But that last comment was excessively crap even for a loyalist! 'A certain brand of feminist...' well, I could just as well say 'a certain brand of trotskyist is nothing more than a rape apologist' - it doesnt exactly get us anywhere does it? Its just an excuse not to (that horrible word!) engage with what the other person is saying. It amounts to a refusal to listen, which therefore makes the response worthless, as it is not a _reply_. Effectively you are saying it is _impossible_ for a member - even a very young member - to be bullied. Which is a bit crap, innit?

Cliff always used to say that the SWP was different to many of the other trot groups (he was thinking, I think of the WRP, RCP and overseas groups mainly) in that they liked to put up their flag and tell people to come rally round it, being proudest of their points of difference, whereas the SWP tried to build bridges to people, to find ways of working with them and convincing them in practice. Everything you are defending is the WRP/RCP methodology. Which failed, miserably and deservedly.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Wrong.
> 
> And what a thing to get wrong.
> 
> (Don't bother replying - just clearing that up for anyone left reading your posts)


She added that she was coming forward two years later because she believes the SWP is a dangerous environment for women: "I want people to know it's a systemic thing. They've done this a few times, covered things up in the interests of the party and it's a dangerous environment to be in."

I have miss read this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I have missed read this?


what did i say in #10808?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> rmp3 hasn't even got the right case in his quotes above. That's how seriously he's taking it.


 fair enough comment.  Haven't examined it as much as you have.  I will reread


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> the interwebnet  where you can find all the news that's fit to print, and then some.


 
I meant which site?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> I meant which site?


 this one


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Of course there are circumstances which are none of our business. But it doesn't make you a bourgeois moralist to think what the hell is a 48 year old leader of a socialist organisation doing trying to go to bed with a 17 year old, and another teenager not much older. Personally I think he is a tosser doing that behind his partners back as well, which I imagine must have been fairly humiliating. All in all it doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of him. Using your position as a political leader to sleep with young women, which is effectively what has happened, even in a best case scenario, is totally out of order in my view and he should be made to step down for that alone.
> 
> On a general point of age differences while I'm not saying it is always a problem, I think most parents would raise an eyebrow if their 17 year old daughter brought back a 48 bloke and said that this was their partner. I would sympathise with this, and wouldn't just denounce them as reactionaries. It might turn out that there is nothing wrong with it, but I can see at the very least why people might be concerned. At to that the power relation of someone in a teacher role, or a leader in a political orgnaisation and I can see why there would be even more concerns.
> 
> As for feeling passionate about it, the reason for this is the disgusting way in which the "loyalists" are treating the opposition. I think BB has been particuarly out of order for saying things like Delta should have kept his dick in his trousers, when there is a rape allegation. If this had been said by a leading Lib Dem then I can imagine what SWPers would have to say. There clearly is a problem with not just Delta, but the Sheffield case. To write all this off as "certain kinds of feminists" and write off bullying allegations without even knowing the facts shows someone that will blindly defend the leadership whatever they do.


this is why I raised Marx earlier.

You're raising the issue of denouncing parents as bourgeois, not me.

Purely on a personal basis, you can denounce things as much as you want, but you cannot expect me to live by your values. Regardless of the issues involved in this thread, no I would not denounce a 48-year-old going out with a 17-year-old in a consensual relationship.

I remember somebody who was gay, writing in the Guardian (I think the theme was about how a public gay kiss is always political). He said, 16 and 17-year-old lads going out looking for sex with older men, it was often the 16 to 17-year-old who was the predator. So who do we judge? I prefer to not judge either party in consensual sex.


----------



## treelover (Mar 28, 2013)

what has that giant bandwidth crunching image got to do with it, are you saying some young women are 'predators'


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> what has that giant bandwidth crunching image got to do with it, are you saying some young women are 'predators'


I was just wondering that myself.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 28, 2013)

And rmp3 manages to make the most astonishing post on the entire thread - those of you with him on ignore are really missing something special this time. Please don't reply to him though!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> what has that giant bandwidth crunching image got to do with it, are you saying some young women are 'predators'


not to mention that some of us are at work and that's not wholly worksafe.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And rmp3 manages to make the most astonishing post on the entire thread - those of you with him on ignore are really missing something special this time. Please don't reply to him though!


a real product of the SWP


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

dennisr said:


> a real product of the SWP


and not in a good way


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

> I would not denounce a 48-year-old going out with a 17-year-old in a consensual relationship.


 
really dude?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> really dude?


although would anyone really listen to a denunciation from rabidmp3?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> what has that giant bandwidth crunching image got to do with it, are you saying some young women are 'predators'


 OMG!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> although would anyone really listen to a denunciation from rabidmp3?


 angry?  Think you have me mixed up with the boss.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> OMG!


STFU


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> angry? Think you have me mixed up with the boss.


no, i am not confusing you with bruce springsteen.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

treelover said:


> what has that giant bandwidth crunching image got to do with it, are you saying some young women are 'predators'


 what do you think the woman means by the image?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> what do you think the woman means by the image?


what do YOU mean by it?


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what do YOU mean by it?


Yep. Her personal message is irrelevant. What's intended by using her image is what I'm curious about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yep. Her personal message is irrelevant. What's intended by using her image is what I'm curious about.


i place rmp3 in the same category of dubiousness as i do articul8 after rmp3's last few posts here.


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i place rmp3 in the same category of dubiousness as i do articul8 after rmp3's last few posts here.


Eyebrow raising.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

I think women have the right to be just as sexually active, predatory, liberated, whatever as men without that meaning "they are asking for it". I think that image is brilliant, because it spits in the face of bourgeois values that dictate what women should and should not be.

I have no idea of the relationship that took place between Carl Marx and his maid. I have no idea of the relationship that took place in this thread. But I'm not going to judge them relationships ONLY on the age difference. As long as they were consensual, it's not for me to judge.


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

She has complained of rape in a vastly unequal power relationship - let's not lose sight of that.


----------



## JimW (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> ...As long as they were consensual, it's not for me to judge.


You judge a million and one things on second and third hand reports - pretty much all your history for starters - but here where a reasonable look at the situation and power dynamics involved leads to the conclusion something was at very least not right you just can't draw a conclusion.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> She has complained of rape in a vastly unequal power relationship - let's not lose sight of that.


 you don't have to talk about every issue, in every post.  I was responding to one particular issue,


One_Stop_Shop said:


> Of course there are circumstances which are none of our business. But it doesn't make you a bourgeois moralist to think what the hell is a 48 year old leader of a socialist organisation doing trying to go to bed with a 17 year old, and another teenager not much older. Personally I think he is a tosser doing that behind his partners back as well, which I imagine must have been fairly humiliating. All in all it doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of him. Using your position as a political leader to sleep with young women, which is effectively what has happened, even in a best case scenario, *is totally out of order in my view and he should be made to step down for that alone.*


 there was a power relationship between married Karl Marx and his maid.  Does that mean you automatically judge him?


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 28, 2013)

just watched a news report about the  situation syrian women face in refugee camps facing it was alleged sexual exploitation by virtue of the disempowered position of them being displaced, in a camp in a war situation. Thanks to reading this thread i now realise that being concerned about such matters is merely bourgiouse morality at play....


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

JimW said:


> You judge a million and one things on second and third hand reports - pretty much all your history for starters - but here where a reasonable look at the situation and power dynamics involved leads to the conclusion something was at very least not right you just can't draw a conclusion.


 if you go back through the thread, you will see that October lost asked me why are brought in the issue of Karl Marx.  I am making a specific point, about a specific issue, of age different relationships.  That's it.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> just watched a news report about the situation syrian women face in refugee camps facing it was alleged sexual exploitation by virtue of the disempowered position of them being displaced, in a camp in a war situation. Thanks to reading this thread i now realise that being concerned about such matters is merely bourgiouse morality at play....


 so the SWP is now a refugee camp?  Fuck it.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you don't have to talk about every issue, in every post. I was responding to one particular issue,
> there was a power relationship between married Karl Marx and his maid. Does that mean you automatically judge him?


 
ehm yes. just because the guy wrote some pretty awesome critiques of capitalism doesnt mean that he wasnt abusing a position of power there. If a maths teacher teachers a pupil about pythagorus theorom well, the subject matter is in no way affected if they use the teacher/pupil relationship in a dodgy fashion following the exemplary lesson...


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

Bringing up Marx doesn't cut it with me, frankly. (@rmp3)


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> so the SWP is now a refugee camp? Fuck it.


 
nope just taking the piss out of the inference that what went on in the SWP can be constructed as an outcome of a liberatory discourse on sexuality rather than the predatory fucked up ness that it most likely was rape not withstanding....


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> Bringing up Marx doesn't cut it with me, frankly. (@rmp3)


it's not particularly that it is Marx, it's just a well-known example.  You could've took my early example of the young gay man claiming to be a predator of older men.  My single point is about, the age difference and doing it behind a wife's back, which October lost judged as enough to make him stand down.  But hey Ho.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> nope just taking the piss out of the inference that what went on in the SWP can be constructed as an outcome of a liberatory discourse on sexuality rather than the predatory fucked up ness that it most likely was rape not withstanding....


 your inference, not mine.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 28, 2013)

For fuck's sake, you lot made me curious enough to take him off ignore there. For a minute. Please don't do that again.


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it's not particularly that it is Marx, it's just a well-known example.  You could've took my early example of the young gay man claiming to be a predator of older men.  My single point is about, the age difference and doing it behind a wife's back, which October lost judged as enough to make him stand down.  But hey Ho.



I'm going to apologise in advance if I'm being a bit terse here. I'm coming down with a streaming cold which might account for my sense of humour failure yesterday. But I'm getting increasingly fucking annoyed by these distractions from the main point under discussion - which is the complaint of rape from a woman in an unequal power relationship & how that complaint (amongst similar complaints) has been fucking appalling dealt with by the SWP.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 28, 2013)

apologies for my shit reading then of
general defense of swp in all this matter +
post of remember that youngsters can be the predators of oldies (negating the problem of the power relationship of age and position that has been put forward about that situation) +
liberatory pic of young woman @ slutwalk
= "inference that what went on in the SWP can be constructed as an outcome of a liberatory discourse on sexuality"


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm going to apologise in advance if I'm being a bit terse here. I'm coming down with a streaming cold which might account for my sense of humour failure yesterday. But I'm getting increasingly fucking annoyed by these distractions from the main point under discussion - which is the complaint of rape from a woman in an unequal power relationship & how that complaint (amongst similar complaints) has been fucking appalling dealt with by the SWP.


as you were.


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> apologies for my shit reading then of
> general defense of swp in all this matter +
> post of remember that youngsters can be the predators of oldies (negating the problem of the power relationship of age and position that has been put forward about that situation) +
> liberatory pic of young woman @ slutwalk
> = "inference that what went on in the SWP can be constructed as an outcome of a liberatory discourse on sexuality"


Well, exactly. Your interpretation is how I'm perceiving this too. 

This isn't about hippy type free love discourse, it's about a fucking rape complaint.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> apologies for my shit reading then of
> general defense of swp in all this matter +
> post of remember that youngsters can be the predators of oldies (negating the problem of the power relationship of age and position that has been put forward about that situation) +
> liberatory pic of young woman @ slutwalk
> = "inference that what went on in the SWP can be constructed as an outcome of a liberatory discourse on sexuality"


 I think I've defended the ideas of the SWP, Trotskyism, Leninism, which is not the same thing as defending the organisation.
I made a response to a specific point made about age difference.  I suppose, if I had posted cartoons of dead Lenin I would have been more on topic. Hypocrisy.
If you look at the title, the topic of the thread is SWP squabbles and falling out.


Nigel Irritable said:


> There's been some discussion of the latest SWP rows and expulsions over on the Callinicos / Penny thread, but, it tended to get buried under mountains of hate directed at the "left" commentariat. So here's a thread to discuss expulsions and squabbles in one of Britain's main left wing groups.
> 
> The Weekly Worker (as always, caution advised) has an account of four people getting the boot in the run up to SWP conference. There's an amusingly Kafkaesque edge to it too. They were expelled for factionalism, seemingly as a result of facebook messages. But this happened during the "pre-conference period", where for a few months a year, SWP members are supposed by allowed to form factions. The problem is though that to gain factional rights, you need 30 signatories... but to gather those 30 signatories you have to engage in what the Central Committee considers "factionalism". Which is an expellable offence.
> 
> ...


 
Your inference, not mine.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> Well, exactly. Your interpretation is how I'm perceiving this too.
> 
> This isn't about hippy type free love discourse, it's about a fucking rape complaint.


is it?  I thought it was about the death of Leninism?  How this was a natural conclusion, of the Stalinist structures in the SWP.

I have actually chose not to defend the SWP on this issue.  That they have done something wrong, doesn't make misrepresenting them, and their politics, right.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 28, 2013)

fair enough rmp3 - it does come accross that way...


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> is it?  I thought it was about the death of Leninism?  How this was a natural conclusion, of the Stalinist structures in the SWP.
> 
> I have actually chose not to defend the SWP on this issue.  That they have done something wrong, doesn't make misrepresenting them, and their politics, right.


No, it's not about the death of Leninism. It's about "SWP expulsions and squabbles" most recently about the latest expulsions/squabbles which are rooted in these sexual abuse allegations.

Leninism is probably at the same stage as Lenin himself. Embalmed and slowly decaying.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> fair enough rmp3 - it does come accross that way...


 no worries.  It's no consequence.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> No, it's not about the death of Leninism. It's about "SWP expulsions and squabbles" most recently about the latest expulsions/squabbles which are rooted in these sexual abuse allegations.


 is it not!




> Leninism is probably at the same stage as Lenin himself. Embalmed and slowly decaying.


 thank God for that! Back on topic.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

Go on, fill your boots.  Enjoy the demise.  But don't forget the important job, do something that can truly wash away the muck of ages.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I made a response to a specific point made about age difference.


 
That didn't seem to even consider the emotional aspects of that difference in power and experience, and the potential for that to be exploitative and abusive when taking place within a hierarchical organisation, the maintenance of which relies in part on the charisma of the leadership.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> That didn't seem to even consider the emotional aspects of that difference in power and experience, and the potential for that to be exploitative and abusive when taking place within a hierarchical organisation, the maintenance of which relies in part on the charisma of the leadership.


 you're right it didn't.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm going to apologise in advance if I'm being a bit terse here. I'm coming down with a streaming cold which might account for my sense of humour failure yesterday. But I'm getting increasingly fucking annoyed by these distractions from the main point under discussion - which is the complaint of rape from a woman in an unequal power relationship & how that complaint (amongst similar complaints) has been fucking appalling dealt with by the SWP.


 no need to apologise, as long as you are equally terse with other people who wander off what you claim is the 'main' topic.  Seems like you will have an awful lot of being terse, to do.  Every topic under the sun has been raised so far.



leyton96 said:


> It really does underline that for all the talk about an "IS Tradition" from both camps the reality is that there is no such thing as an IS Tradition. For sure, there is acres of print down through the decades purporting to be IS theory but when you look at the various twists and turns the British SWP have taken during the same time you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of continuity.
> 
> So the IS Tradition is neutral in a conflict between "state capitalist" North Korea and American Imperialism, then it is pro "state capitalist" North Vietnam a decade later. Then in the '80's it backs reactionary Islamic jihadists against the "state capitalist" USSR.
> 
> ...


 did I miss you getting terse at this Post?  Alleged Rape not even mentioned.


----------



## sihhi (Mar 28, 2013)

Topics have been raised since the importance of _retaining the IS tradition_ by undemocratically rigging the second conference was defended.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> *Bringing up Marx* doesn't cut it with me, frankly. (@rmp3)


 

c'mon, It's easter.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Mar 28, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> a hierarchical organisation, the maintenance of which relies in part on the charisma of the leadership.



 you just cannot resist can you?  Even when you want to pretend you're all morally outraged, rather than gleefully twisting the knife.

Whatever.  So what you gonna do now?


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

I get a sense you're creeping feminism now, Red Cat


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you just cannot resist can you? Even when you want to pretend you're all morally outraged, rather than gleefully twisting the knife.
> 
> Whatever. So what you gonna do now?


 

Theres a rule right, its a made up rule called 'half your age plus 7' Thats the generally accepted definition of how much you can cradle snatch. 47-17 is not in that scale....is it bourgois morality to point out how skewed things would be in such a relationship?


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> c'mon, It's easter.


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

Pisses me off that the SWP think they're leading the working class. If the SWP go under because of this, the working class won't notice.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And rmp3 manages to make the most astonishing post on the entire thread - those of you with him on ignore are really missing something special this time. Please don't reply to him though!


Oh christ not the best of moves was it. People arguing what he and I are aguing don't need hostages to fortune like that. There is someting very dubious about that particular form of protest (why are they always attractive and slim for a start!) but there's something even worse about male socialists sharing it with everyone.


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh christ not the best of moves was it. People arguing what he and I are aguing don't need hostages to fortune like that. There is someting very dubious about that particular form of protest (why are they always attractive and slim for a start!) but there's something even worse about male socialists sharing it with everyone.



Ugh.


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

"Why are they* always attractive and slim for a start"

* the superfluous earlier image from rmp3

Proper skin crawling stuff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> Pisses me off that the SWP think they're leading the working class. If the SWP go under because of this, the working class won't notice.


 

Its part of the schtick to imagine relevancy. When talking to mate on this one when I've said 'you know the SWP sort of held a rape trial?' the question hasn't been 'how the fuck did they think that was a good idea' but 'who are the SWP'


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Its part of the schtick to imagine relevancy. When talking to mate on this one when I've said 'you know the SWP sort of held a rape trial?' the question hasn't been 'how the fuck did they think that was a good idea' but 'who are the SWP'


Exactly. The leather elbow patches might be weeping but no-one else gives a toss.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 28, 2013)

belboid said:


> not particularly, bb. in case you hadn't noticed, i can be quite rude to most people, it means nothing more than 'i think the comment i was responding to was absolutely full of shit.' If you think you've been getting more than your deserved share of such comments, well, its probably because you are virtually the only person on the whole internetz making any kind of a job of defending the CC. MOst of the actual SWP members comments generally amount to no more than 'really good article.'
> 
> But that last comment was excessively crap even for a loyalist! 'A certain brand of feminist...' well, I could just as well say 'a certain brand of trotskyist is nothing more than a rape apologist' - it doesnt exactly get us anywhere does it? Its just an excuse not to (that horrible word!) engage with what the other person is saying. It amounts to a refusal to listen, which therefore makes the response worthless, as it is not a _reply_. Effectively you are saying it is _impossible_ for a member - even a very young member - to be bullied. Which is a bit crap, innit?
> 
> Cliff always used to say that the SWP was different to many of the other trot groups (he was thinking, I think of the WRP, RCP and overseas groups mainly) in that they liked to put up their flag and tell people to come rally round it, being proudest of their points of difference, whereas the SWP tried to build bridges to people, to find ways of working with them and convincing them in practice. Everything you are defending is the WRP/RCP methodology. Which failed, miserably and deservedly.


Yeah fair enough fella. You are like that when you see it that way and I was probably trying too hard. But this stream of 'someone said something so it must be true to some extent' stories is wearing me down. There's nothing can be done to defend against them cause they're so non specific.

I agree about Cliff and his ability to embrace difference. EXCEPT when he saw his side as under existential threat or even just under attack from people who know enough to know better. Which arguably applies to most of the opposition making willful and totally calculated concessions to politics they know are in competition with their own. My first ever encounter with the man was in a lift when he realised I was a member of the Irish org that was disagreeing with his and the swp cc's characterisation of the Iran-Iraq war at the time. "So comrade" he said to me as I cowered behind Bambery I think, "how do you feel about being objectively a Contra in this war? You have no understanding of the balance of forces." I didn't feel very embraced. Shell shocked actually. Though it was in no way bullying, if I was big and ugly enough to say my piece at the meeting we'd just been at, I had no reason to complain about him arguing me into a corner. Today I'm pretty sure he'd be encouraging Sheila McGregor to write the no doubt very polemical piece for the ISJ she is apparently preparing now concerning Vogel, Gimenez and the other 'Marxist Feminists' beloved of Bakan-Seymour.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 28, 2013)

Even my fucking mother the Unison rep was like 'oh the SWP didn't they come to that uni protest?'

'No mum thats the SP. Rach is a member. You know her'

'Whats the difference?'

hienze 5 fucking 7


----------



## Belushi (Mar 28, 2013)

This is why we desperately need a trot family tree


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Even my fucking mother the Unison rep was like 'oh the SWP didn't they come to that uni protest?'
> 
> 'No mum thats the SP. Rach is a member. You know her'
> 
> ...



Unison are complete fucking cunts, as well now, tbf.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> "Why are they* always attractive and slim for a start"
> 
> * the superfluous earlier image from rmp3
> 
> Proper skin crawling stuff.


Yeah the movitation for sharing it is something I don't get. You can make a point about young people being sexually aggressive without playing to peoples prurience.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 28, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you just cannot resist can you? Even when you want to pretend you're all morally outraged, rather than gleefully twisting the knife.
> 
> Whatever. So what you gonna do now?


 

Is this a plural you in which you're sticking me into some group that I don't belong to? Because I think you must have mistaken me for someone else. I'm neither pretending or gleeful; I find the whole thing disturbing and sad. 

I don't know why you're grinning in that way and assuming that the bit that you quote is necessarily a putting the knife in rather than an observation. The SWP is a hierarchical organisation that has people with powerful personalities in leadership positions. Are you disputing that?


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 28, 2013)

cesare said:


> I get a sense you're creeping feminism now, Red Cat


 
Stealth feminist.


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yeah the movitation for sharing it is something I don't get. You can make a point about young people being sexually aggressive without playing to peoples prurience.


Why make or reinforce a point about young people's sexuality in the context of a rape allegation?


----------



## cesare (Mar 28, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Stealth feminist.


I don"t know about you, but this "creeping feminism" shit when women pull them up on how they've dealt with this, really pisses me off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2013)

Belushi said:


> This is why we desperately need a trot hanging tree


Corrected for you


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 28, 2013)

Steve Hedley has released a public statement in reply to the allegations from Caroline Leneghan
http://stevenhedley.wordpress.com/


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 28, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Steve Hedley has released a public statement in reply to the allegations from Caroline Leneghan
> http://stevenhedley.wordpress.com/


That statement is a car crash of epic proportions. When in a hole that deep buying a bigger shovel is not the solution.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 28, 2013)

I really don't know what to think about that but I do know it makes me feel very, very uncomfortable.

There's always the possibility that he's telling the truth but if he is then we've got a woman with a horrible illness having said horrible illness discussed (and it will be) online and irl. And if he isn't, well...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 28, 2013)

i've been a bit disappointed by some of the reactions of people i know in the sp over this i have to say.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 28, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i've been a bit disappointed by some of the reactions of people i know in the sp over this i have to say.


 
What's been said?


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 28, 2013)

To be honest I don't really know what to make of it either. I just thought since Caroline had had the opportunity to circulate her side of the story quite widely it would only be fair to do the same for Steve Hedley.
I'm not surprised people feel a bit uncomfortable reading it, for all sorts of reasons, so do I. I suppose it goes to show these things are never straight forward.
The fact that the RMT have said he has no case to answer is significant I think.


----------



## laptop (Mar 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> There's always the possibility that he's telling the truth


 
That'd be quite easy for the police to check, wouldn't it?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What's been said?


 
check PMs mate


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 29, 2013)

laptop said:


> That'd be quite easy for the police to check, wouldn't it?


How would the police do that? Steve Hedley hasn't made any complaint to them. All we know is that Caroline Leneghan made a complaint to the police but they chose not to pursue the case although the reasons they chose to not to do so is disputed by the two parties.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

laptop said:


> That'd be quite easy for the police to check, wouldn't it?


 
You'd have thought so. And the police apparently did clear him. But this isn't a police statement, it's his statement so we don't know whether the things he says have been seen by the police have been seen by the police, if you get what I mean. I'm just very reluctant to jump to any kind of conclusions on this.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You'd have thought so. And the police apparently did clear him. But this isn't a police statement, it's his statement so we don't know whether the things he says have been seen by the police have been seen by the police, if you get what I mean. I'm just very reluctant to jump to any kind of conclusions on this.


 
I think you are right to be cautious in your judgements, I am too. As far as the police checking things Steve Hedley does say in his statement:

[QUOTEThe police questioned me investigated the allegation thoroughly, had the case reviewed by a senior officer and took No Further Action.
Ms Leneghan also made a complaint to my employer the RMT trade union which has carried out an exhaustive investigation and found that I had “no case to answer”. During both investigations I provided hundreds of texts and emails that showed that Caroline Leneghan had been abusive to and assaulted me on several occasions.[/QUOTE]
So it seems he did provide evidence to the police for them to investigate. Although we can't know for definite if this proves Steve's case I think it's reasonable to infer that neither the police or the RMT investigative panel had a major problem with the evidence Steve Hedley says he presented showing that Caroline Leneghan engaged in abusive behaviour.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> Exactly. The leather elbow patches might be weeping but no-one else gives a toss.


 
more the brown leather jacket...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2013)

I wouldn't go quite that far, leyton96. Neither of those bodies presumably looked into that issue. They looked into the allegations against Steve Hedley, in the case of the police deciding not to prosecute and in the case of the RMT apparently coming to the conclusion that he had no case to answer. That's not quite the same as either necessarily deciding in favour of his counter-allegations. As people with no knowledge of the situation outside of the public statements of the two individuals and the decisions of the police and RMT, we should be very careful about assuming things.

A decision not to pursue allegations against one party (in this case by two investigating bodies) isn't the same as a decision that allegations against the other party are true. Those would have to be investigated separately and appropriately before anyone can assume their accuracy.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I wouldn't go quite that far, leyton96. Neither of those bodies presumably looked into that issue. They looked into the allegations against Steve Hedley, in the case of the police deciding not to prosecute and in the case of the RMT apparently coming to the conclusion that he had no case to answer. That's not quite the same as either necessarily deciding in favour of his counter-allegations. As people with no knowledge of the situation outside of the public statements of the two individuals and the decisions of the police and RMT, we should be very careful about assuming things.
> 
> A decision not to pursue allegations against one party (in this case by two investigating bodies) isn't the same as a decision that allegations against the other party are true. Those would have to be investigated separately and appropriately before anyone can assume their accuracy.


 
You have misunderstood me. I made no claim as to the truth of Caroline or Steve's claims. I think that is pretty clear from what I wrote. I simply pointed out that Steve Hedley claims he has presented evidence of abuse to both the police and the RMT and as far as we know, neither body found flaws in what was presented.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> You have misunderstood me. I made no claim as to the truth of Caroline or Steve's claims. I think that is pretty clear from what I wrote. I simply pointed out that Steve Hedley claims he has presented evidence of abuse to both the police and the RMT and as far as we know, neither body found flaws in what was presented.


 
This is what I was getting at when I implied that if he's not telling the truth with some of his claims he could come badly unstuck - the people who did the RMT investigation are bound to see it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> Why make or reinforce a point about young people's sexuality in the context of a rape allegation?


You shouldn't in response to a rape allegation no. That needs treating with the utmost seriousness on simple questions of fact. But when people are making wider arguments, which they have been, that all relationships between young women and older men are oppressive and predatory it is worth pointing out that not all young people are sexually passive or immature. What wasn't helpful was illustrating the point with a picture which lets people claim you're dodgy. I don't often agree with pickman but when the picture ain't really work safe you need to think twice about the impression you're creating.


----------



## cesare (Mar 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You shouldn't in response to a rape allegation no. That needs treating with the utmost seriousness on simple questions of fact. But when people are making wider arguments, which they have been, that all relationships between young women and older men are oppressive and predatory it is worth pointing out that not all young people are sexually passive or immature. What wasn't helpful was illustrating the point with a picture which leaves you open to the claim that you're a perv. I don't often agree with pickman but when the picture ain't really work safe you need to think twice about the impression you're creating.



People weren't making the argument that "all relationships between young women and older men are oppressive and predatory". They were making an argument about power dynamics and the potential to abuse the power inherent in such relationships.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> People weren't making the argument that "all relationships between young women and older men are oppressive and predatory". They were making an argument about power dynamics and the potential to abuse the power inherent in such relationships.


Many were but at times the argument did stray into the all such relationships territory. Some relationships are definitely inappropriate, that I agree with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2013)

Note to self: never post when half awake


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Many were but at times the argument did stray into the all such relationships territory. Some relationships are definitely inappropriate, that I agree with.


 

Not relationships between young women and older men per se but between a 17 year old and a near 50 year old.


And I think concerns have to be seen in the context of the greater knowledge we have these days about child sexual abuse and the effect that has on a young person's sexuality. Current stats are 1 in 4 people experience some kind of sexual abuse in childhood. This sometimes results in sexually promiscous and risk taking behaviour in teens.

This d_oesn't_ mean that I would always consider such an age difference to be a fucked up thing but I think we need to be aware of such contexts if we're in leadership positions of hierarchical organisations that are exciting for young people to be involved in. If I, a 42 year old, wanted to have sex with a 17 year old boy so bad that I actually considered doing something about it I'd be really worried about myself. If a 17 year old pursued me I'd be wondering what that was about too. This is about having an awareness of the emotional and unconscious aspects of sex and relationships rather than either assuming that large age difference = bad or conversely that active sexuality  = good.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2013)

...


----------



## discokermit (Mar 29, 2013)

the sheffield resignations, http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/resignations-from-sheffield-swp.html


this bit shows the degeneracy and sectarianism of the cc faction,

*_The final point, for those who are unaware, is in reference to the Unison women’s statement _
_The CC were informed about the statement published, and about several comrades being approached to sign it. In response, the CC proposed the following amendments (highlighted in bold): _
_“We recognise the enormous challenges faced by women victims of male violence, and the pressures which women face, including from abusive men, not to complain about violence and abuse. We therefore believe that, when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of believing women *but without making presumptions about guilt or innocence*." _
_"We believe that all women who complain of male violence have the right to be listened to and supported, *and to have their complaints properly and sympathetically investigated through due process* .” _
_The amendments were immediately rejected with comments attacking the Party. _
_The CC position then became that no comrade should sign the statement. _


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2013)

jesus.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> People weren't making the argument that "all relationships between young women and older men are oppressive and predatory". They were making an argument about power dynamics and the potential to abuse the power inherent in such relationships.


 
Exactly. RMP3, as seems the way he is, was totally disingenuous. I was pointing out that given the large age gap, there could well be issues, and the age difference/the younger person being 17 isn't irrelevant. Indeed for leading SWP members to say it is irrelevant is a madness. If someone was 25 and 55 I would have no issue, but there clearly could be issues with someone being a teenager, and the other person being nearly 50. Add to this the difference in one person being in a role such as a teacher or political leader and it adds a further dynamic.

By the way in reply to emanyton earlier I was told the second allegation against Martin Smith of sexual harassment was also from someone a lot younger. If that wasn't the case, fair enough, but doesn't change the general issue.

RMP3 you appear to be getting several cases mixed up.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 29, 2013)

I think people should be very careful with the Steve Hedley case in terms of the allegations and counter allegations, and even thought I feel quite strongly about it, I won't.

But what is a fact is that on an open facebook group he made comments to a young woman stating that she needed to go out and get herself a partner, then telling her the reason she hasn't got one is that she looks like a bulldog being swamped by a wasp and that he couldn't tell whether she was a man or woman from her picture. He also commented on her mental health issues. The fact that he made such totally sexist and misogynistic comments isn't in dispute, there are screen shots.

If a deputy general secretary made openly racist comments then I'm sure they would be removed from their post. What is the difference with totally sexist and misogynistic comments? It makes it even worse that he is a long standing socialist.


----------



## cesare (Mar 29, 2013)

It's possible to express sexist views AND be a victim of DV of course. But yes, it's a standing point about tolerance of that kind of Facebook behaviour by his employer.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's possible to express sexist views AND be a victim of DV of course. But yes, it's a standing point about tolerance of that kind of Facebook behaviour by his employer.


 
I hope my post wasn't in any way conflating the two, it certainly wasn't meant to. I don't want to comment on the allegations about Steve Hedley for various reasons.

The facebook comments are totally seperate and I think they are fair enough to comment on.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 29, 2013)

Sheffield SWSS students have formed http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/UniOfSheffRevsoc?notif_t=fbpage_fan_invite - hopefully that's enough of a distraction to keep some of the more obnoxious ones away from important adult things...


----------



## discokermit (Mar 29, 2013)

J Ed said:


> hopefully that's enough of a distraction to keep some of the more obnoxious ones away from important adult things...


twat.


----------



## andysays (Mar 29, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Exactly. RMP3, as seems the way he is, was totally disingenuous... ...RMP3 you appear to be getting several cases mixed up.


 
To be fair to RMP3 (not something I thought I'd be writing!) there are quite a few cases coming out now, so perhaps it's not surprising that he's mixing them up.

But seriously, yes, he is being totally disingenuous. If it were just the age difference, perhaps some of his arguments excuses might hold up, but there's also the fact that Smith was in a position of leadership/authority, the fact that it was secret because Smith was ostensibly in a long-term relationship with someone else, and the fact (and this is relevant whether we like it or not) that there is always potentially a power imbalance between a man and a woman, even if all else is equal (which in this case it's clearly not).

That's before we even start on what happen once W went to the Party, and before we consider the nature and character of Smith himself, who many sources describe as an aggressive bully.

Adding it all together, dismissing this by attempting to argue that criticising a relationship between two people of such different ages is an indication of bourgeois morality is fucking ludicrous.


----------



## cesare (Mar 29, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I hope my post wasn't in any way conflating the two, it certainly wasn't meant to. I don't want to comment on the allegations about Steve Hedley for various reasons.
> 
> The facebook comments are totally seperate and I think they are fair enough to comment on.


Apologies, yes you did take care to keep them separate. But if his Facebook behaviour is typical, it can be quite easy to regard his statement with a pinch of salt. I just thought it worth making the point.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 29, 2013)

discokermit said:


> twat.


 
Sheffield SWSS have been very good during all of this, it doesn't make a good percentage of their members any less obnoxious.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 29, 2013)

fuck off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> apologies for my shit reading then of
> general defense of swp in all this matter +
> post of remember that youngsters can be the predators of oldies (negating the problem of the power relationship of age and position that has been put forward about that situation) +
> liberatory pic of young woman @ slutwalk
> = "inference that what went on in the SWP can be constructed as an outcome of a liberatory discourse on sexuality"


 
Even though you've laid it all about before him exactly the narrative he's constructed, he'll still deny it. He *always* denies it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> Well, exactly. Your interpretation is how I'm perceiving this too.
> 
> This isn't about hippy type free love discourse, it's about a fucking rape complaint.


 
And about, let us not forget, about harrassment and misuse of position both pre- and post-alleged sex offence.

What riles me is that when I knew Smith (from union seminars etc) as a union rep more than 20 years ago, he was an unreconstructed "lady's man" type who was never able to subliminate that behind his politics. The bloke would ask women for a date repeatedly until they "gave in". Perhaps he's changed since then.
I'm not saying this is indicative of a rapist, but it was certainly indicative of an inability to appreciate boundaries.


----------



## cesare (Mar 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And about, let us not forget, about harrassment and misuse of position both pre- and post-alleged sex offence.
> 
> What riles me is that when I knew Smith (from union seminars etc) as a union rep more than 20 years ago, he was an unreconstructed "lady's man" type who was never able to subliminate that behind his politics. The bloke would ask women for a date repeatedly until they "gave in". Perhaps he's changed since then.
> I'm not saying this is indicative of a rapist, but it was certainly indicative of an inability to appreciate boundaries.


There's a very fine line between persistence and harassment, and one that might not be obvious to someone lacking in judgment.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

J ed is right, you know. Some of them are completely and utterly insufferable. But on the other hand there's some of them, especially a couple of their Fe students, who I really rate as activists and whose stand over this has earned my respect, especially as its led to them being smeared as identity politickers (see bbs posts to see how this is done) even though they're.nothing of the sort. It would be a great shame if this ended up pulling them away from more 'adult' things. 

The worst of the lot, someone who's a complete liability to have involved in anything due to his constant desire to look all hard and wadical is in fact a hardened loyalist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Its part of the schtick to imagine relevancy. When talking to mate on this one when I've said 'you know the SWP sort of held a rape trial?' the question hasn't been 'how the fuck did they think that was a good idea' but 'who are the SWP'


 
It's a good question. 

Personally, when the relevance of the SWP comes up, I always think back to the 1980s, a saturday morning, walking past Woolies in Clapham Junction, where the leaflet stall would be set up and the paper-sellers would gather, and the question "have you heard of a man called Trotsky?" would be asked.
My favourite reply was from a crusty old Polish bloke (prewar Polish communist who fled here in the '30s) off my estate who said "yes, and he'd string you lot up with your own entrails!".
Lovely bloke, and repairer of many bicycles for neighbourhood kids.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Stealth feminist.


 
Does that mean you're invisible to radar?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> I don"t know about you, but this "creeping feminism" shit when women pull them up on how they've dealt with this, really pisses me off.


 
You're questioning the hegemonic narrative. How else will those in power react, other than to imply that you're somehow beyond the pale/politically unreliable/sectarian?


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the sheffield resignations, http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/resignations-from-sheffield-swp.html
> 
> 
> this bit shows the degeneracy and sectarianism of the cc faction,
> ...


 


none of the usual suspects on the resignation letter...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> There's a very fine line between persistence and harassment, and one that might not be obvious to someone lacking in judgment.


 
Even someone who, as a union rep, is likely to have dealt with many complaints on the subject of sexual harrassment? See, this is where I keep getting stuck - how can someone who's had to deal with such situations in the workplace be *that* lacking in judgement? Is it reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt because they've been out of that situation for a while and have been an SWP fulltimer?


----------



## cesare (Mar 29, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Even someone who, as a union rep, is likely to have dealt with many complaints on the subject of sexual harrassment? See, this is where I keep getting stuck - how can someone who's had to deal with such situations in the workplace be *that* lacking in judgement? Is it reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt because they've been out of that situation for a while and have been an SWP fulltimer?


How long was he a union rep for/until btw?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 29, 2013)

cesare said:


> How long was he a union rep for/until btw?


 
Not sure. I was a CPSA rep from '88-'94-ish, and I don't remember *not* seeing him at training days etc, so probably at least 5 years, although I may just have not noticed him (I was often busy being a swot and taking notes  ).


----------



## laptop (Mar 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> if [Hedley is] not telling the truth with some of his claims he could come badly unstuck


 
This is what I was referring to when I said some of his claims are easily checkable (at least by the police).


----------



## J Ed (Mar 29, 2013)

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/iso/ist.html this is brilliant


----------



## laptop (Mar 29, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.angelfire.com/journal/iso/ist.html this is brilliant


 
Beyond satire:



> ... The leaderships of the SWP and of other groups were accused of 'technophobia' and a desire to suppress debate.
> 
> The Central Committee has decided that members of the SWP should not use the IS-List. This is not intended as a blanket ban on comrades' communicating by e-mail...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

Was 1995 before or after the CC started steering the party on a path that deviated from the IS tradition?


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 29, 2013)

On the Steve Hedley thing: As with everyone else I don't feel that it is my place to make assumptions about the allegations being true or false.
I was just a bit peeved with how he put assault in speech marks. He (I think) is saying that the allegations are false, rather than saying that he did do it but there's been an overreaction. I know it's most likely that I'm reading way to much into it, and that he's probably just saying it to emphasise everything else he's said, but it really irks me when put into context with with what was apparently said on Facebook. Then again, I haven't come across evidence of him saying stuff on Facebook, and am just going on the word of people who I have no reason to distrust.

To be honest I feel uncomfortable dissecting anything that's been said about this situation, but this kind of thing happens a lot on the internet and it's really getting to me (see: Julian Assange)

The quote I was talking about:



> Firstly she said she had no photographic evidence of the alleged “assault” saying that it had been deleted and only laterproduced some very dubious and undated pictures more than a yearafter the event claiming to show her injuries.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> On the Steve Hedley thing: As with everyone else I don't feel that it is my place to make assumptions about the allegations being true or false.
> I was just a bit peeved with how he put assault in speech marks. He (I think) is saying that the allegations are false, rather than saying that he did do it but there's been an overreaction. I know it's most likely that I'm reading way to much into it, and that he's probably just saying it to emphasise everything else he's said, but it really irks me when put into context with with what was apparently said on Facebook. Then again, I haven't come across evidence of him saying stuff on Facebook, and am just going on the word of people who I have no reason to distrust.
> 
> To be honest I feel uncomfortable dissecting anything that's been said about this situation, but this kind of thing happens a lot on the internet and it's really getting to me (see: Julian Assange)
> ...


 
How's your progress on the Laurie Penny thread going?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 29, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> I know it's most likely that I'm reading way to much into it, and that he's probably just saying it to emphasise everything else he's said, but it really irks me when put into context with with what was apparently said on Facebook


 
"What was apparently said on Facebook" was One Stop Shop showing that he has no sense of proportion, or indeed sense full stop. Whether or not someone has been an arsehole in a facebook row has nothing at all to do with actually important allegations. In fact, it trivialises the actually important issues to mix that sort of shit in.


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> How's your progress on the Laurie Penny thread going?


 
Having a break now at page 355, I'm off on holiday over the Easter and reading a derail on Trade Unions or childcare isn't my main priority right now


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "What was apparently said on Facebook" was One Stop Shop showing that he has no sense of proportion, or indeed sense full stop. Whether or not someone has been an arsehole in a facebook row has nothing at all to do with actually important allegations. In fact, it trivialises the actually important issues to mix that sort of shit in.


 
I'm trying not to mix the allegations - but if someone working for a trade union is making openly misogynistic comments then people, particularly women are going to lose faith in it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Having a break now at page 355, I'm off on holiday over the Easter and reading a derail on Trade Unions or childcare isn't my main priority right now


 
This is the problem with the left these days - no fucking stamina


----------



## muscovyduck (Mar 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is the problem with the left these days - no fucking stamina


Did I read more or less than Laurie Penny though, that is the question


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Did I read more or less than Laurie Penny though, that is the question


 
Laurie doesn't read the thread, the thread reads Laurie!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Laurie doesn't read the thread, the thread reads Laurie!


 

in sovt internet thread reads you


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "What was apparently said on Facebook" was One Stop Shop showing that he has no sense of proportion, or indeed sense full stop. Whether or not someone has been an arsehole in a facebook row has nothing at all to do with actually important allegations. In fact, it trivialises the actually important issues to mix that sort of shit in.



Except of course just a few posts back I made it clear I wasn't conflating the two things, something that seemed clear to other posters.

It wasn't apparently said on facebook, it was sent on Facebook, and I've sent the quotes to SP members on here. And given he is the deputy general secretary of the RMT I think it's fair enough to comment on. I'm sure if a Lib Dem or Tory MP had made those comments most on the left would be condemning them and saying they should step down.

It wasn't Steve Hedley just being an arsehole on Facebook was it. It was him making vile sexist and misogynistic comments to a young woman on Facebook and by you commenting that this was just a spat on Facebook with him being an arsehole it is trivialising it. There is no reason this shouldn't be commented on entirely separately from the other case.


----------



## SLK (Mar 30, 2013)

Had a not-fraternal conversation with Yunus Bakhsh on facebook this evening. He's sorry I don't like democracy (and when challenged said he's not talking about it) He then lined me up with the Daily Mail and Nick Cohen. He didn't argue, just informed me I should not contact him again.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Laurie doesn't read the thread, the thread reads Laurie!


fuck off, ya post-modernist twat


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 30, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Except of course just a few posts back I made it clear I wasn't conflating the two things... There is no reason this shouldn't be commented on entirely separately from the other case.


 
Then go and start a sexist gobshitery on facebook thread rather than raising it here, in a thread about much more serious issues.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> check PMs mate



PM me too?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 30, 2013)

http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-social-project-strategy.html

Firebox with free handouts


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

From someone at the Glasgow bedroom tax demo.



> Got roughed up by SWP heavies for calling out their speaker Dave Sherry as a rape apologist. 2 guys tried to remove me from #*bedroomtax* demo
> *Expand*
> 
> *Reply*
> ...


 
And they were aided by a Solidarity member as well.... Classy....


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

And to add to the irony they threatened to get the police in to arrest the hecklers..... Bourgeois legal system eh??


----------



## J Ed (Mar 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-social-project-strategy.html
> 
> Firebox with free handouts


 
I've actually been thinking about this recently, and what relationship people on the left should have with food banks. Obviously they should be completely unnecessary, but while they are necessary wouldn't it be better for socialists to be involved? Currently food banks seem to be run by mostly right-wing evangelical Christian groups and 'charities' which are a trojan horse for the private sector dismantlement of the welfare state (or a combination of the two), should socialists set up an alternative? Has this been done elsewhere? I know that the National Front in France has done it for some time, and Golden Dawn does it in Greece but I had never heard of left-wing equivalents until I read this article.

It strikes me as a good idea, although I am sure I am missing some downsides.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

Surely it then 'normalises' F/B, Smith released funds to the F/B's last years, he knew what was coming, they see them as a key part of a residual welfare state, I say no...*


btw, Matthew Paris in the Times interviewed around 30 Tory M.P's with slim majorities, most of them did not want any more welfare changes this side of an election..

*maybe other things though, skill shares, etc..


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 30, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I've actually been thinking about this recently, and what relationship people on the left should have with food banks. Obviously they should be completely unnecessary, but while they are necessary wouldn't it be better for socialists to be involved? Currently food banks seem to be run by mostly right-wing evangelical Christian groups and 'charities' which are a trojan horse for the private sector dismantlement of the welfare state (or a combination of the two), should socialists set up an alternative? Has this been done elsewhere? I know that the National Front in France has done it for some time, and Golden Dawn does it in Greece but I had never heard of left-wing equivalents until I read this article.
> 
> It strikes me as a good idea, although I am sure I am missing some downsides.


 
It's something we're seriously considering within Unite - and if we did it it would be piloted in the NUM/Unite social centre that the article identifies as being serious but not wadical enough. BB's dismissal of this as 'firebox with handouts' shows why he and the SWP (along with much of the rest of the left) remain irrelevant to the lives of the working class.

It may be quite heavily flawed in various ways but that piece is the first indication that they're seriously looking at the kind of issues the left needs to grapple with if it's to become relevant again.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 30, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> And to add to the irony they threatened to get the police in to arrest the hecklers..... Bourgeois legal system eh??


 
If this is true - 





> @*The__Biscuit*
> so the glasgow SWP steward threatened to stab a disabled woman who called the speaker out for rape apologism.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

As usual though for them their must be a 'dividend' people joining their party and taking in their ideas, not really much difference than a sermon with soup, imo...


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> If this is true -


 
calling someone a rape apologist is pretty heavy going, but threatening to stab someone, wtf!


----------



## weepiper (Mar 30, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> If this is true -


 


> @ariel_silvera
> I'm fine. There were many of us, mostly women. One of the SWP women threatened us with arrest and yelled 'I'll stab ye!'


----------



## laptop (Mar 30, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's something we're seriously considering within Unite - and if we did it it would be piloted in the NUM/Unite social centre that the article identifies as being serious but not wadical enough. BB's dismissal of this as 'firebox with handouts' shows why he and the SWP (along with much of the rest of the left) remain irrelevant to the lives of the working class.


 
Reminds me of gladly losing a bet that my own union would have a Burial Fund by the turn of the century...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> calling someone a rape apologist is pretty heavy going, but threatening to stab someone, wtf!


 
More coming in - 


> @*KirstyYarr* They grabbed and pushed women who were heckling an SWP rape-cover-upper. They also threatened to stab them.


----------



## killer b (Mar 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> calling someone a rape apologist is pretty heavy going


they should stop being rape apologists if they don't like it.


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I've actually been thinking about this recently, and what relationship people on the left should have with food banks. Obviously they should be completely unnecessary, but while they are necessary wouldn't it be better for socialists to be involved? Currently food banks seem to be run by mostly right-wing evangelical Christian groups and 'charities' which are a trojan horse for the private sector dismantlement of the welfare state (or a combination of the two), should socialists set up an alternative? Has this been done elsewhere? I know that the National Front in France has done it for some time, and Golden Dawn does it in Greece but I had never heard of left-wing equivalents until I read this article.
> 
> It strikes me as a good idea, although I am sure I am missing some downsides.


 

"Part of what we’ve found useful with the category of social reproduction is that is it can help us change our perspective on the crisis. We’re used to interpreting the crisis from the perspective of capital. A recession is two quarters of negative growth, etc. So the crisis is a crisis of capital accumulation. But that’s not how we experience the crisis. We experience it as a collapse in living standards, an inability to pay the bills, pay the rent/mortgage, etc. An inability to continue to reproduce ourselves as full participants in 21st century society. In other words, we experience the crisis as a crisis of social reproduction."

comments btl..

they needed to theorise that, that people are in the shit!


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

Btw, all this was five years too late for user led groups like SWAN and others...


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 30, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I've actually been thinking about this recently, and what relationship people on the left should have with food banks. Obviously they should be completely unnecessary, but while they are necessary wouldn't it be better for socialists to be involved? Currently food banks seem to be run by mostly right-wing evangelical Christian groups and 'charities' which are a trojan horse for the private sector dismantlement of the welfare state (or a combination of the two), should socialists set up an alternative? Has this been done elsewhere? I know that the National Front in France has done it for some time, and Golden Dawn does it in Greece but I had never heard of left-wing equivalents until I read this article.
> 
> It strikes me as a good idea, although I am sure I am missing some downsides.


A friend of mine has been involved with food not bombs, distibuting food in stoke newington area for years. I am not sure whether they are still active.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 30, 2013)

Bit of vid here from Glasgow, but difficult to hear what's being said & by whom -


----------



## ddraig (Mar 30, 2013)

dickheads in hi viz


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I've actually been thinking about this recently, and what relationship people on the left should have with food banks. Obviously they should be completely unnecessary, but while they are necessary wouldn't it be better for socialists to be involved? Currently food banks seem to be run by mostly right-wing evangelical Christian groups and 'charities' which are a trojan horse for the private sector dismantlement of the welfare state (or a combination of the two), should socialists set up an alternative? Has this been done elsewhere? I know that the National Front in France has done it for some time, and Golden Dawn does it in Greece but I had never heard of left-wing equivalents until I read this article.
> 
> It strikes me as a good idea, although I am sure I am missing some downsides.



It was good enough for the Panthers....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> http://internationalsocialismuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-social-project-strategy.html
> 
> Firebox with free handouts


 
Where the food that fills peoples' bellies comes from appears to matter to you more than that people that would otherwise go underfed or unfed, get some food down them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I've actually been thinking about this recently, and what relationship people on the left should have with food banks. Obviously they should be completely unnecessary, but while they are necessary wouldn't it be better for socialists to be involved? Currently food banks seem to be run by mostly right-wing evangelical Christian groups and 'charities' which are a trojan horse for the private sector dismantlement of the welfare state (or a combination of the two), should socialists set up an alternative? Has this been done elsewhere? I know that the National Front in France has done it for some time, and Golden Dawn does it in Greece but I had never heard of left-wing equivalents until I read this article.
> 
> It strikes me as a good idea, although I am sure I am missing some downsides.


 
As long as the food doesn't come with a lecture, I'm not sure many people will care beyond that, at least at first.
As for left-wing soup kitchens and food banks, they have a long and proud history from the east end of London (Sylvia and her women) to the southern continent of the Americas.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> Surely it then 'normalises' F/B, Smith released funds to the F/B's last years, he knew what was coming, they see them as a key part of a residual welfare state, I say no...*
> 
> 
> btw, Matthew Paris in the Times interviewed around 30 Tory M.P's with slim majorities, most of them did not want any more welfare changes this side of an election..
> ...


 
Hard to use newly-learned skills if the only sound you can hear is your stomach growling.
You do what the fuck you have to for you and yours. If that means using a foodbank which in turn allows people like IDS to feel that the privatisation of welfare is permissible, then most people are going to say "fuck your principles, treelover. There's kids to feed". Saying no means saying "sorry, no dinner tonight, no breakfast tomorrow". Fine if your a sole tenant/occupant, not so good if you're condemning your whole family by your principles.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> calling someone a rape apologist is pretty heavy going, but threatening to stab someone, wtf!


 
Well the individual in question was/is Dave Sherry, SWP hack and member of the disputes committee at the centre of the issue.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Bit of vid here from Glasgow, but difficult to hear what's being said & by whom -




Some SWP hacks and some CWI and Solidarity members in the hi vis vests.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 30, 2013)

I suspect that the shouting match in Glasgow is only a taste of things to come.

Does anyone know to what degree the protest against Sherry was preplanned?


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2013)

Idiots.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Does anyone know to what degree the protest against Sherry was preplanned?


 
Why do you ask?



chilango said:


> Idiots.


 
Who?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that the shouting match in Glasgow is only a taste of things to come.


 
It may start to include the CWI too given one of the stewards is, I believe, a CWI member and others are Solidarity.


----------



## killer b (Mar 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect that the shouting match in Glasgow is only a taste of things to come.


yep. if i was involved in organising any protest atm, i'd think long and hard before allowing any SWP speakers. 

actually, i wouldn't think long and hard about it at all.


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Who?



All of 'em.

Nobody comes out of that video looking good.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

chilango said:


> All of 'em.
> 
> Nobody comes out of that video looking good.


 
It's not the most edifying video no, though I suppose having someone like Sherry on a platform after his involvement in the debacle might have raised a few hackles....


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> It's not the most edifying video no, though I suppose having someone like Sherry on a platform after his involvement in the debacle might have raised a few hackles....



Indeed.

...but still. Time and a place and all that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 30, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> It may start to include the CWI too given one of the stewards is, I believe, a CWI member and others are Solidarity.


 
I know that Glasgow has the most irrationally factionalised left in Britain, but even in that context that's a bit of a stretch. I'd like to see someone try to justify that: we're going to try and hassle an organisation about something that's nothing to do with them because one of their members was a steward on a demonstration when we started to heckle someone else? No chance.

How many of the protesters were affiliated, by the way? At least one of them is a supporter of the Irish WSM, rather bizarrely.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I know that Glasgow has the most irrationally factionalised left in Britain, but even in that context that's a bit of a stretch. I'd like to see someone try to justify that: we're going to try and hassle an organisation about something that's nothing to do with them because one of their members was a steward on a demonstration when we started to heckle someone else? No chance.
> 
> How many of the protesters were affiliated, by the way? At least one of them is a supporter of the Irish WSM, rather bizarrely.


 
Not really, the stewards know exactly who Sherry is and what he did, not too difficult to see how the link with your organisation is made. And given the CWI were prominent in the setting up of the 'federation' that organised the demo and if the CWI did have no problem with Sherry being on the platform as i'm hearing then that too links you. Not to mention 2 CWI members shared the platform with him... So your 'no chance' starts to fade a little...

I only recognised 1 and she's not in any of the former SSP splits or anything like that, an anarchist as I remember.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 30, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Not really, the stewards know exactly who Sherry is and what he did, not too difficult to see how the link with your organisation is made


 
That's so tenuous that even the most bitter factionalist won't bother. A number of rump SSP people are all over twitter gloating for instance, and not even they've thought it worth it to try that angle.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's so tenuous that even the most bitter factionalist won't bother. A number of rump SSP people are all over twitter gloating for instance, and not even they've thought it worth it to try that angle.


 
I don't think gloating is a good idea, but can you feel happy about your organisation sharing a platform with him?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 30, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> I don't think gloating is a good idea, but can you feel happy about your organisation sharing a platform with him?


 
I think it was needlessly provocative of the SWP to put him up as a speaker. I've no criticism of anyone else who was on the platform for also using it.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think it was needlessly provocative of the SWP to put him up as a speaker. I've no criticism of anyone else who was on the platform for also using it.


 
Agree on the former, I think the fallout will affect some of the others on the platform, ie those who know/knew the background to the heckling.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 30, 2013)

Putting Sherry up to speak was idiotic. The heckling was idiotic. Trying to strongly imply that the CWI 'share the blame' because they 'allowed' the speaker is idiotic.

As the earlier poster said - idiots. The fucking lot of them. The left is fucked in Scotland. I just hope it does not impact too much on the campaign about the real issues the demonstration was about.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 30, 2013)

The heckling was far from idiotic Dennis.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Putting Sherry up to speak was idiotic. The heckling was idiotic. Trying to strongly imply that the CWI 'share the blame' because they 'allowed' the speaker is idiotic.


 
Heckling a man who was on the DC that looked at the rape allegations was idiotic? What should they have done, written a strongly worded letter?
I don't think the CWI share blame for anything. Dennis your organisation was sharing a platform with him and was involved in the stewarding, no blame is shared but your organisation are involved with his being there like it or not. By the way there was a meeting before the demo that decided they had too many speakers so they reduced the number of disability group speaker. Sherry remained, he should have been removed then or not even on the platform at all.



> As the earlier poster said - idiots. The fucking lot of them. The left is fucked in Scotland. I just hope it does not impact too much on the campaign about the real issues the demonstration was about.


 
There's already been 4 resignations from the committee, Sheridan and 3 others.


----------



## killer b (Mar 30, 2013)

the heckling was inevitable, surely? if you allow a rape apologist to speak at your protest, at the height of a national controversy about said apologism, it'd be a poor state of affairs if he wasn't heckled.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 30, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Agree on the former, I think the fallout will affect some of the others on the platform, ie those who know/knew the background to the heckling.



There won't be much "fallout" from a bit of internecine yelling on a demo, even for the SWP or for the people doing the shouting.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There won't be much "fallout" from a bit of internecine yelling on a demo, even for the SWP or for the people doing the shouting.


 
This is Glasgow remember, farting at a meeting is often seen as a sectarian criticism....


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Mar 30, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> A friend of mine has been involved with food not bombs, distibuting food in stoke newington area for years. I am not sure whether they are still active.


there's food not bombs in New Cross, South London,most of those  involved are students from Goldsmiths they collect food every Monday and Wednesday and take it to a  nearby hostel who let them use their kitchens to make a meal to serve to their residents. It's been going for quite a few years now.


----------



## chilango (Mar 30, 2013)

Picket Marxism. Fuck it, occupy Marxism. That way the target is clear, there's no collateral damage and bystanders don't get caught in the crossfire.

As anyone here can tell you I'm no friend of the SWP. I've heckled them. I've disrupted their speakers, their meetings, their chants. Whatever. I bet I looked like a right dick though to anyone passing by.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

chilango said:


> Picket Marxism. Fuck it, occupy Marxism. That way the target is clear, there's no collateral damage and bystanders don't get caught in the crossfire.
> 
> As anyone here can tell you I'm no friend of the SWP. I've heckled them. I've disrupted their speakers, their meetings, their chants. Whatever. I bet I looked like a right dick though to anyone passing by.


 
I think they are better bets, but it's not idiotic in any way shape or form to heckle him given what he did. Idiotic is having him on the platform.....


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 30, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Where the food that fills peoples' bellies comes from appears to matter to you more than that people that would otherwise go underfed or unfed, get some food down them.


Fuck off like you care about this intra trot debate and what's worse you're making it about working class people eating. Jog on.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 30, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think it was needlessly provocative of the SWP to put him up as a speaker. I've no criticism of anyone else who was on the platform for also using it.


why? Which speaker is non provocative? Only the ones not named by the Mail?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2013)

Of course one of the great ironies today was that the SWP who attacked the bourgeouis legal system in regards to the rape issue threatened to get the police onto people heckling.....


----------



## eoin_k (Mar 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> why? Which speaker is non provocative? Only the ones not named by the Mail?


 
Do you actually think you are making the situation better for the smallest mass party in the world with this shit?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 30, 2013)

Better with who?


----------



## treelover (Mar 30, 2013)

S/U is saying it was Bambery's ISG members who did the call out..


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 31, 2013)

Ok so some time ago belboid suggested that in my heart of hearts I knew everyone was right re the substantive issue on this thread and it's handling by the party. I wouldn't have agreed with him when he said that but another old timer convinced me tonight. Cant explain how she convinced me, she just did in tones that only made sense to those of us sharing a certain background. There was no moralism (not that belboid or emy or other not overly aggressive opponents of the mess that has engulfed the SWP are guilty of moralism, they're not), no identity politics hand waving, just a probable statement about what probably went on and a believable description of why the party fucked up on recognising what happened and reacting appropriately. And I can't bring myself to argue against that any more. against the politics of the splitters yes I can muster some energy. But after what she said to me I just can't defend the indefensible any more.


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2013)

what on earth is 'moralism' and who gives a crap..


----------



## BK Double Stack (Mar 31, 2013)

First time ever on this site was a month or so ago to lurk on this thread. It is now my 8th most-visited website. Bolshie's "revelation" caused me to set up an account just to like that comment.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Mar 31, 2013)

fair play to you bolshie. onto honest debating out of the shadow of the current leading personnel, as it should be!


----------



## oskarsdrum (Mar 31, 2013)

BK. don't you think it feels a little like stepping into your favourite soap, weirdly exhilarating at first. 

is anyone in the uk involved in anything where the swp are a serious presence still? this has mainly cleared them out of activity in the local left here, except there's probably a few good union reps still going. will UtR be abandoned by the summer? longer term, how much are SP likely to gain from being the only game in town for young socialists in most places?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 31, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> longer term, how much are SP likely to gain from being the only game in town for young socialists in most places?


 
This has come up before. The answer, in my view at least, is not much. They will find things easier in some small towns where the organised left has consisted of just them and the SWP, but overall, this whole fucking disaster will damage the wider left and make it harder for anyone to recruit.

To be blunt about it, there are a number of SP members I know who would be reveling, in a slightly childish way, in the SWP fucking up had the issue been almost anything else. But nobody thinks that what has actually happened is remotely amusing. The English SP has a reputation for being more than a little dour, but in fact they tend to be very dryly self-aware about themselves and about the left as a whole, at least in my experience. Even so, none of them are cracking jokes about this. It's just fucking awful. Lots of them have low opinons of the SWP in other regards, but none of them expected anything like this endlessly extended car crash.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> why? Which speaker is non provocative? Only the ones not named by the Mail?


 
Try to think about this fairly. Whatever your views on the SWP's recent behaviour, putting a DC member up as a speaker at a major protest is a straightforward way to invite heckling in current circumstances. An insistence on "toughing things out" is one thing, but doing so in circumstances where a a wider demo could predictably be disrupted as a consequence is another.

By the way, fair play on your other post. That's got to be hard.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> yep. if i was involved in organising any protest atm, i'd think long and hard before allowing any SWP speakers. actually, i wouldn't think long and hard about it at all.


It looks like a "No Platform for the SWP" campaign is starting to get off the ground. Not a healthy development. Breaking up meetings and preventing people speaking is not a legitimate way to express political criticism or opposition.


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> It looks like a "No Platform for the SWP" campaign is starting to get off the ground. Not a healthy development. Breaking up meetings and preventing people speaking is not a legitimate way to express political criticism or opposition.



It's perfectly legitimate, and understandable.


But...

Often tactically inept.

And Usually strategically a dead end.


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> It looks like a "No Platform for the SWP" campaign is starting to get off the ground. Not a healthy development. Breaking up meetings and preventing people speaking is not a legitimate way to express political criticism or opposition.


What would you suggest people do instead? I wouldn't share a platform with the cunts either. Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 31, 2013)

Bolshie, well done, now I think your criticisms of the politics of the splitters might get a fairer hearing, as up to now it has been confounded by the suspicion that your sole motivation has been to defend the indefensible.
 There is a lot to criticise, but the confusion of politics being displayed is a reflection of the zig zags of line pursued by the SWP over the past 20 years ( or longer). The confusion over what exactly is the IS tradition, both on here, and on rebel and loyalist sites, is a case in point. The identity politics you have critiqued is not an aberration but a reflection of the politics within the SWP over the past few years.


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2013)

Of course the politics of the splitters is shit, you're unlikely to get much opposition to that. They were in the swp after all.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Mar 31, 2013)

Thanks Nigel. Tragically enough, I've read nearly every single one of the 11,007 posts to date, but that discussion must have slipped my mind! 

Clearly these particular circumstances are horrific for the wronged parties. i feel terrible for her that it's all been dragged out like this too  

Nonetheless, I'm not convinced about the damage to the left as a whole. The SWP has a very specific 'brand' which in my experience, translated into contempt tinged with awe amongst the wider labour movement. That is, of a bunch of opportunist headbangers who nevertheless can occassionally get things done, and who represent the epitome of being radical and revolutionary.

So I think  they're seen as very distinct amongst people sympathetic to the left. And the whole 'kangaroo court' narrative is fairly consistent with the notion of the SWP being an exception rather than the socialist rule. I can see the SP have a twofold problem though, 1) some of the above goes for Trotskyists and 'Leninist' revolutionaries as a whole, and 2) no doubt there'll be some confusion due to the s(w)p name similarity. 

Somewhat separate to the above, as a recently departed swp member I was always aggravated to hear the SP having a better, more constructive (though also more dour!) reputation with such non-aligned left-wing individuals as know the difference. I tried to find this on the internet by the way but couldn't: do the SP describe themselves as 'feminist'? and is there anywhere stating the SP analysis of gender/women's oppression?


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> Of course the politics of the splitters is shit, you're unlikely to get much opposition to that. They were in the swp after all.


 
I used to be in the SWP and I am not a cunt.


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2013)

Ok. I didn't say people who've left the swp are cunts, so its all good.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> Ok. I didn't say people who've left the swp are cunts, so its all good.


 
What's your political past Killer?


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2013)

I was once in the labour party. We all make mistakes.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Mar 31, 2013)

The politics of the splitters are quite heterogeneous, but I've of seen any evidence of people wanting to ditch class analysis or embrace intersectionakist feminism wholesale. I do agree that from the StW days the SWP operated a form of implicit identity politics / communism now made explicit by Galloway, for recruitment purposes. If we'd agreed with Counterfire we could've gone with them at any time in the last 3 years, couldn't we? The focus on InterSN discussikn has been about rebuilding and relating to working class organisation, along with what went wrong with the SWP, but everyone knows it's early days yet (as suggested in the tone of the blog postings). 

Mind you there is quite a bit of enthusiasm for LU as a potentially promising method - as opposed to the more familiar People's Assembly tack - however whatever your criticisms there may be of that, it's quite different to the same old SWP practice.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> What would you suggest people do instead? I wouldn't share a platform with the cunts either. Seems reasonable to me.


I'm not suggesting that anyone should share a platform with them (but they can if they want) but that their meetings should not be broken up. Oppose them politically with arguments, leaflets and debates.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 31, 2013)

treelover said:


> what on earth is 'moralism' and who gives a crap..


 
Moralism is judging things as right or wrong without also trying to understand why things may be as they are.

And I give a crap because bbs position may give us some understanding of how hard it must be for those that remain in the SWP to accept what has taken place. I think both bb and I initially found it hard to accept that people we knew would have allowed Martin Smith to remain in the SWP if he had been guilty of sexual harrasment and rape. It just doesn't fit with our experience, which for me as a then 20 something woman, and a woman who had been raped, was the least sexist environment I'd ever encountred. That doesn't make me a cunt, that makes me someone who judges a situation based in part on_ my own experience_, as people on this forum are always suggesting that people do, rather than relying on the authority of others. What moved me from a position of thinking they've fucked up but I don't think that the possible alternatives were obvious ones (note I was _not_ saying alternative repsonses were impossible) to a position of thinking they _absolutely_ got this wrong was the revelation of the age of the woman and the descriptions of the 2011 conference.


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Moralism is judging things as right or wrong without also trying to understand why things may be as they are.


 
That seems like a pretty good working definition of moralism, but I suggest that those (not you) who are accusing others on this thread of judging things as wrong *without also trying to understand why things may be as they are *are either not reading very carefully or have allowed their ideological blinkers to obscure their own judgement


----------



## Sean Delaney (Mar 31, 2013)

Sorry if this is a bit of a derail, but in terms of putting the neo-stalinism of the SWP in focus, this is a fragment from a recent article by W Bonefeld:

"Alex Callinicos (2012) argues for a socialist alternative to austerity. At its base, he argues, socialist anti-austerity has to overcome the entrenchmentof neoliberal dogma in the regulative institutions of the capitalist economy, and he therefore demands institutional transformations to achieve anti-austerity objectives. He urges the left to remember the original response to the crisis of 2008, which, for him, revealed the real possibility of a socialist programme of crisis resolution, one that combined financial nationalisation with socialist fiscal stimuli. In order to re assert the reality of this ‘hastily’ abandoned response to the crisis of 2008, the left anti austerity strategy has to focus on achieving institutional reform, putting banking and credit into public ownership and operating the system of finance under democratic control"


http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/12-4/12-4bonefeld.pdf


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Fuck off like you care about this intra trot debate and what's worse you're making it about working class people eating. Jog on.


 
Interesting that you choose to "defend" your post in such a way. It *is* about working class people eating. You made it so with your gobshite remark.
And I do care. You know why? I'm almost entirely dependent on benefits. Most of the people where I live are dependent on benefits to some extent. This isn't just some political thing to us, it's* life*. We can't afford your ideological purity.


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2013)

Just been reading posts on SU about the Glasgow incident from young women who were involved, it seems worse that even the video suggests...

then again, I always knew a fair few people in the SWP were thugs, can't see why posters on here ever joined them..


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2013)

treelover said:


> Just been reading posts on SU about the Glasgow incident from young women who were involved, it seems worse that even the video suggests...then again, I always knew a fair few people in the SWP were thugs, can't see why posters on here ever joined them..


 
Amusingly naive comment on that thread:

"since when do stewards police demonstrators, rather than keep them safe?"

Reminds me of this:

"We welcome everyone to today's demonstration, which we hope will be amongst the biggest London has seen for many years. We are confident that the vast majority of you will keep intact your dignity. A disciplined rally is essential if we are to avoid discrediting ourselves in the eyes of the public and losing the approval of the police. We want to give the media no reason to condemn our campaign by pointing to any over-imaginative acts. To this end, we call on everyone to obey the dictates of the stewards who will be found alongside the police. They will be acting in your interests. They are sensible people – please be sensible with them. Beware of troublemakers – some may be in the crowd with you. If you see any do not hesitate to summon stewards or the police, who, we must remember, are our brothers in work. Comrades! Even in a socialist society we shall still need Specialists-In-Order to combat hooligans and deviants. While it's true that nowadays the police are occasionally over-zealous in their protection of privelege, property and the violence of the world market, the best way of dealing with this is by demanding public accountablity through elected local government or some other representation of submissive community. In the meantime we should recognise that they will only listen to our complaints if we conduct ourselves in the correct manner"


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2013)

I wouldn't necessarily believe anything posted on SU.

The last thing I have ever thought of the SWP was that they were thugs. If anything  when I was a member it was what the full timers called me and my mates. There can be a  time and place politically for thuggish behaviour though normally not against women complaining about the SWP and rape.

So what is the end goal of no platforming the SWP?


----------



## andysays (Mar 31, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> So what is the end goal of no platforming the SWP?


 
I think there's a danger of conflating two different things here.

No platforming the SWP is not the same as saying that it's unacceptable (though not surprising, frankly) for stewards on a demo to over-react when some people heckle a speaker who's not a random member of the SWP, but one of those directly involved in the Delta fiasco


----------



## sptme (Mar 31, 2013)

chilango said:


> Time and a place and all that.


When is the right time? How long should they wait? Till after the revolution?
No, women should not be required to keep their mouths shut about rape just to prevent leaders of misogynist left wing sects being embarrassed . It's sexism (and other oppressions) that are divisive not those who oppose them. If you don't want a movement to appear divided don't give people who cover up rape allegations a prominent position.


----------



## discokermit (Mar 31, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The last thing I have ever thought of the SWP was that they were thugs.


really? i remember seeing heffernan and nolan and that little clique turning over the bookstall of the radical anthropology group whilst screaming at them and shoving them about. hard to imagine what some people talking about hunter gatherer women synchronising their periods could have done to provoke that.

even a silly thing like us refusing to turn the telly off in the institute, whilst meetings were on at marxism, cos we were watching world cup football, drove the cc to send bennett and mcfarlane to come and shout at us.

when in the is group we leafletted marxism, i had a former comrade, who had sort of mentored me, stand in front of me then deliberately tread on my toes.

now, these all sound pretty minor, but i do think they show how some members get when they feel the organisation is even slightly under attack. sadly it's no surprise to see it's lead to old men pushing around young women for the same sort of reason.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> really? i remember seeing heffernan and nolan and that little clique turning over the bookstall of the radical anthropology group whilst screaming at them and shoving them about. hard to imagine what some people talking about hunter gatherer women synchronising their periods could have done to provoke that.
> 
> even a silly thing like us refusing to turn the telly off in the institute, whilst meetings were on at marxism, cos we were watching world cup football, drove the cc to send bennett and mcfarlane to come and shout at us.
> 
> ...


 
It does all sound minor. When Bambery and others told us to turn the TV off we just said Fuck Right Off


----------



## discokermit (Mar 31, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> It does all sound minor. When Bambery and others told us to turn the TV off we just said Fuck Right Off


oh yeh, that's what we did. same for the foot treading thing, but to see someone who you thought a good friend and mentor acting like such a cunt over such a trivial threat that the dozen or so of us presented, in a period of growth for them, it's no surprise to see them acting like thugs when under real attack in a period where they are disappearing up their own arsehole.


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 31, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I've actually been thinking about this recently, and what relationship people on the left should have with food banks. Obviously they should be completely unnecessary, but while they are necessary wouldn't it be better for socialists to be involved? Currently food banks seem to be run by mostly right-wing evangelical Christian groups and 'charities' which are a trojan horse for the private sector dismantlement of the welfare state (or a combination of the two), should socialists set up an alternative?


 
Think the problem is that for any additional services provided by non-state agencies gives an impetus to downsize state services whilst being able to state that service delivery stays the same. So from a campaigning point of view, i could see the setting up of such banks as playing into the hands via actually bringing the 'big society' into being. But then again, if the left dont get involved with ameliorative measures, then it will be space thats left open towards right wing xtians and/or liberal thirdsector bollox. Its a tough one thats for sure...


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 31, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It may be quite heavily flawed in various ways but that piece is the first indication that they're seriously looking at the kind of issues the left needs to grapple with if it's to become relevant again.


 
Ok this swings it for me....


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 31, 2013)

treelover said:


> "Part of what we’ve found useful with the category of social reproduction is that is it can help us change our perspective on the crisis. We’re used to interpreting the crisis from the perspective of capital. A recession is two quarters of negative growth, etc. So the crisis is a crisis of capital accumulation. But that’s not how we experience the crisis. We experience it as a collapse in living standards, an inability to pay the bills, pay the rent/mortgage, etc. An inability to continue to reproduce ourselves as full participants in 21st century society. In other words, we experience the crisis as a crisis of social reproduction."
> 
> /quote]
> 
> God what a lot of pish!


----------



## xslavearcx (Mar 31, 2013)

treelover said:


> what on earth is 'moralism' and who gives a crap..


 
As long as it aint bourgiouse moralism its ok with me...


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2013)

sptme said:


> When is the right time? How long should they wait? Till after the revolution?
> No, women should not be required to keep their mouths shut about rape just to prevent leaders of misogynist left wing sects being embarrassed . It's sexism (and other oppressions) that are divisive not those who oppose them. If you don't want a movement to appear divided don't give people who cover up rape allegations a prominent position.



Tell you what.

Get a squad together and bust up Marxism.

Give Delta and his cronies a proper slap.

(Note I'm not advocating this. Not really. Just find outrage coupled with half measures a bit puzzling)


----------



## audiotech (Mar 31, 2013)

Most of the SWP members I knew couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag. The "thugs" in the branch I was in were those later described as "squadists" and what a fine bunch they were to stand side by side with. What these upstanding fellas had in common is that they despised with a vengeance bullies of any kind, who had the misfortune, for them at least, of raising their vile politics in company and later wishing they hadn't.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 31, 2013)

chilango said:


> Tell you what.
> 
> Get a squad together and bust up Marxism.
> 
> Give Delta and his cronies a proper slap.


 
He won't even be there. His ex partner will I suppose and what would giving her a "proper slap" achieve, apart from whoever was doing it look a complete headcase?


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2013)

chilango said:


> Tell you what.
> 
> Get a squad together and bust up Marxism.
> 
> ...


 
Shades of that stupid cartoon about anarchists and lefties beating up Laurie Penny come to mind


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2013)

indeed. let me repeat. i'm not advocating people beat up Delta at Marxism.


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2013)

chilango said:


> Tell you what.
> 
> Get a squad together and bust up Marxism.
> 
> ...



Anyhow.

As this seems to be a particularly poorly phrased post, let me explain.

There's an awful lot of "moral outrage" at the SWP mixed in with the political criticisms of how they've ended up in the position they're in.

And rightly so.

Some of this has led to speculation about "no platforming" the SWP, and has manifested itself in the heckling documented above and some posters' support for it. This seems largely based upon the moral outrage rather than anything else and sees terms like "rape apologists" being chucked around.

My point is that if the SWP are so far beyond the pale because of their "rape apologism" and misogyny that it's correct to disrupt rallies etc. then  heckling them doesn't seem a proportionate response, it seems a pretty petty and pointless tactic.

Look at the video above. The stewards come across terribly, confirming people's accusations to a point. But the hecklers don't come out of It looking much better.

It's all so farcical and saddening.


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2013)

...and I'm at a loss to think of much that "we" (those of us not directly involved) can do that will achieve any sort of positive outcome or resolution to all of this.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Mar 31, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Sorry if this is a bit of a derail, but in terms of putting the neo-stalinism of the SWP in focus, this is a fragment from a recent article by W Bonefeld:
> "Alex Callinicos (2012) argues for a socialist alternative to austerity. At its base, he argues, socialist anti-austerity has to overcome the entrenchmentof neoliberal dogma in the regulative institutions of the capitalist economy, and he therefore demands institutional transformations to achieve anti-austerity objectives. He urges the left to remember the original response to the crisis of 2008, which, for him, revealed the real possibility of a socialist programme of crisis resolution, one that combined financial nationalisation with socialist fiscal stimuli. In order to re assert the reality of this ‘hastily’ abandoned response to the crisis of 2008, the left anti austerity strategy has to focus on achieving institutional reform, putting banking and credit into public ownership and operating the system of finance under democratic control"
> http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/12-4/12-4bonefeld.pdf


I agree this shows up the SWP but why do you describe this as "neo-stalinism" rather than as "Old Labourism" or simply "reformism"? It is also the policy of other similar groups. For instance, here's the policy advocated by the Scottish Anti-Cuts Coalition for the local elections in Glasgow in May 2012:


> We believe that by taxing the rich and big business appropriately, billions could be raised for public services. Ending expensive and wasteful private finance schemes in our public services could save hundreds of millions more. Public ownership of the banks and the big companies could release huge resources to invest in the future of the majority - instead of lining the pockets of a tiny elite.


 And from the 2010 election manifesto of the Workers Power group:


> The Anticapitalists want to take over the banks, tax the rich, pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and spend the money instead on creating three million new jobs, a million new council houses, a massive repair and improve programme for council flats and a £9 an hour minimum wage.


The policy advocated by Callinicos is just as much trotskyist or neo-trotskyist as neo-stalinist.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2013)

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/318448279027322880


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Somewhat separate to the above, as a recently departed swp member I was always aggravated to hear the SP having a better, more constructive (though also more dour!) reputation with such non-aligned left-wing individuals as know the difference. I tried to find this on the internet by the way but couldn't: do the SP describe themselves as 'feminist'? and is there anywhere stating the SP analysis of gender/women's oppression?



We wouldn't necessarily see a contradiction between being a socialist and being a feminist. I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for but probably start on our website..


----------



## weepiper (Mar 31, 2013)

One of the Glasgow hecklers has done a blog post about the incident (which I offer here without endorsement because I think some of what she says is pish)

http://athousandflowers.net/2013/03/31/this-is-a-tax-demo-why-dont-you-go-back-to-your-rape-demo/

I do agree with this though



> Dave Sherry should never have been asked to speak at such an event, which is far too important to be used as a vehicle to re-establish the credibility of deeply uncredible and frankly dangerous people and organisations.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 31, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Somewhat separate to the above, as a recently departed swp member I was always aggravated to hear the SP having a better, more constructive (though also more dour!) reputation with such non-aligned left-wing individuals as know the difference. I tried to find this on the internet by the way but couldn't: do the SP describe themselves as 'feminist'? and is there anywhere stating the SP analysis of gender/women's oppression?


 


SpackleFrog said:


> We wouldn't necessarily see a contradiction between being a socialist and being a feminist. I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for but probably start on our website..


 
Yeah, personally I don't describe myself as a feminist. One of the reasons is not all that rational - just that it's always seemed a bit lame for blokes to call themselves feminists, and I've met a couple who've called themselves that because they think it will help them pull (seriously, I'm not making this up - I know that makes them about as far from a feminist as it's possible to get but there you go). The second reason is a bit more sensible - feminism is a contested concept, and there are ideas in some brands of feminism that I would not subscribe too, and by calling myself a feminist I might give the impression that I support those things. So rather than applying a particular label to my views on womens liberation I prefer just to explain where I stand on specific issues - and broadly explain that I believe in gender equality and so on.

I think _Women and the Struggle for Socialism_ by Christine Thomas is probably the most comprehensive explanation of the SP/CWI position on this stuff - it appears that it's available to read online too if you're really interested, though I have to confess to not having read it myself. It is on my ever increasing reading list, the end to which I don't think I'll ever reach


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 31, 2013)

I've read it, it's not a bad pamphlet at all and explains the CWI's views and arguments about feminism pretty well.


----------



## SLK (Mar 31, 2013)

weepiper said:


> One of the Glasgow hecklers has done a blog post about the incident (which I offer here without endorsement because I think some of what she says is pish)
> 
> http://athousandflowers.net/2013/03/31/this-is-a-tax-demo-why-dont-you-go-back-to-your-rape-demo/
> 
> I do agree with this though


 
Just massively OTT and sounds a bit mad - but the SWP must've suspected they'd get a reaction from some of the more mad people in the crowd. They've obviously decided on an extreme version of 'come out fighting'


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 31, 2013)

Thetans Student members who had been close to or involved with the apostates faction being told that if they want to remain in the Church of $cientology party they must 'attack' Suppressive Persons critics.

(I don't generally think it's helpful to characterise the SWP as a cult, I don't think it is, but the parallels with scientology in this particular instance were quite striking for me so I decided to use a bit of poetic license)


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 31, 2013)

So there isn't a notion of class analysis of women's oppression vs patriarchy analysis in the SP?


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> just a probable statement about what probably went on and a believable description of why the party fucked up on recognising what happened and reacting appropriately.


 
Can you tell us about that? About why they fucked up on recognising what happened?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 31, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> So there isn't a notion of class analysis of women's oppression vs patriarchy analysis in the SP?


 
No, I don't think that's true at all - from the pamphlet I just linked to above:



> In the 1970s, the women's movement set itself the goal of challenging male dominance in all its forms and had an important effect on attitudes and social policy. But some radical feminist ideas were themselves rooted in biological differ¬ences between men and women - focusing on women's 'caring' and 'nurturing' natures and men's 'violence' and 'aggression'. Other strands of feminism eschewed these more extreme forms of biological determinism.
> 
> They concentrated instead on social structures - in particular patriarchy, which has many different definitions but can be summed up as the institutionalised dominance of women by men in society. But whether they focus on biology or social structures or a combination of both, most feminist theories view male supremacy as universal and having existed for all time, regardless of the economic basis of society. Socialists and Marxists, however, argue that the oppression which women experience today has not always existed but is rooted in the rise of societies based on private property and divided into classes - a process which began to take place around 10,000 years ago.
> 
> These differences might appear at first sight to be hair-splitting, with little relevance for the struggle today. But that is not the case. For socialists and Marxists, theory is a guide to action - to changing what is wrong with the world. If patriarchy exists as a social structure independent of class society, then the conclusion could be drawn that the main struggle, perhaps even the only struggle, that needs to be waged is one by women against men. This has in fact been the position of many feminists. Socialists and Marxists, however, view male dominance, both in its origin and in its current form, as intrinsically linked to the structures and inequalities of class society. The main struggle is therefore a class struggle, in which the struggles by women against their own specific oppression dovetail with those of the working class in general for a fundamental restructuring of society to end all inequality and oppression.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 31, 2013)

Think it's safe to say this thing has got a life of its own. We arrived in Athens tonight and went out to have a beer and bite to eat. There was an impromptu demo up the road and we got chatting to the cafe owner who it turns out is a Maoist of sorts. Anyhows he asked what our politics were and mrs bb volunteered that I was 'a raving far left idiot'. The guy says, SWP? I said no not anymore but sympathetic. he says what you reckon to this rape stuff comrade? Mrs bb laughed her tits off and I gave the guy my recently modified position.  he said I should rejoin and stop fucking about in the wilderness! Then he gave us a beer on the house.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Think it's safe to say this thing has got a life of its own. We arrived in Athens tonight and went out to have a beer and bite to eat. There was an impromptu demo up the road and we got chatting to the cafe owner who it turns out is a Maoist of sorts. Anyhows he asked what our politics were and mrs bb volunteered that I was 'a raving far left idiot'. The guy says, SWP? I said no not anymore but sympathetic. he says what you reckon to this rape stuff comrade? Mrs bb laughed her tits off and I gave the guy my recently modified position. he said I should rejoin and stop fucking about in the wilderness! Then he gave us a beer on the house.


 
lol


----------



## SLK (Mar 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Think it's safe to say this thing has got a life of its own. We arrived in Athens tonight and went out to have a beer and bite to eat. There was an impromptu demo up the road and we got chatting to the cafe owner who it turns out is a Maoist of sorts. Anyhows he asked what our politics were and mrs bb volunteered that I was 'a raving far left idiot'. The guy says, SWP? I said no not anymore but sympathetic. he says what you reckon to this rape stuff comrade? Mrs bb laughed her tits off and I gave the guy my recently modified position. he said I should rejoin and stop fucking about in the wilderness! Then he gave us a beer on the house.


 
Shut. Up.
I need a Mrs BB facebook post on your wall to verify that. That's absurdly absurd!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 31, 2013)

Closest I've got to evidence are the pictures of the Acropolis we took from our balcony and the posters for the demo whose fag end we saw from the guy's cafe. I said it was very late at night for a demo and he said 'Pah when the first bombs dropped on Bahgdad we all got out of bed as prearranged and marched on the Americans.' Had his own theories about the bomb that went off a couple of hundred yards away last week too outside the house of a shipping magnate.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 1, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Think it's safe to say this thing has got a life of its own. We arrived in Athens tonight and went out to have a beer and bite to eat. There was an impromptu demo up the road and we got chatting to the cafe owner who it turns out is a Maoist of sorts. Anyhows he asked what our politics were and mrs bb volunteered that I was 'a raving far left idiot'. The guy says, SWP? I said no not anymore but sympathetic. he says what you reckon to this rape stuff comrade? Mrs bb laughed her tits off and I gave the guy my recently modified position. he said I should rejoin and stop fucking about in the wilderness! Then he gave us a beer on the house.


 
you should have asked him if he wanted to twin his cafe with Firebox.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 1, 2013)

J Ed said:


> https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/318448279027322880


 
"Cock juggling thunder cunt"


----------



## Anne McKechnie (Apr 1, 2013)

The latest from north of the border : http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/women-protesters-hassled-by-swp-stewards.html


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 1, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> No, I don't think that's true at all - from the pamphlet I just linked to above:


 
So if I'm reading that correctly, the SP share the same class analysis of women's oppression as the SWP and not a feminist analysis of patriarchy. It quite clearly differentiates socialists and marxists from feminists.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 1, 2013)

So bb are you going to help us understand what went on in the SWP? Because nice as your postcards from Athens are, they don't help us understand and if this thread isn't about understanding what went on then what exactly is the point?

Oh yeh, I forgot, it's because they're all cunts.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2013)

Anne McKechnie said:


> The latest from north of the border : http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/women-protesters-hassled-by-swp-stewards.html


 
Mostly comment from this very thread though so I'm not sure what it adds??


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> So if I'm reading that correctly, the SP share the same class analysis of women's oppression as the SWP and not a feminist analysis of patriarchy. It quite clearly differentiates socialists and marxists from feminists.


Some brands of feminist rather than feminism per se, I think that's probably the main difference - whereas the swp ascribe those kinds of views to all feminists that pamphlet doesn't. It's an implicit acknowledgement that feminism is a contested concept, as is patriarchy, and some feminists (Marxist feminists for example) may see the latter as a product of class society, in which case they'd broadly agree with the analysis. 

I expect frogwoman could give you a better answer.cos.she's read the whole thing.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 1, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Some brands of feminist rather than feminism per se, I think that's probably the main difference - whereas the swp ascribe those kinds of views to all feminists that pamphlet doesn't. It's an implicit acknowledgement that feminism is a contested concept, as is patriarchy, and some feminists (Marxist feminists for example) may see the latter as a product of class society, in which case they'd broadly agree with the analysis.
> 
> I expect frogwoman could give you a better answer.cos.she's read the whole thing.


 
Why aren't marxist feminists just marxists then Spiney?


----------



## Steeleye (Apr 1, 2013)

I used to be in the swp and didn't find it an unsafe space for women. In fact I found it full of people genuinely committed to fighting sexism. I really do pity those people still in the organisation who are. And reading the posts of RMP3 and it's ilk has made me question whether I was just blind to the kind of hideous attitudes clearly present. "Ah, those teenagers are often predatory. Poor sexually aggressive old men, what are they to do?" WTF?!


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 1, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Why aren't marxist feminists just marxists then Spiney?


 
Marxist feminists make an important contribution to an analysis of the relationship between the largely unpaid, and often gendered work that goes into the social reproduction of labour power . This needn't imply some sort of ahistorical monolithic patriarchy that is unrelated to class relations.




			
				 Silvia Federici said:
			
		

> In the same way that god created Eve to give pleasure to Adam, so did *capital create the housewife* to service the male worker physically, emotionally and sexually, to raise his children, mend his socks, patch his ego when it is crushed by *the work and the social relations (which are relations of loneliness) that capital has reserved for him.* It is precisely this peculiar combination of physical, emotional and sexual services that are involved in* the role* *women must perform for capital* that creates the specific character of that servant which is the housewife, that makes her work so burdensome and at the same time so invisible


 
Edited to try and make my text a bit more coherent


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 1, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> Marxist feminists make an important contribution to an analysis of the relationship between the largely unpaid, and often gendered work that goes into the social reproduction of labour power. This needn't imply some sort of ahistorical monolithic patriarchy that is unrelated to class relations.


 
Is that contribution only unique to marxist feminists ?


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 1, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Is that contribution only unique to marxist feminists ?


 
That is quite a tough question to answer - not having read everything written by all the non-marxist feminist thinkers out there. However, I have the sense that marxist feminists initiate a critical rereading of Marx that is influential on others e.g. autonomist marxists.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 1, 2013)

Thanks for the info SpineyNorman, I agree that most people think male self-described feminism is a little odd (especially with the ulterior motives you mention!). And of course, it shouldn't need any separate designation for socialist but sadly things aren't so simple....

I'm enjoying the pamphlet link, I appreciate the somewhat less haranguing tone by comparison to the equivalent SWP material!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> That is quite a tough question to answer - not having read everything written by all the non-marxist feminist thinkers out there. However, I have the sense that marxist feminists initiate a critical rereading of Marx that is influential on others e.g. autonomist marxists.


Other way round on that last bit.


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Other way round on that last bit.


 
I think I get where you are coming from, but not sure if I agree entirely.  The feminist were part of a workerist tradition that was in the process of transforming into autonomist marxism in the early 1970s.  Tronti and co. had already developed concepts like the social factory/real subsumption that provide the framework within which they worked, but I have the sense that some of the analysis of social reproduction developed by women like Dalla Costa and Federici are genuinely novel and then influence the broader movement as the 70s progress.  But I'm happy to be proved wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> I think I get where you are coming from, but not sure if I agree entirely. The feminist were part of a workerist tradition that was in the process of transforming into autonomist marxism in the early 1970s. Tronti and co. had already developed concepts like the social factory/real subsumption that provide the framework within which they worked, but I have the sense that some of the analysis of social reproduction developed by women like Dalla Costa and Federici are genuinely novel and then influence the broader movement as the 70s progress. But I'm happy to be proved wrong.


Er...doesn't that say that the workerists/autonomists (the latter didn't develop until much later btw) developed an analysis - one that emphasied the role of reproduction in the total circuit of capital, and on a class basis - that then influenced wider feminism, including marxist-feminism (not a term i have any time for as it goes) - as i suggested?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 1, 2013)

The39thstep: "Is that contribution only unique to marxist feminists ?"

It's really Marxists who are to blame for the need for a separate designation. After WW2 the major currents of Marxism were largely 'gender-blind', so second wave feminism went leaps and bounds ahead of most socialist theory of the time (the earlier contributions of Kollontai, Zetkin et al notwithstanding).

Then people like Rowbotham and Gimenez made a huge advance in incorporating the insights of feminism into a Marxist understanding. However, it made good sense to show the difference between them and the common Marxist approaches of gender-blindness, or superficial treatment of women's oppression as a mechanical product of capitalism that can only be challenged after the revolution.

Nowadays I think the only prevalent Marxist theory of women's oppression that isn't 'Marxist feminist' is the abstract SWP position unchanged since the 80s, which although important in its day, has been far outstripped by Marxist feminist analysis in the last three decades: they are far more helpful in explaining the complex and contradictory relationships between gender, struggle, production/class and reproduction in contemporary capitalist societies.


Edit: though I may stand to be corrected, especially on non-feminist 'marxisms' outside the swp...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Why aren't marxist feminists just marxists then Spiney?


 
Fuck knows - I've never been able to figure that one out.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2013)

http://www.libcom.org/forums/announ...-resigns-swp-central-committee-party-01042013


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 1, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://www.libcom.org/forums/announ...-resigns-swp-central-committee-party-01042013


 
I take it you are aware of today's date?


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Er...doesn't that say that the workerists/autonomists (the latter didn't develop until much later btw) developed an analysis - one that emphasied the role of reproduction in the total circuit of capital, and on a class basis - that then influenced wider feminism, including marxist-feminism (not a term i have any time for as it goes) - as i suggested?


 
Looking over stuff again, Tronti did focus on social reproduction before the feminist texts I mentioned - so i'd be hard pressed to argue that the influence went the other way.  The feminist theory probably had more influence on autonomist ideas about affective labour, which I was trying to avoid focusing on as it seems like a bit more of a mixed legacy.   Not sure what you mean about autonomists emerging much later.  Workers autonomy appears around 72/3 which is at the same time as the autonomist women's movement was kicking off.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 1, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I take it you are aware of today's date?


 
Yeah, I thought it was funny!


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 1, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> Looking over stuff again, Tronti did focus on social reproduction before the feminist texts I mentioned - so i'd be hard pressed to argue that the influence went the other way. The feminist theory probably had more influence on autonomist ideas about affective labour, which I was trying to avoid focusing on as it seems like a bit more of a mixed legacy. Not sure what you mean about autonomists emerging much later. Workers autonomy appears around 72/3 which is at the same time as the autonomist women's movement was kicking off.


The feminist texts and writers you mention were not separate from the workerists - _they were a product of it and them!_  They weren't _influenced_ by the workerists, they _were_ the workerists as much as Tronti or Negri or anyone. That's my point here. And workers autonomy and autonomism are different things with huge differences, the latter describing a wide range of practices and groupings in the 76-79 period.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> lol


 
For me, not so much a "lol" as a "Jimmy Hill. Jimmy fucking Hill", as Mr. Anecdote serves up another convenient occurrence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> "Cock juggling thunder cunt"


 
Probably the best line in the entirety of "Blade: Trinity".


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 1, 2013)

I'm not entirely convinced it is as straightforward as you make out. From 1970-1975 you have the various groups being increasingly marginalised in the factories and focusing on social struggles - housing, autoreduction, feminism, southern question, prison struggles etc. and they are also more organisationally experimental.  This then feed into the movement of 77.  In my head, the period of classical workerism is from the late 1950s to the hot autumn and the eary 70s is a kind of transition into autonomism.

But, I'll stop derailing a thread that is meant to be about the SWP.


----------



## sptme (Apr 1, 2013)

chilango said:


> Anyhow.
> 
> There's an awful lot of "moral outrage" at the SWP mixed in with the political criticisms of how they've ended up in the position they're in.
> 
> ...


 
I don't know what you mean by 'moral outrage'.  Are you saying people response isn't political? Cos this is a matter of politics. A lot of the people in the swp faction who were opposed to the cc did so precisely because they knew how damaging these revelations would be to the unity of their campaigns.

You can't pretend to have class unity when the wanna-be leaders are a potential danger to half the class. How do you expect women who've experienced rape or domestic violence (about 1/3 women have) to be able get actively involved in a campaign or to unite under a leadership that covers up rape allegations.

Loads of people warned the swp leadership but they didn't listen. Are they surprised that this is happening now?

The barracking of leading swp members by anti-rape campaigners is gonna happen now whether we like it or not. The blame for this lies with the swp who were repeatedly warned that this would be the consequences of their actions.

So now do you choose to condemn anti-rape campaigners, attempt to silence them them, argue they are idiots and politically inept, that they are the equivalent to  to the stewards that assaulted them and tried to push them out of a rally?

Or do you say they the anti-rape protesters have a right to call the SWP out on this wherever they want - women's freedom isn't a tag-on that should be kept separate from other class issues.

This will determine your politics - its not an issue of not moral out rage.

This isn't about 'no platforming' some one because you disagree with one of their political positions. Its about genuine class unity being impossible while you have people who cover up violence against women being promoted to prominent positions in campaigns.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 1, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> So bb are you going to help us understand what went on in the SWP? Because nice as your postcards from Athens are, they don't help us understand and if this thread isn't about understanding what went on then what exactly is the point?
> 
> Oh yeh, I forgot, it's because they're all cunts.


Sorry Red Cat, wasn't being rude, just too busy admiring the view. I think the honest answer is the party couldn't (or thought it couldn't) afford to lose another cc member so soon after the Counterfire split and the people who dealt with this case just had too much political stake in the outcome to be completely objective. Stack was and decided there was a case to answer. But he was a minority of one. Then once the decision was made everything else had to follow. If there's one thing this tradition does well its defend a decision once made (I like to think that explains much of my thinking on this). What made things so much worse was the fact that there was an opposition waiting in the wings, looking for a chance to strike - even though they may not have been conscious of their own need to break at an earlier stage- and the fight against that project has given people like me an excuse not to admit what was blatantly obvious about this case from the word go. Namely that the group of people who judged it never should have. And that is no slight on them. It is not an inch of a concession to the crazy argument that the SWP is a sexist organisation. That notion is just mad. But pure and simple, the people deciding if MS had done wrong should never have been some of his closest colleagues. 

So. What now? Clearly the party will survive this if it decides to tough it out without admitting the mistake. And the attempts to exclude it or people associated with the case from left events / actions or just heckling them will eventually lose its force because it's just daft. There are people on left platforms associated with parties responsible for much worse than this. But for the sake of simple justice and the good conscience of those who are staying with the SWP , there needs to be a reckoning with what went on beyond the "this case is closed" stance.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 1, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the crazy argument that the SWP is a sexist organisation. That notion is just mad.


 
There's levels and degrees of sexism - every action group or mixed political party has sexism within it, 
the SWP chose not to tackle but whitewash when it came from above (or appointed from above), but would have pounced on it if was from below upwards.



> Clearly the party will survive this if it decides to tough it out without admitting the mistake. And the attempts to exclude it or people associated with the case from left events / actions or just heckling them will eventually lose its force because it's just daft.


 
It was the Disputes Committee participants who took part in the farce being heckled.



> There are people on left platforms associated with parties responsible for much worse than this.


 
Be an honest guy and say which parties have done the "much worse".


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2013)

sptme said:


> I don't know what you mean by 'moral outrage'.  Are you saying people response isn't political? Cos this is a matter of politics. A lot of the people in the swp faction who were opposed to the cc did so precisely because they knew how damaging these revelations would be to the unity of their campaigns.




I mean, that much of people's response is based upon a moral reaction. Rape is morally wrong. That's my primary response to this too. Nowt wrong with that. People are so disgusted with the SWP over this because of this, not because it's politically wrong. But yes, it is also political, but that is (understandably) not what is making people so angry.



sptme said:


> You can't pretend to have class unity when the wanna-be leaders are a potential danger to half the class. How do you expect women who've experienced rape or domestic violence (about 1/3 women have) to be able get actively involved in a campaign or to unite under a leadership that covers up rape allegations.


 
Absolutely agree.



sptme said:


> ILoads of people warned the swp leadership but they didn't listen. Are they surprised that this is happening now?



Again, agree.


sptme said:


> IThe barracking of leading swp members by anti-rape campaigners is gonna happen now whether we like it or not. The blame for this lies with the swp who were repeatedly warned that this would be the consequences of their actions.



The blame lies not just with the SWP, but also with those inviting them onto platforms etc.



sptme said:


> ISo now do you choose to condemn anti-rape campaigners, attempt to silence them them, argue they are idiots and politically inept, that they are the equivalent to  to the stewards that assaulted them and tried to push them out of a rally?



No. 

I'm absolutely not condemning them. 

Or wanting to silence them.

However I do think that if they wish to make their response "political" then they need a strategy and hey need tactics to pursue that strategy. Otherwise it achieves little or nothing concrete.



sptme said:


> IOr do you say they the anti-rape protesters have a right to call the SWP out on this wherever they want - women's freedom isn't a tag-on that should be kept separate from other class issues.



Course.

Again, think about how to be effective though.



sptme said:


> IThis will determine your politics - its not an issue of not moral out rage.



Bollocks. No it won't.

...and it bloody should be an issue of moral outrage!



sptme said:


> IThis isn't about 'no platforming' some one because you disagree with one of their political positions. Its about genuine class unity being impossible while you have people who cover up violence against women being promoted to prominent positions in campaigns.



Quite.

Therefore it's all the more necessary to be effective.

To be clear I know whose side I'm on. Which is why it saddens me to see the scenes in the video. I can agree with the hecklers yet at the same time think they come across "badly" and/or be mistaken in the actions.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 1, 2013)

chilango said:


> The blame lies not just with the SWP, but also with those inviting them onto platforms etc.


 
Who exactly was this in the case of Glasgow?


----------



## Scribbling S (Apr 1, 2013)

Have to welcome the scales falling from Bolshieboys eyes , but saying "So. What now? Clearly the party will survive this if it decides to tough it out without admitting the mistake" isn't really right - survive at what level ? The party has already shrunk quite a lot over the last decade. And now it is dramatically shrinking again. This "mistake" has cut off some of it's obvious forms of renewal - imagine losing the Sussex SWSS group right now . Imagine seeing all the recruits made from students in 2010 was a "problem". People are leaving, but who wants to join ? Making the madly wrong stand on this issue sets off a spiral, where the only people in charge are people who can go along with the idea that "mishandling a rape allegation" and "not losing a cc member" are things to be weighed up in either hand - these are not going to be any shape to build anything - they will only be able to keep a declining, increasingly sectarian organisation going. What do you think "Marxism 2013" is going to look like in current circumstances ? If you really care about this, you perhaps should contact every SWP member you still know and say "turn back before its too late" (although it may already be too late , tbh)


----------



## sptme (Apr 1, 2013)

chilango said:


> Bollocks. No it won't.
> 
> ...and it bloody should be an issue of moral outrage!
> 
> ...


 
Fairy nuff.  I guess I'm so use to hearing swp hacks using the term 'bourgeois morality' as a excuse to dismiss criticism that when you used the term 'moral outrage' it made me a bit defensive.


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

" *If you really care about this*"


Sorry but I don't, history moves on

perhaps time for Left Unity?


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2013)

sptme said:


> Fairy nuff.  I guess I'm so use to hearing swp hacks using the term 'bourgeois morality' as a excuse to dismiss criticism that when you used the term 'moral outrage' it made me a bit defensive.



Yeah. Understandable. Praps should've worded my post more carefully...


----------



## marty21 (Apr 1, 2013)

When I  did my politics degree , Ideology was the course  I hated most - this thread justifies my hate for that  course


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> " *If you really care about this*"
> 
> 
> Sorry but I don't, history moves on
> ...



The flogging of a dead horse beckons


----------



## chilango (Apr 1, 2013)

What have tescos burgers and left unity got in common?

Boom tish!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 1, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Have to welcome the scales falling from Bolshieboys eyes , but saying "So. What now? Clearly the party will survive this if it decides to tough it out without admitting the mistake" isn't really right - survive at what level ? The party has already shrunk quite a lot over the last decade. And now it is dramatically shrinking again. This "mistake" has cut off some of it's obvious forms of renewal - imagine losing the Sussex SWSS group right now . Imagine seeing all the recruits made from students in 2010 was a "problem". People are leaving, but who wants to join ? Making the madly wrong stand on this issue sets off a spiral, where the only people in charge are people who can go along with the idea that "mishandling a rape allegation" and "not losing a cc member" are things to be weighed up in either hand - these are not going to be any shape to build anything - they will only be able to keep a declining, increasingly sectarian organisation going. What do you think "Marxism 2013" is going to look like in current circumstances ? If you really care about this, you perhaps should contact every SWP member you still know and say "turn back before its too late" (although it may already be too late , tbh)


I honestly think it could tough it out without turning into a sectarian rump (leave aside for a moment the tonnes of people on here and elsewhere who think its been that for several decades who would celebrate the final collapse). There is a lot of resilience in this set of politics and it wouldn't take much of a shift in the class struggle to breath fresh life into the bones. But I think you're right about the people in it not being in much shape to make the most of opportunities ahead. I think this mess and living with it is debilitating and draining for all but the most unthinking loyalist (there are some of them but I'd say they were always an absolutely tiny percentage). Squaring the circle of the handling of the delta case quite simply messes with your head, it has done for me for the last few months and I'm not even having to do it as a member who has to try and carry on with people around them as if everything is ok. It's not ok and in their heart of hearts most people still in the party know that. They can't be half as effective as socialists with that sort of baggage weighing them down. But. The other side of the coin is that defending the indefensible doesn't turn you overnight into something you're not and the majority of those doing it are still the same incredibly decent, militant haters of the system and all it's crap that they were the day before they learnt of this debacle and took a side. Maybe I'm a clueless optimist and the next few months will be harsh but I honestly believe a year from now the SWP will continue to be a major force for good in the world AND it's members will all be able to look themselves in the mirror and not have to internally say "yes.....but".


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> " *If you really care about this*"
> 
> 
> Sorry but I don't, history moves on
> ...


Then stop posting telling everyone how little you care about it etc and fuck off.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2013)

The Left Unity project does sadden me, because it looks like the first time since the Socialist Alliance that an admittedly small proportion of those involved in a national project are people who are genuinely new to active "left" or pro-working class politics, and will inevitably be driven off by the shit that goes with it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> " *If you really care about this*"
> 
> 
> Sorry but I don't, history moves on
> ...


why the long face?

*ironically this eeyore does have an incredibly long face


----------



## treelover (Apr 1, 2013)

Which 'eeyore'?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> Which 'eeyore'?


 
you eeyore


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I honestly believe a year from now the SWP will continue to be a major force for good in the world


 
Do you honestly really believe this? Leaving aside the fact that politically I think the SWP is totally stalinoid and does far more harm than good with things like the anti-cuts movement, do you really think it is, or has ever been, a major anything? It can't even be regarded as anything like a major force in the UK, in fact it is an utterly marginalised organisation with virtually no connection to the working class. But on a world level? Seriously this is just delusional.


----------



## treelover (Apr 2, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> you eeyore


 
never met you...

you really are a bullying twat, for many years I never dissed anyone on here, but you have made a lifetime career out of it, I wonder how many have left here because of you, you represent a cynical decaying and soon to be extinct politico whose time is over,



so there!


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry Red Cat, wasn't being rude, just too busy admiring the view. I think the honest answer is the party couldn't (or thought it couldn't) afford to lose another cc member so soon after the Counterfire split and the people who dealt with this case just had too much political stake in the outcome to be completely objective. Stack was and decided there was a case to answer. But he was a minority of one. Then once the decision was made everything else had to follow. If there's one thing this tradition does well its defend a decision once made (I like to think that explains much of my thinking on this). What made things so much worse was the fact that there was an opposition waiting in the wings, looking for a chance to strike - even though they may not have been conscious of their own need to break at an earlier stage- and the fight against that project has given people like me an excuse not to admit what was blatantly obvious about this case from the word go. Namely that the group of people who judged it never should have. And that is no slight on them. It is not an inch of a concession to the crazy argument that the SWP is a sexist organisation. That notion is just mad. But pure and simple, the people deciding if MS had done wrong should never have been some of his closest colleagues.
> 
> So. What now? Clearly the party will survive this if it decides to tough it out without admitting the mistake. And the attempts to exclude it or people associated with the case from left events / actions or just heckling them will eventually lose its force because it's just daft. There are people on left platforms associated with parties responsible for much worse than this. But for the sake of simple justice and the good conscience of those who are staying with the SWP , there needs to be a reckoning with what went on beyond the "this case is closed" stance.


 
Haven't got time to post my thoughts as visiting family but thanks for replying bb.

And enjoy Athens!


----------



## marty21 (Apr 2, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The Left Unity project does sadden me, because it looks like the first time since the Socialist Alliance that an admittedly small proportion of those involved in a national project are people who are genuinely new to active "left" or pro-working class politics, and will inevitably be driven off by the shit that goes with it.


 It does remind me of the Socialist Alliance, which I had great hopes for until the inevitable collapse


----------



## Scribbling S (Apr 2, 2013)

Also , on "if there's one thing this tradition does well its defend a decision once made" - isn't true at all - during my membership the SWP significantly reversed its stand from both the start of the Miners Strike and the start of the Poll Tax - and was all the better for it. Other people on the left had it much better than the SWP on both, the party recognised it, and totally changed position and was much better and stronger as a result. That would be doubly true now. I think there are a couple of reasons why the "we've started driving in this mad direction so we may as well crash in to the wall repeatedly" strategy seems to have taken hold. Firsly "this tradition" - I don't remember ever being part of a "tradition", that sounds so wierd and ossified. Maybe I am blanking it out, but I just don't remember the word being bandied about so much, it sounds more like Morris Dancing than Marxism. Secondly, the turnaround on the Miners and the Poll Tax wasn't perceived as a threat from the members against the CC, so didn't lead to this wierd "obey me!" stuff from the top:- ironically, at the point where the SWP has to admit that many CC members are capable of the most appaling screw ups (because I assume that is the 'official' party line on Rees, German , Bambery), it won't admit to the one mistake that is really killing the party. Only half the people inside the party believe the "line". Nobody outside it does, and really it causes, frankly, revulsion in a way that making a mistake about Anti Poll Tax Unions never did. The last discussion I had with a "loyalist" - no doubt a good militant and active socialist - they said the party had to stand this way to "defend the intergrity of the Disputes Commission" - that's where misleadership takes you, stuck with a strategy that makes the SWP look wierd and unpleasant under a banner "defend the integrity of the disputes commission", which sounds like some Maoist group, not the SWP. One of the most pathetic things about Plan Callinicos is that it actually burns up "Delta" in the process - this mad plan was meant to be a defence of "Delta" , but he would have been far better off if the Disputes Committee had followed Pat S's lead, accepted they couldn't rule on rape, but said there was evidence of harrasment, and that he faced higher standards as a leading member, and expelled him for x2 years : At least then he could have been looking to return to some political role in 2014. Even if he resigned "for the greater good" he could be looking at returning to significant political activity, with some sort of penance, in 2014, 2015. As it is, it is hard to imagine the party giving him any public job for many more years. So as well as burning up the student groups, tarnishing the reputation, burning bridges with many in the wider left, poisoning recruitment, the pigheaded "I'm in charge" approach has helped destroy the man it was supposed to be for. You can hope the "class struggle" will come to the rescue like the 5th cavalry over the hill, but I think this is all down to people we know making decisions in hired rooms. I'd say again to Bolshieboy, if you have cottoned on to how bad this mistake is, I'd get in touch with every single friend, acquaintance or whatever who still has any relationship with the  SWP and say "turn back before its too late"


----------



## TremulousTetra (Apr 2, 2013)

Steeleye said:


> I used to be in the swp and didn't find it an unsafe space for women. In fact I found it full of people genuinely committed to fighting sexism. I really do pity those people still in the organisation who are. And reading the posts of RMP3 and it's ilk has made me question whether I was just blind to the kind of hideous attitudes clearly present. "Ah, those teenagers are often predatory. Poor sexually aggressive old men, what are they to do?" WTF?!


 the whole point of the image, and what was written on her chest, was no matter how provocatively I dress, "I'm still not asking for it" (any kind of abuse including rape).  The interference that was meant to be taken from me putting that image under my writing was, no matter what I've said I am not inferring there was any kind of asking for it (abuse) in young gay men seeking out older gay men (the example I gave) or women.

At no point have I condoned any kind, ANY KIND of abusive relationship.  Just said I am not prepared judge relationship ONLY on the basis of age difference.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Apr 2, 2013)

andysays said:


> To be fair to RMP3 (not something I thought I'd be writing!) there are quite a few cases coming out now, so perhaps it's not surprising that he's mixing them up.
> 
> But seriously, yes, he is being totally disingenuous. If it were just the age difference, perhaps some of his arguments excuses might hold up, but there's also the fact that Smith was in a position of leadership/authority, the fact that it was secret because Smith was ostensibly in a long-term relationship with someone else, and the fact (and this is relevant whether we like it or not) that there is always potentially a power imbalance between a man and a woman, even if all else is equal (which in this case it's clearly not).
> 
> ...


that is disingenuous, because I clearly stated I was ignoring those factors, and just making a single point about age difference relationships several times, including this one;


ResistanceMP3 said:


> it's not particularly that it is Marx, it's just a well-known example. You could've took my early example of the young gay man claiming to be a predator of older men. My single point is about, the age difference and doing it behind a wife's back, which October lost judged as enough to make him stand down. But hey Ho.


 
I've also made it very clear throughout the thread I AM NOT defending the organisation.  I've chose not to defend the organisation.  That people want to shoehorn my comments into that framework, is not my fault.  What do I have to say?

I would say once again, that the SWP did something wrong, doesn't make misrepresenting their ideas right ie shibboleth.

And just to make it abundantly clear that again, in no way am I defending any type of abusive relationship.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 2, 2013)

the crazy fellas back...


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 2, 2013)

Socialist Party EC statement on Steve Hedley and the RMT investigation: http://m.socialistparty.org.uk/arti...-concludes-steve-hedley-has-no-case-to-answer


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 2, 2013)

One to prove the game ain't over quite yet. When we stopped SEK comrades flyposting by the Omonia metro station earlier and asked for a poster to take home to England they immediately offered one and said "you realise we are the sister organisation of the swp?" Only ruined slightly by mrs bb's observation that this picture was taken by her in a 5 star hotel.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> One to prove the game ain't over quite yet. When we stopped SEK comrades flyposting by the Omonia metro station earlier and asked for a poster to take home to England they immediately offered one and said "you realise we are the sister organisation of the swp?" Only ruined slightly by mrs bb's observation that this picture was taken by her in a 5 star hotel.


 

yep, you're Irish.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> One to prove the game ain't over quite yet. When we stopped SEK comrades flyposting by the Omonia metro station earlier and asked for a poster to take home to England they immediately offered one and said "you realise we are the sister organisation of the swp?" Only ruined slightly by mrs bb's observation that this picture was taken by her in a 5 star hotel.


I thought he'd be slimmer.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 2, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Socialist Party EC statement on Steve Hedley and the RMT investigation: http://m.socialistparty.org.uk/arti...-concludes-steve-hedley-has-no-case-to-answer


 
Are the RMT a fit and proper organisation to carry out an investigation of domestic abuse  into one their leading members?


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

How was the investigation and decision making handled, does anyone know?


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> One to prove the game ain't over quite yet. When we stopped SEK comrades flyposting by the Omonia metro station earlier and asked for a poster to take home to England they immediately offered one and said "you realise we are the sister organisation of the swp?" Only ruined slightly by mrs bb's observation that this picture was taken by her in a 5 star hotel.


 

Did you used to paper sales at the Brunswick Centre in the early to mid 90s?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 2, 2013)

....


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 2, 2013)

....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 2, 2013)

I do really think this case should not be discussed on this thread - and probably shouldn't be on here at all to be honest.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 2, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I thought he'd be slimmer.


 
I thought I remembered him being good looking must have been someone else


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 2, 2013)

Fair enough. I thought as the link to the Socialist Party statement had been put up then it was felt differently. But won't comment any more and will edit my posts.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> How was the investigation and decision making handled, does anyone know?


This is a perflectly legit question though.  Her account - assuming what she says is true - suggests it isn't at all competent, with questions like why weren't your injuries worse amongst other howlers


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> questions like why weren't your injuries worse amongst other howlers


 
Without commenting on the specifics of the RMT investigation this comment sprang from (because I know nothing about their procedures):

It is widely accepted that there are some lines of questioning that should not be permitted in some kinds of cases, ie that sexual assault complainants should not be questioned about their previous sexual histories (although the criminal law does still in fact allow that under some circumstances). But it seems to me that some people are proposing a rather different standard, that complainants in a wider range of cases should not be asked any questions which might reasonably be seen as sceptical.

It seems to me that it would be extremely difficult for investigators, working for any body, to hold an adequate investigation of any serious allegation without exploring apparent inconsistencies in a complaint and putting any counter-claims to a complainant.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 2, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I do really think this case should not be discussed on this thread - and probably shouldn't be on here at all to be honest.


Maybe, but the neither should the SWP cases have been. Some might argue that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander especially as the gander has been prominent in criticising the goose. In neither case is anybody here is in a position to judge what actually happened. So there's no point in discussing them. Time to archive this thread?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 2, 2013)

the SP deserve to be hammered in the same way as the SWP have been for that response, the political issues at stake are almost identical. 'no case to answer' is ludicrous, we all know the number of cases where men get away with sexist violence is massive whereas the number of false complaints by women is tiny. you can't respond to such a case without risking injustice to one of the parties, but the evidence would have to be extraordinary to justify validating the man's inherent advantage in much a case, in our oppressive society. 

where the 'bourgeois state' responds to a similar case in council housing the woman's protection would overrule any other considerations and rightly so. 

also if the accused is known to have made misogynist statements belittling mental health issues in the past, then that isn't irrelevant because it impacts on the accused's credibility as a witness. and witness credibility is a key factor in assessing the evidence in any such case. 

very disappointed by that response, whatever the facts of this individual case may be. but will the SP internal culture be up to anything more than the SWP's?


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

Hang on - didn't he resign from the SP before they were forced into carrying out their own investigation and then making a decision? Surely the most one can criticise them for now is if there's any hint of just ratifying the RMT's decision without any investigation of their own?


----------



## dennisr (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> Hang on - didn't he resign from the SP before they were forced into carrying out their own investigation and then making a decision? Surely the most one can criticise them for now is if there's any hint of just ratifying the RMT's decision without any investigation of their own?


 
Then again how can they do an investigation of their own?


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Then again how can they do an investigation of their own?


 
Well they can't really, can they. So they're not in a position to ratify the RMT's decision.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 2, 2013)

The EC statement: " Following an in-depth investigation the RMT has concluded that there is "no case to answer" against Steve and decided that the union "will not be taking any further action on this matter". " 

They are just ratifying the RMT investigation, according to that statement at any rate. they also quote his own blog post as an "explanation of events", and totally ignore hers. Any welfare state worker approaching such a case like this would face disciplinary action, socialists should be able to do better.....

His employer's investigation is a different matter I guess. Employees should get the benefit ofthe doubt, though the employer obviously has to ensure this doesn't mean that women are put at risk (as rightly recognised in the CRB check process, whatever its flaws)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 2, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> the SP deserve to be hammered in the same way as the SWP have been for that response, the political issues at stake are almost identical.


 
That's complete drivel.

The SP was made aware of an allegation against one of its members. It then ascertained that these allegations were being looked into by the appropriate authorities, so it got the hell out of the way until those investigations were complete. In the meantime, the member resigned from the SP. That was all entirely appropriate and has nothing in common with the way in which the SWP handled the Delta issue.


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> The EC statement: " Following an in-depth investigation the RMT has concluded that there is "no case to answer" against Steve and decided that the union "will not be taking any further action on this matter". "
> 
> They are just ratifying the RMT investigation, according to that statement at any rate. they also quote his own blog post as an "explanation of events", and totally ignore hers. Any welfare state worker approaching such a case like this would face disciplinary action, socialists should be able to do better.....
> 
> His employer's investigation is a different matter I guess. Employees should get the benefit ofthe doubt, though the employer obviously has to ensure this doesn't mean that women are put at risk (as rightly recognised in the CRB check process, whatever its flaws)


 
Without any disclaimer to the contrary, it does rather look as though they're saying that the RMT's looked into it so that's an end to the matter. Maybe I'm reading it wrongly.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> So they're not in a position to ratify the RMT's decision.


 
What does "ratify the RMT's decision" mean here? The SP does not function as some kind of appellate tribunal for union disciplinary decisions.


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What does "ratify the RMT's decision" even mean here? Believe it or not, the SP does not function as some kind of appellate tribunal for union disciplinary decisions.


It means an express or implied approval of the RMT's decision. I don't know whether they approve or not - do you?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> It means an express or implied approval of the RMT's decision. I don't know whether they approve or not - do you?


 
I'm not sure that "approval" is the issue. It's rather whether those who do actually interact with the RMT accept its decision in the absence of strong evidence that its procedures are fundamentally flawed (at least at this moment).


----------



## dennisr (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> Without any disclaimer to the contrary, it does rather look as though they're saying that the RMT's looked into it so that's an end to the matter. Maybe I'm reading it wrongly.


The thing is they could not really do much else about it. My guess is that Steve would have been asked to stand down from his position as a member of the SP. He is not rejoining anytime soon - I do not know if that is his decesion, the SPs or both. He is not be put in or elevated to any position in the SP - far from it. The statement is not a eulogy to Steve's innocence (or otherwise) - it is carefully worded to say that the SP recognises that the type of thing Steve's state does happen - but that the vast majority of cases are of violence against women and that the victim should be given strong sympathy in any hearing. It is not standing in judgement one way or the other. How else could the SP stand - they cannot demand further investigation or that he must be guilty or innocent.

On the RMT investigation the statement sauys: "Some have attempted to raise doubts about the RMT's investigation, but no flaws have been drawn to our attention." Again i cannot see what else they can say in the circumstances but i don't think this is some ringing endorsement one way or the other.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 2, 2013)

To put the question more broadly, and moving away from any specific case: Are people here arguing not only for a presumption of guilt in cases of sexual assault or domestic violence, but for a presumption of guilt so strong that it is for all intents and purposes an incontrovertible finding of guilt?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2013)

I recognise its a very difficult issue for the SP to have to deal with.  But his "explanation" makes a number of statements about her mental health that it has no reason to believe are true.  The implication of the statement is that he was fully exonerated by the police investigation (not necessarily the case) and that the rmt investigation means he has no case to answer, as though his status in the union could have had no bearing on that outcome.

Agree this doesn't put them in same category as SWP, it doesn't seem satisfactory


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 2, 2013)

oskarsdrum said: ↑
the SP deserve to be hammered in the same way as the SWP have been for that response, the political issues at stake are almost identical.​ 


> That's complete drivel.
> 
> The SP was made aware of an allegation against one of its members. It then ascertained that these allegations were being looked into by the appropriate authorities, so it got the hell out of the way until those investigations were complete. In the meantime, the member resigned from the SP. That was all entirely appropriate and has nothing in common with the way in which the SWP handled the Delta issue.


 
Alright - they started out better. I strongly hoped that'd be the end of the matter. But this statement takes them straight back into Callinicos territory, for all the reasons I mentioned. (the discredit to the SP is also a little less, perhaps, since the agreed facts of the Delta relationship show it to be highly inappropriate at the very least)

As for appropriate authorities, the lack of a punitive response response from the following:

a) the Police
b) the accused's employer

Is not in any way grounds for rehabilitation into a socialist political organisation in and of itself. Quite possibly, authorities a) and b) are correct to take no action, because as I noted above, the balance of risk can justifiably be towards the accused in such a case. A voluntary membership organisation is a different matter altogether. Here, for socialists, "beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof needed to allow the accused to continue a leading party role: because, anything else means that sometimes women who have been abused will be forced to see their abuser "exonerated"; and, worse still, because anything else contributes to a structure that shelters abusers. Institutional practice is a huge factor in abuse of oppressed groups.

If an innocent (but unprovably so) man has to leave a party because prevention of abuse is prioritized above everything else, well, of course, that's a disaster individually for him and a sad loss to the party. It's not impossible for that to happen to me personally! But that's the price of women's oppression in cases of irreconcilable uncertainty. It's not a reason to put women at risk of abuse compounded by humiliation.

Now, I don't know the facts of the case, but the above seems very relevant to the clear failings of the EC statement.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 2, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Agree this doesn't put them in same category as SWP, it doesn't seem satisfactory


 
My guess is the SP don't think this is a satisfactory conclusion one way or the other - the careful wording of the statement is not an endorsement one way or the other.
They are definately not cheerleading Steve at a rally. They are not even saying he can become a member of the SP. For some to argue, as osker has, that this means they should be bought to book in the manner the SWP (rightly...) has been is, to put it mildly, foolish.

The SWP leadership felt it could stand as judge and jury on a case that was even more serious than this one. it felt it could then demand loyalty - in the form of uncritical support for the resulting decision those 'leaders' made. The SP do not. it is an entirely different situation.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 2, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Alright - they started out better.


 
That was the sum total of their relevant conduct, ie their conduct regarding an allegation during the period when the subject of that allegation was one of their members.




			
				oskarsdrum said:
			
		

> Is not in any way grounds for rehabilitation into a socialist political organisation in and of itself...


 
All of this seems to be written in the belief that the subject of the allegation has rejoined the Socialist Party. As I understand it, he has not.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't know - the way it was tweeted suggested Steve had been vindicated.  I am not saying only a guilty verdict would have been satisfactory.  But linking to his statement as though it is the most plausible account seems to beg a lot of questions


----------



## dennisr (Apr 2, 2013)

For your information oskar. I am _the_ person who bought the allegations made against Steve to the SP leaderships attention after it was bought to mine by friends on these boards. This was far from easy for me personally having a close past political relationship with Steve - we have risked a fuck of a lot together doing anti-fascist work - and he is a fella I trusted and relied upon totally at that time. I put great trust in him - and have the utmost respect for the individual I knew. More importantly he put his trust in me. Frankly, when we have risked such things together - it makes me feel like a fecking traitor and a grass to treat an individual who trusted me the way I had to (no matter how irrational that may sound to you if you haven;t been through the stuff we did together...). So to be very direct - when you put yourself and - much worse - one of your good comrades - in the position I felt I had to put him in - then you can get all high and feckin mighty about it.

Yes, of course the SP takes such allegations and the potential risk of abuse to women seriously. That's what we do - not choosing the easy option.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 2, 2013)

It gives the impression they're acknowledging his version of events as implicitly right by linking his statement up there on the official website with no sort of qualifier, even if the what they're saying is reasonable. I don't think it's satisfactory either articul8, but at this point there's no way this will end up satisfactory for anyone concerned.

And I know its hard to break the habits of a lifetime, but making it a competition between the SP and SWP about who did best/worst seems a bit wrong to me at this point.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 2, 2013)

> Nigel Irritable said:
> 
> To put the question more broadly, and moving away from any specific case: Are people here arguing not only for a presumption of guilt in cases of sexual assault or domestic violence, but for a presumption of guilt so strong that it is for all intents and purposes an incontrovertible finding of guilt?


 
​Well, _almost_ incontrovertible in many cases, in practise, yes. There should be some basic investigation into the plausibility of any accusation - e.g. is there an overwhelmingly evidenced alibi, for example, or is there any other evidence that could give near 100% certainty that the accusation is false. Otherwise, if we still have to ask ourselves this question, then we've a lot to learn from how the women's movement has transformed the welfare state over the last 30 years (in Britain that is, I don't know to what extent that's true anywhere else). Given the fundamental indeterminacy of many cases, a political analysis is a sound guide:

a) the number of false claims of abuse by women is extremely low;
b) the risk of injustice to an individual man is - though not insignificant - far less than the risk to women as a whole whilst sexist violence remains a significant part of women's oppression. 

I guess the potential danger of this is to allow any authority/group with a bit of wherewithall to put forward a plausible false complaint and bring down any individual man. However, I don't see how that can be avoided, without giving abusive men a get-out for any situation. The same goes for custody of children, right to live in a shared tenancy, right to be a children's social worker etc. etc., after a credible (but unprovable) allegation is made. How could it be otherwise?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 2, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> ​Well, _almost_ incontrovertible in many cases, in practise, yes. There should be some basic investigation into the plausibility of any accusation - e.g. is there an overwhelmingly evidenced alibi, for example, or is there any other evidence that could give near 100% certainty that the accusation is false.


 
Just to be clear here: Are you advocating that the criminal justice system should take this approach?


----------



## dennisr (Apr 2, 2013)

Think about what you are advocating oskar


----------



## articul8 (Apr 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> It gives the impression they're acknowledging his version of events as implicitly right by linking his statement up there on the official website with no sort of qualifier, even if the what they're saying is reasonable. I don't think it's satisfactory either articul8, but at this point there's no way this will end up satisfactory for anyone concerned..


 
Yes, I think best would have been to say that events are subject to conflicting interpretations - link to both statements, and stick to factual report of investigation outcomes without suggesting matter is settled


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 2, 2013)

dennisr said:


> My guess is the SP don't think this is a satisfactory conclusion one way or the other - the careful wording of the statement is not an endorsement one way or the other.
> They are definately not cheerleading Steve at a rally. They are not even saying he can become a member of the SP. For some to argue, as osker has, that this means they should be bought to book in the manner the SWP (rightly...) has been is, to put it mildly, foolish.
> 
> The SWP leadership felt it could stand as judge and jury on a case that was even more serious than this one. it felt it could then demand loyalty - in the form of uncritical support for the resulting decision int made The SP do not. it is an entirely different situation.


 
I think it misses a few things. Steve Hedley was never acquitted or cleared. That the SP seem to think the RMT is qualified to judge the issue is a weird one. What is the basis for this belief? Contrary to Hedleys claims he was never cleared/acquitted/vindicated or whatever word he chose to use. He was never charged, which makes his claims rather fanciful. However what it does do is leave all sorts of room for conjecture, accusation, leaping and the like. It's neither satisfactory for victim or perpetrator whoever that may be.

I think it is true to say that Hedley is now 'damaged goods' (sorry for the bad choice of words but you get my drift). The accusations are still there, the physical evidence is still visible in the photos. It's a rather grubby denouement that serves no-one well.

As an aside the TUSC facebook charge posted Hedleys statement then started deleting posts commenting on it here. Then they removed Hedleys statement. That they first deleted critical comments also doesn't look good.

No-one comes out of this well.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 2, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Frankly, when we have risked such things together - it makes me feel like a fecking traitor and a grass to treat an individual who trusted me the way I had to (no matter how irrational that may sound to you if you haven;t been through the stuff we did together...).


 
No it doesn't (but I get what you're saying), it makes you a principled individual who did what anyone with socialist principals should have done. I've known you personally for near 20 years, we've risked a lot together, you are no traitor.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 2, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Did you used to paper sales at the Brunswick Centre in the early to mid 90s?


yessiree


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 2, 2013)

me and Judith Orr and Martin smith ofttimes as it goes.

Steven Rose never bought one!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 2, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> To put the question more broadly, and moving away from any specific case: Are people here arguing not only for a presumption of guilt in cases of sexual assault or domestic violence, but for a presumption of guilt so strong that it is for all intents and purposes an incontrovertible finding of guilt?


Some of my erstwhile factional comrades in the SWP are. don't agree with it myself but there is that mood abroad sir.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 2, 2013)

dennisr - well, that's clearly a very admirable and principled action which must have been extremely difficult. Many people I'm sure would have kept their head in the sand and hoped it'd go away instead (who knows, myself included, it's possible). On the wider issue, I've spelled out the implications of what I'm proposing very transparently, what do you disagree with?

Nigel - no no no, sorry if I wasn't clear: the standards for criminal investigations are very different. They're different again for employer investigations, and for civil measures such as harrassment and residency exclusion orders. There's a good reason for this, which is that the sanctions and therefore the risks in inevitable cases of error (given the inescapably limited information) are varied. We could think of it as a cascading set of negative outcomes for a man who is wrongly accused, but unprovably so:

- criminal - go to prison
- joint tenancy - made homeless (though of course, should be rehoused, but won't always be)
- employer - lose livelihood
- political party - lose some social networks, credibility....

Therefore, the evidence needed to implement a sanction decreases, until the balance of risk is on the side of believing the woman in all but the best evidenced cases (political party at the bottom).

I've yet to read a thorough defence of any alternative, particularly one that takes seriously the institutional factors in perpetuating abuse, but I'm not ruling out the possibility if anyone can point me in the direction of an alternative...?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 2, 2013)

Christ this SP stuff is going viral now. is that fair?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Christ this SP stuff is going viral now. is that fair?


 
Entirely predictable that it would do the rounds, particularly in SWP oppositionist circles.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 2, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> No it doesn't (but I get what you're saying), it makes you a principled individual who did what anyone with socialist principals should have done. I've known you personally for near 20 years, we've risked a lot together, you are no traitor.


 
yep.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 2, 2013)

> Entirely predictable that it would do the rounds, particularly in SWP oppositionist circles.



I do detect some hangover from swp anti-SP sectarianism in some comments that have been made. However in general group affilliation s a wholly separate matter to improving our responses to such extraordinarily difficult and serious matters and I doubt it's helpful to conflate the two.

edit - conflate's not the right word, rather I just mean they should be kept separate, sorry....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 2, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> edit - conflate's not the right word, rather I just mean they should be kept separate, sorry....


 
I agree. I wasn't actually pointing out the sectarian edge you note. I was pointing out where some rather heated discussion of it would inevitably come from given recent events.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 2, 2013)

Do we need a separate thread or is this one not going to run?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 2, 2013)

> I agree. I wasn't actually pointing out the sectarian edge you note. I was pointing out where some rather heated discussion of it would inevitably come from given recent events.



Hmm - that's a good point! That very probably heightened the emotional aspect of my own response (though I'm sticking with the general position I set out, for better or worse).


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 2, 2013)

> Do we need a separate thread or is this one not going to run?



Think this is a kind of afterward, your dramatic recent statement provided a fitting conclusion to the main business of the thread bb. Though I'm personally hoping for a picture of Mrs bb posing, like Tsipras, with the Independent Greeks


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 2, 2013)

I really don't like how that article's been written. "Steve felt" "Some have attempted to raise doubts" and that second last paragraph. The SP started off dealing with this well but it's an important issue and it deserved a slightly more in depth explaination, particularly since they've linked to one blog post but not the other.
People will raise the issue at branch meetings and so on though. I hope.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> It gives the impression they're acknowledging his version of events as implicitly right by linking his statement up there on the official website with no sort of qualifier, even if the what they're saying is reasonable.


 
The comparison with the handling of the Delta case is silly.

But oskarsdrum is right to say the statement from the EC is deeply troubling. Basically it reads as a press release from the accused's own camp: the line about male victims of domestic violence; that he "would clearly have preferred not to have gone public"; the link to the accusatory blog detailing the complainant's mental health issues etc. This seems like a very misjudged move by the SP.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 2, 2013)

Why would they make such a stupid move when things were to all intents and purposes done and dusted?


----------



## cesare (Apr 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Why would they make such a stupid move when things were to all intents and purposes done and dusted?


Yes, I don't really understand the need for a statement *at all*.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 2, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> The comparison with the handling of the Delta case is silly.
> 
> But oskarsdrum is right to say the statement from the EC is deeply troubling. Basically it reads as a press release from the accused's own camp: the line about male victims of domestic violence; that he "would clearly have preferred not to have gone public"; the link to the accusatory blog detailing the complainant's mental health issues etc. This seems like a very misjudged move by the SP.


 
For me the most worrying line is the last one "The Socialist Party will continue to work with Steve on the urgent task of building a mass movement against austerity." because surely that should depend entirely on the issue being settled, and him being unequivocally cleared of any wrongdoing, first? As far as I'm concerned that hasn't happened. It's a bit puzzling really - if he has "no case to answer" based on the results of the RMT's investigation, as the Socialist Party would appear to be suggesting by using it in the headline for the article, then why was it necessary for him to leave the party in the first place? If it is that clear-cut then why the resignation statement? It's worth pointing out that even though Steve Hedley was only a member of the SP for a very brief period formally, he was a key person in helping them set up the National Shop Stewards Network anti-cuts thing, so it's not as simple as that.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yes, I don't really understand the need for a statement *at all*.


 
I don't either. It makes no sense.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yes, I don't really understand the need for a statement *at all*.


I was going to list probably reasons and then say something about how once you start adding up loads of small reasons for doing something it becomes important to do it but then I can't actually see what problems there were. Perhaps it was just to get the word out there that it was more complicated than it looked, but then why not explain it properly? Was it intentional for there to be no link to the woman's blog?


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 2, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> For me the most worrying line is the last one "The Socialist Party will continue to work with Steve on the urgent task of building a mass movement against austerity." because surely that should depend entirely on the issue being settled, and him being unequivocally cleared of any wrongdoing, first? As far as I'm concerned that hasn't happened. It's a bit puzzling really - if he has "no case to answer" based on the results of the RMT's investigation, as the Socialist Party would appear to be suggesting by using it in the headline for the article, then why was it necessary for him to leave the party in the first place? If it is that clear-cut then why the resignation statement? It's worth pointing out that even though Steve Hedley was only a member of the SP for a very brief period formally, he was a key person in helping them set up the National Shop Stewards Network anti-cuts thing, so it's not as simple as that.


 
Presumably his role in the NSSN and his likely rehabilitation within the RMT are part of the answer to BB's very sensible question above? Even if he still remains outside the organization, as Nigel suggests, this would seem like the political motivation for this ill-judged intervention, unless someone can correct me?


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 2, 2013)

To clarify, it seems likely he will continue to play a key role in NSSN and RMT, given the latter's findings and statement, and therefore the SP have an interest in a continued productive relationship.

Even on these terms, though, the statement seems unnecessary and mistaken to me.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 2, 2013)

Maybe it's because they're having to deal with it a lot more often than everyone else, and they probably became somewhat detatched from what everyone else though about it. No one's going to congratulate you on every well balanced article you write but they will complain (and rightly so) when something's off. So in this case they might have not realised that most people were like "Well, that's that then".

But then alarm bells start ringing if they thought it wasn't obvious that most people wanted it to be left alone. Surely they'd just... know or ask other people or something?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 2, 2013)

> This seems like a very misjudged move by the SP.



It's all the more perplexing if he's not making a return to the party. Why comment at all, what more was needed beyond the resignation statement? His statement is bang out of order anyway, the RMT should have made sure he stuck to a simple, factual refutation and not something with an appearance of vindictive retaliation. Can't understand how institutions of the left are getting this stuff so wrong really. Even if only from the viewpoint of protecting their own reputations!


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 2, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> It's all the more perplexing if he's not making a return to the party. Why comment at all, what more was needed beyond the resignation statement? His statement is bang out of order anyway, the RMT should have made sure he stuck to a simple, factual refutation and not something with an appearance of vindictive retaliation. Can't understand how institutions of the left are getting this stuff so wrong really. Even if only from the viewpoint of protecting their own reputations!


 
It's bewildering. Especially once you read that blog. Whoever thought it was appropriate to link to that vitriolic diatribe (irrespective of its possible truth-value) needs to sit down and have a long, hard think.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 2, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> No it doesn't (but I get what you're saying), it makes you a principled individual who did what anyone with socialist principals should have done. I've known you personally for near 20 years, we've risked a lot together, you are no traitor.


 
In the midst of all the depressing stuff that has gone on in the left, it's this kind of thing that gives you a bit of hope. It must have been very difficult, even if the right thing to do.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 3, 2013)

I think the statement by the SP is an unbalanced one, since it links only to the male account not to the female account.
This is odd too, it feels as if the SP are hiding information from their readership - might not be the case - "Some have attempted to raise doubts about the RMT's investigation, but no flaws have been drawn to our attention."

I have no means to comment any further.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

Re-reading the EC statement. The only justification for the tone of the piece, and for linking to such a posting by someone subject to such accusations (bold paragraph for emphasis too!), is that they're utterly and 100% convinced that he's innocent. And therefore, presumably, the victim of a cruel slur: and if that's what they think then they should say so. But the lack of such a stand suggests instead a confused compromise between an instinct that their comrade is innocent, and a knowledge that it's impossible to prove it.

Humanly of course, that's a very understandable reaction, but according weight to such instincts is the product of an extremely poor understanding of sexist violence as an aspect of women's oppression. I wonder whether the EC made any attempt to relate the case to the large body of research and theorizing around domestic violence, male plausibility, barriers to reporting attacks etc.?

What's the best case scenario for the EC here - that they're 100% convinced but they don't want the negative publicity of claiming outright that the allegations are fabricated? That still seems very poor to me. And if they've any sliver of doubt about the matter then what they've said is utterly contemptible. However, a speedy retraction, apology and reissuing of a more appropriate response could repair much of the damage at this stage.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

Btw, what's the EC?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 3, 2013)

cesare said:


> Btw, what's the EC?


 
let me just check my copy of the socialist party constitution, oh, wait....


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> let me just check my copy of the socialist party constitution, oh, wait....


G'wan then, what is it?!

Edit: oh, the Executive Committee. Is that similar to the SWP's CC?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

> Edit: oh, the Executive Committee. Is that similar to the SWP's CC?


 
The EC put their name to the statement so I'd think we're safe to presume so - unless they're some kind of renegrade grouping who've grabbed control of the website 

I hope they get it sorted soon you know. No way can I take another three months of intense trot-intrigue drama!!!


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> The EC put their name to the statement so I'd think we're safe to presume so - unless they're some kind of renegrade grouping who've grabbed control of the website
> 
> I hope they get it sorted soon you know. No way can I take another three months of intense trot-intrigue drama!!!


I was just generally asking, as a "btw", who they are/what their function is. I wasn't suggesting or thinking that anyone's grabbed control of their website.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 3, 2013)

The EC are the equivalent to the SWP's CC.

I have no wish to comment on the case itself but this is all very odd. I can't think of any way that statement _could_ have been worded in a way that would be fair to all parties - it's just way too complex, sensitive and there are too many unknowns to be able to do that. Which makes me wonder why on earth they thought it a good idea to release _any _statement. It's just not necessary or appropriate - he's no longer a member and, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is now in the hands of the two parties concerned (Headley and the alleged victim), the police and the RMT.

It's not really anything to do with the SP - I don't see what could possibly be gained from releasing that statement (regardless of whether you're viewing it from the POV of justice or in a more cynical realpolitik perspective) and, predictably, it's pissed people off.

Maximum respect to dennisr though - can't have been an easy thing to do but, as others have said, you're no traitor - it was the right thing to do.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

Cheers Spiney.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 3, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Re-reading the EC statement. The only justification for the tone of the piece, and for linking to such a posting by someone subject to such accusations (bold paragraph for emphasis too!), is that they're utterly and 100% convinced that he's innocent. And therefore, presumably, the victim of a cruel slur: and if that's what they think then they should say so. But the lack of such a stand suggests instead a confused compromise between an instinct that their comrade is innocent, and a knowledge that it's impossible to prove it.
> 
> Humanly of course, that's a very understandable reaction, but according weight to such instincts is the product of an extremely poor understanding of sexist violence as an aspect of women's oppression. I wonder whether the EC made any attempt to relate the case to the large body of research and theorizing around domestic violence, male plausibility, barriers to reporting attacks etc.?
> 
> What's the best case scenario for the EC here - that they're 100% convinced but they don't want the negative publicity of claiming outright that the allegations are fabricated? That still seems very poor to me. And if they've any sliver of doubt about the matter then what they've said is utterly contemptible. However, a speedy retraction, apology and reissuing of a more appropriate response could repair much of the damage at this stage.


 
Whatever they thought of the merits or otherwise of the case, they'd have done better to stay quiet. Relating this case directly to any sort of theorizing of domestic violence would also have been a mistake, though these are certainly important issues that need to be addressed more abstractly.

I think you'll be waiting a long time for a retraction or apology, oskar. However foolish or inappropriate this statement was, though, I can't seeing there being too much fallout for the SP. Can anyone else? The accused's speedy resignation put distance between the case and the organization. The party's poorly-judged actions - consisting merely in issuing a highly problematic statement - are just incomparable with those that have occupied most of the thread.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 3, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> The accused's speedy resignation put distance between the case and the organization.


 
No it's not as simple as that, just coz he's not a card carrying member doesn't mean there's distance between him and the party.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 3, 2013)

Yeah - it's a daft statement but it's a hell of a stretch, and IMO unfair, to draw an equivalence between that and the Delta affair (though I get the impression that oskarsdrum has as much as admitted that comment was more an emotional reaction, which I can understand - my initial reaction upon hearing the Delta stuff wasn't exactly rational either).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 3, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> No it's not as simple as that, just coz he's not a card carrying member doesn't mean there's distance between him and the party.


 
Enough distance to make it very difficult to understand why anyone thought this statement was a good idea though.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> yessiree


 
I thought I recognised you. Trying to do a paper sale in the Brunswick Centre is the equivalent of internal exile in my book. You must have pissed someone off on the CC.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

tenniselbow said:
			
		

> Whatever they thought of the merits or otherwise of the case, they'd have done better to stay quiet. Relating this case directly to any sort of theorizing of domestic violence would also have been a mistake, though these are certainly important issues that need to be addressed more abstractly.



Ah sorry, yes, rather than expecting several paragraphs pontificating on the subject I meant they really should have considered their response in the light of such, which I can't see that they've done.




			
				tenniselbow said:
			
		

> I think you'll be waiting a long time for a retraction or apology, oskar. However foolish or inappropriate this statement was, though, I can't seeing there being too much fallout for the SP. Can anyone else? The accused's speedy resignation put distance between the case and the organization. The party's poorly-judged actions - consisting merely in issuing a highly problematic statement - are just incomparable with those that have occupied most of the thread.


 
True - I suspect the SP can fall back on a little more goodwill from the left at large than can the SWP, as well. On the other hand if he maintains/takes up a _leading_ role in NSSN and TUSC then it could become more of a running sore, since that's "exoneration" to all intents and purposes (although the occupation of such a role in TUSC is perhaps a paradigmatically moot point  )


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> Yeah - it's a daft statement but it's a hell of a stretch, and IMO unfair, to draw an equivalence between that and the Delta affair (though I get the impression that oskarsdrum has as much as admitted that comment was more an emotional reaction, which I can understand - my initial reaction upon hearing the Delta stuff wasn't exactly rational either).


 
Yes I'll take that. They are substantially different and it's mainly unhelpful to consider this in light of the Delta case (that said - there are some lessons for any left organisation from the SWP's many errors in the matter, as the bureaucratic imperatives driving them are an inescapable pressure requiring constant vigilance).

Nonetheless I do think the statement itself, and the practical commitments it contains, is a serious problem. Since we can't be certain that his version of events is accurate, let's just consider what has happened if she's in fact telling the truth. If that's the case then the SP have promoted a brutal and libellious victim-blaming statement from an abuser. Now - we don't know whether that's the case, of course, but for the SP to leave open the possibility....I think that's a really important mistake that needs to be reckoned with, and not disregarded as a frustrating curiosity.

That's of course giving the RMT and SP the benefit of the doubt in every contentious respect. I wonder, on the other hand, whether any of the EC know anything that supports her side of the case, or whether the relevant RMT individuals do, or indeed - how it would look supposing a transcript of the RMT discussing their own investigation process were leaked......? Who was on the RMT investigating panel, were they completely removed from any conflict of interest? Could they demonstrate how they set aside any consideration of protecting their own reputation and one of the top individuals in their hierarchy? What about the minutes of meetings when the complaint first arose, can they show that the only concern has ever been to treat all parties fairly and never to protect the organisational interest? If so then frankly a new form of superhuman species seems to be present in the RMT leadership. Did the SP use its connections to establish the overwhelming probity of every aspect of the RMT procedure? I very much doubt that, since they seem to be misusing the lack of punitive action by an employer as justification for something very different (acceptance of continued role in the movement).

This goes far beyond the one case. Whether male or female (but in the society we're in, mainly male), any prominent individual in a union or socialist party possesses the kind of credibility and status that makes abusive behaviour more likely to escape sanction. Obviously, only a small minority of people in such positions have the interest or intention to carry out such behaviour. But we urgently need to find better ways of addressing situations where it's alleged that sexist abuse has occured. Given the irreducible uncertainty of most such cases, intuitive responses cause enormous damaage by producing a power imbalance always favouring the high-status, credible accused.

ok.....I'll leave off for a while!!!


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

Sorry one more thing. Fair play to SP members giving honest commentary on this. Bit of a contrast to the fateful final line of the facebook 4 discussion - "We're in the SWP, not North Korea!" oops!


----------



## dennisr (Apr 3, 2013)

You sound like the SWP CC, oskar - knowing what is best. Maybe you can provide us all with the answers to your questions and expert solutions to these concerns if proven?

We can all speculate and wonder about this aspect and that aspect - frankly Steve's political life and past leadership role is over, destroyed - regardless of wether he is guilty or innocent. This has already happened - there is no return to the situation before this came out.

As for internal critisism of how even the statement was handled by the SP EC? - that will come from the layer of SP activists who cut their political teeth in the Campaign Against Domestic Violence (CADV) campaigns and present anti-sexism campaigns they are involved in - far from being covered up or silenced or resulting in cheerleading at rallies of possible rapists or expulsions of those who disagree. This is a completely different situation to what the majority of this thread is about.

I do not know what organisational structures can or could be put in place that could or would provide a perfectly fair and accountable solution to all parties involved in a situation as serious as this - individuals have raised this problem on a number of occasions on this thread and others have made useful suggestions (some of nigel and cesare's posts in particular) - I would be very open to people's ideas on the matter. I don't have easy solutions to the problem - and i am not happy with some easy option of simply bending the stick one way or the other in terms of assumed guilt or innocence - that will not lead to genuine justice only to a backlash from any party feeling victimised.

Christ on a bike.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

dennisr said:
			
		

> You sound like the SWP CC, oskar - knowing what is best. Maybe you can provide us all with the answers to your questions and expert solutions to these concerns if proven?
> 
> .....
> 
> As for internal critisism of how even the statement was handled by the SP EC? - that will come from the layer of SP activists who cut their political teeth in the Campaign Against Domestic Violence (CADV) campaigns and present anti-sexism campaigns they are involved in - far from being covered up or silenced or resulting in cheerleading at rallies of possible rapists or expulsions of those who disagree. This is a completely different situation to what the majority of this thread is about


 
"oskarsdrum is not an institution of capitalist society......"

anyway, as I implied, I think I've said plenty already, except to respond with 2 more things..... 1) as seems to be the consensus, the statement made was a grave error, and 2) the statement in particular and the wider matters of such cases raise serious issues for all of us on the left. What is needed isn't a 6 point "solution" for all time of how things can be done, that would certainly be the preference of CC types everywhere. Instead we need to develop new methods, that are reflexive and immersed in the political context, to respond appropriately. I doubt that the division between "internal" and "external" is part of the solution though, except in maintaining the confidentiality that is essential, but that should sit beside absolute transparency in procedural (not factual) matters.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 3, 2013)

oskar, your attempted conflation of how the two organisations dealt with the respective situations is a  false one. 
Are you RS then? stop implying, say what you think.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This is odd too, it feels as if the SP are hiding information from their readership - might not be the case - "Some have attempted to raise doubts about the RMT's investigation, but no flaws have been drawn to our attention."
> I have no means to comment any further.


 
Yes this is a very odd thing to say - the alleged victim has made very public her complaints about the procedure - together with the rep who attended the investigation interview with her.  So what do they mean "no flaws have been drawn to our attention"?  And who else would such a complaint come from? 

To me it reads like SH has scripted this statement and asked the EC to issue it on his behalf.  Think they were very unwise to do so.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 3, 2013)

dennisr said:


> *Are you RS then?* stop implying, say what you think.


 
Of the Germany book?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Of the Germany book?


Ha no, of the Hitchens variety I'm guessing


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ha no, of the Hitchens variety I'm guessing


 
Eh?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 3, 2013)

might be wrong altogether but Oskar sounds a lot like yer man from Lenins Tomb


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 3, 2013)

articul8 said:


> might be wrong altogether but Oskar sounds a lot like yer man from Lenins Tomb


 
 Aaaahhhh


----------



## dennisr (Apr 3, 2013)

Which would be interesting if true - and if s/he is happy to discuss - plenty of questions raised on past posts on this thread alone


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

haha RS?? no indeed! I've posted elsewhere as oskarsdrum if you want to double check. however I'm sure bb is relishing the implication that all InterSN individuals are indistinguishable clones! Personally I think my style is rather different to his, much admiration though I've got for the fella, but anyway....

I'm not an academic or anything. still in my line of work I've seen enough relevant cases in detail to be convinced that it's almost always impossible to definitively establish the facts of these matters and what we can best do is apply an understanding of gender and sexist violence to the possibility of establishing guilt or innocence in any satisfactory way. I'm not trying to claim any special or inaccessible knowledge, but I do wonder whether a false impression of the effectiveness that most (not all) such investigations can have informs some of the debate here. That's also why transparency about the process is essential, without diminishing confidentiality around the facts of any particulate case. 

Hence my earlier arguments that except in rare cases where the complaint can be shown to be completely implausible (or vice versa), we have to accept that we can't escape the risk of wronging one of the parties, but better to run against the grain of power than with it. Since in the end actions have to be made in a condition of fundamental uncertainty. (the response of friends and close associates of the accused will rightly differ often to the institutional response that I'm talking about - hence the conflict  of interest problem)

The cases are substantially different it's true, but nevertheless they raise some of the same important issues.


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

What's your line of work (broadly) oskars, that the relevant cases you've seen confirm your theory that "it's almost always impossible to definitively establish the facts of these matters"?


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 3, 2013)

Think in any situation involving a lack of witnesses its almost impossible to establish incontrovertible evidence one way or the other... Acts like domestic violence, rape etc by virtue of their behind closed doorness will pretty much always tend to end up in situations like that...

Its hard to argue against oskars reasonings in this, given that this is the nature of situations behind closed doors and then any agent deciding upon a case will have to either favour the accuser or the accused testimony and i guess in the state of affairs of how domestic violence plays in maintaining gendered oppression of our society, then i guess one would have to favour the accusers accounts on these matters...., (if coming at this from a lefty perspective) but from my own personal experience of having violence done upon myself by a previous partner including being slashed in the face, makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable with acceding to oskars argument....


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

ah sorry yes, well maybe i shouldn't have mentioned it but. homelessness investigations which, in the degraded neoliberal welfare state, need a thorough look into the "facts", sometimes on both sides (depending on who is staying in the home), collaboration with social workers and police DV specialists, use of civil measures to exclude the accused from a home etc. Not to get into the many practical difficulties about how services work in these areas!

In such cases and I think rightly, the benefit of the doubt invariably goes to the accuser. The reason why doubt is so prevalent is that it's nearly always a one-person's-word-v-another situation. This isn't easily amenable to a satisfactory investigative  process, judgements which are inevitably partial, first, and second, structured by the institutional and social context (including the use of most 'witnesses' - who will be more about character and credibility unless the allegation is of abuse in the presence of other people).


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

From the POV of an employer making a decision, the facts don't have to be incontrovertible btw. It's based on *reasonable* belief.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

xslavearcx, that's a very fair point. For that reason the accused (edit, *as worker*) should be given a quite different response to that as party member, or leading political activist. Also, good support/advice is essential if people close to the accused believe they are innocent - a dignified and concise public response is the only option here. Ultimately I don't believe there's any alternative unless/until domestic violence becomes an almost extinct phenomenon.


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 3, 2013)

yeah i found oskars post about different burdons of proof applying to different situations (ranging from criminal courts to memberships in political organisations) quite illuminating with the scale of burdon of proof being related towards the consequences of how a judgement would impact upon on an accused...

It is a bit of a nightmare with behind closed door things, because it seems that there is no perfect way to ensure that justice (in some kinda abstract perfect platonic kinda way) can ever be done. For instance, it is often discussed about how rape cases need to be altered because the conviction rate is grossly below the widespread incidence of such crimes. But then there is the issue that if one tinkers with the legal process too much could fundamentally alter the nature of the assumption of innocence until proven guilty that it is posited happens with all other cases. How such problems get reconciled satisfactorily i do not know 

Edited to add that was in response to ceasres last post


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

Employers - yes, that's for good reason I think, because the consequences of error are so drastic on either side. The standard of proof used should, in general, be consistent with the balance of risk in case of erroneous judgement (to go back to housing/exclusion orders - being thrown out of home is bad, but being subject to violence in the home is worse, so the burden of proof falls on the accused - creating individual injustices, but a least-worse situation overall)

edit - apologies for windily repeating what xslavearcx just said!


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

Well, from an employment perspective it's more about balance of probability than balance of risk.


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 3, 2013)

well i was windily repeating what you said so its all good haha...

Just as an aside, i read earlier the mentioning of the hedley case citing some data from a 'mens domestic violence support group of sorts', i would state that whilst violence from women to men is a phenomena that undoubtedly happens, it cannot be seen in the same terms as violence against women, in so far as violence against women is a phenomena that perpetuates a generalised power differential between genders. The problem with mens rights groups in general is that they transform isolated events as being a mirror image of phenomena that maintains patriarchy (ie domestic violence of men to women) with the consequence of a denial of the existence of patriarchy or worse to justify patriarchy in some horrible nietzchiesque terms of will to power constructed as a battle of the sexes...


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

I think the balance of risk (the negative consequences of error on either side) is the factor that determines what balance of probability should be used (in judging whether or nit to apply a sanction). though I'm not what the best terminology to use is....


----------



## cesare (Apr 3, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> I think the balance of risk (the negative consequences of error on either side) is the factor that determines what balance of probability should be used (in judging whether or nit to apply a sanction). though I'm not what the best terminology to use is....


See, I'd probably argue that the perceived risk would be just one of the factors in demonstrating that an employer's belief in an employee's "guilt" was reasonable.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

back on topic, sort of:

"This brings us to the SWP. Must we? Yes, we must, and not for the last time. I have no desire to spend the rest of my political life writing about the party I have just left, but there is a necessary process of political clarification following such a break. I have until now defended the party's general lines and strategies, notwithstanding my Syriza heresy. But in the course of an acute crisis triggered by an unbelievable and unforgiveable rape cover-up, the contours of a chronic crisis linked to the lack of democracy, congealed dogma and strategic vapidity became clear(er). An accounting of this is called for, if the right decisions are to be taken now."

http://www.leninology.com/2013/03/the-actuality-of-successful-capitalist.html?m=1
maxi-me throws down the gauntlet!


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 3, 2013)

I'm broadly in agreement with oskar and xslavearcx regarding the seemingly intractably problem of dealing fairly with these kinds of one-word-against-another cases.

A question that looms in the background here, though, is justice. I think it's easy to take the common-sense liberal notion of justice for granted as a kind of default. But particularly in cases of violence within relationships, this seems problematic. For one thing, interpersonal relations are really complex and can't always be reduced to the guilt/innocence of each individual. And where this can't be ascertained -- either beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities -- which is going to be so in many cases, we don't necessarily feel 'justice' has been done. Second, if we believe that individual behavior can't be isolated from its social context, we have to take into account both the generalized power differentials between men and women, both in terms of how abuse is distributed systematically and also how individuals are shaped by the society and culture around them.

This all seems to me to point towards some sort of position that -- in a sub-set of cases -- moves away from the default liberal notice of justice, recognizes the difficulty in always ascertaining guilt/innocence in this model -- pointing to how it is fundamentally unsatisfactory -- but seeks to take seriously the gender and power imbalances involved, the systematic patterning of interpersonal violence, the complexity of relationships, and the way in which individual behavior is shaped in fundamental but not wholly determining ways by wider social and cultural forces.

Where that leads, I'm not sure. To some kind of restorative justice model that stresses the importance of rehabilitation and reeducation? Could the left move towards a more complex understanding of these cases that would not result in the kind of "no case to answer" statements we've seen? To me, the challenge here does seem to lie both in problematic institutional cultures and in political analyses of patriarchy/women's oppression that are too reductive to take this kind of complexity into account.


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 3, 2013)

damn that was a belter of a post!


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

"ace" analysis, tenniselbow. Your reference to restorative justice points a way far beyond the rather Hobbsian frame that I've been operating within! Although I guess that the need to minimize possibilities of power abuse - status or bureacratic power or both - remains. You might say that we need a way to 'regulate' the manner in which various forms of social capital can be valorized by abusers to protect themselves. But an effective restorative approach could achieve this and much besides. A prevention-rehabilitation model would also likely elicit far more factual information about the nature of a situation than the common investigate-adversarial approach. Nice work!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Apr 3, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Maybe, but the neither should the SWP cases have been. Some might argue that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander especially as the gander has been prominent in criticising the goose. In neither case is anybody here is in a position to judge what actually happened. So there's no point in discussing them. Time to archive this thread?


 which is why I have neither defended, or attacked the SWP over the allegations handling.

The political criticisms of the leadership though are in the open, and are quite weighty in my opinion.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Apr 3, 2013)

dennisr said:


> My guess is the SP don't think this is a satisfactory conclusion one way or the other - the careful wording of the statement is not an endorsement one way or the other.
> They are definately not cheerleading Steve at a rally. They are not even saying he can become a member of the SP. For some to argue, as osker has, that this means they should be bought to book in the manner the SWP (rightly...) has been is, to put it mildly, foolish.
> 
> The SWP leadership felt it could stand as judge and jury on a case that was even more serious than this one. it felt it could then demand loyalty - in the form of uncritical support for the resulting decision those 'leaders' made. The SP do not. it is an entirely different situation.


 they were asked to preside as judge and jury by the accuser, should they have refused this request?


----------



## dennisr (Apr 3, 2013)

I do like the restorative justice ideas you are both raising and agree with you oskar that this is going to be more likely to get to the facts. How it could be implimented practically is another question - but its a very interesting point


----------



## dennisr (Apr 3, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> they were asked to preside as judge and jury by the accuser, should they have refused this request?


this has been answered about 20 times on this thread alone - go away you troll


----------



## TremulousTetra (Apr 3, 2013)

dennisr said:


> this has been answered about 20 times on this thread alone - go away you troll


so you shouldn't misrepresent the facts then.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 3, 2013)

dennisr said:


> this has been answered about 20 times on this thread alone - go away you troll


 
Had to take RMP3 off ignore to make sense of this turn in the thread! Now, back on ignore


----------



## dennisr (Apr 3, 2013)

Yep, I really should use the ignore button as well


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

dennisr said:
			
		

> I do like the restorative justice ideas you are both raising and agree with you oskar that this is going to be more likely to get to the facts. How it could be implimented practically is another question - but its a very interesting point


 
yes it's certainly a more productive avenue to explore than my shrill outrage. Maybe someone might take the initiative to form a cross-union/party working group of the left who can read up on the area, talk to practitioners and experts and come up with something more practical. If this kind of response has already been promoted on the left, then I've never managed to happen across it in all the multi-million words I must have read around the subject since December 2012! I've heard of a few excellent results from restorative approaches in schools and communities, albeit not focussed on partner abuse, but I should think there's lots of lessons out there to learn already.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 3, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I do like the restorative justice ideas you are both raising and agree with you oskar that this is going to be more likely to get to the facts. How it could be implimented practically is another question - but its a very interesting point


 

This is a key question.

It depends at what institutional level we're considering, whether parties, employers, or the judicial system. I think a perspective like this is rightly going to look different in each context. And also, I would reiterate that a restorative approach would be relevant only for a _sub-set_ of cases I think. Or, perhaps better put, there should be a variety of restorative approaches? 

Now, considering the case of left parties, as it's to hand, I think an abstract notion of "natural right" just isn't a very good guiding principle in such a sub-set of cases of abuse in interpersonal relationships. For one thing, we should have a much more complex -- dare I say dialectical -- conception of how such relations are inextricably intertwined with wider patterns of social relations, structural forces, and formations of power. This, you would think, should allow us to be both more critical in the sense of more attentive and attuned to noticing potentially abusive relationships, and more critical in the sense of situating these relationships within a wider social analysis -- rather than seeing them merely as a matter of individual guilt/innocence.

This is not to say I don't think we should be vigilant and tough in such cases; I think we should and really I favor a no-tolerance approach. However, it seems to me that a better guiding principle (than natural right/liberal justice) would be some kind of twin conception of safety and human flourishing, inasmuch as this is possible under current social conditions. The former is obviously a precondition for the latter. It's clear to me that abuse proliferates to varying degrees and in various styles in all kinds of relationships. It's also clear that since forms of abuse are so preponderant, and given our understanding of the way individuals bear the mark of wider social relations, we would do better to adopt an approach that recognized the suffering caused by abuse and recognized the suffering of abusers (I am not equating the two, by the way) who in other respects are good human beings. Rather than a judicial approach that aims guilt or innocence, which is impossible for political organizations to determine adequately as we've seen, a restorative approach focused on reducing suffering, making the organization safe for all, and encouraging individuals' flourishing and development seems a possible route for me. 

I realize this might all sound rather wishy-washy to some of the hardened souls of U75. And in any case, having said all this, I really think these suggestions imply a left with much more open, democratic and self-critical structures in which power is less concentrated at the top, which adopts quite a different perspective on feminist debates and the personal and social psychology of "(wo)man under capitalism" than the simplistic formulae we hear reiterated, and involves cadre who are far more reflective on these issues and self-reflexive in practice.

Apologies by the way if experienced hands feel this is a derail of the thread. I'm new here so I'm not sure of the norms. Quite happy to take this elsewhere if asked.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2013)

Nope, it's good stuff and i'm glad to see it.


----------



## marty21 (Apr 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> yessiree


 Brunswick Centre nr Kings X ? I might have even bought a paper off you then


----------



## treelover (Apr 3, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> ah sorry yes, well maybe i shouldn't have mentioned it but. homelessness investigations which, in the degraded neoliberal welfare state, need a thorough look into the "facts", sometimes on both sides (depending on who is staying in the home), collaboration with social workers and police DV specialists, *use of civil measures to exclude the accused from a home etc*. Not to get into the many practical difficulties about how services work in these areas!
> 
> In such cases and I think rightly, the benefit of the doubt invariably goes to the accuser. The reason why doubt is so prevalent is that it's nearly always a one-person's-word-v-another situation. This isn't easily amenable to a satisfactory investigative process, judgements which are inevitably partial, first, and second, structured by the institutional and social context (including the use of most 'witnesses' - who will be more about character and credibility unless the allegation is of abuse in the presence of other people).


 
Sorry, but none the wiser about your 'interesting' occupation,

the bold bit sounds ominous...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 3, 2013)

That's interesting, tenniselbow. And evidence that even now the thread can still produce some constructive stuff.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 3, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Rather than a judicial approach that aims guilt or innocence, which is impossible for political organizations to determine adequately as we've seen, a restorative approach focused on reducing suffering, making the organization safe for all, and encouraging individuals' flourishing and development seems a possible route for me.


 

Why should a restorative approach make an organisation any safer than a punitive approach - I don't see any practical reason for that, some might argue a restorative approach would just allow another avenue for an abusive partner.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 3, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Why should a restorative approach make an organisation any safer than a punitive approach - I don't see any practical reason for that, some might argue a restorative approach would just allow another avenue for an abusive partner.


 

Thanks for that. I don't think there are easy answers, sihhi, and was thinking out loud a bit there.

But I think the problem lies in how do you execute a punitive approach. If a member is sent down for a serious crime, this is pretty easy. But if things are far less clear-cut, and no external authority has made such a ruling, it seems impossible to get into a punitive procedure in a one-word-against-another situation -- even when there has been wrong done.

A restorative approach, on the other hand, could help to address situations where it would be impossible to adjudicate in this manner, thus allowing the organization to address the issue internally but without forcing its leadership/membership into the totally impossible position of trying to judge and punish. Of course this wouldn't work for all cases. But a general orientation in this direction combined with a more nuanced understanding of gendered power relations in society (as mentioned above) could be a useful way to go.

No one wants to allow abusive partners to be able to continue abusing others. But the punitive approach leaves just as much of an avenue open for abusers to continue to perpetrate (if it is impossible to find against them). The difference here, compared to a restorative approach, is that in the absence of punishment or a "not proven" finding, the accused arguably has more space to return to past behaviors -- and the complainant will likely be left more isolated -- than in a restorative approach that recognizes harms done and tries to improve the situation for both of the parties.

Just to reiterate, it's a subset of cases I'm talking about here and I may be way off the mark. Part of my thinking here is the vast spectrum of forms and levels of abuse in relationships -- I really think abuse in some form is pervasive -- which suggests to me that a punitive approach will only capture (imperfectly) cases towards one pole of a continuum that as a whole we should be looking to address.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> Sorry, but none the wiser about your 'interesting' occupation,
> 
> the bold bit sounds ominous...


 
Didn't he write: homelessness investigations in the welfare state?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 3, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I do like the restorative justice ideas you are both raising and agree with you oskar that this is going to be more likely to get to the facts. How it could be implimented practically is another question - but its a very interesting point


 
In reality for restorative justice to work someone has to agree that they are at fault and that there is a victim who is willing to engage in the process


----------



## dennisr (Apr 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> In reality for restorative justice to work someone has to agree that they are at fault and that there is a victim who is willing to engage in the process


Yep, it is a problem going round and round in my head at the moment. There's a brief guardian article here that specifically argues that, in cases of doemestic violence, it can become a case of justice denied:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/restorative-justice-domestic-violence
_"An offender making reparation to a victim may be fine and noble. But to blur the line over punishment for partner abuse is reckless"_

Women's Aid are certainly not convinced: http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-articles.asp?section=00010001002200070001&itemid=1185

_"This definition clearly outlines why restorative justice is not appropriate for domestic violence cases. Restorative justice implies a position of equality and of equal bargaining power between two parties."_

That's one view. I'll like to hear more for and against.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 3, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> But if things are far less clear-cut, and no external authority has made such a ruling, it seems impossible to get into a punitive procedure in a one-word-against-another situation -- even when there has been wrong done.


 
I assume we're talking about coercion or domestic violence behind closed doors which doesn't always leave marks.



> A restorative approach, on the other hand, could help to address situations where it would be impossible to adjudicate in this manner, thus allowing the organization to address the issue internally but without forcing its leadership/membership into the totally impossible position of trying to judge and punish. Of course this wouldn't work for all cases. But a general orientation in this direction combined with a more nuanced understanding of gendered power relations in society (as mentioned above) could be a useful way to go.


 
Why should only one organisation try to keep it within its confines? I believe accusations particularly if they are for serious things like domestic violence should be aired more widely - obviously this could be misused allowing false accusers etc.



> The difference here, compared to a restorative approach, is that in the absence of punishment or a "not proven" finding, the accused arguably has more space to return to past behaviors -- and the complainant will likely be left more isolated -- than in a restorative approach that recognizes harms done and tries to improve the situation for both of the parties.


 
How can _conflicting accounts_ of harm done be recognised and reconciled?
If someone has abused you and hit you, you don't want people to worry about the non-suffering and the pattern of lies the person who has hit you has weaved.
Likewise, if someone has purposefully blackened your name, giving them restorative help/counselling on the basis of a wrong done by you, is to let yourself go down as a besmirched figure.



> Just to reiterate, it's a subset of cases I'm talking about here and I may be way off the mark.


Fine but which judge judges which cases is part o;f the subset and which not?

My general thoughts - perhaps it's wise if possible to encourage some males to not be couples if they feel they might be incapable of self-control in domestic/partnership situations.
full freedom for single women within an organisation is important.
don't want to turn this into the health/relationships forum but if within an organisation single women are perceived oddly or are often receiving male attention, it can become easier to partner up and deflect this attention, whereas singlehood should be respected both for men and women.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 3, 2013)

It is recognised as being a valuable approach to bullying even in schools with entrenched behavioural problems, fwiw. I'll try and find a couple of links later but it's not the case that restorative practice is necessarily a 'soft touch' approach - though there's a danger it will be if safety and prevention of abuse isn't prioritized first and foremost. there's no simple solutions, of course, but it can be better than punitive models in creating a culture where abuse can be identified readily and never covered up or brushed aside. 

I guess there might be a minority of implacable, out and out predators that need taking into account.


----------



## andysays (Apr 3, 2013)

Restorative rather than punitive justice sounds like a good idea, though there might be some situations where it isn't appropriate.

But isn't that a completely separate issue to the one of establishing the truth of an accusation, the guilt or otherwise of the accused?

It's the difference between the "verdict" and the "sentence". The latter only becomes an issue if a guilty verdict is reached.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 3, 2013)

Thanks for your comments, sihhi. 

I definitely did not mean to suggest that such issues should be kept inside an organization, rather that the route I was suggesting poses one way in which they could be addressed internally in situations where they have not been addressed e.g. through prosecution, elsewhere. 

I agree with your most of your general vision of what a healthy organizational culture should look like. But you also highlight the intractable nature of some of the issues at hand, problems many of us are struggling to think through.

I've been pretty clear about the fact I think abuse is on a spectrum, and an expansive one. And I also feel that abuse of various forms is pervasive. Now, for my part a punitive approach would definitely apply for a large part of that spectrum. But for much of it, I don't think it is necessarily the best route. So I'm not trying to deal out absolutes here. Where the line is drawn is an entirely different question (and one that in the abstract is not strictly answerable).

And I've been talking about organizations, figuring primarily with cases in which external prosecutions have not been brought and there are conflicting accounts and little evidence. Now, my feeling is that a system that focuses on punishment is inevitably going to be insufficient in such circumstances. There seems to be a widespread feeling here that internal committees should not be acting as quasi-judicial bodies; the possibility of them giving an honest accounting is in grave doubt. There is also a priority to prevent abusive relationships developing and not to allow them to be perpetuated. There's also a danger of unfairly condemning innocent individuals. And there is a recognition of gendered power-imbalances and other social dynamics that fundamentally shape relationships, perceptions of victimhood, likelhood of reporting. I'm on board with all of this.

And it just seems impossible for a punitive approach to function in such a stuation. In such circumstances there seem to be no good options. This is where sihhi's question about how conflicting accounts can be reconciled and recognised comes in. They can't be reconciled logically but mutual recognition is surely a possibility?

I slightly regret raising these abstract questions on a thread detailing specific cases, since I'm sure we all have them in mind. I don't want to be read as suggesting an approach involving a form of "recognition" and return to the status quo ante. Factors such as multipe accusations, witnesses, indisputable evidence of harassment or abuse, major power or age imbalances are obviously all important to the kind of approach taken.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 3, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Yep, it is a problem going round and round in my head at the moment. There's a brief guardian article here that specifically argues that, in cases of doemestic violence, it can become a case of justice denied:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/restorative-justice-domestic-violence
> _"An offender making reparation to a victim may be fine and noble. But to blur the line over punishment for partner abuse is reckless"_
> ...



Thanks for the links dennisr. I feel like the Guardian article is somewhat contradictory. On the one hand domestic violence is treated by community as a personal issue, which the author sees as a problem. On the other hand, restorative justice is a problem because it involves the community, with its own ideas, in the process. Using a restorative justice approach involving the community could therefore move things in the direction of de-personalizing this crime and understanding it in a social context. But I think her emphasis on the victim's wishes in this respect are crucial.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 3, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Didn't he write: homelessness investigations in the welfare state?


 
treelover is a selective reader as you will soon find out


----------



## treelover (Apr 3, 2013)

Do you ever stop?,

I genuinely don't know what that means.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 4, 2013)

dennisr said:


> frankly [his] political life and past leadership role is over, destroyed - regardless of wether he is guilty or innocent.


If a person subject to such accusations is innocent this seems grossly unjust. What do the philosphers of justice here think can be done to put things right in such a case? The only wayout I can think of would be not to talk about it at all and hope people forget.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 4, 2013)

The prof has shared this rather shall we say critical appraisal of the Delhi HM conference he's been excluded from: http://radicalnotes.com/2013/04/03/historical-materialism-delhi-legal-marxism-redux/

"The recent vocalisation of an open dissociation with the Socialist Workers Party of Britain by the organisers of HM, Delhi, further reveals their desperation to satisfy and bridge liberal consensuses of the West and India. And the last straw in this regard was the withdrawal of their invitation to Alex Callinicos, perhaps the only Trotskyist in whom genuine Marxist activists in India find some ‘cultural’ affinity. This was obviously done to appease the disgruntled pocos, who were lately alienated from the organising committee. As they are on the lookout to find opportunity to vent their frustration of not having been included in this gala event, this was done to preclude any disturbance from their side."

What is a poco?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 4, 2013)

post-communists


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 4, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> post-communists


Duh thank you!


----------



## kavenism (Apr 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The prof has shared this rather shall we say critical appraisal of the Delhi HM conference he's been excluded from: http://radicalnotes.com/2013/04/03/historical-materialism-delhi-legal-marxism-redux/
> 
> "The recent vocalisation of an open dissociation with the Socialist Workers Party of Britain by the organisers of HM, Delhi, further reveals their desperation to satisfy and bridge liberal consensuses of the West and India. And the last straw in this regard was the withdrawal of their invitation to *Alex Callinicos, perhaps the only Trotskyist in whom genuine Marxist activists in India find some ‘cultural’ affinity.* This was obviously done to appease the disgruntled pocos, who were lately alienated from the organising committee. As they are on the lookout to find opportunity to vent their frustration of not having been included in this gala event, this was done to preclude any disturbance from their side."


 
Given the recent issues on rape that have been highlighted in India of late, I wonder what 'cultural' affinity they could be referring to?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 4, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Yep, it is a problem going round and round in my head at the moment. There's a brief guardian article here that specifically argues that, in cases of doemestic violence, it can become a case of justice denied:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/restorative-justice-domestic-violence
> _"An offender making reparation to a victim may be fine and noble. But to blur the line over punishment for partner abuse is reckless"_
> ...


 
 Restorative justice as an alternative to traditional prosecution is quite well used for lower level offending especially youths and under a number of community justice pilots that the Ministry of Justice run, its also used in schools and in some children's homes.it is possible to impose sanctions through this process but if the perpetrator doesn't accept those sanctions then they have to go through the 'normal' criminal justice system where ( having already accepted that that they have done something wrong  are dealt with as a guilty party).

There are restorative justice schemes where precisely because it is recognised that there is no equal bargaining power that a third person or third party acts as the voice for the aggrieved, in some case this is a friend or a family member, there role is to articulate the victims view. Restorative justice isn't mediation, it is victim based and is designed to bring about closure that is acceptable to the victim.

Restorative _processes_ can be used, and are used even when someone had been convicted by the court and jailed.

Where I am restorative justice isn't used for domestic abuse. But processes have been used for victims where the offender is in jail for serious offences such as burglary and other forms of violence where the victim has agreed.

We had this bloke up for a seminar:






Whilst we have a very formal bourgeois justice system which normally has a magistrate or judge listening to submissions form prosecution and defence ( representing the Crown and the defendant not the victim and the defendant) other countries ,and in times where there have been  more civic engagement of ordinary people through mass struggle, have adopted more of an inquiry or panel process that seeks to try and understand what has  occurred rather than prove or dismiss either parties claim.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 4, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> post-communists


Thanks. That explains what "poco" means, but who are they and what do they say?


----------



## andysays (Apr 4, 2013)

*Alex Callinicos, perhaps the only Trotskyist in whom genuine Marxist activists in India find some ‘cultural’ affinity.*



kavenism said:


> Given the recent issues on rape that have been highlighted in India of late, I wonder what 'cultural' affinity they could be referring to?


 
Nothing to do with rape; it means *they're* all academics with aristocratic ancestors too...


----------



## andysays (Apr 4, 2013)

Jean-Luc said:


> Thanks. That explains what "poco" means, but who are they and what do they say?


 


You did ask.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 4, 2013)

andysays said:


> You did ask.


Not bad, but what have they got against Trotskyism?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Apr 4, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> post-communists


----------



## audiotech (Apr 4, 2013)

Interesting vid steps, not trying to devalue this, but I'd like to have the opportunity to have a chat with those I had the misfortune to meet, dressed in blue, who broke into my house, sprayed a noxious chemical in my face, along with others who had a jolly good laugh at my expense as they drove me to A&E, and one particular psychopath in mind, who tightened hand-cuffs into my wrists, which were already badly swollen and infected, causing delirium.

They then returned me to my own home and left me alone (lack of "duty of care" here I believe) in a bedroom they had ransacked beforehand, with me in total despair thinking how could they legally do something like this?

The IPCC is a total waste of time, as any complaint made goes straight to the force you are making a complaint against and the solicitors I've contacted just don't want to know and the advice is 'take out a private prosecution'. How do I do that with the little money I have?

In my case, the whole justice system stinks, but It's good to see both participants in the above video having some closure at least. Me on the other hand is left here very angry, with, to be frank, my life in some ruin and a bleak future ahead of me, living in penury.

Sorry for the derail and I know I keep going on about this, but I feel I need to.

As you were,


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 4, 2013)

The SWP have decided to ban any critics of their rape denial from the bedroom tax campaign

"The demo was built through the hard work of federation members and local people from housing schemes all across of the West of Scotland. The demo was peaceful and well stewarded, by volunteers from the federation and local groups and communities affected by the bedroom tax.

The West of Scotland Anti Bedroom Tax Federation condemns the actions of the people who tried to wreck Saturday's rally at George Square by attempting to heckle and silence an agreed speaker.

In doing so, they upset and endangered many of the general public who wished to hear the speaker especially children and disabled activists at the front of the rally.

We further condemn their false allegations against the stewards who responded in a professional and appropriate manner to help maintain a safe environment, a peaceful rally for all demonstrators.

We condemn the posting of video clips on social media, which endangers the personal safety of those involved in trying to maintain a peaceful protest.

The West of Scotland Anti- Bedroom Tax Federation strongly believes that any place where anti-bedroom tax campaigners come together to discuss, plan and protest against the bedroom tax must be a safe space for all people, free of harassment, bullying and intimidation. It is totally unacceptable to physically threaten or verbally abuse other activists, protestors and stewards. 

Any individual or group that fails to uphold these basic standards of respectful behaviour will be asked not to attend future meeting and events, in order to ensure the safety of WoS Federation members and all those in attendance"


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The SWP have decided to ban any critics of their rape denial from the bedroom tax campaign
> 
> "The demo was built through the hard work of federation members and local people from housing schemes all across of the West of Scotland. The demo was peaceful and well stewarded, by volunteers from the federation and local groups and communities affected by the bedroom tax.
> 
> ...


oh dear oh dear.

like the state, the swp clearly can't be reformed from within.

i can't imagine many children wished to hear the drone of swappie speakers, and i'm fucking sure no disabled people did. they in all likelihood wished for nothing more than a pint in a nice warm pub: like so many other people will have done.


----------



## andysays (Apr 4, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Interesting vid steps, not trying to devalue this, but I'd like to have the opportunity to have a chat with those I had the misfortune to meet, dressed in blue, who broke into my house, sprayed a noxious chemical in my face, along with others who had a jolly good laugh at my expense as they drove me to A&E, and one particular psychopath in mind, who tightened hand-cuffs into my wrists, which were already badly swollen and infected, causing delirium.
> 
> They then returned me to my own home and left me alone (lack of "duty of care" here I believe) in a bedroom they had ransacked beforehand, with me in total despair thinking how could they legally do something like this?
> 
> ...


 
Although this might technically be a derail, I think it's perfectly OK to bring it up. I also haven't been aware of you mentioning it before, so I don't think you can be accused of going on about it.

I can only assume you're talking about being assaulted by the police in your own home, which I've fortunately never experienced, so I can only imagine (probably inadequately) how that might feel. We've already explored on this thread the problems with and imperfections of any system of justice, and when the accused perpetrators are already in a position of power, it's even more likely that the accusations won't be properly heard.

I'm not surprised you have found the IPCC is a waste of time - that's many people's experience - and taking out a private prosecution doesn't sound like much of an option either.

Sometimes, unfortunately, the legal system does not and cannot provide justice. Although this may sound dismissive, you may be better off not attempting to pursue legal avenues and just get on with trying to put your life back together as best you can with the help of those around you IRL and also here, if we can be of any help.

I hope this doesn't sound patronising - it's really not meant to - but without knowing you and a bit more about what's happened, it's difficult to know what else to say.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 4, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Yep, it is a problem going round and round in my head at the moment. There's a brief guardian article here that specifically argues that, in cases of doemestic violence, it can become a case of justice denied:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/12/restorative-justice-domestic-violence
> _"An offender making reparation to a victim may be fine and noble. But to blur the line over punishment for partner abuse is reckless"_
> ...


 
A fair amount of the extant data on systems of restorative justice point up that it's at its' most effective when the principles are taken up by an entire community. That creates a sense of reinforcement when the system is used, that goes a long way to not only legitimising the system in and to the community, but legitimating academic research and driving experiments on further use elsewhere. *Imposing* or quasi-imposing* restorative justice as a solution to anything is foolish. To attempt to do so where the power-relations between parties are so uneven as in situations of intra-familial violence actively worries me, because it is fraught with possibilities for coercion.

*Giving restorative justice as an option from an extremely limited palette, effectively saying "this or standard criminal justice".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 4, 2013)

andysays said:


> Restorative rather than punitive justice sounds like a good idea, though there might be some situations where it isn't appropriate.
> 
> But isn't that a completely separate issue to the one of establishing the truth of an accusation, the guilt or otherwise of the accused?
> 
> It's the difference between the "verdict" and the "sentence". The latter only becomes an issue if a guilty verdict is reached.


 
"Restorative justice" generally refers to matters of established guilt, i.e. it's a "sentencing phase" consideration, not, in many cases, a replacement for due process. In some First Nations and Native American communities that have adopted restorative justice principles for punishing misdemeanour and some felony crimes, the restorative justice requested by the community can sometimes be more "harsh" than what a judge would award, but it's often constructively harsh, in that it can force an offender to confront their behaviour to the community within the community, whereas a prison sentence allows them to not *have* to do so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 4, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What is a poco?


 
A member of an incredibly-average US "country rock" band.


----------



## treelover (Apr 4, 2013)

SEYMOUR has just published a bit of a mea culpa(actually its more than that and quite good) but he omits Lindsey and his rewriting of his blog..


----------



## two sheds (Apr 4, 2013)

So a Concerned communist would be a Coco


----------



## dennisr (Apr 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> oh dear oh dear.
> 
> like the state, the swp clearly can't be reformed from within.
> 
> i can't imagine many children wished to hear the drone of swappie speakers, and i'm fucking sure no disabled people did. they in all likelihood wished for nothing more than a pint in a nice warm pub: like so many other people will have done.


 
Didn't Sheridan and a few others resign on the basis of need for unity overriding their positions recently? But the SWP would rather go for a complete fuckup?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Didn't Sheridan and a few others resign on the basis of need for unity overriding their positions recently? But the SWP would rather go for a complete fuckup?


yes, as the small faces sang - and as the swp believe - it is 'all or nothing'. although the small faces' version is better than the swp one.


----------



## sptme (Apr 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The SWP have decided to ban any critics of their rape denial from the bedroom tax campaign
> 
> "The demo was built through the hard work of federation members and local people from housing schemes all across of the West of Scotland. The demo was peaceful and well stewarded, by volunteers from the federation and local groups and communities affected by the bedroom tax.
> 
> ...


 
Where's that from, have you got a linky?


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 4, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Didn't Sheridan and a few others resign on the basis of need for unity overriding their positions recently? But the SWP would rather go for a complete fuckup?


 
Not quite, the reasons for the other 3 apart from Sheridan for resigning was slightly different. I think TS realised it wasn't a goer the other 3 being because of concerns about 'parties' taking over, a tad extreme really, cos imho it's not a surprise that political campaigns will include/attract politically active members of political parties. However the obvious point is why elect such a divisive figure in the first place? Not as if the political activists present wouldn't have seen the obvious problem. Sheridan could have turned it down very easily, that he didn't and that the bedroom tax doesn't even affect him tells you plenty.
Lets be honest, for some, Sheridan included, it was/is part of their/his campaign to be 'rehabilitated'.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 4, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Interesting vid steps, not trying to devalue this, but I'd like to have the opportunity to have a chat with those I had the misfortune to meet, dressed in blue, who broke into my house, sprayed a noxious chemical in my face, along with others who had a jolly good laugh at my expense as they drove me to A&E, and one particular psychopath in mind, who tightened hand-cuffs into my wrists, which were already badly swollen and infected, causing delirium.
> 
> They then returned me to my own home and left me alone (lack of "duty of care" here I believe) in a bedroom they had ransacked beforehand, with me in total despair thinking how could they legally do something like this?
> 
> ...


 
what was all that about?


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 4, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Sorry for the derail and I know I keep going on about this, but I feel I need to. As you were,


 
Sounds horrific. Sorry you had to go through that.


----------



## sevenstars (Apr 4, 2013)

treelover said:


> SEYMOUR has just published a bit of a mea culpa(actually its more than that and quite good) but he omits Lindsey and his rewriting of his blog..


 
Ive my reservations about him but he does own up to more mistakes than i expected though, including their role in the destruction of the SSP.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 4, 2013)

sptme said:


> Where's that from, have you got a linky?


It's Facebook thing
https://www.facebook.com/SupportNurseWhoBlowsWhistleOnAtosAssessments
The person complains that they have deleted lots of comments which were attacking them, and distracting from their work of helping people.
  Just a note, if you don't want people to not post abuse, don't put such shit on your site.


----------



## audiotech (Apr 5, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> what was all that about?


 
In a nut-shell, a couple of Plod took umbrage when I told them there wasn't a problem (a complaint had been made of "shouting") I am allowed to shout in my own home I think, particularly when some lying tory appears on TV. informed the stab vested wearing police officers who appeared at my door that I was the sole tenant at this address and no one else was present in the property, apart from my little mutt, now deceased, and since you have no warrant I bid you good day and then I shut the door on them. It then turned into an episode of the Sweeny and them acting all tough smashing two doors in. I ended up in two police stations, stripped searched, and with serious injuries to my wrists. They laid a number of charges on me, resisting arrest being one. I hid behind my bed when they smashed my bedroom door down, so I wasn't "resisting" much at that point and the CS gas sprayed directly in my face, as they waited for me to take a breath, put paid to anymore "resisting" on my part, as by then I was virtually choking to death. All the charges made against me were dropped pretty quickly, as they'd fucked up big time and they knew it, as I did. In hindsight, I wished it had gone to court because I have no doubt it would have been thrown out and they would have been seen as a bunch of incompetents, showing no "duty of care" to me as a citizen and who at the time of their gung ho intervention was very ill and was no threat to anyone. All they needed to do was call an ambulance. As the song goes: 'The British Police are the Best in the World.'

Are you taking notes on this any plod out there viewing these forums for your paymasters? Here's another line for your notebook. The whole stinking barrel is rotten.

I'll move on now.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 5, 2013)

from this week's SW





> All the same, the wind is in Labour’s sails for the moment. And the better times aren’t just for the party leadership. For the first time in many years, the fortunes of the Labour left are also improving.
> Totally marginalised under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Labour left has been one of the driving forces behind the swelling protest movement against the bedroom tax. Owen Jones has gained a prominence as a speaker and a writer that we haven’t seen since Tony Benn’s heyday in the early 1980s. Some 44 Labour backbenchers rebelled against the party whips and voted against the coalition’s bill denying compensation to jobseekers who refused unpaid work.
> Muscle
> And there’s organisational muscle behind this revival, in the shape of Unite, Britain’s biggest trade union. Its general secretary Len McCluskey has pushed the union into community organising. Last week he warned that Unite and other unions might stop backing Labour if it failed to break with neoliberalism


 
even I think this is a hopelessly optimistic reading


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

To what extent is Labour financially dependent on the TUs?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> To what extent is Labour financially dependent on the TUs?


 
Historically its been around 75% I think but It was around 90% a couple of years ago


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Historically its been around 75% I think but It was around 90% a couple of years ago


Cheers. So large/collective TU threat is real?


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> It's Facebook thing
> https://www.facebook.com/SupportNurseWhoBlowsWhistleOnAtosAssessments
> The person complains that they have deleted lots of comments which were attacking them, and distracting from their work of helping people.
> Just a note, if you don't want people to not post abuse, don't put such shit on your site.


 
can you clarify what you mean here, afaiu, Joyce Drummond is the ex Atos nurse, who admittedly after some time, blew the whistle on their crooked and brutal practices, imo she deserves support for that, she also didn't set up the page...

it seems there are divisive people in the disability movement going by 'Fuck Atos's' awful comments , perhaps just as much as on the far left, people change look how some of the AFA types began having NF sympathies.

btw, this backstabbing seems to be worse in Scotland, is this correct?


----------



## belboid (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cheers. So large/collective TU threat is real?


No


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> No


The LP can get funding easily elsewhere? Or that any TU threats will never be carried out?


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

Hang on, just seen the BT statement on her site,  this isn't the woman who attacked the students at the Glasgow BT protest, is it?


----------



## belboid (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> The LP can get funding easily elsewhere? Or that any TU threats will never be carried out?


they've made similar threats for at least two decades.  They've never amounted to anything


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> from this week's SW
> 
> even I think this is a hopelessly optimistic reading


Which is odd, as it's exactly what _you_ have been arguing for the last few years. That you're now even dropping this mad idea once you're on the inside shows that what we predicted would happen to you _is actually happening._


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> Hang on, just seen the BT statement on her site, this isn't the woman who attacked the students at the Glasgow BT protest, is it?


 
She's SWP/Solidarity and that facebook page had linked to the socialist unity post where they called the hecklers scabs. No idea whether she was even there at the Glasgow thing herself though.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> they've made similar threats for at least two decades. They've never amounted to anything


 
and their percentage vote at the conference  has been reduced over the years


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> they've made similar threats for at least two decades.  They've never amounted to anything


Empty threats then - fair enough.


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> She's SWP/Solidarity and that facebook page had linked to the socialist unity post where they called the hecklers scabs. No idea whether she was even there at the Glasgow thing herself though.


 
Interesting, I wonder when she joined the party..


----------



## manny-p (Apr 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> people change look how some of the AFA types began having NF sympathies.


 
Who you talking about here out of interest?


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 5, 2013)

Wondering if anyone has a sense of what's happening with the ISN since the break? A friend of mine who's in it described a range of views stretching from staunch Cliffites who effectively want a reconstituted SWP and have argued required doctrine for membership of the network (e.g. holding to the "tradition") to a much more vague positions feeling for a way forward.

It seems unlikely to me that the ISN will ally with any other far-left group en masse, given the kind of hostility the SWP seems to inculcate internally, so what are the options? A prolonged discussion group that peters out after time? Or another SWP-splintered groupuscule continuing with more or less the same politics? I felt like the post on "the social project strategy" (unfortunately ridiculed by BB as "Firebox with handouts") was one small positive sign of a rethink among the network. Genuinely interested to hear others views and insights on this.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 5, 2013)

Also, I noticed that the SWP is promoting the People's Assembly and urging members to register at Rees and German's outfit. Is this normal or an acknowledgement of their isolation? It seems surprising to me. They also want to "be part of" the Left Unity discussions. Is any of this indicative or just more opportunities "to win people to an argument"?


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> can you clarify what you mean here, afaiu, Joyce Drummond is the ex Atos nurse, who admittedly after some time, blew the whistle on their crooked and brutal practices, imo she deserves support for that, she also didn't set up the page...
> 
> it seems there are divisive people in the disability movement going by 'Fuck Atos's' awful comments , perhaps just as much as on the far left, people change look how some of the AFA types began having NF sympathies.
> 
> btw, this backstabbing seems to be worse in Scotland, is this correct?


 
Joyce Drummond is said nurse, she's also a deeply unpleasant individual.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which is odd, as it's exactly what _you_ have been arguing for the last few years. That you're now even dropping this mad idea once you're on the inside shows that what we predicted would happen to you _is actually happening._


I'm not saying I wouldn't like it to happen, I'm saying I'm more sceptical about the extent to which it is already happening (and perhaps to an extent whether it is capable of happening).  In 5-10 years time either Labour will be a very different sort of party, or I won't be a member of it, having joined whatever new left formation emerges to contest that space.


----------



## Scribbling S (Apr 5, 2013)

Maybe Callinicos article is a bit overoptimistic, but he is describing something real - but surely the absolutely gob-smacking thing about Callinicos SW article is, if this is his analysis, he has done everything he can to make it difficult for the SWP to relate to all that . He does refer to "the internal troubles the Socialist Workers Party has been suffering" (first mention in Socialist Worker?) - in the passive voice - as if these "internal troubles" were a bit of tummy ache of mysterious cause.


----------



## belboid (Apr 5, 2013)

the bit about Owen Jones is surely just 'please, please come and speak at Marxism, Owen'


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying I wouldn't like it to happen, I'm saying I'm more sceptical about the extent to which it is already happening (and perhaps to an extent whether it is capable of happening).  In 5-10 years time either Labour will be a very different sort of party, or I won't be a member of it, having joined whatever new left formation emerges to contest that space.


The only way that Labour will be a very different sort of party in 5 years time, is if the unions try and haul them leftwards. This is extremely unlikely, as is any new left formation as nothing has stepped into that vacuum in the past 20 + years.  I predict in 5 years time you'll still be trying to change the party from within.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> The only way that Labour will be a very different sort of party in 5 years time, is if the unions try and haul them leftwards. This is extremely unlikely, as is any new left formation as nothing has stepped into that vacuum in the past 20 + years. I predict in 5 years time you'll still be trying to change the party from within.


 
To be fair Unite actually are trying to do this. It's been a long time since a union affiliated to Labour tried throwing it's weight around in this way. I'm not holding my breath for anything especially radical to come of it - some new type of Labourism where the unions have a more influential role, and can set about the long-term task of rebuilding their movement from the defeats of the 80's (first step being getting rid of the anti-trade union laws) is where it's heading.

After 2015 it's going to be a mess inside the Labour party. Blood on the carpet time again as a weak leader is battered by these factions whilst presiding over the same cuts as the Tories.


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> To be fair Unite actually are trying to do this. It's been a long time since a union affiliated to Labour tried throwing it's weight around in this way. I'm not holding my breath for anything especially radical to come of it - some new type of Labourism where the unions have a more influential role, and can set about the long-term task of rebuilding their movement from the defeats of the 80's (first step being getting rid of the anti-trade union laws) is where it's heading.
> 
> After 2015 it's going to be a mess inside the Labour party. Blood on the carpet time again as a weak leader is battered by these factions whilst presiding over the same cuts as the Tories.


It's interesting to see what they're doing with community organising and trades councils. I just wonder whether they'll actually go as far as de-affiliating or if it's an empty threat as Belboid thinks. The TUs have got difficult times ahead once the implications of the Employment Tribunal reforms start sinking in with their membership, that's for sure.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2013)

it's an empty threat


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's interesting to see what they're doing with community organising and trades councils. I just wonder whether they'll actually go as far as de-affiliating or if it's an empty threat as Belboid thinks. The TUs have got difficult times ahead once the implications of the Employment Tribunal reforms start sinking in with their membership, that's for sure.


 
Oh yeah it's an empty threat, don't lose sight of that. They're not going to back a general strike either. McCluskey and that whole organisation is wedded to the Labour party - they would have to implode like PASOK before they considered leaving.

They don't really need to seriously considered dis-affiliation because of a couple of things that give them a bit of clout 1st there's a weak leader in Ed Miliband, who they backed, who they backed because he was the most likely they'd be able to bully into giving them some political concessions. That weak leader needs Unite's money desperately if he wants to stand a chance of matching the Tories at the general election in2015. Ed Miliband can say what he wants but everyone knows he needs to keep Len happy or who's gonna pay for that campaign? The private sector?

All it would take for the Tories to win the next election is to cap trade union funding at £50k a union and Labour's in big trouble....

There's also nothing outside of Labour that they could jump ship to that isn't awful - a viable non Labour left-leaning political party with a mass membership would need to exist before they'd even consider it. Don't need to be a historian to know there's not many of them in British history.

They have realise though they need to start making a fight and stop being so passive, because if they don't increase density and if they don't get the anti-trade laws repealed their political priviliges are gone forever.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

Milliband isn't trapped by the unions financial clout, the unions are trapped by labour. They have nowhere else to go on the national political level and labour knows this very well.


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Milliband isn't trapped by the unions financial clout, the unions are trapped by labour. They have nowhere else to go on the national political level and labour knows this very well.


What political advantage does McCluskey gain from this bluster?


----------



## belboid (Apr 5, 2013)

he might well get _something_. an agreement to implement the TU Freedom Bill (minus secondary picketing) - that doesn't get followed up if/when they get office.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

They will get some Warwick type agreement *after* the election and an informal promise that they will be consulted. I.e that they will be able to keep their feet under the table.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> What political advantage does McCluskey gain from this bluster?


He gets re-elected to his GS post and his fat salary


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Milliband isn't trapped by the unions financial clout, the unions are trapped by labour.


 
Trapped isn't the word I'd use to describe it, but there's no alternative donor Labour has lined up to replace the millions the trade union movement can be relied upon to give them. It'd be a huge blow if they lost that money - the Tories outspent them heavily at the last election and they will at the next one too.

The point I'm making really here is for the next couple of years you'll be hearing a lot of sabre-rattling about money to Labour because it's just about all the unions have left to exert influence.



butchersapron said:


> They have nowhere else to go on the national political level and labour knows this very well.


 
This is true, and Labour doesn't need the unions as much as the unions need Labour, and your right to point it out because it actually shows how empty a lot of the rhetoric about witholding money really is. Labour will be in trouble without that union money, but it could survive. Without the Labour party the unions have fuck all influence - declining membership, legally castrated, no political platform. They'd be in existential trouble. 

There's not been much of a national alternative to Labour throughout the last 100 years butchers, but this hasn't been a problem when they had mass membership, high density and a solid grip in the Labour party. They could bargain for power with the state then, they were well incorporated into the political process. But today it's different, they'd been stripped of much of that power, and without a mass membership outside Labour that can bring pressure that, those once powerful union barons are in a tight spot.

They will fight to try and retain that relatively priviliged position for as long as possible, and some of the more far-sighted unions are aware of the urgency of their situation and that's a part of it too.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They will get some Warwick type agreement *after* the election and an informal promise that they will be consulted. I.e that they will be able to keep their feet under the table.


 
The anti-trade union laws is what they're after. Doesn't matter about any agreements they might get, there's no way they're going to be able to "keep their feet under their under the table" if the legal restrictions on trade unions are still in place and if the overall density of trade union membership is under 30%. They can spend as much money as they want bankrolling Labour it will amount to nothing unless they can actually rebuild to movement to an extent and start increasing density in certain key areas.

Judge how successsful the Unite political strategy has been by what type of form the trade unions laws in Britain are in by the time McCluskey leaves.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

Of course they will be able to able maintain their current position without repeal of the union laws - they've been able to do for for last 30 years and with steady declines in union density. That's why they managed to get the warwick agreements (and please don't think that i'm suggesting this meant anything beyond labour _saying_ yes, you are still important and going to be consulted).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Trapped isn't the word I'd use to describe it, but there's no alternative donor Labour has lined up to replace the millions the trade union movement can be relied upon to give them. It'd be a huge blow if they lost that money - the Tories outspent them heavily at the last election and they will at the next one too.
> 
> The point I'm making really here is for the next couple of years you'll be hearing a lot of sabre-rattling about money to Labour because it's just about all the unions have left to exert influence.


 
Which is exactly why they are trapped. It's all they have and _it can only be played within and for the labour party._


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

How are they going to stem mass exodus of membership in the meantime once their members realise that their ability to represent in workplace disputes has been financially hacked above the knees?

@Delroy


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 5, 2013)

Delroy that makes a lot of sense, look at US unions still funding the Democrats! it can get much, much worse....

Tenniselbow, the ISN question  is probably one to return to after their meeting in a couple of weeks, might draw some common themes from the current varied thinking...you'd think Seymour's view would be quite influential given e.g. the tentativeness of most IS blog posts. 

I'd see the SWP moves on left unity as a rather desperate straining for relevance, which at least suggests they realise they're in a bad mess! Nigel predicted a period of outward hyperactivity which is looking like a good insight. Could be interesting if they're forced into an unprecedenced humility with respect to the rest of the left!


----------



## articul8 (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> How are they going to stem mass exodus of membership in the meantime once their members realise that their ability to represent in workplace disputes has been financially hacked above the knees?
> 
> @Delroy


That's a very good question - the amount of outsourcing of previously public sector work is going to hammer national pay bargaining and effectiveness of unions at a natonal level.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 5, 2013)

prediction. 2016 sees the remaining SWP remnants pursuing an entryist strategy into Workers Power, adopting the moniker International Left Opposition.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> That's a very good question - the amount of outsourcing of previously public sector work is going to hammer national pay bargaining and effectiveness of unions at a natonal level.


 
This is massively overstated to some extent - unions like Unite, Usdaw, and the GMB have dealt with this for years, and even Unison do in large areas (for instance every district council and most over local councils in the South East are outside national terms) - and they're aware of this change, and will probably handle fairly well.

No the real challenge is to balance the need to be seen to do something to make things better for their members with the need not to be seen as too militant and alienating to potential members (or employers with whom they might get voluntary agreements) - and that's somthing they've been trying to tackle for quite some time now with only limited and patchy success through the organising agenda (see the TUC's organising academy etc).

There's a book just out recently called Union Voices by Ed Heery, Jane Holgate, and Melanie Sims which has quite a good analysis of this.


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Also, I noticed that the SWP is promoting the People's Assembly and urging members to register at Rees and German's outfit. Is this normal or an acknowledgement of their isolation? It seems surprising to me. *They also want to "be part of" the Left Unity discussions.* Is any of this indicative or just more opportunities "to win people to an argument"?


 
Oh Noes....


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

> Socialist Worker (with a front page taking on the anti-immigrant surge) sold very well on the demos. For example, Glasgow: 176 SWs on the demo


 
from party notes

Oh yeah?

I also notice a major emphasis on benefit/welfare state issues, where were these fuckers a few years ago when Nl were brining all the reforms in?, invisible...


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> That's a very good question - the amount of outsourcing of previously public sector work is going to hammer national pay bargaining and effectiveness of unions at a natonal level.


Just to add to Spanky's reply to you, at grass roots level I predict that members will be making personal financial decisions about where they spend their 10-15 quid a month; and they might well save in anticipation of funding legal/quasi legal advice & ET deposits - or alternatively ramp up insurance payments instead once the ins companies see that opening and start providing extended cover as part of home insurance.


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They will get some Warwick type agreement *after* the election and an informal promise that they will be consulted. I.e that they will be able to keep their feet under the table.


 
part of the Warwick deal was that they, the Unions, would not challenge NL's welfare reforms..


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Just to add to Spanky's reply to you, at grass roots level I predict that members will be making personal financial decisions about where they spend their 10-15 quid a month; and they might well save in anticipation of funding legal/quasi legal advice & ET deposits - or alternatively ramp up insurance payments instead once the ins companies see that opening and start providing extended cover as part of home insurance.


 
Why there is no suggestion that I've seen that any of the unions are not going to pay for their member's legal support and ET claims? If anything the new charges if used correctly by the unions should be an added incentive to join


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> part of the Warwick deal was that they, the Unions, would not challenge NL's welfare reforms..


Which shows exactly what they will be prepared to swallow once again in the future.


----------



## treelover (Apr 5, 2013)

Yes I agree..


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 5, 2013)

maybe the IWW has a better chance of organising (ironically) post-industrial workers? there's a branch just started meeting In my area. Could be better placed than the bureaucracies to make use of social media ubiquity, economic crisis, and the occupy effect. though I doubt they've organised far outside their ideological supporters as yet. gwan the wobs!


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Why there is no suggestion that I've seen that any of the unions are not going to pay for their member's legal support and ET claims? If anything the new charges if used correctly by the unions should be an added incentive to join



What do you mean by "used correctly"?


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> maybe the IWW has a better chance of organising (ironically) post-industrial workers? there's a branch just started meeting In my area. Could be better placed than the bureaucracies to make use of social media ubiquity, economic crisis, and the occupy effect. though I doubt they've organised far outside their ideological supporters as yet. gwan the wobs!


They're in disarray at the moment though, no?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare, is that right, well shows how much I know!


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 5, 2013)

still recovering from the post john lewis split? that was ages ago...


----------



## cesare (Apr 5, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> cesare, is that right, well shows how much I know!


Not necessarily! I haven't spent any time seriously finding out. There's a separate thread that takes it up to the split over the cleaners, then anecdotally the original IWW (as opposed to the splitters ) haven't been answering membership queries via email since. That might be a distorted perception based on my very small sample of anecdotal evidence, though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> What do you mean by "used correctly"?


 
Well, point out to workers that if they're not in a union they'll have to fork out large sums of the folding stuff to ever have a chance of challenging an unfair dismissal for instance


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> Not necessarily! I haven't spent any time seriously finding out. There's a separate thread that takes it up to the split over the cleaners, then anecdotally the original IWW (as opposed to the splitters ) haven't been answering membership queries via email since. That might be a distorted perception based on my very small sample of anecdotal evidence, though.


 
It seems (also based on anecodotal evidence admittedly) that in London at least the IWGB are now the bigger and more "successful" or at least visable group compared to the IWW who seem to have vanished off the scene, probably because most of the grunt work in the London IWW was being done by the people that split off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2013)

cesare said:


> The only way that Labour will be a very different sort of party in 5 years time, is if the unions try and haul them leftwards. This is extremely unlikely, as is any new left formation as nothing has stepped into that vacuum in the past 20 + years. I predict in 5 years time you'll still be trying to change the party from within.


 
Or listed as a prospective parliamentary candidate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> it's an empty threat


 
Has been every other time it's been used. They always cave in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 5, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> prediction. 2016 sees the remaining SWP remnants pursuing an entryist strategy into Workers Power, adopting the moniker International Left Opposition.


 
Just chortled snot all over my keyboard. Bastard!


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2013)

It's the centenary in a couple of years.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or listed as a prospective parliamentary candidate.


No chance


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No chance


 
...unless he moves to the right. A radical past has never been an obstacle to climbing the New Labour career ladder, as long as you put childish things aside. Of course, there are behind the scenes career opportunities too, as well as the MP route.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> ...unless he moves to the right. A radical past has never been an obstacle to climbing the New Labour career ladder, as long as you put childish things aside. Of course, there are behind the scenes career opportunities too, as well as the MP route.


 
It's not his radical past that is the problem, more his apparent lack of political nous or strategic or analytical thought


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It seems (also based on anecodotal evidence admittedly) that in London at least the IWGB are now the bigger and more "successful" or at least visable group compared to the IWW who seem to have vanished off the scene, probably because most of the grunt work in the London IWW was being done by the people that split off.


By chance I had an email rom the IWW asking me to renew my membership.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 5, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's not his radical past that is the problem, more his apparent lack of political nous or strategic or analytical thought


 
That is also not necessarily a problem. The calibre of prospective MPs is rather mixed. The behind the scenes jobs often require a bit more sense, mind you. You don't need a lot of strategic or analytical sharpness to be a backbencher, although you do need the ability to network and a streak of ruthless personal ambition.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Well, point out to workers that if they're not in a union they'll have to fork out large sums of the folding stuff to ever have a chance of challenging an unfair dismissal for instance


That would mean the unions paying the deposits, having a way of clawing back deposits from the members in the event of a successful claim or settlement, or being prepared to lose the deposit in the case of an unsuccessful claim/s.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 6, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> maybe the IWW has a better chance of organising (ironically) post-industrial workers? there's a branch just started meeting In my area. Could be better placed than the bureaucracies to make use of social media ubiquity, economic crisis, and the occupy effect. though I doubt they've organised far outside their ideological supporters as yet. gwan the wobs!


 
You are having a laugh aren't you?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> This is massively overstated to some extent - unions like Unite, Usdaw, and the GMB have dealt with this for years, and even Unison do in large areas (for instance every district council and most over local councils in the South East are outside national terms) - and they're aware of this change, and will probably handle fairly well.


I was thinking of its impact on some of the more militant public sector unions like PCS or NUT which have been very reliant on a national bargaining model. 

Not terribly reassured by the idea that they can handle it by becoming more like USDAW - useless seven days a week!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I was thinking of its impact on some of the more militant public sector unions like PCS or NUT which have been very reliant on a national bargaining model.
> 
> Not terribly reassured by the idea that they can handle it by becoming more like USDAW - useless seven days a week!


should be yr tagline


----------



## articul8 (Apr 6, 2013)

I would have thought they'd have taught you to spell "your" at that expensive school of yours


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No chance


 
Given the calibre of some of the utter u-bends that get listed to go before selection committees, I wouldn't be so sure. Millbank would probably love his "networking" with Hilary, and the fact that he's a *vapid Webbite fuckbag*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's not his radical past that is the problem, more his apparent lack of political nous or strategic or analytical thought


 
Hardly a handicap, nowadays, surely?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 6, 2013)

the39thstep said:
			
		

> You are having a laugh aren't you?



optimism of the will comrade.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> That would mean the unions paying the deposits, having a way of clawing back deposits from the members in the event of a successful claim or settlement, or being prepared to lose the deposit in the case of an unsuccessful claim/s.


 
The unions will pay - that's what they're going to do.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 6, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I was thinking of its impact on some of the more militant public sector unions like PCS or NUT which have been very reliant on a national bargaining model.
> 
> Not terribly reassured by the idea that they can handle it by becoming more like USDAW - useless seven days a week!


 
Fairpoint, I think PCS are screwed certainly


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The unions will pay - that's what they're going to do.


The unions get their funds from their members. Unless they have additional funding from outside their membership, increased costs result in increased membership dues.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 6, 2013)

cesare said:


> The unions get their funds from their members. Unless they have additional funding from outside their membership, increased costs result in increased membership dues.


 
It's still open for debate where the money will come from - but it will not come from members being charged for tribunal claims, that is out of the question, for fairly obvious reasons really.


----------



## cesare (Apr 6, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's still open for debate where the money will come from - but it will not come from members being charged for tribunal claims, that is out of the question, for fairly obvious reasons really.


I suppose if unions are still going to try and maintain the insurance policy/social partnership model (and assuming no outside-the-union funding) it will result in increased membership dues across the board on the basis that *some* members might one day need union funding for a tribunal deposit. It's probably worth a thread in itself, sorry, just remembered this is on the SWP squabbly thread


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 6, 2013)

looks like swp squabble discussion has died a death for now. very reduced prominence, to a surprisingly negligible level, on our regional nhs demo today. the cbgp(ml) had about as much presence! SP seemed to be filling the gap, regret not expressing my views on the recent behaviour of their EC in retrospect. but I've always been a concilitarian....


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 6, 2013)

mind you. I think the SP would do better if they had something better than the sectional issue of public sector pensions to give out a leaflet about at an nhs demo! and I say this as someone glad to see The Socialist being the majority paper sold (and as a public sector employee)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 6, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> looks like swp squabble discussion has died a death for now. very reduced prominence, to a surprisingly negligible level, on our regional nhs demo today. the cbgp(ml) had about as much presence! SP seemed to be filling the gap, regret not expressing my views on the recent behaviour of their EC in retrospect. but I've always been a concilitarian....


 
We're now in a lull period in the SWP's crisis, with the first split now complete. There will still be some relevant incidents, like the heckling at the Glasgow bedroom tax protest, particularly in the run up to Marxism. But mostly, the relevant discussion will centre around observations like yours of the degree to which they've declined and/or held themselves together, and also their various twists and turns as they try to reestablish themselves as players in campaigns etc. At least until the internal rows kick off again, which will happen by the next pre conference period at the latest.

Interesting point about your regional demo, by the way. Where was it?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 7, 2013)

that's a fine summary! 

It was the Yorkshire one. It was pretty enjoyable to take in the organisational minute of the afternoon in a way I've never been able to whilst shifting papers (or rather, trying but failing to do that) also noted:

- a group of anarchists make one of the few SW sellers feel extremely uncomfortable
- guy with a big CWI banner debates at length with the aforementioned tankies
- the only non-party leaflet handed out being about the nhs in a totally different area to the march (60+ miles away), and nothing at all was being handed out to the hearteningly supportive general public
- my girlfriend has a good critique of the problems of samba replacing chanting on demos. anarchists and CWI banner fella make efforts to restorer chanting but with limited success. 

I can imagine the whole nhs issue maybe seems a bit weird/exotic from an Irish perspective. or are the politics of your system not so different? 

For the SWP round here the bedroom tax demo in Leeds 20th April will be an interesting test since some local members have played a leading role. I'd be very surprised if they don't use that to try and prove a point.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 7, 2013)

oh and also, for completeness:

- there were some swp placards in and amongst but surely a pale shadow of the widespread coverage of yesteryear
- not many visible parry folk there no, but none whatsoever from the post-downturn generations as far as I could see. Seems that in some areas at least, they've lost a far higher proportion of the active membership than the bare figures would suggest.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 7, 2013)

Bristol SWP in big trouble, last few medium long termers walked out in big shouty row this week. They have nothing here now. Wiped out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> oh and also, for completeness:
> 
> - there were some swp placards in and amongst but surely a pale shadow of the widespread coverage of yesteryear
> - not many visible parry folk there no, but none whatsoever from the post-downturn generations as far as I could see. Seems that in some areas at least, they've lost a far higher proportion of the active membership than the bare figures would suggest.


What you're trying to say is they're no longer 24 hr party people, save in the duration of new arrivals' membership


----------



## articul8 (Apr 7, 2013)

Another woman claiming to have been sexually assaulted by an (as yet unnamed) "socialist" and "trade unionist":
http://sakollantai.wordpress.com/20...d-male-abuse-of-power-in-the-labour-movement/

She's an SP member who also posted this on FB:


> *this woman has been treated sickeningly by the socialist party for speaking out about a sexual assault by an SP member and union official and for demanding action be taking against him. this has got to stop. organisations need to stop protecting abusers over victims and potential victims for their own political expediency, it's the lowest of the low. this is not what a progressive movement looks like.*
> 
> [...]
> i do need also to point out that there are many and growing SP members who agree with me and the overwheling majority of SP members do not know anything at all about the case. This is my way of telling them and everybody else to. I will write again on this experience and will publish but please allow me time whilst there is also the general issue of women's safety in the movement and yes campaign within my party to learn from this and hopefully, correct recent mistakes. comradely and fraternally or sisterly even


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Another woman claiming to have been sexually assaulted by an (as yet unnamed) "socialist" and "trade unionist":
> http://sakollantai.wordpress.com/20...d-male-abuse-of-power-in-the-labour-movement/
> 
> She's an SP member who also posted this on FB:


perhaps you could start a thread on such incidents in your own party.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 7, 2013)

are you aware of any specific allegations? (I'm not)


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> are you aware of any specific allegations? (I'm not)


So you're aware of allegations. You'll recalll nick clegg saying he was not aware of any specific allegations about rennard.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 7, 2013)

nothing in the league of other examples on this thread I'm glad to say


----------



## Scribbling S (Apr 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bristol SWP in big trouble, last few medium long termers walked out in big shouty row this week. They have nothing here now. Wiped out.


Yow, that's a problem for the SWP - any feeling what the shouty row was about ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

articul8 said:


> nothing in the league of other examples on this thread I'm glad to say


Still not got to grips with the quote tool I see


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Yow, that's a problem for the SWP - any feeling what the shouty row was about ?


They're trots: they shout and row. It's what they do. Does there need to be a reason?


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2013)

http://www.facebook.com/events/101219716723308/

Apparently the person who has called the big protest on 4th May, Dan J Morgan, is a recent departee from the SWP, absolutely no Leninism now now going by the site


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 7, 2013)

Darren Quantock said:


> It's because that's how the working class are portrayed on Soaps and even serious dramas.* Incoherently raging all the time, often about fuck all that matters. Or crying. Middle class activists see it and think that's how working class people behave.
> 
> 
> *Why can't we have soaps and dramas about working class people who are quiet and thoughtful and read Kafka and Orhan Pamuk? And never shout about how nobody loves their horrible snivelling kids as much as they do? Or better still, don't even have kids and don't ever want them?


 
As if middle class people never incoherently rage or cry about fuck all that matters


----------



## J Ed (Apr 7, 2013)

Darren Quantock said:


> It's because that's how the working class are portrayed on Soaps and even serious dramas.* Incoherently raging all the time, often about fuck all that matters. Or crying. Middle class activists see it and think that's how working class people behave.


 
I've never heard that theory before. Interesting!


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 7, 2013)

Darren Quantock said:


> On TV and in film, the working class is usually portrayed, even by sympathetic writers, as consisting mostly of emotionally unstable characters who can't articulate their thoughts without resorting to some degree of violence.
> 
> Can't we have some soaps and dramas about working class people who don't want to share their feelings with anybody, and would generally like everybody to just piss off?


 
People sitting around reading books doesn't make for good telly tho


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2013)

Darren Quantock said:


> It's because that's how the working class are portrayed on Soaps and even serious dramas.* Incoherently raging all the time, often about fuck all that matters. Or crying. Middle class activists see it and think that's how working class people behave.
> 
> 
> *Why can't we have soaps and dramas about working class people who are quiet and thoughtful and read Kafka and Orhan Pamuk? And never shout about how nobody loves their horrible snivelling kids as much as they do? Or better still, don't even have kids and don't ever want them?


this is about the swp, not about the working class.

next.


----------



## Scribbling S (Apr 7, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> They're trots: they shout and row. It's what they do. Does there need to be a reason?


I'd hope there might be a stab at figuring out a  reason on a thread called "SWP Expulsions & Squabbles", otherwise there would be 11,369 posts saying "there they go again, doing that squabbley , expell-y thing, what are they like?"


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 8, 2013)

Darren Quantock said:


> I might try writing one myself about a bloke who reads all the time, nips down to the pub and gets pissed off if he sees somebody he knows as he'd rather sit on his own watching everybody with secret contempt, let's his phone calls go through to the answering service, and won't answer the door.


 
james kelman called and is asking for royalties.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> james kelman called and is asking for royalties.


You want the Laura thread for royal teas.


----------



## andysays (Apr 8, 2013)

Darren Quantock said:


> On TV and in film, the working class is usually portrayed, even by sympathetic writers, as consisting mostly of emotionally unstable characters who can't articulate their thoughts without resorting to some degree of violence.


 
Yeah, I know, it makes me so angry I want to shout and smash things, and then scream about how nobody loves my beautiful angelic kids as much as I do, before sobbing uncontrollably.

I mean, did anyone* see* Eastenders at the weekend...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I'd hope there might be a stab at figuring out a  reason on a thread called "SWP Expulsions & Squabbles", otherwise there would be 11,369 posts saying "there they go again, doing that squabbley , expell-y thing, what are they like?"


In summary it's fallout from that recent incident of alleged rape


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 8, 2013)

quality roster of 4 Marxism speakers announced, including a man who by his own admission "is one of the best known Marxist writers today"... http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/speakers.htm


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 8, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Yow, that's a problem for the SWP - any feeling what the shouty row was about ?


Trying to get more info this week. I think from talking to a few people over the weekend that there are a lot of people still in the party who are going to use this as the first port of call whenever there is any dispute (or possibly any discussion _at all_)-  and i mean both hard loyalists who will wheel it out and opposition who will throw it back in their face. This thing is festering there under the skin - o_ne two many bubos!._


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This thing is festering there under the skin - o_ne two many bubos!._


better than the furious row at the recent hobbit convention - it ended in not one, not two, but three rival bilbos.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2013)

Further the Hedley case - this account by Caroline's RMT rep gives a very different picture to that of Steve's own statement and the SP ECs version:
http://carolineleneghan.wordpress.c...ase-still-to-answer-andy-littlechild-rmt-rep/


----------



## sihhi (Apr 8, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> quality roster of 4 Marxism speakers announced, including a man who by his own admission "is one of the best known Marxist writers today"... http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/speakers.htm


 
All four are either loyalists or very close indeed to the party: Alex Callinicos, Louise Raw, Gigi Ibrahim, Judith Orr.

At this rate is it even worth the AWL picketing it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2013)

sihhi said:


> All four are either loyalists or very close indeed to the party: Alex Callinicos, Louise Raw, Gigi Ibrahim, Judith Orr.
> 
> At this rate is it even worth the AWL picketing it?








four loyalists recently


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 8, 2013)

bonkers letter from Mark fisher in this weeks Weakly worker, I don't know whats worse his political points or the behviour of the AWL activists he is describing.



> *Bogey Bowler*
> 
> During a recent trip to Sheffield, a comrade recounted a weird episode that highlighted for me some of the absurdities - and real dangers - that are implicit in the ‘safe space’ scaremongering currently being whipped up by sections of the left.
> My comrade and two members of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty - female and male - were leafleting a government building in the centre of the city on an employment victimisation case. Things were proceeding as these things generally do until Maxine Bowler - prominent Socialist Workers Party activist and central committee loyalist - pitched up and disappeared into the building.
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> bonkers letter from Mark fisher in this weeks Weakly worker, I don't know whats worse his political points or the behviour of the AWL activists he is describing.


it's not that bonkers compared to other claptrap i've read in the weedy worker over the years.


----------



## belboid (Apr 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> bonkers letter from Mark fisher in this weeks Weakly worker, I don't know whats worse his political points or the behviour of the AWL activists he is describing.


well, it probably never happened at all like he describes. I can guess who the AWL woman is tho, one of their shittier members.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 8, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> quality roster of 4 Marxism speakers announced, including a man who by his own admission "is one of the best known Marxist writers today"... http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/speakers.htm


 
Can't open this  but I assume its Peter Taaffe?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 8, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Can't open this but I assume its Peter Taaffe?


 
the prof ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the prof ...


who else?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the prof ...


 
I know really


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Further the Hedley case - this account by Caroline's RMT rep gives a very different picture to that of Steve's own statement and the SP ECs version:
> http://carolineleneghan.wordpress.c...ase-still-to-answer-andy-littlechild-rmt-rep/



Piss off you fucking snake, there is no "SP ECs version". 
There is a statement about a former high profile member who resigned quite publicly. It makes no judgement on who is in the right in this disputed case. It is in no way a version of events. 

People are free to think the statement was factually wrong or ill advised. I've also seen SP members say stupid shite about the case online, neither of those things mean the SP leadership believes one party over the other as you dishonestly imply


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2013)

Well given that the EC statement refers to his having "no case to answer" and links only to his interpretation of events, it's hardly an even handed accounts that sticks closely to undisputed facts of the case.

No point lashing out at people who object to this.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 8, 2013)

I presume that if there's any chance of Gary Younge, David Harvey, Michael Rosen....speaking then that'd have been announced by now. however I can imagine that a dreadful Marxism has already been 'priced in' as they say to remaining members' expectations.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 8, 2013)

wading into allegations of DV with an utterly one-sided statement is worse than 'ill advised'. a healthy left group would undertake serious self-criticism as to how such a thing could happen. (albeit there are big differences with the main subject of this thread)


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 8, 2013)

Which speakers are lined up for Socialism 2013?


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Well given that the EC statement refers to his having "no case to answer" and links only to his interpretation of events, it's hardly an even handed accounts that sticks closely to undisputed facts of the case.
> 
> No point lashing out at people who object to this.



I'm not lashing out at you because you object to the statement. Oskarsdrum also objects to the statement, wrongly in my view, but at least he/she is honest about his/her objections. 

I'm lashing out at you because you are a dishonest, slimy little creep who uses every opportunity this very serious case presents to negatively distort the SP's position.

Nowhere does the SP statement say Steve Hedley has no case to answer. It was reporting what the SP believed to be the outcome of the RMT investigation. This does not at all imply the SP leadership believes he has no case to answer. The position has been all along that the SP believes allegations of DV should be taken seriously, that women making such allegations should be treated sympathetically (as the statement makes clear and you somehow forgot to take into account before you came slinking in trying to insinuate all sorts of shite). The SP does not know the facts of the case and has left judgement of such to the proper authorities. 

THAT is the SP "version of events"


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 8, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> wading into allegations of DV with an utterly one-sided statement is worse than 'ill advised'. a healthy left group would undertake serious self-criticism as to how such a thing could happen. (albeit there are big differences with the main subject of this thread)



I'm sorry you feel the statement was one sided. As far as I know the intention was to try to put forward a balanced position once all investigations were complete. Clearly following Andy Littlechilds statement there will be more investigations. 

I honestly don't think the statement trys to take sides but of course people are entitled to have different views on a subject that is highly contested.


----------



## killer b (Apr 8, 2013)

it blatantly takes sides. can't you fucking read?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 8, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> I'm lashing out at you because you.... who uses every opportunity this very serious case presents to negatively distort the SP's position.


Not at all, I acknowledged that it was a difficult case.  I'm just disappointed by the lack of balance in the statement


----------



## emanymton (Apr 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> well, it probably never happened at all like he describes. I can guess who the AWL woman is tho, one of their shittier members.


She must be really crap then.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> well, it probably never happened at all like he describes. I can guess who the AWL woman is tho, one of their shittier members.


 
RW?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 8, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> better than the furious row at the recent hobbit convention - it ended in not one, not two, but three rival bilbos.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 8, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> I'm sorry you feel the statement was one sided. As far as I know the intention was to try to put forward a balanced position once all investigations were complete. Clearly following Andy Littlechilds statement there will be more investigations.
> 
> I honestly don't think the statement trys to take sides but of course people are entitled to have different views on a subject that is highly contested.


 
Have to agree with oskarsdrum here, leyton96. As we've been through on the thread already, it reads as a very one-sided statement. While the EC might have in fact taken a balanced and fair approach to the investigations, the issues press release read very much like it had come straight from the accused's camp. All that was really required was a report on the facts of the RMT findings, the police's decision not to pursue the case, and the fact that DV is very serious and taken seriously by the SP.

The link to the accused's blog was ridiculous in the context of a supposedly neutral press release, since the contents there were extremely hostile in tone towards the complainant and made a number of serious allegations against her. Whatever the circumstances of the case this seemed wholly unjustifiable to me. How does this square with your view of it as being balanced, Leyton96?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Not at all, I acknowledged that it was a difficult case. I'm just disappointed by the lack of balance in the statement


 
Be honest though - you're quite enjoying sticking the knife in. Understandable, it's not often that a labour hack gets to feel like they have the moral high ground.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 8, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Have to agree with oskarsdrum here, leyton96. As we've been through on the thread already, it reads as a very one-sided statement. While the EC might have in fact taken a balanced and fair approach to the investigations, the issues press release read very much like it had come straight from the accused's camp. All that was really required was a report on the facts of the RMT findings, the police's decision not to pursue the case, and the fact that DV is very serious and taken seriously by the SP.
> 
> The link to the accused's blog was ridiculous in the context of a supposedly neutral press release, since the contents there were extremely hostile in tone towards the complainant and made a number of serious allegations against her. Whatever the circumstances of the case this seemed wholly unjustifiable to me. How does this square with your view of it as being balanced, Leyton96?


 
I actually think making the statement full stop was the mistake. Completely impossible under those circumstances to make a statement that won't be viewed as one sided by someone or other. The truth is they really didn't need to make a statement at all.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I actually think making the statement full stop was the mistake. Completely impossible under those circumstances to make a statement that won't be viewed as one sided by someone or other. The truth is they really didn't need to make a statement at all.


 
Yeah I can see that point of view. Given the (limited beyond the trainspotting left?) publicity the case had attracted I think they may have felt compelled to do so? I think a short but carefully worded statement would have sufficed for this. But as you say since the accused had already left the party, what was the point. It wasn't like they totally bodged and covered-up the case.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 8, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Yeah I can see that point of view. Given the (limited beyond the trainspotting left?) publicity the case had attracted I think they may have felt compelled to do so? I think a short but carefully worded statement would have sufficed for this. But as you say since the accused had already left the party, what was the point. It wasn't like they totally bodged and covered-up the case.


 
If the two of us were to sit down and try and come up with a short statement I'm sure we'd have been able to agree on something. But I'd guarantee that someone would find something in it to take offence at - and to an extent I could understand it too, it's an incredibly sensitive issue and nobody knows the facts - certainly not the EC. I've only been asked about it twice outside the SP and these boards and on neither occasion did anyone assume a cover up - and both were satisfied when I told them how it had been dealt with.

I just don't think it was necessary - it's asking for trouble.

Edit: and they had already released a statement stressing that this was a very serious issue and that he'd resigned his membership and that it was now for the RMT and the legal system to deal with - I don't think it was necessary to add anything to that.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 8, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've only been asked about it twice outside the SP and these boards and on neither occasion did anyone assume a cover up - and both were satisfied when I told them how it had been dealt with.


 
Oh totally, I was just drawing a contrast with the SWP case. Very different.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> RW?



RH I would guess, LR has recently been dismissed which the PCS there are challenging because he's a workplace rep and has been unfairly sacked, so that would explain what CPGB and AWL were doing palling up.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 9, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Oh totally, I was just drawing a contrast with the SWP case. Very different.


 
Appeal submitted to RMT

http://socialistunity.com/more-on-the-rmts-domestic-violence-investigation/#.UWQtlFeQOx0


----------



## J Ed (Apr 9, 2013)

http://forgetoday.com/news/nus-conf...-conference-following-denial-of-rape-apology/


----------



## SLK (Apr 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://forgetoday.com/news/nus-conf...-conference-following-denial-of-rape-apology/



Yes,he got fifteen votes, less than RON. I remember us having sixty plus delegates back in the day!

The Beecroft speech is on YouTube - it's pretty mad but any SWP member would feel uncomfortable watching or listening to it.


----------



## belboid (Apr 9, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> RH I would guess, LR has recently been dismissed which the PCS there are challenging because he's a workplace rep and has been unfairly sacked, so that would explain what CPGB and AWL were doing palling up.


yup, that's who I meant. ,shudders.

I see Paul Le Blanc is speaking on “Leninism in the 21st Century” at Marxism. Their new spirit of openness and friendly debate.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 9, 2013)

I almost feel sorry for the kid they wheeled out to defend the indefensible in front of a hostile (and partisan) crowd. It suits all the other factions to have them be pariahs.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> yup, that's who I meant. ,shudders.
> 
> I see Paul Le Blanc is speaking on “Leninism in the 21st Century” at Marxism. Their new spirit of openness and friendly debate.


I written to him asking him to cancel.


----------



## dominion (Apr 9, 2013)

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/nus-students-walk-out-over-swp-rape.html


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 9, 2013)

How consequential? Not very I imagine. It's reflective of the factional cesspit and posturing that is NUS politics. But how much weight did the SWP usually have at conference? Not much. Its importance beyond NUS squabbles? Very little. 

The impending Marxism embarrassment, on the other hand, is going to have some punch.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 9, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> How consequential? Not very I imagine. It's reflective of the factional cesspit and posturing that is NUS politics. But how much weight did the SWP usually have at conference? Not much. Its importance beyond NUS squabbles? Very little.


you reckon? it's a sign of how weak they are now on campus and how they're going to have their main recruiting ground cut from under them.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you reckon? it's a sign of how weak they are now on campus and how they're going to have their main recruiting ground cut from under them.


 
Yeah I think so. I agree separately that their ability to do campus recruitment is going to be decimated due to the scandal. But I think the NUS conference is so unrepresentative of "campus life" as such and dominated by small cliques from organized political groupings that the repercussions of whatever happens at NUS will be very small. The vast majority of students won't have a clue that NUS conference was meeting; the whole thing is a joke. The SWP's campus work is done for in the short term, but this won't play a part in that.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 9, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Yeah I think so. I agree separately that their ability to do campus recruitment is going to be decimated due to the scandal. But I think the NUS conference is so unrepresentative of "campus life" as such and dominated by small cliques from organized political groupings that the repercussions of whatever happens at NUS will be very small. The vast majority of students won't have a clue that NUS conference was meeting; the whole thing is a joke. The SWP's campus work is done for in the short term, but this won't play a part in that.


very few delegates and only fifteen votes aren't representative of anything?


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> very few delegates and only fifteen votes aren't representative of anything?


 
Not sure how this compares to previous years. If it's significantly less then it's likely representative of the SWP's weakness and isolation, sure, as was the walkout. I just think it has very little relevance outside the small world of NUS politics, so it's _unrepresentative_ of wider realities among students, as I said.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> very few delegates and only fifteen votes aren't representative of anything?


 
I wonder how many SWSS delegates did not vote for the SWSS candidate.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 10, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Not sure how this compares to previous years. If it's significantly less then it's likely representative of the SWP's weakness and isolation, sure, as was the walkout. I just think it has very little relevance outside the small world of NUS politics, so it's _unrepresentative_ of wider realities among students, as I said.


I think your right, but I don't think anyone really disagrees with you. The conference itself does not mean very much but it is a good indication of how week the SWP is in the universities. By way of comparison, I helped out at an NUS conference years ago and the SWSS candidate pulled around 60 odd first preference votes. But that was years ago so I am not sure if it reflects their performance in recent years, but I can't imagine it has changed all that significantly.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2013)

the nus as an organisation is utterly irrelevant to students, or at least was when i was at university. they were seen as part of mgmt.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I wonder how many SWSS delegates did not vote for the SWSS candidate.


1

(well, there was 1 ISN delegate)


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 10, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Appeal submitted to RMT
> 
> http://socialistunity.com/more-on-the-rmts-domestic-violence-investigation/#.UWQtlFeQOx0


 
Or a direct link to the statement:
 http://carolineleneghan.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/steve-hedleys-statement-not-cleared-of-domestic-violence-with-a-case-still-to-answer-andy-littlechild-rmt-rep/

The only plausable theory I have (although it's probably wrong) as to why the SP got involved was that the RMT pressured them into it. For some reason, I always got the impression that the SP need more from the RMT than the RMT need from the SP, or that the SP are really keen for a good relationship with them and it gets exploited. Just a few comments here and there made me think so but I can't put my finger on it, maybe the other SP members on here know what I'm talking about? Or maybe it's just me jumping to the wrong conclusions? I've always felt uneasy about it - Bob Crow is a powerful speaker but I'm not sure he believes everything he says. If he's such a socialist as some people like to believe, then why is he earning so much?

Anyway, I think when the RMT saw it going tits up they called for backup. They knew it had to be the SP because who else was even vaguely connected to the two involved? So they put the pressure on -maybe through TUSC, maybe not- and the SP's statement happened.

I know that maybe no one really cares about the SP in this situation, but I'm still worried when a political party which I am a member of would write such a thing.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 10, 2013)

Interesting hypothesis, muscovy. Due to the RMT-SP links, I presume the EC will know more than most about the facts of the matter. So the best case is that they really believe he's innocent, and therefore released a ham-fisted statement that was totally inappropriate in a case of the nature. The middling scenario is that they don't know what happened, but decided to prioritise organisational self-interest over the principles surrounding a socialist understanding of sexist violence. Finally, the most damning scenario would be the inverse of the first one, and they're giving a 'no case to answer' message when the truth is the opposite.

And things look pretty bad on the RMT in the light of the new post/statement. It's the responsibility of all of us not to tolerate bureaucratic imperative being capable of perpetuating women's oppression I think/


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 10, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Interesting hypothesis, muscovy. Due to the RMT-SP links, I presume the EC will know more than most about the facts of the matter. So the best case is that they really believe he's innocent, and therefore released a ham-fisted statement that was totally inappropriate in a case of the nature. The middling scenario is that they don't know what happened, but decided to prioritise organisational self-interest over the principles surrounding a socialist understanding of sexist violence. Finally, the most damning scenario would be the inverse of the first one, and they're giving a 'no case to answer' message when the truth is the opposite.
> 
> And things look pretty bad on the RMT in the light of the new post/statement. It's the responsibility of all of us not to tolerate bureaucratic imperative being capable of perpetuating women's oppression I think/


 
You've made the points I was struggling to make for me. My hypothesis could work with all three of them I think, and although I knew there were variations, I couldn't split them out. If there was no pressure from anywhere then the middle wouldn't exist, because after the original statement everyone agreed the SP didn't need to say anything, and politically it would've been best for them to stay out of it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2013)

belboid said:


> 1
> 
> (well, there was 1 ISN delegate)


 
But the bulk of what remains of SWSS is oppositional, so I wouldn't be at all sure that they can be presumed to have voted for a loyalist in a secret ballot, particularly after said loyalist went to bat on the Delta issue in his speech.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 10, 2013)

muscovyduck said:
			
		

> You've made the points I was struggling to make for me. My hypothesis could work with all three of them I think, and although I knew there were variations, I couldn't split them out. If there was no pressure from anywhere then the middle wouldn't exist, because after the original statement everyone agreed the SP didn't need to say anything, and politically it would've been best for them to stay out of it.


 
Ah, well, your comments on the RMT explain a lot I think! Hadn't seen it in that way before and does explain why they'd do something that's otherwise so incomprehensible. From the weekend's developments it does seem that there's more to run on the case, one way or the other, so we might be in a better position to judge things later down the line.

I suppose there is a certain strategic justification for the SP in maintaining its relationship with a key militant union that goes somewhat beyond pure organisational self-interest, although it's a pretty weak one. hmmmm.....


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 10, 2013)

dominion said:


> http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/nus-students-walk-out-over-swp-rape.html


 

Aaaaah Howard Fuller, aka Howard Fullashit perennial flabby trousered Zionist dribbler and regular national election failure in PCS.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 10, 2013)

New ISJ out with an article by Sheila M defending the Cliff-Harman-German legacy on feminism vs the 'Marxist Feminists'. Critical of Lise Vogel, the name most often used by others in the IST who are moving in that direction. "Vogel herself does not go down this route [patriarchy theory] although her own analysis is, in part, about establishing the potential for cross-class alliances among women."

And the Prof sets out what role the ISJ wil play in the coming year.

"_International Socialism_ is relatively unusual among Marxist theoretical journals these days in being the journal of a political organisation—the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), as it was of its predecessors (the Socialist Review group and the International Socialists). We have, therefore, inevitably been affected by the intense internal debates the SWP has experienced over the past six months. These originated in disagreements over how the party handled serious sexual allegations against a leading member, but have broadened out into much wider political arguments.
A special conference of the SWP met on 10 March and sought to resolve the original controversy by setting up a committee to examine the party’s disciplinary procedures. But the main resolution passed by a large majority of delegates also stated:
We believe that underlying many of the recent debates in and around the party lie a series of vital political questions where we need to seek urgently to assert, develop and win our political tradition. Some of the key debates include:​a) The changing nature of the working class.​b) Lenin’s conception of the party and its relevance in the 21st century.​c) Oppression and capitalism.​d) The trade union bureaucracy and the rank and file.​e) The radical left, the united front and the SWP.​f) The role of students and intellectuals in revolutionary struggle.​g) The value of new electronic media in the ideological and organisational work of a revolutionary party.​The pages of this journal are an obvious venue for these debates, and we intend to make sure they happen here. Sheila McGregor’s article in the present issue on Marxism and women’s oppression today represents a start but there will be others, expressing a variety of standpoints. All these debates matter, and not simply for those who share the politics of the SWP."


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> New ISJ out with an article by Sheila M defending the Cliff-Harman-German legacy on feminism vs the 'Marxist Feminists'. Critical of Lise Vogel, the name most often used by others in the IST who are moving in that direction. "Vogel herself does not go down this route [patriarchy theory] although her own analysis is, in part, about establishing the potential for cross-class alliances among women."


 
Glad to see you back BB, for the discussion's sake! Funny how often Sheila is quoting German's work given that you won't find any reference to it on the theory section of the SWP website. Is this work not relevant anymore, contrary to what Sheila says, or does the Centre want to deter members from reading books written by persona non grata?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 10, 2013)

Hmm. The most interesting thing about the McGregor piece is its deep inoffensiveness, to someone like me who finds the IS approach to women's oppression deeply unsatisfactory (I find the 80s pieces like nails on a blackboard, by contrast...)

There's a good survey of some historical and contemporary facts & figures. There's the usual invocation of the Engels book. There's some decent discussion of gender in the workplace. And there's a general defence of unity between women and men in the struggle. 

All well and good: but what is staked out here beyond the basics? Where is the critique of the dialectical analysis of economy-culture-gender that characterises 'Marxist feminism'? We've got the accusation of class-collaborationism at Vogel, frustratingly quoteless, so for anyone without the book it's impossible to see whether this is a good characterisation of Vogel's actual argument. And beyond that? 

What about a few more pressing questions - what kind of strategies could we use to tackle sexism in the working class, at a time of limited struggle and defeats? Should women's caucuses be a part of socialist organisation and if so, when? If not, why not, and how do you tackle the problem of sexist behaviour and attitudes amongst Marxists? How can we counter the effects of bureactratization in the movement where it perpetuates women's oppression? If women-only organising isn't acceptable, how do we embed zero tolerance of sexist violence amongst men in our organisations?

All this I think stems from a failure to explore two questions - what is women's oppression? and what is gender? Which leaves the conception quite elastic and therefore at the mercy of party leaders - thus 'creeping feminism' accusations etc. 

The other strange thing is a disconnection from any debates of the feminist movement today - let's say an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of intersectionality approaches, or of fighting Islamophobia whilst rejecting communalistic apologism for certain forms of women's oppression, or indeed of whether a Nordic style childcare set-up could be a useful anti-austerity demand. 

In fact there isn't even a mention of 2 articles in this year's Socialist Register, setting out distinctive socialist feminist strategies (interesting critique of the gendered power structure produced through "charismatic" leadership, as one example among many). In short, it may well do a job of reassuring the faithful, but amongst the movement at large - can't see what it hopes to achieve, really.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 10, 2013)

tenniselbow said:
			
		

> Funny how often Sheila is quoting German's work given that you won't find any reference to it on the theory section of the SWP website.



Whoa! that's changed quite recently, it had the 1981 'theories of patriarchy' on there a couple of months ago. Actually not a bad piece - before Cliff the Wise handed down the whole Marxist truth on the matter, and coming up with a defence of his thoughts at the time became the primary concern. 

Weird in fact that there's nothing at all of the 'classic' texts on the matter - just a couple of SW pieces, and Orr's ISJ article - which as I've banged on about elsewhere, is a good defence of working class feminism but says nothing distinctive for the "tradition".


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 10, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Whoa! that's changed quite recently, it had the 1981 'theories of patriarchy' on there a couple of months ago. Actually not a bad piece - before Cliff the Wise handed down the whole Marxist truth on the matter, and coming up with a defence of his thoughts at the time became the primary concern.
> 
> Weird in fact that there's nothing at all of the 'classic' texts on the matter - just a couple of SW pieces, and Orr's ISJ article - which as I've banged on about elsewhere, is a good defence of working class feminism but says nothing distinctive for the "tradition".


It is very odd. Considering the prof has been linking to those classic 80's articles all over his FB page for some time. Almost like the theory page has been hijacked by someone who's never read much of it :-(

I do agree with you that Sheila's piece isn't going to convince the more worked out socialist feminists, it is first and foremost an opening salvo by the look of it. Pretty much a summary of others arguments. Hopefully someone is busy reading and writing a more nuanced answer. Guess part of the problem is there aren't enough heavy hitters left to go round.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 10, 2013)

Yes! And it was a serious analysis to reckon with, who knows I'd probably have been off on some post-structuralist fantasy if left to my own devices (I like Gimenez's term for it, "discourse reductionism."). as a non-expert, all the anthropology stuff seemed a convincing rebuttal to 'dual systems'. 

I agree, it'd be really good to have a serious, sympathetic but robust (if warranted) response to the marx-fems. Sad that early deaths have taken a toll alongside political own-goals. Mind you isn't there someone best suited for the job outside the UK?? A fresh perspective from Ireland, Egypt or Greece could be just the ticket....


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 10, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It is very odd. Considering the prof has been linking to those classic 80's articles all over his FB page for some time. Almost like the theory page has been hijacked by someone who's never read much of it :-(


 
To be honest, despite the Prof's wider reading and engagement, I do think the paucity of the "theory" section there is representative of the rather narrow reading prescribed within the party. This point was debated somewhere down the thread I know. There is definitely more than a bit of insularity there.

On the Prof's reading, I did find the fact that he accused Seymour of "eclecticism and picking up ideas from all over" rather amusing since he lifted Rawls' liberal theory of justice in his Resources of Critique book, a point for which Harman slammed him pretty heavily in ISJ if I recall correctly.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 11, 2013)

haha, too true! A world where Marxists can't indulge in a dose of Jessop is a sad one indeed. And you're spot on about the website, no Mandel, Bensaid, Judith Butler, Ralph Miliband, Gimenez, Therborn, Harvey....? Very much jn line with the whole 'what do socialists say about....?' meeting, where you get to find out precisely what the SWP says. 

I realised I never read the German article on the party website at all, it's still up on the ISJ Resources section: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?s=resources ...along with Barker's Poulantzas hatchet job. for shame!


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 11, 2013)

Now then. I'm sure there are many things better in life to do than this, but I'd like to take a moment to quantify the financial pinch that the SWP might be feeling from all this. 

1) subs. lets say a minimum of 250 lost subs, averaging £20/month each (£240/year). 60 grand a year gone! That's a few lower league full timers right there!

2) Marxism. Say they sell 1000 tickets, compared to 3500 on average pre-crisis. 2500 x £35 = £87,500, though maybe they can cut their outlay on dead labour given the newly modest scope of this year's event....

3) I presume SW sales are less than half of the seasonal average, but is the paper loss making on a per-unit basis? I guess they must have taken a net hit in recent months though, as I should think they were loathe to cut production numbers. Could be looking at a minimum grand per week there, anyhow, comparable to the subs losses.

4) Given the subs drives, appeal etc (the appeal! there's another one!) I'd imagine they're fairly dependent on the recurrent sources of income, though I know there's various theories out there about the asset access the party has. Probably this could only fund a WRP style zombie life though, and nothing on the scale that we're accustomed to from the world's smallest mass party?

Well. On a separate, but equally unedifying note, I counted up the gender radios of the CC vs iDoop lists the other day. They were both majority male, but the CC female proportion (~40%) was a good bit higher than the iDoop one! have to say that confounded my own expectations.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 11, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Hmm. The most interesting thing about the McGregor piece is its deep inoffensiveness, to someone like me who finds the IS approach to women's oppression deeply unsatisfactory (I find the 80s pieces like nails on a blackboard, by contrast...)
> 
> There's a good survey of some historical and contemporary facts & figures. There's the usual invocation of the Engels book. There's some decent discussion of gender in the workplace. And there's a general defence of unity between women and men in the struggle.
> 
> ...


 
what makes this a pressing issue?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 11, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Now then. I'm sure there are many things better in life to do than this, but I'd like to take a moment to quantify the financial pinch that the SWP might be feeling from all this.
> 
> 1) subs. lets say a minimum of 250 lost subs, averaging £20/month each (£240/year). 60 grand a year gone! That's a few lower league full timers right there!
> 
> ...


 
It's very difficult to know. There will be a direct subs loss from people leaving, certainly. Marxism will lose a chunk of cash too, although they may be able to limit their losses a little if they can switch to a cheaper venue. And they'll save quite a bit of their usual outlay on invited speakers! SW certainly loses money every week anyway and a reduced sale will mean further losses, which again can be mitigated by reducing print runs (and by reducing the paper's staff). Plus their subs income is based on a certain amount of membership churn, and reduced recruitment will hit that beyond simply the effect of recent resignations.

How much any individual factor or the combination of all of them will impact their functioning is very hard to estimate, given that even recent ex-members seem to know almost nothing about their finances. Which strikes me as utterly bizarre. What, by the way, was the official justification for not letting members have access to the books? Surely someone must have asked at least on occasion?




			
				oskarsdrum said:
			
		

> Well. On a separate, but equally unedifying note, I counted up the gender radios of the CC vs iDoop lists the other day. They were both majority male, but the CC female proportion (~40%) was a good bit higher than the iDoop one! have to say that confounded my own expectations.


 
Ok, that's pretty surprising. What percentage was the IDOOP one?


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 11, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> 2) Marxism. Say they sell 1000 tickets, compared to 3500 on average pre-crisis. 2500 x £35 = £87,500, though maybe they can cut their outlay on dead labour given the newly modest scope of this year's event....


 
They claim to have already sold 1,200 I believe.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 11, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> They claim to have already sold 1,200 I believe.


 
Could this be the first year ever where Marxism isn't the 'biggest yet'?

I actually think Marxism is something of value that will be lost because of this. I know not everyone on here will agree but IMO if you wanted to hear a range of knowledgeable speakers (I'm talking mainly about guest speakers like Harvey and the like) it was the best event in the country. Sadly, even if the SWP do manage to limit the damage this does to the party I don't think Marxism will ever be like it was again. I was going to go this year too, won't bother now though


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Could this be the first year ever where Marxism isn't the 'biggest yet'?
> 
> I actually think Marxism is something of value that will be lost because of this. I know not everyone on here will agree but IMO if you wanted to hear a range of knowledgeable speakers (I'm talking mainly about guest speakers like Harvey and the like) it was the best event in the country. Sadly, even if the SWP do manage to limit the damage this does to the party I don't think Marxism will ever be like it was again. I was going to go this year too, won't bother now though


 
Agree with you there, Spiney; it is somewhat of a loss. I too have seen some excellent guest speakers at Marxism... and suffered some dreadfully mediocre party hacks before I knew better.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 11, 2013)

You only get beyond mediocre by practicing. I don't see why speaking at political meetings should be the preserve of the excellent.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 11, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> You only get beyond mediocre by practicing. I don't see why speaking at political meetings should be the preserve of the excellent.


 
I'm not talking about performance quality but content.

There's a difference between being: (1) a stumbling or nervous speaker who has interesting and thoughtful things to say; and (2) adopting an SWP-issue oratory style and repeating a set of preordained party lines on "what socialists say".

Practice will improve the former but not the latter.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 11, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> I'm not talking about performance quality but content.
> 
> There's a difference between being: (1) a stumbling or nervous speaker who has interesting and thoughtful things to say; and (2) adopting an SWP-issue oratory style and repeating a set of preordained party lines on "what socialists say".
> 
> Practice will improve the former but not the latter.


 
If anything practice makes the latter more aggravating, as a speaker becomes practiced enough in the SWP house speaking style to add just the right notes of confidence and excitement. Say what you like about Chris Harman, on the rare occasions when I heard him speak at a big SWP event, his personal brand of slightly robotic anti-charisma was a pleasant break from the ra-ra-ra stuff.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 11, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> You only get beyond mediocre by practicing. I don't see why speaking at political meetings should be the preserve of the excellent.


 
I don't think it's especially elitist to think that hearing David Harvey speak on the financial crisis would probably be more interesting and informative than if John, secretary of the Milton Keynes north branch of the SWP, spoke on the same topic.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 11, 2013)

A rather lengthy article by Hannah Sell on a range of issues covered by this thread:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ar...ist-perspective-on-fighting-womens-oppression


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 11, 2013)

As an aside, the article contains the following section:

In his book 'Class struggle & Women's Liberation' Tony Cliff, founder of the SWP, argued that the women's liberation movement was wrong to focus "consistently on areas where men and women are at odds - rape, battered women, wages for housework - while ignoring or playing down the important struggles in which women are more likely to win the support of men: strikes, opposition to welfare cuts, equal pay, unionisation, abortion".

I presume that this is not one of the Cliff books that the SWP strives to keep in print??!!


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 11, 2013)

Thanks for the link Nigel! Enjoyed this thoughtful, well-argued piece. Good critique of Cliff indeed, well, even a staunch loyalist such as Snowball on his histomat blog expressed minor reservations about that book. However I think the same argument is basically there in Harman and McGregor's subsequent outings. This strikes me as an excellent and timely point:

"we fight for the maximum unity of the working class, not by trying to brush issues relating to the specific oppression of women under the carpet, but by campaigning to convince the whole workers' movement it is necessary to take these issues seriously."

I haven't changed my view that an investigation is unlikely to yield a satisfactory "balance of probability" verdict in a significant number of cases (I.e. those with no 3rd party witnesses). But there's a good rationale for the practical position taken by Sell. 

More tangentially - for my money, sexist violence mainly is about the patriarchal patterns of gendered behaviour which make violence and physical domination a more common resort for men than for women (I think more specific beliefs about women 'belonging' to men are secondary to this). 

Good emphasis on institutional factors in perpetuating oppressive male behaviour by the way. It's all a bit more attentive to reality than anything I can imagine coming out of the swp. Although a retraction of the SH statement would be better still......


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 11, 2013)

nigel irritable said:
			
		

> It's very difficult to know. There will be a direct subs loss from people leaving, certainly. Marxism will lose a chunk of cash too, although they may be able to limit their losses a little if they can switch to a cheaper venue. And they'll save quite a bit of their usual outlay on invited speakers! SW certainly loses money every week anyway and a reduced sale will mean further losses, which again can be mitigated by reducing print runs (and by reducing the paper's staff). Plus their subs income is based on a certain amount of membership churn, and reduced recruitment will hit that beyond simply the effect of recent resignations.


 
Aha! Good dynamic analysis, yes indeed, I'd not thought of that. Countervailing factors - I wonder to what extent (semi-)loyalists have upped the subs levels, made an extra effort to get to Marxism and what not. Obviously this isn't likely to be a sustainable effect assuming demoralisation sets on later in the year.



> How much any individual factor or the combination of all of them will impact their functioning is very hard to estimate, given that even recent ex-members seem to know almost nothing about their finances. Which strikes me as utterly bizarre. What, by the way, was the official justification for not letting members have access to the books? Surely someone must have asked at least on occasion?


 
I heard MS himself declaim on this. It's to stop the rozzers getting the intel about what we're up to! So do you get the accounts in the SP? Don't you care about the security of the revolutionary struggle??!?



> What percentage was the IDOOP one?


 
31.6%! Quite a difference to the CC list (which was almost 41%). It's a reasonable sample size too I think, of 500ish each. It could be, I suppose, something to do with other demographic differences, e.g. the suggested bias towards 80s intake amongst loyalists.....frankly someone needs to do the proper research here, it's an essential question for strategizing in movement!


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 11, 2013)

tenniselbow said:
			
		

> They claim to have already sold 1,200 I believe.


 
Is that sold or signed up? I've heard that several hundred plus tickets are distributed gratis to IST activists and various grandees etc. If they've sold twelve hundred on top then that is a surprising level of vitality.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> what makes this a pressing issue?


 
At a guess - the fact that working-class women and children experience it as important?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 11, 2013)

> oskarsdrum blathered on:
> What about a few more pressing questions - what kind of strategies could we use to tackle sexism in the working class, at a time of limited struggle and defeats?







			
				the39thstep said:
			
		

> what makes this a pressing issue?


 
Well, there are plenty of reasons why it's always pressing, but a particular problem at the moment is the standard response of many marxists - or at least, those of IS heritage - that the main way men's behaviour and attitudes are changed is through partipating in class struggle. Usually followed by an anecdote about the miners' strike. That's an important argument, and I'd like to hear more of other examples where divisions/oppression have been overcome as a result of militant action. The problem is when we're mainly in a period of defeat with precious little serious resistance - and given the chronically poor levels of class organisation, there seems to be every possibility that a new strike wave isn't coming for the foreseeable future - this actually serves to obscure the possibilities for fighting oppression more than anything.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As an aside, the article contains the following section:
> 
> In his book 'Class struggle & Women's Liberation' Tony Cliff, founder of the SWP, argued that the women's liberation movement was wrong to focus "consistently on areas where men and women are at odds - rape, battered women, wages for housework - while ignoring or playing down the important struggles in which women are more likely to win the support of men: strikes, opposition to welfare cuts, equal pay, unionisation, abortion".
> 
> I presume that this is not one of the Cliff books that the SWP strives to keep in print??!!


 
It's around and there's other stuff in Harman's guides that echo the line.
Harman expresses it by stating feminism is wrong to concentrate on areas where women are weak (domestic violence, rape culture) but should concentrate where they are strong ie in unions and other united front campaigns - ie basically follow the SWP leadership approach.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 11, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Well, there are plenty of reasons why it's always pressing, but a particular problem at the moment is the standard response of many marxists - or at least, those of IS heritage - that the main way men's behaviour and attitudes are changed is through partipating in class struggle. Usually followed by an anecdote about the miners' strike. That's an important argument, and I'd like to hear more of other examples where divisions/oppression have been overcome as a result of militant action.


 
In a general sense there's lots of it - Con Mech, Imperial Typewriters, Timex in the 1990s - but perhaps you mean more specific stuff. ??


----------



## treelover (Apr 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Could this be the first year ever where Marxism isn't the 'biggest yet'?
> 
> I actually think Marxism is something of value that will be lost because of this. I know not everyone on here will agree but IMO if you wanted to hear a range of knowledgeable speakers (I'm talking mainly about guest speakers like Harvey and the like) it was the best event in the country. Sadly, even if the SWP do manage to limit the damage this does to the party I don't think Marxism will ever be like it was again. I was going to go this year too, won't bother now though


 
I suspect Left Unity will want to organise smaller day school events quite quickly with good speakers..


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> At a guess - the fact that working-class women and children experience it as important?


 
Which is exactly what it is , a guess. Pressing issue was the term.How would the left know whether it was a pressing issue per se or even where it may be a pressing issue as it doesn't engage with the working class to ask what issues are important?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 12, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> I heard MS himself declaim on this. It's to stop the rozzers getting the intel about what we're up to! So do you get the accounts in the SP? Don't you care about the security of the revolutionary struggle??!?



Every year at Congress delegates are provided with financial breakdown documents. We're not allowed to take these away with us though, in case they fall in to the hands of MI5.  We also elect auditors every year who have to be longstanding members of the party who have never worked for the party. I've never done it myself, think I'm slightly short of the 5 year membership requirement, but I'm told they usually spend a week going through the accounts and then they do a report back for Congress. If memory serves last time the report said that the party needed to be more disciplined about its expenditure on stationary.

To be honest I think the stuff about not being allowed to take the finance docs back to branches is a bit paranoid, I don't think the forces of the state are that interested in how much the party spends on office rent and phone bills. But it's not a bad system really.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Which is exactly what it is , a guess. Pressing issue was the term.How would the left know whether it was a pressing issue per se or even where it may be a pressing issue as it doesn't engage with the working class to ask what issues are important?


 
By listening to people without asking questions. It might not be "an issue" issue, but it is there and damages people, some groups - women and young - will experience it in a more pressing way than others.


----------



## belboid (Apr 12, 2013)

Just seen Counterfires 2 day alternative to Marxism, a rather more impressive list of non-party speakers:
'Dangerous Ideas for Dangerous Times' featuring David Harvey, Tariq Ali, Lindsey German, Tony Benn, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Nina Power, Stathis Kouvelakis, Laurie Penny, Paul Le Blanc, Danielle Obono and many, many more


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 12, 2013)

belboid said:


> Just seen Counterfires 2 day alternative to Marxism, a rather more impressive list of non-party speakers:
> 'Dangerous Ideas for Dangerous Times' featuring David Harvey, Tariq Ali, Lindsey German, Tony Benn, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Nina Power, Stathis Kouvelakis, Laurie Penny, Paul Le Blanc, Danielle Obono and many, many more


 
Not bad. I wonder if we could get David Harvey at Socialism?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

belboid said:


> Just seen Counterfires 2 day alternative to Marxism, a rather more impressive list of non-party speakers:
> 'Dangerous Ideas for Dangerous Times' featuring David Harvey, Tariq Ali, Lindsey German, Tony Benn, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Nina Power, Stathis Kouvelakis, Laurie Penny, Paul Le Blanc, Danielle Obono and many, many more


Still the same old faces (and that's not David Harvey, it's Ken Bates).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> You mean the Rev Socialists who called for support for Mursi not so long ago? The same Mursi that has just initiated a curfew?


The latest ISJ has yet another massively long article about Lenin saying the same stuff they've said a million times before -  we find the real reason for it at the conclusion - to back up that decision to support Morsi.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Still the same old faces (and that's not David Harvey, it's Ken Bates).


 
Danielle Obono is new - a couple of years ago would have been Besancenot or Melenchon.

EDITED Paul Le Blanc is going Marxism and Conuterfire Festieval.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Apr 12, 2013)

you wanna get yourselves down to spring guys! ;P

http://spring-conference-2013.com/conference-timetable/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Danielle Obono is new - a couple of years ago would have been Besancenot or Melenchon.
> 
> Paul Le Blanc is a score US ISO doesn't go to Marxism but elsewhere Counterfire 1 - 0 SWP


And the reason for that is to allow him to continue his trouncing of the prof on the key figure for w/c communities today...Lenin.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And the reason for that is to allow him to continue his trouncing of the prof on the key figure for w/c communities today...Lenin.


 
What else could there be for ISO tradition? Lenin or Luxemburg or Trotsky - that's basically it.

Variations on "If Lenin/Luxemburg/Trotsky were alive today, s/he would be in __________."


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Danielle Obono is new - a couple of years ago would have been Besancenot or Melenchon.
> 
> Paul Le Blanc is a score US ISO doesn't go to Marxism but elsewhere Counterfire 1 - 0 SWP


 
Paul Le Bland is also listed as being a speaker at this year's Marxism.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 12, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Paul Le Bland is also listed as being a speaker at this year's Marxism.


 
Sorry, yes he is. What does it mean? Will he try to attack Callinicos by name at Marxism in a talk not a debate.


----------



## belboid (Apr 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Paul Le Blanc is a score US ISO doesn't go to Marxism but elsewhere Counterfire 1 - 0 SWP


except, PLB_is_ going to Marxism as well.  Somewhat surprisingly.


----------



## treelover (Apr 12, 2013)

belboid said:


> Just seen Counterfires 2 day alternative to Marxism, a rather more impressive list of non-party speakers:
> 'Dangerous Ideas for Dangerous Times' featuring David Harvey, Tariq Ali, Lindsey German, Tony Benn, Owen Jones, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Nina Power, Stathis Kouvelakis, Laurie Penny, Paul Le Blanc, Danielle Obono and many, many more


 
I wonder who Left Unity would have at a day school?, are there any 'blue sky' left wing thinkers, there was a guy at the benefits meeting I went to last night, Dr Simon Duffy from the Centre For (genuine) Welfare Reform,had some good ideas, citizens income, he was a key player in the personal budgets for disabled people movement, but he I think favours radical change in the NHS, maybe some privatisation.I would imagine someone would come from Syriza, Uk Uncut, some original thinking coming from the Sussex students, anymore?


----------



## belboid (Apr 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Sorry, yes he is. What does it mean? Will he try to attack Callinicos by name at Marxism in a talk not a debate.


Paul doesnt _attack_, comrade, he puts forward thoughtful and nuanced criticisms!


----------



## Scribbling S (Apr 12, 2013)

That Counterfire conference looks ok, but the "Dangerous Ideas for Dangerous Times" title made me thing of this  .


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A rather lengthy article by Hannah Sell on a range of issues covered by this thread:
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ar...ist-perspective-on-fighting-womens-oppression


 
She misleadingly conflates the statement with a resolution advocating support for it at UNISON conference - signing the statement certainly does not imply support for no-platforming leftists. The only line of the actual statement she quibbles with is that about presumption of believing the woman - which is hardly to say that this should be a default position with no futher regard to the facts of the case!  It's more the difference between the reaction "is there any truth to these allegations?" with "it's relatively rare that allegations of this kind are made without any grounds, so let's take this very seriously"...


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

SP member resigns in disgust about the way they handled her own allegation of sexual abuse against a leading comrade:
http://shortarguments.wordpress.com...he-socialist-party-her-letter-to-hannah-sell/

(and in response to leyton96 and SpineyNorman - I am not "enjoying" this or shit-stirring - believe it or not. Actually I find it very depressing)


----------



## belboid (Apr 12, 2013)

Another Mayo!

Is there a plot to emulsify the trots?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> SP member resigns in disgust about the way they handled her own allegation of sexual abuse against a leading comrade:
> http://shortarguments.wordpress.com...he-socialist-party-her-letter-to-hannah-sell/
> 
> (and in response to leyton96 and SpineyNorman - I am not "enjoying" this or shit-stirring - believe it or not. Actually I find it very depressing)


 
This Les Woodward of Remploy UNITE?


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

I realise it's just anecdotal, but my own experience in organisations starting to address sexual harassment as an issue (if the organisation looks as though it's taking it seriously) is that there's an immediate response of loads of complaints. It's as if a great big can of worms has been opened and it can have the effect of people within the organisations reacting defensively/with suspicion. It's not something that carries on for long after the initial sorting out, but it's a difficult time for all concerned.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This Les Woodward of Remploy UNITE?


Isn't he GMB? But yes think it's the Remploy guy (S Wales based so tallies)

I can't help feeling that organisations would deal with these issues differently if the allegations didn't involve "leading figures".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

Strange how anyone accused of anything unpleasant is currently getting an instantaneous and unexpected promotion to being a "leading member" of their organisation. The incident in question here involved a man putting his hand on someone's thigh in a pub (ie a form of groping, which is serious), and the dispute, as I understand it, is not over whether the incident happened or should be taken seriously but over the appropriate punishment.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Strange how anyone accused of anything unpleasant is currently getting an instantaneous and unexpected promotion to being a "leading member" of their organisation. The incident in question here involved a man putting his hand on someone's thigh in a pub (ie a form of groping), and the dispute, as I understand it, is not over whether the incident happened or should be taken seriously but over the appropriate punishment.


 
a) he's a national TU official recently involved in a high profile campaign - he's not some Joe that came along to the branch last week.
b) It's pretty low to make light of what she clearly felt was a sexual assault, not "putting his hand on her thigh" but what she claims was sustained attempt to grope her - OK it's not rape or domestic violence, but she was evidently traumatised by the incident:
http://sakollantai.wordpress.com/20...ony-of-sexual-assault-in-the-labour-movement/

Funny how you react just as defensively as the uber-SWP loyalists did when the boot's on the other foot.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> a) he's a national TU official recently involved in a high profile campaign - he's not some Joe that came along to the branch last week.


 
He's a rank and file member of the SP.




			
				artcul8 said:
			
		

> b) It's pretty low to make light of what she clearly felt was a sexual assault, not "putting his hand on her thigh" but what she claims was sustained attempt to grope her - OK it's not rape or domestic violence, but she was evidently traumatised by the incident


 
I'm not making light of what happened. Which is why I pointed out (a) that the incident amounted to groping and that (b) it has to be taken seriously. I'd rather not have commented on it at all, particularly as I know the woman it happened to a little. But as, in your haste to put the boot into the SP, you'd introduced the issue as one involving a leading SP member and also described the incident with the lurid but vague description "sexual abuse" which on this thread in particular is likely to be read a certain way, I thought a little clarification would be appropriate.

There is no doubt that the incident was traumatic, and I am not for a second suggesting otherwise or that it shouldn't be taken seriously.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

national trade union officials are not what most people would understand by the term "rank and file". 

I also knew her a little.  But I think your description of the incident as "a man putting his hand on someone's thigh in a pub" is more than a little misleading given her account of it (inserted above, since it's in the public domain). 


> I am not for a second suggesting otherwise or that it shouldn't be taken seriously.


Good - but judging by her letter to Hannah she doesn't feel that it has been.  In fact she things people are making light of it and accusing her of playing the martyr.  So your post above does little to refute that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> national trade union officials are not what most people would understand by the term "rank and file".


 
You are deliberately confusing positions someone may hold outside an organisation with positions they hold in it.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> But I think your description of the incident as "a man putting his hand on someone's thigh in a pub" is more than a little misleading given her account of it (inserted above, since it's in the public domain)


 
My description was a great deal less misleading than you risked being. The incident involved a drunk man groping someone's thigh in a pub for an extended period. That's not trivial. It's an assault and it very obviously was experienced as traumatic. That has to be taken seriously. As I understand it, and it could be that I'm not in possession of all the relevant information, it was taken very seriously. There's no question about whether it happened, nor any question of not believing the victim. The dispute, again as I understand it, is over the appropriate punishment.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

"groping someone's thigh in a pub" - have you read the link in my post above?  Do you still think this sounds appropriate? It sounds much more like a form of sexual assault.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

> he groped my inner thighs, rubbing and groaning as I shocked
> and very frightened did my best to get out of his grip. This pervert
> dehumanised me – and my body. He physically revulses me.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> "groping someone's thigh in a pub" - have you read the link in my post above? Do you still think this sounds appropriate? It sounds much more like a form of sexual assault.


 
Groping someone _*is a form of sexual assault*_. Always. Describing something as groping is not downplaying it. I'm not trying to differentiate between the two, but to clarify what sort of assault is being talked about, in circumstances where you seem absolutely determined to create confusion with other forms of assault or abuse.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Not at all - I've posted the account up so people can judge for themselves whether "someone putting his hand on her thigh" is a reasonable description of what is being talked about


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2013)

Just so people don't wonder why I've not said anything about this, there is an ongoing investigation by the appeals committee so I'm not going to comment on this until that's over. But it's not the whitewash articul8 seems so keen to present it as.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Not at all - I've posted the account up so people can judge for themselves whether "someone putting his hand on her thigh" is a reasonable description of what is being talked about


 
Your initial post contained one incorrect element and was so vague as to be necessarily misleading in the context of the thread. You are now quoting a sentence from me while excising the part where I described the incident as groping, which I can only assume is further mischief on your part. Groping is an assault, not something different from and less than an assault.

Once more: This was a serious complaint which was, as I understand it, taken very seriously. That the incident happened was not in any doubt, there's no question of not believing the victim, nor of suggesting that it wasn't traumatic. Again as I understand it, the central dispute was not over the incident itself but over the appropriate sanction.

I should point out again, that the above is based on what may be incomplete information, and I'm more than willing to be corrected if it is. I'm not willing however to get into an extended exchange with someone who seems primarily interested in scoring points about it. We both know the person this happened to and am not going to squabble with you about it like this.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> "groping someone's thigh in a pub" - have you read the link in my post above? Do you still think this sounds appropriate? It sounds much more like a form of sexual assault.


 
Groping is sexual assault, and as someone who's had their thigh groped on two separate occasions already when I'm barely a year above the age of consent I find it disgusting that you think groping somehow doesn't count.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Jit's not the whitewash articul8 seems so keen to present it as.


 
FFS - The person concerned has left the SP issuing a statement that *she* is disgusted by the way her complaint has been handled.  I think that's of relevance to the topic on this thread.   How is this me trying to "present" it in a bad way or "scoring points"?   I'm glad we're now clear that what is being alleged is serious.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'm glad we're now clear that what is being alleged is serious.


 
And still the urge to use something serious to score points persists. I'll leave you to it.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Groping is sexual assault, and as someone who's had their thigh groped on two separate occasions already when I'm barely a year above the age of consent I find it disgusting that you think groping somehow doesn't count.


where the fuck do you get the impression I said that? I'm saying precisely the opposite - that such groping IS sexual assault and very serious.


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> FFS - The person concerned has left the SP issuing a statement that *she* is disgusted by the way her complaint has been handled. I think that's of relevance to the topic on this thread. How is this me trying to "present" it in a bad way or "scoring points"? I'm glad we're now clear that what is being alleged is serious.


 
I think the fact you thought anyone who's commented on it on this thread felt like it wasn't serious says a lot tbh


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> "groping someone's thigh in a pub" - have you read the link in my post above? Do you still think this sounds appropriate? It sounds much more like a form of sexual assault.


 


articul8 said:


> b) It's pretty low to make light of what she clearly felt was a sexual assault, not "putting his hand on her thigh" but what she claims was sustained attempt to grope her - OK it's not rape or domestic violence, but she was evidently traumatised by the incident:
> http://sakollantai.wordpress.com/20...ony-of-sexual-assault-in-the-labour-movement/


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Jesus - read her account and see whether "someone putting his hand on her thigh" sounds like an adequate description of it.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 was quoting Nigel irritable if you read it back, muscovyduck


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Jesus - read her account and see whether "someone putting his hand on her thigh" sounds like an adequate description of it.


My point is that you think putting your hand on someone's thigh somehow isn't sexual assault. Stop changing it to suit what you want it to be.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> articul8 was quoting Nigel irritable if you read it back, muscovyduck


 
Well, he was partially quoting me, carefully excising the part about groping, because he's spent this entire discussion trying to imply in a rather distasteful way that others don't think that the issue is serious (despite the word serious being repeated over and over again until it almost starts to lose meaning). But the parts quoted above weren't from me. That was articul8 differentiating between groping and assault all on his own.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well, he was partially quoting me, carefully excising the part about groping, because he's spent this entire discussion trying to imply in a rather distasteful way that others don't think that the issue is serious (despite the word serious being repeated over and over again until it almost starts to lose meaning). But the parts quoted above weren't from me. That was articul8 differentiating between groping and assault all on his own.


If you'd described it as "a man rubbing his hands up and down her inner thighs in a pub  (ie a form of groping, which is serious)" rather than "a man putting his hand on someone's thigh in a pub (ie a form of groping, which is serious)" or even just "groping" he possibly wouldn't have picked you up on it in the first place.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

exactly, I started off by calling it "sexual abuse" so hardly trivialising it.  Nigel then said it wasn't it as "a man putting his hand on someone's thigh in a pub" which hardly does the incident justice.  He introduced the term "groping" as synonymous with his previous description - and I objected it was "more like sexual assault" (Ok I shouldn't have said "more like" but I didn't mean there was any substantial difference). 

The idea that "groping" was somehow less serious than sexual assault was the exact opposite of what I intended.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> he possibly wouldn't have picked you up on it in the first place.


 
You are giving him too much credit. He's trying to construct a narrative in which this is being downplayed, despite everyone who responds to him going on and on and on about how it's serious. If it was just an issue of him picking up my first comment in a way that wasn't intended, he wouldn't have insisted on quoting the same half of that sentence over and over again in the face of repeated detailed responses, which emphasised over and over again that the incident is to be taken seriously and that it amounted to an assault. At a certain point, dishonesty becomes the only viable explanation. Just as for instance, if I was to keep quoting his crass differentiation between groping and assault in the face of his more recent comments, you'd have to conclude that I was playing games.

But I'm really not interested in further dragging out the exchange with him. Everybody on the thread, despite the distasteful bickering, is in practical terms in agreement that groping is an assault and has to be taken seriously. As I understand it, this incident was taken seriously. If it comes to light that it was not, then I'll be extremely angry. Until then I'm reluctant to get into it further.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

the complainant is alleging it is being downplayed (ie. not me). Your first post in reaction to this appeared to corroborate it. Thankfully we're all now clear it is serious.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

sihhi said:


> By listening to people without asking questions. It might not be "an issue" issue, but it is there and damages people, some groups - women and young - will experience it in a more pressing way than others.


 
Nones denying that its not there.The question is why a poster would say that it is a pressing issue.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just so people don't wonder why I've not said anything about this, there is an ongoing investigation by the appeals committee so I'm not going to comment on this until that's over. But it's not the whitewash articul8 seems so keen to present it as.


 
A sort of 'no comment' position?


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Nones denying that its not there.The question is why a poster would say that it is a pressing issue.


Women and the young are the majority of the working class. Sexism/harassment is a substantial part of the oppression of the working class, so therefore a pressing issue.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 12, 2013)

To clarify:

LW admits responsibility and remorse. All agree it was serious, it was sexual assault, it was totally unacceptable, it should not have happened. The issue is whether LW should be expelled. The complainant (from what I know-not in possession of all facts) wants LW expelled I think. As yet the Appeals Committee hasn't made a decision. Beyond that I don't know if there's much more to say.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

As an aside, if anyone thinks that these arguments on the British left can get somewhat heated, remind me to tell you about the time a member of one Australian left group was murdered by her abusive boyfriend, a member of a different left group. Then friends of his who were in the same left group attended his trial in his support.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> A sort of 'no comment' position?


 
Yes - I think this is a sensible position to take when you don't have all the facts but are aware of some things that haven't been reported yet.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> Women and the young are the majority of the working class. Sexism/harassment is a substantial part of the oppression of the working class, so therefore a pressing issue.


 
So what is being done about it and by whom on the left and anarchist scene. Every one will say they are against it but what is being done in working class communities where it is occurring? How is tackling this pressing issue manifesting itself in action?

I am interested because there are very few examples of local community led responses to domestic violence.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Nones denying that its not there.The question is why a poster would say that it is a pressing issue.



To be fair he didn't. He called it a "pressing question" which, in the context of discussing the ISJ article and the SWP's position on this, makes more sense than you're giving credit for I think.

Totally agree with you point about the left's engagement with working class communities though.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> So what is being done about it and by whom on the left and anarchist scene. Every one will say they are against it but what is being done in working class communities where it is occurring? How is tackling this pressing issue manifesting itself in action?
> 
> I am interested because there are very few examples of local community led responses to domestic violence.


 
I can't answer what is being done about it and by whom on the left - apart from point out that women (and some men) have been trying to do something about it for decades. I think that (a) it's seen as a women's issue rather than a working class one, and women have been active and vocal for a long time on this so let them get on with it sort of thing; (b) there's an element of relinquishing responsibility to the state; and (c) that it's undermined by those that persist in viewing feminism as a fly trapped in amber back in the 80s with all the identity politics baggage it carries from there.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> I can't answer what is being done about it and by whom on the left - apart from point out that women (and some men) have been trying to do something about it for decades. I think that (a) it's seen as a women's issue rather than a working class one, and women have been active and vocal for a long time on this so let them get on with it sort of thing; (b) there's an element of relinquishing responsibility to the state; and (c) that it's undermined by those that persist in viewing feminism as a fly trapped in amber back in the 80s with all the identity politics baggage it carries from there.


 
The Campaign Against Domestic Violence in the 90s had a significant impact in the union movement, at least in terms of encouraging the unions to take formal stances on the issue and how to deal with it. But I don't think it ever had much noticeable impact in communities or outside the labour movement. It's a difficult issue to get traction on because, by the very nature of the crime, it tends to happen behind closed doors, while victims are isolated.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Campaign Against Domestic Violence in the 90s had a significant impact in the union movement, at least in terms of encouraging the unions to take formal stances on the issue and how to deal with it. But I don't think it ever had much noticeable impact in communities or outside the labour movement. It's a difficult issue to get traction on because, by the very nature of the crime, it tends to happen behind closed doors, while victims are isolated.


The additional point there is that unions by their nature (and I'm not saying that they're not changing btw, eg Unite's community stuff atm) are productive labour oriented so there's not automatic traction in communities.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> To clarify:
> 
> LW admits responsibility and remorse. All agree it was serious, it was sexual assault, it was totally unacceptable, it should not have happened. The issue is whether LW should be expelled. The complainant (from what I know-not in possession of all facts) wants LW expelled I think. As yet the Appeals Committee hasn't made a decision. Beyond that I don't know if there's much more to say.


 
Ok, but clearly the complainant is extremely angry about the way her complaint has been handled, such that she has resigned from the party and denounced the AGS who she had trusted to deal with the matter appropriately.   Shouldn't people listen to what she has to say (before concluding that everything has been/is being handled properly)?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> I can't answer what is being done about it and by whom on the left - apart from point out that women (and some men) have been trying to do something about it for decades. I think that (a) it's seen as a women's issue rather than a working class one, and women have been active and vocal for a long time on this so let them get on with it sort of thing; (b) there's an element of relinquishing responsibility to the state; and (c) that it's undermined by those that persist in viewing feminism as a fly trapped in amber back in the 80s with all the identity politics baggage it carries from there.


 
I very much agree with you on both a) and b) . Can't say the same for c)


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I very much agree with you on both a) and b) . Can't say the same for c)


The reason that I include (c) in particular on this thread is because I think feminism/women's movement politics should be integrated with working class politics, not undermined by utilising historical criticisms ad infinitum. As far as I'm concerned it contributes to the fracturing of the left into component issues rather than concentrating on pulling together the various struggles against oppression of the working class. EG "creeping feminism" etc


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 12, 2013)

Very good point, cesare. Critiques can't be cast in stone. Times and social conditions change and our theories have to be adapted to new circumstances. Praxis, etc.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Very good point, cesare. Critiques can't be cast in stone. Times and social conditions change and our theories have to be adapted to new circumstances. Praxis, etc.


That's not to say that I don't have contemporaneous criticisms of some forms of feminism (I'm thinking some of the rad-fem born-women-only separatist elements here) but I believe we should be a bit more specific about the criticisms rather than just undermining feminism in total.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Shouldn't people listen to what she has to say (before concluding that everything has been/is being handled properly)?


 
There's a reason why every single statement here about how people understand the issue to have been handled has been prefaced with "as I currently understand it" or had other strong caveats about waiting for further information attached. Nobody - nobody - is simply accepting blithe assurances that everything was handled correctly and refusing to listen to other information.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> The reason that I include (c) in particular on this thread is because I think feminism/women's movement politics should be integrated with working class politics, not undermined by utilising historical criticisms ad infinitum. As far as I'm concerned it contributes to the fracturing of the left into component issues rather than concentrating on pulling together the various struggles against oppression of the working class. EG "creeping feminism" etc


 
Well, I agree with the broad point that dismissal of "feminism" as if it was one thing, premised largely on collapsing all of its various strands into liberal feminism, is extremely unhelpful. As is treating it all as having the logic of political separatism, as the SWP's cruder material often does.

But there are, as you note in your post after this, very real currents and tendencies within the feminist movement that do need to treated very sceptically. And some of those currents do go back to the 90s or 80s or 70s, or at least echo the arguments of earlier times. I think we have to be careful to avoid a kind of "year zero" approach where we treat current arguments and movements as if they have no history, just as much as we have to be careful to avoid treating people today as if they were merely convenient stand ins for people we disagreed with years ago.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> The reason that I include (c) in particular on this thread is because I think feminism/women's movement politics should be integrated with working class politics, not undermined by utilising historical criticisms ad infinitum. As far as I'm concerned it contributes to the fracturing of the left into component issues rather than concentrating on pulling together the various struggles against oppression of the working class. EG "creeping feminism" etc[/quote
> 
> I can't separate out  working class struggle without the the fight against  women's oppression. However  I don't see feminism as the same as pro working class politics.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I can't separate out working class struggle without the the fight against women's oppression. However I don't see feminism as the same as pro working class politics.


 
Surely that depends on what you think feminism is?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

Just re reading around the Beyond The Fragments debate and although Leninist type parties aren't my cup of tea any more I quite liked Hallas's take on it in this interview :



> _*The SWP is easily the biggest group on the revolutionary left. But at the “debate of the decade” between Tony Benn and Paul Foot a sizeable section of the audience was clearly more attracted to the sort of non-party notions preached by the Beyond the Fragments people. How do you evaluate such currents?*_
> How many were attracted in a _positive_ sense is a question, but there is no doubt that *Beyond the Fragments* has become a focus for “apartyist” and indeed anti-party sentiment.
> Perhaps focus is not quite the right won. it implies something too definite, too clear. In fact there are at least three different strands or tendencies that, for the moment, rally behind or at any rate use the *Beyond the Fragments* banner.
> There is the specifically feminist current which thinks primarily in terms of sex rather than class. They are, for the most part, highly educated, highly articulate, petty-bourgeois women who are in _a relatively_ privileged economic situation with respect to the vast majority of working class women and also with respect to the majority of working class men as well.
> ...


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> Surely that depends on what you think feminism is?


 
and surely what you think feminism is. Unity in action comrade.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ok, but clearly the complainant is extremely angry about the way her complaint has been handled, such that she has resigned from the party and denounced the AGS who she had trusted to deal with the matter appropriately. Shouldn't people listen to what she has to say (before concluding that everything has been/is being handled properly)?


 
Of course they should listen to what she's got to say - I have no idea what makes you think anyone is saying otherwise - nobody has. It's a bit dishonest for you to imply otherwise. What she says is clearly cause for concern and I'd be outraged if anyone said it wasn't.

But they should wait until the appeals committee has had the chance to complete their investigation before drawing conclusions as there might be information that you don't have and it might be worth hearing what they and the EC have to say. I don't think that's unreasonable.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Just re reading around the Beyond The Fragments debate and although Leninist type parties aren't my cup of tea any more I quite liked Hallas's take on it in this interview


 
It's quite an effective polemical dismissal of the Beyond the Fragments crowd, but I'm not really sure how relevant it is to cesare's argument about feminism.

Feminism is a real social movement, and thus variegated and factional as real movements tend to be. It's existence as a movement is a broadly positive thing, which doesn't mean that all of the ideas presented within it are of use to socialists. However, many of the ideas that have arisen within that movement are very useful. Insisting on a built in division between Marxism and Marxist-Feminism, as opposed to seeing the latter as a series of attempts to develop a Marxist understanding of women's oppression and liberation, seems to me to be counterproductive.

Lots of this sort of thinking is inherited from earlier decades without any real consideration or examination. In the early women's liberation movement a lot of Marxists and socialist radicals rejected the term feminism and insisted on women's liberation instead. At that point they were counterposing women's liberation (ie a socialist struggle) to "feminism", as in bourgeois feminism. And if I'd been around then, I think I'd have agreed with them. But they lost that terminological battle. Today's "women's liberationists" think of themselves as Marxist-Feminists or socialist-feminists. "Feminism" has become the catch all term for opposition to women's oppression of any kind, and an insistence of using the term in an archaic way is self-defeating.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 12, 2013)

the39thstep said:
			
		

> I am interested because there are very few examples of local community led responses to domestic violence.



Hm! to my discredit, I'd not considered it before from a communities point of view. Thinking about that. I'd view sexist violence as having a continuum of causes, from pure interpersonal inadequacy at one end to sadistic exercise of power at the other, in a hierarchy of gender dominated by "malesness" but where individual male behaviour is often more pathalogical than specifically dominating. If that's reasonable then one way could be organising neighbourhood-based courses for men on conflict resolution, appropriate sexual behavior, and generally 'coping' better in difficult or confusing situations personal inadequacies can cause huge oppression.

Other courses could be for women, on avoiding or escaping violent situations. Male and female community mentors could be helpful too. I should think some of this is all going on but probably to almost all socialists' (and anarchists'?) blissful ignorance....

As the SP statement pointed out, campaigns for Council housing and better welfare services are crucial too. 

That's all more to do with preventing violence and abuse and giving women maximum control where it does happen I guess. Dealing with offenders, and the general category of outright power abusers, are we looking at an inevitably criminal approach here? Apart from perhaps increasing community awareness and stigmatization of sexist violence. In sharp contradiction to drugs/property/"fight on a night out" type crime I think these categories necessitate prison in order to protect the victims. Serial harassment/predatory violence cases especially. 

? ? ?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's quite an effective polemical dismissal of the Beyond the Fragments crowd, but I'm not really sure how relevant it is to cesare's argument about feminism.
> 
> Feminism is a real social movement, and thus variegated and factional as real movements tend to be. It's existence as a movement is a broadly positive thing, which doesn't mean that all of the ideas presented within it are of use to socialists. However, many of the ideas that have arisen within that movement are very useful. Insisting on a built in division between Marxism and Marxist-Feminism, as opposed to seeing the latter as a series of attempts to develop a Marxist understanding of women's oppression and liberation, seems to me to be counterproductive.
> 
> Lots of this sort of thinking is inherited from earlier decades without any real consideration or examination. In the early women's liberation movement a lot of Marxists and socialist radicals rejected the term feminism and insisted on women's liberation instead. At that point they were counterposing women's liberation (ie a socialist struggle) to "feminism", as in bourgeois feminism. And if I'd been around then, I think I'd have agreed with them. But they lost that terminological battle. Today's "women's liberationists" think of themselves as Marxist-Feminists or socialist-feminists. "Feminism" has become the catch all term for opposition to women's oppression of any kind, and an insistence of using the term in an archaic way is self-defeating.


 
I didn't post that quote as a response to Cesare but thought it provided quite a useful insight into  a previous period where a  similar set of arguments to those that have risen  following the SWP case/split  occurred. his conclusion that the natural home for all those strands would be Labour was right and I would suggest that that will be the main direction as soon as Left Unity fails.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Hm! to my discredit, I'd not considered it before from a communities point of view. Thinking about that. I'd view sexist violence as having a continuum of causes, from pure interpersonal inadequacy at one end to sadistic exercise of power at the other, in a hierarchy of gender dominated by "malesness" but where individual male behaviour is often more pathalogical than specifically dominating. If that's reasonable then one way could be organising neighbourhood-based courses for men on conflict resolution, appropriate sexual behavior, and generally 'coping' better in difficult or confusing situations personal inadequacies can cause huge oppression.
> 
> Other courses could be for women, on avoiding or escaping violent situations. Male and female community mentors could be helpful too. I should think some of this is all going on but probably to almost all socialists' (and anarchists'?) blissful ignorance....
> 
> ...


 
I am not against prison sentences fro violent offenders. When I get time I will try and explain what we have been doing at work with domestic abuse survivors and community led domestic abuse groups.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I didn't post that quote as a response to Cesare but thought it provided quite a useful insight into a previous period where a similar set of arguments to those that have risen following the SWP case/split occurred. his conclusion that the natural home for all those strands would be Labour was right and I would suggest that that will be the main direction as soon as Left Unity fails.


 
It's not impossible, but there is a massive difference between the attractiveness of the Labour left back then and now. The BtF/Socialist Movement people were collapsing into a broad, living, movement. If - and they may well do so - the Left Unity people collapse into Labour it will be in the articul8 style instead, atomised, because there's nothing much there for them.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not impossible, but there is a massive difference between the attractiveness of the Labour left back then and now. The BtF/Socialist Movement people were collapsing into a broad, living, movement. If - and they may well do so - the Left Unity people collapse into Labour it will be in the articul8 style instead, atomised, because there's nothing much there for them.


 
I was arguing with some ex lefty type women ( all at one time Trots or fellow travellers) now in the labour party who said that labour , in their opinion, was the home for feminists. It was more women friendly, it promoted women friendly policies and had pioneered  all women  shortlists. I had to cut the conversation quick at it was extra time in the Spurs game .


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> and surely what you think feminism is. Unity in action comrade.


Any chance we could agree on Solidarity in action, comrade? "Unity" is (for me) redolent of TU bosses, the LP and left vanguardism. Solidarity is standing with your comrades even if it's not your specific position/affecting you directly.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> Any chance we could agree on Solidarity in action, comrade? "Unity" is (for me) redolent of TU bosses, the LP and left vanguardism. Solidarity is standing with your comrades even if it's not your specific position/affecting you directly.


 
How about we alternate?


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> How about we alternate?


*inserts pre-emptive joke about AC/DC*


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's quite an effective polemical dismissal of the Beyond the Fragments crowd, but I'm not really sure how relevant it is to cesare's argument about feminism.


 
No it's not it is the epitome of bad left writing - a theoretically crude polemical diatribe full of ad hominem attacks, and notable for both its lack of critical awareness and its deficit of imagination.  I'm mean it's hardly as if BtF argued their insights emerged ex-nihilo without any historical precedents.  Rowbotham is a historical FFS, she knows very well what alternative traditions she's drawing on.

And I hate this sociological reductionism where whole schools of thought are casually dismissed as "petit bourgeois" (something I note Hannah Sell has also picked up) - as though Engels wasn't a bourgeois, or Lenin, or Trotsky a petit-bourgeois.  What Hallas misses is that the new social movements - though of course they emerged in class society and don't emerge from nowhere - can't be reduced or subordinated to some pre-given identity category.  The idea that socialism might need to be re-thought in the light of feminist insights or insights from the environmental movement is ruled out from the outset.

As for


> we can say with complete confidence that it will come to nothing


Well, the fact we're still discussing it now shows that it still relevant to debates the left is having today - which is also why it's being republished and 250 people have signed up to a conference about it:
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/events-calendar/after-beyond-the-fragments

Meanwhile the SWP is in crisis, having come to nothing.


----------



## andysays (Apr 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> last time the report said that the party needed to be more disciplined about its expenditure on stationary


 
For want of a post-it note the revolution was lost...


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 12, 2013)

If someone has admitted being guilty of sexual assault wouldn't the police get involved?

Also if someone has admitted sexual assault and the person who has been assaulted wants them expelled I can't see how an organisation can do anything but expel them. How can the person who has been assaulted be expected to remain in the same organisation or branch as that person? Fair enough if they decide to accept their remorse, but if they want the person expelled I can't see what other option there is.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> If someone has admitted being guilty of sexual assault wouldn't the police get involved?
> 
> Also if someone has admitted sexual assault and the person who has been assaulted wants them expelled I can't see how an organisation can do anything but expel them. How can the person who has been assaulted be expected to remain in the same organisation or branch as that person? Fair enough if they decide to accept their remorse, but if they want the person expelled I can't see what other option there is.


There could be other acceptable forms of sanction than expulsion, depending on the form/severity of the offence.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> There could be other acceptable forms of sanction than expulsion, depending on the form/severity of the offence.


 
I agree but surely only if the person who has been assaulted is ok with that? If they are not and say they don't want to be in the same organisation as them and want them expelled, what else can an organisation do?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> If someone has admitted being guilty of sexual assault wouldn't the police get involved?
> 
> Also if someone has admitted sexual assault and the person who has been assaulted wants them expelled I can't see how an organisation can do anything but expel them. How can the person who has been assaulted be expected to remain in the same organisation or branch as that person? Fair enough if they decide to accept their remorse, but if they want the person expelled I can't see what other option there is.


 
She has been told at every stage that the party would supports her if she chose to take it to the police - she has chosen not to. It would be very unfair to try to force her to.

As for the second paragraph, there is an ongoing investigation so it's not over yet. It would be inappropriate to say any more.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No it's not it is the epitome of bad left writing - a theoretically crude polemical diatribe full of ad hominem attacks, and notable for both its lack of critical awareness and its deficit of imagination.


 
You poor hurt feelings are showing.




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> And I hate this sociological reductionism where whole schools of thought are casually dismissed as "petit bourgeois" (something I note Hannah Sell has also picked up)


 
Are you seriously suggesting that we can't differentiate between Marxist/socialist/class struggle feminism on the one hand and Bourgeois/liberal feminism on the other?




			
				articul8 said:
			
		

> Well, the fact we're still discussing it now shows that it still relevant to debates the left is having today


 
You've already exceeded your disingenuity quota for one week, so give it a rest, eh?

The piece made testable, falsifiable, predictions about whether or not the Beyond the Fragments conferences and milieu more generally would be able to build an organised current. Those predictions were as follows:

1) They would not build an organised current of any significance with any longevity. This turned out to be true.
2) That nevertheless some of the ideas would hang around in a disorganised form. This turned out to be true.
3) That most of these people would collapse into Labour. This turned out to be true.

Three prediction, and he was right on the nose with all of them. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything or even most things he said, but he clearly had a pretty shrewd understanding of what that particular movement represented and where it was going. And here's an extra prediction for you, no charge, you can have it for free: Nothing of organisational significance will come out of a new but smaller and older BTF conference this time either.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> If someone has admitted being guilty of sexual assault wouldn't the police get involved?


 
I was just about to start a betting pool on how long it would be before you showed up excited.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> She has been told at every stage that the party would supports her if she chose to take it to the police - she has chosen not to. It would be very unfair to try to force her to.
> 
> As for the second paragraph, there is an ongoing investigation so it's not over yet. It would be inappropriate to say any more.


 
These weren't questions about this case, as you say there is an on-going investigation and I agree that should be left there as no-one here knows the facts.

Absolutely agree that someone should not be forced to do anything, only supported. But my general understanding is that the police will now take action in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault even if the victim doesn't want them to.

Again it was a general point that I can't see what an organisation can do but expel someone if someone sexually assaults another member, and that person wants them expelled. There could be other options, but I can't think what they could be.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I was just about to start a betting pool on how long it would be before you showed up excited.


 
As it happens I don't think people should comment until an investigation has been finished.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 12, 2013)

didn't stop you though


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that we can't differentiate between Marxist/socialist/class struggle feminism on the one hand and Bourgeois/liberal feminism on the other?


 
No - I'm suggesting that strands of feminism that acknowledge the importance of class but also offer a critique of vanguardist politics cannot simply be dismissed as "petit-bourgeois" - it's lazy, inaccurate and reflects a crude understanding of social relations.



> The piece made testable, falsifiable, predictions about whether or not the Beyond the Fragments conferences and milieu more generally would be able to build an organised current. Those predictions were as follows:
> 
> 1) They would not build an organised current of any significance with any longevity. This turned out to be true.


Did they claim they were building an organised current?



> 2) That nevertheless some of the ideas would hang around in a disorganised form. This turned out to be true.


by definition a body of thought suspicious of quasi-militaristic organisational structure would look "disorganised" from a Leninist perspective



> 3) That most of these people would collapse into Labour. This turned out to be true.


some are on the Labour left, some joined Labour and left, and others stayed out of Labour altogether.



> Nothing of organisational significance will come out of a new but smaller and older BTF conference this time either.


Given that for a Leninist "organisational significance" effectively means the very thing BtF sets out to reject, then this is a self-fulfilling, but utterly vacuous prophecy.

If anything it's just taking some backward elements rather longer than expected to realise what BtF already had wayback when.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 12, 2013)

dennisr said:


> didn't stop you though


 
No I was commenting on the general points raised.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No - I'm suggesting that strands of feminism that acknowledge the importance of class but also offer a critique of vanguardist politics cannot simply be dismissed as "petit-bourgeois" - it's lazy, inaccurate and reflects a crude understanding of social relations


 
As disingenous as usual. What exactly does "acknowledging the importance of class" actually mean?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Again it was a general point that I can't see what an organisation can do but expel someone if someone sexually assaults another member, and that person wants them expelled. There could be other options, but I can't think what they could be.


 
I understand that, not having a go. But I think this issue will also be a lot clearer once the investigation has been completed. I really can't say any more than that. (Apart from anything else I don't have all the facts either)


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As disingenous as usual. What exactly does "acknowledging the importance of class" actually mean?


it means recognising that working class interests are in contradiction with the structural imperatives of capitalism


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it means recognising that working class interests are in contradiction with the structural imperatives of capitalism


 
And does it mean thinking that class is more than just one in an endless list of structurally independent oppressions?

By the way, I'm even more amused at your defence of the BtF crowd the second time I read through it. We should be clear here, that they left nothing of significance behind anywhere.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

not structually independent no.  But not immediately reducible to each other either.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it means recognising that working class interests are in contradiction with the structural imperatives of capitalism


That's it?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And does it mean thinking that class is more than just one in an endless list of structurally independent oppressions?
> 
> By the way, I'm even more amused at your defence of the BtF crowd the second time I read through it. We should be clear here, that they left nothing of significance behind anywhere.


you'd hardly expect me to agree with this - and if it's so irrelevant why is it still the subject of so much interest/discussion?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's it?


that's what I meant by "acknowledging the importance of class" - but obviously what follows from that is identification with and political struggle for working class interests


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> you'd hardly expect me to agree with this - and if it's so irrelevant why is it still the subject of so much interest/discussion?


 
It's not. Someone put up an amusing old document dismissing a long irrelevant current to make a point about other people now. Rightly or wrongly, few people give a shit about BtF.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> that's what I meant by "acknowledging the importance of class" - but obviously what follows from that is identification with and political struggle for working class interests


Meaningless when all it requires is a  few magic words saying that this is what you are doing no matter what your actions or those you join in those actions. Utterly meaningless.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not. Someone put up an amusing old document dismissing a long irrelevant current to make a point about other people now. Rightly or wrongly, few people give a shit about BtF.


So why are the publishers re-printing it, why is Birkbeck holding a conference on it, and why did it come up more than once in the SWP internal debates round the split? 

Don't see anyone doing the same with the "red nineties" classics that Taaffe was putting out


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not. Someone put up an amusing old document dismissing a long irrelevant current to make a point about other people now. Rightly or wrongly, few people give a shit about BtF.


Hey but if the new SYRIZA is to happen and it's to centre around his shit mag then they have a head start if the author of the weakest part of BTF is on-board. Which means there must be MASSIVE INTEREST. Just like a few months back there was MASSIVE INTEREST in spokesman books from the 70s. It's a form of arrogant individualist substitutionism.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Meaningless when all it requires is a few magic words saying that this is what you are doing no matter what your actions or those you join in those actions. Utterly meaningless.


what counts isn't what party card you do or don't have but where you stand on the key questions of the day.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> So why are the publishers re-printing it, why is Birkbeck holding a conference on it, and why did it come up more than once in the SWP internal debates round the split?
> 
> Don't see anyone doing the same with the "red nineties" classics that Taaffe was putting out


Because you pathetic pampered soft-leftie bubble type all piss in the same opportunistic publishing house and uni pots.


----------



## chilango (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> So why are the publishers re-printing it, why is Birkbeck holding a conference on it, and why did it come up more than once in the SWP internal debates round the split?
> 
> Don't see anyone doing the same with the "red nineties" classics that Taaffe was putting out



He said "few" people, not "no" people. Your post suggests he's right.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> what counts isn't what party card you do or don't have but where you stand on the key questions of the day.


Let's hold handa tory comrades, lib-dem comrades, labour comrades - comrades all, we're all in it together. I think that you're demonstrating exactly where btf leads.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> So why are the publishers re-printing it, why is Birkbeck holding a conference on it, and why did it come up more than once in the SWP internal debates round the split


 
Have you any idea of the sort of shit that can find a publisher? You should, given your job.

As for a couple of mentions in the SWP's row, those were negative examples. They were being used as an example of the dreadful fate that awaits those who disagreed. Scarecrows to frighten the pests, nothing more.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

well it's all relative - it's not Harry Potter or 50 Shades of Grey I'll grant you that much


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Let's hold hand tory comrades.


Fuck off - I said no such thing


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Fuck off - I said no such thing


You didn't have to -_ it matters not what card you hold_ - all that matters is the muttering of a handily remembered phrase and your back is covered. Apoliticism expressed politically. Which, of course is why you are in the labour party and work in parliament.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You didn't have to -_ it matters not what card you hold_ - all that matters is the muttering of a handily remembered phrase and your back is covered. Apoliticism expressed politically. Which, of course is why you are in the labour party and work in parliament.


what counts is where you stand on the issues - think that makes it perfectly clear I'm not giving a free pass to any and every allegiance


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

No compromise with the bourgeois media! Unless it's one of the loyalists.

Why we had to rejoice after Margaret Thatcher's death, by the editor behind the Socialist Worker front page


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> what counts is where you stand on the issues - think that makes it perfectly clear I'm not giving a free pass to any and every allegiance


Do you honestly think people on this thread are so crude that they can't see through your twisting? That they can't see though the gap between what you say that you think class analysis is and what you do and what you say?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> what counts is where you stand on the issues - think that makes it perfectly clear I'm not giving a free pass to any and every allegiance


 
A rather idealist way of looking at things. What difference does it make what positions some New Labourite holds in her heart of hearts if her actual political work is devoted to strengthening New Labour's influence? Of what possible interest is the state of the apparatchik's soul?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A rather idealist way of looking at things. What difference does it make what positions some New Labourite holds in her heart of hearts if her actual political work is devoted to strengthening New Labour's influence?


I didn't say secret innermost beliefs.   But people who take a public stand in advancing w/c interests don't in my view automatically vitiate this by being involved in the Labour party for tactical reasons.   If this becomes impossible - and it might - then I won't be keeping hold of the party card.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

What _sacrifices _you make for the class!

And what weaseling words you use to justify them - 'for tactical reasons'. Do you have any idea how pompous this sounds?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I didn't say secret innermost beliefs. But people who take a public stand in advancing w/c interests don't in my view automatically vitiate this by being involved in the Labour party for tactical reasons.


 
You cannot "take a public stand in advancing working class interests" if your idea of advancing those interests is to convince workers to join or vote for New Labour. It's a contradiction in terms.

Tell me though, what important "tactics" are open to you as a New Labour member that necessitate being a member? In what way would those "working class interests" be damaged by your resignation?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You cannot "take a public stand in advancing working class interests" if your idea of advancing those interests is to convince workers to join or vote for New Labour. It's a contradiction in terms.


It's alright, it's _tactical_ - and he's covered his back by a ritual incantation of "it means recognising that working class interests are in contradiction with the structural imperatives of capitalism".

Absolute mess.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

This is old ground.  I still think that a realignment of left forces - of a kind BtF was also gesturing towards - is still necessary.  But that isn't happening - and won't - simply by sticking your TUSC flag in the ground and saying "come hither".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> This is old ground. I still think that a realignment of left forces - of a kind BtF was also gesturing towards - is still necessary. But that isn't happening - and won't - simply by sticking your TUSC flag in the ground and saying "come hither".


 
Why don't you explain to us how you being one of a few hundred bewildered Labour leftists brings that "realignment" closer?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

Clearly the future lies with a few dozen Leninist die-hards.  This game doesn't get very far.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Clearly the future lies with a few dozen Leninist die-hards. This game doesn't get very far.


 
It's not a game. You've been asked about these important "tactical" considerations pretty straightforwardly a bunch of times now, and on each occasion you've danced around answering. A cynic might suggest that the only tactical considerations in play are more to do with your employment strategy than that guff about working class interests.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

it is so obvious it barely needs an answer - to reinforce an oppositional pole of attraction in the only organisation to which millions can look to boot out the hated coalition parties, and engage in battle over how far Labour will impose its own brand of austerity or develop an alternative, building the influence and credibility of anti-austerity politics in the process. Of course this means linking up from the start with all the extra-parliamentary forces already opposing austerity.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

Pole of attraction lol.
Battle lol.
Building the influence lol.
develop a labour alternative lol.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it is so obvious it barely needs an answer - to reinforce an oppositional pole of attraction in the only organisation to which millions can look to boot out the hated coalition parties, and engage in battle over how far Labour will impose its own brand of austerity or develop an alternative, building the influence and credibility of anti-austerity politics in the process. Of course this means linking up from the start with all the extra-parliamentary forces already opposing austerity.


 
It's so delusional that an answer serves mainly to reveal the lack of thought at work.

What "oppositional pole of attraction"? There isn't one. The Labour left is a barely twitching corpse. What "battle"? The one that was comprehensively lost decades ago? Through what structures? Those that have been abolished. With what forces? Imaginary ones. We'd get as much sense trying to argue strategy with the voice dial function on a smartphone.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

I'd say that Labour lefts like McDonnell, Owen Jones and McCluskey have rather more influence and weight in terms of shifting the terms of debate than the likes of Taaffe and Sell.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 12, 2013)

Pathetic star-struck wretch.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

yes, cause the authors of BtF that is of interest to no-one these days are international megastars


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'd say that Labour lefts like McDonnell, Owen Jones and McCluskey have rather more influence and weight in terms of shifting the terms of debate than the likes of Taaffe and Sell.


 
Good fucking God. Seriously? This is what your "tactics" come down to? You have an irrelevant backbencher, a cherubic journalist and a union bureaucrat on your side? Do they let you clean their shoes?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 12, 2013)

you care to dispute my assertion they have more influence and weight in terms of shifting the terms of debate than your own sect? Whose latest electoral vehicle managed to poll slightly less than half the vote of the Monster Raving Looney's at the last parliamentary by-election? Seriously?


----------



## chilango (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I'd say that Labour lefts like McDonnell, Owen Jones and McCluskey have rather more influence and weight in terms of shifting the terms of debate than the likes of Taaffe and Sell.



Which debate? And who's having it?

No one I know.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> you care to dispute my assertion they have more influence and weight in terms of shifting the terms of debate than your own sect? Whose latest electoral vehicle managed to poll slightly less than half the vote of the Monster Raving Looney's at the last parliamentary by-election? Seriously?


 
The mad thing is that despite their connections and in one case leadership of a massive organisation they do not currently have any more power to shift the debate than the leaders of a tiny and slightly nutty extremist group


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> you care to dispute my assertion they have more influence and weight in terms of shifting the terms of debate than your own sect?


 
Sometimes you are surprisingly stupid.


----------



## SLK (Apr 12, 2013)

This thread has turned overwhelmingly personal. I know that's just an observation and my only interest is friends who are members still or fellow travellers.
Maybe a separate thread on sexism and the left?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> what counts isn't what party card you do or don't have but where you stand on the key questions of the day.


----------



## treelover (Apr 12, 2013)

The SWP has started posting on LU sites, arguing the 'internal labour left' will be the key pole of attraction for those who want to challenge austerity,  a line direct from the Prof

oh, and they are already attending nascent Left Unity meetings, which is the kiss of death, imo..


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Ok, but clearly the complainant is extremely angry about the way her complaint has been handled, such that she has resigned from the party and denounced the AGS who she had trusted to deal with the matter appropriately. Shouldn't people listen to what she has to say (before concluding that everything has been/is being handled properly)?



Yes. Why on earth would you think that is not what has happened? No conclusion has yet been reached.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 13, 2013)

SLK said:


> This thread has turned overwhelmingly personal. I know that's just an observation and my only interest is friends who are members still or fellow travellers.
> Maybe a separate thread on sexism and the left?


To be called Sects and the City.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 13, 2013)

Naming a networkuscule:






http://stephaniemcmillan.org/2009/11/27/employ-dialectical-materialism/


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 13, 2013)

Statement about Steve Hedley from the woman he gave a load of sexist abuse to on Facebook:

http://sexxxypolitics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/my-experience-of-steve-hedley-and.html?spref=fb


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 13, 2013)

Good grief
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...front-page-8570578.html?origin=internalSearch


----------



## laptop (Apr 13, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Good grief
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...front-page-8570578.html?origin=internalSearch


 
*Ian Burrell: are you, or have you ever been, a social worker?*


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No compromise with the bourgeois media! Unless it's one of the loyalists.
> 
> Why we had to rejoice after Margaret Thatcher's death, by the editor behind the Socialist Worker front page



Trying to detoxify the brand. Nice.


----------



## belboid (Apr 13, 2013)

They (the Indie) had a front page piece from Andrew Wakefield as well.  Clearly the paper of choice for the corrupt and dishonest seeking rehabilitation.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 13, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Statement about Steve Hedley from the woman he gave a load of sexist abuse to on Facebook:
> 
> http://sexxxypolitics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/my-experience-of-steve-hedley-and.html?spref=fb



This has been out there for a while. Not sure the commentary adds much as the FB comments really speak for themselves. Glad the woman involved is speaking out though. Truly vile conduct.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 13, 2013)

That piece is seriously weird. What could the Indy possibly gain from it?? It's like interviewing James Murdoch and not asking about phone hacking!

Could Orr be planning a more fundamental detoxification though, through the only way the CC knows - culling the clowns at the heart of it all? Kimber and Callinicos? How about it? Big gambit it's true but they got shot of Rees for less.....


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Trying to detoxify the brand. Nice.


Note the deliberate attempt _to actually look and dress like comrade delta_ - into proper cult territory there.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 13, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> That piece is seriously weird. What could the Indy possibly gain from it?? It's like interviewing James Murdoch and not asking about phone hacking!
> 
> Could Orr be planning a more fundamental detoxification though, through the only way the CC knows - culling the clowns at the heart of it all? Kimber and Callinicos? How about it? Big gambit it's true but they got shot of Rees for less.....



Yeah it's amazing no mention was made. Reads like a real puff piece. Definitely targeting the Indy readers as the acceptable face of revolutionary socialism.


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Note the deliberate attempt _to actually look and dress like comrade delta_ - into proper cult territory there.


yes! i wondered what was creeping me out about the pic. fucking hell.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Note the deliberate attempt _to actually look and dress like comrade delta_ - into proper cult territory there.


they were a couple for years and couples can start to dress like each other. anyway, a massive amount of people in their forties dress like that. mod-life crisis.


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> mod-life crisis.




*hides sherman*


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> they were a couple for years and couples can start to dress like each other. anyway, a massive amount of people in their forties dress like that. mod-life crisis.


 
Took butchers' comment as light-hearted jest-making. Then I googled:


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 13, 2013)

As the Independent are making it hard to grab pics:


----------



## discokermit (Apr 13, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Took butchers' comment as light-hearted jest-making. Then I googled:


no way! two people wearing specs and a ben sherman red gingham shirt! i bet hardly anyone wears glasses and buys red gingham ben shermans, even though it is pretty much ben shermans signature range.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no way! two people wearing specs and a ben sherman red gingham shirt! i bet hardly anyone wears glasses and buys red gingham ben shermans, even though it is pretty much ben shermans signature range.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no way! two people wearing specs and a ben sherman red gingham shirt! i bet hardly anyone wears glasses and buys red gingham ben shermans, even though it is pretty much ben shermans signature range.


 
Have to say I am unfamiliar with Sherman's range, disco. I did think was uncanny though.


----------



## JimW (Apr 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> As the Independent are making it hard to grab pics:


Rumours that we are a robotic cult are pure sectarian bile


----------



## J Ed (Apr 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no way! two people wearing specs and a ben sherman red gingham shirt! i bet hardly anyone wears glasses and buys red gingham ben shermans, even though it is pretty much ben shermans signature range.


 
Compulsory uniform?


----------



## killer b (Apr 13, 2013)

my gingham sherman is brown, fwiw. i don't wear glasses. (yet)


----------



## discokermit (Apr 13, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Have to say I am unfamiliar with Sherman's range, disco. I did think was uncanny though.


go to any northern soul night anywhere in the country this weekend, i bet you'll see a few shirts exactly the same worn by forty somethings who haven't got a clue who martin smith is.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 13, 2013)

Me and the mrs wear the same rugby shirt all the time but we're not clones either 

On more serious matters the ISN had its first formal get together today. Minutes of motions passed to follow apparently. International observers from the ISO present.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> go to any northern soul night anywhere in the country this weekend, i bet you'll see a few shirts exactly the same worn by forty somethings who haven't got a clue who martin smith is.


 
Fair play, disco. Sadly I've never had the opportunity to go a northern soul night.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 13, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Fair play, disco. Sadly I've never had the opportunity to go a northern soul night.


it's never too late.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 13, 2013)

ISN passes motion to hold a festival event within a year.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> oh, and they are already attending nascent Left Unity meetings, which is the kiss of death, imo..


 
Not enough nous or talent to build anything, more than enough to strangle worthwhile seeming projects at birth.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ISN passes motion to hold a festival event within a year.


 
Does the Guardian have a live feed, Bolshie?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 13, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Does the Guardian have a live feed, Bolshie?


Lol theres an idea but no need they've been tweeting all day with updates.


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol theres an idea but no need they've been tweeting all day with updates.


 
Ah right. I need to get up to speed with Twitter.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ISN passes motion to hold a festival event within a year.


 
An opportunity to takeover the hinterland?


----------



## tenniselbow (Apr 13, 2013)

This contribution from Mieville on the ISN blog is pretty good. The style is a little overwrought, as is usual with China's pieces in my experience. But he makes some good points about a Marxist psychology and the simplistic and atheoretical nature of the loyalists' positions and critiques. Though it seems to me that psychology has always been one of Marxism's weakest areas. I'd be interested to hear others' views on this, though maybe I should take it to the theory board. Funny too that he critiques the CC for being ignorant of the scholarly discipline of social psychology. From what I've read, which is a fair bit, it is a most scientistic and reductionist discipline; not much use for Marxists I think. Also, I think some of his comments bear on the discussion of theories of patriarchy and violence further up the thread.


----------



## belboid (Apr 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol theres an idea but no need they've been tweeting all day with updates.


breaking news before informatin has been given to the membership!  Isnt that an expellable offense?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> breaking news before informatin has been given to the membership!  Isnt that an expellable offense?


Its ok its the official ISNetwork account


----------



## belboid (Apr 13, 2013)

phew.

It's just finished, gives them just time for a pint before getting to Trafalgar Square


----------



## emanymton (Apr 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Me and the mrs wear the same rugby shirt all the time but we're not clones either
> 
> On more serious matters the ISN had its first formal get together today. Minutes of motions passed to follow apparently. International observers from the ISO present.


They have a proper website up now as well.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 13, 2013)

emanymton said:


> They have a proper website up now as well.


The cult of the personality is apparent already.


----------



## dominion (Apr 13, 2013)

A couple of pieces relevant to this thread:

First the SP has issued a letter (slightly redacted apparently) to Sarah Mayo about her allegations:

http://www.socialistpartywales.org.uk/HSletter-SM10-04-13.pdf

The Mieville article got a response here:

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/comrades-crises-and-cults.html


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 13, 2013)

I enjoyed China's piece too, tenniselbow, although the general conclusions seemed a bit underdeveloped thanks to the focus on SWP practice. I'd say the weird idealism of loyalists in this debate is well observed though! There's far too much about 'consciousness' without usually examining what processes (re)produce particular consciousnesses - for example the functionalism of the classic IS 'capital needs the family therefore women are oppressed' position. The Rupture thinking on class unity rings true as well! There's an interesting discussion on this by Bensaid - http://www.marxists.org/archive/bensaid/2006/08/polstrat.htm - though maybe a little 'statist' for some tastes.....

"[Professor] Alex’s transitional approach halts at the threshold of the question of power. This would be left to be resolved by some unconvincing deus ex machina, supposedly by a spontaneous tidal wave of the masses and a generalised outburst of soviet democracy. " 

As an aside, Jerry Hicks managed a creditable 36% minority support in the Unite GS election - http://www.iansunitesite.org.uk/2013/04/unite-election-result-out-len-won-but.html?m=1 . Seems to be an improvement on the 2010 result from his point of view. I'm surprised he managed as much as this with the swappies as major backers, does he have a wider support base than I'd imagined? Presumably the loyalists will take some heart from that result anyway. Even if other factors like the absence of a challenge from the right will have encouraged a 'Len's-feet-to-the-fire' vote. So either the SWP are so irrelevant they don't even matter for their chosen candidate, or alternately, they still can still make an impact in Britain's biggest union....wonder who they'll ally with outside the broad left group. Think it's good that LMcC won but without overwhelming support anyway, don't want him feeling too comfortable on that fat salary!!


----------



## belboid (Apr 13, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> As an aside, Jerry Hicks managed a creditable 36% minority support in the Unite GS election - http://www.iansunitesite.org.uk/2013/04/unite-election-result-out-len-won-but.html?m=1 . Seems to be an improvement on the 2010 result from his point of view. I'm surprised he managed as much as this with the swappies as major backers, does he have a wider support base than I'd imagined? Presumably the loyalists will take some heart from that result anyway. Even if other factors like the absence of a challenge from the right will have encouraged a 'Len's-feet-to-the-fire' vote. So either the SWP are so irrelevant they don't even matter for their chosen candidate, or alternately, they still can still make an impact in Britain's biggest union....wonder who they'll ally with outside the broad left group. Think it's good that LMcC won but without overwhelming support anyway, don't want him feeling too comfortable on that fat salary!!


It's a mix of solid supporters for him and some 'get rid of McLuskey at any cost' people.  Both of them improved their vote by about 50%.

Last times results were:
1. Len McCluskey, 101,000 votes (42%)
2. Jerry Hicks, 53,000 votes (22%)
3. Les Bayliss, 47,000 votes (19%)
4. Gail Cartmail, 39,000 votes (16%)

So deffo a good result for Hicks


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 13, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Absolutely agree that someone should not be forced to do anything, only supported. But my general understanding is that the police will now take action in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault even if the victim doesn't want them to..


 
They don't.


----------



## audiotech (Apr 13, 2013)

tenniselbow said:


> Fair play, disco. Sadly I've never had the opportunity to go a northern soul night.


 
Lasts more than a night.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 13, 2013)

discokermit said:


> they were a couple for years and couples can start to dress like each other. anyway, a massive amount of people in their forties dress like that.* mod-life crisis*.


----------



## flypanam (Apr 13, 2013)

Drunk post ignore please.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 14, 2013)

flypanam said:


> It's one you've been developing since this thread has started.


What?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 14, 2013)

Not said very often but a good paragraph from the AWL:

"The self-righteousness of the ISG does no service to women’s rights. As well as criticising the SWP, the AWL has also attempted self-examination. How would we have dealt with similar allegations in our own organisation? Even the best political positions and education programmes are no guarantee against individual abuse. Do we have strong enough safeguards against the sort of lower-grade wrongdoing which seems to have formed the background to the Smith scandal: older activists using their “prestige” in political activity for sexual advantage with young members and contacts?"

Wider piece is OK too on the Glasgow incidents.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 14, 2013)

flypanam said:


> Drunk post ignore please.


Ok, carry on drinking ;-)


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 14, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> They don't.


 
I don't think that's true anymore. I'm pretty sure that the law changed so the police will now prosecute in some cases, even if the victim doesn't want them to. They have to decide whether it is in the "public interest".

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/domestic/domv.html#a04

This link seems to back that up, and says that the police will prosecute in some instances even without the victim wanting them to, and gives an example such as the perpetrator admiting guilt.


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

reading various LU FB sites it look like where significant SWP elements broke away, eg, SWSS, then they are going to get involved with LU en masse, not convinced this is a positive move...


----------



## muscovyduck (Apr 14, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I don't think that's true anymore. I'm pretty sure that the law changed so the police will now prosecute in some cases, even if the victim doesn't want them to. They have to decide whether it is in the "public interest".
> 
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/domestic/domv.html#a04
> 
> This link seems to back that up, and says that the police will prosecute in some instances even without the victim wanting them to, and gives an example such as the perpetrator admiting guilt.


 
There's a difference between what's written down by the CPS and what the police actually think/do


----------



## laptop (Apr 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> reading various LU FB sites it look like where significant SWP elements broke away, eg, SWSS, then they are going to get involved with LU en masse, not convinced this is a positive move...


 
But how much is this spin by the promoters of LU?

I mean, if you were launching something like that, you might want to do some stick-bending to create the appearance of momentum, wouldn't you?

Even if you were forming a darts team...


----------



## treelover (Apr 14, 2013)

laptop said:


> But how much is this spin by the promoters of LU?
> 
> I mean, if you were launching something like that, *you might want to do some stick-bending to create the appearance of momentum*, wouldn't you?
> 
> Even if you were forming a darts team...


 
If that is a 'leninism' then I hope all are banned, as is that dreadful deterministic phrase 'layer'


----------



## belboid (Apr 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> If that is a 'leninism' then I hope all are banned, as is that dreadful deterministic phrase 'layer'


what?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Hm! to my discredit, I'd not considered it before from a communities point of view. Thinking about that. I'd view sexist violence as having a continuum of causes, from pure interpersonal inadequacy at one end to sadistic exercise of power at the other, in a hierarchy of gender dominated by "malesness" but where individual male behaviour is often more pathalogical than specifically dominating. If that's reasonable then one way could be organising neighbourhood-based courses for men on conflict resolution, appropriate sexual behavior, and generally 'coping' better in difficult or confusing situations personal inadequacies can cause huge oppression.
> 
> Other courses could be for women, on avoiding or escaping violent situations. Male and female community mentors could be helpful too. I should think some of this is all going on but probably to almost all socialists' (and anarchists'?) blissful ignorance....
> 
> ...


 
Community action shouldn't just be about community awareness and courses for interested individuals, when it might also be about communities "policing" the behaviour of its' members. There have been interesting data coming out of the Canadian First Nations and some of the native American jurisdictions, where old practices have been revived for policing intra-familial violence and sex offending. Contrary to some 19th-century narratives, this doesn't involve the removal of genitalia via the medium of fingernails, it involves sustained public shaming alongside sustained opportunities for the aggressor to "do penance" in a way meaningful to the victim. One of my favourite case studies involved a man who'd broken his daughter's leg while drunk, who was punished by being made to carry her everywhere until her cast was removed, while his daughter and other members of the community assisted him in dealing with his alcoholism. I'm not saying we need to transplant such techniques, but we can learn from what they tell us about the effectiveness of such programmes over the current most common methods. We've got, with intra-familial violence, a low reporting rate in part *because* the first recourse is often a custodial sentence; a low "carry through" rate from reporting to court; a low conviction rate and an on-off trend for an upsweep to degree of violence in subsequent offences against the same individuals that may be an artifact of poor reporting, or may reflect the rapidity of changes in direction of social attitudes to specifics of intra-familial violence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

articul8 said:


> No it's not it is the epitome of bad left writing - a theoretically crude polemical diatribe full of ad hominem attacks, and notable for both its lack of critical awareness and its deficit of imagination. I'm mean it's hardly as if BtF argued their insights emerged ex-nihilo without any historical precedents. Rowbotham is a historical FFS, she knows very well what alternative traditions she's drawing on.
> 
> And I hate this sociological reductionism where whole schools of thought are casually dismissed as "petit bourgeois" (something I note Hannah Sell has also picked up) - as though Engels wasn't a bourgeois, or Lenin, or Trotsky a petit-bourgeois.


 
That's not "sociological", it's rhetorical. It's just a device to avoid explaining that your dismissal is due to a disagreement you're unable/do not want to articulate. It's the exact opposite of when I call you a Fabian fuck and then explain that you're a Fabian fuck because you're a top-down "prescribe the solution to the masses" liberal.



> What Hallas misses...


 
Missed. 



> is that the new social movements - though of course they emerged in class society and don't emerge from nowhere - can't be reduced or subordinated to some pre-given identity category. The idea that socialism might need to be re-thought in the light of feminist insights or insights from the environmental movement is ruled out from the outset.


 
It's ruled out for a reason, though - because it contradicts The Word Already Spoken. It was ever thus for the religious.


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> bonkers letter from Mark fisher in this weeks Weakly worker, I don't know whats worse his political points or the behviour of the AWL activists he is describing.


I saw LR at our Marxist Discussion Group thing last night, and he gave me the full goss on this.  Surprisingly, it is exactly as Mark Fisher said. RH was, or at least acted, completely freaked out and just insisting that a mere appearance by Bowler puts women in danger!  The fact that the relevant dole office probablhy has actual convitec rapists attending every day is fine apparently, but someone who simply heard a case (albeit badly) is dangerous?  Fucking barking. Even her comrade seemed fully embarassed by her.

Still, I hope it means that if Bowler is at any meeting, RW wont turn up to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2013)

Let's make clear this is Mark Fischer, not Mark Fisher Of capitalist realism (and _now is the time to turn to parliamentary struggle_) fame.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Apr 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> (and _now is the time to turn to parliamentary struggle_) fame.


 
Is that what he's on about now?! Where?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 16, 2013)

http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/documents/88-inaugural-meeting-minutes


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Is that what he's on about now?! Where?


Have a read of this: The storm is underway & we have no shelter: a conversation between mark fisher & bifo



> Never in my lifetime has capitalist ideology been weaker; neo-liberalism is now played out as a force which has forward momentum (though that isn’t to say that it can’t continue in perpetuity as a zombie). Now isn’t the time to further withdraw from institutions but to reoccupy them. In fact, part of the reason that neo-liberalism became so dominant is that we did withdraw, persuaded that mainstream media was dead and that parliamentary politics was a waste of time. But the very success of neo-liberalism indicates that these things are far from dead. Of course, both parliament and the mainstream media are deeply decadent in the UK, Italy and many other countries, and it will take some time – perhaps a decade at least – before we could make a difference. But it seems to me that, if we want to recover the future, now is the time to re-engage with such institutions.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/documents/88-inaugural-meeting-minutes


 
Is this Keith F the famous Keith F or a different one?




> Chair- Kris S
> Treasurer- Keith F
> Secretary- Tim N
> Charlotte B
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2013)

Disappointingly, no Sheila E


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/documents/88-inaugural-meeting-minutes


A lot of decent stuff on organisation, but...where are the plans to, y'know, actually do stuff?


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Is this Keith F the famous Keith F or a different one?


a different one - expelled with AW twenty years ago (at least I presume it is)


----------



## sihhi (Apr 16, 2013)

Paris, China and Richard all there.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Apr 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have a read of this: The storm is underway & we have no shelter: a conversation between mark fisher & bifo


 
Ta. Oh well, we never really saw eye to eye anyway.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 16, 2013)

This one passed:-





> We have received letters of greetings and support from Socialist Resistance and the Anti-Capitalist Initiative.
> They have also sent observers to the meeting.
> ...
> The Left Unity project has had a huge response- over 8,000 people have signed the petition initiated by Ken Loach.
> ...


 
Everything is heading for a Socialist Alliance : The Return - right?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Paris, China and Richard all there.


 
Bit surprised that a Sheffield undergrad is there


----------



## J Ed (Apr 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This one passed:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Rump SWP + IS in one organisation is going to be interesting.


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Bit surprised that a Sheffield undergrad is there


someone from every area with a swss group, or enough for a branch, isn't it?


----------



## sihhi (Apr 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Rump SWP + IS in one organisation is going to be interesting.


 
I think rump SWP might sit it out on the basis of some technicality - the big question mark is the SP.


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2013)

'groups' cant join, only individuals, so I'm not really sure if either would be allowed to become members


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Let's make clear this is Mark Fischer, not Mark Fisher Of capitalist realism (and _now is the time to turn to parliamentary struggle_) fame.


 
and there was me thinking it was the bald old etonian who used to be a Labour MP in Stoke. Cheers butchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> and there was me thinking it was the bald old etonian who used to be a Labour MP in Stoke. Cheers butchers.


Google informs me he was the son of tory MP and stepson of ulster unionist MP as well. As well as being the stepdad of belboids mate from the longpigs.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Rump SWP + IS in one organisation is going to be interesting.


Reminiscent of the tooth and nail confrontation between the supporters of Lawrence and Healy in the socialist fellowship in the early '60s when the mass of well meaning labour lefties watched on as the competing trots condemned and denounced each other over which third world liberation leader was actually a stooge for western imperialism and which was the new Lenin for the red sixties (answers a) both of them b) neither).


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Google informs me he was the son of tory MP and stepson of ulster unionist MP as well. As well as being the stepdad of belboids mate from the longpigs.


 
you've got to love our betters. they will insist on spreading themselves around.


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Google informs me he was the son of tory MP and stepson of ulster unionist MP as well. As well as being the stepdad of belboids mate from the longpigs.


and Bear Grylls' uncle!


----------



## treelover (Apr 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Rump SWP + IS in one organisation is going to be interesting.


 
Nah, trot overload in the LU won't be a positive...


----------



## treelover (Apr 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> 'groups' cant join, only individuals, so I'm not really sure if either would be allowed to become members


 
that's not been decided yet, nothing has, that is the worry, it can be shaped by those with the most energy/loudest mouth


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2013)

damn, everything really should be decided by people who just sit on their arses and mumble!


----------



## treelover (Apr 16, 2013)

So, you think packing a meeting is ok?


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2013)

yup, a great idea, obviously.


----------



## chilango (Apr 16, 2013)

If a few dozen trots can take over LU and "ruin" it then it probably wasn't strong enough to survive long anyway.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 16, 2013)

Further to the Steve Hedley issue someone purporting to be an RMT insider has issued a fairly hard hitting statement against Andy Littlechild's intervention into the matter. Fair enough we've no way of knowing who this person is but if what he is saying is true Andy Littlechild has been very naughty indeed.

http://100milesfromthesea.wordpress...ittlechild-rmt-rep/comment-page-1/#comment-22


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2013)

Well it's all under a half-pseudonym so unless "Gerald" can prove they party to all the details of the case, it could be pure invention.

Plus - Andy never said that the CPS kicked out the case.  He said their criteria were such that the police didn't that they had enough evidence to be sufficiently sure of a prosecution.  Not quite the same thing as the police finding him innocent. So he;s in SolFed - so what?  The line about not being in a group was a response to SH's circle putting out the Caroline and another woman who alleged bullying against Hedly were part of a clique of AWL members determined to take a pop at someone in another group (Caroline isn't AWL, and nor is Andy).

And re the point about the mental health issues - since when has self-harming meant a tendency to be violent towards others?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 16, 2013)

No refutation of the procedural improprieties highlighted ny Littlechild mind you....though if AL did misrepresent the police statement like that's deeply dishonest.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 16, 2013)

Has Steve Hedley made any statement about the abusive and misogyinistic comments he made towards a young woman on facebook?

Now this is in the public domain will the RMT investigate this?


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 16, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> No refutation of the procedural improprieties highlighted ny Littlechild mind you....though if AL did misrepresent the police statement like that's deeply dishonest.


 
If Gerald is for real then I think Andy Littlechild's credibility has to be seriously questioned. 

Why misrepresent the police quote? Why deny that the RMT had seen evidence of abusive emails and texts from Leneghan? Why deny what Bob Crow wrote to Steve Hedley?

As for 'procedural improprieties' I think we should suspend judgement on that one until we hear the RMT's side of the story.
A side they have been unable to put because that investigation is still ongoing now that there is an appeal going to the Council of Executives.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 16, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Has Steve Hedley made any statement about the abusive and misogyinistic comments he made towards a young woman on facebook?
> 
> Now this is in the public domain will the RMT investigate this?


 
Not that I'm aware of. Although reading the full thread they both come across very badly. I think they'd both be advised to stay away from facebook threads until they learn how to interact like civilized human beings.
If they were in my union branch I'd tell them both to grow up and stop behaving like children.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 16, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Not that I'm aware of. Although reading the full thread they both come across very badly. I think they'd both be advised to stay away from facebook threads until they learn how to interact like civilized human beings.
> 
> If they were in my union branch I'd tell them both to grow up and stop behaving like children.


 
I think it's totally wrong to say that thread makes them both come across very badly, as if there is some kind of parity between what they have both said. Hedley has been openly sexist and misogynistic. I don't think it's good enough to say that he should just grow up. If someone was openly racist in this way I doubt you would react in this way, and rightly so. The same should go for someone being sexist and misogynistic. Is it ok to have a deputy general secretary of a union who obviously feels it is ok to throw around sexist abuse in this way?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 16, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> If Gerald is for real then I think Andy Littlechild's credibility has to be seriously questioned.
> 
> Why misrepresent the police quote? Why deny that the RMT had seen evidence of abusive emails and texts from Leneghan? Why deny what Bob Crow wrote to Steve Hedley?
> 
> ...


 
The if Gerald is for real bit is crucial though. Anyone can post anything anonymously, and there is no way of knowing if any of it is true.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 16, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> I think it's totally wrong to say that thread makes them both come across very badly, as if there is some kind of parity between what they have both said. Hedley has been openly sexist and misogynistic. I don't think it's good enough to say that he should just grow up. If someone was openly racist in this way I doubt you would react in this way, and rightly so. The same should go for someone being sexist and misogynistic. Is it ok to have a deputy general secretary of a union who obviously feels it is ok to throw around sexist abuse in this way?



I think we'd have to look at the context wouldn't it. 
If someone racially abuses someone where the abuse is all one way, then certainly you can say the very strongest sanctions should be applied. 

If it came in the context of a heated argument where both sides are trading insults freely then my instincts are to use the 'word in your ear, stop being a bloody pillock' approach should be the first port of call and from there see if the behaviour can be reformed without recourse to formal procedures. But that's just me.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 16, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> The if Gerald is for real bit is crucial though. Anyone can post anything anonymously, and there is no way of knowing if any of it is true.



Yep. No argument there.


----------



## treelover (Apr 16, 2013)

> It was pointed out that there was a danger of us becoming just another splinter group. However, what makes this different is that there is an opportunity which has come out of the crisis in the SWP and the Left Unity initiative. *Left Unity is not yet a fully formed organisation with a programme. It is open, and up for grabs*. It is far from being just an electoralist front. We need to get involved now.


 



chilango said:


> If a few dozen trots can take over LU and "ruin" it then it probably wasn't strong enough to survive long anyway.


 

This sounds like the same old old...


----------



## chilango (Apr 16, 2013)

treelover said:


> This sounds like the same old old...



Yes it does.

Two points to bear in mind.

First the SWP et al are the weakest they have been in generations and are no longer strong enough to take over mass movements.

Secondly, many of the people seemingly involved in LU are either from the Trot left or would have been fellow travellers of it in years gone by.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 16, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> I think we'd have to look at the context wouldn't it.
> If someone racially abuses someone where the abuse is all one way, then certainly you can say the very strongest sanctions should be applied.
> 
> If it came in the context of a heated argument where both sides are trading insults freely then my instincts are to use the 'word in your ear, stop being a bloody pillock' approach should be the first port of call and from there see if the behaviour can be reformed without recourse to formal procedures. But that's just me.


 
Can't agree with you at all. We aren't talking about a wet behind the ears trade unionist, he is the deputy general secretary of the RMT. In that context, if he throws around racist or sexist abuse, then telling them you are a bloody pillock is totally inadequate.


----------



## treelover (Apr 16, 2013)

Oh, and one other thing which I am absolutely sure they will have cognisance of, the ISN is very much youth orientated, with many more young people than 'mature' activists, so they will have to have very robust 'power' and 'control' surveillance strategies


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 16, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Can't agree with you at all. We aren't talking about a wet behind the ears trade unionist, he is the deputy general secretary of the RMT. In that context, if he throws around racist or sexist abuse, then telling them you are a bloody pillock is totally inadequate.


 
I suppose it comes down to what it is you are asking the RMT to do?
Why would they need to hold an investigation when I'm sure no one would deny what happened? It's all there on facebook for anyone to see. 

Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth but I think you are saying the RMT should take some sort of action against Steve Hedley? The question then becomes what the penalty should be?

If you are saying Steve Hedley should be sacked for inappropriate language in the context of a sweary, abusive row on facebook then I think that is a disproportionate punishment for the offence. I also think (purely anecdotally and based on no empirical evidence what so ever) that most RMT members would be completely bewildered at such a punishment.

If you are saying he should be suspended or sanctioned in some other way I have some sympathy for that but on balance I don't believe it would be the best way of tackling the issue. I think it's important to bear in mind that Steve Hedley is an elected full time official. A decision to suspend him by the General Secretary or the Council of Execs would be over-riding the democratic mandate of the membership, something that should only be done in the most serious of circumstances. I don't believe this is the most serious of circumstances given it occurred in the context of a sweary row on social media. 

If I was Bob Crow my preferred option would be to pull him into the office, tell him this kind of public behaviour is unacceptable in a high profile elected official of the union and extract a promise it wouldn't happen again, perhaps followed up by a written warning.
If the behaviour persists then the RMT leaderhsip would be in a stronger position to take action having demonstrated they had exhausted all other avenues to resolve the situation.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 16, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> If I was Bob Crow my preferred option would be to pull him into the office, tell him this kind of public behaviour is unacceptable in a high profile elected official of the union and extract a promise it wouldn't happen again, perhaps followed up by a written warning.
> If the behaviour persists then the RMT leaderhsip would be in a stronger position to take action having demonstrated they had exhausted all other avenues to resolve the situation.


But isn't the problem the underlaying ideas that the comments expose rather than the comments themselves? General point by the way not necessarily about this specific case.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 16, 2013)

I don't see how anyone has the right to talk about the supposed specifics of her mental health condition either. However, the big thing will be whether the RMT used people who wouldn't have a conflict of interest, or distorting preconceptions, In the "no case to answer" investigation.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 16, 2013)

Littlechild says it wasn't an investigation at all - more a preliminary hearing


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> But isn't the problem the underlaying ideas that the comments expose rather than the comments themselves? General point by the way not necessarily about this specific case.


 
For sure, but we are on more difficult ground there.

If you are talking about handing out punishments that are really aimed at the ideas behind an action, where the context is secondary then you are entering thought crime territory. 

Those ideas are prevalent throughout society. Name calling over personal appearance is a common occurrence between both sexes in the workplace for example. That doesn't make it right and as leftists/socialists/anarchists etc we can see the reactionary ideas that influence these behaviours. But the fact that they are so prevalent in society mean that for many people they can seem normal and trivial. We've probably all had the experience in the workplace when we've objected to some run of the mill reactionary stuff like a fellow male co-worker referring to a female co-worker as a cunt behind her back or fellas reading page 3 or people blaming immigrants for the housing shortage etc and been greeted with puzzled stares and mutters of 'looney left'.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge reactionary ideas but it does demonstrate that tackling them is about more than just being seen to take a hard line against them. If that were the case our friends in the SWP and FRFI would have rooted out racsim and sexism a long time ago with the methods they learned from the Duke of Wellington in Blackadder ('Shout, shout and shout again').

The vibe I'm getting here is that Steve Hedley (or anyone who displays behaviour that can be judged as sexist, no matter what the context) should be made an example of for public policy reasons.
I'm not sure how effective that would actually be. Surely it's better to see if the behaviour can be changed first with discussion? After all if we can't persuade folk who are leaders in the labour movement without a big stick what hope do we have for the rest of society? Is the big stick going to be the first and last port of call for everybody with any sort of reactionary ideas or behaviour in a future socialist/anarchist society?

As I've said before I think quite a lot of people would think it was disproportionate to lose your job (particularly one folk had elected you to do) for things said in a bust up where neither party behaved particularly well. If the behaviour persists I think a union leadership that had demonstrated it had used all means short of sanction to change the behaviour would get a much more sympathetic hearing from the membership than one that just went straight for the big stick.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 17, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> I suppose it comes down to what it is you are asking the RMT to do?
> Why would they need to hold an investigation when I'm sure no one would deny what happened? It's all there on facebook for anyone to see.
> 
> Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth but I think you are saying the RMT should take some sort of action against Steve Hedley? The question then becomes what the penalty should be?
> ...


 
Again Steve Hedley isn't someone who is new to trade unionism, he is an experienced trade unionist of many decades. As such I would have a far harsher view. If you take such a position you have to take the responsibility that goes with it, so I don't think there is a comparison with someone using the word cunt in a workplace.

The context of this wasn't even a nasty personal row that got totally out of hand (not that that would be excusable either). His comments were made to a young woman he didn't know on facebook with little provocation other than a few swear words. That he felt perfectly ok about making a tirade of sexist and misogynistic abuse to a young woman would seem to reflect an underlying view on these issues. It's not like he even reflected on what he had done and apologised afterwards, which suggests that even in the cold light of day he thought it was an ok thing to do.

Also I think just saying that it was "inappropriate language" or "a sweary row" totally down plays the seriousness of what he said. I also think it is wrong of you to keep saying that both parties behaved badly as if there was some kind of parity. Swearing at someone is hardly the same as sexism and misogyny.

I don't beleive that if he had made a tirade of racist abuse against someone in the same circumstances that people would say he was still fit to be the deputy general secretary of the RMT. The same should be true for misogyny and sexism.

The investigation should decide what sanction should be taken. Also I think elected officials should be recallable. So if it is possible maybe this could be put to the membership and they could have a vote on whether he should stay in post or not.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Littlechild says it wasn't an investigation at all - more a preliminary hearing


 
You just can't help yourself can you? You don't know shit about what sort of process went on and until we hear from the RMT anyone with a bit of sense would take what Jump the Gun Littlechild says, or anyone else (including 'Gerald' with a pinch of salt. If I found out a fellow union rep was leaking info about a disciplinary case while it was ongoing I'd have a word or two to say to them I can tell you! Any rep with a bit of sense would do the same.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Again Steve Hedley isn't someone who is new to trade unionism, he is an experienced trade unionist of many decades. As such I would have a far harsher view. If you take such a position you have to take the responsibility that goes with it, so I don't think there is a comparison with someone using the word cunt in a workplace.


 
I used those examples to show that not everyone would see it as a sackable offence. Steve Hedley certainly should have known better. Disciplinary procedures have to be seen as proportionate by a good majority of the people they apply to otherwise they fall into contempt. That's the point I'm making.

As for your point on recallability I entirely agree. If it did apply in the RMT and someone wanted to run a recall campaign on the basis of what was said on facebook I wouldn't have a problem with that. IF the membership decide to recall him then well and good.
It becomes more of a problem when you have 'administrative measures' applied by a bureaucracy, even if that is a largely elected bureaucracy.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Apr 17, 2013)

............


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> You just can't help yourself can you? You don't know shit about what sort of process went on and until we hear from the RMT anyone with a bit of sense would take what Jump the Gun Littlechild says, or anyone else (including 'Gerald' with a pinch of salt. If I found out a fellow union rep was leaking info about a disciplinary case while it was ongoing I'd have a word or two to say to them I can tell you! Any rep with a bit of sense would do the same.


Are you "Gerald"?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/documents/88-inaugural-meeting-minutes


Strains showing already as well as the clear divide between the ones who are still marxists vs the identity politics crowd. Won't end well.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Strains showing already as well as the clear divide between the ones who are still marxists vs the identity politics crowd.



Identity politics under the bed?! where?! "The IS Network has a zero tolerance approach to sexism."? As for strains, any honest thinking about socialist organisation will throw up different points of view but that's an existential threat to "democratic" ultra-centralised orgs only. 

On the other hand, the ISN makes clear that it isn't attempting to be the one true revolutionary group, so it's an interim structure only. 

Very different approach to Counterfire's post-union, Rees and German in charge of the movements evident! Not surprising mind since, having never been integrated into the SWP leadership, a good number of ISNers seem to still be union reps.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Are you "Gerald"?



Nope. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the RMT 

You don't have to be an insider in the RMT to to know Littlechild made a mistake going public while the process was ongoing. In a workplace situation going public prematurely when the process is unsatisfactory is the very worst thing to do as it muddies the waters completely. It allows management to turn around and say the union was also interfering with the process if the case is taken higher up the management tree or to an Employment Tribunal.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Nope. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the RMT
> 
> You don't have to be an insider in the RMT to to know Littlechild made a mistake going public while the process was ongoing. In a workplace situation going public prematurely when the process is unsatisfactory is the very worst thing to do as it muddies the waters completely. It allows management to turn around and say the union was also interfering with the process if the case is taken higher up the management tree or to an Employment Tribunal.


Hedley went public though.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Hedley went public though.



Not about the process he didn't. He went public about the outcome of the investigation. 
I wouldn't have had a problem if Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan had said publicly 'We do not accept the result and will be appealing'.

But to reveal specific details while the investigation is ongoing is wrong and unfair as the RMT can't publicly put their side while their own process is ongoing. Bear in mind the persons who conducted the investigation may well be known within the RMT. Their reputations may well be on the line now as well. They also do not have a chance to defend themselves publicly. In the meantime one version of events gets wide circulation. 

Do you see what I mean about leaks muddying the waters?


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Not about the process he didn't. He went public about the outcome of the investigation.
> I wouldn't have had a problem if Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan had said publicly 'We do not accept the result and will be appealing'.
> 
> But to reveal specific details while the investigation is ongoing is wrong and unfair as the RMT can't publicly put their side while their own process is ongoing. Bear in mind the persons who conducted the investigation may well be known within the RMT. Their reputations may well be on the line now as well. They also do not have a chance to defend themselves publicly. In the meantime one version of events gets wide circulation.
> ...


You have a very different perception to me about the publicising and content of Hedley's version of events.

And, going back to your last post (#11703) there's nothing in "Gerald's" comment to say that he's an RMT member/boss so you didn't need to say that you weren't. "Gerald" could just as easily be a member of another interested political party, yes?


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> You have a very different perception to me about the publicising and content of Hedley's version of events.
> 
> And, going back to your last post (#11703) there's nothing in "Gerald's" comment to say that he's an RMT member/boss so you didn't need to say that you weren't. "Gerald" could just as easily be a member of another interested political party, yes?


 
You think so? I've just reread Steve Hedley's statement and I can't see anything that goes into specific details about how the investigation was conducted as there is in the statements of Andy Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan.

As for 'Gerald's identity you are right to say he/she doesn't have to be a member of the RMT, that was an attempt to be a bit light hearted. To be clear I am not 'Gerald'. There's not much I can do to convince you beyond saying that.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> You think so? I've just reread Steve Hedley's statement and I can't see anything that goes into specific details about how the investigation was conducted as there is in the statements of Andy Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan.
> 
> As for 'Gerald's identity you are right to say he/she doesn't have to be a member of the RMT, that was an attempt to be a bit light hearted. To be clear I am not 'Gerald'. There's not much I can do to convince you beyond saying that.


Were you against the making public of the SWP transcript too?


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Were you against the making public of the SWP transcript too?


 
To be honest I'm deeply ambivalent about the whole thing.

On the one hand I think people with in organisations should have the right to a certain amount of privacy when they are having internal discussions such as a national conference. It was certainly a betrayal of trust by the person who leaked it not just of the CC (I couldn't give a flying fuck about them) but also of the other members who spoke in that debate.

On the other hand it was clearly a very serious issue that arose in the context (ubiquitous word!) of a very bad atmosphere of intimidation by the leadership. It would be reasonable to assume that the person leaking would have had absolutely no confidence in the fairness of the disciplinary process of the SWP. They would be absolutely right to think so as numerous posts from ex-members on this very thread have demonstrated. 

I'm not sure if this is what you are implying but I don't think it's correct to make a direct comparison between the SWP process and the RMT process. I'm not aware that the record of the RMT is in any way as rotten as the SWP's when it comes to dealing with internal complaints. If it was even half as rotten as the SWP's I would have a different attitude to the way Andy Littlechild and Caroline Leneghan have conducted themselves. 
However I don't think that is the case. I'm not saying the RMT's procedures are perfect but I think they should be given a much bigger benefit of the doubt than the SWP's.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> To be honest I'm deeply ambivalent about the whole thing.
> 
> On the one hand I think people with in organisations should have the right to a certain amount of privacy when they are having internal discussions such as a national conference. It was certainly a betrayal of trust by the person who leaked it not just of the CC (I couldn't give a flying fuck about them) but also of the other members who spoke in that debate.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not in the mood for giving the RMT the benefit of the doubt at the moment. That statement of Hedley's went public before the process was exhausted - it was he (and the people that actively assisted with its publication) that pre-empted the final outcome.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm not in the mood for giving the RMT the benefit of the doubt at the moment. That statement of Hedley's went public before the process was exhausted - it was he (and the people that actively assisted with its publication) that pre-empted the final outcome.


 
Perhaps I am not making myself clear.

I am not objecting to Caroline Leneghan or Andy Littlechild going public as such. What I am objecting to is going public alleging specific details of an internal investigation that damages the reputation of the persons or organisation conducting the process and denies them the opportunity to respond. The RMT can't conduct the process and engage in a public war of words with Caroline Leneghan and Andy Littlechild about that very same process. The whole process would collapse. Surely you must see that?

If at the end of the initial investigation Caroline Leneghan and Andy Littlechild had decided the investigation was flawed and their only course was to withdraw (i.e. not appeal), conduct a public campaign of criticism of that process by taking it to the members then fair enough. The RMT would have an equal opportunity to put it's case as to how it conducted itself to the membership as well. The same would apply if Caroline Leneghan had decided to withdraw when the alleged insensitive questions occurred.
In that way both sides would have a fair shake at presenting their case.

That's not what has happened here. 

As for the procedures of the RMT unless you can provide evidence of multiple mishandled disciplinary cases a lá the SWP then I think you going to have to do better than just relying on your mood if you are going to use the SWP as a comparison.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

I really don't have a problem with Andy Littlechild representing his member in the most effective way possible, actually.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 17, 2013)

I think the question is whether the process in the RMT is over or not. It's not, is it?


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> I really don't have a problem with Andy Littlechild representing his member in the most effective way possible, actually.


 
I'd like Andy Littlechild to do that to, the problem is I don't think he's done her case any favours by leaking stuff even under the best of circumstances. If it turns out he's been selectively quoting Bob Crow and the police on top of that how do you think the Council of Exec's is going to look on that when they present her appeal?
Whatever judgement the Council of Execs now makes, who's to say it was based entirely on the facts of the case? If it's in favour of Caroline Leneghan members might well say it was really under the pressure of the leaks? If it's in favour of Steve Hedley people may well think it was a reaction to Andy Littlechild leaking details, a closing of ranks around a senior official?

Water. Muddied. 

Again I'd urge people to put Andy Littlechild's action into the context of a union rep defending a member in an employment disciplinary procedure. Even if the process is rotten (which in the RMT's case I'm not convinced it is) the very last thing you want to do is go public prematurely. At the end of a fishy process you want to come out the other side as the people who'd done things by the book and the employers as the one who'd been acting silly buggers. That strengthens your hand if you decide to escalate thing whether that means going higher up the management tree, to an ET or a general membership meeting to canvass for strike action. What you don't want is a war of words with management about who violated the process the most as THAT becomes the main narrative, not the grievance of the member you are defending.

Really, it's trade union rep 101 stuff.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

And I'd urge people to put Andy Littlechild's action into the context of a union rep representing a member in an employment *grievance* procedure (unless you're saying that CL is being disciplined?) and also in the context of needing to represent her in the public now too as a result of a prematurely publicised "outcome".


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> And I'd urge people to put Andy Littlechild's action into the context of a union rep representing a member in an employment *grievance* procedure (unless you're saying that CL is being disciplined?) and also in the context of needing to represent her in the public now too as a result of a prematurely publicised "outcome".


 
Nice try. Andy Littlechild could have easily done that by saying, 'We reject what Steve Hedley is saying. He is not exonerated in our eyes. We are appealing to the Council of Execs'

Simple, to the point and no messy details that the RMT have no opportunity to reply to until the process is complete.

Edit - I'm not sure where you are coming from when you say 'prematurely publicized outcome'. A judgement has to be announced first before there is an appeal. By your logic all such announcements would be 'premature' until an appeal was launched? Presumably if the RMT had found in favour of Caroline Leneghan and she announced it you wouldn't say it was premature if Steve Hedley appealed?


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Nice try. Andy Littlechild could have easily done that by saying, 'We reject what Steve Hedley is saying. He is not exonerated in our eyes. We are appealing to the Council of Execs'
> 
> Simple, to the point and no messy details that the RMT have no opportunity to reply to until the process is complete.


 
You are "Gerald" aren't you 

Nice to see that the spirit of supporting the workers' struggle is alive and well.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> You are "Gerald" aren't you
> 
> Nice to see that the spirit of supporting the workers' struggle is alive and well.


 


One person with a pseudonym accuses another person with a pseudonym of using a different pseudonym.
Clearly we've reached the end of sensible discussion.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> One person with a pseudonym accuses another person with a pseudonym of using a different pseudonym.
> Clearly we've reached the end of sensible discussion.


I'm questioning your motives. We've only known you for a couple of months even though you've been registered since 2010. You tell us you're an SP member and bring us Steve Hedley's published account. You go right off at the deep end when articul8 queried it. And now you bring us "Gerald's" comment and proceed to undermine a very well known and effective union rep.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare, pretty bad form casting aspersions around rather than engaging with the issue. do you think the RMT should have a process to deal with these issues at all? if they do, then it should be followed. leaks do muddy the water. if you're calling into question the validity of the entire process then do that but be honest about it.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> cesare, pretty bad form casting aspersions around rather than engaging with the issue. do you think the RMT should have a process to deal with these issues at all? if they do, then it should be followed. leaks do muddy the water. if you're calling into question the validity of the entire process then do that but be honest about it.


I'm being completely fucking honest. I don't think Andy's done anything out of order and I think he's being actively and deliberately discredited.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Apr 17, 2013)

honest wasn't the word i was looking for, i meant that leaking and questioning the validity of the whole process can't be unentwined - apologies


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm questioning your motives. We've only known you for a couple of months even though you've been registered since 2010. You tell us you're an SP member and bring us Steve Hedley's published account. You go right off at the deep end when articul8 queried it. And now you bring us "Gerald's" comment and proceed to undermine a very well known and effective union rep.


 
See, that's the difference between you and me. We have a disagreement. For me that's because we are coming from different experiences and political perspectives. These things happen. I'm prepared to take your disagreement at face value.

You don't seem to be able to accept that I simply have an honest difference of opinion with you without ascribing all sorts of ulterior motives to me. You are spinning perfectly normal internet behavior into something that says I'm not being straight.

Are you saying Urban 75 never gets 'lurkers' who decide at different stages to participate? 
Are you saying posters don't occasionally have strong reactions to other posters?
So what if I posted links about the Steve Hedley issue, it's one of the theme's of the thread, no?

Some of the discussion we've had has been useful in clarifying our respective positions but I've noticed you have a tendency to avoid substantive points by introducing red herrings into the debate. For example at no point have you really tried to address my point that it is fundamentally unfair for one party to a dispute to level allegations when they know another party (in this case the RMT) cannot put their side of the story until some future date. Instead you've attempted to wriggle out of this point through various means, the most ludicrous of which is this accusation that I am using a sock puppet. You know perfectly well I have no way of providing you satisfactory evidence that I am not. To me these diversionary tactics speak of someone not really confident in their own ideas to engage with the substantive points of the discussion.

I don't like sock-puppeting in debates as it's fundamentally dishonest. Since there's no definitive way of proving I'm not I'm prepared to put it to a vote. If the majority of the next 20 or so people who post (I'll let you decide the number) say I'm sock puppeting then I'll close my account and not trouble Urban 75 again.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> See, that's the difference between you and me. We have a disagreement. For me that's because we are coming from different experiences and political perspectives. These things happen. I'm prepared to take your disagreement at face value.
> 
> You don't seem to be able to accept that I simply have an honest difference of opinion with you without ascribing all sorts of ulterior motives to me. You are spinning perfectly normal internet behavior into something that says I'm not being straight.
> 
> ...


I've got no interest in supporting the upper echelons of the RMT bosses. Andy Littlechild is being actively discredited and you are contributing to it.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

Oh. And if he has _actually_ broken any of the employer's rules on how to be a union rep - he'll be subject to a disciplinary process where he'd have the right to be represented by another rep etc.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 17, 2013)

leyton96 is bolshiebhoy wearing a different hat.


----------



## Nigel (Apr 17, 2013)

In my opinion Leyton96 is putting clarity into this issue from a different perspective to others on this board with maturity and as much trans parity as can be given without compromising the disciplinary procedure.
He also shows rounded knowledge and experience of trade union affairs the law surrounding this issue, judicial procedure and the play of different political groupings and parties that have chosen to involve themselves for whatever reason.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> leyton96 is bolshiebhoy wearing a different hat.


 
I'm staying out of this because I just don't know enough about it and it's not really anything to do with me but that's clearly bollocks.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 18, 2013)

Nigel said:


> In my opinion Leyton96 is putting clarity into this issue from a different perspective to others on this board with maturity and as much trans parity as can be given without compromising the disciplinary procedure.
> He also shows rounded knowledge and experience of trade union affairs the law surrounding this issue, judicial procedure and the play of different political groupings and parties that have chosen to involve themselves for whatever reason.


 
Is trans parity some new intersectional thing?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 18, 2013)

my disciplinary panel will be intersex-ional or it will be bullshit.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 18, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm staying out of this because I just don't know enough about it


This is the sensible attitude everybody here should have taken to the 3 or 4 specific cases that have been brought up here.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 18, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Some of the discussion we've had has been useful in clarifying our respective positions but I've noticed you have a tendency to avoid substantive points by introducing red herrings into the debate.


 
This is a bit rich, given that you're using issues of protocol re RMTs procedure to undermine the rep who felt he needed to set the record straight because your own political organisation - the SP - had issued a statement saying Hedley had "no case to answer" and linking to a highly tendentious account on his own blog, which also attempted to use a contested description of Caroline's mental health history to imply she must currently be delusional.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> This is a bit rich, given that you're using issues of protocol re RMTs procedure to undermine the rep who felt he needed to set the record straight because your own political organisation - the SP - had issued a statement saying Hedley had "no case to answer" and linking to a highly tendentious account on his own blog, which also attempted to use a contested description of Caroline's mental health history to imply she must currently be delusional.


 


You are organically incapable of honesty, aren't you?

I've already answered your distortions regarding the article (not 'statement') in the Socialist.

As for 'undermining' Andy Littlechild I think you and cesare (for different reasons to be fair) are exaggerating my impact of his credibility.

Andy Littlechild is a hugely respected militant on the London Underground with a formidable record as an activist and trade union rep. In my view as someone who has also been a trade union rep I think he made a mistake in going public on some of the details of the internal investigative process when he knew an appeal was ongoing. I have explained in exhaustive detail why I think that is. At the end of the day I might be wrong in what I believe but you of course have made no attempt to engage with the substantive points of my argument. How surprising.

It also appears that he _might _have been selectively quoting from the police and Bob Crow. From the very beginning I have accepted that this is hearsay and it hasn't been the main thrust of my criticism. If it turns out to be wrong I'll come on here and say it was wrong. If it's right then people can draw their own conclusions.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2013)

It was your suggestion to wait for 20 posters - doesn't that suit you now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> You are organically incapable of honesty, aren't you?


you have found what everyone else knew: articul8 is as honest as the day is long. in the winter. north of the arctic circle.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 18, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> You are organically incapable of honesty, aren't you?


 
Why all this abuse?  Actually I did not use this as an opportunity to publicly slam the SP (which I have no interest in doing) - I raised the issue confidentially with both the SP and the RMT as I knew Caroline a few years ago and was shocked by her claims.



> I've already answered your distortions regarding the article (not 'statement') in the Socialist.


Perhaps you could tell me how many "articles" in The Socialist are concluded with "Socialist Party Executive Committee"?

In strict protocol terms no doubt Andy should have waited for the appeal to be concluded.  But since both Hedley and the SP went so public with the "no case to answer" stuff, he presumably felt that provoked him into a more immediate response.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you have found what everyone else knew: articul8 is as honest as the day is long. in the winter. north of the arctic circle.


 normally I can put up with your infantile abuse.  But this is a serious topic, so off you fuck...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> normally I can put up with your infantile abuse. But this is a serious topic, so off you fuck...


fuck off you piece of labour shit. you're in no position to offer anything but fucking sniping from the fucking sidelines because you're not part of the solution, you've chosen to make yourself part of the problem.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> It was your suggestion to wait for 20 posters - doesn't that suit you now?


 
Not at all my offer still stands.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Not at all my offer still stands.


It's not the offer I'm interested in; it's the waiting. As you suggested it.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's not the offer I'm interested in; it's the waiting. As you suggested it.


 
What waiting?


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> What waiting?


I may have misunderstood you. You said 



> Since there's no definitive way of proving I'm not I'm prepared to put it to a vote. If the majority of the next 20 or so people who post (I'll let you decide the number) say I'm sock puppeting then I'll close my account and not trouble Urban 75 again.



So I thought you would be waiting for the next 20 or so posters before making any more posts that might affect the outcome. Personally I think it's a bloody silly idea that smacks of all or nothing tactics (that also puts an unreasonable pressure on posters to state a side, when the argument is between you and me) but it's your suggestion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I may have misunderstood you. You said
> 
> 
> 
> So I thought you would be waiting for the next 20 or so posters before making any more posts that might affect the outcome. Personally I think it's a bloody silly idea that smacks of all or nothing tactics (that also puts an unreasonable pressure on posters to state a side, when the argument is between you and me) but it's your suggestion.


my post? sp

for the hell of it


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 18, 2013)

Getting back to the topic of the thread, here's a telling bit of trivia.

Over the last few years, the lead SWSS candidate always came first or second in the elections for the part time positions on the NUS executive. This year, they got 10 votes. As I understand it it's the first time in decades that there hasn't been a SWSS candidate elected.


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I may have misunderstood you. You said
> 
> 
> 
> So I thought you would be waiting for the next 20 or so posters before making any more posts that might affect the outcome. Personally I think it's a bloody silly idea that smacks of all or nothing tactics (that also puts an unreasonable pressure on posters to state a side, when the argument is between you and me) but it's your suggestion.


 
No i just offered up a straw poll, I'll keep posting in the interim but the offer still stands if people think I am sock puppeting I'll close the account. It's 1-0 to the sock puppet so far.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 18, 2013)

On the other issue, seriously, what do any of you hope to achieve by getting involved in back and forth over an issue that is apparently still being investigated? It may or may not be wise or well advised for people who are actually involved to "go public", that's up to them, but it's certainly not wise or productive for people who aren't involved to be debating things we really don't have any way of knowing much about.

(Also the sock puppet thing is silly.)


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> On the other issue, seriously, what do any of you hope to achieve by getting involved in back and forth over an issue that is apparently still being investigated? It may or may not be wise or well advised for people who are actually involved to "go public", that's up to them, but it's certainly not wise or productive for people who aren't involved to be debating things we really don't have any way of knowing much about.
> 
> (Also the sock puppet thing is silly.)



If it hadn't been raised and in that manner; no-one would be discussing it.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> On the other issue, seriously, what do any of you hope to achieve by getting involved in back and forth over an issue that is apparently still being investigated? It may or may not be wise or well advised for people who are actually involved to "go public", that's up to them, but it's certainly not wise or productive for people who aren't involved to be debating things we really don't have any way of knowing much about.


 But it's ok for organisations who don't know much about it to say he has "no case to answer" and point to his public character asassination of her?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> But it's ok for organisations who don't know much about it to say he has "no case to answer" and point to his public character asassination of her?


let's not forget you belong to an organization which has blackened the names of lots of people. i don't think you've a leg to stand on on this point, an organization which has had a war criminal as leader: yet which thinks he, despite his complicity in the deaths of thousands, has, er, no case to answer.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> But it's ok for organisations who don't know much about it to say he has "no case to answer" and point to his public character asassination of her?


 
I don't think it was wise or productive for the SP to say anything much at all about a case it has no direct involvement in either.




			
				cesare said:
			
		

> If it hadn't been raised and in that manner; no-one would be discussing it


Well, yes, nobody would be discussing it if someone hadn't raised it. The issue though is why does anyone think it's a good idea to still be talking about it, when an investigation is apparently still going on, and nobody on any side of the discussion seems to have anything solid to add.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well, yes, nobody would be discussing it if someone hadn't raised it. The issue though is why does anyone think it's a good idea to still be talking about it, when an investigation is apparently still going on, and nobody on any side of the discussion seems to have anything solid to add.



That's your issue, and I'd be happy to leave it there. However my issue is that undermining that union rep is completely out of order to the point where I'm prepared to make a bloody stand over it. But if there's no more of it, there won't be anything for me to make a stand about.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> However my issue is that undermining that union rep is completely out of order to the point where I'm prepared to make a bloody stand over it.


 
Presumably you know the rep in question, because otherwise that strikes me as somewhat trivial given a context of much more serious issues.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Presumably you know the rep in question, because otherwise that strikes me as somewhat trivial given a context of much more serious issues.


He's right in the middle of a very serious issue but I'd feel the same about any rep trying to represent a member in difficult circumstances.

Edit: Oh, I see. You want to know if I know him. No, I know of him and I was at an RMT  meeting at Quaker Hall where he spoke once.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 18, 2013)

pickman's model said:
			
		

> let's not forget you belong to an organization which has blackened the names of lots of people.



articul8's in the Fall?! well that's the last credence (s)he's getting on this topic from me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> articul8's in the Fall?! well that's the last credence (s)he's getting on this topic from me.


Labour, in't he


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 18, 2013)

yes but, however much we despise what the labour party is and does, does that have to be the last word on every single matter? (though maybe I should keep quiet on this one - I had a soft spot for MilliE at first)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> No i just offered up a straw poll, I'll keep posting in the interim but the offer still stands if people think I am sock puppeting I'll close the account. It's 1-0 to the sock puppet so far.


 
Do people on here trust me to tell them if I find out l96 is a sock puppet? And are you willing to tell me who you are and the names of a couple of people we're likely to both know in the SP leyton96?

If so it should be pretty easy for us to put the sock puppet thing to bed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> But it's ok for organisations who don't know much about it to say he has "no case to answer" and point to his public character asassination of her?


 
I've got some fairly serious problems with that article but this is an incredibly dishonest representation of its contents.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 19, 2013)

How? It clearly says "no case to answer" and links to Hedley's blog with all the dodgy stuff about her past mental health issues


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 19, 2013)

articul8 said:


> How? It clearly says "no case to answer" and links to Hedley's blog with all the dodgy stuff about her past mental health issues


 
It clearly say's "RMT Investigation concludes: Steve Hedley has no case to answer". 

You're not a man who's troubled by facts and accuracy, are you?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 19, 2013)

But in doing so it a) repeats and lends credence to the idea he has "no case to answer" and b) if Andy is to be believed, is misleading in referring to the RMT process as a full "investigation", when in fact it was a matter of determining whether such an investigation ought to be initiated by the union's exec.

and you don'y deny that it also links - in a totally gratuitous and unnecessary way - to Hedley's own account which remains hotly contested?


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 19, 2013)

You've been caught out on a number of occasions with your evasions and distortions and each time you blithley move on and act as if you have any sort of moral authority to question how a political organisation conducts it's business.

The sheer brass neck is kind of impressive, I must say.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 19, 2013)

No I haven't - you have made a series of attacks and accusations in order to deflect from your own organisation's mistaken approach on this question. Where exactly have I said anything that is evasive or distorted?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2013)

Now here's pathetic:



> It has just been brought to my attention that you have published an internal Socialist Workers’ Party document including my and other signatories, on to a public blog without permission. I would like to make the following clear:
> 
> ...
> 
> If you are not prepared to take down this document from your blog, or remove all references to the EIS, I request that the above is publish the above to make this clear.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 19, 2013)

Seymour tells us the important fact about today's events in Boston: "Boston is on lockdown today (it's pretty well martial law) after the murders, so there is no chance of my Unhitched talk going ahead tonight." He did have the good grace to follow that up with a tweet about how he would have challenged the coming wave of islamophobia but still...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 19, 2013)

Nigel said:


> In my opinion Leyton96 is putting clarity into this issue from a different perspective to others on this board with maturity and as much trans parity as can be given without compromising the disciplinary procedure.
> He also shows rounded knowledge and experience of trade union affairs the law surrounding this issue, judicial procedure and the play of different political groupings and parties that have chosen to involve themselves for whatever reason.


 
To be fair though, Nigel, your opinion is like poison. People whose opinions you support on threads can be found running for the nearest tall building or bridge when they see a "like" from you.


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be fair though, Nigel, your opinion is like poison. People whose opinions you support on threads can be found running for the nearest tall building or bridge when they see a "like" from you.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Seymour tells us the important fact about today's events in Boston: "Boston is on lockdown today (it's pretty well martial law) after the murders, so there is no chance of my Unhitched talk going ahead tonight." He did have the good grace to follow that up with a tweet about how he would have challenged the coming wave of islamophobia but still...


I'm trying to get the hang of twitter again and spotted that. Such an egotistical little shit isn't he.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 19, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I'm trying to get the hang of twitter again and spotted that. Such an egotistical little shit isn't he.


Lol. He is and always has been an enemy of all that is normal, human and something you could some day have a beer with. Complete cock.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 19, 2013)

> Lol. He is and always has been an enemy of all that is normal, human and something you could some day have a beer with. Complete cock.



And yet. he's not the one who harassed (edit - or, obviously, much worse) a teenager or "investigated" a rape allegation with long term associates of the accused....just the one who blew the lid on some of it.

I'm also still waiting for any swp response on his strategic analysis! any takers?


----------



## emanymton (Apr 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol. He is and always has been an enemy of all that is normal, human and something you could some day have a beer with. Complete cock.


While Calinicos on the other hand...


----------



## emanymton (Apr 19, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> And yet. he's not the one who harassed (edit - or, obviously, much worse) a teenager or "investigated" a rape allegation with long term associates of the accused....just the one who blew the lid on some of it.
> 
> I'm also still waiting for any swp response on his strategic analysis! any takers?


I have no problem with tending to agree with him on those issues while still thinking that he comes across as a bit of a dick.

Eta: But to be fair I have never meet the the bloke just read a bit of his stuff and heard him speak once.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 19, 2013)

It's an interesting question of the whole business, Seymour the person. I've never even heard or seen him though I've spent quite a while reading his internet debating in recent months.....whilst he's plainly got an arrogant streak I don't think the 'cynical careerist' interpretation stacks up at all. If that was the case, why didn't he flounce right out of the party straight after conference or even beforehand, as soon as it was obvious what a disaster the CC were brewing up? Had he been only concerned about his own reputation as a left intellectual and guardian columnist that would've been a far better course of action. There was no evidence that he was trying to direct or assume leadership of DRP or ISN either (although he made a few excellent contributions and seemed well up for the fight).

Why the January post-conference change of tack? Isn't anyone entitlted to a few days vacillation in such extraordinary times? The wonder to me looking back is why we all stayed put on a sinking ship for so, so long, but that's another matter...


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 20, 2013)

All gone a bit quiet here eh. Still a couple of news items for the die hard swappie watchers:

* Marxism loses a speaker (Louise Raw) - down to 6 now apparently http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/speakers.htm

* decent if subdued showing from the party at Leeds bedroom tax demo today. Couple of stalls and quite a few folk about, including some right at the heart of things. But swp members have been central to the whole campaign in Leeds so this is really their strongest suit.

* All the youngsters had gone as far as I could tell. The Socialist sellers again more visible than SW I think, though not by as much as the nhs event I mentioned the other week.

* UtR have Serwotka for May day! Bit surprised to hear that. No anti-cuts group presence on the march though - not either the SWP ones, nor NSSN nor CoR. No presence for People's Assembly either, nor TUSC. Meeting info leaflet only for Left Unity, early days for them I guess. SolFed giving out an alright general leaflet. Economic and Philosophic Science Review making magnificent case for Scientific Marxist Revolution. Cpgb(m-l) once again weirdly prominent.

[edit: * forgot to mention, couple of banners for Unite Community and I think a slightly sorry looking stall -- not much else from them. Maybe they, like possibly SolFed etc were there as Hands off our Homes instead]

* Socialist Party far and away distributors of the best leaflet today, with a brilliantly accessible yet informative colour A4 production with specific advice for tenants alongside the usual calls. Top stuff. Hands off our homes (whose website is good) had similar info but with an evidently lower design budget. (I can't link to it though, because the leaflets SP website section is down...!)

* seems to me anyone from anarchists to IWCA to trots to unaligned antineoliberals and anticapitalists to, indeed, the labour left, who isn't trying to build solidarity and mobilization amongst tenants on the b-tax and related cuts might as well give up now! Finally a golden chance to do more than just propagandize.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 20, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> All gone a bit quiet here eh. Still a couple of news items for the die hard swappie watchers:


 
No one knows what's going on with the Hedley case, hence people aren't commenting on it.
With the SWP cases the bureaucratic biased botch-up stuck out like a sore thumb.

SWP here - still as before I think - same people, no new people, not too surprising as key branch leader signed the 500 for the leadership counter-list. I'm not sure what exactly their strategy is - at the minute it seems to be tighten up the loyalty of what's left, create siege mentality - hold on to what you've got.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 20, 2013)

sihhi said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what exactly their strategy is - at the minute it seems to be tighten up the loyalty of what's left, create siege mentality - hold on to what you've got.


 
Right! This seems to be exactly the intent of, for example, the recent McGregor ISJ piece. Unite around anti-Seymourism and keep on with the old routines. Call in favours from friendly liberal journalists  Wonder what life's like for remaining factioners!


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I'm trying to get the hang of twitter again and spotted that. Such an egotistical little shit isn't he.


 
someone from the IS tradition who is an egotistical little shit? I don't believe you.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 20, 2013)

Seymour has never _really _understood the IS tradition, let alone been a part of it. /loyalist


----------



## sihhi (Apr 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Seymour has never _really _understood the IS tradition, let alone been a part of it. /loyalist


 
People who promoted Seymour and put him top of the bill in previous Marxisms are they IS tradition or not?


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 20, 2013)

sihhi said:


> People who promoted Seymour and put him top of the bill in previous Marxisms *are they IS tradition or not?*


 
no, just star-fuckers.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 20, 2013)

sihhi said:


> People who promoted Seymour and put him top of the bill in previous Marxisms are they IS tradition or not?


 
Probably should have put a  or a  at the end of that post - I was taking the piss out of the way the loyalists talk about him. 

He definitely is more open to other ideas than the rest of them, which in and of itself I'd say is a good thing, though I more often than not disagree with the conclusions he draws as a result.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 20, 2013)

He was one of the few who looked able to revitalize IS thought rather than curate its decline I reckon. (who else? Neil Davidson, Hannah Dee, David Renton, Gareth Dale? bit of an elitist way to look at it admittedly) Hence he's such a lightning rod for loyalist anger. I'll also agree that he carried quite some sub-culture of the academy, but that's frankly a refreshing addition to that of the SWP. It's very refreshing to see an escape from the theoretical insularity of most Trotskyist writers, compared to treating Stuart Hall or Judith Butler (or whoever) as a morality tale about the political uselessness of everyone else's ideas. But then analysis can only degenerate when put in constant service of a bureaucratic apparatus!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 20, 2013)

Jesus mate sounds like you're writing his obituary.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jesus mate sounds like you're writing his obituary.


 
you wish


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:
			
		

> Jesus mate sounds like you're writing his obituary.


 
haha! that would be a really boring funeral speech. anyway I'm sure plenty enough comrades consider leaving the party to be the end of political life! maybe political obits of German, Rees, Bambury, Sino-Seymourism in Socialist Review would help come to terms with splits....which suggests Unite the Resistance as a kind of phantom limb from the old huge united front StW days


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 20, 2013)

I do love the Sino-Seymourism term.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 20, 2013)

I remember hearing Hallas once in someone's living room talk about the difference between the IMG and the IS being that the IMG knew more French and were better 'intellectuals' but worse Marxists. I can't help feeling the same about the layer of thinkers who have been giving the cc such a hard time the last six months. Frankly they're far too clever for their own or anyone else's good and the party made a mistake in ever courting them. I'm glad to say I always felt that way about Seymour even when he was flavour of the month. I have nothing against the honest identity politics folk in the ISN who are open in their hatred for Leninism, that's cool and you can argue with them. And I've got time for the marxist folk who've left and joined the ISN cause the SWP regime pissed them off (even though I think they're throwing the baby out with the bath water). To be honest I've always found the internal life of the swp (especially in London) to be a little stilted and frankly po-faced with far too much deference given to the 'betters'. And I don't think that culture is the fault of Leninism per se. But I have no time for the intellectuals of the split who know in their hearts that they're ditching their Marxist past but will insist on constructing convincing sounding academic Marxist arguments for why it's necessary to 'modernise' the ideas....out of existance. Those people and their eggers on in the ISO and the Canadian split are in my humble opinion guilty of bad faith.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 20, 2013)

cack.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 20, 2013)

But, what supposedly is being modernized out of existence? The ISN blog posts have been pretty clear about class taking centre stage and in fact, have criticized the SWP as substituting the public sector union bureaucracies for the working class as a whole. Where's the bad faith fake Marxism there? As for the students, the rest of the left has long questioned the post-Higgins obsession with them...so it seems a bit difficult to complain on that score now.


----------



## mutley (Apr 21, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> All gone a bit quiet here eh. Still a couple of news items for the die hard swappie watchers:
> 
> * Marxism loses a speaker (Louise Raw) - down to 6 now apparently http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/speakers.htm
> 
> ...


 
At the Leeds demo, was there any prescence from the ISN/revsoc group at Leeds uni? Just wondering... Their conference, as has been noted, seemed very focussed on internal structures. If they spend all their time concentrating on that and ignore the outside world then they won't last long.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2013)

mutley said:


> At the Leeds demo, was there any prescence from the ISN/revsoc group at Leeds uni? Just wondering... Their conference, as has been noted, seemed very focussed on internal structures. If they spend all their time concentrating on that and ignore the outside world then they won't last long.


Are you still in the SWP then mutley?


----------



## emanymton (Apr 21, 2013)

Idle thought about marxism, I wounder if they will be able to get a decent sized team together this year, since it is largely students who are on it?


----------



## mutley (Apr 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you still in the SWP then mutley?


 
Yes, was in the faction, stayed in. Because (a) the bosses are on a full on offensive and imo the party is still playing a key role in trying to build resistance and (b) I'm not impressed by the alternatives on offer.

So I'm staying, but not ignoring the ongoing problems, tensions etc


----------



## SLK (Apr 21, 2013)

I don't think they'll need to. I really do think it will be a largely internal event this year, so there'll be less need for the rigorous organisation, the directing people, and the questions from people who have never been before.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 21, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> have criticized the SWP as substituting the public sector union bureaucracies for the working class as a whole.


I thought the SWP was supposed to be a bit luke-warm about TUSC.


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

mutley said:


> So I'm staying, but not ignoring the ongoing problems, tensions etc


 
How can there be ongoing problems and internal tensions? 
This was all settled by the rigged elections that happened in the run up the conference. Only in 9 months time can such things exist again.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Apr 21, 2013)

mutley said:
			
		

> At the Leeds demo, was there any prescence from the ISN/revsoc group at Leeds uni? Just wondering... Their conference, as has been noted, seemed very focussed on internal structures. If they spend all their time concentrating on that and ignore the outside world then they won't last long.



There were certainly ISN / revsocers involved in hands off our homes, both in activity on the day and I'm sure beforehand too. I suspect people were busier with this than pushing their own 'branding' (as with some members of other groups including the swp). The more general issue about ISN has been covered already I think - it was formed to hold together SWP escapees, first and foremost, not to hand down to the working class yet another 'interventionist' revolutionary micro-party. 

As I mentioned before there's certainly plenty of activity in unions, communities, campaigns and wherever by ISN members. But beyond some co-ordination of this across the internet and in meetings, I think there's a diverse range of strategic viewpoints inside ISN. 

I suppose most of us wouldn't have left if we thought the SWP strategy on austerity was an effective one but there's been plenty of posts and discussion on the blog about this so no need to revisit that here!


----------



## sihhi (Apr 21, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> There were certainly ISN / revsocers involved in hands off our homes, both in activity on the day and I'm sure beforehand too. I suspect people were busier with this than pushing their own 'branding' (as with some members of other groups including the swp). The more general issue about ISN has been covered already I think - it was formed to hold together SWP escapees, first and foremost, not to hand down to the working class yet another 'interventionist' revolutionary micro-party.
> 
> As I mentioned before there's certainly plenty of activity in unions, communities, campaigns and wherever by ISN members. But beyond some co-ordination of this across the internet and in meetings, I think there's a diverse range of strategic viewpoints inside ISN.
> 
> I suppose most of us wouldn't have left if we thought the SWP strategy on austerity was an effective one but there's been plenty of posts and discussion on the blog about this so no need to revisit that here!


 
Quite - comparing ISN and SWP is missing the point - SWP knows it is the vanguard already ISN for all its weird bits is only a network for loose association, hence some ISN people such as a prominent leader of LSE SWSS is now part of the AntiCapitalist Initiative
https://twitter.com/Izaakson


----------



## treelover (Apr 21, 2013)

> There were certainly ISN / revsocers involved in hands off our homes, both in activity on the day and I'm sure beforehand too. I suspect people were busier with this than pushing their own 'branding' (as with some members of other groups including the swp).


 
isn't it exam time?


----------



## dominion (Apr 22, 2013)

The SWP seem to be unaffected by their recent crisis in the PCS whose election booklets arrived this morning, except Marianne Owens (a Callinicos supporter) didn't bother to mention she was a member of the SWP in her election address.

Sue Bond (for VP) laughingly wrote "I am a socialist, a member of PCS Left Unity and the SWP. And I make no apology for placing equality at the top of the PCS agenda....."

Two words: "comrade" and "delta" what bout equality in the SWP eh "comrade".

Obviously "equality" doesn't apply to the SWP, or its agenda.....

So don't vote for Bond, Owens, Reid or Williams if yer in PCS!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 22, 2013)

Owens is a mentalist


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 22, 2013)

dominion said:


> The SWP seem to be unaffected by their recent crisis in the PCS whose election booklets arrived this morning, except Marianne Owens (a Callinicos supporter) didn't bother to mention she was a member of the SWP in her election address.
> 
> Sue Bond (for VP) laughingly wrote "I am a socialist, a member of PCS Left Unity and the SWP. And I make no apology for placing equality at the top of the PCS agenda....."
> 
> ...



Interesting. Who do you suggest people in PCS vote for instead?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2013)

Don't tell 'em pike!

Name the thing etc


----------



## belboid (Apr 23, 2013)

ISN 'up and running'

http://internationalsocialistnetwor.../33-is-network/appeal/94-we-re-up-and-running


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 23, 2013)

I see that both Richard Seymour and China Mielville are listed as noted speakers at the ISO's version of Recruitathon this coming June.

It'll be interesting to see if the ISN and the ISO have a more formal relationship after June.


----------



## treelover (Apr 23, 2013)

> The IS Network was able to pull together hundreds of revolutionary socialists in barely a fortnight. In a matter of weeks we were able to create a discussion forum, this web site, hold our first national meeting (with a host of international delegates), draft a constitution, elect working groups and begin the task of recreating a genuinely open, democratic and activist-led IS across the country.


 



Obviously not a fan, but no doubting their energy and commitment.


----------



## treelover (Apr 23, 2013)

> No amount is too small - or too big. If you're in a position to help build a democratic, non-sectarian socialist movement, committed to women's liberation, anti-racism, and the fight against environmental degradation, please consider donating what you can. Thank you.


 

what happened to austerity, cuts, welfare changes?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 23, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I see that both Richard Seymour and China Mielville are listed as noted speakers at the ISO's version of Recruitathon this coming June.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see if the ISN and the ISO have a more formal relationship after June.








*Jesse Hagopian*Teacher at Garfield High School in Seattle. Hagopian is a union activist and a leading member of the MAP standardized test boycott.

Also a blatant toker, by the looks of him.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 23, 2013)

*Richard Seymour*British Marxist writer, activist, and blogger at Lenin’s Tomb. He is the author of _Unhitched: The Trial of Christopher Hitchens_ (Verso), _American Insurgents: A Brief History of American Anti-Imperialism_ (Haymarket Books), and _The Liberal Defense of Murder_ (Verso).


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2013)

China Meiville Vs Zizek


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> *Richard Seymour*British Marxist writer, activist, and blogger at Lenin’s Tomb. He is the author of _Unhitched: The Trial of Christopher Hitchens_(Verso), _American Insurgents: A Brief History of American Anti-Imperialism_ (Haymarket Books), and _The Liberal Defense of Murder_ (Verso).


Paedo


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Paedo


 which one?


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 23, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> *Richard Seymour*British Marxist writer, activist, and blogger at Lenin’s Tomb. He is the author of _Unhitched: The Trial of Christopher Hitchens_ (Verso), _American Insurgents: A Brief History of American Anti-Imperialism_ (Haymarket Books), and _The Liberal Defense of Murder_ (Verso).


 

Cillian Murphy's let himself go. That's another mancrush that's bitten the dust.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> which one?


The 2nd, have you not seen the The Hunt - and to think that he was a resistance fighter too.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 23, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Cillian Murphy's let himself go. That's another mancrush that's bitten the dust.


 
I said to geri on the weekend watching the hunt, that is prettyboy murphy's future.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I said to geri on the weekend watching the hunt, that is prettyboy murphy's future.


 
a crumb of comfort for those of us who were never pretty boys.


----------



## audiotech (Apr 23, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> China Meiville Vs Zizek


 
Classic: 

“I’ve been watching you Miéville” Žižek says, stepping forward, “I know what you’re up to” he points “you’re trying to usurp me, but you will fail!!  There’s only room in this world for one poster-boy of pop-culture Marxism with a phonically difficult surname. And that’s me!  ME! ME! ME! You will not take that away from me.”


----------



## Das Uberdog (Apr 23, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> He was one of the few who looked able to revitalize IS thought rather than curate its decline I reckon. (who else? Neil Davidson, Hannah Dee, David Renton, Gareth Dale? bit of an elitist way to look at it admittedly) Hence he's such a lightning rod for loyalist anger. I'll also agree that he carried quite some sub-culture of the academy, but that's frankly a refreshing addition to that of the SWP. It's very refreshing to see an escape from the theoretical insularity of most Trotskyist writers, compared to treating Stuart Hall or Judith Butler (or whoever) as a morality tale about the political uselessness of everyone else's ideas. But then analysis can only degenerate when put in constant service of a bureaucratic apparatus!


 
_Hannah Dee?_


----------



## SLK (Apr 29, 2013)

As way of a bump, a considered resignation statement from Manchester Uni SWSS

"The British far left has a habit of cyclical degeneration and a paranoid lust for ideological purity that has to be overcome with the utmost urgency if it is to be able to offer a genuine alternative to austerity"

and some good words on the necessity to work with CC loyalists in the future.

http://internationalsocialistnetwor...er-swss-disaffiliation-and-resignation-letter


----------



## treelover (Apr 30, 2013)

Wonder how many ISN turned up at the Sheff LU meeting?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 30, 2013)

SLK said:


> As way of a bump, a considered resignation statement from Manchester Uni SWSS
> 
> "The British far left has a habit of cyclical degeneration and a paranoid lust for ideological purity that has to be overcome with the utmost urgency if it is to be able to offer a genuine alternative to austerity"
> 
> ...


 


Here comes the genuine alternative:



> To conclude, Trotsky started anew when he realised the Third International was lost. It is with no small degree of an inflated sense of self-importance that we loosely equate our position now with his.


----------



## belboid (Apr 30, 2013)

According to one chap at the LU meeting last night, various (mainly younger) comrades have been 'reported' to the CC for failures of discipline, some several times, but they won't make any moves to expel or discipline them in any way.  Running scared of it all kicking off again?


----------



## dominion (Apr 30, 2013)

Recommended reading for SWP members


----------



## belboid (Apr 30, 2013)

dominion said:


>


unputdownable


----------



## J Ed (Apr 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> Wonder how many ISN turned up at the Sheff LU meeting?


 
Dunno but some did and most of them are in the facebook group.


----------



## treelover (May 1, 2013)

belboid said:


> unputdownable


 
nowt there..


----------



## two sheds (May 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> nowt there..


 
qed


----------



## J Ed (May 2, 2013)

So in SWP news today:

I saw the first SWP paper sale at Sheffield Uni in a while, dunno if they resumed earlier this week as I hadn't been to campus since last week. I don't think the people selling papers were students.

All the SWP dissident student societies (named Rev Soc) seem to have demonstrated that they have broken with the old fashioned newspaper selling technique by... producing magazines! wtf. Here is the one from UEL http://www.scribd.com/doc/139052262/Crisis-Vol-1


----------



## Brainaddict (May 2, 2013)

J Ed said:


> wtf. Here is the one from UEL http://www.scribd.com/doc/139052262/Crisis-Vol-1


wtf indeed.
Intro that moralises about capitalism while explaining nothing and using alienating language? Check.
Desire to position themselves correctly on an international issue about which people don't want to hear their opinions? Check.
Confused exposition of distant historical event involving socialists in order to deliver a political message of little relevance to their audience? Check.
Lenin quote in dig at former party at the end? Check.

Some of the other articles might be okay (only skimmed) but the overall picture is of people who haven't really left the party even though they left the party. Shame they couldn't take the opportunity of discovering their party was rubbish in order to reassess their ideas a bit more thoroughly.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2013)

J Ed said:


> So in SWP news today:
> 
> I saw the first SWP paper sale at Sheffield Uni in a while, dunno if they resumed earlier this week as I hadn't been to campus since last week. I don't think the people selling papers were students.
> 
> All the SWP dissident student societies (named Rev Soc) seem to have demonstrated that they have broken with the old fashioned newspaper selling technique by... producing magazines! wtf. Here is the one from UEL http://www.scribd.com/doc/139052262/Crisis-Vol-1


That is total and utter rubbish.


----------



## frogwoman (May 2, 2013)

dear god that's awful


----------



## J Ed (May 2, 2013)

I have no idea what the Sheffield one is like (it's called Dissent) or the Leeds one is like (called The Spark) but the Sheffield lot were trying to flog their magazine at the Left Unity meeting.


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2013)

Brainaddict said:


> wtf indeed.
> Intro that moralises about capitalism while explaining nothing and using alienating language? Check.
> Desire to position themselves correctly on an international issue about which people don't want to hear their opinions? Check.
> Confused exposition of distant historical event involving socialists in order to deliver a political message of little relevance to their audience? Check.
> ...


That is nothing like SWP stuff.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 2, 2013)

Well, praps it is more reminiscent of the writing of other minor leninist sects than of the SWPs patronising style, but the point is they haven't done much deep soul-searching on their ideas. It's sad, that's the point.


----------



## xslavearcx (May 2, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> dear god that's awful


 
after reading the last 4 posts including yours giving a bad review of this magazine. think ill have to take a look at it


----------



## sihhi (May 2, 2013)

"During WW2 the Koreans led by Kim Il Sung, led a guerrilla war against the Japanese occupation" 






_Stalinist Koreans or not real Koreans!_


----------



## xslavearcx (May 2, 2013)

to be fair. its 20p, so you get what you pay for...


----------



## xslavearcx (May 2, 2013)

haha, front page 97 years since the easter rising, would it not be better to wait 3 years to get a nice round number


----------



## butchersapron (May 2, 2013)

The SWP will just destroy this stuff, i'm not a fan of stuff around writers, but FFS they have to come up with something.


----------



## coley (May 3, 2013)




----------



## sihhi (May 3, 2013)

The Molotov cocktail as a header/logo - you don't even see that on insurrectionist anarchist publications any more.


----------



## barney_pig (May 3, 2013)

sihhi said:


> "During WW2 the Koreans led by Kim Il Sung, led a guerrilla war against the Japanese occupation"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like a late entry for the Juche franchise


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2013)

coley said:


>


----------



## The39thStep (May 3, 2013)

very useful in taking on the rise of UKIP


----------



## The39thStep (May 3, 2013)

cesare said:


>


----------



## Idris2002 (May 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> very useful in taking on the rise of UKIP


 
shit writes itself dude.


----------



## cesare (May 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


>


----------



## barney_pig (May 3, 2013)

They are claiming that the Korea article was written by a Maoist and it is an open publication. Strange that everything else fits their general line, and there's no mention of an open policy


----------



## J Ed (May 3, 2013)

There are still Maoist students? wtf?


----------



## barney_pig (May 3, 2013)

A few choice comments on their Facebook  about tianneman square, to see what happens..


----------



## J Ed (May 3, 2013)

The first Sheffield Rev Soc meeting was 'More than Opium? Marxism and Religion', totes intersectional!


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Gender segregation? Curry buffet?


----------



## J Ed (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Gender segregation? Curry buffet?


 
I think the only thing stopping gender segregation is the fact that the sort of Muslims who would be interested in a meeting like that wouldn't want it, actually someone brought up STWC gender segregation at the Seymour Unhitched (imo Unhitched isn't a bad book, if anyone wants a pdf feel free to PM me) talk at Sheffield Uni and the responses were interesting. One full timer denied that segregation ever happened, one accused the questioner of Islamophobia and talked about the revolutionary potential of 'de yoof' of the Muslim Brotherhood and Seymour contradicted the full timer by acknowledging that it happened but said that it was necessary because in every coalition there is some give and take.


----------



## frogwoman (May 3, 2013)

Looks 30 years out of date that mag tbh.


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

Nowt wrong with retro, especially as it feels we are back in the 80's in many ways.


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> Nowt wrong with retro, especially as it feels we are back in the 80's in many ways.


So you think that's a good example of what we should be producing? Did you even look at it?


----------



## The39thStep (May 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Looks 30 years out of date that mag tbh.


 
in a political backwater where the clock has always stopped at 19.17 these things are never out of date


----------



## barney_pig (May 3, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> in a political backwater where the clock has always stopped at 19.17 these things are never out of date


This is lahndahn not Cheadle


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So you think that's a good example of what we should be producing? Did you even look at it?


 
its aimed at 'us' not the general public...


----------



## The39thStep (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> its aimed at 'us' not the general public...


 
here lies an inherent problem with the left


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

treelover said:


> its aimed at 'us' not the general public...


Ok, what about the question that i asked you?


----------



## J Ed (May 3, 2013)

Also, treelover do you think that trying to flog these magazines at meetings is what LU members should be doing? Is that going to be a successful strategy?


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

> been thinking about some of these issues lately, and I agree with John that it is not just about presentation but also about theories and practices. Perhaps the working-class isn't 'buying' what we're 'selling' not because of bad marketing, but because what we're selling isn't worth buying.
> We need a decisive break with the past, with what passed for 20th-century socialism. Draping ourselves in costumes, banners and slogans of Bolshevism not only makes us look absurd in the 21st-century, but these forms have too much history that they are irredeemable. Even if our content is new, people will not look past the form to bother to find out the content.
> For example, personally I don't think the ISN is thinking radically enough when it says it is committed to: "the most thorough democracy, elected committees, recallability, voluntary as opposed to bureaucratic 'discipline' (if we must use that word – 'voluntary discipline' feels like a contradiction), autonomy of local branches." All of these are good, but IMO, as someone who has grown up with computers, with the internet, I don't think that any organization which is committed to democracy has any excuse for not implementing elements of direct democracy. The internet not only allows us to keep in constant contact with one another, but it allows us through this constant contact to engage in democracy at a distance.
> Also, and I've heard that there was some talk within the ISN about this. The despicable behaviour of the SWP wasn't just because of 'bad leadership', but because of the structure of the organization itself. The revolutionary left tends to be a sausage fest. Given that more than 50% of the world's population, more than 50% of the working-class, are women, we cannot keep pretending that we are a revolutionary organization when we ignore half of humanity. A commitment on the part of the ISN to staff 50% of all executive positions by women, or to introduce a collegial system, where every post has two delegates or representatives, a male and female comrade, would go a long way, IMO, toward attracting women to socialist organizations. It certainly can't hurt.
> ...


 


eh, I hate paper sellers, can't abide people pushing propaganda in peoples faces, so wrong there, I liked it aesthetically, that's all,

btw, some interesting thinking now going on in the ISN at least with some of them and in the comments


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

> The revolutionary left tends to be a sausage fest


 
What does he mean!


----------



## treelover (May 3, 2013)

> It ain't just the words. It is the icons. Drop the hammer-and-sickle. Drop the red star. Drop the pictures of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Drop the clenched fist already. *It is revelaing that Camila Camejo, the high profile Chilean has decided to use the North Star as a symbol because it was rooted in American revolutionary traditions, Frederick Douglass specifically.*


 
like what I am reading


----------



## emanymton (May 3, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Looks 30 years out of date that mag tbh.


I don't think it would ever have looked in date to be frank.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 3, 2013)

Somebody needs to tell Eddie that there is no 'r' on the end of the word 'peninsula' when it is a noun, only when it is an adjective such as in the Peninsular Wars. It is a common mistake but Eddie is a student and has elected to get involved in writing for a magazine so should learn the language.

I don't argue with the contents of the article itself though.


----------



## Sean Delaney (May 3, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I don't argue with the contents of the article itself though.


 
Well you need your head examined. The article on Korea is a piece of pinko leftist 'anti imperialist' crap - pure CANT, revolting, horrible. This moron Eddie needs a good kicking and a weekend getaway in a North Korean gulag, minus a ticket home. People like Eddie are the reason why the left is a laughing stock.

[_cant_ = jargon or argot of a group, often implying its use to exclude or mislead people outside the group.]


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 3, 2013)

Sean Delaney said:


> Well you need your head examined. The article on Korea is a piece of pinko leftist 'anti imperialist' crap - pure CANT, revolting, horrible. This moron Eddie needs a good kicking and a weekend getaway in a North Korean gulag, minus a ticket home. People like Eddie are the reason why the left is a laughing stock.


I agree that it is "pinko leftist and 'anti imperialist'". That is the point of the article, to put a different slant on the usual history of the two Koreas. I don't agree that Eddie is necessarily a moron just because he has left wing views and cannot spell 'peninsula'.


----------



## Sean Delaney (May 3, 2013)

Aw come on Hocus. Its a load of old crap. Revolting. Nasty. Spineless. Lord Haw Haw material. The usual anti-humanist crap we are used to expect from Trots. It makes me want to puke. Different slant? Do me a favour. Thank your lucky stars you weren't born in The Grand Larder's shitzone


----------



## butchersapron (May 3, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I agree that it is "pinko leftist and 'anti imperialist'". That is the point of the article, to put a different slant on the usual history of the two Koreas. I don't agree that Eddie is necessarily a moron just because he has left wing views and cannot spell 'peninsula'.


Membership sec for you. He _likely_ is a moron just because he has left wing views and cannot spell 'peninsula' right?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 3, 2013)

If its only 20p then you haven't lost really have you


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 3, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I have no idea what.... the Leeds one is like (called The Spark).....


 
If memory serves me it's also dire.


----------



## J Ed (May 4, 2013)

This is interesting http://www.newleftproject.org/index...oalition_the_socialist_workers_party_and_iraq


----------



## sptme (May 5, 2013)




----------



## discokermit (May 5, 2013)

treelover said:


> its aimed at 'us' not the general public...


no it isn't, it's aimed at students.


----------



## sihhi (May 7, 2013)

This is the SWP response to the UKIP successes in local elections:

"If Ukip comes to your town or neighbourhood you should get organised and protest against it."

I don't really get it, I'm in a mind to email them what kind of protest should it be. What if UKIP is already in your town and neighbourhood?

The basis for the opposition is: "We need to expose its members as an anti-working class, racist rabble. This argument has an audience among workers and activists."


----------



## sptme (May 7, 2013)

From the link above.



			
				swp said:
			
		

> But you don’t undermine racist ideas by copying them.
> And it’s not just the Labour right that is aping Ukip’s policies rather than opposing them.
> Even Labour left commentator Owen Jones has called for Labour to support a referendum on the European Union.


Are they saying that any one that apposes the EU is racist and aping UKIP? Plenty of people on the left oppose the EU and not for racist reason and having no connection to ukip ideas either. I thought this was the SWP position too. bizarre statement.


----------



## Delroy Booth (May 7, 2013)

Tony Benn is still Boss of the Left after all these years.


----------



## emanymton (May 7, 2013)

sptme said:


> From the link above.
> 
> Are they saying that any one that apposes the EU is racist and aping UKIP? Plenty of people on the left oppose the EU and not for racist reason and having no connection to ukip ideas either. I thought this was the SWP position too. bizarre statement.


As far as I was aware the SWP position was that the EU was just a 'Bosses Club', I would have thought they would call for a vote to leave the EU. It was certainly the position to vote no if we had a referendum on the Euro. 

ETA: Found this


----------



## sptme (May 7, 2013)

SO is this a U-turn then? Are they pro-EU now that Rees has gone? Or are they just slinging mud at OJ for saying something that they actually agree with themselves? Or maybe the author of the piece is ideologically confused and not a genuine holder of the IS tradition.


----------



## emanymton (May 7, 2013)

I am going to go with a little bit of each.

Although at a guess I think Jones would vote to stay, I think they are having a go at him for the reason he is saying Labour should commit to a referendum not for saying it as such. The article just gives the impression they would vote to stay in when I think they would vote to leave. Basically it is a shit article that is not very clear.


----------



## frogwoman (May 7, 2013)

sptme said:


> From the link above.
> 
> Are they saying that any one that apposes the EU is racist and aping UKIP? Plenty of people on the left oppose the EU and not for racist reason and having no connection to ukip ideas either. I thought this was the SWP position too. bizarre statement.


 
all those people in greece must be a bunch of racists.


----------



## mutley (May 7, 2013)

The UKIP policies that (it is argued) we should protest against are the opposition to immigration and multiculturalism. there are also some other bizarre hobby horses such as bringing back grammar schools. The SW article should have been clearer on that. SWP position remains opposition to EU membership and joining the Euro ands SW would argue for a no vote on EU membership in a refrendum.


----------



## sihhi (May 7, 2013)

Are you still a member mutley?


----------



## mutley (May 7, 2013)

yes I got asked that a couple of weeks back. was in faction, haven't left. search out previous reply a few pages back if u like.


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2013)

Hardcore...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 8, 2013)

treelover said:


> Hardcore...



Like that mag you love from Leeds you frothing loon


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 8, 2013)

Well apparently Alex Callinicos agrees with articul8 that there's a Labour left worth noticing. In fact he thinks that we are seeing the "biggest revival of the Labour left since the heyday of Tony Benn in the 1970s and early 1980s". What a vivid imagination he has.


----------



## discokermit (May 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well apparently Alex Callinicos agrees with articul8 that there's a Labour left worth noticing. In fact he thinks that we are seeing the "biggest revival of the Labour left since the heyday of Tony Benn in the 1970s and early 1980s". What a vivid imagination he has.


they've lost the students, the union fulltimers are keeping their distance, they've got to chase after somebody.


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2013)

SWP's coming out on the side of the Islamists rioting across Bangladesh to turn the country into a Sharia state...

https://twitter.com/Feb28info/status/331049413579517955

https://twitter.com/Feb28info/status/331057102195916804


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2013)

These are the demands of the group which Kimber seems to be siding with:

1. Reinstatement of ‘Absolute trust and faith in Allah’ in the constitution of Bangladesh and abolishment of all laws which are in conflict with the values of the Quran and Sunnah
2. Enactment of (anti-defamation) law at the parliament* keeping death penalty* as the highest form of punishment to prevent defamation of Allah, Muhammad (S.A.W) and Islam, and prevent spreading hate against Muslims (highest penalty prevalent for defamation is 10 years).
3. Immediate end to the negative propaganda by all atheist bloggers in a leading role in the so called Shahbag movement who have defamed Allah, Mohammad (S.A.W), and Islam and their *exemplary punishment*.
4. End to all *alien cultural practices* like* immodesty, lewdness, misconduct, culture of free mixing of the sexes, candle lighting in the name of personal freedom and free speech*.
5. Abolishment of the anti-Islamic inheritance law and the ungodly education policy. Making Islamic education compulsory in all levels from primary to higher secondary.
6. Declaration of *Ahmadis as non-Muslims* by the government and put a stop to their negative and conspirational activities.
7. Stop instating more statues in the name of sculpture at road intersections and educational institutions to save Dhaka the city of mosques, from becoming the city of statues.
8. Remove all the hassles and obstructions at Baitul Mokarram and all mosques in Bangladesh which prevent Musallis from offering prayer. Also stop creating obstruction for people to attend religious sermons and other religious gatherings.
9. Stop the spread of Islamophobia among the youth through depiction of negative characters on TV plays & movies in religious attire and painting negative stereotypes of the beard, cap and Islamic practices on various media.
10. Stop anti-Islamic activities at Chittagong propagated by several NGO’s and Christian missionaries under guise of religious conversion.
11. End to the massacre, indiscriminate firing and attacks on the prophet loving Muslim scholars, madrassah students and the general public.
12. End to all threats against Islamic scholars, madrassah students and Imams and Muslim clerics of mosques throughout the country.
13 Immediate and unconditional release of all detained Islamic scholars, madrassah students and members of the general public and withdrawal of all false cases filed against them. Compensation to families of all injured and deceased and exemplary punishment to all those responsible.


----------



## mutley (May 8, 2013)

I think its obvious, esp if you look at the dates on those tweets, that Charlie Kimber is defending the workers who died in the factory ('paid with their blood') and those who have gone on strike in response to that, not the islamist protestors.
Not that I'm going to defend every dot and comma of Charlie's position in recent times.


----------



## oskarsdrum (May 8, 2013)

Well here's an SW article on the Bangladesh Hefazat situation: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art/33266/Police+kill+protesters+as+Bangladesh+crisis+grows




			
				SWP said:
			
		

> Tens of thousands of Islamists had gathered to call for stronger Islamic policies.
> These include the introduction of blasphemy laws and the repeal of  laws on women’s rights
> 
> ....
> ...


 
1) Pretty euphemistic way to describe hanging atheists, and the total exclusion of women from anything outside the home.

2) I wonder how "poor" are the Hefazat, Jamaat and BNP "leaders"? And, isn't there another category besides the poor and the middle class that's sometimes been seen as important for socialists....let me see now.....never mind, who cares about the actual unions anyway or whether their female members might like to do their jobs without being assaulted -- when there's grander forces at play!

3) So the massive organisational infrastructure of Islamism isn't any kind of obstacle to "attracting those who look to the Islamists"? Great! All we need is a few good slogans in solidarity with mass rapists and the revolution will be ours.

4) The rage directed specifically at Hasina/Awami seems to be much more the province of BNP/Islamists then the workers. In fact getting rid of Hasina would surely only be a "regime change" for something even worse.

4a.....I'm not lesser evilling in favour of Awami....but focussing on Hasina in particular massively misses the point, especially in comparison to Mubarak ffs, the man who *was* the regime vs a woman who was almost assassinated as leader of the opposition, and was jailed by the military government in 2007? However corrupt a custodian of Bangladeshi capitalism she presently is, that comparison is dangerously absurd.

Still I guess this is just the usual stuff isn't it. For signs of serious desperation how about Kimber's defence of "Lenisism" (LenISism?) against the rest -  . I've never seen top SWP types take the trouble of singling the out SP for special criticism before! Sign of acceptance finally of "micro-sect" status? Also, the conclusion is a total classic!


----------



## treelover (May 8, 2013)

Ben Morris listening attentively, how the mighty fall...


----------



## articul8 (May 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well apparently Alex Callinicos agrees with articul8 that there's a Labour left worth noticing. In fact he thinks that we are seeing the "biggest revival of the Labour left since the heyday of Tony Benn in the 1970s and early 1980s". What a vivid imagination he has.


 
He goes far beyond anything I've said.  He's gone way too far


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2013)

You'd think that the SWP would have learnt from the multiple rapes and murders of IS-aligned Trots in Egypt what happens to leftists when Islamists take power, but then again you'd have thought the same from Iranian history and/or common sense.

Still, the SWP CC won't ever suffer the consequences, so what's the harm?


----------



## cesare (May 8, 2013)

Is this them retreating/regrouping to core business (for want of a better phrase) ie anti fascism and anti Islamophobia?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 8, 2013)

articul8 said:


> He goes far beyond anything I've said. He's gone way too far


 
I know. You are merely wrong. He's a fucking nutcase.


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2013)

cesare said:


> Is this them retreating/regrouping to core business (for want of a better phrase) ie anti fascism and anti Islamophobia?


 
Since the Bangladeshi Islamists are rioting because they want government persecution of Muslim minorities in Bangladesh, I think you could make a very good argument that they are actually working towards instituting Islamophobia.


----------



## belboid (May 8, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Since the Bangladeshi Islamists are rioting because they want government persecution of Muslim minorities in Bangladesh, I think you could make a very good argument that they are actually working towards instituting Islamophobia.


why have you ignored mutleys post?  It is pretty clear that, whilst the article quoted is incredibly weak and superficial, its hardly saying what you claim at all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 8, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Still I guess this is just the usual stuff isn't it. For signs of serious desperation how about Kimber's defence of "Lenisism" (LenISism?) against the rest -  . I've never seen top SWP types take the trouble of singling the out SP for special criticism before! Sign of acceptance finally of "micro-sect" status? Also, the conclusion is a total classic!




I hadn't bothered to listen to this before you posted it here. The criticisms of the Socialist Party are hilarious. It's the sort of thing you'd expect from a wet behind the ears SWP enthusiast garbling something he'd been told by a drunk older member in the pub some time ago. And that drunk older member was half remembering a particularly tendentious ISJ article from the 80s. From their apparent organisational head honcho, and Callinicos' partner at the top table, it's downright embarrassing.


----------



## emanymton (May 8, 2013)

'Said very clearly in their publications, if you did deep enough'


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> 'Said very clearly in their publications, if you did deep enough'


 
Bizarre really. I have no time for any of the SWP's usual boilerplate arguments against the views of the Socialist Party, unsurprisingly, but I don't think I've ever heard them in such a garbled and crass form from such a senior SWP leader.


----------



## J Ed (May 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> why have you ignored mutleys post? It is pretty clear that, whilst the article quoted is incredibly weak and superficial, its hardly saying what you claim at all.


 
Because it's consistent with past behaviour and positions and Kimber's comments on twitter are repeated in the following article in which he seems to be calling for the overthrow of the Bangladeshi government by an Islamist protest movement. They are approvingly quoting Feb28 Justice for Bangladesh which is a far-right Islamist movement.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art/33271/London protest in solidarity with Bangladesh

Edit - if you read the article he actually addressed the Islamist rally which is even worse than I had thought.


----------



## oskarsdrum (May 8, 2013)

at least they don't harp on about sex abuse cover-ups like socialists and feminists tend to. Plus they're anti-blogger.


----------



## oskarsdrum (May 8, 2013)

It's the moralism of Kimber's SP "critique" that's so pitiful/aggravating. Makes me want to join the most craven gradualists just to be on the other side.


----------



## sihhi (May 8, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Because it's consistent with past behaviour and positions and Kimber's comments on twitter are repeated in the following article in which he approvingly seems to be calling for the overthrow of the Bangladeshi government by an Islamist protest movement. They are approvingly quoting Feb28 Justice for Bangladesh which is a far-right Islamist movement.
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art/33271/London protest in solidarity with Bangladesh
> 
> Edit - if you read the article he actually addressed the Islamist rally which is even worse than I had thought.


 
It's a crap title - 90% of these people are either Islamists or Bangladesh National Party supporters - a wide anti-Awami bloc: 
'London protest in solidarity with Bangladesh' should be in ''London protest to support one faction of the Bangladeshi bourgeoisie'

They just lie and lie - the latest claim is that 2,500 Muslim scholars were killed on 5 May 2013. 
Belboid be realistic, it's the SWP not knowing what it's talking about. 
This is the thread to consider: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...er-hamlets-with-fascists-war-criminals.307454


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 8, 2013)

I realise that this is somewhat off topic, but what exactly is going on in Bangladesh at the moment? All I know is that "centre left" (ie capitalist) AL won the last elections, that the "centre right" (ie capitalist) BNP are in opposition and that there's some serious street ructions going on. Are the street ructions a reaction to factory disaster, or do they predate that?


----------



## sihhi (May 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I realise that this is somewhat off topic, but what exactly is going on in Bangladesh at the moment? All I know is that "centre left" (ie capitalist) AL won the last elections, that the "centre right" (ie capitalist) BNP are in opposition and that there's some serious street ructions going on. Are the street ructions a reaction to factory disaster, or do they predate that?


 
they predate it - enough right-wingers of our without having to deal with these lot - they think that 2,500 people were killed on 5 May by government forces 







The main new issue - as opposed to the traditional mass street protests/hartals of one side vs the other that's common in South Asia is the War Crimes Tribunals - the Bangladeshi local collaborators with the Pakistani army in 1971. They are getting their comeuppance and the religious lot are not happy - hence 'Kangaroo courts'.
Plus lots of racism against non-observant or even Hindu emigrants from India, and urging war amongst peoples against India and Burma - just general irritating against the government from every angle - to block the trials.


----------



## frogwoman (May 8, 2013)

"offending faith and belief of the country's masses" like the way they just slipped that in there


----------



## frogwoman (May 8, 2013)

"islamic front uk" yeah that sounds like a "non political organisation"


----------



## sihhi (May 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> "islamic front uk" yeah that sounds like a "non political organisation"


 
This is the figure at the heart of it Delvar Hussein Sayidi - the vice chief of Jamaat - being found guilty punishable by death of mass murder in 1971. 






It's semi-existential for them. If their leaders are stuck with the genocide label around their necks anyone who is not an ultra-devout or strong Muslim believer will spurn their madrasahs and networks, particularly as - in spite of surface appearances - Bangladesh's economy like Pakistan's and Brazil's is sort of humming along despite the global downturn.

Women do increasingly have opportunities in jobs away from the home - changes a lot of things - they Jamaat lose their captive female vote. 

http://bdnews24.com/economy/2013/05/08/export-growth-10.14pc-in-10-months

The annoying thing is of course that Awami League are very corrupt and police do mistreat people etc etc. What Jamaat and BNP mobilisations do is give succour to the far-right from the other side so you have: 

http://hinduexistence.org/2013/03/0...er-recent-islamic-violence-by-jammat-e-islami

from the Hindu nationalist BJP RSS side in India, similarly the various attacks against the Buddhist minority in Bangladesh whip up Burmese chauvinism.

An OK ish summary on Jamaat's new strategy here:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/05/201356134629980318.html

The problem is the Awami govt. can't hold the secular line they buckle under the first instance of confrontation, partly because the state gives so much money to religious schools.




> Sheikh Hasina, who allowed a team of pro-Hifazat officials to see her at her home before the group's April 6 rally, says her government has already met some of the group's 13 demands.
> 
> Police arrested four bloggers whom the Hifazat described as "atheists", and there is now a home ministry committee that scans remarks considered to be anti-Islamic.


----------



## sihhi (May 9, 2013)

What's particularly galling about Hasina's climbdown is the fact that a rightist gang murdered an atheist blogger in the middle of February.






http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/02/16/killers-hacked-rajib-first-then-slit-his-throat-police


Prime Minister Hasina (on left) consoling his mother






then betraying the basic right of people to say 'there is no proveable god, take all religious regressive nonsense out of the education system until humans have a chance to judge all material critically'

As an outsider it's depressing.


----------



## barney_pig (May 9, 2013)

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art/33271/London+protest+in+solidarity+with+Bangladesh
Kimber addressing fascist crowd on the need to kill the atheists


----------



## J Ed (May 9, 2013)

Violent Islamists _step up! _Atheists from Muslim background _step back!_


----------



## barney_pig (May 9, 2013)

Did the SWP opening a mug shop in margate pass the thread by?
Firebox might sell the frappe, but the swappies sell the mugs!


----------



## J Ed (May 9, 2013)

Pics?


----------



## barney_pig (May 9, 2013)

Click on the red stuff link on the SWP page. It seems to be saying there is a bricks and mortar shop. I hope so, there is so much room for extra lols


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2013)

sadly, i don't think redstuff are a SWP front, just a radical t-shirt shop.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 9, 2013)

sptme said:


> From the link above.
> 
> Are they saying that any one that apposes the EU is racist and aping UKIP? Plenty of people on the left oppose the EU and not for racist reason and having no connection to ukip ideas either. I thought this was the SWP position too. bizarre statement.


 their position was opposition to EU, so obviously not, is the answer to your question.


----------



## TremulousTetra (May 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> why have you ignored mutleys post? It is pretty clear that, whilst the article quoted is incredibly weak and superficial, its hardly saying what you claim at all.


----------



## belboid (May 9, 2013)

killer b said:


> sadly, i don't think redstuff are a SWP front, just a radical t-shirt shop.


guy who runs it is, or was, a party member


----------



## bolshiebhoy (May 11, 2013)

All this excitement about Kimber, the SWP and Bangladesh misses the point. Assaf's piece on Syria and the Isareli air strikes in the same SW is scathing of Hizbollah for weakening and compromising itself by supporting Assad and getting sucked into his sectarian counter revolution. So there is no automatic support of Islamist parties or movements with islamist leaders. What there is is support for the popular revolutions and upheaval across the region which sometimes means being on the same side as Islamists and sometimes not. The key thing is what makes the local working classes stronger not which brand of Islamist you're looking at. Something Counterfire has already forgotten (you won't read that sort of criticism of the 'good' Islamists Hizbollah in their stuff). And I fully expect to see the ISN edge closer and closer to Rees on all this. Its the logic of putting identity before class.


----------



## articul8 (May 11, 2013)

Need to recognise the difference between islamic and islamist - since support for feudal ultra-reactionaries never "makes the local working classes stronger"


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Need to recognise the difference between islamic and islamist - since support feudal ultra-reactionaries never "makes the local working classes stronger"


You're so right. That's the trouble with these new, similar words: they so often get confused. It's not like they've been widely analysed in popular discourse for ten years or something.


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> All this excitement about Kimber, the SWP and Bangladesh misses the point. Assaf's piece on Syria and the Isareli air strikes in the same SW is scathing of Hizbollah for weakening and compromising itself by supporting Assad and getting sucked into his sectarian counter revolution. So there is no automatic support of Islamist parties or movements with islamist leaders. What there is is *support for the popular revolutions and upheaval across the region which sometimes means being on the same side as Islamists* and sometimes not. The key thing is what makes the local working classes stronger not which brand of Islamist you're looking at. Something Counterfire has already forgotten (you won't read that sort of criticism of the 'good' Islamists Hizbollah in their stuff). And I fully expect to see the ISN edge closer and closer to Rees on all this. Its the logic of putting identity before class.


 
Can something which is dominated by Islamists (who are by definition putting religious identity before class) really be described as a popular revolution?

SWP say yes, apparently; I say no.


----------



## belboid (May 11, 2013)

andysays said:


> Can something which is dominated by Islamists (who are by definition putting religious identity before class) really be described as a popular revolution?
> 
> SWP say yes, apparently; I say no.


I dont think you understand what 'popular' means.  It has nothing to do with whether you like it or not


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2013)

andysays said:


> Can something which is dominated by Islamists (who are by definition putting religious identity before class) really be described as a popular revolution?
> 
> SWP say yes, apparently; I say no.


That's exactly what a popular revolution is - one on a broad cross-crass basis - same as like what a popular front is compared to a united front.


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2013)

belboid said:


> I dont think you understand what 'popular' means. It has nothing to do with whether you like it or not


 
Neither, in this context, does it simply mean "being supported by lots of people" - that would be populist.

"Popular revolution" means revolution with the support of and (crucially) in the interests of the working class. I fail to see how an Islamist "revolution" can meet that definition, so either you think it can/does or you disagree with my definition.

You're welcome to argue either of those points if you wish...


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's exactly what a popular revolution is - one on a broad cross-crass basis - same as like what a popular front is compared to a united front.


 
It might be broadly based, but if it isn't in the ultimate interests of the w/c then it doesn't meet my definition.


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2013)

andysays said:


> It might be broadly based, but if it isn't in the ultimate interests of the w/c then it doesn't meet my definition.


You're really misusing popular here - and possibly confusing a social revolution with a political revolution as well. It really does not mean on a strict class basis, it means the opposite. That's how it's being used here and in the general trot understanding of forms and types of revolution.


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're really misusing popular here - and possibly confusing a social revolution with a political revolution as well. It really does not mean on a strict class basis, it means the opposite. That's how it's being used here and in the general trot understanding of forms and types of revolution.


 
My mistake - apols to belboid.

That's what happens when you post without enough coffee and while trying to make breakfast...


----------



## butchersapron (May 11, 2013)

If i'd have been really on the ball i would have said that they're defined as popular revolutions precisely because they contain islamists...


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If i'd have been really on the ball i would have said that they're defined as popular revolutions precisely because they contain islamists...


 
You'd better get a caffeine top-up as well then.

Back on topic, can anyone explain why, from a Trot point of view, supporting a popular revolution dominated by reactionary religious fundamentalists (just to broaden it out from the specific example here) is a good idea?


----------



## J Ed (May 11, 2013)

andysays said:


> You'd better get a caffeine top-up as well then.
> 
> Back on topic, can anyone explain why, from a Trot point of view, supporting a popular revolution dominated by reactionary religious fundamentalists (just to broaden it out from the specific example here) is a good idea?


 
I'm also very curious about this, I have asked Trots about this before and I usually get the sensible answer that Islamists winning power is usually not an improvement on other kinds of dictatorships which persecute leftists, women, trade unionists, LGBT people, etc but people in the SWP seem to have a very different albeit not coherent answer. When you get a straight answer out of someone in the SWP on this and not an accusation of Islamophobia, they usually say something about people able to win over Islamist rank and file to Marxism through the experience of side by side struggle.

What I want to know is how many revolutions with Islamists as the victors and leftists as the victims of mass violence there have to be before this (in my eyes obviously wrong already) idea is discredited in their eyes?


----------



## barney_pig (May 11, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I'm also very curious about this, I have asked Trots about this before and I usually get the sensible answer that Islamists winning power is usually not an improvement on other kinds of dictatorships which persecute leftists, women, trade unionists, LGBT people, etc but people in the SWP seem to have a very different albeit not coherent answer. When you get a straight answer out of someone in the SWP on this and not an accusation of Islamophobia, they usually say something about people able to win over Islamist rank and file to Marxism through the experience of side by side struggle.
> 
> What I want to know is how many revolutions with Islamists as the victors and leftists as the victims of mass violence there have to be before this (in my eyes obviously wrong already) idea is discredited in their eyes?


It is a particular interpretation of the concept of permanent revolution. Trotsky had argued that the bankruptcy of the colonial borgeouisie meant that the proletariat HAD to be the agent of completing the anti imperialist struggle and democratic revolution ( which would seamlessly morph into the proletarian revolution).
Cliff/'s essay deflected permanent revolution recognised that his was not happening, did so whilst desperately attempting to retain the kernel of Trotskyist thought. Cliff argued that in the absence of the working class ( because of the crisis of leadership of the revolutionary party) other social classes/ forces stepped forward- petty borgeouis nationalists Stalinist guerrillas etc.
 Cliff did this in order to rescue the trot idea whilst protecting his supporters from the inevitable disillusion of watching successful national movements become junior partners in the world capitalist system. Modern SWP theory turns this on its head.
Since the soviet afghan war the SWP has argued that anti imperialism must inevitably hold backward ideas, as the only local forces with progressive politics are compromised by western imperialism. The role of the local working class is to act as the foot soldiers of these reactionary anti imperialists, whilst western socialists should cheerlead and defend them against criticism. Even the old SWP canard of unconditional but critical support is trimmed to remove the critical.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 11, 2013)

I see that the boring old uncles of the left, Socialist Resistance, are salivating at the thought of a merger with the young folks in the ISN and ACI. Some people to share their boiled sweets with and regale with stories from back in Nineteen Dickety Two. I can see why SR, a group that hasn't recruited anyone in a decade and which is essentially dying off, are so excited, but I can't for the life of me see what the ISN or ACI get out of it.

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2959


----------



## dominion (May 11, 2013)

The Socialist Resistance people are just carrying on the old IMG/Socialist League beleif of a revolutionary party being built by splits and fusions. Same old, same old.

They iniated Socialist Unity in the 70's, got involved in the Socialist Alliance and the dreadful Respect project with the odious Galloway and so dropping in to Left Unity to pick up a few new young people would seem logical from their point of view.

Otherwise they will simply die out, not that they'd be missed as if not for the internet thingy we'd never come across them. Or the ACI or Workers(?) Power or..... (add sect name here)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 11, 2013)

dominion said:


> The Socialist Resistance people are just carrying on the old IMG/Socialist League beleif of a revolutionary party being built by splits and fusions. Same old, same old.


 
No they aren't. They are into soft and fluffy broad left gobshitery these days, and don't like to be reminded of their "build the revolutionary party" days. That's part of the reason why they have been dying off. They lost the drive to recruit and replaced it with an unending search for someone important who will let them carry his bags.


----------



## dominion (May 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No they aren't. They are into soft and fluffy broad left gobshitery these days, and don't like to be reminded of their "build the revolutionary party" days. That's part of the reason why they have been dying off. They lost the drive to recruit and replaced it with an unending search for someone important who will let them carry his bags.


 
Are you not thinking of Socialist Action (John Ross & Mates) who were Livingstones staff in the GLA?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 11, 2013)

dominion said:


> Are you not thinking of Socialist Action (John Ross & Mates) who were Livingstones staff in the GLA?


 
No. Socialist Action have been much more successful in finding a reliable and generous patron. Socialist Resistance moved from John Rees to George Galloway and are currently at a loose end.


----------



## barney_pig (May 11, 2013)

Do they still carry the 4th international franchise?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 11, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Do they still carry the 4th international franchise?


 
One of the Fourth International franchises, yes. Although it is probably the biggest, and certainly the least coherent and organised, aspirant to the title.


----------



## barney_pig (May 12, 2013)

The latest weekly worker is pretty blatant, " nasty feminists stopping people talking at Marxism, luckily Mark fisher and jack conrad are available."


----------



## barney_pig (May 12, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The latest weekly worker is pretty blatant, " nasty feminists stopping people talking at Marxism, luckily Mark fisher and jack conrad are available."


Sorry, last weeks, not keeping up to date


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2013)

Ex-SWP Rev Soc at Leeds Uni produces a magazine ... http://www.internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/downloads/109-the-spark-1


----------



## laptop (May 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Ex-SWP Rev Soc at Uni produces a magazine ... http://www.internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/downloads/109-the-spark-1


 


> How did Communist parties handle issues of internal discipline and democracy in Lenin’s time? The recent intense discussion within the British Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) and beyond has heard claims that the SWP rests on the traditions of democratic centralism inherited from the Bolsheviks.


 
Mass appeal


----------



## treelover (May 13, 2013)

> I want to write a few practical points about how I think revolutionary socialists should organise when dealing with oppression – however these extend to political criticisms of certain ‘common-sense’ attitudes that I have experienced whilst organising on the left. These are just a few ideas, but I hope that this might open up a discussion.
> We live in a society in which oppression permeates every aspect of our existence, whether it be how we are treated in work or on the street, in our homes and in the media, in accessing public services and healthcare.
> Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and disableism permeate the material world, and our consciousness – it doesn’t take a “bad” person to regurgitate these ideas when they are slapped across our media, education system and popular culture, and the capitalist hegemony has the power to allow these ideas to prevail, silencing opposition in the process.
> So when it comes to organising a revolutionary party, one which can throw open its doors to the masses, how can we create a party that is fit for the whole of the working class, one which understands and fights against oppression in all of its forms?
> ...


 

can't believe I am immersing myself in all this, but this person is apparently based in my home town so may have a impact


----------



## treelover (May 13, 2013)

> The specifics of any safe space policy need to be hammered out, but in essence we just need to make it clear what we will not tolerate in our meetings, aggregates, conferences or united front work – we will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, disableism – along with any other things we deem unfit for good political practice. Often groups will operate a one or two strikes policy toward things like offensive language used in meetings, so that there is the opportunity to challenge the ideas politically from the floor. Types of behaviour that often don’t carry a warning are things like violence (or the threat of), sexual violence and sexual harassment


 

When Matilda, the art space, was in operation, it operated such a policy, I well remember a woman who is a Doctor going on about 'all the lead swingers who come to my surgery' no one challenged her....


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2013)

treelover said:


> can't believe I am immersing myself in all this, but this person is apparently based in my home town so may have a impact


 
He's a student at Sheffield and an absolute fucking moron. I have seen him lie time and time again about people he disagrees with being homophobic, stay clear if you value your sanity.


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2013)

why do people do this?


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Ex-SWP Rev Soc at Leeds Uni produces a magazine ... http://www.internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/downloads/109-the-spark-1


 
The Spark - good thing no other magazine with such a title has ever existed or is likely to.
Barry would be proud.


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

"Women's shelters reserved exclusively for Black and Asian are pitifully few"

Is this saying racially segregate the women's shelters?


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> "Women's shelters reserved exclusively for Black and Asian are pitifully few"
> 
> Is this saying racially segregate the women's shelters?


 
WTF what possible reason could there be to want to do that?


----------



## barney_pig (May 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> The Spark - good thing no other magazine with such a title has ever existed or is likely to.
> Barry would be proud.


To be frank it is a disgrace, even punk fanzines in the early eighties had better production values, and they were made by hand and felt tip.
 Some wanky art student bastard made this using photoshop and £1800 worth of iMac from daddies pocket.


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> To be frank it is a disgrace, even punk fanzines in the early eighties had better production values, and they were made by hand and felt tip.
> Some wanky art student bastard made this using photoshop and £1800 worth of iMac from daddies pocket.


 
Don't knock the articles. Rarely do the media ever refer to Thatcher as Thatcher.
No one ever called her Maggie Thatcher of course, it simply never happened at any point.





Thatcher chose to adopt her husband's name, it became her name. That her Central Office promoted posters with the nickname Maggie. This doesn't matter.


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> WTF what possible reason could there be to want to do that?


 
To organise an intersection easier.
Spare us your white outrage/Cry white tears to yourself etc etc.


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2013)

but what about a white woman who is muslim? or who is an immigrant, or bisexual or something? 

this whole idea is horrible!


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2013)

I know, we can pay an expert to decide who is white and who is coloured oppressed!


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but what about a white woman who is muslim? or who is an immigrant, or bisexual or something?
> 
> this whole idea is horrible!


 
This is derailment projection, frogwoman. If the idea needs critiquing bisexual Muslim immigrant women will critique it. Don't go inserting your (oppressive) white concern. All of us or none of us! University students are allies in the struggle of Muslim women against racism. Seeing as you prefer challenging racism amongst black and brown people or something, how about you sit down and have a session of silence for whites once, stop erasing bisexual Muslims voices. SMH.


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I know, we can pay an expert to decide who is white and who is coloured oppressed!


 
This is a dangerous game reflecting elements of white male computer privilege, critiquing ideas of anti-racism without doing anti-racism. How about you give your honky cash to someone who needs it like a Nigerian, ever thought of doing that?  Say honky and they start crying.


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> This is derailment projection, frogwoman. If the idea needs critiquing bisexual Muslim immigrant women will critique it. Don't go inserting your (oppressive) white concern. All of us or none of us! University students are allies in the struggle of Muslim women against racism. Seeing as you prefer challenging racism amongst black and brown people or something, how about you sit down and have a session of silence for whites once, stop erasing bisexual Muslims voices. SMH.


 
fuck off back into the ghetto then. no sense of a common strggle against patriarchy and capitalism. no sense of anything just splitting up into more and more "identity groups".


----------



## barney_pig (May 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I know, we can pay an expert to decide who is white and who is coloured oppressed!


A compulsory pass book with details of ones race, or perhaps a badge or star?


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> fuck off back into the ghetto then. no sense of a common strggle against patriarchy and capitalism. no sense of anything just splitting up into more and more "identity groups".


 
Don't use the word ghetto. It may once have been a Venetian word against Jews but that's over - unlike slavery from Africa that's still real, matters more than European antisemitism. Now 'ghetto' it's associated with black people. Why would black Asian people be in Britain if it wasn't for slavery! Get a clue.

Common struggle LOL! So much unexamined white female privilege it's unreal. Which class of people has more unemployed - white women or Asian women?
Your common unions with black token figures at the top, they just defend the jobs and conditions of existing women ie mostly white women, screw the Asian women who are unemployed looking after children.
SMDEYAH=Shaking my damn eyes and head.  Lay off the white Kool-Aid.


----------



## J Ed (May 13, 2013)

You are scarily good at this...


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2013)

where the fuck is the fuckin workers solidarity? where is the sense that there is more that we have in common that divides us? where is this? its so depressing.

sihhi if i was a victim of dv i'd want somewhere safe that i knew i would be safe from assault or an abusive partner i wouldn't give a shit about what race anyone was who was there. how can they think that's anyone's priority?


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

J Ed said:


> You are scarily good at this...


 
'I really need some condescension from straight white people telling me how good I am' - said no oppressed minority person ever.  Privileged people need to congratulate the oppressed at how good they are at identifying their oppression. Go think about what you're saying - in silence - without other white people to applaud you.


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> where the fuck is the fuckin workers solidarity? where is the sense that there is more that we have in common that divides us? where is this? its so depressing.


 
Honky solidarity. Where were the whites when Africans were being carted around the world like cattle? Where were the European unions when the immigrants did the dirty work in Germany's nuclear reactors without protection and are now dying of cancer? How well did unions fight racism in this country? Well, when unions were strongest in 1919 and you had the triple alliance and potential revolution, black sailors were being killed by servicemen. Go figure. 
The weaker honky unions get the more they pretend to be anti-racist. LOL! What a joke.

In fact, go weaponise your womanhood against your racism. Every time a man tries to grope your leg that's a fifth of what it's like being an immigrant (male or female, but mostly, female) all the time. You have zero lived experience. You can't know what it's like being ignored, condescended or ripped off by honky unions as a black woman.



> sihhi if i was a victim of dv i'd want somewhere safe that i knew i would be safe from assault or an abusive partner i wouldn't give a shit about what race anyone was who was there. how can they think that's anyone's priority?


 
It's to do with stuff like:
1 black women are more reluctant to involve the law and hence bureaucratically are denied access because there is no record of their sexual or domestic violence experience
2 immigrant children are perceived as more troublesome in shelters, which are mostly white-occupied, and in order not to disturb the neighbours not attract attention/fuss, are made to stay indoors when they would normally be outside. 
3 white women will make immigrant women feel uncomfortable by asking them how long they stayed with their partner

The answer apparently is separation, not anti-racist and anti-bureaucratic struggle.
Black only shelters will solve these problems and encourage women to escape.


----------



## Tom A (May 13, 2013)

Brainaddict said:


> wtf indeed.
> Intro that moralises about capitalism while explaining nothing and using alienating language? Check.
> Desire to position themselves correctly on an international issue about which people don't want to hear their opinions? Check.
> Confused exposition of distant historical event involving socialists in order to deliver a political message of little relevance to their audience? Check.
> ...


I am as clueless as everyone to what's needed to build a genuinely grassroots left-wing organisation of the working class, but the same old rehashed Trotskyist ideas just won't cut the mustard. The Left is still as much in its own bubble as it ever was, speaking it its own jargon which is fine if you are part of a subculture, but not so fine and dandy when you claim to be speaking for the working class.


----------



## Tom A (May 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Honky solidarity. Where were the whites when Africans were being carted around the world like cattle? Where were the European unions when the immigrants did the dirty work in Germany's nuclear reactors without protection and are now dying of cancer? How well did unions fight racism in this country? Well, when unions were strongest in 1919 and you had the triple alliance and potential revolution, black sailors were being killed by servicemen. Go figure.
> The weaker honky unions get the more they pretend to be anti-racist. LOL! What a joke.


 
Remember, as a white person you are responsible for every crime that every white person has ever committed against people of colour (and don't bring up how "RAAAAAY-CYST!!!" it is when people of colour are accused of every crime their race commits, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE RACISM, understand, honkey boy???) and need to express you eternal shame and apology for all the collective crimes of the white race, if you ever want to stand a chance of avoiding the wrath of the people of colour you still even today oppress, just by merely existing!


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2013)

Tom A said:


> Remember, as a white person you are responsible for every crime that every white person has ever committed against people of colour (and don't bring up how "RAAAAAY-CYST!!!" it is when people of colour are accused of every crime their race commits, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REVERSE RACISM, understand, honkey boy???) and need to express you eternal shame and apology for all the collective crimes of the white race, if you ever want to stand a chance of avoiding the wrath of the people of colour you still even today oppress, just by merely existing!


 

just on this point I've seen zionists recently go on about "gentile privilege", and taken to its logical conclusion yes the palestinians in the west bank or whatever are "oppressing" them. when youre in a the mindset of a thinking theres a race war or any other kind of war going on, and that what divides people is religion or race or ethnicity or sexuality or whatever, rather than class and the different economic circumstances within that class, with a point of view towards uniting people around a common goal rather than dividing them and pandering to separatism, it becomes easy for such language to become appropriated by the far-right of any type, in fact i would argue that this stuff is an absolute gift to the far-right, it accepts their perspective from an "anti-racist" point of view, it accepts that what divides people is race or religion rather than economic circumstances and what can bring them together is a struggle against "another race" whose "oppressing" them yes all of them.

i mean for fucks sake what do you call somebody who thinks its all right, not just understandable, not just excusable, but a good thing even, an empowering thing, to use racialised terms of abuse like honkey towards white people because "their race" is oppressed (ignoring class and gender differences etc within that "race")? its got to be a form of politics of the extreme right even if they don't realise it, and then you get to the whole point of deciding who's "white enough" to be accepted as part of that "race".


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2013)

but what do i know, i just need to check my privilege.


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2013)

sihhi said:


> Honky solidarity. Where were the whites when Africans were being carted around the world like cattle? Where were the European unions when the immigrants did the dirty work in Germany's nuclear reactors without protection and are now dying of cancer? How well did unions fight racism in this country? Well, when unions were strongest in 1919 and you had the triple alliance and potential revolution, black sailors were being killed by servicemen. Go figure.
> The weaker honky unions get the more they pretend to be anti-racist. LOL! What a joke.
> 
> In fact, go weaponise your womanhood against your racism. Every time a man tries to grope your leg that's a fifth of what it's like being an immigrant (male or female, but mostly, female) all the time. You have zero lived experience. You can't know what it's like being ignored, condescended or ripped off by honky unions as a black woman.
> ...


 
I am sure that a white woman percieved as being from a "troublesome" family with "unruly" kids, someone with a certain type of accent, a certain type of dress, a certain manner of speaking etc, would be viewed by some with a similar amount of suspicion.

Honestly if i had left my home after being raped, etc, having to stay in the same premises with people other races and religions wouldnt be my highest priority. While i think that having someone from for example, a similar religious community, to talk to and relate to, in those situations can be a positive thing, for example people from strict religious backgrounds (doesnt have to be minority religions either) may find it helpful to talk to someone from that religion who understands what they are going through, or gays and lesbians who have faced domestic violence, or men who have faced domestic violence, would probably find it really useful to talk to someone in the exact same position, I dont thin that the aim should be separatism or a political ideology, but helping the victims to get back on their feet again and provide a non judgemental area, and that means not trying to fit everything around a set of beliefs about race etc.

I think there is a place for for example services for someone whose english say is very limited, or comes from a really religious background at the risk of being completely disowned etc, and make them see that in that religion leaving their partner (it is usually the man but it could be the woman as well) isn't necessarily a sin against god, but i dont think these services should be emphasising difference but what they have in common if you see what I mean, the immediate priority should be to keep the victim safe rather than foisting their views on them. At the end of the day victims of DV and rape and sexual assault are not all the same but they face some of the same challenges, being disbelieved, a feeling of shame, financial issues, issues around safeguarding the children etc, regardless of where they're from or what their background is.


----------



## muscovyduck (May 13, 2013)

Tom A said:


> I am as clueless as everyone to what's needed to build a genuinely grassroots left-wing organisation of the working class, but the same old rehashed Trotskyist ideas just won't cut the mustard. The Left is still as much in its own bubble as it ever was, speaking it its own jargon which is fine if you are part of a subculture, but not so fine and dandy when you claim to be speaking for the working class.


You know what needs to happen? It's needs to start small, and _naturally_ get bigger over time. It can't just be a massive LOOK AT US campaign. Its main motive can't be growing. It would have to just help with making the world a better place, and spend time trying to fix things rather than spend time trying to grow and collect money. It'd have to be sustainable in the long term (with its politics mainly) with the numbers it has. It'd have to be patient, and the group would not mind about not getting its name out everywhere. At the same time, however, it couldn't just let Labour or the SWP hijack their work. It couldn't compromise politics at any point along the route - and it wouldn't have to, if the main motives in every situation is the politics and not growth.


----------



## sihhi (May 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I am sure that a white woman percieved as being from a "troublesome" family with "unruly" kids, someone with a certain type of accent, a certain type of dress, a certain manner of speaking etc, would be viewed by some with a similar amount of suspicion.


 
It's not the mother that's necessarily the issue it's the black children that invite the attention of the police when they are outside. Though why this would be better if it was all black is not wholly clear, perhaps police would know 'Aha that's the black women's shelter' and would be more honest when there are more black people and not just a few to victimise or pick on. 



> helping the victims to get back on their feet again and provide a non judgemental area, and that means not trying to fit everything around a set of beliefs about race etc.


 

Again white tears from you frogwoman check yr white privilege and check your family's too. It's not our responsibility to educate white families.

According to intersectionality because whites have no lived experience of black existence, the area where they are a majority - whether they like it or not - will, since they are "shitty human beings", be judgemental towards non-whites. And because women  need to be protected from feelings it's simply too fragile an environment they won't be able to have their wrongness shown the hell up, so it's better to keep them separate. 
If they live together the entitled white domestic violence survivors and workers/visiting counsellors will simply demand to know why the poor Asians didn't leave earlier, why their culture is so backward etc.



> I think there is a place for for example services for someone whose english say is very limited, or comes from a really religious background at the risk of being completely disowned etc, and make them see that in that religion leaving their partner (it is usually the man but it could be the woman as well) isn't necessarily a sin against god, but i dont think these services should be emphasising difference but what they have in common if you see what I mean, the immediate priority should be to keep the victim safe rather than foisting their views on them.


 

If their religion is that strong the minority women will simply not say anything or leave believing it to be a test or trial from god or fate. 'The fate of women' as many variations of Asian proverbs go. The theory is an all-Sikh (or whatever) shelter will ensure that Sikh women will be able to go there easily. However if the movement was at the stage of being able to impose so many shelters, it would also be able to ensure that the Asian women also received adult education and were strong and economically independent enough to resist coerced betrothals.

The question becomes how do you locate all the various shelters for all the various minorities. Just because you have a series of Sikh shelters in Southall and Harrow, doesn't mean Sikhs from elsewhere in more isolated (in race/ethnic terms) spots where DV is arguably more likely to occur will have easy access feel confident about taking action.

There's the problem of practicalities and extent. If you have an all Sikh one, an all Hindi, an all Bengali one, an all Urdu one then the various African groupings not to mention the 'whites' (Iranians, Turks and Lebanese might object) can complain and also demand their own facilities. It's OK, but it means that arguments for separation become harder to resist in other areas e.g. old age care and education - where there is already some separation in certain ways and places. 
It might also build up a backlash in rural areas or virtually all-white areas, assuming there is a movement to impose these shelters in the first place. 



> At the end of the day victims of DV and rape and sexual assault are not all the same but they face some of the same challenges, being disbelieved, a feeling of shame, financial issues, issues around safeguarding the children etc, regardless of where they're from or what their background is.


 
In general, I think most working-class immigrant groups are in favour of domestic violence telephone lines in every single language advertised as widely as possible but mixed provision with people aware of each other's languages/genders/cultures etc.

A wider problem is the home culture of immigrants take the new southern Chinese people working in and around eastern London. China the biggest country on earth still has no laws against rape within a marriage. In those circumstances the victim accepts the rape - it's not even a case of 'I want to leave, but where can I go, how will I survive, who will look after the children', it's just horrific steady brutalisation. Areas of rural eastern Turkey similarly were places beyond the reach of bourgeois law for all its ills and operated under clan chief rule ie women marry and stay married until their husband dies that's it, everyone farms for the chief landowner, any surplus you sell once a fortnight or a month. So if you grow up in this culture and then come back to Britain with your betrothed partner, speaking no English, limited usually primary school only education, either you're facing a lottery based on what your husband is like.


----------



## discokermit (May 13, 2013)

no way! a student magazine, by students, for students, turns out to be a bit shit! whodafuckinthunkit.


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2013)

> A wider problem is the home culture of immigrants take the new southern Chinese people working in and around eastern London. China the biggest country on earth still has no laws against rape within a marriage. In those circumstances the victim accepts the rape - it's not even a case of 'I want to leave, but where can I go, how will I survive, who will look after the children', it's just horrific steady brutalisation. Areas of rural eastern Turkey similarly were places beyond the reach of bourgeois law for all its ills and operated under clan chief rule ie women marry and stay married until their husband dies that's it, everyone farms for the chief landowner, any surplus you sell once a fortnight or a month. So if you grow up in this culture and then come back to Britain with your betrothed partner, speaking no English, limited usually primary school only education, either you're facing a lottery based on what your husband is like.


----------



## discokermit (May 14, 2013)

'kinnell! muscovyduck is on page two!

fair play.


----------



## cesare (May 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> 'kinnell! muscovyduck is on page two!
> 
> fair play.


----------



## Tom A (May 14, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> You know what needs to happen? It's needs to start small, and _naturally_ get bigger over time. It can't just be a massive LOOK AT US campaign. Its main motive can't be growing. It would have to just help with making the world a better place, and spend time trying to fix things rather than spend time trying to grow and collect money. It'd have to be sustainable in the long term (with its politics mainly) with the numbers it has. It'd have to be patient, and the group would not mind about not getting its name out everywhere. At the same time, however, it couldn't just let Labour or the SWP hijack their work.* It couldn't compromise politics at any point along the route - and it wouldn't have to, if the main motives in every situation is the politics and not growth.*


So not the Greens then.

Otherwise, I fully agree that there needs to be more action, and less words.


----------



## J Ed (May 14, 2013)

lol Peter Hain is speaking at Marxism


----------



## muscovyduck (May 14, 2013)

discokermit said:


> 'kinnell! muscovyduck is on page two!
> 
> fair play.


I was here before but I was lurking without an account.

I thought I'd go through and re-read it because I feel like I've learnt a lot since then and I'd see it all in a different way. Alas, I cba.


----------



## muscovyduck (May 14, 2013)

Tom A said:


> So not the Greens then.
> 
> Otherwise, I fully agree that there needs to be more action, and less words.


I haven't paid much attention to the Greens if I'm honest, I've always known of them being a small party (even when I was quite young) but recently I've just assumed they're not all that. Last time I was in Brighton there was a massive motorbike rally - that wasn't very green of them. I've also heard of them being anti-windfarm etc when it suits. I doubt I've ever heard the whole story but what with there not being a massive influx of members from the left vacuum, I just assume they're doomed to be a wishy-washy party for environmentalists in the same way Labour is for the working class.

I'm probably wrong. Anyway, my question is, why have you bolded that last bit? Is it because the Greens have compromised their politics more than expected?


----------



## Tom A (May 14, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> my question is, why have you bolded that last bit? Is it because the Greens have compromised their politics more than expected?


Well in Brighton they became part of a minority government in the local council last year, and then soon after decided to push forward a cuts budget, fobbing off the critics with the excuse that central government would have intervened if they didn't. Then, more recently, they are trying to push forward at £4000 pay cut for their binmen. This has lead to an interesting development, where Caroline Lucas and a lot of rank-and-filers are protesting against their own party, but then we all know how effective the Labour left have been when it comes to promoting their politics within their party.

However, it can now be said that the Greens have sold out their electorate, just like their counterparts did in Ireland and Germany.



> what with there not being a massive influx of members from the left vacuum, I just assume they're doomed to be a wishy-washy party for environmentalists


Well in the past I used to support the Greens, thinking of them as a breath of fresh air compared with the tired old rhetoric and ideology exposed by the vast majority of the left-of-Labour socialist organisations. However, with the Brighton betrayal (something I was worried would happen since voting Lib Dem in 2010 (I had an incumbent MP who seemed decent enough) and then watching on with horror at what I had voted for) I now realised that a lot of the critics were right all along, regarding the middle-class nature of their membership base and the absence of any class analysis to the problems.


----------



## muscovyduck (May 14, 2013)

Tom A said:


> Well in Brighton they became part of a minority government in the local council last year, and then soon after decided to push forward a cuts budget, fobbing off the critics with the excuse that central government would have intervened if they didn't. Then, more recently, they are trying to push forward at £4000 pay cut for their binmen. This has lead to an interesting development, where Caroline Lucas and a lot of rank-and-filers are protesting against their own party, but then we all know how effective the Labour left have been when it comes to promoting their politics within their party.
> 
> However, it can now be said that the Greens have sold out their electorate, just like their counterparts did in Ireland and Germany.
> 
> ...


 
Yep, that's what I suspected. If I'd been a couple of years older I'd have probably joined the Lib Dems and gone from there to the Greens and/or Occupy. I suspect most parties would end up how Labour and the Greens have if they ever got anywhere.

Not compromising politics and not riding every bandwagon seems to count as sectarianism to some people. Build a solid base around shared beliefs, politics, and democracy, don't poach people from other groups, do give your own members information on other groups in case they think they're suited to something else, no using complicated words for the sake of it, etc. That's probably the only way it'll work out for the best. Shakey alliances are doomed to fail.

Edit: That last bit followed on from my original point. Irrelevant to what we've ended up talking about but it's something I've never had the time to articulate before and I don't know where else to write it.


----------



## cesare (May 14, 2013)

What attracts you about Occupy, muscovyduck?


----------



## muscovyduck (May 14, 2013)

cesare said:


> What attracts you about Occupy, muscovyduck?


Well Occupy flared up when I had a lot of time off school due to ill health, which was also around the same time that I had taken some sort of control over my life. Reading into it (Which I suddenly had the time to do), I decided to follow some politics related Twitter accounts and take more interest in it. This lead to me actually getting involved with politics. It appealed to me because it didn't just go away after a 30 second interview on the BBC. It wasn't just for middle aged men and women. It seemed active and cool and glamorous and it appealed to my 15 year old self - there was a way in to 'activism' and I wasn't always going to be excluded for being younger and not in the know. 

Even now, as I know of its flaws and how it destroyed itself, I'm still reluctant to admit it won't flare up again. Some other good movements came out of it which have stayed around, and this encourages me to think that even if a group is doomed, something else might grow out of it.


----------



## Tom A (May 14, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Well Occupy flared up when I had a lot of time off school due to ill health, which was also around the same time that I had taken some sort of control over my life. Reading into it (Which I suddenly had the time to do), I decided to follow some politics related Twitter accounts and take more interest in it. This lead to me actually getting involved with politics. It appealed to me because it didn't just go away after a 30 second interview on the BBC. It wasn't just for middle aged men and women. It seemed active and cool and glamorous and it appealed to my 15 year old self - there was a way in to 'activism' and I wasn't always going to be excluded for being younger and not in the know.
> 
> Even now, as I know of its flaws and how it destroyed itself, I'm still reluctant to admit it won't flare up again. Some other good movements came out of it which have stayed around, and this encourages me to think that even if a group is doomed, something else might grow out of it.


I got excited when Occupy Wall Street first started, and seeing it spread to the UK, first to London, and then to other cities, including my own, Manchester. However its self-destruction has left me rather jaded, particularly since I know several people with first hand experience of fuckwittery, particularly in Manchester with its deficiency of democracy and it subsequently being overrun by wet liberals, conspiracy theorists, and freemen types. I do admit, however, this could also be said of a lot of other Occupy sites, particularly in the UK - The Occupy movement in the States, whilst not 100% without problems by any means, managed to keep its act together for longer.

The best we can hope for is all those whom wanted something good to come from it learn from the mistakes which lead to Occupy's downfall, and build on those experiences to build a more viable, democratic and effective movement.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Well Occupy flared up when I had a lot of time off school due to ill health, which was also around the same time that I had taken some sort of control over my life. Reading into it (Which I suddenly had the time to do), I decided to follow some politics related Twitter accounts and take more interest in it. This lead to me actually getting involved with politics. It appealed to me because it didn't just go away after a 30 second interview on the BBC. It wasn't just for middle aged men and women. It seemed active and cool and glamorous and it appealed to my 15 year old self - there was a way in to 'activism' and I wasn't always going to be excluded for being younger and not in the know.
> 
> Even now, as I know of its flaws and how it destroyed itself, I'm still reluctant to admit it won't flare up again. Some other good movements came out of it which have stayed around, and this encourages me to think that even if a group is doomed, something else might grow out of it.


 
good post.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2013)

sihhi said:


> It's not the mother that's necessarily the issue it's the black children that invite the attention of the police when they are outside. Though why this would be better if it was all black is not wholly clear, perhaps police would know 'Aha that's the black women's shelter' and would be more honest when there are more black people and not just a few to victimise or pick on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think separatism in terms of domestic violence provision etc can be a real problem. In the USA and to some extent in the UK in orthodox jewish communities there has been a problem with highly respected people within the community deliberately exaggerating the extent of anti-semitism in the outside world in an attempt to dissuade people from going to the police or social services, victims who have gone to the police have been absolutely vilified, their families threatened etc. basically for daring to disclose abuse and question the authority of these "religious leaders". 

I know it is the same in the catholic church as well, everything dealt with in house. Imagine if you had separate facilities just for catholics, well you'd be back to where we started in the 50s wouldn't you.

The interests of the people who have been victims of domestic violence should be paramount not the interests of identity groups.


----------



## sihhi (May 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think separatism in terms of domestic violence provision etc can be a real problem. In the USA and to some extent in the UK in orthodox jewish communities there has been a problem with highly respected people within the community deliberately exaggerating the extent of anti-semitism in the outside world in an attempt to dissuade people from going to the police or social services, victims who have gone to the police have been absolutely vilified, their families threatened etc. basically for daring to disclose abuse and question the authority of these "religious leaders".
> 
> I know it is the same in the catholic church as well, everything dealt with in house. Imagine if you had separate facilities just for catholics, well you'd be back to where we started in the 50s wouldn't you.
> 
> The interests of the people who have been victims of domestic violence should be paramount not the interests of identity groups.


 
I get what you are saying along the lines of this:



The argument from those demanding separate services is along the lines of the progressives from those communities lead the domestic violence shelters so there is no threat from reactionary religious or communal pressure.

Overall  we don't have enough free access general domestic violence shelters anyway for the working-class as a whole white or non-white. In 1975-6, just after the introduction of the equality acts, the Select Committee on Domestic Violence, in response to about a decade of organisation and a high point of demanding public services by trade union action and feminist protests, concluded iirc the government should aim for one family space for every 10,000 block of people as a reasonable target.

Over 35 years on, in Scotland the number of refuge/shelter spaces stands at one family space per 14,000 people, only partly mitigated by the Callaghan and Thatcher fudge of giving women who have experienced domestic violence 'priority' in housing assessments/applications as priority homeless people. What it means is that victims of dv lose out on any collective experience of overcoming the post-violence psychological problems, and are placed with ex-prisoner homeless people ex-drug addicts in anti-homeless B&Bs.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2013)

i think there should be some sort of separate advice facilities sihhi but with the aim not to separate people if you know what i mean.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2013)

that's exactly the documentary I was thinking of btw.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 14, 2013)

Internal Oppositional Blog appears (well, allegedly):
http://the-faultlines.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> can't believe I am immersing myself in all this, but this person is apparently based in my home town so may have a impact


 
He is a complete and utter fucking idiot. You really don't want to meet him, you'd hate him.


----------



## The39thStep (May 14, 2013)

J Ed said:


> lol Peter Hain is speaking at Marxism


 
Fed up with hearing about the Springboks


----------



## SLK (May 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Internal Oppositional Blog appears (well, allegedly):
> http://the-faultlines.blogspot.co.uk/


 
Do you think they're really still members? It's pretty vehement so I can't understand why they're still in other than to pull more people away.


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2013)

Looks like here the SWP are still players, they are very involved in the People's Assembly meeting, which imo is surprising.


----------



## J Ed (May 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> Looks like here the SWP are still players, they are very involved in the People's Assembly meeting, which imo is surprising.


 
Disappointing. I wonder how many others their being around puts off.


----------



## muscovyduck (May 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> Looks like here the SWP are still players, they are very involved in the People's Assembly meeting, which imo is surprising.


Yeah but the People's Assembly - that won't go anywhere will it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 15, 2013)

SLK said:


> Do you think they're really still members? It's pretty vehement so I can't understand why they're still in other than to pull more people away.


 
I suspect that they are still in, because the oppositionists who were talking about it on facebook didn't seem to know who it was. It could always be the CPGB fishing too.


----------



## leyton96 (May 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Internal Oppositional Blog appears (well, allegedly):
> http://the-faultlines.blogspot.co.uk/


 
That was a good laugh. Thanks for posting it.

This in particular made me chuckle



> in the faint, long-distant future (whisper it quietly), the possibility that we rather than the Socialist Party might provide the next General Secretary of one of the teaching unions.


 
There is more chance of the SWP producing the second coming of Jesus Christ than there is of one of their NEC members getting elected to the Gen Sec position in the NUT.

Their most high profile NEC member is widely regarded as a toxic buffoon, and that's just what the rest of the left think of him! If the SWP think he is Gen Sec material then their industrial department is even dafter than I'd suspected.

There other NEC member has a reputation for being competent and collegiate as far as swoppies go, but she just doesn't have the profile to carry a national election. In any case the individual above would never continence anyone else in the SWP NEC fraction getting the nod.

The SP getting elected is pretty unlikely too mind.

Edit - Fixed the font issues with the quote


----------



## leyton96 (May 15, 2013)

Bollox! Where's my quote gone?!?!

Anyway, this is the quote I'm referring to: "in the faint, long-distant future (whisper it quietly), the possibility that we rather than the Socialist Party might provide the next General Secretary of one of the teaching unions.


----------



## JHE (May 15, 2013)

It's there.  It's just, um, faint.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 15, 2013)

The Faultlines looks like a wind up to me - "revolutionary Marxists" rather than revoluntionary socialists - that sounds like a CPGB or summat phrase for a start, not SWP anyway.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The Faultlines looks like a wind up to me - "revolutionary Marxists" rather than revoluntionary socialists - that sounds like a CPGB or summat phrase for a start, not SWP anyway.


 
I was about to reply to that, saying why the fuck would anyone go to the trouble of setting up a blog and producing content for it just to wind up lefties.

Then I remembered that it was me who set up the PD blog and decided I should keep quiet on the subject


----------



## BK Double Stack (May 15, 2013)

The most obscure blog for "winding up lefties"--directed at a subset of a subset of a subset of the US left--http://patisdead.wordpress.com/ Although, the newspaper "Urgent!" can be enjoyed by many. Even if this faultlines thing is fake, the response it is getting from ISN crowd indicates they're expecting IDOOP people to raise their heads above water soon, and not all of them intend to be friendly.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 15, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> The most obscure blog for "winding up lefties"--directed at a subset of a subset of a subset of the US left


 
Who? Explain.


----------



## discokermit (May 15, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> In any case the individual above would never *continence* anyone else in the SWP NEC fraction getting the nod.


are you taking the piss?


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> This in particular made me chuckle
> There is more chance of the SWP producing the second coming of Jesus Christ than there is of one of their NEC members getting elected to the Gen Sec position in the NUT.
> 
> Their most high profile NEC member is widely regarded as a toxic buffoon, and that's just what the rest of the left think of him! If the SWP think he is Gen Sec material then their industrial department is even dafter than I'd suspected.


I think you're missing the 'joke' in there. It's an admission they have no chance of winning anything, except maybe a union position or two from the Millies. And the only union they have any strength in is the teachers one, cos they're that bourgeois.  It aint saying that they have any hope of winning it with their current cadre.


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The Faultlines looks like a wind up to me - "revolutionary Marxists" rather than revoluntionary socialists - that sounds like a CPGB or summat phrase for a start, not SWP anyway.


not CPGB, could be some other group, tho it actually rings very true to me (as in truly by people in the SWP)


----------



## BK Double Stack (May 16, 2013)

http://patisdead.wordpress.com/--made for leftists from Eastern Massachusetts in their late 20s / early 30s. There's like 20 of us. All inside jokes nobody could possibly enjoy. Except that "Urgent!" newspaper. That's good stuff.

I still think this fault lines thing, even if fake, represents something real: ex-IDOOP people still on the inside looking at the ISN on the outside. A merger with the elephant cemetary of SR could make them more or less attractive depending on who's watching.


----------



## tedsplitter (May 16, 2013)

All the people that I'm aware of who are involved with that Faultlines blog, are still in the SWP. No I won't name names!


----------



## Tom A (May 16, 2013)

tedsplitter said:


> All the people that I'm aware of who are involved with that Faultlines blog, are still in the SWP. No I won't name names!


Someone I know to be definitely an ex-swppie has just shared a post of that blog on his Facebook.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 16, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> the elephant cemetary of SR


----------



## Tom A (May 16, 2013)

http://internationalsocialistnetwor...-crisis/110-statement-on-the-fault-lines-blog



> The Fault Lines blog (http://the-faultlines.blogspot.co.uk/), set up by "a group of comrades in the SWP who opposed the leadership's handling of the crisis that enveloped the organisation", represents the third wave of opposition to the SWP Central Committee's disastrous course of action over the past six months. It further indicates that the crisis the leadership so desperately tried to claim was over is instead deepening.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 16, 2013)

Tom A said:


> http://internationalsocialistnetwor...-crisis/110-statement-on-the-fault-lines-blog


 
A nice bit of shit stirring from the ISN there. Should crank up the SWP leadership's paranoia another notch.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (May 18, 2013)

Not the worst thing NI. ISO wankers are so annoying its unbelievable. I've spent last week arguing with them and wish I butchersapron with me, identity politics coming out of their arses.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (May 18, 2013)

And yes I know we contributed to them butchers. But Jesus. They are just a different breed.


----------



## BK Double Stack (May 18, 2013)

Where are you arguing with the ISO? Did you mean ISN?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 18, 2013)

The remaining dissidents look like they are starting to move again. Here's a discussion document from Mike Gonzalez:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/141977026...achers-2?secret_password=2ecnhcy9zk0z2fgp8x8s

It's of interest less because of its argument and more because the tone it takes indicates that previous "soft" oppositionists are very hostile to the leadership.


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2013)

I sense a feeling of reality hitting them with the 2 waves of resignations and loss of students:



> Their position is now significantly weaker. We cannot claim, and now less than ever, dominance. That means that our method of working will have to change in recognition of that.


 
They are adjusting their approach because they are no longer number one in the left.


----------



## oskarsdrum (May 19, 2013)

have they split yet?


----------



## oskarsdrum (May 19, 2013)

anyway it looks like the game's almost up. seems that there are enough die hards to keep a presence going in London and a few other cities for a while yet, though! wonder when the next leadership bust-up will appear?


----------



## sihhi (May 19, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> have they split yet?


 
mutley is the poster to ask.


----------



## leyton96 (May 20, 2013)

Hillarious minutes from the latest ISN Steering Committee meeting http://www.internationalsocialistne...minutes/114-2013-05-13-steering-cttee-minutes

There's some real gems but this is by far the best 



> It was agreed we start from the position that everything we say is for everyone in the organisation to hear, if not it has to be raised and agreed.
> It was pointed out that sometimes the minutes could be too exhaustive. Keith F pointed out that it would be difficult, for instance to call Alex Callinicos a wanker on the Steering Committee without it being made public in the minutes.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The remaining dissidents look like they are starting to move again. Here's a discussion document from Mike Gonzalez:
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/141977026...achers-2?secret_password=2ecnhcy9zk0z2fgp8x8s
> 
> It's of interest less because of its argument and more because the tone it takes indicates that previous "soft" oppositionists are very hostile to the leadership.


This piece is very good. It outlines the idea that he party is key and superior to the class in short simple terms.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Hillarious minutes from the latest ISN Steering Committee meeting http://www.internationalsocialistne...minutes/114-2013-05-13-steering-cttee-minutes
> 
> There's some real gems but this is by far the best


 

comedy gold


----------



## barney_pig (May 20, 2013)

It was pointed out that sometimes the minutes could be too exhaustive. Keith F pointed out that it would be difficult, for instance to call Alex Callinicos a wanker on the Steering Committee without it being made public in the minutes.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 21, 2013)

A lament, comparing today's SWP to the, alleged, good old days:
http://the-faultlines.blogspot.ie/2013/05/losing-aura-of-competence.html


----------



## audiotech (May 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A lament, comparing today's SWP to the, alleged, good old days:
> http://the-faultlines.blogspot.ie/2013/05/losing-aura-of-competence.html


 
If you had been around in 1978 at the annual rally in Skegness of that year the queue for the bar was non existent. It did improve in later years, however, for those with large elbows. And don't forget that when IS was formed they had a total of around 33 members nationally.


----------



## emanymton (May 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A lament, comparing today's SWP to the, alleged, good old days:
> http://the-faultlines.blogspot.ie/2013/05/losing-aura-of-competence.html


1 in 4 members is a manual worker


----------



## dominion (May 21, 2013)

Tommy Sheridan to speak at Marxism......... along with Jane Aitchison (not known outside PCS but purged from DWP Group Presidency after leaving the Socialist Party in a bit of a huff).


----------



## audiotech (May 21, 2013)

Is Nigel bigging his sect up with that above post one wonders.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> 1 in 4 members is a manual worker


 
the end bit doesn't make much sense as it also talks about NATFHE and NUPE in the same sentence as if they're current unions...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 21, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Is Nigel bigging his sect up with that above post one wonders.


I'm afraid that would be too subtle for me.


----------



## leyton96 (May 21, 2013)

dominion said:


> Tommy Sheridan to speak at Marxism......... along with Jane Aitchison (not known outside PCS but purged from DWP Group Presidency after leaving the Socialist Party in a bit of a huff).


 
That's a perfectly sensible way of putting it if by 'purged' you mean lost the Left Unity (PCS broad left) election.


----------



## barney_pig (May 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> 1 in 4 members is a manual worker


This is a quote from a Kimberly article about labour years back


----------



## emanymton (May 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> This is a quote from a Kimberly article about labour years back


I thought it might be referring to labour but the context certainly implies the SWP, a very messy paragraph that one.


----------



## sihhi (May 21, 2013)

Has anyone been following Jack Conrad podcasts and the Weekly Worker?

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/podcasts/may-19-2013-special-report-on-left-unity-and-swp

Heavy space devoted 3 documents (some discussed above)

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-opposition-signs-of-life

with an almost wilfully mangled picture of Ian Birchall:


----------



## sihhi (May 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I thought it might be referring to labour but the context certainly implies the SWP, a very messy paragraph that one.


 
Just to be clear, he is saying 1992 Kinnockist Labour is like the 2012 SWP in terms of composition:



> Fast forward 20 years and it is a painful exercise to ask how much of Kimber’s polemic now applies to us: “Nor is the party just older. Its class base has shifted. A party which was once composed largely of workers is now dominated by well-intentioned members of the new middle class. They are committed to Labour ideas, but they are not in the main rooted in the workplaces and housing where most working class people, and most Labour voters, spend their time. Just one in four members are manual workers. Only 17 percent live in council houses compared with 25 percent of the whole population and 39 percent of Labour voters. There are as many Labour members in the lecturers’ union NATFHE (membership 70,000) as there are members in the public employees’ NUPE section of the UNISON union (membership 580,000)…”


----------



## Red Cat (May 22, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I thought it might be referring to labour but the context certainly implies the SWP, a very messy paragraph that one.


 
There are speech marks indicting it is a quote, it's just that the piece invites skimming rather than careful reading.


----------



## articul8 (May 22, 2013)

sihhi said:


> with an almost wilfully mangled picture of Ian Birchall:


 
Looks like he's been taken in by Yewtree


----------



## leyton96 (May 22, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Looks like he's been taken in by Yewtree


 
You really are vile aren't you?


----------



## articul8 (May 22, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> You really are vile aren't you?


No, not really *I don't really think Birchall is a sex criminal*


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 22, 2013)

A bit unnecessary, don't you think articul8?

Meanwhile, the ISN continue to butter up the faultlines people:
internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/ideas-and-arguments/organisation/swp-crisis/117-jules-alford-there-are-two-swp-oppositionsfaul


----------



## sihhi (May 22, 2013)

Link messed up Nigel.

Here


Good central point on the functioning of the SWP:



> In the top-down internal regime of the SWP the only significant debate allowed is the one that takes place among the CC and these comrades are regarded as indispensable, as in the case of 'Comrade Delta'. So ‘leadership’ becomes a sinecure rather than something that is constantly contested and renewed and as the full-timers function as a transmission belt for the CC’s directives, the party becomes ossified and sectarian. This arrogance inevitably alienates those we worked alongside as happened in Stop the War, Respect and Unite Against Fascism. Gonzalez restates the need for a revolutionary politics that is the product of a culture of controversy and debate, of “permanent and active collaboration among all its members” including the newest party members.


 
But where will the newest party members come from. I see no one particularly joining although there is a sense of hyper activity at all costs within the branches.


----------



## SLK (May 24, 2013)

Marxism really is sparse and the Hain rumours are true:
http://marxismfestival.org.uk/downloads/marxism-2013-timetable.pdf

If I'm not wrong, no big venues at all.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 24, 2013)

Ian Hodsons a nice guy never set the world alight though


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

wtf is Hicks doing on there. Samir Amin is a good catch but usually someone they would not have given his approach. I wouldn't bet your house on either of them being there come the (glorious) day. Other than that..tumbleweed.

And that it a terribly designed program - like some hideous WOMAD thing.


----------



## barney_pig (May 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> wtf is Hicks doing on there. Samir Amin is a good catch but usually someone they would not have given his approach. I wouldn't bet your house on either of them being there come the (glorious) day. Other than that..tumbleweed.
> 
> And that it a terribly designed program - like some hideous WOMAD thing.


Even womad has better music than the 'cultural' events


----------



## belboid (May 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> wtf is Hicks doing on there.


quid pro quo - they supported him, so...

Interesting that all the debates seem to be between their own members


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

belboid said:


> quid pro quo - they supported him, so...
> 
> Interesting that all the debates seem to be between their own members


Nasty business that politics - before the election he was at war with them.


----------



## belboid (May 24, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Even womad has better music than the 'cultural' events


no Martin Smith playing jazz, for some reason.

The Will Kauffman Woody Guthrie thing is quite good


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

Keeping a bit quiet about Mark Thomas appearing. I wonder if that is at his request.


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2013)

belboid said:


> The Will Kauffman Woody Guthrie thing is quite good


it is good. surprised to see him there actually, he's pretty sound politically - i'll have a word and make sure he's aware of the issues the SWP have been having when i see him next.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> Marxism really is sparse and the Hain rumours are true:
> http://marxismfestival.org.uk/downloads/marxism-2013-timetable.pdf
> 
> If I'm not wrong, no big venues at all.


I think you are wrong. They have gone back to The Institute and ULU this year, Logan and Jeffery if I remember rightly are both big. I won't be going though so it doesn't matter to me.

Didn't notice any meetings led by 'Delta'. Perhaps they are worried he might provoke a negative response.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> it is good. surprised to see him there actually, he's pretty sound politically - i'll have a word and make sure he's aware of the issues the SWP have been having when i see him next.


Nice one.


----------



## SLK (May 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Keeping a bit quiet about Mark Thomas appearing. I wonder if that is at his request.


 

There is a long standing party hack named Mark Thomas. It's not the famous one is it? The famous one last did Marxism in about 94 I think.


----------



## SLK (May 24, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I think you are wrong. They have gone back to The Institute and ULU this year, Logan and Jeffery if I remember rightly are both big. I won't be going though so it doesn't matter to me.
> 
> Didn't notice any meetings led by 'Delta'. Perhaps they are worried he might provoke a negative response.


 

Yes, I mis-read the timetable. The Logan Hall is huge.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> There is a long standing party hack named Mark Thomas. It's not the famous one is it? The famous one last did Marxism in about 94 I think.


That sounds more likely.


----------



## barney_pig (May 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Keeping a bit quiet about Mark Thomas appearing. I wonder if that is at his request.


Isn't there a swap mark Thomas, as well as the more famous lefty jokesmith?
Slk beat me to it.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Isn't there a swap mark Thomas, as well as the more famous lefty jokesmith?


Yep, i think that would explain it.


----------



## belboid (May 24, 2013)

killer b said:


> it is good. surprised to see him there actually, he's pretty sound politically - i'll have a word and make sure he's aware of the issues the SWP have been having when i see him next.


I'd be amazed if he didn't know already, swappies seem to have been central to promoting a lot of his shows/talks, so he must have some idea.  Good luck tho!


----------



## killer b (May 24, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'd be amazed if he didn't know already, swappies seem to have been central to promoting a lot of his shows/talks, so he must have some idea. Good luck tho!


probably, although its easy to forget we do reside in something of a bubble here. best to make sure though.


----------



## treelover (May 24, 2013)

the young SWP members seem to be 'marketing' it as a festival..


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 24, 2013)

treelover said:


> the young SWP members seem to be 'marketing' it as a festival..


 
That's how it's always been advertised though isn't it? As long as I can remember anyway.


----------



## Tom A (May 24, 2013)

Do any feminist groups plan any anti-rape apologist protests at Marxism, or do would they rather not draw attention to it and allow it to wither on the vine?


----------



## belboid (May 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's how it's always been advertised though isn't it? As long as I can remember anyway.


yeah, for more than twenty years at a minimum.

and they dont have any 'young members' any more


----------



## J Ed (May 24, 2013)

There are a couple of younger people trying to flog tickets to Marxism on campus at Sheffield Uni, I don't think they are students from around here though.

Never saw them on the stall before a couple weeks ago.


----------



## emanymton (May 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> There is a long standing party hack named Mark Thomas. It's not the famous one is it? The famous one last did Marxism in about 94 I think.


Slightly latter than that as I remember seeing him there, but not for a good few years. When I was a member it was customary to point out that it is not Mark Thomas.

Did i miss it or is Smith not speaking? A small amount of self awareness being shown there.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Slightly latter than that as I remember seeing him there, but not for a good few years. When I was a member it was customary to point out that it is not Mark Thomas.
> 
> Did i miss it or is Smith not speaking? A small amount of self awareness being shown there.


Smith is not speaking as I pointed out earlier. I wonder if he will even dare show his face in the bar, the canteen, or Bookmarks. Handy as he is with his fists, he will need a bodyguard.


----------



## emanymton (May 24, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Smith is not speaking as I pointed out earlier. I wonder if he will even dare show his face in the bar, the canteen, or Bookmarks. Handy as he is with his fists, he will need a bodyguard.


So you did, and I am wondering the same.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Smith is not speaking as I pointed out earlier. I wonder if he will even dare show his face in the bar, the canteen, or Bookmarks. Handy as he is with his fists, he will need a bodyguard.


No he won't.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No he won't.


Why not?


----------



## emanymton (May 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No he won't.


I assume you mean the bodyguard bit, in which case you are right.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

That is what i meant.


----------



## Tom A (May 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> There is a long standing party hack named Mark Thomas. It's not the famous one is it? The famous one last did Marxism in about 94 I think.


I think the famous Mark Thomas may have long left the SWP, unless I'm getting confused with Mark Steel.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Why not?


Are you serious? The only people going here are those who support him. Who gave him standing ovation. No one will be there to attack him. That's why.


----------



## emanymton (May 24, 2013)

Tom A said:


> I think the famous Mark Thomas may have long left the SWP, unless I'm getting confused with Mark Steel.


You are, Thomas was never a member.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you serious? The only people going here are those who support him. Who gave him standing ovation. No one will be there to attack him. That's why.


I do hope you under-rate the anger of many - especially women, who have had their party taken from them; they will buy tickets maybe just for individual sessions and the party will sell them because they need the money.


----------



## butchersapron (May 24, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I do hope you under-rate the anger of many - especially women, who have had their party taken from them; they will buy tickets maybe just for individual sessions and the party will sell them because they need the money.


Dream world.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (May 24, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Smith is not speaking as I pointed out earlier. I wonder if he will even dare show his face in the bar, the canteen, or Bookmarks. Handy as he is with his fists, he will need a bodyguard.


Would be interesting to see if he has the bare faced cheek to turn up, might have to borrow my sister's hot heels & use a few martial arts moves


----------



## audiotech (May 25, 2013)

There's a number of women I recognise the names of and have known personally in the past on this years timetable, who would gladly tear 'Delta' limb from limb given the opportunity.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2013)

audiotech said:


> There's a number of women I recognise the names of and have known personally in the past on this years timetable, who would gladly tear 'Delta' limb from limb given the opportunity.


Who? And why are they appearing here? Are you going to tell them not to?


----------



## audiotech (May 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Who? And why are they appearing here? Are you going to tell them not to?


 
I'm not going to name them here obviously. I suspect they're there to try and keep the party on the road so to speak, having been members for some decades. I met one of this years speakers just before the 'Delta' debacle broke and I haven't spoken to her since. The others I have had no contact with in many years and don't have any contact information to get in touch with them anyway, even if I wanted to, which I don't.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2013)

OK


----------



## discokermit (May 25, 2013)

a lot of the opposition left inside the swp will still be going to marxism.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2013)

If they're not there to disrupt then what are they there for?


----------



## discokermit (May 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If they're not there to disrupt then what are they there for?


meet up, confer, make plans for the next conference.
i expect there will be quite a few arguments from the floor.


----------



## butchersapron (May 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> meet up, confer, make plans for the next conference.
> i expect there will be quite a few arguments from the floor.


Well, i hope so, because they need to make it known. You're better placed than me to judge this.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> The interests of the people who have been victims of domestic violence should be paramount not the interests of identity groups.


I'm pretty sure I remember someone who worked with victims of domestic violence defending specific ethic shelters on here precisely for this reason. 

IIRC they claimed that having BME shelters did help BME victims of DV. Now like you I have some problems with shelters organised for ethic groups and I think they will only entrench identity politics even more, but *if *they do encourage DV victims for ethnic groups to seek help (more so than multi-racial shelters) then I think that they have to be supported.


----------



## frogwoman (May 25, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm pretty sure I remember someone who worked with victims of domestic violence defending specific ethic shelters on here precisely for this reason.
> 
> IIRC they claimed that having BME shelters did help BME victims of DV. Now like you I have some problems with shelters organised for ethic groups and I think they will only entrench identity politics even more, but *if *they do encourage DV victims for ethnic groups to seek help (more so than multi-racial shelters) then I think that they have to be supported.


 
i think separate facilities etc do sometimes have a use because it can help to speak to people who understand and have been through the exact same thing, and i think i said that in my previous post but the aim should be to help people through the trauma surely? and deliberately encouraging separatism might actually be worse for some victims?


----------



## Oisin123 (May 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> meet up, confer, make plans for the next conference.
> i expect there will be quite a few arguments from the floor.


It's a hard call for SWP oppositionists whether to go to take a speaking platform at Marxism or not. Those going hope to use the event to get some arguments going. Mike Gonzalez, for example, has made his position pretty clear. I'm told that Paul Le Blanc is going as a critical voice. Those against taking invitations are concerned that whether you get a chance to raise the various arguments that arise from the rape allegation or not (and how will you get a few blows in if you are speaking on an unrelated topic?), you might end up being associated with the current CC. I think it significant that (unless I've missed it), Eamonn McCann is not on the program. Personally, I think it a good idea to attend, pick key meetings like Molyneux and the 'real' IS tradition and steam in hard there. But NOT to be an invited speaker this year.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 25, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> It's a hard call for SWP oppositionists whether to go to take a speaking platform at Marxism or not. Those going hope to use the event to get some arguments going. Mike Gonzalez, for example, has made his position pretty clear. I'm told that Paul Le Blanc is going as a critical voice. Those against taking invitations are concerned that whether you get a chance to raise the various arguments that arise from the rape allegation or not (and how will you get a few blows in if you are speaking on an unrelated topic?), you might end up being associated with the current CC. I think it significant that (unless I've missed it), Eamonn McCann is not on the program. Personally, I think it a good idea to attend, pick key meetings like Molyneux and the 'real' IS tradition and steam in hard there. But NOT to be an invited speaker this year.


 
Will there be the usual Irish delegation going over? If so, it will be interesting to see if any of the Irish lot weigh in on issues of controversy.


----------



## barney_pig (May 25, 2013)

Is there a prayer room?


----------



## dominion (May 26, 2013)

Probably wish they had one.....


----------



## The39thStep (May 26, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Is there a prayer room?


 
next door to the wing room at the airport


----------



## audiotech (May 28, 2013)

A few party hacks I know now all seem to be harking back to times gone by and mentioning the likes of Lewisham, strikes of old, what they did on the streets in 19whatever. Clearly designed to rally the younger, newer members (those who've stayed signed up for now) and themselves I expect, to not think about recent events and how its all gone pear shaped. A bunker mentality for sure.

The Paris guy who was expelled is not happy with the way he's been treated lately. Ostracised, as is usual for expellees. He friended me on facebook, so I've invited him to sign up here. There is life after the party.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 28, 2013)

ostracised where? he was ostracised in the SWP for years


----------



## audiotech (May 28, 2013)

Where he is now. Ostracised whilst being a member of group takes skill and dedication.


----------



## flypanam (May 28, 2013)

ISN?


----------



## audiotech (May 28, 2013)

No. A joint thing. That's all I'm saying on the subject.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 28, 2013)

eh? he is in the ISN though... and i'm not sure where else


----------



## emanymton (May 29, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> eh? he is in the ISN though... and i'm not sure where else


And you don't think the ISN and SWP might end up working together in the same campaigns?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 29, 2013)

Last Friday I spoke to a long time SWP member, who I haven't seen for years and years; in the past he has always been happy to defend the party against all criticism.

Unsurprisingly, I had him down as a super loyalist and so was encouraged when he told me that he had resigned - as he put it from the party not from being active - and that from his perspective those who are still in are 'only the 50 something men'.

He had subsequently been approached by the Socialist Party as a potential recruit; but he hadn't been convinced by what he heard of their disputes procedures when he enquired about them.

He seemed quite happy not to be in a party...which surprised me given his decades long commitment to the SWP and its particular brand of Leninism.

What do I take from all this?

If the SWP has lost people like this, and lost them so completely, then it is curtains for them; long drawn out curtains certainly, but it is over in any meaningful sense.

If a long time Leninist can get to grips with life outside 'the party' (whichever party that is) then there are a whole layer of people out there, with skill and experience to draw on, who can usefully contribute to a pro-working class politics; that doesn't mean that they necessarily will but there is a potential there.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (May 29, 2013)

wish people didn't use terms like 'layers' too mechanical, etc

hope you don't mind that comment, like your posts.


----------



## treelover (May 29, 2013)

Btw, did he, the SWP guy, show any contrition for the damage the SWP has done to progressive politics?


----------



## manny-p (May 29, 2013)

Has Peter Hain speaking at Marxism this year been mentioned? Apologies if so. But what a move by the SWP what were they thinking.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 29, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Has Peter Hain speaking at Marxism this year been mentioned? Apologies if so. But what a move by the SWP what were they thinking.


He is talking about South Africa and his part in fighting apartheid there. He was not a NewLabour/blue labour robot in those days. He was a member of the Liberal Party then and known as a 'radical'. The SWP in their desperation to get speakers have gone into nostalgia for the 70s mode. Hain as a neoliberal economics supporter will be so out of place at Marxism. I would think that most of the young punters there will not even know about his past and be horrified that such an Establishment figure should be speaking.


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2013)

Hain has just made a film about Marikana - that's what he is speaking about, not his anti-apartheid activities. And the SWP's Peter Alexander has just helped edit a book published by Bookmarks on the same subject.


----------



## killer b (May 29, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> most of the young punters


all three of them?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 29, 2013)

treelover said:


> Btw, did he, the SWP guy, show any contrition for the damage the SWP has done to progressive politics?


 
No, and I think that would be expecting a bit much as part of a chance meeting on a railway station. He was quite obviously disappointed and angry, and I wasn't there to gloat or points score.

Also, if you prefer, substitute the word bunch for layer.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## manny-p (May 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Hain has just made a film about Marikana - that's what he is speaking about, not his anti-apartheid activities. And the SWP's Peter Alexander has just helped edit a book published by Bookmarks on the same subject.


 
Ok. But I was thinking people might be appalled that an ex MP who voted for the Iraq war and voted against a public enquiry into the war is coming. Has no one mentioned this? The guy has got blood on his hands.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 29, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Ok. But I was thinking people might be appalled that an ex MP who voted for the Iraq war and voted against a public enquiry into the war is coming. Has no one mentioned this? The guy has got blood on his hands.


He is still currently MP for Neath.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 29, 2013)

emanymton said:


> And you don't think the ISN and SWP might end up working together in the same campaigns?


 

i just don't get what is actually being said there, or why it's all smoke and mirrors. i can't really see how the SWP could be making life harder for him now than when he was still in.




			
				Hocus Eye said:
			
		

> He is talking about South Africa and his part in fighting apartheid there. He was not a NewLabour/blue labour robot in those days. He was a member of the Liberal Party then and known as a 'radical'


 
Hain is also a longstanding supporter of UAF, and one of the SWP's big 'connections' in certain political circles. at the closing rally of Marxism one year, Delta actually spoke about being briefed with info regarding the QT UAF demo in Hain's office iirc, so i think the party connections have some history.


----------



## belboid (May 29, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i just don't get what is actually being said there, or why it's all smoke and mirrors. i can't really see how the SWP could be making life harder for him now than when he was still in.
> 
> 
> 
> Hain is also a longstanding supporter of UAF, and one of the SWP's big 'connections' in certain political circles. at the closing rally of Marxism one year, Delta actually spoke about being briefed with info regarding the QT UAF demo in Hain's office iirc, so i think the party connections have some history.


more than 'some' history. Hain was one of the original ANL signatories back in the seventies, and one of its most prominent(non-SWP) campaignes. He joined again on the relaunch, iirr. He used to speak at meetings, in anti-nazi & SA stuff, but was allowed to drift off when the party started being able to get actual South Africans along to speak.  He's not been invited back earlier, most likely due to his support for the war.


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2013)

manny-p said:


> Ok. But I was thinking people might be appalled that an ex MP who voted for the Iraq war and voted against a public enquiry into the war is coming. Has no one mentioned this? The guy has got blood on his hands.


 
Of course they have and of course he has. My point was to put straight what he was talking about and to suggest that both sides are more than happy to turn blind eyes to things if it benefits them.


----------



## butchersapron (May 29, 2013)

belboid said:


> more than 'some' history. Hain was one of the original ANL signatories back in the seventies, and one of its most prominent(non-SWP) campaignes. He joined again on the relaunch, iirr. He used to speak at meetings, in anti-nazi & SA stuff, but was allowed to drift off when the party started being able to get actual South Africans along to speak. He's not been invited back earlier, most likely due to his support for the war.


 
He was the first chair of the ANL and the SWP/groups *in* to some serious labour money and professional skills. I wonder why, at a time the anti-edl stuff is all they have and their resources are disintegrating around them, they would try and resurrect these profitable links and mainstream connections.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 29, 2013)

they've maintained their links with Hain's office throughout tbf... my theory is just that they're absolutely desperate for speakers more than anything


----------



## belboid (May 29, 2013)

that is one of the more interesting looking meetings, tbh.  Certainly more interesting than ones by such big name speakers as, uhh, Joseph Choonara or Sally Campbell. 

& is it just me, or is the Speakers page now completely (Paul Le) blank?  http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/speakers.htm


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 29, 2013)

belboid said:


> that is one of the more interesting looking meetings, tbh. Certainly more interesting than ones by such big name speakers as, uhh, Joseph Choonara or Sally Campbell.
> 
> & is it just me, or is the Speakers page now completely (Paul Le) blank? http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/speakers.htm


 
It's not just you.


----------



## barney_pig (May 29, 2013)

"Weyman Bennett, joint National Secretary of Unite Against Fascism (pc) will speak on

From the EDL to BNP: How do we stop fascism today?"
PC? It's almost as if they are pretending the UAF is an independent organisation


----------



## KeeperofDragons (May 29, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Will there be the usual Irish delegation going over? If so, it will be interesting to see if any of the Irish lot weigh in on issues of controversy.


 I'll keep my ears open and I'll look out for the Irish paper though I usually do grab a copy if I spot one.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (May 29, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> "Weyman Bennett, joint National Secretary of Unite Against Fascism (pc) will speak on
> 
> From the EDL to BNP: How do we stop fascism today?"
> PC? It's almost as if they are pretending the UAF is an independent organisation


 I think it would be better for them if they did split off completely - better for the fight against fascism if they make it clear that they are no part of the SWP.


----------



## discokermit (May 31, 2013)

interesting bit by ian birchall in the review, reply to callinicos on leninism, http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12330


----------



## sihhi (May 31, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I think it would be better for them if they did split off completely - better for the fight against fascism if they make it clear that they are no part of the SWP.


 
How can they when the purpose of the UAF is to channel the young to the SWP.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jun 1, 2013)

Did someone already comment on this? The opening page advert for Marxism 2013: last year's opening rally with an inspiring speaker about one hour in. http://marxismfestival.org.uk/


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

Note he's introduced as "an industrial organiser". _An_. Like he's Big Bill Haywood or something.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 1, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I think it would be better for them if they did split off completely - better for the fight against fascism if they make it clear that they are no part of the SWP.


 
In what way?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

And who?


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 1, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Did someone already comment on this? The opening page advert for Marxism 2013: last year's opening rally with an inspiring speaker about one hour in. http://marxismfestival.org.uk/


I am surprised anyone had the commitment to listen that long to that


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 1, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Last Friday I spoke to a long time SWP member, who I haven't seen for years and years; in the past he has always been happy to defend the party against all criticism.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, I had him down as a super loyalist and so was encouraged when he told me that he had resigned - as he put it from the party not from being active - and that from his perspective those who are still in are 'only the 50 something men'.
> 
> ...


Well I hope they do get involved, but if past experience is anything to go by, I doubt it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

Oh god, here we go.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> Btw, did he, the SWP guy, show any contrition for the damage the SWP has done to progressive politics?


 he did three Hail Mary's.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, here we go.


 :-*


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 1, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> "Weyman Bennett, joint National Secretary of Unite Against Fascism (pc) will speak on
> 
> From the EDL to BNP: How do we stop fascism today?"
> PC? It's almost as if they are pretending the UAF is an independent organisation


pretending?


----------



## Firky (Jun 1, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I am surprised anyone had the commitment to listen that long to that


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 1, 2013)

sihhi said:


> How can they when the purpose of the UAF is to channel the young to the SWP.


I don't think young people really want to be part of a party they see as out of touch


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I don't think young people really want to be part of a party they see as out of touch


 
So what people are we on about - who is going to declare independence here?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So what people are we on about - who is going to declare independence here?


Young people & they are the ones that will declare independence & I hope they do so - us oldies have made a complete fuck up of things


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

They aren't running UAF though. The old people are. Who is going to declare UDI?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 1, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> In what way?


Not being associated with a party that can treat abused women abominably & I say that as a member of the SWP though the way things are going not for much longer, I'm only hanging till I see how they deal with any questions that come up at marxism this year & I suspect I'm not the only one, I think a lot of young people have already voted with their feet so to speak.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They aren't running UAF though. The old people are. Who is going to declare UDI?


If they don't get new members they will stagnate and become much more irrelevant, much as the SWP is becoming, without new ideas there is no growth and the old guard will look out of touch. When you are perceived as out of touch that is what you will eventually become


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 1, 2013)

Can't see how that would make  'the fight against fascism' any better.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> If they don't get new members they will stagnate and become much more irrelevant, much as the SWP is becoming, without new ideas there is no growth and the old guard will look out of touch. When you are perceived as out of touch that is what you will eventually become


 
Yes, but who in UAF do you think should - or could - declare UDI? That was what you suggested should happen.


----------



## SLK (Jun 1, 2013)

It was interesting watching leading members of the SWP today. The Prof - carrying the Financial Times but staying out of the way. Charlie Kimber looked lost but like he wanted to be in charge - explained to the crowd in his posh voice that the BNP wanted to march to here so we were staying here to stop them marching to here - about 5 minutes before the crowd went to confront the BNP. Esme Choonara stayed out of the way but was on her phone a lot. Michael Bradley ran around a lot and only spoke to anyone by pulling them to one side and being obviously secretive. Jo Cardwell walking around a lot. I ignored her when she recognised me and smiled as I really disliked her as a member. Paul Holborow also stayed out of the way. Hannah Dee got involved a lot.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 1, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Can't see how that would make 'the fight against fascism' any better.


It won't and that's the problem


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, but who in UAF do you think should - or could - declare UDI? That was what you suggested should happen.


The rank and file should but I think the most likely scenario is people will let their membership lapse, though they will likely go to demos against the fascists more locally, they may be less likely to remain members.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> The rank and file should but I think the most likely scenario is people will let their membership lapse, though they will likely go to demos against the fascists more locally


 
There is no rank and file ffs. There is no membership. wtf do you think the UAF is? You'e in the bloody party that runs it. What on earth have they told you that it is?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is no rank and file ffs. There is no membership. wtf do you think the UAF is? You'e in the bloody party that runs it. What on earth have they told you that it is?


There is a membership & I was a paid up member until I was put on short-time at & had to cut down on my outgoings so my membership lapsed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 1, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> There is a membership & I was a paid up member until I was put on short-time at & had to cut down on my outgoings so my membership lapsed.


 
No, there is a way that you pay money. That's it.


----------



## treelover (Jun 2, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> There is a membership & I was a paid up member until I was put on short-time at & had to cut down on my outgoings so my membership lapsed.


 
So you had to pay subs to the SWP and to UAF?, what a racket...


----------



## emanymton (Jun 2, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is no rank and file ffs. There is no membership. wtf do you think the UAF is? You'e in the bloody party that runs it. What on earth have they told you that it is?


It had a bit more independence when it first started I think. And I think there are a few areas were it has a little bit it of a life of its own, but not in any significant way.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 2, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It had a bit more independence when it first started I think. And I think there are a few areas were it has a little bit it of a life of its own, but not in any significant way.


 
I'd be interested in this why did UAF have independence before but no longer?


----------



## cesare (Jun 2, 2013)

The UAF's just the modern equivalent of the ANL, isn't it? Or is that too simplistic?


----------



## emanymton (Jun 2, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I'd be interested in this why did UAF have independence before but no longer?


The whole point of setting up UAF, according to the SWP was to reach out to a wider audience than the ANL could manage, basically by being more moderate. Hence we get the famous statement signed by David Cameron. I think this actually worked for a while but it dropped of pretty quickly and it ended up being the SWP and a few others in most areas same as the ANL. 

Eta: There have tensions within UAF and with others outside about street demonstrations and how confrontational they should be. Which I think is part of the reason the SWP has been all over the place on this for years.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> The UAF's just the modern equivalent of the ANL, isn't it? Or is that too simplistic?


UAF is a direct descendent from the ANL mark 2, the ANL effectively ceased to exist when UAF was formed.


----------



## cesare (Jun 2, 2013)

Tom A said:


> UAF is a direct descendent from the ANL mark 2, the ANL effectively ceased to exist when UAF was formed.


So the UAF is the modern day equivalent then?


----------



## Tom A (Jun 2, 2013)

cesare said:


> So the UAF is the modern day equivalent then?


Pretty much so, for the SWP it does pretty much the same thing and plays the same role.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jun 2, 2013)

Yawn. UAF played a huge role this weekend. And the SWP too.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 2, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yawn. UAF played a huge role this weekend. And the SWP too.


 
lol


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 3, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It had a bit more independence when it first started I think. And I think there are a few areas were it has a little bit it of a life of its own, but not in any significant way.


 
Quite heavy labour involvement in Sheffield - think it depends where you are. If Sheffield's anything to go by it's actually worse when it's not 100% SWP dominated cos they can blame the shit politics, complete absence of anything about class, shite speakers, etc etc on the need to 'compromise to sustain the united front'.


----------



## SLK (Jun 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yawn. UAF played a huge role this weekend. And the SWP too.


 

They mobilised some people, but the leaders in London were trying to actively stop people confronting the BNP. It was laughable as the young people on the demonstration eventually ignored Charlie Kimber's efforts to control the demonstration. Many CC members stayed near the Cenotaph even when the mass of UAF organised people had gone to join the South London contingent.

The actual confrontation with the BNP was led by anarchists. 

Don't know about elsewhere, and I don't say this likely, but having Kimber demand of me I stay behind a banner otherwise (according to him) I'm not a part of the demo was eye-opening.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The whole point of setting up UAF, according to the SWP was to reach out to a wider audience than the ANL could manage, basically by being more moderate. Hence we get the famous statement signed by David Cameron. I think this actually worked for a while but it dropped of pretty quickly and it ended up being the SWP and a few others in most areas same as the ANL.
> 
> Eta: There have tensions within UAF and with others outside about street demonstrations and how confrontational they should be. Which I think is part of the reason the SWP has been all over the place on this for years.


 don't let the truth get in the way of a bloody good strawman argument. There are no tensions in the UAF! It is totally controlled by the SWP.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Last Friday I spoke to a long time SWP member, who I haven't seen for years and years; in the past he has always been happy to defend the party against all criticism.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, I had him down as a super loyalist and so was encouraged when he told me that he had resigned - as he put it from the party not from being active - and that from his perspective those who are still in are 'only the 50 something men'.
> 
> ...


 stop telling lies about "50 something men"! The SWP was/is entirely students and the CC.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2013)

SLK said:


> They mobilised some people, but the leaders in London were trying to actively stop people confronting the BNP. It was laughable as the young people on the demonstration eventually ignored Charlie Kimber's efforts to control the demonstration. Many CC members stayed near the Cenotaph even when the mass of UAF organised people had gone to join the South London contingent.
> 
> The actual confrontation with the BNP was led by anarchists.
> 
> Don't know about elsewhere, and I don't say this likely, but having Kimber demand of me I stay behind a banner otherwise (according to him) I'm not a part of the demo was eye-opening.


 "led by anarchists".


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 4, 2013)

treelover said:


> So you had to pay subs to the SWP and to UAF?, what a racket...


 yeah, I had to pay subs to both the SWP and the socialist alliance. As did the Socialist party. And every other organisation involved in the Socialist Alliance. But if you want to be a member of two organisations, that's what you have to do. I can see how you would want to believe it is a racket, but it isn't really.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 4, 2013)

Was Delta there?


----------



## carrotz (Jun 4, 2013)

i'm sick of the SWP they're a bunch of backstabbing, two-faced wankers. Even the ones who you might think are okay. Pack of wankers. What's happening now is a long time coming. Don't try to rationalise too much.


----------



## treelover (Jun 4, 2013)

lol at new member...


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 5, 2013)

Tom A said:


> UAF is a direct descendent from the ANL mark 2, the ANL effectively ceased to exist when UAF was formed.


 
mainly ( ANL Mark 2) because it was getting to a situation after the Bradford debacle when it could have been banned by Labour. It had to re group politically with Labour's support


----------



## belboid (Jun 5, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> mainly ( ANL Mark 2) because it was getting to a situation after the Bradford debacle when it could have been banned by Labour. It had to re group politically with Labour's support


 
there wasn't really any chance of that happening tho, was there?  I recall Marsha Singh proposing it a day or so after the riots, but there was zero chance of them actually doing it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> there wasn't really any chance of that happening tho, was there? I recall Marsha Singh proposing it a day or so after the riots, but there was zero chance of them actually doing it.


 
It was more about hooking up with the resources they could get from a merger with the NAAR (ie Socialist Action and various quangocrats).


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 5, 2013)

belboid said:


> there wasn't really any chance of that happening tho, was there? I recall Marsha Singh proposing it a day or so after the riots, but there was zero chance of them actually doing it.


 
Probably not but it did cause them to regroup into UAF which if anything was a far more broader front with a softer tone


----------



## sihhi (Jun 5, 2013)

So what happened in Bradford to ANL and why did it mean abandoning the ANL name?

I sort of thought it was because the Nazi seemed a bit odd what with the passing away of that Tyndall generation for whom whipping out that photo was enough.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 5, 2013)

I always thought that the ANL became UAF so they could change strategy, and disassociate themselves with a name which was more associated with countering the likes of the NF in the 1970s, whilst the "respectable" BNP required a change of tack.

This was well before the EDL came along, whom attempt to take to the streets in a similar way to how the NF did in their heyday.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 5, 2013)

I really think that people are reading too much into the ANL2 -> UAF change. As I understand it, it was a merger with the NAAR, where the SWP provided a national organisational infrastructure and Socialist Action and their quangocrat friends provided money and stopped cluttering the field. The name change was primarily about avoiding giving the impression that the NAAR had just folded into the ANL. As a result though, the UAF did have more people involved in it - at the top, it still didn't have a rank and file - and those people are to the SWP's right, so it probably did result in a watering down of the ANL2's already pretty watery approach.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jun 5, 2013)

Let's not forget Uncle Ralph's dissection of the whole problem many moons back.




			
				Ralph Miliband said:
			
		

> One of the main [forms of left organisation], of Leninist inspiration, proposes the building and nurturing of a ‘vanguard’ party, tightly organised on ‘democratic centralist’ lines, involved in a daily class struggle at the point of production and at all other points of tension in capitalist society, with the expectation that capitalist crisis must ultimately reach a point at which it will become unmanageable, as a result of which it will no longer be possible to contain popular anger within the confines of the political system. At that point, a revolutionary situation will have come to exist, which will make it possible for the ‘vanguard’ party to seize the moment and lead the working class towards a seizure of power. The bourgeois state will be smashed, and replaced by a dictatorship of the proletariat, on the basis of proletarian power, workers’ councils and other authentically democratic forms.
> 
> Those who propose this strategy are well aware that in no advanced capitalist country has this ‘scenario’ come anywhere near to being realised. But they are of course able to argue that the realisation of the ‘scenario’ is only a matter of time, that the crisis is not yet far enough advanced but is developing, that the working class is still in the grip of social democratic ‘reformist’ illusions, but that it is bound to acquire greater class consciousness under the impact of events, and so forth. Some such beliefs have for many years – in fact since 1917 – sustained a core of dedicated militants and revolutionaries in all advanced capitalist countries, and indeed in all other countries as well.
> 
> ...


 
Edit - meant to add - http://www.marxists.org/archive/miliband/1985/xx/beyondsd.htm . stood the test of time rather better than most Trotskyist writing of the era, I think!


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jun 6, 2013)

http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-party-council


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 9, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I really think that people are reading too much into the ANL2 -> UAF change. As I understand it, it was a merger with the NAAR, where the SWP provided a national organisational infrastructure and Socialist Action and their quangocrat friends provided money and stopped cluttering the field. The name change was primarily about avoiding giving the impression that the NAAR had just folded into the ANL. As a result though, the UAF did have more people involved in it - at the top, it still didn't have a rank and file - and those people are to the SWP's right, so it probably did result in a watering down of the ANL2's already pretty watery approach.


 pretty spot-on as to what really happened. But hey ho, why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory? :-D


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 9, 2013)

carrotz said:


> i'm sick of the SWP they're a bunch of backstabbing, two-faced wankers. Even the ones who you might think are okay. Pack of wankers. What's happening now is a long time coming. Don't try to rationalise too much.


 fantastic 'political' analysis. You will fit in well here. :-D


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 9, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Let's not forget Uncle Ralph's dissection of the whole problem many moons back.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit - meant to add - http://www.marxists.org/archive/miliband/1985/xx/beyondsd.htm . stood the test of time rather better than most Trotskyist writing of the era, I think!


 I enjoyed that read, thank you.

“It is often said that ‘the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning’. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs, a mass of other germs, and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious socialist revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in the corpse – and which he may have carried in him since his birth – is that very sensible?”

The same situation applies to the SWP at the moment.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I enjoyed that read, thank you.
> 
> “It is often said that ‘the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning’. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs, a mass of other germs, and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious socialist revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in the corpse – and which he may have carried in him since his birth – is that very sensible?”
> 
> The same situation applies to the SWP at the moment.


 
You didn't read it.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 9, 2013)

i did. they're all over the fucking shop.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i did. they're all over the fucking shop.


 
I did as well, i've never seen their perspectives stuff before. They are in big trouble and the edl is the path out of it. I didn't realise they were so crude.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I did as well, i've never seen their perspectives stuff before. They are in big trouble and the edl is the path out of it. I didn't realise they were so crude.


desperate stuff. a few lies in there too, "The approach agreed by the recent special conference of the party was to attempt to unify the party, without glossing over real political arguments." is actually the opposite of what was said.


----------



## treelover (Jun 10, 2013)

Martin Smith in court on Tuesday over incidents at the anti -Griffin QT rally outside the BBC.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> Martin Smith in court on Tuesday over incidents at the anti -Griffin QT rally outside the BBC.


Will he recognise bourgeois justice?


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 11, 2013)

am i the only one to find "socialist meme caucus" a bit annoying?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 11, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Will he recognise bourgeois justice?


 
might be feeling it


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> am i the only one to find "socialist meme caucus" a bit annoying?


 

is it just pictures of senior trots with captions that fail to raise a smile?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> am i the only one to find "socialist meme caucus" a bit annoying?


 
yes. it should be the 'socialist me-me caucus' which would be more apt


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 11, 2013)

well today they were on about their 'perfect marxist football team' and thats pissed me off. I'll find it later.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 11, 2013)

all  I can find is a not-at-all hilarious revleft thread on the matter




> Football is indeed an enemy of the revolution, not as a sport, but as a diversion. It separates the workers from conscience.
> 
> I feel that directly. When I am at school, you can always hear someone talking about football. Football has millions of fans worldwide, a lots of them don't care about anything else.
> 
> The news are always the same. ''A disaster in Haiti! Everyone is diyng, a catastrophe!'', and you can even have this ''US soldiers in Iraq slaughter 2 million civillians, and send 5 millions more to labor camps, just like the Nazis did with Jews'', but right after this ''Manchester United plays with Real Madrid tomorrow, don't miss it!'', and pfff, there it goes.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 11, 2013)

The ICC have lots of interesting things to say but they also have an unintentionally hilarious pamphlet of sport 
'sport expresses the worst aspects of decadent capitalism' etc


----------



## tedsplitter (Jun 11, 2013)

treelover said:


> Martin Smith in court on Tuesday over incidents at the anti -Griffin QT rally outside the BBC.


 
Wasn't that in 2010? He got a fine and community service and wrote about it in Socialist Review. Is this something new?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 11, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I enjoyed that read, thank you.
> 
> “It is often said that ‘the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning’. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs, a mass of other germs, and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious socialist revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in the corpse – and which he may have carried in him since his birth – is that very sensible?”
> 
> The same situation applies to the SWP at the moment.


 
Yeah, but the autopsy had better not ignore the germ cells either!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I enjoyed that read, thank you.
> 
> “It is often said that ‘the germ of all Stalinism was in Bolshevism at its beginning’. Well, I have no objection. Only, Bolshevism also contained many other germs, a mass of other germs, and those who lived through the enthusiasm of the first years of the first victorious socialist revolution ought not to forget it. To judge the living man by the death germs which the autopsy reveals in the corpse – and which he may have carried in him since his birth – is that very sensible?”
> 
> The same situation applies to the SWP at the moment.


 
The use of this quote appears even more inept and clueless now i re-read it after a few days. Are you saying the SWP is _now_ a stalinist party or that it is now an direct equivalent of the bolshevik party in the period 1917-19? And heading for stalinism?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2013)

tedsplitter said:


> Wasn't that in 2010? He got a fine and community service and wrote about it in Socialist Review. Is this something new?


 
All i can see is far-righters claiming he's in court today for an appeal over that conviction. If this was true, and in other circumstances -i .e no rape allegations - they would be banging the drum very loudly for this in line with their current reliance on the edl.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 11, 2013)

So yeah, a Marxist football team: Marx is the coach; Lenin and Trotsky strikers; Kautsky on the right-wing; Bordiga on the left wing; defence is Peter Taaffe, Joe Higgins, Dave Nellist and Comradmin [redacted] because only the CWI can really defend Marxism; Gramsci goes somewhere because of his ability to get into the opponents' heads. Fill in the other two.

from socialist meme caucus
thats well annoying isn't it? or am i just in a grumpy mood?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2013)

Marx on the bench eh? Idiots. Talk about reinforcing bourgeois specialisations.


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 11, 2013)

And no Posadas in goal defending the principle of the workers bomb.


----------



## flypanam (Jun 11, 2013)

Karl Korsch playing central midfield just behind the forwards*


*I know fuck all about football


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2013)

Martin Smith creeping around the changing rooms.


----------



## cesare (Jun 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Martin Smith creeping around the changing rooms.


Ugh


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 11, 2013)

Tommy Sherridan selling programs


----------



## belboid (Jun 11, 2013)

Gerry Healy telling the ref he doesnt understand the laws of dialiectics association football


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 11, 2013)

This article on 'squaddism' from the ISN blog is doing the rounds on facebook at the moment.

Apparently the SWP are calling the ISN 'squaddists' (lol) and this is a kind of response to those kinds of accusations. Seems to accept all the SWP arguments and slanders against the 'squaddists' and instead of countering them sets out to differentiate their approach.

What do those actually involved in the 80s think of it?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 11, 2013)

I would have no hesitation in dropping Peter Taafe to be honest , tends to play only well with players from the same club, no real pace or sense of positioning and lets face it footballing tactics have moved on from 1830s Third period Trotskyism . I'd bring in Big Bill Hayward.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I would have no hesitation in dropping Peter Taafe to be honest , tends to play only well with players from the same club, no real pace or sense of positioning and lets face it footballing tactics have moved on from 1830s Third period Trotskyism . I'd bring in Big Bill Hayward.


no good. blind in one eye.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 11, 2013)

James Connolly would stop playing (association) football halfway through the match, and bring on a team of GAA Gaelic (football) players instead.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This article on 'squaddism' from the ISN blog is doing the rounds on facebook at the moment.
> 
> Apparently the SWP are calling the ISN 'squaddists' (lol) and this is a kind of response to those kinds of accusations. Seems to accept all the SWP arguments and slanders against the 'squaddists' and instead of countering them sets out to differentiate their approach.
> 
> What do those actually involved in the 80s think of it?


 
The bloke who went off and got his mates to smash the record shop was right. The bloke who went off and got his mates to drive back and look at the damage to the record shop was wrong


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no good. blind in one eye.


 
sport is for everyone


----------



## discokermit (Jun 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> sport is for everyone


fair enough. name a professional footballer with one eye.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2013)

Gattuso


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 11, 2013)

> Sectarianism? Well there were no SWP members out in Liverpool on the bank holiday, that I saw. Fair enough, there’s not so many now


 
oooh


----------



## imposs1904 (Jun 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> fair enough. name a professional footballer with one eye.


 

dean shiels


----------



## chilango (Jun 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> So yeah, a Marxist football team: Marx is the coach; Lenin and Trotsky strikers; Kautsky on the right-wing; Bordiga on the left wing; defence is Peter Taaffe, Joe Higgins, Dave Nellist and Comradmin [redacted] because only the CWI can really defend Marxism; Gramsci goes somewhere because of his ability to get into the opponents' heads. Fill in the other two.
> 
> from socialist meme caucus
> thats well annoying isn't it? or am i just in a grumpy mood?




Surely Trotsky would be Sweeper?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2013)

chilango said:


> Surely Trotsky would be Sweeper?


 
With his iron broom?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 11, 2013)

Dean Shiels who is at Rangers, Gordon Banks.

Didn't that centre half ,at QPR ,Nelson come from a family with a history of eye problems?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2013)

And of course the ref could only represent the ahistorical objectivity of the bourgeois dictatorship.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 11, 2013)

chilango said:


> Surely Trotsky would be Sweeper?


 
wouldn't get in the team in my book whist talent like James Larkin is coming through


----------



## chilango (Jun 11, 2013)

I'd have the SWP on the bench, in a kind of John O Shea role, they're pretty good at shifting positions...


----------



## treelover (Jun 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> This article on 'squaddism' from the ISN blog is doing the rounds on facebook at the moment.
> 
> Apparently the SWP are calling the ISN 'squaddists' (lol) and this is a kind of response to those kinds of accusations. Seems to accept all the SWP arguments and slanders against the 'squaddists' and instead of countering them sets out to differentiate their approach.
> 
> What do those actually involved in the 80s think of it?


 
perhaps they can be asked what their position is on allowing 'jihadi's' on the demo's


----------



## chilango (Jun 11, 2013)

...and maybe Che up front as the luxury Latin flair player. By all accounts he has good shooting record.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2013)

Sean Connery/Red October coming on late on as the super-sub - but you never know when it's actually on.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 11, 2013)

chilango said:


> ...and maybe Che up front as the luxury Latin flair player. By all accounts he has good shooting record.





> *'It is not just a simple game, it is a weapon of the revolution.*


----------



## chilango (Jun 11, 2013)

Guy Debord as "trequartista" or "false 10" or some shit. Everybody could witter on pretending they understand the position he plays without actually understanding it...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 11, 2013)

treelover said:


> perhaps they can be asked what their position is on allowing 'jihadi's' on the demo's


 
I doubt we need to ask sadly.


----------



## discokermit (Jun 11, 2013)

ok, big bill plays. i don't think he should take the penalties though.


----------



## barney_pig (Jun 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> ok, big bill plays. i don't think he should take the penalties though.


First sign of a yeLlow card, and he'll be off to Moscow with the gate takings


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 11, 2013)

Very surprised, verging on disappointed,  that Barry Mainwaring hasn't been named as Technical Director of Football.


----------



## past caring (Jun 11, 2013)

chilango said:


> Guy Debord as "trequartista" or "false 10" or some shit. Everybody could witter on pretending they understand the position he plays without actually understanding it...


 
The Eamon Dunphy role?


----------



## past caring (Jun 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Very surprised, verging on disappointed, that Barry Mainwaring hasn't been named as Technical Director of Football.


 
Jesus Gil


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 11, 2013)

past caring said:


> Jesus Gil


 


> Crime rates and open manifestations of poverty decreased dramatically during the first years of his administration but this apparent success was obtained to the expense of civil liberties and freedom of speech.[_clarification needed_], including the beatings of delinquents and prostitutes, deportation of foreigners with low incomes, handouts of money to homeless people in exchange for leaving town, etc. The subsequent apparent improvement in the lifestyle of a segment of the population was cited as a main reason for his re-elections.[


 
Little bit of communism there


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 11, 2013)

408 pages. This parrot is dead, time to move on? What now, after the SWP?


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jun 11, 2013)

SMC is "the worst" as we say in the US. One of the worst things anyone in the CWI has ever done.


----------



## JHE (Jun 11, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> 408 pages. This parrot is dead, time to move on? What now, after the SWP?


 
The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership.  The crisis of revolutionary leadership is reduced to squabbles among a hopeless bunch of Islamophiles about how to respond to allegations of rape.  Squabbles among a hopeless bunch of Islamophiles are reduced to a series of exchanges on blogs and bulletin boards read by hardly anyone. So either:
- posts on obscure blogs will change the world or, much more likely...
- Brit Trottery, a footnote to international Trottery, is done and dusted, and serves simply as a reminder that international Trottery is an abject failure.  There's no 'after the SWP'.  There's no New Social Workers, New Trottery...


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 11, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> SMC is "the worst" as we say in the US. One of the worst things anyone in the CWI has ever done.


 
it just comes across as self congratulatory bullshit. "Ho ho lets have Peter Taaffe because only the CWI can be the real defenders of Marxism". I was until recently a member of the SP, and I still have a bit of time for the politics, I think the CWI are one of the few trotskyist groups to have actually achieved something during their 60+ years of being in existence, they are certainly the trotskyist group with the best position on many issues for example the Lindsey oil refinery strike and so on, many CWI members have put themselves at huge personal risk to defend workers' rights, been jailed, etc, and many of the people but lets be honest being a member of a tiny group of no more than 100,000 people worldwide, in a country where you aren't going to go to prison for even thinking about going on strike and probably not being involved in a lot of the good things the CWI have done, and thinking that makes you the "defenders of marxism" isn't exactly something to shout about. it is to their credit that the majority of SP members don't have such arrogance even though I don't agree with all of their politics any more. The defenders of marxism, defended against what? Centrism, ultra-leftism and reformism? Tony cliff's state capitalism theory? come the fuck on.

Just arrogant bollocks. And I know for a fact that this is in no way a reflection of the majority of members of the CWI, it just seems like a load of arrogant students. A lot of whom are going to leave in a year or two anyway.

Sorry, Im really grumpy today and probably reading way too much into this, and I still have some time for the CWI and many of the people in it. I hope what I've written doesn't come across as too harsh.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> it just comes across as self congratulatory bullshit. "Ho ho lets have Peter Taaffe because only the CWI can be the real defenders of Marxism". I was until recently a member of the SP, and I still have a bit of time for the politics, I think the CWI are one of the few trotskyist groups to have actually achieved something during their 60+ years of being in existence, they are certainly the trotskyist group with the best position on many issues for example the Lindsey oil refinery strike and so on, many CWI members have put themselves at huge personal risk to defend workers' rights, been jailed, etc, and many of the people but lets be honest being a member of a tiny group of no more than 100,000 people worldwide, in a country where you aren't going to go to prison for even thinking about going on strike and probably not being involved in a lot of the good things the CWI have done, and thinking that makes you the "defenders of marxism" isn't exactly something to shout about. it is to their credit that the majority of SP members don't have such arrogance even though I don't agree with all of their politics any more. The defenders of marxism, defended against what? Centrism, ultra-leftism and reformism? Tony cliff's state capitalism theory? come the fuck on.
> 
> Just arrogant bollocks. And I know for a fact that this is in no way a reflection of the majority of members of the CWI, it just seems like a load of arrogant students. A lot of whom are going to leave in a year or two anyway.
> 
> Sorry, Im really grumpy today and probably reading way too much into this, and I still have some time for the CWI and many of the people in it. I hope what I've written doesn't come across as too harsh.


 
Even with all that taken into consideration the smc's crimes against humour are far more serious. Has anything that's actually funny ever appeared on there?


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jun 12, 2013)

The only thing I ever chuckled at was the Lenin book meme that said "What to do When a Comrade is Being a Dumbfuck in Public". This thread deserves to die, but the fact that RMP3 pointed it out first just means we should all post more.


----------



## leyton96 (Jun 12, 2013)

On SMC I thought the picture of the full English breakfast as a representation of a SP run café was the best piss take of the SP I've ever seen!

My take on it is it's a harmless bit of fun by a few young comrades. I know the two CWI admins also get their hands dirty in real world activism as well so I'm prepared to give them a pass on some of the sillier and/or unfunny stuff that goes on there.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 12, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I would have no hesitation in dropping Peter Taafe to be honest , tends to play only well with players from the same club, no real pace or sense of positioning and lets face it footballing tactics have moved on from 1830s Third period Trotskyism . I'd bring in Big Bill Hayward.


 
In fairness, given Taaffe's unerring ability to be on the winning side during lunchtime matches on Victoria Park (when the centre was in  Hepscott Road), i'd be slightly more reticent to drop him....


----------



## frogwoman (Jun 12, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> On SMC I thought the picture of the full English breakfast as a representation of a SP run café was the best piss take of the SP I've ever seen!
> 
> My take on it is it's a harmless bit of fun by a few young comrades. I know the two CWI admins also get their hands dirty in real world activism as well so I'm prepared to give them a pass on some of the sillier and/or unfunny stuff that goes on there.


 

Fair enough. Not having the best time IRL at the moment so being a bit grumpy.


----------



## chilango (Jun 12, 2013)

We're funnier.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/workers-power-have-split.291950/


----------



## rekil (Jun 12, 2013)

chilango said:


> We're funnier.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/workers-power-have-split.291950/


Let Owen Jones be the judge of what's funny and what isn't.


> Given we all agree @UpikTips is one of the funniest accounts on Twitter, can someone influential give @StantonSpacey a career break please?


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 12, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> In fairness, given Taaffe's unerring ability to be on the winning side during lunchtime matches on Victoria Park (when the centre was in  Hepscott Road), i'd be slightly more reticent to drop him....



We could bring him on for the last ten minutes and play the long ball game for big bill to knock it on to him


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jun 12, 2013)

Maybe they should contact Viz see if there's any work for him there?


----------



## dominion (Jun 12, 2013)

Meanwhile back in SWPland...

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/now-socialist-workers-party-gives-us.html


----------



## JHE (Jun 12, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> SMC is "the worst" as we say in the US.


 

What is SMC?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 12, 2013)

Socialist Meme Caucus


----------



## JHE (Jun 12, 2013)

A page on Facebook?

As Trotsky Himself said in the Tranny Programme, "The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of revolutionary gibberings on a half-arsed page on a social networking website."


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 12, 2013)

dominion said:


> Meanwhile back in SWPland...
> 
> http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/now-socialist-workers-party-gives-us.html


 

Meanwhile Howard Fuller, for that is Howies Corners real name, likes to ignore the fact that his own Zionist fanaticism and defence of Israel, against the Palestinians is shared by the self same Griffin..... Howard should stick to what he is good at, losing national elections in PCS and hanging round with halitosis ridden gossips in the Old Shit bar during conference...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> The only thing I ever chuckled at was the Lenin book meme that said "What to do When a Comrade is Being a Dumbfuck in Public". This thread deserves to die, but the fact that RMP3 pointed it out first just means we should all post more.


obsessed! 

btw, hope so. the more they go for it here, the less they spend in public.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2013)

yes the violence of the oppressor, and the oppressed, are indistinguishable.



dominion said:


> Meanwhile back in SWPland...
> 
> 
> http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/now-socialist-workers-party-gives-us.html


----------



## YouSir (Jun 13, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> yes the violence of the oppressor, and the oppressed, are indistinguishable.


 

Are you being serious there or joking?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 13, 2013)

JHE said:


> The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership. The crisis of revolutionary leadership is reduced to squabbles among a hopeless bunch of Islamophiles about how to respond to allegations of rape. Squabbles among a hopeless bunch of Islamophiles are reduced to a series of exchanges on blogs and bulletin boards read by hardly anyone. So either:
> - posts on obscure blogs will change the world or, much more likely...
> - Brit Trottery, a footnote to international Trottery, is done and dusted, and serves simply as a reminder that international Trottery is an abject failure. There's no 'after the SWP'. There's no New Social Workers, New Trottery...


 
that wasn't the real question. The question was WHAT now? What, could be anything anarchism, communism, reformism, or a thousand and one other things, [now the SWP is no longer an excuse].


----------



## treelover (Jun 16, 2013)

Apparently Delta was spotted at a key UAF anti-EDl counter demonstration last week..


----------



## killer b (Jun 16, 2013)

why is anyone still calling him delta?


----------



## muscovyduck (Jun 18, 2013)

killer b said:


> why is anyone still calling him delta?


It's easier to remember than... I've forgotten his name. Besides, it makes it more impersonal. I worry that if we start calling people by their actual names then the identity of the victim might also end up out in the open.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 26, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> It's easier to remember than... I've forgotten his name. Besides, it makes it more impersonal. I worry that if we start calling people by their actual names then the identity of the victim might also end up out in the open.


 

Unfortunately her name is out on the web...don't know how or why ... sadly I can not image she was asked before it was put out there


----------



## Tom A (Jun 26, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> am i the only one to find "socialist meme caucus" a bit annoying?


I've contributed to it in the past, however I have unliked it as of today (might have a change of heart later on) when they started attributing fake quotes to various celebrities - not the first time it's gotten a little tedious to be fair.


----------



## muscovyduck (Jun 26, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Unfortunately her name is out on the web...don't know how or why ... sadly I can not image she was asked before it was put out there


Just because the information is out there, we shouldn't make it easier for anyone to find it. 

I know we all know this already but I think it's a mentality we need to stick with in other situations and encourage others to do the same.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 27, 2013)

The bard of South Norwood is on form....



> *GAME OF TROTS’*
> 
> Brittanica AD 43
> The once mighty emperor Calinnicos is dying – his people deserting him disgusted at the long hidden debauchery of his generals.
> ...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 27, 2013)




----------



## discokermit (Jun 27, 2013)

killer b said:


> why is anyone still calling him delta?


because everytime you use it, it refers not just to him but what he's done. he'll always be delta now. martin smith was a nob and a bit of a joke, but delta, well, we all know what delta is.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 27, 2013)

discokermit said:


> because everytime you use it, it refers not just to him but what he's done. he'll always be delta now. martin smith was a nob and a bit of a joke, but delta, well, we all know what delta is.


One of my friends got quite upset when I explained on Facebook Smith and Delta were one and the same, thought that he had been 'outed' (since he was only an "alleged" rapist and he thought people were handing out "mob justice" to him), I ended out trawling though old articles to explain the truth.


----------



## JHE (Jun 27, 2013)

Tom A said:


> One of my friends got quite upset when I explained on Facebook Smith and Delta were one and the same, thought that he had been 'outed' (since he was only an "alleged" rapist and he thought people were handing out "mob justice" to him), I ended out trawling though old articles to explain the truth.


 

He is only an alleged rapist.

Many critics of the SWP, inside and outside that 'party', have pointed out the utter inadequacy of the internal investigations of the allegations against Smith.  This point cuts both ways.  People should not be satisfied with Smith's exoneration. Equally, without proper investigation and due process we should not talk as if he had been convicted.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 27, 2013)

JHE said:


> He is only an alleged rapist.
> 
> Many critics of the SWP, inside and outside that 'party', have pointed out the utter inadequacy of the internal investigations of the allegations against Smith. This point cuts both ways. People should not be satisfied with Smith's exoneration. Equally, without proper investigation and due process we should not talk as if he had been convicted.


I can go with that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2013)

Tom A said:


> I can go with that.


good


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 27, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Just because the information is out there, we shouldn't make it easier for anyone to find it.
> 
> I know we all know this already but I think it's a mentality we need to stick with in other situations and encourage others to do the same.


 

I agree which is why when I was told I didn't look it for it and didn't make any reference to where I heard about it...I only mentioned it cos it seems a crap thing to have made public


----------



## muscovyduck (Jun 27, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I agree which is why when I was told I didn't look it for it and didn't make any reference to where I heard about it...I only mentioned it cos it seems a crap thing to have made public


 
Yeah I know, I was expanding on your point rather than arguing with it


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 27, 2013)

after I re read my original post I thought it sounded a bit nic picky or smart arsed so I thought I should better explain myself...didn't think you were picking me up or anything...am just horrified that her name came out like it's anyones business


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 28, 2013)

It most be possible, for someone more at one with the ways of the internet than a thick fucker like me, to figure out where her name was first mentioned in relation to this case (although even if I was better at the internet I'd not be able to do it anyway cos I don't know her name and intend on keeping it that way). Then release all kinds of nasty personal shit about whoever did it.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jun 28, 2013)

JHE said:


> He is only an alleged rapist.
> 
> Many critics of the SWP, inside and outside that 'party', have pointed out the utter inadequacy of the internal investigations of the allegations against Smith. This point cuts both ways. People should not be satisfied with Smith's exoneration. Equally, without proper investigation and due process we should not talk as if he had been convicted.


 

he's at the very least guilty of gross misconduct - he essentially admitted this to the entirety of conference with his 'i ain't no angel' speech the year he stepped down from an official position on the CC. i agree with not treating him as guilty of the most severe charges but there's absolutely no doubt he isn't fit to hold any kind of position of authority within the upper echelons of the party, which makes the whitewashed 'disciplinary' hearing all the more farcical.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 30, 2013)

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/33754/Egypts Revolutionary Socialists call for general strike until the fall of the regime



> Dozens of martyrs and injured have fallen at the hands of the Brotherhood.


 
Who could ever had predicted that leftists would be murdered after an Islamist takeover? No mention of how the Revolutionary Socialists called upon people to vote for Morsi?



> This is a failed regime, headed by a lying president who even breaks promises to his Salafist allies.


 
Does anyone understand this? Are the SWP seriously criticising the Muslim Brotherhood for not acquiescing to the demands of Al-Nour?


----------



## Tom A (Jun 30, 2013)

J Ed said:


> http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/33754/Egypts Revolutionary Socialists call for general strike until the fall of the regime
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The standard defence from the then-swppies I know was that "yes, the Muslim Brotherhood is reactionary, but they are the most significant resistance to Murbarak and the old regime, and we need to support the socialists within the Muslim Brotherhood rank-and-file".

Which sounds not too dissimilar to "vote Labour without illusions", when you come to think about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2013)

Their argument was that Morsi and the MB would be weak and susceptible to street pressure once in executive power, nothing to do with them saying the MBs represented the most significant opposition to the old regime really (and everyone would know that this is not true). They pointed out that the MB's were in the process of doing a deal with the remnants of the old regime (this was true) and that they were trying to use the kudos of the incomplete revolution to root their own policies in the state and it's institutions (they actually ended up ensuring the autonomy of all the state institutions opposed to them)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 30, 2013)

Tom A said:


> The standard defence from the then-swppies I know was that "yes, the Muslim Brotherhood is reactionary, but they are the most significant resistance to Murbarak and the old regime, and we need to support the socialists within the Muslim Brotherhood rank-and-file".
> 
> Which sounds not too dissimilar to "vote Labour without illusions", when you come to think about it.


 
The 'vote labour without illusions' stuff is nowhere near as bad as that tbf and there are at least some relatively sane arguments that can be made in favour of it.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 30, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> The 'vote labour without illusions' stuff is nowhere near as bad as that tbf and there are at least some relatively sane arguments that can be made in favour of it.


I wasn't saying the two arguments were equal, but the logic is similar. Anyway the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is at least a step sideways rather than forward.

E2A: But for now that doesn't seem to have derailed the revolution, since as we speak Tahrir Square is full of protesters again wanting Morsi to go, only this time Al-Jazeera Arabic is ignoring them.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 4, 2013)

El Greco strikes again
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=12358
A quick glance reveals democracy is a less than ideal quality within The Party


----------



## belboid (Jul 4, 2013)

and Birchall bites back

http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/54588200394/ian-birchall-replies-to-his-critics


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2013)

> As Alex says “with leadership comes responsibility”. And while I am willing to accept that I, like all party members, share responsibility, the CC must take particular responsibility for recent events. Their stewardship has been singularly unsuccessful.


That is a giant FUCK YOU to Callinicos.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2013)

> And while I am willing to accept that I, like all party members, share responsibility


 
...and a lesson for you?


----------



## articul8 (Jul 5, 2013)

he hasn't drawn the conclusion he needs to leave the SWP, he's drawn the conclusion that the membership have to fight a bankrupt leadership and win back more power to hold them to account.  Sounds like a good idea, yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2013)

articul8 said:


> he hasn't drawn the conclusion he needs to leave the SWP, he's drawn the conclusion that the membership have to fight a bankrupt leadership and win back more power to hold them to account. Sounds like a good idea, yes.


 
I wasn't talking about his conclusions - i was talking about his willingness to at least take rhetorical responsibility for his parties action - something that you are unwilling to do.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 5, 2013)

it's warming up a bit, again.

apparently, birchall's piece has provoked a national committee meeting, about the blog it was posted on!
http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...in-to-see-what-condition-my-condition-was-in/


----------



## dominion (Jul 5, 2013)

Yeah noticed that. Andy Noman has just posted this:

http://socialistunity.com/more-on-the-swp-alleged-rape-crisis/


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2013)

So not about the birchall piece at all. It's all still there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2013)

Just to clarify:



> X did in fact put in a further formal complaint about Comrade Delta, after the January 2013 SWP conference. I understand though, that the SWP Central Committee has decided that the disputes committee will not now hear the complaint made by X against Delta until the new year, in 2014.
> 
> The significance is that X was removed from her job in the SWP office after being a witness for “W” because the SWP National Secretary, Charlie Kimber, allegedly said that her continued presence would “disrupt the harmony of the office”. She was asked when complaining of sexual harassment ”is it fair to say you like a drink?”. Quite contrary to how you would expect a woman complaining of sexual harassment to properly be treated, attempts have been made to isolate, silence and discredit her.
> 
> My sources tell me that Sheila M, a disputes commitee member who led the discussion off at SWP conference in January, has now submitted a motion to an emergency SWP National Committee (called at 4 days’ notice) opposing the decision not to hear X’s case.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 5, 2013)

Their leadership are absolutely fucking barking mad, if splinteredsunrise and Newman are correct. Gearing up for a row about a blog while crudely trying to avoid dealing with further allegations against Delta is about the best way I can think of for them to provoke another split and further ostracism.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Their leadership are absolutely fucking barking mad, if splinteredsunrise and Newman are correct. Gearing up for a row about a blog while crudely trying to avoid dealing with further allegations against Delta is about the best way I can think of for them to provoke another split and further ostracism.


if newman is right then it sounds like an attempt to ambush any opposition on the n.c.
call them in under false pretences, then hit them with the emergency motion. afterwards you can say it's all been dealt with. a bit like the special conference.
the fact the motion is being prepared by sheila m, who was such a loyalist in the last round, shows, i think, which way it'll be coming from.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So not about the birchall piece at all. It's all still there.


it certainly is.

i think there was a little hint of it in the birchall piece,

"Of course it is true that the party’s enemies will rejoice in, and seek to take advantage of, our problems. That is something that at least one comrade might have thought about at an earlier stage of the process."


----------



## treelover (Jul 5, 2013)

Newman seems to be one the key stirrers in this awful saga, I wonder why?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2013)

Why? Tell us why? If you have something to say that need talking about then say it.  Right now.


----------



## andysays (Jul 6, 2013)

treelover said:


> http://socialistunity.com/more-on-the-swp-alleged-rape-crisis/
> 
> 
> and its back, Newman and Socialist Unity on the SWP 'alleged rape crisis'
> ...


 


dominion said:


> Yeah noticed that. Andy Noman has just posted this:
> 
> http://socialistunity.com/more-on-the-swp-alleged-rape-crisis/


 
Today at 3:22 PM   Do keep up...


----------



## treelover (Jul 6, 2013)

I did...


----------



## andysays (Jul 6, 2013)

Hmm, some rather drastic undeclared editing going on somewhere...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 6, 2013)

Hang on. Isn't it up to the DC what cases they hear? A lot of non sequitors in Newman's piece.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Hang on. Isn't it up to the DC what cases they hear? A lot of non sequitors in Newman's piece.


 
Maybe it's all not true?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 6, 2013)

Maybe hey. That description of the constitutional process doesn't ring true is my point. but obviously if my labour colleague says so it must be.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2013)

So maybe if a small thing is wrong the wider thing is made up!!!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 6, 2013)

Ooh is that my ploy, hadn't realised how clever I was being there. No just my gut reaction to this latest 'revelation'. if someone contradicts me and makes a convincing case I'm prepared to change my mind as always.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Maybe hey. That description of the constitutional process doesn't ring true is my point. but obviously if my labour colleague says so it must be.


so, ignoring su, you reckon the cc calling a national committee meeting with four days notice to discuss a blog makes any sense?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 6, 2013)

Is that all it's about disco? The opposition wanted a debate, it's got one in the party's publications and branches. From a distance it looks like that's not enough and they want to organise as a permanent external faction before they've even left.


----------



## mutley (Jul 6, 2013)

There are some significant inaccuracies in the SU article but the core, that there is a second case which some ppl (not _necessarily_ cc) are trying to kick into the long grass, is correct. We await the news from tomorrow's NC to see what the cc do and whether anyone significant has changed sides (possible. Likely? I really don't know). There are rumours galore about what may happen. As for Marxism, lordy lordy!


----------



## discokermit (Jul 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> From a distance it looks like that's not enough and they want to organise as a permanent external faction before they've even left.


you think that's what birchall is doing? really?


----------



## sodoff (Jul 6, 2013)

First time poster long time reader- as such you can probably guess I am somewhat of an interested party in these proceedings, though that interest is a mingled mixture of nostalgia, fondness, horror and seriousness.

A couple of observations about the blog and one 'get real' comment to that bolshieboy dude above.

(1) I have yet to find a typo in it. Make of that what you will.

(2) It has named people.

(3) There are a few debates that are invaluable. The piece on the changes to the working class and the balance of class forces is part of a debate the SWP has long since put off.

(4) As for the comment above re permanent external factions- pull the other one. Either the SWP gets used to the possibilities of the internet or stamping it out will tear it assunder. It can not seriously expect people to be grateful for scraps from the table of acceptable debate (a few letters, an isj article or review piece every now and again), when you can just publish a piece on a blog.

I saw the 6min response some mook had to relay to a baying crowd before the March conference. Fuck. That. Shit. The poor guy was terrible, in part because he had so much to say, and as such he was eviscerated. If the blog is a space for the oppos to work out their views, it is something the SWP should benefit from. What are the loyalists afraid of?

As we both know, in the mind of the c.20th trot, the specter of an alternative 'central organ', which Bolshieboy seems to think that tumblr site is, means one thing- a split. This closeted view is decidenly un-marxist in the sense that ignores the changes to forms of information exchange, and the changes to social relations these create, that the development of productive forces of information exchange capitalis has produced. I am far from being an internet uptopian here, in many ways the present this has created is a dystopia, but people are going to write. Get over it.

Does this mean an end to unity in action? Only if you ever though unity in action meant blind adherence.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 6, 2013)

Fucking hell joined oct. 2006 first post today, that's some impressive lurking!


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jul 6, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Fucking hell joined oct. 2006 first post today, that's some impressive lurking!


I think it deserves an award


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 6, 2013)

If s/he stayed in the swp that time without saying anything...all good.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 6, 2013)

Has anyone from here been to any of the Marxism meetings this year? What is the atmosphere like, are the Sparts strutting their stuff, is the place like a ghost town?


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 6, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Has anyone from here been to any of the Marxism meetings this year? What is the atmosphere like, are the Sparts strutting their stuff, is the place like a ghost town?


It's next weekend, but will be the largest and best ever!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 6, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> It's next weekend, but will be the largest and best ever!


As usual.


----------



## mutley (Jul 6, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> It's next weekend, but will be the largest and best ever!


 
To be fair, I don't think anyone is actually saying that this time.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 7, 2013)

I know of two people going who weren't there last year. But no I don't expect to be turned away at the door for any of the meetings I want to go to and I suspect getting a beer will be easier yes.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 7, 2013)

Stack on the dem cen debate

http://www.scribd.com/doc/152158848/Pat-Stack-The-evolution-of-democratic-centralism-in-the-SWP

Some sharp barbs in this. Will make many people stop and think.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 7, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you think that's what birchall is doing? really?


He seems to think he is as he spends quite some time in his blog entry defending its very existance and answering those who will say why didn't you wait to reply in the Review or IB. Stack seems to have fudged it by not actually posting to the blog as such. Be foolish to think there won't be people in the party see this stuff as beyond the pale.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Stack on the dem cen debate
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/152158848/Pat-Stack-The-evolution-of-democratic-centralism-in-the-SWP
> 
> Some sharp barbs in this. Will make many people stop and think.


What strikes me is how internalised and divorced from anything outside the party this is. Nobody or anything outside of the party's own gurus are cited, not even old VI gets more than a passing nod, let alone any suggestion that the world has moved on


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2013)

What strikes me is how similar the arguments are to those of comrades who left over the years.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Stack on the dem cen debate
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/152158848/Pat-Stack-The-evolution-of-democratic-centralism-in-the-SWP
> 
> Some sharp barbs in this. Will make many people stop and think.


 

Just curious but why was Harman "marginalised" in later years?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 7, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> What strikes me is how internalised and divorced from anything outside the party this is. Nobody or anything outside of the party's own gurus are cited, not even old VI gets more than a passing nod, let alone any suggestion that the world has moved on


In fairness to Stack isn't your last point exactly his?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 7, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Just curious but why was Harman "marginalised" in later years?


Think he says during the Rees/German heyday that brought us the Respect debacle.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Think he says during the Rees/German heyday that brought us the Respect debacle.


 

I understand when. I was wondering why.


----------



## treelover (Jul 7, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Fucking hell joined oct. 2006 first post today, that's some impressive lurking!


 
there are hundreds of lurkers on P/P, the question is why are they lurking and not posting, but at least issues like benefits are having some wider reach.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jul 7, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Has anyone from here been to any of the Marxism meetings this year? What is the atmosphere like, are the Sparts strutting their stuff, is the place like a ghost town?


Doesn't start until Thursday

Ahh carried on reading, beaten to it


----------



## SLK (Jul 7, 2013)

What's happened today? Expulsions or resignations?


----------



## SLK (Jul 7, 2013)

Apparently 4 oppositionists have been banned from Marxism, including one who was due to deliver a meeting.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 7, 2013)

So, do you know who they are?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 7, 2013)

SLK said:


> Apparently 4 oppositionists have been banned from Marxism, including one who was due to deliver a meeting.


Go on then, name names and give us links.


----------



## SLK (Jul 7, 2013)

Don't have names. Have hints on facebook from members and a deleted status.


----------



## dominion (Jul 7, 2013)

Do we know who? ( I'd guess Burchall was a speaker, but can't be arsed to go through their timetable for Misogyny 2013)


----------



## SLK (Jul 7, 2013)

There's only one reference I can find to it on twitter, by someone called @elvargas11


----------



## emanymton (Jul 7, 2013)

FFS, Socialist Unity and the CPGB have really dropped the ball, it's not good enough. 

I mean what is the point of the CPGB if not to report on events at SWP internal meetings?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 7, 2013)

Why would anyone want to publish the names? if the four choose to then good luck to them but you'd hope maybe just once in this sorry affair that those of us who have seen the names would respect their privacy in the first instance.

There was also movement on the case that SU is in a frenzy about and I'm sure they'll eventually find out what that was but be fucked if I'm helping them.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Why would anyone want to publish the names? if the four choose to then good luck to them but you'd hope maybe just once in this sorry affair that those of us who have seen the names would respect their privacy in the first instance.
> 
> There was also movement on the case that SU is in a frenzy about and I'm sure they'll eventually find out what that was but be fucked if I'm helping them.


You great big tease you. 

Am I missing something on SU? I can only see one post with 16 comments. Not really a frenzy.


----------



## dominion (Jul 7, 2013)

> Am I missing something on SU? I can only see one post with 16 comments. Not really a frenzy.


 
There's not much of a frenzy about anything on SU (except from the self proclaimed curater of comments, Tony Collins!) as they have banned so many people.

Well that's four less attendees at Misogyny this year. Bet they won't get a refund though!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 7, 2013)

must be running out of speakers at this rate


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 7, 2013)

Important enough for the ISN to organise a fringe meeting. Not sure that fits with their professed no looking back non-sectarian approach. Not sure how long their ad will be accurate mind.


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 7, 2013)

EDIT - I deleted this post at the request if neprimerimye


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 7, 2013)

And then he deleted it after being asked to by the people concerned. Not the best organised opposition in history, ironically given its alleged Internet-savy nature.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 7, 2013)

still sticking up for the cunts, eh bb?


----------



## laptop (Jul 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> And then he deleted it after being asked to by the people concerned. Not the best organised opposition in history, ironically given its alleged Internet-savy nature.


 
I don't know him. I can't rule out that he has a better grasp than you of the value and life-cycle of a transient text.


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> And then he deleted it after being asked to by the people concerned. Not the best organised opposition in history, ironically given its alleged Internet-savy nature.



You better get your skids on bb and start recruiting to Orthodox Cliffism. At the rate this lot are expelling people their won't be much of an SWP to apologise for.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 7, 2013)

discokermit said:


> still sticking up for the cunts, eh bb?


Genuinely fond of many people on both sides, there are decent folk in the cc faction, the opposition and the ISN. WIsh there was some way they could all stay in the same org. There are clearly people on both sides making that impossible. I know the consensus among pretty much everyone is that the loyalists are mostly responsible for that but I don't agree with that no.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jul 8, 2013)

In solidarity could you take it down? My understanding is it will reappear in the morning with names appended.


----------



## neprimerimye (Jul 8, 2013)

The last was directed to leyton and i hate this fucking laptop!


----------



## noteviljoe (Jul 8, 2013)

"The SWP’s National Committee met on Sunday 7 July 2013 and voted by 26-6 to suspend four comrades and make wider moves to shut down any organised opposition to the party leadership. This move is a smokescreen. It is a deliberate attempt by the leadership to escalate the crisis rather than address the critical problems facing the party."

http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/54901525674/statement-on-the-swp-crisis

165 signatures!


----------



## discokermit (Jul 8, 2013)

it's up again now, with names, http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/54901525674/statement-on-the-swp-crisis .


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it's up again now, with names, http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/54901525674/statement-on-the-swp-crisis .


i foresee about 165 expulsions in the next few days


----------



## emanymton (Jul 8, 2013)

Apparently the ISJ deputy editor has resigned and I think another full timer has been sacked. They must be running out of people willing to work for them.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 8, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Apparently the ISJ deputy editor has resigned and I think another full timer has been sacked. They must be running out of people willing to work for them.


 

Maybe they can use workfare, according to Anna Chen they were running an informal system of it anyway..


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it's up again now, with names, http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/54901525674/statement-on-the-swp-crisis .


 


I see there's an Ian B. and a Pat S. amongst the signatories. 

Who are four who've been suspended?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Maybe they can use workfare, according to Anna Chen they were running an informal system of it anyway..


 

How did that work?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 8, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> How did that work?


 

http://madammiaow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/swp-sex-implosion-its-dehumanisation-in.html



> In my own case, working full-time for no pay on the SWP's press over several years while being subjected to their own form of obedience training left me heavily in debt and marvelling at my own stupidity.
> 
> I established and ran the press for their Globalise Resistence, Socialist Alliance (SA) and Stop the War Coalition (STWC) campaigns when I should have been working on my own writing, but however many hours I worked, it was never enough for them. You may be behind the computer from 8am to gone midnight on their behalf when everyone else is earning a living, but if the district organiser demands you attend a paper sale at 6am you must do it — even if only she and one other turn up and no-one else in the whole of West London does — and you only sell one paper. If the central committee head honcho tells you, f'rinstance, to screw over friends and sympathisers Paul Mason and Dave Osler and, later, RMT's Greg Tucker out of bloody mindedness when they've done an excellent job, to refuse to obey their authorit-eye as I did is to invite the SWP's collective wrath.
> 
> ...


----------



## emanymton (Jul 8, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Maybe they can use workfare, according to Anna Chen they were running an informal system of it anyway..


To be frank there it sounds like she just never worked out that sometimes you just need to turn around and say: 'fuck off, no I'm not doing it'.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 8, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Who are four who've been suspended?


dunno. i do know one of 'em is on the platform at the isn fringe meeting though.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 8, 2013)

excerpt from the cc report,

"Anyone who now smashes up an organisation of several thousand revolutionary socialists with precious roots in workplaces and communities is playing with fire.

Central Committee, 8 July 2013"


several thousand? lol!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2013)

Is that a threat? Is that suggesting that not doing exactly what the SWP CC demands, or that criticising how the party of which they are members acts is going to remove the only force capable of holding back incipient fascism? That doors are going to be going in? What puffed up nonsense.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> excerpt from the cc report,
> 
> "Anyone who now smashes up an organisation of several thousand revolutionary socialists with precious roots in workplaces and communities is playing with fire.
> 
> ...


 

That quote reads very mid-70s WRPish.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 8, 2013)

whole thing,

"This is an era of a new and inspiring phase of the Egyptian revolution, and of great revolts in Brazil and Turkey. In Britain the attacks from Ed Miliband on Len McCluskey emphasise the political ferment caused by Labour’s failure to confront austerity.

But each of these battles underlines the need for an independent socialist presence, and a party that is capable of contributing to the resistance, clarifying political ideas and fighting for socialism.

Since the SWP’s special conference on 10 March the party leadership has pushed hard for an outward looking approach, engaging in the struggles to confront racism and fascism, against the bedroom tax, in defence of our NHS and much more.

We have seen successes at trade union conferences, in working alongside others in UAF against the EDL after the Woolwich murder, in broadening the benefit justice campaign and building for the People’s Assembly.

At the same time the party has initiated a series of debates in its publications and at Marxism 2013. The recent editions of the Review and International Socialism are full of controversy and argument.

We want this combination of discussion and intervention in the struggles of the working class to continue. The SWP is perfectly capable of debating and simultaneously working together.

However, such discussions have to be open to all.

Recently the central committee was made aware of a section of members who have organised secretly to work separately from the rest of the party and to intervene at Marxism 2013 as an independent group. They have organised around a website and have a national structure of meetings, internal communications, elections and a bank account to wage an internal fight.

The NC voted to call on these comrades to dismantle the website, stop acting as a faction and to engage with the rest of the party. Nobody was expelled for such activity, even though it clearly breaches our party rules and the decisions of party conferences.

Contrary to rumours that have been circulated, no member of the CC called anyone in the party a “cancer” or demanded “blood”. Again and again CC members and other leading NC members insisted that political differences need to be addressed through political argument, not through expulsions or administrative measures.

Four comrades were suspended from membership pending an investigation. These four had initiated or signed up to a bank account which, according to its organiser, “is an account specifically for a split group. It is a different account to the one set up for the faction. This one is for making a new group financially viable so that when we go we can hit the ground running with a magazine etc.”

That really is going too far. Does any party member think this is acceptable?

Nobody was sacked after the NC, although it is true that many NC members expressed dissatisfaction with paid employees of the party being part of a secret faction.

The NC also heard that the CC had acted to ensure that the Disputes Committee hold a swift and fair hearing of a current case, if necessary co-opting people to form an acceptable panel. There will be no CC representation on the panel that hears the case.

We want a proper approach to any such complaints, and an elected review body will soon report on suggested improvements to the process. These will be discussed throughout the party.

We look forward to continuing the crucial political debates that are important for SWP members and everyone on the left – about the shape of the working class today, the role of the Labour Party and the trade union leadership, about how socialists should organise, about how to fight women’s oppression and racism and many other issues.

But we also need a strong socialist spine to all the fightbacks. We want everyone to cease secret organising and engage with the democratic debate that is taking place inside the SWP.

The left is not so strong and so confident in Britain that it can blithely encourage splits and fissures. It’s a time for greater unity, not less. Anyone who now smashes up an organisation of several thousand revolutionary socialists with precious roots in workplaces and communities is playing with fire.

Central Committee, 8 July 2013"


----------



## discokermit (Jul 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What puffed up nonsense.


when you're a lord and a professor at a posh uni, your whole life is puffed up nonsense.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> when you're a lord and a professor at a posh uni, your whole life is puffed up nonsense.


 
And as the countries leading Marxist theorist he should understand exactly why this is the case.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And as the countries leading Marxist theorist he should understand exactly why this is the case.


maybe he does. more important though is how many of the members do.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 8, 2013)

Good grief!
 I had begun to think that the cc were trying to let the dust settle a bit, let hyper activism and 'party building' business as usual bring the soft periphery which had been frit by all the shouting drift back into orbit, but it appears that they couldn't allow even the whisper of internal dissent be expressed at Marxism.
  Perhaps they have recognised that the fissures uncovered at the conference and special conference have in no way been addressed, and control could not be imposed without a thorough bloodletting. Whether a swp still exists when they've finished is another matter


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> maybe he does. more important though is how many of the members do.


 
I'd respect him a bit more if he did a column explaining 'why i am so puffed up'.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 8, 2013)

at first i thought the timing of this was a good move, as a short term tactic i think it could be. nc meeting with four days notice, a few neckshots a week before marxism. i think this latest thing can only be understood in relation to marxism.
now i'm thinking that strategically it may well be a blunder. this could blow up in their face quite badly.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 8, 2013)

andy wilson, with thanks to comrade tulayev,

*"How many years, old man! Lewisham, Genoa, years ago, that little room where we argued so fiercely all one evening; the congresses, that flawed, so flawed Respect campaign, the hotels in little towns. Their common memories came back in such a crowd that not one became dominant; all were present, but silently and unobtrusively, recreating a friendship which had never known words."

The Chief sighed. Kondratiev, at the other end of the receiver, could hear the deep fatigue in his voice…

“Well, Vania, what’s the situation now, down there? Speak plainly, you know me.”

“The situation”, Kondratiev began, “The situation…”

The Chief seemed not to have heard this beginning. “You know, veterans like you, members of the old Party, must tell me the truth … the whole truth. Otherwise who will I get it from. I need it. Everything is lies and lies and lies! From top to bottom, they all lie. It’s diabolical … nauseating … I live on the summit of an edifice of lies, do you know that? Party Notes lies of course. it is the sum total of the stupidities of the full-timers at the base, the intrigues at the Centre, the imaginings, the servility … I feel like asking people why, even if they say nothing, their eyes lie. Do you know what I mean?”

Was he finding excuses for himself? He let his voice trail off

Kondratiev was pulled into speaking by the unwanted silence. Should he risk it? He raised an unemphatic, “Isn’t it little your own fault?”

“I’d like to see you in my place – yes that’s something I’d like to see. The Party is a swamp – the farther you go, the more the ground gives, you sink in just when you least expect to … “

“Like the end of the 70s?”

“Yes … On the surface … But without the Party, without Cliff.”

The Chief paused and Kondratiev thought he could hear the sound of the receiver being placed – on a table? – glasses being lifted from a face, hands rubbing a tired brow.

“I need you to vote the right way on Sunday.”

Kondratiev did not answer. He thought, “That is cruel.”

“We are worth that”, the Chief resumed.

Kondratiev hesitated before answering, for he had thought a great deal on the subject.

“I think”, said Kondratiev, “that you personally have been wrong to associate yourself so personally, twice, with the hearing of a complaint. You must have a sense, don’t you, of the harm the last year has done us? Why can’t we do things better this time?”

“But our plans for Sunday are so carefully crafted”, the Chief countered, “There will be no expulsions this time.”

“Suspensions and a dismissal, do you think the opposition will fall for that?”

The Chief sighed and said nothing.

“I have been so moderate. In December, I attended meeting offering to sponsor the Opposition. I have spoken to Comrade G- offering the Opposition a compromise.”

“And yet with every intervention, you make things worse. It was you who told the first conference ‘This is War’”.

“No I did not.”

“It was you who asked the second conference to treat the opposition with ‘the contempt they deserve’.”

“But I have only been holding back the tide.”

“With every step you take, the thugs and the bullies tighten their control over the organisation.”

The strain the Chief’s voice was audible, “There are three factions in the party, and mine is the Centre, the only moderates.”

“If you offered them peace, do you think anyone in the Opposition would believe a word you say?”

Konradtiev flinched as words exploded from the Chief: “Everyone lies and lies and lies!”

“There is so much servility everywhere, a lack of oxygen”, the Chief continued, “How are we supposed to build the party without oxygen?”

“I could always accuse them of wanting to join Counterfire…”

Here they began, within them and between them, a secret dialogue, which they both followed by divination, distinctly. “Why don’t you leave?”, Kondratiev suggested. “A two, three year sabbatical? It would do you so much good.”

“I never wanted this role”, the Chief countered. “But I am the only one left of the Old Guard. I’m still needed. “

They spoke none of these words; they heard them, uttered them, only in a double tete-a-tete.

“I pity you, you are the most captive of us all.”

“I don’t want to be pitied. I forbid you to pity me. I have chosen my path and I will live by it.”*


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jul 8, 2013)

seems like a total disaster move really. As the expulsions go on the expellees become more loyal and long-standing, so the opposition encompasses more and more loyalists...pity those finally speaking out didn't pluck up the courage rather earlier, of course!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 8, 2013)

Well it looks as if the final face-off between what was the "soft" opposition and the CC is now in progress. I'd assumed it would take a bit longer for this to happen: The Counterfire/ISG splits took more than a year and a half to work themselves out.

Up to 200 signatories already, including all of the remaining oppositional "names", Stack, Birchall, Dee, Bergfeld, Davidson, Gonzalez etc. After all this time and all this paralysis, it looks like they will end up losing more than the original 600 factionalists, They are in serious trouble.

Where do the "soft" oppositionists go now? A reunification with the ISN? Or will they want to keep things more "orthodox"?


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 8, 2013)

I had thought Marxism might be difficult for the cc, but now it looks like a full on car crash, will smith be patrolling the quad at the head of callinicos' lynch mobs?


----------



## killer b (Jul 8, 2013)

trotskyite death-eaters.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well it looks as if the final face-off between what was the "soft" opposition and the CC is now in progress. I'd assumed it would take a bit longer for this to happen: The Counterfire/ISG splits took more than a year and a half to work themselves out.
> 
> Up to 200 signatories already, including all of the remaining oppositional "names", Stack, Birchall, Dee, Bergfeld, Davidson, Gonzalez etc. After all this time and all this paralysis, it looks like they will end up losing more than the original 600 factionalists, They are in serious trouble.
> 
> Where do the "soft" oppositionists go now? A reunification with the ISN? Or will they want to keep things more "orthodox"?


 
How is this stuff playing in Ireland?

Is Richard Boyd Barrett well liked and respected?

Does his going to Marxism change views about him?


----------



## JHE (Jul 8, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> ...will smith be patrolling the quad at the head of callinicos' lynch mobs?


 
...or in hiding from the lynch mobs that are out to get _him_?

One of the strange things about this whole sorry tale is that the SWP bosses didn't throw him out many months ago.  That's what leaders of the main parties would do in similar circumstances, I think.  They'd tell him to go and he'd agree for the good of the party, while continuing to protest his innocence.   Toy Town Bolsheviks are not usually any more loyal to their comrades than other politicians.  Perhaps they are just more contemptuous of the members.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 8, 2013)

killer b said:


> trotskyite death-eaters.


Dementors



"Rodney regretted asking whether bookmarks had any China Mieville books in stock"


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> excerpt from the cc report,
> 
> "Anyone who now smashes up an organisation of several thousand revolutionary socialists with precious roots in workplaces and communities is playing with fire.
> 
> ...


According to Pat Stack the membership was 1,500 earlier in the year. I think that was before all this trouble.


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 8, 2013)

discokermit said:


> excerpt from the cc report,
> 
> "Anyone who now smashes up an organisation of several thousand revolutionary socialists with precious roots in workplaces and communities is playing with fire.
> 
> ...



The 'playing with fire' remark is particularly unfortunate by the CC because the last time it was used in a public statement was in the SWP's calamitous (for them) intervention into the first Lindsey dispute.

Our old friend Comrade Delta produced a very badly researched pamphlet that accused the strike committee of lying because... ACAS had published different figures on rates of pay!


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2013)

Its the final countdown


who will be left standing, what with this and the LP and Unite conflict, LU should be getting busy..


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> *The 'playing with fire' remark is particularly unfortunate by the CC because the last time it was used in a public statement was in the SWP's calamitous (for them) intervention into the first Lindsey dispute.*
> 
> Our old friend Comrade Delta produced a very badly researched pamphlet that accused the strike committee of lying because... ACAS had published different figures on rates of pay!


 

that would be the dispute in which SEYMOUR! changed his line overnight after getting the new one from the top..


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 8, 2013)

treelover said:


> that would be the dispute in which SEYMOUR! changed his line overnight after getting the new one from the top..



It certainly was. I challenged him on the Tomb and one of his fan boys offered to scratch any internal itches I might have with a broom handle and some lube. It was a real high level discussion as you can imagine. 

Hillariously, that same fan boy was one of the loudest wailers over CC loyalist bullying during the Delta imbroglio. 

What go around come around kid.


----------



## andysays (Jul 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And as the countries leading Marxist theorist he should understand exactly why this is the case.


 
Self declared "country's leading Marxist theorist", surely?

That statement is so fucking deluded that it could be dubbed straight over the film of Hitler in the bunker (can't remember the name of the film...) with absolutely no alteration.

Utterly. Lost. The. Plot!


----------



## SLK (Jul 8, 2013)

At least two have withdrawn from Marxism. Bergfeld and Jamie Woodcock. A few others considering whether to. Dan Swain might have. Ian Birchall rumoured to be about to. I wonder if they might just not bother turning up.

The cc are correct though - there was a plan for the oppositionists to leave en masse together. But they're not going to make it better like this.

The four names are available on twitter and Facebook very easily.

edit: Birchall confirmed on twitter he's not speaking. Swain also.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 8, 2013)

Rumour has it that 'Delta' was due to resign before Marxism, but the deal fell through?


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2013)

Apparently the last session before the closing rally with Kimber is entitled " ‘After the Horsemeat Scandal’. Butchery, adulteration, & scandal,"


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 8, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Rumour has it that 'Delta' was due to resign before Marxism, but the deal fell through?


 
a 50 yr old CC member (of over 30 yrs membership and who had worked for the party since the early 1990's) has a sexual relationship with a 17 year old...she makes an allegation that he acted inappropriately and he remains a party member...she later believes that she has been raped by the same person and makes a complaint to the swp accordingly...and the man is still an swp member...a second woman comes forward and makes a complaint that the same man sexually harassed her...and  he still remains a member...in the meanwhile the 2nd woman is removed from her original job with the swp as a direct result of her coming forward, hundreds of swp members resign in protest of the atrocious handling of the case...some are expelled for discussing it on the internet...
and now a deal for the 50 yr old man to resign has fallen apart? 
at best he has betrayed a trust and behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner to someone barely out of school and at worst is a rapist (I have known the man since I was 21 (25 years in total) and used to think he was ok and yet I absolutely believe the women)
I am so glad I left and have had nothing to do with the swp in the past 5 yrs.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 8, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Rumour has it that 'Delta' was due to resign before Marxism, but the deal fell through?


Resign from what?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 9, 2013)

it goes from bad to worse, http://www.ulu.co.uk/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=376413


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 9, 2013)

"The ludicrous attempts to silence SWP critics who have been publicly blogging their misgivings about this discredited and clueless leadership is disaggregating the whole organisation."
Disaggregating?!?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 9, 2013)

audiotech said:


> Rumour has it that 'Delta' was due to resign before Marxism, but the deal fell through?


----------



## laptop (Jul 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it's up again now, with names, http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/54901525674/statement-on-the-swp-crisis .


 
And in the _Guardian_ diary: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/08/hugh-muir-diary-swp-rock


----------



## laptop (Jul 9, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Disaggregating?!?


 
As in the (CIA?) euphemism "energetic disassembly", I think.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it goes from bad to worse, http://www.ulu.co.uk/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=376413


 

lol Michael Chessum must be rubbing his hands with glee, is ULU just going to let anti-SWP students run riot?


----------



## dominion (Jul 9, 2013)

must get a ticket for the fireworks


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2013)

greatest show on earth


Women's issues, are they going to be the dominant force on the left in the next decade, and why?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it goes from bad to worse, http://www.ulu.co.uk/news/index.php?page=article&news_id=376413


I'd be interested to see who else holds events there though. 

On another note according to someone on SU some members are collecting money to fund Delta's MA. Even without all this shit why should members be expected to pay for his studies? 

A more disturbing thought has just struck me. A number of former SWP CC members have ended up as college lecturers, is this his plan? I feel a little sick at the thought of it.


----------



## SLK (Jul 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I'd be interested to see who else holds events there though.
> 
> On another note according to someone on SU some members are collecting money to fund Delta's MA. Even without all this shit why should members be expected to pay for his studies?
> 
> A more disturbing thought has just struck me. A number of former SWP CC members have ended up as college lecturers, is this his plan? I feel a little sick at the thought of it.


 

He must have something over them. I suspect it is cash or something. 

It's like because he can't work in the SWP any more they feel like they owe him a living, or a pension, or something.


----------



## SLK (Jul 9, 2013)

The suspensions have been lifted!

Sounds like a desperate attempt to rescue Marxism.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> He must have something over them. I suspect it is cash or something.
> 
> It's like because he can't work in the SWP any more they feel like they owe him a living, or a pension, or something.


Yeah, it's just bizarre, if true, I don't subscribe to the view that the SWP is in someway a cult, but this does seem rather cult like to me.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> The suspensions have been lifted!


Really? Wow!


----------



## SLK (Jul 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Really? Wow!


 

Unbelievably weak from the CC, but a well played hand by the opposition.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Resign from what?


 

Err, the SWP.


----------



## JHE (Jul 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> ...according to someone on SU some members are collecting money to fund Delta's MA.


 
Proposed title of dissertation:

"Those [slave girls] whom thy right hand possesses": A Quranic perspective on women's liberation within the revolutionary party


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I'd be interested to see who else holds events there though.
> 
> On another note according to someone on SU some members are collecting money to fund Delta's MA. Even without all this shit why should members be expected to pay for his studies?
> 
> A more disturbing thought has just struck me. A number of former SWP CC members have ended up as college lecturers, is this his plan? I feel a little sick at the thought of it.


 

Worth keeping an eye on, if he does end up enrolling on an MA programme both his lecturers and fellow students should probably know what has gone on.


----------



## SLK (Jul 9, 2013)

As you may know, the National Committee on Sunday suspended four comrades from membership pending an investigation. There was evidence that these four had initiated or signed up to a bank account which was designed to finance a split from the SWP and to make a different group financially viable. We have received assurances after the NC that "the bank account has been closed" and that there will not be any similar account created. We have also been told that comrades are "not agitating for a split". The Central Committee is pleased that these undertakings have now been given. We call on all comrades to end factional activity and to take part in discussion inside the party structures, publications and at Marxism 2013. On that basis we are lifting the suspensions on the four comrades that were passed at the National Committee on Sunday. Solidarity, Charlie Kimber, SWP national secretary


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2013)

SLK said:


> As you may know, the National Committee on Sunday suspended four comrades from membership pending an investigation. There was evidence that these four had initiated or signed up to a bank account which was designed to finance a split from the SWP and to make a different group financially viable. We have received assurances after the NC that "the bank account has been closed" and that there will not be any similar account created. We have also been told that comrades are "not agitating for a split". The Central Committee is pleased that these undertakings have now been given. We call on all comrades to end factional activity and to take part in discussion inside the party structures, publications and at Marxism 2013. On that basis we are lifting the suspensions on the four comrades that were passed at the National Committee on Sunday. Solidarity, Charlie Kimber, SWP national secretary


 
They really could not be more vacillating. Yet again, they provoke and antagonise the opposition but then they don't follow through. Bizarre.

It's trivia, I know, but I'm actually a bit surprised that the CC formally has the authority to rescind an NC decision. Is the NC not supposed to be sovereign in between conferences?


----------



## SLK (Jul 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They really could not be more vacillating. Yet again, they provoke and antagonise the opposition but then they don't follow through. Bizarre.
> 
> It's trivia, I know, but I'm actually a bit surprised that the CC formally has the authority to rescind an NC decision. Is the NC not supposed to be sovereign in between conferences?


 

I don't think they're bothered about pretending processes, and hence formalities are important in this time of crisis. Marxism is going to be smaller than the latter Skegness gatherings. How can they go from an even of over 6000 (I saw ticket sales) to worrying about 800? For reference, the 6k was 98.


----------



## SLK (Jul 10, 2013)

A statement from the unsuspended comrades is due for release any minute.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jul 10, 2013)

It is out, and it is defiant. Is the split coming in weeks or months? http://revolutionarysocialism.tumbl...-statement-from-the-four-unsuspended-comrades


----------



## discokermit (Jul 10, 2013)

here tis,

http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/


----------



## discokermit (Jul 10, 2013)

arse.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> greatest show on earth
> 
> 
> *Women's issues*, are they going to be the dominant force on the left in the next decade, and why?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

indeed, rape is not just a women's issue.


----------



## cesare (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> indeed, rape is not just a women's issue.


Rape's primarily a men's issue, cos it's usually men that rape.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2013)

'Professor Darkside attacks a rebel base on the internet'







Latest from 'Weekly Worker'


----------



## pir (Jul 10, 2013)

At least all the creeping feminism hasn't made Callinicos lose his sense of "humour" :
https://twitter.com/alex_callinicos/statuses/353826368099856384 (TW - domestic violence)


----------



## cesare (Jul 10, 2013)

pir said:


> At least all the creeping feminism hasn't made Callinicos lose his sense of "humour" :
> https://twitter.com/alex_callinicos/statuses/353826368099856384 (TW - domestic violence)


I hope someone's replied with a terse: "like the orderly queue forming to get tickets for Marxism?"


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 10, 2013)

pir said:


> At least all the creeping feminism hasn't made Callinicos lose his sense of "humour" :
> https://twitter.com/alex_callinicos/statuses/353826368099856384 (TW - domestic violence)


 
What the actual fuck?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> I hope someone's replied with a terse: "like the orderly queue forming to get tickets for Marxism?"


 

they have now.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

Anyone been following this btw? Someone's got a minor axe to grind with the SP on the falling rate of profit theory, and was banned from the summer school because of it!

http://69.195.124.91/~brucieba/

I'm kind of feeling sympathetic to the SP leadership on this one tbh as the guy seems a bit of a loon. There are serious issues about democracy in the party though (which is a big reason why I left).


----------



## cesare (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> they have now.


"Preferring the Alpha male to the Delta variety?"


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

I think he's blocked me


----------



## cesare (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think he's blocked me


I said it too


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> I said it too


 

who are you on there?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Anyone been following this btw? Someone's got a minor axe to grind with the SP on the falling rate of profit theory, and was banned from the summer school because of it!
> 
> http://69.195.124.91/~brucieba/
> 
> I'm kind of feeling sympathetic to the SP leadership on this one tbh as the guy seems a bit of a loon. There are serious issues about democracy in the party though (which is a big reason why I left).


 

'a lenin aptly said...'


----------



## cesare (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> who are you on there?


Cesareurban


----------



## audiotech (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I'm kind of feeling sympathetic to the SP leadership on this one tbh as the guy seems a bit of a loon.


 
I like his humour, not a trait I saw much off during the _Militant_ phase. Invite him over here.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Anyone been following this btw? Someone's got a minor axe to grind with the SP on the falling rate of profit theory, and was banned from the summer school because of it!
> 
> http://69.195.124.91/~brucieba/
> 
> I'm kind of feeling sympathetic to the SP leadership on this one tbh as the guy seems a bit of a loon. There are serious issues about democracy in the party though (which is a big reason why I left).


 

Bruce is a long time CWI member and whilst he's always had a rather nuanced approach to life he's not a loon imho. The habit of some in the CWI to refer to their detractors as 'loons' etc seems to have rubbed off on you froggie.

Matt Dobson however is a bit of an odd character....


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> Bruce is a long time CWI member and whilst he's always had a rather nuanced approach to life he's not a loon imho. The habit of some in the CWI to refer to their detractors as 'loons' etc seems to have rubbed off on you froggie.
> 
> Matt Dobson however is a bit of an odd character....


 

Oh ok fair enough I haven't read enough of the blog to have been following the dispute in much depth. He does have a point with some of the things he's talking about (banning him from the summer school is a bit out of order) but he seemed a bit obsessive about that one issue at first glance. I'll need to have a proper look.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

‘’We know you have been in contact with ‘’enemies’’ of the CWI like Mick Brooks ( I contacted him to buy his book) and Andrew Kliman (who is to be a honoured guest at Socialism 2013) who is a state capitalist etc. etc. etc.’’ he just went on and on. Didn’t he realise that there were members of the youth present who probably didn’t know who Mick was and one comrade was looking very uneasy and I’m not surprised given Matt’s ”tone” (monotonous, flat and devoid of any emotion). He certainly wasn’t smiling and had a dead pan expression a bit like an overworked probation officer. Funny as he is usually more expressive and does have a sense of humour.

this bit is lol though


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Anyone been following this btw? Someone's got a minor axe to grind with the SP on the falling rate of profit theory, and was banned from the summer school because of it!


 
That's slightly bizarre. Particularly when, according the always unreliable Weekly Worker, they've published his letters repeatedly, haven't told him to take down his blog, and have agreed to publish a longer debate with him and hold a face to face one at a members meeting. Dunno why they would then have a problem with him arguing his views in Belgium.

Although, having just looked at his blog and the rather personal remarks he makes in public about other members, I can see how he might have aggravated people. Maybe they just don't want to spend a week drinking with him.


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2013)

I really hope this sort of thing doesn't become common in LU, 'angels dancing on pinheads', already they are getting the 'reform vs revolution' tired arguments over and over again, as if we are anywhere near a revolutionary situation, its for hobbyists, imo,


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's slightly bizarre. Particularly when, according the always unreliable Weekly Worker, they've published his letters repeatedly, haven't told him to take down his blog, and have agreed to publish a longer debate with him and hold a face to face one at a members meeting. Dunno why they would then have a problem with him arguing his views in Belgium.
> 
> Although, having just looked at his blog and the rather personal remarks he makes in public about other members, I can see how he might have aggravated people.


 

yeah, i'm staying well out of this one i think. the personal remarks is why i thought he was a bit nuts initially ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, i'm staying well out of this one i think.


you say that now but you'll change your mind.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> I really hope this sort of thing doesn't become common in LU, 'angels dancing on pinheads', already they are getting the 'reform vs revolution' tired arguments over and over again, as if we are anywhere near a revolutionary situation, its for hobbyists, imo,


 
Debates of this kind aren't particularly common in the SP either, but I don't think that there's any problem in having them. In fact, they serve a useful purpose as long as involvement in them is voluntary and enthusiasts for them don't keep going on and on about them at inappropriate times. Understanding what causes capitalist crises is actually an important issue for socialists.


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2013)

of course, but LU is just starting out, that can come later.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jul 10, 2013)

good on the SP/CWI for trying to kick the LTRPF obsession into touch. that must be the single biggest cause of 'revolutionary' delusions amongst socialists. all for open debate but that guy looks like he could derail any discussion within seconds! (I think Kliman & his buddies aren't entirely wrong, but the bits they're right on are a bit useless as far as political action is concerned)


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> of course, but LU is just starting out, that can come later.


 

Later when? After what?


----------



## killer b (Jul 10, 2013)

the revolution.


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2013)

abstract debates can come after LU is an established organisation, etc


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 10, 2013)

In what way is it abstract? It's basic IMO. What do we want? Can we get what we want in the current system? If not why not? And what do we do about it?


----------



## andysays (Jul 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> I hope someone's replied with a terse: "like the orderly queue forming to get tickets for Marxism?"


 


frogwoman said:


> they have now.


 
Good to see you two misogynists can lay off poor Laurie Penny for a minute and attack the Marxist academic aristocracy


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jul 10, 2013)

Looks like weeks not months: http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-crisis-cc-lashes-out


----------



## JHE (Jul 10, 2013)

Social Workers' Holy See See said:
			
		

> More importantly, it will further discredit the image of Marxist organisations in the eyes of advanced workers.


 
I asked a few advanced workers what they thought of the whole sorry tale. "Who?" asked one. "What?" asked another. A third just furrowed his brow for a moment, shook his head briefly and then changed the subject. None seemed to care. Tsk. I may have to demote them to the backward workers class.


----------



## Tom A (Jul 10, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> they have now.


 
(logs into Twitter for the first time in weeks just to ensure it gets RT'd)


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 11, 2013)

M2013 gets under way. Still love it.


----------



## JHE (Jul 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> M2013...


 
The motorway to oblivion?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> M2013 gets under way. Still love it.


 
Wow, where did all your students go?

That's the last time I accept an ageist gibe from a Swoppie about the SPGB.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> M2013 gets under way. Still love it.


 

That's a pretty big jury?!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 11, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> That's a pretty big jury?!


I am surprised how many are there. That I take it is the opening meeting. That picture can't be very old.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cesareurban


 
master of undercover


----------



## cesare (Jul 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> master of undercover


Pure stealth


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Pure stealth


 

Hide in plain sight.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Anyone been following this btw? Someone's got a minor axe to grind with the SP on the falling rate of profit theory, and was banned from the summer school because of it!
> 
> http://69.195.124.91/~brucieba/
> 
> I'm kind of feeling sympathetic to the SP leadership on this one tbh as the guy seems a bit of a loon. There are serious issues about democracy in the party though (which is a big reason why I left).


 
what is the falling rate of profit theory apart from the the lets invest the money we just won on the dogs in the Ladbrokes casino machine bit?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Pure stealth


 
 must be the sunglasses


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> what is the falling rate of profit theory apart from the the lets invest the money we just won on the dogs in the Ladbrokes casino machine bit?


 

bordiga is involved somewhere. I read about it


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> bordiga is involved somewhere. I read about it


 
he would be, can't keep his nose out or his hands away from anything


----------



## cesare (Jul 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> must be the sunglasses


And the turned up coat collar


----------



## Before Theory (Jul 11, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I am surprised how many are there. That I take it is the opening meeting. That picture can't be very old.


That is a tiny turnout compared even to a few years ago. The opening rally used to be in Friends Meeting House and hold a couple of thousand, packed with young people. Changed times, there's no more than 7/800 in that room and you can see all the longstanding loyalists like Roddy Slorack and Paul Holborrow wheeled in to stand by their man. Looks like a Countryside Alliance meeting


----------



## discokermit (Jul 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


>


the newest member in this pic joined in '85.


----------



## Before Theory (Jul 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the newest member in this pic joined in '85.


Yeah, 1885........Sorry couldn't resist that old  chestnut


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the newest member in this pic joined in '85.


 
The Golden generation, when class meant something


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the newest member in this pic joined in '85.


 

third along, bottom corner, I thought Bill Roache was in the nick..


----------



## discokermit (Jul 11, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> The Golden generation, when class meant something


nah. the year of shouty nutcases. all the shouty nutters in my branch joined in 85.

88 was the best vintage.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> nah. the year of shouty nutcases. all the shouty nutters in my branch joined in 85.
> 
> 88 was the best vintage.


 
acid flashbacks


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 12, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> That is a tiny turnout compared even to a few years ago. The opening rally used to be in Friends Meeting House and hold a couple of thousand, packed with young people. Changed times, there's no more than 7/800 in that room and you can see all the longstanding loyalists like Roddy Slorack and Paul Holborrow wheeled in to stand by their man. Looks like a Countryside Alliance meeting


 
800? Not even half that. Look more closely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> 800? Not even half that. Look more closely.


 

theres more watching on the big screens outside


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> theres more watching on the big screens outside


 
ah right. like the royal wedding.

as you were then


----------



## discokermit (Jul 12, 2013)

no need to go, you can read how it went here, http://bloggingjbloggs1917.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/marxism-2013/


----------



## andysays (Jul 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no need to go, you can read how it went here, http://bloggingjbloggs1917.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/marxism-2013/


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> nah. the year of shouty nutcases. all the shouty nutters in my branch joined in 85.



<------ Class of '85


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2013)

Yes, not the main hall.






Back to 'reality'.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 12, 2013)

andysays said:


>


I love how there is a complete summary of what happened at Marxism including the closing rally next Monday. That saves a lot of money in tickets. Of course if you really want to hear what is said at the meetings it will all be on YouTube in due course. That saves even buying the CDs as used to happen in the old days.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no need to go, you can read how it went here, http://bloggingjbloggs1917.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/marxism-2013/


Inspiring lol


----------



## andysays (Jul 12, 2013)

Participants at Marxism spoke to Socialist Worker about their experience of the event. Martin is a lecherer and an member of the UCU union.​“I met Socialist Workers Party members at my union conference who told me about Marxism,” he said. “I definitely want to come more often now.​​


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 12, 2013)

Been listening to the recordings of meetings at the ISO event a couple of weeks back over on wearemany.org

Lot of quality but also some quite explicit interventions in the SWP debates. Just finished Ahmed Shawki's talk on the Legacy of the International Socialists which is basically a 30 min hatchet job on Cliff, the transformation from the IS to the SWP and the current leadership. Phrases like degeneration, terminal and "100's more about to leave" abound. And he makes no bones about the ISO seeing itself as trying to win over the rest of the tendency to the ISO-ISN axis. 

For all his 'we need to build a new open, heterodox tendency' it was funny hearing Shawki swearing at the crowd during his Perspectives meeting cause they'd taken half an hour before their first round of applause for him. Hagiography is in the eye of the beholder always...


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> nah. the year of shouty nutcases. all the shouty nutters in my branch joined in 85.
> 
> 88 was the best vintage.


I joined in 85 _and_ 88, so what does that make me?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> theres more watching on the big screens outside


 
You forgot the ones that joined hands in a dark room in an attempt to contact the living.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 12, 2013)

belboid said:


> I joined in 85 _and_ 88, so what does that make me?


leaving yourself wide open there.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 12, 2013)

Yer Association of Musical Marxists have just published this book, presumably to coincide with Marxism 2013:







Sections on The SWP Crisis, sexism, democracy...


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> leaving yourself wide open there.


there's a Martin Smith joke in there somewhere, but I think I'll leave it


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Yer Association of Musical Marxists have just published this book, presumably to coincide with Marxism 2013:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


due out on kindle in a week or so too!


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Been listening to the recordings of meetings at the ISO event a couple of weeks back over on wearemany.org ...


 

Hey BB, did you contribute to Comrade Delta's Masters fund? Will you, if asked? Because if they can't get cash from a loyalist like you, the poor fella might have to get a ... job. How the mighty will have fallen.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

belboid said:


> I joined in 85 _and_ 88, so what does that make me?


 
a nutty, yet rounded taste that combines the fruitiness of latter years with its cask-aged depth. Probably best left till 2016 when it can be enjoyed over the ashes of the Liberal Democrat Party


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

Vin table obviously. We save the good stuff till later


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> a nutty, yet rounded taste that combines the fruitiness of latter years with its cask-aged depth. Probably best left till 2016 when it can be enjoyed over the ashes of the Liberal Democrat Party


 
A White, then?


----------



## cesare (Jul 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Hey BB, did you contribute to Comrade Delta's Masters fund? Will you, if asked? Because if they can't get cash from a loyalist like you, the poor fella might have to get a ... job. How the mighty will have fallen.


Isn't he a full timer? Ie this *is* his job?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 12, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Yer Association of Musical Marxists have just published this book, presumably to coincide with Marxism 2013:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
preaching to the reconverted


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 12, 2013)

According to wikipedia Dave Renton went to Eton - I didn't know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Renton


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> Isn't he a full timer? Ie this *is* his job?


 

I don't think paid employment by the SWP or UAF is a secure source of income for him now.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 12, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> According to wikipedia Dave Renton went to Eton - I didn't know that.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Renton


 

He's obviously one of the good guys, particularly in the current SWP crisis. But where, in our times, are the prominent revolutionary activists, one with genuine working class roots? If James Connolly could educate himself in a much more difficult era - in terms of gaining sophisticated political and literary skills - to the point that he could write _Labour in Irish History_, then why aren't there more revolutionaries of working class background in leadership roles today? Seriously. It's topic related, in that if the SWP CC and NC had fewer members originating from grammar school and even public school, they might not be in this mess.


----------



## cesare (Jul 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I don't think paid employment by the SWP or UAF is a secure source of income for him now.


You'd think not. But I've heard of nothing to suggest investigatory suspension, investigation and dismissal for gross misconduct. It seems as though he's being shuffled about and kept in low profile - but beyond that it's hard to get past the smoke and mirrors to ascertain whether he's still a (senior) employee.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2013)

i've seen enough trots today to fill the gents at wapping's prospect of whitby - a smaller turnout than last year


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Hey BB, did you contribute to Comrade Delta's Masters fund? Will you, if asked? Because if they can't get cash from a loyalist like you, the poor fella might have to get a ... job. How the mighty will have fallen.


Did you discuss that with the ISO when you were in Chicago?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 12, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> He's obviously one of the good guys, particularly in the current SWP crisis. But where, in our times, are the prominent revolutionary activists, one with genuine working class roots? If James Connolly could educate himself in a much more difficult era - in terms of gaining sophisticated political and literary skills - to the point that he could write _Labour in Irish History_, then why aren't there more revolutionaries of working class background in leadership roles today? Seriously. It's topic related, in that if the SWP CC and NC had fewer members originating from grammar school and even public school, they might not be in this mess.


What a load of populist bollox from an academic. Particularily when if we were to use class background as the arbiter of correctness in this debate the loyalist wing of the party would be hands down the winners. Silly discussion for any trot to entertain in a factional debate anyway. This stuff doesn't matter. I don't agree with Dave Renton on this debate but it really, really doesn't matter one tiny iota what school he went to. He's a great fella who happens to be on the wrong side imho in this debate. But his class background has fuck all to do with that any more than Bergfeld's, Seymour's or Callinicos' has anything to do with their position on this mess.


----------



## tony.c (Jul 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no need to go, you can read how it went here, http://bloggingjbloggs1917.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/marxism-2013/





> *Other meetings of great interest includes Paul Holborrow talking about the rise of UKIP, recently plagued by allegations of rape and the party merely holding an internal investigation and not believing the victim.*


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 12, 2013)

Molyneux tonight on What is the Real IS tradition should be a nice rejoinder to the ISO-ISN. Until I'd listened to Shawki earlier today with his 'funny' english accent as he bashed the 'Brits' I never thought anyone could make me so pro British. British with a Gluckstein accent that is.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 12, 2013)

Hang on, didn't you have some crisis of conscience a few months ago and decide that the opposition were right?


----------



## Before Theory (Jul 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Hang on, didn't you have some crisis of conscience a few months ago and decide that the opposition were right?



Apology Boy has trotted back into line behind his master. Why is anyone surprised ? Plus if he's going to be subsidising Delta's further education for the foreseeable future, then he really has to come back into the little tent again.


----------



## cesare (Jul 12, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i've seen enough trots today to fill the gents at wapping's prospect of whitby - a smaller turnout than last year


One cubicle, two urinals. Apparently


----------



## laptop (Jul 12, 2013)

I had this mental image of filling a urinal with trots. Barf.


----------



## andysays (Jul 12, 2013)

belboid said:


> I joined in 85 _and_ 88, so what does that make me?


 
 Confused; gullible; not able to learn from your mistakes, at least in the short term?

What do _you_ think it makes you?


----------



## andysays (Jul 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> One cubicle, two urinals. Apparently


 
Is this some clever detournement of a dialectical slogan of which I am ignorant?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> .....funny hearing Shawki swearing at the crowd during his Perspectives meeting...


 
Yeah, "funny" to hear him admit mistakes. Then there's: 'The smaller you are the more mistaken you can become. Wishful thinking, or in some cases cut off from reality'. Has a ring to it.

Quoting Harman's '79 pamphlet on technology is a case in point. When I first read that I thought what a load of old tosh. It concluded, and I'll paraphrase here: 'Can you imagine the working class in every council tower block having access to such technology?' Err, yes. Harman thought not.

Ahmed Shawki's speech on:
The Legacy of International Socialism.


----------



## manny-p (Jul 12, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Wow, where did all your students go?


 
I guess they don't want to be raped and/or groomed by swp folk.


----------



## manny-p (Jul 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> theres more watching on the big screens outside


 
They have set up the swp equivalent of henman hill?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

Delta's delta


----------



## manny-p (Jul 12, 2013)

BRAVO 2, CHARLIE





HILL


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2013)

Mad swappie taxi driver just shared this update: 

I'm in a meeting at Marxism called 'Raunch culture and the new sexism'.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

the fun never stops


----------



## J Ed (Jul 12, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Mad swappie taxi driver just shared this update:
> 
> I'm in a meeting at Marxism called 'Raunch culture and the new sexism'.


 

Good to know that the SWP are willing to tackle difficult issues surrounding systemic sexism like teenage boys calling each other 'lad' a bit too much.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 12, 2013)

I've just cunted him off on facebook. I doubt he'll respond


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Good to know that the SWP are willing to tackle difficult issues surrounding systemic sexism like teenage boys calling each other 'lad' a bit too much.


thats not to say laddism is non existent thing mind, guilty of falling into lazy wahey shite myself sometimes.

but this this really what they should be discussing?

I dunno I didn't ever go or anything but you'd have thought they'd be discussing some issues closer to home iyswim


----------



## discokermit (Jul 12, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> but this this really what they should be discussing?


they discuss lots of stuff. mind you, my favourite meetings were always the least relevant.

which reminds me of when i'd just moved down to london and was chatting to a woman i'd just met (friends now). ou introduced me to her and mentioned she had been on "the word". i asked her how come and she said about being in a band, i asked which one and she told me. i couldn't quite place the band but the name rang a bell, she said something like "you've probably never heard of us, we weren't very mainstream", which proper got up my nose.
then it came to me, the band, their daft names, the whole riot grrrl thing and best of all, i'd seen them being interviewed in a meeting at marxism! they were awful! it was the most embarrasing and cringeworthy meeting ever.

bosh!

"oh yeh, i remember you. i saw your most embarrasing moment on a stage, ever...."

check mate!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 12, 2013)

needless to say, you had the last laugh


somebody re-post that picture of Callincos as the sith emperor. It's been a dry night for laughs and I could do with it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Hang on, didn't you have some crisis of conscience a few months ago and decide that the opposition were right?


On the sexual allegations and how they we handled yes. but only on that, all this "Cliff was wrong to change his mind on Luxemburg, let's recreate Beyond the Fragments" palaver is a crock. And the louder the Syriza wannabes get the more I wish the cc would get the delta stuff off the backs of those who should be out defending their tradition with an easy conscience.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> On the sexual allegations and how they we handled yes. but only on that, all this "Cliff was wrong to change his mind on Luxemburg, let's recreate Beyond the Fragments" palaver is a crock. And the louder the Syriza wannabes get the more I wish the cc would get the delta stuff off the backs of those who should be out defending their tradition with an easy conscience.


 

maybe you should be wishing the cc resign for completely fucking up such a easy to deal with situation.
maybe you should also question your continued involvement in the swp.
A socialist party is supposed to be a tool ... surely if the tool is broken you should stop using it...and broken is the only way to describe to describe the swp. Actually that's not strictly true...fucked up, misogynistic, disgraceful and stalinist could also be used.

I seriously do not understand how anyone is still involved in it.


----------



## cesare (Jul 13, 2013)

andysays said:


> Is this some clever detournement of a dialectical slogan of which I am ignorant?


It will be if I can think of one  Until then it's a direct reference to the excrementally execrable state of the SWP atm.


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2013)

andysays said:


> Confused; gullible; not able to learn from your mistakes, at least in the short term?
> 
> What do _you_ think it makes you?


Glad I never mentioned joining in 83 as well!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

Do you join after every defeat?


----------



## belboid (Jul 13, 2013)

That would have meant joining another dozen times at least


----------



## andysays (Jul 13, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Delta's delta


 
Martin's mountain, obvs...


----------



## discokermit (Jul 13, 2013)

report of the molyneux meeting, http://revolutionarysocialism.tumbl...13-john-molyneuxs-meeting-on-the-is-tradition


----------



## J Ed (Jul 13, 2013)

They actually called it cactus


----------



## J Ed (Jul 14, 2013)

Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in the other thread https://twitter.com/PennyRed/status/356100488040693762


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 14, 2013)

Glad to report that Marxism was bigger than expected yesterday (judging by size of meetings and queue for bar at 11PM, always the key indicator). Lively and diverse and young. Long may it continue.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Glad to report that Marxism was bigger than expected yesterday (judging by size of meetings and queue for bar at 11PM, always the key indicator). Lively and diverse and young. Long may it continue.


----------



## dominion (Jul 14, 2013)

It seems that Marxism may have come closer to being banned/cancelled by ULU than we thought. Even the SP were under attack because of the Hedley buisness, well according to the AWL who have issued the following statement:

http://www.workersliberty.org/marxism2013


----------



## dominion (Jul 14, 2013)

> Glad to report that Marxism was bigger than expected yesterday (judging by size of meetings and queue for bar at 11PM, always the key indicator). Lively and diverse and young. Long may it continue.


 
How anyone can be "glad" that Misogyny 2013 was "bigger than expected" and full of "young people" is beyond me.  

We are talking about a group who have treated women's rights appallingly, expelled people for just chatting on Facebook, wanted to raise "lynch mobs" against its' opponents, refuses to admit to its' mistakes and do something about them. 

Those that remain in the SWP should be ashamed of themselves. Appalling people.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 14, 2013)

dominion said:


> It seems that Marxism may have come closer to being banned/cancelled by ULU than we thought. Even the SP were under attack because of the Hedley buisness, well according to the AWL who have issued the following statement:
> 
> http://www.workersliberty.org/marxism2013


 

Doesn't seem unlikely since ULU President Michael Chessum is AWL (or as good as AWL) isn't he?


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ... bigger than expected yesterday.



http://inagist.com/all/356014581342167040/


----------



## discokermit (Jul 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Glad to report that Marxism was bigger than expected yesterday


biggest and best ever?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy. the only person to be actually drawn back in to the swp by their mistreatment of rape.

2013. a particularly sour vintage.


----------



## JHE (Jul 14, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> http://inagist.com/all/356014581342167040/


 

From that link:  _*"I'd feel sorry for people at Marxism2013 being trapped indoors with rape apologists on a day like this, except they're also rape apologists."*_

I despise the Social Workers and have done for years. I also recognise that their handling of the allegations against Smith has been crap. However, that really does not make the Social Worker leaders, let alone the whole membership (which includes people highly critical of the leadership), apologists for rape. They have not said rape is ever OK. They have simply failed at the difficult task of responding adequately to accusations against one of their members. That failure does not amount to being apologists for rape. To say it does is wrong, way over the top and plainly unfair.


----------



## kenny g (Jul 14, 2013)

Are there any after parties tonight?

I am not surprised members are pleased the last few days have been full of young people based on Delta's apparent tastes. More flesh for the mill and all that.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 14, 2013)

apart from that foghorn bolshie bellowing "everything is great!" now and again, it's all been a bit quiet.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 14, 2013)

So, what about these new rape allegations against Cmrde. D?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 14, 2013)

What new rape allegations?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 14, 2013)

emanymton said:


> What new rape allegations?


 
Apparently in the last week new allegations have surfaced. My friend went to Marxism due to this to see if the feminists would kick off.


----------



## andysays (Jul 14, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> So, what about these new rape allegations against Cmrde. D?


 
There are still outstanding allegations, from a member of party staff then reporting to D. If I remember correctly, these were known at the party conference earlier this year, but dealing with them has been inexplicably put off until next year's conference. All that's been mentioned (more than once) in the course of this thread.

Are you saying that there are now new allegations in addition to those?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> There are still outstanding allegations, from a member of party staff then reporting to D. If I remember correctly, these were known at the party conference earlier this year, but dealing with them has been inexplicably put off until next year's conference. All that's been mentioned (more than once) in the course of this thread.
> 
> Are you saying that there are now new allegations in addition to those?


 
I had a passing conversation with an ex swappie that mentioned it. I was looking here to see what you lot knew.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 14, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Apparently in the last week new allegations have surfaced. My friend went to Marxism due to this to see if the feminists would kick off.


I have not heard of any new allegations. The women who spoke in the original disputes comment session and made an accusation of sexual harassment (Not rape, she never had a sexual relationship of any kind with Delta) has apparently now made a formal complaint. But this is not new and as I said is not an allegation of rape. Could this be what you have heard?

ETA - got distracted and Andy beat me to it.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 14, 2013)

Seymour has been retweeting comment by someone who alleges they have been physically attacked twice at Marxism 13


----------



## treelover (Jul 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Glad to report that Marxism was bigger than expected yesterday (judging by size of meetings and queue for bar at 11PM, always the key indicator). Lively and diverse and young. Long may it continue.


 

Delusional,

I wonder how many were foreign students, etc who know little about the SWP?


----------



## treelover (Jul 14, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Are there any after parties tonight?
> 
> I am not surprised members are pleased the last few days have been full of young people based on Delta's apparent tastes. More flesh for the mill and all that.


 

I think you are much closer to the mark than you were suggesting, only went to a couple of Marxism's and was struck by the number of much older men hovering around young female students and heard tales of harassment and that was 2003.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jul 14, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> That is a tiny turnout compared even to a few years ago. The opening rally used to be in Friends Meeting House and hold a couple of thousand, packed with young people. Changed times, there's no more than 7/800 in that room and you can see all the longstanding loyalists like Roddy Slorack and Paul Holborrow wheeled in to stand by their man. Looks like a Countryside Alliance meeting


I for one didn't go to the opening rally as I didn't finish work until after 5 and as Friends Meeting House is undergoing renovation at the moment the rally had to held in the Institute & I knew that that would be too full when I eventually managed to get there.


----------



## kenny g (Jul 14, 2013)

treelover said:


> Delusional,
> 
> I wonder how many were foreign students, etc who know little about the SWP?


 

Or fresh contractors/ cops checking out their covers?


----------



## Before Theory (Jul 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Glad to report that Marxism was bigger than expected yesterday (judging by size of meetings and queue for bar at 11PM, always the key indicator). Lively and diverse and young. Long may it continue.


Of course it was "bigger than expected" Apology Boy, it was on course to be a train wreck with 200+ cadre and speakers threatening to withdraw over the suspension of the Bank Account Four. At that point a turnout of 500 would have been bigger than expected. The question is, was (is) M13 biggest than last year - no - or bigger than 2011, again the answer is no. 

Don't let the size of the queue at the bar lull you into a false sense of security about the dwindling fortunes of the SWP, my local sometimes has a 3 deep queue at the bar because the landlord is too cheap to pay for other bar staff when his wife is not working !


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 15, 2013)

hilarious


----------



## dominion (Jul 15, 2013)

Report of incidents at Marxism:

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-swp-wont-call-police-over-alleged.html

Stalin and Beira would be proud of the Prof!


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2013)

that post is excellent, the SWP are finished...

as for their aggression, I experienced it first hand at European social forums

and their sophistry


----------



## treelover (Jul 15, 2013)

> Throughout the meeting, a few got annoyed by a middle aged couple who seemed familiar going through the crowd trying to sell overpriced and out of date cappuccinos and somosas.
> 
> http://bloggingjbloggs1917.wordpress.com/


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 15, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> http://inagist.com/all/356014581342167040/


Your mate Shawki was there wondering why he wasn't overly popular. Got a free beer off him though, nice fella despite his current efforts.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 15, 2013)

discokermit said:


> bolshiebhoy. the only person to be actually drawn back in to the swp by their mistreatment of rape.


First Marxism in years I went to was last year to hear the Egyptians, I didn't even know about the delta stuff then so you're talking out of your hole. Was this years as good a Marxism as previous? Course not, the delta stuff hangs over everything. Still glad I went despite that and hope it continues year after year and has a better outward looking tone. Two things need to happen for that. The leadership need to sort the outstanding disputes properly. And the opposition need to decide if in the event of them losing the argument over their bigger agenda again do they finally leave or stop factionalising.

Mind you no doubt they're getting themselves very excited tonight about Eamonn's remarks at the final rally today. In fairness Eamonn has a long history of leading challenges to the leadership in Ireland so I'm surprised he's been kept quiet this long.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jul 15, 2013)

Report from Darkside Prof's session on Leninism--http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/55515965612/m2013-alex-callinicos-on-leninism

"The debate was a fractious and bad-tempered one that many comrades listening found confusing and demoralising." Sounds perfect.


----------



## SLK (Jul 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> First Marxism in years I went to was last year to hear the Egyptians, I didn't even know about the delta stuff then so you're talking out of your hole. Was this years as good a Marxism as previous? Course not, the delta stuff hangs over everything. Still glad I went despite that and hope it continues year after year and has a better outward looking tone. Two things need to happen for that. The leadership need to sort the outstanding disputes properly. And the opposition need to decide if in the event of them losing the argument over their bigger agenda again do they finally leave or stop factionalising.
> 
> Mind you no doubt they're getting themselves very excited tonight about Eamonn's remarks at the final rally today. In fairness Eamonn has a long history of leading challenges to the leadership in Ireland so I'm surprised he's been kept quiet this long.


 

What did McCann say?


----------



## Tom A (Jul 15, 2013)

Someone isn't feeling the swppie love that much...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jul 15, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> Report from Darkside Prof's session on Leninism--http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/55515965612/m2013-alex-callinicos-on-leninism
> 
> "The debate was a fractious and bad-tempered one that many comrades listening found confusing and demoralising." Sounds perfect.


 
Astonishing stuff there. To think, Callinicos is considered a genuine big thinker, a professor emeritus no less, yet his thoughts here are pretty vulgar leninism, vulgar democratic centralism, really crap unimaginative stuff. I accept I'm reading a transcription of it from an opposing point of view but look at this:



> Lenin’s greatness, Alex said, lay in the fact that he was the first Marxist to properly theorise the question of revolutionary organisation. This question arises because workers’ consciousness is diverse and “fragmented”. Alex characterised this diversity in almost wholly negative terms: it was a fragmentation induced by the fragmentation of the capitalist system itself, and it acted as a barrier to workers’ movements developing revolutionary consciousness of their own accord.


 

That just reads like "dumb proles, can't get past Trade Union consciousness, if they can be arsed to even drag themselves away from the X factor in the first place." to me. They just don't deserve the SWP I suppose.

And this question is equally bonkers:



> The floor debate opened with a speaker who said the reason we in the SWP “punched above our weight” was that we were not a debating society or a talking shop. He insisted that our debates were confined to the pre-conference period, and that once those three months were over those with qualms about the party’s direction should be silent. The alternative to this discipline was “permanent factions”, which in fact stifled debate rather than encouraging it.


 
Real delusional shit this. The SWP doesn't "punch above it's weight" and that's saying something coz it's pretty lightweight these days. That's always been their image of themselves, a small elite group, the smallest mass party in the world etc. I've heard speakers from the floor at Marxism make this point before, and actually comparing themselves to the Communist Party of Great Britain, suggesting that the SWP play a similar "punching above it's weight" role to the left of Labour that the CPGB once did. This is foolish in 3 ways; first because the communist party didn't end up in this position by choice, but because they couldn't affiliate to the Labour party and didn't have a mass membership like other communist parties in Europe. second because even though they were a small party and didn't have a mass membership they still outmatched the SWP in terms of membership (50,000 at it's peak remember) and it's prominence in the union movement, and finally because the CPGB is hardly a model that we ought to be trying to emulate - the role of being a small party that punches above it's weight to the left of Labour didn't work for them and wouldn't work for any revolutionary group. All being a small presence to the left of Labour will do is pull Labour to the left, which ironically is the same "left reformism" Callinicos is worrying about. You'd think a fucking trot would understand this.

And worth putting this up here coz Richard Seymour has been doing a few talks that've ended up on YouTube where he's been pushing the "we're all left reformists now" stuff and perhaps Callinicos is saying what he did in response to it?


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 16, 2013)

Some fascinating revelations from Elaine Heffernan about the SWP's role in the anti-war movement in the lead up to the vote for war in Parliament




> I would like to know what Alex has to say about the majority of the CC's position at the time, and now, on the drift away from our politics. which were clear in the failure of stop the war under John and Lindsey's leadership,to follow up the massive march of millions with gathering outside of parliament WHILE the vote on war was being taken. This was a key moment in holding the movement back and a serious breach of our politics--I remember being hammered by everyone for arguing that should happen but in those days (well done Rob et al) we didn't argue in public.
> It was that failure which I assume was due to a deal with Clare Short et al, that first made me think that we, the rank and file in the movement and the party, were being treated as a stage army. Then john answered a question at a Respect meeting by saying that the reason for setting up respect was the 100 MPs who had betrayed their promise to vote against the war. He recounted that if all those who had promised to vote against war, did vote against it, the government would have lost. In hindsight i think that the reason why they were allowed to demobilsie the movement on the most crucial day without an open row in the party was that the rest of the CC also didn't spot the danger--had forgotten the most basic rules of leninism (ie Marxism) and trusted not the masses to take the movement forward but the politicans instead. A little self criticism as well as criticism might be in order when Alex looks at breaks with our politics. everything would have looked different with tens of thousands at parliament first demanding an anti war vote and secondly, responding in a powerful way to the vote being for war. it was harder, so much harder, to keep people involved on the ground after the deal was done. leninists should have known that.
> From that point onwards, at least in East London, the party members were used as fodder. We didnt have meetings unless it was to get the line on who to vote for in selecting candidates. Two instructive moments for me were 1. early on in the respect process, a leading comrade in respect in the area got really angry with my arguing for meetings and especially for papersales, "dont you get it Elane," he demanded in frustration, "paper sales are not where it is at. the SWP is finished. respect is the way forward" and then a while after i was physically thrown out of the office by an SWP member close to John and Lindsey for bringing papers into it with a threat to burn them if i brought them in again. CC members knew what was going on, but there was no leninist fight to change it, until it was way too late and the very people who had liquidated us, then wanted to differentiate us in a sectarian way. Leninism was reduced to obeying instructions or being punished... and that was not by john rees, but by the CC as a whole who lacked the leninism to take the working class comrades seriously or to engage in criticism or self criticism. apparently they were fighting among themselves bitterly but not in front of the children--how is this Leninist?



http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/55515965612/m2013-alex-callinicos-on-leninism



> It was that failure which I assume was due to a deal with Clare Short et al


What the FUCK!!! 

I've said it a couple of times on this thread. There is no such thing as an "IS Tradition" in terms of a set body of ideas that guides SWP strategy and tactics. There is only whatever seems to be expedient for the SWP leadership at the time. If Heffernan's claims are true, this is the clincher for me.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Glad to report that Marxism was bigger than expected yesterday (judging by size of meetings and queue for bar at 11PM, always the key indicator). Lively and diverse and young. Long may it continue.


 
I heard there were far more at the fringe meeting on feminism than in any of the Marxism ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2013)

If the opposition is still stuck in the mindset displayed above:



> the CC also didn't spot the danger--had forgotten the most basic rules of leninism (ie Marxism)


 
then they are already lost, and will just end up with an even smaller version of the loyalist SWP. That attitude and the lack of critical reflection on it, on its assumptions, is precisely how _alex _(and others) ended up not only being able to do what they did in the manner that they did it in, but to offer a ready made theoretical justification for doing so that the party (and others) had to swallow. To do this is to _produce_ callinicos and argue that you need a party of calinicosites.

That's, of course, to leave aside the idiocy and dishonesty (sorry, the non-leninism) of the CC she demonstrates here. And also to leave aside the case that she and others put forward over the years that the SWP is an example of modern functioning leninism. The logic goes something like this: leninism is good, doing good things must therefore be leninism. Doing wrong things mean that you're not leninist (this is pretty clear in her comments). Behind this is of course is the idea that leninism can do no wrong by definition. I can't see much difference with the swp cc there frankly.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 16, 2013)

butchersapron the whole language *is* very religious sounding isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> butchersapron the whole language *is* very religious sounding isn't it?


 
It's like the amish cutting off members of their family because they painted their buggy the wrong colour of religious significance (which does happen!)


----------



## sihhi (Jul 16, 2013)

_Ron Margulies from DSIP, our Turkish sister organisation, spoke next. He noted how the absence of formal leadership in the recent Taksim Square occupation had allowed older, bureaucratic and more unrepresentative forces to take on that mantle of leadership instead. _





Ron Margulies


----------



## sihhi (Jul 16, 2013)

"Alex conceded that the party should be prepared to experiment and acknowledged that there had been a collective failure by the party to integrate students. But that mistake stemmed not from failing listening to students, but from “flattering” them excessively. He contrasted the withering treatment he had received as a young student radical from Tony Cliff."

...

 One thing people noted at Marxism was the large number of older members and the relative absence of students.


----------



## JHE (Jul 16, 2013)

e heffernan said:
			
		

> _on the drift away from our politics. which were clear in the failure of stop the war under John and Lindsey's leadership,to follow up the massive march of millions with gathering outside of parliament WHILE the vote on war was being taken._


 
Is Heffernan (a) suggesting that a protest outside Parliament on the day of the vote would have led to a defeat for the government or (b) coyly hinting that a big protest outside Parliament on the day of the vote could and should have led to the storming of Parliament?


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 16, 2013)

It reminds me of the sense of betrayal mixed with relief I experienced when they redirected coaches, intended to take local Stop the War groups to participate in the mass actions at Fairford and Menwith Hill, to go on this demo. This sense of betrayal caused by them stopping people who wanted to get involved was only tempered by relief at the lack of paper sellers getting in the way on the day. Putting the party's agenda before that of any wider movement was firmly in the IS tradition . I would be embarrassed to use the term _mass_ in relation to any aspect of the anti war movement as it would exaggerate what little relationship the whole affair had to most peoples everyday lives, but there was an attempt to generalise a more militant approach to opposing the war, which was weakened at this point by the SWP. Action at Fairford and Menwith Hill wasn't going to end the war, but nor were the _masses_ going to storm parliament (if only they hadn't been betrayed by John and Lindsey cutting a deal with Clare).


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2013)

JHE said:


> Is Heffernan (a) suggesting that a protest outside Parliament on the day of the vote would have led to a defeat for the government or (b) coyly hinting that a big protest outside Parliament on the day of the vote could and should have led to the storming of Parliament?


 
Following Cliff who said something similar about the protests against mine closures in the early 90s:




			
				cliff said:
			
		

> Imagine if we had 15,000 members of the SWP and 30,000 supporters: the 21 October miners’ demonstration could have been different. Instead of marching round Hyde Park, socialists could have taken 40 or 50,000 people to parliament.
> 
> If that had happened, the Tory MPs wouldn’t have dared vote with Michael Heseltine. The government would have collapsed.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2013)

> "paper sales are not where it is at. the SWP is finished. respect is the way forward"


 
he got that half right and a bit early


btw, that whole article just shows the SWP for what they are, and of course, brings Ree's Counterfire and indeed the Peoples Assembly into question...


----------



## andysays (Jul 16, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> ... Putting the party's agenda before that of any wider movement was, [is and ever will be] firmly in the IS tradition ...


 
If we had to boil this thread down into one easily understood sentence, that would be it


----------



## andysays (Jul 16, 2013)

cliff said:
Imagine if we had 15,000 members of the SWP and 30,000 supporters...​​john lennon said:
Imagine no possessions,it's easy if you try...​


----------



## sihhi (Jul 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's, of course, to leave aside the idiocy and dishonesty (sorry, the non-leninism) of the CC she demonstrates here. And also to leave aside the case that she and others put forward over the years that the SWP is an example of modern functioning leninism. The logic goes something like this: leninism is good, doing good things must therefore be leninism. Doing wrong things mean that you're not leninist (this is pretty clear in her comments). Behind this is of course is the idea that leninism can do no wrong by definition. I can't see much difference with the swp cc there frankly.


 
What do you make of the SWP autonomism analysis this year?



> Doug concluded that autonomism does not address the problem of the state. It can be attractive in a period of struggle, but difficulties arise when struggle goes down. If “autonomism is the inspiration, Leninism is the answer”, he said.


 


http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/55595428318/m2013-doug-m-on-autonomism


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2013)

It's the usual stuff isn't it - autonomism has no analysis of the state (utterly wrong), atuonomism is anti-party (autonomist parties had vastly more members in italy than all the trot groups in this country and that combined), they have no class analysis (wrong, you just don't understand what a largely unrelated term - 'mutlitude' actually means, they are anti-leninism (wrong, they tried to establish a practice of mass-leninism, mass vanguardism - which was one of the reasons for the post-77 failures ). Just hopeless stuff. They have no interest in it (and i 'm not comfortable talkin in terms of 'it' really) beyond warning people off.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 16, 2013)

What do you make of this?

_Stop the War was characterised as the multitude on the streets, but it didn’t win. Not because direct action and protests aren’t important, but because there were no strikes or resistance in the workplace._

Who characterised the Stop the War Coalition as a multitude? Do you remember it being spoken of in this way?

I think this :

_Doug stating that autonomism comes in many forms and that perhaps different autonomists wouldn’t agree with his definition. But a common theme was the rejection of political organisation and parties. Autonomism is characterised by non-hierarchical organisations with open, consensus democracy – something seen in the Occupy movement._
is the handy get out.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 16, 2013)

sihhi said:


> _Ron Margulies from DSIP, our Turkish sister organisation, spoke next. He noted how the absence of formal leadership in the recent Taksim Square occupation had allowed older, bureaucratic and more unrepresentative forces to take on that mantle of leadership instead. _
> 
> 
> Ron Margulies


Yawn. In his capacity as?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 16, 2013)

IC3D said:


> I heard there were far more at the fringe meeting on feminism than in any of the Marxism ones.


you heard wrong


----------



## sihhi (Jul 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yawn. In his capacity as?


 

As pro-constitution intellectual alongside poet Bejan Matur likewise, what else .


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I can't see much difference with the swp cc there frankly.


Might have thought she'd get on your nerves more than most. Cause unlike most she's not deserting the politics.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said: ↑
On the sexual allegations and how they we handled yes. but only on that, all this "Cliff was wrong to change his mind on Luxemburg, let's recreate Beyond the Fragments" palaver is a crock. And the louder the Syriza wannabes get the more I wish the cc would get the delta stuff off the backs of those who should be out defending their tradition with an easy conscience.​ 
*maybe you should be wishing the cc resign for completely fucking up such a easy to deal with situation.*
*maybe you should also question your continued involvement in the swp.*
*A socialist party is supposed to be a tool ... surely if the tool is broken you should stop using it...and broken is the only way to describe to describe the swp. Actually that's not strictly true...fucked up, misogynistic, disgraceful and stalinist could also be used.*

*I seriously do not understand how anyone is still involved in it.*

It's very difficult to take you seriously when you conveniently ignore questions and points yet respond to others about meeting sizes. I made the above point to one of your previous posts but you simply ignored it. You act like everyone who disagrees with is bound to as they are anti swp so therefore their opinions are somehow tainted.
I don't agree with all I read on here but as a trade unionist and a socialist and as someone who considers themselves a decent human being I do not understand how the fuck the swp  fucked up such a simple and easy to deal with situation...and do not understand how anyone can pretend the "crisis" in the swp is anything but self inflicted damage caused by their fucking appalling treatment of a woman.


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

_


sihhi said:



Stop the War was characterised as the multitude on the streets, but it didn’t win. Not because direct action and protests aren’t important, but because there were no strikes or resistance in the workplace.

Click to expand...

_that was one of my overriding impressions at the time: that the SWPs main, possibly only, idea was that the way to stop the war was for trades unionists to go on strike.   A to B marches came into it, of course, but every single piece of SWP or StWC propaganda implored us to go on strike.  That's their tradition, along with doing their best to keep the lid on anything like 'direct action'.

which is all very well, but it had as little to do with the real world in 2003 as it does now.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 16, 2013)

newbie said:


> that was one of my overriding impressions at the time: that the SWPs main, possibly only, idea was that the way to stop the war was for trades unionists to go on strike. A to B marches came into it, of course, but every single piece of SWP or StWC propaganda implored us to go on strike. That's their tradition, along with doing their best to keep the lid on anything like 'direct action'.
> 
> which is all very well, but it had as little to do with the real world in 2003 as it does now.


What do you think could have stopped the war, if anything?


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

lobbying Clare Short.  Obviously.






my point is not what would, or even could, have worked but what was patently obviously nothing whatsoever to do with anything, yet was the main focus of everything they produced.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 16, 2013)

newbie said:


> that was one of my overriding impressions at the time: that the SWPs main, possibly only, idea was that the way to stop the war was for trades unionists to go on strike. A to B marches came into it, of course, but every single piece of SWP or StWC propaganda implored us to go on strike. That's their tradition, along with doing their best to keep the lid on anything like 'direct action'.
> 
> which is all very well, but it had as little to do with the real world in 2003 as it does now.


 

I ain't digging at you ... just asking ... isn't strike action a form of direct action?
I agree that they should not be put in competition with eachother...it was kind of like that with the Poll Tax... SP (then Militant) and SWP arguing continuously about non payment v non collection by council workers...


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I ain't digging at you ... just asking ... isn't strike action a form of direct action?


 
yes, of course it is. But while buildings were occupied, fences were cut, recruiting offices were blockaded and roads were were sat on all over the country I doubt if strike action against the war was discussed by more than half a dozen people anywhere.  I vaguely recall two workers being lauded for a token strike lasting an hour or so, apart from that... well the schoolkids stole the show and they were never on the SWPs radar.

But the IS tradition has to be upheld


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 16, 2013)

newbie said:


> yes, of course it is. But while buildings were occupied, fences were cut, recruiting offices were blockaded and roads were were sat on all over the country I doubt if strike action against the war was discussed by more than half a dozen people anywhere. I vaguely recall two workers being lauded for a token strike lasting an hour or so, apart from that... well the schoolkids stole the show and they were never on the SWPs radar.
> 
> But the IS tradition has to be upheld


I agree re strike possiblities over the war were non existent

I was just asking your opinion


----------



## emanymton (Jul 16, 2013)

newbie said:


> yes, of course it is. But while buildings were occupied, fences were cut, recruiting offices were blockaded and roads were were sat on all over the country I doubt if strike action against the war was discussed by more than half a dozen people anywhere. I vaguely recall two workers being lauded for a token strike lasting an hour or so, apart from that... well the schoolkids stole the show and they were never on the SWPs radar.
> 
> But the IS tradition has to be upheld


i am sorry but the last bit about school kids is utter rubbish, I was in the SWP at the time and it obsesed over school kids / FE students. Really got on my fucking nerves after a bit. As for the other stuff, I blockaded recruitment offices and the BBC all while I was in the SWP. I don't think it is direction the SWP has a problem with, it is direct action they don't call for. 

Oh and comrade spurski is quite right that striking is the ultimate form of direct action.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 16, 2013)

Fully agree


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2013)

Depends how the strike is organised, by who, what it's for, what part of the capitalist cycle it effects and so on. It's a form of refusal the same as other forms of direct action  - they rarely have a radical content just because they're strikes, but because of the above.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 16, 2013)

I feel sad that the SWP has got itself into this mess. Now would have been a good time for a revolutionary organisation to be gathering together all the forces of opposition to Capitalism. Instead it is talking to itself in small rooms. If I was a Capitalist I would be celebrating with champagne and gunfire.


----------



## JHE (Jul 16, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> If I was a Capitalist I would be celebrating with champagne and gunfire.


 

Really? How many capitalists could give a shit what happens to this fractious little bunch of Trotlets? Perhaps whoever the Social Workers now pay to print their propaganda rag, leaflets, posters and placards would prefer to keep the custom... but apart from that?


----------



## newbie (Jul 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> i am sorry but the last bit about school kids is utter rubbish, I was in the SWP at the time and it obsesed over school kids / FE students. Really got on my fucking nerves after a bit. As for the other stuff, I blockaded recruitment offices and the BBC all while I was in the SWP. I don't think it is direction the SWP has a problem with, it is direct action they don't call for.
> 
> Oh and comrade spurski is quite right that striking is the ultimate form of direct action.


before the schoolstudents did their first walkouts, or after?  If before, I stand corrected.

Promoting strikes remains the ultimate form of the IS tradition.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 16, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I feel sad that the SWP has got itself into this mess. Now would have been a good time for a revolutionary organisation to be gathering together all the forces of opposition to Capitalism. Instead it is talking to itself in small rooms. If I was a Capitalist I would be celebrating with champagne and gunfire.


I dont think the swp is just talking to itself in small rooms to be honest. I thinkit has broken a central idea that goes beyond a theory or a tactic...it chose to protect a man by behaving despicably to a woman...simply because the man was considered too important to be got rid off. A leading cc member of a revolutionary organisation who was nearly 50 and had been in the swp for 30 years and had worked for it for over 20 years made a decision to embark on a sexual relationship with a 17 yr ... that is a serious power imbalance and a fucking huge error of judgement at best from a supposed revolutionary leader...for the swp to deny that he did anything untoward when she later made a complaint about him behaving inappropriately is shocking....especially given that they correctly expelled someone years previously for sleeping with a woman who was too drunk to remember if she'd consented to sex.I guess they could be privcipled then cos the bloke in question wasn't important. Anyhow after failing the female member they then decided they could investigate  her complaint of rape...found him innocent...questioned her behaviour and by implication said her allegation was false...they then justified those who heard the case by pointing out how many were women and that some were rape counsellors by profession while claiming that those who disagreed with the swps view were feminists as though being a  feminist was like being a racist.
I'm sorry but that kind of behaviour is starlinism at its worst...self preservation and personal advancement above all else while claiming the political high ground


----------



## bamboozled (Jul 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's the usual stuff isn't it - autonomism has no analysis of the state (utterly wrong), atuonomism is anti-party (autonomist parties had vastly more members in italy than all the trot groups in this country and that combined), they have no class analysis (wrong, you just don't understand what a largely unrelated term - 'mutlitude' actually means, they are anti-leninism (wrong, they tried to establish a practice of mass-leninism, mass vanguardism - which was one of the reasons for the post-77 failures ). Just hopeless stuff. They have no interest in it (and i 'm not comfortable talkin in terms of 'it' really) beyond warning people off.


 

Very interesting. What do you recommend as the best place(s) to start to get a handle on autonomism's history and Italy? Any shorter key texts out there?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> before the schoolstudents did their first walkouts, or after? If before, I stand corrected.
> 
> Promoting strikes remains the ultimate form of the IS tradition.


Definitely before, but more so after. Of course the SWP is not uniform, different areas may have had different approaches. 

Promoting strikes wherever possible should be the tradition of all socialists. But you are right the chance of it happening against the war was nil.


----------



## newbie (Jul 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Definitely before, but more so after. Of course the SWP is not uniform, different areas may have had different approaches.


 
Ok, I do indeed stand corrected.



> Promoting strikes wherever possible should be the tradition of all socialists. But you are right the chance of it happening against the war was nil.


 
is it any wonder people laugh at trots?

I'm no theorist, and I sure wouldn't claim to know what all socialists are supposed to get up to but to a simple soul like me that attitude, "strike whenever possible" seems a pretty good way to polarise workers into the arms of the tories.

Not only is _confrontation at all costs_ plainly tactical nonsense it's strategically utterly inept to seek strikes as an end in themselves. Unless you're a vanguard party trying to build membership and paper sales with zero regard for anything else, I s'pose.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 17, 2013)

Ign are supposed to get up to but to a simple soul like me that attitude, "strike whenever pssible" seems a pretty good way to polarise workers into the arms of the tories.

Not only is _confrontation at all costs_ plainly tactical nonsense it's strategically utterly inept to seek strikes as an end in themselves. Unless you're a vanguard party trying to build membership and paper sales with zero regard for anything else, I s'pose.[/quote]
Ignore post ... completely misread and answered something wrongly


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> cliff said:
> Imagine if we had 15,000 members of the SWP and 30,000 supporters...​​john lennon said:
> Imagine no possessions,it's easy if you try...​


 


> In my imagination there is no complication I dream about you all the time In my mind a celebration, the sweetest of sensation Thinking you could be mine



Kylie Minogue on Party and Class​


----------



## andysays (Jul 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> ​Kylie Minogue on Party and Class​


 
Maybe Kylie's a secret Swappie, but I think it's a different kind of party she has in mind


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> Maybe Kylie's a secret Swappie, but I think it's a different kind of party she has in mind


 
That was the joke Andy. Its all in the ambiguity.

anyway  I woke up the other night in a cold sweat after a horrendous nightmare . I was shaking and then to my horror I felt something heavy at the end of my bed on my feet. I looked down and saw what looked to be the severed head of Gloria Gaynor.

First I was afraid then I was petrified.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Promoting strikes wherever possible should be the tradition of all socialists.


 
Does that include the big one in the north of Ireland in 1973?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

bamboozled said:


> Very interesting. What do you recommend as the best place(s) to start to get a handle on autonomism's history and Italy? Any shorter key texts out there?


 
I'll re-post something i posted years ago and add a fw links to shorter texts:

Italy 1977-78: Living With An Earthquake - Red Notes
Working class autonomy and the crisis : Italian Marxist texts of the theory and practice of a class movement 1964-79 - Red Notes
Italy: Autonomia: post political politics 
Storming Heaven: Class Composition and Struggle in Italian Autonomist Marxism - Steve Wright (should probably be your intro text along with the essential intro.chapter to Reading Capital Politically).
Books for Burning - Negri
Revolution Retrived - Negri - two collections of his fine 70s work.
Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics. (pdf)

Other interesting/useful stuff:

Strike One to Educate One Hundred - early red Brigades stuff - up to mid-late 70s
Stefano Delle Chiaie: Portrait of a Black terrorist - fascsist terrorism in post war Italy and the links with the state, NATO, gladio etc 
The Revolutionary Mystique and Terrorism in Contemporary Italy - Richard Drake (interesting but his interpretations of what marxism is/was is way off, but this has loads of stuff that others don't
The Judge and the Historian - Carlo Ginzburg, great investigation into the fallout fo the bomb PInelli fell out of a window for.
The Italian Resistance: Fascists, Guerrillas and the Allies - Tom Behan
Long Awaited Moment: The Working Class and the Italian Communist Party in Milan, 1943-1948 - Behan - both these cover the potential revolutionary moment immediately after Musso's fall etc
Moscow and the Italian Communist Party: from Togliatti to Berlinguer - Joan Barth urban
The Italian left in the 20th Century -De Grand, standard intro text.
Also, a fascinating book, Between Hollywood and Moscow: The Italian Communists and the Challenge of Mass Culture, 1943-91, goes very well with that Bona della book i mentioned above.

For short intro texts:

Our operaismo - Mario Tronti
The Renascence of Operaismo (recommended)
There and back again: mapping the pathways within autonomist Marxism
From operaismo to autonomist Marxism and The limits of Negri's class analysis: Italian autonomist theory in the seventies both offe excellent critiical thoughts from within/sympathetic to the tradition

This is barely scratching the surface to be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

sihhi said:


> What do you make of this?
> 
> _Stop the War was characterised as the multitude on the streets, but it didn’t win. Not because direct action and protests aren’t important, but because there were no strikes or resistance in the workplace._
> 
> ...


 
I don't remember anyone talking of it that way at all - it's just a way of saying look, STWC failed because it was autonomist , which is such a crazy thing to say on so many levels - from it's  leadership being a mix of trots and stalinists who consciously destroyed any chance of autonomous action being supported and expanded by STW onward -  and those trots are now the ones who characterise it as  an autonomist multitude. Just a horrible mix of dishonesty and the effect of years of that dishonesty on lower level members who have their strings pulled to write and talk this...garbage. Then again, it's the same as their anti-anarchist rubbish from the 70s and 80s -_ no theory of the state, anti-organisation etc -_  actually it's exactly the same smears with autonomism changed for anarchism and with as little understanding of what is being criticised (criticised into existence!).


----------



## xslavearcx (Jul 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'll re-post something i posted years ago and add a fw links to shorter texts:
> 
> Italy 1977-78: Living With An Earthquake - Red Notes
> Working class autonomy and the crisis : Italian Marxist texts of the theory and practice of a class movement 1964-79 - Red Notes
> ...


 

Thats really great butchersapron, thanks very much. was just about to come on this and ask for something of this nature....


----------



## mk12 (Jul 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'll re-post something i posted years ago and add a fw links to shorter texts:
> 
> Italy 1977-78: Living With An Earthquake - Red Notes
> Working class autonomy and the crisis : Italian Marxist texts of the theory and practice of a class movement 1964-79 - Red Notes
> ...


 
I remember taking _Storming Heaven_ with me to Tenerife, while my girlfriend took _Twighlight. _It's good, but it isn't sit-round-the-pool-in-boiling-hot-weather reading.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I remember taking _Storming Heaven_ with me to Tenerife, while my girlfriend took _Twighlight. _It's good, but it isn't sit-round-the-pool-in-boiling-hot-weather reading.


 
Supposed to be the future at our backs not the spanish sun!


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 17, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I remember taking _Storming Heaven_ with me to Tenerife, while my girlfriend took _Twighlight. _It's good, but it isn't sit-round-the-pool-in-boiling-hot-weather reading.


 
Surprised at that as my eldest daughter thought Twilight was essential non stop reading for around the pool in boiling hot weather


----------



## killer b (Jul 17, 2013)

My eldest daughter thought storming heaven would have benefited from a few more vampires.


----------



## rekil (Jul 17, 2013)

Used copies of Paul Ginsborg's History of Contemporary Italy: Society and Politics: 1943-1980 currently on amazon for pennies (not counting p&p) I have his Discontents one but haven't read it yet. (  )

That Piazza Fontana fillum was a great help with making sense of a very confusing (for me) era.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

copliker said:


> Used copies of Paul Ginsborg's History of Contemporary Italy: Society and Politics: 1943-1980 currently on amazon for pennies (not counting p&p) I have his Discontents one but haven't read it yet. (  )
> 
> That Piazza Fontana fillum was a great help with making sense of a very confusing (for me) era.


 
Ginsborg here.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 17, 2013)

http://revolutionarysocialism.tumbl.../m2013-eamonn-mccann-at-the-closing-rally-ian

This suggests Eamonn got it just about right. I imagine bb sitting on his hands scowling as part of the minority.


----------



## rekil (Jul 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ginsborg here.


Ta, I still prefer papery yokes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

Is this the SWP disappearing into the sucking pit of identity politics? of course not! Only the party can talk about these issues with falling into the traps that the seymourites have.


----------



## andysays (Jul 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> *That was the joke Andy*. Its all in the ambiguity.
> 
> anyway I woke up the other night in a cold sweat after a horrendous nightmare . I was shaking and then to my horror I felt something heavy at the end of my bed on my feet. I looked down and saw what looked to be the severed head of Gloria Gaynor.
> 
> First I was afraid then I was petrified.


 
I knew that 

Nigel Irritable will be here shortly to berate us both for going off topic.

Maybe you should start another thread for the discussion of unlikely Leninist sub-texts to popular songs (you know you want to...)


----------



## andysays (Jul 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> My eldest daughter thought storming heaven would have benefited from a few more vampires.


 
Interesting. William Godwin's daughter famously thought _*Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Morals and Happiness *_would have benefited from some stuff about monsters made out of re-animated body parts.

Kids, eh...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> I knew that
> 
> Nigel Irritable will be here shortly to berate us both for going off topic.
> 
> Maybe you should start another thread for the discussion of unlike Leninist sub-texts to popular songs (you know you want to...)


 
Careful, he'll be onto the Girls Aloud Kronstadt song next.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> I knew that
> 
> Nigel Irritable will be here shortly to berate us both for going off topic.
> 
> Maybe you should start another thread for the discussion of unlikely Leninist sub-texts to popular songs (you know you want to...)


 

Not so much a sub text more a great tune.



Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 17, 2013)

andysays said:


> I knew that
> 
> Nigel Irritable will be here shortly to berate us both for going off topic.
> 
> Maybe you should start another thread for the discussion of unlikely Leninist sub-texts to popular songs (you know you want to...)


 
In a dash so here are the headlines:

1.we do have the lyrics to the GirlAloud b side Kronstadt , it was on their first demo.



> "In the Russian snow the sailors said to Lenin go
> But Trotsky was not afraid
> A revolution he had made
> So if you are down and you feel sad
> ...


 
2. Here is a link to one of the edited highlights  of revolutionary musical culture  during the Miners Strike done on a portable cassette after Orgreave  https://soundcloud.com/jonny-favourite


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Careful, he'll be onto the Girls Aloud Kronstadt song next.


 
damn missed that post,


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> damn missed that post,


 
Did you notice Norman Strike did a thing at Marxism this year.


----------



## andysays (Jul 17, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> In a dash so here are the headlines:
> 
> 1.we do have the lyrics to the GirlAloud b side Kronstadt , it was on their first demo.


 
I'm also in a dash, so I'll have to return to this later...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

SWP "punch above" weight.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

Question then is, what weight are they - a flyweight who can punch to standard lightweight power? What use is that against a heavyweight?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2013)

bantam


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

Didn't the SWP CC declare _the discussion is now over _in january? Yet now we find Kimber offering this in public:



> We have had five days of discussions and debates. Those discussions and debates must continue. No revolutionary party can base itself on anything except continual discussion and debate


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 17, 2013)

This is like 'simon says'.

'No revolutionary party can base itself on anything except continual discussion and debate'; stay just as you are.

The CC says 'no revolutionary party can base itself on anything except continual discussion and debate'; better get busy...

...but don't forget to listen out for the next instruction...and take care to listen carefully, you wouldn't want to get it wrong.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## bamboozled (Jul 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'll re-post something i posted years ago and add a fw links to shorter texts:
> 
> Italy 1977-78: Living With An Earthquake - Red Notes
> Working class autonomy and the crisis : Italian Marxist texts of the theory and practice of a class movement 1964-79 - Red Notes
> ...


 

Thanks so much, that's great!



butchersapron said:


> This is barely scratching the surface to be honest.


 
Hehe, it's a good start


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 17, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> This is like 'simon says'.
> 
> 'No revolutionary party can base itself on anything except continual discussion and debate'; stay just as you are.
> 
> ...


 

For the benefit of any CC members who might be reading:






Hope this helps.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Didn't the SWP CC declare _the discussion is now over _in january? Yet now we find Kimber offering this in public:


mad isn't it? they lie, do the opposite of what they say, say the opposite of what they do, accuse the opposition of doing and saying what they themselves are doing and saying.
what's even madder, is people like bolshiebhoy actually going along with it, saying whatever he thinks they want him to say. the life of a cc loyalist must be strange and contradictory.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 17, 2013)

newbie said:


> is it any wonder people laugh at trots?
> 
> I'm no theorist, and I sure wouldn't claim to know what all socialists are supposed to get up to but to a simple soul like me that attitude, "strike whenever possible" seems a pretty good way to polarise workers into the arms of the tories.
> 
> Not only is _confrontation at all costs_ plainly tactical nonsense it's strategically utterly inept to seek strikes as an end in themselves. Unless you're a vanguard party trying to build membership and paper sales with zero regard for anything else, I s'pose.


strike whenever possible and confrontation at all costs are two completely different things.

personally i would say strike whenever possible if it's winnable. we're in a war, anytime you can win a battle, have the battle.

as for getting laughed at, my experience differs.
the time that illustrates it best was when i was an apprentice. the foundry i worked at had meetings in the canteen, attended by almost all (20-30ish, depending on shifts), over all important issues. the first one i attended, i can't remember the issue but i proposed strike action, just testing the water, didn't even get seconded, embarrassing but at least i'd put down some sort of marker. the second time i got seconded but beaten in the vote 18-2 (not sure about the 18 but definite about the 2!), a bit shit, but at least now i had an ally, trevor, electrician, ex steward and ex soldier with a reputation for bolshyness.
the next time we had a vote it was over redundancies, i made a barnstormer of a speech, involving waving my dads watch about (it was on his wrist at the time, he was a bit startled) whilst shouting "twenty five fucking years and that's what you get, a bit of fucking tat and chucked on the scrapheap!". we got eight or nine in favour that time.
ironically, the next meeting was about my sacking. i'd been a bit cocky doing all this as an apprentice and earned the ire of the managing director. trouble was i was so much better at the job than the other apprentices, plus my dad and one of my grandads had worked there, i thought i was pretty unshiftable but the end of the apprenticeship was the end of my contract and they fucked me off. i didn't speak at the meeting but strike action was proposed, seconded and lost the vote by about twenty to twelve, with some abstentions. my department, maintenance, accounted for ten votes for and two abstentions.
so, what i found was that i actually got taken more serious as time went on, especially by those i worked directly with.




as for the "inept to see strikes as an end in themselves", i also disagree. the official reason for a strike is often irrelevant (printers, petrograd, punctuation, blah blah), what makes the strike important, pivotal even, is the fact you, and your mates, with no leaders or ones you've elected yourselves, are getting together collectively and taking on the class enemy, directly, at the very point of your exploitation. strikes at their best also change people, racism and sexism can be challenged, socialist arguments can gain a hearing, unity is strength is self evident.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 17, 2013)

i've just remembered a couple of anecdotes that maybe illustrate my point.

frank henderson once told me about one time at longbridge, all the blokes toolboxes had been replaced with big tool lockers, which were lovely, but the blokes were incensed. how dare management move our toolboxes! they stopped work and had a meeting with their steward, whose nickname was "come back monday", 'walk out now, come back monday, those that say aye, raise your hand, see you monday.'
by monday stewards agreed to accept the lockers as long as personal toolboxes could be kept alongside and any future changes would involve consultation. they had got the lockers they wanted and given management a bloody nose at the same time. the only way they could reach that level of control and solidarity was through hundreds of literally tuppeny ha'penny strikes they had won over piecework in the sixties.


another one i read in a book, some place in liverpool making electrical stuff for the gpo, i think they weren't on piecework but had to get a certain count in every day. as with most jobs like that, you get quicker with experience and earn yourself a bit of free time. these days when that happens you have to pretend to work the remainder of the time but this was the seventies so they played subbuteo. this got quite popular, they had leagues and quite a few supporters. this rankled massively with management who banned it. this lead to an immediate walkout which was settled when management agreed to allow subutteo, but with only two supporters for each side. as the straightfaced stewards committee got up to leave the meeting, one of them started whistling the match of the day theme tune, which all the others joined in with!

that was when we were winning.


----------



## andysays (Jul 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> SWP "punch above" weight.


 
Does anyone else think that maybe they take this punching above their weight thing a bit literally at times?

In October 2009, the SWP's then National Secretary Martin Smith was charged with assaulting a police officer at the Unite Against Fascism (UAF) demonstration against BNP leader Nick Griffin's appearance on the BBC's _Question Time_ programme. Smith was found guilty of the assault at South Western Magistrates' Court, London, on 7 September 2010. He was sentenced to a 12-month community order, with 80 hours' unpaid work, and was fined £450 pending an appeal. (Smith was arrested again in July 2012 at a UAF demonstration against the EDL in Bristol.) Following a UAF demonstration against the English Defence League (EDL) in Bolton on 20 March 2010, SWP Central Committee member Weyman Bennett was charged with conspiracy to incite violent disorder but the charge was dropped in November 2010​ 
Physical resistance is one thing, but getting nicked for bashing coppers is not very clever...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2013)

It's not clever, but it's neither here nor there and i don't understand why you posted it.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 17, 2013)

it's cleverer to bash them and get away with it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's not clever, but it's neither here nor there and i don't understand why you posted it.


Cause as with this disgusting slur by Anna Chen in ther Groniad yesterday http://adf.ly/SJ6kk it's becoming acceptable to say anything no matter how stupid, factually wrong or irrelevant about anyone who is or was a leader of the swp and someone will repeat it as gospel.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cause as with this disgusting slur by Anna Chen in ther Groniad yesterday http://adf.ly/SJ6kk it's becoming acceptable to say anything no matter how stupid, factually wrong or irrelevant about anyone who is or was a leader of the swp and someone will repeat it as gospel.



Yes they really have no credibility at all now, eh?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cause as with this disgusting slur by Anna Chen in ther Groniad yesterday http://adf.ly/SJ6kk it's becoming acceptable to say anything no matter how stupid, factually wrong or irrelevant about anyone who is or was a leader of the swp and someone will repeat it as gospel.


Christ that's bad, the irony being many people would accuse the SWP of the exact the opposite, of not carrying enough about the indigenous white working class.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 17, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i've just remembered a couple of anecdotes that maybe illustrate my point ...that was when we were winning.


Soon after I started work at the International Harvester tractor factory in Doncaster the chief shop steward had a chat with me and told me about such days. His best example came from the heatwave of '76. A number of lads had been playing football at lunchtime and were hot and sweaty when they came in. They demanded water from the management before rejoining the line. But when the water came, walked out anyway claiming the water wasn't cold enough. Everyone else joined them, glad of the sunmer's afternoon for themselves.


----------



## nogojones (Jul 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i've just remembered a couple of anecdotes that maybe illustrate my point.
> 
> frank henderson once told me about one time at longbridge, all the blokes toolboxes had been replaced with big tool lockers, which were lovely, but the blokes were incensed. how dare management move our toolboxes! they stopped work and had a meeting with their steward, whose nickname was "come back monday", 'walk out now, come back monday, those that say aye, raise your hand, see you monday.'
> by monday stewards agreed to accept the lockers as long as personal toolboxes could be kept alongside and any future changes would involve consultation. they had got the lockers they wanted and given management a bloody nose at the same time. the only way they could reach that level of control and solidarity was through hundreds of literally tuppeny ha'penny strikes they had won over piecework in the sixties.
> ...


 
Frank was a good guy. Shame there's not a lot more like him


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> personally i would say strike whenever possible if it's winnable. we're in a war, anytime you can win a battle, have the battle.


well yes, I was hardly expecting to be in a minority of more than one!  not on here 

your anecdotes are great, concerning as they do 'the foundry' where your grandad and dad had jobs for life and you had an apprenticeship, Longbridge and making stuff for the GPO.  When I was a kid the men on our estate would occasionally all turn up at some really odd time of day and then just as suddenly all go back to work again.  When I first tried I had real problems getting into the union, dealing with the restricted entry, getting nominated & seconded and that, but then the ticket got me onto card-check jobs with the stewards conflabbing about which grades should do what and the occasional down tools and threatened walkout. and, of course, the old blokes sending the new lad off to the stores for a left handed spanner...

it's great isn't it, nostalgia.

different world from today though.  virtually no-one under 40 who doesn't read history books (or watch fuzzy documentaries with dodgy colour) will have a scoobie what we're on about, and many of those twenty or more years older went through all that and then turned their back on it, went on to elect, and re-elect, you know who.

Will it ever come back? for the majority, like. I doubt it but it might.  Collective working (and the bargaining that goes with it) in industrial workplaces with clear demarcation based on the colour of overalls, the foreman and the steward, being able to stop the line over crude, obvious exploitation, the brazier by the gates, leapfrogging and differentials. 

different world.  if you still work in that world, if that's the reality around you, then good luck to you, argue your case, get your workmates onside, fight the collective battles against the clear class enemy, hang on to those traditions for dear life. Maybe there's some of it left in the public sector, I don't know, I've only ever dipped a toe.

The _IS tradition_ is based around that narrative.

Personally, when I left school, I could see the older kids who I'd looked up to when I was like 12 or something, as they sat next to their dad in the pub after their shift at the factory making bits of car, same body shape, same expression, same pint, same conversation, same eyes.   I ran away.  I worked in plenty of factories but never that one, and then it closed anyway. You can blame me for for the destruction of the collectively exploited working life if you like, but I've never regretted running away.

Now the site is a bunch of little units where people nominally do stuff about online shopping metrics or something but actually spend their time on Facebook. 

Do you really think all the white collar, well educated, individual contract, aspirational modern working class wants any of that?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> well yes, I was hardly expecting to be in a minority of more than one! not on here
> 
> your anecdotes are great, concerning as they do 'the foundry' where your grandad and dad had jobs for life and you had an apprenticeship, Longbridge and making stuff for the GPO. When I was a kid the men on our estate would occasionally all turn up at some really odd time of day and then just as suddenly all go back to work again. When I first tried I had real problems getting into the union, dealing with the restricted entry, getting nominated & seconded and that, but then the ticket got me onto card-check jobs with the stewards conflabbing about which grades should do what and the occasional down tools and threatened walkout. and, of course, the old blokes sending the new lad off to the stores for a left handed spanner...
> 
> ...


 
As you are part of them what do you think they want?


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

I'm not entirely, I've done manual work all my life and I'm not sure I count as modern any more. That aside, what do they want, well I can only go on who and what I can see and talk to so I can't claim any universality, but I guess what's wanted is what many have got (or had, pre-crash) only more and better... good and improving standard of living, home & asset ownership, mobility in all its varied forms, shiny consumer stuff, individual path through life, all of it and more and more... without, of course all the crap when it goes pearshaped, redundancy, debt, relationship collapse, MH issues, unhappiness... the moon on a stick with a 99 flake.

which has, tbh, proven slightly more realistic than wanting collective class battles at every opportunity, because most of us know at least a few people who've had a good chunk of the positive, the ones who form the basis of the aspirations of the rest, as well as knowing those who've who've had/have hard times.

what do you think the people you can see from your perch (public sector I think?) want?

edit: rephrased last question: as you are part of them, what do you think they want?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> As you are part of them what do you think they want?


 

I want to do something useful and mostly satisfying, have financial/resource security, and with my partner provide our kids with a good basis for the rest of their lives.

It seems to me that there's plenty of useful satisfying work that needs doing. There's more than enough money/resources to go round. Bringing up capable, happy and caring kids is a good enough ambition.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> what do you think the people you can see from your perch (public sector I think?) want?


 
Do you think that's a useful way of asking the question?


----------



## tony.c (Jul 18, 2013)

^ That's what most people want. In Greece too. But look at what's happening there now.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do you think that's a useful way of asking the question?


I'll rephrase if you suggest a better choice of words.  it's certainly not intended to be contentious and I'm sorry if it reads that way.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> I'll rephrase if you suggest a better choice of words. it's certainly not intended to be contentious and I'm sorry if it reads that way.


 
Why not ask the same question you were asked: 'as you are part of them, what do you think they want?' Rather than this _oh you can  see so far from your privileged __protected position approach._


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> I'll rephrase if you suggest a better choice of words. it's certainly not intended to be contentious and I'm sorry if it reads that way.


 

perch does sort of sound like someone is having it cosy in the pub sec when they are actually under all sorts of attacks on pay, conditions and pensions etc

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but you can see how it comes across


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I want to do something useful and mostly satisfying, have financial/resource security, and with my partner provide our kids with a good basis for the rest of their lives.
> 
> It seems to me that there's plenty of useful satisfying work that needs doing. There's more than enough money/resources to go round. Bringing up capable, happy and caring kids is a good enough ambition.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
I think that's fair but do you not also want, in at least some measure, the security of home/asset ownership, the benefits mobility brings, the occasional new toys?  For both yourselves and your children.  For those are on offer for you to aspire towards though not necessarily achieve.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> I'm not entirely, I've done manual work all my life and I'm not sure I count as modern any more. That aside, what do they want, well I can only go on who and what I can see and talk to so I can't claim any universality, but I guess what's wanted is what many have got (or had, pre-crash) only more and better... good and improving standard of living, home & asset ownership, mobility in all its varied forms, shiny consumer stuff, individual path through life, all of it and more and more... without, of course all the crap when it goes pearshaped, redundancy, debt, relationship collapse, MH issues, unhappiness... the moon on a stick with a 99 flake.
> 
> which has, tbh, proven slightly more realistic than wanting collective class battles at every opportunity, because most of us know at least a few people who've had a good chunk of the positive, the ones who form the basis of the aspirations of the rest, as well as knowing those who've who've had/have hard times.
> 
> what do you think the people you can see from your perch (public sector I think?) want?


 
well my perch actually involves going round and asking people what they want whether they be residents in social housing or users of services and trying to enable them to change thei rlives for the better whether it be individually or community based. I am also active locally in some community projects.

Most people happiness  and contentment, good relationships both individually and in their community,family in good health and if they have kids see them grow ok.. A decent place to live in, meaningful work and enough cash to by some shiny things go on holiday. And when things go wrong the ability to be resilient to draw upon those relationships.

I can't recall advocating collective class battles at every opportunity but I do believe that at  times people's own individual problems/aspirations are  more likely to be resolved/ less damage done/achieved by collective action than individual solutions.But in a period where neoliberalism has dominated collective experience of sticking together is thinner and thinner. We all hope to win the lottery.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

well, like I say, no offence intended, simply a turn of phrase.  and I didn't think I was claiming it to be a _privileged __protected position, _merely something I know little about never having had more than cursory experience.  But if that's the way it reads then sorry.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I can't recall advocating collective class battles at every opportunity but I do believe that at times people's own individual problems/aspirations are more likely to be resolved/ less damage done/achieved by collective action than individual solutions.But in a period where neoliberalism has dominated collective experience of sticking together is thinner and thinner. We all hope to win the lottery.


something I aspire to is the language skills of BA, DC, disco or yourself. God, how much I wish. Everything I ever write ties me up in misplaced words and unintended consequences. I wasn't for a moment suggesting you'd advocated collective class battles at every opportunity, just keeping the theme of this bit of the thread going, the theme that all socialists should be "Promoting strikes wherever possible".

fwiw I agree with what you've said, of course there are times when collective battles are necessary.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 18, 2013)

Newbie's posts have got me wondering if people can recommend any good reading material on class composition in Britain today.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> Newbie's posts have got me wondering if people can recommend any good reading material on class composition in Britain today.


the trouble is the vast bulk of people who care about class are Marxists of one sort or other, and as Marx predates minor little factors like the working class owning (but absolutely not controlling) the bulk of the economy (via assets, homes, savings, pensions and so on) as well as owning most of the debt, and also dates from a time when class/geography were near certain determinants of future life, all they do is tie themselves in knots of long words few people other than butchers actually understand. Well, I don't, anyway.

If you find something both readable and sensible please let me know.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> I think that's fair but do you not also want, in at least some measure, the security of home/asset ownership, the benefits mobility brings, the occasional new toys? For both yourselves and your children. For those are on offer for you to aspire towards though not necessarily achieve.


 

Home and asset ownership are very secondary to security/affordability/appropriateness of tenure; indeed we've got a mortgage because it was the cheapest way of getting a secure and appropriately sized roof over our heads. Mobility I will grab when the chance comes up - through a family connection we were able to go to Rwanda and Uganda earlier this year - but it isn't something I actively pursue; there's loads on my doorstep that I find by turns satisfying and intriguing. As for toys I really have come to realise that on the whole they are ultimately disappointing and I do not need them to have a good sense of myself; that is excluding multiple pairs of running shoes and tents and a gas powered camping fridge...

My quality of life I believe is shaped overwhelmingly by relationships (family, friends and more casual interactions) and work (by no means necessarily paid employment). Many of the ways in which contemporary society is organised/disorganised seem to get in the way of good relationships and good work; capitalism with its alienation and commodification of labour and its production of commodities for exchange value seems key to the poor organisation/disorganisation.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

p.s. I can see this all coming across a bit smug from someone in my very fortunate position as a well educated, well paid white collar worker...but you did ask.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> something I aspire to is the language skills of BA, DC, disco or yourself. God, how much I wish. Everything I ever write ties me up in misplaced words and unintended consequences. I wasn't for a moment suggesting you'd advocated collective class battles at every opportunity, just keeping the theme of this bit of the thread going, the theme that all socialists should be "Promoting strikes wherever possible".
> 
> fwiw I agree with what you've said, of course there are times when collective battles are necessary.


 



newbie said:


> the trouble is the vast bulk of people who care about class are Marxists of one sort or other, and as Marx predates minor little factors like the working class owning (but absolutely not controlling) the bulk of the economy (via assets, homes, savings, pensions and so on) as well as owning most of the debt, and also dates from a time when class/geography were near certain determinants of future life, all they do is tie themselves in knots of long words few people other than butchers actually understand. Well, I don't, anyway.
> 
> If you find something both readable and sensible please let me know.


 
In one post, people who take class analysis seriously have language skills that you aspire to, in another all they do is tie themselves up in long words.


----------



## treelover (Jul 18, 2013)

I for one have enjoyed Newbie's considered if infrequent interjections on the site.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> well my perch actually involves going round and asking people what they want whether they be residents in social housing or users of services and trying to enable them to change thei rlives for the better whether it be individually or community based. I am also active locally in some community projects.
> 
> Most people happiness and contentment, good relationships both individually and in their community,family in good health and if they have kids see them grow ok.. A decent place to live in, meaningful work and enough cash to by some shiny things go on holiday. *And when things go wrong the ability to be resilient to draw upon those relationships.*
> 
> I can't recall advocating collective class battles at every opportunity but I do believe that at times people's own individual problems/aspirations are more likely to be resolved/ less damage done/achieved by collective action than individual solutions.But in a period where neoliberalism has dominated collective experience of sticking together is thinner and thinner. We all hope to win the lottery.


 
This notion of resilience is really important. The confidence in having the ability to cope when stuff goes wrong can take much of the fear out of everyday life; fear that waits with illness, loss of income, loss of home.

I would argue that the post war settlement tried to tackle those fears head on through the NHS, unemployment benefits and income supports, massive council house builds, secure tenancies and fair rents; the upshot of this plus changes in education, pensions and behind it all the need for reconstruction, helped produce a confident self assertive working class.

It was by no means perfect - neither the settlement nor the class (for example criticisms of the gendered character of both are well documented) - and it cannot be replicated. But it is a history which has much to value and be proud of, not least in the context of this discussion the social and individual feelings of resilience that were engendered. My paternal grandmother did not have to worry about finding six pence to take to the doctors. My maternal grandmother did not have to fear the imposition of the workhouse on her or her family. My father got an education and a job for life which used that education. I could go on but I hope the point is made.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

not to me, not smug, just honest. Mortgage and mobility don't come without aspiration though (except for the silverspooners, which is not really what I think we're on about), they have to be saved for, which means putting the career path into place.  There are plenty of (often not always very admirable imo) people who've flatly refused to do any of that but most don't and many sneer _lifestyler_ at those that do.  So although I think you (& 39steps) are right that relationships and personal values are most important, to achieve them we mostly do the aspiration/individual achievement dance.  We do not, to stick with the theme, achieve by collective struggle, not any more.  maybe sometime in the future, but not now.

As for toys, has your view changed over time, both with your own age and as the vast flood from China has come onstream?  I know mine has, partly because to some extent I've got all the things I want and partly for the 'good sense of myself' reason you cite.  Dunno, I don't get the same impression from those younger and I don't think I used to feel the way I do now.





just one thing though, from an enthusiastic camper: gas powered fridge!!


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> I for one have enjoyed Newbie's considered if infrequent interjections on the site.


it won't last, at least I hope not. I've never had a job where I can post from work, and I don't have any work atm.

ps thankyou


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> In one post, people who take class analysis seriously have language skills that you aspire to, in another all they do is tie themselves up in long words.


what can I say


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> I for one have enjoyed Newbie's considered if infrequent interjections on the site.


 

People seem to be engaging with him rather than flaming him.  All I was trying to point out is that he can't have it both ways.  He can't dismiss everyone who takes class seriously as a bunch of 'Marxists' who just 'tie themselves in knots of long words' if he admires the language skills of the ones who actually engage with him.  Plenty of writing on class is dense in a way that isn't helpful.  Marx was guilty of this.  I was looking at Capital the other day and there was a passage where he had written 'political animal' in greek, which makes you question his intended reader.  But sometimes the material is tough because the ideas are complex, or translation is an imperfect art, or because people cautiously use veiled language to express dangerous ideas and then it becomes a convention.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> In one post, people who take class analysis seriously have language skills that you aspire to, in another all they do is tie themselves up in long words.


actually to be fair, none of those I mentioned are particularly guilty of longwordism.  Models of clarity, even if I don't always agree with them...well, butchers is a wee bit cryptic at times, but he posts so much the meaning is generally pretty clear. 

I took it you were asking about books or considered articles rather than posts on here anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

Political animal - _politikon zoon -_ an Aristotle thing that just means that people construct the world we live in. That was a translators choice. But it's a pretty famous phrase.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 18, 2013)

I had considered writing Πολιτικον ζοων in my original post and name checking Aristotle, but I wasn't sure what it would add. I was just trying to acknowledge that people who write about class don't always do a great job of making their language as accessible as possible to a wide audience. The complexity of the ideas aren't the only barrier.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

I agree. It's got worse as there is now a market for self-sustaining bamboozling whereas marx was just being a clever cunt. But that choice was still the translators and publishers/marx does no wrong.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 18, 2013)

Which is links back to my question about more contemporary work on class composition in Britain (or internationally).  Otherwise these ideas are in danger of becoming part of a nostalgia industry. Come on Butchers, you know you want to provide us with another reading list:


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

It's an excellent question - and there's two aspects: the formal factual sociological stuff and then what this means to the class politically. (There's three actually, about how the technical composition of work structures the other two things). Give me some time and i'll come back (today i have cricket and opera though).


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 18, 2013)

You're not allowed to like my post newbie, unless you promise to do your homework.

ETA: Joke

2ETA: Or challenge, if you prefer.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> You're not allowed to like my post newbie, unless you promise to do your homework.
> 
> ETA: Joke
> 
> 2ETA: Or challenge, if you prefer.


oh, I'd giggle without the disclaimers.



if I knew of anyone who I felt dealt with what I observe (and I'm very aware how narrow that is, but still) in a way that adds anything I'd say so.  But I don't, and I've been looking for a long time.

for a while elements of nu labour attempted to talk about the acquisition and distribution of assets and even introduced, as a tiny intervention, Child Trust Funds.  Neither the idea nor the thinking behind it really took hold, most on the left were utterly dismissive, and CTFs were subsequently abolished.  I've no particular interest in discussing that specific issue, wrong thread anyway, I'm only raising it because it's one of the few bits of evidence I've seen of even vaguely left thinking about issues that, to me, put oceans of clear blue water between modern society and what's gone before.

I'll be interested to see what butchers comes up with, but if it doesn't deal with post 'tell sid' society or doesn't consider why the working class so readily handed their prime collective treasure, the mutuals, to 'the market', and what that has subsequently meant, then it's not really going to satisfy.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

nogojones said:


> Frank was a good guy. Shame there's not a lot more like him


there are critiques to be made of some of his behaviour and choices over the years but yes, overall. and a fierce fighter. and one of the most intelligent people i've ever met.
frank used to stay at jim nichols' house everytime he was in london, i had fixed myself to frank like a wart the first branch meeting i went to, his little apprentice and chauffeur, so i got to stay there as well. it was interesting to watch that lot in his presence, foot, nichol, holborow all adored him.

there were some contradictions though and  i think this is an apt place to mention them. he was involved in the birmingham engineers thing in the seventies, then was the control commision chair that expelled his former opposition comrades. he was the only person who ever suggested to andy wilson setting up a secret faction, then was chair of his expulsion committee. he played a leading role in our branch (excluding maybe half a dozen members out of thirtyish who we knew didn't agree) sending in a piece for the pre conference bulletin, yet became mute as the fulltimer and the fanatics wrecked the branch.

hallas was the same.

they had their reasons, which i think were genuinely held and honourable, but i think they were wrong. maybe wrong isn't correct, they were both veterans of various faction fights and always came out on the winning side and with some influence, so maybe they knew what they were doing but to me, something doesn't sit right.

what do i know though. i'm a rubbish revolutionary.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

i must add, and it's a bit weird to say this, but if there were still a control commission, and frank chaired the meetings about delta, i'm pretty sure he would have expelled him. whether frank thought he was a rapist or not would be irrelevant. he would have forseen the damage to the party it could inflict and kicked him out.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jul 18, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> Newbie's posts have got me wondering if people can recommend any good reading material on class composition in Britain today.


 You could skim the political reading thread, damn long but one or two books may jump to your eye and as they are recommended by members they may be a damn site more accessable than any I have read as my bent is political history.
Happy reading


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> the trouble is the vast bulk of people who care about class are Marxists of one sort or other...


 
Surprised no one else appears to have pointed this out, but there are large numbers of people who care very much about class. and making sure that power and wealth stay in the exclusive hands of their class, who are most definitely not Marxists.

Perhaps what you mean is people who _talk_ about class


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> it's great isn't it, nostalgia.


yes and no. depressing yet comforting at the same time. i only do it because that's what i do. my entire politics is anecdotes.





> different world from today though.


 you don't have to tell me. we've been in almost constant retreat since before i started work. apart from a few shining pinnacles, and those mostly a long time ago, i've been beaten like a dog for the last twenty eight years. in the last three years alone i've gone from thirty grand a year to just over fifteen.



> Will it ever come back?


fuck knows, probably, ebb and flow and all that. fuck knows when though.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> Perhaps what you mean is people who _talk_ about class


even then it's a nonsense. everybody talks about class.


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i must add, and it's a bit weird to say this, but if there were still a control commission, and frank chaired the meetings about delta, i'm pretty sure he would have expelled him. whether frank thought he was a rapist or not would be irrelevant. he would have forseen the damage to the party it could inflict and kicked him out.


 
Whatever it may have been in the past (others here are far better positioned to know and comment), it's a sign of what the SWP is currently that there was absolutely no one in any position of authority left who was clear-sighted enough to realise this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

That such a possible action is looked on as a better option then what happened is doubly damning.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> even then it's a nonsense. everybody talks about class.


 
Absolutely . I was described by a mates sister from Wythensahw as a yuppie who is a bit like us last Friday night. This was about 45 minutes after she had drank about four pints of Stella but before she headbutted some woman from Wilmslow who had been staring at her.


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That such a possible action is looked on as a better option then what happened is doubly damning.


 
Would you like to explain your thinking on this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> Would you like to explain your thinking on this?


 
That expelling people with no investigation because of the impact accusations might have on the party is shit and a sign of top -heavy executive/bureaucracy power. That this _now_ appears as a better option that what happened damns both the current party and the old _good swp_. That was all in my post btw, you only needed to look.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> Surprised no one else appears to have pointed this out, but there are large numbers of people who care very much about class. and making sure that power and wealth stay in the exclusive hands of their class, who are most definitely not Marxists.
> 
> Perhaps what you mean is people who _talk_ about class


and picked up yet again for not quite conveying what I intended... ah well... good point, well made


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That expelling people with no investigation because of the impact accusations might have on the party is shit and a sign of top -heavy executive/bureaucracy power. That this _now_ appears as a better option that what happened damns both the current party and the old _good swp_.


 
Where is there anything in my post, or discokermit's, that says anything about "with no investigation"?

We're also not talking about "people", we're talking about one particular person at the very top of the hierarchy. It's precisely a sign of top-heavy bureaucracy power that the "investigation" process led to the completely fucked-up result it did.

I'm not arguing (and apologies if it came across this way) that someone with a bit of sense should have moved to expel Smith if he wouldn't go of his own volition simply "for the good of the party" regardless of the ultimate right or wrongness of his position, but that in this case, as in many others, doing the right thing would actually have been the right thing for the organisation as well.



butchersapron said:


> That was all in my post btw, you only needed to look.


 
No, it wasn't, but thanks for expanding/clarifying


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That such a possible action is looked on as a better option then what happened is doubly damning.


exactly, which is why i felt weird about saying it. as shit as it is, and it is, it would still have been better than this.


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2013)

newbie said:


> and picked up yet again for not quite conveying what I intended... ah well... good point, well made


 
I wasn't trying to pick up on you, just make a point of clarification.

It's only butchersapron who always conveys exactly what he intends, or at least if he doesn't, it's always someone else's fault...

ETA: *wasn't* trying to pick


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> Where is there anything in my post, or discokermit's, that says anything about "with no investigation"?





discokermit said:


> whether frank thought he was a rapist or not would be irrelevant.


there could have been an ivestigation, but it wasn't important. if frank thought he should go, he'd be gone.

i once asked him about a birmingham comrade who had been expelled for rape, if he thought he did it or not. he said he wasn't there to administer bourgeois justice, he was there to do what was best for the swp.


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2013)

discokermit

Fair enough. What do you think his reaction would have been to the now known facts which the investigation did reveal?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> Where is there anything in my post, or discokermit's, that says anything about "with no investigation"?
> 
> We're also not talking about "people", we're talking about one particular person at the very top of the hierarchy. It's precisely a sign of top-heavy bureaucracy power that the "investigation" process led to the completely fucked-up result it did.
> 
> ...


 
Oh come on. 



			
				dk said:
			
		

> i must add, and it's a bit weird to say this, but if there were still a control commission, and frank chaired the meetings about delta, i'm pretty sure he would have expelled him. whether frank thought he was a rapist or not would be irrelevant. he would have forseen the damage to the party it could inflict and kicked him out.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> discokermit
> 
> Fair enough. What do you think his reaction would have been to the now known facts which the investigation did reveal?


fairly irrelevant as he would have already kicked him out. no announcement, bit of gossip, pretty soon everyone would have forgot about him.


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh come on.


 
dk has already brought that bit to my attention, but the question is not simply whether he was a rapist, but whether given the things which the investigation eventually, in a drip-drip way, uncovered and revealed about what he had done, expulsion was the right thing to do - both because it was the right thing, and because it was the right thing for the party.

That's the point I'm trying to get across, and apologies if I (still) haven't made it as clearly as I would like!


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> fairly irrelevant as he would have already kicked him out. no announcement, bit of gossip, pretty soon everyone would have forgot about him.


 
So you're saying he would have pre-empted any investigation by kicking him out straight away?

That would not be my idea of the right way to do it...


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

just remembered Oisin123 asking frank one marxism why andy wilson had been expelled. this sort of thing happened a few times when i was with frank.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 18, 2013)

I can only repeat the comment I made months ago and that was that someone with some nouse shoukld have clearly told Delta that his behaviour wasn't acceptable and that he had a month to choose between his lifestyle or the organisation, after that the organsiation would choose for him.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> So you're saying he would have pre-empted any investigation by kicking him out straight away?
> 
> That would not be my idea of the right way to do it...


but it would be the one of least danger to the party, which was all his job was concerned with. and he took that very seriously.


----------



## andysays (Jul 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> I can only repeat the comment I made months ago and that was that someone with some nouse shoukld have clearly told Delta that his behaviour wasn't acceptable and that he had a month to choose between his lifestyle or the organisation, after that the organsiation would choose for him.


 
You've said, simply and clearly, what I've been attempting, in a totally incoherent and inadequate way, to say for the past hour


----------



## emanymton (Jul 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> there are critiques to be made of some of his behaviour and choices over the years but yes, overall. and a fierce fighter. and one of the most intelligent people i've ever met.
> frank used to stay at jim nichols' house everytime he was in london, i had fixed myself to frank like a wart the first branch meeting i went to, his little apprentice and chauffeur, so i got to stay there as well. it was interesting to watch that lot in his presence, foot, nichol, holborow all adored him.
> 
> there were some contradictions though and  i think this is an apt place to mention them. he was involved in the birmingham engineers thing in the seventies, then was the control commision chair that expelled his former opposition comrades. he was the only person who ever suggested to andy wilson setting up a secret faction, then was chair of his expulsion committee. he played a leading role in our branch (excluding maybe half a dozen members out of thirtyish who we knew didn't agree) sending in a piece for the pre conference bulletin, yet became mute as the fulltimer and the fanatics wrecked the branch.
> ...


Mate you sound a better revolutionary than I will ever be, and head and shoulders ahead of most of what's left in the SWP


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> .


check out the videos from the amm fringe meeting at marxism. you'll love it.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 18, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Mate you sound a better revolutionary than I will ever be, and head and shoulders ahead of most of what's left in the SWP


no, i'm shit at it. poor discipline.

shouting, rabble rousing contributions from the floor and rioting are the only things i'm good at. pretty limiting for a revolutionary.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> just remembered Oisin123 asking frank one marxism why andy wilson had been expelled. this sort of thing happened a few times when i was with frank.


 
There is a certain type of activist who thinks that long words are not for working class militants. Now it's true that if you are encouraging large numbers of people to fight over a particular injustice, there's not a lot of call for Hegelian phrases. But ever since Engels noted how it was working class audiences who strove most eagerly to grasp Darwin's ideas in the great public debates of the 1860s, it's also been obvious that there are working class activists who have a great drive to master all forms of political and cultural theory. Frank was one of those. I recall him telling me about how as an apprentice at the car factory he formed a _Capital_ readers group and after a few weeks, him and his mates were telling the foremen to stop trying to increase the surplus value the managers were squeezing from the workers' labour. Similarly, when I was living in Rossington, I was friends with miners from Armthorpe whose lockers were stuffed with books about the Russian Revolution. There was a 'red shift' at that pit, which reckoned its descent from AJ Cook in the 1920s, the members of whom refused to work if a pit deputy was in the vicinity and whose older members politicised the newer arrivals. If you wanted to lose all respect from these miners, you'd patronise them with a _Marxism for Dummies_ version of revolutionary theory.
Frank was wrong about Andy, though. Anyone know if the ex-miners-turned-SWP-organisers like Ian Mitchell and Joe Henry are still around? And which side they are taking?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 19, 2013)

andysays said:


> You've said, simply and clearly, what I've been attempting, in a totally incoherent and inadequate way, to say for the past hour


 
class of 77


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> check out the videos from the amm fringe meeting at marxism. you'll love it.


 
where are these gems then?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 19, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Frank was wrong about Andy, though. Anyone know if the ex-miners-turned-SWP-organisers like Ian Mitchell and Joe Henry are still around? And which side they are taking?


 

Ian Mitchell from Sheffield? He was up here in Scotland for a good few years as a FTer, was one of the more likable of them imho. Not seen him for a few years mind.
A mate mentioned he was still writing for the SW and ISJ occasionally but not as active as was. Apparently moved to Bute.


----------



## tedsplitter (Jul 19, 2013)

Joe Henry left the SWP with the Counterfire lot, sadly. Don't know if he's still with them.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 19, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> where are these gems then?



http://vimeo.com/m/70556485

And five others around there somewhere.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> yes and no. depressing yet comforting at the same time. i only do it because that's what i do. my entire politics is anecdotes.  . . .


 

You think that's shit? My entire politics is other people's anecdotes.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 20, 2013)

Martin Smith has resigned by all accounts.


----------



## JHE (Jul 20, 2013)

Took his time, didn't he?  I thought these Bolshevik types were supposed to be all dynamic, not a bunch of ditherers.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Martin Smith has resigned by all accounts.


 

jumped or pushed?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Martin Smith has resigned by all accounts.


Too late to help the SWP.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 20, 2013)

Very cynical thought but I guess this means that second complaint will never get investigated.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Martin Smith has resigned by all accounts.


From the party, or his sinecure?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 20, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> From the party, or his sinecure?


From the party, what his position in UAF and LMHR is remains another question.

My first post was wrong I was just thinking backwards this will not help to heal an of the damage already done, but it will stop the shitstorm that a second investigation would have brought about.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> From the party, what his position in UAF and LMHR is remains another question.
> 
> My first post was wrong I was just thinking backwards this will not help to heal an of the damage already done, but it will stop the shitstorm that a second investigation would have brought about.


soviet goon boy reckons the investigation will go ahead, http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 20, 2013)

If he has done no wrong as the cc and their supporters have claimed then why has he resigned?
If he has resigned in recognition that he has done wrong then why has it taken so long and why did the swp not realise he did wrong and expell him?
Or is he going to be portrayed as heroically falling on his sword for the greater good?
Or is it going to be a case of them claiming he was victimised into this?

If people stay in the swp as a result of this then they are plainly fucking idiots or sell outs or unprincipled fuckers...


----------



## emanymton (Jul 20, 2013)

discokermit said:


> soviet goon boy reckons the investigation will go ahead, http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/


Great if true.


----------



## cesare (Jul 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Great if true.


Also answers my question about employment status (if accurate)


----------



## SLK (Jul 20, 2013)

Welcome news that Smith has gone.

Has this previously been posted?

http://www.heartfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/redfriars/Billy_Delta.htm


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 20, 2013)

2nd investigation had to go ahead regardless of his status surely, given the ructions about it's handling so far. And not the first time the dc has heard a complaint either about or raised by an ex member.

A good day for everyone who wants the IS to survive if a sad one for those of us who have worked with him and valued him and found it hard to believe the complaints intially. But enough is enough and was a good time ago.


----------



## SLK (Jul 20, 2013)

I agree with that except for it was far from a good time to go. A good time to go was before they lost 75% of their members.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> 2nd investigation had to go ahead regardless of his status surely, given the ructions about it's handling so far. And not the first time the dc has heard a complaint either about or raised by an ex member.
> 
> A good day for everyone who wants the IS to survive if a sad one for those of us who have worked with him and valued him and found it hard to believe the complaints intially. But enough is enough and was a good time ago.


 
I was in the swp from 1986 ish to 2009...I knew delta from 1990 when I wasin woolwich swp and he was a student...he was my district organiser at one point and was a district organiser when I was in the 1990s...I always thoughthe was a good bloke but I had no problem believing the complaints as I think that women do not generally make this kind of shit up.
That coupled with the fact that he was nearly 50 and she'd just turned 17 when they began their relationship more than suggests that he was misusing his powerful position in the swp.
You have constantly refused to answer these points put bymany posters on here shows you to be blindly loyal to the swp rather than to the principles of socialism. It is sad that you are pleased at this news.
He should have been expelled and the women should have been treated with respect instead of being subjected to a kanderoo court investigation


----------



## dominion (Jul 20, 2013)

The SWP have shown themselves to be what they truly are, a cult.

Not on the side of the workers, ever. Just themselves.

Just try to imagine a world they would have created and then try to sleep at night.

Bolshevism gone mad, as it ever was, the SWP were (fortunately) never in power. 

Delta another Beira?


----------



## SLK (Jul 20, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I was in the swp from 1986 ish to 2009...I knew delta from 1990 when I wasin woolwich swp and he was a student...he was my district organiser at one point and was a district organiser when I was in the 1990s...I always thoughthe was a good bloke but I had no problem believing the complaints as I think that women do not generally make this kind of shit up.
> That coupled with the fact that he was nearly 50 and she'd just turned 17 when they began their relationship more than suggests that he was misusing his powerful position in the swp.
> You have constantly refused to answer these points put bymany posters on here shows you to be blindly loyal to the swp rather than to the principles of socialism. It is sad that you are pleased at this news.
> He should have been expelled and the women should have been treated with respect instead of being subjected to a kanderoo court investigation


 

I agree with this completely, except I think bolshie has said he doesn't answer those points because he can't know what happened. He has also said he won't defend the SWP "any more" over the way they handled this. 
I should definitely know who you are from this post, but I can't work it out. Not that it matters, but it's bugging me.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 20, 2013)

SLK said:


> I agree with this completely, except I think bolshie has said he doesn't answer those points because he can't know what happened. He has also said he won't defend the SWP "any more" over the way they handled this.
> I should definitely know who you are from this post, but I can't work it out. Not that it matters, but it's bugging me.


You can email me or private message me (if thats possible) and let me know who you are and I will happily tell you...tend to prefer to keep my name out of the forum so personal stuff doesn't get involved as I have kids


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 20, 2013)

[quote="SLK, post: 12416272, member: 46702"points...ree with this completely, except I think bolshie has said he doesn't answer those points because he can't know what happened. He has also said he won't defend the SWP "any more" over the way they handled this.
I should definitely know who you are from this post, but I can't work it out. Not that it matters, but it's bugging me.[/quote]
Re bolshies reason for not answering those points...I didnt know he'd said that so I take it back...sorry bolshie...my bad


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 20, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> You have constantly refused to answer these points put bymany posters on here shows you to be blindly loyal to the swp rather than to the principles of socialism. It is sad that you are pleased at this news.


He should have been suspended while they investigated it properly and if the case was proven then he should have been expelled. Think I've been fairly clear for some time (not that my opinion matters much) that the dc investigation was flawed. Don't really care if you're sad that I'm pleased or not at the news but if the implication is that only those who want the swp to disappear can be pleased then you can jog on.


----------



## SLK (Jul 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He should have been suspended while they investigated it properly and if the case was proven then he should have been expelled. Think I've been fairly clear for some time (not that my opinion matters much) that the dc investigation was flawed. Don't really care if you're sad that I'm pleased or not at the news but if the implication is that only those who want the swp to disappear can be pleased then you can jog on.


 

A more robust answer than my liberal peacemaking one.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He should have been suspended while they investigated it properly and if the case was proven then he should have been expelled. Think I've been fairly clear for some time (not that my opinion matters much) that the dc investigation was flawed. Don't really care if you're sad that I'm pleased or not at the news but if the implication is that only those who want the swp to disappear can be pleased then you can jog on.


 
In my view his resignation is nothing for anyone to be pleased about...and maybe you should have read my apology before telling me to jog on...just a thought


----------



## DrRingDing (Jul 20, 2013)

> *Exit Delta*
> 
> We have movement! Finally!
> Here’s the situation, as I understand it. First, Delta has resigned from the SWP. Second, it has been decided that, rather than trying to crudely draw a line under the affair, the Disputes Committee will proceed to hear the second complaint – the sexual harassment complaint brought by Comrade X, which has been postponed several times already – in his absence.
> ...


 
http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/exit-delta/


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 20, 2013)

dominion said:


> Delta another Beira?


 
minus the flowers


----------



## Tom A (Jul 20, 2013)

Too little, too late for the SWP.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jul 21, 2013)

big victory for the opposition. much still to fight for. inasmuch as there's anything in the swp worth fighting over.


----------



## kenny g (Jul 21, 2013)

Wonder what he is going off to study? Gender studies? Soviet theories of justice?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 21, 2013)

NLP


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Wonder what he is going off to study? Gender studies? Soviet theories of justice?


 
Public Relations, innit...


----------



## Tom A (Jul 21, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> big victory for the opposition. much still to fight for. *inasmuch as there's anything in the swp worth fighting over.*


 
That's really is the issue here. Even if they win, they will have imploded so greatly that they aren't any more recognisable than any of the other tiny sects in Trotland. Maybe they could get the splitters in ISN etc to come back on board, but the political differences would be too great, and the SWP name too tarnished.


----------



## Bun (Jul 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> Public Relations, innit...


 

HR.....?


----------



## kenny g (Jul 21, 2013)

They have got assets - in both senses of the word - and that should keep them going.


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> You can email me or private message me (if thats possible) and let me know who you are and I will happily tell you...tend to prefer to keep my name out of the forum so personal stuff doesn't get involved as I have kids


 
Don't think Stuart Hall posts here anymore


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> In my view his resignation is nothing for anyone to be pleased about...and maybe you should have read my apology before telling me to jog on...just a thought


Sorry hadn't seen that before I replied. I did rewrite my reply but slk had already quoted me by then so it would have looked odd if I'd edited it. 

Anyhoows, more importantly than our minor handbags, are you really saying we shouldn't be pleased? If the argument is he should have been expelled earlier then I understand the point but don't agree. Given the only process the party had to deal with this stuff and given its outcome he couldn't be expelled. Should whoever has just had a word with him had that word earlier? Almost certainly yes but there are clearly at least three wings (if the notion of more than two wings makes any sense) to the party on this whole mess and their jockeying is taking some time to play itself out.

What will be interesting to watch is how the opposition reacts to this. Arguably the only thing giving the opposition coherence is the delta fiasco. Anyone who's spoken to them or read them knows they are massively diverse on every other conceivable issue, it's their collective determination to get these allegations properly resolved that keeps those differences at bay imho. Presumably the argument will be let's wait and see what happens to the second allegation. But assuming that is sorted in a fair way then maybe finally the real political differences can become the main topic of discussion and people can decide on the merits of those politics alone.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 21, 2013)

Just looked at the ISN statement on this latest development. Leaving aside the content (predictable) of the reaction the funniest thing is the spat that ensued in the comments section cause one of their steering committe had the audacity to post the statement at all without consulting the membership. Anti-leninism eats itself shock, this bunch aren't long for these parts on this form.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Just looked at the ISN statement on this latest development. Leaving aside the content (predictable) of the reaction the funniest thing is the spat that ensued in the comments section cause one of their steering committe had the audacity to post the statement at all without consulting the membership. Anti-leninism eats itself shock, this bunch aren't long for these parts on this form.


Afaik the isn consider themselves to be leninists, or is it the case that anyone outside the swp is an antileninist?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 21, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> Don't think Stuart Hall posts here anymore


 

Because of the anti racist stuff I was involved in I received letters with razor blades and threats to burn us out of our home...one of my daughters, then aged 3 opened the letter...have had to change our home phone number and my mobile number after my daughters heard the foul racist shit left by the master race so forgive me for being a little paranoid...but rest assured i don't see paedophiles around every corner


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Afaik the isn consider themselves to be leninists, or is it the case that anyone outside the swp is an antileninist?


Wrong on both counts. There are plenty (too many) leninists outside the swp. And the poor old isn aren't coherent enough to be called anything-ist.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ... (too many) leninists outside the swp...


 
Can we take it that you have renewed your membership?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry hadn't seen that before I replied. I did rewrite my reply but slk had already quoted me by then so it would have looked odd if I'd edited it.
> 
> Anyhoows, more importantly than our minor handbags, are you really saying we shouldn't be pleased? *If the argument is he should have been expelled earlier then I understand the point but don't agree.* Given the only process the party had to deal with this stuff and given its outcome he couldn't be expelled. Should whoever has just had a word with him had that word earlier? Almost certainly yes but there are clearly at least three wings (if the notion of more than two wings makes any sense) to the party on this whole mess and their jockeying is taking some time to play itself out.
> 
> What will be interesting to watch is how the opposition reacts to this. Arguably the only thing giving the opposition coherence is the delta fiasco. Anyone who's spoken to them or read them knows they are massively diverse on every other conceivable issue, it's their collective determination to get these allegations properly resolved that keeps those differences at bay imho. Presumably the argument will be let's wait and see what happens to the second allegation. But assuming that is sorted in a fair way then maybe finally the real political differences can become the main topic of discussion and people can decide on the merits of those politics alone.


 

I think he should have been expelled when he admitted have a relationship with a 17yr old. He was a 48 yr old cc member. He had been in the party for approx 30 yrs and had worked for the party for 20 yrs. He is therefore in a power of authority and power within the swp. To begin a relationship with a 17 yr old betrays a serious lack of judgement and misuse of power. Therefore he should have been expelled.
In my 23 years in the SWP I saw members expelled on the word of the woman in cases of domestic violence when the men claimed they had done nothing...in my opinion it was right to expel those men. I know of a man expelled after a woman said that she could not remember consenting to sex with him as she was very drunk...again i fully agreed with the decision.

My problem here was he was not expelled ... the rest of this is like a nightmare. How anyone thought that the swp could investigate a rape allegation is beyond me. How they thought they could find he was innocent is beyond everyone. Everything else has flowed from these politically poisonous decisions in my opinion

I take no joy in slating anyone left organisation ... in the 4 yrs since I left I simply used to say that I think the swp was no longer a party that I wanted to belong to... I never had an issue with it or its members...I just disagreed with aspects of how it operated...but now I would  not touch it with a barge pole and do not believe it can be trusted. 

It has displayed the worst traits of the stalinist CP


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I think he should have been expelled when he admitted have a relationship with a 17yr old. He was a 48 yr old cc member. He had been in the party for approx 30 yrs and had worked for the party for 20 yrs. He is therefore in a power of authority and power within the swp. To begin a relationship with a 17 yr old betrays a serious lack of judgement and misuse of power. Therefore he should have been expelled.


we went through this when the issue first arose, whenever that was. Seems so long ago now.

Whilst from the perspective of outsiders the "power of authority" point is very clear and very troublesome, it ignores that the woman concerned is of an age when she is entitled to make relationship decisions for herself.  No-one else can or should stand in her way. 

The exception is in the case of genuine, professional power/authority, eg teachers, police officers etc. As the SWP is purely a voluntary group, and nothing more despite delusions about Lenin or whatever, that doesn't apply. 

If no-one should stand in her way, then they can hardly stand in his either.  Her parents, her friends, and his parents and friends, people close might have some sort of case for making their feelings known, but no more than that.  It's nothing to do with anyone else.  Until the point at which she made a complaint.  After that, well, we're about 12,000 posts in so far...


----------



## laptop (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> Whilst from the perspective of outsiders the "power of authority" point is very clear and very troublesome, it ignores that the woman concerned is of an age when she is entitled to make relationship decisions for herself. No-one else can or should stand in her way.


 
Sort of. If you take the theory of vanguardism seriously, then he was in the position of a teacher, and the applicable age of consent is 18.


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

In any event, it doesn't matter if attending a group is voluntary or not if someone has the authority to preclude you from it despite what you want.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> we went through this when the issue first arose, whenever that was. Seems so long ago now.
> 
> Whilst from the perspective of outsiders the "power of authority" point is very clear and very troublesome, it ignores that the woman concerned is of an age when she is entitled to make relationship decisions for herself. No-one else can or should stand in her way.
> 
> ...


 

I think his judgement was questionable to say the least...in the swp he WAS in a position of authority and power...therefore he should have been expelled once he admitted that he'd begun a relationship with a 17 year old member of a party that he was a leading member of. fair enough if I'm in the minority but I honestly expect socialist men (with over 30 years membership of a socialist organisation and 20 yrs experience of working for one) to have better judgement than that.
the woman may be of a legal age but I, writing as a 46 year old man, fail to comprehend how I would want to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> Can we take it that you have renewed your membership?


 
The labour party one?


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

would a court take 'vanguardism' seriously?  Would it consider that there is a formal authority involved?  more so than in steps' allotment society?


----------



## laptop (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> would a court take 'vanguardism' seriously? Would it consider that there is a formal authority involved? more so than in steps' allotment society?


 
You want pedantry? As far as I can see the 2003 Act does not define "educational institution", so it's up to the court. Indeed, it _shouldn't_ define it, to save providing loopholes, for example unregistered & informal religious classes.

The point, however, was about the ethics of the situation.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> would a court take 'vanguardism' seriously? Would it consider that there is a formal authority involved? more so than in steps' allotment society?


 

it not about a court case or the law re his inappropriate behaviour in having a sexual relationship with a 17yr old. By law there is nothing wrong with that but as a socialist you can be expelled for many things that are legal. If you argue in favour of immigration controls you can be expelled from the swp but that is not illegal. If you refer to women as birds you can be expelled but that is not illegal


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> ...If no-one should stand in her way, then they can hardly stand in his either...


 
I don't agree. He was in a position of authority. With that comes a need for greater responsibility.

If he was too selfish to recognise that, someone else in a position of authority should have pointed it out to him. To the extent that no-one did, the entire leadership, then and subsequently, are responsible.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I think his judgement was questionable to say the least


oh so do I.  joining the SWP has always struck me as bizarre, staying in it is just quite extraordinary.

that's only only partially a joke, but I'm not trying to make light of an obviously serious matter


> the woman may be of a legal age but I, writing as a 46 year old man, fail to comprehend how I would want to have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old.


me too, mate, me too.  I've met teenagers.

Not the point though. Whether middle aged blokes approve of the relationships of others is neither here nor there.  Until you can campaign to raise the age of consent, she is fully entitled to make her own decisions.

I'll listen to laptop & cesare, if they come back and say that in this specific circumstance, the law says she is a year too young to consent. However the principle, that you have to accept young peoples right to their own decisions in their own lives is not to be glossed over simply because some of us think we know better.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> it not about a court case or the law re his inappropriate behaviour in having a sexual relationship with a 17yr old. By law there is nothing wrong with that but as a socialist you can be expelled for many things that are legal. If you argue in favour of immigration controls you can be expelled from the swp but that is not illegal. If you refer to women as birds you can be expelled but that is not illegal


and you think a court would take power and authority as arbitrary (and bonkers) as that seriously?


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

I don't know if she was also a SWP employee. But if she was, then yes, an employment court would take into account Delta's seniority in a complaint of sexual harassment.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

laptop said:


> You want pedantry? As far as I can see the 2003 Act does not define "educational institution", so it's up to the court. Indeed, it _shouldn't_ define it, to save providing loopholes, for example unregistered & informal religious classes.
> 
> The point, however, was about the ethics of the situation.


but what ethics? she made her decision, as she was entitled to do. What ethics are there that can abrogate that? What is ethical about outsiders making her decisions for her?

If their relationship was breaking the law, because of his position, then she was not entitled to make her own decisions, You can call that pedantry if you want, but to my mind it's actually quite important. At the point of choosing to embark on a relationship she has reasonable expectation that she can choose, and that outsiders should not interfere.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> I don't know if she was also a SWP employee. But if she was, then yes, an employment court would take into account Delta's seniority in a complaint of sexual harassment.


agreed, but I don't think she was.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> we went through this when the issue first arose, whenever that was. Seems so long ago now.
> 
> Whilst from the perspective of outsiders the "power of authority" point is very clear and very troublesome, it ignores that the woman concerned is of an age when she is entitled to make relationship decisions for herself. No-one else can or should stand in her way.
> 
> The exception is in the case of genuine, professional power/authority, eg teachers, police officers etc. As the SWP is purely a voluntary group, and nothing more despite delusions about Lenin or whatever, that doesn't apply.


utter bollocks.


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> agreed, but I don't think she was.


The point stands about his seniority/position of authority whether it was also an employment relationship or not. It's a situation of unequal power and vulnerability/potential for abuse. In itself, if there was no subsequent complaint of abuse, it's just a position of increased potential. But there was a subsequent complaint of abuse, and so that position of increased vulnerability cannot simply be discounted.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 21, 2013)

when i was eighteen the swp cc had more influence over me than teachers ever had. or coppers or bosses or parents.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> The point stands about his seniority/position of authority whether it was also an employment relationship or not. It's a situation of unequal power and vulnerability/potential for abuse. In itself, if there was no subsequent complaint of abuse, it's just a position of increased potential. But there was a subsequent complaint of abuse, and so that position of increased vulnerability cannot simply be discounted.


ok, fair enough, thankyou.  Would that change at the age of 18, or 21 or something else?

In any case, the point made was that he should have been expelled when they began their relationship, and I stand by what I've said (inasmuch as I believe it was a mutual relationship that went sour.  If I've got that factually wrong, then I withdraw unconditionally).  She also entered into it and what she wanted at that point cannot be discounted.

Subsequently she made a complaint, and thus of course asymmetric power can't be discounted- if it ever gets to court it will, rightly, be a major issue.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

discokermit said:


> when i was eighteen the swp cc had more influence over me than teachers ever had. or coppers or bosses or parents.


 

We're talking about 17, but even so, if you'd fallen for an older comrade and outsiders had demanded s/he be expelled what attitude would you have taken?


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> ok, fair enough, thankyou. Would that change at the age of 18, or 21 or something else?
> 
> In any case, the point made was that he should have been expelled when they began their relationship, and I stand by what I've said (inasmuch as I believe it was a mutual relationship that went sour. If I've got that factually wrong, then I withdraw unconditionally). She also entered into it and what she wanted at that point cannot be discounted.
> 
> Subsequently she made a complaint, and thus of course asymmetric power can't be discounted- if it ever gets to court it will, rightly, be a major issue.


 
He couldn't be expelled when they began their relationship as it was initially conducted in secret. What has been suggested here is that he should have been expelled once he had admitted to it.

And I really don't understand why you're constantly going on about courts and legal distinctions re age of consent. The SWP claim a higher standard than mere bourgeois law and morality, so arguing that he did nothing actually illegal is an irrelevent distraction.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> We're talking about 17, but even so, if you'd fallen for an older comrade and outsiders had demanded s/he be expelled what attitude would you have taken?


you don't even understand how relationships like this work.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> He couldn't be expelled when they began their relationship as it was initially conducted in secret. What has been suggested here is that he should have been expelled once he had admitted to it.
> 
> And I really don't understand why you're constantly going on about courts and legal distinctions re age of consent. The SWP claim a higher standard than mere bourgeois law and morality, so arguing that he did nothing actually illegal is an irrelevent distraction.


sorry, I don't invest the SWP with some sort of superiority or believe any of this "mere bourgeois ... morality" stuff.  What's 'mere' about the age of consent?  What's 'socialist' about pretending it can somehow be ignored? 

Or "mere bourgeois law" when it comes to relationships and the like (the concept works in other circumstances, but here we're concerned with two people having a relationship).

For myself I couldn't care less who they expel, I think they've been a laughing stock for the 30+ years I've had to put up with them, except when they've been a more major problem.  But I do actually think the way young people are treated matters, and what's being said, as I see it, seeks to trample on her right to choose.

it's not about 'him', it's her.

She was no longer a child.  She was past the age of consent.  That's not some minor point, it's a massive milestone in her life and it entitles her to make her own (legal) relationship choices. Just the same as you or I.

Think that phrase through- the right to choose.  If a 17yo got pregnant no-one here would suggest that outsiders should have a say in what she did next (yeah, doctors in a professional capacity). Yet there seems to be an assumption that she does not have the right to choose to embark on this particular relationship, because of disapproval of who she chose. 

I can't see how that counts as ethical.  

As said above, the whole situation changes focus at the point at which she made a complaint, but that is actually the case in any relationship, is it not?  It's all fine, and no-one else's business until someone complains they're being abused. At which point it becomes a matter for wider society, and then all the circumstances, including balance of power, are open for examination.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you don't even understand how relationships like this work.


how would the 17 year old you have responded to being told that?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> how would the 17 year old you have responded to being told that?


Thats kind of the point a 17 year old may be legally old enough to make discussions about there relationships, but they are still immature and will make mistakes, but they should be making those mistakes together with people their own age. 48 year old men in positions of authority have a responsibility not to take advantage of that immaturity. No one would have a problem with a couple of teenage SWP members going at it like rabbits.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

agreed, wholly. In entering a relationship with her he behaved disgustingly badly.  Even without allegations that he abused her, or even worse, raped her.

But that doesn't change what I've said. Until a complaint is made by her, there is no way of censuring him without telling her she doesn't have the right to choose.


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> agreed, wholly. In entering a relationship with her he behaved disgustingly badly. Even without allegations that he abused her, or even worse, raped her.
> 
> But that doesn't change what I've said. *Until a complaint is made by her, there is no way of censuring him without telling her she doesn't have the right to choose*.



That's bollocks
Even if it weren't, a complaint *has* been made by her (see previous 400+ pages for more detail...)
Do keep up, dear 

(ETA *bold*)


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2013)

1 she doesn't have any say because you know best
2 gosh, really


I'm going out anyway, later


----------



## discokermit (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> how would the 17 year old you have responded to being told that?


angry and heartbroken. both fairly healthy and transitory emotions. i wonder what the seventeen year old in the actual case feels now, now that she's been raped and harassed. then had former friends and comrades turn on her.
compare the two.


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> ok, fair enough, thankyou.  Would that change at the age of 18, or 21 or something else?
> 
> In any case, the point made was that he should have been expelled when they began their relationship, and I stand by what I've said (inasmuch as I believe it was a mutual relationship that went sour.  If I've got that factually wrong, then I withdraw unconditionally).  She also entered into it and what she wanted at that point cannot be discounted.
> 
> Subsequently she made a complaint, and thus of course asymmetric power can't be discounted- if it ever gets to court it will, rightly, be a major issue.


It probably did start as a mutual relationship, but an inequal one. As to it going sour - I'd describe rape/abuse in stronger terms than going sour. Unless there's a suggestion that the allegations of abuse were made as a result of the relationship going sour? 

The power differential would decrease over time, but I don't think you can assign an age to that point and definitely not just a year or two.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> and you think a court would take power and authority as arbitrary (and bonkers) as that seriously?


No...that's why i said it is not to do with what a court would think but what a socialist party should have done.


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

I'm sorry that some people think the mere fact that Smith (allegedly) had sexual relationships with girls much younger than him is proof that he is a sexual abuser.

I've known people who have been in relationships with very big age differences.  It always seems odd to me, but it would be wrong to suggest that all such relationships are abusive.  As long as both parties are old enough to consent, such relationships can be fully consensual.  

When I was young, doing my A levels at an FE college, there were a few cases of youngsters (m & f), of about 17, getting involved with lecturers who were much older than them.  This was gossip-worthy, but not scandalous.  Later at university there were gossip-provoking liaisons between students and lecturers, but nobody (as far as I know) claimed that such relationships were always abusive.

How attitudes have changed!  And the law has changed too.  Things I remember people doing legally in the late 70s and early 80s would now result in sackings and prosecutions.  

If Smith is guilty of sexual harassment he should have been thrown out of the ToyTown Bolsheviks long ago.  If he is guilty of rape he should be sent to prison.  

If as a 50-year-old he has the habit of picking up girls young enough to be his daughter, call him a dirty old man, by all means, suggest that he might be happier with a woman of his own age, fine, but if the relationships with the youngsters are consensual that on its own should not be grounds for disciplinary action, expulsions etc.


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> I'm sorry that *some people think the mere fact that Smith (allegedly) had sexual relationships with girls much younger than him is proof that he is a sexual abuser*.
> 
> I've known people who have been in relationships with very big age differences. It always seems odd to me, but it would be wrong to suggest that all such relationships are abusive. As long as both parties are old enough to consent, such relationships can be fully consensual.
> 
> ...


 
There seem to be a few here who are spectacularly ignoring the known facts and missing the point:


It's not an alleged sexual relationship, it's one he (eventually) admitted to
It's not really just about what *he* would be happier with, is it? It's that sort of thinking that got him where he is now...


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> I'm sorry that some people think the mere fact that Smith (allegedly) had sexual relationships with girls much younger than him is proof that he is a sexual abuser.
> 
> I've known people who have been in relationships with very big age differences.  It always seems odd to me, but it would be wrong to suggest that all such relationships are abusive.  As long as both parties are old enough to consent, such relationships can be fully consensual.
> 
> ...


Yes times have changed. 
The days when jimmy Saville was able to prey on teenagers with impunity are over, neither is it acceptable for those in positions of power and responsibility to use that power to inveigled young and vulnerable people into sexual relationships. Smiths relationship with this young woman was inappropriate even before the allegation of rape was made.
What hasn't changed is that you are a cunt.


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> There seem to be a few here who are spectacularly ignoring the known facts and missing the point:
> 
> 
> It's not an alleged sexual relationship, it's one he (eventually) admitted to
> It's not really just about what *he* would be happier with, is it? It's that sort of thinking that got him where he is now...


 
It is also said that he made a habit of picking up young 'comrades'. I don't know if that's true or not.

In any case, the point, as I'm sure you understand, is that the age discrepancy should not in itself be seem as abusive.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 21, 2013)

newbie said:


> oh so do I.  joining the SWP has always struck me as bizarre, staying in it is just quite extraordinary.
> 
> that's only only partially a joke, but I'm not trying to make light of an obviously serious matter
> 
> ...



The woman's choice is not the issue...she made a complaint after they had a relationship....he admitted the relationship and in my opinion should have been expelled...what the fuck is there for you to argue with?
I don't pretend to know better ... I just know he was wrong and should have been dealt with accordingly...it is you that pretend to know better with your digs at those who have been in the swp...of teenagers in general and has been treating this like a philosophical matter.


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Yes times have changed.
> The days when jimmy Saville was able to prey on teenagers with impunity are over, neither is it acceptable for those in positions of power and responsibility to use that power to inveigled young and vulnerable people into sexual relationships. Smiths relationship with this young woman was inappropriate even before the allegation of rape was made.
> What hasn't changed is that you are a cunt.


 

Jimmy Saville preyed on kids below the age of consent.  Very different.


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> It is also said that he made a habit of picking up young 'comrades'. I don't know if that's true or not.
> 
> In any case, the point, as I'm sure you understand, is that the age discrepancy should not in itself be seem as abusive.


 
Perhaps you'd like to quote the post or posts where I made any reference to these alledged habits, or argued either that the age discrepancy was the only issue or that the relationship should necessarily be seen as abusive...


----------



## emanymton (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> Jimmy Saville preyed on kids below the age of consent. Very different.


Not really the age of consent is just an arbitrary number. Do you really thing that just because a girl is 15 one day and 16 the next what Saville did goes from vile to perfectly ok?


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> Perhaps you'd like to quote the post or posts where I made any reference to these alledged habits, or argued either that the age discrepancy was the only issue or that the relationship should necessarily be seen as abusive...


 

I don't know or care whether you have or not


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> I don't know or care whether you have or not


 
Perhaps, in that case, the next time you address a response to me, you might attempt to address the specific points I'm making, rather than come out with disengenuous bollocks which has fuck all to do with my argument


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Not really the age of consent is just an arbitrary number. Do you really thing that just because a girl is 15 one day and 16 the next what Saville did goes from vile to perfectly ok?


 

I think that the age of consent has to be an 'arbitrary' number, though it is possible to have more than one 'arbitrary' number depending on the other person's 'arbitrary' number of years.  

I would say, though, that the relationships I was aware of between, say, 17-year-old students and lecturers seemed fully consensual and did not, as far as I was aware, lead to any bad results.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> In any case, the point, as I'm sure you understand, is that the age discrepancy should not in itself be seem as abusive.


I agree with this point in general.


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> Perhaps, in that case, the next time you address a response to me, you might attempt to address the specific points I'm making, rather than come out with disengenuous bollocks which has fuck all to do with my argument


 

Stop being silly. My only response to you was to explain why I had referred to Smith's alleged habit of picking up much younger 'comrades'.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Not really the age of consent is just an arbitrary number. Do you really thing that just because a girl is 15 one day and 16 the next what Saville did goes from vile to perfectly ok?


 this is like a witchhunt.

It is a valid point to make, that not all relationships between 17 and 50 with power relationships involved are abusive.


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> this is like a witchhunt.


 

It may be worth clarifying, especially in a forum as abusive as Urban 75, that you are not claiming here that Smith is being witch-hunted. You're not, are you?

Your point, if I understand you correctly, is that in the fury against relationships with the sort of age discrepancy involved - say 17-50 - there may be some potential for witch hunts of other people.  Is that right?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> It may be worth clarifying, especially in a forum as abusive as Urban 75, that you are not claiming here that Smith is being witch-hunted. You're not, are you?
> 
> Your point, if I understand you correctly, is that in the fury against relationships with the sort of age discrepancy involved - say 17-50 - there may be some potential for witch hunts of other people. Is that right?


 I was referring to your treatment on here.  You seem to be getting witch hunted, for making a reasonable point.

My point is,  " not all relationships between 17 and 50 with power relationships involved are abusive."

Not defending or attacking Smith


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I was referring to your treatment on here. You seem to be getting witch hunted, for making a reasonable point.
> 
> My point is, " not all relationships between 17 and 50 with power relationships involved are abusive."
> 
> Not defending or attacking Smith


 

Oh, I see. Thanks.

Fortunately for me (and others), abuse from the barking snarly U75 pack is easy to survive...


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> It is also said that he made a habit of picking up young 'comrades'. I don't know if that's true or not.
> 
> In any case, the point, as I'm sure you understand, is that the age discrepancy should not in itself be seem as abusive.


 

Age discrepancy itself is not the issue...it's 
The issue of him being expelled for behaving inappropriately  comes from when the woman made a complaint against him.

my point re his age and me not understanding why a 48 yr old would want to be with a 17 yr old is my own moral choice...I personally know people with 20 year gaps in relationships with the youngest being in their mid 20's and have no opinion as it's none of my business but if I had a mate who began a relationship with someone who was 17 yrs old (barely out of school) I would have great difficulty maintaining a friendship with them...maybe it's cos I have a 15 year old daughter or maybe I am being reactionary.

 he was in a position of power in an organistion that she had joined and as such he should have realised that his behaviour was unacceptable...however once she made a complaint and he admitted the relationship he should have been expelled...others have in the past been expelled when a woman has made an allegation without anyone else being a witness to the accusation (something I agreed with)... this is because the swp claims to take womens rights seriously...something they patently refused to do in this instance.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> Oh, I see. Thanks.
> 
> Fortunately for me (and others), abuse from the barking snarly U75 pack is easy to survive...


 I wouldn't say they're barking, they often make a lot of sense, but certainly unnecessarily abusive  (never liked the way they treated Dorritos mate, forget his name.]


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

"Witch hunt" is a bit of a joke. A couple of pages discussing it _again_ but hardly abusive. If you think this is a witch hunt, you've really got no idea what level of abuse aimed at Delta and the SWP is going in in the wider world beyond urban


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> "Witch hunt" is a bit of a joke. A couple of pages discussing it _again_ but hardly abusive. If you think this is a witch hunt, you've really got no idea what level of abuse aimed at Delta and the SWP is going in in the wider world beyond urban


 
And also you're conveniently forgeting the real abuse directed at the two women within the SWP who were brave enough to voice their allegations against Smith/Delta, by their supposed comrades


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Age discrepancy itself is not the issue...


     we agree then.



> my point re his age and me not understanding why a 48 yr old would want to be with a 17 yr old is my own moral choice...I personally know people with 20 year gaps in relationships with the youngest being in their mid 20's and have no opinion as it's none of my business but if I had a mate who began a relationship with someone who was 17 yrs old (barely out of school) I would have great difficulty maintaining a friendship with them...maybe it's cos I have a 15 year old daughter or maybe I am being reactionary.


Yup

btw, my daughter and son are just 18. both have took heir partners to bed in my house. can't say I'm comfortable with it for either of them, but feel less comfortable with my daughter whose partner's 21. why? why am I being sexist in my feelings? because the muck of ages affects us all.

Also my mate was 17 when he fucked the boss. She didn't abuse her position of power, he chased her, got her pissed, did the deed. carried on for about 18 months.  He looks back on it with nothing but fondness.

 JUST because there was age difference, JUST because there were power relations, doesn't make it abusive.


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> And also you're conveniently forgeting the real abuse directed at the two women within the SWP who were brave enough to voice their allegations against Smith/Delta, by their supposed comrades


Me? I don't forget that. That's at the forefront of my mind when I think of Delta and the SWP.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> "Witch hunt" is a bit of a joke. A couple of pages discussing it _again_ but hardly abusive. If you think this is a witch hunt, you've really got no idea what level of abuse aimed at Delta and the SWP is going in in the wider world beyond urban


yeah, fair point. Not really a witchhunt. Just a typical over the top reaction, twisting of words, et cetera that takes place in most forums.


eta if you think most people in the wider world have a clue who Delta, SWP, or most people on the revolutionary left are, you don't have a clue.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> we agree then.
> 
> Yup
> 
> ...


 
Still DEFINITELY NOT going on about Smith here then i see.


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> yeah, fair point. Not really a witchhunt. Just a typical over the top reaction, twisting of words, et cetera that takes place in most forums.
> 
> 
> eta if you think most people in the wider world have a clue who Delta, SWP, or most people on the revolutionary left are, you don't have a clue.


It's not even over the top - it's tame. It's the sort of conversation you could have with your parents ffs 

And as for the wider world, it's the national press coverage of this story that's resulted in much of the public now having a clue about who the ubiquitous paper sellers are


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> Me? I don't forget that.


 Yes you do! You lying cretinnus running dog of capitalism.


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> Me? I don't forget that. That's at the forefront of my mind when I think of Delta and the SWP.


 
Sorry, I didn't mean *you* were forgetting it. I meant that people suggesting witch hunts are forgetting/ignoring it.

It was supposed to be an addition to your point, not in any way a criticism of it, but it was badly expressed


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Yes you do! You lying cretinnus running dog of capitalism.


You're not in a strong position to call me cretinous if you can't even spell it, you unspeakable cunt


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's not even over the top - it's tame. It's the sort of conversation you could have with your parents ffs
> 
> And as for the wider world, it's the national press coverage of this story that's resulted in much of the public now having a clue about who the ubiquitous paper sellers are


 tomorrow's chippy paper

Peter Andre has a new hairstyle don't you know.

I wish you were right, but from my every day experience, you're not!


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> we agree then.
> 
> Yup
> 
> ...


 

its an uneveness of power that i have a problem with...the power between an 18 yr old and a 21 yr old in an non abusive relationship seems even to me ... the power in a relationship between a 17yr old and a 48 year old who is considered to be a leading member in their organisation seems massively uneven to me...in my opinion once a complaint was made he should have been expelled

Your mates boss may not have have abused her power but she was in a serious position to do so but that's a different issue...no way would I get into that situation...mind you most of my bosses have fucking hated hated me


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> You're not in a strong position to call me cretinous if you can't even spell it, you unspeakable cunt


Cunt is sexist, you're expelled.
 Touche. And a political point, rather than mirroring bourgeois values. Double Touche


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> tomorrow's chippy paper
> 
> Peter Andre has a new hairstyle don't you know.
> 
> I wish you were right, but from my every day experience, you're not!


They've gone from paper sellers to raper sellers 

Surely you've heard that, amongst other examples?


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Cunt is sexist, you're expelled.
> Touche. And a political point, rather than mirroring bourgeois values. Double Touche


 
The prevailing consensus here seems to be that it's not, you plonker...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> its an uneveness of power that i have a problem with...the power between an 18 yr old and a 21 yr old in an non abusive relationship seems even to me ... the power in a relationship between a 17yr old and a 48 year old who is considered to be a leading member in their organisation seems massively uneven to me...in my opinion once a complaint was made he should have been expelled
> 
> Your mates boss may not have have abused her power but she was in a serious position to do so but that's a different issue...no way would I get into that situation...mind you most of my bosses have fucking hated hated me


 
I'm not saying you're are not entitled to your opinion, but I really don't agree. My heart does, my initial feelings agree with you, but when I stand back and think about it, I think it's prejudiced. As you said "reactionary".
The issue is generally raised about gays, and lowering the age of consent. The way abusive older gays "trick young men into being gay". And my mind goes back to a gay blonde bloke who used to write I think it was in the Guardian, about how every kiss in public was political. He then went on to write about how in is experience, it was the young gays who were predatory of older men.
Well yes, she was in a position to abuse her power. And I wish she had, I was jealous as fuck.  see what I mean. Things CAN BE a bit more complicated.

PS. I tried to make this point earlier. And also make the caveat that nothing that women or men say or do, undermines the argument "no means no. Even if I'm naked, I'm still not begging for it." But hey Ho, people will still insist I'm trying to titillate and be an apologist for rapists. Welcome to urban75.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> The prevailing consensus here seems to be that it's not, you plonker...


 the prevailing consensus seems to be the left are plonkers, so where does that leave us.

Just because there is a consensus, doesn't make it right. The consensus in here, is wrong IMHO.


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's not even over the top - it's tame. It's the sort of conversation you could have with your parents ffs


 

How often do you call your parents 'cunts'?  How do they react?


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Cunt is sexist, you're expelled.
> Touche. And a political point, rather than mirroring bourgeois values. Double Touche


Cunt's not sexist. You can't expel me cos I've never and would never join. You're not the boss of me to take this expelling power on yourself anyway. And I'm petit bourgeois, get it right!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> They've gone from paper sellers to raper sellers
> 
> Surely you've heard that, amongst other examples?


Not once. My experience of such glee is confined to a urban 75.

You need to get out more.


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Cunt is sexist...


 

It's generational.  I remember when using 'cunt' as an insult was a scandalous offence. Now it's not.  Respek the kulcha.


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> How often do you call your parents 'cunts'?  How do they react?


I don't mind engaging with RMP3 in a bit of "you cunt" "no, you cunt" silliness, just mucking about. But you're a bit sad to use that as "omg, you said cunt, you wouldn't say it to your parents". It doesn't wash. Stick to what you do best.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> Cunt's not sexist. You can't expel me cos I've never and would never join. You're not the boss of me to take this expelling power on yourself anyway. And I'm petit bourgeois, get it right!


 in your opinion it's not sexist? Or are you the boss of language?

You're not a member of urban 75?

Typically taking everything literally . it was a joke. I wasn't really expelling you.

Interesting. Y/ how do you define yourself as petit bourgeois? [ and I didn't call you bourgeois]


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Not once. My experience of such glee is confined to a urban 75.
> 
> You need to get out more.


I do get out, and out is where I've heard it. Far worse than anything urban has to offer. It's not on account of urban that Delta's resigned.


----------



## cesare (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> in your opinion it's not sexist? Or are you the boss of language?
> 
> You're not a member of urban 75?
> 
> ...


Hold that thought, but don't hold your breath. I'm off to have my tea.


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> I don't mind engaging with RMP3 in a bit of "you cunt" "no, you cunt" silliness, just mucking about. But you're a bit sad to use that as "omg, you said cunt, you wouldn't say it to your parents". It doesn't wash. Stick to what you do best.


 

It's not a matter of my being horrified.  The point is simply that you are wrong to say that U75 is like a conversation you'd have with your parents.  U75 is habitually abusive.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> I don't mind engaging with RMP3 in a bit of "you cunt" "no, you cunt" silliness, just mucking about. But you're a bit sad to use that as "omg, you said cunt, you wouldn't say it to your parents". It doesn't wash. Stick to what you do best.


But are you familiar as to why some in the women's movement argue cunt is sexist, and if so, why do you reject them? Do you still insist on using the terms chairman etc?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> Hold that thought, but don't hold your breath. I'm off to have my tea.


Runawaaaaaaaay!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean *you* were forgetting it. I meant that people suggesting witch hunts are forgetting/ignoring it.
> 
> It was supposed to be an addition to your point, not in any way a criticism of it, but it was badly expressed


Who is "that people"? He who cant be named or spoken to. I feel like lord voldermort.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 21, 2013)

fuck off.


----------



## SLK (Jul 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry hadn't seen that before I replied. I did rewrite my reply but slk had already quoted me by then so it would have looked odd if I'd edited it.
> 
> Anyhoows, more importantly than our minor handbags, are you really saying we shouldn't be pleased? If the argument is he should have been expelled earlier then I understand the point but don't agree. Given the only process the party had to deal with this stuff and given its outcome he couldn't be expelled. Should whoever has just had a word with him had that word earlier? Almost certainly yes but there are clearly at least three wings (if the notion of more than two wings makes any sense) to the party on this whole mess and their jockeying is taking some time to play itself out.
> 
> What will be interesting to watch is how the opposition reacts to this. Arguably the only thing giving the opposition coherence is the delta fiasco. Anyone who's spoken to them or read them knows they are massively diverse on every other conceivable issue, it's their collective determination to get these allegations properly resolved that keeps those differences at bay imho. Presumably the argument will be let's wait and see what happens to the second allegation. But assuming that is sorted in a fair way then maybe finally the real political differences can become the main topic of discussion and people can decide on the merits of those politics alone.



Yes, the isn open discussions on whether to appoint a full timer shows they're strangled by their need to try to be almost unanimous and make sure everyone has had their say.

The opposition are very angry this evening, as you are probably all talking about. I'm just about to catch up with the thread.

Edit: I actually meant to respond to your other post on the isn. 

Edit2: ok, so no discussion of witchhunters here


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I'm not saying you're are not entitled to your opinion, but I really don't agree. My heart does, my initial feelings agree with you, but when I stand back and think about it, I think it's prejudiced. As you said "reactionary".
> The issue is generally raised about gays, and lowering the age of consent. The way abusive older gays "trick young men into being gay". And my mind goes back to a gay blonde bloke who used to write I think it was in the Guardian, about how every kiss in public was political. He then went on to write about how in is experience, it was the young gays who were predatory of older men.
> Well yes, she was in a position to abuse her power. And I wish she had, I was jealous as fuck.  see what I mean. Things CAN BE a bit more complicated.
> 
> PS. I tried to make this point earlier. And also make the caveat that nothing that women or men say or do, undermines the argument "no means no. Even if I'm naked, I'm still not begging for it." But hey Ho, people will still insist I'm trying to titillate and be an apologist for rapists. Welcome to urban75.


 

fair enough re disagreeing with me...for the record I do not think it makes you an apologist for rapists etc...just makes you wrong


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 21, 2013)

Bolshiebhoy defends the swp in spite of the allegations and their handling by the party. JHE defends the sexual predatation of vulnerable teenagers by older men.
Bolshie's position is wrong but based on a misplaced political loyalty, JHE is a despicable troll


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Bolshiebhoy defends the swp in spite of the allegations and their handling by the party. JHE defends the sexual predatation of vulnerable teenagers by older men.





barney_pig said:


> Bolshie's position is wrong but based on a misplaced political loyalty, JHE is a despicable troll


Oh, the joys of Urban75! I have not defended any predations, sexual or otherwise, by older men or anyone else...


----------



## emanymton (Jul 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Age discrepancy itself is not the issue...it's
> The issue of him being expelled for behaving inappropriately comes from when the woman made a complaint against him.
> 
> my point re his age and me not understanding why a 48 yr old would want to be with a 17 yr old is my own moral choice...I personally know people with 20 year gaps in relationships with the youngest being in their mid 20's and have no opinion as it's none of my business but if I had a mate who began a relationship with someone who was 17 yrs old (barely out of school) I would have great difficulty maintaining a friendship with them...maybe it's cos I have a 15 year old daughter or maybe I am being reactionary.
> ...


Fully agree just to add a couple more things. While the age gap is an issue to some extent, it is the actual age of the women that is the main issue for me. There is a big difference between 17 and 20 in my opinion. I would be much less concerned about a relationship between a 51 year old and a 20 year old than one between a 48 year old and a 17 year old. 

It is possible for such relationships to be healthy ones, but I think it is quite legitimate to be very sceptical about them. 

This particular relationship obviously ended badly, even without the allegation of rape, and Delta has to take full responsibility for that as the more mature person and the one in the position of authority everything that happened is his responsibility. 

On reflection I haven't actually added anything have I just restarted the points you already made.


----------



## andysays (Jul 21, 2013)

JHE said:


> Oh, the joys of Urban75! I have not defended any predations, sexual or otherwise, by older men or anyone else...


 
Instead, you seem to be denying that what happened in this particular case (and all of us here now know enough about it to express an opinion) was in any way predatory, abusive or something which was, at the very least, a profoundly dodgy, selfish and wrong thing for the man involved to do.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> And also you're conveniently forgeting the real abuse directed at the two women within the SWP who were brave enough to voice their allegations against Smith/Delta, by their supposed comrades


I head just before the special conference that the second women was in a really bad way and couldn't even face going to the faction meetings and was looking really ill. I hope she is doing better now.


----------



## Before Theory (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> this is like a witchhunt.
> 
> It is a valid point to make, that not all relationships between 17 and 50 with power relationships involved are abusive.



He has not been forced  into resigning because he had a relationship with a woman many years younger than him.

He has been forced to resign because after the relationship was over he continued to harass and intimidate her, despite her telling him to leave her alone. Some Central Committee members saw those texts and agreed that his behaviour was unacceptable and pressurised him to resign as NS. He did that under protest but managed to get time at the 2011 conference to perform a "poor me" monologue which was lapped up by the party faithful culminating in the now notorious standing ovation.

I was at the conference and left the SWP after that nauseating spectacle, and watched as his supporters proceeded to vilify the young woman and her supporters over a period of a year. I have written at length about this earlier on this site, but I still can't believe it took 4 years from when the initial complaint was made to finally see Smith's resignation.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Bolshiebhoy defends the swp in spite of the allegations and their handling by the party. JHE defends the sexual predatation of vulnerable teenagers by older men.
> Bolshie's position is wrong but based on a misplaced political loyalty, JHE is a despicable troll


I've been in two minds whether to like this post or not as it is a bit hard on JHE. but fucks it, he can be a really tosser.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 21, 2013)

SLK said:


> Yes, the isn open discussions on whether to appoint a full timer shows they're strangled by their need to try to be almost unanimous and make sure everyone has had their say.
> 
> The opposition are very angry this evening, as you are probably all talking about. I'm just about to catch up with the thread.
> 
> ...


Come on then spill.


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> Instead, you seem to be denying that what happened in this particular case (and all of us here now know enough about it to express an opinion) was in any way predatory, abusive or something which was, at the very least, a profoundly dodgy, selfish and wrong thing for the man involved to do.


 

No, not true at all. Stop making shit up.

Smith is accused of sexual harassment and of rape. I don't know if he is guilty of rape, but I do know that the Social Workers have handled this very badly. They are not competent to investigate the allegation and seem to have wanted to sweep it under the carpet.

Your anger at Smith and the Social Work CC may very well be justified. Venting it at me and pretending that I support Smith or that I support sexual abuse helps nobody.

Unfortunately, this malicious dishonesty and endless verbal abuse is typical of U75.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 21, 2013)

fuck off.


----------



## JHE (Jul 21, 2013)

yes, dear


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 21, 2013)

SLK said:


> Yes, the isn open discussions on whether to appoint a full timer shows they're strangled by their need to try to be almost unanimous and make sure everyone has had their say.
> 
> The opposition are very angry this evening, as you are probably all talking about. I'm just about to catch up with the thread.
> 
> ...


No none here but loads of Monty Python Burn the Witch on FB.


----------



## laptop (Jul 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> this is like a witchhunt.


 
FFS.

I know the Party style guide says all criticism of the Party or its members is to be referred to as "a witchhunt"... but...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jul 22, 2013)

Before Theory's post is absolutely right, but it is true that comrade spurski was arguing a few pages back that Smith should have been expelled _on the basis_ his relationship with the 17 year old alone. that's what JHE responded to initially and tbf i don't think he's really defended Smith on any other basis


----------



## newbie (Jul 22, 2013)

that's certainly what I responded to initially, that the mere existence of the relationship was grounds for him losing his job and being expelled.




Before Theory said:


> He has been forced to resign because after the relationship was over he continued to harass and intimidate her, despite her telling him to leave her alone. Some Central Committee members saw those texts


utterly, utterly disgusting

and the cover for it is the _socialist morality is more ethical than bourgeois morality_ drivel that still gets spouted as being pertinent, even if, in this specific incident, somehow some individuals have fallen short of expectations.




have I forgotten knowing about this allegation of documented evidence of intimidation, or is it new?


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 22, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> ... it is true that comrade spurski was arguing a few pages back that Smith should have been expelled _on the basis_ his relationship with the 17 year old alone.


 
No. I read spurski as saying that _once she protested _at his behaviour, then he should have been expelled. Presumably, because as soon as she goes to the CC, the remote hypothetical possibility of it being a loving relationship of equals collapses into something sordid, exploitative, and incompatible with membership of a party that champions women's liberation.

I think Spurski is right about this.

At this stage, there probably aren't many people open to being persuaded to change sides, but the forthcoming X case might shift a few people. Apparently, she has prepared a very detailed 30 page submission, with many SWP-member witnesses.


----------



## newbie (Jul 22, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> No. I read spurski as saying that _once she protested _at his behaviour, then he should have been expelled.


 
I've just reread the original post, and while tbf I can see some ambiguity, the bits I've bolded were what caught my eye and caused me to argue that she had the right to start the relationship, and, as a corollary, so did he.  I think everyone is agreed that once she made a complaint the situation changed.



comrade spurski said:


> *I think he should have been expelled when he admitted have a relationship with a 17yr old.* He was a 48 yr old cc member. He had been in the party for approx 30 yrs and had worked for the party for 20 yrs. He is therefore in a power of authority and power within the swp. *To begin a relationship with a 17 yr old betrays a serious lack of judgement and misuse of power. Therefore he should have been expelled.*


 
whatever, time to move on


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 22, 2013)

Sorry if i have confused things...

My view is that he should have been expelled once a complaint had been made and he admitted to the relationship.


I am uncomfortable about the idea of a nearly 50 year old choosing a 17 yr old as a partner...if she had been in her 20 i would have no opinion about it. I am aware that this is just my opinion and therefore my problem...


----------



## SLK (Jul 22, 2013)

Rosen has resigned from being a non-member of the SWP:

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/open-letter-to-swp.html?spref=tw


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 22, 2013)

laptop said:


> FFS.
> 
> I know the Party style guide says all criticism of the Party or its members is to be referred to as "a witchhunt"... but...


 why are you being such a complete and utter knob? At no point in this thread have I discussed Martin Smith. What you quote wasn't a reference to Martin Smith. JHE asked me to clarify to whom I was referring the "witchhunt" comments to, and I replied the comments were about JHE.

JHE made a simple comment about not all relationships between 17 and 48-year-olds with power relations involved are abusive .it's a general comment, I agree with, and went on to explain why. It's just an opinion you Dick. if you don't agree with it fair enough, but there is no need to be so melodramatic ,and sectarian.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2013)

SLK said:


> Rosen has resigned from being a non-member of the SWP:
> 
> http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/open-letter-to-swp.html?spref=tw


 
Again? Wonder what he thinks about the smears hostility and condescension he publicly offered time and time again on Socialist Unity towards people were asking questions _now_ that he has remembered he has some principles...i wonder why


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 22, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> He has not been forced into resigning because he had a relationship with a woman many years younger than him.
> 
> He has been forced to resign because after the relationship was over he continued to harass and intimidate her, despite her telling him to leave her alone. Some Central Committee members saw those texts and agreed that his behaviour was unacceptable and pressurised him to resign as NS. He did that under protest but managed to get time at the 2011 conference to perform a "poor me" monologue which was lapped up by the party faithful culminating in the now notorious standing ovation.
> 
> I was at the conference and left the SWP after that nauseating spectacle, and watched as his supporters proceeded to vilify the young woman and her supporters over a period of a year. I have written at length about this earlier on this site, but I still can't believe it took 4 years from when the initial complaint was made to finally see Smith's resignation.


 why are you, and the 6 people who liked your post, being such complete and utter knobs? At no point in this thread have I discussed Martin Smith. What you quote wasn't a reference to Martin Smith. JHE asked me to clarify to whom I was referring the "witchhunt" comments to, and I replied the comments were about JHE.

JHE made a simple comment about not all relationships between 17 and 48-year-olds with power relations involved are abusive .it's a general comment, I agree with, and went on to explain why. It's just an opinion you Dicks. if you don't agree with it fair enough, but there is no need to be so melodramatic ,and sectarian.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Still DEFINITELY NOT going on about Smith here then i see.


 to you Dick's, I rest my case. The butch boy wonder is never wrong.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Again? Wonder what he thinks about the smears hostility and condescension he publicly offered time and time again on Socialist Unity towards people were asking questions now that he has remembered he has some principles.


 you are a political saint.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 22, 2013)

SLK said:


> Rosen has resigned from being a non-member of the SWP:
> 
> http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/open-letter-to-swp.html?spref=tw


 

The SWP's weathervane indicates which way the wind is now blowing.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 22, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> fair enough re disagreeing with me...for the record I do not think it makes you an apologist for rapists etc...just makes you wrong


 it wouldn't be the 1st time.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 22, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> it wouldn't be the 1st time.


 
tell me about it...I have a 15 year old daughter, a 10 year old daughter and work with 11 year olds in a primary school, many of whom have have behaviour problems...so I am NEVER right


----------



## laptop (Jul 22, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> why are you being such a complete and utter knob? At no point in this thread have I discussed Martin Smith. What you quote wasn't a reference to Martin Smith. JHE asked me to clarify to whom I was referring the "witchhunt" comments to, and I replied the comments were about JHE.
> 
> JHE made a simple comment about not all relationships between 17 and 48-year-olds with power relations involved are abusive .it's a general comment, I agree with, and went on to explain why. It's just an opinion you Dick. if you don't agree with it fair enough, but there is no need to be so melodramatic ,and sectarian.


 
Disagreeing with you isn't a sign of being a knob - rather the reverse, particularly on this issue.

Abuse of the term "witch-hunt" to shout down criticism is a characteristic of the Party, its members and that far larger group, its ex-members. _That_ is sectarian.


----------



## andysays (Jul 22, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> why are you, and the 6 people who liked your post, being such complete and utter knobs? *At no point in this thread have I discussed Martin Smith*. What you quote wasn't a reference to Martin Smith. JHE asked me to clarify to whom I was referring the "witchhunt" comments to, and I replied the comments were about JHE.
> 
> JHE made a simple comment about not all relationships between 17 and 48-year-olds with power relations involved are abusive .it's a general comment, I agree with, and went on to explain why. It's just an opinion you Dicks. if you don't agree with it fair enough, but there is no need to be so melodramatic ,and sectarian.


 
Maybe it would be an idea if you, and possibly JHE, were to choose another thread to not discuss Martin Smith on, because that's pretty much what this thread is about...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 22, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> The SWP's weathervane indicates which way the wind is now blowing.


Point 3 explains why the majority of the party won't be swayed.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jul 22, 2013)

If the SWP high command can't take some good advice from such a long-standing, trusting friend as Rosen then well.....good luck to youse all. He's done a fine job of clearly cataloguing the essentials of the disaster and pointing towards a long and painful attempt at rectifying things.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 22, 2013)

It's a crying shame the party has lost the support of someone like Rosen over Its handling of this mess. But the fact he uses the letter to suggest the party shouldn't exist in its current form isn't exactly going to endear him to those who aren't leaving the party or planning to leave.


----------



## benedict (Jul 22, 2013)

Rosen's an odd one with respect to the party, isn't he! Anyone know why he's historically played this consistently loyalist role while remaining outside the group?

As regards this latest wordy missive, well, it is late in coming. And the timing itself is far from impeccable. All this could have been said in January. I wonder why Delta getting his party P45 was the catalyst.

Talking of strange positionings,what on earth happened to John Molynoux through this!? Really confirmed his court jester role it seems to me.


----------



## benedict (Jul 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It's a crying shame the party has lost the support of someone like Rosen over Its handling of this mess. But the fact he uses the letter to suggest the party shouldn't exist in its current form isn't exactly going to endear him to those who aren't leaving the party or planning to leave.



The question about the party's form raises for me this issue of "political" vs. "non-political" accounts of the crisis. This gets bandied around a lot, generally to the effect that "political" explanations trump the other form. I don't think an account of its degeneration can be reduced simply to politics, but shouldn't a political explanation for the crisis focus squarely on party structure and forms, and in this respect Rosen has a point. Or does the "political" explanation extend only to Seymour's eclecticism and the failure to thrust the lessons from the Women's Voice debate on to the student cadre?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jul 22, 2013)

Earlier on Rosen suggested he'd always supported swp initiatives because they were the best of what was going on the left rather than because he thought cliff and Harman were the last word in intellectual-organizers. which makes a certain sense to me, what did he gain from it otherwise? a readership of hundreds in SR and a few Marxism slots...?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 23, 2013)

Moo 





laptop said:


> Disagreeing with you isn't a sign of being a knob - rather the reverse, particularly on this issue.
> 
> Abuse of the term "witch-hunt" to shout down criticism is a characteristic of the Party, its members and that far larger group, its ex-members. _That_ is sectarian.


you haven't disagreed, you jump to an erroneous conclusion. 
But if you read the thread  I've already conceded witch hunt was over the top. And was laughed off by those to whom it was said. So stop grinding your axe, regardless of the fax :-P comrade


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 23, 2013)

andysays said:


> Maybe it would be an idea if you, and possibly JHE, were to choose another thread to not discuss Martin Smith on, because that's pretty much what this thread is about...


read what's said,  the topic was resolved amicably. 
There's been a 1001 topics raised on this thread, fuck all to do with Smith. So if going to moderate, do it properly.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 23, 2013)

benedict said:


> The question about the party's form raises for me this issue of "political" vs. "non-political" accounts of the crisis. This gets bandied around a lot, generally to the effect that "political" explanations trump the other form. I don't think an account of its degeneration can be reduced simply to politics, but shouldn't a political explanation for the crisis focus squarely on party structure and forms, and in this respect Rosen has a point. Or does the "political" explanation extend only to Seymour's eclecticism and the failure to thrust the lessons from the Women's Voice debate on to the student cadre?


That kind of depends on whether one thinks the party has a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership or that this crisis is a one off, albeit a one off fuck up of epic proportions. No prizes for guessing which of those alternatives I favor.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jul 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That kind of depends on whether one thinks the party has a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership or that this crisis is a one off, albeit a one off fuck up of epic proportions. No prizes for guessing which of those alternatives I favor.


 

The general problem isn't one of sexual predation; it is more thorough going organisational and political crisis than that. The evidence of this is in there to a degree in the initial abuse, written through as it is with the imbalance of power inherent in the SWP's vanguardism; but where it really come out and continues to manifest itself is in the 'fuck up of epic proportions'. What makes reading your contributions so odd is the all too apparent disconnect between your ability to recognize the scale of the train wreck, and steadfast refusal to blame those who were responsible for running the railway.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Jul 23, 2013)

SLK said:


> Rosen has resigned from being a non-member of the SWP:
> 
> http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/open-letter-to-swp.html?spref=tw


his reply to what sounds like a drunken rant from Nick Grant is fun, tho Grants attempts at arguments are so piss poor ('the details were old...so we shouldn't have bothered hearing it'!  the complainants are 'female dominated') that it cant have taken him too long

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/trenchant-reply-from-swp-loyalist.html


----------



## Before Theory (Jul 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That kind of depends on whether one thinks the party has a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership or that this crisis is a one off, albeit a one off fuck up of epic proportions. No prizes for guessing which of those alternatives I favor.



After 11 years in the SWP I still don't think there was a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership, so for the first time ever I will agree with Apology Boy, however the leadership's reaction to the allegations against Smith was not a "one off fuck up", on the contrary it was an orchestrated and carefully executed campaign to defend their man at any cost.

It was a 4 yr long "fuck up" that involved meetings and briefings and smears against the original young woman. It involved CC members scurrying around the country spreading disinformation about her, that she was "out to get" Smith, that she had mental health problems and wasn't to be believed, that she was connected to Counterfire or the Scots, that Smith was the victim in all this. 

I had "socialist" men and women repeat "Sun" style editorials about female sexuality to me because they wanted to discredit the woman and those who supported her.

There is also the small matter of the other Smith who attacked a number of women but only got a 2 yr suspension because the CC knew the Delta case was immanent and didn't want to set a precedent by being too harsh about his punishment.

So sorry Apology Boy, you can't rewrite history, the SWP sacrificed it's principles and actively defended someone who they would have (quite rightly)  hung out to dry had he not been their National Secretary.


----------



## belboid (Jul 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Point 3 explains why the majority of the party won't be swayed.


really? I think the majority of remaining SWP agree with it actually. There is certainly widespread agreement that the SWP is not 'the party' - even Callinicos has given up pretending that it is, or is about to be. Most of the remaining opposition have voiced explicit doubts about the party's structures and organising methods. the benefit of hindsight does show that the move from IS to SWP was, if not 'presumptuous', then grossly over-optimistic.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> his reply to what sounds like a drunken rant from Nick Grant is fun, tho Grants attempts at arguments are so piss poor ('the details were old...so we shouldn't have bothered hearing it'! the complainants are 'female dominated') that it cant have taken him too long
> 
> http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/trenchant-reply-from-swp-loyalist.html


 
This from a leading loyalist:



> I think should have happened, was for the SWP DC to refuse to hear the case. The details were apparently a few years old and if true should have been reported to the police long ago. To do that however may well have opened similar floodgates of abuse.


 
That's astonishing. He thinks the matter should have been handled by the police, but also doesn't think this should have happened because that contained _the very real possibility of a flood of other police-worthy abuse claims._ So, 1) politically and practically confused _2) _revealing top loyalist thinking that this is actually the tip of the iceberg 3)thereby offering a justification for the cover up. God, and i've only read the first few lines.

edit: just missed 4) allegations should have been reported to the police _if true_, but how would he establish if they are true (and why it is his responsibility to do so?) given that the DC should have refused to deal with it). Jesus, these are the people the swp membership has elected as its best representatives, it's best thinkers? It's best tacticians?

edit: have read the whole thing now, and the comments. That is by turns appalling
pathetic and revealing. That sort of rubbish attempted bullying could only effect a party and membership full of politically and personally unconfident people used to be told the line from above (leaving aiside terminal confusion over the actual points he tries to make) - that membership elected this person to the leading national body.

edit: one more as this gets worse the more that i think about it - if he thinks there is a possible hidden flood of police-worthy sexual abuse claims what does he suggests be done about this? Nothing? He seems remarkably relaxed with the possibility that there is loads of sexual abuse going on within the party as long as it doesn't effect the existence of the party. Not so much concerned with those who may have been abused or the possibility that it's still going on.


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The general problem isn't one of sexual predation; it is more thorough going organisational and political crisis than that. The evidence of this is in there to a degree in the initial abuse, written through as it is with the imbalance of power inherent in the SWP's vanguardism; but where it really come out and continues to manifest itself is in the 'fuck up of epic proportions'. What makes reading your contributions so odd is the all too apparent disconnect between your ability to recognize the scale of the train wreck, and steadfast refusal to blame those who were responsible for running the railway.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This from a leading loyalist:
> 
> That's astonishing. He thinks the matter should have been handled by the police, but also doesn't think this should have happened because that contained the very real possibility of a flood of other police-worthy abuse claims. So, 1) politically and practically confused _2) _revealing top loyalist thinking that this is actually the tip of the iceberg 3)thereby offering a justification for the cover up. God, and i've only read the first few lines.
> 
> ...


 
Yep, it's difficult to know where to start with the bit you've quoted. Here it is again for those having trouble understanding the multi-facted fuck up this thing has become:
​*I think should have happened, was for the SWP DC to refuse to hear the case. The details were apparently a few years old and if true should have been reported to the police long ago. To do that however may well have opened similar floodgates of abuse.*​ 
It reminds me of a high-court judge (or was it a law lord) arguing that the truth about a police fit-up needs to be kept secret because of the huge dent public confidence in the police would take if it were revealed...


----------



## belboid (Jul 23, 2013)

andysays said:


> It reminds me of a high-court judge (or was it a law lord) arguing that the truth about a police fit-up needs to be kept secret because of the huge dent public confidence in the police would take if it were revealed...


Lord Denning on the Birmingham 6:

"If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous.This is such an _appalling vista_ that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further."


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> Lord Denning on the Birmingham 6:
> 
> "If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous.This is such an _appalling vista_ that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further."


 
That's the one - thanks for providing the exact quote and context


----------



## belboid (Jul 23, 2013)

andysays said:


> That's the one - thanks for providing the exact quote and context


the phrase 'appalling vista' will never leave my head, its just so gob-smackingly 'did he really just say that? Does he realise he just said that?' Its up there with 'It [unemployment]is a price well worth paying' from John Major.


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2013)

> Google image search of the phrase "appalling vista" said


 





Not much of a view, is it...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> the phrase 'appalling vista' will never leave my head, its just so gob-smackingly 'did he really just say that? Does he realise he just said that?' Its up there with 'It [unemployment]is a price well worth paying' from John Major.


 
Lamont


----------



## belboid (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Lamont


curses, you're right!


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> curses, you're right!


 
See, this is why I only hinted at what I was talking about above, even though I was pretty sure I remembered who was talking and what they were talking about.

i also knew if I got it wrong, one of you smart fuckers would be straight in to correct me


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

Just remembered that Grant also wrote this other embarrassing rubbish.


----------



## treelover (Jul 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> the phrase 'appalling vista' will never leave my head, its just so gob-smackingly 'did he really just say that? Does he realise he just said that?' Its up there with *'It [unemployment]is a price well worth paying' from John Major*.


 
Wasn't that Lamont?, but your point stands..


----------



## discokermit (Jul 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That kind of depends on whether one thinks the party has a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership or that this crisis is a one off, albeit a one off fuck up of epic proportions. No prizes for guessing which of those alternatives I favor.


harman?
rees?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 23, 2013)

Clearly NG should never ever utter another word on this matter, utterly horrendous.

Good old John Rose has a painful to read email on Rosen's blog which echoes something the prof said to Paul le Blanc months ago on FB. This confidentiality lark will be the death of them.

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/john-rose-re-swp-my-reply.html


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 23, 2013)

discokermit said:


> harman?
> rees?


Come on, really? we're not talking the same thing at all or if we are then delta isn't as guilty as many clearly believe.


----------



## Before Theory (Jul 23, 2013)

Pardon my cynicism, but the reason people like John Rose want confidentiality and face to face meetings is not to protect the women involved, it's so they can continue to peddle their "version" of the whole shameful fiasco. They were all blindsided when the SU transcript was released and the appalling  questioning by the Disputes Committee about drinking habits etc was revealed. The rest is left blogging history !


----------



## SLK (Jul 23, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Pardon my cynicism, but the reason people like John Rose want confidentiality and face to face meetings is not to protect the women involved, it's so they can continue to peddle their "version" of the whole shameful fiasco. They were all blindsided when the SU transcript was released and the appalling questioning by the Disputes Committee about drinking habits etc was revealed. The rest is left blogging history !


 

That's pretty much what Rosen's reply suggests - though I still don't know why he chose _now_ of all times.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

Rose says:



> More recently in the light of important changes that are now underway in the organisation which address all the issues that you raise,


 
Why would i believe him? What is there that suggest good faith to anyone - inside or not?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Rose says:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would i believe him? What is there that suggest good faith to anyone - inside or not?


I'd imagine Rose and others are less interested in passing the u75 belief test and more whether they can win over the opposition. clearly what we see on blogs won't be the only ways they're approaching that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'd imagine Rose and others are less interested in passing the u75 belief test and more whether they can win over the opposition. clearly what we see on blogs won't be the only ways they're approaching that.


 
The road to victory is clear then.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> his reply to what sounds like a drunken rant from Nick Grant is fun, tho Grants attempts at arguments are so piss poor ('the details were old...so we shouldn't have bothered hearing it'! the complainants are 'female dominated') that it cant have taken him too long
> 
> http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/trenchant-reply-from-swp-loyalist.html


 
Maybe I misread it but to be fair I got the impression that he was saying the DC was female dominated - in the sense that this was a good thing. I've only really skimmed it though so could well be wrong.

Edit: Not defending any of it, just think it's bad enough without that part which is at the very ambiguous from my reading of it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 23, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Maybe I misread it but to be fair I got the impression that he was saying the DC was female dominated - in the sense that this was a good thing. I've only really skimmed it though so could well be wrong.
> 
> Edit: Not defending any of it, just think it's bad enough without that part which is at the very ambiguous from my reading of it.


actually, I think you're right, just badly written (uhh, him not you!)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Clearly NG should never ever utter another word on this matter, utterly horrendous.
> 
> Good old John Rose has a painful to read email on Rosen's blog which echoes something the prof said to Paul le Blanc months ago on FB. This confidentiality lark will be the death of them.
> 
> http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/john-rose-re-swp-my-reply.html


 
What about the fact that the SWP has leading members who think like this and clearly haven't been challenged on this sort of thought internally? Or maybe they foster this sort of approach? Just saying he (NG) shouldn't say it again is doing what he does. It just ends up being a way to get away with with IT, rather than dealing with IT.


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That kind of depends on whether one thinks the party has a general problem of sexual predation by the leadership or that this crisis is a one off, albeit a one off fuck up of epic proportions. No prizes for guessing which of those alternatives I favor.



Kind of illustrates the point. To try to explain the events of recent years as the product either of "rotten apples" or "cock-up not conspiracy" is equally redundant. The third option as Louis suggests is a serious analysis of what caused this situation. It's just implausible to say mistakes were made amidst goodwill all round. Why were decisions made, by whom, to what end? How did a membership of the "best revolutionary fighters" swallow what they did for so long? Why do buffoons like this Grant chap continue spouting this nonsense? It can't all be a screw-up. There are clearly ruinous political issues that have allowed this to precipitate. It's amazing that intelligent Marxists can't see this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

Birchall has just, by retweeting it. made it a flag around which leninists in the party can rally.


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

It reminds me of something that came up in the discussion of autonomism on another thread, by BB actually, who agreed that the political level of SW was appallingly low and suggested that this was good for a couple of months but you'd really worry if leading cadres were so unsophisticated. Well, take a look at today's CC and loyalists  - and actually much of the opposition's discussion. The kind of unthinking Marxism-by-numbers you find in SW is just rampant. Why is this? Why is the political level of so many members so low? Why has theorizing so long been parceled off to a narrow slice of academic Bolsheviks? These questions bear importantly on the overall ruinous dynamics of the party, I think.


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

Apropros of the above, wasn't there talk about making Amy Leather national secretary recently?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 23, 2013)

benedict said:


> Apropos of the above, wasn't there talk about making Amy Leather national secretary recently?


Are you suggesting that Amy Leather is not a giant of revolutionary politics?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What about the fact that the SWP has leading members who think like this and clearly haven't been challenged on this sort of thought internally? Or maybe they foster this sort of approach? Just saying he (NG) shouldn't say it again is doing what he does. It just ends up being a way to get away with with IT, rather than dealing with IT.


"leading members"? Meaning NG? He's on the nc of course but that reminds me of what Frank Rijkaard said of Neil Lennon when he was the boss of the celtic midfield "He's a dog and all teams need a dog." Muzzle required in this case. But then there are a fair few dogs on all sides of this debate, peoples personal style is no autoamtic guide to factional allegiance. As anyone who's listened to the ISO leader Shawki's 'contribution' in the Le Blanc meeting at M2013 can attest.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 23, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Are you suggesting that Amy Leather is not a giant of revolutionary politics?


Ok fair dues you just got me to giggle with that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "leading members"? Meaning NG? He's on the nc of course but that reminds me of what Frank Rijkaard said of Neil Lennon when he was the boss of the celtic midfield "He's a dog and all teams need a dog." Muzzle required in this case. But then there are a fair few dogs on all sides of this debate, peoples personal style is no autoamtic guide to factional allegiance.


 
When all you have is dogs, there is always the IS tradition to wrap around you.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> actually, I think you're right, just badly written (uhh, him not you!)


 
Mine was too to be fair - I mean, what the fuck does this mean?



> ...it's bad enough without that part *which is at the very ambiguous from my reading of it.*


 
Even I don't know and I wrote it!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> When all you have is dogs, there is always the IS tradition to wrap around you.


Do you actually have any close acquiantances in the swp or do you just make this shit up about them without knowing any? I'm sure you're much more pleasant in person (so I'm told anyhows!) and so are a lot of them


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 23, 2013)

re Nick Grant's views re time passing after an allegation has been made...presumably Stuart Hall should not have been found guilty, Jimmy Saville's memory is being defiled and Jim Davidson and Max Clifford etc. should not be investigated.

How can a teacher and a socialist really think that let alone put it into print? Is defending the SWP really worth betraying every principle you had?


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "leading members"? Meaning NG? He's on the nc of course but that reminds me of what Frank Rijkaard said of Neil Lennon when he was the boss of the celtic midfield "He's a dog and all teams need a dog." Muzzle required in this case. But then there are a fair few dogs on all sides of this debate, peoples personal style is no autoamtic guide to factional allegiance. As anyone who's listened to the ISO leader Shawki's 'contribution' in the Le Blanc meeting at M2013 can attest.


 
Notice how you're eliding personal style and intellectual substance here, BB. This chap might have the argumentative style of a hound but it is the *content* of his soundings that have disgusted most posters on here today.

Taking the canine analogy further, an attack dog might be helpful for defensive purposes in certain situations. But when it's gone awol and is tearing heads off neighbourhood chiwawas you've got to wonder whether a muzzle's the thing, or whether you've just totally messed up the training and it's now beyond help.

Back to the case at hand, i.e. is the problem that he said it and therefore needs muzzling because it's impolitic? Or is the greater problem actually that this kind of abhorrent nonsense *is being said at all *in any forum by members of the loyalist CC faction?


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2013)

benedict said:


> Kind of illustrates the point. To try to explain the events of recent years as the product either of "rotten apples" or "cock-up not conspiracy" is equally redundant. The third option as Louis suggests is a serious analysis of what caused this situation. It's just implausible to say mistakes were made amidst goodwill all round. Why were decisions made, by whom, to what end? How did a membership of the "best revolutionary fighters" swallow what they did for so long? Why do buffoons like this Grant chap continue spouting this nonsense? It can't all be a screw-up. *There are clearly ruinous political issues that have allowed this to precipitate. It's amazing that intelligent Marxists can't see this.*


 
The other possibility, of course, is that those who still cannot see this are neither intelligent nor Marxists...


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> re Nick Grant's views re time passing after an allegation has been made...presumably Stuart Hall should not have been found guilty, Jimmy Saville's memory is being defiled and Jim Davidson and Max Clifford etc. should not be investigated.
> 
> *How can a teacher and a socialist really think that let alone put it into print? Is defending the SWP really worth betraying every principle you had?*


 
I guess it's possible if you're a party member first and foremost, and a teacher and a socialist a very distant second and third, and if your only real principle is therefore to defend the party in any and every situation.

TBH, what would amaze me would be if there was anyone still left in the SWP of whom this wasn't the case.


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

andysays said:


> I guess it's possible if you're a party member first and foremost, and a teacher and a socialist a very distant second and third, and if your only real principle is therefore to defend the party in any and every situation.
> 
> TBH, what would amaze me would be if there was anyone still left in the SWP of whom this wasn't the case.


 
It seems to me that it has to be less about principles per se and more about commitment to existing networks of relationships as well as deep-seated psychological hurdles including time and energy devoted to the party creating resistance to departure; cognitive dissonance when confronted with the new reality after years of swallowing party perspectives and stick-bends; discomfort at the thought of life outside the security of highly-structured and programmatic party life etc.

The party has a line on everything that's provided in a straightforward way; there are few ambiguities; competing views can be easily dismissed with keywords "autonomism", "reformism", "squaddism", "substitutionism" that avoid engagement with real-world complexities; intellectual labour is largely devolved to key party thinkers who reiterate and quote from within the narrow canon of the "IS tradition", itself very selectively reproduced to exclude now out-of-favor writers; activity is promoted over above all, further minimizing the need to engage in questioning.

I can imagine it's really hard to leave the comfort of all that to... what? The complexities of life in the swamp. Very disorienting indeed, I would think, especially if you've devoted years to the party.


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2013)

benedict said:


> It seems to me that it has to be less about principles per se and more about commitment to existing networks of relationships as well as deep-seated psychological hurdles including time and energy devoted to the party creating resistance to departure; cognitive dissonance when confronted with the new reality after years of swallowing party perspectives and stick-bends; discomfort at the thought of life outside the security of highly-structured and programmatic party life etc.
> 
> The party has a line on everything that's provided in a straightforward way; there are few ambiguities; competing views can be easily dismissed with keywords "autonomism", "reformism", "squaddism", "substitutionism" that avoid engagement with real-world complexities; intellectual labour is largely devolved to key party thinkers who reiterate and quote from within the narrow canon of the "IS tradition", itself very selectively reproduced to exclude now out-of-favor writers; activity is promoted over above all, further minimizing the need to engage in questioning.
> 
> I can imagine it's really hard to leave the comfort of all that to... what? The complexities of life in the swamp. Very disorienting indeed, I would think, especially if you've devoted years to the party.


 
You know, when you describe it like that, it kind of sounds suspiciously like a religious sect or a cult or something, but I'm sure that can't be right, can it?


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

andysays said:


> You know, when you describe it like that, it kind of sounds suspiciously like a religious sect or a cult or something, but I'm sure that can't be right, can it?


 
Definite affinities, yes, as you suggest.

Without getting into stronger claims about the party's "cult-like" qualities, a debate which has already been had on the thread and about which I am sceptical, I think that organizationally, structurally, there are significant similarities which likely lead to (deeply unhealthy) dynamics that bear a resemblance to those found within religious sects.


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

Soviet Goon Boy has a response from the "Facebook Four" to the latest news. Don't know how seriously to take their stated hopes for organizational recoupment...


> We sincerely hope you rise to the challenge that comrades in opposition have presented you with, and conduct a serious and thoroughgoing review into democracy in the party, making the changes to the organisation that must be made in order to prevent the total collapse of what was once, and could be again, the biggest and best revolutionary party on the British left.
> Step one of this process needs to full and public apology to the Facebook Four with the option for all four of us to re-join the Socialist Workers Party should we wish to do so. [...] United, we can all begin to rebuild the organisation in the spirit of inclusivity, cooperation and democracy.


 
They can't be serious, can they?


----------



## mutley (Jul 23, 2013)

benedict said:


> It seems to me that it has to be less about principles per se and more about commitment to existing networks of relationships as well as deep-seated psychological hurdles including time and energy devoted to the party creating resistance to departure; cognitive dissonance when confronted with the new reality after years of swallowing party perspectives and stick-bends; discomfort at the thought of life outside the security of highly-structured and programmatic party life etc.
> 
> The party has a line on everything that's provided in a straightforward way; there are few ambiguities; competing views can be easily dismissed with keywords "autonomism", "reformism", "squaddism", "substitutionism" that avoid engagement with real-world complexities; intellectual labour is largely devolved to key party thinkers who reiterate and quote from within the narrow canon of the "IS tradition", itself very selectively reproduced to exclude now out-of-favor writers; activity is promoted over above all, further minimizing the need to engage in questioning.
> 
> I can imagine it's really hard to leave the comfort of all that to... what? The complexities of life in the swamp. Very disorienting indeed, I would think, especially if you've devoted years to the party.


 
Complete bollocks frankly. The reason people like me (idooper, signed the latest statement against the suspensions, still getting grief off loyalists) stay is that even now, even with the SWP going to hell and back, I look at the rest of the movement and too often I see talking shops, self indulgent wank and (to coin a phrase) petit-bourgeois bollocks. You want something actually done, the SWP is probably still the best port of call. Simplistic, yeah, but that's my gut feeling.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

mutley said:


> Complete bollocks frankly. The reason people like me (idooper, signed the latest statement against the suspensions, still getting grief off loyalists) stay is that even now, even with the SWP going to hell and back, I look at the rest of the movement and too often I see talking shops, self indulgent wank and (to coin a phrase) petit-bourgeois bollocks. You want something actually done, the SWP is probably still the best port of call. Simplistic, yeah, but that's my gut feeling.


 
List the stuff you got done then.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

It's always someone elses fault. You are always the perfect militant in chase of a party. Listen to other people.


----------



## andysays (Jul 23, 2013)

mutley said:


> Complete bollocks frankly. The reason people like me (idooper, signed the latest statement against the suspensions, still getting grief off loyalists) stay is that even now, even with the SWP going to hell and back, I look at the rest of the movement and too often I see talking shops, self indulgent wank and (to coin a phrase) petit-bourgeois bollocks. You want something actually done, the SWP is probably still the best port of call. Simplistic, yeah, but that's my gut feeling.


 
As long as the something you want done doesn't include dealing anything like properly with the shit arising from a sexual harrasment charge brought against a senior member, I guess


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

mutley said:


> Complete bollocks frankly. The reason people like me (idooper, signed the latest statement against the suspensions, still getting grief off loyalists) stay is that even now, even with the SWP going to hell and back, I look at the rest of the movement and too often I see talking shops, self indulgent wank and (to coin a phrase) petit-bourgeois bollocks. You want something actually done, the SWP is probably still the best port of call. Simplistic, yeah, but that's my gut feeling.


 
Of course the ideas I posted can't be the whole story. But my experience suggests it isn't complete bollocks. Maybe I was thinking too much of certain friends who remain within the party and loyal to the leadership.

And I agree with most of your characterization of the rest of "the movement" (which is real SWPese, by the way; I'm not even sure what you're referring to but I'm taking it to mean the Left in general) and I agree too that the most committed ground-level activists in various campaigns are frequently SWP members.

None of this, though, negates what I wrote about how the party operates internally, especially with respect to its intellectual division of labour, all of which I stand by and comes from much direct experience.


----------



## mutley (Jul 23, 2013)

andysays said:


> As long as the something you want done doesn't include dealing anything like properly with the shit arising from a sexual harrasment charge brought against a senior member, I guess


We're getting there with that one, you may not have noticed but he's now a formerly senior ex-member


----------



## mutley (Jul 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> List the stuff you got done then.


 
Built the UAF demo last sat, set up anti-bedroom tax groups, formed the backbone of a number of reasonably stri=ong union branches round my way, that's off the top of my head.


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

On the division of intellectual labour, see how Harman took down Callincos a few years ago in the ISJ for adopting Rawls's theory of justice (in Resources of Critique I believe) with a Marxisant veneer, while Callinicos now calls out others (Seymour) for their eclecticism!


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

mutley said:


> We're getting there with that one, you may not have noticed but he's now a formerly senior ex-member


 
Draw a line under it and move on? What about the party culture that allowed that to happen? And allowed the standing ovations and stomping of feet? And allows the MA scholarship fundraising?

ETA: I'm not suggesting you're saying it's time to move on, mutley.


----------



## mutley (Jul 23, 2013)

benedict said:


> Of course the ideas I posted can't be the whole story. But my experience suggests it isn't complete bollocks. Maybe I was thinking too much of certain friends who remain within the party and loyal to the leadership.
> 
> And I agree with most of your characterization of the rest of "the movement" (which is real SWPese, by the way; I'm not even sure what you're referring to but I'm taking it to mean the Left in general) and I agree too that the most committed ground-level activists in various campaigns are frequently SWP members.
> 
> None of this, though, negates what I wrote about how the party operates internally, especially with respect to its intellectual division of labour, all of which I stand by and comes from much direct experience.


 
There is unfortunately, a nugget of truth in this, but the gut feeling for me about why I'm still in is still what I said above. In terms of the intellectual development of members, I think that the current shake-up will get loads more members reading properly and engaging with analysis of the world today. The stuff on the oppositional blog (variable quality though it is) provides some evidence of that


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

mutley said:


> Built the UAF demo last sat, set up anti-bedroom tax groups, formed the backbone of a number of reasonably stri=ong union branches round my way, that's off the top of my head.


 
The SWP did that? No matter what you'll be punching above your weight.


----------



## mutley (Jul 23, 2013)

benedict said:


> Draw a line under it and move on? What about the party culture that allowed that to happen? And allowed the standing ovations and stomping of feet? And allows the MA scholarship fundraising?
> 
> ETA: I'm not suggesting you're saying it's time to move on, mutley.


 
cheers for the edit. The party culture will need more attention, but I don't think it'll ever be quite the same again. People wanna give MS cash that's their affair. Anyway, off to bed now cheers folks


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

mutley said:


> cheers for the edit. The party culture will need more attention, but I don't think it'll ever be quite the same again. People wanna give MS cash that's their affair. Anyway, off to bed now cheers folks


 
Why not? The boss just told you that nothing has changed. You're going to impose it on them are you?


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

mutley said:


> cheers for the edit. The party culture will need more attention, but I don't think it'll ever be quite the same again. People wanna give MS cash that's their affair. Anyway, off to bed now cheers folks


 
Genuine question: what attention or changes do you think the party culture needs?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 23, 2013)

benedict said:


> Genuine question: what attention or changes do you think the party culture needs?


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

discokermit said:


>




Less jazz, more synth-pop themed events?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 23, 2013)

More edwyn full stop


----------



## benedict (Jul 23, 2013)

mutley said:


> Complete bollocks frankly. The reason people like me (idooper, signed the latest statement against the suspensions, still getting grief off loyalists) stay is that even now, even with the SWP going to hell and back, I look at the rest of the movement and too often I see talking shops, self indulgent wank and (to coin a phrase) petit-bourgeois bollocks. You want something actually done, the SWP is probably still the best port of call. Simplistic, yeah, but that's my gut feeling.


 
I'd also add, mutley, that my friends who have left the party have found the departure a liberation, to say the least. Less Paul on the road to Damascus than exiting Plato's cave. Genuinely exciting; questioning old dogmas; inquisitive about new ideas; rethinking fundamentals; renewed sense of freedom and agency; furtherance of energy and passion.

Clearly I have a small sample here so I can't make broader claims. And I imagine the nitty-gritty of debating ISN protocols and staffing issues is likely to deaden passions pretty quickly, so I don't know in particular what the prospects for ISNers are. However, I do have prima facie evidence that life in the swamp can be pretty invigorating.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 23, 2013)

Course it is, as was the Beyond the Fragments in its time and indeed the whole Bennite thing before it became an exercise in passing left reformist motions at Labour conferences. There is nothing exciting about standing against the Syriza loving, centrist wave. It does as you say almost require a religious orthodox zeal to resist the general rush to 'new' thinking which as John Molyneux rightly keeps pointing out...isn't. Standing against a tide is difficult and unpopular and somewhat lonely. it's also, despite the Birchall/Stack evocation of the Cliffite past as one long revisionist search for 'dynamic' ideas, something that the IS has always had to do at particular periods. The growth of Bennism was one of those. This latest bubble of intersectional/Owen Jones love ins is the latest. The IS has always managed to develop Marxist ideas but develop them, not ditch them for trendy academic alternatives, be that zizek or Vogel. The prof vs Seymour is the best example. Much of the profs early stuff is as eclectic as you like, some of it worse than Seymour up to now has been. But by being in an organisation rooted in boring old core Marxist ideas, by having the intellectual discipline of cc meetings and Marxism meetings where fellow Marxists challenged his ideas and forced him to relate them back to the tradition the prof has managed to cohere into not the worst Marxist intellectual this country has known. Whereas Seymour....well.


----------



## benedict (Jul 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Course it is, as was the Beyond the Fragments in its time and indeed the whole Bennite thing before it became an exercise in passing left reformist motions at Labour conferences. There is nothing exciting about standing against the Syriza loving, centrist wave. It does as you say almost require a religious orthodox zeal to resist the general rush to 'new' thinking which as John Molyneux rightly keeps pointing out...isn't. Standing against a tide is difficult and unpopular and somewhat lonely. it's also, despite the Birchall/Stack evocation of the Cliffite past as one long revisionist search for 'dynamic' ideas, something that the IS has always had to do at particular periods. The growth of Bennism was one of those. This latest bubble of intersectional/Owen Jones love ins is the latest. The IS has always managed to develop Marxist ideas but develop them, not ditch them for trendy academic alternatives, be that zizek or Vogel. The prof vs Seymour is the best example. Much of the profs early stuff is as eclectic as you like, some of it worse than Seymour up to now has been. But by being in an organisation rooted in boring old core Marxist ideas, by having the intellectual discipline of cc meetings and Marxism meetings where fellow Marxists challenged his ideas and forced him to relate them back to the tradition the prof has managed to cohere into not the worst Marxist intellectual this country has known. Whereas Seymour....well.


 

I enjoy the rectitude of your reply, BB, though naturally I'm not in agreement!   A few thoughts:

You do injustice to the oppositions positions by trying to throw them in with intersectionalism and Owen Jones; this just seems like a mischaracterization. Further, the SWP has never been shy about hopping on to the labourist or reformist bandwagon when it suits. Just look at the feting of the "awkward squad" union leaders a few years back and the party's close support for the Labour left. It seemed to be only when Jones ditched Marxism, that the Prof turned sour towards him, no? 

No love lost for Seymour here. My point is that the Prof is still eclectic when he wants to be, and engages with all the trendy academic alternatives, whereas such thinkers never feature on the a la carte theory menu permitted to party foot-soldiers.

Regarding new ideas, well, how very undialectical of you  You seem to argue that there is a sort of Kondratiev wave in Leftist ideas, and now we're back with Beyond the Fragments. Or is it as Molyneux says: there's nothing new under the sun and in any case we've already slew all the dragons so don't worry and keep the faith. Surely as a Marxist you know the world continues to develop in complex, contradictory and internally-related ways. Developments in culture, communication, and ideas are an important part of these changes, as of course Gramsci would emphasize. Here your evocation of "standing against the tide" is an apt analogy. Lonely, yes, but also -- as King Cnut would have told CC loyalists -- ultimately futile.

Also, I wonder why you seem almost to relish the ascetic dimension of the hard vanguardist road? The "religious orthodox zeal", the "intellectual discipline", standing "difficult and unpopular and somewhat lonely" being rooted in "boring old core Marxist ideas" etc. It does sound pretty unpleasant to me, especially since it is response to my description of the liberatory moment I've witnessed in my friends. I'm not taking the piss, just genuinely interested why you think holding the line in the face of all this -- in this context, i.e. a now marginal sect that once produced some material of worth but that is now decreasing in numbers exponentially -- is worth it? And to what end?


----------



## Before Theory (Jul 24, 2013)

benedict said:


> I'd also add, mutley, that my friends who have left the party have found the departure a liberation, to say the least. Less Paul on the road to Damascus than exiting Plato's cave. Genuinely exciting; questioning old dogmas; inquisitive about new ideas; rethinking fundamentals; renewed sense of freedom and agency; furtherance of energy and passion.
> 
> Clearly I have a small sample here so I can't make broader claims. And I imagine the nitty-gritty of debating ISN protocols and staffing issues is likely to deaden passions pretty quickly, so I don't know in particular what the prospects for ISNers are. However, I do have prima facie evidence that life in the swamp can be pretty invigorating.



Very much agree with you there Benedict. I left 2 years ago immediately after the standing ovation Conference of 2011, and I have to say that I have found the political world outside the SWP to be just as invigorating as your friends have found it. 

I take fellow activists as I find them now, and do not make assumptions about their integrity just because they are in a different grouping. I am ashamed to say that I used to do exactly that when I was in the SWP. That siege mentality made sense at the time, and I recognize the sneering tone of Apology Boy's post on "the swamp" for the isolationist "my party, right or wrong" nonsense that has left them in this sad state.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> More edwyn full stop


You heard his new one, excellent (even moreso when you consider what happened).


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jul 24, 2013)

That's a great sociology-in-miniature of the swp, benedict! And the kernel of truth in Mutley's claims is that swp members are at the forefront of so much action in part because so many of them are zealots. In terms of putting in the hard activist yards there's no better operator than those who know they'll get their reward in heaven (or after the revolution) and are motivated mainly by unshakable emotional commitment to the party hierarchy. But interestingly the swp will rarely accept historical materialism analysis of itself. 

For those preferring a less deferential method of organising for liberation, it does pose some tricky questions about how to keep people together through all the hard and boring work of class struggle, when things aren't kicking off that well. Certainly the dependence of my local left on the swp (and sp) is considerable. But on that subject, and the old Beyond the Fragments spectre, time and time I've found that the people holding together union branches or community campaigns against the odds are in the BtF mould...either ex participants or taking up similar ideas. And often perceptive critics of the further left.  So I think it's a bit of a myth that they didn't amount to anything, not anything with the brand presence of a busy trotskyist micro-party no, but as set of networks and perspectives yes. 

ps if Vogel's ever been an intellectual fashion she certainly isn't now!!


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ... But by having the intellectual discipline of cc meetings ...



You are such a slave to the idea that the SWP CC is the intellectual centre of your political life that you imagine their meetings to be some kind of hothouse for theoretical advance and rigour. If only we had the recordings over the years ... I think you'd be disillusioned.  I suspect most of their arguments are of the 'which district should make the placards for the next demo' sort. And as for the current CC, I think the transcript run like this:

Chair: "Item 13. Martin Smith's resignation. What's our line on this?"

... glum silence ...


----------



## treelover (Jul 24, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> That's a great sociology-in-miniature of the swp, benedict! And the kernel of truth in Mutley's claims is that swp members are at the forefront of so much action in part because so many of them are zealots. In terms of putting in the hard activist yards there's no better operator than those who know they'll get their reward in heaven (or after the revolution) and are motivated mainly by unshakable emotional commitment to the party hierarchy. But interestingly the swp will rarely accept historical materialism analysis of itself.
> 
> For those preferring a less deferential method of organising for liberation, it does pose some tricky questions about how to keep people together through all the hard and boring work of class struggle, when things aren't kicking off that well. *Certainly the dependence of my local left on the swp (and sp) is considerable*. But on that subject, and the old Beyond the Fragments spectre, time and time I've found that the people holding together union branches or community campaigns against the odds are in the BtF mould...either ex participants or taking up similar ideas. And often perceptive critics of the further left. So I think it's a bit of a myth that they didn't amount to anything, not anything with the brand presence of a busy trotskyist micro-party no, but as set of networks and perspectives yes.
> 
> ps if Vogel's ever been an intellectual fashion she certainly isn't now!!


 

the thing is, other people who are dynamic, passionate, good organisers, etc but who want integrity in politics and maybe work more horizontally are put off getting involved in projects precisely because of SWP involvement


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jul 24, 2013)

also like to chuck my oar in and say that benedict's assessment of the intellectual culture of the SWP is bang on - mutley you're blind or talking crap when you dismiss it as 'bollocks'.


----------



## laptop (Jul 24, 2013)

benedict said:


> It seems to me that it has to be less about principles per se and more about commitment to existing networks of relationships as well as deep-seated psychological hurdles including time and energy devoted to the party creating resistance to departure; cognitive dissonance when confronted with the new reality after years of swallowing party perspectives and stick-bends; discomfort at the thought of life outside the security of highly-structured and programmatic party life etc.
> 
> The party has a line on everything that's provided in a straightforward way; there are few ambiguities; competing views can be easily dismissed with keywords "autonomism", "reformism", "squaddism", "substitutionism" that avoid engagement with real-world complexities; intellectual labour is largely devolved to key party thinkers who reiterate and quote from within the narrow canon of the "IS tradition", itself very selectively reproduced to exclude now out-of-favor writers; activity is promoted over above all, further minimizing the need to engage in questioning.
> 
> I can imagine it's really hard to leave the comfort of all that to... what? The complexities of life in the swamp. Very disorienting indeed, I would think, especially if you've devoted years to the party.


 
The thing about this observation is that it is *by definition* rejected by those who are still in.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 24, 2013)

Duncan put it best why there's no substitute for having comrades (as opposed to people you once met on a blog) to bounce your ideas off and refine them: "The whole vast apparatus of mass communications, educational institutions and the rest have, as one of their principal functions, what sociologists call “socialisation” and what the old Wobblies called head-fixing. The assumptions convenient to the ruling class are the daily diet of all of us. Individuals, whether bus drivers or lecturers in aesthetics, can resist the conditioning process to a point. Only a collective can develop a systematic alternative worldview, can overcome to some degree the alienation of manual and mental work that imposes on everyone, on workers and intellectuals alike, a partial and fragmented view of reality. What Rosa Luxemburg called “the fusion of science and the workers” is unthinkable outside a revolutionary party."

Now there's a whole theoretical framework to explain that, about alienation and commodity fetishism and the rest but the overexcited escapees seem to have forgotten that materialist argument. They tell themselves that because reformist ideas are so weak in our society they can't possibly be influenced by them. Duncan wouldn't have been so rude but that's just bollox.


----------



## Before Theory (Jul 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Duncan put it best why there's no substitute for having comrades (as opposed to people you once met on a blog) to bounce your ideas off and refine them: "The whole vast apparatus of mass communications, educational institutions and the rest have, as one of their principal functions, what sociologists call “socialisation” and what the old Wobblies called head-fixing. The assumptions convenient to the ruling class are the daily diet of all of us. Individuals, whether bus drivers or lecturers in aesthetics, can resist the conditioning process to a point. Only a collective can develop a systematic alternative worldview, can overcome to some degree the alienation of manual and mental work that imposes on everyone, on workers and intellectuals alike, a partial and fragmented view of reality. What Rosa Luxemburg called “the fusion of science and the workers” is unthinkable outside a revolutionary party."
> 
> Now there's a whole theoretical framework to explain that, about alienation and commodity fetishism and the rest but the overexcited escapees seem to have forgotten that materialist argument. They tell themselves that because reformist ideas are so weak in our society they can't possibly be influenced by them. Duncan wouldn't have been so rude but that's just bollox.



Still working hard defending the remains of your party Apology Boy ?

I'll take my chances with being influenced by reformist ideas in the outside world, rather than acceding to the ones prevalent within the SWP which tried to demonise two young women who dared to report sexual harassment and assault.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jul 24, 2013)

Hmm.....yes, it's all a bit tricky out there trying to discuss politics seriously (not just to proselytise) with people who don't share a near-identical set of hallowed IS tradition assumptions. So lets stick to the old branch, conference, Marxism routine and not worry about all the sectarians and lily-livered reformists who hoodwink the working class out of its rightful inheritance. Unfortunately, the disasters caused by such an attitude will always catch up with the grouping in question as critical friends become traitors and idiocy proliferates alarmingly....after many years of bestowing upon militants the dubious benefits of "punching above its weight" on the left, of course.

In fact it doesn't seem too materialist to me to claim "the revolutionary party" as innately possessed of some ability to escape ideology in a way no other collective can manage. Likewise this fixation upon the moment of revolutionary rupture for which no working class base is currently close to existing. Still: if any aspect of this "science" is testable then the notion that a Leninist party necessarily won't operate by alienated capitalist logics or imperatives has been as comprehensively disproved as it's possible to achieve in social science.


----------



## benedict (Jul 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Duncan put it best why there's no substitute for having comrades (as opposed to people you once met on a blog) to bounce your ideas off and refine them: "The whole vast apparatus of mass communications, educational institutions and the rest have, as one of their principal functions, what sociologists call “socialisation” and what the old Wobblies called head-fixing. The assumptions convenient to the ruling class are the daily diet of all of us. Individuals, whether bus drivers or lecturers in aesthetics, can resist the conditioning process to a point. Only a collective can develop a systematic alternative worldview, can overcome to some degree the alienation of manual and mental work that imposes on everyone, on workers and intellectuals alike, a partial and fragmented view of reality. What Rosa Luxemburg called “the fusion of science and the workers” is unthinkable outside a revolutionary party."
> 
> Now there's a whole theoretical framework to explain that, about alienation and commodity fetishism and the rest but the overexcited escapees seem to have forgotten that materialist argument. They tell themselves that because reformist ideas are so weak in our society they can't possibly be influenced by them. Duncan wouldn't have been so rude but that's just bollox.



The thing is, BB, is that while I agree with the gist of your comment here, the preconditions for this kind of synergy are precisely what's missing within the SWP. Not just any collective could produce such conditions. Yeovil Rotary Club couldn't. Nor could any self-described revolutionary group do so. The SPGB can't. So why do you believe the SWP can?

The Luxemberg quote is interesting in light of your earlier comment about sticking to the line through the storms of popular opinion and the changing world. Where is the science in a praxis that admits of no major revisions in the face of mountainous evidence of theoretical and practical failure?!


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jul 24, 2013)

Benedict said:
			
		

> Where is the science in a praxis that admits of no major revisions in the face of mountainous evidence of theoretical and practical failure?!



The dialectical reality underlying such epiphenomena can't be divulged on deadbeat blogs.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Duncan put it best why there's no substitute for having comrades (as opposed to people you once met on a blog) to bounce your ideas off and refine them: "The whole vast apparatus of mass communications, educational institutions and the rest have, as one of their principal functions, what sociologists call “socialisation” and what the old Wobblies called head-fixing. The assumptions convenient to the ruling class are the daily diet of all of us. Individuals, whether bus drivers or lecturers in aesthetics, can resist the conditioning process to a point. Only a collective can develop a systematic alternative worldview, can overcome to some degree the alienation of manual and mental work that imposes on everyone, on workers and intellectuals alike, a partial and fragmented view of reality. What Rosa Luxemburg called “the fusion of science and the workers” is unthinkable outside a revolutionary party."
> 
> Now there's a whole theoretical framework to explain that, about alienation and commodity fetishism and the rest but the overexcited escapees seem to have forgotten that materialist argument. They tell themselves that because reformist ideas are so weak in our society they can't possibly be influenced by them. Duncan wouldn't have been so rude but that's just bollox.


how is your membership of the labour party affecting you?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> how is your membership of the labour party affecting you?


Not well but thankfully there things like Marxism to get some perspective back!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 25, 2013)

On a different note Lindsey German has written a robust reply to the ISO's Sharon Smith and canadian Abi Bakan who attacked her and Cliff for their 'marxist anti-feminism'. Really glad she's done this.

http://networkedblogs.com/NufVA

I watched the video of Smith and Bakan at the ISO's Socialism 2013 with increasing anger as the minutes wore on and there was no analysis of Cliff or German's actual arguments and no alternative analysis proposed. Instead the two of them just played with words and threw in some lovely gibes about which actresses Cliff fancied. Rancid stuff and good for German for defending the tradition. The other side of the debate on this feminist issue are vapid to the point of totally empty and in the case of the ISO seem to be prepared to say the most stupid things about Cliff in particular (Shawki's talk on the IS was equally guilty of this which is all the worse considering who sent Shawki to the US in the first place).

Good on you Lyndsey. Liked the question 'would we label ourselves Marxist anti-reformists'? No we wouldn't.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not well but thankfully there things like Marxism to get some perspective back!


bless you bolshie, you have no grip on reality at all.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Good on you Lyndsey.


ugh. look at you now. if there are any straws in the clutchable vicinity, they should now consider themselves clutched.


----------



## benedict (Jul 25, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> The dialectical reality underlying such epiphenomena can't be divulged on deadbeat blogs.


----------



## free spirit (Jul 25, 2013)

benedict said:


> I agree too that the most committed ground-level activists in various campaigns are frequently SWP members.


The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the impact of swappies arriving to lead a protest / campaign, in that they inevitably fuck off a lot of other people involved, or sympathetic to the campaign, either deliberately or just through their actions and way they go about things until most just can't be arsed to be involved any more.

That and deliberately excluding those they don't agree with politically from the campaign, and refusing to in any way collaborate or support any organisation you're not involved with.

So I'm sure to swp grass roots it does feel like the SWP members always end up being the lynchpins of every organisation the SWP get involved with, from the outside though the assessment of the SWPs contribution is rather different - ie that it's almost pointless even trying to do anything constructive as either the SWP will join and fuck it up, or they'll jump on that bandwagon, set up a counter group, refuse to work with you, suck the life out of the campaign, set up an invite only coalition that excludes the other group that was working on the issue, and use that to run high profile 'united front' public protests still excluding the groups the SWP don't like, then conspire with the police to have those you don't like arrested when they try to join your protest.

And in doing so they'll also ensure that the campaign itself will fail to actually achieve anything, as achieving a specific aim plays second fiddle to using this bandwagon to promote the SWP and its real purpose of building towards the eventual revolution, and as far as I can tell, the SWP don't actually believe they ought to be thinking about actually winning any individual campaign as long as they're seen to be involved at a high profile level they're happy enough.

See for example...http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/05/509876.html



ps butchersapron, since you asked a while back... this post is probably the best explanation I can get to as to how come I ended up largely giving up on that side of politics / protest / campaigning, and ending up going for a minimal effort amount of support for what I hoped to be the least bad option from the main political parties at election time (obviously that also backfired). That and police infiltration, frustration with the way that a small number of black blockers could turn the entire local population against us via a short rampage of property destruction, and erm well a few other things... kinda made me evaluate the rationale behind dedicating months of my life to a campaign.

pps sorry benedict, bit unfair to use your quote as the basis for this rant.


----------



## benedict (Jul 25, 2013)

free spirit said:


> pps sorry benedict, bit unfair to use your quote as the basis for this rant.


 
No worries. Totally agree that this dynamic plays out too, though I think it's a varied picture. Where I've had first-hand experience a few individual long-time SWP stalwarts have actually seemed to me to be pretty solid at holding local campaigns together, without the party wrecking-ball tactics. This is a small sample though and certainly the national picture shows time and again how destructive their approach has been.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> ugh. look at you now. if there are any straws in the clutchable vicinity, they should now consider themselves clutched.


I like your one liners disco, they can be quite funny but sometimes they miss important contradictions in the situation.

So actually no she does the necessary "I'm appalled as anyone else at the SWP handling of the delta stuff" but then makes quite a sweet defence of Cliff. She doesn't have to given her current involvements and arguably is hurting herself thereby so no I'll repeat good on her!

Given Counterfire's evolution and especially the orientation on the movements (and the fact that she has people in her org who call themselves feminists even while she doesn't) the temptation must be huge to say yeah you know what that little mysoginist leninist Gluckstein led us all astray but now I see the light. But she doesn't she defends the theory and practice of the IS/SWP on womens liberation and quite rightly points out the failure of the Smith/Bakan attack to pose an actual alternative analysis.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 25, 2013)

benedict said:


> The thing is, BB, is that while I agree with the gist of your comment here, the preconditions for this kind of synergy are precisely what's missing within the SWP. Not just any collective could produce such conditions. Yeovil Rotary Club couldn't. Nor could any self-described revolutionary group do so. The SPGB can't. So why do you believe the SWP can?
> 
> The Luxemberg quote is interesting in light of your earlier comment about sticking to the line through the storms of popular opinion and the changing world. Where is the science in a praxis that admits of no major revisions in the face of mountainous evidence of theoretical and practical failure?!


You have a lovely turn of phrase benedict even if I don't agree with you, Yeovil Rotary Club indeed 

The science hasn't exactly been spilling out in the book load over recent years no but I can't see the attraction of the eclectic alternatives either. There's clearly a dearth of original Marxist thinkers in the tradition at the moment but I remain convinced the answer isn't to be found in the Seymour approach. And this will sound quite harsh as I'm friendly with some of the internal oppo but I honestly can't see them providing the alternative intelectual leadership they so want to. Stack and Birchall are hugely imprtant moral figures to have on your side (who would dare be nasty to uncle Pat or Ian?!) but they're neither of them a Harman or Callinicos imho. There's no doubting the raw inteligence of a Bergfeld but I can't help feeling that whereas the folk like Cliff who developed the ideas did so after having totally embraced them the tendency in this opposition is to try and stick bits on to the existing body of ideas without properly making them your own. Cliff developed the theory of state cap after a long hard attempt at opposing it!


----------



## newbie (Jul 25, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Likewise this fixation upon the moment of revolutionary rupture


 
is that rupture or rapture?




btw, your username is up there with the best


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> On a different note Lindsey German has written a robust reply to the ISO's Sharon Smith and canadian Abi Bakan who attacked her and Cliff for their 'marxist anti-feminism'. Really glad she's done this.
> 
> http://networkedblogs.com/NufVA
> 
> ...


 
which actresses did Cliff fancy? I always had the hots for Lauren Bacall and mid period Charlotte Rampling


----------



## discokermit (Jul 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> then makes quite a sweet defence of Cliff.


of course she does.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 25, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> which actresses did Cliff fancy? I always had the hots for Lauren Bacall and mid period Charlotte Rampling


The offending quote which is to be found in Birchall's biography and which Cliff apparently employed to explain the need for realistic expectations was "I'd like to sleep with Gina Lollobrigida, but I have to put up with what I've got." That's pretty much it, that's the proof advanced by Bakan that IS/SWP anti-feminism produces a sexist IS/SWP practice. QE fucking D obviously :-(

By that reckoning me and mrs bb must have an abusive relationship cause when our son was younger we each trained him to say "look mum [or dad] there's my new dad [or mum] on tv!" whenever Will Carling or Jen Lopez appeared on telly. Not saying which of us fancied which obviously.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 25, 2013)

Apparently the anti-leninist wave isn't just hurting the swp. Our old mates in the Irish SP are suffering too: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/972/socialist-party-ireland-not-for-the-public-domain

I know people deride the intelectual athmosphere in the swp but accusing your ex members of pandering to an "anarcho mood that’s out there" doesn't particularily mark comrade McLoughlin out as the future Irish Lenin.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 25, 2013)

Disgraceful encouraging your son to support the objectification of sportspeople and performers


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 25, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Disgraceful encouraging your son to support the objectification of sportspeople and performers


I know and Trotsky let his son say prayers before going to bed. No wonder the fourth international never got anywhere!


----------



## benedict (Jul 25, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You have a lovely turn of phrase benedict even if I don't agree with you, Yeovil Rotary Club indeed
> 
> The science hasn't exactly been spilling out in the book load over recent years no but I can't see the attraction of the eclectic alternatives either. There's clearly a dearth of original Marxist thinkers in the tradition at the moment but I remain convinced the answer isn't to be found in the Seymour approach. And this will sound quite harsh as I'm friendly with some of the internal oppo but I honestly can't see them providing the alternative intelectual leadership they so want to. Stack and Birchall are hugely imprtant moral figures to have on your side (who would dare be nasty to uncle Pat or Ian?!) but they're neither of them a Harman or Callinicos imho. There's no doubting the raw inteligence of a Bergfeld but I can't help feeling that whereas the folk like Cliff who developed the ideas did so after having totally embraced them the tendency in this opposition is to try and stick bits on to the existing body of ideas without properly making them your own. Cliff developed the theory of state cap after a long hard attempt at opposing it!


 
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, BB. I agree with most of your impressions here, yet the point I was trying to make -- or at least allude to -- is that the somewhat intangible moment hinted at by Luxemburg's phrase, a kind of synergistic moment between historical materialist theory and working class political practice, is actually a deeply contingent one. And what I was trying to point to are the wider preconditions that could permit such a contingent moment to arise.

Now, I think it's interesting that you focus on the big hitters of the party past and present. While some of these individuals have made valuable contributions to the Left in various ways, I think their merits are rather beside the point. It's beside the point too, wherever the ISN's theoretical cards may fall.

At the heart of Rosa's point is surely the idea that a "science" of history or politics can't proceed without a dialectical relationship with the praxis of revolutionaries. This would imply, it seems to me, a collectivity that (a) is deeply rooted in the working class; (b) relates to that class in a direct and active way; (c) advances its practice and theory on the basis of the dialectical movement between the two at the moment of its praxis; (d) has an internal "culture" such based around constant debate and questioning alongside activity.

A very gilded version of the IS's factory-gate past may be forced to approximate such a view. But it's patent that the SWP is no where near fulfilling any of these reconditions: it does not have significant roots in the working class; it rarely relates directly and actively to class concerns; theory is generated by the intellectual aristocrats and academics in thrall to the IS tradition, or by middle-level apparachiks recapitulating their betters' writings at a more simplistic level; within the "tradition" as such there are enough sacred cows to form a small dairy farm; and we know all about how the internal culture operates.


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Apparently the anti-leninist wave isn't just hurting the swp. Our old mates in the Irish SP are suffering too: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/972/socialist-party-ireland-not-for-the-public-domain
> 
> I know people deride the intelectual athmosphere in the swp but accusing your ex members of pandering to an "anarcho mood that’s out there" doesn't particularily mark comrade McLoughlin out as the future Irish Lenin.



Apology Boy as always makes a very timely comparison with another left organisation in order to highlight the damage done by the anti Leninist opposition to the SWP. 

Under the cover of so called concern for a botched rape investigation these oppositionist intersectionalistas have reduced the SWP to adopting the same methods as the incorrigibly reformist Socialist Party! 

For example comrades who raise differences on social media or blogs are NOT instantly expelled, as was the correct bolshevik practice up to recently! 
Even worse, oppositionists have been allowed to air differences at public events like Marxism and are not violently harried out of the venue post haste. 
Hopefully sanity will soon prevail in the SWP and good order can be restored.

However all true believers in the IS "Tradition" can take heart! Despite everything the party has been through at least it has not degenerated to the level of the Socialist Party and started having meetings to discuss why people are leaving the party...


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jul 26, 2013)

Don't forget: also use big words like "autonomism" incorrectly to sound smart. Don't say more down-to-Earth (and closer to the truth!) phrases like "anarcho mood". That's how to mystify any intellectual contributions SWP-style and make debate seem out of reach to the ordinary paper-seller.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 27, 2013)

Did you read the article? The official responses (nothing to see here, the splitters weren't active members anyway and such like) make NG's crude reply to Rosen sound like poetry. Quite funny how people differentiate between sp and swp woes. What is called crude hackery in the swp is called down to earth in the sp. I'm not that fascinated in the sp to get into a long debate on this and as it goes I'm not glad to see them in decline either but the one eyed attitudes of many on here are funny is all


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 27, 2013)

benedict said:


> Thanks for the thoughtful reply, BB. I agree with most of your impressions here, yet the point I was trying to make -- or at least allude to -- is that the somewhat intangible moment hinted at by Luxemburg's phrase, a kind of synergistic moment between historical materialist theory and working class political practice, is actually a deeply contingent one. And what I was trying to point to are the wider preconditions that could permit such a contingent moment to arise.
> 
> Now, I think it's interesting that you focus on the big hitters of the party past and present. While some of these individuals have made valuable contributions to the Left in various ways, I think their merits are rather beside the point. It's beside the point too, wherever the ISN's theoretical cards may fall.
> 
> ...


Interesting points benedict. But the thing is Rosa was talking about mass parties or at least parties on the verge of being such no? We're still (depressingly at this stage of the game!) talking about the primitive accumalation of cadres and in that context the heavy hitters, the lack of them that is, surely plays a bigger role.

Constant internal debate is great if it allows a group to reflect real innovative ideas thrown up by the struggle, to teach the teachers as it were. But sometimes the internal debate is more about reflecting rightward moving ideas that have gripped the rest of the movement. From the debates on class to gender to organisation I think the latter is more the case. I know I would say that but how a person sees 'debate' is always determined by which side of the debate they're on


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ... talking about the *primitive accumalation* of cadres and in that context the heavy hitters, the lack of them that is, surely plays a bigger role...


 
You are the last person on this thread I would have expected to describe the SWP's approach to recruitment using a term that compares it to slavery, plunder and enclosure.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 27, 2013)

The second part of _that fomulation is equally problematic. _Big theoretical hitters are the key to establishing the organisational basis of the group that then goes forth and relates to _the leading part of the class_ on the basis of their theoretical grounding received from these big hitters, and they move up the internal chain and become big hitters themselves. This encapsulates one set of reasons why and where the swp have got into such difficulties (on so many levels) rather handily. Key is big hitters (not the involvement with the class directly) and the transmission of the correct positions by those big hitters to new recruits, who are then rewarded internally by their fidelity to and the depth of aggressive defence of the positions those big hitters provided them with (internal focus and stifling internal culture, closed off from any other developments unless they have been _assessed_ for the cadres by the correct authorities). The appalling circularity of leninism laid pretty bare.


----------



## benedict (Jul 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Interesting points benedict. But the thing is Rosa was talking about mass parties or at least parties on the verge of being such no? We're still (depressingly at this stage of the game!) talking about the primitive accumalation of cadres and in that context the heavy hitters, the lack of them that is, surely plays a bigger role.
> 
> Constant internal debate is great if it allows a group to reflect real innovative ideas thrown up by the struggle, to teach the teachers as it were. But sometimes the internal debate is more about reflecting rightward moving ideas that have gripped the rest of the movement. From the debates on class to gender to organisation I think the latter is more the case. I know I would say that but how a person sees 'debate' is always determined by which side of the debate they're on


 
Butchers really hits the nail on the head above.

But to add, you invoked Luxemburg in order to contrast the collective- disciplinary role of the party vis-a-vis the mystified reformist drift of the swamp-dwellers. Now you're rolling back to say the content of her analysis doesn't apply in the present situation. Fair enough. So what are we left with? It all comes down to discipline doesn't it? Discipline denuded of the direct connection to class struggle and of workers' experience challenging the existing line. Just swallow the latest perspectives dispensed by the "teachers" in party notes. 

But this brings us right back to the problem you brought in Rosa to try to address: how can you believe that those perspectives are correct? I mean, seriously, the prof is a smart chap but he can't even bring himself to sell the paper. More seriously, there is rather lot of empirical data to suggest the party hasn't quite hit on the right revolutionary formula. Yet there's still no room for challenging existing orthodoxies?! Does it just come down to holding the faith? Isn't this just so much nostalgia?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 27, 2013)

benedict said:


> Butchers really hits the nail on the head above.
> 
> But to add, you invoked Luxemburg in order to contrast the collective- disciplinary role of the party vis-a-vis the mystified reformist drift of the swamp-dwellers. Now you're rolling back to say the content of her analysis doesn't apply in the present situation. Fair enough. So what are we left with? It all comes down to discipline doesn't it? Discipline denuded of the direct connection to class struggle and of workers' experience challenging the existing line. Just swallow the latest perspectives dispensed by the "teachers" in party notes.
> 
> But this brings us right back to the problem you brought in Rosa to try to address: how can you believe that those perspectives are correct? I mean, seriously, the prof is a smart chap but he can't even bring himself to sell the paper. More seriously, there is rather lot of empirical data to suggest the party hasn't quite hit on the right revolutionary formula. Yet there's still no room for challenging existing orthodoxies?! Does it just come down to holding the faith? Isn't this just so much nostalgia?


Almost completely irrelevant point, I have seen 'the prof' selling Socialist Worker.

Other than that I agree


----------



## benedict (Jul 27, 2013)

Me too actually, but I thought I'd read him quoted somewhere saying he left it to others in general. Sticking to the theory.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 27, 2013)

I suppose he means he doesn't bother to go out every Sat selling it for a couple of hours?


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 27, 2013)

just been reading this btw. 

http://69.195.124.91/~brucieba/2013/07/26/cwisocialist-party-facebook-purge-continues/


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 27, 2013)

Edit: Removed cos I've had a chat with the bloke and hopefully things will improve a bit now.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 27, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> You are the last person on this thread I would have expected to describe the SWP's approach to recruitment using a term that compares it to slavery, plunder and enclosure.


It's a quote from Cliff, and Therefore like a holy text.


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 27, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> It's a quote from Cliff, and Therefore like a holy text.


However, the swp should be more properly described as being in the business of the primitive accumulation of ex cadres


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 27, 2013)

True enough:




			
				Cliff said:
			
		

> Comrades reading the story about our serious attitude to contacts, the readiness to patiently spend a lot of time and effort with them, could learn something from this. When Lenin wrote, ‘There cannot be a revolutionary movement without revolutionary theory,’ he meant that one had to take Marxism seriously – education classes are very important indeed. When Trotsky adapted Marx’s term ‘primitive accumulation of capital’ and from it coined the term ‘primitive accumulation of cadres’, he meant that you have to look after every individual contact seriously.


 
What an ugly turn of phrase. You have to admire the honesty of it though. The party's relationship to the class is like that of a proto-capitalist to the mineral wealth of Potosi, the population of sub-saharan Africa or the peasantry of pre-industrial Europe. At least they lack the means to write history in letters of blood and fire.


----------



## laptop (Jul 27, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> However, the swp should be more properly described as being in the business of the primitive accumulation of ex cadres


 
Shurely the subject of this thread is its primitive _shedding_ of cadre?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 28, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> It's a quote from Cliff, and Therefore like a holy text.


isn't it originally from trotsky? i'm not sure but didn't cliff say it was from trotsky? i've never actually seen it written by him, but there's lots by him i haven't seen and most of what i have i've forgotten.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jul 29, 2013)

Spiney might wanna go easy on Brucie, but Pat is Dead calls a spade a spade--http://patisdead.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/man-feels-empowered-after-blog-post/


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The second part of _that fomulation is equally problematic. _Big theoretical hitters are the key to establishing the organisational basis of the group that then goes forth and relates to _the leading part of the class_ on the basis of their theoretical grounding received from these big hitters, and they move up the internal chain and become big hitters themselves. This encapsulates one set of reasons why and where the swp have got into such difficulties (on so many levels) rather handily. Key is big hitters (not the involvement with the class directly) and the transmission of the correct positions by those big hitters to new recruits, who are then rewarded internally by their fidelity to and the depth of aggressive defence of the positions those big hitters provided them with (internal focus and stifling internal culture, closed off from any other developments unless they have been _assessed_ for the cadres by the correct authorities). The appalling circularity of leninism laid pretty bare.


Total caricature. One of the best things about Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution for example, that paragon of Leninist history is the number of times the class teaches the party rather than the other way round as happens in stalinist history. Cliff of all modern leninists of note was at pains to emphasise that the relationship is one of dialogue not a one way transmission belt of 'truth' to the class from the leninists. He based his practice in this country on a rejection of that Gerry Healy crap and repeatedly (some would say too often) emphasised the new ideas and experience of young militant workers over tired old party men and women. The working class invented soviets and then Lenin wrote state and revolution , not the other way around. But without state and revolution the second october revolution may never have happened. Similarily it wasn't until Hungarian workers actually started toppling the statues of stalin that people in such huge numbers could break from stalinism in the west. But the fact that a heavyhitter like cliff had written his book on state cap earlier and bothered to gather a group of people who bought the argument made that break stronger and more fruitful.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 29, 2013)

People getting very excited about the latest party notes. Odd how ISN folk were pasting chunks of it on FB hours before actual swp members but I guess that says more about Charlie's To list. Things are approaching some sort of denouement.


----------



## benedict (Jul 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Total caricature. One of the best things about Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution for example, that paragon of Leninist history is the number of times the class teaches the party rather than the other way round as happens in stalinist history. Cliff of all modern leninists of note was at pains to emphasise that the relationship is one of dialogue not a one way transmission belt of 'truth' to the class from the leninists. He based his practice in this country on a rejection of that Gerry Healy crap and repeatedly (some would say too often) emphasised the new ideas and experience of young militant workers over tired old party men and women. The working class invented soviets and then Lenin wrote state and revolution , not the other way around. But without state and revolution the second october revolution may never have happened. Similarily it wasn't until Hungarian workers actually started toppling the statues of stalin that people in such huge numbers could break from stalinism in the west. But the fact that a heavyhitter like cliff had written his book on state cap earlier and bothered to gather a group of people who bought the argument made that break stronger and more fruitful.


 

This is a satisfying narrative, Bolshie. But there are a couple of problems. The first is the conflation of events over a century of history as if they were part of some unbroken thread of Leninist praxis. The second is the massive disjuncture between the theory that has been espoused by Cliff and other the big-hitters and the reality of their approach to the working class. You just seem to take Cliff on his word, without pausing to consider what the SWP actually does and has done historically.


----------



## benedict (Jul 29, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> People getting very excited about the latest party notes. Odd how ISN folk were pasting chunks of it on FB hours before actual swp members but I guess that says more about Charlie's To list. Things are approaching some sort of denouement.


 

What about? That the resignation is for "confidential" reasons?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 30, 2013)

Nothing groundbreaking here on first scan, but anyhow...

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/open-letter-to-swp.html?spref=fb


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 30, 2013)

Posted over a week ago, along with the numerous later entries on Rosens own blog. Do keep up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Total caricature. One of the best things about Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution for example, that paragon of Leninist history is the number of times the class teaches the party rather than the other way round as happens in stalinist history. Cliff of all modern leninists of note was at pains to emphasise that the relationship is one of dialogue not a one way transmission belt of 'truth' to the class from the leninists. He based his practice in this country on a rejection of that Gerry Healy crap and repeatedly (some would say too often) emphasised the new ideas and experience of young militant workers over tired old party men and women. The working class invented soviets and then Lenin wrote state and revolution , not the other way around. But without state and revolution the second october revolution may never have happened. Similarily it wasn't until Hungarian workers actually started toppling the statues of stalin that people in such huge numbers could break from stalinism in the west. But the fact that a heavyhitter like cliff had written his book on state cap earlier and bothered to gather a group of people who bought the argument made that break stronger and more fruitful.


 
As caricatured as the crude question begging _deus ex machina _of the dialectical relationship between 'party and class'? Seriously, Cameron and Blair and every person who is not an open authoritarian has the sense to present their party/group/racket as being open to and based on what the mass of people want. It doesn't make it true either in intention or in empirical fact or functioning. And when you place this next to the comments i was responding to we find that this relationship with the party has with the class is one that takes place through the cadres the theoretical big hitters have attracted to the party and who represent the leading layer of the class - so already we have the assumption here that the leading layers of the class, and the ones who are _in dialogue_ with the party are people who are attracted on the basis of their support for the party - the class is essentially in agreement with with party (or will be made to understand that it is through the partys cadres, attracted as they already are by the partys big hitters) and will be allowed to tell the party stuff. _No escape_ from this leninist circularity. _None shall escape!_







_(The theory now returns with greater coherence. Let our practice now unite with that theory, and in a way that none shall escape)_


----------



## Grandma Death (Jul 30, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Nothing groundbreaking here on first scan, but anyhow...
> 
> http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/open-letter-to-swp.html?spref=fb


 

Sorrry cant be arsed to read all of the thread but who is this individual...can someone PM me please. I contacted an old comrade and they werent prepared to comment. In fact they didnt reply.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2013)

A timely re-reading: 

The full book is here btw



> For many of the groups, the maintenance of “Leninist” forms of organisation are a kind of play acting. It does not help in their activity in the working class, because there usually is none, but its elaborate system of committees does fill their time nicely and affords them an opportunity to abuse one another with names from the rogues gallery of Bolshevik history. P44 More Years of the Locust


 


> Another quite debilitating complaint is the virus that infects people with the Collected Works of Lenin on their bookshelves. This particular malady manifests itself in the patient’s inability to observe any present day situation without bending it into an analogy from the history of Bolshevism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 30, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Sorrry cant be arsed to read all of the thread but who is this individual...can someone PM me please. I contacted an old comrade and they werent prepared to comment. In fact they didnt reply.


 
What individual? Comrade Delta? That is Martin Smith.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jul 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What individual? Comrade Delta? That is Martin Smith.


 


Cheers butchers. He was after my time in the SWP but I've never really liked him when I've seen him interviewed. Gobby twat


----------



## discokermit (Jul 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Total caricature. One of the best things about Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution for example, that paragon of Leninist history is the number of times the class teaches the party rather than the other way round as happens in stalinist history. Cliff of all modern leninists of note was at pains to emphasise that the relationship is one of dialogue not a one way transmission belt of 'truth' to the class from the leninists. He based his practice in this country on a rejection of that Gerry Healy crap and repeatedly (some would say too often) emphasised the new ideas and experience of young militant workers over tired old party men and women. The working class invented soviets and then Lenin wrote state and revolution , not the other way around. But without state and revolution the second october revolution may never have happened. Similarily it wasn't until Hungarian workers actually started toppling the statues of stalin that people in such huge numbers could break from stalinism in the west. But the fact that a heavyhitter like cliff had written his book on state cap earlier and bothered to gather a group of people who bought the argument made that break stronger and more fruitful.


give an example of how the class can teach the party.  what route can information take, from the class to the cc?

if you do this, i will show you the point where the loyalist line followers (teachers, mainly, some privately educated) scream in your face and start excluding you from information and activity, the point where the fulltimer screams in your face, along with the loyalists, the point where your speakers slips are ignored at conference/council and the point where you're out on your arse and people you thought were friends and comrades now won't look you in the eye.

the swp is purely centralist, any democratic fig leaves they have, have been revealed during the recent events for the utter sham that they are. the gap between the words and the deeds in the swp, from sexism, democracy, socialism from below, the trade union bureaucracy, etc. is absolutely massive.


----------



## treelover (Jul 30, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Nothing groundbreaking here on first scan, but anyhow...
> 
> http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/open-letter-to-swp.html?spref=fb


 
used to think Rosen was a bit of a toady, but it seems he only supported SWP, etc on an issue by issue basis

Having said that, did he ever not support a SWP campaign?


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 30, 2013)

treelover said:


> used to think Rosen was a bit of a toady, but it seems he only supported SWP, etc on an issue by issue basis
> 
> Having said that, did he ever not support a SWP campaign?


Rosen was never a toady, the sarcastic abuse he levelled at those complaining about delta back at the start of the year was a figment of everyone's imagination.
  His vocal opposition now has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting himself from being associated by the guardian readers who commission his radio and tv shows with rape denying thugs


----------



## laptop (Jul 30, 2013)

_Guardian_ Diary has another bite:



> ...after all those efforts to save him, it is now appears that Delta, who held many senior positions over many years, has resigned his membership. A questionable finale, perhaps. For in two weeks' time he was scheduled to appear before the disputes committee to face yet more allegations of sexual misconduct. That will probably go ahead, but as an ex-member he won't have to be there and can't be sanctioned...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/29/adieu-comrade-delta-swp-sex-allegations


----------



## dominion (Jul 30, 2013)

For the first time since all this began I sat next to a SWP loyalist at a union meeting today who when a couple of people started "teasing" her about "comrade delta" retorted that it "allegedly happened a couple of years ago why bring it up now". No sign of any concern for the victim in all this. The party must always come first with these people.

In case anyone hasn't seen this the arguments continue:

http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/56820778035/socialists-have-to-stand-firm-against-sexism

The SWP ain't worth shit if you'll excuse my language. I remain appalled.


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 30, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> Spiney might wanna go easy on Brucie, but Pat is Dead calls a spade a spade--http://patisdead.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/man-feels-empowered-after-blog-post/



The best contribution to the whole debate. FACT!


----------



## benedict (Jul 30, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Rosen was never a toady, the sarcastic abuse he levelled at those complaining about delta back at the start of the year was a figment of everyone's imagination.
> His vocal opposition now has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting himself from being associated by the guardian readers who commission his radio and tv shows with rape denying thugs


 
Yes, his sneering style of commentary on Seymour's blog always surprised me. It seemed very much at odds with the Rosen I grew up reading via his children's books and poetry. It's a bit of a hard one for me to fathom, to be honest. Still, on Lenin's Tomb (and I can't mention that without referring to what a stupid name that is...) he presented as quite an unpleasant character.


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 31, 2013)

benedict said:


> Yes, his sneering style of commentary on Seymour's blog always surprised me. It seemed very much at odds with the Rosen I grew up reading via his children's books and poetry. It's a bit of a hard one for me to fathom, to be honest. Still, on Lenin's Tomb (and I can't mention that without referring to what a stupid name that is...) he presented as quite an unpleasant character.


 

Basically he's one of these types who think their undoubted mastery of one field (children's literature) makes them an expert on all other vital questions in life and woe betide any lesser mortal who questions them. I don't know much about writing  books and if I were to have a go at Rosen for his writing and he told me to bog off that'd probably be fair enough.
I'll never forget his staunch defense of the left liberal slanders towards the Lindsey strikers. I got told off for defending the Lindsey strike (despite the fact that I'd been on the picket line and actually met the strikers) on a blog by Rosen by way of a little homely that began "When I was teaching a school of multi-racial children in Hackney..." and went down hill from there.

Politically, the man's a berk, quite frankly.


----------



## redcogs (Jul 31, 2013)

benedict said:


> Yes, his sneering style of commentary on Seymour's blog always surprised me. It seemed very much at odds with the Rosen I grew up reading via his children's books and poetry. It's a bit of a hard one for me to fathom, to be honest. Still, on Lenin's Tomb (and I can't mention that without referring to what a stupid name that is...) he presented as quite an unpleasant character.


 

Michael Rosen's position regarding the swp since the Delta affair exploded seems to have shifted significantly.  His initial reactions (or, more specifically, the ones that i read at the time, mainly on Len's Tomb) pointed to a quite deplorable acceptance of the CC's duplicitous lies.  He also (hypocritically) suggested that only swp member's ought to be passing comment on the unfolding situation.  Worse of all, considering his normal opinionatedness,  he refused to clarify his personal position properly, preferring to remain ambiguously vague on the most serious matter to face the swp in its history.

That said, the shift of view is very welcome, even if a little late?  There will be many 'out there' whose automatic reaction to criticisms of  swp politics and practice will normally have been conditioned by an understanding that skullduggery and sectarian shitmongering have often played a damaging role in the socialist  project.  Perhaps Michael Rosen thought that such factors were influencing matters  when the Delta rape issue became public?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

How would he get to the position of thinkng that?


----------



## redcogs (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How would he get to the position of thinkng that?


 
Is this for me butchersapron?

10 minutes spent at 'Socialist Unity' (for example) answers the point.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Is this for me butchersapron?
> 
> 10 minutes spent at 'Socialist Unity' (for example) answers the point.


 
It was, 10 minutes in the party  or extended time soley with party members was more what i thought. Paranoia as an organising tool extending to the childrens book periphery.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

interesting that his break came after the delta resignation. that was quite a blow to the loyalists, i'm sure. hence the ultra rabid loyalists outbursts we've seen lately.


----------



## benedict (Jul 31, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Basically he's one of these types who think their undoubted mastery of one field (children's literature) makes them an expert on all other vital questions in life and woe betide any lesser mortal who questions them. I don't know much about writing  books and if I were to have a go at Rosen for his writing and he told me to bog off that'd probably be fair enough.
> I'll never forget his staunch defense of the left liberal slanders towards the Lindsey strikers. I got told off for defending the Lindsey strike (despite the fact that I'd been on the picket line and actually met the strikers) on a blog by Rosen by way of a little homely that began "When I was teaching a school of multi-racial children in Hackney..." and went down hill from there.
> 
> Politically, the man's a berk, quite frankly.



I think the SWP's stance on the Lindsey strike was really a marker of the party's degeneration. Plenty of awful episodes in its history of course but that moment really highlighted the mess they were in politically. In retrospect, seems like a marker of things to come.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

benedict said:


> I think the SWP's stance on the Lindsey strike was really a marker of the party's degeneration. Plenty of awful episodes in its history of course but that moment really highlighted the mess they were in politically. In retrospect, seems like a marker of things to come.


 
Ah but hang on, _One of the best things about Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution for example, that paragon of Leninist history is the number of times the class teaches the party rather than the other way round as happens in stalinist history_


----------



## redcogs (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> interesting that his break came after the delta resignation. that was quite a blow to the loyalists, i'm sure. hence the ultra rabid loyalists outbursts we've seen lately.


 

Yes, and it may have cost him a few friendships.

Disagreements within the swp are commonly 'resolved'  by personal distancing and invoking the Coventry treatment.

A bit like the Plymouth Brethren.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Yes, and it may have cost him a few friendships.
> 
> Disagreements within the swp are commonly 'resolved' by personal distancing and invoking the Coventry treatment.
> 
> A bit like the Plymouth Brethren.


 
But without all the fun.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Yes, and it may have cost him a few friendships.


to continue as he was would have cost him more.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

The swp have just put this on youtube (real)


----------



## redcogs (Jul 31, 2013)

Mr Rosen was certainly off my May Day card list for 2014.

But now, i might resume listening to 'Word of Mouth'.


----------



## redcogs (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The swp have just put this on youtube (real)


 

has he lost a little weight?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

All the stress of being a modern day leninist with awful posters.


----------



## redcogs (Jul 31, 2013)

i wonder what's in the bottle?


----------



## benedict (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The swp have just put this on youtube (real)



Woeful stuff from the prof.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i wonder what's in the bottle?


 
Kool aid? Me last?


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 31, 2013)

Molyneux is an awful toady shit


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 31, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i wonder what's in the bottle?


 

if he rubs it three times lenin comes out and grants him no wishes


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The swp have just put this on youtube (real)


 

Check your judge of good graphic design privilege there butchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Check your judge of good graphic design privilege there butchers.


 
They be-deck the walls with historical ones (in lieu of union banners).That was _never_ good design.


----------



## belboid (Jul 31, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Check your judge of good graphic design privilege there butchers.


decent choice of font, but the lack of proper leading is shocking, if rather ironic.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The swp have just put this on youtube (real)


 

"Lomdon"


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

I shall watch this vid later. It might yet contain many mansions.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jul 31, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> if he rubs it three times lenin comes out and grants him no wishes


 
genu-lol


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

One step forward two steps back.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Molyneux is an awful toady shit


willie black makes him look a dick.


----------



## benedict (Jul 31, 2013)

It's like a condensation of all the head-in-hands moments of the average Marxism. The hectoring by party droids, the characteristic speaking style, the gestures, the stock of simplistic parables, the unthinking repetition of easy formulas, the partisan foot-stomping. Even the posters are recycled many years over. A real house of horrors this one. Birchall comes out with some dignity but then you remember what he's defending...


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

benedict said:


> It's like a condensation of all the head-in-hands moments of the average Marxism.


the molyneux trotsky quote was massively embarrassing. even he looked embarrassed as it limped to an irrelevant conclusion.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The swp have just put this on youtube (real)


I'd never noticed how big his ears are before.


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The swp have just put this on youtube (real)


 

I have to say (through gritted teeth! ) I'm impressed the SWP put it up. for them it's a big concession to put public disagreements online.
OK, as I never tire pointing out to Apology Boy, radical change in the SWP's internal culture normally means aligning yourself with standard practice in other left groups but still for the SWP this is a bit of a departure.

That said listening to Callinicos rabbit on I cannot for the life of me understand how he's gotten away with this image of being 'one of Britain's foremost Marxist thinkers' for so long.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ah but hang on, _One of the best things about Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution for example, that paragon of Leninist history is the number of times the class teaches the party rather than the other way round as happens in stalinist history_


yeah books are shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> yeah books are shit.


 
Some are.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> I have to say (through gritted teeth! ) I'm impressed the SWP put it up. for them it's a big concession to put public disagreements online.
> OK, as I never tire pointing out to Apology Boy, radical change in the SWP's internal culture normally means aligning yourself with standard practice in other left groups but still for the SWP this is a bit of a departure.
> 
> That said listening to Callinicos rabbit on I cannot for the life of me understand how he's gotten away with this image of being 'one of Britain's foremost Marxist thinkers' for so long.


He looked tired and distracted (forgetting names). But then I don't think he ever imagined he'd be the one having to lead this charge, he's not really built for it. That said I thought he spoke cogently about the twin dangers of sectish vs adaptive behaviour and that the antis from the floor sounded far too wishy washy in reply. They reminded me of the same people who'd drift into branches in the old days, add a bit of colour and then throw a hissy fit about how stale and centrally controlled things were, then flounce off. There's something far too dilettantish about the folk behind uncles Ian and Pat.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2013)

Audio of the other meetings all up now: http://swpradiocast.bandcamp.com/album/marxism-2013-part-1-of-4

Who says the swp hasn't embraced the interweb? To think how long we used to have to wait for the tape recordings in the bad old days and I have never forgiven the guy who forgot to turn on the recorder for my one and only meeting at Marxism :-(

Steely bolshevik efficiency these days!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He looked tired and distracted (forgetting names). But then I don't think he ever imagined he'd be the one having to lead this charge, he's not really built for it. That said I thought he spoke cogently about the twin dangers of sectish vs adaptive behaviour and that the antis from the floor sounded far too wishy washy in reply. They reminded me of the same people who'd drift into branches in the old days, add a bit of colour and then throw a hissy fit about how stale and centrally controlled things were, then flounce off. There's something far too dilettantish about the folk behind uncles Ian and Pat.


 
You haven't been in a branch for two decades. Yet you know the fatal fault of the people they attract by the big hitters (round and round ye go)


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You haven't been in a branch for two decades. Yet you know the fatal fault of the people they attract by the big hitters (round and round ye go)


There is a certain type yes, the dilettante just as there is the other type, the infamous 'hack'. Think the silent majority in the party always hated both but knew one was at least useful.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There is a certain type yes, the dilettante just as there is the other type, the infamous 'hack'. Think the silent majority in the party always hated both but knew one was at least useful.


the dilettante causes far less damage.


----------



## benedict (Jul 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He looked tired and distracted (forgetting names). But then I don't think he ever imagined he'd be the one having to lead this charge, he's not really built for it. That said I thought he spoke cogently about the twin dangers of sectish vs adaptive behaviour and that the antis from the floor sounded far too wishy washy in reply. They reminded me of the same people who'd drift into branches in the old days, add a bit of colour and then throw a hissy fit about how stale and centrally controlled things were, then flounce off. There's something far too dilettantish about the folk behind uncles Ian and Pat.



This is lovely. Wonderfully encapsulates a party culture where rigidity and conformism are the key values. Heads down, into the bitter wind, steely grimace, clutch-full of SW's under-arm, holding the line, the biggest revolutionary organization in Britain. Sounds perfectly awful. Why do you think these dilettantes flounced so soon Bolshie?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

benedict said:


> This is lovely. Wonderfully encapsulates a party culture where rigidity and conformism are the key values. Heads down, into the bitter wind, steely grimace, clutch-full of SW's under-arm, holding the line, the biggest revolutionary organization in Britain. Sounds perfectly awful. Why do you think these dilettantes flounced so soon Bolshie?


why did he himself flounce?


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 31, 2013)

Man alive that Irish guy was boring.

"We need, like, a revolutionary uhhhh party, because, you know fascism and ahhhh the unemployed."
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 31, 2013)

benedict said:


> This is lovely. Wonderfully encapsulates a party culture where rigidity and conformism are the key values. Heads down, into the bitter wind, steely grimace, clutch-full of SW's under-arm, holding the line, the biggest revolutionary organization in Britain. Sounds perfectly awful. Why do you think these dilettantes flounced so soon Bolshie?


 

Must be an awful lot of "dilletantes" then.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> View attachment 38214
> 
> Man alive that Irish guy was boring.
> 
> ...


i think that's a bit out of order.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2013)

benedict said:


> This is lovely. Wonderfully encapsulates a party culture where rigidity and conformism are the key values. Heads down, into the bitter wind, steely grimace, clutch-full of SW's under-arm, holding the line, the biggest revolutionary organization in Britain. Sounds perfectly awful. Why do you think these dilettantes flounced so soon Bolshie?


Yes yes the party is a cult etc. The thing is many of those who flounced did so only so far as variuos real cults, the alphabet zoo of sects. I really, really don't recognise this picture of the swp or it's sister parties as conformist. The most common phrase between comrades was 'yes but'. People had a basic core of shared politics but debated constantly as to their application/development. There's a quote from Nigel Harris in Birchall's Cliff about leaving the party because it stopped having new ideas in the 80's. Did it or did people like Harris not just find the massive pressure to abandon the shared core of IS ideas increasingly harder to resist? If anything that pressure is probably even greater today.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

Listen to yourself. The question begging -_ did they fail the IS? _One by one, group by group, leading member by leading member. They all failed the IS.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> why did he himself flounce?


More of a tired shrug than a flounce.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i think that's a bit out of order.


It is. Guy had some balls even to get up there in that athmosphere.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Listen to yourself. The question begging -_ did they fail the IS? _One by one, group by group, leading member by leading member.


soon it'll just be bolshie, a couple of aristocrats, a clown and a biter, with a sex case lurking about in the background. the swp and it's periphery. the true defenders of lenin.


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i think that's a bit out of order.


 

How so? He's awful. He didn't make one political point in his entire contribution.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the molyneux trotsky quote was massively embarrassing. even he looked embarrassed as it limped to an irrelevant conclusion.


 

"It's a point to ... think about in this situation."

His basic thesis is that it is the 'movementists' in the tendency that are against the way the rape accusation was handled. But in Ireland its the most pro-building the SWP as opposed to campaigns and 'united fronts' that are against him.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> How so? He's awful. He didn't make one political point in his entire contribution.


so? he was obviously new to speaking like that, he looked like he was cacking himself. marxism meetings always have people inexperienced at public speaking making contributions. i don't think it's fair to judge these people the same as you would a more experienced comrade.
to be a good speaker takes practise.

and like bolshie says, he was in the middle of a minefield there that i don't think he was expecting when he put a speakers slip in.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> "It's a point to ... think about in this situation."
> 
> His basic thesis is that it is the 'movementists' in the tendency that are against the way the rape accusation was handled. But in Ireland its the most pro-building the SWP as opposed to campaigns and 'united fronts' that are against him.


I'm sure he'd say he was dialectically avoiding the twin evils of being a sect/adapting in two very different national  situations. Mind you I haven't the slightest idea whether he's right about the Irish situation.


----------



## benedict (Jul 31, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yes yes the party is a cult etc. The thing is many of those who flounced did so only so far as variuos real cults, the alphabet zoo of sects. I really, really don't recognise this picture of the swp or it's sister parties as conformist. The most common phrase between comrades was 'yes but'. People had a basic core of shared politics but debated constantly as to their application/development. There's a quote from Nigel Harris in Birchall's Cliff about leaving the party because it stopped having new ideas in the 80's. Did it or did people like Harris not just find the massive pressure to abandon the shared core of IS ideas increasingly harder to resist? If anything that pressure is probably even greater today.



Never have claimed the party is a cult, Bolshie. Clearly it's not. I was drawing on your portrayal of those who "added colour" over the years. And drawing on my own experiences. Take a look again at the video posted above and tell us there's not a strain of aggressive conformism among the loyalists that usually masquerades as hard-nosed political gristle.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

leyton96 my first contribution in a big meeting was at skegness. my one leg shook so much i must have looked like a bad elvis impersonator.

we all have to learn.


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> leyton96 my first contribution in a big meeting was at skegness. my one leg shook so much i must have looked like a bad elvis impersonator.
> 
> we all have to learn.


 

Hey, my first contribution was rubbish as well, it was well worse than that fella. I don't mind people having a crap delivery so long as they've got something to say. He had nothing to say.

I accept I was out of order to take the piss of the umming and ahming mind, although I think if you've essentially got nothing to say that habit will be aggravated.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Hey, my first contribution was rubbish as well, it was well worse than that fella. I don't mind people having a crap delivery so long as they've got something to say. He had nothing to say.
> 
> I accept I was out of order to take the piss of the umming and ahming mind, although I think if you've essentially got nothing to say that habit will be aggravated.


i bet he'd composed an amazing and heartfelt speech in his head, one that would unite the party, rouse the whole organisation and lead the class to victory, carrying him aloft and cheering.
then it all flew out of his head the moment he got up.
i also bet that afterwards all he could think was "shit".


----------



## leyton96 (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i bet he'd composed an amazing and heartfelt speech in his head, one that would unite the party, rouse the whole organisation and lead the class to victory, carrying him aloft and cheering.
> then it all flew out of his head the moment he got up.
> i also bet that afterwards all he could think was "shit".


 

All right you win, that does sound oddly familiar!


----------



## redcogs (Jul 31, 2013)

Listened to most of the youtube thing - including all of the Profs, a person i find to be thoroughly decent in many respects.

But.

The Party lose the bulk of the student contingent because they couldn't stomach the CC's manipulative lying to the membership in order to avoid properly dealing with a rape allegation against one of their number - and Callinicos claims that the real failure, and the reason so many have voted with their feet, was that students and younger people had not been sufficiently well integrated and educated in the swp tradition and structures..?

Sorry Alex, but generalised and vague 'i accept my share of responsibility' apologies of the type you made here don't seem to match the damage done by the many years of bullying and stalinised centralism that has allowed/created the current situation.

i reckon you need to come up with a better formula than blaming others.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2013)

God, what if the students had  been sufficiently well integrated and educated in the swp tradition and structures?


----------



## andysays (Jul 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> God, what if the students had been sufficiently well integrated and educated in the swp tradition and structures?


 
Then they'd have realised that the right way to react to accusations of sexual assault by a leading member is to close ranks and sell more fucking papers. Problem solved, obviously...


----------



## mk12 (Aug 5, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Listened to most of the youtube thing - including all of the Profs, a person i find to be thoroughly decent in many respects.
> 
> But.
> 
> ...


 
There is rarely an attempt to integrate and educate the students and younger people though. I heard one delegate at the annual conference praise the parliamentary road to socialism, without a murmur of dissent. Read the main works by Lenin, Trotsky and Marx, or at least SWP interpretations of those works; that's the limit. As long as young members sell papers, shout on megaphones and help organise A-B marches, why do they need to be educated?


----------



## benedict (Aug 5, 2013)

mk12 said:


> There is rarely an attempt to integrate and educate the students and younger people though. I heard one delegate at the annual conference praise the parliamentary road to socialism, without a murmur of dissent. Read the main works by Lenin, Trotsky and Marx, or at least SWP interpretations of those works; that's the limit. As long as young members sell papers, shout on megaphones and help organise A-B marches, why do they need to be educated?


 

Don't think actually reading the main works of those thinkers is even a necessity, at least it hasn't been for a long time. 

On the students, here's a revealing intervention from the prof on the "cult of youth", the necessity of "absolute brutality" in cutting young people down to size, and "eclecticism". Similar themes elaborated by Talat A, speaking just before him (including a great line about "the blogs").


----------



## benedict (Aug 5, 2013)

Some interesting documents from the 1970s IS opposition published by the ISN here. The writer draws the obvious parallels with the contemporary situation but there's two ways of reading this:

(1) despite the tradition being fundamentally _correct_, there was a departure from the "real tradition" with "the turn to Lenin" and since then there have been _40 years_ with essentially the same structural and political problems, though these are not easy to spot since ISN members failed to notice these for, in many cases, years of membership, and would most often be contemptuously dismissive of outsiders who did point them out (Seymour being the clearest and most sneering example of this);

(2) essentially the same problems have been a part of "the tradition" for its lifetime and, given the noticeable parallels with other leftist sects, this might be indicative of more fundamental flaws.

If the ISN stick at (1) they're going to get nowhere; if they move to (2) they'll disintegrate.


----------



## leyton96 (Aug 5, 2013)

mk12 said:


> There is rarely an attempt to integrate and educate the students and younger people though. *I heard one delegate at the annual conference praise the parliamentary road to socialism, without a murmur of dissent.* Read the main works by Lenin, Trotsky and Marx, or at least SWP interpretations of those works; that's the limit. As long as young members sell papers, shout on megaphones and help organise A-B marches, why do they need to be educated?


 

Ha! That's a laugh given they always use a truncated quote from Peter Taaffe's 'Enabling Bill' reply to an interview question as proof of the SP's hopeless reformism!

There is no such thing as the IS Tradition, there is only whatever happens to be expedient at the time.
Here's a prediction, if intersectionality is still in vogue in the universities in 5 years time you won't find more louder proponents of it than the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

Given that is  it's just the identity politics they recruited on for 20+ years whilst _leaving the real politics to the real people at the top, _this is what's killed them, but you'll hear soon  _as the longest standing proponets of IS, pushing it withining the movements and punching above our weight_


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 5, 2013)

benedict said:


> On the students, here's a revealing intervention from the prof on the "cult of youth", the necessity of "absolute brutality" in cutting young people down to size, and "eclecticism". Similar themes elaborated by Talat A, speaking just before him (including a great line about "the blogs").


Not forgetting the prof's wonderful admonition to Birchall to go back and read his own book and stop talking nonsense about the history of the party. AC wouldn't have to denounce the cult of the youth if uncles Pat and Ian weren't busy building it up so apolitically.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

And the party circle is complete once more. If you weren't challenging the party on it being correct you might be right, but you _are _challenging the party on it being correct, so you're wrong.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 5, 2013)

butchers your little aphorisms are very cleverly worded but they mean you don't have to actually use any facts to back up your argument. The fact is Molyneux was quite right in his summing up to remind Colin Barker who was also lauding the IS for taking students seriously in the 60's when the Militant and Gery Healey didn't that there was another group that did recruit students. The IMG. And the difference was that the IMG wanted to build Red Bases in the unis while the IS won the best students vy arguig that students had to take their politics to the factory gate. The IMG was much less abrasive than the IS, much more 'open' to the ideas of the rest of the movement. In fact much more like the ISN and Counterfire and the rest. And people in the swp who ought to know better are ignoring those facts.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

Only the party, the party and it's battles. Only your battles and no others.


----------



## benedict (Aug 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> butchers your little aphorisms are very cleverly worded but they mean you don't have to actually use any facts to back up your argument. The fact is Molyneux was quite right in his summing up to remind Colin Barker who was also lauding the IS for taking students seriously in the 60's when the Militant and Gery Healey didn't that there was another group that did recruit students. The IMG. And the difference was that the IMG wanted to build Red Bases in the unis while the IS won the best students vy arguig that students had to take their politics to the factory gate. The IMG was much less abrasive than the IS, much more 'open' to the ideas of the rest of the movement. In fact much more like the ISN and Counterfire and the rest. And people in the swp who ought to know better are ignoring those facts.


 

Thing is, bolshie, you talk as if the party hasn't been based for at least the last couple decades on a perpetual cycle of student recruitment and disillusioned burn-out and departure. Combined with the parasitism and opportunism towards "the movement" at large, the total lack of political education (the one point they seem willing to concede) beyond the thin gruel of the SWP canon, and the opportunist embrace of identity politics, it's a toxic brew.

Yet for the loyalists, it's as if this hasn't been the _modus operandi_ of the party for years; they've remained the staunch class fighters while all around them have been losing their heads with "new ideas". The Counterfire crew wanted to take them down that road, the ISN splitters have fallen into the same eclectic bear-trap, the internal opposition is mollycoddling the youth, the steadfast remain on the straight path. In reality, they've all been treading the same stagnant waters for years.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Aug 5, 2013)

The problem is all this stuff is being wheeled out not to come to or express a better way of organising for socialism but merely to defend the indefensible and to shore up an utterly bankrupt ruling clique. Makes me really sad as I always found Talat to be one of the more personable and approachable of the cadres I came across.

Giving as good as you get to Maoists in the 60s is one thing, ascribing students being unable to stomach MS's reintegration on a lack of "hard arguments" is rather different!


----------



## discokermit (Aug 5, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Giving as good as you get to Maoists in the 60s is one thing, ascribing students being unable to stomach MS's reintegration on a lack of "hard arguments" is rather different!


and sickening.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Aug 5, 2013)

benedict said:
			
		

> Some interesting documents from the 1970s IS opposition published by the ISN here. The writer draws the obvious parallels with the contemporary situation but there's two ways of reading this:
> ....


 
This is well observed too I think benedict. The ISN is an inevitably broad coalition with a wing looking for an SWP minus the loopy excesses, and an opposite wing who are willing to give all sorts a fair hearing within a broadly Marxist framework. Coming out of the SWP where the opportunities to meaningfully analyse theories and strategies were minimal it's bound to be a fairly unstable structure. It's not so easy to shed the defensive reflexes finely honed over the years -- nor conversely to control the giddy heights of newfound liberties...


----------



## Nigel (Aug 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The swp have just put this on youtube (real)


 
Have you seen Dave Renton's response to this:
David Renton shared a link.
about an hour ago
https://www.facebook.com/davidkrenton?fref=ts
For people who weren't at Marxism it's worth watching this clip at around 1 hr 17 to 1 hr 22. You'll see the ***** ******* *********  in "full on" apologist mode

Like the very worst of the public school debaters that the CC bangs on about, he lies about and smears the people he disagrees with (Robert Owen, Ian Birchall...) in order to make their arguments appear laughable

Look carefully and you will see him smiling at his own, vindictive, jokes

He talks about his friendship with Julie Waterson, when he was part of the SWP leadership which sacked her and then spread lies about her to justify her dismissal

What all of us have learned in the last year is that the socialism we would make after the revolution is the socialism we live in the here and now. We can't pre-empt the ideal society, but we sure as hell can betray it. All of us know that there are comrades who encourage and inspire, who by their presence make other people feel strong. Julie was one, Paul Foot was another. And then there are people, yes, even in socialist parties, as so often everywhere else in life, whose only function in life is to make others feel weak. 

I would defy any living, breathing revolutionary to listen to this honestly and say - yes, I want to be in a party with him!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

Fair play to Renton if it's kosher. Can anyone else say that it is?


----------



## SLK (Aug 5, 2013)

He's on here, you know (has linked to here before and discussed posts here). The above comment is not on his fb now.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

SLK said:


> He's on here, you know (has linked to here before) and discussed posts here. The above comment is not on his fb now.


 
I don't care. You shouldn't be.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 5, 2013)

I got that post on Facebook yesterday from him, but like SLK said its not up today.
Maybe he's retracted it.
Don't know!


----------



## JHE (Aug 5, 2013)

Nigel said:


> I got that post on Facebook yesterday from him, but like SLK said its not up today.
> Maybe he's retracted it.
> Don't know!


 

Renton is a barrister.  Perhaps he thought, or one of his learned friends mentioned, that his comments on Prof C may be defamatory.  Trots aren't above suing and, even if Prof C doesn't sue, a barrister might think it impolitic to publish, or be thought to publish, libels.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

JHE said:


> Renton is a barrister. Perhaps he thought, or one of his learned friends mentioned, that his comments on Prof C may be defamatory. Trots aren't above suing and, even if Prof C doesn't sue, a barrister might think it impolitic to publish, or be thought to publish, libels.


 
He isn't a barrister, where do you get this shit from?


----------



## JHE (Aug 5, 2013)

Eton, Oxford and Gray's Inn - he makes that Laurie Penny look positively plebeian.

http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/david_renton.cfm


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2013)

http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/index.html


----------



## JHE (Aug 5, 2013)

Yes, it's the same person. If for some odd reason you disbelieve me, check out the promotion of his Pluto Press book on employment tribunals which you will find on both those pages.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 5, 2013)

JHE said:


> Eton, Oxford and Gray's Inn - he's makes that Laurie Penny look positively plebeian.
> 
> http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barristers/david_renton.cfm


 
He wanted me to give you this as reply
http://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/learning-to-live-with-your-inner-posh-person/


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He isn't a barrister, where do you get this shit from?


 
He is a barrister. How do i become one? How do i change career path?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

JHE said:


> Yes, it's the same person. If for some odd reason you disbelieve me, check out the promotion of his Pluto Press book on employment tribunals which you will find on both those pages.


 
He was  hanging around on the iww invite only thread at the end of the 90s. This is the fight now.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Fair play to Renton if it's kosher. Can anyone else say that it is?


 
Yep Kosher, just a bit that he wanted edited.


----------



## JHE (Aug 5, 2013)

Nigel said:


> Yep Kosher, just a bit that he wanted edited.


 

Just the phrase "black-shirted professor"?  He's OK with the rest?



butchersapron said:


> He is a barrister. How do i become one? How do i change career path?


 

You study law, instead of spending your life barking at people on Urban75?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

JHE said:


> Just the phrase "black-shirted professor"? He's OK with the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Can't i do both. Certain people can. _Oh i was almost caught_


----------



## Nigel (Aug 5, 2013)

To JHE yep.
I think he'd prefer it if that description wasn't bound around so much!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

JHE said:


> Just the phrase "black-shirted professor"? He's OK with the rest?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You get eton then what that entails, then you decide that you want to change career.


----------



## cesare (Aug 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He is a barrister. How do i become one? How do i change career path?


It's getting the pupillage that's the problem/that you need connections for, I believe. I once worked with someone that managed to do it in their spare time


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 5, 2013)

I like renton, he has been personally helpful to me, but i'm just lost here - maybe thee was no strong movement to force him (what what that other lad whose still going jim nichol is it?)


----------



## past caring (Aug 5, 2013)

> All of us know that there are comrades who encourage and inspire, who by their presence make other people feel strong. Julie [Waterson] was one.......


 
This is the fucking alternative?


----------



## barney_pig (Aug 5, 2013)

Have we ever got to the bottom of Charlie Kimber?


----------



## JHE (Aug 5, 2013)

Oooh err, missus


----------



## discokermit (Aug 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I like renton, he has been personally helpful to me, but i'm just lost here - maybe thee was no strong movement to force him (what what that other lad whose still going jim nichol is it?)


what you lost about?


----------



## redcogs (Aug 6, 2013)

Renton's remarks reinforce what many must know to be true.  i'm not sure exactly when the process of delivering the swp's political structures into the hands of the intimidators began, but my experience suggests it was some considerable time ago (i became an ex member in the early 1990s).

i remember thinking that some of those who dominated the machine would actually be quite dangerous people if they ever came to wield any authority in a not fully developed (and possibly struggling) workers state.

No doubt decent and humane individuals remain among the cadre,   but , judging from the way this Delta issue has been handled, their 'clout' counts for little.

The cyborgs remain entrenched, and sadly, (to paraphrase a line from The Terminator), 'they absolutely will not stop - ever'.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2013)

discokermit said:


> what you lost about?


 
How people from his background can just change career. Jobs not careers.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 6, 2013)

past caring said:


> This is the fucking alternative?


 
By all accounts she was a likeable person!


----------



## discokermit (Aug 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How people from his background can just change career. Jobs not careers.


nichol's background is completely different. from durham, worked as a junior clerk at a pit, joined i.s., went to uni, studied law, became a solicitor (i think). renton i don't know much about.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2013)

discokermit said:


> nichol's background is completely different. from durham, worked as a junior clerk at a pit, joined i.s., went to uni, studied law, became a solicitor (i think). renton i don't know much about.


 
I mean nichols being forced to be a movement lawyer once he had started being a lawyer rather than his background - i'd be the last person to slag off JN, (or DR) if they're helping.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I mean nichols being forced to be a movement lawyer once he had started being a lawyer rather than his background - i'd be the last person to slag off JM, (or DR) if they're helping.


don't think it was forced. it's probably the reason he did it in the first place. anyway, he's made a good living from it and things like the shrewsbury three/guildford four raised his profile significantly.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2013)

That said his political role within the party, you here cogg?


----------



## cesare (Aug 6, 2013)

Garden Court Chambers (where DR is) do a lot of legal aid and pro bono work. Birmingham Six


----------



## past caring (Aug 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That said his political role within the party, you here cogg?


 
Backroom. But a lot more influential than many would have thought/expected.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Aug 6, 2013)

yes, I think this long case was pretty much all unpaid: http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/news_detail.cfm?iNewsID=857 -- it'd be a more barbaric place still without such people! 

As for becoming a barrister, past a certain level of economic and cultural capital it's a fairly simple process I should imagine. It is intriguing that DR carries on the fight from within, he must've provoked all manner of fury behind the CC's closed doors.


----------



## ayatollah (Aug 6, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Renton's remarks reinforce what many must know to be true. i'm not sure exactly when the process of delivering the swp's political structures into the hands of the intimidators began, but my experience suggests it was some considerable time ago (i became an ex member in the early 1990s).
> 
> i remember thinking that some of those who dominated the machine would actually be quite dangerous people if they ever came to wield any authority in a not fully developed (and possibly struggling) workers state.
> 
> ...


 
The proto commissars were well entrenched in the party machine from the earliest days I'm afraid to say, redcogs . We had a full time organiser in Manchester in the early 1970's (IS days - the supposed "libertarian" phase) , Pete Robinson, who was a complete hippyish, cowardly, incompetent - but because he was one of Cliff's circle of uncritical party line grovellers, we just couldn't get rid of the bugger ! Despite his overwhelming uselessness and supreme laziness , the IS sent him as the key liaison man to work with the PRP/BR Party in Portugal for a year during the 1974 revolutionary period ! Even in the halcyon early 70's days of IS, so many of the IS/SWP fulltimers were such arrogant unpleasant people at a personal level - far too many not being hairy arsed workers but arrogant ex public schoolboys , bringing with them so much of their inbred class personality and attitudinal "baggage" .

I knew then fulltimer Simon Turner enough to be on gossiping terms in the late 1970's. Simon was an OK bloke , had been a big NUS player. I remember him, in a boozy moment, lamenting the extraordinarily aggressive, macho, culture at IS headquarters at Cottons Gardens, The culture required , he sadly said, that every fulltimer never showed any doubt about anything, never gave an inch ----- concede you might have no strong opinion on any particular issue and you would be seen as a weak petty bourgeois. A bit like those dreadful "corporate cultures" in Big Business - where no matter how basically trivial the product, every employee is expected to be a fanatically loyal zombie - eg the corporate mantra constantly mouthed by senior execs in the Disney corporation ... "ANYTHING FOR THE MOUSE !"

Mind you in hindsight one does wonder how many were also employed by the Special Demonstration Squad, given what we now know of the extraordinary levels of infiltration the state has employed in the most innocuous groups over the years - eg, a long term police infiltrator in the "Radical Clowns" group FFS ! It's possible that lots of the IS/SWP core people were long term state agents all along. (after all how many "normal" people can afford to work for next to nothing as a party fulltimer for years - without either a toff's private income, or a very committed working partner, or a full time salary from the state ?) Just look at Roger Rosewell's career - Industrial Organiser, on the CC for decades - and definitely an agent all along ! There was always that joke that by the 1970's the US Communist Party Central Committee was ENTIRELY composed of agents from the various agencies - but all unknown to each other !

I always remember the report back from the comrades expelled for "Squadism" in late 1981/ early 82, who had perhaps foolishly decided to bother to
appeal their case to the Control Commission. On requesting the right to speak in their defence the, even then, crazed stalinoid apparatchnik, Lindsey German, apparently screamed " You have no right to speak at this meeting ... we wouldn't give the National Front the right to speak ! " Errr Right... Lovely stuff - so motivating for guys who had spent years risking everything to defend these shitemeisters from the NF . Imagine if these scum had had some real power !


----------



## discokermit (Aug 6, 2013)

this is quite interesting, http://libcom.org/blog/edges-trotskyism-some-ones-who-left-swp-12072013


----------



## oskarsdrum (Aug 6, 2013)

was just about to post that up discokermit! interesting indeed. good recognition of Seymour's strengths there and some other stuff. though I would've liked to read some criticisms of ISN that go beyond "they're still a bit Trotskyist".


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 6, 2013)

benedict said:


> Thing is, bolshie, you talk as if the party hasn't been based for at least the last couple decades on a perpetual cycle of student recruitment and disillusioned burn-out and departure. Combined with the parasitism and opportunism towards "the movement" at large, the total lack of political education (the one point they seem willing to concede) beyond the thin gruel of the SWP canon, and the opportunist embrace of identity politics, it's a toxic brew.
> 
> Yet for the loyalists, it's as if this hasn't been the _modus operandi_ of the party for years; they've remained the staunch class fighters while all around them have been losing their heads with "new ideas". The Counterfire crew wanted to take them down that road, the ISN splitters have fallen into the same eclectic bear-trap, the internal opposition is mollycoddling the youth, the steadfast remain on the straight path. In reality, they've all been treading the same stagnant waters for years.


 

excellent post. the 'loyalists' can't indefinitely shield themselves from criticism via semi-relevant criticisms of other fractions. not only have they been swimming in the same water, they've been opportunistically rearing and festering the same shit they eventually come to reject. so many of those most deviant from any recognisable class politics in these splinters have splintered from the top, where they'd previously enjoyed protected and even internally influential positions... Clare Solomon, Tom Walker, etc etc...

ETA

tangentially i found it pretty funny that when Tom Walker publically resigned, he noted that when he'd actually delved into the archived SWP theory on feminism in the 80s he'd been surprised at how critical it was, hastening his exit. how he can have been on the paper without ever having actually read party theory was pretty revealing - as was his intuitive revulsion against possibly one of the few defensible theoretical evolutions to turn from the organisation throughout the period


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 6, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> though I would've liked to read some criticisms of ISN that go beyond "they're still a bit Trotskyist".


 
You won't get that from Anarchists. Or to be a little more fair, there are very few, rather than no, Anarchists capable of producing something useful about a group like the ISN that won't essentially reiterate eternal Anarchist verities about the original sin of Leninism.

It would be like expecting a group of the Workers Power variety to produce a critique of the Friends of Durutti that went beyond simply awarding gold stars for every step towards Trotskyism and demerits for every Anarchist shibboleth maintained.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 6, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> tangentially i found it pretty funny that when Tom Walker publically resigned, he noted that when he'd actually delved into the archived SWP theory on feminism in the 80s he'd been surprised at how critical it was, hastening his exit. how he can have been on the paper without ever having actually read party theory was pretty revealing - as was his intuitive revulsion against possibly one of the few defensible theoretical evolutions to turn from the organisation throughout the period


 
Do you really think it's that odd that a party journalist hadn't read 30 year old internal debates?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Do you really think it's that odd that a party journalist hadn't read 30 year old internal debates?


 
it's not surprising - but for an organisation which bases as much of its internal kudos (as it does) on adherence to a canon of theoretical history it's pretty damning.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 6, 2013)

all of these people used to quote from Tony Cliff books and other internal party literature as the legitimising source for practically every argument... he never even read his own theory and it was his full time job


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 6, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> all of these people used to quote from Tony Cliff books and other internal party literature as the legitimising source for practically every argument... he never even read his own theory and it was his full time job


 
He wasn't tasked with developing or even defending theory, but with producing popular journalism. That requires a different, lower, level of familiarity with the sacred texts.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 6, 2013)

i think it's shameful to play such a prominent role in an organisation and never bother to work out what it is you're defending. i think it reflects badly on him personally that he didn't do so, and also on the opportunism of the organisation in general that despite revering its theoretical legacy so deeply it was happy to recruit the theoretically clueless to full time paid positions


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> tangentially i found it pretty funny that when Tom Walker publically resigned, he noted that when he'd actually delved into the archived SWP theory on feminism in the 80s he'd been surprised at how critical it was, hastening his exit. how he can have been on the paper without ever having actually read party theory was pretty revealing - as was his intuitive revulsion against possibly one of the few defensible theoretical evolutions to turn from the organisation throughout the period


 
Do you need the how explained? This tangential point contains the thing entire. 53--56-->68-->77--et cetera


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 6, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i think it reflects badly on him personally that he didn't do so, and also on the opportunism of the organisation in general that despite revering its theoretical legacy so deeply it was happy to recruit the theoretically clueless to full time paid positions


 
In my experience, the SWP has always recruited junior staff on the basis primarily of enthusiasm, not political understanding. Walker strikes me as having more of a grasp of the SWP's politics than most young fulltimers I've encountered. Which isn't saying much.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In my experience, the SWP has always recruited junior staff on the basis primarily of enthusiasm, not political understanding.


and loyalty. it promotes them on the same basis.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 6, 2013)

if not loyalty, then political malleability. i was suggested as regional organiser for the NW at one point by several folks from the region but was personally turned down by Delta as "i wasn't trusted" (despite voluntarily working on average about a 15 hour week for the party in this period, whilst working part time and taking A-levels). Michael Lavalette actually described the role at the time as 'working for me' - as the areas' local chieftan.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 6, 2013)

Nigel said:


> I got that post on Facebook yesterday from him, but like SLK said its not up today.
> Maybe he's retracted it.
> Don't know!


Not sure I understand how people think they're helping oppositionists in the swp by sharing fb comments on here that might have been ill judged. All you're doing is making their job harder (and possibly lining them up for a metaphorical kicking) by proving the case of the loyalists that everything negative said on blogs and fb will be used to hurt the organisation.


----------



## killer b (Aug 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> proving the case of the loyalists that everything negative said on blogs and fb will be used to hurt the organisation.


 
this is the one this they have right. don't have a problem with it myself.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not sure I understand how people think they're helping oppositionists in the swp by sharing fb comments on here that might have been ill judged. All you're doing is making their job harder (and possibly lining them up for a metaphorical kicking) by proving the case of the loyalists that everything negative said on blogs and fb will be used to hurt the organisation.


bolshie, friend of the opposition.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 6, 2013)

benedict said:


> Thing is, bolshie, you talk as if the party hasn't been based for at least the last couple decades on a perpetual cycle of student recruitment and disillusioned burn-out and departure. Combined with the parasitism and opportunism towards "the movement" at large, the total lack of political education (the one point they seem willing to concede) beyond the thin gruel of the SWP canon, and the opportunist embrace of identity politics, it's a toxic brew.
> 
> Yet for the loyalists, it's as if this hasn't been the _modus operandi_ of the party for years; they've remained the staunch class fighters while all around them have been losing their heads with "new ideas". The Counterfire crew wanted to take them down that road, the ISN splitters have fallen into the same eclectic bear-trap, the internal opposition is mollycoddling the youth, the steadfast remain on the straight path. In reality, they've all been treading the same stagnant waters for years.


They ducked the argument with the new recruits, particularily students. That much seems agreed on all sides and Tom Walker's naivety just seems to confirm it. They allowed a parallel and competing set of ideas to co-exist for far too long. Why did they do that? No idea. Maybe it was an over reaction to earlier decades of inward looking 'purity' during the downturn and beyond. Maybe it was a temptation to get rich quick. Dunno. But it was a mistake and now it's being corrected in a very painful way. But their mistake was to agree to disagree, to not openly argue for their own ideas enough. What they didn't do was actually adopt the ideas of the wider movement as their own which is what Counterfire did.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 6, 2013)

discokermit said:


> bolshie, friend of the opposition.


Some of them yes, this particular one definitely.

I think they're barking up the wrong tree ideologically and I hope they lose their fight to 'renew' the organisation. That doesn't mean on a personal level I want to see them (especially the sane ones) backed into a corner or set up by people who think they're helping them but aren't.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Not sure I understand how people think they're helping oppositionists in the swp by sharing fb comments on here that might have been ill judged. All you're doing is making their job harder (and possibly lining them up for a metaphorical kicking) by proving the case of the loyalists that everything negative said on blogs and fb will be used to hurt the organisation.


 
He seemed to be alright about it.
Offered to take it off here when he took it off Facebook, was my initiative to blank out said description.
Even thanked me & presupposed comments such as those made by JHE giving me post to reply!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 6, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They ducked the argument with the new recruits, particularily students. That much seems agreed on all sides and Tom Walker's naivety just seems to confirm it. They allowed a parallel and competing set of ideas to co-exist for far too long. Why did they do that? No idea. Maybe it was an over reaction to earlier decades of inward looking 'purity' during the downturn and beyond. Maybe it was a temptation to get rich quick. Dunno. But it was a mistake and now it's being corrected in a very painful way. But their mistake was to agree to disagree, to not openly argue for their own ideas enough. What they didn't do was actually adopt the ideas of the wider movement as their own which is what Counterfire did.


 

they didn't have any ideas, that's the issue. they didn't give a shit about achieving anything concrete in the real world, as evidenced by their total lack of strategy or commitment to any given campaign they involved the party in over the last decade. their canon of theory was just a thread to hold together the organisation, and opportunistically silence dissent in the name of 'the true tradition'. they never 'agreed to disagree', they simply 'agreed' until the inbuilt contradictions within the new trendy bullshit became too severe and autonomous and it had to be cut out. they are swimming in circles, going nowhere and what's more _they don't care_


----------



## tedsplitter (Aug 7, 2013)

For what it's worth, Tom Walker was working at the paper because he's a qualified journalist with the ability to write clearly and where necessary edit other writers' submissions, not because of any encyclopaedic knowledge of decades of party debates.


----------



## treelover (Aug 7, 2013)

Thing is, Das Uberdog, you lectured and hectored plenty of people on here about the SWP's righteous path many many times

then again, sinner repenteth, etc...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 7, 2013)

So conference will be early.


----------



## SLK (Aug 8, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So conference will be early.


 

That was a weird one. It's going to be about three weeks early, because it's so urgent. And will now be when loads of people are busy with families and that.


----------



## JHE (Aug 8, 2013)

No, no, no.  It's going to be _early_.  Now that they don't have any students, they can start the meetings in the morning.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Aug 8, 2013)

Why are they doing this? Pretending they "allowed" the opposition to exist in "pre-conference period" so they can force it to shut down after conference? The opposition has gone quiet...I don't know what difference three weeks makes though.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Aug 9, 2013)

seems like a logicless reflex move of pure panic. Malcolm Tucker'd give them short shrift.


----------



## benedict (Aug 9, 2013)

Someone got a link to something on this? Seems like a bizarre move.

Also, why have the opposition gone quiet? Perhaps they just ramping up for a public ideological challenge to the CC faction at Marxism and now they're preparing the groundwork for a political challenge at conference? War of position and war of maneuvre?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 9, 2013)

I can't wait till they actually sort all of this out and overthrow capitalism


----------



## laptop (Aug 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I can't wait till they actually sort all of this out and overthrow capitalism


 
At least then it'll be a piece of piss overthrowing _them_.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 9, 2013)

laptop said:


> At least then it'll be a piece of piss overthrowing _them_.


 
and set up the deformed workers state with bureaucratic deformations


----------



## laptop (Aug 9, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> and set up the deformed workers state with bureaucratic deformations


 
As if we'd do such a thing 



Infantile disorder, dearie.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 9, 2013)

ultra-leftism is a real danger to the workers' movement.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 9, 2013)

The only thing ultra-leftism is dangerous to is itself


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 9, 2013)

Which is why they the capitalist left are so scared of it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which is why they the capitalist left are so scared of it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 13, 2013)

> ...As Left Unity moves towards its founding conference on 30 November at the Royal National hotel in London, we call on all those who are sick of austerity and war, who want to defend the NHS and our public servicezzzzzzz...


 


Spoiler: Trigger warning






> [Signed]
> 
> *Gilbert Achcar, Jean Alain Roussel, Alan Gibbons, Zita Holbourne, Kate Hudson, Roger Lloyd Pack, Ken Loach, China Miéville, Michael Rosen*





 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/12/left-unity-alternative


----------



## BK Double Stack (Aug 13, 2013)

The opposition blog has come back to life (sort of). I had worried they'd taken a vow of silence until the pre-conference period.


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> The opposition blog has come back to life (sort of). I had worried they'd taken a vow of silence until the pre-conference period.



Looks like things quieted down since Marxism and they're trying to kick-start the opposition again.


----------



## Dr Smith (Aug 13, 2013)

Is Urban75 yet another apparently organic gathering of progressives and leftists that's actually run by the SWP?


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

Wonder what the endgame is for the opposition should they lose at another gerrymandered conference, which seems likely. Another IS micro-sect breakaway? Some sort of union with the democratic centralist wing of the ISN, which looks like it will have difficulty holding together ideologically without any real purpose? Continued internal strife for at least another year? Or is there any chance of a palace coup? It seems pretty clear the prof's position has become a sticking point. Obviously Kimber could be levered out more easily. Are the enough independent minds on the CC to instigate some kind of patricidal initiative? J. Choonara was talking a good game before the January conference in terms of supporting one of the factions but seems to have folded entirely. Probably not someone who could take others with him in any case.


----------



## benedict (Aug 13, 2013)

Dr Smith said:


> Is Urban75 yet another apparently organic gathering of progressives and leftists that's actually run by the SWP?



What do you mean?


----------



## JHE (Aug 13, 2013)

Dr Smith said:


> Is Urban75 yet another apparently organic gathering of progressives and leftists that's actually run by the SWP?


 

Yes.  How did you spot it?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2013)

Dr Smith said:


> Is Urban75 yet another apparently organic gathering of progressives and leftists that's actually run by the SWP?


 
Just, like, go away. Why come here again?


----------



## J Ed (Aug 13, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/12/left-unity-alternative


 

The Same Ideas and The Same People in The Same Bubble


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 14, 2013)

benedict said:


> Wonder what the endgame is for the opposition should they lose at another gerrymandered conference, which seems likely. Another IS micro-sect breakaway? Some sort of union with the democratic centralist wing of the ISN, which looks like it will have difficulty holding together ideologically without any real purpose? Continued internal strife for at least another year? Or is there any chance of a palace coup? It seems pretty clear the prof's position has become a sticking point. Obviously Kimber could be levered out more easily. Are the enough independent minds on the CC to instigate some kind of patricidal initiative? J. Choonara was talking a good game before the January conference in terms of supporting one of the factions but seems to have folded entirely. Probably not someone who could take others with him in any case.


I guess a lot depends on how people perceive the dc changes and the outcome to the second case. If the consensus among the vast majority, including most of the opposition is favorable then the 'excuse' for breaking normal party norms goes away and anyone who wasn't planning to leave anyway will find it hard to justify continued factionalism.

Not sure the conference needs to be gerrymandered as the opposition do seem to be a minority still. The striking thing about the videos of Marxism is how the loudest applause comes when a 'moderate' denounces the blogging and the demoralisation and distrust it's causing in branches. Like it or not it seems clear enough that a majority distrust the ideological direction of the opposition and don't like their methods either.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2013)

J Ed said:


> The Same Ideas and The Same People in The Same Bubble


 
It sounds exactly like the People's Assembly clarion call, even shoehorning 'war' into the demands.


----------



## JHE (Aug 14, 2013)

Really?  What sort of war are they demanding?


----------



## barney_pig (Aug 14, 2013)

If it isn't the final conflict I'm not coming.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 14, 2013)

Big long piece up on the opposition blog trying to distinguish "intersectionality" (good) from "privilege theory" (bad).

The problem with that of course is that in so doing, it necessarily reduces "intersectionality" to trivial statements of the already bleedin' obvious. It also leaves you talking at cross purposes with the bulk of people who use the term, for whom "intersectionality" in the connection between different forms of privilege relationship.


----------



## benedict (Aug 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I guess a lot depends on how people perceive the dc changes and the outcome to the second case. If the consensus among the vast majority, including most of the opposition is favorable then the 'excuse' for breaking normal party norms goes away and anyone who wasn't planning to leave anyway will find it hard to justify continued factionalism.
> 
> Not sure the conference needs to be gerrymandered as the opposition do seem to be a minority still. The striking thing about the videos of Marxism is how the loudest applause comes when a 'moderate' denounces the blogging and the demoralisation and distrust it's causing in branches. Like it or not it seems clear enough that a majority distrust the ideological direction of the opposition and don't like their methods either.


 
Seems a bit difficult to read off levels of support for the opposition based off the Marxism clapometer. I imagine Esme Choonara would generate more decibels than Ian Birchall on this index. Says nothing about political stances. The overall volume would likely correlate closely with level of anger as well as simply numbers.

In any case, do you really reckon the outcome of a DC shake-up and the case of Comrade X is likely to shift positions that appear to have become entrenched? The debate is way beyond that now, no? Say there's a better system for electing the control commission put in place, clearer guidelines, and harsh words for the late of this parish Delta. Who among the opposition is likely to be satisfied with this? And, if this is not the case, who among the loyalists is likely to swing to the opposition? Surely there can be few people who have yet to take a view.

The prof's words to the opposition here suggest pretty clearly that détente is not on his agenda.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 17, 2013)

So let me get this right, we are still talking about SWP on urban?

I would have thought people would have been too busy building something that could overthrow capitalism, now the 'prime' obstacle, the SWP, has been removed.


----------



## benedict (Aug 17, 2013)

You are still talking about the SWP on Urban, yes.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 18, 2013)

benedict said:


> You are still talking about the SWP on Urban, yes.


Par for course distortion.

It's time to move on. But are the British left capable of that?


----------



## JHE (Aug 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Par for course distortion.
> 
> It's time to move on. But are the British left capable of that?


 

I don't think Left Unity is going to spend much of its time talking about the poor old Social Workers and their failings and failures, but whether it's going to produce anything worthwhile is another question.  We shall see.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 18, 2013)

JHE said:


> I don't think Left Unity is going to spend much of its time talking about the poor old Social Workers and their failings and failures, but whether it's going to produce anything worthwhile is another question. We shall see.


 good! Glad to hear it. Hope they do produce something worthwhile.


----------



## leyton96 (Aug 19, 2013)

Looks like the purge is back on. Ian A, a leading member of their Unite fraction, has been removed from the SWP Manchester District Committee.
The opposition in the area have released a statement http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/58687538546/statement-from-manchester-comrades


----------



## oskarsdrum (Aug 19, 2013)

anyway I can only imagine that the remaining swp opposition lives on borrowed time. alternative scenarios to a final pyrrhic victory to the Callinicos-Roseists come December?


----------



## dominion (Sep 6, 2013)

According to Andy Noman the SWP have "tried" Comrade delta in absentia and suddely found he "has a case to answer".

Of course now he's no longer a member.....

Destroyed themselves for nothing methinks!


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 7, 2013)

dominion said:


> According to Andy Noman the SWP have "tried" Comrade delta in absentia and suddely found he "has a case to answer".
> 
> Of course now he's no longer a member.....
> 
> Destroyed themselves for nothing methinks!



So now he's no longer one of their own they've undergone a sudden and severe change of line..? It doesn't serve their purpose to defend him any more, the damage has already been done and he's no longer a member so is unable to do much (if anything) to make trouble for the new leadership so he's now expendable in the interest of damage limitation.

Doesn't look as though the change in leadership has resulted in much change in the party's internal culture pr the fact that the new bosses seem to have the same collective degree of integrity and political astuteness as their predecessors, which is to say about as much as a boiled potato.

I've no time for Martin Smith, personally, a vile character if ever there was one. But I somehow doubt this latest reversal of their line is based as much on any meaningful principles as it is on damage limitation, opportunism and a desire to try and salvage something from the truly cynical posturing and blinding ineptitude of the leadership that allowed this disaster to exist in the first place.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 7, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> the new leadership
> 
> Doesn't look as though the change in leadership


what new leadership?


----------



## Bakunin (Sep 7, 2013)

discokermit said:


> what new leadership?



Since German and Rees departed, among others.


----------



## discokermit (Sep 7, 2013)

oh. right. not that new.


----------



## benedict (Sep 7, 2013)

So they've decided now is the moment to throw Comrade Delta under the bus? Brilliant timing. Another masterstroke from the Keystone Cops of Leninist strategy.


----------



## benedict (Sep 7, 2013)

Or, another sharp turn emphasizing new perspectives.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

So, if this is true, what are they going to do about the people who carried out the original investigation and came to the exact opposite conclusion on the basis of the same evidence? Or, if new evidence was presented what are they going to do about the same people who carried out the original investigation either being so incompetent they couldn't uncover it or actually covering it up themselves? I guess the answer will go something like _none of your business - _thereby demonstrating that not a single lesson was learnt.


----------



## benedict (Sep 8, 2013)

This is actually a different case. One that they refused to hear before concerning allegations of sexual harrassment at party center.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2013)

Ah right. I get it now. It did seem odd that they would return to the other cases knowing full well it would leave them open to the above questions.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2013)

Of passing interest, Andy Newman has been selected as the Labour prospective parliamentary candidate for Chippenham. No chance of winning but a good labour candidacy will pull back the labour supporters who always vote lib-dem there and put them over the line last time. Don't expect them to do much work in all honesty.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 15, 2013)

Is he going to create the Chippenham Democratic Republic?


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of passing interest, Andy Newman has been selected as the Labour prospective parliamentary candidate for Chippenham. No chance of winning but a good labour candidacy will pull back the labour supporters who always vote lib-dem there and put them over the lone last time. Don't expect them to do much work in all honesty.


A good labour candidate is not andy Newman


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Sep 15, 2013)

I clicked on this update thinking people were talking about the actual news today that was relevant to this thread. And instead people are discussing Newman?!


----------



## emanymton (Sep 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I clicked on this update thinking people were talking about the actual news today that was relevant to this thread. And instead people are discussing Newman?!


You do like to tease don't you.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I clicked on this update thinking people were talking about the actual news today that was relevant to this thread. And instead people are discussing Newman?!


You mean the news that no one actually knows about? Knock yourself out.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Sep 15, 2013)

I'm sure Newman will take a moment out of the Chippenham campaign to share the transcript from today's SWP NC and then we'll all know


----------



## SLK (Sep 15, 2013)

It's not unexpected. They agreed Delta has a case to answer. Though now he's left...


----------



## benedict (Sep 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I clicked on this update thinking people were talking about the actual news today that was relevant to this thread. And instead people are discussing Newman?!



There are plenty of questions you've failed to answer and points you've ignored on the thread if you want to get back on topic.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Sep 22, 2013)

benedict said:


> There are plenty of questions you've failed to answer and points you've ignored on the thread if you want to get back on topic.


Ok fair enough. Your question a page ago re who would be convinced being a case in point I suppose. who knows. But at this stage what would be enough? It's always been about more than delta and now thank god it's resolving into proper debates beyond that awful case. The opposition are making their case for an ISO take on Cliff on feminism etc. Good on them at least it's something sane people can debate.


----------



## SLK (Sep 24, 2013)

IB1 is here: https://anonfiles.com/file/6bbe36c0af69c305133797684a73b787


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 24, 2013)

I take it the statement of intent was what bb got all excited about but refused to tell anyone about?


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 24, 2013)

Jon (Portsmouth)remains craven


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 24, 2013)

The CC perspectives piece is 60% boilerplate, 30% exaggeration, 10% meat. The meat being yet another declaration that it's time to draw a line under the big dispute, accompanied on this occasion by an explicit declaration that there will be disciplinary action taken against post-conference oppositionalists.

The main opposition piece is clearly geared at whatever "middle ground" might remain and soft elements on the CC side. It's immediate followed by a string up the oppositionists piece signed by the frothing element of the CC side. Then by a lets all be friends piece by a handful of vacillators.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 24, 2013)

The various rank and file member's contributions about the state of union organisation and changes in the economy are marred by a lamentable tendency to cast about for precedents in the writings of one or other dead SWP guru, but some predictable problems aside, actually lay the basis for what could be a surprisingly interesting discussion. I don't really expect that sort of thing in these bulletins, so hats off to those who are doing a bit of thinking.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 24, 2013)

There's also a slightly Weekly Workerish element to the bulletin: I doubt if other left wing organisations have ever been mentioned so often in a single SWP bulletin ever. The Socialist Party, Counterfire, the ISG and the ISN appear over and over again and various other groups, like the AWL and Lutte Ouvriere, appear on occasion too.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 24, 2013)

And finally, it seems like a sign of the times that nobody here gives a shit. There would have been a feeding frenzy here six months ago.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 24, 2013)

What sort of person thinks to themselves 'I know I'll write a full page article about our paper sales for the bulletin'?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> What sort of person thinks to themselves 'I know I'll write a full page article about our paper sales for the bulletin'?



Normally, I suspect someone who has been asked to do so by a fulltimer, probably whoever is responsible for circulation etc.

A more interesting questions is what sort of person sits down and reads a full page article about Manchester district's paper sales the whole way through?


----------



## laptop (Sep 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A more interesting questions is what sort of person sits down and reads a full page article about Manchester district's paper sales the whole way through?



The subs? (A good place to check for errors in the last paragraph but three.)


E2A: And who would let a full page on paper sales into the paper?

How much am I bid for a piece on paint drying?


----------



## discokermit (Sep 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And finally, it seems like a sign of the times that nobody here gives a shit. There would have been a feeding frenzy here six months ago.


i started reading it but i got bored.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 25, 2013)

that Manc paper sales one ended on an amazing trill...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 25, 2013)

also i recently came across this chart detailing the different companies run by the SWP and their directors/management... telling...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 25, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> that Manc paper sales one ended on an amazing trill...



The author was probably just checking to see if anyone got that far. You can put whatever you like at the end of a page long article about paper sales.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Normally, I suspect someone who has been asked to do so by a fulltimer, probably whoever is responsible for circulation etc.
> 
> A more interesting questions is what sort of person sits down and reads a full page article about Manchester district's paper sales the whole way through?


I think you are right on the first point. As for the second, I managed 2 paragraphs, honest.


----------



## cesare (Sep 25, 2013)

No wonder I couldn't get a straight answer about who the employer was! Das Uberdog re #13196


----------



## emanymton (Sep 25, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> also i recently came across this chart detailing the different companies run by the SWP and their directors/management... telling...


Looks a bit out of date.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 25, 2013)

I wonder if Delta gave up his directorships along with his party card


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And finally, it seems like a sign of the times that nobody here gives a shit. There would have been a feeding frenzy here six months ago.


there would have been something to read six moths ago. This is just boring tho, a couple of pieces that will vaguely address some issues of the last year (the liverpool piece is quite funny). But they will come more in the next issue, especially as the rump stalwarts remaining will have fairly clearly won already, so any 'battles' are just going through the motions.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 25, 2013)

yeah Julie Waterson is still on it - and all the counterfire split lot too. still, gives a glimpse...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2013)

Not much wrong with those companies is there? One of them is actually sharing premises with the accountant running the Assange Defence Fund.


----------



## treelover (Sep 25, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> also i recently came across this chart detailing the different companies run by the SWP and their directors/management... telling...


 

interesting stuff, which if any of them, make any money


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 25, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> yeah Julie Waterson is still on it - and all the counterfire split lot too. still, gives a glimpse...


I wonder if the counter fire lot have actually been moved on, or what mechanism exists to oust them, can a director be sacked?


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 25, 2013)

A quick internet trawl shows that smith, Martin was terminated as a director of Sherborne publications ltd on the 24th May and Kimber, Charles was appointed director 28th may.
Isn't the internet great!


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I wonder if the counter fire lot have actually been moved on, or what mechanism exists to oust them, can a director be sacked?


they can, and are. If the counterfire lot had ever had a majority of directors, they could have 'nicked' the whole company (whichever one it was.  most of them wouldn't be worth the effort)


----------



## redcogs (Sep 25, 2013)

i see little potential for an end to the problems within the SWP.  Once the 'opposition' are wiped out at conference, and the mindless swivel eyed optimists have re-secured the eternal perspective that 'workers struggles are about to explode onto the agenda' (following the next general election..), they are likely use their prominence to ram a purgefest through.  The inevitable dearth of trust and fraternity amongst comrades who have been warring since Delta will have created fertile ground for future turmoil. 

It is hard to imagine how such a situation might be overcome.  Maybe it cannot.


----------



## love detective (Sep 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> they can, and are. If the counterfire lot had ever had a majority of directors, they could have 'nicked' the whole company (whichever one it was.  most of them wouldn't be worth the effort)



Nah, as these are all straightforward limited companies, it doesn't matter how many directors any faction had, it's the shareholders that have ultimate power over the company. The shareholders could override and remove directors as they saw fit.

It's different for charities or trusts though (that are not also limited companies with share capital) - then it's the directors who are in overall control

(for example in relation to the Searchlight/HnH split, this is why the HnH faction were able to take control of Searchlight Information Services and Searchlight Educational Trust which were trusts/charities, but not Searchlight Magazine Limited which was a limited company with Gable as the majority shareholder)


----------



## redcogs (Sep 25, 2013)

love detective said:


> Nah, as these are all straightforward limited companies, it doesn't matter how many directors any faction had, it's the shareholders that have ultimate power over the company. The shareholders could override and remove directors as they saw fit.
> 
> It's different for charities or trusts though (that are not also limited companies with share capital) - then it's the directors who are in overall control
> 
> (for example in relation to the Searchlight/HnH split, this is why the HnH faction were able to take control of Searchlight Information Services and Searchlight Educational Trust which were trusts/charities, but not Searchlight Magazine Limited which was a limited company with Gable as the majority shareholder)



Who are the shareholders?  i don't care for shareholders (or accountants or bankers).  Names and addresses please.  i had no idea (when i was involved) i was part of a Socialist Shareholders Party.

Christ on a bike.


----------



## redcogs (Sep 25, 2013)

i glanced through some of the props to conference in the bullitin thingy , phew.  Someone appears to believe that a 'new members welcome pack' should be issued to recruits (!).  i'm speculating whether it might include the tangled shareholding flowchart above


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2013)

love detective said:


> Nah, as these are all straightforward limited companies, it doesn't matter how many directors any faction had, it's the shareholders that have ultimate power over the company. The shareholders could override and remove directors as they saw fit.


aah yes, good point.  Tho it appears to be even less straightforward than that. East End Offset (net worth -£717), for example, has 3 shareholders (& 3 members), which is simple enough.  But the Hallas Foundation (net worth £132,350) has just two members (seemingly A Callinicos & J Choonara) and no share capital. I wouldnt be surprised if a few more weren't trading by guarantee, rather than share capital.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 25, 2013)

So, the refused to take action against Delta when he was a member, and decided to take action against him when he was no longer a member, when they could no longer take action against him because he was no longer a member?  Is that about it?


----------



## redcogs (Sep 25, 2013)

marty21 said:


> So, the refused to take action against Delta when he was a member, and decided to take action against him when he was no longer a member, when they could no longer take action against him because he was no longer a member?  Is that about it?


 Well put.


----------



## redcogs (Sep 25, 2013)

i suppose Deltas life may have altered a little recently.    

 Does anyone know whether he's signing on, or relaxing in the sun on a white sanded coral reefed island east of Indonesia?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Who are the shareholders?  i don't care for shareholders (or accountants or bankers).  Names and addresses please.  i had no idea (when i was involved) i was part of a Socialist Shareholders Party.
> 
> Christ on a bike.


 
Yes but a shareholder could be someone with £100 pounds worth of a company worth £100 (or indeed £717).


----------



## love detective (Sep 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> aah yes, good point.  Tho it appears to be even less straightforward than that. East End Offset (net worth -£717), for example, has 3 shareholders (& 3 members), which is simple enough.  But the Hallas Foundation (net worth £132,350) has just two members (seemingly A Callinicos & J Choonara) and no share capital. I wouldnt be surprised if a few more weren't trading by guarantee, rather than share capital.



Yep true. Although even with companies that are limited by guarantee there is still a legal difference between the directors of the company (who run it) and the members (who control it) - most of the time though directors tend to be members and vice versa but they need to be registered separately as both director and member, one doesn't follow from the other


----------



## tony.c (Sep 25, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i suppose Deltas life may have altered a little recently.
> 
> Does anyone know whether he's signing on, or relaxing in the sun on a white sanded coral reefed island east of Indonesia?


 I thought he was going to be a student.


----------



## redcogs (Sep 25, 2013)

tony.c said:


> I thought he was going to be a student.


Ah, a common route for the newly retired revolutionary.  Perhaps a career in academia or Milibands  new left Labour Party beckons?


----------



## tony.c (Sep 25, 2013)

I hope the female students are aware of the allegations.


----------



## redcogs (Sep 25, 2013)

Is it a Second Wave Feminism course?


----------



## tony.c (Sep 25, 2013)

Perhaps he can rebuild SWSS.


----------



## redcogs (Sep 25, 2013)

First essay is guaranteed to be 'Why do men see women only as sex objects?'


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 25, 2013)

The "flow chart" looks scarier than it actually is (or was given that it's long out of date). The SWP have or had a commercial printshop, a book shop, a newspaper, a publishing house and probably a few other ancillary operations and functions that might require a company of some kind. It's hardly surprising or shocking that the directors of these companies are or were SWP leaders.

By giving each individual SWP leader their own bubble, the whole thing is made to look much more intricate and complex than it actually is. But really, connecting individuals like that is only useful when you are illustrating webs of influence joining various otherwise seemingly isolated actors. We already know what all of the people on the chart have in common and what connected them. Presenting it like that actually mystifies and confuses the issue.

The only really interesting questions are (a) which of the list of companies still trades in any significant way and (b) which of them have significant assets, if any. Even the Hallas trust one doesn't seem to involve particularly eye raising money for an organisation of the SWP's size.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2013)

actually, the flowchart looks up to date to me - at least it does once you realised that previous directors and no longer trading companies are greyed out. There seem to be about five companies still left, most of them publishing


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> actually, the flowchart looks up to date to me - at least it does once you realised that previous directors and no longer trading companies are greyed out. There seem to be about five companies still left, most of them publishing



A chart including dead companies and former directors is even less useful. There's very little interesting or revealing information included, and what there is is lost in a big obfuscatory web of irrelevance.

The SWP, which has a publishing house, a newspaper, a magazine, a semi-academic journal and a bookshop, and which used to run a commercial printers, therefore has some companies. The directors of those companies are senior SWP members. Who exactly is supposed to be scandalised or perturbed by this?

The mention you made above of the Hallas trust having 130k is about the only potentially interesting part of this bit of the thread, but well, without knowing what that money is actually for it doesn't really get us much further. And, it has to be said, that even in the incredibly unlikely event that the SWP leadership are feathering their nests, less than 9k per CC member isn't going to get them very far. There are easier ways for someone like, for instance, Callinicos to make a few quid than running the SWP as some kind of incredibly elaborate scam. He could just keep his salary to start with.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 25, 2013)

ivy villas ltd is a strange one... though hasn't had even 2k running through it throughout the noughties


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A chart including dead companies and former directors is even less useful. There's very little interesting or revealing information included, and what there is is lost in a big obfuscatory web of irrelevance.
> 
> The SWP, which has a publishing house, a newspaper, a magazine, a semi-academic journal and a bookshop, and which used to run a commercial printers, therefore has some companies. The directors of those companies are senior SWP members. Who exactly is supposed to be scandalised or perturbed by this?
> 
> The mention you made above of the Hallas trust having 130k is about the only potentially interesting part of this bit of the thread, but well, without knowing what that money is actually for it doesn't really get us much further. And, it has to be said, that even in the incredibly unlikely event that the SWP leadership are feathering their nests, less than 9k per CC member isn't going to get them very far.



my original thoughts r.e. the relevance of the chart centred mainly around the position of Delta in the directorship of several of the Party's companies... could well have contributed to their unwillingness to oust him


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 25, 2013)

ftr he appears to still be the Director of Sherbourne Publications, LMHR (which must be a massive money-spinner) and 'BWTUC Trading Ltd'... if the chart is current

edit: not to mention that Sherbourne Publications is the primary publishing company, that also runs Bookmarks and produces the magazine and journal...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 25, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> ftr he appears to still be the Director of Sherbourne Publications, LMHR (which must be a massive money-spinner) and 'BWTUC Trading Ltd'... if the chart is current



It seems very unlikely that he (a) has effective control of any of those companies which (b) cannot be relatively easiy revoked or circumvented and (c) involves control over significant amounts of money. And it seems even more unlikely that he (d) could use such a position to effectively blackmail his leadership allies in a way that (e) worked even as the SWP lost large numbers of members and their money and (f) never came out, even though CC members went over to the opposition.

It sounds somehow satisfying to ascribe much of the SWP cataclysm to a grubby squabble over money but it just doesn't pass the small test.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A chart including dead companies and former directors is even less useful. There's very little interesting or revealing information included, and what there is is lost in a big obfuscatory web of irrelevance.


its certainly an odd way of doing it.  what is - eventually - noticeable is how few of the people still listed i've heard of.  Rebecca Reese? Simon Curlett? Alex Patterson? 

Smith has gone from at Sherborne Pubs at least (as of March 31), still seems to be at LMHR and BWTUC. Altho as BWTUC is Workers Beer Co, isnt it, I dont think it should really be on there.

Sherborne is listed as having a net worth os -£264k, which more than wipes out any supposed surplus in Hallas. It would seem they're technically bankrupt.  As well as...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> Sherborne is listed as having a net worth os -£264k, which more than wipes out any supposed surplus in Hallas. It would seem they're technically bankrupt.  As well as...



Well, that's part of the point of having so many separate companies. Corporate veil and all that. One can go under and it will have fuck all effect on the assets of another.

And yes, some of the remaining names are a bit odd. Particularly as nothing comes up if you search for their names and SWP and/or Socialist Worker.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 25, 2013)

actually scratch that in the case of Rebecca Reese. There's definitey a Swappie called "Beccy Reese". The diminutive threw me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> Smith has gone from at Sherborne Pubs at least (as of March 31), still seems to be at LMHR and BWTUC. Altho as BWTUC is Workers Beer Co, isnt it, I dont think it should really be on there.
> 
> ...


 
BWTUC is Battersea and Wandsworth Trades Union Council's trading arm which controls Worker's Beer, the Bread n Roses pub in Clapham, and Ethical Threads (clothing company) and also used to own an employment agency called 'Work Ethic'.

It is much bigger than the SWP and to be honest it's news to me that any Swappies were involved in it, most of the people running it are far from sympathetic to the Swaps.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2013)

The key things here are a) how concentrated _the real swp_ is - who is trusted and who isn't and b) that a lot of non-members or people the membership don't know are part of that real swp


----------



## redcogs (Sep 25, 2013)

If i'm honest, i suppose i've become a fairly cynical geezer.  But even given that, i readily accept that SWP comrades are not in it for personal gain, or the possibility of accumulating or syphoning loads o money.  They are not some scummy capitalist organisation like the Labour Party after all.

What was preventing them from financially operating on the basis of co-operative though? Of course, issues of finance are always going to be problematic for serious socialist organisations, but my guess is that if the membership were ever allowed or encouraged to discuss/debate such matters, then a groundswell would develop in favour of open transparency and a co-operative economic model.

But thats one of the major issues isn't it, a 'leave it to the leadership' absence of proper debate and accountability in all areas?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 25, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> ftr he appears to still be the Director of Sherbourne Publications, LMHR (which must be a massive money-spinner) and 'BWTUC Trading Ltd'... if the chart is current
> 
> edit: not to mention that Sherbourne Publications is the primary publishing company, that also runs Bookmarks and produces the magazine and journal...






> Mr Martin James Smith was born in 1963 and the first directorship we have on file was in 2010 at Lmhr Ltd. Him most recent directorship was with Love Music Hate Racism Limited where he held the position of "Organiser". This company has been around since 17 Oct 2009 . Martin has held 4 directorships, 1 of which are currently active, and 3 are previous.


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2013)

redcogs said:


> What was preventing them from financially operating on the basis of co-operative though? Of course, issues of finance are always going to be problematic for serious socialist organisations, but my guess is that if the membership were ever allowed or encouraged to discuss/debate such matters, then a groundswell would develop in favour of open transparency and a co-operative economic model.


To be a coop, they'd have to actually be a coop.  Not just pretend to be one. There are irritating extra requirements for coops, and they'd never be able to prove them.

There are distinct advantages to being a straightforward company. Especially when you avoid virtually all serious examination if you're small enough.


----------



## love detective (Sep 25, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> > Mr Martin James Smith was born in 1963 and the first directorship we have on file was in 2010 at Lmhr Ltd. Him most recent directorship was with Love Music Hate Racism Limited where he held the position of "Organiser". This company has been around since 17 Oct 2009 . Martin has held 4 directorships, 1 of which are currently active, and 3 are previous.





> The combined cash at bank value for all of Martin's current businesses is £0


----------



## redcogs (Sep 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> To be a coop, they'd have to actually be a coop.  Not just pretend to be one. There are irritating extra requirements for coops, and they'd never be able to prove them.
> 
> There are distinct advantages to being a straightforward company. Especially when you avoid virtually all serious examination if you're small enough.




OK, that makes some sense, and on that basis it would be an easy debate to win for the leadership, especially when coupled with the requirement for avoiding state interference/investigation.  

No doubt that at an earlier stage of IS development such matters were considered by the vanguard of the vanguard.  Nonetheless, as an ordinary grunt member i remember feeling slight unease about the cloak and dagger approach to finances within the party.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Sep 25, 2013)

So. Back to the IB  

Interesting thing is how the political differences (beyond the 'apolitical' why can't we  have more free speech please) are finally coming out of the closet now that the dc issue is reaching some sort of denouement.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 25, 2013)

redcogs said:


> OK, that makes some sense, and on that basis it would be an easy debate to win for the leadership, especially when coupled with the requirement for avoiding state interference/investigation.
> 
> No doubt that at an earlier stage of IS development such matters were considered by the vanguard of the vanguard.  Nonetheless, as an ordinary grunt member i remember feeling slight unease about the cloak and dagger approach to finances within the party.


 
In fact most coops find it easier to register as limited companies rather than industrial and provident societies.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well, that's part of the point of having so many separate companies. Corporate veil and all that. One can go under and it will have fuck all effect on the assets of another.
> 
> And yes, some of the remaining names are a bit odd. Particularly as nothing comes up if you search for their names and SWP and/or Socialist Worker.


There are a couple of less well know names on their that I recognise. Also there are SWP full times who you don't tend to come across much. I once got a call from the SWP finance office, and it was not one of the normal office staff. It stands to reason for there will be a few people who's work is mostly bureaucratic and not especially political. Maybe some of the other names are from that side of things.


----------



## laptop (Sep 25, 2013)

belboid said:


> To be a coop, they'd have to actually be a coop.  Not just pretend to be one. There are irritating extra requirements for coops, and they'd never be able to prove them.



I'm not aware of anything you have to prove - just incorporate under the model Articles of Association (etc) and you're a co-op.

That said, the idea of the SWP registering as a co-op is absurd. They oppose co-ops (or have in the past). The standard Articles of Association make "democratic centralism" fiddlier to impose on the members.



belboid said:


> There are distinct advantages to being a straightforward company. Especially when you avoid virtually all serious examination if you're small enough.



There is that. Though extracting co-op accounts from the Registrar is a deterrent, whereas the standard accounts (non-informative for companies with turnover under £6M) are available with a few mouse clicks for £3.


----------



## redcogs (Sep 26, 2013)

laptop said:


> I'm not aware of anything you have to prove - just incorporate under the model Articles of Association (etc) and you're a co-op.
> 
> *That said, the idea of the SWP registering as a co-op is absurd. They oppose co-ops (or have in the past). *The standard Articles of Association make "democratic centralism" fiddlier to impose on the members.
> 
> ...


The SWP also opposes capitalism but this hasn't  prevented it from utilising the stocks and bond shareholder model (presumably to allow them maximum flexibility?).    Somewhere along the line decisions were made about such matters - and one must assume that other decisions were a possibility.  This might have included the possibility of a co-operative model?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It seems very unlikely that he (a) has effective control of any of those companies which (b) cannot be relatively easiy revoked or circumvented and (c) involves control over significant amounts of money. And it seems even more unlikely that he (d) could use such a position to effectively blackmail his leadership allies in a way that (e) worked even as the SWP lost large numbers of members and their money and (f) never came out, even though CC members went over to the opposition.
> 
> It sounds somehow satisfying to ascribe much of the SWP cataclysm to a grubby squabble over money but it just doesn't pass the small test.



his revokation would depend entirely upon the constitutional framework set down in the business charter - as would his powers over the company - and if we're going to presume that accounting games are being played with these companies (which i don't think would be unfair) then LMHR in particular has the potential to be funneling an awful lot of cash.

i don't particularly find it 'satisfying' to attribute the refusal of the CC to remove Delta to money (and i'd add to that 'connections') but it's at least a comprehensible reason why they'd pursue such a self-destructive course.


----------



## redcogs (Sep 26, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> his revokation would depend entirely upon the constitutional framework set down in the business charter - as would his powers over the company - and if we're going to presume that accounting games are being played with these companies (which i don't think would be unfair) then LMHR in particular has the potential to be funneling an awful lot of cash.
> 
> i don't particularly find it 'satisfying' to attribute the refusal of the CC to remove Delta to money (and i'd add to that 'connections') but it's at least a comprehensible reason why they'd pursue such a self-destructive course.



It was clear at an early stage that the interests of party unity demanded that Martin Smith fall on his sword.   Some on the CC must have recognised this, and my bet is that those individuals were desperate for Smith to go quickly.  However tempting, its not plausible that lucre could have influenced  the thinking of intelligent and committed men and women who have invested their political lives on expanding the influence of the SWP.  Its much more likely that dedication to maintaining their stalinized modus operandi was fundamental.


----------



## barney_pig (Sep 26, 2013)

In the past the swp has been very insistent that 'the revolutionary party cannot be a model for the future socialist society'; I think we all thought this referred to their espousal of a particular form of centralism, however it seems that in fact the model was more Hayek than Hallas


----------



## redcogs (Sep 26, 2013)

i do wonder how Duncan H would have reacted to this situation.  Remembering his capitulation to Cliff around the  Higgins/Protz episode suggests that he would probably thrown his weight behind the prof.  The trouble is, i like to think that he was better than that.

Just speculating idly.


----------



## love detective (Sep 26, 2013)

redcogs said:


> However tempting, its not plausible that lucre could have influenced  the thinking of intelligent and committed men and women who have invested their political lives on expanding the influence of the SWP.  Its much more likely that dedication to maintaining their stalinized modus operandi was fundamental.



I'd agree with this - the idea that money (or more correctly, in most cases, the lack of it) had anything to do with this is ridiculous

As is the idea that the various companies and trusts connected to the SWP were setup for corporate veil type shenanigans


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 26, 2013)

i have no idea why you think those two possibilities are so ludicrous, particularly considering the CCs unwillingness to remove Delta (despite massive pressure).

having multiple companies as a corporate veil is an eminently sensible way to operate when you're dealing with large sums of money, and multiple arms of different campaigns all dealing with separate groupings and organisations.

it's obviously not an open-shut case but the desire to strike off the possibility offhand is bemusing


----------



## redcogs (Sep 26, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> i have no idea why you think those two possibilities are so ludicrous, particularly considering the CCs unwillingness to remove Delta (despite massive pressure).
> 
> having multiple companies as a corporate veil is an eminently sensible way to operate when you're dealing with large sums of money, and multiple arms of different campaigns all dealing with separate groupings and organisations.
> 
> it's obviously not an open-shut case but the desire to strike off the possibility offhand is bemusing



If your'e objective is the accumulation of significant wealth,  its seem very unlikely that you would
establish or engage in the activities of a left political party with the stated aim of smashing the capitalist state, inevitably attracting the attention of the establishments infiltration and security wing.

The sensible option would surely be to secure a position in any one of a variety of appropriate industries - banking, orthodox politics, media, insurance, etc etc.

Individuals like the prof presumably have a number of advantageous class and social connections that might enable more than a break even chance of success in such an endeavour.

The SWP's high command have seriously and unforgiveably fucked up.  They have defended the indefensible, and they have insulted and betrayed the women who were abused by Delta. They have done huge reputational damage to their organisation, and to many hundreds of decent current and former socialists.  But my judgement remains that their twisted behaviour was most probably motivated by what they regarded as good faith and the pursuit of rational politics, not mammon or greed.


----------



## J Ed (Sep 26, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i suppose Deltas life may have altered a little recently.
> 
> Does anyone know whether he's signing on, or relaxing in the sun on a white sanded coral reefed island east of Indonesia?



Wasn't he going to do an SWP-funded MA?


----------



## BK Double Stack (Sep 26, 2013)

Bolshie--do you support the "statement for our revolutionary party" crowd?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Sep 26, 2013)

Christ no, tad too fire and brimstone for me. Any statement that uses 'historic'  and 'dialectical' that often in so short a space is trying too hard to prove it's dead hard Bolshevik credentials.

The 'Learning lessons from the last year' piece got the tone about right. Ackowledge the mistakes over specific incidents, make sure they can't happen again then let the political differences play themselves out honestly.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Sep 26, 2013)

Some hilarious stuff in there. Meanwhile the honest analysis of a few industrial pieces gives a sad glimpse of what a healthier internal culture might look like. Some rather good observations all things considered. But yet again nothing on the one thing more likely to destroy the working class than anything else (climate change). 

Sounds like the new CC is something like a final binge for a chronic addict, are we finally going to see an honest-to-god purge or what?! 

Can only regret that I knew and respected some of the "statement for our revolutionary party" fanatics. Same story for a past era with CP die hards though I guess.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Sep 26, 2013)

redcogs said:


> If your'e objective is the accumulation of significant wealth,  its seem very unlikely that you would
> establish or engage in the activities of a left political party with the stated aim of smashing the capitalist state, inevitably attracting the attention of the establishments infiltration and security wing.
> 
> The sensible option would surely be to secure a position in any one of a variety of appropriate industries - banking, orthodox politics, media, insurance, etc etc.
> ...



i'm not saying the pursuit of money is a bad thing though, it's a necessary thing. if Delta had half the organisation's funds tied up, and then they were lost to the rest of the organisation, that would be disastrous for all of that organisation's campaigns and publications... if you had any faith in your organisation to do good you could understandably be pressured to do all kinds of things to prevent that from happening. the more dedicated you were to the SWP - in this instance - the greater the drive to protect the funds.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 27, 2013)

bolshiebhoy you're gonna love this 

The SWP splitters student group (RevSoc) at Sheffield uni had their first meeting of the year last night. For pretty much every uni society this is generally seen as an introductory meeting where you lay out the basics of what you stand for, what your politics are, and the kind of activities you get up to. So something like 'who are revsoc' or 'why we need socialism' or 'what is socialism and how do we get it' - anything like that.

RevSoc defied this tired old convention and started with: 'Lad culture a middle class finger to womens liberation'. No idea what they actually argued/talked about - it might have been good for all I know - but I think it does say something about where they're at politically.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Sep 27, 2013)

Lol. At least they mentioned class in passing!


----------



## J Ed (Sep 27, 2013)

Why is 'lad culture', Page 3 etc exclusively middle-class..?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Sep 27, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Can only regret that I knew and respected some of the "statement for our revolutionary party" fanatics. Same story for a past era with CP die hards though I guess.


To be honest I suspect if I was still a member I'd have signed it too, out of frustration at the opposition and the not very well hidden agendas. There are some very good people who have had enough and just want the antis to shut up or fuck off. But I'm not a member so can afford to be a bit wet and prefer the tone of Candy's piece which is much more constructive and aims at not losing people unnecessarily without at least having the hard arguments about feminism etc.  That piece warns of the twin dangers of movementism and sectarianism, the fanatic piece clearly belongs in the sectarian camp.


----------



## laptop (Sep 27, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Why is 'lad culture', Page 3 etc exclusively middle-class..?



Because it's bad?


----------



## BK Double Stack (Sep 27, 2013)

270 or so sign on to the "Rebuild the Party" faction


----------



## leyton96 (Sep 27, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> 270 or so sign on to the "Rebuild the Party" faction


Link? Or are you referring to the 'Statement of intent' in the SWP IB?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Sep 27, 2013)

oho! weekly worker is back in the game with a scoop... http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-faction-formed   mind you I'm disappointed at the opportunistic failure to reveal the latest platform crimes within left unity. whither cpgb class leadership?!


----------



## oskarsdrum (Sep 27, 2013)

bolshie, what kind of loyalist narrative can be sustained at this point? Calling for disciplinary measures against Birchall, Gonzalez, Stack screams 'blame the messenger'. I'm assuming there's only a few left in the weird world where the innocence of 'delta' was certain enough to risk tearing the party apart over. The sorry thing from the SWP's perspective is how there's useful thinking in the party even now, but it's been canned for so long and it takes all this to show itself.


----------



## marty21 (Sep 28, 2013)

Spotted  John Rees  and Lindsay German hand and hand at the Clapton festival this afternoon - they looked quite sweet together tbf


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 28, 2013)

I walked past someone who looked remarkebly like Delta at Walthamstow Central this morning, clad in a stripey blue poloshirt, blue half mast slacks with no socks, and carrying a yellow v-necked jersey...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 30, 2013)

redcogs said:


> If your'e objective is the accumulation of significant wealth,  its seem very unlikely that you would
> establish or engage in the activities of a left political party with the stated aim of smashing the capitalist state, inevitably attracting the attention of the establishments infiltration and security wing.
> 
> The sensible option would surely be to secure a position in any one of a variety of appropriate industries - banking, orthodox politics, media, insurance, etc etc.
> ...


And then you go and spoil it all,
 by saying something stupid like,

 commonsense.

 I have been trying to get this point across for 10 years ,so don't hold your breath


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 30, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i suppose Deltas life may have altered a little recently.
> 
> Does anyone know whether he's signing on, or relaxing in the sun on a white sanded coral reefed island east of Indonesia?


  no comrade, the objective of the entire leadership has been clearly stated by violent Panda, a nice little Dacha. surely this is where comrades Delta resides.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 30, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I walked past someone who looked remarkebly like Delta at Walthamstow Central this morning, clad in a stripey blue poloshirt, blue half mast slacks with no socks, and carrying a yellow v-necked jersey...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Sep 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> its certainly an odd way of doing it.  what is - eventually - noticeable is how few of the people still listed i've heard of.  Rebecca Reese? Simon Curlett? Alex Patterson?
> 
> Smith has gone from at Sherborne Pubs at least (as of March 31), still seems to be at LMHR and BWTUC. Altho as BWTUC is Workers Beer Co, isnt it, I dont think it should really be on there.
> 
> Sherborne is listed as having a net worth os -£264k, which more than wipes out any supposed surplus in Hallas. It would seem they're technically bankrupt.  As well as...


  think Becky Reese used to be the organiser in Manchester, if that helps .

Here is some interesting detail for people


----------



## redcogs (Sep 30, 2013)

i walked straight into that one Resistance'.  But on the trainspotting theme Crich Tramway Museum near to Matlock has an excellent railway station and short journeys on old steam engines/carriages/trams.  highly recommended for those who need to get out a little more frequently..


----------



## oskarsdrum (Oct 1, 2013)

IS network conference bulletin 1

http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/downloads/249-isn-conference-bulletin-1

Much sillier that the swp one because:

1) it's been leaked in plain view on their own website

2) it treats climate change like a real important thing not an afterthought (to be generous...)


----------



## laptop (Oct 2, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> 2) it treats climate change like a real important thing not an afterthought (to be generous...)



Eh? That's a _motion_ for the conference.

I've been reading the 2 August special edition of _Science _and the article on food security later this century largely confirms the motion's assertion that:



> Without an easily habitable planet there can be no socialism; the best we can expect would be a kind of feudalism, but the result would more likely be barbarism.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Oct 2, 2013)

yeah I mean um...that was compared to the derisory treatment of the planet's fate received in this and past SWP bulletins. in which the ISN were also considered dreadfully silly. 

still a bit going on on the tread's topic, desperate though my attempts to keep to alive may be: http://living-in-the-real-world1871.../dividing-class-at-tory-party-conference.html it's pretty bad if people are going on a big protest just to protest the SWP.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 3, 2013)

Can't see that sort of thing either catching on or persisting.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2013)

'living in the real world'


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 3, 2013)

From reading the actual post it's clear that the writer did not go on the protest to "protest the swp", but reacted to the mass of swp and sp propaganda which attempted to coopt the demo into a trotfest.
 Reading more of her blog, especially the part about how the sp are happy to allow fascists in the bedroom tax federation, if it aids their turf wars against 'anarchists', I am inclined to think she has a point.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Reading more of her blog, especially the part about how the sp are happy to allow fascists in the bedroom tax federation, if it aids their turf wars against 'anarchists', I am inclined to think she has a point.



Whereabouts is that post mate? Find it hard to believe but if it's true something needs doing about it.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> the part about how the sp are happy to allow fascists in the bedroom tax federation, if it aids their turf wars against 'anarchists', I am inclined to think she has a point.



I'm inclined to think that both her and you are talking out of your arse


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 3, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Whereabouts is that post mate? Find it hard to believe but if it's true something needs doing about it.


http://living-in-the-real-world1871.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/merseyside-bedroom-tax-organisation.html


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 3, 2013)

dennisr said:


> I'm inclined to think that both her and you are talking out of your arse


Steve still a comrade?


----------



## love detective (Oct 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> http://living-in-the-real-world1871.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/merseyside-bedroom-tax-organisation.html



While i've no reason to disbelieve what she says there - there's nothing to suggest that the SP, either organisationally or individual members themselves, are happy to allow fascists in the bedroom tax federation

(for example she doesn't say who the officers of the federation are and what organisations they belong to. for all the faults the trots have, I would think it's far more likely that this naive toleration of right wingers would come from those outside of organised trot parties - i.e. the kind of thing we saw at Occupy etc..)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Steve still a comrade?


Last I heard hed resigned his party membership.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 3, 2013)

love detective said:


> While i've no reason to disbelieve what she says there - there's nothing to suggest that the SP, either organisationally or individual members themselves, are happy to allow fascists in the bedroom tax federation
> 
> (for example she doesn't say who the officers of the federation are and what organisations they belong to. for all the faults the trots have, I would think it's far more likely that this naive toleration of right wingers would come from those outside of organised trot parties - i.e. the kind of thing we saw at Occupy etc..)


yeah that's how it looks. to me as well but I'll see what I can find out about it


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2013)

Is Margi Clarke's son really a holocaust denier/nazi sympathiser?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> From reading the actual post it's clear that the writer did not go on the protest to "protest the swp", but reacted to the mass of swp and sp propaganda which attempted to coopt the demo into a trotfest.
> Reading more of her blog, especially the part about how the sp are happy to allow fascists in the bedroom tax federation, if it aids their turf wars against 'anarchists', I am inclined to think she has a point.



I've got no time for the SP leadership and many of the membership these days but I find it hard to believe that organisers on the ground would stand for that sort of shit.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 3, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> From reading the actual post it's clear that the writer did not go on the protest to "protest the swp", but reacted to the mass of swp and sp propaganda which attempted to coopt the demo into a trotfest.
> Reading more of her blog, especially the part about how the sp are happy to allow fascists in the bedroom tax federation, if it aids their turf wars against 'anarchists', I am inclined to think she has a point.



Don't be a fucking clown any more than you can help it, there's a good lad.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is Margi Clarke's son really a holocaust denier/nazi sympathiser?



Maybe a conspiracy nutter hoving off in that direction.

But you have to take everything on that strange 'activist's blog with a huge pinch of salt - it comes across as some shouty, self-obsessed idiot who seems to end up attacking and pissing off just about everybody she comes into contact with. Her experience of 'fighting fascism' is that of a fantasist. She attacks older activists with decades long experience by name - demanding they "check their privildge" who I can vouch for from experience have done more to fight (physically) fascism than this little arsehole would ever contemplate - a victimised worker with 30+ years activity under his belt. She attacks some campaign for allowing a group with possible dodgy links in knowlsey to affiliate - arguing that this shows the role of "trots" and how this endangers members - then in the next post glosses over the fact that this knowsley group were not actually allowed to be involved. Not a word of explaination. Just some gobshite. No self-awareness whatsoever.

Sadder still that barney-bollocks is trying to use her words for an even less informed dig at something he knows even less about.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 3, 2013)

Having done a little digging I had discovered that the chair of thee meeting is a member of another trot sect, and was going to apologise, but the frothing of the sp has been a sight to behold.
Dennisr especially provides a classic example of the exact same logic as presented by swappie loyalists at the suggestion that some slip of a girl might be right about older (male) activists.
 Some things don't change.


----------



## dennisr (Oct 3, 2013)

you mistake a deep sigh at an idiot for a froth. I would not waste your time with logic barney-bollocks - its not a strong point for you.

most folk can see you for the fantasist you are.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 3, 2013)

dennisr said:


> you mistake a deep sigh at an idiot for a froth. I would not waste your time with logic barney-bollocks - its not a strong point for you.
> 
> most folk can see you for the fantasist you are.



Not me, I like to see barney's perspective on various matters, or even just his idle banter.

Strange, the above SP reaction to a blog whose credibility is weak. Why storm against barney? Isn't it better to say, sensibly, like Spiney, that if such a problem really did arise, you'll find out and correct it? End of story.


----------



## SLK (Oct 3, 2013)

So the latest is that the main piece of the new ISJ will be Callinicos and Kimber slagging off the DC reform committee. In particular, some former hacks come in for a bit of a ride. This piece was not passed through the ISJ Steering Committee because there are people on that committee who might/ would leak it. But it's been leaked anyway.


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2013)

> http://internationalsocialistnetwor...cial-justice-practical-as-well-as-theoretical


 

On the ISN website there is a reasonably good article on how the left should engage with community issues, perhaps consider opening food banks of some kind, some good comments, (but some crass ones) especially one by someone called Richard Atkinson.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Oct 4, 2013)

SLK: Link?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 4, 2013)

treelover said:


> On the ISN website there is a reasonably good article on how the left should engage with community issues, perhaps consider opening food banks of some kind, some good comments, (but some crass ones) especially one by someone called Richard Atkinson.



Precisely what I've been arguing for in Unite (and I'm fairly confident we'll do it eventually). Those scoffing at the idea are no doubt the same ones saying our advice/support centre is 'reinventing the wheel' and will mean 





> the Left's entire activity would soon become narrowed down to substituting for the failure of the capitalist system



No wonder the left is seen by many as at best an irrelevance.

Worst comment on there is by someone who I think posts on here.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 4, 2013)

What's encouraging about the article is that it expresses a desire that the left needs to be amongst the working class attempting to lessen the impact of the blows inflicted upon it by this vicious govt.
 What is far less encouraging is that the op and all the commenters see this as a way to create an audience, rather than a worthwhile and practical application of socialist principles.
 I was reminded when I read it of the Salvation Army, and how they use soup kitchens to peddle their god bothering. The examples cited; oxfam and the trussle trust, suggest radicalised charity rather than mutual aid within working class communities.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 4, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Why storm against barney?



Barney started the, ahem, "storming" and got a response in kind. If he'd raised the (bizarre) claim in a "here, what's all this about, is this true?" sort of way, he'd have got a different response.




			
				Spiney Norman said:
			
		

> Those scoffing at the idea are no doubt the same ones saying our advice/support centre is 'reinventing the wheel' and will mean...



There's a big difference between the kinds of stuff a gigantic union can feasibly do and the kind of stuff small political organisations can feasibly sustain though. The path from working class power in working class areas to one working class running club in one working class area is paved with good intentions.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 4, 2013)

You've done it now


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's a big difference between the kinds of stuff a gigantic union can feasibly do and the kind of stuff small political organisations can feasibly sustain though.


i'd just like to see unison do something.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Barney started the, ahem, "storming" and got a response in kind. If he'd raised the (bizarre) claim in a "here, what's all this about, is this true?" sort of way, he'd have got a different response.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a big difference between the kinds of stuff a gigantic union can feasibly do and the kind of stuff small political organisations can feasibly sustain though. The path from working class power in working class areas to one working class running club in one working class area is paved with good intentions.


Odd how local churches and charities can manage to do practical work but it's beneath the vanguard


----------



## belboid (Oct 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Odd how local churches and charities can manage to do practical work but it's beneath the vanguard


yeah, because the vanguard really is as big and as wealthy and as well connected to supermarkets and other donors as churches and charities are.


----------



## love detective (Oct 4, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You've done it now



Given how irrelevant Nigel seems to think initiatives like that are (i.e. working class self organisation) he doesn't half seem to mention it a lot

His words also seem to imply that 'gigantic unions' just came out of nowhere with some kind of big bang as their midwife, sent down to us on earth fully fledged in all their giganticness instead of arising out of struggle itself

And now as it ever was, nothing else should ever be attempted or done because if a gigantic bureaucratised unions that may have been fit for purpose in a previous century can't achieve something in the here & now then there's no point in anyone or anything else being tried in the current century


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 4, 2013)

The cpgb(ww), an organisation of less than 50 members raised £27000 in a few weeks for their summer offensive, every year the swp raised over a £100000 in its appeal, local branches regularly can find the funds for public meetings, coaches, even trains. It is not a question of funds but politics.


----------



## belboid (Oct 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> The cpgb(ww), an organisation of less than 50 members raised £27000 in a few weeks for their summer offensive,


they didnt really, you know.

And even if they had, to make food banks work on something other than a purely tokenistic scale would take a damned sight more than 27k. they require mass organisations for them to be able to work regularly - because if they aren't regular, they're worthless, with the food only going to their mates and contacts. 

And if we're talking about the 'politics', then a bit of charity work (which is what you are talking about unless your food bank is going to seize the means of food production and distribution) is not going to make any difference. Especially when others will almost definitely be doing it better.

Political acts are about doing something because the end is worthwhile AND because the _way _of doing it gives power back to our class.

If you just wanna do the former, fine. Go and join a church. Or the Labour Party.


----------



## treelover (Oct 4, 2013)

Chanelling John Penney...


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2013)




----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 4, 2013)

love detective said:


> Given how irrelevant Nigel seems to think initiatives like that are (i.e. working class self organisation) he doesn't half seem to mention it a lot



I've said nothing at all opposed to "working class self organisation".

I do however think that the people on this thread moaning about how "the left" (meaning organisations they aren't in) don't devote their extremely limited resources to setting up small, ineffectual, unsustainable versions of charity projects are fucking idiots. If left groups actually did decide to spend their efforts on creating, say, food banks, within two years both the left groups concerned and the food banks established would be gone.

That's not to say that there's something wrong with anyone who wants to set up a food bank. It's laudable in its own way. It's just not a viable political strategy for small activist groups with a wider agenda. When and if there's a larger radical political movement, you probably will see all kinds of semi-political self-help projects stemming from it, as well as cultural projects, etc. But different tasks are appropriate to the capabilities of different size organisations.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 4, 2013)

And it's worth noting that the breakfast for children programmes were something that arose from and were made viable by rather specific conditions - which included the extreme poverty prevailing in many US urban black ghettoes at the time, the near absence of a welfare state, the ability to draw money from black churches and black business etc. Which is why the big example of this kind of thing working for a relatively small group is from more than forty years ago somewhere far away.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And it's worth noting that the breakfast for children programmes were something that arose from and were made viable by rather specific conditions - which included the extreme poverty prevailing in many US urban black ghettoes at the time, the near absence of a welfare state, the ability to draw money from black churches and black business etc. Which is why the big example of this kind of thing working for a relatively small group is from more than forty years ago somewhere far away.



An ability aided by the fact that the Panthers had guns, if memory serves.


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And it's worth noting that the breakfast for children programmes were something that arose from and were made viable by rather specific conditions - which included the extreme poverty prevailing in many US urban black ghettoes at the time, the near absence of a welfare state, the ability to draw money from black churches and black business etc. Which is why the big example of this kind of thing working for a relatively small group is from more than forty years ago somewhere far away.



Absolutely.

There's a crucial difference between looking at examples of political organisation/strategy from the past and drawing inspiration from them and seeing them as models or blueprints that can be transplanted across time and space. Isn't there?


----------



## love detective (Oct 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've said nothing at all opposed to "working class self organisation".



true - you don't seem to mind it in theory


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2013)

chilango said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> There's a crucial difference between looking at examples of political organisation/strategy from the past and drawing inspiration from them and seeing them as models or blueprints that can be transplanted across time and space. Isn't there?


You forgot the last 4 letter word


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You forgot the last 4 letter word



Which one?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2013)

Trot


----------



## love detective (Oct 4, 2013)

chilango said:


> There's a crucial difference between looking at examples of political organisation/strategy from the past and drawing inspiration from them and seeing them as models or blueprints that can be transplanted across time and space. Isn't there?



tell that to the present day 19th/20th century left


----------



## chilango (Oct 4, 2013)

love detective said:


> tell that to the present day 19th/20th century left



I just did.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You forgot the last 4 letter word



The jibe works better when it isn't spelled out.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 4, 2013)

chilango said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> There's a crucial difference between looking at examples of political organisation/strategy from the past and drawing inspiration from them and seeing them as models or blueprints that can be transplanted across time and space. Isn't there?



Sure. And you won't catch me arguing that a socialist transformation of society in the advanced capitalist world in the 21st Century will look anything like the Russian revolution. Or the Spanish revolution.

There are good arguments for most of the ways the Socialist Party organises... and there are also bad historical reenactment society style arguments. I have no time for the latter (which isn't to say that I've never made such an argument - no stupidity is too small or too silly to have avoided my use at some point or other).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 4, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> An ability aided by the fact that the Panthers had guns, if memory serves.



I will admit that I'd be highly amused if Workers Power or Solfed started tryng to extort money from shopkeepers.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 4, 2013)

love detective said:


> true - you don't seem to mind it in theory



I "don't mind it" in practice either. I just don't think that every single thing that could be described as "workin class self-organisation", still less things that may well in practice turn out to be more service provision than self-organisation, necessarily constitutes a good use of the scarce resources of small activist groups.


----------



## love detective (Oct 4, 2013)

yeah in theory you don't seem to mind it in practice

out of interest though, if not practical activity in the sphere of progressive working class organisation, what would you say constitutes a good use of the scarce resources of small activist groups (who see the value of progressive self organised working class activity)?


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 4, 2013)

belboid said:


> they didnt really, you know.
> 
> And even if they had, to make food banks work on something other than a purely tokenistic scale would take a damned sight more than 27k. they require mass organisations for them to be able to work regularly - because if they aren't regular, they're worthless, with the food only going to their mates and contacts.
> 
> ...


How much did they raise then?
 That seems to be a pure admission of the total futility of your political posture


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 4, 2013)

I have comrades who were active in food not bombs in Stoke newington for years, they seem to have been able to combine their political activity with a regular soup kitchen/ free food to those who need it. That you are unable to understand the difference between mutual aid and charity speaks volumes about Trotskyist concepts of 'workers power'.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I have comrades who were active in food not bombs in Stoke newington for years



Perhaps you'd like to give an account of the no doubt massive steps forward in working class self-organisation and political action that have grown from Food not Bombs activity around the world?

(Once again, and resisting the almost overwhelming urge to laugh at food not bombs being presented as an example of useful political activity: There's nothing bad about handing out free food. It's just not a viable political strategy in most circumstances).


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 4, 2013)

I haven't had an email from the campaign for a new workers party for a while, how's that getting on?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 4, 2013)

love detective said:


> yeah in theory you don't seem to mind it in practice
> 
> out of interest though, if not practical activity in the sphere of progressive working class organisation, what would you say constitutes a good use of the scarce resources of small activist groups (who see the value of progressive self organised working class activity)?



The issue isn't whether "progressive working class organisation" is desirable. Presumably we all agree on that. It's what forms of organisation, around what issues, with what resources, and with what aims.

So for instance, left wing community activists in Ireland recently have been spending a lot of time trying to organise local groups to push mass non-payment of various regressive new austerity taxes*. They could equally well have been handing out free sandwiches. One of these things was, given our circumstances, a better idea than the other. It should be said though that just because something doesn't represent a good use of resources for a small socialist group, that doesn't mean that it's a bad thing that somebody else tries to do it.

(*With some success against the first such tax, but suffering a serious defeat against the second, which makes things a lot more difficult now that the third is in the post)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 4, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I haven't had an email from the campaign for a new workers party for a while, how's that getting on?



Can I take it that's your full defence of food not bombs? Or do you have more to add?


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2013)

Church down the road from me is giving out free beer this weekend to students.


----------



## belboid (Oct 5, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> How much did they raise then?
> That seems to be a pure admission of the total futility of your political posture


That doesn't even make sense.  Pretty much like the rest of your laughable comments.


barney_pig said:


> I have comrades who were active in food not bombs in Stoke newington for years, they seem to have been able to combine their political activity with a regular soup kitchen/ free food to those who need it. That you are unable to understand the difference between mutual aid and charity speaks volumes about Trotskyist concepts of 'workers power'.


I'm sure we all have friends who regularly take part in charity activities, so what? Food Not Bombs are very clearly NOT mutual aid, its some nice wet hippies doing something for nothing for other people.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 5, 2013)

I have an awful sense of déjà vu about this particular topic, as we have gone over this before, with the socialist party stalwarts doggedly refusing to give an inch to any chance that socialists should make their activity practical rather than purely propagandist. They seem determined to prove they are the true socialist party by being even more abstract and abstentionist than the spgb are reputed to be.
My friend who has been active in food not bombs have combined this with being a rmt rep, Nepalese solidarity work, refugee support, anti bedroom tax activism, etc. 
 But carry on selling your papers and touting your petitions, you'll get there in the end.


----------



## belboid (Oct 5, 2013)

yes, you have a friend who does charity stuff as well as political activity. How nice.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 5, 2013)

Still not answered my question, how much did the cpgb really raise


----------



## belboid (Oct 5, 2013)

No, idea, but if you are naive enough to just believe everything the CPGB print that's your look out.  I dont. 

You know Food Not Bombs explicitly describe themselves as 'activism meets charity' dont you?  They make no pretence about it being 'mutual aid,' so why do you?


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Perhaps you'd like to give an account of the no doubt massive steps forward in working class self-organisation and political action that have grown from Food not Bombs activity around the world?
> 
> (Once again, and resisting the almost overwhelming urge to laugh at food not bombs being presented as an example of useful political activity: There's nothing bad about handing out free food. It's just not a viable political strategy in most circumstances).



Another group who thinks it might be a strategy worth pursuing is golden dawn...


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2013)

Anyway the food bank discussion thread is here should anyone wish to revisit it.http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/foodbanks.309736/


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 5, 2013)

chilango said:


> Another group who thinks it might be a strategy worth pursuing is golden dawn...




Wouldn't similar stuff about specific conditions apply there as it does with the BPP? (Admittedly not quite as far removed but still not really anything like what we've got in the UK right now).

Personally I agree with Nigel that it wouldn't be a good strategy for the SP, certainly not in my area anyway. Apart from anything else we wouldn't have the resources to sustain it for any length of time and since people come to depend on food banks I think it would be irresponsible to do it if you couldn't guarantee you'd be able to continue with it at least for the foreseeable future.

I do think though people in the SP and other such groups who are also members of bigger organisations that are supposed to be representing the people who find themselves in the situation where they need food banks and have the resources - in material and feet on the ground terms - should be arguing for this kind of strategy and getting actively involved in it where it does happen.

There's a lot more to say about how I think this should be done - including community involvement in identifying need and distribution - but I don't have time/can't be arsed to type it out right now.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 5, 2013)

be interested in hearing your thoughts on that SpineyNorman


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Wouldn't similar stuff about specific conditions apply there as it does with the BPP? (Admittedly not quite as far removed but still not really anything like what we've got in the UK right now).



Absolutely.

My point is that the BPP program was not a one off. That other groups feel it's a worthwhile tactic in other circumstances and situations.

Do we have the right circs in the UK right now?

I dunno. But even if we don't, they're getting closer. 

Just something to think about.

I'm not gonna do anything as moronic as demanding the SP does this, or condemn them if they don't.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 6, 2013)

At the risk of bringing the conversation back on topic, Callinicos and Kimber have a lengthy piece defending the CC's approach in the new ISJ. Dave Renton has a reply up on his blog already, dealing only with the handling of the allegations rather than the wider issues discussed in the ISJ piece. In it he goes after Callinicos personally.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 6, 2013)

And to move things back off topic again, the SWP here in Ireland have apparently decided to stand Brid Smith, a councillor in Ballyfermot, in the Dublin constituency in the forthcoming European elections. Which means that they are standing a no hoper candidate against a sitting Socialist Party MEP.

What makes it even better is their reason for doing so. They know that Smith can't win, but they want to raise her profile for the next general election. When they plan to stand her against a sitting independent left wing TD, Joan Collins.

Two almost unbelievable sectarian stunts for the price of one.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And to move things back off topic again, the SWP here in Ireland have apparently decided to stand Brid Smith, a councillor in Ballyfermot, in the Dublin constituency in the forthcoming European elections. Which means that they are standing a no hoper candidate against a sitting Socialist Party MEP.
> 
> What makes it even better is their reason for doing so. They know that Smith can't win, but they want to raise her profile for the next general election. When they plan to stand her against a sitting independent left wing TD, Joan Collins.
> 
> Two almost unbelievable sectarian stunts for the price of one.


this is wrong then? http://mentioningthewar.blogspot.ie/2013/10/shock-announcement-smith-to-be-dublin.html


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 6, 2013)

discokermit said:


> this is wrong then? http://mentioningthewar.blogspot.ie/2013/10/shock-announcement-smith-to-be-dublin.html



The Martin Smith part is a joke in dubious taste. And quite a lot of tendentious colour has been added. But the basic story is true enough.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> At the risk of bringing the conversation back on topic, Callinicos and Kimber have a lengthy piece defending the CC's approach in the new ISJ. Dave Renton has a reply up on his blog already, dealing only with the handling of the allegations rather than the wider issues discussed in the ISJ piece. In it he goes after Callinicos personally.


Do you have a link to the blog Nigel?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 6, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Martin Smith part is a joke in dubious taste. And quite a lot of tendentious colour has been added. But the basic story is true enough.


right. didn't think that sounded credible. but since the whip round to fund his m.a., i wouldn't rule anything out.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 6, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Do you have a link to the blog Nigel?


http://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2...os-charlie-kimber-and-the-rape-investigation/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 6, 2013)

discokermit said:


> right. didn't think that sounded credible. but since the whip round to fund his m.a., i wouldn't rule anything out.



The Irish SWP are destructive sectarians, but they aren't suicidal. The point is to benefit as an organisation from fucking over other socialists, not to get destroyed in the press.


----------



## SLK (Oct 6, 2013)

The Prof:

"On the off-chance that anyone is interested in the truth about the SWP crisis, Dave Renton has made some entirely false factual allegations about my role. I don't intend to debate this on Facebook, but no doubt we will have a chance to discuss his claims (and maybe even some politics) within the SWP in the next couple of months."


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 6, 2013)

SLK said:


> The Prof:
> 
> "On the off-chance that anyone is interested in the truth about the SWP crisis, Dave Renton has made some entirely false factual allegations about my role. I don't intend to debate this on Facebook, but no doubt we will have a chance to discuss his claims (and maybe even some politics) within the SWP in the next couple of months."


Fuck, Renton, your arse is toast!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2013)

The Rees-Kimber piece is truly appalling.


----------



## SLK (Oct 7, 2013)

Is that a deliberate error?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2013)

No, but it might as well have been. The same MO: dishonest re-telling of events that he's personally involved in, leaving out huge chunks of relevant info whilst putting fake emphasis on minor or irrelevant points as distracting tactic - followed by tendentious waffle that always begin in Seattle and ends up with the party he's in being right at every single point or turn since then and all setbacks the result of either internal retreats from the importance of class by everyone who disagrees or external maliciousness (allied, of course, with an abandonment of class). This is the leadership MO across the party and its diaspora - and it didn't happen by accident.


----------



## redcogs (Oct 7, 2013)

A re-booted SWP, one which has dispensed with the Prof and the significant layer of unquestioning hard line hacks who support his (and their) particular brand of 'bolshevism without a conscience' would be a desirable outcome now.

Renton's eye opening revelations perhaps makes such a prospect slightly more likely - but will it be sufficient?  Unlikely imv.

Conference will be fascinating that's for sure.  i'd love a ticket for a ring side seat.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 7, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Conference will be fascinating that's for sure.  i'd love a ticket for a ring side seat.



That's what this forum is for. 

I hope our friends will keep us up to date. Like the BBC text service for football games.


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 7, 2013)

chilango said:


> Another group who thinks it might be a strategy worth pursuing is golden dawn...




On the issue of soup kitchens and the Golden Dawn, the Greek sister party of the Socialist Party, Xekinima, runs a soup kitchen in Athens along with some Anarchists.
This is linked to an over arching strategy to found anti-fascist committees in working class areas to counter-act the influence of Golden Dawn. 
So in this particular area of Athens part of their activity is running a soup kitchen that is open to everyone, not just Greeks that Golden Dawn happen to like.

The difference with what is being argued above by some is that running the soup kitchen is an adjunct to a broader political program.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 7, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> That's what this forum is for.
> 
> I hope our friends will keep us up to date. Like the BBC text service for football games.


You really don't give a bollix how much damage this all causes do you? Long as you get entertained.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2013)

To who? And now we get the other external bit of the MO. Let her rip bolshie, let her rip. All political a minute ago, now _real people_ are getting hurt. (He notices in oct 2013)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You really don't give a bollix how much damage this all causes do you? Long as you get entertained.


Damage to whom? Not the alleged rape victims.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You really don't give a bollix how much damage this all causes do you? Long as you get entertained.



This is classic BB and classic SWP - what they did now becomes the attack. Healy called it dialectics._ 

a)Look how much you have damaged the party_, the only party that counts, _don't you feel ashamed of yourself?  

b)Why have you attacked the party, the only party that counts.

C) ?
_
I never thought that you would reek like this BB. You lot make me fucking sick.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You really don't give a bollix how much damage this all causes do you? Long as you get entertained.



I think it's great to see the SWP destroy itself.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You really don't give a bollix how much damage this all causes do you? Long as you get entertained.


Tote lols


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 7, 2013)

butchers you're too clever by half to have just totally misunderstand my point by mistake. My objection was to the tone of the chap who as far as I know is still a member of an IST organisation. Nobody on either side of the faction fight sees it as the entertainment he clearly does. There are of course people who want to see the SWP die (including a majority on this thread in all probability) but I find it odd for someone in a sister organisation to so clearly take great delight in watching people tear each other apart. Would the people he expects to text him updates from the conference be tickled to hear him describe their efforts as great sport? That point I was making makes no assumptions about whose fault the mess is by the way so you can shove your Healy jibes up your hole you sanctimonious bore.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2013)

Ah the old you're too clever etc bit as exposed earlier.

And your suggestion was clearly that there was some wider class-soul struggle here, that the class was rending itself apart - rather than a private battle in a toy shop.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 7, 2013)

To someone who still claims the toy shop matters you dolt. I know you don't give a fuck....all these pages later.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2013)

I don't think the toy-shop matters.

(abandoning class)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 7, 2013)

Is Callinicos Mr Magorium?


----------



## benedict (Oct 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The Rees-Kimber piece is truly appalling.



Yep. This bit really sticks in the craw:



> outrageously, details of the case were already known to people outside the SWP before the Disputes Committee (the elected party body charged with dealing with disciplinary matters) had reached its final decision.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2013)

benedict said:


> Yep. This bit really sticks in the craw:


I wanted to zoom in on exactly this and made a mental note to do so. There is so much horror in just that line.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 7, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I find it odd for someone in a sister organisation to so clearly take great delight in watching people tear each other apart.



I would welcome it if CC took a hammering over this and I will cheer on every voice - like Renton's - that exposes how shameful was their behaviour from the moment the rape accusation came to their attention. That's not taking delight in watching people tear each other apart, it's adopting the only position that can restore hope for the future of the SWP.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Oct 7, 2013)

rumor has it that renton's piece is gonna be taken down cuz Prof is going to the Disputes Committee about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 8, 2013)

Who needs to go to the state when you have your own.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 8, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> rumor has it that renton's piece is gonna be taken down cuz Prof is going to the Disputes Committee about it.


Which is what cut, paste and republish was designed for


----------



## SLK (Oct 9, 2013)

I have a friend who is due to be elected onto the SWP CC.
And then this summary on facebook appears... 

"Your National Secretary has a totally inappropriate relationship with a teenage member of the party. He gets her drunk by buying her drinks while not drinking himself. They have sex. She is utterly distraught because she has not consented and did not want sex though, like many rape victims, it takes her a while to put a name to what happened. She asks for help from the CC of her party - they simply tell people that it is just a relationship gone wrong and there is nothing to worry about. Your conference then gives the defendant 10 mins to justify and defend himself, following which he receives a standing ovation and cheers. The young woman is not allowed to put her case to conference at all. She is simply refused. Imagine - you believe the leader of the party you belong to has raped you, then you hear that, in discussing the matter, he has received a standing ovation from your supposed comrades: I mean, really, pause for a minute to imagine what that must feel like. Then, members are expelled simply for planning to raise the issue at conference. Members of the CC lose their position for expressing private opposition to what is happening. Meanwhile something like 400 people - half the active membership - leave the SWP. Then *another* woman complains of sexual harassment. She has witnesses and documents. But the CC simply refuse to hear her case. Indeed, they quietly remove her from her job. Finally they are *forced* to accede - but they insist that the investigation is not allowed to find the accused guilty in his absence (something that would not happen anywhere else). The accused nevertheless - having insisting on remaining in post while hundreds leave the SWP in disgust - now chooses this precise moment to resign, with no explanation whatsoever to the membership. He is indeed found to 'have a case to answer'. Still there is no explanation forthcoming as to why the CC feel it has been worth shedding so many members and allowing its reputation to be squandered, all in defense of a man who, it appears, probably was in the habit at least of sexually harassing his subordinates even if you prefer to believe he didn't actually commit a rape. 

A person who doesn't see anything wrong with this picture and believes that the problem is the opposition is either a complete moral wretch or just phenomenally gullible - too gullible, surely, to be involved in Marxist politics. The only possible excuse for not supporting the opposition is that you don't know the basic facts. Those who do know the facts frankly have no excuse at all."

Bolshie, you know I care, but you must also be aware this is a more bankrupt party than the one that let you go many years ago. You don't owe them anything (sorry if you think I'm being patronising, but I don't understand your more recent defence, given your previous complaints).

And personally. How do I deal with being a friend to this person? Rhetorical.


----------



## SLK (Oct 9, 2013)

This gets me:

" i had a long, freindly and open argument with J shortly after her speech to the conference. When I found out she was telling people, without having spoken to me about it, that I was mentally ill and that was why I left, i challenged her about it. She told me that this was what CC members and old friends of mine (one the then CC member chris bambery and one just about to be promoted to the CC i gather) were saying. She was clearly worried that she had done something wrong and told me about about asking MS how guilty he was (a sign that she had a weakness in understanding the issues of sexual harassment and rape) and said she had told her it was a one. She also said she had been thinking of the situation in Scotland and the way people would use any problems to split the party. She wanted to know what I knew and at the time I refused to tell her any details--mostly because I felt she had just taken part in a cover up at the conference and whispering about it to individuals could not make up for that damage, the young woman had at that time left the party and i did not feel her story was mine to tell (rape, which i always thought was what had happened is about loss of self determination and control and as such is for the women involved to disclose or not). the first people to leave were not in Jan 2011 but in 2010. I was one and left the day after MS bullied and i felt threatened me while announcing he was to stay on the CC. I was shocked beyond measure as I had understood he was off the CC even though the young woman had not made an official complaint. When i contacted CK asking if this was really true, he didnt answer the phone so i decided that i had to resign. CK replied after a CC meeting, by email, saying that the CC had discussed me leaving and that i could if i wanted discuss the situation with MS! I obviously refused. I did not say anything about this publically until after the young woman rejoined and complained officially and the rest of this sorry saga began. I deeply regret leaving in 2010 and not fighting for my party. I don't personally think that this sorry and disgusting saga is all down to the closure of women's voice or because the party had a women's liberationist critique of feminism as many of us who shared that history and that critique were perfectly able, at personal cost, to see what was wrong. The issue is that these people had firstly crushed over some years the tradition of open argument and honest debate, plus dont understand and cant be bothered to learn about sexual harassment and rape and have reduced our politics to those of after the revolution that we used to criticise in the Militant Tendency in the 1980s. Added to that mix they also decided that no matter how bad the behaviour of a CC member, no more could be lost in the midst of splits and chaos. So they have hidden behind things like no formal complaint was made (as if that should be needed when such behaviour is described) and have lied and manipulated and smeared. They have relied on the fact that the majority of party members really really want a revolutionary party, now more than ever and would swallow the idea that the survival of the party is more important than anything else or simply refuse to consider seriously the possibility that something so alien to our politics could occur. The survival of a revolutionary party build on the traditions of the SWP and IST is more important than any of us. That is why they should have forced Martin Smith out and fought hard for a genuinely revolutionary, women's liberationist understanding of our politics, which includes criticism of that wing of feminism that seeks equality within capitalism and therefore compromises and sells out and cant deliver. that they forced hundreds of young people, disgusted by the obvious betrayal of women's basic rights let alone liberation, to look elsewhere for politics that promise equality is a disgrace. i own my part in the errors made--i should have fought openly in 2011.

there is always disagreement about what happened in any rape case. Of course you cant know what is true and what not for sure and neither can I. But there are basic things to consider in regard to our politics--what does it mean when the leading man is assumed to be telling the truth by CC members even tho he initially lied about having any kind of sexual "relationship"? It means that the several young women complaining are assumed to have lied or worse, that the young woman who complained of rape is assumed not to be able to judge for herself if she consented. i have had comrades earnestly explain to me that she didn't really want to have sex but for whatever reason agreed and that she only later made it in her head to be rape (showing that they feel able to judge without ever even having met her). there are so many basic rape myths being peddled here. the worst of all is the blatent and open dismissal of the second young woman as being factionally motivated--and the failure to believe a word she says because she has political differences.... it is just time for people to own up that the party fucked this up, sort out our position on rape and stop trying to perpetrate the cover up because it corrupts our politics

 it was a vicious lie. But it is enough to make anyone lose it and i certainly have found it disorientating--not least becuase i am swp old skool all the way and i agree with quite a lot of what Alex and Charlie have to say in the article. what i find disgusting is the attempt to link together the pack of smoke and mirrors on the sexual harassment and rape issue with general politics in a way that is meant to smear anyone arguing that a revolutionary party cannot let this stuff re sexual harassment stand with the brush of political revisionism. I do think that people are layering politcal confusion and disagreement on the issue but it is disgusting that the CC and their supporters use this to obscure and avoid dealing with their own failures. if i had the choice between the most bourgeois of bourgeois feminists and a rapist... well i'd lean my rifle on the shoulders of the bouregois feminist.... innit? the CC are to blame for the confusion and disorientation. i am no great revolutionary and i dont pretend to have any answers. i want the swp to survive, i want to be able to rejoin it. i want to be able to work alongside the people that i respected for so many years. But the sad truth is that the CC would rather have a rapist than the likes of me and rather have a shell of a party under their control than a much bigger organisation in which they have to win, by the example of principled and uncompromising anti-sexism and by clear high level political argument, the argument for our politics against reformist ideas like privilledge theory. That is a tragedy. we need a revolutionary organisation. i personally think we all played our part in f'ing it up in various ways--but the big crimes are those of the people who knew that abuse was going on and thought it best, for often the best of intentions, to cover it up. it is time the CC stopped, decided if they really want to build a revolutionary party or if the whole point has got a bit lost along away and its all about personal lifestyle etc. If the CC do want to build, then when in a hole stop digging ffs!

 I dont know how it can be rescued now. But each day I miss a bit more being in the SWP I once knew-- I cant work out how to negotiate the world all by myself and not compromise or drift off into all sorts of errors. I cant be an intervention in the world alone--cant print or blog ideas that hold and educate people. I miss too the friendships I have lost. I have not changed my politics and I dont have anyother politial home. But if we are serious revolutionaries then we all need to find a way to get over it. I always hate the sneering at Alex and Charlie, mad though I am at them. I dont feel comfortable with it--yes they are fucking up. But i still think it is from a place of fear of the party falling apart (ironic given they have pulled it apart) and being ignorant on sexual harassment and rape. But i am clear that the only way to get over it, is to admit that something was wrong, seriously look at what abuse is like and its effects on people and then reopen honestly the party to those driven out who want to be members. those who dont need to be in whatever organisation suits their beliefs and then we all need to get on working to change the world, combining when we can, working together when we can and being honest, and open but not so bloody sectarian and personal, in our criticisms of eachother."



That's my kind of comrade. Except it will never happen.


----------



## Scribbling S (Oct 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> I have a friend who is due to be elected onto the SWP CC.
> And then this summary on facebook appears...
> 
> "Your National Secretary has......etc.
> ...



Personally, and unrhetorically, I guess I would deal with being a friend to a CC member by remaining a friend, but saying "I hate to be unpleasant, but what you are doing on the way the SWP has deliberately covered up sexual harrasment and assault is very wrong. It is morally wrong and frankly a bit mad - it can't be doing your soul any good and is destroying the party " or something like that - maybe you've done this already, but I don't think there is enough of directly saying to SWP members what they have done wrong. The fact that they tend to avoid the issue so relentlessly suggests they know they are wrong, but are just caught in some kind of vicious spiral. Some friendly advice maybe will help them get out of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2013)

SLK said:


> I dont know how it can be rescued now. But each day I miss a bit more being in the SWP I once knew-- I cant work out how to negotiate the world all by myself and not compromise or drift off into all sorts of errors



Good lord, what does this party do to people?


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 9, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> The fact that they tend to avoid the issue so relentlessly suggests they know they are wrong, but are just caught in some kind of vicious spiral. Some friendly advice maybe will help them get out of it.



I agree that in some cases the problem is not cynicism but a kind of Freudian denial. Some SWP members literally cannot contemplate the truth. The idea that MS raped a teenage member is so far outside their mental model of the world that the thought cannot be grasped. The mind instantly slides to the side as it approaches that deeply disturbing idea, refuses to allow it existence, quickly grasping at 'explanations' that will avoid the horror of the collapse of a section of your personality that has been built up over decades. To hold to revolutionary goals for decades, when all around there is a great deal of subtle pressure to abandon them, is not easy. Part of the thinking that sustains SWP members in the party is a sense of pride and personal nobility in keeping on with the fight against injustice through thick and thin. We can read above how agonising it is to lose that (although SLK's friend will soon get it back once she appreciates the world beyond the SWP is rich with class fighters who are no more likely to drift off into error than the SWP CC). It's for those members, above all, that I spoke out early on in an open letter against the cover-up. It is much more likely that such members will be able to actually think about the truth of this matter when it is expressed by others within the SWP or IST. And to them I add that there are worse experiences than having to revolutionise your party (and thus your own self-image). The crisis you feel now will be as nothing if you devote the rest of your political life and energy to a morally bankrupt party.


----------



## laptop (Oct 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Good lord, what does this party do to people?


----------



## redcogs (Oct 9, 2013)

Many former swp people will know the powerful impulse towards building the party regardless of cost to individuals - its deep within the party's dna.  Actually, its a noble and entirely honourable aspect of serious left politics, and plainly, without it, building a party capable of taking on the capitalist state would be impossible.  Those in national leadership positions are surely charged with knowing this more than any, for navigating the good ship socialism can't be achieved if at the same time all the crew are being damaged and cast astern in the course of the voyage.

If the leadership catastrophically fail, as Callinicos and others obviously have in this appalling episode, and they then cover and twist the facts, (even if it is in the interests of maintaining a revolutionary presence in the uk), then  they are recklessly betraying all the very best instincts of all the very best self sacrificing rank and file members (see SLK friend above).   Such a leadership should not survive this, even if their motivations were beyond repute.

If the swp wishes to survive as a force on the political landscape, they have a conference opportunity to re-establish some credibility - but this time, the self sacrificing must be done by those responsible for producing this crisis. 

i suppose the main question (for those not wishing to see the end of the swp) will be whether there is an alternative leadership out there, (one far less attached to the current stalinised model) who are willing to endure the inevitable difficulties and step forward?


----------



## treelover (Oct 9, 2013)

> Many former swp people will know the powerful impulse towards building the party regardless of cost to individuals - its deep within the party's dna. Actually, its a noble and entirely honourable aspect of serious left politics,


 
Appalling, this is what leads to the 'end justifies the means', and ultimately things like the Delta obscenities.


----------



## redcogs (Oct 9, 2013)

treelover said:


> Appalling, this is what leads to the 'end justifies the means', and ultimately things like the Delta obscenities.



Of the many problems faced in building an effective left party, the issue of recognising the ability of your opponents to play dirty is pretty crucial isn't it treelover?  We all realise that the capitalist class will do virtually anything to hold onto their authority and protect 'their' interests.  Sackings, victimisations, smashing communities (the pit strike), ultimately international (and civil) warfare hasn't been beyond them.  Its hard to see that a political party which might challenge all that could consist of people who are entirely naive to the potential consequences of entering into serious conflict with the establishment. 

Self sacrifice has to be a part of the psychology of the realistic 'revolutionary party' member doesn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 9, 2013)

Yes, it's healthy. It's how the thing exists.


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2013)

Is there any precedent, anywhere, in recent history of a left party making a come back from this kind of position?


----------



## redcogs (Oct 9, 2013)

chilango said:


> Is there any precedent, anywhere, in recent history of a left party making a come back from this kind of position?


Probably not.  but for those who have ploughed their lives into the creation of what they regard as the only realistic vehicle for fundamental social change, its easy to see why they might want to do their uppermost to salvage something from the remnants?

Personally, i don't think i'd have the staying power, but i remain in sympathyy and admiration of those decent people that might.


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Probably not.  but for those who have ploughed their lives into the creation of what they regard as the only realistic vehicle for fundamental social change, its easy to see why they might want to do their uppermost to salvage something from the remnants?
> 
> Personally, i don't think i'd have the staying power, but i remain in sympathyy and admiration of those decent people that might.



Sympathy? For sure. Admiration? Hell no!


----------



## ayatollah (Oct 9, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Probably not.  but for those who have ploughed their lives into the creation of what they regard as the only realistic vehicle for fundamental social change, its easy to see why they might want to do their uppermost to salvage something from the remnants?
> 
> Personally, i don't think i'd have the staying power, but i remain in sympathyy and admiration of those decent people that might.


 
As an ex IS/SWP er in the dim distant past myself, redcogs,  I  too have some fond memories of  that grouplet in better , mainly 1970's ,days (Rank &  File Movement, ANL Mk I,  its relatively open intellectual atmosphere in the 1970's) but let's not kid ourselves that the last , at least 20 years or so of the SWP's organisational and political history haven't been other than a slightly modified, slightly less dramatic , re-run of the Gerry Healy SLL/WRP  tragic political train crash of the mid 1970's onwards. Healey of course actually sold the WRP body and soul to  the murderous stalino/fascistic Assad and Gaddafi dictatorships (to the extent of spying on and grassing up left wing opponents of those gross regimes in the UK). In contrast the SWP's utter sellout to Islamic fundamentalism , particularly during the Stop the War and  Respect opportunistic episodes , doesn't compare in scale to Healy's degeneration , but it's  still some way down that disastrous slope of political collapse - justified in all sorts of "dialectical" verbiage - but actually just aimed at keeping the funds rolling in to support the self perpetuating  full time bureaucracy at the "party" centre - who have long assumed that they alone were the arbiters of the true way forward to socialism - no matter how convoluted  and opportunistic the route. Tragic, but inevitable - given the crushing impact of  30 years of downturn in the class struggle ,represented by the neoliberal hegemony of the last 30 years, on espoused "revolutionary socialist" groups.

You may still admire  all those "decent people" who represented the membership of the SWP over that long  period of gross opportunism and stagnation.  I'm afraid I have serious doubts about most of those people. ANYONE who was able to swallow all that  sucking up to the Muslim clerico fascists stuff  of the last 20 or so years , and the ludicrous interconnected alliance with that arch opportunist scoundrel, and arselicker of Arab dictators and Islamic clerico fascist regimes, Galloway, has already so compromised their political soul, as to make  a return to genuine revolutionery politics pretty damned hard to imagine. And that includes all those who recently left the SWP over the rape allegations scandal. Frankly, leaving the SWP only after the rape allegation scandal, but having swallowed and justified all the SWP's other grossly opportunistic, indeed reactionery,  behaviours of the last 30 years, is a bit like leaving the Soviet Communist Party in 1936 because you weren't too happy about its line on socialist realist art (only a lot less personally dangerous, obviously) !


----------



## emanymton (Oct 9, 2013)

sorry i am having  masive problems posting from my phone.  I appreciate the point you are making but you might want to rethink that final analogy.


----------



## belboid (Oct 9, 2013)

Callinicos replies to the Dave Renton piece - "it weren't me guv"

https://www.facebook.com/alex.callinicos/posts/10153358803985118


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> Callinicos replies to the Dave Renton piece - "it weren't me guv"
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/alex.callinicos/posts/10153358803985118


The claims Renton makes that he doesn't directly address are more interesting than the ones he does. Taking Callinicos at his word on all three of these points doesn't really alter the thrust of the argument he's responding to.


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2013)

Something that has just struck me reading the later posts in this thread is the gulf between me and the SWP. 

I don't read this from the perspective of being an ex-member. In fact I'd almost forgotten I had been! 

...or even thinking of the many many good people I've met over the years who are (or most likely were) SWP members.

Nope. I read this and think, automatically, of the SWP being some distant, alien, entity with no connection to me or mine...and that it's inevitable passing has nowt to do with me.

Oh well.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 9, 2013)

belboid said:


> Callinicos replies to the Dave Renton piece - "it weren't me guv"
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/alex.callinicos/posts/10153358803985118


this post is a beaut,

Rostam FarrokhzādAlex, you are an heroic revolutionary leader and the scourge of the capitalist class in the United Kingdom. These rumours circulating are the working of the reformist devil who manifests his evil in the form of feminism, autonomism, ecologism and other forms of post-materialist, anti-socialist deviations. You should be commended for your role, not persecuted. Those who stand beside the reformist oppositionalists will one day look back at their role in destroying the Socialist Workers Party, and see that as the main reason that the British Conservatives were so easily able to attack the working class and undermine all the rights that they had hitherto won. The oppositionalists, the ISN, those many oppositionalists who have defected to the pseudo-Trotskyite, Zionist Alliance of Workers Liberty are working in the interests of capitalist hegenomy. You and those who remain within the SWP are working in the interests of the working class. Solidarity, brother.


----------



## killer b (Oct 9, 2013)

discokermit said:


> this post is a beaut,
> 
> Rostam FarrokhzādAlex, you are an heroic revolutionary leader and the scourge of the capitalist class in the United Kingdom. These rumours circulating are the working of the reformist devil who manifests his evil in the form of feminism, autonomism, ecologism and other forms of post-materialist, anti-socialist deviations. You should be commended for your role, not persecuted. Those who stand beside the reformist oppositionalists will one day look back at their role in destroying the Socialist Workers Party, and see that as the main reason that the British Conservatives were so easily able to attack the working class and undermine all the rights that they had hitherto won. The oppositionalists, the ISN, those many oppositionalists who have defected to the pseudo-Trotskyite, Zionist Alliance of Workers Liberty are working in the interests of capitalist hegenomy. You and those who remain within the SWP are working in the interests of the working class. Solidarity, brother.


it's satire. isn't it?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 9, 2013)

killer b said:


> it's satire. isn't it?


i hope so. i think proletarian democracy should get comrade rostam writing for workers girder


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 9, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Probably not.  but for those who have ploughed their lives into the creation of what they regard as the only realistic vehicle for fundamental social change, its easy to see why they might want to do their uppermost to salvage something from the remnants?
> 
> Personally, i don't think i'd have the staying power, but i remain in sympathyy and admiration of those decent people that might.


  from the Labour Party right through to the 'anarchists', I don't think I have come across any genuine politicals, no matter how much I disagreed with their ideas, that didn't evoke in me admiration. Selflessness, in abundance soooooooooo many of them.


----------



## belboid (Oct 9, 2013)

killer b said:


> it's satire. isn't it?


they're a member of Croydon LRC, so i'd have to presume so.


Alex's second point of rebuttal is excellent - 'its wrong to say I led a strategy of calling the opposition feminists and autonomist.  I didn't have any strategy at all.'  Genius


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 9, 2013)

chilango said:


> Something that has just struck me reading the later posts in this thread is the gulf between me and the SWP.
> 
> I don't read this from the perspective of being an ex-member. In fact I'd almost forgotten I had been!
> 
> ...


 and yet,,,,,,,,
LOL


----------



## chilango (Oct 9, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> and yet,,,,,,,,
> LOL



...and yet what?


----------



## redcogs (Oct 10, 2013)

ayatollah said:


> As an ex IS/SWP er in the dim distant past myself, redcogs,  I  too have some fond memories of  that grouplet in better , mainly 1970's ,days (Rank &  File Movement, ANL Mk I,  its relatively open intellectual atmosphere in the 1970's) but let's not kid ourselves that the last , at least 20 years or so of the SWP's organisational and political history haven't been other than a slightly modified, slightly less dramatic , re-run of the Gerry Healy SLL/WRP  tragic political train crash of the mid 1970's onwards. Healey of course actually sold the WRP body and soul to  the murderous stalino/fascistic Assad and Gaddafi dictatorships (to the extent of spying on and grassing up left wing opponents of those gross regimes in the UK). In contrast the SWP's utter sellout to Islamic fundamentalism , particularly during the Stop the War and  Respect opportunistic episodes , doesn't compare in scale to Healy's degeneration , but it's  still some way down that disastrous slope of political collapse - justified in all sorts of "dialectical" verbiage - but actually just aimed at keeping the funds rolling in to support the self perpetuating  full time bureaucracy at the "party" centre - who have long assumed that they alone were the arbiters of the true way forward to socialism - no matter how convoluted  and opportunistic the route. Tragic, but inevitable - given the crushing impact of  30 years of downturn in the class struggle ,represented by the neoliberal hegemony of the last 30 years, on espoused "revolutionary socialist" groups.
> 
> You may still admire  all those "decent people" who represented the membership of the SWP over that long  period of gross opportunism and stagnation.  I'm afraid I have serious doubts about most of those people. ANYONE who was able to swallow all that  sucking up to the Muslim clerico fascists stuff  of the last 20 or so years , and the ludicrous interconnected alliance with that arch opportunist scoundrel, and arselicker of Arab dictators and Islamic clerico fascist regimes, Galloway, has already so compromised their political soul, as to make  a return to genuine revolutionery politics pretty damned hard to imagine. And that includes all those who recently left the SWP over the rape allegations scandal. Frankly, leaving the SWP only after the rape allegation scandal, but having swallowed and justified all the SWP's other grossly opportunistic, indeed reactionery,  behaviours of the last 30 years, is a bit like leaving the Soviet Communist Party in 1936 because you weren't too happy about its line on socialist realist art (only a lot less personally dangerous, obviously) !



i share your criticism ayatollah, and the anti marxist hypocrisy of swp members courting dubious reactionary imams for short term advantage ought to have produced internal revolt.  And its certainly true that there are quite a few incidences of swp double standards which are now brought to mind by this continuing wreck - and i can recall several arguments with Morning Star supporters for instance (70s & 80s), which were 'won'  by us trots on the basis that working class communists who failed to resign from the CP were betraying socialism because they knew of all the horrors of Stalins gulag and the suppression of the Hungarian Uprising ..   And, placing politics aside, i have personal criticisms of members i know who are quite unsuited to holding any position of power under any imaginable circumstance, but they remain influential, despite exhibiting character flaws which are so acute that they would probably be excluded from professions where sociopathy is commonly regarded as a significant asset ! (elite banking?).

Yet, despite the glaring political blunders and an internal atmosphere of trenchant bullying and unacceptable stifling of real debate, people have stayed.   Some, presumably because they accept the notion of infallibility of the vanguard party (which naturally is always right), others, perhaps because they are so wrapped up in the psychosis of the small group that they cannot conceive of life beyond 'the party'.

At the same time, my experience suggests that there are those within the swp who i always thought were absolutely decent human beings, people who usually regarded it as their role to offer some corrective balance to the cyborg tendencies excesses.  Their instincts always seemed fine to me, and if they could construct an organisation which reflected such values it may have some longer term prospect of being influential within the working class for the right reasons. 

i'm pessimistic that it will happen of course, but i still wish them well.  And i remain convinced that the left would be badly damaged by the disappearance of its most active and vibrant section.


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 10, 2013)

A useful barometer of the organizational health of the SWP is checking the number of branches listed in the 'What's On' section of Socialist Worker. This scanned copy taken from Socialist Worker this time last year (October 6th 2012) lists 68 branches holding events that week. This includes Scotland by the way.

If you look at the branch listings this week in Socialist Worker it has dropped to 46.

So I think it's fair to say that in the last year the SWP has lost one third of the organisation. If Callinicos and Co win the next round of the faction fight I think it's safe to assume the will lose another big chunk of the membership, either through expulsions, resignations or people just drifting away in disappointment.

In the weeks after the conference it'll be interesting to see if the SWP still try to claim they are "the largest revolutionary group in Britain" https://twitter.com/SWP_Britain


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 10, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> A useful barometer of the organizational health of the SWP is checking the number of branches listed in the 'What's On' section of Socialist Worker. This scanned copy taken from Socialist Worker this time last year (October 6th 2012) lists 68 branches holding events that week. This includes Scotland by the way.
> 
> If you look at the branch listings this week in Socialist Worker it has dropped to 46.
> 
> ...


  why?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> why?


you're quite right. it will be rather dull instead.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 10, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i share your criticism ayatollah, and the anti marxist hypocrisy of swp members courting dubious reactionary imams for short term advantage ought to have produced internal revolt. And its certainly true that there are quite a few incidences of swp double standards which are now brought to mind by this continuing wreck - and i can recall several arguments with Morning Star supporters for instance (70s & 80s), which were 'won'  by us trots on the basis that working class communists who failed to resign from the CP were betraying socialism because they knew of all the horrors of Stalins gulag and the suppression of the Hungarian Uprising ..   And, placing politics aside, i have personal criticisms of members i know who are quite unsuited to holding any position of power under any imaginable circumstance, but they remain influential, despite exhibiting character flaws which are so acute that they would probably be excluded from professions where sociopathy is commonly regarded as a significant asset ! (elite banking?).
> 
> Yet, despite the glaring political blunders and an internal atmosphere of trenchant bullying and unacceptable stifling of real debate, people have stayed.   Some, presumably because they accept the notion of infallibility of the vanguard party (which naturally is always right), others, perhaps because they are so wrapped up in the psychosis of the small group that they cannot conceive of life beyond 'the party'.


 do you remember the SWP support for the Mujahideen? I am not saying no mistakes were made, and no lines were crossed, but is it not possible there was no internal revolt over siding with some revolting people precisely because the debate was had, and the arguments were won. In the  generality of the argument, I basically agree with the hypothesis the Muslims now, are the Jews of the 1930s, and so we should stand shoulder to shoulder with them in such as the "Stop the War Campaign". in general I still have no problems working with  imans, priests,  vicars or rabbis, in a UNITED FRONT.

I'm not for 1 minute denying your experience. your experience is your experience.  But that is not one I share . in fact I remember being "bullied " by Alex for failing to raise for debate in a district meeting , something I brought up afterwards. I Also remember feeling " I wish they would debate a little bit less, and act a little bit more.". 





> the same time, my experience suggests that there are those within the swp who i always thought were absolutely decent human beings, people who usually regarded it as their role to offer some corrective balance to the cyborg tendencies excesses.  Their instincts always seemed fine to me, and if they could construct an organisation which reflected such values it may have some longer term prospect of being influential within the working class for the right reasons.
> 
> i'm pessimistic that it will happen of course, but i still wish them well.  And i remain convinced that the left would be badly damaged by the disappearance of its most active and vibrant section.


I have raised this before, and then people said I was lying, but I do recall at the time of the collapse of the Communist Party/S in the UK, that the SWP did celebrate the collapse of the Russian Empire and the ideology of the Communist Party etc, however it also sounded a similar note of caution as you are there. The collapse of the Communist Party/S saw a whole swathe of working-class activist move out of activity. This meant in pure practical terms, in fighting the fascists, cuts, the bosses there were just fewer active people about, and the fightback's weakend. Similar is likely to happen with the collapse of the SWP. The ACTIVE progressive left, just got smaller, AGAIN! Something to celebrate?



redcogs said:


> i suppose the main question (for those not wishing to see the end of the swp) will be whether there is an alternative leadership out there, (one far less attached to the current stalinised model) who are willing to endure the inevitable difficulties and step forward?


The bosses are organised to fight us, I would like to see us organising to fight them. Sadly there is little discussion of that, probably because there is little of that happening. 

On a brighter note, haven't we had a beautiful summer.


----------



## redcogs (Oct 10, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> The bosses are organised to fight us, I would like to see us organising to fight them. Sadly there is little discussion of that, probably because there is little of that happening.



Yes, this is the argument that clinches it for me.  Our side have been so badly fractured by the past 30 years of overwhelming defeats that we are not in a condition to see any left organisation go down the plughole without serious consequences.  The ability of working people to organise and take back the offensive has to be re-remembered, and i see socialist organisation as being essential to such a process.

That said Resistance MP3, for much of that long 30 year dark night, the swp has either been offering various false dawns , ie, 'the upturn is just around the corner' - 'being held back by a supine semi corrupt TU leadership' (at least the party were half right on that!), and/or denying self evident truths -  ie, 'the very low level of class struggle is not as catastrophic as it appears', despite all the evidence of a veritable collapse in days 'lost' to industrial action and strikes.  It is good to learn that those days of denial are now gone ( "Sadly there is little discussion of that, probably because there is little of that happening").

Maybe, if the swp survives this fuck up, there will be some adjustment towards a new realism which properly recognises the nature and the scale and consequences of the neoliberal assault ?

i do agree with you  on the weather BTW, but it is awful cold today.


----------



## dominion (Oct 10, 2013)

And I thought that SWP members were deluded inside their diminishing little sect!

The demise of Stalinism in the form of the CP is only to welcomed. The end of the SWP is finally in sight and even SPEW is having troubles. These organisations represent a different ideological age, the age of dictators. They are fit only for fighting and competing with each other.

Marxism in all its variants has failed. Get over it.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 10, 2013)

dominion said:


> And I thought that SWP members were deluded inside their diminishing little sect!
> 
> The demise of Stalinism in the form of the CP is only to welcomed. The end of the SWP is finally in sight and even SPEW is having troubles. These organisations represent a different ideological age, the age of dictators. They are fit only for fighting and competing with each other.
> 
> Marxism in all its variants has failed. Get over it.



Wouldn't you be better off at the comments section of Harry's Place with the Pam Geller fans talking about how Marxism is basically the same thing as Nazism ad nauseum, Howie?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 10, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i share your criticism ayatollah, and the anti marxist hypocrisy of swp members courting dubious reactionary imams for short term advantage ought to have produced internal revolt.  And its certainly true that there are quite a few incidences of swp double standards which are now brought to mind by this continuing wreck - and i can recall several arguments with Morning Star supporters for instance (70s & 80s), which were 'won'  by us trots on the basis that working class communists who failed to resign from the CP were betraying socialism because they knew of all the horrors of Stalins gulag and the suppression of the Hungarian Uprising ..   And, placing politics aside, i have personal criticisms of members i know who are quite unsuited to holding any position of power under any imaginable circumstance, but they remain influential, despite exhibiting character flaws which are so acute that they would probably be excluded from professions where sociopathy is commonly regarded as a significant asset ! (elite banking?).
> 
> Yet, despite the glaring political blunders and an internal atmosphere of trenchant bullying and unacceptable stifling of real debate, people have stayed.   Some, presumably because they accept the notion of infallibility of the vanguard party (which naturally is always right), others, perhaps because they are so wrapped up in the psychosis of the small group that they cannot conceive of life beyond 'the party'.
> 
> ...


I think we see the SWP in very much the same way. 

The majority of people I know in the SWP, are not members because they belive the SWP is a particularly wonderful party, but because they belive it is the best available option. It is not really difficult to see why, let's be honest if you are committed to the need for a Leninist party then your only real options are the SWP and the SP. The SWP has survived as a party not because of its merits, but because there wasn't really anywhere else for its members to go. It is managing to limp through the current crises largely on this basis and will, I think, continue on for some time for the same reason.


----------



## dominion (Oct 10, 2013)

Hi J Ed, Nah, but might you be happier here: http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/ shalom old boy!


----------



## J Ed (Oct 10, 2013)

Really confusing being accused of Stalinism, first time for everything, but anyway.. out of curiousity Howard, does the deadness of Marxism in all its variants include that of the AWL? I only ask because your blog gives me the impression that you are quite keen on them, they don't seem to get it in the neck from you at all and they at least call themselves Marxists.

I don't like the SWP at all, in fact I'm pretty certain that their very existence has actively put off a lot of intelligent and capable people from socialist politics for life, but you're no better. You argue in favour of aggressive Anglo-American foreign policy and act astonished and upset when the consequences of that foreign policy (attacks on organised labour, democracy and sovereignty) continue as they have for over a hundred years. What do you have to offer exactly? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the SWP and Socialist Action over Islamists while looking up loyally at the bosses' table when Ed gets elected hoping that a few crumbs fall and that workfare and the persecution of the disabled doesn't get even worse under Labour than the Tories? Your entire blog is based on a fiction, that social democracy in any form really exists as a possibility in the Labour Party.


----------



## dominion (Oct 10, 2013)

There's me thinking you might have a sense of humour...never mind.

I think the AWL members I know would balk at the suggestion that I have anytime for their shouty/bullying behaviour that I have seen them indulge in over the years. I don't recall ever arguing for agrressive Anglo-American foreign policy and besides you will have noted that my blog works with LabourStart over international trade union rights.

I am not a member of the Labour Party (or any other party for that matter), neither would I see myself as a Social Democrat. I simply see the Labour Party as the only realistic option on the table if anything at all is ever going to be done. Never said they were perfect and have written this: http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/labour-and-trade-unions-in-21st-century.html.

I am not beholden to any ideology/theology and would describe myself as a free-thinker and athiest (the latter should be obvious if you have followed the blog.

Marxism/Fascism/Religious fundamentalism all have one thing in common. A complete disdain for the rights of the individual. Anarchism simply will never work so we are left with the real world and the question of reform.

Reformism is preferable to other political methods other than in extreme circumstances so abuse me if you wish. There is a limit to what I as an individual can do so concentrate on being a TU rep, mainly working on Personal cases (couple of domestic violence ones currently). Its better to do something rather than nothing, don't you think?

Fiction is living in a blinkered world where nothing is ever done but dream.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 10, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Really confusing being accused of Stalinism, first time for everything, but anyway.. out of curiousity Howard, does the deadness of Marxism in all its variants include that of the AWL? I only ask because your blog gives me the impression that you are quite keen on them, they don't seem to get it in the neck from you at all and they at least call themselves Marxists.
> 
> I don't like the SWP at all, in fact I'm pretty certain that their very existence has actively put off a lot of intelligent and capable people from socialist politics for life, but you're no better. You argue in favour of aggressive Anglo-American foreign policy and act astonished and upset when the consequences of that foreign policy (attacks on organised labour, democracy and sovereignty) continue as they have for over a hundred years. What do you have to offer exactly? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the SWP and Socialist Action over Islamists while looking up loyally at the bosses' table when Ed gets elected hoping that a few crumbs fall and that workfare and the persecution of the disabled doesn't get even worse under Labour than the Tories? Your entire blog is based on a fiction, that social democracy in any form really exists as a possibility in the Labour Party.



He's a full on crank. Pretentious twat too. "I am above ideology and I am an athiest" 

To be ignored.


----------



## dominion (Oct 10, 2013)

Delboy represents the kind of closed mind that we should reject.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 10, 2013)

dominion said:


> Delboy represents the kind of closed mind that we should reject.



_Smoke some of this dank, maaan. _


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 11, 2013)

Would youtube 'skeptic' type political theorists like dominion benefit from re-eduction come the revolution or would they have to be put in a bed with a quicklime mattress?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 11, 2013)

dominion said:


> Delboy represents the kind of closed mind that we should reject.



Who's this we? You're the leper here pal.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 11, 2013)

dominion said:


> Delboy represents the kind of closed mind that we should reject.



Why do you insist on calling him delboy? Do you think it makes you sound dead witty and clever or something? It doesn't. It makes you look like a humourless self satisfied cunt with his head stuck up his own arse. Which to be honest is probably a fair reflection so on second thoughts you should probably just keep it up.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 11, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why do you insist on calling him delboy? Do you think it makes you sound dead witty and clever or something? It doesn't. It makes you look like a humourless self satisfied cunt with his head stuck up his own arse. Which to be honest is probably a fair reflection so on second thoughts you should probably just keep it up.


 lol


----------



## dennisr (Oct 11, 2013)

*Paul Murphy – campaigning to retain MEP seat for Left but SWP’s sectarian decision could damage chances*
http://www.socialistparty.net/compo...urphy-campaigning-to-retain-mep-seat-for-left


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 11, 2013)

dominion said:


> And I thought that SWP members were deluded inside their diminishing little sect!
> 
> The demise of Stalinism in the form of the CP is only to welcomed. The end of the SWP is finally in sight and even SPEW is having troubles. These organisations represent a different ideological age, the age of dictators. They are fit only for fighting and competing with each other.
> 
> Marxism in all its variants has failed. Get over it.


 is that directed at me ,with my mentioning at the CP ?
Do you actually know anything about the history of the CP in the UK? In the UK at various points, the CP not only played a positive role in working-class politics, but a major role. The role would twist and turn, according to Russian foreign policy, i.e. contrast their work on the early 1930s grassroots building, to their popular frontism of the late 1930s, but in any guise it has probably had more progressive impact on British politics than any other left-wing organisation, including the Labour Party [if you take into consideration Communist Party's influence upon Labour Party actions.]
That said, your attempt to troll people on here about the collapse of the Communist party, is tilting at windmills, as nobody on here I know of didn't celebrate the collapse of Stalinism. The SWP, along with everyone else on here, celebrated the collapse for the same reasons as you, the collapse of dictatorship.

Marxism has failed how precisely? Failed to create real democracy? You're right. But is that really something to be gleeful about?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 11, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Yes, this is the argument that clinches it for me. Our side have been so badly fractured by the past 30 years of overwhelming defeats that we are not in a condition to see any left organisation go down the plughole without serious consequences. The ability of working people to organise and take back the offensive has to be re-remembered, and i see socialist organisation as being essential to such a process.
> That said Resistance MP3, for much of that long 30 year dark night, the swp has either been offering various false dawns , ie, 'the upturn is just around the corner' - 'being held back by a supine semi corrupt TU leadership' (at least the party were half right on that!), and/or denying self evident truths - ie, 'the very low level of class struggle is not as catastrophic as it appears', despite all the evidence of a veritable collapse in days 'lost' to industrial action and strikes. It is good to learn that those days of denial are now gone ( "Sadly there is little discussion of that, probably because there is little of that happening").
> Maybe, if the swp survives this fuck up, there will be some adjustment towards a new realism which properly recognises the nature and the scale and consequences of the neoliberal assault ?
> i do agree with you
> ...


I just want to be honest in clear, ideologically I am SWP through and through. All their stuff, their writings, lectures etc make sense of the worlds social history,,,,,, for me. But I have no idea whether "the days of denial are now gone" for the SWP, because I haven't been a member for over a decade.
That mistakes were made in assessments, is undeniable. But I don't think the positivism of the SWP was strategically that erroneous. You talk about the need for realism, but to what end? Tony Cliff has been massively criticised on here for his downturn theory of the 1980s, are you saying the SWP should have continued with that?
My attraction to the SWP, after its initial making sense of the world, was its pragmatism. That you have to start from the point that the revolutionary left are never going to agree. You're never going to win a united front of the revolutionary left. You have to start from, it's not only okay to disagree with the revolutionary left, it's good for the revolutionary left to disagree, have different strategies. [This recognition forces you not to ignore the rest of the revolutionary left, but to not dwell upon the division, and concentrate on the force for change. This is not arrogance of sectarianism IMO, its pragmatism.]
The role of any revolutionary left organising, should be to try to change the world. The only people that can do this, is the working class. And so the role of any revolutionary organisation, is to pull as many working-class people into self organisation as possible. The ideology of the working class may be mainly "capitalist workers" or "manufactured consent", but ideas change in struggle. And so the SWP's promotion MASS struggle as the be all and end all, seems legitimate to me.
If you ever in a campaign in a downturn, and see mass involvement is absolutely essential, you cannot really start from, "oh well, let's have a campaign, it realistically has no chance of achieving anything, but let's try anyway" because people just will not get involved on that basis. But if you are in a downturn, and don't realistically have a chance of winning, what's the point of 'lying' to people?
One, you can never say you never have a chance of winning. Social history is far too chaotic. Social revolutions came without forewarning. Victories can come from the unlikeliest of circumstances.
But even if you have no chance of winning, you do have a chance of winning individuals to the class struggle. To building revolutionary organisations. To making the left bigger and stronger in the downturns, so that in the upturns you can have more influence.
This is why I liked the SWP publications. The paper starts from the positivism, the review starts to give you the bigger picture, the ISJ books and lectures etc start to put that positivism into historical perspective. If it didn't do this, how could most of the people I know have been in the party for 20, 30, 40, 50 years?
I forget the phrase SWP members always use about positivism, but I don't think positivism is necessarily a bad thing.



Wheather, tell me about it.  I'm paralysed from the neck down, so having the right clothes on to be able to go outside AND cool enoug to be inside where people have the heating on 23° is impossible. And getting the clothes on and off a right struggle.   I put on my Facebook recently "sat on the coastal road, drinking in the last few drops of summer, like a man facing the Gobi desert of a British winter". A bit melodramatic, and mixed metaphor I know, but it captures the spirit. From the Freedom of this summer, to the lockdown I now face for several months, is not nice. Oh well, it's warm in front of the computer.


----------



## dominion (Oct 11, 2013)

For the purposes of argument I have assumed my critics are all Marxists. Considering the debate on this thread revolved around firstly the allegations around Delta, the way the organisation (badly) handled the case, the twists turns, threats (forgotten the "lynch mobs already?) and distortions of arguments used in debate it continues to amaze me that some of you still think these kind of organisations can be turned around.

It is not so much a question of being "gleeful" as Resistance Mp3 put it, more as recognising that the ideology itself is flawed and has become more so over the years. Stalinism is not some kind of historic aberration, it arose out of the practices of Lenin and Trotsky in the early years of the revolution. Trotsky opened the Gulags, developed the methodology that was used to suppress and eliminate internal opposition (eg the Workers Opposition & the Trade Union Opposition) which was simply utilised by Stalin against the Left Opposition. Rememebr this took place after all external opponets had been eliminated.

The rest as they say is history. But many such as the SWP, WRP and I fear some on here have not learnt those lessons. The role of the CP is known to me Resistance MP3, but since their aim was to create a similar Stalinist state, I cannot see them in a good light.

The language and violence used by by the various Marxist regimes across history is appalling and though you and others seem to recognise that, balk at moving on from the past. 

Criticism is not "trolling" in any shape or form.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Oct 11, 2013)

Of course All Marxism is Stalinism and All Marxism is Leninism. Anyone who agrees with any aspect of Marxism is explicitly endorsing mass murder.

See you after the second half Howard.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 11, 2013)

dominion said:


> The language and violence used by by the various Marxist regimes across history is appalling and though you and others seem to recognise that, balk at moving on from the past.



Fixed this for you


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 11, 2013)

dominion said:


> For the purposes of argument I have assumed my critics are all Marxists. Considering the debate on this thread revolved around firstly the allegations around Delta, the way the organisation (badly) handled the case, the twists turns, threats (forgotten the "lynch mobs already?) and distortions of arguments used in debate it continues to amaze me that some of you still think these kind of organisations can be turned around.
> 
> It is not so much a question of being "gleeful" as Resistance Mp3 put it, more as recognising that the ideology itself is flawed and has become more so over the years. Stalinism is not some kind of historic aberration, it arose out of the practices of Lenin and Trotsky in the early years of the revolution. Trotsky opened the Gulags, developed the methodology that was used to suppress and eliminate internal opposition (eg the Workers Opposition & the Trade Union Opposition) which was simply utilised by Stalin against the Left Opposition. Rememebr this took place after all external opponets had been eliminated.
> 
> ...



What is it about the language 'used by the various Marxist regimes across history' that you find so appalling? Did they say a lot of rude words or something? As for the violence, they probably had boring bastards like you to deal with so who can blame them?


----------



## redcogs (Oct 11, 2013)

The language of Marx that i have always found immensely appealing doesn't use rude words and is not remotely violent:   'From each according to ability, to each according to need'.

Even the dullest dimwit could find something of interest in there?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 11, 2013)

dennisr said:


> *Paul Murphy – campaigning to retain MEP seat for Left but SWP’s sectarian decision could damage chances*
> http://www.socialistparty.net/compo...urphy-campaigning-to-retain-mep-seat-for-left


 
Whatever my disagreements with the SP the presence of SP members of the European Parliament and Dail is undoubtedly a positive thing, and I kow loads of people in Ireland who would always vote for Higgins and Murphy (and Daly for that matter) because they're the good guys. It is beyond belief that any organisation that calls itself socialist would try and get them out.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 11, 2013)

ugh, this is disgusting,

http://internationalsocialistnetwor...mony-and-experience-of-the-disputes-committee

degenerate rape apologist sect.


----------



## dominion (Oct 11, 2013)




----------



## emanymton (Oct 12, 2013)

dominion said:


>


Will you just fuck off this thread, go start your own thread if you want but stop pissing all over this one.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 12, 2013)

dominion said:


> For the purposes of argument I have assumed my critics are all Marxists. Considering the debate on this thread revolved around firstly the allegations around Delta, the way the organisation (badly) handled the case, the twists turns, threats (forgotten the "lynch mobs already?) and distortions of arguments used in debate it continues to amaze me that some of you still think these kind of organisations can be turned around.
> 
> It is not so much a question of being "gleeful" as Resistance Mp3 put it, more as recognising that the ideology itself is flawed and has become more so over the years. Stalinism is not some kind of historic aberration, it arose out of the practices of Lenin and Trotsky in the early years of the revolution. Trotsky opened the Gulags, developed the methodology that was used to suppress and eliminate internal opposition (eg the Workers Opposition & the Trade Union Opposition) which was simply utilised by Stalin against the Left Opposition. Rememebr this took place after all external opponets had been eliminated.
> 
> ...


 
Good reply. The problem for you is, the vast majority of people on here would probably agree with you about your criticism of Lenin/Trotsky, but still consider themselves influenced by Marx.





redcogs said:


> The language of Marx that i have always found immensely appealing doesn't use rude words and is not remotely violent: 'From each according to ability, to each according to need'.
> 
> Even the dullest dimwit could find something of interest in there?


the aim of anyone influenced by Marx is real democracy. What differentiates, is how we achieve that.
So if intervening in history to create real democracy by "any means necessary" is fundamentally flawed, which strategy isn't?


----------



## dominion (Oct 12, 2013)

That phrase "by any means necessary" has led to some of the worst regimes in history.


----------



## dominion (Oct 12, 2013)

Meanwhile having read the report from the ISN, I just cannot beleive that these people consider themselves qualified to deal with such crimes. As a TU rep when any form of violence has been involved the matter is for referral to Refuges/Womens aid and ultimatley the police, the latter because the perpetrator is likley to remain a danger to other women.

"Expulsion"/"suspension" from the "party" is not a way to deal with the culprit.

The SWP acts more like a cult rather than a political party


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 12, 2013)

dominion said:


> That phrase "by any means necessary" has led to some of the worst regimes in history.


 That's the way I said the phrase, so you would have an easy target, but you still haven't offered an alternative strategy.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 12, 2013)

dominion said:


> Meanwhile having read the report from the ISN, I just cannot beleive that these people consider themselves qualified to deal with such crimes. As a TU rep when any form of violence has been involved the matter is for referral to Refuges/Womens aid and ultimatley the police, the latter because the perpetrator is likley to remain a danger to other women.
> 
> "Expulsion"/"suspension" from the "party" is not a way to deal with the culprit.
> 
> The SWP acts more like a cult rather than a political party


  through the whole thread this has made no sense to me either.
Why not just take these members out and shoot them through the head  why jeopardise the whole organisation for the sake of these individuals?


----------



## dominion (Oct 12, 2013)

Actually I have already outlined that I opt for reformism through a combination of the Labour Party & Trade Unions which I know will not win me many friends here but I just don't see any of the "revolutionary" options as viable.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 12, 2013)

dominion said:


> Actually I have already outlined that I opt for reformism through a combination of the Labour Party & Trade Unions which I know will not win me many friends here but I just don't see any of the "revolutionary" options as viable.


 OK. sorry.

Well to be fair to you, you are probably with the majority of the working class in preferring reform of the system to revolution. Only problem is, reformism comparatively has a worse track record than Stalinism.


----------



## andysays (Oct 12, 2013)

dominion said:


> Meanwhile having read the report from the ISN, I just cannot beleive that these people consider themselves qualified to deal with such crimes. As a TU rep when any form of violence has been involved the matter is for referral to Refuges/Womens aid and ultimatley the police, the latter because the perpetrator is likley to remain a danger to other women.
> 
> "Expulsion"/"suspension" from the "party" is not a way to deal with the culprit.
> 
> The SWP acts more like a cult rather than a political party



I'm absolutely no fan of the SWP, in regard to this issue or generally, and agree that their leaders appear to behave as if they are leading a cult, but explusion/suspension is pretty much the only way the SWP can deal with anyone found to have behaved in this way.

The problem here is that the processes which were supposed to allow them to get get to the truth of the matter and apply that penalty were apparantly subverted/corrupted to protect one particular senior member and, if the most recent example is correct (I have no reason to suggest that it isn't) nothing has improved since then and young women who are preyed upon by older male members are still dismissed by the party establishment.

As a TU rep, do you ever find yourself in the position where a woman who has been a victim of violence does not want to you to the police? Do you then override her wishes and report it anyway? Have you read none of the discussion about this running all through the thread?

What other ways of dealing with a culprit are really open to anyone other than the state criminal justice system, if the victim decides, for totally understandable reasons, that she doesn't want their involvement?


----------



## dominion (Oct 12, 2013)

I have read the arguments of this thread on and off since it started and am well aware of the problems about some women not wanting to go the police. So far I have not been faced with the scenario that you outline. All have gone to the police of their own volition. For obvious reasons I cannot go into any details. 

My main priority is always ensuring the womans safety through referrals to appropriate organisations and ensuring that their employment is not threatened. TU reps are not lawyers, I can only make suggestions and do the best I can.

Never said it was straightforward.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> ugh, this is disgusting,
> 
> http://internationalsocialistnetwor...mony-and-experience-of-the-disputes-committee
> 
> degenerate rape apologist sect.


exactly - what is the worst that can happen to an SWP rapist? they get thrown  out of the party? That'll ruin their life for sure


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2013)

Having just read the above - if true, if asks serious questions about all other _decisions _not to proceed. Internally and externally.


----------



## dominion (Oct 12, 2013)

In the mean time the latest faction news has been published by the Weekly Worker:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-rebuilding-the-party-faction-update-1


----------



## dominion (Oct 12, 2013)

From the SWP opposition:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/ross-speer/how-to-argue/10153390787985372


----------



## marty21 (Oct 12, 2013)

dominion said:


> From the SWP opposition:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/notes/ross-speer/how-to-argue/10153390787985372


tl:dr


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 12, 2013)

discokermit said:


> ugh, this is disgusting,
> 
> http://internationalsocialistnetwor...mony-and-experience-of-the-disputes-committee
> 
> degenerate rape apologist sect.



I think I know who that was (the assailant, not the victim - he features on the SWP's entry in a certain well known 4 chan inspired spoof wikipedia site). There's a poster on here who knows quite a lot about the case if it is the same one.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2013)

It says a lot at it's, _ok another one_. I appreciate the time DK posted it and that but, even this lack of response is telling.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 12, 2013)

All this chitter from the loyalists and the rebels. What I can't understand why anyone with an ounce of morality or principle is still a member of this filthy organisation.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 13, 2013)

holding out til conference?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> All this chitter from the loyalists and the rebels. What I can't understand why anyone with an ounce of morality or principle is still a member of this filthy organisation.


The reasons are enumerated above - they are not good enough for me. They might hold some people for a while.


----------



## Before Theory (Oct 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think I know who that was (the assailant, not the victim - he features on the SWP's entry in a certain well known 4 chan inspired spoof wikipedia site). There's a poster on here who knows quite a lot about the case if it is the same one.



Maybe you're thinking of me SN ? I posted a lot about Jake Smith, an organiser and national office worker who raped one young woman and attempted to rape another, despite there being witnesses to the attempted rape he was only suspended from membership of the SWP for two years. I am really sad to read the details of a further attack, but the timelines are out, and this one is much more recent. I left the SWP after the nauseating Conference in 2011 where Martin Smith got a standing ovation for being accused of rape, and I've had as little to do with it as I possibly can in the intervening years. 

Sad to see though that little has changed, victims of sexual assault who speak out are still vilified in the name of "The Party" while their attackers are protected and sometimes even promoted.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 13, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Maybe you're thinking of me SN ? I posted a lot about Jake Smith, an organiser and national office worker who raped one young woman and attempted to rape another, despite there being witnesses to the attempted rape he was only suspended from membership of the SWP for two years.



Why don't you repost or provide links to your previous (very disturbing) posts? As the debate rages on in the SWP, they would be of interest to those still inside and still fighting (hopelessly?) for a democratisation of the party and a public apology to all the women concerned.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 13, 2013)

The Ross Speer piece lays out the duplicitous, underhand and dishonest way in which the party leadership has dealt with the opposition, distorting their arguments , lying about their actions, and those of the CC, putting words into their mouths in order to create straw men to demolish.
And yet, there seems no recognition that the way in which aC and CK treat the opposition is not unusual, but in fact how the swp operates.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 13, 2013)

The unmitigated shit the opposition are coming out with this weekend on their plans for the future of the party, it's structures, it's publications and above all it's politics proves beyond all doubt they have already left in their minds. The problem is there are months of this nonsense left before they actually do it.


----------



## benedict (Oct 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The unmitigated shit the opposition are coming out with this weekend on their plans for the future of the party, it's structures, it's publications and above all it's politics proves beyond all doubt they have already left in their minds. The problem is there are months of this nonsense left before they actually do it.



With the most recent report about the handling of fresh rape allegations, it's clear that Callinicos and Kimber have the structures running like a finely-tuned engine, eh Bolshie? If this is how the centre is still operating, is the opposition wrong to continue struggling to change the party from within?


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The unmitigated shit the opposition are coming out with this weekend on their plans for the future of the party, it's structures, it's publications and above all it's politics proves beyond all doubt they have already left in their minds. The problem is there are months of this nonsense left before they actually do it.


So it's okay to lie and make things up, as long as the other side is a bit shit?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 13, 2013)

Lies are in the eye of the beholder belboid and they're not just a bit shit they represent a complete break. The tactics of the opposition are beneath contempt. One small example. Molyneux is transphobic according to them coz his latest isj article dared to say there is a biological base to sex.  You can't argue with people like that you just have to laugh at them.


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2013)

Or you could pay attention to what they actually say - which is that molyneuxs argument is wrong as I he was talking about sex whereas the people he was criticising were talking about _gender_ - a distinction that has long been accepted within the SWP. So Molyneux actually is putting forth a transphobic argument, even tho (or maybe because) the whole existence of trans people never even crossed his mind.

Oh and the fact that callinicos and kimber are lying about the events of the last year is clear as day to anyone who has read the swp's own accounts of them.  You know it just as well as I do.


----------



## andysays (Oct 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The unmitigated shit the opposition are coming out with this weekend on their plans for *the future of the party*, it's structures, it's publications and above all it's politics proves beyond all doubt they have already left in their minds. The problem is there are months of this nonsense left before they actually do it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 13, 2013)

Or belboid they could pay attention to what Molyneux says and not answer their straw man who doesn't exist. He doesn't say sexuality isn't socially determined. he explicitly says it is but he also corrects their Foucoult inspired nonsense that sex is only social conditioning. Their treatment of him is of a piece with the general Abbi Bakan inspired approach of pigeon holing Cliffites as ageing sexists whose marxist arguments against feminism can be safely be disregarded and if not then distorted. 

The record of the last few years isn't as flattering to the opposition as they like to think.


----------



## dominion (Oct 13, 2013)

> The record of the last few years isn't as flattering to the opposition as they like to think.



The record of the SWP is appalling. Period.


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2013)

The last few years are even less flattering to the SWP tho, aren't they?

And Molyneux was 'answering' a claim that had never been made. He, either deliberately or through ignorance, completely missed the fact that no one claimed sex was socially determined. It's gender that is. Molyneux explicitly conflates the two, even tho he (and you) must know better.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 13, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Maybe you're thinking of me SN ? I posted a lot about Jake Smith, an organiser and national office worker who raped one young woman and attempted to rape another, despite there being witnesses to the attempted rape he was only suspended from membership of the SWP for two years. I am really sad to read the details of a further attack, but the timelines are out, and this one is much more recent. I left the SWP after the nauseating Conference in 2011 where Martin Smith got a standing ovation for being accused of rape, and I've had as little to do with it as I possibly can in the intervening years.
> 
> Sad to see though that little has changed, victims of sexual assault who speak out are still vilified in the name of "The Party" while their attackers are protected and sometimes even promoted.



It wasn't you I was thinking of mate (I was thinking of another poster who had been the victim's partner after the rape) but yeah that's the one I was thinking of. Sounds like I was wrong though and it's even worse than I thought. Fuck's sake


----------



## laptop (Oct 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> He, either deliberately or through ignorance, completely missed the fact that no one claimed sex was socially determined. It's gender that is.



FFS. Way to demonstrate his ignorance of the entire question.

(In crocodiles, sex is socially determined, to the extent that burying the eggs somewhere below 30C makes them all hatch female. But do they in fact cry?)


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2013)

laptop said:


> FFS. Way to demonstrate his ignorance of the entire question.
> 
> (In crocodiles, sex is socially determined, to the extent that burying the eggs somewhere below 30C makes them all hatch female. But do they in fact cry?)


is that what we generally mean by 'social determination' tho?  It obviously isn't genetic determination, and is environmental. hmmm...

Either way, it doesn't lend support to Molyneux.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The unmitigated shit the opposition are coming out with this weekend on their plans for the future of the party, it's structures, it's publications and above all it's politics proves beyond all doubt they have already left in their minds. The problem is there are months of this nonsense left before they actually do it.



Where are they coming out with this "unmitigated shit"? And what are they actually saying!


----------



## laptop (Oct 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> is that what we generally mean by 'social determination' tho?



Of course it isn't, I just suddenly acquired a fascination with non-genetic sex determination 




> Either way, it doesn't lend support to Molyneux.



The point.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2013)

The Bristol branch of the Anarchist Fed have a statement out saying, amongst other things that they are going to try to get the SWP barred from all future campaign groups. Which sounds messy and somewhat unwise.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 13, 2013)

Pointless


----------



## laptop (Oct 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Bristol branch of the Anarchist Fed have a statement out saying, amongst other things that they are going to try to get the SWP barred from all future campaign groups. Which sounds messy and somewhat unwise.



"It's a witch-hunt!!!11!!"


----------



## Nice one (Oct 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Bristol branch of the Anarchist Fed have a statement out saying, amongst other things that they are going to try to get the SWP barred from all future campaign groups. Which sounds messy and somewhat unwise.



fair play for bristol af for doing this - making a stand rather than having an opinion on the matter. I have not doubts they will propose barring the SWP from all future events they are jointly involved in organising.



> Further to this the SWP are barred from events, demos, public meetings and all other activities we solely organise. We believe that the presence of people who support the SWP’s central committee, their banners, placards and propaganda, contravenes our safer spaces policy. For these reasons they are not welcome and would be asked to leave. Individual SWP members (not including paid employees of the SWP) who do not support the actions of their Central Committee are still welcome to attend (without SWP propaganda), however we would question why such an individual would still be in the party. Finally we will propose barring the SWP from all future events we are jointly involved in organising.


http://bristolaf.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/statement-to-the-swp-about-its-rape-apologism/


----------



## dominion (Oct 13, 2013)

Not pointless, but about time:

Here's the link:  

http://bristolaf.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/statement-to-the-swp-about-its-rape-apologism/#more-1399


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2013)

Less a witch hunt than an intention to turn any attempt to set up new campaigns into a shouting match about the SWP. It's also a bit self righteous, given that they can't know who is an oppositionist in advance or even if the random SWP member they want to give the third degree to is one of the women directly concerned.


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2013)

And what will happen on two demos against the edl or whoever, both of which take place at the same time and place?


----------



## Nice one (Oct 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Less a witch hunt than an intention to turn any attempt to set up new campaigns into a shouting match about the SWP.


 not doubt followed by a rousing chorus of i am a cider drink at the uni bar


----------



## dominion (Oct 13, 2013)

Ban the lot then. The SWP is beyond redemption as the latest revelations (post delta) have shown us.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2013)

Nice one said:


> not doubt followed by a rousing chorus of i am a cider drink at the uni bar



Have you had a couple of ciders yourself by any chance?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2013)

dominion said:


> Ban the lot then. The SWP is beyond redemption as the latest revelations (post delta) have shown us.



Given that you are hostile to the SWP, the SWP oppositionalists, the Anarchist Federation, the socialist left in general and just about any campaign any of the above might be involved in, what gives you the impression that anyone gives a flying fuck what you think?


----------



## Nice one (Oct 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Have you had a couple of ciders yourself by any chance?



i'm sure bristol af are old enough to be able to make their proposals in a serious, civilised and courteous manner.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2013)

Nice one said:


> i'm sure bristol af are old enough to be able to make their proposals in a serious, civilised and courteous manner.



Doesn't matter how politely it's raised. Proposals to throw people out will consistently end in shouting matches.


----------



## Nice one (Oct 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Doesn't matter how politely it's raised. Proposals to throw people out will consistently end in shouting matches.



possibly. But it does ensure all the other groups involved are forced to make a decision one way or the other the matter, which i thought is the point. Will it lose them friends and allies? Possibly. Will it be difficult to implement and adhere to? Almost certainly. But they obviously think what's at stake is worth the cost. As i say fair play to them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2013)

They don't do anything with the handful of swp left in the city anyway.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 13, 2013)

The Mail and the Sun go for Newman

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...success-Ed-says-party-HASNT-lurched-Left.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5198556/Stalin-was-great-says-red-Eds-man.html


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They don't do anything with the handful of swp left in the city anyway.


Ah. So not something that's actually going to feature much in practice?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The Mail and the Sun go for Newman
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...success-Ed-says-party-HASNT-lurched-Left.html
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5198556/Stalin-was-great-says-red-Eds-man.html



Oi! Where's all this "shit" you were talking about?


----------



## 8den (Oct 13, 2013)

It beggars believe that a political party could assume a criminal act is a matter of internal resolution. Well SF can do  it, but they have their own police force, oh and are fucking scum.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Oi! Where's all this "shit" you were talking about?


Sorry this Newman story distracted me, West Country Labour circles are all excited about it. Bastard Mail found a way to force me to defend him, despite his role in this mess.

The opposition have been musing this weekend about what they would do to the party if they won. Scary stuff.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The opposition have been musing this weekend about what they would do to the party if they won. Scary stuff.



Facebook chatter or actual documents?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Facebook chatter or actual documents?


I doubt they're going to put it all in IB2 no.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I doubt they're going to put it all in IB2 no.



What are they suggesting and how representative of the opposition is it? You are being so vague it's hard to know what you are talking about here


----------



## mutley (Oct 13, 2013)

He's talking about facebook chatter that's got no actual formal standing in the opposition. But the ISN revelations has def made people think about what they are actually going to do in January.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 13, 2013)

They believe that Rhetta would talk a woman out of making an official complaint to protect the party?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 13, 2013)

There seems to be very little the opposition won't accuse anyone on any party body of doing. Some of them seem very close to the position that asking any questions in a rape case is misogyny.


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> There seems to be very little the opposition won't accuse anyone on any party body of doing. Some of them seem very close to the position that asking any questions in a rape case is misogyny.


Oh stop making things up.  You refuse to actually come up with anything to support your earlier fictions and are now just trying to move on and hope no one will notice.  Just like Callinicos!


----------



## belboid (Oct 13, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> They believe that Rhetta would talk a woman out of making an official complaint to protect the party?


That'd be Rhetta who thought it was fine for someone to ask 'is It true you like a drink'. She'd clearly say/do anything to defend her party.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Some of them seem very close to the position that asking any questions in a rape case is misogyny.


you know what the questions were.
you know what the questions mean.
i used to have some time for you, but if that's your answer to this latest disgusting, misogynistic shit, then you're lost. you're as bad as the scum you defend.


----------



## benedict (Oct 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The Mail and the Sun go for Newman
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...success-Ed-says-party-HASNT-lurched-Left.html
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5198556/Stalin-was-great-says-red-Eds-man.html



Pretty desperate how the Mail turns a typo into a mark of respect!



> Describing him in apparently respectful terms as ‘the Stalin’, he wrote: ‘Free market capitalism had seen worldwide depression in the 1930s and had led to fascism and war.
> 
> 'Meanwhile the USSR’s economy had achieved staggering success in the same period, including a significant improvement in working class living standards, despite the Stalin’s terror’.


----------



## Before Theory (Oct 14, 2013)

I


Karmickameleon said:


> Why don't you repost or provide links to your previous (very disturbing) posts? As the debate rages on in the SWP, they would be of interest to those still inside and still fighting (hopelessly?) for a democratisation of the party and a public apology to all the women concerned.



I actually don't know how to post the links from my phone, but take a look at pages 167, 168, 267 and 268 and you'll get some idea of the disgusting lengths to which Callinicos et al will go to preserve their Party at the expense of anyone who gets in their way.

Best of luck in your attempts to democratize the SWP, watch your back is the only advice I can give you


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> That'd be Rhetta who thought it was fine for someone to ask 'is It true you like a drink'. She'd clearly say/do anything to defend her party.



That doesn't answer my question. I don't care what you think. I'm asking whether people in the party who know Rhetta believe that she would do this.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 14, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> That doesn't answer my question. I don't care what you think. I'm asking whether people in the party who know Rhetta believe that she would do this.



So you think that this part of the woman's statement is a lie? Why would she make that up? For factional purposes? Does this mean you think she's making up the rape accusation?

Think back to your first reaction on learning of the rape accusation against MS, did you say to yourself 'I can't believe he would do this'? Now what do you think?

You can never know how good or bad are someone's politics (and personal integrity) is until it's tested, until they have to make up their own mind on a subject. And while the harm of these sexual assaults is the sorriest part of these stories, watching the credibility of dedicated revolutionaries collapse because they are unable to believe the worst is pretty grim too.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 14, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> That doesn't answer my question. I don't care what you think. I'm asking whether people in the party who know Rhetta believe that she would do this.


I'm not in the SWP but i belive it. Awful women


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 14, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> I
> 
> 
> I actually don't know how to post the links from my phone, but take a look at pages 167, 168, 267 and 268 and you'll get some idea of the disgusting lengths to which Callinicos et al will go to preserve their Party at the expense of anyone who gets in their way.
> ...



Thanks for the info. BTW I'm an ex-member like you... From what I hear some CC loyalists are changing their position:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-rebuilding-the-party-faction-update-1

Thought your previous posts might be useful in that context. I think the oppos are well aware by now that they need to watch their backs!


----------



## belboid (Oct 14, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> That doesn't answer my question. I don't care what you think. I'm asking whether people in the party who know Rhetta believe that she would do this.


prety fucking stupid to ask on a public message board then, if you dont want an answer. And if you dont think she'd do it, you're being pretty stupid again. Think for a moment. Someone makes an allegation, after a brief investigation a couple of DC members say the complaint is unlikely to be upheld if it goes ahead for lack of corroboration etc, and that the complaints process would be a painful one for all concerned, including the complainant. Not hard to see how that would be taken as talking someone out of making a complaint to protect the party. Meanwhile the likes of Rhetta and the nodding dog idiots who agree with anything the CC say, would look at it and say she did a really good job, protecting everyone, victim and party included, from a horrible hearing that wouldn't have gone anywhere.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 14, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> So you think that this part of the woman's statement is a lie? Why would she make that up? For factional purposes? Does this mean you think she's making up the rape accusation?



I didn't say what I thought, I asked if that was what people in the SWP (the opposition) thought.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> prety fucking stupid to ask on a public message board then, if you dont want an answer. And if you dont think she'd do it, you're being pretty stupid again. Think for a moment. Someone makes an allegation, after a brief investigation a couple of DC members say the complaint is unlikely to be upheld if it goes ahead for lack of corroboration etc, and that the complaints process would be a painful one for all concerned, including the complainant. Not hard to see how that would be taken as talking someone out of making a complaint to protect the party. Meanwhile the likes of Rhetta and the nodding dog idiots who agree with anything the CC say, would look at it and say she did a really good job, protecting everyone, victim and party included, from a horrible hearing that wouldn't have gone anywhere.



Not me that's stupid. I asked a question about what the opposition think, I didn't ask what you thought, nor did I say what I thought.


----------



## belboid (Oct 14, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Not me that's stupid. I asked a question about what the opposition think, I didn't ask what you thought, nor did I say what I thought.


What is your opinion then, oh gnomic one?  Although it seems pretty clear from the way you phrased your question.

If all you are interested is 'the oppositions' view, why dont you go and find it out from them?  You'd certainly get a better idea of it than you would by asknig bolshie


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 14, 2013)

Well, it seems that everything is very clear to you. For those within the SWP it doesn't seem to be does it?

The thing I am pondering (although I don't really think you give a shit what I think) is if you're still in the SWP and you know that Rhetta has worked for much of her adult life with vulnerable women, including women who've been raped, known that she's always been very vocal on women's issues, know that she did her phd on rape, that she has always encouraged women to stand up for themselves and have a voice.....how much of a shift it is to then think that someone like that didn't just fuck up but is deliberately silencing women who have been raped in order to protect both men who have raped women comrades and the party. I was wondering that if you/they believe that is what has happened, what then makes it possible to stay in the SWP? What makes people think it's worth fighting for?

I think that's a little bit different to calling a woman a liar, don't you?


----------



## belboid (Oct 14, 2013)

I dont think anyone thinks so crudely - although it may sound like they do if heard shouting annoyedly in the pub after reading the latest horror story (or ranting annoyedly on facebook, essentially the same thing).  Indeed the crudeness of your false dichotomies show the problem with the way you are thinking.

It is perfectly possible to believe that Rhetta genuinely believes (possibly partially due to her acquaintance with the accused, possibly not) that no rape actually took place, but that, at the same time, the woman has a genuine belief she it did take place. the question is over a question of _bias_, not upon anyone explicitly lying.

There IS the fact that Rhetta, despite all her many years as a vocal and powerful worker against rape, she still allowed someone to ask 'isn't it true you like a drink?'


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> I dont think anyone thinks so crudely - although it may sound like they do if heard shouting annoyedly in the pub after reading the latest horror story (or ranting annoyedly on facebook, essentially the same thing).  Indeed the crudeness of your false dichotomies show the problem with the way you are thinking.
> 
> It is perfectly possible to believe that Rhetta genuinely believes (possibly partially due to her acquaintance with the accused, possibly not) that no rape actually took place, but that, at the same time, the woman has a genuine belief she it did take place. the question is over a question of _bias_, not upon anyone explicitly lying.



I'm not making any false dichotomies and I'm perfectly aware of the issue of bias.

And I'm not talking about the Martin Smith case, I'm talking about the recent accusations on the ISN site that explicitly mention her, as posted about by mutley and described by him as having led to the opposition thinking about what they will do in January. Which is why I asked him, and not bb, as you stated, what they believed about her actions.

I mentioned lying not because I think in a crude way, but because another poster suggested it:



Oisin123 said:


> So you think that this part of the woman's statement is a lie? Why would she make that up? For factional purposes? Does this mean you think she's making up the rape accusation?



If you're going to accuse others of crude thinking, you really need to pay more attention.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> I dont think anyone thinks so crudely - although it may sound like they do if heard shouting annoyedly in the pub after reading the latest horror story (or ranting annoyedly on facebook, essentially the same thing).  Indeed the crudeness of your false dichotomies show the problem with the way you are thinking.
> 
> It is perfectly possible to believe that Rhetta genuinely believes (possibly partially due to her acquaintance with the accused, possibly not) that no rape actually took place, but that, at the same time, the woman has a genuine belief she it did take place. the question is over a question of _bias_, not upon anyone explicitly lying.
> 
> There IS the fact that Rhetta, despite all her many years as a vocal and powerful worker against rape, she still allowed someone to ask 'isn't it true you like a drink?'



We are 451 pages into this thread and still it goes on.
This is not a theoretical debate...it is one of principle. Leading members of the SWP not only decided and continue to decide that they are able to investigate a rape allegation. Not only this, they seem to think it's ok to tell those who are disclosing rape that they should not talk about it ... in order to respect the privacy and confidentiality of the accused. And just to top it off they even ask about their drinking/drug and sex habits.

There is a very simple premise that women generally do not make up rape allegations and in a "revolutionary socialist party" surely they can accept that if a women alleges rape then the alleged rapist should be suspended without prejudiced (as would happen in many workplaces and organisations). 

The person disclosing the rape should be given advice about where to get help/ support and or counselling. And an honest explanation needs to take place explaining that the party is not able to investigate the allegation as they do not have the resources or skills to do so. How does a party have the resources to make genetic tests etc.? Unfortunately in this society only the state ie the police can do that. 

If the person does not feel able to go to the police (even with the support of others) then that should be respected and at this point it needs to be decided that the person accused should be told that the party can not let them be a member until the matter is resolved.

The only objection to this is that some one would deliberately make up a rape allegation simply to get someone kicked out of the party and that seems a dangerous reason for objection in my opinion.

Is it a fair way to treat the accused ... not really but 
a) as the swp claim that rape allegations rarely happen it won't be a common occurrence
b) it would be less unfair than the current treatment of women who have disclosed rape
and
c) in their terms of protecting the party it would be better.

There is not a perfect answer but fuck me the swp have not even behaved kindly let alone honestly


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> There IS the fact that Rhetta, despite all her many years as a vocal and powerful worker against rape, she still allowed someone to ask 'isn't it true you like a drink?'



And what difference does that make to the situation I was pondering? I really think you're missing the point if you think I'm making any kind of defence of anybody. I'm talking about perceptions within the party and if they are such that the most powerful workers against rape are now seen as deliberately silencing women (because that is what the ISN piece suggests) then what does that say about the party? Of what remains of the party? Of why it should be fought for? Because that is what the opposition are doing aren't they?


----------



## mutley (Oct 14, 2013)

Red cat, as ever, it is a mistake to try and second guess what 'the opposition' think - its not a unitary entity with one mind.. It comprises about 290 people, who vary from some who do seem to think the women who's been mentioned covered it up, and who don't expect to be in the party in Jan, through to people who are more likely to think that in the intense atmosphere of last Jan some unconscious bias crept in. Some of the former have been speculating as to what kind of grouping they might want. I'm hoping that in December the party won't just have a big foot-stamping oppo-bashing defensive conference, but that something will emerge in which the party's integrity is restored. Don't ask me for odds, I'm not a betting man. But there are signs - faint signs -that some amongst the majority have realized that just dismissing the opposition as slackers, back sliders and creeping whatevers isn't the way forward.

ps red cat didn't realise u were asking me in particular..


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Well, it seems that everything is very clear to you. For those within the SWP it doesn't seem to be does it?
> 
> The thing I am pondering (although I don't really think you give a shit what I think) is if you're still in the SWP and you know that Rhetta has worked for much of her adult life with vulnerable women, including women who've been raped, known that she's always been very vocal on women's issues, know that she did her phd on rape, that she has always encouraged women to stand up for themselves and have a voice.....how much of a shift it is to then think that someone like that didn't just fuck up but is deliberately silencing women who have been raped in order to protect both men who have raped women comrades and the party. I was wondering that if you/they believe that is what has happened, what then makes it possible to stay in the SWP? What makes people think it's worth fighting for?
> 
> I think that's a little bit different to calling a woman a liar, don't you?



Well, no, it is calling her a liar/saying you don't believe her.  I am one of the opposition, and I believe Rhetta has done this, as after all it's nothing more than she'd already done or supported in the Delta case. That she has worked with rape victims makes no odds if she holds the reactionary views of the SWP, will do anything for the cause and the men who are flavour of the month and her rapist chums.  That she has worked with rape victims just makes her betrayal of them even more disgusting.


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> what does that say about the party? Of what remains of the party? Of why it should be fought for? Because that is what the opposition are doing aren't they?



I'm staying in until conference in the hope that I can help change the SWP, whose politics on women is such disgusting rape apologism and completely out of step with the wider left, especially the younger ones who are very politically correct.

I'm under no illusions and know the faction will lose, but am just trying to make the SWP change as much as I can, and do my bit.  I'm also in the ISN, whose position on women is what you would expect from a left wing party.  Being around the SWP True Believers I actually find awful, so am doing what I can from a distance.  Just wish the SWP conference was this weekend so the trauma could be over!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> Oh stop making things up.  You refuse to actually come up with anything to support your earlier fictions and are now just trying to move on and hope no one will notice.  Just like Callinicos!


If by earlier fictions you mean the plans of the opposition or elements of it for the party should they win I'm only holding off mentioning them cause it doesn't seem fair to people posting them on FB to share them here. But it's fair to say there wouldn't be much left of the organisation as we know it if they had their way. I'm sure it'll all come out in due course anyhows.

On the dc questions and what is and what isn't allowed. I certainly amn't making up or imagining the members of the opposition arguing that the fact a woman says she was raped should be taken as such sufficient proof of guilt that any subsequent questions are redundant and in fact misogynist. It seems the totally understandable position that women are reluctant to come forward because of a history of not being believed by courts and police has been stick bent to the point that there's almost no point having a procedure at all. Over the last few days I've seen opposition members defriend loyalists for daring to say there should be some sort of legitimate cross examining of both main witnesses. Even to suggest that is for some (not all but not none either) to make you a sexist.

I dont know exactly what questions were asked in this latest case and nor do the rest of us cause we have a fairly brief and one sided account of the process. This is precisely why you can't judge these cases by blog debates, you need sensitive and confidential procedures. It is mind you interesting how the opposition are happy enough to mention facts about drink when it suits. As in the oft repeated claim that MS bought drinks for his victim while he abstained with the obvious implication that he was setting her up. Worth noting in passing that MS as fas as I know just doesn't drink at all, at least he didn't when I knew him well 20 years ago. But if the consumption of alcohol or drugs is worth mentioning when it strengthens the case of the opposition is it not also a valid question in this latest case? Not because people have a right to make assumptions about someone just cause they like a drink. They don't and it would be appalling to do so. But knowing whether one or other of the parties to the dispute were under the influence at the time the incident happened might just be germane to deciding how brutal the attack was, who seems to be describing the incident most honestly etc.

It's become almost impossible in this debate to discuss anything rationally without someone wanting to ascribe bad intentions to the other. Frankly if people really think they're in a party made up of a majority of rape apologists they need to do the honest thing now and not wait until Janurary.


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

Sigh and indeed aargh.  All I'm seeing is rape apologism for starter, main and pudding.  I need to get out more.


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I certainly amn't making up or imagining the members of the opposition arguing that the fact a woman says she was raped should be taken as such sufficient proof of guilt that any subsequent questions are redundant and in fact misogynist.



I doubt anyone would phrase it exactly like that.  It's more that it should start from the assumption that we believe her- as after all it's statistically far more likely than that women lie about rape often, which is a rape apologist's myth.


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

New statement by the opposition http://www.scribd.com/doc/176096214/Solidarity-is-our-starting-point actually all it says is they want accountability.  Accountability doesn't go far enough.  The effective denial of women's experiences of oppression by 'working men' needs to stop.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If by earlier fictions you mean the plans of the opposition or elements of it for the party should they win I'm only holding off mentioning them cause it doesn't seem fair to people posting them on FB to share them here. But it's fair to say there wouldn't be much left of the organisation as we know it if they had their way. I'm sure it'll all come out in due course anyhows.
> 
> On the dc questions and what is and what isn't allowed. I certainly amn't making up or imagining the members of the opposition arguing that the fact a woman says she was raped should be taken as such sufficient proof of guilt that any subsequent questions are redundant and in fact misogynist. It seems the totally understandable position that women are reluctant to come forward because of a history of not being believed by courts and police has been stick bent to the point that there's almost no point having a procedure at all. Over the last few days I've seen opposition members defriend loyalists for daring to say there should be some sort of legitimate cross examining of both main witnesses. Even to suggest that is for some (not all but not none either) to make you a sexist.
> 
> ...


grubbing round in the filth, destroying the organisation you claim to defend.
ugh.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 15, 2013)

Aargh said:


> Well, no, it is calling her a liar/saying you don't believe her.  I am one of the opposition, and I believe Rhetta has done this, as after all it's nothing more than she'd already done or supported in the Delta case. That she has worked with rape victims makes no odds if she holds the reactionary views of the SWP, will do anything for the cause and the men who are flavour of the month and her rapist chums.  That she has worked with rape victims just makes her betrayal of them even more disgusting.



No. Again you're missing my point. You think I'm saying what you want me to be saying so that you can make an argument about your position. 

I don't have a position.

Did you note the word ponder that I used at the beginning of my sentence?

So, I'll address my question to you directly and then perhaps it is more understandable.

If you think that someone like Rhetta can do what is described, not once in unconscious identification or unconscious bias with Martin Smith, which I think people may understand as a fuck up, but repeatedly and therefore more consciously or deliberately, if someone like that with her history and personality can do such things, what makes you think the SWP is worth fighting for? Why are you still in the SWP?


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Worth noting in passing that MS as fas as I know just doesn't drink at all, at least he didn't when I knew him well 20 years ago...



All the more manipulative, then, to be buying drinks for the young woman.

Meanwhile, here's your answer Red Cat: http://www.scribd.com/doc/176096214/Solidarity-is-our-starting-point


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 15, 2013)

discokermit said:


> ...ugh.



I know.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 15, 2013)

Aargh said:


> I'm staying in until conference in the hope that I can help change the SWP, whose politics on women is such disgusting rape apologism and completely out of step with the wider left, especially the younger ones who are very politically correct.
> 
> I'm under no illusions and know the faction will lose, but am just trying to make the SWP change as much as I can, and do my bit.  I'm also in the ISN, whose position on women is what you would expect from a left wing party.  Being around the SWP True Believers I actually find awful, so am doing what I can from a distance.  Just wish the SWP conference was this weekend so the trauma could be over!


  I'm a "True believer" "reactionary member" whatever you want to call us. Unfortunately, I've also not been active since about 2000. Read few of the publications, just been to the odd Marxism for entertainment value. And so I have no knowledge of the change, if any in the SWP. And I have no knowledge of any of these events.
So as an active member, I have to bow to your greater knowledge and understanding. I'm not in any way questioning your beliefs, or statements.
All I am saying, is I still find this completely unbelievable. I know Rhetta, and find it completely incomprehensible how she could betray not just women, but herself and the party. If you do not stand up against anything like what has been described with Martin Smith, you're not a socialist.
This latest event just seems even more incredible. This is not locking the gate after the horse has bolted, this is locking the gate after the horse has bolted, the stables has been burnt down, and the country in which the stables are, is in Civil War.
How they ever felt this would protect the party with Martin Smith, is unbelievable. Now, is even more unbelievable. Makes no sense to me. :-(


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

discokermit said:


> ugh.



Sorry to raise the thread.

I'm glad it's not just me, thought I was being over sensitive.

In reply to your question Red Cat, as I said, I'm staying in because maybe I'm an optimist, and I want to help change the SWP for the better as much as I can before I leave.

Anyway I'll let you all have some other discussions, because Ugh and Aargh.


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So as an active member, I have to bow to your greater knowledge and understanding.



I have less knowledge than you, I'm just going on what the comrade said in the ISN post, and I believe her.  All she said about Rhetta is that Jackie and Rhetta interviewed her, said it was unlikely the CC would do anything.  In general, people told her it wasn't worth her making a formal complaint.  As the comrade says herself, that's nothing but the truth.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> If you think that someone like Rhetta can do what is described, not once in unconscious identification or unconscious bias with Martin Smith, which I think people may understand as a fuck up, but repeatedly and therefore more consciously or deliberately, if someone like that with her history and personality can do such things, what makes you think the SWP is worth fighting for? Why are you still in the SWP?


 it was addressed to me,
But I'd like to throw in my 2 pennies.
The 1st part of your sentence, is where I stood. This had to be some kind of fuck up. Even if you wanted to put the party before the woman, then the obvious thing to do was to take Martin Smith out the back, put a bullet through the brain [metaphorically]. I mean, why jettison the likes of John Rees Lindsey German, and not Martin Smith. I'm not arguing, just does not make any sense to me!
The 2nd event is he so stupid, you wouldn't even believe it if it was in a comedy. And there's nothing funny about it.
That said, I would defend the politics of the SWP I was in. Who this new SWP is, I have no idea.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I dont know exactly what questions were asked in this latest case and nor do the rest of us cause we have a fairly brief and one sided account of the process. This is precisely why you can't judge these cases by blog debates, you need sensitive and confidential procedures. It is mind you interesting how the opposition are happy enough to mention facts about drink when it suits. As in the oft repeated claim that MS bought drinks for his victim while he abstained with the obvious implication that he was setting her up. Worth noting in passing that MS as fas as I know just doesn't drink at all, at least he didn't when I knew him well 20 years ago. But if the consumption of alcohol or drugs is worth mentioning when it strengthens the case of the opposition is it not also a valid question in this latest case? Not because people have a right to make assumptions about someone just cause they like a drink. They don't and it would be appalling to do so. But knowing whether one or other of the parties to the dispute were under the influence at the time the incident happened might just be germane to deciding how brutal the attack was, who seems to be describing the incident most honestly etc.



Seriously?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I dont know exactly what questions were asked in this latest case and nor do the rest of us cause we have a fairly brief and one sided account of the process. This is precisely why you can't judge these cases by blog debates, you need sensitive and confidential procedures. It is mind you interesting how the opposition are happy enough to mention facts about drink when it suits. As in the oft repeated claim that MS bought drinks for his victim while he abstained with the obvious implication that he was setting her up. Worth noting in passing that MS as fas as I know just doesn't drink at all, at least he didn't when I knew him well 20 years ago. But if the consumption of alcohol or drugs is worth mentioning when it strengthens the case of the opposition is it not also a valid question in this latest case? Not because people have a right to make assumptions about someone just cause they like a drink. They don't and it would be appalling to do so. But knowing whether one or other of the parties to the dispute were under the influence at the time the incident happened might just be germane to deciding how brutal the attack was, who seems to be describing the incident most honestly etc.


Not nice to see you sinking into the mud with the rest of them bb.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

I was under the impression that even proper courts weren't allowed to ask about consumption any more- that and previous sexual history.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2013)

Well the dialectical process of aufheben leads to the revolutionary party being allowed to ask the question _at a higher level_ than that of that state.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I was under the impression that even proper courts weren't allowed to ask about consumption any more- that and previous sexual history.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24513004

"You make it clear that, if you come in to report this sort of offence, you are not going to be tested according to whether you've reported it straight away, whether you give a consistent account, whether you've ever yourself had drink or drugs etc."

the director of public prosecutions has a better attitude towards women who have been raped than the swp and bolshiebhoy .


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

so she goes to the Party in good faith and they don't hold themselves even to the standards of 'bourgeois justice' and BB defends this.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> so she goes to the Party in good faith and they don't hold themselves even to the standards of 'bourgeois justice' and BB defends this.


and if you don't defend it, if you raise any questions about it at all, you're a creeping feminist/autonomist, diverging from our tradition and probably a spook.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> so she goes to the Party in good faith and they don't hold themselves even to the standards of 'bourgeois justice' and BB defends this.



DC you have gone dangerously astray.

Both BB and the Party are immune to the anti-working class feminist confusions so ably and assiduously promoted by bourgeois justice; indeed they are a bulwark against such contagions.

Take care - Louis MacNeice


----------



## laptop (Oct 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well the dialectical process of aufheben leads to the revolutionary party being allowed to ask the question _at a higher level_ than that of that state.



I applaud, Sir, your indefatigability as a _Ding in an selbst_.

Blimey, the erroneous "_Ding in selbst" _was the first of five search hits already when I checked...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I was under the impression that even proper courts weren't allowed to ask about consumption any more- that and previous sexual history.



This isn't correct.

In both England/Wales and Ireland, questions about previous sexual history are banned in general but allowed if an application is granted (and such applications frequently are). The restriction's main effect is to prevent the kind of trawling through a complainants whole sexual past, to try to present her as a "loose woman", which used to be a staple of rape defence strategies.

In Ireland, questions about whether or not a complainant (or any witness) was inebriated are certainly not banned, and would be normal to the point of inevitability if the witness had been out socialising. I have never heard of there being a ban on these kind of questions in England either, and would be very surprised if there is one. It's a rather different issue from previous sexual history evidence, which is generally considered to be highly prejudicial and a relic of a more misogynist age - the question of the reliability of witnesses (not complainants in particular) who were drunk or on drugs at the time comes up over and over again in criminal cases (not sexual ones in particular).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 15, 2013)

discokermit said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24513004
> 
> "You make it clear that, if you come in to report this sort of offence, you are not going to be tested according to whether you've reported it straight away, whether you give a consistent account, whether you've ever yourself had drink or drugs etc."
> 
> the director of public prosecutions has a better attitude towards women who have been raped than the swp and bolshiebhoy .



For clarity's sake, it should be pointed out that this article is about what the police should ask and what tests the DPP should apply in considering whether or not to proceed. It is not about restrictions on what can be asked in court.

(I say for clarity's sake because obviously I'm not putting forward the court system as a model for how to treat complainants. Far from it. I just don't think that the criminal justice system should be accidentally whitewashed here)


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> No. Again you're missing my point. You think I'm saying what you want me to be saying so that you can make an argument about your position.
> 
> I don't have a position.
> 
> ...


the entire tone of your question, indeed the very way you pose it indicates a clear opinion.  its not one you are willing to express explicitly, all you do is ask (what you think are) smart arse questions. you have no interest in the answer.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2013)

you've extrapolated that redcat is a rape apologist from one question? fucksake belboid.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> We are 451 pages into this thread and still it goes on.
> This is not a theoretical debate...it is one of principle. Leading members of the SWP not only decided and continue to decide that they are able to investigate a rape allegation. Not only this, they seem to think it's ok to tell those who are disclosing rape that they should not talk about it ... in order to respect the privacy and confidentiality of the accused. And just to top it off they even ask about their drinking/drug and sex habits.
> 
> There is a very simple premise that women generally do not make up rape allegations and in a "revolutionary socialist party" surely they can accept that if a women alleges rape then the alleged rapist should be suspended without prejudiced (as would happen in many workplaces and organisations).
> ...


i'm afraid most of this is irrelevant.  its not about what 'should' be done (and i think you are quite wrong in your proposal which shows a misunderstanding of how rapes and accusations of rape occur, imo)  but about what does occur, the processes that have been used. Saying 'they shouldnt have started from there' is purely academic now


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2013)

killer b said:


> you've extrapolated that redcat is a rape apologist from one question? fucksake belboid.


no, i've extrapolated that s/he isnt really interested in the answer to the questions posed.  dont put words in my mouth if you dont mind


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2013)

why not? seems all the rage on this thread if your posts are owt to go by.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> no, i've extrapolated that s/he isnt really interested in the answer to the questions posed.  dont put words in my mouth if you dont mind


I think that there was a misreading a few days ago of what RC said  bellers. I think she's clarified enough - for me at least -  to get that she wasn't saying that *name* wouldn't lie or didn't.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If by earlier fictions you mean the plans of the opposition or elements of it for the party should they win I'm only holding off mentioning them cause it doesn't seem fair to people posting them on FB to share them here. But it's fair to say there wouldn't be much left of the organisation as we know it if they had their way. I'm sure it'll all come out in due course anyhows.
> 
> On the dc questions and what is and what isn't allowed. I certainly amn't making up or imagining the members of the opposition arguing that the fact a woman says she was raped should be taken as such sufficient proof of guilt that any subsequent questions are redundant and in fact misogynist. It seems the totally understandable position that women are reluctant to come forward because of a history of not being believed by courts and police has been stick bent to the point that there's almost no point having a procedure at all. Over the last few days I've seen opposition members defriend loyalists for daring to say there should be some sort of legitimate cross examining of both main witnesses. Even to suggest that is for some (not all but not none either) to make you a sexist.
> 
> ...


ffs, what is the point of only considering some comments on bloody facebook?  thats hardly going to be the considered opinion of most people is it?  its like using a drunken argument in a pub as proof of a position. and anyone could just throw back some of the dumber things the hyper loyal facebookers say - like Simon Assafs accusations of people being spooks!  Have a go at the considered, thought out, articles, there are enough of those around.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think that there was a misreading a few days ago of what RC said  bellers. I think she's clarified enough - for me at least -  to get that she wasn't saying that *name* wouldn't lie or didn't.


no, i know, but its the rest of the guff that says s/he isnt really interested in an answer. purely rhetorical tosh


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This isn't correct.
> 
> In both England/Wales and Ireland, questions about previous sexual history are banned in general but allowed if an application is granted (and such applications frequently are). The restriction's main effect is to prevent the kind of trawling through a complainants whole sexual past, to try to present her as a "loose woman", which used to be a staple of rape defence strategies.
> 
> In Ireland, questions about whether or not a complainant (or any witness) was inebriated are certainly not banned, and would be normal to the point of inevitability if the witness had been out socialising. I have never heard of there being a ban on these kind of questions in England either, and would be very surprised if there is one. It's a rather different issue from previous sexual history evidence, which is generally considered to be highly prejudicial and a relic of a more misogynist age - the question of the reliability of witnesses (not complainants in particular) who were drunk or on drugs at the time comes up over and over again in criminal cases (not sexual ones in particular).



It's my personal experience that, at least 10 years ago, it was a fact that drinking, sexuality and that the person didn't go to the police immediately, were use against them by the police.  I think Stermer is just saying they shouldn't be, that he has to say that shows that they are commonplace/aren't banned.  Even if the police etc stop being like this, I doubt they could stop the defence lawyer being so.  But it's great that the DPP is saying these things.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 15, 2013)

Aargh said:


> It's my personal experience that, at least 10 years ago, it was a fact that drinking, sexuality and that the person didn't go to the police immediately, were use against them by the police.  I think Stermer is just saying they shouldn't be, that he has to say that shows that they are commonplace/aren't banned.  Even if the police etc stop being like this, I doubt they could stop the defence lawyer being so.  But it's great that the DPP is saying these things.



Yes it is good that pressure from above is being exerted to stop the cops from treating rape complainants with greater skepticism than complainants in any other kind of criminal investigation. And, yes, that it has to be said at all necessary implies that the problem exists (not that anyone should have been in doubt).

It is possible to restrict defence lawyers from pursuing certain lines of questioning, but it can generally only done by means of legislation limiting the rights of the defendant. The rules around previous sexual history have largely worked in eradicating general trawls through a complainants sexual past, which is a step forward, but in practice more restricted questioning about particular aspects of her sexual history is quite often allowed. This can sometimes be quite innocuous, concerning things that are technically caught by the legislation but which the complainant doesn't regard as intrusive. But sometimes things get through that aren't innocuous at all.

I'm not sure that it would be workable to exempt complainants from questioning about whether they were inebriated. It couldn't be an absolute rule, given that some rape and sexual assault charges deal with situations where a core part of the complaint is that the complainant was too inebriated to consent. And it is very difficult to see any judge deeming the inebriated state of any witness to be irrelevant information if the rule isn't absolute. In turn, although it should be handled sensitively and shouldn't be treated as an excuse not to believe a complainant or to fail to follow up her complaint, if the defence are likely to ask about possible intoxication, the cops do actually need to elicit that information at some point to avoid hamstringing the prosecution. There is a thin line however between gathering information that a prosecution team will need to know the answers to - because the defence will ask in court - and asking those questions in a way that sees the answers as an excuse to disbelieve the complaint.

(Obviously most of this is irrelevant to the disciplinary processes of private organisations)


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> i'm afraid most of this is irrelevant.  its not about what 'should' be done (and i think you are quite wrong in your proposal which shows a misunderstanding of how rapes and accusations of rape occur, imo)  but about what does occur, the processes that have been used. Saying 'they shouldnt have started from there' is purely academic now



Fair enough to dismiss my post as irrelevant but how on earth are you able to say that my post showed a "misunderstanding of how rapes and accusations of rapes occur" is a complete mystery to me. I have never addressed this question because ... well to be honest it seems irrelevant.

Rape occurs when one person performs a sexual act on some one else without permission...(I think the law still  states that rape involves penetration with a body part or an object) and allegations of rape occur when someone believes they have been raped and tells some one...apart from the exceptionally rare cases when someone makes a false allegation.

your posts seem to be a bit academic in tone ... ain't slagging you off but I think that is what caused the SWP to fuck up so badly in the first place.
It is in my opinion very valid to say what should have happened as we are not just discussing past allegations ... there are allegations still being looked at and have been since the Delta case and nothing seems to have changed.

The point of examining events is surely to learn what went well and what went wrong in order to not repeat mistakes and to get better at whatever it is you do...your response seems to suggest discussing this as if we were not interested parties...which obviously we all are


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> the entire tone of your question, indeed the very way you pose it indicates a clear opinion.  its not one you are willing to express explicitly, all you do is ask (what you think are) smart arse questions. you have no interest in the answer.



No it doesn't mean that at all you aggressive little prick.

I'm interested in the answer because for me I think it's a shift for people who have remained in the SWP to move from a position of thinking shit we really fucked up here to a position where they think that the party has become so degenerate that someone with her history of supporting women (myself included) would put the SWP before a woman comrade. I'm interested in that shift because I have no doubt that many other women who have been involved with the SWP have had similar experiences to myself and that for them, or some of them, to believe that she behaved as described must involve...a real crisis. The reason I expressed it as I did is because she's not just some DC figure, but someone who has played a particular role in the SWP re. women's liberation, both politically and personally. If I thought that someone like that could become so corrupt, I couldn't imagine wanting to stay in the organisation.

I'm not in the SWP so it hasn't been a crisis for me, I haven't had to leave an organisation that I've dedicated years to, but the past year has been confusing and quite painful for me, and I'm sure it has been much more so for those in the organisation, some of whom I care about. I'm not going to pretend that it's all completely black and white and clear what a bunch of degenerate rape apologists they all are just because the men in p&p tell me that's what I should be thinking. My experience as a young woman in the SWP was that it was the most unsexist environment I'd ever encountered. I'm not going to pretend that my experience was different at that time just because it doesn't fit with the current analysis. I'd have to be pretty lacking in integrity and judgement if my own personal experience as a woman in that organisation didn't cause me some confusion about what is going on now. And I should be able to talk about that without having to make a disclaimer each time about how disgusting it all is just to make sure that all the p&p folk with their certitudes don't think I'm a rape apologist.

I'm also interested in what's happening in the SWP because I'm interested in states of minds and I'm interested in group dynamics, because that is my work, and those things are political to me too.

It has been my experience in p&p that people don't find my posts interesting, they're often misunderstood, or ignored. But I'll continue to express myself in the way I choose, use the words that mean something to me, and post about the things that I find interesting, based on my own experience.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In Ireland, questions about whether or not a complainant (or any witness) was inebriated are certainly not banned, and would be normal to the point of inevitability if the witness had been out socialising. I have never heard of there being a ban on these kind of questions in England either, and would be very surprised if there is one. It's a rather different issue from previous sexual history evidence, which is generally considered to be highly prejudicial and a relic of a more misogynist age - the question of the reliability of witnesses (not complainants in particular) who were drunk or on drugs at the time comes up over and over again in criminal cases (not sexual ones in particular).


Don't be bringing facts into the discussion. No court, workplace or union tribunal would ever want to know the full facts about the state of mind and physical condition of the parties involved in such an incident. To suggest they would doesn't sufficiently indict the swp's dc of misogyny and is therefore wrong per se.


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

ah ok thanks for explaining.  I don't know if it was the same in your day, but nowadays the SWP are very keen to deny the reality of basic contemporary feminist ideas, that all men are able to benefit from men's oppression of women/male dominance being the main one.  

I don't know Rhetta so I'll ask some comrades who do to comment.  What I will say is all the woman in the ISN piece says is that Rhetta and Jackie interviewed her.  She says she was told it was unlikely the CC would do anything, but doesn't directly say that was by Rhetta, and says that it was true anyway!

Anyone in the SWP who is a feminist would find the SWP's denial of some basic feminist ideas hard.  The SWP's idea on the issues are not those of most of the rest of the left, and I think are part of the crisis and why people left, especially the youngsters.  This can be seen because the ISN which the leavers set up has standard feminist/left views on women as far as I know.


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

that was for Red Cat


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 15, 2013)

Aargh said:


> ah ok thanks for explaining.  I don't know if it was the same in your day, but nowadays the SWP are very keen to deny the reality of basic contemporary feminist ideas, that all men are able to benefit from men's oppression of women/male dominance being the main one.
> 
> I don't know Rhetta so I'll ask some comrades who do to comment.  What I will say is all the woman in the ISN piece says is that Rhetta and Jackie interviewed her.  She says she was told it was unlikely the CC would do anything, but doesn't directly say that was by Rhetta, and says that it was true anyway!
> 
> Anyone in the SWP who is a feminist would find the SWP's denial of some basic feminist ideas hard.  The SWP's idea on the issues are not those of most of the rest of the left, and I think are part of the crisis and why people left, especially the youngsters.  This can be seen because the ISN which the leavers set up has standard feminist/left views on women as far as I know.


I admire your honesty but in fairness the SWP has been arguing against the feminist notion of male benefits since the 80's when we all had the argument the first time round. I'd argue it's pretty core to the Marxist understanding of oppression to reject those feminist ideas and the fact that the SWP has to part company with most of the rest of the left on a question of Marxist theory isn't something it should worry about. Kind of thing you have to do from time to time if you're not just about making friends. If people have lately been joining the party and sticking around for a while and not realising that or only realising it now then clearly the party didn't do a very good job of arguing its own politics with the people it was recruiting.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not nice to see you sinking into the mud with the rest of them bb.


Don't get me wrong it would be much easier emotionally and in terms of reaction here to take my usual tack of saying "look the party clearly fucked this up but don't those oppositionists have some shit centrist politics". But I'm sorry I'm not letting every last fucking permutation of sentence involving the words rape, drink and the SWP be used to make cheap political capital even when people clearly don't grasp how 'normal' bourgeois courts operate. There are questions that shouldn't be asked and questions that may reasonably be asked. Trying to clarify what those questions are is a hugely difficult process but it's not solved by assuming anything a member of the dc asks is automatically wrong which is the method adopted by the antis.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 15, 2013)

Aargh said:


> ah ok thanks for explaining.  I don't know if it was the same in your day, but nowadays the SWP are very keen to deny the reality of basic contemporary feminist ideas, that all men are able to benefit from men's oppression of women/male dominance being the main one.



This particular line has always struck me as an example of the SWP's fondness for instrumentalist arguments. Or to put it more clearly, their habit of defending theoretical views not on their own merits, but on the basis that they allegedly help avoid problematic political conclusions.

So "state capitalism" is more often defended on the basis that it allowed socialists who adopted it to avoid siding with the Stalinist or capitalist states during the Cold War rather than on the strength of its analysis of Stalinism's political economy. The notion that "working class men don't benefit from the oppression of women" is at best a very crude description of a complex set of interactions and relationships, which involve both real benefits in many circumstances and real shared negative consequences in others. But from the SWP's point of view, even if it isnt strictly speaking true, it originally had the merit of avoiding any slide towards the separatism or at least divisiveness of some strands of 80s identity politics. And today it allegedly will help innoculate against the non-separatist but ultimately liberal politics of the Internet privilege/intersectionalist crowd, with their inbuilt tendency to locate the source of oppression in the accumulated "privilege" of individuals who aren't oppressed on a particular axis. I don't think it's a very good idea to adopt this kind of instrumentalist approach to theory.

Their avowed non-feminism is a rather different issue, with its roots in arguments in the early women's liberation movement, between people who favoured "women's liberation" and those who favoured "feminism". Nowadays though that argument has been well and truly lost in wider society, and maintaining that you are not a feminist and using the word in a hostile way makes you look like a cranky sexist.


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'd argue it's pretty core to the Marxist understanding of oppression to reject those feminist ideas and the fact that the SWP has to part company with most of the rest of the left on a question of Marxist theory isn't something it should worry about..



That would be fine except neither Marx, nor Engels, nor many other Marxists held that opinion. It's not what Marx believed perhaps, and definitely not compulsory to be a Marxist.  I would say Engels was more of the view that working men are encouraged to make use of their status over women so they have a stake in the system.


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

I mean 'not compulsory in order to be a Marxist.'


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2013)

isn't it time this thread was put to bed, if for no better reason than it is no longer amusing seeing bolshiebhoy squirm?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 15, 2013)

Aargh said:


> That would be fine except neither Marx, nor Engels, nor many other Marxists held that opinion. It's not what Marx believed perhaps, and definitely not compulsory to be a Marxist.  I would say Engels was more of the view that working men are encouraged to make use of their status over women so they have a stake in the system.


The problem being that most of the opposition want to ditch Engels for Vogel. But I guess that's a whole other thread!


----------



## Aargh (Oct 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This particular line has always struck me as an example of the SWP's fondness for instrumentalist arguments. Or to put it more clearly, their habit of defending theoretical views not on their own merits, but on the basis that they allegedly help avoid problematic political conclusions.



Yes, exactly that, they think it will 'divide the working class.' If you look at the transcript of the notorious conference about the Delta case, the whole thing is introduced by 'remember what the party line is' i.e. we are about the WC and we don't believe 'working men' can exploit women, we can't believe that.



> I don't think it's a very good idea to adopt this kind of instrumentalist approach to theory.



I agree, because you can repeat things by rote but it doesn't make it true, and it enables people to see the obvious holes in the argument (that men can benefit from women's oppression by men in many obvious ways) which highlights other holes in the SWP analysis, and it also creates an obstacle between us and the mainstream left.  

And we do have to care about keeping people onside or recruitment, or how can we expect them to have a revolution with us?

[quotes]Their avowed non-feminism is a rather different issue, with its roots in arguments in the early women's liberation movement, between people who favoured "women's liberation" and those who favoured "feminism". Nowadays though that argument has been well and truly lost in wider society, and maintaining that you are not a feminist and using the word in a hostile way makes you look like a cranky sexist.[/quote]

I say WL, but it is WL from men's oppression of women.  SWP nowadays say 'women's oppression' because it doesn't name the agent.

All this is pretty theoretical, but forms some of the ideology of the sexual cases- that the SWP are allegedly the party of the working class, which traditionally to an extent= men. 'Remember that we are the party of the WC' i.e. remember we can't admit that a man in our party might benefit from his position of power over women, as a man.  Nor does anyone of course have power over anyone else in the SWP, that they can abuse.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This particular line has always struck me as an example of the SWP's fondness for instrumentalist arguments. Or to put it more clearly, their habit of defending theoretical views not on their own merits, but on the basis that they allegedly help avoid problematic political conclusions.


See now this is why Ortho Trots shouldn't do philosophy. Instrumentalism? Not at all. One of the more fruitful results of the Prof's slow trawl through academia is his salvaging of Lakatos' philosophy of science as a guide to good Marxist science. The scientific efficacy of a theory for Lakatos is in its ability to predict novel facts at the same time as explaining the ones it was originally designed to explain. The novel facts here being workers revolts against Stalinism for example. But that really is another thread although the Prof sums it up quite well here: http://www.marxists.de/trotism/callinicos/5-2_reorient.htm


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 15, 2013)

Aargh said:
			
		

> I say WL, but it is WL from men's oppression of women.  SWP nowadays say 'women's oppression' because it doesn't name the agent.



Now there I part company with you because I think that positing "men" as the supra-historical, pan-global, collective agent of women's oppression makes sense only as a moral claim, and not as an analytical one. It's also a distinct issue from that of whether even otherwise oppressed or exploited men are capable of benefiting in some ways from the oppression of women. Although both the SWP and many of their opponents often argue as if one automatically flows from the other - in fact it should be a statement of the obvious that we can all benefit from things we are not personally responsible for.




			
				Aargh said:
			
		

> which traditionally to an extent= men.



We probably don't disagree about this, but it might be better to say that the working class has sometimes been treated by some socialists as if it consisted entirely or almost entirely of men. In reality the working class has always included vast numbers of women (and children).


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Fair enough to dismiss my post as irrelevant but how on earth are you able to say that my post showed a "misunderstanding of how rapes and accusations of rapes occur" is a complete mystery to me. I have never addressed this question because ... well to be honest it seems irrelevant.
> 
> Rape occurs when one person performs a sexual act on some one else without permission...(I think the law still  states that rape involves penetration with a body part or an object) and allegations of rape occur when someone believes they have been raped and tells some one...apart from the exceptionally rare cases of rape)when someone makes a false allegation.
> 
> ...


I only meant that 'its irrelevant' in that the SWP have decided what they will do, and what we say makes no odds.  And that we've had that discussion at (very interesting and quite useful) length previously. I certainly dont mean developing such a view is irrelevant, iyswim.

My point about you 'misunderstanding' the basis of rape (a poor choice of words, should have been more like accusations of rape and investigations, or something) was your referring to the making of 'false allegations' as the only reason why a victims word shouldn't be automatically taken.  you say the accused should be suspended 'until the matter is sorted' - but if the matter isnt taken to the police and cant be investigated by the party, it will never be sorted. I know you recognise this in your post, but you think its a better solution, whereas I'd say its just slightly differently shit.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> See now this is why Ortho Trots shouldn't do philosophy. Instrumentalism? Not at all. One of the more fruitful results of the Prof's slow trawl through academia is his salvaging of Lakatos' philosophy of science as a guide to good Marxist science. The scientific efficacy of a theory for Lakatos is in its ability to predict novel facts at the same time as explaining the ones it was originally designed to explain. The novel facts here being workers revolts against Stalinism for example. But that really is another thread although the Prof sums it up quite well here: http://www.marxists.de/trotism/callinicos/5-2_reorient.htm



This is the purest obscurantism.

Making an argument because it points to predetermined desirable consequences rather than because it actually explains the issue at hand is both intellectually dishonest and, worse, likely to be more and more deeply misleading as the observable facts start to diverge more drastically from the convenient but unfounded explanation. This has nothing to do with predicting "novel facts" and everything to do with predicting outcomes the theoretician was already disposed to predict.

The particular example you give is useless on its own terms, as just about all hostile left wing theories of Stalinism predicted workers revolts. But even addressing this is a red herring. The argument I was criticising as instrumentalist was not "state capitalism is correct because it predicted revolts" but "state capitalism is correct because it inoculates against an undesirable tendency to favour one Cold War bloc". Similarly, I was not criticising some predictive claim about the nature of sexism made on behalf of the SWPs analysis of women's oppression. I was criticising the argument that it must be treated as true because to do otherwise would allegedly lead to political conclusions we think are undesirable for other reasons, drawn from outside the theory.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Fair enough to dismiss my post as irrelevant but how on earth are you able to say that my post showed a "misunderstanding of how rapes and accusations of rapes occur" is a complete mystery to me. I have never addressed this question because ... well to be honest it seems irrelevant.
> 
> Rape occurs when one person performs a sexual act on some one else without permission...(I think the law still  states that rape involves penetration with a body part or an object) and allegations of rape occur when someone believes they have been raped and tells some one...apart from the exceptionally rare cases of rape)when someone makes a false allegation.
> 
> ...


I only meant that 'its irrelevant' in that the SWP have decided what they will do, and what we say makes no odds.  And that we've had that discussion at (very interesting and quite useful) length previously. I certainly dont mean developing such a view is irrelevant, iyswim.

My point about you 'misunderstanding' the basis of rape (a poor choice of words, should have been more like accusations of rape) was your use of the phrase:


Red Cat said:


> No it doesn't mean that at all you aggressive little prick.
> 
> I'm interested in the answer because for me I think it's a shift for people who have remained in the SWP to move from a position of thinking shit we really fucked up here to a position where they think that the party has become so degenerate that someone with her history of supporting women (myself included) would put the SWP before a woman comrade. I'm interested in that shift because I have no doubt that many other women who have been involved with the SWP have had similar experiences to myself and that for them, or some of them, to believe that she behaved as described must involve...a real crisis. The reason I expressed it as I did is because she's not just some DC figure, but someone who has played a particular role in the SWP re. women's liberation, both politically and personally. If I thought that someone like that could become so corrupt, I couldn't imagine wanting to stay in the organisation.
> 
> ...


sorry,  but given what you've written above, I dont really understand why you were asking the question in the first place, when you pretty much answer it yourself here. How someone leaves what you find to be an 'abusive organisation' is pretty similar to how someone leaves an abusive person - sometimes quickly and easily, sometimes slowly and messily. I apologise for thinking you were being disingenuous (tho I'd also add point out I have never accused _anyone_ of being a rape apologist), but I'm just honestly rather shocked at the honest naivety of the question.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Don't be bringing facts into the discussion. No court, workplace or union tribunal would ever want to know the full facts about the state of mind and physical condition of the parties involved in such an incident. To suggest they would doesn't sufficiently indict the swp's dc of misogyny and is therefore wrong per se.


asking whether someone was so drunk they couldnt remember anything is different to asking about there general drinking habits tho, isnt it?



bolshiebhoy said:


> I admire your honesty but in fairness the SWP has been arguing against the feminist notion of male benefits since the 80's when we all had the argument the first time round. I'd argue it's pretty core to the Marxist understanding of oppression to reject those feminist ideas and the fact that the SWP has to part company with most of the rest of the left on a question of Marxist theory isn't something it should worry about. Kind of thing you have to do from time to time if you're not just about making friends. If people have lately been joining the party and sticking around for a while and not realising that or only realising it now then clearly the party didn't do a very good job of arguing its own politics with the people it was recruiting.


but you are confusing two things - whether 'men' benefit overall from women's oppression, and whether men receive _any form of_ benefit from the specific ways women are oppressed.

In order to see men do receive some benefits, you dont have to check you privilege, just check your pay packet.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The argument I was criticising as instrumentalist was ... "state capitalism is correct because it inoculates against an undesirable tendency to favour one Cold War bloc". Similarly, I was not criticising some predictive claim about the nature of sexism made on behalf of the SWPs analysis of women's oppression. I was criticising the argument that it must be treated as true because to do otherwise would allegedly lead to political conclusions we think are undesirable for other reasons, drawn from outside the theory.



I never once heard either of those arguments. Are you sure you're not projecting? Did anyone ever say this to you or write it? There's a lot online by Cliff and Harman on State Cap, but I bet you have a hard time finding formulations so obviously shallow as these. You must have a very low opinion of those who have been SWP members over the years if you think they would accept such logic. But let's not get off topic. If anyone did say this, they were wrong to do.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I never once heard either of those arguments. Are you sure you're not projecting? Did anyone ever say this to you or write it? There's a lot online by Cliff and Harman on State Cap, but I bet you have a hard time finding formulations so obviously shallow as these. You must have a very low opinion of those who have been SWP members over the years if you think they would accept such logic. But let's not get off topic. If anyone did say this, they were wrong to do.


I've never heard it put anything like as crudely as Nigel has put it, but the 'instrumentalist' one was used. Specifically I recall it being said that state cap's great strength was that it allowed us to save the idea of socialism from below - it meant socialism (equated here with the workers state) couldn't, not even in a deformed form, be brought about by russian tanks.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> I've never heard it put anything like as crudely as Nigel has put it, but the 'instrumentalist' one was used.



It's a fair point that I'm putting it in the crudest possible terms. It's difficult to avoid doing so in a one sentence description. You lose the nuances of even arguments that are themselves crude. Similarly, the argument that deviation from the SWP's orthodoxy on women's oppression generally, and on the question of whether working class men benefit in particular, leads to feminist divisiveness and even separatism is all over both articles from the 80s rows and from the current disputes. Albeit in less clunky form than my half sentence summary.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 16, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I never once heard either of those arguments. Are you sure you're not projecting? Did anyone ever say this to you or write it? There's a lot online by Cliff and Harman on State Cap, but I bet you have a hard time finding formulations so obviously shallow as these. You must have a very low opinion of those who have been SWP members over the years if you think they would accept such logic. But let's not get off topic. If anyone did say this, they were wrong to do.



I suspect that perhaps you filter them out, because otherwise I'm honestly bewildered by that claim. I should however point out that these are not the only arguments put forward.

Also, I don't necessarily have a low opinion of people because they accept or adopt fallacious arguments. Lord knows I've done it often enough myself.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's a fair point that I'm putting it in the crudest possible terms. It's difficult to avoid doing so in a one sentence description. You lose the nuances of even arguments that are themselves crude. Similarly, the argument that deviation from the SWP's orthodoxy on women's oppression generally, and on the question of whether working class men benefit in particular, leads to feminist divisiveness and even separatism is all over both articles from the 80s rows and from the current disputes. Albeit in less clunky form than my half sentence summary.



i think that's too harsh on yourself - you put it in its logically chrysallised form. i certainly recognise your formulation from my time in the party


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> sorry,  but given what you've written above, I dont really understand why you were asking the question in the first place, when you pretty much answer it yourself here. How someone leaves what you find to be an 'abusive organisation' is pretty similar to how someone leaves an abusive person - sometimes quickly and easily, sometimes slowly and messily. I apologise for thinking you were being disingenuous (tho I'd also add point out I have never accused _anyone_ of being a rape apologist), but I'm just honestly rather shocked at the honest naivety of the question.



Well, clearly not everyone experiences it as an abusive organisation because they're still in it and plenty of them are women. So I'm assuming that some of that is because the loyalists have all known eachother for decades and can't contemplate that they may have done wrong. If we don't understand that and how powerful those identifications are then we're missing a large part of the process, although it was an obvious part of the analysis of the way in which the Martin Smith case was mishandled.

I think some of my apparent naivety is that I'm not in touch enough to know who the loyalists and who the opposition are. I haven't spoken to anyone in the SWP for months and I'm not on facebook. I don't live in the same city as I did when I was a member - I'm really not in touch with it at all.

I was imagining that the latest revelations had produced a further shift in the party towards the opposition and that if that was the case that may well involve people who have a history with Rhetta, who have previously believed that it was just one fuck up rather than of repeated acts of manipulation and deliberate cover up* as suggested in the latest ISN piece, and if that was the case then that is significant, to me. However, looking at the opposition list there are no names I recognise, so I'm guessing that the old/young split still exists and that those that have worked alongside each other for decades are defending the party line and those that don't have that history with each other aren't so identified with such a good view of the party. For someone who knows Rhetta to believe that she would act in that way is of far greater significance than someone fairly new to the party who knows nothing about her. And it was that process that I was trying to get at.

As for what has actually happened, it all seems very clear on here and in blogs, but I consider myself at such a distance from it all, I don't think my opinion, or confusion, has any weight at all. I still think it must feel like you're going mad if you're in the SWP and there seems an awful lot of paranoia about, but, yes, perhaps I am naive, and actually people feel pretty clear about their positions. I am so far from manipulative myself, I have real difficulty seeing it. The world of politics is clearly not for me.

As for my own view of Rhetta, she has been a good friend to me, and that's my own personal business that I'm not going to share here.

Anyway, enough of the overlong posts!

ETA: * Perhaps I'm overstating this. I understand perhaps some people don't see this in such terms, that it's more the continuation of unconscious bias/identification or the wrong politics on women, but I think it's also the case that others do, particularly in relation to Callinicos, if not in the SWP, then certainly outside the SWP, and that's what I responded to.


----------



## cesare (Oct 16, 2013)

I don't know Rhetta (or any of the other key individuals) so I'm speculating/observing. I think it's worth noting that experience in dealing with rape/sexual/DV abuse survivors and a background in feminism doesn't necessarily confer specific skills that are required for any investigation into complaints (if that's the role that Rhetta was assigned to). It 's quite a different kettle of fish where background and experience give insight but not necessarily the specific skills required. This - on the face of it - possibly points to a training need.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> I don't know Rhetta (or any of the other key individuals) so I'm speculating/observing. I think it's worth noting that experience in dealing with rape/sexual/DV abuse survivors and a background in feminism doesn't necessarily confer specific skills that are required for any investigation into complaints (if that's the role that Rhetta was assigned to). It 's quite a different kettle of fish where background and experience give insight but not necessarily the specific skills required. This - on the face of it - possibly points to a training need.



Yes, I agree with that, I think that's a really clear way of putting it.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 16, 2013)

Aargh said:


> All this is pretty theoretical, but forms some of the ideology of the sexual cases- that the SWP are allegedly the party of the working class, which traditionally to an extent= men. 'Remember that we are the party of the WC' i.e. remember we can't admit that a man in our party might benefit from his position of power over women, as a man.  Nor does anyone of course have power over anyone else in the SWP, that they can abuse.



So the reason you're still in the SWP is that you believe you can win the argument to a more feminist democratic politics which will make abuse of power and abuse of women by men in the SWP less likely? 

Some people outside the SWP are of the opinion that the very nature of a vanguard gives the party's members a belief in their superior powers, a belief that ordinary rules don't apply, that it is in itself corrupting.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> I only meant that 'its irrelevant' in that the SWP have decided what they will do, and what we say makes no odds.  And that we've had that discussion at (very interesting and quite useful) length previously. I certainly dont mean developing such a view is irrelevant, iyswim.
> 
> My point about you 'misunderstanding' the basis of rape (a poor choice of words, should have been more like accusations of rape and investigations, or something) was your referring to the making of 'false allegations' as the only reason why a victims word shouldn't be automatically taken.  you say the accused should be suspended 'until the matter is sorted' - but if the matter isnt taken to the police and cant be investigated by the party, it will never be sorted. I know you recognise this in your post, but you think its a better solution, whereas I'd say its just slightly differently shit.



Fair enough...can't really say I have a great or even good answer re what to do if it is not sorted!


----------



## belboid (Oct 16, 2013)

second ISN bulletin is out.  The new SW one must be due too


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> asking whether someone was so drunk they couldnt remember anything is different to asking about there general drinking habits tho, isnt it?
> 
> 
> but you are confusing two things - whether 'men' benefit overall from women's oppression, and whether men receive _any form of_ benefit from the specific ways women are oppressed.
> ...


 I don't think he's confusing things , he's making the point overall men do not benefit from women's oppression , capitalism and the capitalist class do.

 did Lady Diana suffer from women's oppression?

 I think it's fair to say Marxism is a systemic analysis, rather than  looking at the losses and gains of individuals.


----------



## belboid (Oct 16, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I don't think he's confusing things , he's making the point overall men do not benefit from women's oppression , capitalism and the capitalist class do.
> 
> did Lady Diana suffer from women's oppression?
> 
> I think it's fair to say Marxism is a systemic analysis, rather than  looking at the losses and gains of individuals.


 

Well done on completely missing the point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> did Lady Diana suffer from women's oppression?


yes

next


----------



## oskarsdrum (Oct 16, 2013)

"Our education consisted of relying on the same handful of texts, quotes by Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, Cliff, as if they were maxims unto themselves. Cadreisation involved learning how to speak the line, parrot the leadership’s stick-bending. It was not even fully encouraged to develop a rounded knowledge of the Marxist method. Some “leading members” seemed to only regurgitate a handful of anecdotes, quotes and Marxist ideas over and over again, in every meeting. This kind of cadreisation at its worst is simply a kind of academic mimicry; learn how to speak like the leadership, cultivate a suitably revolutionary language, and you can rise through the party ranks."

If only this was the SWP IB! But of course it's the ISN bulletin....apposite for the last couple of pages I think.

Edit..."While many swappies may pontificate about how the party can follow the class, most in practise appeared to believe that the solution was to recruit, cadreise, and repeat in as many workplaces and campuses as possible. No wonder the party had such a high member turnover and burnout rate." --well of course, lots of people have been saying this stuff for ages. But it's nice to hear it from insiders.


----------



## benedict (Oct 16, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> "Our education consisted of relying on the same handful of texts, quotes by Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, Cliff, as if they were maxims unto themselves. Cadreisation involved learning how to speak the line, parrot the leadership’s stick-bending. It was not even fully encouraged to develop a rounded knowledge of the Marxist method. Some “leading members” seemed to only regurgitate a handful of anecdotes, quotes and Marxist ideas over and over again, in every meeting. This kind of cadreisation at its worst is simply a kind of academic mimicry; learn how to speak like the leadership, cultivate a suitably revolutionary language, and you can rise through the party ranks."
> 
> If only this was the SWP IB! But of course it's the ISN bulletin....apposite for the last couple of pages I think.
> 
> Edit..."While many swappies may pontificate about how the party can follow the class, most in practise appeared to believe that the solution was to recruit, cadreise, and repeat in as many workplaces and campuses as possible. No wonder the party had such a high member turnover and burnout rate." --well of course, lots of people have been saying this stuff for ages. But it's nice to hear it from insiders.



Yeah that's the question. When did the ISNers see the light? Why didn't they argue this kind of line internally in the SWP? It makes it a bit hard to stomach the righteousnous of those like Seymour (on Lenin's Too) who spent so many years delivering slapdowns in high fallutin' prose with all the elegance of a boxed contortionist to anyone who critiqued the party line.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> Well done on completely missing the point.


Fair comment. I jumped in, mid conversation, as to what I guessed was being suggested.
I do think the comments are fair though. I do think the SWP's analysis on feminism WAS reasonable and logical . ( That's the SWP when I was a member).
For me the problem with people's arguments that we were taught the party line by rote , is that the party line was a logical totality . All the various strands, feminism , imperialism, sectarianism ,  political economy Etc etc, all hung together as a whole . complemented and supported each other.
particularly in the 1980s , we would spend hours and hours discussing and arguing the party line . there was massive debate about support for victory for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Massive debate over every single issue including Marx, Trotsky , and Lenin. People who merely recited the words of such dead men, were regularly castigated, and quite right so.
people like Chris Harman,  Paul Foot, Colin Barker , John Molineux and the vast majority of people who had been members for 30 or 40 years were not drones merely repeating a party line. In fact drones from top to bottom, were continually challenged.
I don't find the suggestion that SWP members were drones as insulting to the SWP, I see it is more damaging to those who argued against them. Substituting lazy nonsense, for reasoned debate.
Whether the SWP were  politically correct, logical correct , should have been discussed. But in my opinion the "Trotbot" argument undermined the legitimate arguments of political opponents to the SWP.
All of which is moot. Why this thread is still going, is beyond me.
PS. Lovely day today, so I'm off for a few pints. Enjoy comrades. 

ETA. I must in all honesty admit though, such a interminable debate and discussion was not a feature of the 90s.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2013)

I was at a meeting about the black panthers last night and was talking to the last student from the pre-current year intake to leave the SWP in bristol. I had never thought he'd leave such was his dogmatism and party loyalty (based on his limited experience of life up to that point, not any inherent failing) . Now he is rabidly anti-swp, i was quite shocked at his anger at the party leadership - i guess that happens when not only do you have political differences but think you've been hoodwinked, lied to and manipulated as well. And remember, he was a hardcore loyalist at this point last year.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 18, 2013)

This just in:
http://isj.org.uk/?id=931

*“The politics of the SWP crisis”-a response*
Issue: 140
_ Posted: 18 October 13_
*by Jim Wolfreys, Colin Barker, Louis Bayman, Simon Behrman, Anindya Bhattacharyya, Estelle Cooch, Neil Davidson, Hannah Dee, Jacqui Freeman, Amy Gilligan, Mike Gonzalez, Mike Haynes, Jonny Jones, Andy Stone, Dan Swain, Megan Trudell, Alexis Wearmouth and Jennifer Wilkinson*

As members of the editorial board of _International Socialism_ we wish to disassociate ourselves from the recently published article, “The Politics of the SWP Crisis”, written by the journal’s editor and the national secretary of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).1 It purports to offer a summary of the recent disputes that have divided the organisation along with an overview of the party’s trajectory over the past decade. The article’s account of both processes is partial and misleading. More than this, however, we believe that the political stance adopted by the authors will, if left unchecked, destroy the SWP as we know it and turn it into an irrelevant sect.


----------



## laptop (Oct 18, 2013)

*Diary: who needs the police when we have the Socialist Workers party?*


















*Hello Hugh!*


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 18, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This just in:
> http://isj.org.uk/?id=931
> 
> *“The politics of the SWP crisis”-a response*
> ...


The party is now in flames. Their lordships vs. the rest


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2013)

This can only mean they are going to demand the greek and the timber go can't it? Not that they are surrounded by other CC members they (the faction) find acceptable, but that they go.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2013)

Their response to the response is here btw.


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2013)

who are the authors? previously loyalist SWP members? i don't know any of the names tbh...


----------



## BK Double Stack (Oct 18, 2013)

Davidson, Dee and Gonzalez are obviously recognizable, but yeah, are there any key defectors in this list?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2013)

Wow, the prof seems to suggest the reason things only reached this stage was because the original mediation attempts took place outside of the party - effectively that the DC and CC who cocked this up so badly would have dealt with this very easily if they were brought in originally:



> But there was a prehistory to the accusation, as a result of which conflicts developed from the start. This prehistory involved comrades now on both sides of the factional divide trying to mediate the conflict between W and the comrade she later accused of rape. These efforts were made in good faith, but they took place outside the party’s formal structures. This was a recipe for distrust and misunderstanding, and helped to ensure that sides were rapidly taken over the September 2012 complaint.



The party structures that fucked this up were the only ones that could have dealt with the situation. Astonishing. Not a single thing learnt.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2013)

The chutzpah of the man:



> John Rees destroyed himself with the SWP because he wouldn’t take any responsibility for the collapse of Respect.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2013)

Persistent reference to rape allegations as allegations of 'sexual misconduct'.


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2013)

Its like watching a disembowelled man try to shove his entrails back inside, but succeeding only in smearing himself with more & more blood & faeces.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2013)

The weird thing about this endless horror show is just how predictable its development has been. If you go back to the early parts of this thread, it was clear to most here already that the opposition would lose at conference and then the hard elements would split or be purged. But that then the "soft" opposition would be pushed into a harder stance, rinse and repeat.

So after December, and the inevitable defection of much of the current opposition, the issue is how much of an opposition remains for yet another go around in a yet smaller SWP. At what point do the CC start expelling people?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2013)

I do like the bit in the Callnicos / Kimber reply to to the reply where they argue that "the most dynamic elements" of the ISN have "made straight for the world of the sects". 

The language there is like Ted Grant at his most pompous, but at least Ted had a clear and readily understandable distinction in mind when he derided the rest of the far left as "squabbling sects on the fringes of the Labour movement" - ie they weren't inside the Labour Party. Here it's just straightforward abuse of little groups for being smaller. Even though the SWP itself tried to absorb one of the little groups being talked about not all that long ago.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes
> 
> next


 DID she benefit from it.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> Davidson, Dee and Gonzalez are obviously recognizable, but yeah, are there any key defectors in this list?


 Colin Barker. Mike Haynes. imo


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> DID she benefit from it.


you asked first if she suffered from oppression and now you ask if she benefited from it. you're fucked in the head, and not in a good way.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 18, 2013)

Nobody else here will think it matters but the sheer neck of the opposition statement in denying their political differences and claiming it all comes down to matters of procedure is just odd. The uaf stuff is particularily stupid. we know the oppo have been going nuts about the failure of the uaf to physically confront the edl for months but if the prof mentions that he's constructing straw men?! Eh no he's effing not. You disagree with the politics of the majority in the SWP, fine but don't pretend you don't. No doubt partly it's cause they need to keep Stack and Birchall on board but it's so bloody dishonest.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you asked first if she suffered from oppression and now you ask if she benefited from it. you're fucked in the head, and not in a good way.


 She quite clearly did benefit from it, as does the rest of the ruling class, that's the point. You say she suffered from women's oppression, I would say  her benefits quite clearly outweighed her losses. She did not suffer from women's oppression, in the same way the working class woman would. Point of fact. Which underlines the point that women's oppression is a class issue, which is the point at which many socialists part company with feminists on the analysis of women's oppression.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> She quite clearly did benefit from it, as does the rest of the ruling class, that's the point. You say she suffered from women's oppression, I would say  her benefits quite clearly outweighed her losses. She did not suffer from women's oppression, in the same way the working class woman would. Point of fact. Which underlines the point that women's oppression is a class issue, which is the point at which many socialists part company with feminists on the analysis of women's oppression.


in what concrete ways would you say she benefited from being oppressed.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> in what concrete ways would you say she benefited from being oppressed.


 How does the ruling class benefit from women's oppression?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> How does the ruling class benefit from women's oppression?


i ask again, how did diana benefit from her being oppressed as a woman?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Nobody else here will think it matters but the sheer neck of the opposition statement in denying their political differences and claiming it all comes down to matters of procedure is just odd. The uaf stuff is particularily stupid. we know the oppo have been going nuts about the failure of the uaf to physically confront the edl for months but if the prof mentions that he's constructing straw men?! Eh no he's effing not. You disagree with the politics of the majority in the SWP, fine but don't pretend you don't. No doubt partly it's cause they need to keep Stack and Birchall on board but it's so bloody dishonest.



Hang on a second. As you yourself acknowledge, with your reference to Stack and Birchall, the opposition is not united around these sort of issues. There are people in the opposition who think that the SWP position is wrong on a range of issues and there are people who don't. Of those who do have wider disagreements, what precisely those "dissident" views are will also vary. So why is it "bloody dishonest" for the opposition to concentrate their argument on the issue they actually are united about, which is also the issue that created the opposition in the first place?

It would of course suit the leadership if instead of talking about the central issue, the opposition would obligingly divert themselves into a discussion of other issues. Then the CC could concentrate its fire on the views of this or that oppositionist or the heterodoxy of some subset of the opposition's views. But it's not dishonest of the opposition to insist on prioritising the issue that centrally they are an opposition because of. There isn't an opposition because of "movementist pressures" or because the students were elitist or because Seymour is less optimistic than the leadership, or because of twitter intersectionalism or whatever. Even though the existence of a factional dispute does inevitably lead some oppositional elements to question what had been common ground. There's an opposition because of the DC cases and their fall out.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Nobody else here will think it matters but the sheer neck of the opposition statement in denying their political differences and claiming it all comes down to matters of procedure is just odd. The uaf stuff is particularily stupid. we know the oppo have been going nuts about the failure of the uaf to physically confront the edl for months but if the prof mentions that he's constructing straw men?! Eh no he's effing not. You disagree with the politics of the majority in the SWP, fine but don't pretend you don't. No doubt partly it's cause they need to keep Stack and Birchall on board but it's so bloody dishonest.


 Interesting _"The authors note “the increasing tendency for faction members to freelance in different areas of work, notably anti-fascism, where some members of the opposition counterpose squaddist ‘direct action’ against the Nazis by a self-appointed vanguard to the emphasis on mass mobilisation that has distinguished both the ANL and UAF.” The authors do not bother to cite any evidence for this “squaddism” but are happy instead to insult, by a process of lazy amalgamation, significant numbers of opposition comrades who have devoted a large part of their lives to developing and engaging in the party’s anti-fascist work."_


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2013)

Last year saw the 20 somethings leave, this coming year will see the 30 and 40 somethings going if the breadth of people signing up for the faction is anything to judge by.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Last year saw the 20 somethings leave, this coming year will see the 30 and 40 somethings going if the breadth of people signing up for the faction is anything to judge by.


And then the anarchists will no longer have an excuse for their impotence


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Hang on a second. As you yourself acknowledge, with your reference to Stack and Birchall, the opposition is not united around these sort of issues. There are people in the opposition who think that the SWP position is wrong on a range of issues and there are people who don't. Of those who do have wider disagreements, what precisely those "dissident" views are will also vary. So why is it "bloody dishonest" for the opposition to concentrate their argument on the issue they actually are united about, which is also the issue that created the opposition in the first place?
> 
> It would of course suit the leadership if instead of talking about the central issue, the opposition would obligingly divert themselves into a discussion of other issues. Then the CC could concentrate its fire on the views of this or that oppositionist or the heterodoxy of some subset of the opposition's views. But it's not dishonest of the opposition to insist on prioritising the issue that centrally they are an opposition because of. There isn't an opposition because of "movementist pressures" or because the students were elitist or because Seymour is less optimistic than the leadership, or because of twitter intersectionalism or whatever. Even though the existence of a factional dispute does inevitably lead some oppositional elements to question what had been common ground. There's an opposition because of the DC cases and their fall out.


  think you're probably right, not dishonest ,  but perhaps better to have couched it the way you?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Last year saw the 20 somethings leave, this coming year will see the 30 and 40 somethings going if the breadth of people signing up for the faction is anything to judge by.



I don't think that there are any significant number of 30 somethings. According to the resignation letter of that ex-CC guy who defected to Counterfire near the start of the crisis, the SWP had 50-100 subs payers recruited between 2001 and 2005 on the books. And that was before the crisis. That seems to have been a missing generation already - and a key reason why losing the students and other 20 somethings was even more of a disaster than it would otherwise have been.

Even when your name isn't mud, that sort of shift to an older age profile is very hard to undo. The English SP had a less drastic version of the same problem in the early 2000s. It had stopped its long 90s slide, but found itself with lots of branches where almost all of the activists had joined in the 80s.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think that there are any significant number of 30 somethings. According to the resignation letter of that ex-CC guy who defected to Counterfire near the start of the crisis, the SWP had 50-100 subs payers recruited between 2001 and 2005 on the books. And that was before the crisis. That seems to have been a missing generation already - and a key reason why losing the students and other 20 somethings was even more of a disaster than it would otherwise have been.
> 
> Even when your name isn't mud, that sort of shift to an older age profile is very hard to undo. The English SP had a less drastic version of the same problem in the early 2000s. It had stopped its long 90s slide, but found itself with lots of branches where almost all of the activists had joined in the 80s.


 is there any section on the British 'left' who have not followed the same trend?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 18, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> Davidson, Dee and Gonzalez are obviously recognizable, but yeah, are there any key defectors in this list?


most, if not all, where members of the opposition before the special conf, some before the 1st conf.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Even when your name isn't mud, that sort of shift to an older age profile is very hard to undo. The English SP had a less drastic version of the same problem in the early 2000s. It had stopped its long 90s slide, but found itself with lots of branches where almost all of the activists had joined in the 80s.



That's an interesting aside, given that the SP now seems to have a reasonable cross section of ages represented (at least where ever I've seen) what would you say they did to address that?


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 18, 2013)

From a personal pov, I'm very relieved to see Colin Barker's name attached to something critical. Not sure it will make any difference to the politics of the SWP, but I feel a little less mad.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

I'll come back to this, because I conceded too early.


belboid said:


> asking whether someone was so drunk they couldnt remember anything is different to asking about there general drinking habits tho, isnt it?
> but you are confusing two things - whether 'men' benefit overall from women's oppression, and whether men receive any form of benefit from the specific ways women are oppressed.
> In order to see men do receive some benefits, you dont have to check you privilege, just check your pay packet.


 what happens when you check your wife's/ partners pay packet? By that measure, most men would benefit if their wives wages were increased to the same level as theirs. If all women's wages were increased to the same level as men, the whole working class would benefit.
It's a different perspective, it's about viewing things in terms of the class, rather than the individual. As a class, we can only all benefit from increase of women's wages to the same levels as men. There is no real benefit 2 men, in the oppression of women.
I do understand the point you are making, but I think these points cloud the clarity class analysis of women's oppression gives. Women's oppression is caused by class society , not men.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> From a personal pov, I'm very relieved to see Colin Barker's name attached to something critical. Not sure it will make any difference to the politics of the SWP, but I feel a little less mad.


 Why?


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 18, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That's an interesting aside, given that the SP now seems to have a reasonable cross section of ages represented (at least where ever I've seen) what would you say they did to address that?



Ground it out mostly. Lots of emphasis on branches doing work on universities and colleges. The anti-war movement helped a lot as well. That was when the the first big wave of sustained youth recruitment came into the party.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 18, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Ground it out mostly. Lots of emphasis on branches doing work on universities and colleges. The anti-war movement helped a lot as well. That was when the the first big wave of sustained youth recruitment came into the party.



cheers


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Ground it out mostly. Lots of emphasis on branches doing work on universities and colleges. The anti-war movement helped a lot as well. That was when the the first big wave of sustained youth recruitment came into the party.


 Doh! A middle class party then.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 18, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That's an interesting aside, given that the SP now seems to have a reasonable cross section of ages represented (at least where ever I've seen) what would you say they did to address that?



There was no quick solution. Basically they were aware of the problem and put a lot of emphasis on encouraging the few young people they did have. They also oriented towards  "youthy" stuff, sometimes in a slightly stumbling way. Going from very few young people to few young people was the hardest bit. After that, each step forward got easier. Now the SP has lots of young members, but there's still a bit of a missing cohort of people who weren't recruited or retained in the 90s.

That was a difficult process. It would be much harder under the conditions the SWP face.

(I should also say that the SP has enough of a spread that what may be a general trend isn't going to be equally reflected everywhere. In particular London, where there is much more competition for recruits and where Militant was always relatively weak, probably had the problem in its most exaggerated form.)

Edited to add: beaten to it.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Why?



Why what?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i ask again, how did diana benefit from her being oppressed as a woman?


 


Pickman's model said:


> in what concrete ways would you say she benefited from being oppressed.


  I never said Princess Diana was an oppressed, you did, so so explain how.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 18, 2013)

emanymton said:


> most, if not all, where members of the opposition before the special conf, some before the 1st conf.



I'd forgotten about that (not been properly following). I was thinking that it was younger members who I don't know/have never heard of.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Why what?


 Just asking WHY you are relieved to see Colin Barker's name on something critical.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I never said Princess Diana was an oppressed, you did, so so explain how.


that's not quite what you said, is it?


ResistanceMP3 said:


> She quite clearly did benefit from it, as does the rest of the ruling class, that's the point. You say she suffered from women's oppression, *I would say  her benefits quite clearly outweighed her losses*. She did not suffer from women's oppression, in the same way the working class woman would. Point of fact. Which underlines the point that women's oppression is a class issue, which is the point at which many socialists part company with feminists on the analysis of women's oppression.


so what you're in fact saying is she DID suffer from women's oppression.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 that's shut you up


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> ResistanceMP3 that's shut you up


 http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-453#post-12630129


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-453#post-12630129


see #13625 in particular the highlighted section of your post.


----------



## laptop (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> see #*13625*









"And ninthly..."


----------



## discokermit (Oct 18, 2013)

i took rmp3 off ignore just, as the thread was becoming unreadable.
i now regret it.
why do people continue to argue with him? he's a fucking idiot. you're completely wasting your time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i took rmp3 off ignore just, as the thread was becoming unreadable.
> i now regret it.
> why do people continue to argue with him? he's a fucking idiot. you're completely wasting your time.


i like giving him a kick now and again, that's why.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i took rmp3 off ignore just, as the thread was becoming unreadable.
> i now regret it.
> why do people continue to argue with him? he's a fucking idiot. you're completely wasting your time.


amen


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2013)

perhaps we should all put rmp3 on ignore. 'like' this post to show you've done that.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i like giving him a kick now and again, that's why.


it's like kicking a man made of shit. you end up with shit everywhere.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps we should all put rmp3 on ignore. 'like' this post to show you've done that.


this is your most cunning 'like' harvest yet. bravo!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 18, 2013)

Can you stop slagging rmp3 for a min to discuss how shit the oppo statement was? No confidence in their own politics that's why they will lose.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can you stop slagging rmp3 for a min to discuss how shit the oppo statement was? No confidence in their own politics that's why they will lose.


what have you got to say about the amy leather faction, you know, the undeclared one, which the cc are accomodating to?


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can you stop slagging rmp3 for a min to discuss how shit the oppo statement was? No confidence in their own politics that's why they will lose.


You swapped callinicos for Andy Newman, and you accuse the opposition of lacking confidence in their politics?


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can you stop slagging rmp3 for a min to discuss how shit the oppo statement was? No confidence in their own politics that's why they will lose.



What is their own politics?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can you stop slagging rmp3 for a min to discuss how shit the oppo statement was? No confidence in their own politics that's why they will lose.


And the CC will win? what exactly?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 19, 2013)

rmp3 at least takes on the discussions put forward to him. i don't think his posts warrant the derision shown on here


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 19, 2013)

I think that's right actually. And at least he takes the time to explain what he thinks to people, doesn't do drop in and tease posts, or just attack without explaining what his own thoughts are.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2013)

Long years of experience with him is what's driving those reactions.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 19, 2013)

It isn't for no reason that rmp3 gets the response he does on here - he doesn't even attempt to understand the points others make or respond to them honestly.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It isn't for no reason that rmp3 gets the response he does on here - he doesn't even attempt to understand the points others make or respond to them honestly.



I get the impression that he does, but he seems stuck, as though the SWP perspective is so obvious after all these years it's hard to see another way. Although he also loves to think that he can wind you all up. Is it a mix or all just wind up?

I guess he could just be 100% twat.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Long years of experience with him is what's driving those reactions.



Sure, he's annoying, hence why I couldn't be bothered answering his question to me because I didn't think he'd do anything 'serious' with my answer. But he's hardly the only one.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 19, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I get the impression that he does, but he seems stuck, as though the SWP perspective is so obvious after all these years it's hard to see another way. Although he also loves to think that he can wind you all up. Is it a mix or all just wind up?
> 
> I guess he could just be 100% twat.


 definitely take your 1st sentence as a truism. the more people like pickman argues , the more it underlines why I am a socialist worker (ideologicaly). I love the socialist worker analysis, it makes sense of the world. it doesn't obscure the woods for the trees, as do so many on here IMHO.

However, their comments are disingenuous . I spent the longest time trying to have an honest conversation with them. bent over backwards. If pickman etc were honest, they would admit, from day one they took the piss. that's all pickman has ever done about anything to do with the SWP.  And that's fine. But they then cannot complain when people reciprocate in kind. gave up trying to talk to them sensibly about 5 years ago.

 My aim is to get them to put me on ignore.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It isn't for no reason that rmp3 gets the response he does on here - he doesn't even attempt to understand the points others make or respond to them honestly.


 I know, my words and socialist worker have never been misrepresented.  i.e. Lindsey German the shibboleth statement. 

to be honest Norman, if you go back to my  earliest posts on here, you will see your statement is a barefaced lie.
Made massive attempts to try and get my head round the logical nature of ie anarchism, without success. Had massive discussions with SP members about such as the Socialist Alliance, to which I have conceded probably their model for the Socialist Alliance was most feasible, and Socialist Workers wasn't. And even to this day, I'm never genuinely dishonest. Fuck up my arguments? Not know what I'm talking about? Not as well read as many people on here? Yes, and many other faults. And the reason I'm honest it's because the education, is far more stimulating/pleasurable than the affiliation, to the SWP.
I mean, let's be quite honest, why would I want to be affiliated to the SWP now? I would love somebody else's arguments to make sense, make more sense of the world than the SWP's. Even if it were only passively, it would be more enjoyable to be affiliated to another organisation now. But no other groups arguments make sense of the world, in the way the SWP have.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 19, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Sure, he's annoying, hence why I couldn't be bothered answering his question to me because I didn't think he'd do anything 'serious' with my answer. But he's hardly the only one.


Yeah. There was a guy on here, dorritot's mate. Baldwin I think. Anyway, basically he had a kind of anti-left reformist position. Position I disagreed with. Try to talk to him, but could see he wasn't for changing. So just left him to his point of view. Yet people on here would constantly bully him. GRRRRRR
There is nobody's politics on here I object to. I think they are all valid. It's just the personalities. The bullying. The condescension. The cliqueism. Thats what drives me on here these days. Well at least when I have nothing better to do, like pick my nose. 
There is one thing that unites people on here, hatred of the SWP. It seems at times, even more than capitalism. :-( So im not surprised then, at their attitude?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 19, 2013)

A local interest story: which side did rabbit worrier end up on?


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can you stop slagging rmp3 for a min to discuss how shit the oppo statement was? No confidence in their own politics that's why they will lose.


This is clever, in the same cynical way that Callinicos and Kimber are clever. It places the debate on a 'political' axis that disguises the fact that how the UK SWP treated the rape accusation is immensely more political than an abstract discussion of movements and the working class. The crucial test of the worth of someone's politics is how you respond to the rape accusation. And by this test, BB, your politics are worthless. Ditto the rump of the UK SWP if the CC win. It will be useless to them to have the best analysis in the world of, say, movements and the working class if the revolutionary spirit of the party is dead.


----------



## Once red (Oct 19, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> This is clever, in the same cynical way that Callinicos and Kimber are clever. It places the debate on a 'political' axis that disguises the fact that how the UK SWP treated the rape accusation is immensely more political than an abstract discussion of movements and the working class. The crucial test of the worth of someone's politics is how you respond to the rape accusation. And by this test, BB, your politics are worthless. Ditto the rump of the UK SWP if the CC win. It will be useless to them to have the best analysis in the world of, say, movements and the working class if the revolutionary spirit of the party is dead.


Just signed up purely so I could totally agree with you! Having left the swp donkeys years ago I have still followed these events with real sadness. What on earth could have happened to my ex comrades for them to be mired in this crap?!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 19, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> This is clever, in the same cynical way that Callinicos and Kimber are clever. It places the debate on a 'political' axis that disguises the fact that how the UK SWP treated the rape accusation is immensely more political than an abstract discussion of movements and the working class. The crucial test of the worth of someone's politics is how you respond to the rape accusation. And by this test, BB, your politics are worthless. Ditto the rump of the UK SWP if the CC win. It will be useless to them to have the best analysis in the world of, say, movements and the working class if the revolutionary spirit of the party is dead.


Master of the backhanded compliment. The trouble with this is it ignores the way the opposition keep moving the goalposts on the dc cases. The changes they ask for are made to the dc process and they.....say that's not good enough. Truth is nothing will ever be good enough because it's not about the dc (although that's the only thing all the oppo agree on) its about the broader political differences which the opposition have to varying degrees with the party's Marxist tradition. They can't talk about them openly without falling out amongst themselves. Hence the hyper politicisation as the prof and CK call it of the cases.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 19, 2013)

What differences? Elaborate!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 19, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> What differences? Elaborate!


Your tone implies these aren't known about. They're all out there in print for anyone with eyes. On feminism, on the changing working class, on the movements. They were brought out at many meetings at Marxism this year, all the videos are up. It's not about heresy finding it's about having honest debates about real differences and on a whole series of issues there is a continuum of ideas between large chunks of the opposition and the folk who've already departed for the shores of the ISN etc.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Your tone implies these aren't known about. They're all out there in print for anyone with eyes. On feminism, on the changing working class, on the movements. They were brought out at many meetings at Marxism this year, all the videos are up. It's not about heresy finding it's about having honest debates about real differences and on a whole series of issues there is a continuum of ideas between large chunks of the opposition and the folk who've already departed for the shores of the ISN etc.


'Honest debates'. Good grief. Your posts are becoming shameless. Was the way the CC arranged the handling of the dispute at conference '11 honest or not? Was the expulsion of the Facebook 4 honest? Were the arrangements for debate at aggregates to conference '12? Have we any account - honest or otherwise - of why Martin Smith resigned from the party? Or whether by doing so just before a second DC hearing it prevented a mass of written evidence and eye-witness testimony being used to expel him? The CC may have come to recognise the need to amend DC procedures. But they haven't answered these and other questions and, in fact, they are proposing bringing a Martin Smith supporter onto the CC. This is very provocative. These are the issues around which an opposition has formed and your barking in the same tone as your masters' voices will not cause anyone to lose sight of them.


----------



## cesare (Oct 19, 2013)

Using the medium of clear, simple bullet points - would anyone be prepared to set out in what way the ISN are anything more than the shadow SWP?


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Your tone implies these aren't known about. They're all out there in print for anyone with eyes. On feminism, on the changing working class, on the movements. They were brought out at many meetings at Marxism this year, all the videos are up. It's not about heresy finding it's about having honest debates about real differences and on a whole series of issues there is a continuum of ideas between large chunks of the opposition and the folk who've already departed for the shores of the ISN etc.



My tone? 

In what way does the opposition as represented by people like Colin Barker now differ from the politics that they've had for decades? Or have their politics been different from what they've professed for decades?

I don't have the time to go through videos. I don't know why so many people have to be so fucking difficult in this forum. If people ask me about things I'm knowledgeable about I try and share what I understand.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 19, 2013)

Once red said:


> What on earth could have happened to my ex comrades for them to be mired in this crap?!



What are your thoughts?


----------



## Once red (Oct 19, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> What are your thoughts?



Well first and foremost that rape is rape is rape. So if I'd still been a member I'd have left again!
Then that there are comrades still in the party who are friends and they are just amazing people- sound in every way. They're all in the faction. What's going on with them? I'm not sure. I think they feel that everything they believed in and fought for is under threat.
I think when I left Delta had a pony tail so that dates me!


----------



## Once red (Oct 19, 2013)

I guess I'm a creeping feminist these days but to me watching everyone chuck Lenin quotes around and throw postures, well it's very unedifying, and a smokescreen too, because the issue is the alleged rape and the abuse of power and that's a no brainer.
I've been really enjoying reading the old women's voice stuff, there's a bloody great vacuum these days where that kind of thinking ought to be.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> Using the medium of clear, simple bullet points - would anyone be prepared to set out in what way the ISN are anything more than the shadow SWP?




The SWP are a Leninist Vanguard party, ISN are a loose network of revolutionary socialists. 

The ISN seem quite willing to disolve themselves into "promising" formations like Left Unity.
The ISN have open committee meetings and discuss their differences in public.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The SWP are a Leninist Vanguard party, ISN are a loose network of revolutionary socialists.
> 
> The ISN seem quite willing to disolve themselves into "promising" formations like Left Unity.
> The ISN have open committee meetings and discuss their differences in public.


the isn is a new Trotskyist group and thus is following Trotskyist practise:
* as a result of a crisis within the established left form anew group which presents an open, accessible face, to attract those disillusioned by the authoritarianism and narrow minded ness of the existing revolutionary party.
* if the isn survive long enough to establish a viable micro party, then they will 'discover' that Leninism has suddenly become essential again and demand discipline and extra dedication from their membership.
* a political/ social crisis develops, and a group of party members, disillusioned with the authoritarianism of the isn will depart creating a open and accessible new group opposed to the authoritarianism and narrowmindedness of the established left


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 19, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> the isn is a new Trotskyist group and thus is following Trotskyist practise:
> * as a result of a crisis within the established left form anew group which presents an open, accessible face, to attract those disillusioned by the authoritarianism and narrow minded ness of the existing revolutionary party.



They are neither that cynical, nor I suspect that competent. they certainly are not that clear in what they are trying to do, nor that essentially homogenous under the open appearance.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 19, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> the isn is a new Trotskyist group and thus is following Trotskyist practise:
> * as a result of a crisis within the established left form anew group which presents an open, accessible face, to attract those disillusioned by the authoritarianism and narrow minded ness of the existing revolutionary party.
> * if the isn survive long enough to establish a viable micro party, then they will 'discover' that Leninism has suddenly become essential again and demand discipline and extra dedication from their membership.
> * a political/ social crisis develops, and a group of party members, disillusioned with the authoritarianism of the isn will depart creating a open and accessible new group opposed to the authoritarianism and narrowmindedness of the established left



None of that will happen, they will dissolve within the next 12 months.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 20, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> My tone?
> 
> In what way does the opposition as represented by people like Colin Barker now differ from the politics that they've had for decades? Or have their politics been different from what they've professed for decades?
> 
> I don't have the time to go through videos. I don't know why so many people have to be so fucking difficult in this forum. If people ask me about things I'm knowledgeable about I try and share what I understand.


 Sorry I wasn't trying to be difficult just that we've spent much of this thread discussing those differences. Fair enough if you haven't read much of that and were just asking for general pointers I apologise. Like I said the main areas are feminism, the working class, the movements and related to all of those what sort of party needs building. The isj, review and the various blogs are full of the detail.

Like I also said there are huge differences between the various bits of the opposition with some of them virtually members of the ISN already (in fact we have someone who is a member of both parties a few pages back  ) and others like Stack, Birchall, Barker and Gonzalez being a lot lot closer to the rest of the party on these questions. Look, Barker has been a cliffite for want of a better word for 51 years, he is a marvelous explainer of the tradition's ideas and I think I learnt more from him on one brief trip he had to Dublin in the 80's than I did from any other single individual I've sent time with in the tradition. And it's no mistake that the prof and Kimber quote some of his stuff in their latest isj article when they reaffirm some of the core ideas of the tradition. But. And there is a but. Like the other big names attached to the faction they are a little slow to distance themselves from the people in their faction who are quite clearly moving away. Key moment for me at Marxism was Colin's meeting on what a socialist revolution would look like. Richard Boyd Barret from the floor asked Colin to respond to the argument (which is raging between some in the faction and the rest of the party) about where are the modern Putilovs, where are the centres of working class power and what that means for socialist revolution. Colin knows these arguments are going on but he didn't address the question.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry I wasn't trying to be difficult just that we've spent much of this thread discussing those differences.


Or, more accurately, you've persistently tried to turn the thread in these directions and we've tried equally hard to get you to understand the enormity of the political errors of the CC.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Key moment for me at Marxism was Colin's meeting on what a socialist revolution would look like. Richard Boyd Barret from the floor asked Colin to respond to the argument (which is raging between some in the faction and the rest of the party) about where are the modern Putilovs, where are the centres of working class power and what that means for socialist revolution. Colin knows these arguments are going on but he didn't address the question.



To be honest and not for any reasons related to the current fight within the SWP I think this shows your traditions political bankruptcy quite nicely.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2013)

I do like that the CC (echoed by bb on here) demands that the faction  talk about politics rather than the CC and DC utter mishandling of events then when they do the CC accuse the faction of_ politicising the dispute_. How did they get away with this inept transparent tactics in the party for so long? Who went along with it for all these years and why?


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Like I also said there are huge differences between the various bits of the opposition with some of them virtually members of the ISN already (in fact we have someone who is a member of both parties a few pages back  ) and others like Stack, Birchall, Barker and Gonzalez being a lot lot closer to the rest of the party on these questions. Look, Barker has been a cliffite for want of a better word for 51 years, he is a marvelous explainer of the tradition's ideas and I think I learnt more from him on one brief trip he had to Dublin in the 80's than I did from any other single individual I've sent time with in the tradition. And it's no mistake that the prof and Kimber quote some of his stuff in their latest isj article when they reaffirm some of the core ideas of the tradition. But. And there is a but. Like the other big names attached to the faction they are a little slow to distance themselves from the people in their faction who are quite clearly moving away. Key moment for me at Marxism was Colin's meeting on what a socialist revolution would look like. Richard Boyd Barret from the floor asked Colin to respond to the argument (which is raging between some in the faction and the rest of the party) about where are the modern Putilovs, where are the centres of working class power and what that means for socialist revolution. Colin knows these arguments are going on but he didn't address the question.



I know what the more ISN leaning people think, I was more curious about what the cliffite (will do as a descriptor) opposition think. I thought that was obvious from my posts over the past week but I guess I wasn't clear enough.

I'll watch Colin's meeting when I've got time.


----------



## Once red (Oct 20, 2013)

There's a great post about rape myths on Lives;running. Don't know how to do links.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 20, 2013)

Once red said:


> There's a great post about rape myths on Lives;running. Don't know how to do links.



I find it interesting that so many ex-SWP people have such a strong desire to include the SP in their criticisms of their former organisation. Some compulsions are indestructible.


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 20, 2013)

Things just going from bad to worse for the SWP. Several members of Unison United Left, the electoral vehicle for the SWP and some of the Labour Lefts in Unison have resigned. This includes the chair of UUL and an NEC member. They are saying they can no longer be in the same organisation as SWP members due to the handling of the rape allegations etc

http://fightingdemocraticunison.wordpress.com/


----------



## redcogs (Oct 20, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Things just going from bad to worse for the SWP. Several members of Unison United Left, the electoral vehicle for the SWP and some of the Labour Lefts in Unison have resigned. This includes the chair of UUL and an NEC member. They are saying they can no longer be in the same organisation as SWP members due to the handling of the rape allegations etc
> 
> http://fightingdemocraticunison.wordpress.com/



The Callinicos Kimber axis will surely be considering their positions now? Smith's contrived resignation has not ended this, being far too little,  way too late.  So surely the Callinicos et al's rationale, ie, the preservation of a bolshevik political presence in the UK is only likely to be a slight possibility if they sharpen their harakiri blades for a clean exit?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 20, 2013)

redcogs said:


> The Callinicos Kimber axis will surely be considering their positions now? Smith's contrived resignation has not ended this, being far too little,  way too late.  So surely the Callinicos et al's rationale, ie, the preservation of a bolshevik political presence in the UK is only likely to be a slight possibility if they sharpen their harakiri blades for a clean exit?



You'd think so, but the "grandees" who you'd expect to offer them the equivalent of a loaded pistol and a bottle of whiskey are the Stacks, Birchalls, Barkers etc. They've already done so, but the leadership have refused. I also don't think that the CC side have a replacement leadership available at this point, other than the frothing maniac wing.


----------



## redcogs (Oct 20, 2013)

Unison must be the swp's main anchor into the wider movement.  This expression of no confidence in the swp's current top table is catastrophic - i can't think of a proper equivalent, but it holds the prospect of serious problems for Unison swp activists.  The employers are unlikely not to notice the increasing isolation of prominent swp people who are a pain in their arse.  No doubt Yunus's situation will be on the minds of several comrades in the coming period..


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 20, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Unison must be the swp's main anchor into the wider movement.  This expression of no confidence in the swp's current top table is catastrophic - i can't think of a proper equivalent, but it holds the prospect of serious problems for Unison swp activists.  The employers are unlikely not to notice the increasing isolation of prominent swp people who are a pain in their arse.  No doubt Yunus's situation will be on the minds of several comrades in the coming period..



They've lost Unite already, they do still have a "significant" level of activity in the UCU and NUT I believe but obviously they're much smaller and more exclusive unions, and they may have lost them and I've not noticed.


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 20, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Unison must be the swp's main anchor into the wider movement.



Not really. Their presence in Unison is fairly marginal nowadays compared to what it once was. They only have two members on the NEC and a handful of positions on SGE's, branch secretaries etc. It's mostly because of their incompetent handling of the witch hunt against their members. The Unison bureaucracy rolled them up like wet cardboard. 

I don't think any of the SWP fronts are funded by Unison in fact. Their main "anchor into the wider movement" is the UCU where they have their biggest industrial presence and the PCS which basically bankrolls the SWP via UAF. I've always thought it one of the supreme ironies of the left that an unintended side effect of the Socialist Party leading the left to reclaim PCS has been tens of thousands of pounds going to the SWP.

They also get a fair bit of money from the CWU (again via UAF), for reasons best known to Billy Hayes.

Despite that the resignations from UUL will have a big impact on their trade union work.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2013)

redcogs said:


> The Callinicos Kimber axis will surely be considering their positions now? Smith's contrived resignation has not ended this, being far too little,  way too late.  So surely the Callinicos et al's rationale, ie, the preservation of a bolshevik political presence in the UK is only likely to be a slight possibility if they sharpen their harakiri blades for a clean exit?


Why on earth would you think that this is their motivation?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 20, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Not really. Their presence in Unison is fairly marginal nowadays compared to what it once was. They only have two members on the NEC and a handful of positions on SGE's, branch secretaries etc. It's mostly because of their incompetent handling of the witch hunt against their members. The Unison bureaucracy rolled them up like wet cardboard.
> 
> I don't think any of the SWP fronts are funded by Unison in fact. Their main "anchor into the wider movement" is the UCU where they have their biggest industrial presence and the PCS which basically bankrolls the SWP via UAF. I've always thought it one of the supreme ironies of the left that an unintended side effect of the Socialist Party leading the left to reclaim PCS has been tens of thousands of pounds going to the SWP.
> 
> ...



Unison still gives some money to UAF... you're right about the PCS I forgot them, but the SWP are certainly bigger in Unison than the CWU - Billy Hayes is a bit eccentric


----------



## redcogs (Oct 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why on earth would you think that this is their motivation?



Building the party, to become a bigger more effective presence in the labour movement, and ultimately a pole of attraction for militant workers in a revolutionary moment has always been the central strategy hasn't it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Unison still gives some money to UAF... you're right about the PCS I forgot them, but the SWP are certainly bigger in Unison than the CWU - Billy Hayes is a bit eccentric



They aren't significant players in any of the unions mentioned bar UCU. My understanding is that, although well behind the UCU, they are still of some importance in the NUT.

In Unison they've been reduced to supporting Labour Left candidates through the UUL. So losing that connection to some of those people is a set back. But a setback to an already weak position.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 20, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Building the party, to become a bigger more effective presence in the labour movement, and ultimately a pole of attraction for militant workers in a revolutionary moment has always been the central strategy hasn't it?



That's not the motivation of Alexander the Great and Charles Timberland though


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Building the party, to become a bigger more effective presence in the labour movement, and ultimately a pole of attraction for militant workers in a revolutionary moment has always been the central strategy hasn't it?


It's always been the stated aim of some people in the party. That their long term actions have had the opposite effect and still they hang would suggest to me other motivations.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> They also get a fair bit of money from the CWU (again via UAF), for reasons best known to Billy Hayes.


Hangover from when Jane loftus was still in the party. They can't just stop supporting it, just cos it's shit.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They aren't significant players in any of the unions mentioned bar UCU. My understanding is that, although well behind the UCU, they are still of some importance in the NUT.
> 
> In Unison they've been reduced to supporting Labour Left candidates through the UUL. So losing that connection to some of those people is a set back. But a setback to an already weak position.



big is relative of course they're small in a union which claims over a million members.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 20, 2013)

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/177582983

An opposition reply to Callinicos and Kimber. Read it and squirm BB. It's a developed statement of a much repeated point here, that this clash concerns the politics of rape not the question of movementism.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/177582983
> 
> An opposition reply to Callinicos and Kimber. Read it and squirm BB. It's a developed statement of a much repeated point here, that this clash concerns the politics of rape not the question of movementism.


I presume as it's a reply we should assume same authors (or same signees)?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I presume as it's a reply we should assume same authors (or same signees)?



I think it's from one individual, Ross Speer.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 20, 2013)

no relation to Albert?


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> no relation to Albert?



Could have done with a better build up.


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They aren't significant players in any of the unions mentioned bar UCU. My understanding is that, although well behind the UCU, they are still of some importance in the NUT.
> 
> In Unison they've been reduced to supporting Labour Left candidates through the UUL. So losing that connection to some of those people is a set back. But a setback to an already weak position.



They are fairly influential in PCS, 4 members on the NEC, active if annoying within DWP and other groups. A fairly large number of well known and respected activists within the union.


----------



## redcogs (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's always been the stated aim of some people in the party. That their long term actions have had the opposite effect and still they hang would suggest to me other motivations.



Its possible i suppose, but its hard to see what other motivations there might be.  Are you suggesting MI5 spook stuff?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Its possible i suppose, but its hard to see what other motivations there might be.  Are you suggesting MI5 spook stuff?


I'm suggesting that the vanguard of the class is ill equipped whoever wins and that such a daft view of politics needs to die with the party.


----------



## cesare (Oct 21, 2013)

So. Delta has funding to do a PhD in social work 

http://angrywomen.wordpress.com/201...given-phd-place-at-liverpool-hope-university/


----------



## killer b (Oct 21, 2013)

interesting. lavalette is my city councillor, i may have to ask him about this.


----------



## killer b (Oct 21, 2013)

is giving your mates funded PhD places fairly common in academia btw? regardless of the other issues it looks blatantly corrupt to me.


----------



## cesare (Oct 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> is giving your mates funded PhD places fairly common in academia btw? regardless of the other issues it looks blatantly corrupt to me.


I don't know how it works, but it seems very strange.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

Everything everywhere is stitched up, but the lav went with respect years ago i think


----------



## redcogs (Oct 21, 2013)

If there is "a case to answer" regarding Martin Smith's conduct within the SWP, why on earth would a leading party figure like Lavelette compromise themselves in the way that the angrywomen imply?
The lunatics have occupied the asylum and the entire swp situation appears more and more irredeemable.


----------



## laptop (Oct 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> is giving your mates funded PhD places fairly common in academia btw? regardless of the other issues it looks blatantly corrupt to me.



I suspect it's rare that being mates with the head of department does one's application any harm...

OTOH, just this week I heard of Callinicos sitting in a pub trying to persuade a Party prospect to give up their MA and work full-time for the Revolution.

Shame, really, that Smith wasn't shoehorned into Kings. He could have had a harder time...


----------



## killer b (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Everything everywhere is stitched up, but the lav went with respect years ago i think


You sure? Whenever I've seen him about its been in the company of Swp types.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> is giving your mates funded PhD places fairly common in academia btw? regardless of the other issues it looks blatantly corrupt to me.


Well that article isn't very clear so I'm not sure exactly how Delta is getting his funding. Normally your funding wouldn't come from the university but from one of the research councils. Universities can also give out their own scholarships too though.

Either way having the Head of Department on your side is hardly going to do you any harm.

EDIT: Of course he could be funding it out of his own pocket, I mean the article claims that


> It now transpires that rather than fund an educational ‘break’ directly, the preferred tactic was to get a party member with a position in a university to abuse their academic authority, and sort him with a funded PhD.


 but it seems to be confusing/conflating funding with getting a place.

It's not a very article really is it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> You sure? Whenever I've seen him about its been in the company of Swp types.


Nope, not sure, he also gets a namedrop in ythis quarters ISJ.


----------



## killer b (Oct 21, 2013)

Ill ask about.


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, not sure, he also gets a namedrop in ythis quarters ISJ.



He's definitely SWP. On the TUSC steering committee he was named by the SWP as their Councillor.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 21, 2013)

I think lava letter remained loyal to the swp. He has probably gone through a record breaking number of party monikers in his time as councillor: elected as a socialist alliance candidate, then respect, then TUSC and finally as an independent.
His wiki page still has him as a loyalist


----------



## treelover (Oct 21, 2013)

> And there is a but. Like the other big names attached to the faction they are a little slow to distance themselves from the people in their faction who are quite clearly moving away. Key moment for me at Marxism was Colin's meeting on what a socialist revolution would look like.


 
Still waiting then, all this is so redolent of religious debates, angels on pinheads, etc, it is so far removed from reality it it is mind boggling.


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I think lava letter remained loyal to the swp. He has probably gone through a record breaking number of party monikers in his time as councillor: elected as a socialist alliance candidate, then respect, then TUSC and finally as an independent.
> His wiki page still has him as a loyalist



He was never elected as a TUSC candidate on the ballot paper. Since the Respect split he has always run as an 'Independent Socialist'.


----------



## treelover (Oct 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> is giving your mates funded PhD places fairly common in academia btw? regardless of the other issues it looks blatantly corrupt to me.


 

I think academia can still work on the 'nod basis' a close family member got into a top university after doing some work for one of the head honchos, he liked him, though he did have the requisite quals, and in some ways, I think it was ok,


----------



## treelover (Oct 21, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Well that article isn't very clear so I'm not sure exactly how Delta is getting his funding. Normally your funding wouldn't come from the university but from one of the research councils. Universities can also give out their own scholarships too though.
> 
> Either way having the Head of Department on your side is hardly going to do you any harm.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not comfortable with these 'outing' campaigns on campus and elsewhere, especially as you say its not clear on what basis he got the Phd place, on the other hand, social work is not the most advisable area for someone accused of such an offence.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

How hands off is the SWP cc is the question - and if involved what does this say about their long term relationship with the accused given that leading members were privately asked to fund his studies.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 21, 2013)

I don't have any problem with a group making people aware of his background, but if they are going to do that then they should be clear about what they are claiming.


----------



## treelover (Oct 21, 2013)

As I said I don't, I don't like witch hunts wherever they come from, and one day it could be someone on the left


oh, it is...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

Establish the existence of the wicth hunt please.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 21, 2013)

The hounding of someone accused but never proven to be something isn't a witch hunt?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

Where is this hounding?

The party that you don't have the bottle to actually join argues that he has a case to answer if he ever tries to rejoin. Does that not apply to society as well? Do we not get to question him on the case he has to answer? The stalinist logic at work here (_the party has decided, the matter is now closed, it is now no one elses' business_) is clear for all to see. God, it's so blatant.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Everything everywhere is stitched up, but the lav went with respect years ago i think





treelover said:


> I think academia can still work on the 'nod basis' a close family member got into a top university after doing some work for one of the head honchos, he liked him, though he did have the requisite quals, and in some ways, I think it was ok,




Anecdote time: at a party in Dublin a couple of years ago, I met a girl who admitted to my face that she had always been pencilled in for a particular job that I had, at that point, recently applied for. (I would have been a bad fit for it anyhow, and even if it had been a fair fight there's no guarantee I would have got it). I also applied for a thing in New Zealand where I was told over the grape vine that someone else was going to get it "on the nod" - this person had been hanging around that department on short term contracts for a few years, and had been doing all the shit work no-one else wanted to cover. I don't have much of a problem with that sort of scenario.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 21, 2013)

The prof replies to Tithi from the ISO's disingenuous "I don't really want to get involved in your internal row" letter.


REPLY TO TITHI BHATTACHARYA

Dear Tithi,

I was in two minds about replying to a letter that, though addressed personally to me, is plainly intended as a public intervention in the debate insides the SWP and indeed has already been posted online. But I decided in the end to take it at face value and respond in the hope that you are genuinely interested in what I think. Since we have had friendly relations in the past, I would have appreciated if you had contacted me privately to get my side of what has happened first, but I suppose that would be asking too much. I'm glad that you still regard the SWP as your organization, even though you are currently a member of the International Socialist Organization (US). It is open to question whether pronouncing with such confidence on a case of which you admit to having 'no knowledge of the ins and outs' is the best way of expressing your sense of belonging. But then I have given up speculating about the intentions of those who, from a distance and in ignorance of the facts, have chosen to taken sides in our internal arguments. 

Your critique of Charlie Kimber's and my articles is highly selective and thoroughly tendentious. Of course, we are well aware that women's recognition that they have been assaulted very often only emerges through a long process and thanks to caring support. So, also of course, the fact that W did not claim in 2010 to have been raped in no way invalidates the complaint of rape that she made in September 2012. That was common ground among all concerned when her complaint was investigated, and I don't understand how you can infer the opposite from our articles, imputing morally repugnant attitudes to women to Charlie and me that we reject with horror. As part of the same campaign of misinformation to which you have apparently succumbed, it is now being asserted that rape was alleged in 2010. All that Charlie and I did was to point out that this too is untrue.

I quite understand why you should be so contemptuous of mere 'facts' such as this. This frees you from the obligation to find out what happened, and allows you to assert, for example, and again without any evidence, that in our articles we denied 'the integrity and testimony of the female complainants'. It also lets you ignore our efforts to ensure that the second complaint was heard and that our disciplinary procedures have been reviewed. This kind of intervention in our crisis serves neither justice nor the truth. 

You start your letter by praising the SWP and my own past work. How dare you then, from such a position of evident ignorance, accuse me and the rest of the SWP leadership of putting our interests before those of the party? We are happy to place our arguments before 'the full membership of the SWP' . It is they who will determine the party's fate.

In comradeship,
Alex

On 19 Oct 2013, at 16:14, Tithi Bhattacharya wrote:

Dear Alex, 

I address this letter to you because amongst the current members of the SWP CC I have known you the longest. For very long I have restrained myself from saying anything about the dispute in the SWP. Your recent response to the 18 comrades on the ISJ editorial board has forced me to change my mind. I will not waste your time here by filling paragraphs about how your book Making History was one of the key conceptual scaffolding for my Ph. D. Thesis and later my first book. Although I could. What I will state, briefly are three things:



1. how much your work, over the years, has animated my understanding of Marxism.



2. How inspired I was to meet the SWP as a student in London in the mid 1990s and what attracted me most to the Party was it’s members’ open derision for all aspects of bourgeois sexuality/morality—I came from three generations of Stalinism, such attitudes only existed in early Bolshevik writings for me!



3. How distressed I am about the public stance you have taken regarding the current crisis in the SWP in your most recent response to the other comrades on the ISJ editorial board.



Let me state at the outset: I have no knowledge of the specific ins and outs of the dispute. I do not know the women who have made the complaints very well. I am not going to make an argument that all women should be believed when they make a complaint about sexual assault (that is an argument of a vastly complex and dense nature that I am not about to take up here). 



I am concerned here about two examples of blatantly sleight of hand arguments that you and your co-author employ in your recent response to the other ISJ editors. I am sure you do this consciously, because to assume ignorance of the social context of these particular arguments on your part would be insulting to both your politics and your mind.



1. You and Charlie Kimber begin the article (2nd. Paragraph) with this assertion:



“We italicise the date, because contrary to some of the falsehoods currently circulating, this was the first time that rape had been alleged against this comrade. “



This is your first disingenuous argument. You make this claim knowing perfectly well the very long history of complaints by women under capitalism where women’s consciousness of the assault is often fragmented, delayed and very often pieced together only through a process of supportive dialogue with friends, family and loved ones. You of all people cannot be unaware of the vast literature that exists about the ‘unhappy consciousness’ that diminishes rape/sexual assault in its first approximation in the survivor’s own mind in order to make the unimaginable, tolerable. It is only through support, discussion, sometimes long years of therapy with professionals that survivors give themselves permission to identify and acknowledge what really happened.



Did this happen with comrade W? I have no way of knowing for certain. But for you, as a revolutionary socialist, to write of the woman changing her narrative from harassment to rape without providing this fundamental context of how or why a complainant ‘changes’ her complaint under capitalism is, to me, horrifying. You write of this delayed and ‘changed’ rape complaint the way the bourgeois press would write about, say, poverty. As a 'fact'--rather than as the outcome of a series of complex and dense historical processes. That you assert this ‘fact’ in service of an organ of the party that came up with, to say the least, a disputed verdict only makes this more distressing. 



2. You and Charlie Kimber repeatedly use ‘confidentiality’ regarding the dispute cases as something which stops you from discussing such things in public. This is your second sleight of hand. To an outsider it appears that if you were unethical and broke confidentiality you would have an even more damning case against the opposition comrades. 

Is that true? Maybe, maybe not. Again, I have no way of knowing. What I do know is the word confidentiality is used here in a highly charged way: to disingenuously invoke a long history of real struggle against sexist handling of cases of sexual assault in order to protect the identity, welfare and integrity of the female complainant. What you Alex, and Charlie Kimber are doing--is using your reader’s perception of that history to call into question the integrity and testimony of the female complainants and their supporters. Are the survivors of sexual assault in your organization really more concerned about the ‘confidentiality’ of process than the resolution of this crisis in an open democratic manner in front of the full membership of the SWP? Having met and spoken with one of the complainants, it is hard for me to believe that the women concerned would put the survival of the Party’s current leadership over the survival of the Party itself and its long history. 



What I have stated above are essentially the ways in which you have by omission and by rhetorical sleight of hand disregarded or recrafted particular aspects of the historical experience of women under capitalism to state your case at a specific dispute within your organization. The SWP used to be my organization for many years. I will continue-- in many many ways --to think of it as my own, as long as I know that there are comrades within it fighting for a set of revolutionary Marxist politics, and not merely for a set of organizational procedures that have been called to question. Perhaps this is the tragedy of my own unhappy consciousness that still refuses to accept the enormity of disappointment. 



Sincerely,

Tithi Bhattacharya

P. S. Although this letter is meant to state my disagreement with Alex, I hope the 18 comrades who signed the recent ISJ document will use my voice as one more raised to rebuild the SWP. They may share/use this letter as they collectively see fit. I do not know all 18 of you personally and hence cannot cc it to all on that list, I apologize.


----------



## redcogs (Oct 21, 2013)

Rosen weighs in again:

http://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/swp-untruth-about-me-from-callinicos.html


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The prof replies to Tithi from the ISO's disingenuous "I don't really want to get involved in your internal row" letter.


a tad hypocritical the Prof or you using the word disingenuous considering the dishonesty of both of you


----------



## redcogs (Oct 21, 2013)

What occurs to me with all the claims/counter claims of dishonesty made by the prof and others is that the swp board of directors (or more specifically, their spokesMEN, appear ill equipped at dealing with the turmoil of criticisms that they face.  Presumably, in an earlier, pre web steam age, whenever political issues arose that were controversial, they were probably resolved by a quick cc meeting (or maybe a telephone conversation or two), and things could move on, with little consequential scrutiny or accountability.  Issues could be squashed, more or less at source.	How the prof must long for those bygone golden days...

Alex needs a new department i reckon, something akin to the bourgeois political party.'rebuttal units' that we occasionally hear of.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 21, 2013)

cesare said:


> So. Delta has funding to do a PhD in social work
> 
> http://angrywomen.wordpress.com/201...given-phd-place-at-liverpool-hope-university/


creeping about the halls of residence, eyeing up the teenagers. what a cunt.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 21, 2013)

perhaps not.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> a tad hypocritical the Prof or you using the word disingenuous considering the dishonesty of both of you


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> that's not quite what you said, is it?
> so what you're in fact saying is she DID suffer from women's oppression.


The problem I have with you Pickman's is, you seem to have either no comprehension of the socialist worker position, or no desire whatsoever to take on what socialist worker is saying. The way like a child you gleefully seizes upon a contradiction, in after all what is a dialectical analysis, is just stupid. I therefore have to assume you're dishonestly refusing to take on, what after all is quite an ABC of revolutionary politics argument. Quite common sense argument.


Did Princess Diana, or Margaret Thatcher for that matter, suffer from women’s oppression? Once you become part of the ruling class, no, not the fundamentals of women’s oppression. Even middle-class women are to an extent excluded from the fundamentals of women’s oppression.  Concerns over sexist labels, sexuality, influence on appearance, and other sexism wouldn’t really add up to much of oppression, if you overcame the fundamental causes of women’s oppression, discrimination in education, housing, pay, access to equal opportunities and one in particular, childcare.


It’s a bit like claiming that Barack Obama suffers from racial oppression. Again, compare his life to some black person from the ghetto. Is he really oppressed?


My other question was, did Diana benefit from women’s oppression. Class, the class system, is the cause of women’s oppression. It doesn’t exist because society is simply misogynistic, it exists because the oppression of women benefits this system,  by making the working class pay the cost of producing the next working class. It benefits the ruling class at the top of the system, so Diana did benefit from women’s oppression.


Class is the cause of the oppression, and class is the solution to the oppression. This is why it is important not to give an inch to the idea that Princess Diana, Margaret Thatcher etc are somehow in solidarity to the working class women because they are in some kind of solidarity of women’s oppression. They are not. This was the big arguments at the time of Diana and Thatcher, that somehow Thatcher was some kind of step forward forward, but they were part of the problem, not the solution. Just like Barack Obama is part of the problem, not the solution.


But even to suggest, as Belboid did,  that men benefit from women’s oppression is wrong, for the same reasons. There is an appearance that men are better off. Men do have on average better wages than women. But if women’s wages were brought up to the same level as men, it wouldn’t be men that would suffer, it would be the ruling class. In fact men would benefit, as I pointed out earlier. But there’s an even more important reason than economic gain.


Class is the cause of women’s oppression, class is the solution. In Northern Ireland Protestants in solidarity with their bosses appeared to benefit from sectarianism, after all they received more wages than the Catholics. And yet the wages of the Protestants in Northern Ireland, were lower on average than workers in England and Wales and Scotland, why? Because Irish workers were divided upon sectarian lines, the bosses could beat them more easily in any wage disputes etc. This is why we need to emphasise solidarity between male and female workers, and not so illusions in solidarity between classes. Class is the cause of women’s oppression, and class is the solution to women’s oppression. We don’t want to argue as revolutionaries that men benefit from women’s oppression, we should point to the truth that men benefit from women’s liberation! We should be promoting solidarity in the class, not between classes.


The point for revolutionaries is not to interpret the world, but to change it. And to do that we don’t want to just give the best description of how it appears, we want to lay bare the logic of how it works.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

Pickman's model/that's shut you up


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> The problem I have with you Pickman's is, you seem to have either no comprehension of the socialist worker position, or no desire whatsoever to take on what socialist worker is saying.


actually, this just shows that _you_ dont understand the SWP's position.

Yes, Diana and Thatcher suffered from the oppression that affects all women - around their appearance for instance. you would have to have your head buried in the sand to fail to recognise that.

That has _nothing_ to do with the suggestion (that I haven't made) that men benefit from women's oppression.


----------



## laptop (Oct 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> _lots_



Ye gods, it's 1970 all over again.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> actually, this just shows that _you_ dont understand the SWP's position.
> 
> Yes, Diana and Thatcher suffered from the oppression that affects all women - around their appearance for instance. you would have to have your head buried in the sand to fail to recognise that.
> 
> That has _nothing_ to do with the suggestion (that I haven't made) that men benefit from women's oppression.


What a hypocrite you are, I've just mentioned that. 



ResistanceMP3 said:


> Concerns over sexist labels, sexuality, influence on appearance, and other sexism wouldn’t really add up to much of oppression, if you overcame the fundamental causes of women’s oppression, discrimination in education, housing, pay, access to equal opportunities and one in particular, childcare.


and here http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-455#post-12635115


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What a hypocrite you are, I've just mentioned that.


no you dishonest little man, you _denied_ it, a somewhat different thing. Even Callinicos would be embarrassed by your arguments. Now you go further and deny that middle-class women aren't oppressed! Hilarious


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> actually, this just shows that _you_ dont understand the SWP's position.
> 
> Yes, Diana and Thatcher suffered from the oppression that affects all women - around their appearance for instance. you would have to have your head buried in the sand to fail to recognise that.
> 
> That has _nothing_ to do with the suggestion (that I haven't made) that men benefit from women's oppression.


Yeah  Princess Diana had childcare problems


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> no you dishonest little man, you _denied_ it, a somewhat different thing. Even Callinicos would be embarrassed by your arguments. Now you go further and deny that middle-class women aren't oppressed! Hilarious


did she have issues of childcare?  As a member of the ruling class she benefits from the system, so she benefit from the oppression of women?

the point being made, is as obvious as the nose on your face. It's attacking the myth that  women had some kind of solidarity with Thatcher, Princess Diana. That's it.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> did she have issues of childcare?  As a member of the ruling class, did benefit from the system, though she benefit from the oppression of women?
> 
> the point being made, is as obvious as the nose on your face. It's attacking the myth that  women had some kind of solidarity with Thatcher, Princess Diana. That's it.


so those without children are now added to the list of non-oppressed women!  you really are a fucking joke. 

Good thing no one has proposed the myth that women had some solidarity with thatcher. Except you


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> no you dishonest little man, you _denied_ it, a somewhat different thing. Even Callinicos would be embarrassed by your arguments. Now you go further and deny that middle-class women aren't oppressed! Hilarious


You are not being serious???


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 21, 2013)

Jesus belboid what are you doing? Ignore lists exist for a reason.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Jesus belboid what are you doing? Ignore lists exist for a reason.


i know i know, i thought it'd just be one quick comment and over.  I thought I was out, but they pull me back in!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> so those without children are now added to the list of non-oppressed women!  you really are a fucking joke.
> 
> Good thing no one has proposed the myth that women had some solidarity with thatcher. Except you


but you're raising an argument, I've never denied. And never denied they are subject to what could be described as some aspects of the superstructure of women's oppression. I alluded to it, and Pitman pointed that out earlier. But with their wealth, the fundamentals, the economic base of such oppression, so to speak, no. The wealthier you are, the less you are affected by such aspects.

 Who would be bothered about black people being called nigger,  if they weren't discriminated against the economic base?

 It's an important point, in my opinion. One I felt worth making. That's it.

now, I will go back and have a look again at what you said about wages. And see whether I've misunderstood it.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> who would be bothered about black people being called nigger,  if they weren't discriminated against the economic base?


everyone who wasnt a worthless piece of shit.  Goodbye


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> but you are confusing two things - whether 'men' benefit overall from women's oppression, and whether men receive _any form of_ benefit from the specific ways women are oppressed.
> 
> In order to see men do receive some benefits, you dont have to check you privilege, just check your pay packet.


no you are confused. How do they benefit? Think about the bigger picture. Read properly what I have said.
bolshiebhoy said: ↑
_I admire your honesty but in fairness the SWP has been arguing against the feminist notion of male benefits since the 80's when we all had the argument the first time round. I'd argue it's pretty core to the Marxist understanding of oppression to reject those feminist ideas and the fact that the SWP has to part company with most of the rest of the left on a question of Marxist theory isn't something it should worry about. Kind of thing you have to do from time to time if you're not just about making friends. If people have lately been joining the party and sticking around for a while and not realising that or only realising it now then clearly the party didn't do a very good job of arguing its own politics with the people it was recruitin_​


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> but you're raising an argument, I've never denied. And never denied they are subject to what could be described as some aspects of the superstructure of women's oppression. I alluded to it, and Pitman pointed that out earlier. But with their wealth, the fundamentals, the economic base of such oppression, so to speak, no. The wealthier you are, the less you are affected by such aspects.
> 
> *Who would be bothered about black people being called nigger,  if they weren't discriminated against the economic base?*
> 
> ...



Re the highlighted bit...Are you being serious????????????????


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

belboid said:


> everyone who wasnt a worthless piece of shit.  Goodbye


so what is the point of your moronic statements of the bleeding obvious, men get better wages than women


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Are you being serious????????????????


This is why we don't respond!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 21, 2013)

a reminder: many people have ResistanceMP3 on ignore. why not join them and let the troll bark in vain?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Re the highlighted bit...Are you being serious????????????????


well not really. Not at this point in time. I refuse to use the words cunt n twat  because they are sexist. And I certainly wouldn't use the word nigger.

but there is an important issue there. The superstructure isn't the source of the oppression, the economic base is. it's the arguments against  "political correctness".


sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. And while that is not entirely true, I would rather be called names, then hit with the sticks and stones  of discrimination in housing, education, wages etc etc. I think to equate to racism with name-calling, as some white people do "well it's okay for me to call him nigger,  because he calls me honkey" is to totally misunderstand what racism really is.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

I don't use the words cunt twat n nigger  out of solidarity with those who wish to fight racism and sexism, but I don't actually believe not using those words will end racism and sexism.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Everything everywhere is stitched up, but the lav went with respect years ago i think


Na he is SWP loyalist to his core.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Na he is SWP loyalist to his core.


That's a pity because his academic work is bloody good and very very useful.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 21, 2013)

when someone calls me a paki I want to rip their throat out...when they call my mrs a paki lover I want to rip their throat out and if they did it to my kids I would want to rip their throat out...
I don't consider the economic foundation of racism when some racist shit bag abuses us so I couldn't disagree with you strongly enough.

Is it ok for a homeless jobless person to racislly abuse me and my family cos we work and have a roof over our heads?
Is it ok for Rio ferdinand to suffer racist abuse even though he is richer than god?

seriously mate ... you really need to think a bit more before you type cos you are coming across like a prick who thinks that it's not so bad for some one to suffer verbal racial abuse


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 21, 2013)

comrade spurski 
Ignore, Ignore, Ignore.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 21, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> when someone calls me a paki I want to rip their throat out...when they call my mrs a paki lover I want to rip their throat out and if they did it to my kids I would want to rip their throat out...
> I don't consider the economic foundation of racism when some racist shit bag abuses us so I couldn't disagree with you strongly enough.
> 
> Is it ok for a homeless jobless person to racislly abuse me and my family cos we work and have a roof over our heads?
> ...


Well you must be right, coming across that way,and  for that I seriously apologise. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am genuinely mystified how you could draw that conclusion from what I have said. But you have, along with many others, so I have to hold my hands up.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's a pity because his academic work is bloody good and very very useful.



What in particular were you thinking of ?


----------



## killer b (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's a pity because his academic work is bloody good and very very useful.


i've always found him very agreeable in person too fwiw. generally politically too.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> What in particular were you thinking of ?


He put together a book called Class Struggle and Social Welfare a decade or so back that i found relly helpful in undermining statist assumptions about collective welfare provision - so much so that i scanned large parts of it in to put on-line.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2013)

he also did a decent book called something like Social Work After Baby P thats pretty good


----------



## emanymton (Oct 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> i've always found him very agreeable in person too fwiw. generally politically too.


I used to think he was decent bloke, in many ways I guess I he still is, just blinded by loyalty. 

You know his daughters must be late teens, early twenties by now, I wounder how we would feel about one of then getting involved with Smith.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He put together a book called Class Struggle and Social Welfare a decade or so back that i found relly helpful in undermining statist assumptions about collective welfare provision - so much so that i scanned large parts of it in to put on-line.


Didn't he do one with Colin Baker on leadership in social movements. Something tells me you might have a different view of that one.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2013)

The estelle has turned on him though. She's faction.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 21, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Yeah  Princess Diana had childcare problems



I'd say she had. I'm sure she had far less control over the upbringing of her children than I do of mine.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He put together a book called Class Struggle and Social Welfare a decade or so back that i found relly helpful in undermining statist assumptions about collective welfare provision - so much so that i scanned large parts of it in to put on-line.



I'd be interested in seeing that some time.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He put together a book called Class Struggle and Social Welfare a decade or so back that i found relly helpful in undermining statist assumptions about collective welfare provision - so much so that i scanned large parts of it in to put on-line.


My daughter has just started studying politics at university, and her first essay/ presentation is on the state and whether we need it, to my surprise she declared that she was taking an anarchist approach! 
 This book sounds like it would be brilliant for her.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> My daughter has just started studying politics at university, and her first essay/ presentation is on the state and whether we need it, to my surprise she declared that she was taking an anarchist approach!
> This book sounds like it would be brilliant for her.



a testament to your parenting


----------



## TremulousTetra (Oct 22, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> seriously mate ... you really need to think a bit more before you type cos you are coming across like a prick who thinks that it's not so bad for some one to suffer verbal racial abuse


I was on the train last year coming home from the match, when some lary woman got on. She spotted these 2 Muslim women, and a child, and started playing to the carriage about Islam and Muslims etc. Everybody ignored her including myself for a while. Pretty shortly though, I couldn’t take any more, so I just started glaring at. Pretty soon she commented “am I offending you” to which I replied, “no you are repulsing me, shut the fuck up”. She kept on going, not only threatened by the man in the wheelchair.  Long story short, in the end several people started having a go at her, one who mentioned he had seen her on Piccadilly with some other National Front. My point is, I just want to assure you I am not for 1 minute suggesting you should let people get away with that kind of shite.

I was really quite mortified that I had offended the genuine person like yourself. So, sorry. Again.

I honestly thought I was stating what would be obvious to any socialist. Obviously I was wrong. I will try to make clear, what I was trying to say.
Hypothetically, if you had a choice to end racism ideological, or racism is it physically manifests, which would you choose? Would you choose to end racism in the newspapers, radio, the political discourse etc, (political correctness)? Or would you choose to end racism in the way it manifests in the police, courts, National local government, housing, employment being beaten up on the streets?
You don’t even have to be a socialist to answer that, if you were black in Washington DC where something like 20% of the black male population under the age of 25 is in prison.
But even on a personal level, once you take away the power to discriminate, you take away the power of the word. It’s only because of the physical manifestation of real racial oppression, that the words have power be racially abusive see [below].
The 2nd less hypothetical example that was in my mind when I was saying the above, was in a workers state. In a workers state, there would still be the muck of ages, there would still be racists people knocking about. Without the power to do anything about that racism though, the words become as empty as honkey.
I’ve had this conversation many times with soft white racists, who claim that black people are racist’s towards them. I argue, that is not possible in the UK, where there is no institutional racism directed towards white people, but is towards black people. To equate racism with name-calling, when racism has seen the Holocaust, slavery, colonialism and the Klu Klux Klan etc, I argue is an insult to racism. I know some on here disagree with that, but that is my position.
Lastly, in my head, I was really just restating Karl Marx versus Hegel. Hegel, to change the world you just change the way they think. Marx, you change the world to change how people think.


Some of the stuff, I wrote on this topic, to someone.
I’ve only read about 4 or 5 books on racism. They all seem to lead up to the best one IMO, “Staying Power, a History of Black People in Britain”.

In the book he argues, racism didn’t exist before capitalism. In that book he goes through a pretty lengthy discussion of the distinction between racism and prejudice (in societies before capitalism), but basically his argument is;
slavery was MASSIVELY profitable. It was probably THE most important economic factor/primer pump in the development the of British economy/dominance. At a time of bourgeois revolutions that were declaring “all men are born equal” “liberty, fraternity and equality” how could people justify slavery?

The planters created a whole “science”, to justify the supposition that some races are superior, and some races inferior, racism.
So in the 1st place at the base
1.	there was the economic imperative for slavery.
2.	A physical oppression. Slaves were being shipped, the Golden Triangle monumentally successful.
Only then, on top of the economic base, was created a superstructure of ideology to justify such exploitation, the pseudoscience of racism.

At university I did studies of American political history. There was a “Marxist” lecturer there. His basic argument was;
how do you explain the dynamic the American legislators attitude to racism, and then the civil rights movement of the 60s? Moral imperative, or economic imperative? Probably a bit of both, but the economic need, the shortage of labour, were a major factor. [I’m not going to go into economic determinism.]

You talked about the racism against the Irish. I was born in 60, and I never felt the racism against the Irish, was as bad as it was against blacks. Again today, I do not experience the racism against blacks, as much as you do against Asians (I could be wrong). so yes I agree we have moved away a bit from the Irish, and I would argue the blacks. In other words there is a dynamic as to who is, and who isn’t the scapegoat.

So my argument is, if you remove the fundamentals of racism from the base (and this isn’t just economics, the busing of students in civil rights America was part of that changing the base), then the superstructure the ideology becomes irrelevant if not forgotten. IE, nobody today argues, not even the BNP even though they might believe in private, that one race is genetically superior to another. That was common belief in the 1960s.

Could draw a similar example with women, is the drawing of women into the workplace nothing to do with the changing attitudes of the legislator in the UK? Nothing to do with the changes in the ideology?

But my original comment, I meant in a more simplistic way. If the physical realities of racism, you didn’t get beat up, you didn’t suffer discrimination in housing education and every single part of the life, if racism no longer existed, if somebody called Nigger, it would have no meaning beyond Taffy, honkey to you, but more importantly to the person who is saying it. It’s only because racism exists, that the word Nigger Paki has any power. Does that make sense?

You should read some of the arguments in Socialist Workers ISJ attacking political correctness. That might give you some further insight as to where I’m coming from?

Now if that doesn't make sense, just tell me. I won't mind.

I don't mind the fact that I am obviously not very good at explaining myself, but it does irk that people believe I am disingenuous, when I am not.
ResistanceMP3, Yesterday at 8:30 PM EditReportReply

Okay just re-read that, and it is very much economic determinism. So I just want to briefly balance it.


Once the base created the superstructure of racism, it just doesn’t sit there passively, reflecting changes in the base. One comrade at a district educational argued, the relationship between basin structure is like 2 men in a tug-of-war, changes in the base can affect the superstructure, but changes in superstructure can also affect the base.


So in other words, I’m not saying you shouldn’t challenge the ideas of the racists, you should only concentrate on changing the fundamentals the things in the economic base. The ideology can get out of hand even for capitalism, i.e. fascism. And so then our priority has to be given to defending what you’ve got, by challenging those ideas. But that is a labour of Sisyphus, while you still have capitalism. Only Changes in the base will bring about far more permanent changes


----------



## dennisr (Oct 22, 2013)

pass the spade


----------



## emanymton (Oct 22, 2013)

It's shameful the new SWP IB is out, but it is not on the cpgb website yet. What on earth are they playing at?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 22, 2013)

Sorry double post


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 22, 2013)

emanymton said:


> It's shameful the new SWP IB is out, but it is not on the cpgb website yet. What on earth are they playing at?



Send them an angry note.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 22, 2013)

http://socialistunity.com/socialist-workers-party-swp-pre-conference-bulletin-2-released/


----------



## discokermit (Oct 22, 2013)

"our total membership now stands at 7,180"

loooool!


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 22, 2013)

being a sad bastard I actually read the membership figures on page 21...

the membership of the SWP is 7180 members at the present moment...out of these 2147 pay subscriptions...30%ish

How can you be a member if you don't pay subscriptions?????????


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> How can you be a member if you don't pay subscriptions?????????


because, well, y'know, stuff.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 22, 2013)

Just because they don't pay subscriptions doesn't mean they don't consider themselves a member, they might never have been asked.

Last time I tried to see them they told me they would set their dog on me if they ever saw me again.

But you can't write anyone off, they were once heard to mutter that racism might be a bad thin and then got pressured into signing a bit of paper they knew nothing about, which makes them prime SWP material.

Arghhhh


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 22, 2013)

_"The document from Leeds in IB1 tells us “Leeds District began 2013 with 201 reg- istered members in the five branches. As a result of systematic contacting we cur- rently have 73 plus 12-15 who are likely to reregister making a max of about 88.” The author therefore tell us that the district’s efforts have managed to strip more than half the membership off the lists. *We don’t believe this is a valid approach. *

Some comrades think the only real members are those who pay subs. Of course we do want to have a serious effort to get everyone to pay something. Money is a political marker of identification with our organisation - and without it we could do very little. There are always a number of delegates to conference who arrive not paying subs. ...

It’s a problem if comrades risk removing from our lists people who consider them- selves members or might still be interested in the party."_


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 22, 2013)

I seriously don't get it...
You can't write in the bulletin unless you pay your subs
You can't vote in internal swp elections (for CC etc.) unless you pay your subs
You can't go to conference unless you pay your subs 
....
But you can be a member if you don't pay your subs?????

completely mad and dishonest ...


----------



## discokermit (Oct 22, 2013)

amazing. when i was in, our branch didn't consider anyone who wasn't active a member, never mind whether they paid subs or not.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 22, 2013)

funny to see the prof/kimber destroy rmp3's stupid diana bullshit. referencing zetkin.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> You can't go to conference unless you pay your subs


but you can!  several do each year apparently


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 22, 2013)

Birchall does more-Cliffite-than-thou very competently. He also has a very nice way of sounding measured while he twists a knife.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> but you can!  several do each year apparently


I have no idea if this person ever paid subs or not. But at once conference I went to there was a student delegate who had joined at freshers, as the conference was in Oct or Nov she can't have been a member for much over a month. She also got elected to the national committee, for as far as I could tell for no other reason than simply being a student at a posh uni. I didn't know her at all, but I had a five minute chat with her on the way back and it was immediately obvious to be that there was no way she would stay in the SWP longer than a few months. I was wrong though I think it was about 2 weeks latter she quit and declared herself an anarchist. 

I think that was actually my last SWP conference, come to think of it.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Birchall does more-Cliffite-than-thou very competently. He also has a very nice way of sounding measured while he twists a knife.


"Yet after this disastrous year all eleven CC members are putting themselves forwardfor re-election. (Even the England cricket team makes one or two changes after a particularly humiliating defeat.)"

marvellous.

Jonathon Neale puts the boot in rather more bluntly further in. Somewhat vicious against the Leatherettes


----------



## discokermit (Oct 22, 2013)

belboid said:


> "Yet after this disastrous year all eleven CC members are putting themselves forwardfor re-election. (Even the England cricket team makes one or two changes after a particularly humiliating defeat.)"
> 
> marvellous.
> 
> Jonathon Neale puts the boot in rather more bluntly further in. Somewhat vicious against the Leatherettes


it's sharpening up a bit. the opposition seem to be fighting, now. but is it too little, too late?


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2013)

discokermit said:


> but is it too little, too late?


almost definitely, but it'll be interesting to see how many they pull with them


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 23, 2013)

Well, I think overall things look bleak. Just because you have eyes doesn't mean you can see and, alas, it seems like the centre of gravity lies with the: 'let's just get on with building the party' type. They will take the lines fed them from Alex and soothe over their doubts. Especially if they see light at the end of the tunnel in the hope that by concentrating on the bedroom tax and anti-racism they can build up their branch. For such members, there probably is a feeling that the CC made mistakes: it's hard to deny the ring of truth in the gritty detail supplied by Hannah and Viv. But they want to move on, and do so in the manner that they've become used to over the past decades. What this kind of member doesn't appreciate yet is how hard it will be in the future to develop the kind of periphery the SWP are used to working with. Telling potential allies who are concerned that the SWP might be rape apologists that the real problem was 'movementism' is going to sound appalling. The middle ground don't see it at the moment, but they are heading for a long cold twilight of political activity, with annual bracing conferences (we grew again, even though our paid membership dropped) filled with chirpy contributions from members in small towns who 'got out there' and showed the possibilities.
There is still time for a twist or two in the story and one dynamic that might change things is that the more rabid supporters of MS might go in search of mass expulsions and even attempt his rehabilitation. In other words, they might inadvertently create what the opposition need, a very specific demand that has the leverage to unseat the CC. Pat's motion is closest to this. From his opening piece it seems that Alex is going to resist the demand that an apology be written to the two women and that position carries risks, because the middle ground won't be so unyielding on that idea.


----------



## pir (Oct 23, 2013)

The view of the original complainant has largely been absent in this discussion. I came across this on facebook, from an apparent supporter:

"We believe comrades should know the position of comrade W: she has been severely damaged by the mishandling of the case and the fallout which followed. She came forward to the CC and DC trusting that her organisation would behave in a principled fashion. She has been hounded, isolated and ostracised. As a result, she has left the SWP and feels she has no choice but to leave the city she lives and studies in because she cannot bear constantly seeing or being afraid of seeing the comrades who have played a role in making her life so difficult."

https://www.facebook.com/stretchouttime/posts/10151639041881986

People keep saying that SWP loyalists are rape apologists. I always felt that this was unfair. They should be called rape facilitators because it is their behavour which allows rapists to believe they'll get away with it (as they usually do).


----------



## redcogs (Oct 23, 2013)

Will the BBC broadcast conference highlights?

Oxford Jonathan might be advised to wear his best chainmail singlet and crash helmet if he attends.


----------



## redcogs (Oct 23, 2013)

Actually, now i've read a few more contributions to IB2, it clear that a chainmail and  crashhelmet vendor on the gate could make a tidy profit.  Must check ePay prices quick.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2013)

belboid said:


> "Yet after this disastrous year all eleven CC members are putting themselves forwardfor re-election. (Even the England cricket team makes one or two changes after a particularly humiliating defeat.)"
> 
> marvellous.
> 
> Jonathon Neale puts the boot in rather more bluntly further in. Somewhat vicious against the Leatherettes


Do you mean the secrets one on page 77 that contains this?



> Finally, another secret. In early July Charlie presented 20 emails among opposition members to the CC and then the national committee. All 20 emails had been sent to “J”, who at that point was bringing a complaint of sexual harassment against Delta.There is now an official party investigation into the status and origin of these emails. The sooner its conclusions are public, the better.
> We are lost in secrets.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do you mean the secrets one on page 77 that contains this?


that's the one


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2013)

I wonder if these emails that just happened to end up in kimber's possession will be brought up at conference. I don't think similar examples of private emails or discussions by the face-book expelees ending up in the CC's hand were every looked into seriously.


----------



## tedsplitter (Oct 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder if these emails that just happened to end up in kimber's possession will be brought up at conference. I don't think similar examples of private emails or discussions by the face-book expelees ending up in the CC's hand were every looked into seriously.



“How very dare you! We strenuously deny these outrageous claims that we would hack into someone’s email / facebook. Here’s some selective quotations to imply they were a wrong un anyway” usually does the trick.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2013)

Between the pieces from Hannah Dee, J Neale and Simon, Viv and Rita, we are really given a much more detailed view of what went on, at least from the point of view of the leadership's critics. It doesn't make for comfortable reading. In fact it's grim stuff. I wonder if those accounts will have any resonance with people who had been loyalists up to now.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 23, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I wonder if those accounts will have any resonance with people who had been loyalists up to now.



Well BB?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 23, 2013)

"5 Things I Learned When Leaving The SWP"

http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=635


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 23, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> "5 Things I Learned When Leaving The SWP"
> 
> http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=635



A bit patronising coming from someone who signed up to the Rees /German outfit.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 23, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> "5 Things I Learned When Leaving The SWP"
> 
> http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=635



From same:


> I remember reading Dawkins’ “Not In Our Genes” purely for the purpose of being able to denounce it more effectively. Imagine my shock when I realised that the SWP’s critique of the book pretty much relied on having read a fantasy version of the text where he says things he doesn’t say and doesn’t say things he did. I don’t want to be uncritical but, frankly, it’s quite interesting and I felt better equipped at understanding how evolution works for having read it.



Actually, the book is called "The Selfish Gene".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2013)

Yes, Not in our Genes was an attack on sociobiology that contained many a pretty disgusting strawman of Dawkins.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder if these emails that just happened to end up in kimber's possession will be brought up at conference. I don't think similar examples of private emails or discussions by the face-book expelees ending up in the CC's hand were every looked into seriously.


and 'j' is 'x'.
hacking the emails of a sexual harrasment complainant. could these people become any more loathsome?


----------



## treelover (Oct 24, 2013)

> *Old Left Line Up In Shocking Attack on Grassroots Claimant’s Group*
> Posted on October 23, 2013 by johnny void | 42 Comments
> The Youth Fight For Jobs campaign have published a piece this week attacking Boycott Workfare supporters who have called on the PCS Union to take meaningful and concrete action against benefit sanctions.
> In an astonishing diatribe the group, who are largely a Socialist Party front, accuse campaign group Boycott Workfare of ‘divide and rule’.  Based on a string of entirely spurious accusations, Youth Fight for Jobs spokesperson Ian Pattison claims to be ‘shocked and surprised’ that a campaign opposed to benefit sanctions should call on the PCS to take a stronger position on their members being forced to implement those sanctions.
> ...


 


Just wondered what all this is about, The Void has posted an article in which he claims (very robustly as his style) Youth Fight For Jobs(SP Front afaik) has viciously criticised Boycott Workfare of 'divide and rule' for demanding PCS take 'meaningful action' on sanctions, etc. Over to SP , etc.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Well BB?


Hannah's piece puts flesh on the cc line that the attempt at informal mediation between M and W was a mistake and a failure. Having read it and the prof's response about when people moved from believing W had been harassed to claiming rape it actually makes me feel better about Kimber and AC's role. Yes the case should have gone to the DC straight away and yes there was a problem with cc members dealing informally with a complaint about one of their own. But if anything Hannah's piece left me feeling more confident in the personal integrity of CK and AC. My major problem with her piece is the total denial about the political direction of the opposition, constantly repeating that's not relevant and that the issue is ONLY the dc cases just makes some of her other points seem shakier. It has to be relevant and the failure of the oppositions leaders to admit that, or to say clearly what their political platform for replacing the current leadership consists of is dishonest and guarantees their failure.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Where is this hounding?
> 
> The party that you don't have the bottle to actually join argues that he has a case to answer if he ever tries to rejoin. Does that not apply to society as well? Do we not get to question him on the case he has to answer? The stalinist logic at work here (_the party has decided, the matter is now closed, it is now no one elses' business_) is clear for all to see. God, it's so blatant.


Always know the boss is on sticky ground when he resorts to ad hominem attacks. My bottle or membership status aren't relevant although as it goes you're wrong.

On the more important issue, the dc found he had a case to answer on harassment based on the woman's evidence. Does that give you or me or anyone else the right to put posters up that suggest he's a rapist or that the only organisation the women asked to investigate didn't investigate when in fact it did? No it doesn't.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Hannah's piece puts flesh on the cc line that the attempt at informal mediation between M and W was a mistake and a failure. Having read it and the prof's response about when people moved from believing W had been harassed to claiming rape it actually makes me feel better about Kimber and AC's role. Yes the case should have gone to the DC straight away and yes there was a problem with cc members dealing informally with a complaint about one of their own. But if anything Hannah's piece left me feeling more confident in the personal integrity of CK and AC. My major problem with her piece is the total denial about the political direction of the opposition, constantly repeating that's not relevant and that the issue is ONLY the dc cases just makes some of her other points seem shakier. It has to be relevant and the failure of the oppositions leaders to admit that, or to say clearly what their political platform for replacing the current leadership consists of is dishonest and guarantees their failure.


I haven't had chance to read much of it yet but have read Hannah's price and the very short reply by AC. What I found interesting was his comment that if Hannah felts at the time that W's compliant amounted to rape why did she not speak up then. This is a valid question, although, it is not 100% clear to me that she is saying this. But it leads to another question, if Hannah can reach this conclusion (and by all accounts other people at the time certainly did) then why couldn't AC and KC. I get a sense that despite knowing all the details AC does not feel a rape took place, while others who know the details do. I think therfore there may be a real dispute other what constitutes rape underlying some of this. And that is most certainly a political question. Also this whole thing is a result of two both the individual failings of Ms (guilty of rape or not) and the failings of the SWP in handling the case. The second of these is also a political question, one which it is possible to believe needs addressing without challenging wider SWP theory. I have often noticed that there is something of a divergance between what the SWP says and what it actually does, I am sure many in the opposition could simply see themselves as trying to bring those two things into alignment, especially with regards to the question of women's oppression.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Always know the boss is on sticky ground when he resorts to ad hominem attacks. My bottle or membership status aren't relevant although as it goes you're wrong.
> 
> On the more important issue, the dc found he had a case to answer on harassment based on the woman's evidence. Does that give you or me or anyone else the right to put posters up that suggest he's a rapist or that the only organisation the women asked to investigate didn't investigate when in fact it did? No it doesn't.


That doesn't address the logic i pointed out - it reaffirms it. _The party has decided now the matter is closed, it's no ones elses business. _The stupidity and danger of this position is now clearly shown by the piece you refer to in your other shoddy reply last night where Hannah reveals as key person concerned with dealing with the rape allegation believes that Martin Smith was guilty of rape. And where does this logic lead if he was found guilty of rape by the party? Whose business is it then? Is it still solely the parties or does it become societies? Which would mean that it only becomes wider societies business when the part decides it is wider societies business. This is pure stalinist logic either way. A party deciding what is right not just for itself but society behind closed doors.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I wonder if those accounts will have any resonance with people who had been loyalists up to now.



And BB is in fact heartened rather than shaken. This mentality is sufficiently strong in enough of the SWP that I think they are doomed.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> And BB is in fact heartened rather than shaken. This mentality is sufficiently strong in enough of the SWP that I think they are doomed.


Don't forget that bb is not an swp member. He doesn't have the guts


----------



## newbie (Oct 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Always know the boss is on sticky ground when he resorts to ad hominem attacks. My bottle or membership status aren't relevant although as it goes you're wrong.
> 
> On the more important issue, the dc found he had a case to answer on harassment based on the woman's evidence. Does that give you or me or anyone else the right to put posters up that suggest he's a rapist or that the only organisation the women asked to investigate didn't investigate when in fact it did? No it doesn't.


the right?  a bunch of people have claimed that right, it's theirs by conquest and commitment unless a group of delta supporters care to go out overpasting.  Is there such a group?  very doubtful- delta isn't Assange, there's no hint he's an icon, however tarnished, with widespread personal support, he's just an apparatchik with a case to answer and residual protection from the apparatus. 

so it looks like they have got the right by default, and there's nothing to be done about it. 

except in the bourgeois courts of course, delta or Lavallette could sue for defamation


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> And BB is in fact heartened rather than shaken. This mentality is sufficiently strong in enough of the SWP that I think they are doomed.



Yes, I think that you are right.

Even from the cynical point of view of somebody only capable of prioritising the good of the SWP, this kind of reaction makes no sense. The people who just want to get on with building the party are backing a strategy that cannot allow them to do that.

The SWP is completely and utterly finished in terms of its ability to recruit and retain young people now. It will only be able to recruit on the basis of ignorance, and even those who start out ignorant will have access to google and will encounter feminist activists, other left activists, etc. It is already facing a massive problem in terms of its age demographics, so it's not as if they can just wait and hope that it eventually gets easier at some point years down the road.

The only possible way out is to apologise, grovel and serve up the heads of the entire leadership ( who surely have it coming for gross incompetence even if our pragmatist isn't worried about their political or moral stances). That may not work, but at least they have some kind of shot on that basis.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 24, 2013)

> To the owners of the Angry Women of Liverpool website,
> 
> Over the last week your website has made a series of allegations about Professor Lavalette, Liverpool Hope University and the appointment of a PhD student.
> 
> ...


----------



## discokermit (Oct 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> My bottle or membership status aren't relevant although as it goes you're wrong.


have you rejoined?

some people joined in '68, exciting times.
some people joined because of the miners strike.
some the poll tax.
some because of stop the war.
bolshie though, was reinvigorated by a botched cover up of rape/sexual harrasment by a cc member and the persecution of the two complainants.

say it ain't so.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> this kind of reaction makes no sense. The people who just want to get on with building the party are backing a strategy that cannot allow them to do that.


some of them are just plain fucking thick.



> The SWP is completely and utterly finished in terms of its ability to recruit and retain young people now. It will only be able to recruit on the basis of ignorance, and even those who start out ignorant will have access to google and will encounter feminist activists, other left activists, etc. It is already facing a massive problem in terms of its age demographics, so it's not as if they can just wait and hope that it eventually gets easier at some point years down the road.


even the fifty something rapists will be put off now that seventeen year old women won't be joining.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> have you rejoined?
> 
> some people joined in '68, exciting times.
> some people joined because of the miners strike.
> ...


an aroused worker, as it were


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Oct 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, I think that you are right.
> 
> Even from the cynical point of view of somebody only capable of prioritising the good of the SWP, this kind of reaction makes no sense. The people who just want to get on with building the party are backing a strategy that cannot allow them to do that.
> 
> ...


And talking of building the party as that is the only thing the CC seem to think conference is about - well guys this will be the only way there is a hope in hell of doing that and only a small one at that.

It's no use them bewailing that an internal matter is all over the internet, thier actions guaranteed that this would happen. The only way out now is to have a proper open debate in conference and then have an open vote on where we go from here. As a party we have fucked up and as a party we can sort this fuck up out and make it up to the women that have made the rape complaints for making thier lives hell as is only right an proper.

edited - sort out is better way of putting it than "correct"


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 24, 2013)

Note the threat of legal action is from Lavalette, not Smith. If the process used actually was as described in the letter, it would be tricky to defend against. Not that I think he'll actually go to the courts and make a bigger noise.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Note the threat of legal action is from Lavalette, not Smith. If the process used actually was as described in the letter, it would be tricky to defend against. Not that I think he'll actually go to the courts and make a bigger noise.


The threat's from the uni too.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 24, 2013)

cesare said:


> The threat's from the uni too.



Yes, but its not as clear what the university's grounds would be. They may be indicating that they would back their employee.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes, but its not as clear what the university's grounds would be. They may be indicating that they would back their employee.


It might be that the uni are saying that their funding process/procedure is being called into question, affecting their reputation.


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2013)

surprised lavalette has any confidence in bourgeois justice etc etc...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 24, 2013)

cesare said:


> It might be that the uni are saying that their funding process/procedure is being called into question, affecting their reputation.



Yes. It really isn't clear, although it's not hard to work out what Lavalette's claim would be. His most obvious problem would be working out who to sue. The reason for the lack of clarity is probably that it's intended to shut people up without going near a court.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes. It really isn't clear, although it's not hard to work out what Lavalette's claim would be. His most obvious problem would be working out who to sue. In practice though, it seems unlikely that he'd actually want to end up in court over this.


I can't imagine Delta would relish court proceedings either.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 24, 2013)

cesare said:


> I can't imagine Delta would relish court proceedings either.



Lavalette could sue only on the basis of things that were particularly stated about him and the process used to select phd students. He wouldn't have to bring the truth or otherwise of the claims made about Delta into it at all. Still though, there would inevitably be noise made, which would be, as you say, very unwelcome, to Delta, the university etc.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Lavalette could sue only on the basis of things that were particularly stated about him and the process used to select phd students. He wouldn't have to bring the truth or otherwise of the claims made about Delta into it at all. Still though, there would inevitably be noise made, which would be, as you say, very unwelcome, to Delta, the university etc.


If Lavalette sued, the defendant ("who" being your very good point earlier) would presumably defend by way of a very detailed account of the circumstances justifying their allegations, including witnesses. It could get very messy indeed - the sexual abuse allegations being aired in court via a civil case rather than criminal. I doubt Lavalette, the uni, the SWP or delta would enjoy the experience.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

Surely the claim for libel would be based on untruths about the lavs professional conduct in who was accepted on the PhD program and the rest of it would not be heard at all. Not that any of this is going to happen I think.


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Surely the claim for libel would be based on untruths about the lavs professional conduct in who was accepted on the PhD program and the rest of it would not be heard at all. Not that any of this is going to happen I think.


i'd have thunk so. anything about smith would be ignored, like that freeman TV license nutter earlier in the year.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Surely the claim for libel would be based on untruths about the lavs professional conduct in who was accepted on the PhD program and the rest of it would not be heard at all. Not that any of this is going to happen I think.



Yes, that about sums it up.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Surely the claim for libel would be based on untruths about the lavs professional conduct in who was accepted on the PhD program and the rest of it would not be heard at all. Not that any of this is going to happen I think.


I suppose it might be a question of who delta has found to supervise him?


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 24, 2013)

Edit: No, I don't think this applies to him. According to the University's own statement, he's part-time, 'with another department'. Still, his presence in the University is going to be a nightmare for the authorities.

From: http://www.hope.ac.uk/research/postgraduateresearch/doctoralscholarships/

Liverpool Hope University has introduced seven fully funded doctoral scholarship opportunities, which together are worth more than £300,000 over three years.

The scholarships are for the full fees as well as a bursary of £13,500 per year. Doctoral students will be considered for the scholarships in the key research areas of the University such as education, core humanities subjects, education, business and computing, amongst other.

The funding available is equivalent to that offered by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council

The scholarships are for the very best students and the University would expect that they would have gained a distinction in their Masters studies.

Successful students would begin their studies at Liverpool Hope from the beginning of September 2012.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2013)

The funding's tax free too, isn't it?


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2013)

do you have any evidence to suggest he's being funded under that scheme?


----------



## Nice one (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Surely the claim for libel would be based on untruths about the lavs professional conduct in who was accepted on the PhD program and the rest of it would not be heard at all. Not that any of this is going to happen I think.



libel claims are almost always based on reputation (or loss of) rather than the truth/untruth of anything said or done.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

In this case, of Lavelette -  not Smith.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 24, 2013)

Nice one said:


> libel claims are almost always based on reputation (or loss of) rather than the truth/untruth of anything said or done.



But if you can prove that the accusations that are said to have damaged someone's reputation are true wouldn't the claim be thrown out regardless of impact on reputation? (I get that in most cases this will be near impossible)

In this case I don't think it has any chance of getting that far re: Delta's alleged rape assuming what Lavalette (sp?) says about not being involved in the selection process though.


----------



## Nice one (Oct 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> But if you can prove that the accusations that are said to have damaged someone's reputation are true wouldn't the claim be thrown out regardless of impact on reputation? (I get that in most cases this will be near impossible)
> 
> In this case I don't think it has any chance of getting that far re: Delta's alleged rape assuming what Lavalette (sp?) says about not being involved in the selection process though.



yes and no, but mostly no.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 24, 2013)

Nice one said:


> yes and no, but mostly no.



Care to elaborate on that?


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> But if you can prove that the accusations that are said to have damaged someone's reputation are true wouldn't the claim be thrown out regardless of impact on reputation? (I get that in most cases this will be near impossible)
> 
> In this case I don't think it has any chance of getting that far re: Delta's alleged rape assuming what Lavalette (sp?) says about not being involved in the selection process though.


Libel's about falsity and maliciousness of the allegation as well as whether reputational damage was actually the outcome.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 24, 2013)

strange how when it comes to prosecuting a rape claim against a cc member, the swp have no faith in bourgeois justice, yet when lavalette thinks his reputation is under threat or callinicos wants to stop renton calling him a liar, they don't hesitate in threatening the bourgeois courts.


----------



## Nice one (Oct 24, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Care to elaborate on that?



the truthfulness of any statement is always going to be an excellent defence against claims of libel, but it's not always that clear cut. For example the angry women website the libel against michael lavalette wouldn't be so much that he brought martin smith to hope univeristy (which can be shown to be either true or false) but that in doing so he put women students at the univeristy in danger.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 24, 2013)

For the record I have heard from a fairy reliable source that Lavalette didn't have anything to do with delta's phd.


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> For the record I have heard from a fairy reliable source that Lavalette didn't have anything to do with delta's phd.



The relevant phrase from the University's letter is: As Professor Lavalette knew one of the candidates for a part-time PhD place he backed off from the recruitment process.

As someone has just observed on Facebook, there is something odd about this formulation. 'Backed off' is unusual and ambiguous. '... he informed the University and took no part in' would be stronger and clearer. So my guess would be that he did, in fact, have something to do with the awarding of a (funded?) place, up to a point.

I'm curious now also about his referees. And also as to whether he does now hold a masters. That should be public domain somewhere...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

Very odd phrasing. He either knew him before the process started (and so shouldn't have been part of it) or he came to know him during the process (we know this isn't true). Maybe he just _forgot _then his memory was jogged when it became public.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

Athos said:


> Does anyone happen to now the standard of proof that was required for the charges to be substantiated?  Would his guilt have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or just on the balance of probabilities?  The former being the standard in criminal trials; the latter being more common in staff conduct procedures.





butchersapron said:


> I would suspect that there was no standard of proof outlined and understood by all beforehand.





> A CC member read out the legal definition of rape – saying that this would be the DC benchmark. At no point was there any sense that the DC was ill equipped to attempt to make a judgment on a rape allegation



Pre-conference bulletin 2 (pdf) p.64


----------



## emanymton (Oct 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> The relevant phrase from the University's letter is: As Professor Lavalette knew one of the candidates for a part-time PhD place he backed off from the recruitment process.
> 
> As someone has just observed on Facebook, there is something odd about this formulation. 'Backed off' is unusual and ambiguous. '... he informed the University and took no part in' would be stronger and clearer. So my guess would be that he did, in fact, have something to do with the awarding of a (funded?) place, up to a point.
> 
> I'm curious now also about his referees. And also as to whether he does now hold a masters. That should be public domain somewhere...


The story as I have heard it was that Lavalette was asked if he knew him, he said yes and therefore didn't want to be involved, which rather fits universities letter.

To be clear Lavalette told this to someone who then told me, and I don't see why Lavalette would have any reason to lie to that person.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2013)

Indeed, why would anyone not ever tell the full truth about stuff that could damage them?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Indeed, why would anyone not ever tell the full truth about stuff that could damage them?


I didn't say he had no reason to lie, I said I don't think he would have reason to lie to this particular person. It is of course possible that he did, but I think it is unlikely.


----------



## Athos (Oct 24, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Pre-conference bulletin 2 (pdf) p.64



Thanks.  But it doesn't really clarify what standard of proof the DC applied.  I suspect that you're right that this hadn't been properly established beforehand.  But it's a crucial question.  There's a big difference between him being cleared if, for instance, the panel believed that it was 90% sure he'd done it, but applied the criminal standard (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt), and him being cleared if they felt that he probably didn't do what was alleged i.e. they were less than 50% sure he had done it, and applied the civil standard - the balance of probabilities.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 26, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> And BB is in fact heartened rather than shaken. This mentality is sufficiently strong in enough of the SWP that I think they are doomed.


Best you join N.I. In the sp then


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I haven't had chance to read much of it yet but have read Hannah's price and the very short reply by AC. What I found interesting was his comment that if Hannah felts at the time that W's compliant amounted to rape why did she not speak up then. This is a valid question, although, it is not 100% clear to me that she is saying this. But it leads to another question, if Hannah can reach this conclusion (and by all accounts other people at the time certainly did) then why couldn't AC and KC. I get a sense that despite knowing all the details AC does not feel a rape took place, while others who know the details do. I think therfore there may be a real dispute other what constitutes rape underlying some of this. And that is most certainly a political question. Also this whole thing is a result of two both the individual failings of Ms (guilty of rape or not) and the failings of the SWP in handling the case. The second of these is also a political question, one which it is possible to believe needs addressing without challenging wider SWP theory. I have often noticed that there is something of a divergance between what the SWP says and what it actually does, I am sure many in the opposition could simply see themselves as trying to bring those two things into alignment, especially with regards to the question of women's oppression.


You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That doesn't address the logic i pointed out - it reaffirms it. _The party has decided now the matter is closed, it's no ones elses business. _The stupidity and danger of this position is now clearly shown by the piece you refer to in your other shoddy reply last night where Hannah reveals as key person concerned with dealing with the rape allegation believes that Martin Smith was guilty of rape. And where does this logic lead if he was found guilty of rape by the party? Whose business is it then? Is it still solely the parties or does it become societies? Which would mean that it only becomes wider societies business when the part decides it is wider societies business. This is pure stalinist logic either way. A party deciding what is right not just for itself but society behind closed doors.


You missed the main point where I admitted to rejoining. ad hominem as it was.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

I didn't care. The logic: unquestioned.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.


Based on what evidence? As a member you should be expelled for saying this - does these rules not count for you then


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 26, 2013)

He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Based on what evidence? As a member you should be expelled for saying this - does these rules not count for you then


They does


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They does


So report yourself to the latest mainwairing.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.


What evidence have you seen?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What evidence have you seen?


same as you boss


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> same as you boss


I think you better go to bed. If the lack of evidence that i have seen is enough for you to clear martin smith of rape, then maybe you would be an ideal  future DC candidate.

Your joining. lolhollowlol


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 26, 2013)

I'll go to bed when I feel like it pal. You'll need more evidence than you have.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Let it all out. SWP! SWP! SWP!

Socialist my arse.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 26, 2013)

Engurland. Engurland.Engurland. anarchist my arse, cock.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

I'd have gone the way to Swindon to drink with you and your imaginary mates who just happen to fit your arguments before, but you, now, i would only travel to pour the petrol on.

You are a disgrace.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.


I hope you're never a juror.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Or a human being (might happen)


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 26, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The reason for the lack of clarity is probably that it's intended to shut people up without going near a court.


sounds horribly familiar


----------



## emanymton (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.


So basically you think Stack got it right to begin with? I feel pretty confident to agree with you that he is guilty of harassment, but I am not really in a position to say either way on the rape charge.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> Thanks.  But it doesn't really clarify what standard of proof the DC applied.  I suspect that you're right that this hadn't been properly established beforehand.  But it's a crucial question.  There's a big difference between him being cleared if, for instance, the panel believed that it was 90% sure he'd done it, but applied the criminal standard (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt), and him being cleared if they felt that he probably didn't do what was alleged i.e. they were less than 50% sure he had done it, and applied the civil standard - the balance of probabilities.


This won't help much, but amazingly they really do not seem to have thought about this before hand. There was a split on the DC with Stack coming to a different conclusion on the harassment charge. Part of the reason for this is that it looks to me like he was applying a civil standard while the rest where applying criminal. Which is just one more way in which the whole process was an utter farce.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.



We can all read your post. 

You don't actually address the point made that there is seemingly a difference of opinion within the SWP about what constitutes rape. If you think he didn't rape, have you reached that conclusion because you define rape differently from those who think he did when faced with the same evidence?


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2013)

jesus christ.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This won't help much, but amazingly they really do not seem to have thought about this before hand. There was a split on the DC with Stack coming to a different conclusion on the harassment charge. Part of the reason for this is that it looks to me like he was apply a civil standard while the rest where applying criminal. Which is just one more way in which the whole process was an utter farce.


 
I wouldn't trust those clowns to run a bath, nevermind something as serious as a rape investigation. An utter shambles.


----------



## Once red (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You I have respect for. So I will tell you what I really think. He didn't rape, he did harass.



The funny thing is that she obviously believes that what happened to her was rape. And she was the one in a position to judge that. Not you. 
Do you think women go around saying that they were raped lightly? Have you any idea of the shock, shame and humiliation it entails to say- even to recognise- that you have been raped? 
This is a sorry saga and few people come out of it looking good. It's certainly the end of the swp, the bulletin shows that very clearly.


----------



## tufty79 (Oct 26, 2013)

Once red said:


> The funny thing is that she obviously believes that what happened to her was rape. And she was the one in a position to judge that. Not you.
> Do you think women go around saying that they were raped lightly? Have you any idea of the shock, shame and humiliation it entails to say- even to recognise- that you have been raped?
> This is a sorry saga and few people come out of it looking good. It's certainly the end of the swp, the bulletin shows that very clearly.



indeed.


----------



## barney_pig (Oct 26, 2013)

Once red said:


> The funny thing is that she obviously believes that what happened to her was rape. And she was the one in a position to judge that. Not you.
> Do you think women go around saying that they were raped lightly? Have you any idea of the shock, shame and humiliation it entails to say- even to recognise- that you have been raped?
> This is a sorry saga and few people come out of it looking good. It's certainly the end of the swp, the bulletin shows that very clearly.


As far as bb is concerned nothing has changed since page 1 of this thread. The central committee is right. It is always right. When the central committee said there was no case to answer, there was no case to answer. When the central committee said there was a case to answer, there was a case to answer.
All the proof he needs is provided by the prof. Nothing more is necessary.
 Rape denial has been thrown around a lot since this began. Bb has now provided us with a clear definition.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> As far as bb is concerned nothing has changed since page 1 of this thread. The central committee is right. It is always right. When the central committee said there was no case to answer, there was no case to answer. When the central committee said there was a case to answer, there was a case to answer.
> All the proof he needs is provided by the prof. Nothing more is necessary.
> Rape denial has been thrown around a lot since this began. Bb has now provided us with a clear definition.



I think you're doing bolshiebhoy a bit of a disservice there.

Apparently (unless I have misunderstood) things have changed enough that he has been inspired to rejoin the party he had previously left, though quite why remains, and is like to remain, a mystery to all but him...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.


See, this is what this lot have been just waiting to say, it was just lurking there - now they think they're finally on top they can and will say this loudly over and over. At what cost? If a load of middle management desperately recruited returnees come banging in shouting the odds with CC largesse, what will happen?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.


you're disgusting.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2013)

Jesus


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> See, this is what this lot have been just waiting to say, it was just lurking there - now they think they're finally on top they can and will say this loudly over and over. At what cost? If a load of middle management desperately recruited returnees come banging in shouting the odds with CC largesse, what will happen?


it will be the end of them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it will be the end of them.


I think so. If they are planning that - and bbs behavior suggest they are, it's yet another piece of ineptness, this time probably fatal.


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it will be the end of them.


 Its already over. Its been over for almost a year.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2013)

killer b said:


> Its already over. Its been over for almost a year.



It's not over until the fat laddie sings...


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on.


Fair enough to have no attachment to your mortgage and job. But your marriage?


----------



## Once red (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He didn't rape anyone, that I'll stake my mortgage, my marriage, my job on. After two years of 'evidence'.



Nice bit of macho posturing there.
Is the woman who says she was raped no one then?
There, in a nutshell is why women like myself will never ever rejoin your party and why they deserve to be pariahs of the left from now on


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 26, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Best you join N.I. In the sp then


Wha? Fortunately, as you might recall, the Irish SWP is a different party.


----------



## treelover (Oct 26, 2013)

Once red said:


> Nice bit of macho posturing there.
> Is the woman who says she was raped no one then?
> There, in a nutshell is why women like myself will never ever rejoin your party and why they deserve to be pariahs of the left from now on


 
pity you ever did, could never understand their attraction, they were seen as clowns by many in Europe, etc, especially at the European Social Forums, where their posturing was laughable.


----------



## treelover (Oct 27, 2013)

SEYMOUR! on leaving the SWP


----------



## dominion (Oct 29, 2013)

I was taken aback by a circular issued by PCS which showed the Chair of the unions Equality Committee is to be SWP member Sue Bond and one of the other NEC appointees was uber Callinicos/Smith supporter Marriane Owens.

SWP members taking charge of equality? A disgrace.

Meanwhile I am led to believe there is a motion being put to the PCS Left Unity conference in December for them to "break" with their alliance with the slightly more mainstream PCS Democrats group. It won't get through, but the wrong target methinks.

Given all we now know (including the serious effect of the SWP's treatment of the woman at the centre of the scandal has had on her life), surely they should be considering breaking with the SWP instead.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Wha? Fortunately, as you might recall, the Irish SWP is a different party.



Has anyone told John M that?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 30, 2013)

It gets worse (if that's possible). The uncensored Delta case narrative emerges and rings horribly true:

http://socialistunity.com/swp-party-members-write-full-narrative-comrade-delta-rape-case/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> It gets worse (if that's possible). The uncensored Delta case narrative emerges and rings horribly true:



The main additions seem to be:

A) some paragraphs dealing with the treatment of one of W's supporters in the UAF office and her sacking. This seems to be a second claim of workplace victimisation, distinct from that of X.

B) names of individual pro-Deltaists are kept in.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2013)

if Viv S is associated with that document then it is true, surprised they went to SU with it though, still it does show in even more gruesome detail the disgusting bullying rape encouraging behaviour within that organisation.


----------



## treelover (Oct 30, 2013)

Just read it, appalling, what a bunch of creeps, personally I feel vindicated by my many many years of hostility to them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> if Viv S is associated with that document then it is true, surprised they went to SU with it though, still it does show in even more gruesome detail the disgusting bullying rape encouraging behaviour within that organisation.



As I understand it, the writers did not go to SU, judging by the comments section. It seems that some other SWP member(s) with access to the uncensored original sent it on.

It's somewhat bizarre what the CC decided to cut out of the version the put in IB2. The stuff about the UAF office, for instance, is awful if true, but it's hardly worse than the stuff they did print. And the claim that there was a secret pro-Delta faction were printed elsewhere in the bulletin, despite, if I recall correctly, getting cut from this piece.

On that last point, by the way, it seems that the opposition are trying to turn the leadership's own central tactic back on them, trying to open a hard/soft split amongst the loyalists.


----------



## treelover (Oct 30, 2013)

> X also faced inappropriate questioning by some members of the DC. CC member Amy L asked if she had misconstrued M’s approaches as he was a friendly man who often bought her coffee, *while DC elected member Maxine B asked her about her drinking habits*.


 
Not surprised there, at one time it looked like she was gonna convert!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2013)

Well if nothing else I feel vindicated for the loathing I've always had towards Weyman.


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2013)

apparently the faction (or some members thereof at least) wanted to propose an alternative CC slate - that still had Callinicos & Kimber on it!

The majority were not keen and voted to defer a decision to a full faction meeting.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> apparently the faction (or some members thereof at least) wanted to propose an alternative CC slate - that still had Callinicos & Kimber on it!
> 
> The majority were not keen and voted to defer a decision to a full faction meeting.



Sounds like some oppositionists are trying to be too clever by half.


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 30, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Well if nothing else I feel vindicated for the loathing I've always had towards Weyman.



Me too!

Looking through the list of hardline Delta-istas I recognise a number of people who I always knew had the spine of a jelly fish and the morals of a vulture.

Weyman B (inveterate liar), Amy L (a human vortex of noise and bombast), Judith O, Helen S (incompetent), Doug M, Maxine B, Rhetta M, Mark K, Roddy S, Paul H (posh git) and Rahul P (a bully pure and simple, he'd be off with his tail between his legs at the merest hint of spine in his opponent).

Roddy S must be one of the most toxic and hateful individuals I've ever met and I've worked in kitchens and the finance industry!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2013)

Helen S? I'm amazed she is still around tbh, I would have thought she would have trundled off years ago


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Helen S? I'm amazed she is still around tbh, I would have thought she would have trundled off years ago



She was the archetypal shouty young SWP full timer a decade ago. It was like performance art. 

Her direct equivalent in Ireland was, bizarrely, made Socialist Worker editor before disappearing off into the grant funded sector and academia. He resurfaced to publish a particularly embarrassing op ed in the Irish Times about the misplaced radicalism of his youth and his mature belief in the power of working with the private sector to achieve progressive aims.


----------



## Once red (Oct 30, 2013)

How appalling the treatment of this woman was.
As for the characters involved, I don't know many of them. Weyman: shouty, OTT, that's about it, they must be after my time.
Never a fan of Jo C and the fact they put her in charge of students after this beggars belief and explains why there are none left!
I don't believe that Alex C and Charlie K are particularly to blame in it all- I mean, they've been pretty woeful but I think the problem may be more the layer of people who are hardliners/careerist SWPers.
The last ten years or so have been so crap for the SWP, with all the deaths, the Respect debacle (always a dreadful mistake from the outset) etc.


----------



## dominion (Oct 30, 2013)

I see the authors of the document are unhappy with its being published on SU:

_I am very unhappy that you made no effort to contact myself or the other authors to see if we would be happy for you to post it. I am very unhappy that you have posted the article .I wrote this article for an internal debate within my party, not for this site to post.

I strongly request that you remove the article and allow myself and my co authors to continue our discussions within our party. If we had wanted to post the article we would have used a blog that we chose ourselves, we decided that it was better to email our comrades with the article. I have no idea how you got the article, but you clearly have no real interest in what I am my co authors are trying to achievewithin the SWP.

Please remove this article

Simon.
_
The cats out the bag and being distributed across the web as we speak.

That they wanted to keep this secret bothers me. Fact is the SWP is not a safe place for women. Period.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 30, 2013)

dominion said:


> I see the authors of the document are unhappy with its being published on SU....
> The cats out the bag and being distributed across the web as we speak.
> That they wanted to keep this secret bothers me. Fact is the SWP is not a safe place for women. Period.



Simon F's "complaint" is quite logical. If you were in his position, wouldn't you strongly protest about the publication of his IB piece? Well, he would, wouldn't he? as someone else famously said.

While the SWP leadership have treated (at least) two women comrades appalling and sought to cover this up and, at the same time, protect Delta, this doesn't necessarily entail that the party is not a safe place for women. This is of course the Andy Newman line, but would he say the same if this awful business had occurred in the Labour Party?  I prefer Tony Collins' take on the question:
http://socialistunity.com/swp-party...ative-comrade-delta-rape-case/#comment-669863


----------



## discokermit (Oct 31, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Helen S (incompetent),





Spanky Longhorn said:


> Helen S? I'm amazed she is still around tbh, I would have thought she would have trundled off years ago





Nigel Irritable said:


> She was the archetypal shouty young SWP full timer a decade ago. It was like performance art.


is that the same helen s who was  west mids organiser in the early nineties?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> is that the same helen s who was  west mids organiser in the early nineties?



I don't think so. Too young.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2013)

dominion said:


> That they wanted to keep this secret bothers me.



The people you are criticising here are the people who stood by the complainant and put their own jobs and friendships at risk in so doing. If you had any idea what you are talking about here, you would realise that the person you are "bothered" about wrote this piece (with others) in the full knowledge that it would be put online. He now has to ask for it to be taken down, knowing that it won't be, so that SWP loyalists can't claim he leaked it.

I doubt if I agree politically with all of the views of the SWP oppositionists, but they include people who have played an admirable role in standing up for their friend. And for basic decency.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 31, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Simon F's "complaint" is quite logical. If you were in his position, wouldn't you strongly protest about the publication of his IB piece? Well, he would, wouldn't he? as someone else famously said.
> 
> While the SWP leadership have treated (at least) two women comrades appalling and sought to cover this up and, at the same time, protect Delta, this doesn't necessarily entail that the party is not a safe place for women. This is of course the Andy Newman line, but would he say the same if this awful business had occurred in the Labour Party?  I prefer Tony Collins' take on the question:
> http://socialistunity.com/swp-party...ative-comrade-delta-rape-case/#comment-669863


I think the question, is not so much is the SWP a safe place for women, it clearly isn't but nor should we expect it to be a completely safe place. The question is whether or not it is a more dangerous place than society as a whole, I would say it probably less dangerous. But it is no where near as safe as it should be given its politics. And while we cannot expect it to be a completely safe safe, we should expect it to deal with those cases that do occur far better than this.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> is that the same helen s who was  west mids organiser in the early nineties?



No this is the shouty ginger haired lass who was prominanat in anti war and globalise resistance in the early 2000s


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 31, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The people you are criticising here are the people who stood by the complainant and put their own jobs and friendships at risk in so doing.


Exactly. This point is worth repeating. If anyone has played an entirely admirable role in this whole sorry business, it is those comrades who have stood by W come what may. For what it's worth, I take my hat off to them.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 31, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The question is whether or not it is a more dangerous place than society as a whole, I would say it probably less dangerous. But it is no where near as safe as it should be given its politics. And while we cannot expect it to be a completely safe safe, we should expect it to deal with those cases that do occur far better than this.


Good point. Given everything that has happened, the SWP certainly needs to demonstrate that it is a safe place for women. This means not just mouthing off about the SWP's "proud record of fighting for women's rights bla bla bla", but -for starters - apologising publicly to the two (or more?) women concerned. Of course, this is well nigh impossible without a change of leadership...


----------



## Fedayn (Oct 31, 2013)

*Chris Coltrane* ‏@chris_coltrane10m
Big up to Sheffield Uni's occupying students, who turned away the SWP on the grounds that the occupation is a safe space for women.

 Retweeted by Owen Jones

 Reply 
 Retweet 
 Favorite 
 More
Expand


----------



## J Ed (Oct 31, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> *Chris Coltrane* ‏@chris_coltrane10m
> Big up to Sheffield Uni's occupying students, who turned away the SWP on the grounds that the occupation is a safe space for women.
> 
> Retweeted by Owen Jones
> ...



I wonder if this is just a policy thing cos there must be a grand total of 1 SWP student left... I can't imagine they turned many away.

Btw this is quite good if you want to follow the actions at sheffield uni today http://forgetoday.com/staff-strikes-2013/


----------



## Once red (Oct 31, 2013)

Funny as it is that the occupiers turned the SWP away, I do find all this 'safe space for women' stuff a bit kind of patronising/insulting- to women, I mean. I sometimes think it is one step away from suggesting that women need to be in a little tea shop somewhere away from those naughty menfolk. Or worse, that women need 'good men' to protect them. Or like 'Some people think that little girls should be seen and not heard- and have safe spaces made for them' Hmmmm....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Once red said:


> Funny as it is that the occupiers turned the SWP away, I do find all this 'safe space for women' stuff a bit kind of patronising/insulting- to women, I mean. I sometimes think it is one step away from suggesting that women need to be in a little tea shop somewhere away from those naughty menfolk. Or worse, that women need 'good men' to protect them. Or like 'Some people think that little girls should be seen and not heard- and have safe spaces made for them' Hmmmm....


Who says it was blokes stopping them coming in? It's not a gender segregation issue in the slightest.


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I wonder if this is just a policy thing cos there must be a grand total of 1 SWP student left... I can't imagine they turned many away.


the original tweet did say 'A Socialist Worker Party member...'

her next one was then "A female activist told him: "this is a safe space, we support women, we do not welcome rape apology"


----------



## Once red (Oct 31, 2013)

Ah fair enough then. They're going to get that everywhere- party's over.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2013)

The language used is a bit peculiar, unless they were trying to imply that this particular SWP student poses a safety threat. The basic point behind it, that they don't want to work with SWP loyalists, is at this point pretty much par for the course. They are getting that in a lot of contexts.


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The language used is a bit peculiar, unless they were trying to imply that this particular SWP student poses a safety threat.


most likely its just poorly precised to fit into a 140 character (inc hashtag) tweet


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> most likely its just poorly precised to fit into a 140 character (inc hashtag) tweet



I suspect not. The "safe space" terminology is quite often thrown at SWP types on twitter.


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I suspect not. The "safe space" terminology is quite often thrown at SWP types on twitter.


Oh, 'safe space' and 'rape apology' were both uttered I'm sure


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Regardless of use, the feeding grounds are now gone. Where to pull in members from? Unionists? Nope? non-student anti-fascists? Possibly? Working class kids? Not a fucking chance.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Regardless of use, the feeding grounds are now gone. Where to pull in members from? Unionists? Nope? non-student anti-fascists? Possibly? Working class kids? Not a fucking chance.



The Sheffield universities are a bit of a special case in that, as I understand it, there are two large ex-SWSS groups and just one active SWP student. I doubt if they will consistently come up against this sort of ban where there aren't organised groups that are ferociously hostile to them. But more generally, I agree with your point. They can recruit the raw at freshers fairs (where they aren't banned), but Google has a long and unkind memory, and sooner or later the recruit is going to run into other left or feminist activists.


----------



## killer b (Oct 31, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> just one active SWP student.


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 31, 2013)

killer b said:


>



Wearing badges is not enough in days like these.


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2013)

blimey, apparently Weyman got 100 people along to their Sheffield Racism Resistance & Revolution meeting yesterday


----------



## emanymton (Oct 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> blimey, apparently Weyman got 100 people along to their Sheffield Racism Resistance & Revolution meeting yesterday


What did he use? A cattle prod?

Eta: is that a real 100 or a socialist worker 100?


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2013)

a real 100 - i was so told by the caretaker rather than any swappie.

he also told me that the local constituency tory party started meeting there earlier this year. they had 4 people at their last meeting


----------



## belboid (Nov 1, 2013)

btw, here's the lil piece from this weeks Private Eye


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 1, 2013)

Unable to keep up with the pace of events the Weakly wanker decides to contribute by providing everybody's full names rather than the initials used in the bulletins.
  How this helps anyone, except black listers and fascists is beyond me.
 Especially as the cpgb happily hide behind party names


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 1, 2013)

From Andy Newman


> If it were not for SU publishing things that people preferred we would not publish, then either none of this would have come out, or _*alternatively, the information would have come out partially and self-servingly from Weekly Worker, whichwould have discredited the information.*_
> 
> Although SWP members indulge in the conceit that I am a “sectarian” and this is a “sectarian website”, I have no interest at all in fishing in the same pool as the SWP. I am a GMB branch secretary and a prospective parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party,_ *I have no other political axes to grind, and as such there is no self-serving agenda in us publishing this stuff.*_



Tote lols


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 1, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> From Andy Newman
> 
> 
> Tote lols



Not big on self-awareness is our Andy.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 2, 2013)

The fact that he is a ppc shows the paucity of the Labour Party in Chippenham


----------



## killer b (Nov 2, 2013)

it does rather. i assume it's a safe tory seat?


----------



## Balbi (Nov 2, 2013)

Lib/Tory swinger.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2013)

what an awful thought


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 7, 2013)

discokermit said:


> funny to see the prof/kimber destroy rmp3's stupid diana bullshit. referencing zetkin.


Well my position has always been "But such a recognition is completely part of a Marxist approach which acknowledges that oppression cuts across class divisions. We point to how women are trivialised, judged and discriminated against even if they are city bankers or Tory ministers. But we go on to say that doesn’t mean that we believe that such women have a common interest in bringing down the system that breeds such inequality." that I misrepresented that position with my badly phrased initial question, is fair comment.

My intent was merely to point out they don't suffer women's oppression, in the same way working-class women suffer women's oppression. Same with racism. Which is what brought me back to this today.



> I'm glad I clarified at least I didn't intend to infer an individual's experience of verbal racism is unimportant.interestingly, while I agree with the criticism of John Barnes here http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs...acism-football-dangerous-wrong-114214077.html I can quite understand why he would be embarrassed to have his "suffering" of racism, compared to those who suffer from lynch mobs to institutionalised discrimination.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 7, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> "5 Things I Learned When Leaving The SWP"
> 
> http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=635





> So many books. So much Trotsky. All that Cliff. I had to knock through an extension in my brain in order to make room for all the books I read and, by quantity, I had good reason to think I was well read. The problem was that whilst I read a lot “within the IS tradition” I’d never been encouraged to get a broader education in case I became infected by alien ideas from other, naughty, traditions. So the works of poor old Ernest Mandel, Germaine Greer, or Hilary Wainwright barely existed, despite the fact that they are each have juicy and rich peaches that could only deepen an activist’s understanding of the world around them.


which struck me as funny as Chris Harman asked me to put Ernest Mandel recordings on the resistance MP3 website, and http://www.bookmarksbookshop.co.uk supplies books by all three quoted authors.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

Report on the ISN conference:



> While a merger with SR was rejected, a wider, broader regroupment project was agreed. This will include not only SR and the likes of Workers Power, but the anti-cuts campaign, Plan C, the Industrial Workers of the World and the Anarchist Federation - which seems speculative, to say the least. The result is not exactly dazzling for people with a principled Marxist outlook then, but it does mean the comrades in and around the ISN and the Anti-Capitalist Initiative, which were scheduled for an imminent merger, will have a breathing space until later next year. Hopefully this is going to give comrades in both groups some time for real thought, debate and critical reflection, which is obviously desperately needed.



And who would have guessed the Anti-capitalist-initiative would turn out to be yet another trot-centric group.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

Do read the last part of that report: they are debating whether they should reject or work in government coalition with reformist parties. Really.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 8, 2013)

there aren't any reformist parties though. Well maybe TUSC but not really.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

That's irrelevant really - the point is that they see whether this group of 100 or so people should enter a reformists governing coalition as something they need to debate today.

(Someone will step in here and say this will determine how they carry on their day to day political activity when working with other groups on cuts stuff for example. It won't. They will do the exact same thing they were doing before regardless of how this pointless debate is resolved which is pretty much the same as all the other similar left groups - including those who have came to different conclusions on this burning issue).


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 8, 2013)

it does look like fiddling while rome burns- they aren't in a million years going to be in the position of having to deal with that question and its not even a real question cos who are the reformist parties of the left? Respect? TUSC?

are there not more pressing issues to be addressed.


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> it does look like fiddling while rome burns- they aren't in a million years going to be in the position of having to deal with that question and its not even a real question cos who are the reformist parties of the left? Respect? TUSC?


do you think they're talking about Labour?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 8, 2013)

killer b said:


> do you think they're talking about Labour?




entryism


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

They're talking about being coalition partners as themselves with a governing reformist party. Governing reformist party. Coalition partners.


----------



## andysays (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They're talking about being coalition partners as themselves with a governing reformist party. Governing reformist party. Coalition partners.



I'm sure that's the signal Red Ed has been waiting for before he gives them a call


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 8, 2013)

I know the wisdom goes aim for the moon and you might hit the top of a lampost but really.


----------



## killer b (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They're talking about being coalition partners as themselves with a governing reformist party. Governing reformist party. Coalition partners.


they're probably thinking that, seeing as they'll be roughly the same size as the lib dems after the next election, they might as well think along the same lines as them?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do read the last part of that report: they are debating whether they should reject or work in government coalition with reformist parties. Really.



Where is it from?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Where is it from?



Oh shit, forgot the link! No wonder people were confused. Here.


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Do read the last part of that report: they are debating whether they should reject or work in government coalition with reformist parties. Really.


that isnt a conference report.  Its a report of a joint meeting between various groups - one of which (around SR) want to work with reformist parties in that way. The Seymourite wing of ISN _might_ want to go down that route, but aren't as naive as to talk about doing so at the moment


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> that isnt a conference report.  Its a report of a joint meeting between various groups - one of which (around SR) want to work with reformist parties in that way. The Seymourite wing of ISN _might_ want to go down that route, but aren't as naive as to talk about doing so at the moment


It was a report on the ISN's "politics conference". I didn't say that it was a conference report (as in the groups own report on a conference).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 8, 2013)

Do the ISG and ITO still exist matryoshka style inside Socialist Resistance?


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It was a report on the ISN's "politics conference". I didn't say that it was a conference report (as in the groups own report on a conference).


it isnt.  Its a report of 'the November 2 joint ISN-ACI-SR meeting in London’s Kings Cross,'  The conference (which they reported on the other week) made absolutely no mention of participation in bourgeois coalitions or anything of the kind


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> it isnt.  Its a report of 'the November 2 joint ISN-ACI-SR meeting in London’s Kings Cross,'  The conference (which they reported on the other week) made absolutely no mention of participation in bourgeois coalitions or anything of the kind


Yeah, you're right. _Which changes nothing_ as regards the absurd nature of such discussions.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Report on the ISN conference:
> 
> 
> 
> And who would have guessed the Anti-capitalist-initiative would turn out to be yet another trot-centric group.



Who are SR and Anti-Capitalist Initiative?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 8, 2013)

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.chekov.org/blog/very-untrendy-left


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, you're right. _Which changes nothing_ as regards the absurd nature of such discussions.


As you read it so closely, you'll realise all the people you are talking about are SR (Socialist Resistance, ex-IMG), not ISN or ACI (anti-capitalist initiative, ex-Workers Power youth plus a couple of others). Of course such discussions are absurd (except in the very vague future dreams), but they're also only being held by one group.  Which wasnt the one you said it was.


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2013)

the actual conference minutes are at http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/downloads/255-is-network-conference-bulletin-2


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> As you read it so closely, you'll realise all the people you are talking about are SR (Socialist Resistance, ex-IMG), not ISN or ACI (anti-capitalist initiative, ex-Workers Power youth plus a couple of others). Of course such discussions are absurd (except in the very vague future dreams), but they're also only being held by one group.  Which wasnt the one you said it was.


Which doesn't make any sense given that you a) pointed out it was a joint ISN-ACI-SR discussion and b) said that a leading part of ISN are keen on working with reformist parties. Are they not doing that during this meeting then or just boycotting all discussion of the issue? c) That the report suggest that many ISN members are integrated with SR and d) that ACI members intervened in the debate from the floor.


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which doesn't make any sense given that you a) pointed out it was a joint ISN-ACI-SR discussion and b) said that a leading part of ISN are keen on working with reformist parties. Are they not doing that during this meeting then or just boycotting all discussion of the issue? c) That the report suggest that many ISN members are integrated with SR and d) that ACI members intervened in the debate from the floor.


the report says only two ISN members turned up!  Which indicates the level of interest most members have about an immediate merging with SR, and of the topics that concern them. the two (or three) groups arent integrated at all, tho Tom W is quite well in as he is on the Left Unity Steering Committee.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 8, 2013)

bloody hell, glad we cleared that up.

So, any more news on the SWP?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 8, 2013)

There does seem to be considerable reluctance about merging with SR. Partly because the more radical punters in the ISN see it as accepting a kind of social democratic post-Trotskyism. And partially because SR smell of failure and small grey haired meetings.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Nov 8, 2013)

I repeat: SR = elephant cemetary. Pretty much the same deal with the USFI this side of the Atlantic.


----------



## dominion (Nov 9, 2013)

> So, any more news on the SWP?



Not as such but they have come under fire in the PCS:

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/swp-come-under-fire-in-pcs-union.html


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 9, 2013)

dominion said:


> Not as such but they have come under fire in the PCS:
> 
> http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/swp-come-under-fire-in-pcs-union.html



not having a dig at anyone but for what it's worth I think that this is weird article...

think it's fair enough and right to bring up the rape allegation... but the rest reads as red baiting ...

the author comes across as being more pissed off that they are a Trotskyist (is that a word?) party....presumably they'd have written the same thing about any party that considers itself revolutionary or an anarchist candidate that believes in a "violent revolution"...that's fair enough to believe that but it's a political argument.

The issue of rape alone should have been addressed in my opinion because ANY party that believes this behaviour is acceptable and any member of that party shouldn't be legitimised by being elected until they have corrected everything they've done wrong and made amends (imo the swp is way to fucked up to do this). 

The rest is the authors personal political beliefs and they are no more or less valid than anyone elses

Oh...and I don't get the BNP line ...


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 9, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> I'll just leave this here:
> 
> http://www.chekov.org/blog/very-untrendy-left



looks interesting. cheers.


----------



## laptop (Nov 9, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Oh...and I don't get the BNP line ...



Simply that he's an "extremist", I think.


----------



## treelover (Nov 9, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> looks interesting. cheers.


 

Some sharp observations but he goes into a bit of detail, doesn't he?


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 9, 2013)

treelover said:


> he goes into a bit of detail, doesn't he?



That was my first thought but it still looks interesting.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 9, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> but the rest reads as red baiting ...



Dominion = Howard Fuller and yes you're right to be sceptical of his "personal opinions" which are pretty much hostile the left in all its forms and tendencies.


----------



## treelover (Nov 9, 2013)

> On one occasion, in 2001 or 2002, I was part of a group delivering unsolicited anarchist newspapers to houses in the Liberties, a working class neighbourhood in South-Central Dublin.* A small boy, no more than 8 years old, spotted us from the end of the road. He instantly shouted “no social life” at us before running away*. I was both amused and alarmed – amused that an 8 year old boy should be aware of such specific details of the far left’s negative public image and alarmed as to what this said about the strength of the social stigma that we were fighting against.
> 
> http://www.chekov.org/blog/very-untrendy-left


 
Lol at this, but it sounds unlikely.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 9, 2013)

treelover said:


> Lol at this, but it sounds unlikely.


 
Have you ever been to Dublin?


----------



## dominion (Nov 9, 2013)

> Dominion = Howard Fuller and yes you're right to be sceptical of his "personal opinions" which are pretty much hostile the left in all its forms and tendencies.



The e-mail republished is by Hubert Gieschen (not that Delroy is ever interested in either the facts in getting in the way.)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2013)

dominion said:


> The e-mail republished is by Hubert Gieschen (not that Delroy is ever interested in either the facts in getting in the way.)



Run along and drown in a slurry pit, there's a good lad.


----------



## dominion (Nov 9, 2013)

> Run along and drown in a slurry pit, there's a good lad.



Pity to see the blueshirts are alive & well in Ireland.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2013)

dominion said:


> Pity to see the blueshirts are alive & well in Ireland.



National Socialism was left-wing cos it has Socialism in the name, these totalitarian movements are all the same!!! Am I right?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 9, 2013)

J Ed said:


> National Socialism was left-wing cos it has Socialism in the name, these totalitarian movements are all the same!!! Am I right?



ban everything apart from liberalism imo.

it's the only way to be sure


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2013)

Remember all those undemocratic Marxist governments in Latin America during the 20th Century which banned all opposition and suppressed the democratic desires of their people through mass murder, rape and torture just to stop them democratically electing liberal governments which could finally liberalise their economies and put their resources at the control of foreign governments and an oligarchy.


----------



## dominion (Nov 9, 2013)

This would be the 20th century of the Gulags, Stalins purges, Mao's crimes, Pol Pot, the suppression of workers across eastern Europe you are referring to?

As long as people use violence as imagery even in discussion then the threat remains.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 9, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Have you ever been to Dublin?



Indeed also Chekov and I have mutual friends and he is telling the truth, I remember lots of funny stories about their paper distribution in the Liberties.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 9, 2013)

dominion said:


> This would be the 20th century of the Gulags, Stalins purges, Mao's crimes, Pol Pot, the suppression of workers across eastern Europe you are referring to?
> 
> As long as people use violence as imagery even in discussion then the threat remains.


----------



## dominion (Nov 9, 2013)




----------



## treelover (Nov 9, 2013)

treelover said:


> Lol at this, but it sounds unlikely.


 

What a 8yr old recognising how sad these lefties were pushing leaflets that no one would read anyway, pretty sharp young kid.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 9, 2013)

treelover said:


> What a 8yr old recognising how sad these lefties were pushing leaflets that no one would read anyway, pretty sharp young kid.



He probably uses the same line on people delivering pizza hut menus.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 9, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Indeed also Chekov and I have mutual friends and he is telling the truth, I remember lots of funny stories about their paper distribution in the Liberties.




I presumed idris was chekov. i'm confused.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 9, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I presumed idris was chekov. i'm confused.


No he's not


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 10, 2013)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So, any more news on the SWP?



Birchall's tweet following the North London aggregate yesterday includes a song, the Last Time by the Rolling Stones. So things are looking predictably ominous..... Rumour has it that the loyalists were able to exclude the oppos, who represented 40% of those in attendance. Does anyone have any more news on this??


----------



## TremulousTetra (Nov 10, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Birchall's tweet following the North London aggregate yesterday includes a song, the Last Time by the Rolling Stones. So things are looking predictably ominous..... Rumour has it that the loyalists were able to exclude the oppos, who represented 40% of those in attendance. Does anyone have any more news on this??


if you like watching that, you will love watching this


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 10, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Birchall's tweet following the North London aggregate yesterday includes a song, the Last Time by the Rolling Stones. So things are looking predictably ominous..... Rumour has it that the loyalists were able to exclude the oppos, who represented 40% of those in attendance. Does anyone have any more news on this??



Yes. In short the opposition have been turning out about a third of the people in the aggregates, and the leadership have been systematically making sure that they are not selected as conference delegates. They apparently only have 18 delegates so far nationally, out of almost 200. They are walking forward out of the trench in a line towards the machine guns.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 10, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I presumed idris was chekov. i'm confused.



Definitely not. Actually, Chekov did used to post here though.


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes. In short the opposition have been turning out about a third of the people in the aggregates, and the leadership have been systematically making sure that they are not selected as conference delegates. They apparently only have 18 delegates so far nationally, out of almost 200. They are walking forward out of the trench in a line towards the machine guns.


Where you getting this from? Not that it's at all surprising. The oppo have pretty much given up any hope of staying in all over the country it seems


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 10, 2013)

belboid said:


> Where you getting this from? Not that it's at all surprising. The oppo have pretty much given up any hope of staying in all over the country it seems



Facebook. The numbers are from Dave Renton, the general gist from a whole bunch of people. They are taking a hiding at the aggregates, and the loyalists are trying to make sure that there's only a handful at conference.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They are walking forward out of the trench in a line towards the machine guns.


Sadly, this looks very much like being the case. Apparently, 310 members have signed the opposition statement, which isn't bad at all (given that 400 odd have already walked or dropped out) . But what's the use of that when the whole process is rigged against you?


----------



## discokermit (Nov 10, 2013)

has bolshiebhoy given up on the darkside of the internet now?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 10, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> But what's the use of that when the whole process is rigged against you?



At this point the leadership doesn't even really need to rig the process. The majority of the remaining members are either rabid or head in the sand sorts. The leadership will have a majority even if they both play by the rules and are generous in allowing minority representation in terms of delegates. If they aren't generous - and they aren't - they will have a very large majority. If they are really going to the bother of actually rigging things, then its just to make a point.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 10, 2013)

Whether or not they are "rigging" the process, the decision of the leadership and loyalists to systematically stop opposionists from making it to conference, in a situation where the vote is already won, sends a message to the opposition. No compromise, no fudge, no reconciliation. The only choices remaining are permanent marginalization, falling back into line or leaving.

Many will certainly leave. It's not clear to me though to what degree there will be an organised split and where they will end up. I can't see those who want an SWP clone, minus the current leadership, getting much support. On the other hand, the ISN may already have drifted too far from the SWP politically to be attractive (also, it looks a bit shambolic organisationally).


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 10, 2013)

dominion said:


> The e-mail republished is by Hubert Gieschen (not that Delroy is ever interested in either the facts in getting in the way.)



Great, so not only do we have Howard Fullashit on here now but the rantings of Hubert Gieschen too. Life in 4TM must be dull for the gossipy old hack to deign us with his rather statuesque presence.

Perhaps picking up a few titbits to keep him onside with the chaps over at PFL.


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2013)

so many acronyms...


----------



## Oisin123 (Nov 10, 2013)

discokermit said:


> has bolshiebhoy given up on the darkside of the internet now?


Alas, the logic of the party line on the internet in general and this topic in particular is that he should stay off the forums. Hopefully, he'll roll home under the influence and be unable to resist ...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Nov 11, 2013)

No booze for me, I'm on call and have man flu.

Birchall's tweet seems to leave little doubt about the faction's direction. It's plain enough what they're going to do when they lose which probably explains the aggregate votes much better than any cc master plan.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 11, 2013)

picture the scene, a quite pub in bloomsbury, sat round a table is bolshie, callinicos and amy leather. sat behind leather is martin smith, shouting phwoar at any teenage women walking past. they look down into their pints. marxism 2014.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No booze for me, I'm on call and have man flu.
> 
> Birchall's tweet seems to leave little doubt about the faction's direction. It's plain enough what they're going to do when they lose which probably explains the aggregate votes much better than any cc master plan.



Why exactly do you think that people like Birchall and Stack have reconciled themselves to splitting from a group they dedicated their whole adult lives to?  Were they never won to IS politics?

I genuinely don't understand your point of view. Don't you understand that there's no way back for a loyalist SWP? And that if your goal is the growth of SWPish politics that the more "orthodox" elements of the opposition represent the only chance for those politics?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> At this point the leadership doesn't even really need to rig the process. The majority of the remaining members are either rabid or head in the sand sorts.


Point taken. Clearly, the Opposition missed its chance with the special conference earlier this year. They should never have accepted the rules of the game imposed by the CC (eg 6-7 minutes speaking time for faction speakers).


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 11, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Whether or not they are "rigging" the process, the decision of the leadership and loyalists to systematically stop opposionists from making it to conference, in a situation where the vote is already won, sends a message to the opposition. No compromise, no fudge, no reconciliation. The only choices remaining are permanent marginalization, falling back into line or leaving. Many will certainly leave.


Yes, that is the brutal reality and it won't have escaped the oppos. The fact that Birchall, after a lifetime of service to IS/SWP, would appear to be on his way out is perhaps indicative that a fairly large number of the 300 odd signatories to the Opposition platform will also depart en masse. Really I don't see what other option they have apart from getting themselves expelled for using the "dark side" of Internet.

Whatever the case, it's clear that after the conference what remains of the SWP will be moving in the direction of sectdom. How long before we see more splits? When will the ultra-loyalist IDOOM faction on the CC move against those they perceive to be "softies" like Alex C, Charlie K, Joseph C. Any bets??


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2013)

Latest IDOOM doc - some hilarious moments as they prepare the death

If the majority decision at conferenceon this question is not one that everyone feels they can accept then it may be  that different strategies and perspectives need to be put to the test in another organisational form. Even in this event
it is important that any parting of the ways takes place on the basis of a clear political analysis of what form of  organisation we need in the current conditions of class struggle.

ie, support us or fuck off. 

http://toast-hosting.co.uk/FACING-FUTURE-BATTLES TOGETHER.pdf


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Whatever the case, it's clear that after the conference what remains of the SWP will be moving in the direction of sectdom. How long before we see more splits? When will the ultra-loyalist IDOOM faction on the CC move against those they perceive to be "softies" like Alex C, Charlie K, Joseph C. Any bets??


IDOOM only have about three actual brain cells between them, probly just enough to recognise that they can't take on the likes of AC


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Nov 11, 2013)

is that actually an IDOOM doc? Most of those names aren't what I'd call brainless people.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> is that actually an IDOOM doc? Most of those names aren't what I'd call brainless people.



I wonder if TK holds Sheffield SWSS meetings with himself


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> is that actually an IDOOM doc? Most of those names aren't what I'd call brainless people.


No, not brainless in the sense that these are the people who are actively setting the agenda for the forthcoming purge. But yes they are brainless in that they are fast taking the SWP down the road to becoming a sect.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> is that actually an IDOOM doc? Most of those names aren't what I'd call brainless people.


really? Paul M (if its McGarr), not a fool. Sheila M - not a fool, but backed into a corner of her own making and talking tosh (her last two pieces have been awful), Talat - not an idiot, but has never made any significant contribution to the party. Gareth J, a bit of a surprise, but there you go.  Otherwise?  Its the hacks and the shouters.  Just think, in a few months time you could be in the most perfect party ever.  You and those fifty.


----------



## leyton96 (Nov 11, 2013)

belboid said:


> really? Paul M (if its McGarr), not a fool. Sheila M - not a fool, but backed into a corner of her own making and talking tosh (her last two pieces have been awful), Talat - not an idiot, but has never made any significant contribution to the party. Gareth J, a bit of a surprise, but there you go.  Otherwise?  Its the hacks and the shouters.  Just think, in a few months time you could be in the most perfect party ever.  You and those fifty.



There also seems to be a lot less names on this document compared to the 'Expel the heretics' contribution to the first IB (AKA 'Statement for our Revolutionary Party'). Notable signers from the 1st IB missing are legendary Hackney-based shouter Sasha, highly respected women's counselor Rhetta from Manchester, future Sheffield MP Maxine and well known industrial mastermind Anna in Euston.

None of these strike me as the type to go quiet or drop away from a hard hitting statement calling for a heave-ho of oppositionists. 
Are there divisions among the 'Leatherites' as well I wonder?


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> There also seems to be a lot less names on this document compared to the 'Expel the heretics' contribution to the first IB (AKA 'Statement for our Revolutionary Party'). Notable signers from the 1st IB missing are legendary Hackney-based shouter Sasha, highly respected women's counselor Rhetta from Manchester, future Sheffield MP Maxine and well known industrial mastermind Anna in Euston.
> 
> None of these strike me as the type to go quiet or drop away from a hard hitting statement calling for a heave-ho of oppositionists.
> Are there divisions among the 'Leatherites' as well I wonder?


yeah, they're actually the less nutty of the nutters.  i wonder if this is just an early draft with more names to come, or if the hardcore Leatherettes have crayoned up an even madder version of events. I suspect this lot have (finally) realised that the party will be weakened by the loss the likes of Birchall, Stack and Wilson.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 11, 2013)

belboid said:


> yeah, they're actually the less nutty of the nutters.



I am told that this is a joint "softie"/IDOOM manifesto which effectively seals the Professor's victory (if that wasn't already on the cards). Any other interpretations?


----------



## Oisin123 (Nov 11, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> I am told that this is a joint "softie"/IDOOM manifesto which effectively seals the Professor's victory (if that wasn't already on the cards). Any other interpretations?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 11, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory


Absolutely! But to quote Ian Birchall quoting Joe Strummer: the future is unwritten..... BTW Ian seems to be preparing for life after the SWP. Some good stuff here:
http://grimanddim.org/about/


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> I am told that this is a joint "softie"/IDOOM manifesto which effectively seals the Professor's victory (if that wasn't already on the cards). Any other interpretations?


Yeah, this is what I've just been discussing - keep the 'real nutters' (the Maxine's, the Rhetta's etc) are being kept away for 'tactical' reasons.

Ian's site does make a good read.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 11, 2013)

It's a split document.

The assumption underlying it is that there's another split in the post. So this is aimed at trying to keep some of the most orthoswap oppositionists and waverers. The carrot is a tendentious portrayal of the CCs stance on the second DC case and DC reform. This is intended to provide cover for people to slide back into line. The stick is the stuff about political differences, the rightward moving splits outside, etc

Swallow your medicine or it's out into the Seymouro-Reesite swamp where people have all kinds of unacceptable ideas.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Swallow your medicine or it's out into the Seymouro-Reesite swamp where people have all kinds of unacceptable ideas.


From the latest Party Notes:

_The CC argued that we need to make the aggregates as political and comradely as possible. The CC believes there must be polemical debate on the issues before us, and voting based on the politics of the candidates._
*But the CC believes there must also be a space for people to be elected who do not define themselves as members of the faction or supporters of the CC position. *(my emphasis)

If it weren't so typically cynical, I'd have a really good laugh...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Nov 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's a split document.
> 
> The assumption underlying it is that there's another split in the post. So this is aimed at trying to keep some of the most orthoswap oppositionists and waverers. The carrot is a tendentious portrayal of the CCs stance on the second DC case and DC reform. This is intended to provide cover for people to slide back into line. The stick is the stuff about political differences, the rightward moving splits outside, etc
> 
> Swallow your medicine or it's out into the Seymouro-Reesite swamp where people have all kinds of unacceptable ideas.


Actually it's better than that no? There is a passage about disagreements not being a reason to split in and of themselves. It draws the line at permanent factions around those disagreements which is a different and quite sensible position.

The party has always had people who disagree with all sorts of core theoretical points. That's cool and only a complete sectarian arse would want those people kicked out. It's the folk who are operating a party within the party around those differences and undermining its effectiveness in the real world who need to get a grip.


----------



## Oisin123 (Nov 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It's the folk who are operating a party within the party around those differences and undermining its effectiveness in the real world who need to get a grip.



Ahh, BB, can't you see this sentence applies most of all to those hard-line 'loyalists'? The UK SWP will find its effectiveness in the 'real world' massively weakened when the opposition leave, because those that remain will be considered, rightly, as the ones most associated with the cover-up of rape and sexual harassment allegations.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It's the folk who are operating a party within the party around those differences and undermining its effectiveness in the real world who need to get a grip.


that'd be the people who actually wrote the article you're praising!  Except they weren't honest enough to form an formal faction.


----------



## andysays (Nov 12, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> .


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2013)

belboid said:


> that'd be the people who actually wrote the article you're praising!  Except they weren't honest enough to form an formal faction.


They don't need to be. That's how democratic centralism works.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 14, 2013)

From latest Weekly Worker:

_The NC heard a debate around the following motion, moved by former women’s organiser and author on women’s rights, Sheila McGregor:_

“_When a complaint about rape, sexual misconduct or domestic violence is made, the DC should investigate the matter in order to decide only on the fitness of the comrade complained against to be a member of the SWP or play a leading role in the organisation, and not to make any pronouncement on the facts of the complaint.

The DC will, of course, offer support to any comrade making such a complaint in finding suitable counselling and will politically fully support the right of any comrade who wishes to take such a complaint to the police.”

After a debate comrade McGregor was prevailed upon to withdraw her motion, because it would ‘not look good’ if the NC voted against it. 
_
Pretty abject if true... Wasn't Sheila M supposed to be mediating between IdooM and the opposition?


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 14, 2013)

Professor Frankenstein creates a monster, but what happens when the monster proves bigger than the professor and refuses to lie back down on the slab when the noisy villagers have buggered off


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 15, 2013)

According to Dave Rentons blog, the forthcoming IB3 contains an article calling for the reinstatement of Delta.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to Dave Rentons blog, the forthcoming IB3 contains an article calling for the reinstatement of Delta.


Some good lines in the latest entry:

"we appear to have taken over the old political and organisational habits of late British Stalinism...At Marxism, Alex Callinicos formulated a series of ad hoc political justifications for administrative measures – accusing... Ian Birchall of not having read Ian’s own books".

And yes, he says in the comments the article for smith's return appears in IB3.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 16, 2013)

A claim on twitter that Renton has been expelled. Not sure of the reliability.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A claim on twitter that Renton has been expelled. Not sure of the reliability.


He says he hasn't heard about it (which doesn't necessarily mean that he hasn't been expelled...)


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 16, 2013)

Michael Rosen on Facebook:
_How left group or party politics 'works' in microcosm: when I posted political stuff here, SWP members often 'liked'. Then I criticised the way in which the SWP handled a sexual harrassment and rape accusation to the effect that it was crazy and wrong for them to think they were an organisation who could deliver a judgement on the case. The leadership explained to the members that they shouldn't take any notice of Rosen because he's not a Leninist and he says thst the Party should 'support' people who go to the police - (I hadn:t said that). So now loyal members show their loyalty by making sure they don't 'like' my posts. This is not a plea that they should. It is to point out that it's not my politics that's changed. It's theirs. They got it wrong. They thought they were better or cleverer or more astute than they are and instead of admitting it they have been attacking anyone who has pointed this out to them. Some have admitted to me in private that it's a matter of defending the indefensible. Yes, and that's why they've blown it. As an organisation its whole future depends on it being trusted by people other than its own members. And now it isn't. That's how they've blown it. And yet they are still behaving as people being critical of their mistakes are as much the enemy of the eft and progress as Tories or worse._


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 16, 2013)

Hugely glad I never considered joining this party. What a complete bunch of insane bonkersness .....


----------



## Bakunin (Nov 16, 2013)

The new SWP PR honcho, yesterday:


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Nov 16, 2013)

Funny but I met nobody on the Exeter anti edl demo today who wanted to talk about this. Plenty of people from Labour who were glad of the swp and the work it was doing through uaf. But nobody who came running up to the SW seller I was chatting to to demand he reinstate the 'Like all Rosen FB posts' policy immediately or face ostracism.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Funny but I met nobody on the Exeter anti edl demo today who wanted to talk about this. Plenty of people from Labour who were glad of the swp and the work it was doing through uaf. But nobody who came running up to the SW seller I was chatting to to demand he reinstate the 'Like all Rosen FB posts' policy immediately or face ostracism.


fifty papers sold and three people joined the party!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Nov 17, 2013)

Quite probably disco. I didn't see much of the rally after we'd marched, I wandered off to shout at the orcs.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 17, 2013)

haha bolshie you're fucking delusional


----------



## Belushi (Nov 17, 2013)

What happens to people with Stockholm syndrome once even their captors stop believing in the party line?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But nobody who came running up to the SW seller I was chatting to to demand he reinstate the 'Like all Rosen FB posts' policy immediately or face ostracism.


I think the point Michael Rosen is making is the following: the leadership has criticised him, so supporters of the current CC show their "loyalty" by unliking his posts. This is not so much a policy as a reflex action. Probably, many of these members would accept (in private) that the leadership lied and covered up for Delta. However, they put what they perceive to be the interests of the party first and "defend the indefensible". As Michael says: "That's how they've blown it".


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Funny but I met nobody on the Exeter anti edl demo today who wanted to talk about this. Plenty of people from Labour who were glad of the swp and the work it was doing through uaf. But nobody who came running up to the SW seller I was chatting to to demand he reinstate the 'Like all Rosen FB posts' policy immediately or face ostracism.


Is that jack straws labour party...where its ok to spread shit about muslim women in burkas being scary to him so he can get the racist vote?
Or is that the blunket labour party where he can blame Romanians for crime?
How proud you must be...presumably you were so happy to have made new friends you didnt bother to voice any concerns about their parties disgraceful pandering to racism which only ever helps the right wing and fascist groups.
This aint an issue of michael rosen having a hissy fit ...it is about the swp covering up for a leading male member who was accused of rape and sexual harassment...it is people like you that miss the point at best and at worst continue to trivalise a very serious issue.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 17, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Is that jack straws labour party...where its ok to spread shit about muslim women in burkas being scary to him so he can get the racist vote?
> Or is that the blunket labour party where he can blame Romanians for crime?
> How proud you must be...presumably you were so happy to have made new friends you didnt bother to voice any concerns about their parties disgraceful pandering to racism which only ever helps the right wing and fascist groups.
> This aint an issue of michael rosen having a hissy fit ...it is about the swp covering up for a leading male member who was accused of rape and sexual harassment...it is people like you that miss the point at best and at worst continue to trivalise a very serious issue.


Oh come on now BB was happily a member of the Labour Party for ages before the SWP proved itself a happier place for rapistsand their fans


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 17, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Is that jack straws labour party...where its ok to spread shit about muslim women in burkas being scary to him so he can get the racist vote?
> Or is that the blunket labour party where he can blame Romanians for crime?
> How proud you must be...presumably you were so happy to have made new friends you didnt bother to voice any concerns about their parties disgraceful pandering to racism which only ever helps the right wing and fascist groups.
> This aint an issue of michael rosen having a hissy fit ...it is about the swp covering up for a leading male member who was accused of rape and sexual harassment...it is people like you that miss the point at best and at worst continue to trivalise a very serious issue.



I have no time for the Labour Party what so ever but to my mind there is nothing wrong with a discussion about the impact of wearing the burka or indeed the involvement of Romanians in crime.The BNP actually exploited the perception that they were the only party who would allow discussion on those issues. Gordon Browns cursing of that woman during the election campaign who raised immigration wasn't seen as standing up to racism but refusing to acknowledge her, and millions of others, concerns.
What really helped the far right was that the Labour Party fucked over and ignored working class communities.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 17, 2013)

"A discussion about". What an interesting way to describe Straw and Blunkett's  intent.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Funny but I met nobody on the Exeter anti edl demo today who wanted to talk about this. Plenty of people from Labour who were glad of the swp and the work it was doing through uaf. But nobody who came running up to the SW seller I was chatting to to demand he reinstate the 'Like all Rosen FB posts' policy immediately or face ostracism.


As long as no one has found about it all is good.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Funny but I met nobody on the Exeter anti edl demo today who wanted to talk about this. Plenty of people from Labour who were glad of the swp and the work it was doing through uaf. But nobody who came running up to the SW seller I was chatting to to demand he reinstate the 'Like all Rosen FB posts' policy immediately or face ostracism.



Why would anyone bring it up then even if they did know about it? When it is advantageous and you aren't busy carrying their bags Labour Party members will definitely revel in it and exploit it, as at last year's NUS conference where the few remaining SWP stragglers (and sadly the rest of the left by association) were absolutely hammered in the election by the rape cover by right-wing Labour students.

Also, what the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## dominion (Nov 17, 2013)

> "A discussion about". What an interesting way to describe Straw and Blunkett's intent.



This article in Fitnah with an Algerian feminist is a bit long, but worth reading to cover the issue of the veil (and related issuess) question:

http://fitnah.org/fitnah_articles_english/interview_M_H_Lucas.html


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 17, 2013)

IB3 must be due?


----------



## discokermit (Nov 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> IB3 must be due?


irritable bowel 3


----------



## benedict (Nov 17, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> I think the point Michael Rosen is making is the following: the leadership has criticised him, so supporters of the current CC show their "loyalty" by unliking his posts. This is not so much a policy as a reflex action. Probably, many of these members would accept (in private) that the leadership lied and covered up for Delta. However, they put what they perceive to be the interests of the party first and "defend the indefensible". As Michael says: "That's how they've blown it".



It reads more like sour grapes to me. Rosen was a staunch defender of the CC's line early in this saga. He has always been highly sectarian in his comments online in defence of the party centre. At some point - pretty late on - during this crisis he decided it was time to jump ship. Now he finds himself outside of the party's embrace and subject to the usual sectarian operating procedures of its foot-soldiers. Now he's upset because they're not liking his Facebook posts? Well, tough shit Michael. You reap what you sow etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Yep. That's a lesson he needs to take away. It's one that most other people learn after a few months engagement.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 17, 2013)

benedict said:


> Rosen was a staunch defender of the CC's line early in this saga.



I'm not really inclined to have much sympathy for the sort of left wing non-members the SWP find useful for a period and then turn on, and that goes for Rosen as much as the rest, but I don't think this is actually true.

I don't recall seeing Rosen wheel out the CC line on this at any point. Iirc, his early approach seemed to consist more of befuddlement then anything else.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 17, 2013)

benedict said:


> It reads more like sour grapes to me. Rosen was a staunch defender of the CC's line early in this saga. He has always been highly sectarian in his comments online in defence of the party centre. At some point - pretty late on - during this crisis he decided it was time to jump ship. Now he finds himself outside of the party's embrace and subject to the usual sectarian operating procedures of its foot-soldiers. Now he's upset because they're not liking his Facebook posts? Well, tough shit Michael. You reap what you sow etc.


I maybe cynical but while I am sure that Rosen, Seymour and Mieville all have genuine reasons for their opposition to the CC line a desire to defend their public careers must have entered their minds.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

None of their professional careers are tied to that. You have this back to front.

And you are doubting the reasons for their opposition. What did you do?


----------



## laptop (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> None of their professional careers are tied to that.



'Scuse me if I have your comment back to front: but Rosen's career as a children's author can be damaged by the CC line, yes?


E2A: this is not to support any accusation that those dissenting from the CC line are "careerist" or any other such defamation.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Not now, nor the others. But i was trying to say the opposite.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't recall seeing Rosen wheel out the CC line on this at any point. Iirc, his early approach seemed to consist more of befuddlement then anything else.



For the record, Rosen wrote the following in his blog in March of this year:
_The first I heard of the present crisis in the SWP was two years ago and what I thought was a malicious rumour put on the Socialist Unity website. I replied with a flip joke, precisely because I thought it was a kind of libellous sneer. I couldn't have been more wrong. 
_
Fair enough as far as I'm concerned. He made a big mistake and he admits it. Precisely, what the SWP leadership as they hurtle lemming like towards the cliff (sorry about the unintended pun!) are unwilling or unable to do.

_
_


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 17, 2013)

I don't think that CC loyalism, as long as they were quiet about it, had much potential to damage the - well established and not directly political - careers of a Rosen or a Mieville in any significant way. It might have got Rosen taunted off twitter or something. 

Seymour, as a directly political writer, much less well established in his career and much more prominent as an SWPer, might have been more vulnerable. But I really don't think that there's any reason to doubt that he was genuinely outraged.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> For the record, Rosen wrote the following in his blog in March of this year:
> The first I heard of the present crisis in the SWP was two years ago and what I thought was a malicious rumour put on the Socialist Unity website. I replied with a flip joke, precisely because I thought it was a kind of libellous sneer. I couldn't have been more wrong.
> 
> Fair enough as far as I'm concerned. He made a big mistake and he admits it. Precisely, what the SWP leadership as they hurtle lemming like towards the cliff (sorry about the unintended pun!) are unwilling or unable to do.


Misses all between. Suggest that he didn't react in-between. And he did. He acted as an honest attack dog. Blood on his jaws.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Misses all between. Suggest that he didn't react in-between. And he did. He acted as an honest attack dog.



Really? Is my memory going or something?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Misses all between. Suggest that he didn't react in-between. And he did. He acted as an honest attack dog.


One thing is being uncritical when the opposite approach is required, another is being an "attack dog". Where's your evidence for this??


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> For the record, Rosen wrote the following in his blog in March of this year:
> _The first I heard of the present crisis in the SWP was two years ago and what I thought was a malicious rumour put on the Socialist Unity website. I replied with a flip joke, precisely because I thought it was a kind of libellous sneer. I couldn't have been more wrong.
> _
> Fair enough as far as I'm concerned. He made a big mistake and he admits it. Precisely, what the SWP leadership as they hurtle lemming like towards the cliff (sorry about the unintended pun!) are unwilling or unable to do.





Karmickameleon said:


> One thing is being uncritical when the opposite approach is required, another is being an "attack dog". Where's your evidence for this??


Any person suggesting that any one has any right to even ask a question was a sectarian shit stirrer. Do you not remember this? Did he only respond with that flip joke? How did he respond to other people warning the members and the periphery of what was coming?


----------



## laptop (Nov 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think that CC loyalism, as long as they were quiet about it, had much potential to damage the - well established and not directly political - careers of a Rosen or a Mieville in any significant way.



Probably the point should not be laboured much more: but I was looking at this outside the framework of party politics. Rosen writes _for children_. Perception of rape-apology is not far from perception of noncery.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't think that CC loyalism, as long as they were quiet about it, had much potential to damage the - well established and not directly political - careers of a Rosen or a Mieville in any significant way. It might have got Rosen taunted off twitter or something.
> 
> Seymour, as a directly political writer, much less well established in his career and much more prominent as an SWPer, might have been more vulnerable. But I really don't think that there's any reason to doubt that he was genuinely outraged.


Just me being overly cynical I think, that and I don't especially like Seymour, and Mieville. I have never doubted their genuine outrage, more the speed with which they broke completely with the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

You have a large piece by the former on  his long break on his own site. Don't copy the apologists stuff by accident, by repetition.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Any person suggesting that any one has any right to even ask a question was a sectarian shit stirrer. Do you not remember this? Did he only respond with that flip joke? How did he respond to other people warning the members and the periphery of what was coming?


We can only judge what he said publicly. Clearly he made a mistake in his SU comment in 2011, but since then in his public pronouncements he has -IMHO- more than made up for that error and, what's more, has been the target of the real attack dogs (eg. Nick G). 
I think the same is true of Hannah D, who made even more mistakes than Rosen. But in IB2 she provides a self-critical and, what I take to be, an honest account of events. What more can we ask for? Surely you should direct your criticisms at those who covered up and continue to lie about it.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You have a large piece by the former on  his long break on his own site. Don't copy the apologists stuff by accident, by repetition.


Yeah, your right. Just my personal dislike coming through.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Can do both. There are two aspects to this - the outside support used to shut down debate 'legitimately' - which rosen did year on year - and the inside support. There might even have been some relation between the two! But now for michael the role he played isn't up for discussion?


----------



## redcogs (Nov 17, 2013)

Michael Rosen intervened a few times over at Lenny'sTomb.  His tone and general line favoured giving the CC the benefit of the doubt, and he seemed to be opposed to non SWP members even remarking upon the unfolding crisis, and when challenged refused to clarify.  Its all up there on the Tomb, so there can no hiding from the fact that he was very slow to recognise implications..

Presumably his defence would be that the Delta catastrophe was yet another sectarian attack from the usual suspects.  Presumably he was also at that stage being misadvised and/or misled by his Party contacts  (whom he (foolishly)trusted).  

Still, each of us make blunders.  At least he is now onboard for justice and decency in left politics, so good on him.

Far more serious is the position of those who have deliberately cultivated an image of radical reform within the SWP,  but who have capitulated to the disgusting machinations of the lying toerags at the centre and in the upper levels.  People like Molyneux for example.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But now for michael the role he played isn't up for discussion?



What's important is the role is he's playing now, which I think is very positive. He admitted his mistake and, if the party leadership were capable of doing the same thing, they would a) apologise to the women concerned b) resign. In that case, the slow motion car crash that we are currently witnessing could be averted. Of course, this ain't gonna happen...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> What's important is the role is he's playing now, which I think is very positive. He admitted his mistake and, if the party leadership were capable of doing the same thing, they would a) apologise to the women concerned b) resign. In that case, the slow motion car crash that we are currently witnessing could be averted. Of course, this ain't gonna happen...


Important to who and why? Not to me, he'd do the same shit over coming years before realising he had the wool pulled over again. Did you mistake me for someone who wanted the SWP to exist after this?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 17, 2013)

I totally agree.


redcogs said:


> Presumably he was also at that stage being misadvised and/or misled by his Party contacts  (whom he (foolishly)trusted).


This might explain his public falling out with John Rose ....


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Why would anyone bring it up then even if they did know about it? When it is advantageous and you aren't busy carrying their bags Labour Party members will definitely revel in it and exploit it, as at last year's NUS conference where the few remaining SWP stragglers (and sadly the rest of the left by association) were absolutely hammered in the election by the rape cover by right-wing Labour students.
> 
> Also, what the fuck is wrong with you?



They tried to do this in the Library campaigns in SheffieLd too. When me and a mate were giving one of their counciLors a hard time over it one of them, assuming we were SWP, repLied that members of a party that tried to cover up a rape by a senior member didn't have any right to criticise. Suffice to say we toLd them in no uncertain terms that we weren't members. 

(Sorry about the capitaL L's, the L key on my keyboard is knackered so I'm having to c&p an L in whenever I need to type one and I can't be arsed to change it to Lower case)


----------



## emanymton (Nov 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> They tried to do this in the Library campaigns in SheffieLd too. When me and a mate were giving one of their counciLors a hard time over it one of them, assuming we were SWP, repLied that members of a party that tried to cover up a rape by a senior member didn't have any right to criticise. Suffice to say we toLd them in no uncertain terms that we weren't members.
> 
> (Sorry about the capitaL L's, the L key on my keyboard is knackered so I'm having to c&p an L in whenever I need to type one and I can't be arsed to change it to Lower case)


I had problems with the L on my keyboard as well, so I downloaded some software to remap my keyboad and turnded my hash key into a second L (don't think I have ever needed the hash key). Took  a bit of time to get used to, but probably better than C+P every time. I 'll see if I can find the software.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I had problems with the L on my keyboard as well, so I downloaded some software to remap my keyboad and turnded my hash key into a second L (don't think I have ever needed the hash key). Took  a bit of time to get used to, but probably better than C+P every time. I 'll see if I can find the software.


This is the one, not sure I got it from that website though. 

http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/KeyTweak.shtml


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This is the one, not sure I got it from that website though.
> 
> http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/KeyTweak.shtml



Cheers mate!


----------



## benedict (Nov 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not really inclined to have much sympathy for the sort of left wing non-members the SWP find useful for a period and then turn on, and that goes for Rosen as much as the rest, but I don't think this is actually true.
> 
> I don't recall seeing Rosen wheel out the CC line on this at any point. Iirc, his early approach seemed to consist more of befuddlement then anything else.



Fair enough, that was exaggeration.  His whole line of argument was less staunch defence but, as butchers says, that non-members should keep their noses out. By mid-March he was prepared to admit that mistakes had been made but now was the time for a wait and see policy.


----------



## Oisin123 (Nov 18, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Just me being overly cynical I think, that and I don't especially like Seymour, and Mieville. I have never doubted their genuine outrage, more the speed with which they broke completely with the SWP.


You seem to be suggesting that they should have moved more slowly. In my view, those who moved into opposition first deserve a great deal of respect. It was the hardest step to take and once they made it, the ability of everyone else to think the unthinkable was suddenly a great deal easier.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

There's a real damaging residue of the idea of 'stay and fight' that i think must have developed in the mid 20s around the debates whether to split with the official Communist parties. It really hampers organisations by fostering a fake unity that opens up the possibility of recuperation via one method or another. Fight yes, not on the ground your opponent has chosen. It doesn't make you any less serious to take a proper critical look at the lay of the land and place your troops accordingly.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

I tend to agree with that. If you are in a losing position, you "stay and fight" to the degree that you think it will help you bring more with you. But often it's treated as if it was some kind of moral imperative rather than a tactical call. If you think that winning is a possibility, you stay and fight with different ends in mind, but its still a tactical assessment.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

Any sightings of IB3?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Any sightings of IB3?



Nope, but the usual requests for copies have started doing the rounds amongst ISN types on Facebook.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Nope, but the usual requests for copies have started doing the rounds amongst ISN types on Facebook.


Ta. Shouldn't be too long then.

Let's see if the running man is running home.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

I'd leak the latest English SP members bulletin (on the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall again) to fill in the time while we wait for SWP IB3, but really I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2013)

I was reading about that in Revolutionary Perspectives- I'm a little too dim with theory to grasp which side the rev spec people fall on and what the argument is really about.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I was reading about that in Revolutionary Perspectives- I'm a little too dim with theory to grasp which side the rev spec people fall on and what the argument is really about.



It's not the sort of issue that an activist group needs a "position" on, and it is bizarre that the CWI is having a semi-factional row about it, as opposed to holding a couple of seminars and publishing a few magazine articles debating different points of view for those members with an interest.

I'm not particularly bothered about having to read up on a rather technical issue of Marxist theory, even if it isn't an area I'd dream of prioritising under other circumstances. But I'm deeply sceptical of the usefulness of having a whole bunch of people who will mostly have a limited grasp of the intricacies of the issues in question debate them in factional terms.

(This is my general view on questions of an analytical or historic nature, rather than questions that bear directly on programme, strategy or tactics. It's just more obviously wrongheaded when the issue is this technical)


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2013)

on a related note Frogwoman (who follows these things) has mentioned to me that amongst SP facebook/blogs/etc there has been some rumblings of 'We shouldn't be having these arguments in public' from some quarters- as if in the wake of deltagate parties need to keep dirty laundry private. Which seems to me the direct opposite of the 'lesson' to be learned from the whole sorry saga.


edit to respond to your edit


and when its over a complex theoretical issue rather than actual dirty laundry then why would anyone care if it was done in public anyway?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> on a related note Frogwoman (who follows these things) has mentioned to me that amongst SP facebook/blogs/etc there has been some rumblings of 'We shouldn't be having these arguments in public' from some quarters- as if in the wake of deltagate parties need to keep dirty laundry private. Which seems to me the direct opposite of the 'lesson' to be learned from the whole sorry saga.



Not quite. Militant used to have a view that members should defend the "line" in public and debate it internally. The SP, by contrast, doesn't have that sort of rule, and has explicitly said that trying to push members into all singing from the same hymn book is impossible and counterproductive, particularly when it comes to things like Facebook, blogs etc. The direction of travel has consistently been towards a more and more laissez faire attitude, the further entryism recedes into the distance (there are sensible reasons for entryism to encourage a tendency towards keeping your trap shut)

However, that tolerance wouldnt extend to actively trying to undermine some campaign or action of the organisation. And more importantly there is still a strong cultural pressure not to actually put the boot into the organisation in public. Which is different from saying you dont agree with it. And in this particular row, the main reason why the whole thing is semi-factional as opposed to educational is that the member who was the driving force behind the initial argument has been using his blog to roundly and personally ridicule people he doesn't agree with. This has predictably got other people's backs up. And without taking sides on the substantial issue - because I haven't done the reading yet - I have a lot of sympathy with the view that this is entirely inappropriate. Not the public disagreement, but the tone and personal abuse. It also means that some people aren't drawing that distinction and just want him to shut up entirely, which I also disagree with. Either way,this has nothing to do with lessons drawn from the SWPs row.

Short version: it's not public disagreement on a very technical area of theory that's the problem.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 18, 2013)

I see what you are saying. Just to clarify the inference that these issues of 'lets not do this in public' is a reaction to deltagate was mine not Frogwomans. I've heard about the whole open turn thing and assumed that to be part of (or rather the beginning of) what you describe as increasingly lassaiz faire stuff. It's what I'd see as healthy myself, a culture of open questioning and debate within a party. I do understand that presenting what looks like a house divided might also trouble people. Just from the standpoint of 'fight whats important not ourselves', the issues that face _society_ are more important so...


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not the sort of issue that an activist group needs a "position" on, and it is bizarre that the CWI is having a semi-factional row about it, as opposed to holding a couple of seminars and publishing a few magazine articles debating different points of view for those members with an interest.
> 
> I'm not particularly bothered about having to read up on a rather technical issue of Marxist theory, even if it isn't an area I'd dream of prioritising under other circumstances. But I'm deeply sceptical of the usefulness of having a whole bunch of people who will mostly have a limited grasp of the intricacies of the issues in question debate them in factional terms.
> 
> (This is my general view on questions of an analytical or historic nature, rather than questions that bear directly on programme, strategy or tactics. It's just more obviously wrongheaded when the issue is this technical)


tho the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall _does_ have key programmatic implications.  I assume the critic is condemning the SP's 'underconsumptionism' -  a heinous belief which takes you straight to Keynesianism.


----------



## love detective (Nov 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> (This is my general view on questions of an analytical or historic nature, rather than questions that bear directly on programme, strategy or tactics. It's just more obviously wrongheaded when the issue is this technical)



You seem to be suggesting that the argument in question is purely over some minor theoretical technical position?

The political implications in terms of programme, strategy or tactics are quite considerable I would say. Taaffe and co are as near as dam it to coming out with an underconsumptionist position that rejects the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as being the ultimate essence behind crisis and posit all kinds of other reasons for the crisis (although their arguments and articles are so badly researched, written and thought through that it's often difficult to work out exactly what they are trying to say), the political implications of this are somewhat profound, ranging from the notion that everything would be OK if Labour was paid a bit more by Capital and that it's only neoliberalism and financialised capitalism that are to blame here, not the essence of the capital/labour relation itself. Quite profound implications I would say.

edit: belboid beat me to it


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 18, 2013)

Yeah I know it seems like arcane Marxist jargon fetishism but it actually does matter. Are the SP a Keynesian liberal and/or democratic sociailist party trying to make capitalism work better for the working class by adopting some Krugmanite type of position, or are you a properply revolutionary Marxist organisation who doesn't see that as an escape route for capitalism?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

No. It is perfectly possible to hold any given set of programmatic positions alongside any position on the relationship of the TRPF to the current crisis, as long as you don't reject the idea that capitalism is inherently prone to crisis.

Peter Taaffe is wrong to suggest that the view which prioritises the TRPF as a proximate cause leads automatically to one solution revolution infantilism. His opponents are wrong to suggest that a position which views the TRPF as one cause amongst a number leads automatically to Keynsianism.

As for the argument that "proper Marxists" don't see an "escape route for capitalism", that kind of final-crisis mongering doesn't follow from either position. There is always a way out for capitalism. Generally by crucifying the working class.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

I see by the way that there's been a minor row in the NCAFC today, with a few people resigning. They are having a debate around privilege theory at their conference. Some of its advocates were irritated by it being a debate rather than a positive presentation with "non derailing" questions because hetciswhitedudes would start going on about Marxism. And it spiralled from there.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Nov 18, 2013)

Yeah, all the economics you need for the non-labourite programmatic conclusions is a) capitalism can never escape crisis for long, and b) exploitation is inherent to capitalist production. Most of the rest on TRPF is fanatacism, though there's some interesting philosophy of political economy type stuff in there. A lot of  outrage over "keynesianism" gets thrown around in the process, occassionally with justification. Just on the off chance that anyone's interested whilst waiting for IB3......personally I'm still waiting for the reply Kliman promised me here http://www.newleftproject.org/index...ork_zombie_social_democracy_with_a_human_face


----------



## J Ed (Nov 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see by the way that there's been a minor row in the NCAFC today, with a few people resigning. They are having a debate around privilege theory at their conference. Some of its advocates were irritated by it being a debate rather than a positive presentation with "non derailing" questions because hetciswhitedudes would start going on about Marxism. And it spiralled from there.



I followed that 'discussion' a bit, it just seemed like a number of people accusing each other of sexism etc?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I followed that 'discussion' a bit, it just seemed like a number of people accusing each other of sexism etc?


https://www.facebook.com/events/318165494986815/?ref=ts&fref=ts

Second thread down on that event page. Riveting in much the same way as a hideous industrial accident.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

Also, its particularly funny to see the AWL, who have been entirely cynically pushing the idea that the rest of the left is sexist because they think they can gain from doing so, getting bitten by this. Following on from the whole primitive Desert tribes thing.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Also, its particularly funny to see the AWL, who have been entirely cynically pushing the idea that the rest of the left is sexist because they think they can gain from doing so, getting bitten by this. Following on from the whole primitive Desert tribes thing.



I thought that too, bit of a monster of their own making?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I thought that too, bit of a monster of their own making?



Yes. If you read their conference documents, they talk about these issues pretty straightforwardly in terms of the opportunities they present, the cynical fucks. But of course the more they pander to anti-left sentiment of that sort, the more vulnerable they are to the same shit.


----------



## kavenism (Nov 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> https://www.facebook.com/events/318165494986815/?ref=ts&fref=ts
> 
> Second thread down on that event page. Riveting in much the same way as a hideous industrial accident.


Fuck sake, reading that thread makes me want to gouge my own eyeballs out with an ice-cream scoop. Drop the bomb.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

I am, by the way, very disappointed in the inability of the SWP apparatus to get a bulletin out on time. Standards are slipping, and as a result we've been left with nothing to discuss but the most boring factional dispute in the history of the socialist left and worse still the fucking AWL.

I'm seriously tempted to email them a complaint.


----------



## Aargh (Nov 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> https://www.facebook.com/events/318165494986815/?ref=ts&fref=ts
> 
> Second thread down on that event page. Riveting in much the same way as a hideous industrial accident.



Of course it's not just theoretical, the SP is having it's own SWP-style crisis (public relations-wise at least) over domestic violence allegedly commited by Steve Hedley http://carolineleneghan.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/3/ to a lot of feminists they are despised virtually as much as the SWP. http://living-in-the-real-world1871.../dividing-class-at-tory-party-conference.html


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

Aargh said:


> Of course it's not just theoretical, the SP is having it's own SWP-style crisis (public relations-wise at least)



No, it really isn't. As Steve Hedley wasn't in the SP when the alleged incident took place and resigned as soon as the allegation was made public, the SP has very little to do with the issue.

That the AWL and a very small number of the kind of feminists who are very hostile to socialist groups have tried to use the incident to damage the SP rather than to go after the RMT, which he is a senior leader of and which actually dealt with the complaint, is revealing however. Isn't it?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 18, 2013)

You think there's any chance they might try and let Steve rejoin at some point in the future Nigel? 

There were statements by the SP along the lines of "we look forward to working with Steve in the future" which hardly inspires confidence. 

Not to mention even though Steve wasn't a member, he was considered as an unofficial member for a long time prior to him actually officially joining wasn't he? Could it be that he's simply reverted back to this "unofficially/informally a member" sort of status? 

They might have dealt with the issue infinitely more decisively than the SWP but that's a pretty low standard to judge yourself by.

As for the RMT, that is a good point. They've got more questions to answer than the SP over this imo as they were the ones who did the investigation.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> You think there's any chance they might try and let Steve rejoin at some point in the future Nigel?



I've no reason to think that he has any intention of applying to rejoin. It would hardly be a good idea from his own point of view.

As for having "questions to answer", the RMT dealt with the complaint and its the RMT he's a leader of. If anyone has reason to think that they dealt with the issue badly, the obvious response would be to take it up with them. But oddly that isn't the approach the likes of the AWL take. Strange that.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 18, 2013)

It's good to distract from your organisations own inadequacies by smearing another by association. Isn't is aargh?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've no reason to think that he has any intention of applying to rejoin. It would hardly be a good idea from his own point of view.



Good glad to hear it.

The only other concern I have is that even though he's no longer technically a member it's possible he still acts and operates as a de facto one.

For instance I got an email from the Socialist Party informing me than he and Martin-Powell Davies had gone on a fact finding mission to Turkey together some time June/July I think. Although it wasn't on behalf of or formally representing the SP or anything, it's a bit worrying to see his name popping up on Socialist Party emails like that.

SP members need to keep vigilant make sure he's not allowed anywhere near the party or it's operations unless he can unequivocally clear his name (which, in the circumstances, I think is unlikely)


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> SP members need to keep vigilant make sure he's not allowed anywhere near the party or it's operations unless he can unequivocally clear his name (which, in the circumstances, I think is unlikely)



He's a senior left wing union leader in a union the SP works with. He's not an "unofficial member", nor does the SP have such a thing.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He's a senior left wing union leader in a union the SP works with. He's not an "unofficial member", nor does the SP have such a thing.



Sounds a bit like "we're just a newspaper" to me mate, but all the same I'll take your word for it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 18, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Sounds a bit like "we're just a newspaper" to me mate, but all the same I'll take your word for it.



You have been (are?) in the SP. You should be well aware that there are no unofficial members.

If people are sincerely concerned that the complaint against him was mishandled, there's an organisation in the workers movement they should take it up with. It's not the SP.


----------



## leyton96 (Nov 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Good glad to hear it.
> 
> The only other concern I have is that even though he's no longer technically a member it's possible he still acts and operates as a de facto one.
> 
> For instance I got an email from the Socialist Party informing me than he and Martin-Powell Davies had gone on a fact finding mission to Turkey together some time June/July I think. Although it wasn't on behalf of or formally representing the SP or anything, it's a bit worrying to see his name popping up on Socialist Party emails like that.



The fact finding mission was set up by Day-Mer, the Turkish and Kurdish youth organisation. 
Day-Mer are involved in TUSC so they work quite closely with the SP and the RMT. When they wanted a labour movement presence naturally they turned to their closest allies. 

Occams Razor and all that.


----------



## belboid (Nov 19, 2013)

Latest story is that the CC have _cancelled_ IB3!

Oh, it's just someone being bored and trying to start rumours


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> As for the RMT, that is a good point. They've got more questions to answer than the SP over this imo as they were the ones who did the investigation.



Interestingly enough the awl have a member on the RMT exec. Something they are rather quiet about when they're going after the SP on this.


----------



## leyton96 (Nov 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Interestingly enough the awl have a member on the RMT exec. Something they are rather quiet about when they're going after the SP on this.



Aye, not only that but this person (Janine Booth) voted to accept the RMT investigation clearing Steve Headley after an ammendment was rejected by the other Council of Executives members. 

Now for anyone else I'd be inclined to say 'fair enough. Point made, interests of greater unity etc' but we all know the AWL would never accept that from another left group or activist they were on the outs with. 

So fuck them and their self serving cynical moral posturing.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 19, 2013)

Rumblings of discontent on Facebook at the non-appearance of IB3. By which I mean oppositionists and ISN types muttering about how this wouldn't have happened in their day. Best joke complaint: "I used to pay their wages"


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 19, 2013)

Suggestions that the delay may be to allow them to decide what to exclude at a CC meeting tonight. Not a claim based on any particular evidence, just an attempt to explain its non appearance.

Personally, I suspect they are doing it to increase the sense of occasion.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 20, 2013)

If someone really has wrote a contribution calling for Ms to be reinstated, I would imagine the CC are trying to persuade them to withdraw it. As don't think even the SWP CC are quite that stupid.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2013)

And it's out. Presumably it will be on SU within the hour.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Nov 20, 2013)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2au7qoab9esg3vt/PreConf Bulletin iii Nov 2013 LR.pdf


----------



## BK Double Stack (Nov 20, 2013)

Wow! Looks like I beat CPGB and SU to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2013)

Cheers!

Any sign of the _Smith back in _thing? I've spotted one claim that he saved many lives in Genoa (p.68)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2013)

One from someone critical of the CC:



> Projection may lead comrades on all sides to continuing unhelpful behaviours, such as refusing to work with “all bad”opponents. While Delta may no longer be a party member, he may well continue to be politically active. _*Even if he is guilty of what he is accused of*_, he is not “all bad”– he may be flawed, and not welcome in the SWP, but I would argue that we should not refuse to work with him.



My bold, p.84


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> One from someone critical of the CC:
> 
> My italics, p.84


That's as close as I can find following a quick Ctrl-F.

Sheffield seem very quiet in this issue

(& SU n CPGB _still _dont have it.  very poor show from them)


----------



## Aargh (Nov 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's good to distract from your organisations own inadequacies by smearing another by association. Isn't is aargh?



I've hardly been uncritical of the SWP, or distracting from their problems! Just mentioned this in passing.  Not an SP member/chum feeling defensive, are you?   I am in the SWP until after conference, then sending in my resignation letter as a result of the inevitable decisions.  Just been 'staying' (though like the majority am not paying subs so in most other orgs would be seen as a non-member) to help the faction as much as poss.  Then will ask to be removed from the ridiculously inflated membership figures.

I had somehow got the reference in the thread to the student org having issues, and the earlier mentions of the SP confused, sorry!  But a lot of these patriarchal socialist orgs have hopeless ideologies on men's oppresion of women which are bound to lead to problems.  These are not completely inevitable based on Marx and Engels, but made up only a few decades ago.


----------



## Aargh (Nov 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> One from someone critical of the CC:
> 
> 
> 
> My bold, p.84



Aaargh! They're pretty much another rape apologist then.  Such actions as Martin Smith is said to have done cannot be condoned, nor even tolerated.  The problem is a pattern was allegedly demonstrated- he was moved on from one role due to a complaint of rape, and within a couple of years there was another allegation of sexual harrassment in the role he was moved onto. And now he wants to get further qualifications in working with young and vulnerable people (and 'coincidentally' an SWP member works in the same department at Liverpool Hope University.)  It would no be ethical to work with him because he has shown an alleged pattern of being predatory, which is likely to continue.  And personally, I believe the women, they have a right to say whether they were violated and only them.  False allegations are so rare, rarer than for other crimes, so it's common sense that they're telling the truth.


----------



## mk12 (Nov 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> One from someone critical of the CC:
> 
> 
> 
> My bold, p.84


 
Jesus Christ. Won't this disgusting organisation just die already?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2013)

Aargh said:


> a lot of these patriarchal socialist orgs have hopeless ideologies on men's oppresion of women



Let me suggest that on this particular issue you are projecting the SWP's odd obsession with "proving" that working class men in no way benefit from the oppression of women onto the wider socialist left, when it is in fact a unique quirk. And that in a more general sense you are adopting a tendentious variant of a radfem analysis of the Marxist left.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> One from someone critical of the CC:
> 
> 
> 
> My bold, p.84



Does that say what I think it says? Jesus fucking Christ.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Nov 20, 2013)

Page 51 most interesting piece so far. Neil D wrote a long pre-resignation letter than I couldn't bother to read.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> Page 51 most interesting piece so far. Neil D wrote a long pre-resignation letter than I couldn't bother to read.


That whole submission is pretty astonishing.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2013)

The oddest part about the deeply wtf quote mentioned above is that the rest of the piece it's in isn't nuts at all.


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The oddest part about the deeply wtf quote mentioned above is that the rest of the piece it's in isn't nuts at all.


you just have to think that she means 'guilty of everything except the one thing we found him specifically not guilty of' - I mean no one could possibly mean to write what she actually did


----------



## discokermit (Nov 20, 2013)

they should colour code the things. and does anybody read the 'head in the sand' contributions? you know, the ones where they recruited fifty* people in the last month.

*membership criteria now being reduced to 'established eye contact with' and even this number is inflated.


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2013)

discokermit said:


> they should colour code the things. and does anybody read the 'head in the sand' contributions? you know, the ones where they recruited fifty* people in the last month.
> 
> *membership criteria now being reduced to 'established eye contact with' and even this number is inflated.


'head in the sand' was the first one I read!  Its ace.

No, I know thats not what you meant.  I will read some of the utterly delusional ones later, they tend to be amusing at least


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2013)

page 17 appears to say they have 2,500 paid up members.  And that a quarter of last years conference delegates weren't actually members!  10% of the membership are members of the NUT.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 20, 2013)

The bulletin says that SWSS told "over 100" copies of SW at Sheffield Uni in a few days, how is that even possible when SWSS no longer exists on campus beyond one person who's been ostracised by anyone involved in student politics?


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2013)

J Ed said:


> The bulletin says that SWSS told "over 100" copies of SW at Sheffield Uni in a few days, how is that even possible when SWSS no longer exists on campus beyond one person who's been ostracised by anyone involved in student politics?


well, where is 'Sheffield University'?  Do they mean SHU or _the _university.  I suspect they mean both added together


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> page 17 appears to say they have 2,500 paid up members.



Not quite. It says that they had roughly 2,500 members paying some kind of sub, some of them not regularly, before the shit hit the fan.

More generally, there is something deeply bizarre about an article which purports to be setting out the financial position of the organisation, but in fact includes no useful information at all. The little pie charts are completely useless because they include neither the sums represented nor, and this is actually more important, do they show the relative size of the income and outgoing pies even in a general sense.

Now, given that this document was always going to appear on the internet, it's not unreasonable to keep financial information out of it. But why then put the piece in in the first place? Does the SWP allow its members to see its accounts at conference?


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not quite. It says that they had roughly 2,500 members paying some kind of sub, some of them not regularly, before the shit hit the fan.


good point - it says they've lost another 300 since those figures were released.



> More generally, there is something deeply bizarre about an article which purports to be setting out the financial position of the organisation, but in fact includes no useful information at all. The little pie charts are completely useless because they include neither the sums represented nor, and this is actually more important, do they show the relative size of the income and outgoing pies even in a general sense.
> 
> Now, given that this document was always going to appear on the internet, it's not unreasonable to keep financial information out of it. But why then put the piece in in the first place? Does the SWP allow its members to see its accounts at conference?


you did used to get something - not a lot, a one page overview, similar to what they have published but with actual amounts in


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> you did used to get something - not a lot, a one page overview, similar to what they have published but with actual amounts in



I wonder if they still do? And if so, if it includes assets and debts or only the year's income and expenditure.

Also, why an overview rather than more detailed accounts?


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2013)

Wtf is Rhetta's contribution all about? It's utterly Upney.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2013)

Most of the UAF articles are complete gibberish. Almost unreadable, and by that I don't just mean that the politics are confused and the claims tendentious, although I do mean both those things,


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> Wtf is Rhetta's contribution all about? It's utterly Upney.


Fantastic stuff. Hard as glass and clear as steel.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> Wtf is Rhetta's contribution all about? It's utterly Upney.


Good question! But she seems to be saying that she has acquired the highest degree of proletarian class consciousness possible this side of the revolution. This ominisience means that she is uniquely able to judge a friend/comrade accused or rape and "to perceive and act upon that comrades' (sic) actions from the point of view of what is in the interests of the proletariat" (!!!)
This would appear to be a re-run of Corin Redgrave's line on the soon-to-be disgraced Healy: “If this (ie building the party) is the work of a rapist, let’s recruit more rapists.”
Horrendous stuff.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 20, 2013)

The weyman scandal is wonderful. Page 60-61.
Presumably the same technology used to fake the planes crashing into the wtc on 9/11 was used by the bbc to invent a holographic Bennett


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2013)

I will admit to having a bit of a soft spot for articles by well meaning fools. Chris (Truro) stands out in this edition.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 20, 2013)

Page 131 has a article complaining about the length of bulletins!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Page 131 has a article complaining about the length of bulletins!



And seeking to limit non-CC contributions to 800 words!


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I will admit to having a bit of a soft spot for articles by well meaning fools. Chris (Truro) stands out in this edition.


His heart is in the right place, but - of course - he's very unlikely to convince any IdooMers or indeed waiverers. I found myself warming to him as I read his piece, unlike Rhetta who sent a chill down my spine.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 20, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> His heart is in the right place, but - of course - he's very unlikely to convince any IdooMers or indeed waiverers. I found myself warming to him as I read his piece, unlike Rhetta who sent a chill down my spine.



I just like the idea of Callinicos working in a Scottish granite quarry or organising Lithuanian farm labourers in Cornwall for a few years. Plus, I enjoyed his insistence that joining the maggotty sectarian Socialist Party is worse than death.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I just like the idea of Callinicos working in a Scottish granite quarry or organising Lithuanian farm labourers in Cornwall for a few years. Plus, I enjoyed his insistence that joining the maggotty sectarian Socialist Party is worse than death.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 20, 2013)

Yes, it's the only piece in IB3 (so far) that has had me laughing out loud a couple of times. A great antidote to the general depression!


----------



## BK Double Stack (Nov 20, 2013)

In the US, the "group in political solidarity with the CWI" (McCarthyite laws require that language) thought about changing its name recently. I'll submit "maggotty sectarian Socialist Party" into any future debate.


----------



## Oisin123 (Nov 20, 2013)

This one is intended to make M sound heroic, but somehow fails to impress. At Genoa, in front of the
Carabinieri, who were about to attack: '[M] appeared from nowhere, took control of the situation and got us all sitting in a corner together with our hands raised.'


----------



## belboid (Nov 21, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Good question! But she seems to be saying that she has acquired the highest degree of proletarian class consciousness possible this side of the revolution. This ominisience means that she is uniquely able to judge a friend/comrade accused or rape and "to perceive and act upon that comrades' (sic) actions from the point of view of what is in the interests of the proletariat" (!!!)
> This would appear to be a re-run of Corin Redgrave's line on the soon-to-be disgraced Healy: “If this (ie building the party) is the work of a rapist, let’s recruit more rapists.”
> Horrendous stuff.


She is proletarian woman - hear her roar!


----------



## Oisin123 (Nov 21, 2013)

Skip - boring. Skip - 'we recruited well this week'. Skip - 'I've just invented this great scheme'. Read a bit of Pat S. Skip ... woa. WOA. You are all so right about Rhetta. That contribution must surely make her own side cringe. Her belief that she is free from bias in this case - because if you believe otherwise, revolution is impossible - immediately disqualifies her as someone suitable to have been judging it.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 21, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Good question! But she seems to be saying that she has acquired the highest degree of proletarian class consciousness possible this side of the revolution. This ominisience means that she is uniquely able to judge a friend/comrade accused or rape and "to perceive and act upon that comrades' (sic) actions from the point of view of what is in the interests of the proletariat" (!!!)
> This would appear to be a re-run of Corin Redgrave's line on the soon-to-be disgraced Healy: “If this (ie building the party) is the work of a rapist, let’s recruit more rapists.”
> Horrendous stuff.


Its madness complete madness. All she has actually active is the highest level of arrogance possible. But anyone with has meet her would already know this.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2013)

Pat Stack's article was quite amusing, particularly his Priest analogy. It's useful to remember that many of the stupid assumptions and attitudes of CC members are results of their cosseted isolation and arrogance more than marrow deep malice.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2013)

Also Bob from Birmingham: what a fucking prick.


----------



## Aargh (Nov 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Let me suggest that on this particular issue you are projecting the SWP's odd obsession with "proving" that working class men in no way benefit from the oppression of women onto the wider socialist left, when it is in fact a unique quirk. And that in a more general sense you are adopting a tendentious variant of a radfem analysis of the Marxist left.



Um no, the socialist party really do have a similar view about that, and the CPGB too, probably others.  Tendentiousness in feminism just means you're doing it right.  And especially if it comes to rape and assault, sorry to be so tendentious as to disapprove.  Most feminists would and do disapprove of the rape apologism demonstrated by the SWP- scorn for that is mainstream in feminism now.


----------



## Aargh (Nov 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Suggestions that the delay may be to allow them to decide what to exclude at a CC meeting tonight. Not a claim based on any particular evidence, just an attempt to explain its non appearance.
> 
> Personally, I suspect they are doing it to increase the sense of occasion.



Some things have been removed from people's submissions with no warning.  I'm trying to find out from other members of the faction how many others have been censored.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2013)

Aargh said:


> Um no, the socialist party really do have a similar view about that, and the CPGB too, probably others



This is false. The SWPs obsession with showing that working class men receive no benefit whatsoever from the oppression of women is a relic of a particular set of internal rows in the 70s and 80s. This is quite distinct from the more usual Marxist view that sexism is not ultimately in the interests of working class men because it divides the class and so makes the overthrow of capitalism much more difficult. That latter view does not preclude recognising the patently obvious benefits which accrue to many men in many circumstances.

Although, if your agenda is not actually to argue against a silly SWP dogma but instead to establish that "men" as an undifferentiated, trans global and ahistorical bloc possessed of collective agency are the cause of the oppression of "women" as a similar bloc, then of course these distinctions will seem minor. By the same standards, you will end up with all white people, including white women, as the cause and motor of racial oppression, all straight people as the cause of lgbt oppression, etc. And eventually everyone in the world is an oppressor except perhaps for one solitary third world migrant, mentally ill, physically disabled, black, working class transgendered lesbian. I will look forward to reading her tumblr blog about it.




			
				Aargh said:
			
		

> And especially if it comes to rape and assault, sorry to be so tendentious as to disapprove



And this is straightforwardly dishonest of you.


----------



## belboid (Nov 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is false. The SWPs obsession with showing that working class men receive no benefit whatsoever from the oppression of women is a relic of a particular set of internal rows in the 70s and 80s.


and even that is a rather grossly simplistic misreading of their actual position (although there are some dumber members who, like rmp3, do actually say just that).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2013)

Finally got to the Moran piece. It's every bit as crazed as promised, and will, I suspect be regarded as a classic in years to come. The argument that she who sees the world from the proletarian standpoint can be trusted to judge the merits of a rape accusation against a friend without fear of bias will end up as an emblematic Corin Redgrave moment when the death of the SWP is discussed by future generations of socialists.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2013)

God, imagine reading her Phd.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 21, 2013)

> I believe that, at any given moment in time, it is possible for me to command and communicate about a standpoint that is as consciously proletarian as it is possible to achieve on this side of the end of capitalism.


what is this stuff?


----------



## redcogs (Nov 21, 2013)

Some of it reminds me of Orwell's Wigan Pier -  "One sometimes gets the 
impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism'* draw towards 
them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, 
sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist.*."

Bless.

i need to re read it, but Stack sets a good tone.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> God, imagine reading her Phd.



How does someone who writes like that even get into a position where they are doing a PhD?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2013)

J Ed said:


> How does someone who writes like that even get into a position where they are doing a PhD?



There speaks someone who hasn't read too many PhD theses!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2013)

Aargh said:


> Some things have been removed from people's submissions with no warning.  I'm trying to find out from other members of the faction how many others have been censored.



Yes, I saw people on twitter saying that two opposition pieces were simply not carried.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 21, 2013)

Can Rhetta have a column in a national newspaper, she would become the third proletarian leg in our stool of  intersectionality with Owen and Laurie


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Nov 21, 2013)

yawn


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> yawn



You are bored by your own organisation's discussion of the greatest crisis in its history?

What do you make of the pieces by Anonymous, Stack, Davidson?

And the Moran one?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Pat Stack's article was quite amusing, particularly his Priest analogy. It's useful to remember that many of the stupid assumptions and attitudes of CC members are results of their cosseted isolation and arrogance more than marrow deep malice.


I liked this piece of dialectical thinking (excuse the dots, but it's easy enough to read)- the reason the rebellion happened was precisely because of the good leninist training that party had given the members, the training that his piece is actually a substantial critique of. Heads i win, tails you lose.



> In part I.have.no.doubt.the.rebellion.was.greatly.aided.by.the.fact.that.for.the.first time in a long time we had recruited a large.number.of.young.members,.and.we.were.developing.an.impressive.young.cadre.completely.disinclined.to.blindly.following. orders. This was of course magnified by the nature.of.the.issue.itself


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Can Rhetta have a column in a national newspaper, she would become the third proletarian leg in our stool of  intersectionality with Owen and Laurie



She should be offered a column in workers' girder.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 21, 2013)

Well, it's certainly an unusual piece.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> She should be offered a column in workers' girder.


she's too over the top.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's good to distract from your organisations own inadequacies by smearing another by association. Isn't is aargh?





Aargh said:


> Not an SP member/chum feeling defensive, are you?



LOL


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2013)

discokermit said:


> she's too over the top.



I dunno. I'd reckon there's a lot of comic mileage in the proletarian standpoint.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I dunno. I'd reckon there's a lot of comic mileage in the proletarian standpoint.


no. she's less believable than the workers bomb and barry mainwaring.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2013)

Did any of you ex SWP people actually know her, and was she always a total fruitcake?


----------



## discokermit (Nov 21, 2013)

i don't think i know her.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Did any of you ex SWP people actually know her, and was she always a total fruitcake?


Odly I only came across her after I left, but yes I head it said she has always been a bit out there. The fact she now seems to be a leading member is mind boggling. I repeat my earlier statement that this women should not have been allowed near any kind of disputes Committee. 

Oh, while I cannot be certain I suspect the person referred to in anonymous's contribution as going on about the black panthers was her partner


----------



## emanymton (Nov 21, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i don't think i know her.


Count yourself lucky.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2013)

She is an actual (or was) real life academic. With a proper published book and everything.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 21, 2013)

I remember she declared the anti-EDL efforts in Bolton way back when a resounding victory in a meeting shortly afterwards. I had thought of her as one of the loyalist of the loyal at the time.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

I knew her. She was a good friend to me and someone I admired - she was doing a phd raising a young child while being as politically active as she could manage. Doing a phd was not thought of (by others I recognise as loyalists) as being in the best interests of the swp at the time because it meant she wasn't so active. I have never thought of her as out there but it is nearly 20 yrs ago when I lived in Manchester. Her phd, for instance, is not written in the style of the proletarian standpoint.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 22, 2013)

It actually makes it more sad if she wasn't always a nut sandwich.

I see on Facebook by the way that SWP members have just been told that they sold 1,401 papers last week. Or less than 1 per 5 "members". The oppositionists seem genuinely surprised that they were given a precise number and even more surprised that they were apparently expected to be pleased about it.


----------



## love detective (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Her phd, for instance, is not written in the style of the proletarian standpoint.



It's good that she can switch standpoints so fluidly

I mean one minute finding it possible to command and communicate about a standpoint that is as consciously proletarian as it is possible to achieve on this side of the end of capitalism and then the next, erm..not, must take some doing


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2013)

Rhettabots proletarians in disguise


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I knew her. She was a good friend to me and someone I admired - she was doing a phd raising a young child while being as politically active as she could manage. Doing a phd was not thought of (by others I recognise as loyalists) as being in the best interests of the swp at the time because it meant she wasn't so active. I have never thought of her as out there but it is nearly 20 yrs ago when I lived in Manchester. Her phd, for instance, is not written in the style of the proletarian standpoint.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

Others have changed for the worse, John Molyneux being the not-so-shining example.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 22, 2013)

how can an academic think that?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

discokermit said:


> how can an academic think that?


Democratic centralism explicitly says this. I adhere to democratic centralism. It's easy.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I knew her. She was a good friend to me and someone I admired - she was doing a phd raising a young child while being as politically active as she could manage. Doing a phd was not thought of (by others I recognise as loyalists) as being in the best interests of the swp at the time because it meant she wasn't so active. I have never thought of her as out there but it is nearly 20 yrs ago when I lived in Manchester. Her phd, for instance, is not written in the style of the proletarian standpoint.


There seems to be some anti phd attitude from some of the comments in the IBs


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It actually makes it more sad if she wasn't always a nut sandwich.



We all encounter different parts of people. I can be mad but I'm not most of the time.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> We all encounter different parts of people. I can be mad but I'm not most of the time.


Let's not pathologise her contribution  - but they left that in and removed others. And the person who wrote that went into the DC with idea of themselves and their capabilities. We're looking back but she openly says that whatever she decides it true is true.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

Did you mean to say something?

ETA: That was at Karmickameleon


----------



## discokermit (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Democratic centralism explicitly says this. I adhere to democratic centralism. It's easy.


i'm starting to get wary of that phrase since it seems to mean everything to everybody. it's certainly true of the version of democratic centralism shown here, which is weighted a lot more in favour of centralism.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Did you mean to say something?


I did. They removed/edited other contributions but they left hers entire. You said

 "We all encounter different parts of people."

This contribution meant something. Who did other people meet on the DC - when she was judging? She made clear her views are political - who are we to say that they are the because of some mental illness.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Let's not pathologise her contribution  - but they left that in and removed others. And the person who wrote that went into the DC with idea of themselves and their capabilities. We're looking back but she openly says that whatever she decides it true is true.



I don't think looking back is very relevant but I answered the question because to not do so feels like leaving out aspects of people's experience of her, of the SWP, and as such I think it oversimplifies matters. Look at the nutters isn't any kind of analysis really.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Or better still, a party that tells you that you are the expression of the proletarian viewpoint, having leading members that believe that bollocks.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think looking back is very relevant but I answered the question because to not do so feels like leaving out aspects of people's experience of her, of the SWP, and as such I think it oversimplifies matters. Look at the nutters isn't any kind of analysis really.


I said the exact opposite.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I said the exact opposite.



The exact opposite of what? That looking back is irrelevant? 

I think my perspective of 20 years ago isn't very important. 

But I'm guessing I'm missing your point.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I did. They removed/edited other contributions but they left hers entire. You said
> 
> "We all encounter different parts of people."
> 
> This contribution meant something. Who did other people meet on the DC - when she was judging? She made clear her views are political - who are we to say that they are the because of some mental illness.



btw my post was at Karmickameleon who quoted mine but didn't comment.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> The exact opposite of what? That looking back is irrelevant?
> 
> I think my perspective of 20 years ago isn't very important.
> 
> But I'm guessing I'm missing your point.



ETA: you're saying the opposite of look at the nutters? I didn't think you were saying look at the nutters. But some people do.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

I think there some confusion here. 

It's all gone wrong!


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

Are you feeling mad?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think there some confusion here.
> 
> It's all gone wrong!



Not a few Swappies saying that right now I imagine


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

You're saying that leaving in Rhetta's contribution is a political act that reflects the view of the leadership? That to pathologise it minimises the political significance.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> You're saying that leaving in Rhetta's contribution is a political act that reflects the view of the leadership? That to pathologise it minimises the political significance.


Yes.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think looking back is very relevant but I answered the question because to not do so feels like leaving out aspects of people's experience of her, of the SWP, and as such I think it oversimplifies matters. Look at the nutters isn't any kind of analysis really.


You were absolutely right to mention your experience of Rhetta. 
But as I said in an early post, politically speaking some have changed for the worse (eg Molyneux) and others for the better (eg Birchall). On a personal level, and for all I know, Rhetta might be a very nice person, but the position that she enunciates is frightening coming from someone who was sitting on the DC ie that she can "perceive and act upon" the accused comrade's actions "from the point of view of what is in the interests of the proletariat" (read: in the interests of the party!).
Is the inclusion of her piece a statement of intent from the CC? I wouldn't put anything past them, but I would suspect that it reflects the views some others on the DC and more widely in the SWP. I seem to remember Nick G slagging of Rosen on Facebook for daring to bring into question a council house boy like Delta..


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

It's terrifying. But it's the party writ small. There is no other way for the party. They have spent millions of words and 5 decades cutting to the chase. That drivel is the IS tradition when confronted with reality. _We know better because we know better. Now, fuck off._


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Rhetta might be a very nice person, but the position that she enunciates is frightening coming from someone who was sitting on the DC ie that she can "perceive and act upon" the accused comrade's actions "from the point of view of what is in the interests of the proletariat" (read: in the interests of the party!).



Sure. I didn't intend to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's terrifying. But it's the party writ small. There is no other way for the party. They have spent millions of words and 5 decades cutting to the chase. That drivel is the IS tradition when confronted with reality. _We know better because we know better. Now, fuck off._



Is there a tradition that doesn't know better?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

No. Actually yes. All non-leninist traditions.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It's terrifying. But it's the party writ small. There is no other way for the party. They have spent millions of words and 5 decades cutting to the chase. That drivel is the IS tradition when confronted with reality. _We know better because we know better. Now, fuck off._


There's a lot more to the IS/SWP tradition than that: witness the 30-40% of the membership who support the opposition. But there's no way that I'm going to convince you on this question.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No. Actually yes. All non-leninist traditions.


New Labour?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> There's a lot more to the IS/SWP tradition than that: witness the 30-40% of the membership who support the opposition. But there's no way that I'm going to convince you on this question.


There's the nice _serge _openness and that cuts out industrial workers at cliffs whim - but no, this is not a fight i care about tonight


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> New Labour?


Not of the tradition.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not of the tradition.


So which tradition are you talking about?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> So which tradition are you talking about?


All non leninist ones. As i said. I dare you to say that they're shit because the swp did not do leninism properly. I dare you.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> All non leninist ones. As i said. I dare you to say that they're shit because the swp did not do leninism properly. I dare you.


So anarchists?? BTW, when I hear the word "Leninist", I'd reach for my revolver if I had one. One thing is the Leninist tradition, another is the "Leninist" version (ie interpretations of the former).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Review.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No. Actually yes. All non-leninist traditions.


Isn't this just saying that non-leninist traditions know better than leninist traditions though. though?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Isn't this just saying that non-leninist traditions know better than leninist traditions though. though?


Not really.They certainly know better about certain things.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Review.


Review Leninism or "Leninism"?? I'm at a party (the enjoyable kind) at the moment so no time to answer. But read Victor Serge.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 22, 2013)

It's worth considering that what rebellious swp members read of Serge is Serges own version of his history; other people were much less impressed with  his role either in France or later in Russia.
 Serge has always been the SWPs favourite "anarchist", ignoring that from at least 1917 onwards he was nothing of the sort.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Review Leninism or "Leninism"?? I'm at a party (the enjoyable kind) at the moment so no time to answer. But read Victor Serge.


You're telling me to read serge? Really?

The person whose proletarian standpoint got to be so trusted she was on the DC - that means committed year on year activity and trust from above. You let that happen and year after year you didn't challenge it. 

Seems pretty clear that the the debate is not about the early 90s intake (students,middle class,  rootless) - you lot never counted, but just keeping control.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You're telling me to read serge? Really?
> 
> The person whose proletarian standpoint got to be so trusted she was on the DC - that means committed year on year activity and trust from above. You let that happen and year after year you didn't challenge it.
> 
> Seems pretty clear that the the debate is not about the early 90s intake (students,middle class,  rootless) - you lot never counted, but just keeping control.



I haven't been a member of the SWP for a long time, but like many ex-members I identify with the tradition, which has a lot of value. Perhaps I should say "had", because thanks to the Prof and co that is rapidly going down the drain. The SWP will implode in slow motion, but what is valuable in that tradition will remain. Back to the party (for a drink, I mean...)


----------



## oskarsdrum (Nov 22, 2013)

butchers out of interest, are you fr binning the whole post-68 IS? factory branches, shopfloor newsletters, women's voice and all? admittedly there must've been some kind of widespread rot or Cliff wouldn't have got away with doing what he did from 74-77, typified by Hallas' capitulation, but I'm not asking after perfection here.


----------



## laptop (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not really.They certainly know better about certain things.




Especially, er, knowledge...


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No. Actually yes. All non-leninist traditions.



The whole notion of a vanguard invites a projection of our own knowledge, understanding and experience into political experts outside of ourselves, as individuals, as a class.

So how do we (collectively) develop a political understanding that we can call our own?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> butchers out of interest, are you fr binning the whole post-68 IS? factory branches, shopfloor newsletters, women's voice and all? admittedly there must've been some kind of widespread rot or Cliff wouldn't have got away with doing what he did from 74-77, typified by Hallas' capitulation, but I'm not asking after perfection here.


I don't have the experience to talk about that. Lots of people on here do - i'm not going to tag them, i know their reading. My reading is that this is and was irrelevant to class struggle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> I haven't been a member of the SWP for a long time, but like many ex-members I identify with the tradition, which has a lot of value. Perhaps I should say "had", because thanks to the Prof and co that is rapidly going down the drain. The SWP will implode in slow motion, but what is valuable in that tradition will remain. Back to the party (for a drink, I mean...)


what sort of value?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Review Leninism or "Leninism"?? I'm at a party (the enjoyable kind) at the moment so no time to answer. But read Victor Serge.


it can't be that enjoyable a party if you're posting about the swp instead of having a laugh with people irl.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> The whole notion of a vanguard invites a projection of our own knowledge, understanding and experience into political experts outside of ourselves, as individuals, as a class.
> 
> So how do we (collectively) develop a political understanding that we can call our own?


Vanguardism means the opposite - the injection of outside experience (tarted as theory) from those have distilled the experience for us (you might call it the proletarian standpoint)


----------



## laptop (Nov 22, 2013)

Is the "proletarian standpoint" something to do with adopting a mockney whine?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2013)

laptop said:


> Is the "proletarian standpoint" something to do with adopting a mockney whine?


what accent do you use for your usual whine?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> The whole notion of a vanguard invites a projection of our own knowledge, understanding and experience into political experts outside of ourselves, as individuals, as a class.
> 
> So how do we (collectively) develop a political understanding that we can call our own?


Get rid of the very notion of a vanguard then. History did.


----------



## laptop (Nov 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what accent do you use for your usual whine?



One uses whatever one acquires naturally, doesn't one?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2013)

laptop said:


> One uses whatever one acquires naturally, doesn't one?


so in your case that would be a wheedling whine which engenders antipathy in the audience.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Vanguardism means the opposite - the injection of outside experience (tarted as theory) from those have distilled the experience for us (you might call it the proletarian standpoint)



Well, if vanguardism fails then that's an accurate description of a one way process but if vanguardism is successful then it entails giving that experience (theory) an authority that your own lacks.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Well, if vanguardism fails then that's an accurate description of a one way process but if vanguardism is successful then it entails giving that experience (theory) an authority that your own lacks.


What?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2013)

Are you saying because of 1917 then DC ? They are.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it can't be that enjoyable a party if you're posting about the swp instead of having a laugh with people irl.


Have you heard of multi-tasking???


----------



## discokermit (Nov 22, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> butchers out of interest, are you fr binning the whole post-68 IS? factory branches, shopfloor newsletters, women's voice and all? admittedly there must've been some kind of widespread rot or Cliff wouldn't have got away with doing what he did from 74-77, typified by Hallas' capitulation, but I'm not asking after perfection here.


i would go back further. british trotskyism owes too much to the communist party it emerged from.


----------



## laptop (Nov 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> so in your case that would be a wheedling whine which engenders antipathy in the audience.



I think you're confusing me with an SWP member after a mockney refresher session... 

I'm not aware of having either whined or wheedled in years...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Have you heard of multi-tasking???


yes but you're not doing it.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> The whole notion of a vanguard invites a projection of our own knowledge, understanding and experience into political experts outside of ourselves, as individuals, as a class.
> 
> So how do we (collectively) develop a political understanding that we can call our own?



That is the question... I don't have the answer, but IMHO part of it will come from what is best in the IS/SWP tradition. Another part from the dreaded movementism ....


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes but you're not doing it.


How do you know? He said with a glass of wine in one hand while typing with the other.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What?



Yeh, sorry, I know what I mean but I'm not sure I can express myself more clearly right now. I need to go to bed as I'll have to be up in the early hours with the kids. I'll try again tomorrow.

I have no commitment to the idea of a vanguard btw! 

I'm thinking about the relationship between theory and personal and shared experience and how we can use the former without at the same time denying our own expertise by imagining that the 'professional' knows best, without handing over our power.

Does that make more sense?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what sort of value?


Oskarsdrum has already answered you in part: factory branches, shopfloor newsletters, women's voice .... I would add ANL, Stop the War and -despite all the errors- Respect.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Yeh, sorry, I know what I mean but I'm not sure I can express myself more clearly right now. I need to go to bed as I'll have to be up in the early hours with the kids. I'll try again tomorrow.
> 
> I have no commitment to the idea of a vanguard btw!
> 
> ...


I'm going to watch the cricket now. Important debate.Yes.makes sense. But...and this is where....professional stuff isn't political...


----------



## oskarsdrum (Nov 23, 2013)

discokermit said:
			
		

> i would go back further. british trotskyism owes too much to the communist party it emerged from.



Wow that's a firm critique! Was trotskyism a big part of things over that time, I guess with the whole notion of the "leninist turn" it probably did. But then again Hallas and Sedgewick were always on with lampooning the self-proclaimed vanguard and whatnot right.

Oh yeah, I agree about the ANL Karmickameleon, although whether that was closely related to IS politics as such or a more broadly good plan well executed - I'm not sure?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Nov 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I'm going to watch the cricket now.



Now there's dedication. Following the extended last rites of this test seems a little less appearling than wading through Chris Harman's collected work on women's oppression.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 23, 2013)

appearling?


----------



## laptop (Nov 23, 2013)

redcogs said:


> appearling?



appearling speeling.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 23, 2013)

Pearling: "When a man or a woman is having a rough day and they have accumulated too much sand in their vagina".


----------



## oskarsdrum (Nov 23, 2013)

it's a neologism


----------



## redcogs (Nov 23, 2013)

i'm impressed by this forum and its contributers - neologims all.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 23, 2013)

[quote

I'm thinking about the relationship between theory and personal and shared experience and how we can use the former without at the same time denying our own expertise by imagining that the 'professional' knows best, without handing over our power.

Does that make more sense?[/quote]


Red Cat said:


> Yeh, sorry, I know what I mean but I'm not sure I can express myself more clearly right now. I need to go to bed as I'll have to be up in the early hours with the kids. I'll try again tomorrow.
> 
> I have no commitment to the idea of a vanguard btw!
> 
> ...



That makes a lot of sense..but the answer, of course, is our collective project. One response is the demagogic: "in our organisation we do not have followers who are led by the leadership. We are all leaders..." (Anne, Mark et al in IB3). But anyone with a degree of experience of the SWP knows that this isn't the reality.
Part of the error comes from Cliff's "organised distrust" of the membership. I can bear witness to this as I was once a full-time organiser for the organisation and, when "promoted", I was astonished to suddenly be party to a major debate which had been hidden from the membership in general. Of course, things have degenerated greatly since then with the current leadership not just hiding debates on the CC,  but actively lying and covering up for one of their own.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 23, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> That makes a lot of sense..but the answer, of course, is our collective project. One response is the demagogic: "in our organisation we do not have followers who are led by the leadership. We are all leaders..." (Anne, Mark et al in IB3). But anyone with a degree of experience of the SWP knows that this isn't the reality.
> Part of the error comes from Cliff's "organised distrust" of the membership.* I can bear witness to this as I was once a full-time organiser for the organisation and, when "promoted", I was astonished to suddenly be party to a major debate which had been hidden from the membership in general.* Of course, things have degenerated greatly since then with the current leadership not just hiding debates on the CC,  but actively lying and covering up for one of their own.



sorry to be nosy but what was the debate and when? just curious.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2013)

oskarsdrum said:


> Now there's dedication. Following the extended last rites of this test seems a little less appearling than wading through Chris Harman's collected work on women's oppression.


Raining now.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 23, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> sorry to be nosy but what was the debate and when? just curious.


I'd rather not say when, suffice to say it was time ago. It was about the role and nature of SW. The important point is that the membership were unaware of the debate raging among the leadership = organised distrust of the members.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 23, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> That makes a lot of sense..but the answer, of course, is our collective project. One response is the demagogic: "in our organisation we do not have followers who are led by the leadership. We are all leaders..." (Anne, Mark et al in IB3). But anyone with a degree of experience of the SWP knows that this isn't the reality.
> Part of the error comes from Cliff's "organised distrust" of the membership. I can bear witness to this as I was once a full-time organiser for the organisation and, when "promoted", I was astonished to suddenly be party to a major debate which had been hidden from the membership in general. Of course, things have degenerated greatly since then with the current leadership not just hiding debates on the CC,  but actively lying and covering up for one of their own.



But it's not just a top down process, it goes two ways. If the leadership have a position of distrust, then the membership have a position of trust, otherwise it wouldn't work, and this crisis is about the fact that it no longer does. I'm interested in how the membership end up being persuaded of a pov that doesn't match their own experience. That involves thinking that the leadership has 'powers' unavailable to the membership, instead of having a sense of our own authority (that we look to ourselves to think things through, work things out, judge the truth of something ) we trust the perspective of the leader over our own.

I don't want to over-psychologise this, but it seems to me that unless we examine these kinds of processes, include them as part of a political analysis, then we end up thinking either the problem is purely political (leninism, vanguardism, democratic centralism) or personal (they are cunts, nutters, mindless).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2013)

> If the leadership have a position of distrust, then the membership have a position of trust, otherwise it wouldn't work,



eh?

And a decades long culture of top-down authoritarianism that you buy into to be a member (this is is what a responsible socialist does - and here's my surrogate family whilst i'm away from home for the first time in my life) is enough surely?  Stack laid out one of the mechanisms of control - a ladder to the CC and a) doing what a potential sponsor wants b( keeping your mouth shut.  Same as any other other managerial bullshit  - bit without the external targets or measures of success. After all, from what possible position can you judge the proletarian standpoint?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> eh?



I've given you everything you need to work it out.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> eh?





I'll try again , hold on.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> eh?



I'm trying to say that the membership aren't just done to.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2013)

> If the leadership have a position of distrust, then the membership have a position of trust, otherwise it wouldn't work,



The second simply does not follow from the first here. There is no logical connection. They can both distrust each other. or trust each other.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The second simply does not follow from the first here. There is no logical connection. They can both distrust each other. or trust each other.



If they both distrusted each other, the organisation wouldn't function would it?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> I'm trying to say that the membership aren't just done to.


Yes, they are complicit too - which is clear as day once you see the opportunists attempts to justify themselves in terms of leninism or the real tradition. They have been for decades. Which is why the SWP and their vocal members have been so despised for so long.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> If they both distrusted each other, the organisation wouldn't function would it?


In the way that the USSR didn't function for 70 years. It _existed _though. It's simple, a new feed of students every autumn. That was it for decades.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 23, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> That makes a lot of sense..but the answer, of course, is our collective project. One response is the demagogic:* "in our organisation we do not have followers who are led by the leadership. We are all leaders..." (Anne, Mark et al in IB3). But anyone with a degree of experience of the SWP knows that this isn't the reality.*
> Part of the error comes from Cliff's "organised distrust" of the membership. I can bear witness to this as I was once a full-time organiser for the organisation and, when "promoted", I was astonished to suddenly be party to a major debate which had been hidden from the membership in general. Of course, things have degenerated greatly since then with the current leadership not just hiding debates on the CC,  but actively lying and covering up for one of their own.






i certainly recognise this deception.  The 'leaders' within the branch that i was involved were  permanent.  They are still there (and i left in the 1990s!).  They were the ones who had the ear of the fulltimers (and individuals on the CC).  i found this irksome, and goodness knows why i was able to tolerate it for so long (not far off a couple of decades).  Maybe because, generally speaking, these were hardworking and sincere comrades.  But when political problems arose it became rapidly clear that there were no mechanisms to seriously challenge such people - let alone remove them.  they held all the powerful cards and were well used to playing them appropriately.

Vanguardism, and the organised distrust of the membership?  The swp's practice of the theory (which in itself may be deeply questionable in the cultural conditions of the early 21st C ) was always going to end badly.  The Delta affair has allowed the scales to fall away from the eyes of many, and good luck to those who want to achieve serious internal reform, but my reading of the bulletins suggests they may be on a hiding to nothing.  The unflinching upwardly obedient robots remain dominant.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> eh?
> 
> And a decades long culture of top-down authoritarianism that you buy into to be a member (this is is what a responsible socialist does - and here's my surrogate family whilst i'm away from home for the first time in my life) is enough surely?



A surrogate family in which the mummy daddy leadership have all the answers?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 23, 2013)

redcogs said:


> The unflinching upwardly obedient robots remain dominant.



Were they robots when they joined or did they become so?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> A surrogate family in which the mummy daddy leadership have all the answers?


Yes and in which you're told that you control mummy and daddy. Nice for M&D!


----------



## redcogs (Nov 23, 2013)

Yes that's an interesting question.  i joined when it became SWP, but i'd been influenced and drawn in by 'old fashioned' IS politics.  The 1970s were a hugely optimistic period when workers were still winning strikes with ease.  i was certainly politically naieve (how the fuck do you spell that?), so it was quite a heady combination that propelled me into what was a thriving organisation developing significant roots and prospects.

No question the SWP changed throughout my period, probably for the worse.  But i stuck with.  i don't repudiate everything the SWP has done BTW, far from it.  But the depth they have plunged to around this matter make me angry and distressed in equal measure.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 23, 2013)

Realised i didnae answer the question adequately.  In a rush, but i might get back later.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Nov 23, 2013)

I like the idea of the Central Committee of the SWP replacing the full-timers with a load of robots that sell papers and recite Cliff. Saves money. Bit of neo-luddism.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 23, 2013)

I remember being at a pre conference caucus way back- there was some minor internal dispute which I cannot remember, maybe about Nigel Harris's expulsion.
There was a succession of speakers expressing the Leninist necessity of trusting in the leaderships distrust of the membership. I didn't get it then, I don't now.
 I got up, all youthful innocence, and declared that the other side of democratic centralism must be constant vigilance over the leadership by the members.
This did not go done well. Afterwards Julie waterson was supportive.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 23, 2013)

I didn't know until today that SWP leadership members aren't assigned to branches. Which seems of a piece with their absence from paper sales and their usual refusal to sell the paper at meetings they speak at. Plebs work.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 23, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> I'd rather not say when, suffice to say it was time ago. It was about the role and nature of SW. The important point is that the membership were unaware of the debate raging among the leadership = organised distrust of the members.



fair enough


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> fair enough


It'll only be for one night. Just the ten of us.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 23, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I didn't know until today that SWP leadership members aren't assigned to branches. Which seems of a piece with their absence from paper sales and their usual refusal to sell the paper at meetings they speak at. Plebs work.


I am sure they used to be when I was in.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 23, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I am sure they used to be when I was in.



Wonder when that changed? Recent ex members seem very confident that all CC members and some other fters are not assigned to branches but are in the category "national members", alongside semi-expelled people like the CPGB mole with a piece in IB3


----------



## andysays (Nov 23, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I like the idea of the Central Committee of the SWP replacing the full-timers with a load of robots that sell papers and recite Cliff. Saves money. Bit of neo-luddism.



Surely they would need two different models - the basic "rank-and-file" member whose responsibilities are limited to selling papers, taking part in UAF demos and blindly accepting everything the leadership comes out with, and the more advanced "leadership" model with built-in proletarian conciousness, responsible for interpreting the holy book of Cliff, deciding on the role and nature of the party and covering up for their mates if their "interactions" with r&f members are misinterpreted by those without the correct level of revolutionary conciousness


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> It'll only be for one night. Just the ten of us.



where are you going with this? ps - Is the NYC Anarchist Bookfair really that early next year?


----------



## emanymton (Nov 23, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Wonder when that changed? Recent ex members seem very confident that all CC members and some other fters are not assigned to branches but are in the category "national members", alongside semi-expelled people like the CPGB mole with a piece in IB3


District organisers where always national members, which makes sense. Butoffice staff where in branches and I remember CC members talking about 'their' branch. Maybe it is down to the individual CC member, and what they want to do?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 23, 2013)

So the opposition are gonna lose (again) that much is clear. But what then? Expulsions? I can't see a resolution to this at the minute. Am I giving them too much credit if I say I don't see them being silly enough to expel the likes of Pat Stack?


----------



## emanymton (Nov 23, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> So the opposition are gonna lose (again) that much is clear. But what then? Expulsions? I can't see a resolution to this at the minute. Am I giving them too much credit if I say I don't see them being silly enough to expel the likes of Pat Stack?


They don't have to expel them, just make life hard for them.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 23, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Were they robots when they joined or did they become so?



Not long before i joined there had been factional issues.  i believe Jim Higgins had been displaced, and Protz pushed aside etc.  i knew none of this at the time (presumably it was kept away from new members),  but some excellent people in the branch dropped out activity in response.  i don't remember any attempt being made to reintegrate them.  Shamefully they were sort of erased from the branch's collective memory.  i kept in irregular contact with one of them (who had been instrumental in recruitment), and he was quite bitter about the Party's failure to properly recognise his previous commitment or to make any attempts to keep him onside.  He definitely felt devalued.   This method of dealing with dissidents is now widely recognised as a normal swp practice, but i didn't see that at the time.  The branch sec of that period didn't seem at all like Dr Spock, quite the contrary.  However, he was certainly a part of the conspiracy of silence which surrounded the loss of leading local members. 

So, on reflection, the robot gene may well have been 'in' the branch sec, but well concealed for reasons of politics.  But obviously yours is an impossible question to answer with any real non subjective accuracy Redcat.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 23, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> the CPGB mole with a piece in IB3


Surely not Rhetta!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Nov 23, 2013)

emanymton said:


> They don't have to expel them, just make life hard for them.


They've made it hard for themselves. By making the overthrow of Alex et al their minimum moral standard for staying they have to walk when that doesn't happen. That or admit they were being cocks all along.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They've made it hard for themselves. By making the overthrow of Alex et al their minimum moral standard for staying they have to walk when that doesn't happen. That or admit they were being cocks all along.


Yes because opposing rapists and rape denying is "being cocks".
You are showing your true colours sure enough


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They've made it hard for themselves. By making the overthrow of Alex et al their minimum moral standard for staying they have to walk when that doesn't happen. That or admit they were being cocks all along.


----------



## benedict (Nov 23, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They've made it hard for themselves. By making the overthrow of Alex et al their minimum moral standard for staying they have to walk when that doesn't happen. That or admit they were being cocks all along.



Ever with the incisive political analysis, eh bolshie


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Nov 24, 2013)

That's right I never take the argument seriously.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 24, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Not long before i joined there had been factional issues.  i believe Jim Higgins had been displaced, and Protz pushed aside etc.  i knew none of this at the time (presumably it was kept away from new members),  but some excellent people in the branch dropped out activity in response.  i don't remember any attempt being made to reintegrate them.  Shamefully they were sort of erased from the branch's collective memory.  i kept in irregular contact with one of them (who had been instrumental in recruitment), and he was quite bitter about the Party's failure to properly recognise his previous commitment or to make any attempts to keep him onside.  He definitely felt devalued.   This method of dealing with dissidents is now widely recognised as a normal swp practice, but i didn't see that at the time.  The branch sec of that period didn't seem at all like Dr Spock, quite the contrary.  However, he was certainly a part of the conspiracy of silence which surrounded the loss of leading local members.
> 
> So, on reflection, the robot gene may well have been 'in' the branch sec, but well concealed for reasons of politics.  But obviously yours is an impossible question to answer with any real non subjective accuracy Redcat.


You raise an interesting question because the way the International Socialist Opposition (Higgins, Palmer, Protz etc...) was dealt with is not entirely dissimilar to what has been happening to the current opposition. (Birchall and Barker must in the past few months have reflected on this ironic turn of events!). 
The ISO was able to present its position in the then monthly internal bulletins, but - crucially - found that its representation at conference was minimal as voting was introduced in district aggregates, where it rarely commanded a majority, rather than branches, where it sometimes did, and on a winner take all basis. Sounds familiar...
What's more all kinds of dirty tricks were used to isolate the ISO members by national secretary, Jim Nichol, and his team of full-times. I understand that Jim has since apologised for those undemocratic practises.
I write these words as someone who supported the Cliff position against the ISO. However, in retrospect I would say that this was where the rot set in.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 24, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> You raise an interesting question because the way the International Socialist Opposition (Higgins, Palmer, Protz etc...) was dealt with is not entirely dissimilar to what has been happening to the current opposition. (Birchall and Barker must in the past few months have reflected on this ironic turn of events!).
> The ISO was able to present its position in the then monthly internal bulletins, but - crucially - found that its representation at conference was minimal as voting was introduced in district aggregates, where it rarely commanded a majority, rather than branches, where it sometimes did, and on a winner take all basis. Sounds familiar...
> What's more all kinds of dirty tricks were used to isolate the ISO members by national secretary, Jim Nichol, and his team of full-times. I understand that Jim has since apologised for those undemocratic practises.
> I write these words as someone who supported the Cliff position against the ISO. However, in retrospect I would say that this was where the rot set in.


if the structure is sound, rot can't set in.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 24, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> But it's not just a top down process, it goes two ways. If the leadership have a position of distrust, then the membership have a position of trust, otherwise it wouldn't work, and this crisis is about the fact that it no longer does. I'm interested in how the membership end up being persuaded of a pov that doesn't match their own experience. That involves thinking that the leadership has 'powers' unavailable to the membership, instead of having a sense of our own authority (that we look to ourselves to think things through, work things out, judge the truth of something ) we trust the perspective of the leader over our own.
> 
> I don't want to over-psychologise this, but it seems to me that unless we examine these kinds of processes, include them as part of a political analysis, then we end up thinking either the problem is purely political (leninism, vanguardism, democratic centralism) or personal (they are cunts, nutters, mindless).


There is a psychological element, but I don't think that it's necessarily the most relevant. As I have mentioned in a previous post, I was for a relatively short period of time a full-time organiser. I certainly saw myself as defending the leadership's position and - in a sense - being their representative in the area. As an organiser, you also tend to value those members who are "loyal" rather than those who might be described as loose cannons. In great part, I would now put this down to being a young very keen impressionable revolutionary (and being in awe of those leaders that I was rubbing shoulders with), but there may well be a deeper explanation.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> if the structure is sound, rot can't set in.


That might be true of buildings, but the same analogy doesn't necessarily hold for political parties in which the structure is human.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 24, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> That might be true of buildings, but the same analogy doesn't necessarily hold for political parties in which the structure is human.


no. this isn't a human problem. it's structural. as was the seventies. cliff grant healey the club the fourth international all fucking shit.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 24, 2013)

Too little too late... but an interesting development: faction meetings on youtube:


----------



## belboid (Nov 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> They've made it hard for themselves. By making the overthrow of Alex et al their minimum moral standard for staying they have to walk when that doesn't happen. That or admit they were being cocks all along.


They will walk, by and large, I reckon. Because they no longer recognise the party as being the one they joined and spent decades fighting for. Quite rightly.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> no. this isn't a human problem. it's structural. as was the seventies. cliff grant healey the club the fourth international all fucking shit.



Nah it's down to a mixture of issues of which structure is one, human relationships and group psychology are others and of course they all feed into and reinforce each other.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 24, 2013)

Its pretty obvious that Stack Birchall et al need to remain if the swp is to retain any semblance of a socialist conscience or long term potential.  Neil Davidsons case for a refoundation of the swp seems unanswerable to me.  Why on earth would any socialist want to remain within an organisation which lies and covers and also denies the membership and serious influence on political strategy and tactics in the way that the currently structured swp does?  

If the coming kangaroo court conference alienates the very heart of the Party to such an extent that good comrades are obliged to walk away it would indeed be tragic - but they would be walking away from an incredibly narrow bullying and irrelevant sect.  

i suppose that many here believe it would not matter if the swp shrivelled into oblivion..  But i'm not so sure.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 24, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i suppose that many here believe it would not matter if the swp shrivelled into oblivion..  But i'm not so sure.



I don't think that it wouldn't matter, I think that it would be an actively good thing. Besides being an organisation in which multiple rape victims which we know of have been abused and their abuse has been covered up, they have undoubtedly put many more people off of socialist politics than they have ever organised or recruited.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 24, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> There is a psychological element, but I don't think that it's necessarily the most relevant. As I have mentioned in a previous post, I was for a relatively short period of time a full-time organiser. I certainly saw myself as defending the leadership's position and - in a sense - being their representative in the area. As an organiser, you also tend to value those members who are "loyal" rather than those who might be described as loose cannons. In great part, I would now put this down to being a young very keen impressionable revolutionary (and being in awe of those leaders that I was rubbing shoulders with), but there may well be a deeper explanation.



I don't think it's the most relevant, I think it's part of the picture. I don't think you can talk about how a political group operates or think about how we should organise without it. It's a basic political question - can a sound structure prevent rot? What structure is that? Regardless of structure are there tendencies in human relationships that are present in most societies, perhaps in different forms, or are our (mainly) hierarchical organisations necessarily reflective of current social relations either as deliberate political strategy or because they're internalised?

I was a branch sec so I recognise your portrayal of yourself. I don't think being a young impressionable revolutionary is a trivial explanation just because in some ways it's obvious. It's part of an explanation isn't it? We were all young impressionable revolutionaries weren't we? There will be different psychological explanations (depending on your preference) for the processes involved in being young and impressionable in relation to a leadership, but I think it's fairly certain that this kind of political apprenticeship in which the new member identifies with an idealised leadership contributes to undemocratic ways of working. But identifying with people we admire is part of how we learn, it's not a pathology we can avoid with the right structure.


----------



## Oisin123 (Nov 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> if the structure is sound, rot can't set in.



I think it's more to do with having a genuine connection to working class revolutionaries than structure.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I think it's more to do with having a genuine connection to working class revolutionaries than structure.



So democratic centralism can work if there is a genuine connection to working class revolutionaries?


redcogs said:


> Realised i didnae answer the question adequately.  In a rush, but i might get back later.



Thanks for taking the time to answer the question btw.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 24, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That's right I never take the argument seriously.



I think you do and that is part of the problem. It's always about 'the argument'. THE political argument as decided upon by the CC and everything else is seen as irrelevant, as NOT the argument.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I think it's more to do with having a genuine connection to working class revolutionaries than structure.


except the seventies stuff, higgins, protz, birmingham engineers, etc. happened at a time when they had their best connection to working class revolutionaries.


----------



## Oisin123 (Nov 24, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> So democratic centralism can work if there is a genuine connection to working class revolutionaries?



I mean that the best guarantee of exposing the arrogant, the ignorant and the bullies in the movement is to put them before confident articulate workers who have experience of leading mass struggles. This applies generally and not just to aspirant democratic centralist parties.

Specifically in the SWP, disco, while different structures should certainly be fought for (an ending to the slate system, etc), there's no structure that can correct the majority loyalists now. You'll remember the impact of the Miners' Strike on the SWP and how that democratised the party. I don't see that happening again.

edit: moved the quote marks to their proper place.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> except the seventies stuff, higgins, protz, birmingham engineers, etc. happened at a time when they had their best connection to working class revolutionaries.



Yes' which reminds me of the old swp dictum that: 'any internal issues that you believe we have will all be resolved by the oncoming upturn in class struggle and the consequent increase in membership and upsurge in working class membership', just don't talk about structure politics, wait, and shortly things will rectify themselves..

The problem though, was that the 'upturn', like the rainbow's end, was always just  around the corner, in the near to medium term future, and it then became highly convenient argument (for the CC and their layer of obedients) to use in the sense that they could avoid any examination of why structures were delivering mainly top down dictat and very little rank and file influence on policy strategy or tactics.

Very very unhealthy set of circumstances no?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 24, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> I mean that the best guarantee of exposing the arrogant, the ignorant and the bullies in the movement is to put them before confident articulate workers who have experience of leading mass struggles. This applies generally and not just to aspirant democratic centralist parties.



Yes.


----------



## SLK (Nov 24, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Wonder when that changed? Recent ex members seem very confident that all CC members and some other fters are not assigned to branches but are in the category "national members", alongside semi-expelled people like the CPGB mole with a piece in IB3



I'm sure they weren't in branches in the 90s. They sold the paper though.


----------



## SLK (Nov 24, 2013)

belboid said:


> They will walk, by and large, I reckon. Because they no longer recognise the party as being the one they joined and spent decades fighting for. Quite rightly.



I'm sure they'll walk as well.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> I'm sure they'll walk as well.



Many of them certainly will (and as with all splits there will be losses from the winning camp and from "middle ground" types too, due to demoralisation). But how many and whether its an organised split will depend to a significant extent on the Stacks, Birchalls etc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 24, 2013)

SLK said:


> I'm sure they weren't in branches in the 90s. They sold the paper though.



My comment about selling the paper at meetings stemmed from ESF preparatory meetings a decade ago. I remember being quite surprised that half the SWP leadership would be at them, but there'd be one rank and filer leafleting or selling papers at the end. It seemed bizarrely stratified.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 25, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Many of them certainly will (and as with all splits there will be losses from the winning camp and from "middle ground" types too, due to demoralisation). But how many and whether its an organised split will depend to a significant extent on the Stacks, Birchalls etc.



David Renton clearly seems to be setting out his stall for some sort of left regroupment in his latest blog post. He also says on Facebook:

_The thing which keeps on puzzling me is the interaction between three possible kinds of left regroupment. 1) a possible regroupment between all or some of the SWP and all or some of the ISN. 2) a merger involving all or some of ISN, ACI and WP. And 3) Left Unity. _


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 26, 2013)

discokermit said:


> if the structure is sound, rot can't set in.



I think this kind of gets to the heart of the issue to be honest, on democratic centralism, on left regroupment, and less importantly on the student movement. Personally I'm for the broad principle of democratic centralism. But whatever structure you have in an org, if the membership don't actively safeguard the internal culture of the org, then it'll rot. Much of the left obsess over structures, as if getting structure right will soehow protect us from a the ugly mistakes of the past. The reality is nothing can protect against degeneration except collective vigilance.


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 26, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Much of the left obsess over structures, as if getting structure right will soehow protect us from a the ugly mistakes of the past. The reality is nothing can protect against degeneration except collective vigilance.



Obsessing over structure takes the problem out there, it abstracts it, makes it 'political'. How do we treat eachother is perhaps a more honest way of looking at it.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 27, 2013)

in thirty years time, will bolshie be holding notes up the window in martin smiths flat in a bid for freedom?


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 27, 2013)

discokermit said:


> in thirty years time, will bolshie be holding notes up the window in martin smiths flat in a bid for freedom?



Party notes?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 27, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> But whatever structure you have in an org, if the membership don't actively safeguard the internal culture of the org, then it'll rot. Much of the left obsess over structures, as if getting structure right will soehow protect us from a the ugly mistakes of the past. The reality is nothing can protect against degeneration except collective vigilance.


This is a good point. IS in the early 70's was a considerably more democratic organisation than the current SWP. However, the bureaucratic measures used to against Higgins et al's IS Opposition bear many similarities to those used against today's oppos. 
Mike Pearn commenting on this period on Facebook put it very well:
"_The only lasting lesson from the 1975/76 struggle in IS is that workers democracy must be defended against all who threaten it including those leaders who would temporarily suspend it the better to wage the class struggle." _
I replied:_ "that is not just the only lesson but also a crucial one for any realignment in the future."_


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 27, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Party notes?


He doesn't appear to read them. The way the SWP is going, it's more likely to be the Thoughts of Chairman Charlie (suitably edited from the "standpoint of the proletariat" by Comrade Rhetta).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> This is a good point. IS in the early 70's was a considerably more democratic organisation than the current SWP. However, the bureaucratic measures used to against Higgins et al's IS Opposition bear many similarities to those used against today's oppos.
> Mike Pearn commenting on this period on Facebook put it very well:
> "The only lasting lesson from the 1975/76 struggle in IS is that workers democracy must be defended against all who threaten it including those leaders who would temporarily suspend it the better to wage the class struggle."
> I replied: "that is not just the only lesson but also a crucial one for any realignment in the future."


How would IS suspend worker democracy?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Party notes?


Shouting  _Seattle Seattle_ like some mad pacino.


----------



## treelover (Nov 27, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Obsessing over structure takes the problem out there, it abstracts it, makes it 'political'. How do we treat eachother is perhaps a more honest way of looking at it.




absolutely, and imo over the last twenty years, the answer is not very well...


----------



## leyton96 (Nov 27, 2013)

According to Company Check Charlie Kimber has resigned as one of the Officers of Sherborne Publications Ltd. Sherborne is one of the myriad companies associated with the SWP. Company Check lists its current state as:

£14,140
Cash

£-264,040
Net Worth

£116,475
Assets

£384,682
Liabilities

For the moment Joseph Choonara seems to be the sole officer for the company.
Could be significant, could just be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2013)

That's huge liabilities.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 27, 2013)

treelover said:


> absolutely, and imo over the last twenty years, the answer is not very well...



Except its quite a bit longer than 20 years treelover. When i left in the early 1990s, it was because the political culture could/would not tolerate dissenting voices.  There was significant unpleasantness and the  usual casting into the wilderness by those who had formerly been friends.  i'd witnessed the same process a few years previously, so i'd say its a minimum of three decades - ie prior to the miners strike.   And Karmickameleon suggests that the undemocratic bully culture predates that i believe.  

Somewhere along the line numbers of swp comrades became rigid and incapable of comradely and honourable behaviour towards those who sought to encourage a slightly different modus operandi.  It looks as though something similar is about to happen to the many current dissidents - and its all the more unworthy because todays dissenters simply wanted decency and fairness and accountability to prevail in a rape case..

You couldn't make it up.


----------



## leyton96 (Nov 27, 2013)

A bit more poking around in Company Check shows that Andrea Butcher (anyone know who she is?) resigned today as a Director of IS Books Limited.
Company Check has an account summary for IS Books Limited as:

£4,758 
Cash

£-197,350 
Net Worth

£132,543 
Assets

£164,917 
Liabilities


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 27, 2013)

I can understand that these figures are artificial, designed to ensure that no tax will be liable, but somewhere there will be a shit storm of pain when this all hits the fan


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 27, 2013)

when you only have 2000 sub paying members and only sell 1400 papers per week then you are in financial trouble...serves them right


----------



## Oisin123 (Nov 27, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> A bit more poking around in Company Check shows that Andrea Butcher (anyone know who she is?) resigned today as a Director of IS Books Limited.


I remember her from the late 80s. Then, she was part of the circle that includes Sue C, which I would say was a predictor of loyalism, except that Elaine H. was part of that circle too, so you never know.

Edit: I did wonder if these resignations somehow connect to getting rid of opposition members of sensitive companies. But if so, the connection is obscure, seeing as Charlie K. is one of those resigning.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 27, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> According to Company Check Charlie Kimber has resigned as one of the Officers of Sherborne Publications Ltd. Sherborne is one of the myriad companies associated with the SWP. Company Check lists its current state as:
> 
> £14,140
> Cash
> ...



Is it not possible they're just trying to offload any and all liabilities on Choonara? I mean, I've not had much experience of him, but if you were looking for a patsy...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 27, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> when you only have 2000 sub paying members and only sell 1400 papers per week then you are in financial trouble...serves them right



Depends on context, there are plenty of 'left' orgs that dream about those figures.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 27, 2013)

the swp has a lot of full timers...journalists, cc members, district organisers, a weekly paper, a monthly mag, a quarterly journal, a annual event etc...others don't

they used to be able to raise the money pretty comfortably ... but not any longer


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 27, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is it not possible they're just trying to offload any and all liabilities on Choonara? I mean, I've not had much experience of him, but if you were looking for a patsy...



They are limited companies. As long as there's been no funny business, the shareholders and directors shouldn't be liable for anything. If (and I am in no way implying that there has been) there has been illegal trading directors could be liable, but as I understand it (and I have no particular expertise in English company law), ceasing to be a director after the event wouldn't remove any liability. Short version: that suggestion is extremely unlikely.

That aside, the SWP are likely to be in serious financial trouble over the next while. Presumably they've saved some costs by getting rid of oppositionalists full timers and not replacing them. But there's no way that can balance up with recent and future losses in terms of subs, publication sales, appeal money, Marxism, etc.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 27, 2013)

Red Cat said:


> Obsessing over structure takes the problem out there, it abstracts it, makes it 'political'. How do we treat eachother is perhaps a more honest way of looking at it.



That's one aspect of it. But another aspect is strategy/ideas/tactics-I often get the impression a lot of regroupment/obsession with structures is sort of driven by a self-conscious lack of any idea what to do next. I'm (reluctantly) a student, a Marxist and ergo (to my lasting shame, particularly given my age) part of the student movement. In Sheffield every year they go through this daft process of what was wrong with "the structures" last year and how to make them work this year...which is really a kind of cover for the fact that they have no fucking idea what they want to do. 

This may be of less relevance outside the bubble of the student movement though, idk, I am in the truly dreadful position of being both a student and tutor taking strike action so I have to talk to them all a lot and its being doing my head in. It's like watching lots of versions of your younger self fucking up, again and again, forever and ever.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 27, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> David Renton clearly seems to be setting out his stall for some sort of left regroupment in his latest blog post. He also says on Facebook:
> 
> _The thing which keeps on puzzling me is the interaction between three possible kinds of left regroupment. 1) a possible regroupment between all or some of the SWP and all or some of the ISN. 2) a merger involving all or some of ISN, ACI and WP. And 3) Left Unity. _



A man with far too much time on his hands


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 27, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They are limited companies. As long as there's been no funny business, the shareholders and directors shouldn't be liable for anything. If (and I am in no way implying that there has been) there has been illegal trading directors could be liable, but as I understand it (and I have no particular expertise in English company law), ceasing to be a director after the event wouldn't remove any liability. Short version: that suggestion is extremely unlikely.
> 
> That aside, the SWP are likely to be in serious financial trouble o earthen next while. Presumably they've saved some costs by getting rid of oppositionalists full timers and not replacing them. But there's no way that can balance up with recent and future losses in terms of subs, publication sales, appeal money, Marxism, etc.



Fair enough. I am in a speculative mood.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 28, 2013)

Nothing much of interest in the Weekly Worker, apart from the story of how the faction managed to get one delegate from Manchester, a stronghold of the rabid.

Like every region, Manchester is entitled to huge numbers of delegates based on fictitious membership figures. This means that the loyalists actually have a problem producing enough warm bodies to take them all. Which means that they have been mobilising long inactive people to take those spots, presumably after priming them to think that the party is under attack, etc. one of those people in Manchester seems to have turned up, been selected as a delegate and, after listening to the debate, promptly joined the faction. I hope s/he has a car, because I doubt if the journey down with 30 odd headbangers will be too much fun.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Nothing much of interest in the Weekly Worker, apart from the story of how the faction managed to get one delegate from Manchester, a stronghold of the rabid.
> 
> Like every region, Manchester is entitled to huge numbers of delegates based on fictitious membership figures. This means that the loyalists actually have a problem producing enough warm bodies to take them all. Which means that they have been mobilising long inactive people to take those spots, presumably after priming them to think that the party is under attack, etc. one of those people in Manchester seems to have turned up, been selected as a delegate and, after listening to the debate, promptly joined the faction. I hope s/he has a car, because I doubt if the journey down with 30 odd headbangers will be too much fun.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 28, 2013)

There's some protest this evening at Bristol University against the presence of SWP "rape apologists" on campus.

(It's worth noting that the tweets I've seen about it seem to be from Labour people.)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's some protest this evening at Bristol University against the presence of SWP "rape apologists" on campus.
> 
> (It's worth noting that the tweets I've seen about it seem to be from Labour people.)


Neither side have two members. Irrelevant in the city and to left organising.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 28, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Neither side have two members. Irrelevant in the city and to left organising.



Sure. But actually more interesting that this is happening if they've already declined to irrelevance.


----------



## laptop (Nov 28, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Company Check has an account summary for IS Books Limited as:
> 
> £4,758
> Cash
> ...



Unless "net worth" has a special meaning here that's escaped me, those figures don't add up.

Their liabilities exceed their assets by £32,374.

Either way, on the face of it, they're "trading while insolvent", which is an offence by the directors of the time - as noted, not avoidable by resigning later. 

In practice, it's at least at the far edge of the "solvent as a going concern" let-out, which is accountant-speak for "let us assume an upturn soon".


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 28, 2013)

The39thStep said:


> A man with far too much time on his hands



A bit harsh. I'm really surprised how he's kept his good temper through all this. It must be his good breeding.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 28, 2013)

laptop said:


> In practice, it's at least at the far edge of the "solvent as a going concern" let-out, which is accountant-speak for "let us assume an upturn soon".



an upturn in the class struggle presumably


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 28, 2013)

J Ed said:


> The bulletin says that SWSS told "over 100" copies of SW at Sheffield Uni in a few days, how is that even possible when SWSS no longer exists on campus beyond one person who's been ostracised by anyone involved in student politics?


 
Have you seen him lately? He's grown a tache, presumably to hide his identity. Do you know specifically why he was banned from the occupation perchance?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 28, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Have you seen him lately? He's grown a tache, presumably to hide his identity. Do you know specifically why he was banned from the occupation perchance?



Because he's an unlikeable cunt? Regardless of politics, I'd not want that twat anywhere near anything I was involved in. For once the student left in Sheffield does something I agree with!

P.S. £20 tomorrow - don't think I've forgotten


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 28, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Because he's an unlikeable cunt? Regardless of politics, I'd not want that twat anywhere near anything I was involved in. For once the student left in Sheffield does something I agree with!



Yes, granted, but what was their reasoning? Why will they not allow him near a meeting or action but they will work with other loyalist SWP members?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 28, 2013)

Maybe it really is because he's a massive twat?


----------



## laptop (Nov 28, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> an upturn in the class struggle presumably



That was the political pun I intended.


----------



## love detective (Nov 28, 2013)

laptop said:


> Unless "net worth" has a special meaning here that's escaped me, those figures don't add up.
> 
> Their liabilities exceed their assets by £32,374.
> 
> ...



Those summary figures are misleading as they don't show all components of the balance sheet - there is another £165k of long term creditors that are not included in the liabilities number quoted. This £165k plus the £32k of you refer to above gives the net worth figure quoted of minus £197k

But having a negative net worth is not the same as being insolvent - to determine that you need to know more about the liabilities than what are disclosed in statutory accounts


----------



## leyton96 (Nov 28, 2013)

love detective said:


> Those summary figures are misleading as they don't show all components of the balance sheet - there is another £165k of long term creditors that are not included in the liabilities number quoted. This £165k plus the £32k of you refer to above gives the net worth figure quoted of minus £197k
> 
> But having a negative net worth is not the same as being insolvent - to determine that you need to know more about the liabilities than what are disclosed in statutory accounts



Thanks for that explanation, those figures did puzzle me a bit. 
If you are using Company Check for free then they just give you the bare bones figures. To get the actual accounts you gotta cough up some cash. Even an incurable gossip like me isn't prepared to do that. It would be like paying for the Weekly Worker.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 28, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Thanks for that explanation, those figures did puzzle me a bit.
> If you are using Company Check for free then they just give you the bare bones figures. To get the actual accounts you gotta cough up some cash. Even an incurable gossip like me isn't prepared to do that. It would be like paying for the Weekly Worker.


how much is it?


----------



## laptop (Nov 29, 2013)

love detective said:


> But having a negative net worth is not the same as being insolvent - to determine that you need to know more about the liabilities than what are disclosed in statutory accounts



Like: to whom is it owed, and when are they going to call it in? A sign of fragility?


----------



## love detective (Nov 29, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Thanks for that explanation, those figures did puzzle me a bit.
> If you are using Company Check for free then they just give you the bare bones figures. To get the actual accounts you gotta cough up some cash. Even an incurable gossip like me isn't prepared to do that. It would be like paying for the Weekly Worker.





Spanky Longhorn said:


> how much is it?



You can get company accounts for free from Company Check. Just register for the free account option and that entitles you to 100 requests a month. If you need more than that you can just register another account with another email address to get another 100 free a month, and so on.

The subscription options cover other kind of reports on companies (risk reports, credit scores, CCJ's, mortgages against company assets etc..) but the basic company accounts are free (note small companies have various exemptions from what they have to report which makes their statutory accounts not that useful in finding out stuff about them, but they are a good start)


----------



## love detective (Nov 29, 2013)

laptop said:


> Like: to whom is it owed, and when are they going to call it in? A sign of fragility?



Yeah all that and more i.e. what legal right, if any, they have to demand payment sooner rather than later, are they likely to let the debt roll over even upon reaching the legal payment date etc, plus similar information about liquidity of assets or how easily assets could be turned into cash to pay upcoming liabilities that can't be pushed back, and also things like whether existing creditors and shareholders have agreed to provide further support


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 29, 2013)

From David Renton's blog:

_In the SWP, we tried to prohibit for a time our members having jobs in the union bureaucracy or even on 100% facility time. Unfortunately our former National Secretary had a number of friends in these positions, so we maintained the rule, but applied it arbitrarily. In some cases, through the party’s ignorance of what its members were up to; we didn’t apply it at all. *Should we have kept the comrade who serves in the bureaucracy, as a very senior manager (i.e. with a power to hire and fire), and who has an OBE for his services to trade unionism?* Does it make a difference that he is one of the kindest and most genuine people you will ever meet, as well as a committed revolutionary?
_
Surely he's not referring to Nick G!


----------



## redcogs (Nov 29, 2013)

Surely a pisstake?  An OBE?  Bowing the knee to the Saxe Coburg Gotha Windsors..

i'm capable of believing a great deal, but this is a jest too far even for the gullible.

i need to start reading renegade Renton's blog   ;-)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 29, 2013)

I'm intrigued.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

Name him.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 29, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Surely a pisstake?  An OBE?  Bowing the knee to the Saxe Coburg Gotha Windsors..
> 
> i'm capable of believing a great deal, but this is a jest too far even for the gullible.
> 
> i need to start reading renegade Renton's blog   ;-)



whoever it is it can never top an anarchist with a knighthood.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 29, 2013)

Even Vanessa Redgrave stopped at CBE lol


----------



## redcogs (Nov 29, 2013)

You'll be telling us there's an swp freemason's section next - ranked alongside the dissaffected aristos and bitter and passed over dilettante academics.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 29, 2013)

It's bolshiebhoy innit?  A loyalist with OBE tendencies.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> whoever it is it can never top an anarchist with a knighthood.



Name names


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

He means Sir Herbet Read - someone that had nothing to do with anarchism beyond a literary commitment.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He means Sir Herbet Read - someone that had *nothing to do with anarchism beyond a literary commitment*.



the anarchist movement at the time thought otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

The anarchist movement t the time as represented by a handful of poshoes running freedom. And of course those outside of that group would offer a ritual denunciation - in fact those denunciations were based on him not being a part of the anarchist movement, not on his membership of it.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 29, 2013)

genuine question - what was the anarchist movement in Britain - outside of Freedom Press - when he accepted the knighthood?

It's years since I've read about all this stuff but wasn't Meltzer still part and parcel of Freedom in the 50s? (I know he had rows with Richards down the years). He hardly qualifies as posh and was he denouncing Read as a non-anarchist when Read was writing for the Freedom Press in the 30s and 40s?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> genuine question - what was the anarchist movement in Britain - outside of Freedom Press - when he accepted the knighthood?
> 
> It's years since I've read about all this stuff but wasn't Meltzer still part and parcel of Freedom in the 50s? (I know he had rows with Richards down the years). He hardly qualifies as posh and was he denouncing Read as a non-anarchist when Read was writing for the Freedom Press in the 30s and 40s?


Yes he was. The Syndicalist Workers' Federation and other class struggle groups are what you want.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes he was. The Syndicalist Workers' Federation and other class struggle groups are what you want.



so, you're basically saying he wasn't your sort of anarchist? fair enough. 

eta: added smillie


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes he was. The Syndicalist Workers' Federation and other class struggle groups are what you want.



any links to SWF stuff. Was that people like Kavanagh?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> so, you're basically saying he wasn't your sort of anarchist? fair enough.


No, i'm saying, as the anarchist movement did at the time, that accepting a knigthood is not consistent with anarchism.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> any links to SWF stuff. Was that people like Kavanagh?


The SWF still exist as solf-fed. Lots of their stuff was put online by a  bloke from round here a few years back (not sure if his website is till up, let me check). Kate Shapley library and autobiographies by members would be best.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> No, i'm saying, as the anarchist movement did at the time, that accepting a knigthood is not consistent with anarchism.



Of course it isn't. But your original reply implied that his connection to anarchism was merely literary, and I was under the impression that he had a long involvement with the British anarchist movement prior to him accepting the knighthood. A quick google search showed up that Freedom Press published a collection of his writings for Freedom Press  . . . which, of course, abruptly stop in '53.

He still considered himself an anarchist post the knighthood. I wonder how he tried to reconcile the two? Probably pure vanity.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The SWF still exist as solf-fed. Lots of their stuff was put online by a  bloke from round here a few years back (not sure if his website is till up, let me check). Kate Shapley library and autobiographies by members would be best.



I didn't know SWF were directly connected with DAM/SolFed. I always thought there a wee gap between the two. Cheers, I'll have a root round libcom.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Of course it isn't. But your original reply implied that his connection to anarchism was merely literary, and I was under the impression that he had a long involvement with the British anarchist movement prior to him accepting the knighthood. A quick google search showed up that Freedom Press published a collection of his writings for Freedom Press  . . . which, of course, abruptly stop in '53.
> 
> He still considered himself an anarchist post the knighthood. I wonder how he tried to reconcile the two? Probably pure vanity.


His 'long involvement' was, as i suggested, purely literary. He identified a non-anarchist view of anarchism, then thought to retrospectively construct (and anoint) a tradition of this anarchism through his  excavation of english literary history and then tried to impose this passivist idea of what anarchism is via freedom and other outlets.


----------



## imposs1904 (Nov 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The SWF still exist as solf-fed. Lots of their stuff was put online by a  bloke from round here a few years back (not sure if his website is till up, let me check). Kate Shapley library and autobiographies by members would be best.



sorry to derail the thread again.  Was the SWF's Tom Brown the anarchist who received a savage beating from some Rachman like henchman? I was just looking at the SWF wiki page and it mentions that he was forced out of activity but it doesn't mention the details of why.

Like I wrote before, I read about a lot of this stuff years ago but I no longer have access to the books and pamphlets.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> sorry to derail the thread again.  Was the SWF's Tom Brown the anarchist who received a savage beating from some Rachman like henchman? I was just looking at the SWF wiki page and it mentions that he was forced out of activity but it doesn't mention the details of why.
> 
> Like I wrote before, I read about a lot of this stuff years ago but I no longer have access to the books and pamphlets.


Very likely but can't say for sure off top of head.


----------



## leyton96 (Nov 30, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> From David Renton's blog:
> 
> _In the SWP, we tried to prohibit for a time our members having jobs in the union bureaucracy or even on 100% facility time. Unfortunately our former National Secretary had a number of friends in these positions, so we maintained the rule, but applied it arbitrarily. In some cases, through the party’s ignorance of what its members were up to; we didn’t apply it at all. *Should we have kept the comrade who serves in the bureaucracy, as a very senior manager (i.e. with a power to hire and fire), and who has an OBE for his services to trade unionism?* Does it make a difference that he is one of the kindest and most genuine people you will ever meet, as well as a committed revolutionary?
> _
> Surely he's not referring to Nick G!



Any more thoughts on who this is? I thought I knew of all the senior SWP industrial cadre, lay and FTO.
This one has completely thrown me for a loop.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 30, 2013)

Bump


----------



## Lurdan (Dec 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes he was. The Syndicalist Workers' Federation and other class struggle groups are what you want.


Albert wasn't involved with Freedom in the 1950s. His involvement with War Commentary ended when he was conscripted into the army. The acrimonious split between War Commentary, which would later become Freedom, and the Anarchist Federation which the SWF developed from, took place while he was away, and when he was demobbed in 1948 he declined to join either. He formed a London Anarchist Group with Matt Kavanagh and Ronald Avery. In 1953 he and Albert Grace formed an Anarcho-Syndicalist Committee and issued a paper called The Syndicalist for about a year.


imposs1904 said:


> I didn't know SWF were directly connected with DAM/SolFed. I always thought there a wee gap between the two.


There was a gap. The original SWF vanished in the mid-Sixties and its archives ended up with its old rivals at Freedom. In the 70s a former AWA member formed a group called Manchester SWF and wrote to Freedom to get the archives. The claim that there was a direct link between the two SWF's is the same kind of nonsense as the idea that there is a continuity between the original Freedom and the post-war group which adopted the name. The Manchester SWF were one of the prime movers in turning the DAM which was initially a pretty loose network of groups into a national membership organization.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2013)

Lurdan said:


> Albert wasn't involved with Freedom in the 1950s. His involvement with War Commentary ended when he was conscripted into the army. The acrimonious split between War Commentary, which would later become Freedom, and the Anarchist Federation which the SWF developed from, took place while he was away, and when he was demobbed in 1948 he declined to join either. He formed a London Anarchist Group with Matt Kavanagh and Ronald Avery. In 1953 he and Albert Grace formed an Anarcho-Syndicalist Committee and issued a paper called The Syndicalist for about a year.



He did write articles for Freedom and took part in various initiatives in the 50s - even seeking to work together in some manner on The Syndicalist - without joining the actual Freedom Press (Group) and keeping up his class based criticisms of the group and their activity.


----------



## treelover (Dec 1, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> My comment about selling the paper at meetings stemmed from ESF preparatory meetings a decade ago. I remember being quite surprised that half the SWP leadership would be at them, but there'd be one rank and filer leafleting or selling papers at the end. It seemed bizarrely stratified.




Aye, this is when I first encountered these people, Callinicos, Nineham, Rees, Neale, and the German woman who is now a MP, not a edifying sight, there would be queues to speak and they would be there every time.


----------



## treelover (Dec 1, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> the swp has a lot of full timers...journalists, cc members, district organisers, a weekly paper, a monthly mag, a quarterly journal, a annual event etc...others don't
> 
> they used to be able to raise the money pretty comfortably ... but not any longer




When you think what they could have done with that amount of resources, if they had used them wisely, democratically and with other allies.


----------



## chilango (Dec 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> When you think what they could have done with that amount of resources, if they had used them wisely, democratically and with other allies.



Really? What else could they have done? Except fail more democratically?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 1, 2013)

treelover said:


> Aye, this is when I first encountered these people, Callinicos, Nineham, Rees, Neale, and the German woman who is now a MP, not a edifying sight, there would be queues to speak and they would be there every time.


Lyndsey German is an MP?!


----------



## JHE (Dec 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Lyndsey German is an MP?!



An honorary member of the Iranian Parliament, I believe.

I guess Treelover was talking about Gisela Stuart who has been a Labour MP since 97.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2013)

Why on earth would a labour MP - a govt one at that and on the right of the party - be part of a SWP attempted dominance of the the public face of the ESFs? I suspect he means a linked german who is now an MP in germany.


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Why on earth would a labour MP - a govt one at that and on the right of the party - be part of a SWP attempted dominance of the the public face of the ESFs? I suspect he means a linked german who is now an MP in germany.


Christine Bucholz??


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 1, 2013)

belboid said:


> Christine Bucholz??


Yes, i think that must be her.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 1, 2013)

Or Julia Bonk? Phwor


----------



## emanymton (Dec 1, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Lyndsey German is an MP?!


I am despratly trying to think of something witty that the initials MP could stand for in her case, and falling miserably. Someone else have a go.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 1, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I am despratly trying to think of something witty that the initials MP could stand for in her case, and falling miserably. Someone else have a go.



Mega Prat?

Thank you, I'm here all week. Don't forget to tip the waitress.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 1, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Mega Prat?
> 
> Thank you, I'm here all week. Don't forget to tip the waitress.



Surely that's a Moot Point...


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 1, 2013)

BTW, does anyone know what happened at the Rebuilding the Party Faction meeting today?


----------



## love detective (Dec 1, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Mega Prat?
> 
> Thank you, I'm here all week. Don't forget to tip the waitress.



They laughed when you said you were going to become a comedian, they're not laughing now


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 2, 2013)

looks like the opposition are forming a new group openly in anticipation of conference...

https://www.facebook.com/events/569882773092704/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 2, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> looks like the opposition are forming a new group openly in anticipation of conference...
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/events/569882773092704/


That link doesn't work for me. Could you c&p the details?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 2, 2013)

East London RtP: Revolutionary Organisation in the 21st Century
Export · Share · Report







Tuesday





7:00pm until 9:00pm






Overcast 43°F / 34°F






As the aggregates wind down, we thought it would be a good idea to keep people engaged by having a few political meetings prior to conference. This has been tried to much fruition in Central London and Manchester, and this Tuesday we want to try and do the same in East London. All comrades are welcome, but this meeting is particularly catered to comrades in Newham, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Hackney and Dalston. See you then. (P.S. Invite comrades I've missed out or don't know).


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 2, 2013)




----------



## barney_pig (Dec 2, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


>


Oh no, not again!


----------



## belboid (Dec 2, 2013)

meawhile Dave Renton has written a piece for the Exchange (the ISN/SR/ACI joint publication).  he clearly knows he's on his way out then


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 2, 2013)

I asked dave renton outright about his knighted swappie and he replied:
"They are a lone individual, and a good person – I think it’s a case of unseeing rather than the deliberate flouting of rules to assist a mate

The greater scandal has been the widespread ignoring of a supposedly fixed rule against taking more than 60% facility time – a rule disregarded by several of the leadership’s most noisy supporters"


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 2, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I asked dave renton outright about his knighted swappie and he replied:
> "They are a lone individual, and a good person – I think it’s a case of unseeing rather than the deliberate flouting of rules to assist a mate



The only person I can imagine as a likely candidate retired at the end of 2012...


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 2, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I asked dave renton outright about his knighted swappie and he replied:
> "They are a lone individual, and a good person – I think it’s a case of unseeing rather than the deliberate flouting of rules to assist a mate
> 
> The greater scandal has been the widespread ignoring of a supposedly fixed rule against taking more than 60% facility time – a rule disregarded by several of the leadership’s most noisy supporters"



I would be inclined to give Renton the benefit of the doubt on this one.... But I can't help wondering what kind of revolutionary would accept an OBE. Can you imagine Paul Foot OBE for services to journalism?? Also, the "unseeing" is only possible in a context in which major supporters of the leadership (and mates of Delta) were flouting the 60% rule.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 2, 2013)

He's actually lost the plot completely now hasn't he? It's a case of throw any and all shit I can on the way out. Not very edifying to be honest. Also slightly ironic that he would raise the incompatibility of union office holding with membership of the party. A good deal more than slightly in fact.


----------



## benedict (Dec 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He's actually lost the plot completely now hasn't he? It's a case of throw any and all shit I can on the way out. Not very edifying to be honest. Also slightly ironic that he would raise the incompatibility of union office holding with membership of the party. A good deal more than slightly in fact.



You've proved yourself an expert on the edifying in this thread. 

Aside from the point scoring, what's your stance on the substance? Should management, union full-timers, and Order of the British Empire holders be in or out?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He's actually lost the plot completely now hasn't he? It's a case of throw any and all shit I can on the way out. Not very edifying to be honest. Also slightly ironic that he would raise the incompatibility of union office holding with membership of the party. A good deal more than slightly in fact.



the ISN identity politics brats are unedifying. you can't accuse Renton and the hangers on of trying to wreck anything with a straight face, when they've put up with so much flak for going through the insanely rigged internal processes i presume you think they should. when you first started posting on this thread you garnered yourself some grudging respect from most people here - seems like more than anything else now you just enjoy being the thread pariah. you're certainly not taking it seriously any rate.


----------



## belboid (Dec 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> He's actually lost the plot completely now hasn't he? It's a case of throw any and all shit I can on the way out. Not very edifying to be honest. Also slightly ironic that he would raise the incompatibility of union office holding with membership of the party. A good deal more than slightly in fact.


keep your head well buried bolshie, there's a good little idiot.


----------



## flypanam (Dec 3, 2013)

Shit, but isn't he right on Renton here, I thought he was suspended from the swp for taking a senior position in a union about 7/8 years ago. Its what I remember hearing in Ireland back then.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 3, 2013)

Oh dear. I'm very fond of DR the person and have defended him against all the prolier than thou shit he's had thrown his way. But the point is that if the oppo want to play this holier than thou game as a substitute for saying what their actual POLITICS are then they will burn themselves too. its a stupid game.


----------



## redcogs (Dec 3, 2013)

i'm not that astute bolshie', but aren't  the 'politics' of opposition to corrupt practices in high socialist places pretty obvious?

The swp was a party with a principled commitment to replacing capitalism's class based privilege and inequality, but these past couple of years has exposed some of the Party hierarch's  (and not a few of their creatures in the upper level cadre) as being involved in some well dodgy maneuvering to secure political advantage for the permanent faction that has come to dominate.  The distaste generated by the central facts of the sex assault case (and its handling) have given rise to an entirely legitimate anger and led to a questioning of the structures that have enabled such a disaster.

Numbers of those on the outside, who remain sympathetic to swp aims and objectives see that any former integrity has largely vanished.  What appears instead is a corroded dysfunctional and self serving apparatus which refuses to honestly face up to its grave failings. 

Many others on the outside, who were no doubt considered as 'periphery', have already turned their faces against becoming involved in a contaminated organisation.

What's to understand?


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 3, 2013)

To the tune of Old MacDonald, sung preferably with an index finger in each ear and your eyes closed.

It's all about the politics
The POLITICS don't you know.
It's not about a rape at all
It's the POLITICS don't you know.
With avoidance here and expulsions there
Here a D, there a C, everywhere integrity 
It's all about the politics
The POLITICS don't you know.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 3, 2013)

flypanam said:


> Shit, but isn't he right on Renton here, I thought he was suspended from the swp for taking a senior position in a union about 7/8 years ago. Its what I remember hearing in Ireland back then.



If that's true, it may explain why he's so keen to point out the unannounced and untheorised shift in practice. After all, if he got a shoeing years ago, for doing something that's now normalised, he'd certainly notice the shift.


----------



## treelover (Dec 3, 2013)

belboid said:


> Christine Bucholz??




Yes


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 3, 2013)

I see Renton replied to bolshiebhoy's comment here on Facebook. He says that he actually wasn't having a pop at the SWP, but was genuinely wondering about where lines should be drawn.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 3, 2013)

redcogs said:


> The swp was a party with a principled commitment to replacing capitalism's class based privilege and inequality, but these past couple of years has exposed some of the Party hierarch's  (and not a few of their creatures in the upper level cadre) as being involved in some well dodgy maneuvering to secure political advantage for the permanent faction that has come to dominate.



Interesting post by Kieran Crowe on Facebook with reference to this:

_"Martin used to have face-to-face meetings with most of the leftwing trade union leaders. He was like a sort of parallel bureaucrat. He would often not bother talking to SWP members in PCS until after meeting Serwotka. In the case of RMT, he found it easier to deal directly with Bob Crow than any SWP member in the union itself at all. Where any of this fits into 'rank and file' organising 'from below', I don't know, but his perspective was very much that the party was his stage army that he needed to look like a 'player' when talking to the other Big Men of the movement. That's kind of the basis on which all SWP strategy was premised after 2009 - grandstand marches and rallies designed to make it look like he was an effective leader in the movement, with the spotlight very much on himself (UAF also got used for this after 2010). He overreached himself with the storming of ACAS: he thought Woodley would be impressed until the exact bonkersness of it became apparent." _


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see Renton replied to bolshiebhoy's comment here on Facebook. He says that he actually wasn't having a pop at the SWP, but was genuinely wondering about where lines should be drawn.


Bollox. and it's cause I really, really don't believe that I won't be replying on FB where people get more excitable and it's harder to remain friendly with people. You don't publish an article about 'integrity' in a hostile magazine run by the sects with an article by seymour bookending yours and warble on about how so many loyalists are in breach of the rule about percentage of facility time and then claim your article isn't an attack on the SWP or an intervention in the faction fight. Complete and utter bollox. the article starts by referencing the main motion at conference for Christ sakes and it's use of the word integrity. And his 'even the SWP' phrase is perhaps the most telling, he's embarrassed to be a member and he is quite deliberately suggesting that the integrity of those involved in this mess is questionable. I used to think he just thought that was true of Smith. Now it's clear he includes the prof, CK and probably most of the original dc apart of course from any who are now in the faction. This moral grandstanding of the opposition gets more shrill and the chest beating all the louder the closer we get to conference and them maybe just maybe having to say something about what their alternative platform for leadership would look like. Their divisions meant they can't so the "we have all the decent people" shite has to substitute. It's just bonkers, totally apolitical and hugely insulting to people who have devoted their adult lives to revolutionary politics.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> he's embarrassed to be a member


anyone with any decency would be. i'm now embarrassed that i was a member twenty years ago


> and he is quite deliberately suggesting that the integrity of those involved in this mess is questionable. I used to think he just thought that was true of Smith. Now it's clear he includes the prof, CK and probably most of the original dc


it's not that questionable, i reckon it's pretty certain the integrity of those people is shot to pieces. you can add yourself to the list as well.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Bollox.... Their divisions meant they can't so the "we have all the decent people" shite has to substitute. It's just bonkers, totally apolitical and hugely insulting to people who have devoted their adult lives to revolutionary politics.



Has it ever occurred to you that events may occur or issues may arise where the chief dividing line is not whether some aspect of the SWPs particular take on "revolutionary politics" is correct? Or do you really, honestly, believe in the Maoist notion that political line determines everything and underlies everything?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Bollox. and it's cause I really, really don't believe that I won't be replying on FB where people get more excitable and it's harder to remain friendly with people. You don't publish an article about 'integrity' in a hostile magazine run by the sects with an article by seymour bookending yours and warble on about how so many loyalists are in breach of the rule about percentage of facility time and then claim your article isn't an attack on the SWP or an intervention in the faction fight. Complete and utter bollox. the article starts by referencing the main motion at conference for Christ sakes and it's use of the word integrity. And his 'even the SWP' phrase is perhaps the most telling, he's embarrassed to be a member and he is quite deliberately suggesting that the integrity of those involved in this mess is questionable. I used to think he just thought that was true of Smith. Now it's clear he includes the prof, CK and probably most of the original dc apart of course from any who are now in the faction. This moral grandstanding of the opposition gets more shrill and the chest beating all the louder the closer we get to conference and them maybe just maybe having to say something about what their alternative platform for leadership would look like. Their divisions meant they can't so the "we have all the decent people" shite has to substitute. It's just bonkers, totally apolitical and hugely insulting to people who have devoted their adult lives to revolutionary politics.



Don't get your knickers in a twist! To quote Renton in full:

_The comrade suggested that by giving this particular example I was throwing "any s*** I could" at the SWP.

No, I wasn't. It was a genuine question.

If I wanted to criticise the party or the individual in that senior role - I would not have stressed their kindness and the genuiness of their socialism. Nor would I have given an explanation for why I think the organisation didn't notice them, "ignorance", ie I genuinely don't think the centre ever knew about them. (The SWP is still, just about, big enough for that to happen).

There's a bigger point. We come from a tradition were every question avails of a simple answer - one campaign is legitimate, another is a diversion from the struggle, etc, etc. Every ex-member is an enemy, and everyone in the leadership is brilliant and talented (until next year's faction fight)

My point was that sometimes it's not like that - sometimes the questions are genuine dilemmas, and difficult to answer. 

If comrades haven't grasped even that little from our catastrophe of the last year, then I wonder what they have learned?
_
What have you learned from the still ongoing SWP car crash??


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 3, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> What have you learned from the still ongoing SWP car crash??



He's learned not to trust anyone under 40.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 3, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Bollox. and it's cause I really, really don't believe that I won't be replying on FB where people get more excitable and it's harder to remain friendly with people. You don't publish an article about 'integrity' in a hostile magazine run by the sects with an article by seymour bookending yours and warble on about how so many loyalists are in breach of the rule about percentage of facility time and then claim your article isn't an attack on the SWP or an intervention in the faction fight. Complete and utter bollox. the article starts by referencing the main motion at conference for Christ sakes and it's use of the word integrity. And his 'even the SWP' phrase is perhaps the most telling, he's embarrassed to be a member and he is quite deliberately suggesting that the integrity of those involved in this mess is questionable. I used to think he just thought that was true of Smith. Now it's clear he includes the prof, CK and probably most of the original dc apart of course from any who are now in the faction. This moral grandstanding of the opposition gets more shrill and the chest beating all the louder the closer we get to conference and them maybe just maybe having to say something about what their alternative platform for leadership would look like. Their divisions meant they can't so the "we have all the decent people" shite has to substitute. It's just bonkers, totally apolitical and hugely insulting to people who have devoted their adult lives to revolutionary politics.



Are you Martin Smith?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 3, 2013)

flypanam said:


> Shit, but isn't he right on Renton here, I thought he was suspended from the swp for taking a senior position in a union about 7/8 years ago. Its what I remember hearing in Ireland back then.



Yes, but why was he really suspended? That daft rule was never really a rule, it was an idea that was thought up, never taken seriously and used as "proof" that the SWP, a party which it is now painfully clear drew a lot of strength from hacks in mid level union positions, was "dead rank and file".


----------



## discokermit (Dec 3, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> never taken seriously


it was.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 3, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He's learned not to trust anyone under 40.


Towards the Senile Workers Party?


----------



## Before Theory (Dec 4, 2013)

So


SpackleFrog said:


> Are you Martin Smith?


Spackle, I have been thinking that for quite a while. BB has always got "the line" and once said he would bet his mortgage and marriage on Smith not being guilty of rape, who says something like that ? Even the arch loyalists I know have never expressed that level of commitment, they are still clinging to the "hostile forces" argument.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 4, 2013)

he isn't martin smith.


----------



## belboid (Dec 4, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> So
> 
> Spackle, I have been thinking that for quite a while. BB has always got "the line" and once said he would bet his mortgage and marriage on Smith not being guilty of rape, who says something like that ? Even the arch loyalists I know have never expressed that level of commitment, they are still clinging to the "hostile forces" argument.


dont go there. he isnt


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 4, 2013)

100% definitely not.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 4, 2013)

Er yes it's a daft and distracting angle to go down as well as wrong of course.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 4, 2013)

discokermit said:


> it was.



When?

Yeah, I know he isn't MS but I'm having trouble understanding why else he would say this stuff. Batshit.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 4, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> When?
> 
> Yeah, I know he isn't MS but I'm having trouble understanding why else he would say this stuff. Batshit.


BB trots out (no pun intended!) the "loyalist" line because:
1) he can wind the rest of us up and
2) he probably believes it. The situation has become so disastrously polarised that even a supposed non-nutter loyalist like Roger Cox has apparently said that he wouldn't mind seeing good old Martin back in the party. But that could be a provocation as well...


----------



## articul8 (Dec 4, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> even a supposed non-nutter loyalist like Roger Cox has apparently said that he wouldn't mind seeing good old Martin back in the party.


Has he?  No wonder the SWP round here are struggling so badly


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 4, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Don't get your knickers in a twist! To quote Renton in full:
> 
> _The comrade suggested that by giving this particular example I was throwing "any s*** I could" at the SWP.
> 
> ...


Sorry but the context of where he wrote it, the preamble about the conference motion and the numerous other digs at people associated with the cc line mean nobody can really take this claim to be asking an honest question devoid of factional intent seriously.

The worst section of the article is the bit on the uaf. The faction have made the uaf a point of issue, cool that's their right to debate its tactics. But the impugning of people's integrity over those tactics is low down mean and dirty politics. When I was at the Exeter demo a few weeks back even those of us who got close enough to abuse the scum verbally didn't breach police lines. It would have been daft to try. When three of us started giving them grief from ten metres away the copper in front turned to me and said "say what you want as loud as you want mate as long as you don't swear and don't try to get past me and my mates." Given the balance of forces I was happy to agree to both his stipulations  But the reason I mention it is cause DR crosses a line in this article when he says those who defend the mainstream uaf line are lacking in integrity. We might be wrong, happy to have that argument. But he can go take a running jump if he's going to suggest the reason we're wrong is a lack of moral fibre.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 4, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> When?
> 
> Yeah, I know he isn't MS but I'm having trouble understanding why else he would say this stuff. Batshit.


What's batshit is pretending that an article with clear factional muckraking intent is just an abstract musing on party best practice. 

I'll be totally honest when I first started reading DR on this mess what struck me most about him was his ability to see the good in people on all sides. His most frequent argument with everyone seemed to be remember you're going to have to work together in the future and be careful what you say. But then at each critical point in the process he seems to forget that and let factional needs get the better of him. He did it just before Marxism with an ill judged piece that engaged in crude class attacks on the prof, a piece he pulled after some gentle polite nudging from the likes of me. I think he did it again with his very tendentious and one sided account of the role of the prof and ck in the dc cases, with all sorts of factoids as the prof would call them just thrown about with gay abandon. And now again he's really gone to town in this lamentable piece which goes out of its way to insult most of the people he claims to want to remain in the same party with. I'd love to see the DR I recognised at the beginning of this mess resurface but it's probably too late now :-(


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Dec 4, 2013)

Can't read through 482 pages, can someone sum it up concisely?


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 4, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Can't read through 482 pages, can someone sum it up concisely?


The UK SWP is doomed. Think CP after '56.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Dec 4, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> The UK SWP is doomed. Think CP after '56.



I hear there is about to be about to be "a mass exit" of younger recruits from the Brixton branch very soon.


----------



## belboid (Dec 4, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Can't read through 482 pages, can someone sum it up concisely?


Callinicos himself sums it up quite neatly

https://twitter.com/alex_callinicos/status/408005075492020224


----------



## discokermit (Dec 4, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> The UK SWP is doomed. Think CP after '56.


'91 more like.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Dec 4, 2013)

belboid said:


> Callinicos himself sums it up quite neatly
> 
> https://twitter.com/alex_callinicos/status/408005075492020224



Wow.


----------



## belboid (Dec 5, 2013)

last year they apparently had a headline of 'The cover up goes right to the top' without any evident sense of irony


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What's batshit is pretending that an article with clear factional muckraking intent is just an abstract musing on party best practice.
> 
> I'll be totally honest when I first started reading DR on this mess what struck me most about him was his ability to see the good in people on all sides. His most frequent argument with everyone seemed to be remember you're going to have to work together in the future and be careful what you say. But then at each critical point in the process he seems to forget that and let factional needs get the better of him. He did it just before Marxism with an ill judged piece that engaged in crude class attacks on the prof, a piece he pulled after some gentle polite nudging from the likes of me. I think he did it again with his very tendentious and one sided account of the role of the prof and ck in the dc cases, with all sorts of factoids as the prof would call them just thrown about with gay abandon. And now again he's really gone to town in this lamentable piece which goes out of its way to insult most of the people he claims to want to remain in the same party with. I'd love to see the DR I recognised at the beginning of this mess resurface but it's probably too late now :-(



They're not gonna have to work together in the same party are they though? Because it's fucked. And lets face it - lets look at the real reason, whether you think MS is a rapist or not - it's fucked because the SWP became the kind of party that needed a muppet like Martin Smith to be its national secretary.

Think about that. Go back if you like, check out some of his Marxism greatest hits on YouTube. This _moron _was judged to be so invaluable to the SWP _that he was worth protecting, even if it meant losing members._

That's batshit.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Dec 5, 2013)

Met someone i like in the SWP at the Brixton Post office recently. Lovely man, successful in his own right, more spotlight than many of us could cope with.
He is a believer in a better world and if i was in trouble i would trust him and know he would help in some small way, like so many others i have met over the years. It's a real shame, a sadness that so many gave their self to an organisation that was dictatorial, misogynist and dirtied the name of socialism.
It did give a lot of hope to people, myself included (briefly) but it was a false hope.
At Thatcher's death party at Windrush Square they collectively snubbed me as they wasted cheap champagne and competed for media attention .
But i had the last word.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 5, 2013)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> I hear there is about to be about to be "a mass exit" of younger recruits from the Brixton branch very soon.



new meaning of the word mass


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 5, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> The UK SWP is doomed. Think CP after '56.


Wrp after 85, but without the dignity.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 5, 2013)

Weekly Worker one of the most boring I can remember for a while. Not surprising given the poor material they have to work with.
Guess they're saving themselves for the next two issues! 

Incidentally surely the events of Dec 13-15 will warrant a Winter issue of Workers Girder?


----------



## redcogs (Dec 5, 2013)

The 13 -15 conference appears to coincide with The Southbank Centre Chocolate Festival.

JFYI.  Not that anyone will require sweetening up (following the event)


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry but the context of where he wrote it, the preamble about the conference motion and the numerous other digs at people associated with the cc line mean nobody can really take this claim to be asking an honest question devoid of factional intent seriously.
> 
> The worst section of the article is the bit on the uaf. *The faction have made the uaf a point of issue, cool that's their right to debate its tactics. But the impugning of people's integrity over those tactics is low down mean and dirty politics*. When I was at the Exeter demo a few weeks back even those of us who got close enough to abuse the scum verbally didn't breach police lines. It would have been daft to try. When three of us started giving them grief from ten metres away the copper in front turned to me and said "say what you want as loud as you want mate as long as you don't swear and don't try to get past me and my mates." Given the balance of forces I was happy to agree to both his stipulations  But the reason I mention it is cause DR crosses a line in this article when he says those who defend the mainstream uaf line are lacking in integrity. We might be wrong, happy to have that argument. But he can go take a running jump if he's going to suggest the reason we're wrong is a lack of moral fibre.



Seriously, do you ever read what you have typed before you post it?
The SWP leadership and their supporters (including you) have been "impugning peoples integrity" throughout the investigation and aftermath of the rape "investigation" it held...and you have the nerve to throw a hissy fit cos some think that the UAF has shit tactics? 
For fucks sake ... how does a socialist seriously believe this bollocks so much that they feel justified in arguing it?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 5, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> And now again he's really gone to town in this lamentable piece which goes out of its way to insult most of the people he claims to want to remain in the same party with. I'd love to see the DR I recognised at the beginning of this mess resurface but it's probably too late now :-(


Bolshiebhoy, I'm replying to this post and your previous one to me.

First, I would accept that David Renton has been somewhat over the top at times and left himself open to misinterpretation. Apart from the UAF case you mention, an example might be his comments on public service workers' pensions. BUT, given that he has probably been the most outspoken of the oppositionists in terms of his own blog and social media and has often been responding to events in the heat of the moment, this aberration strikes me as inevitable. You should also remember that many oppo members have been "bruised" (to quote Birchall) in the campaign of the leadership/IdooM against them (eg the stitched-up March conference, isolating them in the branches and aggregates...) and it is only natural if a slight note of bitterness should intrude in their writing.

But all that is peripheral to the central question. A trusted friend recently told me that a leading member had confessed to him that the SWP leadership had indeed lied over the Delta business (surprise, surprise...). I would imagine that many loyalists (perhaps even yourself) would accept this in private. However, they undoubtedly believe that what is most important in the current situation is not the lies/cover up, but to defend a party under attack from all sides. 

On the other hand, those who have become oppositionists (and those of us who support them on the outside) were not only revolted by the CC's lies and cover up, but for them it revealed that something was rotten at the heart of the party, namely a massive deficit of democracy. Once this Pandora's Box was opened, a whole range of issues have been up for debate, sometimes not in the most measured way.

I understand that people who have devoted most of their lives to the party want to save it come what may. Unfortunately, what they fail to realise is that the situation has degenerated to such a degree, that only a refoundation of the party could rescue it now. But, as we know, that is very unlikely to happen....


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 6, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Bolshiebhoy, I'm replying to this post and your previous one to me.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> I understand that people who have devoted most of their lives to the party want to save it come what may. Unfortunately, what they fail to realise is that the situation has degenerated to such a degree, that only a refoundation of the party could rescue it now. But, as we know, that is very unlikely to happen....


Except BB jumped ship years back and only rejoined to love up to a leadership deeply mired in scandal and ordure. He then slanders those who remained loyal to an organisation he was happy to abandon. 
I can understand those who remain loyal, though I have little respect for them, they are desperate to reassure themselves that a lifetime of work was not for nothing, a squalid rape cult, but they are wrong.
 Bolshiebhoy is not one of them.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 6, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Except BB jumped ship years back and only rejoined to love up to a leadership deeply mired in scandal and ordure. He then slanders those who remained loyal to an organisation he was happy to abandon.
> I can understand those who remain loyal, though I have little respect for them, they are desperate to reassure themselves that a lifetime of work was not for nothing, a squalid rape cult, but they are wrong.Bolshiebhoy is not one of them.


Thanks for the info. When I referred to those loyalists who had devoted their lives to the party, I wasn't necessarily thinking of BB (whose history I didn't know), but more people like Paul H, Sheila M, John R etc. Of course, it has to be remembered that others like Ian B and Colin B have even longer histories in IS/SWP and have played a much more honourable role in the past year.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 6, 2013)

Funny business as usual: apparently the leadership have barred an opposition delegate from conference for mouthing off on Facebook.


----------



## redcogs (Dec 6, 2013)

Fuck me, socialists silencing dissent is depressing


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 6, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Fuck me, socialists silencing dissent is depressing



I know shocking stuff!!!!11


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 6, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Except BB jumped ship years back and only rejoined to love up to a leadership deeply mired in scandal and ordure. He then slanders those who remained loyal to an organisation he was happy to abandon.
> I can understand those who remain loyal, though I have little respect for them, they are desperate to reassure themselves that a lifetime of work was not for nothing, a squalid rape cult, but they are wrong.
> Bolshiebhoy is not one of them.



There are many reasons why people join the SWP. My brother joined after working with them in the anl. I joined after the financial crash cos I was out of work, no hope of getting anything so I was naive and desperate enough to find someone who'd give the the opportunity to _do something. _We both ended up regretting it.

BB (re)joined after the CC covered up rape allegations.

It takes all sorts as they say.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 6, 2013)

The party I joined has come to a sorry state but I say with sadness that the leadership have brought this on themselves by orchestrating aggregates to shut out the fractions in the run up to conferences has time after time stifled the discussion that has long been needed within the whole of the party and the way the rape cases have been dealt with is a symptom of a party leadership that has lost it's way.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 7, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Funny business as usual: apparently the leadership have barred an opposition delegate from conference for mouthing off on Facebook.


I guess you're referring to the American comrade, Bill C, who thought he had joined the SWP on his arrival in the UK and was sent Party Notes/IBs, attended student aggregates etc However, once it was discovered he had been selected as a delegate for the faction, his "request to join" was refused. An additional misdemeanour which good old Charlie has thrown up against him is that he was very critical of the leadership on Facebook.

But Bill C, somewhat naively, thought that his critical comments were only destined to his Facebook friends and therefore not for public consumption. All of which raises some interesting questions...... How far can a member's (or aspiring member's) comments be used against them? An indiscrete conversation in a pub, a private email to a friend, a document found on your computer... It all smacks Healyism (some would say Stalinism) to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2013)

Impeccably anti-stalinist stalinism of course.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 7, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Except BB jumped ship years back and only rejoined to love up to a leadership deeply mired in scandal and ordure. He then slanders those who remained loyal to an organisation he was happy to abandon.
> I can understand those who remain loyal, though I have little respect for them, they are desperate to reassure themselves that a lifetime of work was not for nothing, a squalid rape cult, but they are wrong.
> Bolshiebhoy is not one of them.


Love up to a leadership? Get over yourself barney, my only dealings with the likes of the prof were over 20 years ago. The people I respect most in the SWP and have any dealings with are the middle cadre who stayed in when folk like me drifted away through burnout and other causes. Quite a few of us have indeed drawn closer to the party over the last year. But not because we missed the prof. Or because we can't wait to beat our chests and congratulate the party for its handling of the rape cases. Lets be honest, its despite all that shit. No it's cause we took the existence of the SWP for granted and valued the work it did all the years we were largely inactive. But now we're more than a little worried that if the faction has its way the swp will cease to exist or will be transformed into something else, something softer and maybe nicer but ultimately not the useful weapon of Marxist ideas that the SWP has been all these years. Now maybe I'm wrong and it doesn't matter if the SWP survives in its present form. But your comical suggestion that I only care about that because I want to be on the prof's Xmas card list does make me smile.

I'm not slandering Renton, I like him. But I've tried to explain why I think he's lost the plot politically. The SWP has always needed folk like him, it's a shame he seems on a one way journey out.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 7, 2013)

This has to be an elaborate troll


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 7, 2013)

I'm far too hungover tonight to be an elaborate anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2013)

Martin Smith: a retrospective


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 8, 2013)

Not exactly a run of amazing success under his stewardship, was it?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 8, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not exactly a run of amazing success under his stewardship, was it?


Not exactly. He should have remained a district organiser, a role in which he was apparently quite successful. Whether that would have avoided the rape scandal is another question.
David Renton's article misses out on one crucial event in Martin Smith's history: his leading role in the ousting of Rees/German. This is important because it partly explains the leadership's cover up for him. Rees and German left the party in early 2010 and Bambery was to go a year later. Meanwhile, in the summer of 2010 the CC was made aware of the allegations against Smith. With Harman now gone, they must have been very nervous about rocking the boat and jettisoning such a key player. Of course, no excuse for their cover up.


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 8, 2013)

Rentons article is wrong ... Smith was NOT the east london organiser until 6 months AFTER the BNP councillor had lost his seat on the Isle of Dogs.
Sue Cauldwell was the organiser when Derek Beacon won the election in september 1993. Ade walters was the organiser when Beacon was kicked out in My 1994. Smith took over in nov 1994 when the previous organiser quit.
I dont blame renton for this mistake as the Swp has always led people to believe smith was the organiser in east london throughout this time ...presumably to massage his ego as the 'key anti nazi'


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 9, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Rentons article is wrong ... Smith was NOT the east london organiser until 6 months AFTER the BNP councillor had lost his seat on the Isle of Dogs.
> Sue Cauldwell was the organiser when Derek Beacon won the election in september 1993. Ade walters was the organiser when Beacon was kicked out in My 1994. Smith took over in nov 1994 when the previous organiser quit.
> I dont blame renton for this mistake as the Swp has always led people to believe smith was the organiser in east london throughout this time ...presumably to massage his ego as the 'key anti nazi'


Just in case you haven't seen it, David Renton has acknowledged your correction on Facebook.


----------



## sandinista GB (Dec 9, 2013)

As a newbie to this forum and a veteran of the Anti Nazi League and Rock Against Racism of the 1970's the demise of SWP can only be a bad thing. One hopes they shall rise again.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 9, 2013)

Some anarcho-students are gloating about burning the SWP's placards and papers at a demonstration in Sussex University in solidarity with five suspended students. They were tweeting their success to the Socialist Worker twitter feed, but hadn't noticed that they were in fact talking to the ISO.


----------



## pir (Dec 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Some anarcho-students are gloating about burning the SWP's placards and papers at a demonstration in Sussex University in solidarity with five suspended students.



The gloating may seem a bit off putting when it's about something as serious as rape, but the anger is justified. People found the contribution by the one SWP loyalist remaining at Sussex university after the previous SWSS group resigned of how he is using the Sussex campaign as a case study in de-toxifying the SWSS brand. In the pre-conference IB, (nb 2, p.81) he acknowledges that "_SWP members face difficult arguments with potential members [...] to explain the events of the last year that have caused many students to leave the party_" but then explains that their strategy of targeting "_freshers with little political experience_", a "_conscious decision_" "_to build outside from the typical hard left on campus_" has been successful so far.
Do you think it's surprising that some student activists feel revulsion at being used like this in an experiment to de-toxify the brand? That inexperienced 17 year olds are being targeted? That suddenly 2 out of 3 speakers at rallies are SWP loyalists? It's the typical SWP instrumentalist approach - the same one that led to the SWP covering for comrade Delta.

The SWP stall got turned over and their placards were binned at today's rally btw.


----------



## sandinista GB (Dec 10, 2013)

Why turn against the SWP en-bloc. Why simply not turn against those who have damaged the SWP. For decades it has been at the core of the anti-establishment and anti-racist cause.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2013)

no it hasnt


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2013)

sandinista GB said:


> Why turn against the SWP en-bloc. Why simply not turn against those who have damaged the SWP. For decades it has been at the core of the anti-establishment and anti-racist cause.


Who are you talking to?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2013)

so if I have this right, the remaining loyal but really unhappy people within the party are being sidelined, disciplined and told to stfu?

How is that even logical? You bled a huge number of people over a series of botched kangaroo rape trials (really?) and then those who have remained party loyal but frantically want to make this thing never doable again but still within the party, loyal to the tradition. Those people get the full treatment? Correct me if I am reading it wrong but isn't that just mental?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 10, 2013)

pir said:


> The gloating may seem a bit off putting when it's about something as serious as rape, but the anger is justified. .



1) Off putting? No shit.
2) You have no way of knowing whether the SWP members you are harassing are oppositionists, or even if one of the complainants is amongst them.
3) Am I correct in thinking that one of the Sussex5 is actually in the SWP?
4) I'm glad that the anarchist scene has such a spotless record of handling sexual assault, harassment and rape in its own circles, organisations, social centres etc that some of its supporters feel comfortable adopting a pose of total self-righteousness on the issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2013)

Nasty pointless #4 nigel.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nasty pointless #4 nigel.



Not really intended as such. I just get irritated by people on the left whose response to the SWP's disgusting shit is 100% self-righteousness, 0% introspection. Please note the words "...some of...".


----------



## pir (Dec 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> 2) You have no way of knowing whether the SWP members you are harassing are oppositionists, or even if one of the complainants is amongst them.


Not sure why you're addressing this at me as I'm at best peripheral to it. But yes, you can tell that someone is a loyalist if they (1) attack the opposition in the pre-conference IB for not having faith in the SWSS brand, and (2) if they tell a student occupation they are convinced Comrade Delta is innocent because of the rigorous investigatory process the SWP applied, with lots of women and even a genuine rape councillor on their disputes committee; and if they make out they are a committed feminist who'd never stay in the party if they believed it had actually happened etc. etc.



Nigel Irritable said:


> 3) Am I correct in thinking that one of the Sussex5 is actually in the SWP?


Yes that's correct, and he receives the same support and solidarity as the rest of the Sussex 5.
Does that mean they get the right to impose the SWP brand on the campaign by swamping demos and rallies with their placards, again targeting "_freshers with little political experience_"?



Nigel Irritable said:


> 4) I'm glad that the anarchist scene has such a spotless record of handling sexual assault, harassment and rape in its own circles, organisations, social centres etc that some of its supporters feel comfortable adopting a pose of total self-righteousness on the issue.


Where do you get that idea from? Most anarchists i've seen are careful to point out that this is a much wider problem also found in their circles. Even the are people who burnt the SW paper say very clearly in that very post (not sure how you missed it):
"_It is also important to emphasise abuse and the protection of abusers is not limited to the SWP, but is endemic across the left. We will fight it wherever we find it_."

Do you have nothing to say about the plan to use one of the most exciting campaigns around to detoxify the SWSS brand, using 17-18 year old freshers precisely because of their inexperience?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2013)

"It is also important to emphasise abuse and the protection of abusers is not limited to the SWP, but is endemic across the left. We will fight it wherever we find it."

Is this true?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2013)

pir said:


> The gloating may seem a bit off putting when it's about something as serious as rape, but the anger is justified. People found the contribution by the one SWP loyalist remaining at Sussex university after the previous SWSS group resigned of how he is using the Sussex campaign as a case study in de-toxifying the SWSS brand. In the pre-conference IB, (nb 2, p.81) he acknowledges that "_SWP members face difficult arguments with potential members [...] to explain the events of the last year that have caused many students to leave the party_" but then explains that their strategy of targeting "_freshers with little political experience_", a "_conscious decision_" "_to build outside from the typical hard left on campus_" has been successful so far.
> Do you think it's surprising that some student activists feel revulsion at being used like this in an experiment to de-toxify the brand? That inexperienced 17 year olds are being targeted? That suddenly 2 out of 3 speakers at rallies are SWP loyalists? It's the typical SWP instrumentalist approach - the sameyouone that led to the SWP covering for comrade Delta.
> 
> The SWP stall got turned over and their placards were binned at today's rally btw.


Are you 17? Are many people at Sussex university 17? Are you a 'student activist'? If so how did it "suddenly 2 out of 3 speakers at rallies are SWP loyalists?" Who are you? Who is doing what? Where are they doing it and how, with who?


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2013)

> he acknowledges that "_SWP members face difficult arguments with potential members [...] to explain the events of the last year that have caused many students to leave the party_" but then *explains that their strategy of targeting "freshers with little political experience", a "conscious decision" "to build outside from the typical hard left on campus*" has been successful so far.



The cynicism is obscene, action taken was correct, imo.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2013)

The cynicism is pir's disgusting re-telling of the IB contribution.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2013)

> Before the accusation is raised that the
> level of student activity at Sussex in the
> past year (mainly the anti-privatisation
> campaign and occupation) mean that the
> ...


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Rentons article is wrong ... Smith was NOT the east london organiser until 6 months AFTER the BNP councillor had lost his seat on the Isle of Dogs.
> *Sue Cauldwell was the organiser when Derek Beacon won the election in september 1993*. Ade walters was the organiser when Beacon was kicked out in My 1994. Smith took over in nov 1994 when the previous organiser quit.
> I dont blame renton for this mistake as the Swp has always led people to believe smith was the organiser in east london throughout this time ...presumably to massage his ego as the 'key anti nazi'



Any relation to Jo?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 10, 2013)

pir said:


> Not sure why you're addressing this at me as I'm at best peripheral to it.



I'm addressing you as someone I don't know the first thing about.




			
				pir said:
			
		

> But yes, you can tell that someone is a loyalist if...



Right and you are saying that all of the SWP members present at that demonstration, operating that stall, handing out those placards, etc, did one of these things? Or is there every possibility that some of them have spent the last year fighting against these things, and you have no way of knowing?

In other words, was their whole "intervention" carried out by this one known loyalist? Or were there people involved you don't know to be loyalists? And if the latter don't you run a small but real risk of actually hassling one of the original complainants in an attempt to express outrage on her behalf? Or a small but slightly larger risk of hassling the complainants friends?

(Those are meant as serious questions by the way, not rhetorical jabs)




			
				pir said:
			
		

> Yes that's correct, and he receives the same support and solidarity as the rest of the Sussex 5.



If someone claimed they were acting in solidarity with me while at the same time trying to censor an organisation I'm involved in, I wouldn't be very impressed with their "solidarity".




			
				pir said:
			
		

> Does that mean they get the right to impose the SWP brand on the campaign by swamping demos and rallies with placards



They have every right to hand out placards, or leaflets or sell papers. They don't staple them to people's hands. People are perfectly entitled not to take their material, to alter it, to argue with others not to take it, to argue with them. But I get very twitchy when I see small left groups announce that they are going to censor other small left groups and prevent them from organising.

As for where I get the idea that some anarchists are displaying a bizarre and unfounded self-righteousness, I refer you to the tweets that started this conversation.




			
				pir said:
			
		

> Do you have nothing to say about the plan to use one of the most exciting campaigns around to detoxify the SWSS brand, using 17-18 year old freshers precisely because of their inexperience?



You are dramatically overplaying the "detoxify" angle. No involvement in any campaign is going to do that for the SWP now. As for the concentration on first years, it's cynical but sensible from their point of view in circumstances where there is an established campus left and it's entirely hostile to them. (For less cynical reasons, putting a bit more effort into trying to recruit first years makes sense for any campus activist group, but that's getting off the point).


----------



## pir (Dec 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The cynicism is pir's disgusting re-telling of the IB report.



What's disgusting about my retelling it? It's not a report, it's describing a strategy for "Rebuilding SWSS" as the title says, and it's in response to another contribution which stated that the "SWSS brand is destroyed" and that they should only work within other student societies. However existing activists wouldn't touch the SWP with a barge pole, so they take the "conscious decision" to "build outside from the typical hard left on campus" and "reach out to freshers with little political experience".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> "It is also important to emphasise abuse and the protection of abusers is not limited to the SWP, but is endemic across the left. We will fight it wherever we find it."
> 
> Is this true?



Which sentence?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2013)

pir said:


> What's disgusting about my retelling it? It's not a report, it's describing a strategy for "Rebuilding SWSS" as the title says, and it's in response to another contribution which stated that the "SWSS brand is destroyed" and that they should only work within other student societies. However existing activists wouldn't touch the SWP with a barge pole, so they take the "conscious decision" to "build outside from the typical hard left on campus" and "reach out to freshers with little political experience".


It describes the general guff that leftists come out with about outreach beyond universities. Nothing else. Are you at the university? How many years you been there? Are you part of the 'existing activists'?


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2013)

pir said:


> Not sure why you're addressing this at me as I'm at best peripheral to it. But yes, you can tell that someone is a loyalist if they (1) attack the opposition in the pre-conference IB for not having faith in the SWSS brand, and (2) if they tell a student occupation they are convinced Comrade Delta is innocent because of the rigorous investigatory process the SWP applied, with lots of women and even a genuine rape councillor on their disputes committee; and if they make out they are a committed feminist who'd never stay in the party if they believed it had actually happened etc. etc.
> 
> 
> Yes that's correct, and he receives the same support and solidarity as the rest of the Sussex 5.
> ...




welcome to P/P, hope you stay...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> welcome to P/P, hope you stay...


Every single person you say that to goes away.


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2013)




----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> Any relation to Jo?


no idea I'm afraid


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> Any relation to Jo?


No. It's Sue Caldwell, not Caudwell


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 10, 2013)

Meanwhile the ISN are being mean to each other online in a row about whether they should be mean to each other in rows online.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2013)

Oh, is that what that's about...


----------



## pir (Dec 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Right and you are saying that all of the SWP members present at that demonstration, operating that stall, handing out those placards, etc, did one of these things? Or is there every possibility that some of them have spent the last year fighting against these things, and you have no way of knowing?
> 
> In other words, was their whole "intervention" carried out by this one known loyalist? Or were there people involved you don't know to be loyalists? And if the latter don't you run a small but real risk of actually hassling one of the original complainants in an attempt to express outrage on her behalf? Or a small but slightly larger risk of hassling the complainants friends?
> 
> (Those are meant as serious questions by the way, not rhetorical jabs)



Your questions are going in the wrong direction because the target weren't individual members, the target were the placards and their paper. The modus operandi of the SWP is to appropriate campaigns through dominating them in various ways, such as visually by having their placards everywhere, etc. People who are starting to become politically active all too often join the SWP not because they are an organisation worth joining, but simply because they are the most visible.
While this is obviously not new and activists involved in campaigns have been moaning about it for as long as I remember, the comrade delta affair gives the SWP's opportunism and domineering behaviour a new aspect. In a society where sexual violence is widespread (wasn't the 1 in 8 statistic in the news recently?) there are quite a lot of people who feel intensely uncomfortable, if not unsafe, in a campaign dominated by an organisation that has dealt with rape in the way the SWP did. To simply tolerate the SWP's behaviour after everything that's come to light would be to acquiesce in a culture that lets abusers and bullies off the hook, and to acquiesce in a culture that effectively excludes survivors of abuse who often find it very hard to take part in such campaigns.
I think the comrade delta affair has opened people's eyes to where SWP-style instrumentalist leftist politics leads. Why should we tolerate it?  The campaigns we organise such as the one against privatisation at Sussex uni are motivated by a sense of solidarity for those we work/study with, and by the desire to empower ourselves to create a better society - there is no space for this crap in our midst, and a lot of people's patience for it has run out.



Nigel Irritable said:


> If someone claimed they were acting in solidarity with me while at the same time trying to censor an organisation I'm involved in, I wouldn't be very impressed with their "solidarity".



Tough. The basis of a solidarity campaign such as this is the idea that "an injury to one is an injury to all". It's not about the popularity of those victimised, it's not about their other affiliations - it is about defending a collective interest and about limiting what uni management in this case can get away with. It doesn't give any organisation the victimised belong to a blank cheque to parasitise the solidarity campaign by using it as a recruiting ground.



Nigel Irritable said:


> They have every right to hand out placards, or leaflets or sell papers. They don't staple them to people's hands. People are perfectly entitled not to take their material, to alter it, to argue with others not to take it, to argue with them. But I get very twitchy when I see small left groups announce that they are going to censor other small left groups and prevent them from organising.



That's a very liberal view for a trot - you ignore the superior organisational power of the SWP which allows them to dominate such events. If they were just politely handing out propaganda then people wouldn't object but the SWP have been taking the piss, in a way that  put people off. You misunderstand the situation if you think this is lefty infighting, "Sussex ASN" doesn't really exist as an actual group.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 10, 2013)

pir said:


> That's a very liberal view for a trot - you ignore the superior organisational power of the SWP which allows them to dominate such events. If they were just politely handing out propaganda then people wouldn't object *but the SWP have been taking the piss, in a way that  put people off.* You misunderstand the situation if you think this is lefty infighting, "Sussex ASN" doesn't really exist as an actual group.



Just out of curiosity was there anything specific they did in Sussex or elsewhere? 

Not that I doubt you for a moment just I'd be interested to know exactly what the SWP did that was so piss-taking.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 10, 2013)

Given that the Faction has only 80 delegates, this is basically an academic exercise but here's their proposed slate for the CC:

1) from the CC's proposed slate:

Michael B; Esme C; Julie S; Joseph C; Paul McG (Tower Hamlets); Brian R (Newham)

2) additional names:

Ray M (Wood Green); Estelle C (Brixton); Pat S (Euston); Sam J (Walthamstow); Ian A (Bury & Prestwich); Anindya B (Tower Hamlets); Riya A (Tottenham); Neil D (Edinburgh); Jen W (Tower Hamlets); Sai E (Tottenham)

Any comments??


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 10, 2013)

pir said:


> Your questions are going in the wrong direction because the target weren't individual members, the target were the placards and their paper.



1) That's a specious distinction. The placards etc exist to allow those people to spread their views. Destroying them is an attempt to prevent those people from advertising their views.
2) Are you seriously claiming that turning over a stall and burning papers involved no interaction with actual SWP members?




			
				pir said:
			
		

> The modus operandi of the SWP is to appropriate campaigns through dominating them in various ways, such as visually by having their placards everywhere, etc.



If you are going to patronise people here about the SWP, you should at least start by getting their different tactics and behaviours and what they are designed to achieve clear. The SWP does not generally "appropriate" campaigns. If it wants to run a campaign, it will in normal circumstances simply set it up in the first place or, if beaten to the punch, set up a rival one. Actually trying to take one over, anarchoid paranoia aside, is rare.

And when they do seek to take one over, it isn't by means of handing out placards. They do that to (a) advertise themselves and their presence and (b) popularise their preferred slogans and demands. They will do this any time, any place and it simply does not reflect a desire to take over a campaign.




			
				Pir said:
			
		

> People who are starting to become politically active all too often join the SWP not because they are an organisation worth joining, but simply because they are the most visible.



This is, of course true. In a general sense, the answer is that others need to get better organised and more visible rather than moaning about them. In the particular circumstances of Sussex, which has a bunch of larger left groups and less formal currents in place, this is simply ridiculous however. No Sussex student is going to join the SWP without seeing alternatives and if one somehow does, and somehow avoids googling SWP in the meantime, he/she will discover everything there is to know about the Delta cases from other campus left wingers. Within days. And then over and over again.




			
				Pir said:
			
		

> While this is obviously not new and activists involved in campaigns have been moaning about it for as long as I remember, the comrade delta affair gives the SWP's opportunism and domineering behaviour a new aspect. In a society where sexual violence is widespread (wasn't the 1 in 8 statistic in the news recently?) there are quite a lot of people who feel intensely uncomfortable, if not unsafe, in a campaign dominated by an organisation that has dealt with rape in the way the SWP did. To simply tolerate the SWP's behaviour after everything that's come to light would be to acquiesce in a culture that lets abusers and bullies off the hook, and to acquiesce in a culture that effectively excludes survivors of abuse who often find it very hard to take part in such campaigns.



Lots of slippery language here. What people feel this? How exactly does the presence of a few SWPers in a campaign make anyone "unsafe"? How does the SWP "dominate" this campaign? Are you saying they control it? What "behaviour" are you being asked to "tolerate"? Are you going to extend this kind of censorship to the mainstream political parties, all of which are responsible for crimes on a far grander scale?




			
				Pir said:
			
		

> I think the comrade delta affair has opened people's eyes to where SWP-style instrumentalist leftist politics leads. Why should we tolerate it?



A rather revealing comment, particularly alongside your earlier one about longer term resentments of the SWP and the tweets that started this exchange. There's such an obvious air of glee about some of this stuff which, despite my general hostility to the SWP and horror at their handling of the Delta disputes, I find distasteful.





			
				Pir said:
			
		

> Tough. The basis of a solidarity campaign such as this is the idea that "an injury to one is an injury to all". It's not about the popularity of those victimised



Whoever suggested it was about popularity? Rather than about censorship?




			
				Pir said:
			
		

> That's a very liberal view for a trot - you ignore the superior organisational power of the SWP which allows them to dominate such events.



No I don't. I'm well aware that the SWP are better organised in most ways than most others on the left and that this gives them the opportunity to do lots of things that, for instance, anarchists rarely have the muscle to do. Some of the things that they will do with that capacity will be aggravating or even flat out nefarious. But as I do actually understand how they approach campaigns, I don't conflate them handing out placards or running stalls with them taking over by collapsing various things together under a suitably vague term like "appropriation".

And I don't really have too much time in general for complaints about how unfair it is that someone else is better organised.




			
				Pir said:
			
		

> If they were just politely handing out propaganda then people wouldn't object but the SWP have been taking the piss, in a way that  put people off.



If you have some actual meat, share it and we can all skip a pointless argument. I don't like being soft on the SWP, least of all on this thread.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 10, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Given that the Faction has only 80 delegates, this is basically an academic exercise but here's their proposed slate for the CC:
> 
> 1) from the CC's proposed slate:
> 
> ...



How many of the CC nominees are currently on?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How many of the CC nominees are currently on?


Four by my count, but might be wrong... if so please correct.

Here's the no-beating-about-the-bush rationale from the Faction:

_Here is the alternative slate that Rebuilding the Party supporters are proposing for our Central Committee. It acknowledges the mistakes made by the current leadership by removing those primarily responsible for them. It is also a slate that can facilitate the wide-ranging discussions we will need to if we are to rebuild the party next year.

The slate involves a majority of comrades committed to addressing our failings over the disputes and developing a more open and accountable leadership. We believe that the immediate task for any CC elected will be resolving the political fallout from the crisis in the party and making the SWP fit for purpose.

In contrast, the slate put forward by the outgoing CC attempts to federate hostile camps behind a false unity. It keeps in place five members of the secret faction that organised to defend our former national secretary – Amy L, Weyman B, Judith O, Mark T, Jo C – and adds to their number Sue C, one of that faction's key organisers. This is a strategy designed to maintain the unity of the leadership at the cost of severe damage to the party's reputation. This can only lay the seeds for the next crisis.

We remain open to considering slates that include Alex C and Charlie K but represent a clear break with those who have factionalised to defend our former national secretary. However, after extended discussion Rebuilding the Party supporters decided not to include Alex C or Charlie K on our alternative slate. Both have been the public face of the CC's handling of the crisis. They are the authors of the political defence of the CC's strategy of evading responsibility and presenting a false façade of unity. This strategy has turned a difficult situation into a crisis that threatens the future of the party.

The fundamental political issue at stake is whether or not we have properly applied our politics on women's oppression in dealing with this dispute and its fallout. The Rebuilding the Party faction argues that our leadership has failed on this score. That is why we need a proper apology and a genuine political reckoning for what has happened. At conference we will continue to press for an acknowledgement of mistakes made, a clear apology and the holding to account of those who allowed our record as tribunes of the oppressed to be tarnished so badly._


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 11, 2013)

Someone brought up Steve Hedley earlier. Has this been posted up already:

http://womensfightback.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/hedley/

Why was Steve Hedley welcome at Socialism 2013 last month if the Socialist Party are against what he has done?

Someone mentioned Janine Booth from the AWL. The actual facts of what went on in the RMT meeting are that there was a procedural motion on the RMT Council of Executives to reject the official report on the Steve Hedley case by referring it back. Janine Booth was part of the minority of exec members who voted to refer the report back. After this move fell, the chair asked if the meeting accepted the report then, but then there was no further vote. So Janine Booth did not endorse it and actually voted against endorsing it by referring it back.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

It's always such a pleasure to have a drive by from the racist AWL.

Hedley is a leading figure in the RMT, the complaint against him was investigated by the RMT, and the SP interacts with him on that basis. If the AWL believe that the RMT botched their investigation and were serious about wanting Hedley boycotted, they would be talking about the RMT, trying to embarrass the RMT, continuously raising the issue with the RMT, externally and internally, demanding that the RMT reopen their inquiry, demanding an investigation into their inquiry process and finally seeking to ostracise the RMT. That they do not do any of that but instead use him to try to embarrass an organisation he's not a member of tells you all you need to know about what they are at.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

I see people on Facebook saying that some lad who isn't in the SWP got shouted at and called a rape apologist by some other protesters in Manchester today, who mistook him for an SWP member.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

You have ignored the part on the link about the comments on facebook that Steve Hedley made to a young woman. He has never apologised for this. Have the Socialist Party got nothing to say about this at all? Are you happy to have people who make sexist comments to young women, and are hardly wet behind the ears, at Socialism? The Socialist Party statement had Hedley calling you comrades, and as far as I'm aware the SP have never had anything at all to say about his contact in making sexist comments.

I believe that a branch of the RMT will be making a complaint about what has gone on with Hedley. But rather than leave it to the AWL or any other group, maybe the Socialist Party could make a statement about his sexist conduct and instead of having him referring to you as comrades and welcoming him to your national event, say that such conduct is totally unacceptable.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

> The Socialist Party will continue to work with Steve on the urgent task of building a mass movement against austerity.



Then take a look at this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-__voxIBF1hw/UWk8VCTPucI/AAAAAAAAALE/cCI_u-yAZRk/s1600/PIPPPPP.jpg

and this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TwGwG8-_5c8/UWlJlwOasNI/AAAAAAAAALc/wr-Dzbdu1E8/s1600/hedley.jpg


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> Someone mentioned Janine Booth from the AWL. The actual facts of what went on in the RMT meeting are that there was a procedural motion on the RMT Council of Executives to reject the official report on the Steve Hedley case by referring it back. Janine Booth was part of the minority of exec members who voted to refer the report back. After this move fell, the chair asked if the meeting accepted the report then, but then there was no further vote. So Janine Booth did not endorse it and actually voted against endorsing it by referring it back.



Are you sure that's true? Only the story I got from an RMT member - not a member of the SP or the alliance for war and liberalism - that once the referal was defeated she voted it through. I see no reason why he'd lie and every reason why you would.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are you sure that's true? Only the story I got from an RMT member - not a member of the SP or the alliance for war and liberalism - that once the referal was defeated she voted it through. I see no reason why he'd lie and every reason why you would.



Unless Janine Booth is lying herself, which I find it hard to believe, then the version I gave is correct.


----------



## belboid (Dec 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> alliance for war and liberalism


For wankers and liars, shorely?


----------



## belboid (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> Unless Janine Booth is lying herself, which I find it hard to believe, then the version I gave is correct.


The Maxine b of the awl...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> Unless Janine Booth is lying herself, which I find it hard to believe, then the version I gave is correct.



Hmmmm..... now why might she want to lie about this, given the way your members have been embarrassed by this when they've tried to use it as a stick to beat the SP with? I really have no idea.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Hmmmm..... now why might she want to lie about this, given the way your members have been embarrassed by this when they've tried to use it as a stick to beat the SP with? I really have no idea.



As neither me nor you were there, then we can't prove it either way. But just as the AWL might have reasons for saying what they are, so would the Socialist Party.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

But this is all a bit of secondary question compared to why the Socialist Party haven't had anything to say about Hedley's sexist remarks and are happy to welcome him to Socialism 2013, and after issuing a statement where he regards you as comrades. Don't you think the Socialist Party should have anything at all to say about this, especially given that until very recently he was a member in your organisation?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> As neither me nor you were there, then we can't prove it either way. But just as the AWL might have reasons for saying what they are, so would the Socialist Party.



He wasn't in the SP you plum. Why not fuck off and write an article about how Muslims need bombing cos they're from a primitive desert tribe or something?


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

Why would I write an article for an organisation I'm not part of? So rant away about the AWL if you like  as I said it's pretty much entirely secondary to the point I'm making about the Socialist Party and sexist remarks by Hedley. I don't give a shit about the AWL.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> But this is all a bit of secondary question compared to why the Socialist Party haven't had anything to say about Hedley's sexist remarks and are happy to welcome him to Socialism 2013, and after issuing a statement where he regards you as comrades. Don't you think the Socialist Party should have anything at all to say about this, especially given that until very recently he was a member in your organisation?



Ah I see - lying didn't work so now you're moving the goalposts. I'd have thought the best way to get that information would be to call the centre. But that's not really what you're here for is it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> Why would I write an article for an organisation I'm not part of? So rant away about the AWL if you like  as I said it's pretty much entirely secondary to the point I'm making about the Socialist Party and sexist remarks by Hedley. I don't give a shit about the AWL.



I don't believe you.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

Why would I call "the centre" about someone who is in an organisation that I'm not part of and don't give a shit about? My point about Janine Booth is it would be rather strange to lie about something that could so easily be shown to be otherwise, such as if a vote was taken and recorded in the minutes.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

Don't believe me then lol. If you want to keep ranting about the AWL go ahead. They are zionists after all. But still find it strange you have absolutely nothing to say about the fact that Hedley makes explicit sexist remarks to a young woman and you have no issue that not only have the socialist party had nothing to say about it, they also welcome him to your national event. Would it have been any different if he had made homophobic remarks? Or racist remarks? Or can  sexist remarks just be ignored?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> You have ignored the part on the link about the comments on facebook that Steve Hedley made to a young woman.



Are you taking the piss? You want me to comment seriously on some sexist drivel a trade union official posted in an old Facebook row?

Also, nice try on the AWL thing. You just happen to be standing next to that nice Janine Booth in a bus queue and got chatting to her about her voting record on the RMT executive? And then by some coincidence your very first post on the thread was mostly concerned with defending the AWL against an accusation of hypocrisy?

Jesus, they really do need a better quality of recruit round in Sean's Muslim hating poetry society.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

As I said keep on keeping on about the AWL. I probably agree with most things you have to say about them, including Sean's poetry.

Yes I do expect the Socialist Party to say something about sexist drivel that a trade union official posted in a facebook row, given that he was either a member of the Socialist Party when he said it, or very close to being a member, given that he still comes to your events as a comrade, and given that senior trade union officals should not go around making sexist remarks. If he had made homophobic or racist remarks on facebook, could they just be ignored and written off as drivel as well? Anyway you have made your point clear, no point carrying this on really.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip Larkin said:
			
		

> Yes I do expect the Socialist Party to say something about sexist drivel that a trade union official posted in a facebook row



As the SP takes an almost entirely laissez faire attitude to things its own members say on Facebook, you will be a long time waiting for it to start putting out statements on non-members tawdry Facebook behaviour.

As for their being no point carrying this on, see you next time.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

According to a poster late of this parish over on leftist trainspotters, there's a "middle ground" document being circulated at the last minute. The authors are a faction member who vigorously opposes leaving after conference and McGarr a "middle ground" CC nominee.

Our informant speculates that its an attempt to divide the faction and limit the size of the split, and that sounds about right.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> As I said keep on keeping on about the AWL. I probably agree with most things you have to say about them, including Sean's poetry.
> 
> Yes I do expect the Socialist Party to say something about sexist drivel that a trade union official posted in a facebook row, given that he was either a member of the Socialist Party when he said it, or very close to being a member, given that he still comes to your events as a comrade, and given that senior trade union officals should not go around making sexist remarks. If he had made homophobic or racist remarks on facebook, could they just be ignored and written off as drivel as well? Anyway you have made your point clear, no point carrying this on really.



I'm really glad the AWL have stepped in, played a great role throughout this whole issue and told the left to get it's house in order. I mean, think about it. I mean, Steve Hedley publicly claimed that he provided evidence of texts, emails and medical records that proved he was himself a victim of domestic abuse to the RMT investigation, and doubtless would have gotten away with such brazen lies if Janine Booth hadn't bravely publicly called him out on this falsification. It's really good too that the AWL supported and encouraged her to do this despite the fact it put their only major trade unionist in the country in a potentially risky position - it shows they would never put their own narrow interests above those of the labour movement.

Oh wait, that didn't happen.

Still, at least the AWL aren't hypocrites. They took it really seriously when some of their leading student members, including Ed Maltby and Gordon Maloney were accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault. They acknowledged the complaints and took appropriate action straight away. They certainly wouldn't have allowed female activists to simply give up on attempting to secure a recognition of wrongdoing and walk away because they felt unable to attend events anymore.

Oh, wait, that didn't happen.

Fair play, you could line up representatives of every left group in the country, chuck a stone with your eyes closed and almost certainly hit a slimy, unpleasant, scheming sectarian hack bastard. But you just can't beat the AWL for sheer unadulterated toxicity - there are literally no depths they will not sink to.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to a poster late of this parish over on leftist trainspotters, there's a "middle ground" document being circulated at the last minute. The authors are a faction member who vigorously opposes leaving after conference and McGarr a "middle ground" CC nominee.
> 
> Our informant speculates that its an attempt to divide the faction and limit the size of the split, and that sounds about right.



Oh, god, it's gonna drag on for another year...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh, god, it's gonna drag on for another year...



It's going to drag on forever, just with the cast and audience endlessly shrinking. One of those curve approaching a line but never quite touching things.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's going to drag on forever, just with the cast and audience endlessly shrinking. One of those curve approaching a line but never quite touching things.



I guess while we're barely aware of it the WRP saga is still in progress


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> Why would I call "the centre" about someone who is in an organisation that I'm not part of and don't give a shit about? My point about Janine Booth is it would be rather strange to lie about something that could so easily be shown to be otherwise, such as if a vote was taken and recorded in the minutes.



Don't then. But don't be surprised when I tell you I've got better things to do than find out what Peter Taffe thinks about some twattish fb posts made by someone who wasn't a member at the time and isn't now either and then relay said info back to someone who deffo isn't in the awl but seems nonetheless desperately keen to defend them from accusations of hypocrisy.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to a poster late of this parish over on leftist trainspotters, there's a "middle ground" document being circulated at the last minute. The authors are a faction member who vigorously opposes leaving after conference and McGarr a "middle ground" CC nominee.
> 
> Our informant speculates that its an attempt to divide the faction and limit the size of the split, and that sounds about right.



Who's the faction member?


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Don't then. But don't be surprised when I tell you I've got better things to do than find out what Peter Taffe thinks about some twattish fb posts made by someone who wasn't a member at the time and isn't now either and then relay said info back to someone who deffo isn't in the awl but seems nonetheless desperately keen to defend them from accusations of hypocrisy.



I'm not very keen at all though am I. In fact I have no interest at all. My initial post was just to say things might not be quite as simple as SP members are saying in terms of the RMT exec, as senior people in the RMT, and the SP, have their own agenda. If it makes you feel better by keeping laying in to the AWL then keep doing it, and all power to you for doing so.

I'm fairly sure when Hedley made the comments on facebook he was a member of the Socialist Party. He is still welcomed at your events. It's not about "twattish FB posts", it's about him making extremely sexist comments to a young woman on a fairly public facebook thread. If he had abused a gay person with homophobic insults or a black person with racist insults on facebook, would you just dismiss them as "twattish comments" and say the person was still welcome at Socialism 2013?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2013)

Is that ye cockers?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 12, 2013)

This is probably the only time that I'll post something favourable to the AWL, but here they get it more or less right:
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/12/11/no-physical-attacks-swp


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 12, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> This is probably the only time that I'll post something favourable to the AWL, but here they get it more or less right:
> http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2013/12/11/no-physical-attacks-swp



On the surface, yes. But if they have a couple of activists at Sussex it wouldn't surprise me if they suggested it.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

I thought the AWL were the devil incarnate?


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> I thought the AWL were the devil incarnate?



As always you over-estimate your own importance. You're certainly not the Dark Lord Himself, or even one of the Duke's of Hell. Minor Imps of the First Circle would be a more accurate analogy.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> As always you over-estimate your own importance. You're certainly not the Dark Lord Himself, or even one of the Duke's of Hell. Minor Imps of the First Circle would be a more accurate analogy.



That's actually quite funny.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 12, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As the SP takes an almost entirely laissez faire attitude to things its own members say on Facebook,


 "Almost"  - not with Steve Dobbs they don't


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> "Almost"  - not with Steve Dobbs they don't



Perhaps you should pass the evidence of this alleged disgraceful behaviour over to the police? That's how your party leadership deals with its members it finds itself in dispute with.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Who's the faction member?



Megan Trudell


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Is that ye cockers?



Ah. Hadn't thought of that possibility, but now that you mention it, the particular angle fits not only the AWL, but also cockers/OSS.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

Allegedly Trudell said at a factigon meeting that those who are planning to leave after conference are "scabs". [Edit to add: that's false, I'm told she didn't use that word] There's definitely going to be a split the current issue is how big. The next issue will be how many the SWP lose through demoralisation. And then after that the question will be how opposition the rump opposition stay behinds remain.

It will probably take a while for any of these questions to be clarified, even though the third conference of 2013 is this weekend.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> I'm not very keen at all though am I. In fact I have no interest at all. My initial post was just to say things might not be quite as simple as SP members are saying in terms of the RMT exec, as senior people in the RMT, and the SP, have their own agenda. If it makes you feel better by keeping laying in to the AWL then keep doing it, and all power to you for doing so.
> 
> I'm fairly sure when Hedley made the comments on facebook he was a member of the Socialist Party. He is still welcomed at your events. It's not about "twattish FB posts", it's about him making extremely sexist comments to a young woman on a fairly public facebook thread. If he had abused a gay person with homophobic insults or a black person with racist insults on facebook, would you just dismiss them as "twattish comments" and say the person was still welcome at Socialism 2013?



Yes, if they were racist or homophobic they would still be twattish comments - I'm surprised you don't agree. And since I've never commented on whether or not he's welcome at socialism I'm not sure how to reply to that but I'd still have better things to do than worry about it (I'd rather he wasn't invited to speak to be honest - at least until we have a better idea of what went on - but I don't get to decide unilaterally what a group of a couple of thousand members does, though admittedly it would be much better if everyone just did what I wanted them to).

Can you explain why you'd sign up to a messageboard just to comment on this issue if you're _not _especially keen? Seems like odd behaviour to me.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

articul8 said:


> "Almost"  - not with Steve Dobbs they don't



That's not really true is it? Steve and Bruce have been prevented from endlessly posting rate of profit stuff on the CWI page because it got to the point where that was all you could read on there and appeals for help in organising were being drowned out by it. But unless things have changed since I last spoke to him about it he can still post whatever the fuck he wants elsewhere.


----------



## Phillip_Larkin (Dec 12, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, if they were racist or homophobic they would still be twattish comments - I'm surprised you don't agree. And since I've never commented on whether or not he's welcome at socialism I'm not sure how to reply to that but I'd still have better things to do than worry about it (I'd rather he wasn't invited to speak to be honest - at least until we have a better idea of what went on - but I don't get to decide unilaterally what a group of a couple of thousand members does, though admittedly it would be much better if everyone just did what I wanted them to).
> 
> Can you explain why you'd sign up to a messageboard just to comment on this issue if you're _not _especially keen? Seems like odd behaviour to me.



Because Janine Booth told me I had to or face re-education from Sean.

I think you know what I meant, I meant that saying such things is more serious than just dismissing them as twattish. The people leafletting your conference about it didn't realise Hedley had been invited to speak, they just thought he was attending. Even worse. Anyway I've set the record straight about Janine and the Socialist Party seem happy that someone like Hedley can speak at their events (even if you are uneasy as an individual), so not much more to say really.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 12, 2013)

Phillip_Larkin said:


> Because Janine Booth told me I had to or face re-education from Sean.
> 
> I think you know what I meant, I meant that saying such things is more serious than just dismissing them as twattish. The people leafletting your conference about it didn't realise Hedley had been invited to speak, they just thought he was attending. Even worse. Anyway I've set the record straight about Janine and the Socialist Party seem happy that someone like Hedley can speak at their events (even if you are uneasy as an individual), so not much more to say really.



You mean you've passed on her lies? Well done.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 12, 2013)

Sorry to distract from the SP/AWL debate, but things are coming to something of a head on the SWP front....

The Appeal to Comrades initiated by Megan T (thanks for the name, Nigel) and Paul McG has been signed by some "middle-of-the-roaders" and some faction members. IMO, it falls well short of what the faction is calling for, but includes the following sentence:

"We think it is evident that the party should apologise for the distress
caused to the two women complainants by the deficiencies in our disputes
processes."

Apparently, it is causing splits among CC loyalists, so the IdooMers have counter-attacked with a statement initiated by Pete J, which says:

"If the strategy in the statement is pursued there is a real danger of damaging divisions in the party at the precise moment we are going into conference with the majority of the organisation united. We urge the CC not to alter its position on this question and to present to conference the motion as put in the IB."


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Sorry to distract from the SP/AWL debate, but things are coming to something of a head on the SWP front....
> 
> The Appeal to Comrades initiated by Megan T (thanks for the name, Nigel) and Paul McG has been signed by some "middle-of-the-roaders" and some faction members. IMO, it falls well short of what the faction is calling for, but includes the following sentence:
> 
> ...



Interesting. So yet again there looks like multiple factions in play, albeit this time only one of them is a formal faction. It makes things slightly less predictable than they had seemed a week ago where it looked like a united CC/IDOOM bloc were just going to stomp on the opposition.

My guess:

1) the main impact of the new "Middle faction" statement will be to give cover to some of the softer oppositionists to stay after conference.
2) there will still be a big loss of members after conference, probably including an organised split. 
3) the ongoing impact of the "Middle ground" statement will be to make divisions in the rump post conference SWP more prominent than they would otherwise have been.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 12, 2013)

Just heard from someone who was there that Megan T did did not call people scabs at a faction meeting.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 13, 2013)

It would be interesting to see what effect if any a new organised split might have on the ISN which currently seems to be in the process of disolving into Left Unity anyway. While I can't see the core of the ISN being interested in any new breakaway org or indeed particularly welcome in it, I wouldnt be surprised if it could attract enough of the fraying fringes of the ISN to push it over into oblivion.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It would be interesting to see what effect if any a new organised split might have on the ISN which currently seems to be in the process of disolving into Left Unity anyway. While I can't see the core of the ISN being interested in any new breakaway org or indeed particularly welcome in it, I wouldnt be surprised if it could attract enough of the fraying fringes of the ISN to push it over into oblivion.



The ISN doesn't have enough of a common project to hold itself together. It contains people who are moving away from the SWP in very different directions. But both its "left" and its "right" have traveled quite a long way from the SWP already, so its hard to predict how they will interact with any new SWP split. There doesn't seem to be much of an audience in the ISN for forming a new, more democratic SWP for instance.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 13, 2013)

Who knows we may now never see an ISO(GB). Shawki must be fuming.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 13, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Who knows we may now never see an ISO(GB). Shawki must be fuming.



Only in your head bolshie (and what a colorful cast of fictional characters inhabit that space!)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2013)

I see the paranoia levels inside delta towers show no signs of abating before the conference. God, imagine what other hyped up tripe they're trying to get the cannon fodder to swallow_ right now._


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2013)

"The party is at a crossroads. Which road we take matters. The road that we're on, the one that brought us to this crossroads, has the benefit of at least being familiar to us."


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> "The party is at a crossroads. Which road we take matters. The road that we're on, the one that brought us to this crossroads, has the benefit of at least being familiar to us."


I juts googled that and the third result was the wise words of comrade Avakian.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2013)

they should speak to comrade bala, he probably has some wise words on how to keep the party together


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2013)

Mao more than ever, eh frogz?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2013)

maybe he can be the special guest at Marxism 2014, speaking on organisation and dealing with factionalism


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I juts googled that and the third result was the wise words of comrade Avakian.


really? When I did it it only brought up Robert Johnson!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> really? When I did it it only brought up Robert Johnson!


I tell a lie, it was the second result:


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 13, 2013)

I'm a bit surprised this 'Inbetweener' faction statement hasn't leaked out yet. I guess it show that the mass exit of members has inadvertently resulted in better internet security. Back of the net!


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 13, 2013)

Leyton, here's the middle-of-the-roaders statement, followed by the IdooMers riposte. Enjoy.

*Appeal to comrades*
The party is at a crossroads. Which road we take matters. It matters not just
for ourselves, but will have an impact on the course of struggles in Britain
- and elsewhere. It is two minutes to midnight. When the clock strikes the
hour – at the party conference in not so many days’ time - we will all have to
make a choice. The choice should not only be based on internal arguments,
important as they are. We face a world in crisis, and a global assault on our
class. In Britain the scale of that assault deepens daily.
The level of resistance to those attacks is low. In Britain official leaders of
workers’ organisations retreat from, or at best vacillate over, fighting back.
Those at the top of society whip up racism and scapegoat immigrants to
divide us and divert our anger against one another instead of at those
responsible for the situation. All of this underlines the need for maintaining
and building a party like ours. Our party is small, and its influence in Britain
and internationally is limited, but it does have an impact. It would be a great
loss if it were badly damaged or destroyed; whatever weaknesses we may
need to address, it has taken decades to build the party and our comrades
have won influence and authority in a whole range of areas.
Yet the deep crisis we face threatens to inflict precisely such injury.
Comrades need to take a deep breath, pause, and think about where we
are and what is to be done. We, like many other comrades, may disagree
on many questions which are the subject of robust and legitimate debate
within the party. And we have no doubt that we will continue to have sharp,
but comradely, disagreements and debates over many questions. This is
essential in any healthy party. Like many other comrades, we also have
different views on the issues around the disputes cases which have played
a central role in the crisis in the party. But we, and we hope many other
comrades, do agree on some important matters.
We are committed to the idea that we should argue and decide what we
should do as party, and then test that by putting it into practice together.
We do think that the review of the disputes committee recognises that we
did not get things right in how we have handled the cases at the heart of
the arguments in the party, and that we need to change and improve our
procedures. We think that ensuring that the second case of alleged sexual
misconduct was properly dealt with was important.
We think it is evident that the party should apologise for the distress
caused to the two women complainants by the deficiencies in our disputes
processes. It is a matter of regret that this question has become enmeshed
in wider disputes. We believe any charge that the party is morally corrupt,
is a sexist organisation, or has abandoned its tradition of fighting women’s
oppression has no basis. We look forward to more discussion and debate on
question of oppression.
We also agree that the Democracy Commission, whose report and
conclusions the party as a whole voted to accept, should be a guide to how
we conduct our internal life and debates from now on. Democratic centralism
means ensuring a healthy internal democratic culture while also maintaining
our focus as an interventionist party based on testing our decisions in
practice. That will mean moving beyond factional positions and seeking
collectively to face the enormous challenges and responsibilities swirling
around us. We have built so much together, and so much that is precious,
that surely, even at this late hour, we can face the world in comradeship, with a shared commitment to continuing to build the party the times so clearly demand.

*IdooM*
Subject: URGENT: Comrades - you may want to put your name to this statement in
opposition to the "Appeal to Comrades" that appeared today
"We understand a statement is being circulated from a small group in the faction
and some leading members of the party that includes the call for the party to
apologise to the complainants in the recent disputes cases.
The CC position on why the faction’s demand for an apology was wrong has been
argued clearly at the NC, at every aggregate and has been supported by the vast
majority of members of our organisation.
The CC motion has been put forward and supported as the basis for uniting the
party and moving forward.
If the strategy in the statement is pursued there is a real danger of damaging
divisions in the party at the precise moment we are going into conference with
the majority of the organisation united.
We urge the CC not to alter its position on this question and to present to
conference the motion as put in the IB."


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2013)

To support this would be to make a point that the first allegation of rape was not dealt with properly. With nothing as to how it would no be dealt with *now*. Again, it is to make a principle of not dealing with it. To argue that as a point of unity.

Disgusting people.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Dec 13, 2013)

So, here's what I could dig up from the middle ground and IDooM.

Appeal to comrades The party is at a crossroads. Which road we take matters. It matters not just for ourselves, but will have an impact on the course of struggles in Britain - and elsewhere. It is two minutes to midnight. When the clock strikes the hour – at the party conference in not so many days’ time - we will all have to make a choice. The choice should not only be based on internal arguments, important as they are. We face a world in crisis, and a global assault on our class. In Britain the scale of that assault deepens daily. The level of resistance to those attacks is low. In Britain official leaders of workers’ organisations retreat from, or at best vacillate over, fighting back. Those at the top of society whip up racism and scapegoat immigrants to divide us and divert our anger against one another instead of at those responsible for the situation. All of this underlines the need for maintaining and building a party like ours. Our party is small, and its influence in Britain and internationally is limited, but it does have an impact. It would be a great loss if it were badly damaged or destroyed; whatever weaknesses we may need to address, it has taken decades to build the party and our comrades have won influence and authority in a whole range of areas. Yet the deep crisis we face threatens to inflict precisely such injury. Comrades need to take a deep breath, pause, and think about where we are and what is to be done. We, like many other comrades, may disagree on many questions which are the subject of robust and legitimate debate within the party. And we have no doubt that we will continue to have sharp, but comradely, disagreements and debates over many questions. This is essential in any healthy party. Like many other comrades, we also have different views on the issues around the disputes cases which have played a central role in the crisis in the party. But we, and we hope many other comrades, do agree on some important matters. We are committed to the idea that we should argue and decide what we should do as party, and then test that by putting it into practice together. We do think that the review of the disputes committee recognises that we did not get things right in how we have handled the cases at the heart of the arguments in the party, and that we need to change and improve our procedures. We think that ensuring that the second case of alleged sexual misconduct was properly dealt with was important. We think it is evident that the party should apologise for the distress caused to the two women complainants by the deficiencies in our disputes processes. It is a matter of regret that this question has become enmeshed in wider disputes. We believe any charge that the party is morally corrupt, is a sexist organisation, or has abandoned its tradition of fighting women’s oppression has no basis. We look forward to more discussion and debate on question of oppression. We also agree that the Democracy Commission, whose report and conclusions the party as a whole voted to accept, should be a guide to how we conduct our internal life and debates from now on. Democratic centralism means ensuring a healthy internal democratic culture while also maintaining our focus as an interventionist party based on testing our decisions in practice. That will mean moving beyond factional positions and seeking collectively to face the enormous challenges and responsibilities swirling around us. We have built so much together, and so much that is precious, that surely, even at this late hour, we can face the world in comradeship, with a shared commitment to continuing to build the party the times so clearly demand. 

 IdooM Subject: URGENT: Comrades - you may want to put your name to this statement in opposition to the "Appeal to Comrades" that appeared today "We understand a statement is being circulated from a small group in the faction and some leading members of the party that includes the call for the party to apologise to the complainants in the recent disputes cases. The CC position on why the faction’s demand for an apology was wrong has been argued clearly at the NC, at every aggregate and has been supported by the vast majority of members of our organisation. The CC motion has been put forward and supported as the basis for uniting the party and moving forward. If the strategy in the statement is pursued there is a real danger of damaging divisions in the party at the precise moment we are going into conference with the majority of the organisation united. We urge the CC not to alter its position on this question and to present to conference the motion as put in the IB."


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 13, 2013)

Beaten to it


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> My guess:
> 
> 1) the main impact of the new "Middle faction" statement will be to give cover to some of the softer oppositionists to stay after conference.
> 2) there will still be a big loss of members after conference, probably including an organised split.
> 3) the ongoing impact of the "Middle ground" statement will be to make divisions in the rump post conference SWP more prominent than they would otherwise have been.


I think you're right on all three counts. 
The dirty deal that has been struck seems to require that the oppo signatories call for the others to stay in the party post-conference while, quid pro quo, the loyalists agree to an apology. It's a bad deal because (a) if the latter require a stay-in-the-party call so as to be able to make an apology one has to wonder about the sincerity of their desire to apologise to the women who have been treated so badly (b) and, more importantly, there is absolutely no accountability of the leaders who have caused this mess.
The only saving graces: the Idoomers are clearly in a flap and it makes things somewhat less predictable tomorrow.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> To support this would be to make a point that the first allegation of rape was not dealt with properly. With nothing as to how it would no be dealt with *now*. Again, it is to make a principle of not dealing with it. To argue that as a point of unity.
> 
> Disgusting people.


The first case clearly can't be reopened as by all accounts W doesn't want to have to go through the DC procedure again (even an improved DC version). But someone should publish all the documentation relating to the two cases. There's no way that the DC/CC is going to do this, so we need a whistleblower in the party to do it. The leadership has manipulated the question of confidentiality for too long. Let the membership and the wider movement come to their own conclusions. Any Snowdens or Mannings out there?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 13, 2013)

How long does the SWPs annual conference go on for? I understand that registration started mid afternoon today. Do the actual sessions start this evening?

Also does it finish on Sunday, or does it go on into Monday?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> The first case clearly can't be reopened as by all accounts W doesn't want to have to go through


There are other ways to deal with it than being reopened though (and if i was to be cynical, they had enough to reach a judgment first time around). The middle statement seems to make a point of refusing to even deal with any of these steps.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 13, 2013)

What does iDooM stand for? Sounds like the apocalypse brought to you by apple mac


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 13, 2013)

I understand by the way that there are less than 30 faction signatories to the "middle ground appeal and more than 50 non faction, so even if it was intended primarily to split the faction it may actually have caused more division among the loyalists.

Also the faction committee had no truck with it at all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What does iDooM stand for? Sounds like the apocalypse brought to you by apple mac



In defence of our Martin, a joke reference to the secret ultra-rabid loyalist factioneers stemming from the period when the opposition faction was called In defence of our party.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What does iDooM stand for? Sounds like the apocalypse brought to you by apple mac









Note the health, very nearly game over.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In defence of our Martin, a joke reference to the secret ultra-rabid loyalist factioneers stemming from the period when the opposition faction was called In defence of our party.



So the people putting out stuff like 'statement for our revolutionary party' (my second favourite IB piece after Rhetta's proletarian standpoint stuff)?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How long does the SWPs annual conference go on for? I understand that registration started mid afternoon today. Do the actual sessions start this evening?
> 
> Also does it finish on Sunday, or does it go on into Monday?



I understand that the conference business per se starts on Saturday and continues until Sunday. Faction meetings will take place this Friday evening and tomorrow evening at the Holy Innocents (!) Church - I hope this doesn't mean that the Faction is being taken for a ride...

The key votes will take place tomorrow: on the apology, the Disputes Commission Review and the CC. The Faction wants to have a winding up meeting on Sunday at 5pm in said church, but the CC is unhappy about this and it's unclear whether it will take place.


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> How long does the SWPs annual conference go on for? I understand that registration started mid afternoon today. Do the actual sessions start this evening?
> 
> Also does it finish on Sunday, or does it go on into Monday?


From tonight till Sunday I believe.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 13, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I understand by the way that there are less than 30 faction signatories to the "middle ground appeal and more than 50 non faction, so even if it was intended primarily to split the faction it may actually have caused more division among the loyalists.
> Also the faction committee had no truck with it at all.



That's good news (in the general gloom). Hopefully, the loyalists/idoomers will be at each other's throats tomorrow. There could be some lively sessions - pity it's not livestreamed.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> So the people putting out stuff like 'statement for our revolutionary party' (my second favourite IB piece after Rhetta's proletarian standpoint stuff)?



Yes. It's the rabid loyalists rather than the bog standard ones.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 13, 2013)

belboid said:


> From tonight till Sunday I believe.



Two days of actual sessions so it seems like they are less long winded than the SP over here


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 13, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> So the people putting out stuff like 'statement for our revolutionary party' (my second favourite IB piece after Rhetta's proletarian standpoint stuff)?


Precisely. But the situation is a little more fluid now. As Nigel has pointed out, there are de facto 3 factions: the officially declared Rebuilding the Party, the non-declared Idoomers and now a third middle-of-the-road grouping which includes members from the Faction and IdooM, plus some non-affiliated loyalists.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 13, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> pity it's not livestreamed.



Don't even joke about it.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 13, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> That's good news (in the general gloom). Hopefully, the loyalists/idoomers will be at each other's throats tomorrow. There could be some lively sessions - *pity it's not livestreamed*.



there isn't enough popcorn and deckchairs in the world to cover a livestreaming:


----------



## belboid (Dec 13, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> there isn't enough popcorn and deckchairs in the world to cover a livestreaming:


or a computer strong enough to withstand everything that would be thrown at it


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 13, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> there isn't enough popcorn and deckchairs in the world to cover a livestreaming:



Give me some wine and a sofa.


----------



## redcogs (Dec 13, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Give me some wine and a sofa.



Is Delta doing a fringe?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 13, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Is Delta doing a fringe?


If the Faction meets at the Holy Innocents Church, Delta and co are at the Church of Miracle Signs and Wonders Ministries (it really exists!)


----------



## neprimerimye (Dec 13, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Precisely. But the situation is a little more fluid now. As Nigel has pointed out, there are de facto 3 factions: the officially declared Rebuilding the Party, the non-declared Idoomers and now a third middle-of-the-road grouping which includes members from the Faction and IdooM, plus some non-affiliated loyalists.



This rather simplifies matters. IDOOM is the undeclared, therefore illegal under SWP rules, faction led by Amy Leather on the CC. There is also a CC minority around Charlie Kimber and Alex Callinicos which might be said to hold views similar to those of the majority of less active members. THen we have the grouping around the 'compromise' statement sent out under then names of Paul McGarr and Megan Trudell the latter a member of the Faction while the former is of the centre. Personally I consider this statement to represent a failure of nerve by the soft oppositionists and a rotten bloc that plays into the hands of the iDOOM wreckers. Which means that the Faction contains a capitulationist tendency and a more militant wing too. In any case the fact is that all wings of what is until Monday the SWP are characterised by cliqueism and non-political personal relations the exception being the revolutionary majority of the Faction and odd though it might seem individuals like Kimber and Callinicos.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 14, 2013)

Who gave you the right to decide who is or isn't principled? Maybe a minority of the faction have principled doubts about the course the ISO fans are taking them on.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Who gave you the right to decide who is or isn't principled? Maybe a minority of the faction have principled doubts about the course the ISO fans are taking them on.



Did it ever occur to you that the ISO is politically as close to the SWP as any organisation in the world that wasn't founded by the SWP or completely hegemonised by it? And that an ISO "clone" is about the best hope there is of a viable SWPish organisation in the near future?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 14, 2013)

No


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No



Do you really think that the SWP itself can recover from this? Really?

(And by that I mean not do you think it's fair that they are fucked, as I already understand that you don't think it's fair).

HOW?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Did it ever occur to you that the ISO is politically as close to the SWP as any organisation in the world that wasn't founded by the SWP or completely hegemonised by it? And that an ISO "clone" is about the best hope there is of a viable SWPish organisation in the near future?


Agree. The SWP is finished. It won't collapse like a pack of cards as did the WRP. I suspect the implosion will be more gradual: an increasingly ageing membership, future splits, others dropping out through demoralisation.... The ISO option is the only valid one. For starters, it could win over the left wing of the ISN + at least some of the students who left in March.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 14, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Agree. The SWP is finished. It won't collapse like a pack of cards as did the WRP. I suspect the implosion will be more gradual: an increasingly ageing membership, future splits, others dropping out through demoralisation.... The ISO option is the only valid one. For starters, it could win over the left wing of the ISN + at least some of the students who left in March.


I agree the SWP is facing a very slow decline, there will not be the rapid collapse some seem to be expecting. The fact is the SWP has been in decline for years (decades?) this whole fiasco, which is to some extent a result of that decline, will accelerate it somewhat but the SWP will remain a significant presence on the left for many years yet. It will also I think destroy any chance the SWP had of reversing its fortunes.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 14, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I agree the SWP is facing a very slow decline, there will not be the rapid collapse some seem to be expecting. The fact is the SWP has been in decline for years (decades?) this whole fiasco, which is to some extent a result of that decline, will accelerate it somewhat but the SWP will remain a significant presence on the left for many years yet. It will also I think destroy any chance the SWP had of reversing its fortunes.



And the only reason it will remain a significant presence on the left is because the rest of the left is slowly diminishing as well essentially. Which is not to say that organisations like the Socialist Party cannot maintain a sustainable presence and maybe even go through brief periods of growth around specific issues and circumstances, while the SWP continue to spiral downwards. But their hitherto broad hinterlands of non aligned but sympathetic trade union and community and issue based activists are slowly drifting away from their catchment areas and into different political waters. The SWP crisis has only marginally influenced the drift as well.


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 14, 2013)

Is there a hashtag for today's events? Like #omgwereidoomed?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 14, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Is there a hashtag for today's events? Like #omgwereidoomed?


From Twitter: "Apparently CC main motion carried bar (sic) about 50-80 vote at #*SWP* conference. From what I've heard @alex_callinicos being snide as ever"
Any more news?? Tell me the worst.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2013)

Confusingly the Globe Theatre are also tweeting #SWP. I suppose it make a decent tragedy, with Rhetta Moran for the comic interlude.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Is there a hashtag for today's events? Like #omgwereidoomed?


#besttimetobeasocialist shorely


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 14, 2013)

The SWP Disputes Committee sensitively handling a case, yesterday:


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> Confusingly the Globe Theatre are also tweeting #SWP. I suppose it make a decent tragedy, with Rhetta Moran for the comic interlude.


Shaun Wright Phillips fans might be in for a bit of confusion too.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 14, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Shaun Wright Phillips fans might be in for a bit of confusion too.



That's a low blow. Don't blame the SWP for people being confused enough to be fans of Shaun Wright-Phillips.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2013)

"sometimes women and often children lie" clapped at *SWP conference*.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2013)

bizarre


----------



## emanymton (Dec 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> "sometimes women and often children lie" clapped at *SWP conference*.


Christ, seriously?


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Christ, seriously?


i think they must want to die


----------



## emanymton (Dec 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> i think they must want to die


Any idea who said it?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> "sometimes women and often children lie" clapped at *SWP conference*.


Surely Rhetta "from the standpoint of the proletariat".


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Any idea who said it?


100% reliable apparently, but, no, not yet.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2013)

I'd have expected bolshie to 'like' that post, but not you Spanky Longhorn


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 14, 2013)

Isn't it more likely an oppo member said it mockingly?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Isn't it more likely an oppo member said it mockingly?



And it was then clapped?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 14, 2013)

Depends who was clapping surely? I'm sure all will be made clear soon enough


----------



## emanymton (Dec 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Isn't it more likely an oppo member said it mockingly?


And if it wasn't?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 14, 2013)

Oh no we're not going to play that game!


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> "sometimes women and often children lie" clapped at *SWP conference*.


Idoom preparing a line that will allow Martin to rejoin. I know that sounds crazy, but his resignation stands in contradiction to their position.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 14, 2013)

I know most people on this thread hate the SWP more than just about anything else in the world. But does anyone seriously believe anyone at an SWP conference would say that and mean it? Really?


----------



## eoin_k (Dec 14, 2013)

Are you suggesting that they didn't mean what they said?


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know most people on this thread hate the SWP more than just about anything else in the world. But does anyone seriously believe anyone at an SWP conference would say that and mean it? Really?


of course.  It is actually true.  Just not relevant, and disgusting to be clapped.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 14, 2013)

Do you not think we might need to actually know who said what, who clapped and why before we start getting our nickers in a knot? This is all a little twilight zone right now.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2013)

Well, I doubt they'd have bothered telling an opposition member if it had been anyone other than an Idoomer


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> I'd have expected bolshie to 'like' that post, but not you Spanky Longhorn



Because it is amazing, like really amazing if true and demonstates perfectly everything that is wrong about the SWP.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know most people on this thread hate the SWP more than just about anything else in the world. But does anyone seriously believe anyone at an SWP conference would say that and mean it? Really?


I hope not. it is possible that there was some context that makes it more reasonable, although it is difficult to think of one. 

You are right that more information / verification is needed.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know most people on this thread hate the SWP more than just about anything else in the world. But does anyone seriously believe anyone at an SWP conference would say that and mean it? Really?




Here's the thing bolshie, as long as the current leadership are in situ and appear to have the confidence of the majority of the membership, people are quite often going to believe the worst of the SWP no matter how outlandish it sounds. 

That's why your wrong headed understanding of what's at stake for Cliffism is so damaging for Cliffism in the long term.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 14, 2013)

Apology motion defeated. Not sure of the margin, ie if some middle grounders voted for it in line with the in betweeners document.

Twitter is, of course, very wound up by the "lie" quote above (accurately reported or not). Lots of frothing about making sure they can't intervene in campaigns, demonstrations etc


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 14, 2013)

belboid said:


> "sometimes women and often children lie" clapped at *SWP conference*.


Please tell me you are making a joke....tell me a group of socialists didnt clap that statement


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 14, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apology motion defeated. Not sure of the margin, ie if some middle grounders voted for it in line with the in betweeners document.
> 
> Twitter is, of course, very wound up by the "lie" quote above (accurately reported or not). Lots of frothing about making sure they can't intervene in campaigns, demonstrations etc



So they couldn't even manage a very grudging apology. The End.

BTW the lie quote is apparently as follows:  'we aren't rape apologists unless we believe that women always tell the truth - and guess what, some women and children lie'

Lots on Facebook about this


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 14, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> So they couldn't even manage a very grudging apology. The End.
> 
> BTW the lie quote is apparently as follows:  'we aren't rape apologists unless we believe that women always tell the truth - and guess what, some women and children lie'
> 
> Lots on Facebook about this



I've just seen an oppositionist on Facebook say that this wasn't said


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 14, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know most people on this thread hate the SWP more than just about anything else in the world. But does anyone seriously believe anyone at an SWP conference would say that and mean it? Really?


Bolshie, it's definitely not my impression that the majority of people on this thread hate the SWP. I think that many of us have devoted a good part of our lives to IS/SWP. If we hate anything it is the lies and cover up that the leadership has orchestrated, aided and abetted by the loyalista and Idoomers. That they can't (it seems) even manage a half-hearted and belated apology says it all to me (and I would say the wider socialist movement).
I certainly agree that we need to wait to confirm the "lie" quote, but according to Ciara S on Facebook: Two delegates who don't know each other have both told me the "women and often children" comment happened so I'm counting it as pretty verified, although both delegates were women, and since apparently they have a tendency to lie...


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 14, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> So they couldn't even manage a very grudging apology. The End.
> 
> BTW the lie quote is apparently as follows:  'we aren't rape apologists unless we believe that women always tell the truth - and guess what, some women and children lie'
> 
> Lots on Facebook about this


The Party's over.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 14, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> BTW the lie quote is apparently as follows:  'we aren't rape apologists unless we believe that women always tell the truth - and guess what, some women and children lie'



Jesus fucking Christ


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 14, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Jesus fucking Christ


Exactly my words. David Renton has confirmed to me on Facebook the veracity of the now infamous Lie quote. He also says:  "It's - very - far from the worst that was said all day". So be prepared for worse if that is possible. Jesus fucking Christ.


----------



## redcogs (Dec 14, 2013)

i'm looking forward to reading the accurate minutes..  They'll be in the next Socialist Worker right?


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 14, 2013)

redcogs said:


> i'm looking forward to reading the accurate minutes..  They'll be in the next Socialist Worker right?



Should we start a pool now to see who can predict how soon a typed transcript of the days events end up on Socialist Unity?


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Should we start a pool now to see who can predict how soon a typed transcript of the days events end up on Socialist Unity?


4-3 On SU
9-5 on CPGB
25-1 - ISN
100-1 - Rentons blog


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

The question is when surely not where. The interesting thing is how little has leaked so far today. When you're debating something face to face and there are at least five or six different shades of opinion present in the room and everyone is trying to influence everyone else the logic of the situation is you don't rush off to bleat it all to people who aren't privy to the discussion and in general are hostile to any constructive outcome of the discussion.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

What I don't understand about the quote assuming the full quote is correct (and it would still be nice to know what was said immediately before and after so we had some context) is why someone would feel the need to call any of the women in these cases a liar, it's not even logically required for those who want to rehabilitate MS. As far as I can see most of the party, maybe even including a goodly chunk of the opposition, accept the dc's ruling that rape probably didn't take place or at least wasn't proved to have taken place. Even Stack in his minority submission from the first dc didn't believe that the woman's claim that rape had happened had been proved. His argument was that on the balance of probability it was likely that harassment, not rape, had taken place. So clearly Stack and anyone in the opposition who agrees with him are obliged to disagree with the woman's claim that she was raped. Does that make Stack a rape apologist? If the speaker had just said that an accusation of rape isn't enough evidence to convict in itself then most of the party, maybe again even a majority of the opposition, would agree with that. The corollary if you accept the dc's finding on the claim of rape is that the woman didn't completely accurately describe what happened when she used the word rape. Calling her a liar is an unnecessary and insulting step further because it suggests a conscious desire to deceive. And the shit about women and children is just gratuitously offensive. But it has to be possible to say the woman was probably wrong about rape. As I say even Stack is forced to say something like that if he says anything about it. No?


----------



## Aargh (Dec 15, 2013)

Bolshie- the point is, what is the outcome of propagating the opinion that women and children lie about abuse?  Who benefits?  I'm not surprised by the statement as I've heard them say the same at branch meetings.  The debacle has entrenched some very nasty attitudes to abuse.


----------



## Aargh (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The corollary if you accept the dc's finding on the claim of rape is that the woman didn't completely accurately describe what happened when she used the word rape. Calling her a liar is an unnecessary and insulting step further because it suggests a conscious desire to deceive.



I think she has a right to decide/is the one who would know if she consented or not.  Taking advantage of someone while they're drunk is legally rape, just unfortunately it's not taken seriously.  But that will change with time I hope.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What I don't understand about the quote assuming the full quote is correct (and it would still be nice to know what was said immediately before and after so we had some context) is why someone would feel the need to call any of the women in these cases a liar, it's not even logically required for those who want to rehabilitate MS. As far as I can see most of the party, maybe even including a goodly chunk of the opposition, accept the dc's ruling that rape probably didn't take place or at least wasn't proved to have taken place. Even Stack in his minority submission from the first dc didn't believe that the woman's claim that rape had happened had been proved. His argument was that on the balance of probability it was likely that harassment, not rape, had taken place. So clearly Stack and anyone in the opposition who agrees with him are obliged to disagree with the woman's claim that she was raped. Does that make Stack a rape apologist? If the speaker had just said that an accusation of rape isn't enough evidence to convict in itself then most of the party, maybe again even a majority of the opposition, would agree with that. The corollary if you accept the dc's finding on the claim of rape is that the woman didn't completely accurately describe what happened when she used the word rape. Calling her a liar is an unnecessary and insulting step further because it suggests a conscious desire to deceive. And the shit about women and children is just gratuitously offensive. But it has to be possible to say the woman was probably wrong about rape. As I say even Stack is forced to say something like that if he says anything about it. No?


But this was the problem with the process, it was always going to be a case of her word against his. This is way having the hearing heard by people who personally knew one of the two people involved was the first major fuck up. The second was that they seem to want to apply a criminal rather than civil burden of proof, when it was impossible for that level of evidence to be available in this situation as all they can do is listen to the two accounts and decided which sounds more credible.

Given that she is the only person to truly know if she consented or not, given that while women do lie about rape it is very rare, and given that he would have more reason to lie than her, then I think you have to give the women the benefit of the doubt. But of course if you are looking for ironclad proof that rape took place, a handful of  people interviewing a few people 2 years after the incident aren't going to be able to find any.

As I have not heard the two accounts in this particular case I obviously cannot say if I believe a rape took place or note. But when investigating rape I think you should start from the position that the women is probaby telling the truth, especially if outside of the criminal justice system.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 15, 2013)

Ian Birchall on Twitter chooses: 
Well, that one's pretty much decided now, says Ian.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> But this was the problem with the process, it was always going to be a case of her word against his. This is way having the hearing heard by people who personally knew one of the two people involved was the first major fuck up. The second was that they seem to want to apply a criminal rather than civil burden of proof, when it was impossible for that level of evidence to be available in this situation as all they can do is listen to the two accounts and decided which sounds more credible.
> 
> Given that she is the only person to truly know if she consented or not, given that while women do lie about rape it is very rare, and given that he would have more reason to lie than her, then I think you have to give the women the benefit of the doubt. But of course if you are looking for ironclad proof that rape took place, a handful of  people interviewing a few people 2 years after the incident aren't going to be able to find any.
> 
> As I have not heard the two accounts in this particular case I obviously cannot say if I believe a rape took place or note. But when investigating rape I think you should start from the position that the women is probaby telling the truth, especially if outside of the criminal justice system.


Reasoned response as always emanymton. So the problem is this. I know it's almost impossible to do but leave to one side the failures in this particular case (failures most recognise). If a political org is to try and deal with accusations of rape without the type of evidence available to a criminal court what do you do? It seems to me that some people, for the best of anti sexist reasons, are very close to saying the accusation in itself should be enough evidence. Because women very rarely lie about rape and because the woman knows what was in her own mind at the time. So the presumption should be guilt? If that's the approach then under what circumstances could the accused be exonerated and allowed to remain a member? De facto that would be expulsion 99.9% of the time on the say so of the woman alone. Can that be right? I know some people think that's preferable to a) not judging rape cases at all or what is still my preferred option of b) listening to both parties and their witnesses  and making a call, difficult as that usually is. There were clearly problems with how that last option worked here but I think you improve that process rather than effectively throw it out. And if people are saying you can never question the accuracy of the accuser's version of events then that's what would happen.


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> (failures most recognise).


But that's the problem, isn't it?  The majority of there remaining SWP members apparently don't recognise those problems.



> And if people are saying you can never question the accuracy of the accuser's version of events then that's what would happen.


But no one, no one, is saying that.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 15, 2013)

i dunno, i think some people effectively are (or were)


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

Sorry belboid but I think some are. To even suggest a woman might be wrong is to be a sexist/rape apologist in many minds.


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry belboid but I think some are. To even suggest a woman might be wrong is to be a sexist/rape apologist in many minds.


Show us the quote then


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

I can't quote you someone's mind, as DU says it's effectively what they mean even if they don't say it explicitly.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Ian Birchall on Twitter chooses:
> Well, that one's pretty much decided now, says Ian.


“History knows transformations of all kinds; to rely on conviction, loyalty, and other superlative spiritual qualities – that is no serious thing in politics.”


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I can't quote you someone's mind, as DU says it's effectively what they mean even if they don't say it explicitly.


socialist mind reading - do you think that things have gone too far in favour women when it comes to rape?


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry belboid but I think some are. To even suggest a woman might be wrong is to be a sexist/rape apologist in many minds.


'to even suggest a woman might be wrong'. Care to clarify/explain that further?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Reasoned response as always emanymton. So the problem is this. I know it's almost impossible to do but leave to one side the failures in this particular case (failures most recognise). If a political org is to try and deal with accusations of rape without the type of evidence available to a criminal court what do you do? It seems to me that some people, for the best of anti sexist reasons, are very close to saying the accusation in itself should be enough evidence. Because women very rarely lie about rape and because the woman knows what was in her own mind at the time. So the presumption should be guilt? If that's the approach then under what circumstances could the accused be exonerated and allowed to remain a member? De facto that would be expulsion 99.9% of the time on the say so of the woman alone. Can that be right? I know some people think that's preferable to a) not judging rape cases at all or what is still my preferred option of b) listening to both parties and their witnesses  and making a call, difficult as that usually is. There were clearly problems with how that last option worked here but I think you improve that process rather than effectively throw it out. And if people are saying you can never question the accuracy of the accuser's version of events then that's what would happen.


And so the trap I felt myself waking into last night is sprung.

I don't think anyone (well anyone sensible) would want to suggest that these cases are in any way easy. I have mentioned it before but my only comparable experience was being on the jury in a rape case. While it was in some ways very different experience, it was similar in that there was essentially no physical evidence so it came down to who you believed. Deciding I felt he was guilty was probably one of the hardest things I have every done, most of the rest of the jury disagreed with me anyway. The only way I could judge it was to look at where their accounts agreed and to take these as know facts and then see who's narrative of events was a better fit to those facts. In the end I felt confident that her account made sense while his did not. I would assume the disputes committee did something similar.

But what if each gives an equally plausible account of events? It is my opinion that in those cases you must give the benefit of the doubt to the women, especially when it is not a criminal case. Does this mean there is a possibility of an innocent man being expelled an labeled as a rapist? Unfortunately yes, but considering the number of rapes cases investigated by the SWP and other left groups and the number of women who lie about rape, then the risk is quite small, and the alternative of guilty rapists being allowed to remain within parties and possibly within positions of authority is a greater risk. hopefully a decent investigation should be able to spot any ridicules accusations.

I say again these cases are never going to be easy, there are no good answers to the question of what to do.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

And the resignations begin, starting with "Comrade X" herself.


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And the resignations begin, starting with "Comrade X" herself.


her reasons here - http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rtl621

Depressing stuff


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

X said:


> the woman who brought a complaint of sexual harassment has had her email account hacked and one of the emails used as evidence in her case deleted



!!!!!


----------



## mk12 (Dec 15, 2013)

Well, that's what she says. Remember, some women and children lie.


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2013)

so, four resignations so far apparently.  Any advance?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> i think they must want to die


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> !!!!!



First mentioned on here in October - and they ended up at that point in Kimber's possession. IB2 i believe.


----------



## Once red (Dec 15, 2013)

Who are the four? And what were the conference outcomes? (Apart from the one comment we have heard of so far?) 
Sometimes women lie. Maybe that's true. Much, much, much more often, as far as I can see or tell, women don't say ANYTHING about rape, harassment, abuse, etc I wonder why THAT is?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 15, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I say again these cases are never going to be easy, there are no good answers to the question of what to do.



Of course not, but there are clearly wrong ways of doing things, such as was done. Note, the rape case that you were on the jury for came about as a result of it being reported to the police. According to a key figure in this clusterfuck odyssey, you were partaking in formal bourgeois morality.


----------



## redcogs (Dec 15, 2013)

The woman who has been denigrated and damaged by the bitter internal processes she has endured leaves with dignity and honour, and her statement, to these eyes at least, is replete with integrity.

It appears that the conscience of the SWP has been squandered, and it isn't really clear that those who remain could be capable of rescuing it.  A sad day indeed.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> First mentioned on here in October - and they ended up at that point in Kimber's possession. IB2 i believe.



I remember the allegation that X's email was hacked. As I understood it the evidence supporting the claim was that a range of private emails had been given to the CC and she was the only person who had received all of them. I hadn't heard that whoever accessed her email account also deleted one if the emails that was used as evidence for her complaint!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> so, four resignations so far apparently.  Any advance?



It will take a while for the numbers to be clear.


----------



## Aargh (Dec 15, 2013)

If 2 women say similar things about a man, both accounts are more likely.  For instance with Jimmy Saville, there was no DNA evidence but all the women showed he had a pattern of behaviozur. So it's even more unlikely either of these women are lying. As to 'any advance', I am resigning due to the misogyny,rape apologism and denial of the reality of men's oppression of women- will email Charlie now.


----------



## treelover (Dec 15, 2013)

Pity people stayed in at all, I can recount many examples of bullying, intimidation, unpleasant behaviour, etc ,by the comrades over many years as I am sure others can..


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 15, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Jesus fucking Christ


My sentiments exactly


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I remember the allegation that X's email was hacked. As I understood it the evidence supporting the claim was that a range of private emails had been given to the CC and she was the only person who had received all of them. I hadn't heard that whoever accessed her email account also deleted one if the emails that was used as evidence for her complaint!


Neale's accusation openly suggests that they were just her private emails rather than collective ones relating to the dispute and that some digging needed to be reached conclude that something was amiss - so simply, that they were stolen:



> Finally, another secret. In early July Charlie presented 20 emails among opposition members to the CC and then the national committee. All 20 emails had been sent to “J”, who at that point was bringing a complaint of sexual harassment against Delta.There is now an official party investigation into the status and origin of these emails. The sooner its conclusions are public, the better.
> We are lost in secrets.



It doesn't sound like, from reading the resignation, that the official party investigation happened/did anything.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

Actually surprised by the number of young(ish) women resigning. I didn't think there were half a dozen of them still in the SWP in the first place.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

Anyone resigning should remember that they won't cancel your subs payment for you. As Lindsey German was famously reminded, that's the responsibility of the person leaving.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 15, 2013)

Not that I have much interest in the SWP, but I know an infrequent Urbanite that's resigned today after a silly proportion of his life spent devoted to it. Is it all over?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Actually surprised by the number of young(ish) women resigning. I didn't think there were half a dozen of them still in the SWP in the first place.


Anyone promenant yet, besides X?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Anyone resigning should remember that they won't cancel your subs payment for you. As Lindsey German was famously reminded, that's the responsibility of the person leaving.


Fair enough, I can't imagine the SP, Afed or IWCA doing that either.


----------



## Aargh (Dec 15, 2013)

mauvais said:


> Not that I have much interest in the SWP, but I know an infrequent Urbanite that's resigned today after a silly proportion of his life spent devoted to it. Is it all over?


Unfortunately not


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

A normally reliable exSWPer says on twitter she's seen 15 resignations in the last hour. I've seen 8 or so.

I think the bulk of the opposition will go.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Fair enough, I can't imagine the SP, Afed or IWCA doing that either.



I'm not suggesting that it's unfair, just reminding people that's how it works.


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2013)

apparently Rhetta Moran has resigned!

the non-apology was too much for her


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> apparently Rhetta Moran has resigned!
> 
> the non-apology was too much for her



wow the loss of her proletarian insight will probably be the most serious blow this weekend


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> apparently Rhetta Moran has resigned!
> 
> the non-apology was too much for her



Where did you hear this?


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Where did you hear this?


facebook


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> apparently Rhetta Moran has resigned!
> 
> the non-apology was too much for her


Blimey! But of course from the standpoint of the proletariat, her resignation is absolutely correct.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

Fucking Labour wankers piously welcoming resignations on twitter make me grind my teeth.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 15, 2013)

It's all over bar the increasingly shrill shouting.  They will linger on like a latter-day WRP only without the funding from Gaddafi


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> apparently Rhetta Moran has resigned!
> 
> the non-apology was too much for her



I wonder if any other IDOOMers will sulk and walk too.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> apparently Rhetta Moran has resigned!
> 
> the non-apology was too much for her


Too much as in _gave too much ground_ or too much as in _not enough_?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 15, 2013)

belboid said:


> apparently Rhetta Moran has resigned!
> 
> the non-apology was too much for her


I though this was a joke, but your serious!


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Too much as in _gave too much ground_ or too much as in _not enough_?


The former I believe. 


emanymton said:


> I though this was a joke, but your serious!


Yeah, I'm fairly sure the original poster is too


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Actually surprised by the number of young(ish) women resigning. I didn't think there were half a dozen of them still in the SWP in the first place.


don't be a complete cock


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Fucking Labour wankers piously welcoming resignations on twitter make me grind my teeth.


I take the cock comment back


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

According to Jen I (who would probably be in a position to know), there will be 200+, possibly 300+, opposition resignations. The bulk of them to come as signatories to a collective statement in January. Plenty will jump the gun before then.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 15, 2013)

#14695


Nigel Irritable said:


> Fucking Labour wankers piously welcoming resignations on twitter make me grind my teeth.


#14696


articul8 said:


> It's all over bar the increasingly shrill shouting.  They will linger on like a latter-day WRP only without the funding from Gaddafi


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> 'to even suggest a woman might be wrong'. Care to clarify/explain that further?


no


----------



## treelover (Dec 15, 2013)

Where will they all go, who will want them? they stayed in a party that basically has been a disaster for many years and despised by many.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 15, 2013)

How the fuck Labour Party members can say shit is beyond me, do they have no self awareness. The SWP's handling of the Delta rape allegations was and continues to be horrendous but compared to the crimes of the Labour Party it pales.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

Gill George resigns. First of the "old timers" to go.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 15, 2013)

Socialists in Labour are keen to expose the crimes of the leadership not justify them


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Socialists in Labour are keen to expose the crimes of the leadership not justify them



Piss off.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> no



I'll re-phrase. 
'To even suggest a woman might be wrong'.

care to Please clarify/explain that further.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> I'll re-phrase.
> 'To even suggest a woman might be wrong'.
> 
> care to Please clarify/explain that further.


I will. No fuck off.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 15, 2013)

Anyone read this childish shit from an apparent Sol Fed member.

Reminds me of a leftie Willie Frazer, how I'd love to live in a world where the most offensive thing I see is an SWP placard.

http://crowdfury.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/why-we-trashed-swp-stall-and-why-well.html



> I spotted a comrade who – thanks to Twitter – I knew was critical of the SWP. I approached him and told him I was uncomfortable about the SWP presence and asked if he’d like to help me get rid of them. He didn’t need much persuading! We walked around and talked to a few other comrades about our plan. As soon as there were a few of us, we marched over to the SWP stall. I poured water over their filthy papers to make them unsellable, then my comrade tipped over their table. We then grabbed the placards and destroyed them.
> 
> Several trots came over to have a go but in all honesty, I wasn’t listening. I caught a few choice words; ‘unity… sectarianism… Nazis… Tory-led agenda’. Blah, blah, blah. None of us were bothered by what the trots had to say, we were buzzing! After the boring speeches given mostly by more swappies (seriously, they’ve infested all Sussex demos), we went on a march around campus that was more vibrant and energetic than the ones I’d been on recently.



So it's not about the raped women in the SWP at all, it's really a self aggrandising little ego trip for you and your twitter mates. The pride they take in not listening, the focus on their feeling of empowerment through what let's face it is a bit of bullying of some very soft targets.

Fucking Student Union bubble cunts.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Socialists in Labour are keen to expose the crimes of the leadership not justify them



Your membership justifies it.

You rat fuck!


----------



## redcogs (Dec 15, 2013)

The SWP has always been a coalition of hard nosed hack types with evident bullying tendencies and decent and considerate bolsheviks who you would be proud to stand with on any picket line or demonstration.  


What's left behind after the resignation cloud settles can be little more than dreadful with a capital D.  Imagine attending branch meetings comprised only of robocop loyalists - not an attractive environment for working class people who are familiar with aggressive line managers with single agendas and no human skills .


----------



## articul8 (Dec 15, 2013)

[revol68, post: 12776493, member: 13829"]Your membership justifies it.

You rat fuck![/quote]
Bollocks


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2013)

Rhetta packs her bags...


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2013)

redcogs said:


> dreadful with a capital D.


remind me, what's 'D' in the phonetic alphabet?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> [revol68, post: 12776493, member: 13829"]Your membership justifies it.
> 
> You rat fuck!


Bollocks[/quote]

You're a careerist piece of shit, to see you laughing at SWP resignations is hilarious. You are in a party whose leadership has never faced so much as an internal disciplinary committee over the small matter of I dunno invading Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Socialists in Labour are keen to expose the crimes of the leadership not justify them



But by definition your membership is effectively endorsing those self same criminals by wanting people to vote for them. How much longer will you and your pals demand we square a circle?


----------



## redcogs (Dec 15, 2013)

Delta of course belboid


----------



## revol68 (Dec 15, 2013)

Fedayn said:


> But by definition your membership is effectively endorsing those self same criminals by wanting people to vote for them. How much longer will you and your pals demand we square a circle?



I suppose it would be like the people staying in the SWP with Delta still on the CC and arguing that whilst he might be a rapist atleast they can act to put tabs on his raping.


----------



## tufty79 (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I will. No fuck off.


what's your problem?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

Colin Wilson resigns. Wasn't he their main person writing on lgbt issues for years?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

tufty79 said:


> what's your problem?


you. Picking one sentence out of a fairly long winded and reasonable response to others and asking me to elaborate on it. Fuck off.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Colin Wilson resigns. Wasn't he their main person writing on lgbt issues for years?


Yep,


----------



## belboid (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Colin Wilson resigns. Wasn't he their main person writing on lgbt issues for years?


Now john Molyneux is


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 15, 2013)

revol68 said:


> I suppose it would be like the people staying in the SWP with Delta still on the CC and arguing that whilst he might be a rapist atleast they can act to put tabs on his raping.



Ouch.....


----------



## oskarsdrum (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Colin Wilson resigns. Wasn't he their main person writing on lgbt issues for years?



Never really part of the tradition old bean. Also pulled by movementism. 

The thing here is that while the first load of us that left gave a smattering of comfort for the bolshies of the party claiming we were insufficiently "hegemonized" - the rest of the truth being of course that the SWP had always recruited radicals outside of bolshevik true believers through the Marxism and ISJ appearances of heterogeneity, and would have dwindled to near-nothing without this long ago - claiming the same this time round is desperate wonderland stuff. No doubt that accounts for the heightened brusqueness of tone seen in BB comments tonight!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

Pete Gillard, who joined IS in 1969, resigns and says amongst other things that:




			
				Pete Gillard said:
			
		

> I believe the SWP is no longer fit for purpose as a revolutionary organisation. I haven’t lost faith in the working class. I don’t believe that ‘the movements’ can bring socialism. I reject all the slurs the CC has promoted in attempting to discredit the SWP Opposition. In leaving the SWP, I will play my part in the process of building a new revolutionary socialist organisation, one which builds on the best of the International Socialist tradition. I fully expect to be working and to welcome working with SWP members in my union and in campaigning activities. The revolutionary left in Britain, as a whole, is weaker than it has been for decades. We need to work together.



Which seems to be a straightforward indication that there is an organised group split in the works.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 15, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Socialists in Labour are keen to expose the crimes of the leadership not justify them



How? By campaigning for and alongside war criminals?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 15, 2013)

J Ed said:


> How? By campaigning for and alongside war criminals?



mumble mumble... dialectics...


----------



## love detective (Dec 15, 2013)

contradictions need room to breathe


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

Viv Smith (ex CC) resigns.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Viv Smith (ex CC) resigns.



For some daft reason, Nigel getting all giddy - no offence meant - about news of the round of resignations of old timers on twitter reminded me of this famous old pic:







Maybe someone more tech minded than me can do an SWP version from the last year Tony Cliff was on the Central Committee.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Viv Smith (ex CC) resigns.


Was steadfast in support of W. One of the people who comes out of this horrible business very well.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> For some daft reason, Nigel getting all giddy - no offence meant - about news of the round of resignations of old timers on twitter reminded me of this famous old pic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The funny thing is, looking at the mug shots you'd probably go for a pint with Stalin, though I'd take Kollantai to dinner.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2013)

Birchall gone then.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Maybe someone more tech minded than me can do an SWP version from the last year Tony Cliff was on the Central Committee.



Only Callinicos left on the CC, isn't there? Will any of them still be even nominal rank and file members once Stack resigns?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Birchall gone then.



Is there a direct comment or statement about or are you inferring that?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is there a direct comment or statement about or are you inferring that?


That's from someone i don't know but who does appear to be in the know and _known _herself. So bit of both.


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 15, 2013)

This twitter account https://twitter.com/Izaakson seems to have a blow-by-blow timeline of resignations.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is there a direct comment or statement about or are you inferring that?


His resignation
http://grimanddim.org/political-writings/2013-letter-of-resignation/



> Unfortunately the events of the last year have changed everything. The monstrously irresponsible and self-indulgent conduct of a former leading member was bad enough. But far worse was the failure of the party leadership to deal flexibly and intelligently with the situation. The Central Committee has been at best obstinate and short-sighted, at worst grossly dishonest. The revolutionary organisation is a means to the end of socialist transformation, but for members of our self-selecting leadership it has become an end in itself.





> The Central Committee bears a heavy responsibility for this situation, and that they should seek re-election  en bloc reveals an arrogance that disqualifies them as a leadership. As senior CC member, Alex Callinicos bears a particularly heavy responsibility. (When a dog bites me I don’t blame the animal; I blame the owner that failed to keep it on a lead.) It is a small personal tragedy that his cowardice and dishonesty over the last year will overshadow forty years’ work as a significant Marxist theoretician.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

One of the sadder resignation letters from a left group that I've seen.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> His resignation
> http://grimanddim.org/political-writings/2013-letter-of-resignation/


Brilliant but basically very, very sad letter of resignation... Puts the blame fairly and squarely at the Prof's door, but the problems were clearly more deep seated than that.


----------



## muscovyduck (Dec 15, 2013)

I don't understand,  was the 'woman and children' line definitely said? If it was, there is a chance that they were implying she's still a child and thus doesn't take the politics seriously, which is frustrating to the extreme. 

Being young rarely comes up in privilege theory in that way, and it nearly always comes up in arguments like this as a way to patronise.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 15, 2013)

Nice to see you back muscovyduck.


----------



## muscovyduck (Dec 15, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Nice to see you back muscovyduck.


Nice to be back.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> I don't understand,  was the 'woman and children' line definitely said? If it was, there is a chance that they were implying she's still a child and thus doesn't take the politics seriously, which is frustrating to the extreme.
> 
> Being young rarely comes up in privilege theory in that way, and it nearly always comes up in arguments like this as a way to patronise.


thanks for the comic relief. Some of us needed it.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 15, 2013)

Maybe soon there'll be a suitable sized SWP for them to go and live in the Ecuadoran embassy with their spiritual king


----------



## BK Double Stack (Dec 15, 2013)

renton resigns.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> renton resigns.



Perhaps the least surprising resignation other than Aargh.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> thanks for the comic relief. Some of us needed it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> thanks for the comic relief. Some of us needed it.


You are a disgrace


----------



## muscovyduck (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> thanks for the comic relief. Some of us needed it.


Oh man I'm so sorry for actually trying to add something to the conversation


----------



## Belushi (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> thanks for the comic relief. Some of us needed it.



You're such a prick.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> One of the sadder resignation letters from a left group that I've seen.


Sad, dignified and very un self serving. What you'd expect from the man. Huge loss.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

BK Double Stack said:


> renton resigns.


politics aside, best for him really, this whole period and his attempts at squaring the circle must have done his head in. Hope he finds a new home and keeps sharpening his keen wits for use against the real enemy.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

Belushi said:


> You're such a prick.


Gallows humour, pardon me.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Gallows humour, pardon me.



I don't think you realise what you've just done there, but it's the perfect illustration of how the SWP has got itself in to this mess. A young woman asks a question and you mockingly dismiss her out of hand. It's fucking vile.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 15, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> For some daft reason, Nigel getting all giddy - no offence meant - about news of the round of resignations of old timers on twitter reminded me of this famous old pic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now I've got a mental image of Stalin sitting in the Kremlin, gleefully crossing all the other pics with a red marker and then shouting 'House!'


----------



## Balbi (Dec 15, 2013)

DACHA!


----------



## muscovyduck (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Gallows humour, pardon me.



I can't see how asking for clarification as to whether it was said or not could have made you respond like that when you could've just said 'no'. 

Was your issue that it's stupid to ask whether it is patronising, or that it's a valid thing to say when speaking about alleged sexual assault?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 15, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I don't think you realise what you've just done there, but it's the perfect illustration of how the SWP has got itself in to this mess. A young woman asks a question and you mockingly dismiss her out of hand. It's fucking vile.


True


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 15, 2013)

I didn't think anything on this thread could cheer me up but this collective outpouring of sensitivity has. No idea who the poster was, just thought it was a comical idea whoever said it, whatever their age or gender. still do. this cult of youth shit has gone to your heads.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 15, 2013)




----------



## J Ed (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I didn't think anything on this thread could cheer me up but this collective outpouring of sensitivity has. No idea who the poster was, just thought it was a comical idea whoever said it, whatever their age or gender. still do. this cult of youth shit has gone to your heads.









Also you think people are angry with you and the SWP because of "the cult of youth"? wtf? Yea I suppose those rape victims should just shut up and accept the droit du seigneur.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I didn't think anything on this thread could cheer me up but this collective outpouring of sensitivity has. No idea who the poster was, just thought it was a comical idea whoever said it, whatever their age or gender. still do. this cult of youth shit has gone to your heads.


You are on a sinking ship mate. Do yourself a favour and take a leap.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> thanks for the comic relief. Some of us needed it.



Listen to yourself


----------



## muscovyduck (Dec 15, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I didn't think anything on this thread could cheer me up but this collective outpouring of sensitivity has. No idea who the poster was, just thought it was a comical idea whoever said it, whatever their age or gender. still do. this cult of youth shit has gone to your heads.



I still can't figure out what was comical about my post and why you couldn't have just answered my question. You could've even incorporated an insult into the answer if it was too painful to make a valid contribution.

I was going to explain why it's an important point but you basically proved it for me.


----------



## killer b (Dec 15, 2013)

just had to unban myself to call bolshy a cunt.

anyway, as you were.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2013)

mate you dont have the right to call anything comic relief, you rejoined the SWP after leaving for many years, after it held a fuckin rape case and found the alleged rapist innocent. Of all the reasons to join a political party ffs.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 15, 2013)

Apparently there are a couple of isolated bits of the country where the local branch is totally opposition and they aren't planning to resign, most notably Kent.


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 16, 2013)

bolshiebhost: 12777226 said:
			
		

> I didn't think anything on this thread could cheer me up but this collective outpouring of sensitivity has. No idea who the poster was, just thought it was a comical idea whoever said it, whatever their age or gender. still do. this cult of youth shit has gone to your heads.





bolshiebhoy said:


> I didn't think anything on this thread could cheer me up but this collective outpouring of sensitivity has. No idea who the poster was, just thought it was a comical idea whoever said it, whatever their age or gender. still do. this cult of youth shit has gone to your heads.


Iam really glad I don't personally know you .... or any one as repugnant as you are


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 16, 2013)

revol68 said:


> How the fuck Labour Party members can say shit is beyond me, do they have no self awareness. The SWP's handling of the Delta rape allegations was and continues to be horrendous but compared to the crimes of the Labour Party it pales.



Perhaps only because Labour got to be in government. People who deem themselves, out of nowhere, qualified to be judge and jury on a rape case are very incredibly dangerous. There's no knowing what they might do in power. But yes, Labour crowing is unseemly nonetheless.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently there are a couple of isolated bits of the country where the local branch is totally opposition and they aren't planning to resign, most notably Kent.



Sheffield?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

treelover said:


> Sheffield?



Sheffield is a loyalist stronghold I think.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2013)

It certainly is, I thought you meant people not planning to resign would make them loyalists asit were.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

treelover said:


> It certainly is, I thought you meant people not planning to resign would make them loyalists asit were.



I don't follow


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 16, 2013)

"Who Is Saying What"

http://www.jimjepps.net/?p=273

ETA : seems more of a general historical repository, but also seems very thorough.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 16, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> I still can't figure out what was comical about my post and why you couldn't have just answered my question. You could've even incorporated an insult into the answer if it was too painful to make a valid contribution.
> 
> I was going to explain why it's an important point but you basically proved it for me.


That might be true if I'd known anything about you when I said it, it was an offhand response to someone whose age and gender I didn't have the foggiest of. But in the climate being created that isn't allowed. Or rather flippancy is allowed on this thread, if the person doing it is anti SWP. I keep forgetting that house rule. None of which is your fault of course so apologies if you got hit in the crossfire.

As I'm normally less dismissive I'll try to explain properly what I meant. I thought it was comical, regardless of who said it, because despite the stupidity of whoever in the party used the phrase women and children (and it was stupid and as I said a few pages back, offensive) it was an attempt by someone to be provocative rather than reflecting some deep seated party animosity to young people. The SWP might have had a torrid time with it's younger members recently but the one thing it hasn't traditionally done is forget to take young people seriously. And by seriously I mean both value them AND argue with them cause theres nothing more patronising than saying, as the opposition do, that young people should be treated with kid gloves intellectually (taken to a silly extreme when the ISN argue with each other about whether they should be allowed to argue with each other). Bollox to that, I was argued with relentlessly since the moment I joined swss and that process of debate and learning is what I valued most about the party when I joined first time round.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 16, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I don't think you realise what you've just done there, but it's the perfect illustration of how the SWP has got itself in to this mess. A young woman asks a question and you mockingly dismiss her out of hand. It's fucking vile.


You undermine your own point by pointing out I didn't know who I was being flippant towards. Where you are right is I shouldn't be dismissive to anyone, and in fact it's hypocritical of me when I'm quick enough to whinge about others not taking arguments seriously. So yes. In future I'll do my best to be as unflippant and patient to everyone on this thread as they are to each other and we'll see who blinks first.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 16, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Perhaps only because Labour got to be in government. People who deem themselves, out of nowhere, qualified to be judge and jury on a rape case are very incredibly dangerous. There's no knowing what they might do in power. But yes, Labour crowing is unseemly nonetheless.



The labour party had no problem invading Iraq and being party to hundreds of thousands of deaths and no doubt quite a few rapes, and all that with no international mandate at all.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 16, 2013)

I've been thinking about the use of the term rape apologist and I'm not really sure it's the right one to use in this context. Maybe I'm talking out of my arse (wouldn't be the first time) but wouldn't a rape apologist either try to claim rape is OK or agree that an incident that others consider rape did indeed happen but try and argue that it was ok, or maybe that it wasn't actually rape?

In this case, it seems to me, this isn't what's happened. They appear to claim that it never took place in the first place. That's denial, not apologetics.

It's like holocaust denial - they deny the holocaust took place at all. Whereas a holocaust apologist wouldn't deny it took place but would rather try and justify it (and I've often thought this would be a more consistent and coherent argument for a Nazi to make, since given their views on Jews you'd have thought they'd take some kind of perverse pride in it).

It's not a particularly important distinction I admit but I'm in a pedantic mood at the moment.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've been thinking about the use of the term rape apologist and I'm not really sure it's the right one to use in this context. Maybe I'm talking out of my arse (wouldn't be the first time) but wouldn't a rape apologist either try to claim rape is OK or agree that an incident that others consider rape did indeed happen but try and argue that it was ok, or maybe that it wasn't actually rape?
> 
> In this case, it seems to me, this isn't what's happened. They appear to claim that it never took place in the first place.
> 
> ...



No you're correct and making the distinction is important.

Galloway was pretty much acting as a rape apologist with his "sexual etiquette" bollocks, most of the SWP loyalists are in outright denial as far as I can see. Which position is the more ethically and intellectually bankrupt is another matter.

Denial and apologism are by definition two different things and it doesn't help anyone to conflate the two.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 16, 2013)

revol68 said:


> The funny thing is, looking at the mug shots you'd probably go for a pint with Stalin, though I'd take Kollantai to dinner.



Stalin would turn up wearing only a lime-green mankini, though.


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sad, dignified and very un self serving. What you'd expect from the man. Huge loss.


Hypocrite. You know full well that Martin is in the wrong and that the CC have manoeuvred to appease his supporters. But because your fundamental conviction is that the SWP must continue in its current form, you think that it is preferable to take the hit and then soldier on. You've written him off as collateral damage.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Apparently there are a couple of isolated bits of the country where the local branch is totally opposition and they aren't planning to resign, most notably Kent.



What's their strategy? Or are they just too traumatised to leave?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2013)

And someone mentioned Molyneux, has he resigned?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I've been thinking about the use of the term rape apologist and I'm not really sure it's the right one to use in this context. Maybe I'm talking out of my arse (wouldn't be the first time) but wouldn't a rape apologist either try to claim rape is OK or agree that an incident that others consider rape did indeed happen but try and argue that it was ok, or maybe that it wasn't actually rape?
> 
> In this case, it seems to me, this isn't what's happened. They appear to claim that it never took place in the first place. That's denial, not apologetics.
> 
> ...



This is all entirely correct, but I think at least for a while you'll struggle to get this across to a wide layer of left types.


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> And someone mentioned Molyneux, has he resigned?


lordy no


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Sheffield is a loyalist stronghold I think.


one of whose members is now chair of the DC, I believe


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> one of whose members is now chair of the DC, I believe



Is that Maxine Bowler? Yeah, they're never leaving; from what I can gather the rows around the conference last year were so vicious all the oppositionists resigned as a bloc last year. They are now mostly members of RevSoc and consider the ISN "boring" or something.


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is that Maxine Bowler? Yeah, they're never leaving; from what I can gather the rows around the conference last year were so vicious all the oppositionists resigned as a bloc last year. They are now mostly members of RevSoc and consider the ISN "boring" or something.


yeah, all the oppo's left last year. They're all still in ISN tho (even if they might be anathema)


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 16, 2013)

Resignation letter from Viv Smith (one of the first to take up W's case). Very admirable and absolutely correct:

_Dear Charlie,

It is with deep sadness that I am writing to resign from the SWP.

For three years a handful of us, growing to an impressive 400-500, have tried to resolve the appalling handling of the two disputes cases. In this time it became clear that the CC chose to cover up rather than address their and the DCs mistakes or confront Martin’s behaviour.

Despite countless opportunities to resolve the situation, the CC chose to allow sexist, uncomradely and undemocratic behaviour from CC members and Smith supporters, including condoning lies that the women were spurned lovers and/or politically motivated.

This process has lead to the degeneration of our politics on women’s oppression and has destroyed the small steps we took under the Democracy Commission to open up party democracy. One of the brightest generations of student revolutionaries has been squandered and with it our ability to rejuvenate the party.

I stayed in the party this year with the hope that if enough comrades were made aware of the situation, they would demand it be rectified. I stayed to win some kind of justice for the two women comrades so badly treated, and because I believed that the SWP was worth fighting for. I do not want to leave, but I cannot simply continue to remain in an organisation which is being destroyed by a leadership who, out of fear of tackling political and organisational weaknesses, are trampling our core principles and compounding mistakes at the cost of political clarity and direction.

Viv Smith_


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

Ugh:



> One of the brightest generations of student revolutionaries has been squandered and with it our ability to rejuvenate the party.



worthless now they're outside the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

Quite surprised they're allowed to address him so informally as well.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2013)

Indeed, Comrade Bala would never stand for this


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ugh:
> 
> 
> 
> worthless now they're outside the SWP.


So says the Professor...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

Btw: if some adults lie, what does that do to the logic of “we aren’t rape apologists unless we believe that women always tell the truth – and guess what, some women and children lie”?

In case a: the swp can only be rape apologists if they believe all claims of rape from women and children are true
In case b: surely they must recognise that some adult males lie.
Which then
c: totally negates the defence of them them not being rape apologists offered in a. That defence falls - and by its own logic.

I wonder who said these words anyway.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 16, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Hypocrite. You know full well that Martin is in the wrong and that the CC have manoeuvred to appease his supporters. But because your fundamental conviction is that the SWP must continue in its current form, you think that it is preferable to take the hit and then soldier on. You've written him off as collateral damage.


Calm down fella. The are two different things here. Politically I think he and Renton have made a huge mistake. But they are both admirable people and generally conduct themselves with great dignity, more than most of us on this thread can muster. Ian's resignation letter is an exemplar of that. It is still possible to admire people who you think have got something wrong. Just as its very possible to dislike people you trust politically. That's just life.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> yeah, all the oppo's left last year. They're all still in ISN tho (even if they might be anathema)



No. Some of them have told me very specifically they don't want to be involved in the ISN.


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> No. Some of them have told me very specifically they don't want to be involved in the ISN.


they are mostly still in it tho, at least a dozen or so are


----------



## articul8 (Dec 16, 2013)

Let's just remember how stinging Birchall's verdict is:


> monstrously irresponsible and self-indulgent...obstinate and short-sighted, at worst grossly dishonest...self-selecting leadership...Good comrades have been treated shamefully, apparently with CC approval...the leadership has broken down all relations of trust..an arrogance that disqualifies them as a leadership...cowardice and dishonesty [..of Callinicos - compared to a dog] ...descent into irrelevance...


 
50 years in an organisation you think has been wrecked by a self-selecting leadership fronted by a dishonest coward, that has now descended into irrelevance.  As indictments go it's a good 'un


----------



## emanymton (Dec 16, 2013)

revol68 said:


> No you're correct and making the distinction is important.
> 
> Galloway was pretty much acting as a rape apologist with his "sexual etiquette" bollocks, most of the SWP loyalists are in outright denial as far as I can see. Which position is the more ethically and intellectually bankrupt is another matter.
> 
> Denial and apologism are by definition two different things and it doesn't help anyone to conflate the two.


I think this is spot on, I would also say that denial is the better (doesn't seem the right word to use here) and more understandable position. If, for example my dad was to be accused of rape then the 'he didn't do it' reaction would be more reasonable than 'yes he did it but there was nothing wrong with what he did'. 

There is a possible issue with the DC and a few senior members of the party who presumably know the full details of the case. It could be that they don't believe what W describes as talking place was in fact rape. But we have no way to know. 

Odd I thought I had quoted spinney's post. Oh well still kind of works


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Politically I think he and Renton have made a huge mistake ... It is still possible to admire people who you think have got something wrong.



What was their mistake? What have they gotten wrong?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Let's just remember how stinging Birchall's verdict is:
> 
> 
> 50 years in an organisation you think has been wrecked by a self-selecting leadership fronted by a dishonest coward, that has now descended into irrelevance.  As indictments go it's a good 'un



Could be talking about your party there - though admittedly the lp certainly aren't irrelevant (unfortunately)


----------



## articul8 (Dec 16, 2013)

That's the key difference - staying in the Labour party is in no sense an endorsement of its present leadership, policy, actions etc, or even - necessarily, or in an unqualified way - its historic role, function and core philosophy.   It's just a recognition of its strategic unavoidability at the electoral level. 

I don't underestimate the wrench for someone like Birchall.  But for younger comrades it's no great loss to leave the SWP and join some other sect or regroupment project, because they are similarly irrelevant.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

Why can't you recognise your own similar irrelevance within your party as these have within wider society? And draw the same conclusions that they had the bottle to.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> staying in the Labour party is in no sense an endorsement of its present leadership, policy, actions etc, or even - necessarily, or in an unqualified way - its historic role, function and core philosophy.






There's "bending the stick" and there's articul8.


Fucking hell mate .


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> That's the key difference - staying in the Labour party is in no sense an endorsement of its present leadership, policy, actions etc, or even - necessarily, or in an unqualified way - its historic role, function and core philosophy.   It's just a recognition of its strategic unavoidability at the electoral level.
> 
> I don't underestimate the wrench for someone like Birchall.  But for younger comrades it's no great loss to leave the SWP and join some other sect or regroupment project, because they are similarly irrelevant.


you don't like taking responsibility, do you. you're the sort of person who'd have stayed in the communist party after kruschev's famous secret speech ("nothing to do with me"), hungary '56 ("nothing to do with me") and the prague spring ("nothing to do with me"), not to mention the pact with hitler.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> That's the key difference - staying in the Labour party is in no sense an endorsement of its present leadership, policy, actions etc, or even - necessarily, or in an unqualified way - its historic role, function and core philosophy.   It's just a recognition of its strategic unavoidability at the electoral level.



They pay their dues to people involved in multiple rape cover ups and you pay your dues (and I assume time, effort, and moral support) to people responsible for illegal wars which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, anti-trade union legislation, attacks on civil liberties, privatisation of public services, attacks on people on welfare...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> They pay their dues to people involved in multiple rape cover ups and you pay your dues (and I assume time, effort, and moral support) to people responsible for illegal wars which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, anti-trade union legislation, attacks on civil liberties, privatisation of public services, attacks on people on welfare...


but those are all, in articul8's view, socially acceptable


----------



## articul8 (Dec 16, 2013)

J Ed said:


> They pay their dues to people involved in multiple rape cover ups and you pay your dues (and I assume time, effort, and moral support) to people responsible for illegal wars which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, anti-trade union legislation, attacks on civil liberties, privatisation of public services, attacks on people on welfare...


 
I have not sanctioned, condoned or excused the behaviour of the Labour party leadership on any of those questions.  I have sided with those inside (and outside) the party trying to fight this every step of the way.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 16, 2013)

saw this somewhere else earlier
http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/an-anticipatory-obituary-for-the-swp/



> *An anticipatory obituary for the SWP*
> By stavvers
> The SWP have appeared dead in the water for months, since the revelations of sexual violence and attempts at cover-up like an inept, less popular and worse-dressed Catholic Church. And yet, like cockroaches, they have survived.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

> At worst, one wonders why they’re laying the groundwork for smearing children who have survived sexual violence as liars, and what else may emerge.



What a ridiculous thing to say.


----------



## chilango (Dec 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I have not sanctioned, condoned or excused the behaviour of the Labour party leadership on any of those questions.  I have sided with those inside (and outside) the party trying to fight this every step of the way.



Nope.

You're just a paid up member, and activist.



FFS Give it up.

Just 'fess up that you enjoy politics, fancy making something of a "career" out of it and the LP gives you this.

That's understandable.

...and is far more honest than all of this tying yourself up in knots of bullshit trying to somehow make your Labour Party membership (and activism) a legit form of radical leftism.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2013)

> Dear Charlie,
> I am writing tonight to resign from the Socialist Workers Party. I am a revolutionary socialist who has viewed all the events since 2010 with alarm. It is not just the defence of rape by the upper echelons of the party, but also the very fact that their is an upper echelon in the SWP. As a blue collar worker without a university education I have always struggled to be accepted in the intellectualised atmosphere of the party. I do not think that anyone who joins should have to smash through a political/intellectual glass ceiling, but we do. In so many ways the SWP mirrors the society we aim to bring down. There is class and privilege in the party, that much was obvious to me from early on, I fought to smash it down, but like any other structure the hierarchy clings to power, at a national or local level.
> Time and again I approached the party to complain of poor comradeship, zero support and poor organisation in Bristol, at least four times I was fobbed off the rest ignored. Once at a meeting in my own home I and the Secretary of UAF in Bristol, were silenced in our criticism of comrades, as it was felt that important funds from the NUT would be held back. To our knowledge those funds never materialised. Our local campaigns were jeopardized for the sake of national money, to prop up National UAF. For all these years as a good comrade I kept my mouth shut, or had it shut for me.
> I can be brutal with language, I recognise Boss-like behaviour when I see it and I see it in the Party. You are the bosses, people like me, who trail around doing what we are instructed, are the workers; who are then smashed for showing a flicker of initiative. Worst of all are the unelected, self appointed, middle managers who have a position due to their seniority, a woeful parody of the bosses and managers we are trying to remove. I have a simple rule; anything that we resist at work, we should resist in our own organisation.
> ...






> I recognise Boss-like behaviour when I see it and I see it in the Party. You are the bosses, people like me, who trail around doing what we are instructed, are the workers; who are then smashed for showing a flicker of initiative. Worst of all are the unelected, self appointed, middle managers who have a position due to their seniority, a woeful parody of the bosses and managers we are trying to remove. I have a simple rule; anything that we resist at work, we should resist in our own organisation.




Very long but interesting and revealing resignation letter, imo, he gets it right on the button in terms of the SWP hierarchy.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 16, 2013)

Jonathan Neale has walked


----------



## Balbi (Dec 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What a ridiculous thing to say.



Comes back to the infantilisation and grouping of 'women and children', which is a bit disturbing if you're actually meant to be for equality.


----------



## treelover (Dec 16, 2013)

remember him from ESF days.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> I have not sanctioned, condoned or excused the behaviour of the Labour party leadership on any of those questions.  I have sided with those inside (and outside) the party trying to fight this every step of the way.


and then objectively sided with the leadership on every one of those issues


----------



## articul8 (Dec 16, 2013)

Now who sounds like the Stalinist: "Ok you may have argued passionately against the Iraq war _but objectively...!_


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Now who sounds like the Stalinist: "Ok you may have argued passionately against the Iraq war _but objectively...!_


i only have your word for it that you argued against the iraq war, passionately or otherwise. when tens of thousands of people left the labour party aghast at blair's exploits, you decided you should stay in. yet has your presence contributed to a social hue to the party? you're wasting your life.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Now who sounds like the Stalinist: "Ok you may have argued passionately against the Iraq war _but objectively...!_


Your response helps to bring out that your commitment to the labour party cannot be based on objectivity - only on wild unsustainable subjectivity.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> they are mostly still in it tho, at least a dozen or so are


 
Certainly a dozen or so are but there are a good few ex SWSS that have either refused to get involved or having got involved decided it wasn't for them. Mind you, I'd suggest a few of those actively don't want to be involved in anything off campus, where they feel safe, except for the odd big demo.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 16, 2013)

For your delectation, here's a link to a loyalist/idoom letter which is doing the rounds:

http://johnmullenagen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/my-view-on-socialist-workers-party-in.html

Also, John Charlton (a middle of the roader?) has published a well-meaning but totally wrong-headed appeal to oppos on his Facebook page. It's all down to the "logic of factions" you see....


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Also, John Charlton (a middle of the roader?) has published a well-meaning but totally wrong-headed appeal to oppos on his Facebook page. It's all down to the "logic of factions" you see....


"The sense that you can live to fight another day disappears. It apparently becomes impossible to see the dialectic at work."


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> "The sense that you can live to fight another day disappears. It apparently becomes impossible to see the dialectic at work."


Yes, that's my problem: I failed to see the dialectic at work. The same must be true of X and Y, Ian Birchall and all the oppos. The dialectic rules, OK.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

Seems like the dialetic just means hanging around and waiting for people to forget. In this case, the people waiting around are going to be gone well before those they're waiting to disappear.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 16, 2013)

revol68 said:


> The labour party had no problem invading Iraq and being party to hundreds of thousands of deaths and no doubt quite a few rapes, and all that with no international mandate at all.



It's hard to not react to that with a little sarcasm, how many people here do you think are unaware of that? It doesn't negate my point at all.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 16, 2013)

Articul8 manages the impossible; making bolshiebhoy appear to be not the most vile person on Urban


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> Articul8 manages the impossible; making bolshiebhoy appear to be not the most vile person on Urban



I think bolshieboy remains ahead by a long shot when it comes to most vile...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

One's an idiot lying to himself - ones a desiccated calculating machine who's computated that lying to others and putting his rusty skills at dissembling at the service of the worst part of the SWP is something worth spending a lot of time doing. I think the former would come out on the right side if he was in the middle of this.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 16, 2013)

I still half think he's just a wind-up, after nobody could be so despicable as to actually join that witches brew


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 16, 2013)

Anyone like to guess what will become of Pat Stack? As far as I know he hasn't resigned but I'd have thought it would be difficult for him to remain in the SWP now?


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 16, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I still half think he's just a wind-up, after nobody could be so despicable as to actually join that witches brew


Just realised that comment could apply to both articul8 and BB


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 16, 2013)

Apols if this has been posted already

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/dear-charlie-im-off/

ETA : blimey, wouldn't have put it up if I'd known how short it was...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Anyone like to guess what will become of Pat Stack? As far as I know he hasn't resigned but I'd have thought it would be difficult for him to remain in the SWP now?



I'd be extremely surprised if he stays. Remember, we've only seen 50 or so of the quickest resignations so far, when the joint resignation isn't expected till January


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'd be extremely surprised if he stays. Remember, we've only seen 50 or so of the quickest resignations so far, when the joint resignation isn't expected till January


I don't think he'll go.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think he'll go.



We haven't heard from quite a few of the more prominent oppositionists yet: Dee, Stack, Gonzalez, Davidson. But none of them have been mentioned as "good people who are staying in" when that subject has come up amongst the departing either.

I think it will be quite difficult for any of the above to stay in, even if they wanted to. The leadership might let them, in a "parade the barbarian king naked through the streets of Rome" sort of way, but they'd be lightning rods for rank and file loyalist resentment.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 16, 2013)

ddraig said:


> saw this somewhere else earlier
> http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/an-anticipatory-obituary-for-the-swp/


Whenever I read many of these I can't help feeling that the writer couldn't give a shit about the women at the center of this and are simply happy to have a stick to beat the SWP with.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> We haven't heard from quite a few of the more prominent oppositionists yet: Dee, Stack, Gonzalez, Davidson. But none of them have been mentioned as "good people who are staying in" when that subject has come up amongst the departing either.


I don't think that they're principled enough to leave. I think they can and will make staying a point of demonstrative principle. People like them with long long associations and stuff that can be mended over the medium-long term - i think they'll bottle it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think he'll go.


 
The loyalists will not make him welcome


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Whenever I read many of these I can't help feeling that the writer couldn't give a shit about the women at the center of this and are simply happy to have a stick to beat the SWP with.



I have zero percent enthusiasm for the prospect of this blogger and her mates setting themselves up as the demonstration / campaign police.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think that they're principled enough to leave. I think they can and will make staying a point of demonstrative principle. People like them with long long associations and stuff that can be mended over the medium-long term - i think they'll bottle it.



Why them and not Birchall, Neale, Wilson, Bergfeld etc?

None of the faction leaders bit at the "middle ground statement" lure, which would have been the easiest way to prepare to stay.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Why them and not Birchall, Neale, Wilson, etc?


First age, second in no way as central as the names mentioned and have separate separable careers. I've read/heard outright lies from them time after time - stack esp - so much that i wouldn't trust them.


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2013)

Stack & Davison will leave. Gonzalez & Trudell will stay, temporarily at least. Not sure about Dee.  But Stack is definitely off


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> First age, second in no way as central as the names mentioned and have separate separable careers. I've read/heard outright lies from them time after time - stack esp - so much that i wouldn't trust them.



I don't really see a dividing line on those grounds between Dee, Stack, Davidson, Gonzalez on the one hand and Bergfeld, Birchall, Wilson, Neale on the other.

On the trust thing, well I don't think you really have to look at it from that angle. All of these people have burnt a lot of bridges, are now no longer going to have a supportive milieu inside the organisation. There's no way back for any of them in loyalist terms.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> Stack & Davison will leave. Gonzalez & Trudell will stay, temporarily at least. Not sure about Dee.  But Stack is definitely off



Did Gonzalez sign the middle ground letter? That would seem to me to be the best indicator.


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Did Gonzalez sign the middle ground letter? That would seem to me to be the best indicator.


not sure, but Trudell did and I cant see one leaving and the other staying


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> not sure, but Trudell did and I cant see one leaving and the other staying



Ah. Fair enough.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> not sure, but Trudell did and I cant see one leaving and the other staying


That's what people have been saying for 18 months though - and some (of the prominent i mean) have stayed (the majority) and some have gone. I think there's a little bit of forgetting how hard headed these people are when expectations are announced.

edit: what an oddly constructed sentence - i meant that you may be expecting more than they will do due to the current fevered debate - and maybe a residual respect for them.


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's what people have been saying for 18 months though - and some (of the prominent i mean) have stayed (the majority) and some have gone. I think there's a little bit of forgetting how hard headed these people are when expectations are announced.
> 
> edit: what an oddly constructed sentence - i meant that you may be expecting more than they will do due to the current fevered debate - and maybe a residual respect for them.


they've been hanging on for the last year/eighteen months. They didnt want to go with the Seymour.youth because -well, I dont think they like Seymour, and they had more invested. But there is no way they can effectively remain, or be trusted, or that anyone would listen to them if they tried to say the SWP is now a great party we all should join. Its just too obviously bollocks.

It is true tho, that everyone I knew was going to leave for sure already has done, and no one else apart from Jonathan Neale has. It is also true I have time for Stack and Gonzalez as well.

Any word from Gary McFarlane, btw?  (not to you in particular that last bit, butch)


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 16, 2013)

belboid said:


> Stack & Davison will leave. Gonzalez & Trudell will stay, temporarily at least. Not sure about Dee.  But Stack is definitely off


Agree with your predictions. Both Gonzalez and Trudell signed the middle-of-the-road statement, so one would expect them to stay.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Whenever I read many of these I can't help feeling that the writer couldn't give a shit about the women at the center of this and are simply happy to have a stick to beat the SWP with.





Nigel Irritable said:


> I have zero percent enthusiasm for the prospect of this blogger and her mates setting themselves up as the demonstration / campaign police.



I know exactly what you mean - to people like this, anything and everything that involves class analysis and collective action is by default the enemy, and you kind of feel like they're secretly rubbing their hands whenever anything that they feel confirms their viewpoint happens, however horrific it may be for those it happens to. In addition, if they were ever in a position to "police" demonstrations/campaigns, you get the impression they'd take some kind of sadistic pleasure from it.

That said, I'm not sure this particular blogger goes on many demonstrations or gets involved in many "offline" campaigns. In fact, I seem to remember some pieces she wrote about how "offline activism" was inaccessible and exclusionary. 

To balance this, I actually find some of her articles on culture and sexuality to be really interesting, well written and intelligent - it's just that politically it's all utterly disconnected from reality.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't really see a dividing line on those grounds between Dee, Stack, Davidson, Gonzalez on the one hand and Bergfeld, Birchall, Wilson, Neale on the other.
> 
> On the trust thing, well I don't think you really have to look at it from that angle. All of these people have burnt a lot of bridges, are now no longer going to have a supportive milieu inside the organisation. There's no way back for any of them in loyalist terms.



Who is Neale? I've never heard of him. I'll be disappointed if Stack doesn't leave, I can't think of anybody else who could push the ISN/those around them in a useful direction.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who is Neale? I've never heard of him. I'll be disappointed if Stack doesn't leave, I can't think of anybody else who could push the ISN/those around them in a useful direction.



Main writer on environmentalism and the like.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2013)

and vietnam/post war american  history.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 16, 2013)

Cheers


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 16, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who is Neale? I've never heard of him. I'll be disappointed if Stack doesn't leave, I can't think of anybody else who could push the ISN/those around them in a useful direction.



He wrote a good novel a few years back called Mutineers. I think it was published by Redwords.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 16, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> He wrote a good novel a few years back called Mutineers. I think it was published by Redwords.


It was a good book, his one on the Everest climbers was also good


----------



## manny-p (Dec 16, 2013)

Owen Jones on Facebook- 

"The Socialist Workers Party finally all but disintegrates as anyone with a shred of decency flees a sect that covered up rape allegations"

*Owen Jones*

45 minutes ago near London
The Socialist Workers Party finally all but disintegrates as anyone with a shred of decency flees a sect that covered up rape allegations


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

I quite like Jones and am obviously no fan if the SWP but that's a bit fucking cheeky given his Labour membership and associations.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I quite like Jones and am obviously no fan if the SWP but that's a bit fucking cheeky given his Labour membership and associations.


Agreed. Thats what someone on the fb comments said. Made the same point Revol was making about the war and crimes commited in Iraq etc.


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 16, 2013)

This maybe a red herring in which case please forgive my ignorance ...
Why does the comment equate women with children? ie some women and children lie...I think that men are victims of sexual violence so why not some women and men lie? I think it is a deliberate equation designed to denigrate the women concerned and women in general.

As someone who works with children and has done so since 1985 I know some children make up stories of abuse...in EVERY case I have come across the child lied to see what response they'd get from the adults and when they saw that it was taken seriously they (the child) then disclosed what turned out to be a legitimate allegation against a real perpetrator (again in EVERY case it was easy to prove that the childs first allegation did not add up as the child did not want some one to get into trouble...they just wanted to know they would be treated fairly and listened to). Friends and colleagues of mine have also said that some allegations by children that turn out to be incorrect are due to them have a particular perspective rather than them telling a "lie"...

to equate adult women with children clearly implies the women were "damaged/stunted" (sorry but am very tired so can't think of a better words) in some way rather than being equals in a socialist organisation.

reactionary people in a reactionary organisation

hope this makes sense


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 16, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I quite like Jones and am obviously no fan if the SWP but that's a bit fucking cheeky given his Labour membership and associations.


What I most dislike about him isn't his attacks on the SWP, that's to be expected. It's how he tailors his words to his audience. He was quite good at Tower Hamlets surrounded by anti fascists but when he spoke here in Swindon a few weeks ago it was middle of the road drivel extolling Thatcher and Blair's conviction politics. He's no Benn.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What I most dislike about him isn't his attacks on the SWP, that's to be expected. It's how he tailors his words to his audience. He was quite good at Tower Hamlets surrounded by anti fascists but when he spoke here in Swindon a few weeks ago it was middle of the road drivel extolling Thatcher and Blair's conviction politics. He's no Benn.



I've only heard him speak in person once and that was on an Irish SP platform. He spoke well and from an essentially hard left point of view. Whether that was tacking to the prevailing wind I can't say.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What I most dislike about him isn't his attacks on the SWP, that's to be expected. It's how he tailors his words to his audience. He was quite good at Tower Hamlets surrounded by anti fascists but when he spoke here in Swindon a few weeks ago it was middle of the road drivel extolling Thatcher and Blair's conviction politics. He's no Benn.



Rubbish, I've seen him talking to different audiences from union bureaucrats and Labour MPs to trots and anarchos and he always says very similar messages while tailoring the message slightly for the audience which seems like a good approach compared to the monomania of many on the far left


----------



## Kuke (Dec 16, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who is Neale? I've never heard of him. I'll be disappointed if Stack doesn't leave, I can't think of anybody else who could push the ISN/those around them in a useful direction.



Who's going to dress up as Santa at their Xmas office bash now their chuckler in chief has departed?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 16, 2013)

The Blairites and centre left in my local party love him and see him as an antidote to left wingers who want to stay outside the party, and he plays to that audience perfectly.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 16, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Rubbish, I've seen him talking to different audiences from union bureaucrats and Labour MPs to trots and anarchos and he always says very similar messages while tailoring the message slightly for the audience which seems like a good approach compared to the monomania of many on the far left


Lucky you if thats so. The Lab left wingers in the room at our local meeting with him here last month were disappointed. He said zero that upset anyone, in fact he seemed surprised there were any socialists in Swindon (fair point maybe!).


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The Blairites and centre left in my local party love him and see him as an antidote to left wingers who want to stay outside the party, and he plays to that audience perfectly.



Owen Jones, Andy Newman and Bolshy at a Swindon Labour Party public meeting. Oh to be a fly on that wall.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 16, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The Blairites and centre left in my local party love him and see him as an antidote to left wingers who want to stay outside the party, and he plays to that audience perfectly.


Sorry that sounds like one of your pub encounters


----------



## laptop (Dec 16, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> Why does the comment equate women with children? ... I think it is a deliberate equation designed to denigrate the women concerned and women in general.



Absolutely.

Clearly the vanguard, collectively, is the only Grown-Up Real Man in the room.


----------



## laptop (Dec 16, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Seems like the dialetic just means...



My sleep deficit is outnumbered by the free drinks.

I read that as "the diuretic".

I decided that I decline to correct myself.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 17, 2013)

belboid said:


> I have time for Gonzalez


you didn't have to stay in a house at marxism with him.
"shall i get my guitar?"
cunt.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 17, 2013)

Just seen an SWP member post the following on FB:

"Stronger, Faster, Fitter watch out fascists watch out Tories" - followed by the SWP clenched fist pic.

I'm stunned, I thought better of them tbh.


----------



## benedict (Dec 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That might be true if I'd known anything about you when I said it, it was an offhand response to someone whose age and gender I didn't have the foggiest of. But in the climate being created that isn't allowed. Or rather flippancy is allowed on this thread, if the person doing it is anti SWP. I keep forgetting that house rule. None of which is your fault of course so apologies if you got hit in the crossfire.
> 
> As I'm normally less dismissive I'll try to explain properly what I meant. I thought it was comical, regardless of who said it, because despite the stupidity of whoever in the party used the phrase women and children (and it was stupid and as I said a few pages back, offensive) it was an attempt by someone to be provocative rather than reflecting some deep seated party animosity to young people. The SWP might have had a torrid time with it's younger members recently but the one thing it hasn't traditionally done is forget to take young people seriously. And by seriously I mean both value them AND argue with them cause theres nothing more patronising than saying, as the opposition do, that young people should be treated with kid gloves intellectually (taken to a silly extreme when the ISN argue with each other about whether they should be allowed to argue with each other). Bollox to that, I was argued with relentlessly since the moment I joined swss and that process of debate and learning is what I valued most about the party when I joined first time round.



Yes the SWP has long taken young people seriously as essential protest fodder as they pass through the revolving door of student radicalism, SWP recruitment, and inevitable dejection and burn-out. And this whole thing about "being argued with relentlessly" is just bollocks. It's a classic SWP trope: "we need to win the argument". A cliche of deadheaded Cliffism at this point. Total nonsense. Like the idea of "winning the argument" in some campaign group of other, which more often than not consists of secret caucusing and packing meetings, it's total bullshit. It's made to sound (not only by bolshie) like some vigorous, rigorous form of macho, hardheaded oldskool-socialist bare-knuckled intellectual brawl in which ideas are thrashed out, new positions taken, old idols dethroned. But in reality it's being brain-pummeled by a series of middle aged 1980s generation regurgitations of established truths, hackneyed aphorisms, puerile exemplars, and sterile insights. It boils down to the thin gruel formula of the grey sludge SWP party line. 

[Oh and it was clear from muscovyduck's post that she is relatively young and was making an intervention drawing on her experience, so don't try to wriggle out of how disgustingly disrespectful you were being bolshie. You really have degenerated yourself during the course of this thread, along with your new comrades.]


----------



## emanymton (Dec 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Just seen an SWP member post the following on FB:
> 
> "Stronger, Faster, Fitter watch out fascists watch out Tories" - followed by the SWP clenched fist pic.
> 
> I'm stunned, I thought better of them tbh.


Black humour?


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Black humour?



gallows humour.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> thanks for the comic relief. Some of us needed it.


You utter twat (miles behind the time I know but this is such a prick comment that it deserves it).


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> just had to unban myself to call bolshy a cunt.
> 
> anyway, as you were.


Good to see you KB, you should stick around for the albums of the year at least though, I want to see your choices.


----------



## mk12 (Dec 17, 2013)

I'm have an ex-SWP friend on Facebook who has commented on a status asking all those 'SWP friends' if they're 'in' or 'out'. There's over a hundred comments. The responses make for interesting reading!


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2013)

redsquirrel said:


> Good to see you KB, you should stick around for the albums of the year at least though, I want to see your choices.


cheers mate - probably be around for christmas at least. i've not been paying that much attention this year tbh, I'm hoping the albums of the year thread might give me some tips.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 17, 2013)

benedict said:


> Yes the SWP has long taken young people seriously as essential protest fodder as they pass through the revolving door of student radicalism, SWP recruitment, and inevitable dejection and burn-out. And this whole thing about "being argued with relentlessly" is just bollocks. It's a classic SWP trope: "we need to win the argument". A cliche of deadheaded Cliffism at this point. Total nonsense. Like the idea of "winning the argument" in some campaign group of other, which more often than not consists of secret caucusing and packing meetings, it's total bullshit. It's made to sound (not only by bolshie) like some vigorous, rigorous form of macho, hardheaded oldskool-socialist bare-knuckled intellectual brawl in which ideas are thrashed out, new positions taken, old idols dethroned. But in reality it's being brain-pummeled by a series of middle aged 1980s generation regurgitations of established truths, hackneyed aphorisms, puerile exemplars, and sterile insights. It boils down to the thin gruel formula of the grey sludge SWP party line.
> 
> [Oh and it was clear from muscovyduck's post that she is relatively young and was making an intervention drawing on her experience, so don't try to wriggle out of how disgustingly disrespectful you were being bolshie. You really have degenerated yourself during the course of this thread, along with your new comrades.]


Good for you for working out the posters background, I hadn't. I'd just now started to write another defence for my flippant remark among many others that frenzied speed reading night but there's no point really. There's blood in the water, the sharks are circling the SWP and they think the end is nigh. We'll hear a lot of stuff about the degenerated, desiccated sect that is the SWP from Jones, Seymour (although he has the sense to call off the stall chucking attack dogs in his piece) and their smaller epigones on here. Cool, that's fair enough, the temperature on this thread has tended to follow developments in the faction fight quite closely and right now is the height of the "I've had enough, be done with you foul hacks" wave. But lets be honest, it is largely an Internet wave at this point and I suspect you all already know the SWP won't be broken by it, not even in the wished for sense of "gradually dwindling into insignificance" or whatever the formula is. That's bollox and at least half the fury directed at the party and anyone associated with it online is because the furious ones know that's bollox or at the very least aren't as sure of it as they want to sound. Cue more spittle inflected rants from the less articulate section of the thread than yourself benedict...


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2013)

> But lets be honest, it is largely an Internet wave at this point and I suspect you all already know the SWP won't be broken by it, not even in the wished for sense of "gradually dwindling into insignificance" or whatever the formula is.


 
utter bollocks


----------



## articul8 (Dec 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the SWP won't be broken by it, not even in the wished for sense of "gradually dwindling into insignificance" or whatever the formula is.


Socialist Worker will still be around, like you occasionally see someone selling Newsline


----------



## Lorca (Dec 17, 2013)

suppose it was inevitable that someone would do this sooner or later.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But lets be honest, it is largely an Internet wave at this point and I suspect you all already know the SWP won't be broken by it, not even in the wished for sense of "gradually dwindling into insignificance" or whatever the formula is.



It's largely an Internet wave ... those words struck me as it was something an old SWP friend of mine said 12 months ago when I asked him what the hell was going on in the party re the Delta scandal. Haven't spoken to him since, but I bet he's changed his mind since then!

But I agree that the SWP won't be broken by the Internet "wave", it will be destroyed by its own leadership and those who support them.


----------



## mk12 (Dec 17, 2013)

> After starting life as a schoolkid activist in the IMG youth wing in 1977, and joining the SWP in 1987, still in and defriending outies as we speak. So if you've left - do me a favour and defriend me to save me the trouble. 2 years of naval gazing is enough....


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

re The Quote,  has the person who said it been named?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 17, 2013)

A facebook contacted linked to this piece from a French-based activist defending the SWP:

http://johnmullenagen.blogspot.de/2...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

SEYMOUR! replied thusly:



> Jesus, he really is a scumbag.



To which my contact (whom I've met about twice IRL) responded:



> Don't worry, Richard, he represents no competition for you on that front.



Is she even worth defriending?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Socialist Worker will still be around, like you occasionally see someone selling Newsline


or in the labour party


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But lets be honest,


it's about time you were


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> or in the labour party


BURN


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

The astonishing thing is still that if the SWP tops and their supporters had behaved decently, properly, _like socialists, _from day one they could and would have avoided all this - every last bit of it. Sure they'd have the same problems as before - lack of internal democracy and democratic culture, great-men politics, middle/upper and academic class domination, appalling opportunism etc - but they were internal problems, _their _problems. Instead, by reacting like paranoid stalinist control freaks, by jim jonesing it (i was going to say corporal jonesing it but the collective nature of this idiocy takes it far beyond that) they have manged to turn it and the stuff listed above into a problem for everyone else to deal with, they made those problems social and in that act provoked reactions and answers to those problems that have seriously damaged what they thought they were protecting. What does this say about the political acumen of this vanguard - that it does this on what, when placed alongside their grand aims, could be said to be a relatively minor matter? It throws into doubt every single piece of analysis they now offer, whether historic or contemporary, it makes people ask, _hang on, just who on earth are these chancers and how have they got where they are? Why should i/we listen to them?  _And all because their puffed up local authority meant they could no longer respond decently, no longer respond without seeing difference of opinion or disagreement as a challenge to their _authority_.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 17, 2013)

ska invita said:


> re The Quote,  has the person who said it been named?


The only info I have is that it was said by a delegate. One presumes that it wasn't said by a CC/DC member as this would have led to an even bigger scandal. David Renton, who confirmed that the infamous quote had been in fact said, will be posting on his blog this evening. It will be interesting to see if he mentions the incident.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 17, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Socialist Worker will still be around, like you occasionally see someone selling Newsline


Ooh catty!


----------



## treelover (Dec 17, 2013)

Lorca said:


> suppose it was inevitable that someone would do this sooner or later.





That meme gets more inconsequential by the month, soon it will be about washing up liquid or something.


----------



## Gruff (Dec 17, 2013)

Recently departed.

A few points in no sequential or political order:

- The facebook therapy resignation thing is the tip of the iceberg. Charlie made a very bad call when he ended conference with a TINA argument (there is no alternative). Hardly a positive argument for the time and money people give the party.

- There is word of a statement to follow, not sure whether I'll sign it as it may convey an intention to do something else. I want a bit of a rest.

- The prof is King. He negotiates between the two mainstream factions. This role is very difficult, and requires 'creativity'. He lies through his teeth, and cant keep his temper (amusing, but sad).

- It came out that the dispute committee has been split all year. The honorable side called the other side outright liars. It came out that the CC had to intervene to get the second complaint heard after the honorable side complained. The chair of national committee (certainly not a faction member) said there had been a clear gap between the parties politics on oppression and the way it had acted.

- These revelations were ignored, disbelieved or thought to be too damaging to act on in the short term. Some real crazy shit was applauded. A person speaking 'from the standpoint of the proletariat' (you know who) said openly that the complainant couldn't be trusted for political reasons. The 'women and children lie' line was said, but in rambling incoherent way - applause was polite based on clapping a nervous idiot, but her ideas were not challenged.

- There are many honorable people not in the faction, in particular on the DC, that fought like hell to get a proper hearing for the second complainants main accusation. In the main, the 'critical friend' faction were quiet, voting with the cc, distraught at what was being said, unorganized and deflated.

They disappoint me the most. They have not organised, merely acted to put pressure on Alex and Charlie in private. They even said things that have been *directly the opposite* to what they have said in private. Various middle grounders have said iDoom need to be off CC, the direction of the party is terrible etc etc. Good luck to them, but I have no confidence in their ability to see any of this through.

- The report of this complaint made it very clear that Martin had significant evidence he would have to account for, of a stronger kind that he has previously faced, if he sought to rejoin. He is understood to be finished by all but a very, very small minority.

- The secondary hearing, about internet hacking, was a farce. Those hearing it did not know what a google group was, how email worked etc. The nature of the complaint was deliberately conflated - the accusation was not that charlie or the cc had hacked her email, but that someone had. In the summing up, it was said that 'there may have been hacking, but we are confident that the cc or charlie did not hack'. FFS.

-The CC's apology is ambiguous, and was interpreted in very contradictory ways by members outside the faction. I was told that if you don't fight, you'll never win. Good luck to these people.

- The student session shows that those tasked with rebuilding the SWP are doing so on a narrow, economistic, sect-like basis. The students they have recruited sound like millies- the paper, the party, the meeting. The students from the faction gave a detailed analysis of the cops of campus, the living wage campaign, and prospects for the student movement in the next year.

Its sad all round, mostly because at any point in the last 12months this could have been dealt with, but each time the Prof upped the stakes rather than backing down.

Someone from Bristol attacked 'those on both sides who have threatened to leave if they don't get there way'. This is the first time I have heard of people threatening to leave on the other side - perhaps this explains some of the disastrous fudges that have taken place.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 17, 2013)

You appear to be creating a new account each time you post on this thread. Please do not do this.


----------



## Gruff (Dec 17, 2013)

Acknowledged and understood. The previous was the same username one I use on a occasionally on a football message board; it seemed inappropriate and childish for here.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 17, 2013)

Gruff said:


> - The student session shows that those tasked with rebuilding the SWP are doing so on a narrow, economistic, sect-like basis. The students they have recruited sound like millies- the paper, the party, the meeting.



LOL! I see some things don't change.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 17, 2013)

i just defriended a loyalist. pleased to announce he was staying in. i had to comment, jesus, they went nuts. if they had gotten any more shrill it would have sounded like a box of whistles landing on a bunch of budgerigars.

shame really, as he used to be good. left our branch before it turned to shit  though. joined during the miners strike. probably thrir youngest member now.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 17, 2013)

Gruff said:


> The student session shows that those tasked with rebuilding the SWP are doing so on a narrow, economistic, sect-like basis. The students they have recruited sound like millies- the paper, the party, the meeting.



What exactly do 'the millies' sound like? Only I happen to have been in both organisations and encountered far more of the kind of hackery you describe here in the SWP than in 'the millies' (though admittedly both do it far more than is really healthy).

You'd have thought recent events would have led young former swaps to think twice before engaging in that kind of sectarian one upmanship.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2013)

there's a lot to criticise the SP for but SWP members having a go at it for narrow minded formulaic hackery is ironic to say the least


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

david renton writes: http://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/to-my-comrades-of-any-party-or-none/

...


on a side note, he says "Over the past 20 years the self-taught workers have almost all left, while the party-liners have multiplied."
i was speaking to someone the other day who said that the SWP "in the seventies" (he may have got his dates wrong, maybe early 80s) was a lot more "libertarian" and "horizontal" , but those people left pretty much as a bloc. can anyone confirm that? has the party changed a lot over time?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What exactly do 'the millies' sound like? Only I happen to have been in both organisations and encountered far more of the kind of hackery you describe here in the SWP than in 'the millies' (though admittedly both do it far more than is really healthy).
> 
> You'd have thought recent events would have led young former swaps to think twice before engaging in that kind of sectarian one upmanship.


To be fair it is not clear if they mean the SP of now, or Militant of days gone by. 

Anyway what they seem to be saying is that 'millies' focus on building their party rather than in engaging with the wider movements. I guess the SP would probably say they engage in different movements. 

I have to say that personally while I like you spinney, in fact I think you are possibly one of my favorite posters on here, my experiences with SP members in 'the real world' have been far from positive. I have encountered sectarian hackery at a level the SWP could never much.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

ska invita said:


> david renton writes: http://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/to-my-comrades-of-any-party-or-none/
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Thanks, read all:



> But they continued to vote for the leadership.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

> She ended her speech with the words, “Honour and Respect democratic centralism! Honour and Respect confidentiality!”



This is juche shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

> I will never again use the word “socialist” to describe the middle aged trade unionist from my former branch who went round the edges of conference, confronting the youngest delegate at conference, a woman in her gap year before university who had never met him before, with the hostile greeting, “Martin is innocent”.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 17, 2013)

I'm assuming "The students they have recruited sound like millies- the paper, the party, the meeting" does indeed mean the Militant Tendency approach, vintage 80s style  - which was to recruit among students to bring them into the party-of-the-workers without really involving them in student protests & struggles (presumably a new SWP scheme to make sure their new students  do not go off and develop ideas of their own in the process). As it happens the Socialist Party seem to be now (have been for a while ? ) getting quite into student protest at the universities, so there is a kind of direct swap of roles here.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Dave Rentons piece is very good. I've always liked him and found him personally 'good' - how people like that ended up 20 years in the swp (and it wasn't any different when he joined - this isn't a story of degeneration)  is something pretty important.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> To be fair it is not clear if they mean the SP of now, or Militant of days gone by.
> 
> Anyway what they seem to be saying is that 'millies' focus on building their party rather than in engaging with the wider movements. I guess the SP would probably say they engage in different movements.
> 
> I have to say that personally while I like you spinney, in fact I think you are possibly one of my favorite posters on here, my experiences with SP members in 'the real world' have been far from positive. I have encountered sectarian hackery at a level the SWP could never much.



Cheers mate 

Different areas of the country maybe? Dunno - certainly not been my experience.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 17, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I'm assuming "The students they have recruited sound like millies- the paper, the party, the meeting" does indeed mean the Militant Tendency approach, vintage 80s style  - which was to recruit among students to bring them into the party-of-the-workers without really involving them in student protests & struggles (presumably a new SWP scheme to make sure their new students  do not go off and develop ideas of their own in the process). As it happens the Socialist Party seem to be now (have been for a while ? ) getting quite into student protest at the universities, so there is a kind of direct swap of roles here.



That would make sense. But I don't think that's a matter of choice - they've been forced into it (and this isn't in any way a defence of them) because, quite rightly, they can't get involved in stuff on campus because someone will always bring up the delta stuff - meaning 1) they can't work with anyone else and 2) they'd lose any new members pretty quickly when they heard the other side.

As it happens I don't get into the student stuff much but that's nothing to do with any party line - I'm just not at all comfortable with it, especially with how the more vociferous members of the student left around here carry on with their ageist crap and 'if you disagree with me you're reinforcing oppression' bullshit - so I do more community stuff cos apart from anything else I'm a lot better at that.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 17, 2013)

"it wasn't any different when he joined - this isn't a story of degeneration" - well there is definitely a lot of aging, shrinking and even dying going on, which looks like it leads to degeneration to David Renton, and indeed to me.  

In some ways the part of his report from conference that stood out  for me was :- "I must also insist that there were many people at conference sitting there with their heads in their hands, some in tears. You could see this most clearly among a section of the middle ground, who seemed visibly in pain at what they were watching."  - really I guess you should read the whole thing

The details about the split in the disputes committee given by both Gruff and David R. might seem a bit specific, but is actually really shocking.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> how people like that ended up 20 years in the swp (and it wasn't any different when he joined - this isn't a story of degeneration)  is something pretty important.


...someone sold him a paper is how 

By the sounds of it he felt the party was growing and believed it could be big <that optimism must count for a lot. Being young when you join must also be a factor. The word cult has been going around of late, and without wishing to insult SWPers here, there are at least elements of cultish behaviour (sacred texts, true paths, priest class, etc) that exist which might have some psychological sway. Just some thoughts


----------



## emanymton (Dec 17, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Cheers mate
> 
> Different areas of the country maybe? Dunno - certainly not been my experience.


I think you are probably right, the same I'd true of the SWP as well. The are some ex-members who's experiences I recognise, while others seem to be describing a totally diffrent orginsation.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

ska invita said:


> david renton writes: http://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/to-my-comrades-of-any-party-or-none/
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



The IS, the predecessor of the SWP was a lot looser organisationally. The process of turning it into the SWP involved successive purges of dissident minorities, complete by the late 70s.

The Renton piece is good and also grim. An interesting side issue is his remark about the age profile. From a party which often had the piss taken out of it for allegedly being a bunch if students,  reduced to one in seven under the age of forty! And that's before most of the remaining under forty year olds leave as part of the opposition.

bolshiebhoy: you called me a cock the other day for saying I was surprised to see half a dozen resignations from the SWP by young women because I didn't think that there that many still in the SWP. Do you still stand by your "the SWP will not be broken by this" stuff? You must be familiar with left groups which have that type of membership demographic. Have you ever heard of one of them making a comeback? And that's without the isolation and opprobrium the SWP have brought on themselves.


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2013)

the conference sounded horrible. mind you, reports from the last few have been pretty nasty too.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Dave Rentons piece is very good. I've always liked him and found him personally 'good' - how people like that ended up 20 years in the swp (and it wasn't any different when he joined - this isn't a story of degeneration)  is something pretty important.


for me, who, I think, count as one of Renton autodidacts, the reason I stayed in for so long was because my internal image of my party was was of one which fundamentally differed from the reality, yet one maintained it in the face of whatever evidence reality could throw at it. At every public or internal party initiative comrades would shamelessly lie constantly about the influence the party had "punching above its weight" Among the working class.
 I know I would look at my comrades and know they were lying, and then, when my turn came, get up and lie myself.
  Often we weren't even lying to impress outsiders, the most outrageous lies were spoken during internal conferences and aggregates.
The swp was built on a dream of an idealised Bolshevism, free from the bacillus of Stalin, yet to match reality to that ideal involved the construction of an elaborate scaffold of fantasy and lies.
 For me the end was the moment when the party decided it was necessary to embrace a popular front with salafists and Baathists in order to engage with the wider movement created by The anti war moment of 2003 and the SWPs Respect turn was too much to swallow.
For others, the bureaucratic horror of a leadership closing rank to defend a rapist, and justifying this as Leninism was the end.
 Disgracefully, for some even this is not enough.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 17, 2013)

On the of chance anyone is interested from the names I have seen of people who have left, it would appear that ciffite is no longer longer a member of the SWP.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

emanymton said:


> On the of chance anyone is interested from the names I have seen of people who have left, it would appear that ciffite is no longer longer a member of the SWP.



What about rabbit worrier?


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is juche shit.



your spell checker not working?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What about rabbit worrier?


Are you suggesting something about his... preferences there? 

Pretty sure he is still in, but to be honest I am struggling to remember his surname.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

Poor weekly worker stuck leading with the hot button issue of Bordigism


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Renton lays out the dynamic  - (in an odd way):



> Few of my closest friends are people who I met anywhere but in the SWP.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Poor weekly worker stuck leading with the hot button issue of Bordigism



that was actually an interesting talk - I guess I would say that, though  - despite the fact that sometimes I thought it was like JP from Fresh Meat narrating the audio book of Proletarian Order. A shame that the podcast didn't also include the contributions from the floor.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> that was actually an interesting talk .



I'm not criticising it. Just using it as an obvious example of them missing the boat. The SWP in meltdown is what they've been praying for for two decades and they've got more detailed coverage of Bordiga on the front page.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Renton lays out the dynamic  - (in an odd way):



I've never really understood that sort of social behaviour. I've met zero of my closest friends through political organisations of any stripe and have never had any desire to use one as a substitute social life.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

When the crisis hit they had chris knight on the front cover about some stuff about eve or something. I will destroy whatever and whyever they bordiga-ed.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've never really understood that sort of social behaviour. I've met zero of my closest friends through political organisations of any stripe.


Got to look at rents workplaces.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not criticising it. Just using it as an obvious example of them missing the boat. The SWP in meltdown is what they've been praying for for two decades and they've got more detailed coverage of Bordiga on the front page.



Just means a bumper issue on the fall out this coming Thursday. Hopefully even knocking Conrad annual 'Jesus as a revolutionary' essay into the long grass. That would be a Christmas miracle.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Got to look at rents workplaces.



Ok, I suppose in his particular case it makes more sense. But his path is pretty unusual in the SWP, I'd have thought.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> Just means a bumper issue on the fall out this coming Thursday. Hopefully even knocking Conrad annual 'Jesus as a revolutionary' essay into the long grass. That would be a Christmas miracle.



From your lips to God's ears on the Jesus essay part. 

As for the bumper issue, they face a fundamental problem in competing with social media, blogs etc. By Thursday what will be left to reveal?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 17, 2013)

For a slightly different take on the conference

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art/37111/SWP+conference+discusses+the+way+forward+for+the+left

Apparently they have recruited 800 people this year, nothing to worry about then. Seriously why do they keep saying shit like that, when everyone knows it's utter crap.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 17, 2013)

Souvenir issue


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

> Structured educationals are important.



To who, as you go into your shell without cliff.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

This, from the paper is drivel:



> We need to link this to increasing the sales of Socialist Worker and think how every comrade can get one or two more sales.
> 
> Sharp
> 
> ...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The astonishing thing is still that if the SWP tops and their supporters had behaved decently, properly, _like socialists, _from day one they could and would have avoided all this - every last bit of it. Sure they'd have they'd have the same problems as before - lack of internal democracy and democratic culture, great-men politics, middle/upper and academic class domination, appalling opportunism etc - but they were internal problems, _their _problems. Instead, by reacting like paranoid stalinist control freaks, by jim jonesing it (i was going to say corporal jonesing it but the collective nature of this idiocy takes it far beyond that) they have manged to turn it and the stuff listed above into a problem for everyone else to deal with, they made those problems social and in that act provoked reactions and answers to those problems that have seriously damaged what they thought they were protecting. What does this say about the political acumen of this vanguard - that it does this on what, when placed alongside their grand aims, could be said to be a relatively minor matter? It throws into doubt every single piece of analysis they now offer, whether historic or contemporary, it makes people ask, _hang on, just who on earth are these chancers and how have they got where they are? Why should i/we listen to them?  _And all because their puffed up local authority meant they could no longer respond decently, no longer respond without seeing difference of opinion or disagreement as a challenge to their _authority_.


Slightly long winded and more importantly completely wrong because nothing was ever enough for the hard core of the faction. As the middle ground have thankfully realised at the last moment. The trajectory of the permanent opposition was always out, no concession short of remaking the SWP as the ISO or god forbid the ISN would have been enough to stop them.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is juche shit.



im just glad the SWP aren't in power, could you imagine callinicos and tony cliff as the dear and great leaders


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Slightly long winded and more importantly completely wrong because nothing was ever enough for the hard core of the faction. As the middle ground have thankfully realised at the last moment. The trajectory of the permanent opposition was always out, no concession short of remaking the SWP as the ISO or god forbid the ISN would have been enough to stop them.


This is religion not politics. The outsidesr vs the insiders, us vs them, stick with me kid - _you have nothing left on which to make this deal_. You bluffed and you lost. You'll be back in the same CLP as newman soon. A series of _great choices._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Listen to this mangled shite - and i _know _mangled shite :



> Delegates showed through the votes at conference that they did not believe the party and its leadership are sexist or trampled on the politics of women’s liberation or covered up injustice.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Dec 17, 2013)

Charlie Kimber said:
			
		

> There will be opportunities for revolutionaries to intervene.



So watch out y'all.

Seriously Bolshie what is the way back from here?? What kind of comparable trot lazarus suggests that might be possible. Here's my vision of the future anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_(United_States)


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> > I will never again use the word “socialist” to describe the middle aged trade unionist from my former branch who went round the edges of conference, confronting the youngest delegate at conference, a woman in her gap year before university who had never met him before, with the hostile greeting, “Martin is innocent”.]



that is messed up


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Listen to this mangled shite - and i _know _mangled shite :



...and anyone who says different are thrice-cursed factionalist anti-party elements worse than a dog


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This is religion not politics. The outsidesr vs the insiders, us vs them, stick with me kid - _you have nothing left on which to make this deal_. You bluffed and you lost. You'll be back in the same CLP as newman soon. A series of _great choices._


Dream on chap, is that your best shot? You define the problem in items of in and out and then complain when I use the same paradigm. You're a clever fella but often the emperor has no clothes, not that your acolytes on here will notice boss.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> im just glad the SWP aren't in power, could you imagine callinicos and tony cliff as the dear and great leaders



Sounds like the basis for a really entertaining dystopian novel tbh


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

[quote="bolshiebhoy]nothing was ever enough for the hard core of the faction. As the middle ground have thankfully realised at the last moment. The trajectory of the permanent opposition was always out, no concession short of remaking the SWP as the ISO or god forbid the ISN would have been enough to stop them.[/quote]

That's not true, and you know it. Or more precisely, an element of that became true as the whole mess went on, but it was not true at the beginning at all.

Do you actually remember what the "Facebook four" wanted? What the original banned faction wanted? What the faction that was set up at the start of the year wanted? It was all very moderate. Shockingly so in retrospect. Indeed, in retrospect I doubt if there was anything there that you personally now disagree with. It was the expulsions, the bans, the determination to defend Delta, the determination to stand over the DC report,the determination to shut people up about something that they were never going to shut up about that drove the conflict. Not the alleged "logic of factionalism".

Even from the point of view of a "party first" cynic, the current leadership are criminally incompetent.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> im just glad the SWP aren't in power, could you imagine callinicos and tony cliff as the dear and great leaders



Is Rees or Smith the executed uncle?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 17, 2013)

I don't think people actually realised how deeply warped and rotten to the core the SWP was. I didn't. They put me off when I first encounter them as a potentially recruitable student but I had no idea they were capable of some of the shit that's in the previous 500 pages.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Sounds like the basis for a really entertaining dystopian novel tbh




The Dear Proffesor is watching you, with Delta in the Beria role


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Dream on chap, is that your best shot? You define the problem in items of in and out and then complain when I use the same paradigm. You're a clever fella but often the emperor has no clothes, not that your acolytes on here will notice boss.


My best shot? No, there is no best shot. I think your personal degeneration was always your political one. You - and the smith loyalists - did what you always do - you force it onto the ground of in/out swp tradition/autonomist (a thousand past binaries). It's basic, it's effective. Until it's not anymore.

You are a rat. You've been trained to be a rat. The rat training organisation is under attack. Act like a rat.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> The Dear Proffesor is watching you, with Delta in the Beria role



Imagine someone trying to sell you a paper in an enclosed space - forever


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2013)

when is the tile mosaic going to be erected?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is Rees or Smith the executed uncle?


Bambery


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2013)

All those tony cliff pamphlets and articles by callinicos, stowed away in a shaded corner  The party will never forgive these thrice-cursed acts


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> All those tony cliff pamphlets and articles by callinicos, stowed away in a shaded corner  The party will never forgive these thrice-cursed acts


tony cliff pamphlets are never stowed away in a shaded corner. nor are callinicos articles. the ones which aren't used for lighting fires or lining litter trays can be put under chairs or tables to prevent them rocking. they can be made into paper planes. and they often moulder under beds until they're suitable deteriorated and can be composted.


----------



## chilango (Dec 17, 2013)

A whole *five* years ago, on these very boards, I noted the ongoing collapse of the SWP and speculated on the form the end would take:



chilango said:


> It seems clear that the SWP is in its final thrashings around and if it survives it will be as a much more marginal group on the left.Will the rump turn into a deluded cult like the WRP, or hang on to a vestige of its tradition and try to reflect a little as to its future role like the SP, or simply dissolve and move on a la the IMG?



It seems to have chosen the first option, with handfuls of refugees picking a more dignified demise.

I can't believe some still even ask whether there's a way back. There isn't. There hasn't been for half a fucking decade.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> im just glad the SWP aren't in power, could you imagine callinicos and tony cliff as the dear and great leaders




tbf members of the parties of power, and in particular members of the tory party have been diddling for years. They've the clout, nous and experience to keep it hushed until its so old a wrongdoing the perpetrators and victims are near enough dead.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

chilango said:


> A whole *five* years ago, on these very boards, I noted the ongoing collapse of the SWP and speculated on the form the end would take:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


but political cripples need to know there is such a thing. even if there isn't. it's a bit like never-never land for trots, where they never need grow up.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Btw:



> SWP conference discusses the way forward for the left


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Btw:



I hadn't even noticed that particular touch of narcissism!


----------



## chilango (Dec 17, 2013)

When will SW go fortnightly/monthly?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

chilango said:


> When will SW go fortnightly/monthly?



Not soon. It's entirely possible to produce a weekly (CPGB/WW) or even a daily (WRP) prettying much indefinitely with a much smaller membership. You just can't sell it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

chilango said:


> When will SW go fortnightly/monthly?


i'm looking forward to it becoming an annual - but hopefully not a hardy perennial


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not soon. It's entirely possible to produce a weekly (CPGB/WW) or even a daily (WRP) prettying much indefinitely with a much smaller membership. You just can't sell it.


it's not like they can sell it too easily now


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Slightly long winded and more importantly completely wrong because nothing was ever enough for the hard core of the faction. As the middle ground have thankfully realised at the last moment. The trajectory of the permanent opposition was always out, no concession short of remaking the SWP as the ISO or god forbid the ISN would have been enough to stop them.


To you, this couldn't have been sorted by acting decently?


----------



## chilango (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not soon. It's entirely possible to produce a weekly (CPGB/WW) or even a daily (WRP) prettying much indefinitely with a much smaller membership. You just can't sell it.



Whats the printrun on WW and Newsline? Cant be many now. Print on demand almost surely?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

chilango said:


> Whats the printrun on WW and Newsline? Cant be many now. Print on demand almost surely?


they used to sell outside highbury & islington (newsline) and i've recently seen them selling in dalston.


----------



## chilango (Dec 17, 2013)

...also didnt the SWP flog their printshop?
do any left groups own the kit to mass print a paper or is all contracted out and subject to market forces?


----------



## Belushi (Dec 17, 2013)

I bought a copy of Newsline outside Brixton tube a couple of months ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I bought a copy of Newsline outside Brixton tube a couple of months ago.


((((belushi))))


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> they used to sell outside highbury & islington (newsline) and i've recently seen them selling in dalston.



A few years back when I worked at the Royal Free they were regularly selling outside.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

chilango said:


> ...also didnt the SWP flog their printshop?
> do any left groups own the kit to mass print a paper or is all contracted out and subject to market forces?


yeh the swp sold it some years ago.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

Not sure that I agree that there was no way back five years ago. They were clearly ageing and were clearly becoming less capable of adapting to whatever opportunities presented themselves. But they could still have got lucky and caught a wind from some issue or struggle and still had enough members who were young enough to build with. That was getting less likely as time went in, but very slowly. They did, for instance recruit reasonably well out of the last round of student ructions, although that turned out to be a poisoned chalice.

It's different now. They are isolated, they will have serious problems retaining anyone they recruit once they start googling or talking to others on the left, they have an apparatus they can't pay for. And they have almost nobody under forty, and that in particular means they are fucked.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not sure that I agree that there was no way back five years ago. They were clearly ageing and were clearly becoming less capable of adapting to whatever opportunities presented themselves. But they could still have got lucky and caught a wind from some issue or struggle and still had enough members who were young enough to build with. That was getting less likely as time went in, but very slowly. They did, for instance recruit reasonably well out of the last round of student ructions, although that turned out to be a poisoned chalice.
> 
> It's different now. They are isolated, they will have serious problems retaining anyone they recruit once they start googling or talking to others on the left, they have an apparatus they can't pay for. And they have almost nobody under forty, and that in particular means they are fucked.


it won't be long before the average age of the swp is greater than the average age of the tory party.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

Yes, the SWP sold their printshop. They retained a smaller operation capable of putting out leaflets en masse, but not of producing their publications.

The SP and WRP have printshops capable of producing a paper properly. The CPGB has one too, or did, but if it's still theirs I understand it wasn't capable of doing more than a few hundred WWs anyway. Everyone else does theirs commercially, although in some cases that may mean getting the SP to do it.

Print runs of the WW and newsline will be in the hundreds.

The AWL are probably a better comparison than the WRP because they don't print their own paper. They have about 100 members and relatively recently turned their fortnightly into a weekly. That strikes me as a silly waste of resources for a group that small, but its certainly possible to do pretty much forever. It seems to me that for the SWP to abandon the weekly paper would be seen as a catastrophic admission of defeat, like the WRP with their daily.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Dec 17, 2013)

The News Line urges the British workers to support the Libyan people, and to be for the victory of Gadaffi. UK workers must make their contribution to the struggle. This must be a general strike to bring down the coalition and bring in a workers government.

http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/6714 

This is the future......


----------



## Belushi (Dec 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> ((((belushi))))



I didn't fucking read it obviously   But I was so surprised to see them doing a papersale I bought one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I didn't fucking read it obviously   But I was so surprised to see them doing a papersale I bought one.


that's how they shift 90% of papers sold, through extreme surprise.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> that's how they shift 90% of papers sold, through extreme surprise.



It's how they sold me one on a demonstration in Dublin anyway.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

About to hit 15,000 comments. How long did the original L Penny thread get?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I didn't fucking read it obviously   But I was so surprised to see them doing a papersale I bought one.




in these parts its one newsagents flogging the MS


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 17, 2013)

I managed to get a Newsline and a copy of their journal at a demo in Sheffield a while back, got a copy of Weekly Worker, got a good stockpile of trot papers to last me over winter that day. Poor fella selling me the Newsline nearly had a heart attack.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 17, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> that's how they shift 90% of papers sold, through extreme surprise.


That and they used to have really cute lass selling papers in Woodgreen a few years ago


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> About to hit 15,000 comments. How long did the original L Penny thread get?




Loads more. We'd need CC members themselves to drop in and argue to reach such lofty hieghts


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Loads more. We'd need CC members themselves to drop in and argue to reach such lofty hieghts



I dunno. The LP thread was cut off in its prime. Don't think it got anywhere near 20k.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 17, 2013)

By the way, an swp autodidact finds that they have a _hell of a lot_ to learn once they've left the party!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

But I'm certainly on for inviting Leather and Bennett over for a ruckus.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Dec 17, 2013)

If you ask Bennett nicely he'll surely join the delegation.


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I dunno. The LP thread was cut off in its prime. Don't think it got anywhere near 20k.


24,600-odd


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 17, 2013)

"_Firebox wasted time and money which could have been spent plastering the streets of London with stickers and posters advertising the demonstrations which, for a while, electrified radical politics in the UK"_
Posted on Socialist Unity apparently from Indymedia 
Been electrified by Rees and German recently?


----------



## Belushi (Dec 17, 2013)

There's nothing more exciting than finding a new SWP sticker on a lamppost.


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 17, 2013)

I joined the swp in 1985/6 as a 18yr old.
I joined cos I was so fucked off about the tottenham riots, and racism in general.

Throughout my first 3 yrs or so I went to some meetings and was still very involved in the anti apartheid movement but thought the party was too white and too old but on the whole better than anything I came across.

I became more active in 1990/91 around the poll tax and  gulf war . I hated the sectarian arguments between different groups and thought too many swp were obsessed with other groups (as they were with the swp) ..there was a local anti poll tax demo in Jan 1990 and only 30 people turned all swp and militant apart from me and my 8 mates from work...each group blamed eachother for the poor turn out and it was only when a mate of mine asked who (other than me) from either party bought anyone with them to the demo that they shut up!

 I found the SWP very helpful during a 9 month strike I was involved in in 92 and stayed involved during the campaign against the BNP after the murders of Rolan Adams, Rohit Duggal and Stephen Lawrence where I live (Plumstead/Woolwich). I will always be proud of my work in the anti nazi campaign including get the BNP HQ closed and the Welling Demo but again remember so much infighting between groups which was excruciating at times. I made the mistake of once getting drawn in and was ashamed of myself when I realised that I was being angry with other anti racists and wasting time that could and should have been used fighting racism. I made sure that I never behaved in a sectarian way again.

I was even an organiser at one point but quit after about 6 months as in truth I didn't like working for the swp ... it was very cliquey and people thought they were more important as members cos they worked for the party and I felt uncomfortable around a lot of them...once I was asked by one of the Journalists on SW where i went to school so I said st pauls...he got really excited and told me he'd been there and reeled off a list of other "leading" swp members who had also been there....his face was a picture when I said it a school in abbeywood se london instead of the private school he was on about!

I stayed involved in the swp until around 2000 when I got sick of people telling me that me and my partner should be doing more even though we had a baby. I always sold SW in work (10-20 copies a week to mates in the council I worked in) and collected hundreds of pounds a year for different strikes, campaigns and the swp in the council.
throughout my time I looked at the swp as a tool and thought that I'd stay if it was useful.
I continued to do so until 2009 but stayed away from the swp generally...didn't go to meetings or paper sales but always involved in campaigns and was never sectarian. I was for criticised as being a syndicalist or being politically "soft"  cos I refused to take part in bitching meetings about this group or that. I finally had enough when they all behaved like twats over respect ... Galloway was treated like God until he pissed off John Rees...it became clear that the swp was not a useable tool so left. That was 5 years ago.

I never slagged the swp off ... i just left as it weren't for me but the disgraceful treatment of the women who said she was raped has made feel

1) really relieved that I left 5 years ago so I weren't associated with their scumminess
2) ashamed to have been a member of them for 23 years.

I hope the swp curls up and dies. 

I write this as I think that people stayed in the swp cos they saw it as a tool but watching this horror show unfold it is clear that for many or most it was not about it being a tool it was their life or more accurately a replacement for having a life.

sorry its so long winded...feels like I am back in catholic school giving my weekly confession!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

_fitter leaner here we come tories and fascists
#
Real._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I
> 
> I hope the swp curls up and dies.
> 
> ...



Great post, really appreciate that and i hope you don't mind me cutting of the top of your post to say this. Would love to hear other comrades experiences.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 17, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I joined the swp in 1985/6 as a 18yr old.
> I joined cos I was so fucked off about the tottenham riots, and racism in general.
> 
> Throughout my first 3 yrs or so I went to some meetings and was still very involved in the anti apartheid movement but thought the party was too white and too old but on the whole better than anything I came across.
> ...



And it's the loss of the periphery of decent working class socialists that was always in the background no matter what that has really done for them this time


----------



## Belushi (Dec 17, 2013)

Thanks Spurski, I've always disliked the SWP but that's a reminder that a lot of good people dedicated a lot of their lives to the party.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 17, 2013)

> "Against the many shameful things I saw, I must also insist that there were many people at conference sitting there with their heads in their hands, some in tears. You could see this most clearly among a section of the middle ground, who seemed visibly in pain at what they were watching"
> 
> http://livesrunning.wordpress.com/



For some reason this made me think of a documentary I saw a while back which contained recordings of people crying at Jonestown as they drank their Koolaid.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

Belushi said:


> Thanks Spurski, I've always disliked the SWP but that's a reminder that a lot of good people dedicated a lot of their lives to the party.


Yep. Second this.


----------



## killer b (Dec 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> For some reason this made me think of a documentary I saw a while back which contained recordings of people crying at Jonestown as they drank their Koolaid.


there's an audio recording of the whole thing (well, 45 minutes of it anyway) on archive.org. I've never felt grim enough to listen to it though...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 17, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I'm assuming "The students they have recruited sound like millies- the paper, the party, the meeting" does indeed mean the Militant Tendency approach, vintage 80s style  - which was to recruit among students to bring them into the party-of-the-workers without really involving them in student protests & struggles (presumably a new SWP scheme to make sure their new students  do not go off and develop ideas of their own in the process). As it happens the Socialist Party seem to be now (have been for a while ? ) getting quite into student protest at the universities, so there is a kind of direct swap of roles here.



This is sadly true. Its horrible actually, every so often someone will suggest we should be getting involved in campus politics. This is particularly upsetting for those of  us who went back to uni because minimum wage work was gtting very depressing.


----------



## mutley (Dec 17, 2013)

None of you tossers going to speculate about whether I'm still in? Cos I'm not. Resigned last night. Onward to the glorious proletarian victory comrades!

Edited to add: now I'm gonna have a bath. I'll look in later.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I bought a copy of Newsline outside Brixton tube a couple of months ago.


i got sold one in the Half Moon last year - have to respect going around pubs table to table selling the paper

---
on another note...

are traditional hierarchical marxist organisations innately patriarchal/sexist?

i was thinking, supposedly a popular theory goes that patriarchal civilisation is a result of agriculture> leading to turf battles> leading to war over land> leading to bigger armies> resulting military hierarchy creating a dominant patriarchy (or thereabouts)

Bolshevik vanguardism was also built on a war footing, with armed struggle defining and influencing so many of its characteristics . Considering how much of an influence Bolshevik texts/history have over party leaderships such as that of the SWP, is feminism not in direct contradiction with this tradition?

I find it interesting that its a feminist issue which has been the bump in the road that they seemingly cant flatten


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

mutley said:


> None of you tossers going to speculate about whether I'm still in?



You should take it as a compliment.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

ska invita said:


> are traditional hierarchical marxist organisations innately patriarchal/sexist?



No. Or more precisely: 1) all organisations are "hierarchical", 2) no organisations or movements are cut off from society and thus completely without sexist, racist, etc residues, 3) organisations and movements of all kinds will vary drastically in how they cope with that fact, how they respond to those influences and how effectively they combat them. 4) although you wouldn't know it from the SWPs recent behaviour or the discourse that has sprung up around it, in general left organisations of all kinds tend to be markedly less sexist, racist or homophobic than the wider world in general. 5) within the very wide spectrum of left organisations on these questions, self-professedly "Leninist" ones can be found at all points.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2013)

ska invita said:


> I find it interesting that its a feminist issue which has been the bump in the road that they seemingly cant flatten




I wouldn't take rape as a 'feminist issue' tbf.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2013)

mutley said:


> None of you tossers going to speculate about whether I'm still in? Cos I'm not. Resigned last night. Onward to the glorious proletarian victory comrades!
> 
> Edited to add: now I'm gonna have a bath. I'll look in later.


I knew. When someone said an fairly prom wm


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I wouldn't take rape as a 'feminist issue' tbf.



I was a bit baffled by your post there, but presumably you mean as "only" a feminist issue? Because it certainly is a feminist issue.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I was a bit baffled by your post there, but presumably you mean as "only" a feminist issue? Because it certainly is a feminist issue.




well yes


----------



## ska invita (Dec 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I wouldn't take rape as a 'feminist issue' tbf.


yeah that was clumsy language and not what i meant of course, but i think the response by many men in the party is one


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

Does this mean that U75 is now a completely SWP-free forum, with the exception of bolshiebhoy? Surely the must be someone else left?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2013)

RMP3?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 17, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> RMP3?


Ex-member

Kepper of dragons or have they left and I missed it?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 17, 2013)

It's a bit like what Chris Morris said about Four Lions, there's a in-group dynamic at work there that you can find in a 5-a-side football time just as much as a jihadi terror cell. The group dynamics that lead to organisations and parties becoming like that aren't exclusive to the political left or even to Leninism, even if a particularly crude distillation of Leninism lends itself very well to such sect-like parties. I think the BNP post-2010 fits this bill just as much as the SWP.* 

And it's not as if the SWP was a perfectly functional organisation in every other respect other than it's attitude to womens liberation and how to deal appropriately with complaints against senior members. The problems were broader than that, but because of the particularly horrific nature of what's gone on this area has taken the focus, but think about how they've acted in practically every situation over the last 5-10 years it's been disastrous in everything they do not just in fighting sexism. 

It's intriguing to read Birchall or Renton (or Spurski's on here) resignation letters and see so much sincerity towards this organisation, that at one point clearly had _something_ going for it, because I've only been aware of or marginally involved in left politics since about 2003/4, and for that entire period they've been nothing but awful and an obstacle in practically every interaction I've had in any given context.  

*and the depressing fact that you can put the SWP (or any socialist) side by side with the BNP in terms of a discredited leadership clinging onto power at all costs at the expense of the party isn't lost on me.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> there's an audio recording of the whole thing (well, 45 minutes of it anyway) on archive.org. I've never felt grim enough to listen to it though...



I have. Never again.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

Oisin123 Now that the battle is over, will the Irish SWP and other IST affiliates simply stay on as sister organisations of the "victors"?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 17, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Oisin123 Now that the battle is over, will the Irish SWP and other IST affiliates simply stay on as sister organisations of the "victors"?



How many sections does the IST have?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 17, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> How many sections does the IST have?



It doesn't have "sections" but instead has "affiliates", which is supposed to indicate looser organisation. 30 are listed on Wikipedia, but this includes some that seem to be defunct, some that are only a website, at least one that isn't an affiliate any more and quite a number that are one to five people strong.

The organisations of any notable size (ie more than twenty five activists) are in Britain, Greece, South Korea, Ireland, Spain, Australia, Holland, Egypt. That's at minimum. There are probably a few others too.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 17, 2013)

I feel sorry for their Egyptian section, it must be really difficult to be a Marxist in Egypt and accept the sort of shit that the SWP have to say on the subject of political Islam.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 17, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I feel sorry for their Egyptian section, it must be really difficult to be a Marxist in Egypt and accept the sort of shit that the SWP have to say on the subject of political Islam.



I did hear a report at the CWI conference this year that the RS in Egypt had split and a few were considering joining us - which would be massive as we have sweet FA in Egypt - but nothing seems to have materialised as yet.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

Not sure "massive" is quite the right word there...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not sure "massive" is quite the right word there...



No, fair enough! But even having enough members for a couple of branches would represent a big improvement on nothing!


----------



## BK Double Stack (Dec 18, 2013)

Unfortunately, we still have nothing there.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 18, 2013)

i was gonna post a cathartic 'my experience' post but i've overthunk it and now i'm too tired.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i was gonna post a cathartic 'my experience' post but i've overthunk it and now i'm too tired.


Do it!


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 18, 2013)

[quote="Nigel Irritable said:


> Oisin123 Now that the battle is over, will the Irish SWP and other IST affiliates simply stay on as sister organisations of the "victors"?


Probably. But the IST will never be the same as it was when Cliff and Harman were listened to with tremendous respect, thus giving the British SWP a disproportionate influence (and contrary to some people's view from the outside, all they ever had was influence, no policies were ever imposed upon us and I can remember Bambery and Stack being surprisingly sensitive to the whole issue of outside interference one time, when they wanted to encourage us to move from a monthly to a fortnightly paper). The British SWP standing will decline massively within the tendency and I expect that decline to continue over time as the consequences of this disaster work their way out. Having said that, if there are developments in terms of a re-composition of British opposition members in a new party that would pose an interesting question, internationally speaking.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Do it!


tomorrow.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Probably.



It will be interesting to see if that causes any problems on the wider left here or from the feminist groups. In general, I think people over here have been reluctant to put the boot into the local SWP about something that isn't their fault and that they had very limited capacity to influence, despite John M's lamentable intervention. Particularly when the British party still involved large numbers on both side of the issue. But now that the Brits have split, staying as a sister organisation looks more like taking the wrong side. Perhaps it will stay under the radar if the Irish org continue their current policy of not having high profile British SWP speakers over)

(Please note, this is absolutely not some kind of hint that the Irish SP is about to go on the offensive about it, just a general question about whether that benefit of the doubt will continue once the doubt diminishes).




			
				Oisin123 said:
			
		

> But the IST will never be the same as it was when Cliff and Harman were listened to with tremendous respect, thus giving the British SWP a disproportionate influence



I suspect that size and resources played a role too, although those are also in the process of diminishing.




			
				 Oisin123 said:
			
		

> (and contrary to some people's view from the outside, all they ever had was influence, no policies were ever imposed upon us and I can remember Bambery and Stack being surprisingly sensitive to the whole issue of outside interference one time, when they wanted to encourage us to move from a monthly to a fortnightly paper).



This is interesting, because the British SWP certainly did intervene directly into other IST groups on occasion, including the Germans and the Americans. Without wanting to be overly cynical about it perhaps proximity ensured that the influence was so strong that crude intervention was unnecessary? Has the Irish SWP ever seriously disagreed with the Brits since KA took a (correct!) stand on the Iran-Iraq war? It certainly does seem to have followed the British group's change in perspective very closely over decades.




			
				Oisin123 said:
			
		

> The British SWP standing will decline massively within the tendency and I expect that decline to continue over time as the consequences of this disaster work their way out. Having said that, if there are developments in terms of a re-composition of British opposition members in a new party that would pose an interesting question, internationally speaking.



Yes. It will be interesting to see if an ISTish group of some size and stability emerges (which is not guaranteed even assuming, as I think we can, that many of the current departees will set up some kind of new group). Particularly if it aligns with the ISO and perhaps SAlt in Australia.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 18, 2013)

Lest we forget. 

http://swssnet.wordpress.com/2012/0...-nec-motion-no-apologies-for-rape-apologists/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

Rabbit worrier speaks:

http://histomatist.blogspot.ie/2013/12/why-i-am-not-resigning-from-swp.html

I'm quite entertained by this piece.

Firstly, he really, truly doesn't seem to have worked out that the SWP is a lot smaller than it claims to be and is in the process of shrinking further. Consequently he doesn't seem to realise that arguments that its "the party or the wilderness" which were dishonest and untrue when made by the old CP are plainly, crassly, idiotic when made on behalf of a group of the SWPs size.

Secondly, the notion that the faction handing over its blog to those leaving the party represents a mass decision to stay and acquiesce is so contorted in its reasoning as to be outright bewildering. It's preparation for an organised split, you clown.

Thirdly, the argument that it necessarily takes "decades" to build a revolutionary group of the puny stature of the SWP implies an acceptance that no significant social rupture will ever occur.

He does not, of course, deal with the core split issues at all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

RW should fancy his chances of making the CC some day. What is he, early thirties?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> RW should fancy his chances of making the CC some day. What is he, early thirties?


Early to mid yes. I am not sure he has those ambitious though, as the route on to the CC is to work full time for the party first, and he has never done that as far as I know. 

I was also thinking about the size issue. As much as we criticise the SWP for inflating it's figures, getting an accurate record of party membership is an impossible task. But considering the latest bout of resignations, and more to come, how close do you think the SWP is to Shrinking below the size of the SP? Thinking back to the demo at the tory conference in Manchester, I would say I saw more people selling the socialist than socialist worker, although I think the SWP had more actual stalls. 

They would never admit to being smaller until it is undeniable, but the gap must be getting pretty small.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

I wouldn't be surprised if they were already smaller prior to the latest wave of resignations.

The SWP might even be down to a three figure membership when the dust settles.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2013)

I think they've been smaller for ages tbh.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

Anybody care to hazard an educated guess as to the current sizes of the UK Left groups? Nigel Irritable ?

My guess as the size order would be:

SP (around 1000)
SWP (800 ?)
Left Unity (300-400 ?)

And then in no particular order other groups with three figures CPB, AWL, Respect, ISN, SLP perhaps? 

I dunno though these days. Everyone is so small that it's too difficult to gauge from any sort of real world presence anymore.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 18, 2013)

PCS Vice-President Sue Bond has resigned from the SWP according to her Facebook page.


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think people over here have been reluctant to put the boot into the local SWP about something that isn't their fault and that they had very limited capacity to influence, despite John M's lamentable intervention.


Very civil of you. There are, however, plenty of people around keen to try to put the boot in, but since no one here but JM takes the loyalist position (and that in his capacity as a British SWP member only), it just comes across as an attempt to try and make political capital opportunistically.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

discokermit said:


> i was gonna post a cathartic 'my experience' post but i've overthunk it and now i'm too tired.


Would love to hear/read this if you change you mind. That goes for anyone else as well - even people like bolshie. But not you Stuart.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> And then in no particular order other groups with three figures CPB, AWL, Respect, ISN, SLP perhaps?


What about LRC


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What about LRC


What about them?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Rabbit worrier speaks:
> 
> http://histomatist.blogspot.ie/2013/12/why-i-am-not-resigning-from-swp.html
> 
> ...


_It is worth quoting from this section of the gen secs report.


As happy as a ipig in shit now that he can demonstrte loyalty. _We always said that he' be at home in 30s USSR. This is the prick who was the living breathing embodiment of the 90s/2000s SWP shouty aggressive identity politics. And now shouty aggressive identity politics was wrong all along. As he/they argued.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> What about them?


They (we) are a left group with a bigger membership than all of the ones you mentioned (after the SP, SWP)


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> They (we) are a left group with a bigger membership than all of the ones you mentioned (after the SP, SWP)



Are you really?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

really what?  Bigger?  Left?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Very civil of you. There are, however, plenty of people around keen to try to put the boot in, but since no one here but JM takes the loyalist position (and that in his capacity as a British SWP member only), it just comes across as an attempt to try and make political capital opportunistically.



If there was nobody here taking the loyalist position, the organisation as a whole would not have (a) stayed silent for the last year and (b) opted to remain as the sister organisation of the loyalists post split. Or are you suggesting that it made those decisions because it doesn't want to make poor JM cry (even if those tears would be shed only in his capacity as a British SWP member)?

Those decisions make a certain degree of sense as results of a desire to avoid ripping into each other over something in another country, but without that excuse they are harder to explain in a sympathetic way.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:
			
		

> I've no illusions in what the LRC presently represents,



So we have him having no illusions in the LRC and no illusions in what the LRC can do in the bigger party that he also has no illusions in.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2013)

you didn't really say that did you, oh wait, you did


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> really what?  Bigger?  Left?


Bigger. Left. A group (in the sense we're talking about here).


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Bigger. Left. A group (in the sense we're talking about here).


 we aren't a Leninist group, that's true enough. (but then nor are Left Unity)


----------



## Belushi (Dec 18, 2013)

I have no illusions about articul8.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

As I understand it, the LRC's most recent conference had dwindled to a little over 100 in attendance. There are surely more than two other groups who can turn out those numbers.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As I understand it, the LRC's most recent conference had dwindled to a little over 100 in attendance. There are surely more than two other groups who can turn out those numbers.


 
It was affected by having to switch the date at relatively late notice due to the Labour Assembly Against Austerity.  The paid up membership is in four figures.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

Just go away.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> we aren't a Leninist group, that's true enough. (but then nor are Left Unity)



Do you really count as a distinct, cohesive group though? Would you stick together if for some reason you were out of the LP  (as the SP and Awl have)?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Do you really count as a distinct, cohesive group though? Would you stick together if for some reason you were out of the LP  (as the SP and Awl have)?


 Interesting question - I'm not sure i know the answer to that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Interesting question - I'm not sure i know the answer to that.


Will this do?




			
				you said:
			
		

> In all honesty the LRC is very weak and poorly organised.It keeps a flag flying but it doesn't have anything like the resources of level of organisation that something like Progress has.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

yes, well that's true.  I hope we are finally staring to get our act together on the organisational front, but we don't have Saisbury millions that's true enough.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

I don't know much about the LRC. but if the iron-willed Bolsheviks of the trot left struggle to survive as sustainable, living entities the chances of the far more "floppy" LRC doing so must be slim to none.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> yes, well that's true.  I hope we are finally staring to get our act together on the organisational front, but we don't have Saisbury millions that's true enough.



It just isn't your party http://www.leftfutures.org/2013/11/...-to-pretend-its-not-just-progress-youth-wing/

Sheffield Labour Students is supposed to be the 'radical' wing of the Labour student movement and if that's the case then the future isn't very bright for the Labour Party tbh


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> yes, well that's true.  I hope we are finally staring to get our act together on the organisational front, but we don't have Saisbury millions that's true enough.


YOU MEAN NOTHING


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> yes, well that's true.  I hope we are finally staring to get our act together on the organisational front, but we don't have Saisbury millions that's true enough.


 
I remember going to an RMT-organised conference in 2009 to discuss alternatives to Labour. A woman from the LRC got up to speak and said "Labour is my party. I can't leave it. But I absolutely understand why you want to build something new and I wish you the best of luck". Is this the standard response from LRC members?


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

Anyhow. Regardless. I was just saying to someone, in the space of a generation or two the Left in the UK has gone from the SWP claiming 10,000 members with the Millies not far behind, rumps of the IMG and WRP still  numbering in the hundreds, other misc Trot splinters regularly getting into 3 figure memberships, plus the Tankies adding another couple of thousand, alongside organised LP entryists and 3 national @ orgs to what?

to this?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

J Ed said:


> It just isn't your party http://www.leftfutures.org/2013/11/...-to-pretend-its-not-just-progress-youth-wing/
> 
> Sheffield Labour Students is supposed to be the 'radical' wing of the Labour student movement and if that's the case then the future isn't very bright for the Labour Party tbh


 Labour Students is a top-down run right wing lash up - NOLS has been like this even in the 70s and 80s.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

That pisses in the same pot as you. Fuck off.

Btw, did anyone here keep a copy of the chapter of The Communist Technique by Bob Darke that i put online on the old CAC site?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> I remember going to an RMT-organised conference in 2009 to discuss alternatives to Labour. A woman from the LRC got up to speak and said "Labour is my party. I can't leave it. But I absolutely understand why you want to build something new and I wish you the best of luck". Is this the standard response from LRC members?


 
Doesn't sound untypical.  I think people would be very happy to be proved wrong and for a significant left alternative to be built to Labour's left.  But since we don't see the conditions for it exist, we aren't ready to stop trying to influence the party which actually does have a significant w/c electoral base and links to the organised working class in the shape of the unions.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 18, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Probably. But the IST will never be the same as it was when Cliff and Harman were listened to with tremendous respect, thus giving the British SWP a disproportionate influence (and contrary to some people's view from the outside, all they ever had was influence, no policies were ever imposed upon us and I can remember Bambery and Stack being surprisingly sensitive to the whole issue of outside interference one time, when they wanted to encourage us to move from a monthly to a fortnightly paper). The British SWP standing will decline massively within the tendency and I expect that decline to continue over time as the consequences of this disaster work their way out. Having said that, if there are developments in terms of a re-composition of British opposition members in a new party that would pose an interesting question, internationally speaking.


I agree absolutely. I know rather less about the IST than the SWP, but it's clear the latter's influence will diminish significantly in the tendency because:
1) it has lost a largish chunk of its membership and will lose more
2) IST groups will have come to realise (if they weren't aware already) that the SWP membership figures are grossly inflated
3) many in the tendency will be sympathetic to the Opposition (I know this for a fact in one country)
4) Callinicos's reputation has been severely tarnished, having shown himself to be a coward, double-dealer and liar
What will be most interesting - as Oisin says - is how the IST groups relate to a future ISO grouping formed by those who have left.
BTW apologies if someone else has already made these points, but I haven't had time to catch up with all the recents posts.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That pisses in the same pot as you. Fuck off.
> 
> Btw, did anyone here keep a copy of the chapter of The Communist Technique by Bob Darke that i put online on the old CAC site?



I'll have a look. I loved that book.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Doesn't sound untypical.  I think people would be very happy to be proved wrong and for a significant left alternative to be built to Labour's left.  But since we don't see the conditions for it exist, we aren't ready to stop trying to influence the party which actually does have a significant w/c electoral base and links to the organised working class in the shape of the unions.



_we aren't ready to stop trying to influence the party _. real life lol


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> I'll have a look. I loved that book.


Cheers, none of the sites that archived the stuff we did seem to have that one. I have a hard copy so can do again but would prefer not to.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Cheers, none of the sites that archived the stuff we did seem to have that one. I have a hard copy so can do again but would prefer not to.



Had a quick look, can't seem to find it, but I'm sure I downloaded it at some point will look further.  You have the whole book or just the excerpt that got turned into a pamphlet?

I used to have the whole thing somewhere. A great read.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

Whole book. I think it was the pamphlet i put up. He was supposed to have gone far right at the end of his life. His daughter was well known to t_he voices we should listen to_ on the BTF thread.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Anyhow. Regardless. I was just saying to someone, in the space of a generation or two the Left in the UK has gone from the SWP claiming 10,000 members with the Millies not far behind, rumps of the IMG and WRP still  numbering in the hundreds, other misc Trot splinters regularly getting into 3 figure memberships, plus the Tankies adding another couple of thousand, alongside organised LP entryists and 3 national @ orgs to what?
> 
> to this?


 
Actually our subs paying membership is a fair bit over 2000 (England and Wales). But you're right - the numbers of people involved in radical left groups are low. Part of this is likely to be the sheer number of left groups - many of them splits from the SWP. The three newest groups I can think of are Counterfire, ISN/RevSoc and Plan C (who may be just a website for all I know).


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Whole book. I think it was the pamphlet i put up. He was supposed to have gone far right at the end of his life. His daughter was well known to t_he voices we should listen to_ on the BTF thread.



The text of "Poor Lenin" is still up at LibCom.

http://libcom.org/library/poor-lenin-bob-darke

I'm converting to mobi/epub as we speak if you want em.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> The text of "Poor Lenin" is still up at LibCom.
> 
> http://libcom.org/library/poor-lenin-bob-darke
> 
> I'm converting to mobi/epub as we speak if you want em.


That's the one ta - couldn't remember the title the pamphlet used. No need on the mobi-epub front thanks.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Actually our subs paying membership is a fair bit over 2000 (England and Wales). But you're right - the numbers of people involved in radical left groups are low. Part of this is likely to be the sheer number of left groups - many of them splits from the SWP. The three newest groups I can think of are Counterfire, ISN/RevSoc and Plan C (who may be just a website for all I know).



Nah. There's fewer, far far fewer groups now.

Plan C have a few "groups" IRL afaik. I don't think they're a SWP split are they?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Whole book. I think it was the pamphlet i put up. He was supposed to have gone far right at the end of his life. His daughter was well known to t_he voices we should listen to_ on the BTF thread.


 
Darke was contributing to _Hackney Action_ (a left wing community newspaper) in the early 1970s fwiw. When did he die?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 18, 2013)

I just looked up Plan C, never heard of them before I do love that they have had an event called 'WTF is to be done?'


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Plan C have a few "groups" IRL afaik. I don't think they're a SWP split are they?


couple in London, and in Leeds and Manchester.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Darke was contributing to _Hackney Action_ (a left wing community newspaper) in the early 1970s fwiw. When did he die?


Really don't know mate. I need to check it out before i say anything further - i do know the claim was that he was anti-semitic though.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2013)

I hope not, because I really enjoyed his article about the CP.


----------



## mk12 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> The text of "Poor Lenin" is still up at LibCom.
> 
> http://libcom.org/library/poor-lenin-bob-darke
> 
> I'm converting to mobi/epub as we speak if you want em.


 
_"'I saw your wife going into X's shop the other day, Bob. why?' 'To buy something probably.' 'This isn't a funny matter, Comrade Darke. Doesn't she know that man is a Tory? Why doesn't she shop at the Co-op?' 'She probably doesn't want to.' 'It's not a question of what she wants. She's your wife; get her to join the Co-op. We should build up Party strength in the Co-op guilds, you know that. Let's not see it happening again.' My self discipline was good. I accepted the whip. I told Ann. But I wouldn't like to repeat what she said. She didn't have my self-discipline..."_


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Really don't know mate. I need to check it out before i say anything further - i do know the claim was that he was anti-semitic though.


 
No worries. I'd be interested in knowing more myself.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> couple in London, and in Leeds and Manchester.



Thames Valley too.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Whole book. I think it was the pamphlet i put up. He was supposed to have gone far right at the end of his life. His daughter was well known to t_he voices we should listen to_ on the BTF thread.


did he actually write the book?  Couple of things I've seen claim it (and his autobiography) were ghosted for him.

Interesting little bit about his daughter - http://stevesilver.org.uk/blog/the-firebombing-of-annas-house/


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Thames Valley too.


I always count that as London


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> I always count that as London



I wish I could.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> did he actually write the book?  Couple of things I've seen claim it (and his autobiography) were ghosted for him.
> 
> Interesting little bit about his daughter - http://stevesilver.org.uk/blog/the-firebombing-of-annas-house/


Don't know. Not sure how we'd really find out either.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

aye, bit too late now


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Nah. There's fewer, far far fewer groups now.
> 
> Plan C have a few "groups" IRL afaik. I don't think they're a SWP split are they?



It depends what you mean - "active groups", no, but then at most Sheffield demonstrations we get the odd Newsline seller. Only became politically active during the Iraq war though, so perhaps I've not got a balanced perspective.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> It depends what you mean - "active groups", no, but then at most Sheffield demonstrations we get the odd Newsline seller. Only became politically active during the Iraq war though, so perhaps I've not got a balanced perspective.



There's just far far fewer groups around.

I'm sure we could come up with a list of groups that have disappeared in the last 20 years versus groups that have formed in the last 20 years. 

That'd be fun!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2013)

the trot-tree


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> There's just far far fewer groups around.
> 
> I'm sure we could come up with a list of groups that have disappeared in the last 20 years versus groups that have formed in the last 20 years.
> 
> That'd be fun!



Well volunteered - I look forward to it.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> There's just far far fewer groups around.
> 
> I'm sure we could come up with a list of groups that have disappeared in the last 20 years versus groups that have formed in the last 20 years.
> 
> That'd be fun!


 
What about those that have been formed and disappeared in the last 20 years (Permament Revolution, Anti-Capitalist Initiative etc.)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What about those that have been formed and disappeared in the last 20 years (Permament Revolution, Anti-Capitalist Initiative etc.)


He said we.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> What about those that have been formed and disappeared in the last 20 years (Permament Revolution, Anti-Capitalist Initiative etc.)



hmmm


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

Ian Allinson, Unite EC member, has resigned as well. Thy wont have anyone at all left on union exec's at this rate


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> Ian Allinson, Unite EC member, has resigned as well. Thy wont have anyone at all left on union exec's at this rate



Their members who are relatively high up in unions (a) have something to lose and more importantly (b) have no choice but to interact with and work with other leftists all the time. They can't just hang out with their branch.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

Where else do they have anyone?  UCU and NUT are probably about it


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

Right then ya fuckers. Here goes. 

*Groups which were around 20 years or so ago but aren't anymore:*


_Class War Federation
Democratic Left
International Leninst Workers Party 
International Socialist Group
Marxist Party
Movement for a Socialist Future
Revoultionary Communist League of Britain
Revolutionary Communist Party
Revolutionary Workers' Party
Workers' Power
WRP (Workers Press)_


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2013)

worker's power's still around isn't it?


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> _ Movement for a Socialist Future
> ...
> Workers' Power_


both still exist (tho the former only on the internet, probably)


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

Having said that...are all of these still going (the complete list of lefty groups from 2012)?



chilango said:


> Anarchist Federation
> Alliance for Green Socialism
> Alliance for Workers Liberty
> Autonmous Class War
> ...


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> both still exist (tho the former only on the internet, probably)



What? Workers Power still exist? 

Hoorah!


----------



## J Ed (Dec 18, 2013)

I had no idea the Maoist Internationalist Movement existed off of the internet, do they sound out the KKKrackers and AmeriKKKa stuff in person like they do on the internet?


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Had a quick look, can't seem to find it, but I'm sure I downloaded it at some point will look further.  You have the whole book or just the excerpt that got turned into a pamphlet?
> 
> I used to have the whole thing somewhere. A great read.



I read that years ago. It must have had a massive print run at the time because that and Douglas Hyde's 'I Believed' would always turn up in secondhand bookshops for fifty pence.


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If there was nobody here taking the loyalist position, the organisation as a whole would not have (a) stayed silent for the last year and (b) opted to remain as the sister organisation of the loyalists post split. Or are you suggesting that it made those decisions because it doesn't want to make poor JM cry (even if those tears would be shed only in his capacity as a British SWP member)?
> 
> Those decisions make a certain degree of sense as results of a desire to avoid ripping into each other over something in another country, but without that excuse they are harder to explain in a sympathetic way.



I'm happy enough with the way the Irish SWP dealt with this issue. We took a position that the British CC got it wrong, we communicated that position to anyone who asked, and to the British CC. It's too early to say what will happen in the IST and no discussion has yet been had on that subject. Personally, I share your opinion that the British SWP will not be able to make meaningful contribution to a future socialist revolution, but I'm probably in a minority about that. It's a different question, one that even people very angry at the British SWP wouldn't be sure of the answer to.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> both still exist (tho the former only on the internet, probably)


#
The *Communist League* was a small Trotskyist organisation in Britain. Better known as *Movement for a Socialist Future*, it split from the Marxist Party in 1990, claiming to hold more closely to the ideas of Gerry Healy. In 1994, it published a strongly positive biography of Healy, with a foreword by Ken Livingstone. The same year, it founded a small international organisation, which it declared the Fifth International of Communists. It produced the magazine _Socialist Future Review_.

The group decided to orient itself towards the anti-capitalist movement and published a book entitled _A World to Win_. In June 2005, it dissolved itself into A World to Win, a looser organisation based around that book.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

P'rps I'm wrong about the number of groups to disappear, many I assumed long gone are clinging on for dear life on the internet.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I had no idea the Maoist Internationalist Movement existed off of the internet, do they sound out the KKKrackers and AmeriKKKa stuff in person like they do on the internet?



Never actually met them. Used to buy their paper though.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> P'rps I'm wrong about the number of groups to disappear, many I assumed long gone are clinging on for dear life on the internet.


 
i've seen workers power at several demos etc


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

Does the Socialist Equality Party still exist?


----------



## mk12 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> #
> The *Communist League* was a small Trotskyist organisation in Britain. Better known as *Movement for a Socialist Future*, it split from the Marxist Party in 1990, claiming to hold more closely to the ideas of Gerry Healy. In 1994, it published a strongly positive biography of Healy, with a foreword by Ken Livingstone. The same year, it founded a small international organisation, which it declared the Fifth International of Communists. It produced the magazine _Socialist Future Review_.
> 
> The group decided to orient itself towards the anti-capitalist movement and published a book entitled _A World to Win_. In June 2005, it dissolved itself into A World to Win, a looser organisation based around that book.


 
I bought that at the ESF! It was a pretty comprehensive outline of what a socialist society would be like.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i've seen workers power at several demos etc



yeah. I remember now someone here posting a photo of a WP seller on a demo the other day.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Never actually met them. Used to buy their paper though.


They run the maoist internet movie database now.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Does the Socialist Equality Party still exist?


sadly, yes.  Mainly in Sheffield it seems


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Does the Socialist Equality Party still exist?



Yep 

Defending Assange amongst other things.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2013)

they run the world socialist website

their leader is actually a millionaire businessman


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Right then ya fuckers. Here goes.
> 
> *Groups which were around 20 years or so ago but aren't anymore:*
> 
> ...



I think the Workers International League have gone too.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Yep
> 
> Defending Assange amongst other things.


 at least they're consistent


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Right then ya fuckers. Here goes.
> 
> *Groups which were around 20 years or so ago but aren't anymore:*
> 
> ...


 
you missed Workers’ Institute of Marxism-Leninism- Mao Tsetung Thought


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2013)

comrade bala lives


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

The RIL seem to have become _Socialist Fight_ and maybe are in the LRC articul8?

anybody who can be arsed can download a book on the collapse of the WRP for free from their website.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> Ian Allinson, Unite EC member, has resigned as well. Thy wont have anyone at all left on union exec's at this rate


Excellent resignation letter on his Facebook. Definitely worth reading.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> The RIL seem to have become _Socialist Fight_ and maybe are in the LRC articul8?
> 
> anybody who can be arsed can download a book on the collapse of the WRP for free from their website.


Yes, one of the main Socialist Fight people is in my local LRC branch (think they only have 2 or 3 others active in the UK) - decent bloke but politically away with the fairies (their statement of support for the Woolwich axe killers was a particular highlight). (NB this is NOT LRC policy!)


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> comrade bala lives


 
He heard someone mutter "Jesus Christ!" after one of his speeches, and took it a bit too literally


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> (their statement of support for the Woolwich axe killers was a particular highlight).


jesus h!
http://socialistfight.com/tag/woolwich/


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 18, 2013)

Are the New Communst Party defenders of North Korea still in the LRC?


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

Y'know, reading this thread it's hard enough to see why people have stuck with the SWP for so long, but when you delve into the 2-3 man bands that have doggedly kept going for 20 or 30 years, well, it really makes you wonder.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> jesus h!
> http://socialistfight.com/tag/woolwich/


 ah yes that's the one.  I was denounced as an imperialist stooge and islamophobe for criticisng that.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

belboid said:


> jesus h!
> http://socialistfight.com/tag/woolwich/



That just saddens me.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 18, 2013)

"it's hard enough to see why people have stuck with the SWP for so long, but when you delve into the 2-3 man bands that have doggedly kept going for 20 or 30 years, well, it really makes you wonder." - how indeed could they fill their time with something so wierd and bizarre when they could so much more fruitfully spend their time discussing other people doing that mad stuff on an internet forum. (mind you, I only get a chance to comment here when Comrade Balakrishnan goes to the shops and leaves the computer on).


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> for me, who, I think, count as one of Renton autodidacts, the reason I stayed in for so long was because my internal image of my party was was of one which fundamentally differed from the reality, yet one maintained it in the face of whatever evidence reality could throw at it. At every public or internal party initiative comrades would shamelessly lie constantly about the influence the party had "punching above its weight" Among the working class.
> I know I would look at my comrades and know they were lying, and then, when my turn came, get up and lie myself.
> Often we weren't even lying to impress outsiders, the most outrageous lies were spoken during internal conferences and aggregates.
> The swp was built on a dream of an idealised Bolshevism, free from the bacillus of Stalin, yet to match reality to that ideal involved the construction of an elaborate scaffold of fantasy and lies.
> ...



some of us were aware of the SWP's failings from the very first time we encountered them.


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Renton lays out the dynamic  - (in an odd way):




Isn't Dave a academic, a barrister, maybe a nice guy, but not an ordinary WC one.


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> ...also didnt the SWP flog their printshop?
> do any left groups own the kit to mass print a paper or is all contracted out and subject to market forces?



The WRP opened up their print shop to the Dockers/RTS, not sure what happened after.


----------



## tony.c (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> you missed Workers’ Institute of Marxism-Leninism- Mao Tsetung Thought


And how could you leave out Red Action?


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2013)

comrade spurski said:


> I joined the swp in 1985/6 as a 18yr old.
> I joined cos I was so fucked off about the tottenham riots, and racism in general.
> 
> Throughout my first 3 yrs or so I went to some meetings and was still very involved in the anti apartheid movement but thought the party was too white and too old but on the whole better than anything I came across.
> ...




Let us hope young people now never make that mistake again, as I said before plenty of us knew they were poison from day one.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 18, 2013)

I think I'll do my "confessions of", in part as an anti-poison argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> Let us hope young people now never make that mistake again, as I said before plenty of us knew they were poison from day one.


You being right - as you have now pointed out twice - does not impact at all on why people felt that joining the swp was the best option for them to get involved in some sort of fightback. If anything it ignores the situations that led to that choice - and the lessons those of us who didn't make it can and should take from that.


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2013)

chilango said:


> Anybody care to hazard an educated guess as to the current sizes of the UK Left groups? Nigel Irritable ?
> 
> My guess as the size order would be:
> 
> ...




There were 400+ plus at the Nat Conference alone, they have 1000 paid up members, they are the fastest growing left group for better or worse.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2013)

Innit, I don't have much time for the SP's leadership but I still have a lot of respect for a lot of people still in the party and I don't regret my time as a member, I joined the SP because I wanted to be part of a fightback and because they were a large-ish, well known and well respected group with what seemed to be the best politics who actually did get involved at a local level, and although I always had criticisms I could always find reasons to stay in the party, I imagine the same is for the SWP and similar groups.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

tony.c said:


> And how could you leave out Red Action?



 (At self).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> There were 400+ plus at the Nat Conference alone, they have 1000 paid up members, they are the fastest growing left group for better or worse.



Paid up a few quid. The interesting part will be how many are active in a few months.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

treelover said:


> There were 400+ plus at the Nat Conference alone, they have 1000 paid up members, they are the fastest growing left group for better or worse.



Paid up?

There's formal membership now?


----------



## treelover (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Whole book. I think it was the pamphlet i put up. He was supposed to have gone far right at the end of his life. His daughter was well known to t_he voices we should listen to_ on the BTF thread.




Anyone read 'I believed', by Douglas Hyde?, another former CP member who went to the (centre?)right.


----------



## chilango (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Paid up a few quid. The interesting part will be how many are active in a few months.



Indeed.


The final collapse of the SWP as a serious force means that Left Unity could easily become a major, if not the major, left group. They could just as easily make no impression at all and disappear within the year.

Time will tell.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

http://broadleft.org/gb.htm

There's a snapshot of the left groups around in 2005. Not perfect, but close enough to give a sense. I'd guess half are dead.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

tony.c said:


> And how could you leave out Red Action?


 
Anything about the topic of mad violent doctrinaire hierarchical cults that brought that to mind?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Anything about the topic of mad violent doctrinaire hierarchical cults that brought that to mind?


Did you ask that in your face to face interview?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Did you ask that in your face to face interview?


it was a joke


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> it was a joke


As indicated by your smiley. 

Give up your day job. Really. Give it up.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You being right - as you have now pointed out twice - does not impact at all on why people felt that joining the swp was the best option for them to get involved in some sort of fightback. If anything it ignores the situations that led to that choice - and the lessons those of us who didn't make it can and should take from that.


 
Absolutely.

I didn't join the SWP as a teenager -_ I made other mistakes instead._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> I didn't join the SWP as a teenager -_ I made other mistakes instead._


Spot on. Great title for a piece as well.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 18, 2013)

Here's my confessions of a Comrade, hope it is not too longwinded - made in part in defence of the possibilities of the SWP, albeit shocked at the current crisis.

I joined the pretty big and lively SWSO group, and then the  SWP in 81 at Sussex University out of a student occupation. The SWSO group and indeed the SWP looked like the largest, loudest left party around , with a young-ish membership. There certainly was a strong social element. Much of it was a ‘propaganda ‘ operation, but a lot of solidarity too (one of my first party duties involved raising a big chunk of cash for the water workers strike in 81 : They won incidentally, although I don’t think our donation was key) I stayed an active member up to the late 1990’s , although drifted off to raise a family.


People commenting on David Renton’s note saying “what held him to the party” seem to skip over the bit which he says held him most – pride in succesful work with comrades. This is a lot of what kept me in as well ,and many other people too – it is certainly what kept me interested.


There was of course the propaganda side – selling the paper (I was branch paper organiser for quite a few years), public meetings, Marxism. These were good things in themself, and enjoyable too. They did help teach some of the basics of campaigning as well.


But there were also a whole series of battles that I remember where being and SWP activist meant helping the winning side win – all of these were campaigns, strikes, protests alongside other political people – Militant, Anarchist , Labour Party Left and non-aligned – although the Labour people always had to do stuff in opposition to their national party. Which is of course the point – the SWP thought it should be fighting alongside other people and organisations (to do otherwise would be sectarian), but tried to lead them in what seemed like the most militant direction.


I had a clerical job in the civil service and then went on to work in a University library. I was a CPSA office rep and then a Unison branch secretary – I went for those posts because the SWP rule was always try and get elected as union rep (but don’t take a post with over 50% facility time) . The SWP “union fraction” was a great school for how to be a union militant. Both Martin Smith and John McLoughlin were in the CPSA fraction , and both, whatever their subsequent role , were very effective union militants and helped many others become the same. The kind of trade unionism I  learned in my SWP branches or “union fraction” was all about acually winning support from the members who elected you – “building a base” – “rank & file” -  not slipping something through at a committee and hoping to get away with it .


The picture of a lonely cult talking to itself while the Thatcher juggernaut rolled on defeating all seems quite wrong to me – it really was a bit of a right wing (later  New Labour ) argument of the time – Thatcher wins everything, militancy doesn’t work. And it wasn’t true


Because I remember winning many small and some big battles – wether it was going on strike to get some NF activist shifted out of a job centre in Hither Green, or just pay campaigns, which weren’t perfect, but I think won a few quid. The SWP CPSA folk (along of course with many other union people) made a real difference there.


Bigger campaigns too – most obviously the Poll Tax – it is hard to overstate  how pathetic the official Labour & TUC response to this was. But a completely unofficial movement, led by a mix of Militant, Anarchist & SWP types beat it (not perfectly), but also broke Thatcher. Labour couldn’t put a dent in either , whereas a homemade, ramshackle, far left operation did.


The last years of Thatcher were a time of quite a few succesful union fights – there were very effective national NHS and nurses strikes on pay (Candy Udwin had a significant role in them) which (1) Won a big pay rise and (2) cause Thatcher’s annointed successor John Moore to disintegrate.


The  89-90 Ambulance dispute was a kind of small-re-run of the Miners Strike, except our side won. At the core was the extraordinary  decision of the crews to , instead of going on strike, occupying their stations and running a parralel, unofficial ambulance service funded by whatever cash they could raise in the unions and streets. Alongside, of course, many others, SWP members were very involved in this solidarity (I remember when I got my college staff out on a completely unofficial strike in support of the ambulance strike, how many other SWP union reps I saw at the strike rally )


Theoretically, our role was to break the barrier between “politics” and “economics”. The ultimate aim was to create the conditions for workers councils (soviets) but  in the here and now this meant, er, raising good political causes in the workplace – the important thing was not just relying on getting a donation from a union conference, but doing it at grassroots level – I think I started by raising a donation and message for imprisoned South African trade unionist Moses Mayekiso in th 80’s in my Civil Service office, and by the 90’s was winning support and cash from my Unison branch for the campaign to free the Cardiff 3 and the Tottenham 3. History hasn’t been to generous to the Soviets plan, but has definitely looked kindly on these causes.


I drifted away from party membership in the late 90’s, although remain in contact with a fair few party members, and helped out on this and that (Socialist Alliance election campaign) . I thought the SWP’s role in Stop the War was impressive, if (it seems more so in retrospect) flawed. A series of increasingly eccentric decisions stopped me rejoining as the kids got older, from “dissolving the branches” to Respect. But I was still happy to help out now and then


I think the basic problem is quite simple. The internal democracy was always very weak. This mattered less when the party was bigger, broader and generally following a straightforward line (and, sadly, I think a lot of us just shrugged our shoulders and ignored this problem - I only went to Party Conference once, and didn't like the somewhat hack and bullying atmosphere. Instead of doing something about it, I just avoided going again and went to Marxism instead ) . But it caused real problems as the party got older and narrower and some of the leadership upped and died – there was no mechanism to replace them. And there was no mechanism to steer the party back when the remaining leadership started making all those barmy “get-rich-quick” plans. There were some obvious signs things were going wrong even from the semi-outside – -the inexplicable rift with the US ISO. Respect, Mark Steel, Counterfire Split, but the current scandal is still quite shocking – like a small historical reenactment society doing Stalinism. I think  it doesn’t show that trying to build a socialist party is wrong. It just shows you need to put a premium on internal democracy.


----------



## mk12 (Dec 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> Innit, I don't have much time for the SP's leadership but I still have a lot of respect for a lot of people still in the party and I don't regret my time as a member, I joined the SP because I wanted to be part of a fightback and because they were a large-ish, well known and well respected group with what seemed to be the best politics who actually did get involved at a local level, and although I always had criticisms I could always find reasons to stay in the party, I imagine the same is for the SWP and similar groups.


 
My decision to join the SWP wasn't so well-considered. I should have really investigated the different varieties of left-wing groups before signing up, but I joined at University (in 2003) simply because they had a presence and the SP (et al) didn't. I'm sure this is quite a common entry into the party, especially at universities. By that time I was already left-ish, having been 'radicalised' by the Iraq War. 

Locally, they were good people. I'm still in touch with the organiser (who left in March and has since joined the ISN), and I got on well with the more prominent members of the local branch. It saddens me that they have sided consistently with the CC on this issue, and as far as I am aware they are still in the party. With hindsight, they were extremely antagonistic to other leftists and intolerant of any stepping outside the party line. Even when I was dedicated activist, I would happily attend meeting of the SP in a nearby town, and even discussed forming a broad socialist discussion group at Uni with a first-year SP member. I was told to involve myself only in SWP or SWP-related meetings, and focus on selling the paper and organising SWP-only events.

The most valuable experience of my time in the SWP was the educational aspect. When I joined I was left-ish, but didn't really have any knowledge of Marxism, socialism or working-class history. Through reading (pamphlets and books) as well as events like Marxism and the local 'Marxist forums' I increased my understanding of these things, even though with hindsight I have come to disagree with their interpretation of them! It also encouraged me to read more widely (I spent days reading through Marxists.org!) and think like a Marxist, which I like to think I still do to some degree. In this sense, my time in the SWP left a positive mark on me.

After only 2-3 years I began to suspect there were contradictions between the theory and practice of the Party (especially in its internal organisation), especially after coming into contact with critics and ex-members. After a party conference I was disciplined and left (as some of you know already), and to be honest it had quite an impact on me personally. It was never a 'substitute family' for me like it was/is for some university students (I lived at home and most of my friends were non-socialists), but it still hurt breaking off relationships with people I considered friends, especially in the manner in which it happened. It left a bitterness towards the Party which remains until this day, which explains why I have followed this thread so closely. I am no longer in sympathy with the Party, its aims or its strategies, not because of this bitterness but because leaving the Party opened my eyes to different interpretations of events and politics.

I should feel glad about the demise of the SWP, and in some ways I do (bitterness, political differences, and the fact I think their activities are counter-productive), but I find it difficult to feel happy about this situation, which involved abuse, bullying and intimidation. It's a horrible situation and the SWP deserve to die as a result of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

Cheers for that scribbling S.
edit: and matt too - you posted as i was replying.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2013)

I can relate to a lot of that mk12.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 18, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I think the basic problem is quite simple. The internal democracy was always very weak. This mattered less when the party was bigger, broader and generally following a straightforward line (and, sadly, I think a lot of us just shrugged our shoulders and ignored this problem - I only went to Party Conference once, and didn't like the somewhat hack and bullying atmosphere. Instead of doing something about it, I just avoided going again and went to Marxism instead ) . But it caused real problems as the party got older and narrower and some of the leadership upped and died – there was no mechanism to replace them. And there was no mechanism to steer the party back when the remaining leadership started making all those barmy “get-rich-quick” plans.


I think you really identify the basic problem in your very interesting "confessions": although the SWP has done lots of good things, the fatal flaw has been the lack of democracy.
When I was a member of IS/SWP in the early 70's and became an organiser, I was unhappy with the bureaucratic way the Higgins/Palmer/Protz opposition was dealt with. I also felt that it was a tragedy to lose so many experienced working class militants (in fact, they would have been very useful come the miners' strike).
But I said nothing as I was loyal to the party (read: leadership). So I can understand the middle-of-the-roaders anguished wringing of hands during the latest conference and then their voting with the CC. I understand it, but I have no sympathy for them as they have put what they perceive to be the interests of the party (=leadership) over those of people (X, W and other women comrades), the politics of the IS/SWP tradition and the class. This will prove to be their personal tragedy.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 18, 2013)

Thanks Karmickameleon : A few of the "ex" party members I know just say - SWP inevitably reduced to a sect by low level of class struggle- but this seems to me to be just blaming the weather ("it's a fair cop, but society is to blame") - and I keep coming back to the democracy issue: Especially as the party got one last infusion of members through the struggle, the Millbank-y students, but instead of this being the boon that it should have, an anti-ageing creme for the party, it became the cause of big new cracks. Indeed all the successes of the 2000's ultimately caused loss of members, rather than growth , like Stop the War: Always because there was no way to bring the leadership and membership (and indeed wider society) together. I think in the eighties and up to the nineties there was an (unequal) parralel between some older , less authoritarian traditions (I was introduced to Serge and Luxemburg as much as Lenin) and the Centralism - plus a big enough, broad enough membership to shrug off some of the madder commands. But that wore away. So for example re: district organisers (fulltimers). These haven't played a wholly negative role in the current crisis - after all the Facebook 4 were organisers. But they do generally add to the centralism, authoritarianism of the party. And in the case of the Sheffield organiser who assaulted , harassed members, were really part of the problem. The tendency for "substitutionalism" by fulltimers was also linked to this. Now (old man voice here) in my day, we were used to some organisers being a bit bullying or hackish or would-be martinets, but the branches I was in were big enough to just ignore them or work around them. Of course, in retrospect that was a mistake. We should have pushed for the simple solution:- make them subject to local election. But at the time it seemed ok. Similarly , you  can tell the "slate system" is wrong , because reforming it is so vigorously resisted but with such weak arguments. But when I was a member, while if I thought about it I wouldn't be keen , as it gave us folk that seemed pretty good to ok (Cliff, Harman etc), I could put up with the ones I didn't like (Bambery used to make my teeth itch with his shouty crap, but maybe that's just me). again, a mistake in retrospect. Especially as the possibility of rescuing something from the rubble looks very far from certain. I was a bit lucky that my active membership came more or less  between two sets of expulsions (The Rank & File/Womens  Voice/ANL ones before I joined I think, Ben Watson [edit - actually  I mean Andy Wilson, doh!] etc around the time I was drifting away)


----------



## emanymton (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Their members who are relatively high up in unions (a) have something to lose and more importantly (b) have no choice but to interact with and work with other leftists all the time. They can't just hang out with their branch.


I don't think that is why he left, he has long been of the opinion that the SWP was the best choice available rather than some great orginsation. I have a lot a respect if Ian and he's a decent bloke, I am glad he has walked. I may have said before but I don't think it is an accident that with a few exceptions most of the people I know in the SWP who I felt where decent have ended up in the opposition. And those I felt to be pricks have ended up as loyalists.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 18, 2013)

was Ben Watson kicked out? (I know he broke with them...)


----------



## Once red (Dec 18, 2013)

Ok, my confessions of a teenage trot...
Joined at university, having had a long conversation about why I shouldn't join the Labour club.
The SWSS group was small but vibrant and contained some really lovely, principled and thoughtful people, some of whom are still good friends.
We had fun in the grant cuts campaign, occupied etc.
Marxism was a great event in those days, (early 90s) and covered the whole of ULU, the hotel behind and SOAS. We took loads of people down.
I count myself really lucky to have met people as inspiring as Hallas, Cliff and Foot but also to have met people equally inspiring on campus and in the local branch.
There was an attempt to educate us- the local academic gave us talks at another student comrades' house. TBH I was never that well educated or read, it was more instinctive anger and the joy of campaigning, speaking and winning arguments that kept me in. We were a strong presence on campus and drew in a good periphery.
The Welling demo and the ANL were great to be involved in.
Splitting the local branches was the first real catastrophe, although I understand why it was done- it was a daft move though and fragmented the party locally rather than cementing it.
As students we were a bit AWOL in lots of ways and were often disapproved of by older members in the branches- just in a tut tut way though more than serious arguments. We could have probably done with those arguments, but with the branches split it was so hard to have them.
The student groups were generally strong at the time I think, the student office was good too. NUS conference was usually hilarious and Stack gave great pep talks.
But I found it hard personally to be thrust into having to do lots of big talks, stand for positions etc that I wasn't ready for and was never very good at doing the whole 'you see what I think' and 'actually' finger pointy sort of stuff. I was probably always a bit off message.
I just drifted away a while after starting work, not having time to attend meetings etc. I suppose it didn't all seem to fit anymore- there was no way I was going to be up to sell at the factory gates at 6am when I had to work at 7 or whatever. Also the town branch was so small and by now riven with all manner of strife. I think even if I had been better educated and read all the Lenin and Marx properly instead of fleetingly, the Trotsky biogs etc, it wouldn't have kept me in because circumstances changed, but it wasn't only personal circumstances, it was the mood in the local branches- there were no longer big meetings and it was a bit rubbish to go and give a meeting in a pub to two or three others who all knew exactly what was going to be said anyway!
I'd started to feel things were going wonky in the party both locally and nationally, there was a different mood and I started to notice things that pissed me off, and it all began to feel tired and a bit trot by numbers. Also, being on Marxism team and chairing meetings etc had shown me that it was all a bit different for the footsoldiers. I remember chairing a meeting and someone coming over and telling me which speakers to pick out of the pile of question slips etc. I know why it was done and happily accepted the discipline, but.
Then there was the Stop the War coalition which, despite its mistakes, felt so massive and powerful.
But oh dear all the Respect stuff, the Galloway stuff, the disasters of those years!
I still feel though that the only party that was or would ever be a home for me politically is the SWP, which is why I can never rejoice at what has become of it. I also know that there are countless individuals in that party- some still in it, who I would stand with anytime and in any situation and who are genuine, brave, principled activists who make a difference. It also makes me pretty sick to see some of the crowing going on and some of the sanctimonious crap on twitter like 'from left antisemites to rape apologists'.
My hope is that the SWP biting the dust will free the way for some kind of new force on the left, since it's so drastically needed.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 18, 2013)

articul8 said:


> was Ben Watson kicked out? (I know he broke with them...)


Sorry, Andy Wilson for proposing his "the Assassin" ,mag  1994- I was still a member, and active in some ways, but not enough to grasp what had happened


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Sorry, Andy Wilson for proposing his "the Assassin" ,mag  1994- I was still a member, and active in some ways, but not enough to grasp what had happened


I dont think anyone quite grasped what had happened at the time, including the people who'd expelled him.


----------



## benedict (Dec 18, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I don't think that is why he left, he has long been of the opinion that the SWP was the best choice available rather than some great orginsation. I have a lot a respect if Ian and he's a decent bloke, I am glad he has walked. I may have said before but I don't think it is an accident that with a few exceptions most of the people I know in the SWP who I felt where decent have ended up in the opposition. And those I felt to be pricks have ended up as loyalists.



Makes a lot of sense sense.

Within the loyalist camp though we should remember there are also those too lily-livered to move one way or the other. A current CC member (Joseph C) falls (or at least fell) into this camp and, during a period of much inner turmoil, was discreetly telling oppositionists in December of last year that he'd walk if the January conference represented a whitewash. It did. He didn't. The tension with the Prof is tangible in the leaked minutes of the ISJ editorial committee spring meeting. I'm sure there are so many others occupying a similar position.


----------



## benedict (Dec 18, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> the SWP looked like the largest, loudest left party around



This was my experience too. Does anyone else recall a full-timer Helen S. around in the early 2000s I think as student organizer? Fine pair of lungs. Not hesitant to use them either. The SWP certainly seemed to act as a magnet for certain brand of shouty in yer face radical. 

[By the way thanks so much ScribblingS, and others, for the wonderful and interesting personal reflections. Great posts.]


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

benedict said:


> This was my experience too. Does anyone else recall a full-timer Helen S. around in the early 2000s I think as student organizer? Fine pair of lungs. Not hesitant to use them either. The SWP certainly seemed to act as a magnet for certain brand of shouty in yer face radical.


did meetings on marxism & feminism today at this years Marxism


----------



## durruti02 (Dec 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> for me, who, I think, count as one of Renton autodidacts, the reason I stayed in for so long was because my internal image of my party was was of one which fundamentally differed from the reality, yet one maintained it in the face of whatever evidence reality could throw at it. At every public or internal party initiative comrades would shamelessly lie constantly about the influence the party had "punching above its weight" Among the working class.
> I know I would look at my comrades and know they were lying, and then, when my turn came, get up and lie myself.
> Often we weren't even lying to impress outsiders, the most outrageous lies were spoken during internal conferences and aggregates.
> The swp was built on a dream of an idealised Bolshevism, free from the bacillus of Stalin, yet to match reality to that ideal involved the construction of an elaborate scaffold of fantasy and lies.
> ...



one of the best written things I have read about all this .. thanks


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 18, 2013)

Hi folks! New kid on this block, but an ancient old fart compared with most of you! First joined the SWP in 1979 (god help us!) from an anarchist/libertarian communist background but, through involvement with ANL, impressed by how much better they got their shit together than the stoned hippies & mouthy but useless punks I'd been hanging out with up till then. Been in and out ever since, a permanent oppositionist to the party's authoritarian tendencies & regarded by the hacks as very dodgy as a result, dropping out at moments of extreme idiocy (e.g. support for the Ayatollahs, bigging up Galloway), actually in many ways more active & effective in my time in 'the wilderness', but lured back at critical junctures when it seemed the wind was in the party's sails & they were achieving some kind of hegemony in the struggle. Finally & totally pissed off by the whole Delta fiasco, partly by the disgusting misogynist mishandling of the particular case but mostly by its exposure of the bogus, farcical nature of the party's pretences to 'democratic centralism'. Resigned after the March conference & was one of those who helped to set up the ISN. Have gradually become a bit disillusioned with this as an alternative as it's really only united by the negatives - opposition to the SWP - & far too amorphous in its positives. Worried that the predictions by oppositionist friends still in the party (well, at least until the latest conference) that it would soon drift away from class struggle into identity politics & compromises with reformism are being proved correct. See the best hope for the future as an alliance between the left of ISN & the more principled recent departees (e.g. Birchall & Renton & many  others less well known) to rebuild in a way that treats democracy and opposition to oppression as more than just cynical nostrums.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 18, 2013)

Welcome Vlad, we are a friendly bunch who will offer you biscuits, and steal your bootlaces.
 There will be arguments. But it's usually all in good faith.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 18, 2013)

And you'd be surprised about how old some of us are


----------



## SLK (Dec 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Would love to hear/read this if you change you mind. That goes for anyone else as well - even people like bolshie. But not you Stuart.



Yes Boss/ Kieron!


----------



## SLK (Dec 18, 2013)

Once red said:


> Ok, my confessions of a teenage trot...
> Joined at university, having had a long conversation about why I shouldn't join the Labour club.
> The SWSS group was small but vibrant and contained some really lovely, principled and thoughtful people, some of whom are still good friends.
> We had fun in the grant cuts campaign, occupied etc.
> ...


E.J.?


----------



## Once red (Dec 18, 2013)

Where's yours then slk?


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> And you'd be surprised about how old some of us are


I wasn't exactly a spring chicken in '79, companero! But, hey, I'm still down with the kidz. Once I get my zimmer frame in position, I can shake my funky butt with the best of 'em!


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 18, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Thanks Karmickameleon : A few of the "ex" party members I know just say - SWP inevitably reduced to a sect by low level of class struggle- but this seems to me to be just blaming the weather ("it's a fair cop, but society is to blame") - and I keep coming back to the democracy issue: Especially as the party got one last infusion of members through the struggle, the Millbank-y students, but instead of this being the boon that it should have, an anti-ageing creme for the party, it became the cause of big new cracks. Indeed all the successes of the 2000's ultimately caused loss of members, rather than growth , like Stop the War: Always because there was no way to bring the leadership and membership (and indeed wider society) together. I think in the eighties and up to the nineties there was an (unequal) parralel between some older , less authoritarian traditions (I was introduced to Serge and Luxemburg as much as Lenin) and the Centralism - plus a big enough, broad enough membership to shrug off some of the madder commands. But that wore away. So for example re: district organisers (fulltimers). These haven't played a wholly negative role in the current crisis - after all the Facebook 4 were organisers. But they do generally add to the centralism, authoritarianism of the party. And in the case of the Sheffield organiser who assaulted , harassed members, were really part of the problem. The tendency for "substitutionalism" by fulltimers was also linked to this. Now (old man voice here) in my day, we were used to some organisers being a bit bullying or hackish or would-be martinets, but the branches I was in were big enough to just ignore them or work around them. Of course, in retrospect that was a mistake. We should have pushed for the simple solution:- make them subject to local election. But at the time it seemed ok. Similarly , you  can tell the "slate system" is wrong , because reforming it is so vigorously resisted but with such weak arguments. But when I was a member, while if I thought about it I wouldn't be keen , as it gave us folk that seemed pretty good to ok (Cliff, Harman etc), I could put up with the ones I didn't like (Bambery used to make my teeth itch with his shouty crap, but maybe that's just me). again, a mistake in retrospect. Especially as the possibility of rescuing something from the rubble looks very far from certain. I was a bit lucky that my active membership came more or less  between two sets of expulsions (The Rank & File/Womens  Voice/ANL ones before I joined I think, Ben Watson [edit - actually  I mean Andy Wilson, doh!] etc around the time I was drifting away)


Yes exactly, the context may be adverse, but the key problem is that of democracy. Quite erroneously, the slate system seemed logical when those "chosen" were the big "beasts": Cliff, Hallas, Harman (and even Callinicos, German, Rees, Bambery...!), but now in the cold light of day we realise that this system is seriously flawed and of course highly undemocratic. Ditto for the appointment of organisers.
In retrospect, it is clear that the democratic opposition in SWP missed their great opportunity in 2008 when they should have pushed for a real democratic reform instead of being fobbed off with a tokenistic Democracy Commission.


----------



## killer b (Dec 18, 2013)

christ, it's like the truth & reconciliation commission in here this week.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 18, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> And you'd be surprised about how old some of us are



the clue is in the title of this website.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 18, 2013)

If anyone is interested, the following post from Michael Rosen is causing quite a lot of discussion on Facebook, including from a number of loyalists such as the leading muppet, John Mullen. Anyway, here it is:

_I am becoming increasingly concerned that a range of extremely serious allegations have been made here on facebook by people as part of their resignation letters from the SWP or in posts following their resignations. Some of these come from people who were in the party for ten years, twenty years or more. These allegations are distinct from those made by people who have become disenchanted or who came to disagree with the way the SWP conducts its usual daily affairs. They are specific and detailed and, if true, are of concern to anyone who takes part in meetings or campaigns in which the SWP acting as the SWP is involved. That's to say, the allegations are made about actions taken by the SWP's 'governing body', its Central Committee. I'm not going to list them but they are in toto an assemblage of what we might call wrongdoings on any account, but particularly when looking at an organisation that makes claims to be about liberation, justice, equality, the end of exploitation and oppression. 

As an individual - usually acting alone - I have no way of verifying or contradicting these accusations. However, though they're coming thick and fast, I have to date not seen a careful reply to them from the SWP. It's as if the organisation has a policy of treating them with disdain as if they are self-evidently rubbish and/or made by people whose motives are suspect. However, it would seem that the consequence of this attitude is that the organisation itself is getting smaller and smaller. From the 'outside' (as I am) it also comes over as a disdain for those of us who know we will be appealed to join campaigns, take part in meetings and the like. We too are asked to take them as self-evidently not true. But I'm suggesting that that's a bridge too far. The SWP cannot assume that those of us on the outside can or will take these allegations as self-evidently not true. 

I personally have only a few problems with working alongside individuals who are members of the SWP - though I know there are some people who are now refusing to do that. The problem remains however when it comes to anything that is, as it were, officially an SWP event and/or an event organised by one of the bodies the SWP as the SWP set up. If it's not clear already, the reason why I have a problem is that these allegations are too serious to be left unanswered. Or put another way, the sources of the allegations are clearly not flippant, not made lightly, not made by people who just float about the edges of left organisations (like me!), but by people who gave decades of their lives to the very same organisation they are accusing of wrong-doing. 

If anyone is curious about what I'm talking about, all they need to do is follow a line of facebook contributors, from my timeline, or threads on my timeline. Perhaps some of them will post their names and links on to the end of this post so that people can see what it is I'm talking about. One website belonging to jimjepps.net is gathering it all up anyway. 

Please note: I am not saying that all - or even some - of these allegations are necessarily true. My position is that it is not sufficient for those of us on the left to be given little or no reply to them. But....how arrogant of us who are not even members or (in my case never were) to 'demand' this of the SWP! Yes, true but that's because we are appealed to, invited to join in with that party's activities. So, speaking as a minority of one, I'm appealing back to the SWP: just for one moment, never mind the stuff about why your organisation is the most perfectly equipped means by which humanity will reach utopia, never mind all the stuff about how you and only you are poised to be in the most perfect place to lead this or that resistance. You won't lead anything at all, or be equipped to deal with anything, or even find that you're welcome in campaigns, if you don't deal with what you're accused of by people who up until recently were amongst your most loyal, most active members - and in some cases - officials. 

So - again, to be clear - it's not me making these allegations. You have already shown that you are happy to try to splat people like me 'on the outside' - on occasions making up hooey to suit the case. (I don't ever expect a reply or an apology for the lie directed at me during this matter, even though I appealed to you to rectify your lie. But as I don't expect it, neither can you expect from me co-operation. We can call that quits.) The allegations come from people who were 'your own'. They're not even people who you've expelled. 

There. I don't think I can be clearer._


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 18, 2013)

What allegations is he talking about? The same ones we've been discussing here forever, or something new?


----------



## 721338 (Dec 18, 2013)

Keiron says 'get off my internet!'


----------



## SLK (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What allegations is he talking about? The same ones we've been discussing here forever, or something new?



The stuff like deleting emails and the way the CC conducts its business. Plus the details in Renton's and others replies. Nothing new to this thread at all. In fact, I just thought "that's pretty naive". However, the only loyalist argument on there appears to be "well we don't believe it but we'll only tell you why in private"


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What allegations is he talking about? The same ones we've been discussing here forever, or something new?


the hacking, the way they tried not to hear the second case, and just the general bollocks, i think


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 18, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> If anyone is interested, the following post from Michael Rosen is causing quite a lot of discussion on Facebook, including from a number of loyalists such as the leading muppet, John Mullen. Anyway, here it is:
> 
> _I am becoming increasingly concerned that a range of extremely serious allegations have been made here on facebook by people as part of their resignation letters from the SWP or in posts following their resignations. Some of these come from people who were in the party for ten years, twenty years or more. These allegations are distinct from those made by people who have become disenchanted or who came to disagree with the way the SWP conducts its usual daily affairs. They are specific and detailed and, if true, are of concern to anyone who takes part in meetings or campaigns in which the SWP acting as the SWP is involved. That's to say, the allegations are made about actions taken by the SWP's 'governing body', its Central Committee. I'm not going to list them but they are in toto an assemblage of what we might call wrongdoings on any account, but particularly when looking at an organisation that makes claims to be about liberation, justice, equality, the end of exploitation and oppression.
> 
> ...



I'm a little perplexed that (in view of all the bad blood that now exists between him & the party) Michael Rosen is being advertised in the latest SW as appearing at an event at Bookmarks on Saturday 21st December. Was this arranged before the present contretemps?  If not, will he now consider pulling out?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 18, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Worried that the predictions by oppositionist friends still in the party (well, at least until the latest conference) that it would soon drift away from class struggle into identity politics & compromises with reformism are being proved correct.



Thanks for sharing your account, very interesting. Why do you think that members of the ISN are so attracted to identity politics and reformism?


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 18, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> the clue is in the title of this website.


Hmm! 75? Not quite... but getting there!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

721338 said:


> Keiron says 'get off my internet!'


You liked this articul8 - why?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

Great, all we need is ern/firky on here again.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 18, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Thanks for sharing your account, very interesting. Why do you think that members of the ISN are so attracted to identity politics and reformism?


I guess because they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of the people who were recruited young and inexperienced and have only known the SWP as 'the authentic voice of Leninism' have rejected the whole Leninist project and are now looking for alternative narratives that seem to make sense. For example, by for so long setting up 'feminism' as a caricatured bogeyman based on obviously mistaken (& sometimes bonkers) 1970s species of radical separatism or bourgeois careerism, the SWP can't cope with a whole new generation of young women stripped of that baggage but who are proud to call themselves 'feminist', meaning simply that they are for women's liberation. This in effect plays into the hands of the purveyors of patriarchy theory & other ideologies that don't recognise the centrality of class.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What allegations is he talking about? The same ones we've been discussing here forever, or something new?


Yes, those we are very familiar with. Michael Rosen has obviously been checking out the resignation letters that Jim Jepps has conveniently posted on his webpage.
Anyway, he has clearly wound up one loyalist, who sent him the following note:

_Michael-which side are you on? If you want to sling mud at Revolutionary activists be prepared for the consequences! If you can't stand the heat don't set fire to the kitchen in the first place.Ok these reactions may not be pretty but what do you expect?"_

A sign to things to come in an Idoom controlled SWP?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 18, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Very civil of you. There are, however, plenty of people around keen to try to put the boot in, but since no one here but JM takes the loyalist position (and that in his capacity as a British SWP member only), it just comes across as an attempt to try and make political capital opportunistically.


No one but JM? I probably have zero chance of this being treated as an honest question but it is. No one? That's not entirely the impression I had. Bearing in mind that loyalism is a spectrum that over here at least includes a lot of very different positions. I had the impression there were very few idoom types (ok probably zero exist anywhere outside the uk!) but plenty of what would be called middle grounders over here. I realise there are plenty of my old Irish mates who would be completely on your side on this, I can see them on FB making it clear they're in favour of kicking the SWP out of the IST etc but there are variations on a theme no?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 18, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Yes, those we are very familiar with. Michael Rosen has obviously been checking out the resignation letters that Jim Jepps has conveniently posted on his webpage.
> Anyway, he has clearly wound up one loyalist, who sent him the following note:
> 
> _Michael-which side are you on? If you want to sling mud at Revolutionary activists be prepared for the consequences! If you can't stand the heat don't set fire to the kitchen in the first place.Ok these reactions may not be pretty but what do you expect?"_
> ...


Interesting that he says in his public reply that Kimber sent him a note with a very different tone. How anyone in the SWP thinks they're helping matters by abusing Rosen for...being Rosen is beyond me. I do think it's odd he's acting like he only just heard all these other accusations (is he really that naive) but whatever the case on that, the moronic abuse he's getting is just appalling. Luckily it's not the only way swpers are reacting to him but it is daft, actually it's worse than daft :-(


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 18, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Interesting that he says in his public reply that Kimber sent him a note with a very different tone. How anyone in the SWP thinks they're helping matters by abusing Rosen for...being Rosen is beyond me. I do think it's odd he's acting like he only just heard all these other accusations (is he really that naive) but whatever the case on that, the moronic abuse he's getting is just appalling. Luckily it's not the only way swpers are reacting to him but it is daft, actually it's worse than daft :-(


BTW the person who wrote the message is apparently a woman (not named). Another loyalist muppet (Saira Meiner) comments:
_Although the message isn't v pleasant, I really don't think it's a threat and it does not represent members of the swp asna (sic) whole. No one is happy with what's happened in the last year. No one._
Sounds like a threat to me ie "be prepared to face the consequences". But perhaps she means that Rosen won't be invited to Marxism any more, which might be a blessing in disguise...


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 18, 2013)

Paris Thompson, of facebook 4 fame, has just declared the IS Tradition officially dead...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 18, 2013)

I don't understand why all these young-ish people ever gave a fuck about "the IS tradition" in the first place. I could perhaps understand it if you were an old timer who remebers the days when the SWP were seemingly a much healthier organisation but people in their 20's and 30's? What tradition would that be? The one that fucked up socialist alliance? Respect? Stop the War etc etc

Same could be said for any type of Leninism but this particular type is even more baffling. At Lenin successfully overthrew the Tsar, at least there's something there at the very basis of it which is romantic and epoch-defining enough to really be loyal toward.

And if they all end up becoming ultra-liberal identairians or outright Tories then I wouldn't be surprised.

I should really collect my thoughts on this and write something long and boring rather than just come out with banal statements, especially as some people on here have gone to a lot of effort and taken a lot of time to chronicle their experiences of the SWP.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 18, 2013)

the principle of 'the tradition' for me (as a 'youngster', i was in between ages 14-21) was important as a kind of constitution; a guarantee that core principles of the 'troika' (socialism from below, state capitalism, permanent arms economy) would never be abrogated for opportunistic gain. clearly the entire time i was a member the 'troika' was being devastated by every policy turn - but within the whirling madness of the latest last minute swooshes from the leadership the canon seemed to be a rock of rationality and principle amidst a sea of opportunistic bullshit.

it was an instrumentalist argument really but one which left me with a sentimental attachment to 'the tradition' for a long while after they shunted me.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 18, 2013)

it was something you could attempt to uphold the leadership to, i.e. their own purported beliefs and texts


----------



## discokermit (Dec 19, 2013)

killer b said:


> christ, it's like the truth & reconciliation commission in here this week.


now it's all over a lot of us feel the need to get it out of our systems. i certainly do.

anyway, my membership was brief compared to some of the others here, i joined in '88.

i had seen 'young frank', a shy sixteen year old in a tweed jacket and black jeans selling s.w. at wolvo train station on a friday evening. he was pretty weedy looking and flinched when somebody shouted 'wanker' at him but carried on regardless. i didn't buy a paper but was impressed.
i was an eighteen year old labourer, my only political reading up to that point was an anarchist comic, the bit from 'mask of anarchy' on the back of 'sound affects' by the jam and a clipping from a broadsheet paper about lenin, trotsky and stalin. at work i would have to throw away loads of paper that the chrome plated plug holes we were making were wrapped in and would read the interesting looking articles on my break. i decided i liked trotsky and lenin so cut out their pictures and stuck them on my locker. the rest of my politics i got from two tone, the style council and the redskins.
i eventually bought the paper when i was in town on a saturday. they had a dozen people selling, making a right racket, having a laugh and taking the piss out of each other. i was asked if i wanted the paper delivered so i gave them my address.
sneaky bastards.
i agreed with everything in the paper plus i thought they had nicked the redskins album title for their masthead, which impressed me. marxism looked good, meetings on music and film and a shitload of other stuff, so i sent off for a ticket. the following thursday a funny, spiky little irish feller who looked like a cross between trotsky, bob dylan and a lab rat and an earnest looking ex para falklands veteran turned up on my doorstep with my paper. we chatted, i liked them but i didn't let them in the house.
the next week i had decided to go to a meeting, when they came to deliver the paper i asked them if it was ok, they seemed overwhelmed with joy so i went.
it was ace.
twenty odd people in the back room of a dingy wolverhampton pub. the chair of the meeting, steve, looked well cool, short silver hair brushed back, denim shirt, cowboy boots and an easy smile on his face. the meeting was great, the contributions were great, the atmosphere was great. i was well impressed when kenny spoke, edinburgh accent, early twenties, yellow fred perry. also, and i probably shouldn't say it in the context of this thread but in the spirit of truth and whatever, the women were gorgeous. i couldn't get enough.
i ended up staying after with frank henderson, a shop steward at longbridge and long time trot, and jim, a council manual worker. chatting for ages. i developed the sort of bond you get between apprentices and the skilled blokes that teach them almost immediately with frank. kind of a man crush. the whole thing was overwhelming. from feeling so politically isolated before to discovering there was a whole room full of revolutionaries who were all so sound and friendly. lots of them in their teens and early twenties, a fair few working class.
anyway, i joined the party at that meeting.
then came marxism. just getting off the coach in mallet st was great. tons of socialists everywhere. i was wearing my long sleeved black fred perry, tight dogtooth trousers and red white and blue bowling shoes. ulu was like a scene out of a film. it seemed like utter chaos, but friendly chaos. the meetings were great, i hung round with steve, a postie who was a year older than me, paula, also a year older and an art student, alison, also twenty and an art student, brendan and frank were both sixteen, frank doing sixth form, brendan working as a clerk. days listening to foot, hallas and cliff, nights getting pissed and having a laugh with the branch on the institute balcony or dancing at ulu. i fell in love with the swp there and then.
the early days were great, large ish branch, great parties, interesting meetings, drinking in the newhampton. my self confidence grew, speaking in meetings helped massively when i had to do it at work. i played a pivotal role in turning a sectional dispute over shifts into a factory wide dispute over unionisation, which i would definitely not have done if i hadn't been in the party.
and our branch seemed fairly autonomous. i didn't question democracy as we seemed to decide stuff and act on stuff as a branch and i felt part of that.

i'm too tired to finish it. anyway, that's the start. tomorrow maybe i'll do part two, oisin123, his part in my downfall.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I don't understand why all these young-ish people ever gave a fuck about "the IS tradition" in the first place. I could perhaps understand it if you were an old timer who remebers the days when the SWP were seemingly a much healthier organisation but people in their 20's and 30's? What tradition would that be? The one that fucked up socialist alliance? Respect? Stop the War etc etc
> 
> Same could be said for any type of Leninism but this particular type is even more baffling. At Lenin successfully overthrew the Tsar, at least there's something there at the very basis of it which is romantic and epoch-defining enough to really be loyal toward.
> 
> ...


I'm a bit knackered to do this can of worms justice, Delroy, so this will be brief and probably inadequate (I'll try to provide a fuller, more worked out account tomorrow if you like). I think when most people refer to 'the IS tradition', what they're really talking about is a body of theory (courtesy of Cliff, Hallas, Harman, etc.) which (whether you agree or disagree) still has some intellectual clout together with a (perhaps imaginary) golden age when that drove the practice of the party, rather than the increasingly unprincipled opportunism of the last couple of decades. It's the cognitive dissonance experienced in trying to reconcile the two that has led to the entirely counterposed social psychological coping mechanisms on the part of some older members: (a) utter blinkered denial that any such contradiction exists on the part of the IDOOMers; or (b) bitter rejection of the whole project of revolutionary socialism to which they've devoted their lives by too many that have left. Younger comrades (and a fair number of old lags like me) don't necessarily experience the wrench in quite such an extreme way. Some will go in search of other ways to square the circle. Others will take a more dialectical approach and see the contradiction as just that - a worthwhile tradition betrayed (but not negated) by an antithetical praxis.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 19, 2013)

I used to like Socialist Alliance as a concept, to think so many years later that LU seem to be basically in a similar vein, and that thus those years have been arguably lost while neoliberal capitalism marched on, well...it's very frustrating.

Can anyone link to a reliable and substantive account of how the SWs screwed it up? Ta if so.

ETA: Permanent Revolution have an account which starts well but gets a bit bogged down in theory.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 19, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> Paris Thompson, of facebook 4 fame, has just declared the IS Tradition officially dead...


Which will be taken as complete vindication by BB and the other loyalists.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 19, 2013)

You beat me to it! Actually I know at least one left ISNer who will be disappointed by this, many saw PT as one of their significant heavyweights. It also makes it even less likely that the recently departed will manage to salvage something recognisable.

But yes every time this happens over the next few months it'll cement the relationship between the left of the faction and us (middle ground) loyalists ever so slightly more than it was previously.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You beat me to it! Actually I know at least one left ISNer who will be disappointed by this, many saw PT as one of their significant heavyweights. It also makes it even less likely that the recently departed will manage to salvage something recognisable.
> 
> But yes every time this happens over the next few months it'll cement the relationship between the left of the faction and us (middle ground) loyalists ever so slightly more than it was previously.


You seem to be saying that Paris has left the ISN. Do you know that for sure? Despite the  name of the organisation, there are quite a lot still comfortably in it (obviously, I'm not one of them) who would agree with him that 'the IS tradition is dead'.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> now it's all over a lot of us feel the need to get it out of our systems. i certainly do.
> 
> anyway, my membership was brief compared to some of the others here, i joined in '88.
> 
> ...


Good stuff, Discokermit. The sartorial standards have certainly dropped since the 80s. M&S is now the leading label! I look forward to hearing exactly what you were wearing when you decided to leave. Personally, I was in a rather fetching dressing gown. ; )


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ... us (middle ground) loyalists.


 The amazing thing is that this description is probably accurate. Can you imagine the ultras?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Dec 19, 2013)

discokermit said:


> now it's all over a lot of us feel the need to get it out of our systems. i certainly do.
> 
> anyway, my membership was brief compared to some of the others here, i joined in '88.
> 
> ...


I've got Frank Henderson's (quite brief) autobiography. Interesting life.


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> The sartorial standards have certainly dropped since the 80s. M&S is now the leading label! I look forward to hearing exactly what you were wearing when you decided to leave. Personally, I was in a rather fetching dressing gown. ; )


there's an interesting paper to be written on this subject imo. kermy is clearly the man to write it.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

killer b said:


> there's an interesting paper to be written on this subject imo. kermy is clearly the man to write it.


In North London, Harrington jackets, black 501s, white socks & DM greasies were de rigueur.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> In North London, Harrington jackets, black 501s, white socks & DM greasies were de rigueur.


Despite their nutty politics & obnoxious manner, on paper sales the expensively dressed RCP fashion victims over the road always beat us in the style wars, I'm afraid. Subjected to semiotic analysis, I guess our uniform signified proletcult and theirs middle class twattery. How prescient of their later transformation into right wing media tarts!


----------



## ska invita (Dec 19, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Can anyone link to a reliable and substantive account of how the SWs screwed it up? Ta if so.


Mark Steel does a breezy overview (Good Lord piece) www.marksteelinfo.com/blog/
Rentons Running Lives has some crucial killer details www.livesrunning.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/to-my-comrades-of-any-party-or-none/


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 19, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I used to like Socialist Alliance as a concept, to think so many years later that LU seem to be basically in a similar vein, and that thus those years have been arguably lost while neoliberal capitalism marched on, well...it's very frustrating.
> 
> Can anyone link to a reliable and substantive account of how the SWs screwed it up? Ta if so.
> 
> ETA: Permanent Revolution have an account which starts well but gets a bit bogged down in theory.



Basically, they insisted on moving to a OMOV set up, a bit like the ISN (no, not that one) wanted in TUSC. Because at the time they were the largest group involved, that meant they could effectively control the SA. At this point the Socialist Party left, and eventually the SWP de facto ended the alliance by creating Respect.

The alternative explanation, which I've been offered from time to time, is that the SP are to blame because they left, therefore making it easier for the SWP to dominate.

There's some substantive (though obviously biased) stuff here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ke...12-2001/socialist-alliance-conference-setback


----------



## ska invita (Dec 19, 2013)

what does IDOOM mean?


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 19, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You beat me to it! Actually I know at least one left ISNer who will be disappointed by this, many saw PT as one of their significant heavyweights. It also makes it even less likely that the recently departed will manage to salvage something recognisable.
> 
> But yes every time this happens over the next few months it'll cement the relationship between the left of the faction and us (middle ground) loyalists ever so slightly more than it was previously.


typical rat behaviour, tying those closer to you as the left, snd thus those who oppose your rape cult as the right.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 19, 2013)

absolute batshit comment on Dave Renton's blog linked to above

Carl on 17/12/2013 at 11:20 pm said:


> You seem to still be under some serious misapprehensions about the SWP, as if it were shall we say a ‘degenerated’ workers party that lost it’s way. It never was a party that represented the working class. Of the many anti-worker positions the SWP has taken over the years. Many of which occurred during the period the elder comrades you mentioned were in the party. Calling for the suppression of workers in Northern Ireland by British troops in 1967, supporting the Ayatollah Khomeini during the Iran/Iraq war in 1987, advising workers not to strike during the war, up to the present day of calling for Egyptian workers to vote for Mursi. Not to even mention the consistent support for the labour party (without illusions of course). The party did not change! It has always been a despicable party of state capitalism masquerading as a revolutionary one.
> 
> But members leave because two women were possibly or probably raped? This shows where the priorities of the SWP membership are. Not concerned about issues effecting our entire class but with comparably petty occurrences between two members.
> 
> ...



Obviously  a member of one of those loonytunes 4 man sects mentioned earlier in this thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 19, 2013)

> But members leave because two women were possibly or probably raped? This shows where the priorities of the SWP membership are. Not concerned about issues effecting our entire class but with comparably petty occurrences between two members.


 
he didn't actually say that did he - oh wait


----------



## Trotter (Dec 19, 2013)

ska invita said:


> what does IDOOM mean?


IDOOM - "In Defence of Our Martin", the SWP Opposition name for the secret faction that went all out to protect MS - not what they called themselves.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> absolute batshit comment on Dave Renton's blog linked to above
> 
> Carl on 17/12/2013 at 11:20 pm said:
> 
> ...


An SPGBer i reckon.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> An SPGBer i reckon.



I did wonder due to the references to democracy and abolition of the wages system, but would they start off with Northern Ireland as an example?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I did wonder due to the references to democracy and abolition of the wages system, but would they start off with Northern Ireland as an example?


That's just a long list of things he's obviously very used to trotting out to show the SWP are 'wrong' ( and he actually gets his facts wrong) rather than anything deeper i think.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> An SPGBer i reckon.



I think you're 100% wrong. The 1967 Northern Ireland example is the giveaway.

eta: And the 'I was talking to a worker' doesn't resonate either. And I don't mean that in a jokey, wink-wink manner.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 19, 2013)

Andy Reid, PCS NEC member resigned from the SWP.

They've gone from 4 NEC members to 2. After the next round of elections they'll be down to 1.


----------



## Limerick Red (Dec 19, 2013)

Looks like the trot's January transfer window will be busier then the premier league's.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 19, 2013)

ska invita said:


> what does IDOOM mean?



"in defence of our martin"


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Andy Reid, PCS NEC member resigned from the SWP.
> 
> They've gone from 4 NEC members to 2. After the next round of elections they'll be down to 1.


that many?  Which one?


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> that many?  Which one?



Marianna Owens is the only SWPer on the Left Unity NEC slate for next years elections.


----------



## belboid (Dec 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Marianna Owens is the only SWPer on the Left Unity NEC slate for next years elections.


aah, I always thought she was one of yours, for some reason


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2013)

Looks like they are now only a force in the NUT and UCU as far the unions are concerned. A bit odd that their union loyalists clustered there, while in the PCS, Unite and Unison they mostly went opposition. (I don't think they had anything of note outside those five unions to start with)

Fluke? Determined by whoever the couple of leading figures in a fraction happen to be? A sociological thing?


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 19, 2013)

They've kept the majority of their cadre in Unison that I can see. I know there was one bloke who went off and joined the ISN in the previous mass exodus after the March conference. Of course to say they've kept most of what they've got isn't saying a great deal. The bureaucracy has rolled them up like wet cardboard over the last few years of witch-hunting. That's taken a much bigger toll on them down through the years than Delta-gate.

Unite on the other hand has been an utter disaster for them. By the end of this they will have lost all their NEC members and all their senior experienced cadre bar one. They'll be reduced down to a tiny handful. The problems in their Unite caucus go back a fair bit. If you'll recall their caucus split in 2011 (I think) over whether to support Jerry Hicks and as a consequence leave United Left for Grassroots Left. My understanding is that their senior members were less than pleased with this decision. Going further back I think many of the resigners were unhappy with the invasion of ACAS during the BA talks. I think there has been tension there for a long time and Delta has brought it all to a head.

PCS has also been a disaster for different reasons. You've had a perfect storm of the fall out from Delta on the one hand and a cack-handed attempted power grab by them for the Left Unity NEC slate on the other. The latter completely backfired and left them totally isolated. They'll still keep most of their members in PCS for now though.

My own personal theory as to why they've kept it together in the NUT and UCU is that in both cases they are part of the leadership. I suspect people are more wary of crossing them in those unions so the impact of Delta-gate probably isn't as severe. Also the most rabid and vile IDOOMers are to be found in the UCU (SV) and the NUT (NG, JE). I suspect there may be an element of Stockholm syndrome effecting some of their more normal members in those caucuses.


----------



## Bakhtinite (Dec 19, 2013)

What many  SWP full timers do after stop being full timers - train as teachers, FE colleges or Universities....


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 19, 2013)

belboid said:


> aah, I always thought she was one of yours, for some reason



she's from a hardcore SWP loyalist family I think...


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> They've kept the majority of their cadre in Unison that I can see. I know there was one bloke who went off and joined the ISN in the previous mass exodus after the March conference. Of course to say they've kept most of what they've got isn't saying a great deal. The bureaucracy has rolled them up like wet cardboard over the last few years of witch-hunting. That's taken a much bigger toll on them down through the years than Delta-gate.
> 
> Unite on the other hand has been an utter disaster for them. By the end of this they will have lost all their NEC members and all their senior experienced cadre bar one. They'll be reduced down to a tiny handful. The problems in their Unite caucus go back a fair bit. If you'll recall their caucus split in 2011 (I think) over whether to support Jerry Hicks and as a consequence leave United Left for Grassroots Left. My understanding is that their senior members were less than pleased with this decision. Going further back I think many of the resigners were unhappy with the invasion of ACAS during the BA talks. I think there has been tension there for a long time and Delta has brought it all to a head.
> 
> ...


 SV (& his amenuenses) notwithstanding, the hardcore IDOOMers in UCU are actually in a minority. Rather trepidatiously (as a notorious renegade) I ventured along to the recent UCU Left conference expecting a shitstorm of hackish vitriol, but was actually pleasantly surprised by the entirely comradely reception I received from the vast majority of SWP people there. There's a very wide spectrum in UCU ranging from the worst headbangers through critical loyalists (such as Mark Campbell, an erstwhile star & a thoroughly decent bloke who got carved out of SWP conference for not toeing the line obediently enough), through middle-of-the-roaders deeply pained by their experience of the last year, through soft oppositionists who might stay around for a bit, through serious & principled oppositionists who have either left post-December conference or will do soon, through sceptical ISNers like myself, right through to born again ISN feminists & LU enthusiasts who now hate the party with venom & will never even speak to them again. In other words, a pretty representative range of all the various positions & by no means a lost cause.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2013)

Thanks for that leyton96 . Do they have anything in any other unions to your knowledge?


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler Interesting. You are right about Mark Campbell, always struck me as a decent type.

Nigel Irritable I think they have a little bit in the CWU and the FBU in London that has been unaffected by Delta-gate. I think we're talking a handful in both cases.

GMB I know nothing about.

I don't think they have more than 1 or 2 members in the RMT but they are largely invisible within the activist layer of the union. They do have one retired member who is very well known and does identify as SWP but she is so eccentric it's almost like she isn't a member at all. It's hard to explain, you'd have to meet her to understand. 

USDAW they've got nothing that I know of.

They do seem to have a close relationship with the leaders of the BFAWU thanks to the graft they put in around the Hovis strike.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 19, 2013)

Charlie Hore resigns after 40 years in IS/SWP. Good letter:

Dear Charlie, 
It is with great sadness that I write to tell you of my resignation from the SWP. February next year will mark 40 years since I joined the International Socialists, but after last weekend's conference I can no longer in good conscience remain a member. 
The past year has been the worst year I have spent in the SWP, and I think the worst year in the SWP's history. Over 500 people have already left, including the vast majority of our students; Marxism was a shadow of its former self, with numbers badly down and almost no outside speakers; the Unite the Resistance conference was half the size of last year's; and in the unions and movements, it's almost impossible to find anyone who thinks that we did the right thing. 
Even our successes have been tainted – the Tower Hamlets demonstration against the EDL was great, but we initially failed to offer solidarity to the almost 300 people arrested by the police, and the reaction to the 'Sisters Against the EDL' initiative seemed driven by pure sectarianism. 
Over the last year I have fought to get the SWP to change its position on the two complaints against the former national secretary, and I am proud to have done so alongside so many other comrades. We started off convinced of the SWP's principled positions on women's oppression and women's liberation, and determined that those principles had to apply to every member, no matter how important. Like many others, I have been appalled by the leadership's managerialist approach to the crisis, putting party pride above principle, and by the culture of deference to the leadership that has determined the response of too many comrades. 
I'm aware that both of those elements have been around for some time, but I always believed before in the SWP's capacity to learn from and transcend its mistakes. I no longer do so, and I think that an organisation that cannot learn from criticism, and willfully ignores it, is an organisation that will calcify and become sectarian. 

I have spent my adult life in the SWP, and I don't regret it for one minute. We have done great things – with the Anti-Nazi League (twice), during the miners' strike, and with Stop the War, among many other things. I have learn a huge amount from comrades I have worked with over the decades, and I am particularly grateful for the opportunities given to develop and extend my writing. Many close friends and comrades I greatly respect will stay in the SWP, and I wish them all well. After a year's debate, conference's decisions on the internal crisis are clear and unambiguous – I cannot defend them, or take any pride in my membership, and so it's for the best that I leave. 

I intend to remain an active revolutionary socialist, and I look forward to working with SWP members and other socialists in the struggles, campaigns and movements to come, and to creatively applying the principles of international socialism in whatever new formation emerges from this crisis. 

Yours, Charlie Hore


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> They do seem to have a close relationship with the leaders of the BFAWU thanks to the graft they put in around the Hovis strike.



I thought BFAWU were closer to you lot?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 19, 2013)

No, BFAWU seem close to SWP/Unite the Resistance - it goes back before the Hovis strike though.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 19, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I thought BFAWU were closer to you lot?



I think they are happy to take support from anyone who's willing to offer it.
They are affiliated to the NSSN and UtR but I'd say on balance they probably do more work with the swoppies.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 19, 2013)

They are also affiliated to the LRC


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 19, 2013)

articul8 said:


> They are also affiliated to the LRC



No one's perfect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2013)

i seem to have sat in some alphabet soup


----------



## lazythursday (Dec 19, 2013)

After 508 pages of this stuff I feel no closer to understanding the minds of the SWP leadership. The sensible course of action - some sort of damage limitation strategy involving apologies and quasi-independent investigation (eg the sort of thing most political parties do all the time to kick difficult issues into the long grass) - seems so fucking obvious it seems just impossibly masochistic that events have unfolded as they have. Deranged. It's strange world where giving any ground to opposition is deemed worse than trashing your reputation so comprehensively your ability to achieve anything at all is at stake. And it's this complete utter disregard for how this all looks to the outside world - including 'the class' - that really has me perplexed.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> After 508 pages of this stuff I feel no closer to understanding the minds of the SWP leadership. The sensible course of action - some sort of damage limitation strategy involving apologies and quasi-independent investigation (eg the sort of thing most political parties do all the time to kick difficult issues into the long grass) - seems so fucking obvious it seems just impossibly masochistic that events have unfolded as they have. Deranged. It's strange world where giving any ground to opposition is deemed worse than trashing your reputation so comprehensively your ability to achieve anything at all is at stake. And it's this complete utter disregard for how this all looks to the outside world - including 'the class' - that really has me perplexed.


 It is indeed extremely weird, but by no means a unique phenomenon. Try reading some of the classic social psychological literature on cognitive dissonance as cults unravel. The first & most famous example (& a pretty good read) is Leon Festinger's 'When Prophecy Fails', in which he reports how a hard core of members of a 1950s American UFO cult actually became more rabidly committed to their belief system when the spaceships failed to land at the appointed time & the saner members departed in droves.


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i seem to have sat in some alphabet soup



Hi, peeps, & Pickman's model, here's some more, CPGB, the PCC version, & WW, but I'll throw you a paddle to help you reach Paradise Island.

Weekly Worker has a detailed Conference report from a delegate (haven't read it all, so can't speculate who it is  -  it's more thorough than Dave Renton's account on livesrunning):
http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/991/swp-conference-notes-of-a-delegate


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 19, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Ex-member
> 
> Kepper of dragons or have they left and I missed it?


 I'm about to jump the ship though not by a long winded email & will cancel my subs

BTW it's KeepofDragons


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 19, 2013)

That isn't just a "cult" phenomenon - as post invasion Iraq unravelled and WMD didn't turn up, there was some reluctance to admit that occupied Iraq wasn't a liberal democracy by, for example, many speakers at the Labour Party conferences I went to. And some of  the national press journalists who had backed WMD first kept hoping it would turn up (like the ludicrous mobile weapon labs that turn out to be balloon inflating devices), or seeking other absurd explanations - eg claiming that while Saddam did not have WMD, he had pretended to do so, thereby fooling the world into the invasion. The failure to do anything about the banks apart from shovel more bailout money into their maws also worth noting on these lines.

A lot of SWP members had seen through official lies (the lies about Scargill, the WMD lies , the "market is efficient" lies). so when the Mail  other right wing "enemies" picked up this story, they may have thought this proved they were lies.


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 19, 2013)

I've gone back & read the last few weeks' comments & I want to thank so many for their intelligent insights. Respect. (Oh dear, is that word allowed here?)


----------



## lazythursday (Dec 19, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> That isn't just a "cult" phenomenon - as post invasion Iraq unravelled and WMD didn't turn up, there was some reluctance to admit that occupied Iraq wasn't a liberal democracy by, for example, many speakers at the Labour Party conferences I went to. And some of  the national press journalists who had backed WMD first kept hoping it would turn up (like the ludicrous mobile weapon labs that turn out to be balloon inflating devices), or seeking other absurd explanations - eg claiming that while Saddam did not have WMD, he had pretended to do so, thereby fooling the world into the invasion. The failure to do anything about the banks apart from shovel more bailout money into their maws also worth noting on these lines.
> 
> A lot of SWP members had seen through official lies (the lies about Scargill, the WMD lies , the "market is efficient" lies). so when the Mail  other right wing "enemies" picked up this story, they may have thought this proved they were lies.


I don't think this is really similar. Labour hardly ignored public opinion, they were obsessed with it and the example you give is one of a frantic attempt at spin. Whether all or part of the SWP leadership and loyalist members believe that the rape accusations were  lies, or that the cover up accusations were lies really isn't the issue for me - it's why they don't think that their wider reputation matters and why they wouldn't have embarked on a strategy aimed at protecting that, even if it meant having to take some actions they weren't entirely comfortable with.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> That isn't just a "cult" phenomenon - as post invasion Iraq unravelled and WMD didn't turn up, there was some reluctance to admit that occupied Iraq wasn't a liberal democracy by, for example, many speakers at the Labour Party conferences I went to. And some of  the national press journalists who had backed WMD first kept hoping it would turn up (like the ludicrous mobile weapon labs that turn out to be balloon inflating devices), or seeking other absurd explanations - eg claiming that while Saddam did not have WMD, he had pretended to do so, thereby fooling the world into the invasion. The failure to do anything about the banks apart from shovel more bailout money into their maws also worth noting on these lines.
> 
> A lot of SWP members had seen through official lies (the lies about Scargill, the WMD lies , the "market is efficient" lies). so when the Mail  other right wing "enemies" picked up this story, they may have thought this proved they were lies.


 Fair points. But I never meant to suggest that flying in the face of reality is solely a cult phenomenon or that there's only one explanation for it. However, an interesting debate is going on in certain circles as to whether the SWP & their ilk can be seen as 'political cults'. IMHO, they don't tick all the boxes (as Comrade Bala's mob probably did), but they certainly have cult-like characteristics in their internal & external dynamics. I don't agree with your analysis in your second paragraph. Most loyalists had made their minds up long before the story hit the bourgeois press.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 19, 2013)

Resigning is all the rage now - Nigel Irritable not amongst them I notice 
http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Resigning is all the rage now - Nigel Irritable not amongst them I notice
> http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement


when will you be leaving your nefandous party?


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 19, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Resigning is all the rage now - Nigel Irritable not amongst them I notice
> http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement



They resigned last summer. For some reason they've decided to reissue their resignation in time for Xmas in case anyone hadn't noticed the world shaking significance of their actions the last time out.
Do keep up.


----------



## articul8 (Dec 19, 2013)

never say never


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 19, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> I don't think this is really similar. Labour hardly ignored public opinion, they were obsessed with it and the example you give is one of a frantic attempt at spin. Whether all or part of the SWP leadership and loyalist members believe that the rape accusations were  lies, or that the cover up accusations were lies really isn't the issue for me - it's why they don't think that their wider reputation matters and why they wouldn't have embarked on a strategy aimed at protecting that, even if it meant having to take some actions they weren't entirely comfortable with.


Indeed, why not just defenestrate Martin from the beginning, issue an apology, etc. Seems mad in self preservation terms. The explanation lies somewhere in the fact that they were shrinking, ageing, absolutely shaken by the Counterfire split, and saw Martin as an absolutely key figure to salvation (Callinicos seeing MArtin as key to reaching the unions and UAF - both seen as crown jewels) > This means of course an abandonment of "socialism from below" , replaced by "socialism from our small band of leaders". Also, believing that the power of authoritarian orders within the party could be extended outside of it. The explanation is in there somewhere, but it still seems crazy. Mind you, I don't think there is such a gulf between this and some of the mainstream parties (this is not a defence of the SWP btw) - eg Mike Hancock only voluntarily gave up the LibDem whip after legal action, he is still a Libdem councillor, and he does come from the party of Cyril Smith and indeed Jeremy Thorpe (Only the Liberals have had a leader who  tried to have an ex lover assassinated). We are going I think to see a sitting Tory MP on trial for rape next year. In these cases in retrospect it might seem the parties distanced themselves from the scandal, but they only did it after some pressure.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> They resigned last summer. For some reason they've decided to reissue their resignation in time for Xmas ...
> Do keep up.


Down with the X Factor -#Socialist Party Resignation Statement for XMAS#1!


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Fair points. But I never meant to suggest that flying in the face of reality is solely a cult phenomenon or that there's only one explanation for it. However, an interesting debate is going on in certain circles as to whether the SWP & their ilk can be seen as 'political cults'. IMHO, they don't tick all the boxes (as Comrade Bala's mob probably did), but they certainly have cult-like characteristics in their internal & external dynamics. I don't agree with your analysis in your second paragraph. Most loyalists had made their minds up long before the story hit the bourgeois press.


I'm sure you are right about "Most loyalists had made their minds up long before the story hit the bourgeois press.", but when Nick Cohen brought up the related Sheffield case, this was I think news to a fair few people,news which should have made a few people think twice, but  news that was despatched by an announcement of I undersand "who do you believe, Nick Cohen or PAt Stack" . Sadly, the story was afaict pretty accurate.


----------



## treelover (Dec 19, 2013)

Bakhtinite said:


> What many  SWP full timers do after stop being full timers - train as teachers, FE colleges or Universities....



I think they are about to find out, the SWP will not be able to sustain the same number of them now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2013)

treelover said:


> I think they are about to find out, the SWP will not be able to sustain the same number of them now.


good


----------



## treelover (Dec 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> They resigned last summer. For some reason they've decided to reissue their resignation in time for Xmas in case anyone hadn't noticed the world shaking significance of their actions the last time out.
> Do keep up.




It will take that long to read, holiday reading.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> They resigned last summer. For some reason they've decided to reissue their resignation in time for Xmas in case anyone hadn't noticed the world shaking significance of their actions the last time out.
> Do keep up.



The link just turned up on the Cedar Lounge Revolution page on Facebook this morning. Maybe that's where the confusion arose.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 19, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Resigning is all the rage now - Nigel Irritable not amongst them I notice
> http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement


i was under the impression the SP was a lot more democratic than its peers? Not sure where i got that from.is that not the case then?


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

ska invita said:


> i was under the impression the SP was a lot more democratic than its peers? Not sure where i got that from.is that not the case then?


Slightly more savvy at window dressing.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Looks like they are now only a force in the NUT and UCU as far the unions are concerned. A bit odd that their union loyalists clustered there, while in the PCS, Unite and Unison they mostly went opposition. (I don't think they had anything of note outside those five unions to start with)
> 
> Fluke? Determined by whoever the couple of leading figures in a fraction happen to be? A sociological thing?


The hard core loyalist her chaired the dispute session at the first conf is a Unison NEC member.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2013)

ska invita said:


> i was under the impression the SP was a lot more democratic than its peers? Not sure where i got that from.is that not the case then?



They are talking about the Irish SP, and, while there are a few passing points in their statement that I actually agree with, the bulk of it is nonsense. The context was that the CAHWT campaign which the SP had put huge efforts into had taken a beating over the household property tax and there was a lot of demoralisation about.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 19, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Resigning is all the rage now - Nigel Irritable not amongst them I notice
> http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement



I don't get that statement to be honest. I have several fairly serious theoretical and tactical differences with the 'party line' and have had since I joined - I've never had a fulltimer insist that I obey the party line and they'd be sadly disappointed if they tried. I also cannot remember a decision made at the national level ever having any impact whatsoever on the way we work at a local level. 

I also find a labour party hack like you desperately looking for anything vaguely like a crisis in the SP to use for the purposes of gloating (so desperately that you think a letter signed by six people months ago will do, or a highly abstract disagreement over crisis theory that hardly anyone in the party, let alone outside it, cares about) amusing, given that even if the SP had murdered these 6 it would still look saintly in comparison to the party you're a member of. 

And if their responses are anything to go by it appears that posters who have no time whatsoever for the SP find it just as hypocritical.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They are talking about the Irish SP, and, while there are a few passing points in their statement that I actually agree with, the bulk of it is drivel.



Ah didn't realise that - explains why I've never heard of any of them


----------



## emanymton (Dec 19, 2013)

Jara Handala said:


> Hi, peeps, & Pickman's model, here's some more, CPGB, the PCC version, & WW, but I'll throw you a paddle to help you reach Paradise Island.
> 
> Weekly Worker has a detailed Conference report from a delegate (haven't read it all, so can't speculate who it is  -  it's more thorough than Dave Renton's account on livesrunning):
> http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/991/swp-conference-notes-of-a-delegate


All the way through that I kept reading RtP as RIP.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 19, 2013)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I'm about to jump the ship though not by a long winded email & will cancel my subs
> 
> BTW it's KeepofDragons


Opps, Sorry, I'll just blame it on my dyslexia, which is great get put clause for all sorts of things.


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 19, 2013)

emanymton said:


> All the way through that I kept reading RtP as RIP.


The Acronym Lord works in mysterious ways. 

Which reminds me, in an associated way, that it took me a long time to understand who the Eye Arh Rah were.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Slightly more savvy at window dressing.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 19, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Resigning is all the rage now - Nigel Irritable not amongst them I notice
> http://spiritofcontradiction.eu/guest-author/2013/12/19/socialist-party-resignation-statement


God, SP resignation letters are a lot duller that SWP ones!


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

emanymton said:


> The hard core loyalist her chaired the dispute session at the first conf is a Unison NEC member.





Pickman's model said:


>


Duplicitous skills acquired through years of fruitless entryism!


----------



## articul8 (Dec 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman I am not suggesting there is an equivalent crisis in the SP.  But thus thread has at times widened out into a discussion of other groups in the Leninist tradition and the viability of that model. In that context it's fair enough to point out your own organisation is not without its critics.  hardly my fault that Irish piece is old.  I didn't know - they choose to republish it today.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 19, 2013)

treelover said:


> I think they are about to find out, the SWP will not be able to sustain the same number of them now.


A good number have been lost already as they supported the faction and therefore either quit of got sacked, so less money coming in but also less going out. I suspect the lose in income will still be significantly more than the drop in expenditure though.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Duplicitous skills acquired through years of fruitless entryism!


Sorry, Emanymton, don't know how your post got on there. Just replying to Pickman's Model.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Sorry, Emanymton, don't know how your post got on there. Just replying to Pickman's Model.


Yet somehow it sort of made sense.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

emanymton said:


> A good number have been lost already as they supported the faction and therefore either quit of got sacked, so less money coming in but also less going out. I suspect the lose in income will still be significantly more than the drop in expenditure though.


I'm sure the Acton millions aren't yet exhausted. The latest fighting fund figures in SW are, of course, the usual bollocks.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 19, 2013)

articul8 said:


> SpineyNorman I am not suggesting there is an equivalent crisis in the SP.  But thus thread has at times widened out into a discussion of other groups in the Leninist tradition and the viability of that model. In that context it's fair enough to point out your own organisation is not without its critics.  hardly my fault that Irish piece is old.  I didn't know - they choose to republish it today.



Desperate and transparent. Really makes you look a fool. Are you channelling John Golding or something?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2013)

emanymton said:


> God, SP resignation letters are a lot duller that SWP ones!



Given the context I can only say thank fucking God.


----------



## Limerick Red (Dec 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't get that statement to be honest. I have several fairly serious theoretical and tactical differences with the 'party line' and have had since I joined - I've never had a fulltimer insist that I obey the party line and they'd be sadly disappointed if they tried. I also cannot remember a decision made at the national level ever having any impact whatsoever on the way we work at a local level.



I've said it before and Ill say it again, Trotskyism: Communism for people who don't like Communism

I am completely baffled by this statement @Spiney , why are you in the party so?


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Limerick Red said:


> I've said it before and Ill say it again, Trotskyism: Communism for people who don't like Communism
> 
> I am completely baffled by this statement @Spiney , why are you in the party so?


Ingrained habits of denialism from the entryist years? 'We aren't a party within a party, we don't have our own CC, we don't follow orders'?

But, hey, Limerick, motes & beams! Why don't you tell us what you think Communism is for people who do like Communism?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Ingrained habits of denialism from the entryist years? 'We aren't a party within a party, we don't have our own CC, we don't follow orders'?



Nothing wrong with that. You're not a proper revolutionary unless you've got a secret committee imo.


----------



## Limerick Red (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Ingrained habits of denialism from the entryist years? 'We aren't a party within a party, we don't have our own CC, we don't follow orders'?
> 
> But, hey, Limerick, motes & beams! Why don't you tell us what you think Communism is for people who do like Communism?


ah sure ya know yerself, giving out about counter-revolutionaries and fifth columnists takes up most of the time, between that and football on a saturday, there isn't too much time for ought else.


----------



## benedict (Dec 19, 2013)

emanymton said:


> A good number have been lost already as they supported the faction and therefore either quit of got sacked, so less money coming in but also less going out. I suspect the lose in income will still be significantly more than the drop in expenditure though.



We should probably factor in an increased rate of exploitation among those who remain, which might temporarily lessen the financial deficit a bit. I've known cash-strapped members to be giving silly money as a tithe every month, on top of "full spectrum resistance" publication packages, and mailed in cheques for the annual SWP and SW appeals. I can imagine in the short term loyalist members will boost the per capita cash flow in this area.

This type of vampirism is I think one of the more insidious aspects of how the SWP centre treats its members. Not only does it assist cash flow, it also acts to bind members to the party.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Nothing wrong with that. You're not a proper revolutionary unless you've got a secret committee imo.


Well said, Comrade Booth! We of the Hidden Hand are delighted with your progress. You will receive your next mission via carrier pigeon.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Ingrained habits of denialism from the entryist years?



No, just a more relaxed attitude towards defining the borders of acceptable disagreement.

The SP has its elected leadership, its formal structures (in fact it's very fond of formal structures), its theories, its official lines. But there is, by the not very high standards of the left, relatively speaking a lot of latitude for people to be "off message". And branches do very much set their own agendas.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

benedict said:


> We should probably factor in an increased rate of exploitation among those who remain, which might temporarily lessen the financial deficit a bit. I've known cash-strapped members to be giving silly money as a tithe every month, on top of "full spectrum resistance" publication packages, and mailed in cheques for the annual SWP and SW appeals. I can imagine in the short term loyalist members will boost the per capita cash flow in this area.
> 
> This type of vampirism is I think one of the more insidious aspects of how the SWP centre treats its members. Not only does it assist cash flow, it also acts to bind members to the party.


According to Branch Treasurers I've known, vastly more is pledged by badgered members after branch meetings than ever actually gets coughed up. The ridiculously infalated SW Appeal figures etc. are largely based on these pledges.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> According to Branch Treasurers I've known, vastly more is pledged by badgered members after branch meetings than ever actually gets coughed up. The ridiculously infalated SW Appeal figures etc. are largely based on these pledges.



Are there many SWP members who pay high subs? I was always under the impression that they had very low rates by the standards of the far left (other than anarchists, who in Britain but not Ireland seem to be allergic to paying more than token amounts)


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, just a more relaxed attitude towards defining the borders of acceptable disagreement.
> 
> The SP has its elected leadership, its formal structures (in fact it's very fond of formal structures), its theories, its official lines. But there is, by the not very high standards of the left, relatively speaking a lot of latitude for people to be "off message". And branches do very much set their own agendas.


Well then, much as it pains me, I have to concur in this instance with the Trot-bashing Limerick Red, & ask what the fuck's the point in being in a democratic centralist organisation if on the ground you practise pure autonomism?


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Are there many SWP members who pay high subs? I was always under the impression that they had very low rates by the standards of the far left (other than anarchists, who in Britain but not Ireland seem to be allergic to paying more than token amounts)


Despite what I said about the SW Appeal, plenty of members do fork out quite hefty amounts in subs. I know. I was one. £150 a month at one time, & I'm just a college lecturer. I'm sure the various barristers, doctors etc. are stung for considerably more.


----------



## benedict (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Despite what I said about the SW Appeal, plenty of members do fork out quite hefty amounts in subs. I know. I was one. £150 a month at one time, & I'm just a college lecturer. I'm sure the various barristers, doctors etc. are stung for considerably more.



This tallies with what I know of friends' subs. Regularly in the ballpark of £100-£200 plus one-offs, and not in high-paying jobs either. These were committed members though.


----------



## SLK (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Despite what I said about the SW Appeal, plenty of members do fork out quite hefty amounts in subs. I know. I was one. £150 a month at one time, & I'm just a college lecturer. I'm sure the various barristers, doctors etc. are stung for considerably more.



I agree. A low grade civil servant in my branch was giving 150 subs plus 100 district subs when I was a member. I don't know if this is lower than the rest of the left but rates of subs seemed really high to me.


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 19, 2013)

benedict said:


> This tallies with what I know of friends' subs. Regularly in the ballpark of £100-£200 plus one-offs, and not in high-paying jobs either. These were committed members though.


omg, with all that coming in I'm surprised they didn't set up shop in the unit next to Cde. Bala's Workers' Institute. Brixton would have been in heaven.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Well then, much as it pains me, I have to concur in this instance with the Trot-bashing Limerick Red, & ask what the fuck's the point in being in a democratic centralist organisation if on the ground you practise pure autonomism?





Because building a cohesive political force does not mean you treat your members like swinish enlisted men in the barracks.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 19, 2013)

Limerick Red said:


> I've said it before and Ill say it again, Trotskyism: Communism for people who don't like Communism
> 
> I am completely baffled by this statement @Spiney , why are you in the party so?



Simple instrumentalism - I'm more effective in it than outside it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Ingrained habits of denialism from the entryist years? 'We aren't a party within a party, we don't have our own CC, we don't follow orders'?



You don't seriously believe this do you? Only it would be really hard for me to have habits ingrained in me from experiences I apparently had while I was still at school, over 20 years before I even joined and a good 10  before I became aware of politics, nevermind active.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Well then, much as it pains me, I have to concur in this instance with the Trot-bashing Limerick Red, & ask what the fuck's the point in being in a democratic centralist organisation if on the ground you practise pure autonomism?



Brilliant!


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Because building a cohesive political force does not mean you treat your members like swinish enlisted men in the barracks.


You misunderstand. I'm the last person to kowtow to bureaucratic centralism, which is what you're talking about. But I don't have a problem with democratic centralism if it's genuinely democratic - which it isn't in either the SP or the SWP. I'd much rather people were autonomous than unthinking robots. I'm just genuinely puzzled why, if you want that autonomy, you bother to belong to an organisation you more-or-less ignore.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 19, 2013)

Crypto-autonomism is the way forward. You pretend to be all locally autonomist and democratic, with weak central leadership who's rules are nominal and can be ignored in practice, but that changes once you've been twisted in and taken the oath. Then you have a ruthlessly oligarchical secret committee run by clique co-ordinating everything and hiding behind the pretence of autonomism to get away with it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> You misunderstand. I'm the last person to kowtow to bureaucratic centralism, which is what you're talking about. But I don't have a problem with democratic centralism if it's genuinely democratic - which it isn't in either the SP or the SWP. I'd much rather people were autonomous than unthinking robots. I'm just genuinely puzzled why, if you want that autonomy, you bother to belong to an organisation you more-or-less ignore.



Because it's politically useful. Networks of experienced comrades to draw on for advice etc plus we're all too lazy to do the boring organisational stuff so regional fulltimers come in really handy.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> You don't seriously believe this do you? Only it would be really hard for me to have habits ingrained in me from experiences I apparently had while I was still at school, over 20 years before I even joined and a good 10  before I became aware of politics, nevermind active.


Look, I'm sorry, Spiney, I really don't mean this personally. Maybe I'm pastiching from my experience of Millies in the 80s & extrapolating from my own experience of party cultures surviving zombie-like well past their sell-by dates. Maybe the SP people I come across in my own patch are atypical (they're certainly a lot older than you), but in their habits they don't strike me as that much different from hacks of any other variety. Believe me, I'm glad you're not like that. I just want to understand why you feel a need to belong to an organisation with structures you ignore.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Because it's politically useful. Networks of experienced comrades to draw on for advice etc plus we're all too lazy to do the boring organisational stuff so regional fulltimers come in really handy.


And presumably organise you to do things you haven't actually decided on yourselves? Or do you just say 'Hey, guys, we've decided this is what we want to do, but we can't be arsed to get it together ourselves, so please come along & sort it for us!'? And they say 'Sure, it's completely out of step with the party line, but we'll do exactly what you ask'? Come off it!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Well then, much as it pains me, I have to concur in this instance with the Trot-bashing Limerick Red, & ask what the fuck's the point in being in a democratic centralist organisation if on the ground you practise pure autonomism?



"Autonomism" here is confused SWP language.

As for "democratic centralism", its a contested term (and one the SP doesn't formally use!) covering a great deal of ground. You are creating a false binary between near military discipline and demi-anarchism. I hate "What Would Lenin Do?" Style arguments, but the Bolsheviks were looser again than any of the groups we are talking about here.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> And presumably organise you to do things you haven't actually decided on yourselves? Or do you just say 'Hey, guys, we've decided this is what we want to do, but we can't be arsed to get it together ourselves, so please come along & sort it for us!'? And they say 'Sure, it's completely out of step with the party line, but we'll do exactly what you ask'? Come off it!



More false binaries.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Crypto-autonomism is the way forward. You pretend to be all locally autonomist and democratic, with weak central leadership who's rules are nominal and can be ignored in practice, but that changes once you've been twisted in and taken the oath. Then you have a ruthlessly oligarchical secret committee run by clique co-ordinating everything and hiding behind the pretence of autonomism to get away with it.


You are jumping the gun, Comrade Booth! The pigeon will not arrive until dawn. You risk revealing all our most arcane secrets to the ignorant masses before we have struck the hammer blow and it is too late for the puny insects to resist.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> And presumably organise you to do things you haven't actually decided on yourselves? Or do you just say 'Hey, guys, we've decided this is what we want to do, but we can't be arsed to get it together ourselves, so please come along & sort it for us!'? And they say 'Sure, it's completely out of step with the party line, but we'll do exactly what you ask'? Come off it!



Nope, I'm talking about basic stuff like booking rooms for meetings, emailing members and contacts to let them know about meetings/events - that kind of stuff. We decide what we're doing as a branch and we have a branch committee to work out the nuts and bolts. Fact is the party line/national leadership has very little effect on what we do at a local level,  the only exception to that is electoral alliances/platforms. 

Unless I was miles away from the party line (as in not a Marxist/socialist) how would you expect the line to affect the way we work? We're still gonna work in the bedroom tax campaigns, unions, etc in pretty much the same way we would anyway.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> More false binaries.


Very possibly so, but engendered by the glaring contradictions between what you lot are claiming and what I see of your practice in the real world.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Very possibly so, but engendered by the glaring contradictions between what you lot are claiming and what I see of your practice in the real world.



Why not tell us about the practice you see in this real world you speak of, something of which I of course would have no knowledge.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> You misunderstand. I'm the last person to kowtow to bureaucratic centralism, which is what you're talking about. But I don't have a problem with democratic centralism if it's genuinely democratic - which it isn't in either the SP or the SWP. I'd much rather people were autonomous than unthinking robots. I'm just genuinely puzzled why, if you want that autonomy, you bother to belong to an organisation you more-or-less ignore.



Those are two mutually exclusive assertions you are making. A bureaucratic centralist regime which you, wrongly, assert is the case with the SP, does not tolerate being ignored. 

Having a democratic regime isn't just about voting or structures (all those things are important) It's also about a culture that exists within the organisation. The strongest guarantee of democracy is an educated, confident membership. Your not going to get that if full timers are throwing their weight around all the time and members have no experience of taking decisions. That's why broad autonomy is given to branches to decide what to do. It's not "autonomism" its just common sense. 

I think the difficulty many SWPers have is you think the SP is the same as the SWP, just smaller and more boring. I suspect this is part of the cognitive dissonance involved in revolutionaries accepting a totally undemocratic culture. "Well it's bad here but everyone else is the same so I might as well stay" type of thing.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "Autonomism" here is confused SWP language.
> 
> As for "democratic centralism", its a contested term (and one the SP doesn't formally use!) covering a great deal of ground. You are creating a false binary between near military discipline and demi-anarchism. I hate "What Would Lenin Do?" Style arguments, but the Bolsheviks were looser again than any of the groups we are talking about here.


I in no way subscribe to the SWP's definition of 'autonomism'. It's one of the crimes of which I myself am accused by throwing in my lot (provisionally) with the ISN & I know it's a philistine term of abuse.

Of course I want neither version of your 'false binary'. In some ways what I'd like to see isn't too far from what you're claiming exists in your organisation. The problem is I don't believe it really does or really can within the confines of your structure.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> I in no way subscribe to the SWP's definition of 'autonomism'. It's one of the crimes of which I myself am accused by throwing in my lot (provisionally) with the ISN & I know it's a philistine term of abuse.
> 
> Of course I want neither version of your 'false binary'. In some ways what I'd like to see isn't too far from what you're claiming exists in your organisation. The problem is I don't believe it really does or really can within the confines of your structure.



If it didn't I'd say so - I have no problem criticising the party publicly if necessary and have done on more than one occasion - and I wouldn't be a member. 

I am many things, most of them negative, but liar is not one of them.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> If it didn't I'd say so - I have no problem criticising the party publicly if necessary and have done on more than one occasion - and I wouldn't be a member.
> 
> I am many things, most of them negative, but liar is not one of them.


Not saying you are, Spiney. We can all genuinely believe things which turn out to be wrong.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm misrepresenting you or your organisation. I'm honestly just trying to make sense of what you say. I might be a jaded old cynic, but please don't caricature me as some brainwashed SWP hack having a sectarian pop at the SP. I've spent years in opposition to people who say one thing & do another. As a result, I take very little at face value any more.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Not saying you are, Spiney. We can all genuinely believe things which turn out to be wrong.



So I'm not a liar, I'm just suffering from some pretty severe delusions? Much better 



Vladtheimpaler said:


> I'm sorry if you feel I'm misrepresenting you or your organisation.



Apart from a few vague comments about hackery you've not really said anything to be honest, hence the following question, to which I am yet to receive the courtesy of a reply:



SpineyNorman said:


> Why not tell us about the practice you see in this real world you speak of, something of which I of course would have no knowledge.





Vladtheimpaler said:


> I'm honestly just trying to make sense of what you say. I might be a jaded old cynic, but please don't caricature me as some brainwashed SWP hack having a sectarian pop at the SP. I've spent years in opposition to people who say one thing & do another. As a result, I take very little at face value any more.



When and where did I do this?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Of course I want neither version of your 'false binary'. In some ways what I'd like to see isn't too far from what you're claiming exists in your organisation. The problem is I don't believe it really does or really can within the confines of your structure.



You seem determined to decide for other people what we are "claiming".

The SP - _relative to the SWP_ - allows its branches a lot of flexibility to determine their own agenda. And again _relative to the SWP _it has a fairly relaxed approach to disagreement. This does not mean that its a complete free for all, that it has no leadership, that it has no "hacks", that it takes no positions, that the more relaxed approach to disagreement means that there are no limits to disagreements (or just as importantly no limits to behaviour based on those disagreements).

There is a wide spectrum of possible organisational approaches. Being more relaxed than the SWP doesn't say all that much about where you are on it. Most organisations are more relaxed than the SWP.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 19, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why not tell us about the practice you see in this real world you speak of, something of which I of course would have no knowledge.


Oh, please don't be so prickly! I'm not saying my world is any more, or any less, real than your own. We all have different experiences & one of mine is that 'you' (by which I meant your party generically in my experience, not you personally who I've never met as far as I know) in my neck of the woods don't seem to operate that much differently from any other Trotskyist outfit. For example, by initiating or getting involved in campaigns at least as much for purposes of propaganda & recruitment as for the cause itself, thereby often pissing off & alienating more people than they win over. TUSC was very much an SP fiefdom in these parts & SWPers who got involved felt like barely tolerated poor relations there mostly to provide the veneer of a united front. The election results were hardly a stunningly successful advertisement for your party's ways of doing things.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 19, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> . For example...



None of these "examples", taking them at face value for a moment, have anything to do with the organisational issues you've been arguing about.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> None of these "examples", taking them at face value for a moment, have anything to do with the organisational issues you've been arguing about.


Oh really?

Your & Spiney's extreme defensiveness & propensity to personalise, distort & take out of context almost anything I say are certainly very reminiscent of an argumentative method I became all too familiar with in the SWP.

Anyway, no hard feelings. Let others judge.

I'm knackered & off to bed.

Nighty night.


----------



## treelover (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> I'm sure the Acton millions aren't yet exhausted. The latest fighting fund figures in SW are, of course, the usual bollocks.



The Prof bankrolls the SWP?


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

treelover said:


> The Prof bankrolls the SWP?


I'm sure the inheritance helps. Of course, Engels bankrolled Marx, but his was only new money!


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 20, 2013)

There have been a number of significant inheritances, which have helped the swp in recent years.
 The Foot estate, for example which was very substantial was assisted by some creative approaches to inheritance tax which boosted its value to the comrades.
I never paid too much in subs, but I know that individual comrades effectively bankrolled entire branches.
My deposit as a S A parliamentary candidate was paid by one individual, an otherwise entirely inactive member.
  This is not a healthy situation.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> So I'm not a liar, I'm just suffering from some pretty severe delusions? Much better


I think he(?) is suggesting that you are like those SWP members who insist it is democratic, when it obviously isn't. I am not sure what the best description of the is, but I don't think they are either liars or delusional. I do recognise the general picture he paints of the SP, but like Nigel says I don't see how that gives any insight the SP's inner life.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 20, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> There have been a number of significant inheritances, which have helped the swp in recent years.
> The Foot estate, for example which was very substantial was assisted by some creative approaches to inheritance tax which boosted its value to the comrades.
> I never paid too much in subs, but I know that individual comrades effectively bankrolled entire branches.
> My deposit as a S A parliamentary candidate was paid by one individual, an otherwise entirely inactive member.
> This is not a healthy situation.


Indeed, in fact didn't Lenin have something to say about this.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 20, 2013)

Personally, I think bank robbing was a healthier alternative


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Oh, please don't be so prickly! I'm not saying my world is any more, or any less, real than your own. We all have different experiences & one of mine is that 'you' (by which I meant your party generically in my experience, not you personally who I've never met as far as I know) in my neck of the woods don't seem to operate that much differently from any other Trotskyist outfit. For example, by initiating or getting involved in campaigns at least as much for purposes of propaganda & recruitment as for the cause itself, thereby often pissing off & alienating more people than they win over. TUSC was very much an SP fiefdom in these parts & SWPers who got involved felt like barely tolerated poor relations there mostly to provide the veneer of a united front. The election results were hardly a stunningly successful advertisement for your party's ways of doing things.



Although I have no doubt that's true (see, I'm doubting neither your sanity nor your honesty here) it doesn't say anything about how much autonomy branches have or otherwise does it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Oh really?
> 
> Your & Spiney's extreme defensiveness & propensity to personalise, distort & take out of context almost anything I say are certainly very reminiscent of an argumentative method I became all too familiar with in the SWP.
> 
> ...



What extreme defensiveness? Your apparent desire to paint me as some kind of defend the party at all costs hack is fucking hilarious, as anyone who knows me can confirm. We're talking about one single aspect of the party - the ability of the leadership to control what happens at branch level (and ftr I'm sure they'd love to, just as I think it would be far better if everyone in the party just did what I wanted). If you want to discuss the shortcomings of the SP I can certainly contribute (though this is probably not the thread for it as I'm sure we're already boring the shit out of everyone else) I just don't think this is one of them. 

I haven't intentionally distorted, personalised or taken anything you've said out of context. But since you're not really saying anything that has any bearing on what we're actually talking about I'm having to do a certain amount of guesswork here so misrepresentations are a risk.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Although I have no doubt that's true (see, I'm doubting neither your sanity nor your honesty here) it doesn't say anything about how much autonomy branches have or otherwise does it?


The fact that SWPers from all over the country had remarkably similar experiences of TUSC would suggest there was a centralised strategy at work there.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I think he(?) is suggesting that you are like those SWP members who insist it is democratic, when it obviously isn't. I am not sure what the best description of the is, but I don't think they are either liars or delusional. I do recognise the general picture he paints of the SP, but like Nigel says I don't see how that gives any insight the SP's inner life.



I recognise it too - there's way too many hacks in the SP (personally I reckon hacks are a kind of naturally occurring phenomenon that you're always going to get in any organised group - there's anarchists round here who act just like an SWP or SP hack and the ISN certainly aren't immume, their members in Sheffield could all be sharing the same brain and you wouldn't know any difference - in fact, come to think of it ).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> The fact that SWPers from all over the country had remarkably similar experiences of TUSC would suggest there was a centralised strategy at work there.



Maybe they're all delusional like me then. When you're the only group that can be arsed to do anything in an electoral alliance it does tend to look like you're controling it. But eg. round here by far our most successful candidate is SWP and they and non-aligneds are invited to planning meetings (again, not our fault if they can't be arsed to turn up). 

Besides which, I already said that electoral platforms/alliances are something of an exception.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Maybe they're all delusional like me then. When you're the only group that can be arsed to do anything in an electoral alliance it does tend to look like you're controling it. But eg. round here by far our most successful candidate is SWP and they and non-aligneds are invited to planning meetings (again, not our fault if they can't be arsed to turn up).
> 
> Besides which, I already said that electoral platforms/alliances are something of an exception.


Our experiences in North London at the 2010 election were somewhat different. As far as I remember, my good mate Jenny Sutton (who at that time wasn't yet in the SWP but was close & heavily backed by the party) was the only non-SP candidate in the area. Unlike your own candidates, she received very little support or publicity from the local SP & I don't think she was invited to many meetings for candidates, was more or less ignored. When we asked if we could put some of her election leaflets on the TUSC stall at the big Save Whittington Hospital demo, the SP comrades running it were rather reluctant. In the event, of course, she received a substantially higher vote than most other TUSC candidates.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I recognise it too - there's way too many hacks in the SP (personally I reckon hacks are a kind of naturally occurring phenomenon that you're always going to get in any organised group - there's anarchists round here who act just like an SWP or SP hack and the ISN certainly aren't immume, their members in Sheffield could all be sharing the same brain and you wouldn't know any difference - in fact, come to think of it ).


I must admit you're dead right about too many people in the ISN. They can be extremely cliquey & smug, especially gangs of mates who left the SWP long before the present crisis & have developed their own theoretical hobby horses during the years in exile. This air of intellectual superiority & exclusivity is one of the reasons I'm losing my enthusiasm for the organisation.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Our experiences in North London at the 2010 election were somewhat different. As far as I remember, my good mate Jenny Sutton (who at that time wasn't yet in the SWP but was close & heavily backed by the party) was the only non-SP candidate in the area. Unlike your own candidates, she received very little support or publicity from the local SP & I don't think she was invited to many meetings for candidates, was more or less ignored. When we asked if we could put some of her election leaflets on the TUSC stall at the big Save Whittington Hospital demo, the SP comrades running it were rather reluctant. In the event, of course, she received a substantially higher vote than most other TUSC candidates.



Very different here - we've unfortunately not been able to get anyone who isn't aligned to the SP/SWP to stand as yet (though there's one guy we might be able to persuade this year) but the SWP only campaign for their candidate and nobody else (I don't have a problem with that btw, I don't think any of the wards round here are winnable but if any of them are it's that one) and we'll be helping out on their campaign this year and when we held the launch meeting she was, iirc, the only Sheffield candidate on the platform (Dave Nellist was the SP speaker).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> I must admit you're dead right about too many people in the ISN. They can be extremely cliquey & smug, especially gangs of mates who left the SWP long before the present crisis & have developed their own theoretical hobby horses during the years in exile. This air of intellectual superiority & exclusivity is one of the reasons I'm losing my enthusiasm for the organisation.



On this note of agreement I suggest we end this discussion cos we're threatening to hijack the thread now - happy to discuss it at greater length on a thread where it's more directly relevant though


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> On this note of agreement I suggest we end this discussion cos we're threatening to hijack the thread now - happy to discuss it at greater length on a thread where it's more directly relevant though


Fine by me. I've got to go to work now anyway. Have a nice day.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 20, 2013)

lazythursday said:


> After 508 pages of this stuff I feel no closer to understanding the minds of the SWP leadership. The sensible course of action - some sort of damage limitation strategy involving apologies and quasi-independent investigation (eg the sort of thing most political parties do all the time to kick difficult issues into the long grass) - seems so fucking obvious it seems just impossibly masochistic that events have unfolded as they have. Deranged. It's strange world where giving any ground to opposition is deemed worse than trashing your reputation so comprehensively your ability to achieve anything at all is at stake. And it's this complete utter disregard for how this all looks to the outside world - including 'the class' - that really has me perplexed.


But what would have stopped the exodus and been good enough for the external critics? Every concession was met by more demands because nothing short of the end of the swp as currently constituted was ever going to be enough. Sort the dc process? Fine, now you must apologise. And if the apology had been good enough? Fine, now the cc must resign. And if that had happened? Fine, now we must examine the failures of leninism that led to the Smith debacle. Etc, etc. There was always a bigger agenda for the ultras in the faction, the sad thing is that because they weren't entirely open about it it's going to be very difficult for them to cohere as a group now they've left. Which is sad cause we don't need more flailing about like the ISN.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 20, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> typical rat behaviour, tying those closer to you as the left, snd thus those who oppose your rape cult as the right.


Christ you must be fun at Xmas parties with a turn of phrase like that, chill out, not everything is as black and white as you would like. You do realise that left and right here aren't terms of abuse they're attempts to situate the different trends yeah? More left isn't always 'correct' any more than more to the right is 'wrong'. Personally I'd place myself on the centre right of the loyalists. But that's obviously only because I no longer lock my son in the coal shed when he misquotes Where We Stand.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But what would have stopped the exodus and been good enough for the external critics? Every concession was met by more demands because nothing short of the end of the swp as currently constituted was ever going to be enough. Sort the dc process? Fine, now you must apologise. And if the apology had been good enough? Fine, now the cc must resign. And if that had happened? Fine, now we must examine the failures of leninism that led to the Smith debacle. Etc, etc. There was always a bigger agenda for the ultras in the faction, the sad thing is that because they weren't entirely open about it it's going to be very difficult for them to cohere as a group now they've left. Which is sad cause we don't need more flailing about like the ISN.



Still the good news is that the SWP is now more fucked than ever - it has not recovered really from a single set back in the last 10 years or more - the most it has done is not suffer as badly as it should have because of a sizable resevoir of good will and people who identified with them, even if not members. Both of those have now dried up, along with the exodus of a critical mass of members, particularly the more personable and intelligent ones. The only ones left are the unpleasant hacks and the idiots who were never capable of independent thought.


----------



## newbie (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But what would have stopped the exodus




reading the first page or so of the Dummies Guide to being a Great Leader?


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Christ you must be fun at Xmas parties with a turn of phrase like that, chill out, not everything is as black and white as you would like. You do realise that left and right here aren't terms of abuse they're attempts to situate the different trends yeah? More left isn't always 'correct' any more than more to the right is 'wrong'. Personally I'd place myself on the centre right of the loyalists. But that's obviously only because I no longer lock my son in the coal shed when he misquotes Where We Stand.


As your idea of correct is to support rapists I really don't give a fuck what you think, although I would be half interested to see what shades of grey you can give rape, sexual harassment and hacking to destroy evidence. But not so interested, so I have finally put you on ignore.


----------



## killer b (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But what would have stopped the exodus and been good enough for the external critics? Every concession was met by more demands because nothing short of the end of the swp as currently constituted was ever going to be enough. Sort the dc process? Fine, now you must apologise. And if the apology had been good enough? Fine, now the cc must resign. And if that had happened? Fine, now we must examine the failures of leninism that led to the Smith debacle. Etc, etc. There was always a bigger agenda for the ultras in the faction, the sad thing is that because they weren't entirely open about it it's going to be very difficult for them to cohere as a group now they've left. Which is sad cause we don't need more flailing about like the ISN.


Basically, this is a textbook example of how not to do this shit. How could it have been done better? By doing the exact opposite of what they actually did do, at every single decision point.

That said, the die was cast the moment they tried to cover up the initial rape allegations imo.


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 20, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> I would be half interested to see what shades of grey you can give rape, sexual harassment and hacking to destroy evidence...



50, presumably.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> their members in Sheffield could all be sharing the same brain and you wouldn't know any difference - in fact, come to think of it ).


really?  My experience is that they're almost as all over the shop as the ISN nationally.  There's even one of Seymour's clique here, altho only one, and they turn up to nowt. A couple are well into their identity politics schtick, but not all of them by any means. Naah, they're as confused as the organisation nationally.



SpineyNorman said:


> we'll be helping out on their campaign this year


christ, please dont bother - most of her comrades dont (they think its a complete waste of time and just massaging her ego). And hopefully this will be her last time


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But what would have stopped the exodus and been good enough for the external critics?


well, one leading oppo recently said that all they wanted to see was that the party could accept they got something wrong and that the world changes, and so we need to change with it.  That's all, hardly a massive break with years of tradition.  Hell, recognising how the world changes and how previous truths no longer hold up was the foundation of the tradition!

Ideas, as I'm sure you remember, are not like shoes comrade, you cant just pull them out from under the bed after twenty years and go 'oh yes, these are just perfect'


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Well then, much as it pains me, I have to concur in this instance with the Trot-bashing Limerick Red, & ask what the fuck's the point in being in a democratic centralist organisation if on the ground you practise pure autonomism?



That's not what he said, is it? Why reply if you're gonna do so in such a lazy manner?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 20, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Desperate and transparent. Really makes you look a fool. Are you channelling John Golding or something?



wtf?  I've not turned into a witchhunter if that's what you're implying.   I can and do happily work with the SP on local anti-cuts stuff, even if there's an obvious parting of the ways around futile attempts to stand TUSC candidates.  I'm sure the internal regime IS in relative terms far superior to the SWP.  That doesn't mean it doesn't share aspects of the flaws of this Leninist model of organising (I know there was a pretty pathetic attempt to substitute "democratic unity" or some such for "democratic centralism" but the core concept is a bastardised version of a model the Bolsheviks weren't even using in condition of illegality under Tsarist dictatorship).  

But of course I'm in Labour so that automatically invalidates anything I have ever said, am saying, or could every say.


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sort the dc process? Fine, now you must apologise. And if the apology had been good enough? Fine, now the cc must resign. And if that had happened? Fine, now we must examine the failures of leninism that led to the Smith debacle.



For anyone searching for the explanation of the mentality of the loyalists that them to this disaster, this is really it in a nutshell. So the fundamental axiom is there must be a Leninist Party at all costs. From that, there must be an SWP. From that, the CC must not be open to root and branch challenge. From there, an apology would be dangerous. From there, an admission Smith did anything wrong would be a political mistake.

bolshie, if you learned anything about Marx in your revolutionary years, you might have picked up that for him the truth was always specific, detailed and concrete. And that only after understanding the nitty gritty detail can you have a firm footing for a wide generalisation. So there would be no theory of evolution without Darwin's decades of work on barnacles. There would be no Marxist theory of history without intensely narrow particular studies of key events of Marx's time. And the right way to understand the lessons of this current crisis is to start from what actually happened. If you ground yourself there and work outwards, you might not like the general conclusions, but they will be correct ones. If you start with an _a priori _position that the SWP leadership have to continue as they are for the sake of a future revolution, then you are not a Marxist but a Kantian. And you're also finished as a human being capable of original thought.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> The fact that SWPers from all over the country had remarkably similar experiences of TUSC would suggest there was a centralised strategy at work there.



SWPers all over the country demonstrate some very different attitudes to TUSC as you well know - in 2010 I asked some local SWPers if they would support a TUSC campaign in the town where I was at the time. They didn't know what it was, and when I told them they weren't interested. Many SWP members are totally uninterested in electoral politics or in TUSC.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> we'll be helping out on their campaign this year.



Woah. I thought we said that we'd offer, if it helped to get them to take it more seriously/stand more candidates? I didn't think we'd definitely committed ourselves to it had we?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> But what would have stopped the exodus and been good enough for the external critics? Every concession was met by more demands because nothing short of the end of the swp as currently constituted was ever going to be enough. Sort the dc process? Fine, now you must apologise. And if the apology had been good enough? Fine, now the cc must resign. And if that had happened? Fine, now we must examine the failures of leninism that led to the Smith debacle. Etc, etc. There was always a bigger agenda for the ultras in the faction, the sad thing is that because they weren't entirely open about it it's going to be very difficult for them to cohere as a group now they've left. Which is sad cause we don't need more flailing about like the ISN.



You are genuinely starting to sicken me.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Woah. I thought we said that we'd offer, if it helped to get them to take it more seriously/stand more candidates? I didn't think we'd definitely committed ourselves to it had we?


You want them to stand more candidates? Even now??!'


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2013)

> In fact, this crisis is not just the SWP’s. It effects the whole of a revolutionary left that continues to fragment at every turn.



http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/991/swp-conference-notes-of-a-delegate

A detailed analysis and well worth reading, but I'm getting really fed up of this attitude. I keep encountering oppositionists that insist that because the SWP is in crisis, then by definition so is the rest of the left. I'm finding it a bit fucking annoying to be honest. I'm not trying to claim the left is in a healthy state, but I think its fair enough to say that the rest of the left is not imploding as a result of covering up rape allegations and protecting rapists.

I'm not saying that the SWP weren't or aren't still a major part of the left, I think its the attitude that pisses me off so much. I get a lot of ISN types insisting to me that its not just the SWP, that no left organisation can possibly be healthy, and I don't see any logic behind that other than some kind of belief that the SWP was a perfect organisation and that where it has failed, so too must all others.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> You want them to stand more candidates? Even now??!'



Weeeeell... we want to get to the threshold for fair media coverage for TUSC candidates (15%) and they only want to stand MB. At least thats what we agreed a month or so ago. At the moment, what I want I'm not to sure about.


----------



## Shoegazer (Dec 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Weeeeell... we want to get to the threshold for fair media coverage for TUSC candidates (15%) and they only want to stand MB. At least thats what we agreed a month or so ago. At the moment, what I want I'm not to sure about.



I suspect that, come election time, the voters of Sheffield will be reminded that 'Mad Maxine' was part of the original DC which cleared Delta.
Wasn't it her who asked the young complainant if it was fair to say she 'liked a drink'? 
MB has stood for SA, Respect and TUSC and would no doubt stand for Left Unity if there was a sudden change of the party line.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

Shoegazer said:


> Wasn't it her who asked the young complainant if it was fair to say she 'liked a drink'?


and also said that she'd 'say sorry, but not apologise'


----------



## Shoegazer (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> and also said that she'd 'say sorry, but not apologise'


She obviously has the levels of sincerity and integrity required to be an MP then!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 20, 2013)

Shoegazer said:


> I suspect that, come election time, the voters of Sheffield will be reminded that 'Mad Maxine' was part of the original DC which cleared Delta.
> Wasn't it her who asked the young complainant if it was fair to say she 'liked a drink'?
> MB has stood for SA, Respect and TUSC and would no doubt stand for Left Unity if there was a sudden change of the party line.



She is, not to put to fine a point on it, a big ball of festering excrement. But (sadly?) nobody is going to "remind" the voters of Sheffield of that, are they?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 20, 2013)

From this mornings resignation round up:

"Our student members have been shouted at, shoved, had their papers ripped out of their hands (and burned in some cases), stalls tipped over, they were excluded from campaigns on campus, banned from student occupations... this list sadly goes on. These are not just 'problems' in our student work. These are tragedies, for the SWP and for the whole left. This is the position young comrades trying to build SWSS will find themselves in. It was not created by the factions (declared or not), it was created by a leadership that failed, at every turn, to swiftly address the problems we now admit our procedures had." [admit problems? ]

It will be interesting to see how isolated remaining SWPies find themselves in 2014


----------



## treelover (Dec 20, 2013)

Perhaps a turn away from  students would be apposite, though some do seem to becoming interested in more concrete issues.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> really?  My experience is that they're almost as all over the shop as the ISN nationally.  There's even one of Seymour's clique here, altho only one, and they turn up to nowt. A couple are well into their identity politics schtick, but not all of them by any means. Naah, they're as confused as the organisation nationally.



I only really know their student members and they seem to share a kind of hive-mind, backing eachother up even when they're making obviously dodgy and prejudiced identity politics based arguments (apparently their having been 'patronised' by older comrades in the SWP means that ageism should be positively encouraged).




belboid said:


> christ, please dont bother - most of her comrades dont (they think its a complete waste of time and just massaging her ego). And hopefully this will be her last time



I wish it wasn't her to be honest, given her role in the whole Delta affair, but if we're going to stand TUSC candidates it does make sense to concentrate where you get the best vote. Her comrades don't seem to think we should bother standing at all and if what they're saying is anything to go by I wouldn't be surprised to see the SWP leave TUSC before too long - with how cosy they seem to be getting with labour in the peoples assembly it wouldn't surprise me too much if they're calling for a 'critical' lp vote again come 2015.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> Woah. I thought we said that we'd offer, if it helped to get them to take it more seriously/stand more candidates? I didn't think we'd definitely committed ourselves to it had we?



Yeah, what we're talking about doing is having one day - probably a Sunday - where we help out in that campaign.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> She is, not to put to fine a point on it, a big ball of festering excrement. But (sadly?) nobody is going to "remind" the voters of Sheffield of that, are they?



I wouldn't be too surprised to find revsoc temporarily overcoming their pathological fear of doing anything outside the university campus - where there are no safe spaces and there are too many old men, who are probably all misogynist rapists - in order to do just that.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I only really know their student members and they seem to share a kind of hive-mind, backing eachother up even when they're making obviously dodgy and prejudiced identity politics based arguments (apparently their having been 'patronised' by older comrades in the SWP means that ageism should be positively encouraged).


defending their comrades' daft comments isn't really restricted to ISN, or SW tho, a common occurrence over the entire left, pretty much.

In other news - Seymour has outed himself as a Posadist - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/20/outer-space-final-frontier-capitalism-mine-moon


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> She is, not to put to fine a point on it, a big ball of festering excrement. But (sadly?) nobody is going to "remind" the voters of Sheffield of that, are they?


Since as a Tusc candidate she is unlikely to keep her deposit or indeed win more than a few hundred votes it probably doesn't matter


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Since as a Tusc candidate she is unlikely to keep her deposit or indeed win more than a few hundred votes it probably doesn't matter


uhh, no deposit in a local election. Tho she has always got enough votes to save a deposit were one required (as did the Socialist Alliance candidate before her)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> defending their comrades' daft comments isn't really restricted to ISN, or SW tho, a common occurrence over the entire left, pretty much.



It goes well beyond the left too. But they're not just defending these stupid comments when one of them makes them - the same kinds of comments have been made by several of them independently. And I can only think of one student member I know who isn't a fully paid up member of the identity politics laurie penny appreciation society.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> That's not what he said, is it? Why reply if you're gonna do so in such a lazy manner?


 Knackered, exasperated & thus overstating the case. Spiney & I have now kissed & made up - sort of. But I still don't quite get how the SP works.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> uhh, no deposit in a local election. Tho she has always got enough votes to save a deposit were one required (as did the Socialist Alliance candidate before her)


Ah thought you were talking about a general


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2013)

She won't be the sort of threat where her role in this would even need to be mentioned - local or general - really is she?


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Ah thought you were talking about a general


I doubt she'll be that daft. Tho she did last time - and I think she got a lower vote than in the local election held the same day.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> She won't be the sort of threat where her role in this would even need to be mentioned - local or general - really is she?


No real threat, but an annoyance (to Labour that is).  They would like her to stop standing


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It goes well beyond the left too. But they're not just defending these stupid comments when one of them makes them - the same kinds of comments have been made by several of them independently. And I can only think of one student member I know who isn't a fully paid up member of the identity politics laurie penny appreciation society.


 Right again, unfortunately, Spiney. I'm beginning to warm to you. The problems with the ISN aren't just confined to the old boys' networks I mentioned earlier. There's a new enforced conformity re identity politics/intersectionality/whatever which is potentially every bit as monolithic & moralistic as that of the SWP - but without the class stuff, so even more out on a limb.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Right again, unfortunately, Spiney. I'm beginning to warm to you. The problems with the ISN aren't just confined to the old boys' networks I mentioned earlier. There's a new enforced conformity re identity politics/intersectionality/whatever which is potentially every bit as monolithic & moralistic as that of the SWP - but without the class stuff, so even more out on a limb.



I don't see how it can last as an organised sect on that basis, although I guess that university is so isolated that it can for a bit. I suspect that it will die off when they graduate.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

J Ed said:


> I don't see how it can last as an organised sect on that basis,


It wont. It will have dissolved into something else, and/or splint into three within a year


----------



## Trotter (Dec 20, 2013)

Latest resignation statement from Pat Stack:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/192705508/Pat-Stack-Resignation-letter


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

and Stack's out

http://www.scribd.com/doc/192705508/Pat-Stack-Resignation-letter

(hmm, odd, how come I missed Trotters post, hey ho)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2013)

What's he quoting Miley Cyrus for?


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What's he quoting Miley Cyrus for?


it's Bob bloody Dylan!


----------



## Shoegazer (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> No real threat, but an annoyance (to Labour that is).  They would like her to stop standing


An annoyance, full stop. She's still held in awe by a lot of the S.Yorks loyalists, some of whom seem to believe that she has come out of the past year


belboid said:


> and Stack's out
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/192705508/Pat-Stack-Resignation-letter


And he refers to Maxine's role in the whole sordid business. The S.Yorks loyalists would have been first on their feet to give her that ovation.
Sad to see Stack leave a party that he gave so much to over the years, I wish him well in whatever he does next.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> it's Bob bloody Dylan!


I think it's more likely given the youth cult aspects of the leavees and some of the shameful age-baiting that a number of them have been engaged in since sunday night, that he was probably referring to Miley's version in order t o build up some much needed youth cred in the coming period.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I think it's more likely given the youth cult aspects of the leavees and some of the shameful age-baiting that a number of them have been engaged in since sunday night, that he was probably referring to Miley's version in order t o build up some much needed youth cred in the coming period.


christ,I didnt know she'd done a version.  And I bet Stack didnt either, he's always quoting Dylan (plus, 50 year old man feigning interest in teenage girl probably isnt the best way to build cred amongst ex-SWP youth at the moment)


----------



## J Ed (Dec 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What's he quoting Miley Cyrus for?



"I left the SWP like a wrecking ball..."


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Right again, unfortunately, Spiney. I'm beginning to warm to you. The problems with the ISN aren't just confined to the old boys' networks I mentioned earlier. There's a new enforced conformity re identity politics/intersectionality/whatever which is potentially every bit as monolithic & moralistic as that of the SWP - but without the class stuff, so even more out on a limb.



the ISN, with one or two honourable exceptions, was formed from the worst strata of SWP members... often those most responsible for the hyper-claustrophobic anti-discursive atmosphere and culture within the organisation. i'm pretty sceptical of anyone for whom it took these rape allegations to realise that there was something wrong inside the party and wrong with party democracy. far better socialists have been being barred from the SWP for years on spurious grounds of sexism, bigotry etc by exactly this bunch of intersectionalists who until now were quite happy to endorse the internal culture of bullying and dishonesty.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 20, 2013)

Shoegazer said:


> Sad to see Stack leave a party that he gave so much to over the years, I wish him well in whatever he does next.


Yes, at the end of day it's a sad letter (as was Birchall's). Pat made mistakes but played a very honourable role in the whole sorry story. I don't get the impression from his letter that he plans to join or form a new organisation. Also, from what I am told, he doesn't believe that there is a strong enough basis for such a group. We shall see.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> and Stack's out
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/192705508/Pat-Stack-Resignation-letter
> 
> (hmm, odd, how come I missed Trotters post, hey ho)



numerous pms of support


----------



## Trotter (Dec 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> numerous pms of support


It's had 1155 views in the last hour or so.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 20, 2013)

Is Julie Simmons still a member?


----------



## andysays (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> it's Bob bloody Dylan!



And Robert Johnson?



> after a year of shooting in the dark trying to put right a wrong, I feel I have been brought to
> a crossroads



Further proof that Pat goes back as far as anyone "in the tradition"


----------



## dennisr (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> The fact that SWPers from all over the country had remarkably similar experiences of TUSC would suggest there was a centralised strategy at work there.



My experience in East Kent has been a local SWP 'leadership' conciously undermining TUSC at every opportunity - publically opposing TUSC - publically offering support for soft-leftish labour hacks - openly building other soft left groups in direct opposition while conciously attacking any critisism from the left in the likes of the local People's Assembly, terrified whenever we turn up (despite bureaucratic attempts to keep us out) to the extent of an almost unvarying attack from the local SWP hack - Bunny LaWanker - every single time an SP member speaks and, of course, keeping their members ignorant of TUSCs existance. They don't seem to understand the 'formal' position of their own organisation - they seem to feel their job is as a 'left' cover for austerity-mongers. if that's how they build a united front they can feck off. i would not trust the local SWP leadership as far as i could throw them - they are arseholes even by the usual standards of the swappies. They sooner the SWP is dead in my area the better.

Like Spiney I also don't mince words.

It leaves the non-SP trade unionists now drawn into playing a central role in TUSC locally (RMT, NAPO and Unite members mainly) working happily with SP trade unionists.


----------



## tedsplitter (Dec 20, 2013)

Word from the Kremlin: http://swp.org.uk/content/central-committee-statement-20-december-2013


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 20, 2013)

tedsplitter said:


> Word from the Kremlin: http://swp.org.uk/content/central-committee-statement-20-december-2013


Bolshyboys script for the next six months


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 20, 2013)

_ That is a very decisive result - and SWP members are not “sheep”.

_


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

tedsplitter said:


> Word from the Kremlin: http://swp.org.uk/content/central-committee-statement-20-december-2013


Ah, the voice of sweet reason. Who are they trying to kid? They're seriously worried now. With Pat's departure, we can expect many others who were hanging around to see which way he jumped to follow in his wake. Hannah next? Seems unlikely in view of her attempts at reconciliation, but you never know...


----------



## eoin_k (Dec 20, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> _ That is a very decisive result - and SWP members are not “sheep”.
> _



I now have an image of a flock of sheep attending a national conference year after year, where they consistently elect a Central Committee from the slate recommended by their shepherds, which is ridiculous.  So, the CC statement does make some sense, but planting that image in people's head doesn't demonstrate the best communication skills.  Am I right in thinking that the slate recommended by the majority of the old CC has always been elected?  Does anybody know what the largest share of the vote received by an alternative slate has been?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I only really know their student members and they seem to share a kind of hive-mind, backing eachother up even when they're making obviously dodgy and prejudiced identity politics based arguments (apparently their having been 'patronised' by older comrades in the SWP means that ageism should be positively encouraged).





SpackleFrog said:


> http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/991/swp-conference-notes-of-a-delegate
> 
> A detailed analysis and well worth reading, but I'm getting really fed up of this attitude. I keep encountering oppositionists that insist that because the SWP is in crisis, then by definition so is the rest of the left. I'm finding it a bit fucking annoying to be honest. I'm not trying to claim the left is in a healthy state, but I think its fair enough to say that the rest of the left is not imploding as a result of covering up rape allegations and protecting rapists.
> 
> I'm not saying that the SWP weren't or aren't still a major part of the left, I think its the attitude that pisses me off so much. I get a lot of ISN types insisting to me that its not just the SWP, that no left organisation can possibly be healthy, and I don't see any logic behind that other than some kind of belief that the SWP was a perfect organisation and that where it has failed, so too must all others.




I think we've already seen something on this thread with Vladtheimpaler where we've seen the experiences of the SWP being used as a subsititute for the entire left and all it's participants, and that. Which again, is part of the cognitive dissonance of being an SWP member as you quite rightly said - assuming that what holds true for the SWP is just the default way of operating accross every group of people involved in "left" activism. 

The student wing of the SWP still carries with it so much baggage from the SWP, the same opportunism is still there that I remember of them when I was a student. They have a perspective formed from being part of what is essentially a cult and although I'm glad they've finally broken from that it's going to take time for 'em to be deprogrammed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2013)

tedsplitter said:


> Word from the Kremlin: http://swp.org.uk/content/central-committee-statement-20-december-2013


tbh i would trust the cpsu more than i would the swp.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 20, 2013)

All the new members on here who have recently left the swp. You are going to get a lot of stick. But 'stick' with it, you have been a part of an organisation which has constantly lied to you about the rest of the left, and the world as well, in order to aggrandise its own role ( and that especially of its leadership).
 You have a lot to unlearn, and much to learn!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> All the new members on here who have recently left the swp. You are going to get a lot of stick. But 'stick' with it, you have been a part of an organisation which has constantly lied to you about the rest of the left, and the world as well, in order to aggrandise its own role ( and that especially of its leadership).
> You have a lot to unlearn, and much to learn!


former swappies of the world unite...


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Opps, Sorry, I'll just blame it on my dyslexia, which is great get put clause for all sorts of things.


Oh blimey I meant KeeperofDragons


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> former swappies of the world unite...


and be patronised


----------



## Shoegazer (Dec 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> former swappies of the world unite...


Very unlikely, but the numbers would make for a fairly large party. There must have been tens of thousands who have passed through it's ranks at some point since its inception in 1977. It would be interesting to know how many are still active socialists, and how many have been put off politics for life following their involvement.


----------



## Shoegazer (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> and be patronised


I'm new to this forum, but are you for real or an automated response algorithm?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> and be patronised


by cunts like you


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2013)

Shoegazer said:


> I'm new to this forum, but are you for real or an automated response algorithm?


bear with him, he's trying to be honest


----------



## benedict (Dec 20, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> the ISN, with one or two honourable exceptions, was formed from the worst strata of SWP members... often those most responsible for the hyper-claustrophobic anti-discursive atmosphere and culture within the organisation. i'm pretty sceptical of anyone for whom it took these rape allegations to realise that there was something wrong inside the party and wrong with party democracy. far better socialists have been being barred from the SWP for years on spurious grounds of sexism, bigotry etc by exactly this bunch of intersectionalists who until now were quite happy to endorse the internal culture of bullying and dishonesty.



What about the Leatherite headbangers? Surely the worst strata are the loyalist drones? Seems like a pretty fair characterization of ISNers apart from this. 

On a related note, the ISN now seems beset by internal recriminations and navel-gazing over its own internal culture. Riven by a deep split between "reclaim the IS tradition" sentimentalists and Intersectionalistas it seems. Plus cliques within cliques. Is it true Seymour received #001 when the membership cards were handed out? Can't see any sort of future for this outfit. Bolshie will be very happy. No life out there in the swamp.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 20, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> All the new members on here who have recently left the swp. You are going to get a lot of stick. But 'stick' with it, you have been a part of an organisation which has constantly lied to you about the rest of the left, and the world as well, in order to aggrandise its own role ( and that especially of its leadership).
> You have a lot to unlearn, and much to learn!


It's like the Phil K Dick story with the people in the tanks underground being told there is a war going on above


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 20, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> It's like the Phil K Dick story with the people in the tanks underground being told there is a war going on above


or orwell: "we have always been at war with eurasia"


----------



## benedict (Dec 20, 2013)

tedsplitter said:


> Word from the Kremlin: http://swp.org.uk/content/central-committee-statement-20-december-2013



The gall of this shower:

"As was reported to conference, there is no way that a lay panel of members can determine whether an email account has been hacked... The panel was able to say with total confidence that the CC had not acted in the way that was alleged. This is not a matter that requires specialist technical knowledge."

But a panel of leading members _is able _to determine whether our close colleague and national secretary is guilty of rape. Doesn't require specialist technical knowledge either, right?


----------



## benedict (Dec 20, 2013)

And this! "To claim that the majority of members, class fighters who argue with those around them each day, acquiesce without question to the “leadership” is an extraordinary insult."






A leading member offers refreshment to a young class fighter


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> All the new members on here who have recently left the swp. You are going to get a lot of stick. But 'stick' with it, you have been a part of an organisation which has constantly lied to you about the rest of the left, and the world as well, in order to aggrandise its own role ( and that especially of its leadership).
> You have a lot to unlearn, and much to learn!


Thank you for your words of solace! Why, even as we speak I can feel the scales starting to drop from my eyes!

Seriously, though, a lot of us have realised for a long, long time that we were being lied to but for whatever reason - cowardice, force of habit, lack of any obvious alternative - we have chosen to bite our tongues and stay on board. Nothing noble in that & no excuses. What it doesn't mean, however, is that we emerge into the light as completely naive neonates who have learned nothing during our time in the party. Of course, we're well aware that the branding as 'sectarian' of anyone else on the left (especially when they were criticising the SWP) was hypocritical nonsense. But surely we can still reserve the right to be critical of other groups, especially when we get a whiff of some of the same self-righteous tropes at play in them, for example a refusal to apply the same merciless criteria in self-analysis that they employ with everybody else. 

My barney with the SP comrades last night, which I now feel rather foolish about and for which I apologise insofaras I was at fault (which I don't think I was completely), really wasn't occasioned either by a sectarian hangover from the SWP or even by seeing them through a one-size-fits-all lens based on my experience of the SWP, so much as by what I perceived at the time as a disproportionately aggressive response to a few rather flippant & snarky (& probably unfair) remarks I made about their organisation. That did, I'm afraid, remind me of some SWPers' reactions to similarly trivial goads. I'd had a rotten day & a few beers to forget about it & they got my dander up. I'll try & make sure it doesn't happen again. The last thing I want to do is to descend into the puerile (& at times sexist!) name calling that some of your contributors indulge in.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 20, 2013)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/192705508/Pat-Stack-Resignation-letter


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 20, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> [. . .] Am I right in thinking that the slate recommended by the majority of the old CC has always been elected?  Does anybody know what the largest share of the vote received by an alternative slate has been?



a) When did IS/SWP adopt the CC slate electoral method? Was it 1975 after expelling the last of the Higgins people? Anyway, since its re-branding as SWP in 1977, & until this year, I believe there was only one contested election, 2006:
outgoing-CC slate 208, Molyneux slate 57, abstentions 11 (Weekly Worker, 12Jan06)

Guess who said this:
"I intend to stand on a simple platform with two main planks:
(1) The need to face reality: I want to see more realism, more honesty and more balance in our political perspectives and in regard to the state of the party.
(2) The need for a more democratic culture in the party: I want to see more open debate and more involvement with the national committee and party members in decision-making."
http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/606/why-i-intend-to-stand (John Molyneux's statement for the Jan 2006 Annual Conference)

b) Three interesting accounts of the slate electoral method:
i) the Bolsheviks never used this method. (You can read that again, slowly.) Like the almost universal practice elsewhere in the labour & socialist movement they used the 'popularity contest' method (as denigrated within the SWP), voting for the individuals they thought best for the job. The slate made its first appearance at the 10th Party Congress, 1921, & it was never replaced:
http://www.karlmarx.net/topics/democratic-centralism-1/theoriginofthe‘slatesystem’ (Pat Byrne, 2010)
ii) how the united (shock, horror) British Trots, the Revolutionary Communist Party, approached the matter in 1945:
https://splinteredsunrise.wordpress...tem-of-election-and-bolshevik-tradition-1945/ (anon., but almost certainly Denzil Harber, then 36)
iii) 'Slates, Factions, & the British SWP':
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=4268 (Pham Binh, Jan 2013; this has link to John Riddell on slates in the Comintern)


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

Jara Handala said:


> a) When did IS/SWP adopt the CC slate electoral method? Was it 1975 after expelling the last of the Higgins people? Anyway, since it's re-branding as SWP in 1977, & until this year, I believe there was only one contested election, 2006:
> outgoing-CC slate 208, Molyneux slate 57, abstentions 11 (Weekly Worker, 12Jan06)
> 
> Guess who said this:
> ...


Spot on, Jara Handala! The slate system has always been a cynical undemocratic manoeuvre to keep ownership of the party in the hands of a tiny self-appointed clique. I hope SWPers of a more open-minded bent than the likes of Bolshieboy read this & follow your links.


----------



## benedict (Dec 20, 2013)

Reminds me of this


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 20, 2013)

Jara Handala said:


> a) When did IS/SWP adopt the CC slate electoral method? Was it 1975 after expelling the last of the Higgins people? Anyway, since it's re-branding as SWP in 1977, & until this year, I believe there was only one contested election, 2006:
> outgoing-CC slate 208, Molyneux slate 57, abstentions 11 (Weekly Worker, 12Jan06)
> 
> Guess who said this:
> ...


Sue Blackwell speaks of a 1991 contested CC election:
http://www.sue.be/politics/swp/ (6" up from the bottom - does that sound rude?)


----------



## emanymton (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I only really know their student members and they seem to share a kind of hive-mind, backing eachother up even when they're making obviously dodgy and prejudiced identity politics based arguments (apparently their having been 'patronised' by older comrades in the SWP means that ageism should be positively encouraged).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sure that will come as a great relief to the Labour party.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

Jara Handala said:


> Sue Blackwell speaks of a 1991 contested CC election:
> http://www.sue.be/politics/swp/ (6" up from the bottom - does that sound rude?)


I think the 'from' makes all the difference & saves it from smut. The SWP leadership are, of course, dab hands at fundamental self-insertion (work it out).


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I think we've already seen something on this thread with Vladtheimpaler where we've seen the experiences of the SWP being used as a subsititute for the entire left and all it's participants, and that. Which again, is part of the cognitive dissonance of being an SWP member as you quite rightly said - assuming that what holds true for the SWP is just the default way of operating accross every group of people involved in "left" activism.
> 
> The student wing of the SWP still carries with it so much baggage from the SWP, the same opportunism is still there that I remember of them when I was a student. They have a perspective formed from being part of what is essentially a cult and although I'm glad they've finally broken from that it's going to take time for 'em to be deprogrammed.


Hush, Comrade Booth! You risk laying bare the hidden agenda behind our employment of this Transylvanian cognomen - to sow confusion among the pitiful wretches who dare to resist us.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 20, 2013)

Jara Handala said:


> Anyway, since it's re-branding as SWP in 1977, & until this year, I believe there was only one contested election, 2006:
> outgoing-CC slate 208, Molyneux slate 57, abstentions 11 (Weekly Worker, 12Jan06)


This is quit interesting, it means that the conference in 2006 was about half the size of the three this year. Also that is a sizeable rebellion. Who the he'll abstains at the things anyway?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Hush, Comrade Booth! You risk laying bare the hidden agenda behind our employment of this Transylvanian cognomen - to sow confusion among the pitiful wretches who dare to resist us.



Are all the ex-SWP members as hilarious as you?


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

benedict said:


> What about the Leatherite headbangers? Surely the worst strata are the loyalist drones? Seems like a pretty fair characterization of ISNers apart from this.
> 
> On a related note, the ISN now seems beset by internal recriminations and navel-gazing over its own internal culture. Riven by a deep split between "reclaim the IS tradition" sentimentalists and Intersectionalistas it seems. Plus cliques within cliques. Is it true Seymour received #001 when the membership cards were handed out? Can't see any sort of future for this outfit. Bolshie will be very happy. No life out there in the swamp.


You're being unnecessarily harsh. It's absolutely true that there are various silly sectlets (who all hate each other) already developing within the ISN. The arty-farty old boys' network, the trad dads, the IDPers & the LU liquidationists to name but four. However, within the 'swamp' (courtesy CPGB... aaarrrggghhh!) there are quite a few decent comrades who don't subscribe to any of these idiocies. Sure, we took far too long to abandon ship, but to describe us as 'the worst strata' when such as the IDOOMers exist is a bit OTT!


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Are all the ex-SWP members as hilarious as you?


Oh, lighten up. I'm not trying to win any Perrier Awards. Just riffing on the conspiracy/cults stuff. It's not aimed at you personally (in fact some of your previous contributions led me to believe you were taking the piss yourself), but if you don't like it I'll shut up.


----------



## benedict (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> You're being unnecessarily harsh. It's absolutely true that there are various silly sectlets (who all hate each other) already developing within the ISN. The arty-farty old boys' network, the trad dads, the IDPers & the LU liquidationists to name but four. However, within the 'swamp' (courtesy CPGB... aaarrrggghhh!) there are quite a few decent comrades who don't subscribe to any of these idiocies. Sure, we took far too long to abandon ship, but to describe us as 'the worst strata' when such as the IDOOMers exist is a bit OTT!



Exactly the contrast I was seeking to draw with the loyalist hardcore. Why don't you enlighten us a little about the tendencies and tensions within the ISN? Do you see a viable future for this vehicle? Or is a merger with the splitters' splitters ACI or SR a necessity? Regroup or die?

Oh and the swamp metaphor is actually courtesy of the great man Cliff himself: "The swamp will surround us and get bigger, so we have to build our little island to keep ourselves out of it." Sage words indeed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> The last thing I want to do is to descend into the puerile (& at times sexist!) name calling that some of your contributors indulge in.



What are you referring to here?


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 20, 2013)

eoin_k said:


> [. . .] Am I right in thinking that the slate recommended by the majority of the old CC has always been elected?  Does anybody know what the largest share of the vote received by an alternative slate has been?


1) So, yes, the slate of the outgoing-CC has always been elected.
2) Two of the three 2013 National Conferences had contested CC elections (a CC is not for a term so a slate could have been put forward in March, but none was):
Jan: outgoing-CC slate defeated the slate put forward by Hannah Dee & Ray Morell (Unite) - anyone know the figures (Socialist Worker treated it as a Party secret, unlike this week)?
Dec: outgoing-CC slate 449, Rebuild the Party slate 69 (disclosed in the New 110% Open & Transparent Socialist Worker, 17Dec13, http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/37111/SWP conference discusses the way forward for the left)

Please note, the alternative slate in January was to keep the CC as it was: Dee & Morell had upset the Masters of the Universe over the Smith/DC business, got eased off the slate, so retaliated by organising their own slate. Strangely it seems you can put forward a slate without the agreement of those on it. Perhaps more strangely, Joseph Chooooooonara & Mark Bergfeld campaigned for this alternative slate but the Lynchers kept them on their own slate, so they kept their seats. (Bergfeld was to resign from the CC in February - his letter topped & tailed with the immortal words, "FOR SWP MEMBERS ONLY. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OUTSIDE THE PARTY. DO NOT PUBLISH ONLINE.")

3) So the alternative slate percentages of votes cast for-against were 22% in 2006, ?% Jan 2013, & 13% Dec 2013.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> You're being unnecessarily harsh. It's absolutely true that there are various silly sectlets (who all hate each other) already developing within the ISN. The arty-farty old boys' network, the trad dads, the IDPers & the LU liquidationists to name but four. However, within the 'swamp' (courtesy CPGB... aaarrrggghhh!) there are quite a few decent comrades who don't subscribe to any of these idiocies. Sure, we took far too long to abandon ship, but to describe us as 'the worst strata' when such as the IDOOMers exist is a bit OTT!


hmmm, not sure which bit I belong too, probly the trad dads. Shit.  

We dont all hate each other tho. We just hate Richard, the pompous guardian columnist shithead [note:dont call him a twat].


----------



## benedict (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> What it doesn't mean, however, is that we emerge into the light as completely naive neonates who have learned nothing during our time in the party. Of course, we're well aware that the branding as 'sectarian' of anyone else on the left (especially when they were criticising the SWP) was hypocritical nonsense. But surely we can still reserve the right to be critical of other groups, especially when we get a whiff of some of the same self-righteous tropes at play in them, for example a refusal to apply the same merciless criteria in self-analysis that they employ with everybody else.



Thing is, Vlad, so far many of your posts so far seem to be cheap potshots aimed at SP members for various imputed sins. It's like a long-term binge drinker gone teetotal who immediately starts lecturing other moderate boozers about the demon drink. Not very convincing. Especially when you're lecturing individuals who've been discussing the issues consistently and thoughtfully for over a year.

Why don't you begin by sharing your own experiences of the SWP, its failings, your perceptions, how errors could be corrected etc? Other former members have been posting up their thoughts on this and I'm sure you would contribute valuably to the debate.


----------



## Bakhtinite (Dec 20, 2013)

I wonder if anyone who has recently or just left the SWP could clear up a  confusion

(i resigned in 98 after 10 years in, my contribution to the conference IB and resignation letter citing the usual stuff - lack of democracy, lack of ability to work with others as evidenced by the SWP front organisations)

In Weekly worker and on here people have talked about the Leatherites. Presumably before he resigned from the CC, Martin Smith was leading this bloc on the CC and it seems Amy leather was his protege. But where is Weyman Bennett in all this. I think he went on to the CC around or just after the time I left the SWP. In the 'how close were you to Cliff = how important are you "  SWP mentality wouldn't that make him the senior CC member for the Centralist faction? 

My motivation in asking is partly  trainspotterish SWP kreminology, partly to make sense of  what might be coming in the next internal fight that is likely to happen  in the SWP between the democratic  CENTRALIST Callinicos/Kimber faction and the CENTRALIST leatherite/bennett/(smith) faction, and partly because it was Weyman Bennett who recruited me......


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

benedict said:


> Exactly the contrast I was seeking to draw with the loyalist hardcore. Why don't you enlighten us a little about the tendencies and tensions within the ISN? Do you see a viable future for this vehicle? Or is a merger with the splitters' splitters ACI or SR a necessity? Regroup or die?
> 
> Oh and the swamp metaphor is actually courtesy of the great man Cliff himself: "The swamp will surround us and get bigger, so we have to build our little island to keep ourselves out of it." Sage words indeed.


Actually, I think you'll find the term 'swamp', or at least 'marsh', as applied to an amorphous & confused mass who won't commit themselves one way or another, goes back to the French Revolution. I only mentioned the CPGB because they're the ones who've been using the word (not necessarily inaccurately) in relation to ISN. 

But to answer your questions  as a self-confessed sceptical ISNer who quite probably won't be for much longer... 

(1) I can't enlighten you about the tendencies & tensions much beyond what I've already said here about the various competing groups, other than I (& many others) don't feel much sympathy with any of them. (2) I suspect that they will all go their separate ways very soon. (3) I think all the merger stuff with irrelevant groupuscules was a waste of time & increasingly seems like flogging a dead horse. (4) Die, probably.

Will that do?


----------



## SLK (Dec 20, 2013)

Bakhtinite said:


> I wonder if anyone who has recently or just left the SWP could clear up a  confusion
> 
> (i resigned in 98 after 10 years in, my contribution to the conference IB and resignation letter citing the usual stuff - lack of democracy, lack of ability to work with others as evidenced by the SWP front organisations)
> 
> ...



I was organising Marxism with John Rees in 1998. Sorry, this sounds a bit grandiose - I was in the Marxism office doing what I was told by John Rees in 1998 - and occasionally allowed out to speak at Marxism organising meetings in districts. I don't think Weyman was on the CC then. Back then it was: Cliff (founder)/ Callinicos (International)/ Harman (SW)/ Stack (Treasurer)/ Waterson (ANL)/ Hayes (Industrial)/ Rees(ISJ)/ German (Socialist Review)/ Bambery (National Organiser).

I didn't like them all but they were all, Hayes aside, real heavyweights.

I might have forgotten some. I think Weyman was full time ANL, and he continued to be for a while after that. I'm not sure about him on the CC. Not that this answers any of your questions.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 20, 2013)

The sooner the sort of people who think that zombies are offensive and triggering to disabled people go away the better


----------



## benedict (Dec 20, 2013)

Fair enough. I was using it with the Cliffite warning against life-outside-the-SWP connotation.

Sounds like grim prospects for the ISN then. Rootless. Fruitless.


----------



## Bakhtinite (Dec 20, 2013)

SLK said:


> I was organising Marxism with John Rees in 1998. I don't think Weyman was on the CC then. Back then it was: Cliff (founder)/ Callinicos (International)/ Harman (SW)/ Stack (Treasurer)/ Waterson (ANL)/ Hayes (Industrial)/ Rees(ISJ)/ German (Socialist Review)/ Bambery (National Organiser).
> 
> I might have forgotten some.
> 
> I didn't like them all but they were all, Hayes aside, real heavyweights.



Thanks - and of that list apart from three who have died only Callinicos and Dave Hayes  are  still in the SWP


----------



## SLK (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> hmmm, not sure which bit I belong too, probly the trad dads. Shit.
> 
> We dont all hate each other tho. We just hate Richard, the pompous guardian columnist shithead [note:dont call him a twat].


Are you in the ISN?


----------



## Simon B (Dec 20, 2013)

Hello. I'm usually a lurker here. I'd just like to suggest that the mentalist faction be known as 'The Leatherettes'.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

benedict said:


> Thing is, Vlad, so far many of your posts so far seem to be cheap potshots aimed at SP members for various imputed sins. It's like a long-term binge drinker gone teetotal who immediately starts lecturing other moderate boozers about the demon drink. Not very convincing. Especially when you're lecturing individuals who've been discussing the issues consistently and thoughtfully for over a year.
> 
> Why don't you begin by sharing your own experiences of the SWP, its failings, your perceptions, how errors could be corrected etc? Other former members have been posting up their thoughts on this and I'm sure you would contribute valuably to the debate.


Sorry I come over that way. I've already posted my mea culpa about last night's altercations & no disrespect is intended to the many excellent people involved in this conversation. I did give a potted account of my SWP history when I first signed up, but I'm happy to provide all the grisly details if you really want to know. Suffice to say that 'long-term binge drinker' isn't really the right analogy. 'Occasional party goer who generally throws up the morning after' would be more accurate. There does seem to be a tendency here to stereotype all ex-SWPers as formerly blinkered robotic hacks who've suddenly woken up & smelled the coffee. That just isn't true of most of us, who've been kicking endlessly (& fruitlessly) against the pricks for many years & have suffered all manner of vituperation as a result.


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 20, 2013)

benedict said:


> [. . .] Why don't you enlighten us a little about the tendencies and tensions within the ISN? . . .



Well, I joined at the beginning, mid-March, but got suspended at the end of July - not by a Cde. Chaplin email but by a public message on our own website. Classy. I was accused of being a troll. Double classy.

I asked why this had been done, who had made that decision, & what was the procedure to end such nonsense. 

No response was the stern reply. So I did what Tom Walker & countless others have done over the ages, I wrote to the tribune of the oppressed in such matters, & surprise, surprise, they published it  - the Weekly Wanker, the organ of the only organisation in the world with more letters in its name than members, a true Clio.

I had tried to initiate systematic debate, even political debate, but that was obviously a step too far. Andy Wilson (seemed to run the website, but had never been appointed - nothing in Steering Cttee or National Meeting minutes) was told by Keith Fisher (Treasurer & SC) to ban me from the site. So that was that. 

No-one protested my suspension. I was never told anything. 

I knew ISN was dead when the Members' Forum was closed (1) without any notice, (2) without the Steering Cttee or the National Meeting deciding to close it, &, most importantly, (3) without anyone battering an eyelid. 

The only conclusion to draw was that the ISN was a clique-ridden & clique-driven coven of cliques. And, as we all know now, all that has now intensified. Perhaps it's just as well most of ISN is a cyber-reality: no risk of drowning.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

SLK said:


> Are you in the ISN?


Yup


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

Simon B said:


> Hello. I'm usually a lurker here. I'd just like to suggest that the mentalist faction be known as 'The Leatherettes'.


Except doing so has to bring to mind grace jones. And that is not a combination of images I want in my head, thank you very much!


----------



## andysays (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> Except doing so has to bring to mind grace jones. And that is not a combination of images I want in my head, thank you very much!


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> Except doing so has to bring to mind grace jones. And that is not a combination of images I want in my head, thank you very much!



Whereas I was thinking of The Normal . . . but that doesn't work either.

eta: Andysays beat me to it.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> hmmm, not sure which bit I belong too, probly the trad dads. Shit.
> 
> We dont all hate each other tho. We just hate Richard, the pompous guardian columnist shithead [note:dont call him a twat].



I honestly thought he was loved by everyone.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> Except doing so has to bring to mind grace jones. And that is not a combination of images I want in my head, thank you very much!


In fact, 'Warm Leatherette' was originally written & recorded by The Normal (a name which certainly couldn't be applied to the gruesome fructophobic Amy).


----------



## SLK (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> Yup



Why?


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> I honestly thought he was loved by everyone.


Loves himself enough for millions.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> In fact, 'Warm Leatherette' was originally written & recorded by The Normal (a name which certainly couldn't be applied to the gruesome fructophobic Amy).


Good god, I'd better retract that before I'm hauled up before the Identity Police.

Banana dodgers are, of course, an oppressed minority!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 20, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> bolshie, if you learned anything about Marx in your revolutionary years, you might have picked up that for him the truth was always specific, detailed and concrete. And that only after understanding the nitty gritty detail can you have a firm footing for a wide generalisation. So there would be no theory of evolution without Darwin's decades of work on barnacles. There would be no Marxist theory of history without intensely narrow particular studies of key events of Marx's time. And the right way to understand the lessons of this current crisis is to start from what actually happened. If you ground yourself there and work outwards, you might not like the general conclusions, but they will be correct ones. If you start with an _a priori _position that the SWP leadership have to continue as they are for the sake of a future revolution, then you are not a Marxist but a Kantian. And you're also finished as a human being capable of original thought.


Sorry Oisin but you've just described at best the Analytical Marxist approach to social science and at worst simple empiricism. On the contrary Marx's method in Kapital was explicitly the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. There are no pure facts free from theoretical trappings. As you harked back to when we were younger I'm pretty sure I first read about that in a chapter in the Prof's Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, it was a slap in the face for me at the time because I was studying philosophy of science which in these islands is dominated by empiricism and the whole point about Marx, which you seem to have missed judging by your outline of Marxist methodology above, is that he breaks with that 'from the facts up' approach. In the specific case of the current crisis the opposition's obsession with 'new conditions and changed facts about the modern world' is eclectic and empiricist in as much as it doesn't try to understand those facts as part of a larger whole by applying the theoretical models developed by the IS Tradition. Unfortunately much of the opposition seem to think that classic marxist approach is so boring and 80's. Their rejection of that doesn't actually lead to original Marxist thinking , it just leads to in the extreme , the random accumulation of facts that Seymour articles represent.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> What are you referring to here?


Do you mean the 'sexist' bit? Repeated use of the 'c' word.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Do you mean the 'sexist' bit? Repeated use of the 'c' word.



Don't be a silly cunt


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 20, 2013)

emanymton said:


> This is quit interesting, it means that the conference in 2006 was about half the size of the three this year. Also that is a sizeable rebellion. Who the he'll abstains at the things anyway?


1) The current Constitution says the CC decides the ratio of delegates to members (section 4), & I believe it is 1:10. (So one incentive for a branch cttee. not to cull.) As the nominal membership wasn't much lower in 2006 than this year one can only conclude that in 2006 not that many Swap-peeps could be bothered to make the trek to an event without event, i.e. less delegates were elected than an aggregate was entitled to send. 2006 was so routinist not many could be bothered to stay on the hamster wheel.

2) In SWPworld 22% rebellion is suicidal behaviour by members. A veritable OMG!!!!!

But was it followed through? Of course not. Then German-Rees-Nineham, & . . ., & . . . Another fine mess you got me into, Stanley.

3) In terms of abstaining, in what seems to be the first contested CC election in over 30 years, only 4% abstained (11 out of 276). (But I have no record of the no votes  -  see below for the significance of this figure.)

But that's nothing compared with the vote in January on the Disputes Cttee report. I commented on this at the time on Socialist Unity. People hadn't brought two facts together: Socialist Worker reported that "more than 580 delegates" attended, & the DC transcript said the vote went "231 votes for accepting, 209 votes to reject and 18 absentions." WOW! These add up to 458. Knowing how modest the SWP are, the SW figure isn't being coy coz over 600 attended, no, there were less than 590. To make the calculations favourable to the Lynchers, let's assume 580.

Conclusions: 
a) there were NO VOTES of at the least 122, or some cdes. couldn't be bothered to hear the session. 122/580 = 21%.
b) supporters of the DC report were less than 40% of delegates, only 39.8% (231/580).
c) those that didn't vote amounted to over half of those who approved the report, 122 compared with 231.
d) & Cde. Chaplin straight after Conference said, on behalf of the Party & the CC, that a line has now been drawn under all this. More like a knife drawn thru the belly of the Party.

http://de.scribd.com/doc/111724862/SWP-Constitution
http://socialistworker.org.uk/art/29739/SWP+conference+debates+the+way+forward+for+the+resistance
http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/


----------



## benedict (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> In the specific case of the current crisis the opposition's obsession with 'new conditions and changed facts about the modern world' is eclectic and empiricist in as much as it doesn't try to understand those facts as part of a larger whole by applying the theoretical models developed by the IS Tradition.



Studied a bit of philosophy of science myself, Bolshie, and I'm pretty sure empiricism is not conventionally defined as failure to apply the theoretical models of the IS tradition. Don't think Marx was using those models either. This is just barren dogmatism.


----------



## chilango (Dec 20, 2013)

Fuckin' meh.


----------



## love detective (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry Oisin but you've just described at best the Analytical Marxist approach to social science and at worst simple empiricism. On the contrary Marx's method in Kapital was explicitly the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.



What utter nonsense - you're conflating Marx's method of exposition/presentation with the method of enquiry

While Capital itself as a book is presented in the form of a journey from the abstract to the concrete - the method of inquiry is a much more richer, iterative and dialectical process

The first step is the observation of the concrete and the appropriation of the material in detail

The next step sees that material used to develop first simple abstract concepts and then on to more complex/richer concepts to establish a 'totality of thoughts', it's the logical construction of the essence and the interconnected organic whole, i.e. the understanding of the inner connections and them as a totality

Then the logical process continues, but not in terms of essence, but in terms of how that essence appears, how to explain that appearance and the various forms in which the essence is manifested, and indeed how that totality of that essence must appear

Next it's time to relate the concepts that have been generated to the real concrete world, the testing stage so to speak. Here is when the 'concept of the real' and the 'concrete in the mind' (i.e. the last two steps) is reconciled to the real objective concrete, which is also a return to the starting point and the point of departure again as the process goes on and on. 

 

As Marx himself says:-

_Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction._


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 20, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Don't be a silly cunt


Look. I'm not a po-faced linguistic idealist & I'm not moralising at you. I've argued long & hard with radical feminists & plenty of nominal socialists too that language doesn't determine structures of oppression - it's the other way around. Words, of course, have no power in themselves & it's silly to fetishise them & take them as indicators of where someone's at politically. However, what's the point in consciously using words you know will offend & alienate people you want to communicate with, however wrong-headed they might be? The fact is a lot of your potential allies will be turned off by that word & won't listen to anything else you say.


----------



## Bakhtinite (Dec 20, 2013)

Comprehensive response from Love Detective. I would add that Marx does argue  that, for example, you cannot deduce the existence of classes just from empirical analysis. You need the concept of 'class' to understand political economy. But Marx is not a Hegelian - if the concept of class did not make sense of (rise to)  the concrete then it would need to be revised.

Rising from the abstract to the concrete does not mean 'start with theoretical models of my choosing' then  describe the world so that this fits with my theoretical models, ignoring anything that might contradict this'.....come to think of it that's not a bad description of the SWP's CC and supporters response to the last year. So spot on Bolshie Boy - for making the SWP's method clear - 'what we want to believe will determine what we will believe'


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> On the contrary Marx's method in Kapital was explicitly the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.



Wrong way around bolshie. He begins with the most minute 'barnacle' like aspect of capitalism possible, the commodity, and unravels the rest from there.

But I was thinking of this, when I replied to you:

‘When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions that arise from the observation of the historical development of men. Viewed apart from real history, these abstractions have in themselves no value whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical material, to indicate the sequence of its separate strata. But they by no means afford a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for neatly trimming the epochs of history .’ (German Ideology 48)

You do agree though, with my understanding of your position? You quietly acknowledge Martin did wrong, but history requires the SWP not to admit it?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 20, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry Oisin but you've just described at best the Analytical Marxist approach to social science and at worst simple empiricism. On the contrary Marx's method in Kapital was explicitly the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. There are no pure facts free from theoretical trappings. As you harked back to when we were younger I'm pretty sure I first read about that in a chapter in the Prof's Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, it was a slap in the face for me at the time because I was studying philosophy of science which in these islands is dominated by empiricism and the whole point about Marx, which you seem to have missed judging by your outline of Marxist methodology above, is that he breaks with that 'from the facts up' approach. In the specific case of the current crisis the opposition's obsession with 'new conditions and changed facts about the modern world' is eclectic and empiricist in as much as it doesn't try to understand those facts as part of a larger whole by applying the theoretical models developed by the IS Tradition. Unfortunately much of the opposition seem to think that classic marxist approach is so boring and 80's. Their rejection of that doesn't actually lead to original Marxist thinking , it just leads to in the extreme , the random accumulation of facts that Seymour articles represent.


Bolshie, surely Marx's method was more dialectical (a word which I have become suspicious of lately, but it'll do for now) ie from the abstract to the concrete and also from the concrete to to the abstract. Anyway, I hope you're not applying what you take to be Marx's methodology in the rape case. If so, it would sound dangerously like Rhetta's "judging" of Smith from the "standpoint of the proletariat" (abstract to concrete) . Tell me it ain't so.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

SLK said:


> Why?


seemed an honest attempt at at re-examining the IS tradition for a neo-liberal age. I honestly don't think that the intersectionalist nonsense is as dominant as people think it is - its jst the only thing that marks the ISN out from other groups at the mo. There are some really good people in it - both old and re-invigorated. Some bollocks too, of course, but it is at least starting to ask some of the right questions.


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 20, 2013)

love detective said:


> What utter nonsense - you're conflating Marx's method of exposition/presentation with the method of enquiry
> 
> While Capital itself as a book is presented in the form of a journey from the abstract to the concrete - the method of inquiry is a much more richer, iterative and dialectical process
> 
> ...


1) I was going to make the same crucial point about the difference btwn. the the work of inquiry & the work that results in the presentation of an argument. The Grundrisse Introduction makes that plain, as does the Contribution to a Critique of P/E 2 years later, & your quote (Postface to 2nd German edn. of Capital, vol.1, 1873).

2) The work of inquiry is continually iterative, as you importantly pointed out, trying to make sense of both the everyday descriptions we have of the world & trying to note what changes are happening in the natural & social worlds, identifying both their necessary & contingent aspects.

3) It's why the Czechoslovak Karel Kosík spoke of the pseudo-concrete to describe where we all start from in our hazy way, making it more concrete, more adequate (in what we think & are able to communicate about it) as we improve our knowledge.

4) To avoid any mystical connotation it should be pointed out that talk of essence, what is essential to an entity, is simply its nature, its necessary way(s) of being-becoming, what it always does, somewhat misleadingly termed its mechanisms. Other forces at work, other powers & susceptibilities, be they necessary ones or contingent ones, may overcome a particular combination of necessary forces. An obvious example is the rate of profit, some forces come together to reduce the rate of profit but others act to raise it.

5) It's important to note the modesty of knowledge-workers, collectively we may eventually judge our knowledge to be false (it is fallible), but we can improve it (we are corrigible).


----------



## SLK (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> seemed an honest attempt at at re-examining the IS tradition for a neo-liberal age. I honestly don't think that the intersectionalist nonsense is as dominant as people think it is - its jst the only thing that marks the ISN out from other groups at the mo. There are some really good people in it - both old and re-invigorated. Some bollocks too, of course, but it is at least starting to ask some of the right questions.



Have to say I'm shocked, but also pleased. While I got on well personally with China, I can't stand Seymour and I'm don't know many others. However, there's a conference in January I'm interested in.


----------



## belboid (Dec 20, 2013)

January? I think you mean March

oh, and, what is it? Pessimism of the spirit; optimism of the will.'


----------



## SLK (Dec 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> January? I think you mean March
> 
> oh, and, what is it? Pessimism of the spirit; optimism of the will.'



No, there's a conference of those who left this week in January.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 20, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Look. I'm not a po-faced linguistic idealist & I'm not moralising at you. I've argued long & hard with radical feminists & plenty of nominal socialists too that language doesn't determine structures of oppression - it's the other way around. Words, of course, have no power in themselves & it's silly to fetishise them & take them as indicators of where someone's at politically. However, what's the point in consciously using words you know will offend & alienate people you want to communicate with, however wrong-headed they might be? The fact is a lot of your potential allies will be turned off by that word & won't listen to anything else you say.



It doesn't alienate people I want to communicate with, only moralistic cunts who like to mimic whatever the US left does (and ignore that while in the US cunt is a gendered insult aimed mainly at women in the UK it just isn't).


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 20, 2013)

SLK said:


> No, there's a conference of those who left this week in January.


That doesn't surprise me.

I think peeps outside the ISN should know that unless you are in the right loop you never find out what's going on. Take the last two weeks. Even now the ISN has not said who has left, who has resigned from the Steering Cttee. or from any other post. We have a website, an emailed bulletin, but nothing said. Just a few elliptical, vague articles posted on the site with no informative & clear statements by anyone in the 'discussion' threads. It's worse than Plato's cave. We need an Aristotelian faction in the ISN, some straight talking: grab the essence & get to the heart of things, the root of things, be radical.

Does anyone know who has left? Me Olde? The Principal? Tommy-Tommy? 

And SLK, where were the details posted of the Jan conf.?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 21, 2013)

Jara Handala said:


> That doesn't surprise me.
> 
> I think peeps outside the ISN should know that unless you are in the right loop you never find out what's going on. Take the last two weeks. Even now the ISN has not said who has left, who has resigned from the Steering Cttee. or from any other post. We have a website, an emailed bulletin, but nothing said. Just a few elliptical, vague articles posted on the site with no informative & clear statements by anyone in the 'discussion' threads. It's worse than Plato's cave. We need an Aristotelian faction in the ISN, some straight talking: grab the essence & get to the heart of things, the root of things, be radical.
> 
> ...


People should know that whatever the problems with the ISN you got airbrushed out because you're a tedious whingy prick


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 21, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> People should know that whatever the problems with the ISN you got airbrushed out because you're a tedious whingy prick


You're a strange fish: why the abuse? What's wrong with you?


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 21, 2013)

Jara Handala said:


> You're a strange fish: why the abuse? What's wrong with you?



IT'S FUCKING YOU! 

I completely concur with Spankey's assessment of you. You are an absolute menace to any forum you appear at.


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 21, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> IT'S FUCKING YOU!
> 
> I completely concur with Spankey's assessment of you. You are an absolute menace to any forum you appear at.


You're weird.


----------



## SLK (Dec 21, 2013)

Jara Handala said:


> That doesn't surprise me.
> 
> I think peeps outside the ISN should know that unless you are in the right loop you never find out what's going on. Take the last two weeks. Even now the ISN has not said who has left, who has resigned from the Steering Cttee. or from any other post. We have a website, an emailed bulletin, but nothing said. Just a few elliptical, vague articles posted on the site with no informative & clear statements by anyone in the 'discussion' threads. It's worse than Plato's cave. We need an Aristotelian faction in the ISN, some straight talking: grab the essence & get to the heart of things, the root of things, be radical.
> 
> ...



If I was in the ISN, I would ban you, never talk to you, and use any bureaucratic manoeuvre possible to get you out. You're a total nihilist and a complete waste of time.


----------



## Jara Handala (Dec 21, 2013)

SLK said:


> If I was in the ISN, I would ban you, never talk to you, and use any bureaucratic manoeuvre possible to get you out. You're a total nihilist and a complete waste of time.


Would you please describe how I am nihilistic, as you put it? I find the behaviour of you & the other two incomprehensible & contrary to how professed socialists should behave to one another. These outbursts are irrational, they are unwarranted.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Dec 21, 2013)

Ever wonder why nobody stuck up for your sorry ass in the ISN, Jara? Even the most democracy-mongering group on the left couldn't bother to have any process whatsoever when you got booted. I like the idea of people mimicking the US left (as long as its us and not those other fuckfaces). And as long as I still get to swear and insult people.


----------



## SLK (Dec 21, 2013)

Jara Handala said:


> Would you please describe how I am nihilistic, as you put it? I find the behaviour of you & the other two incomprehensible & contrary to how professed socialists should behave to one another. These outbursts are irrational, they are unwarranted.


No.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2013)

WTF has Jara Handala done to piss so many people off?


----------



## richwill72 (Dec 21, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> _ That is a very decisive result - and SWP members are not “sheep”.
> _


Not literally, no.
"SWP members are not sheep". 





eoin_k said:


> I now have an image of a flock of sheep attending a national conference year after year, where they consistently elect a Central Committee from the slate recommended by their shepherds, which is ridiculous.  So, the CC statement does make some sense, but planting that image in people's head doesn't demonstrate the best communication skills.  Am I right in thinking that the slate recommended by the majority of the old CC has always been elected?  Does anybody know what the largest share of the vote received by an alternative slate has been?


"


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> WTF has Jara Handala done to piss so many people off?


I'm also curious about this.


----------



## richwill72 (Dec 21, 2013)

SpackleFrog said:


> SWPers all over the country demonstrate some very different attitudes to TUSC as you well know - in 2010 I asked some local SWPers if they would support a TUSC campaign in the town where I was at the time. They didn't know what it was, and when I told them they weren't interested. Many SWP members are totally uninterested in electoral politics or in TUSC.


Human beings are totally uninterested in TUSC, you mean. Hundreds of elections and an average of seven votes. A total waste of precious resources, and the only reason it continues to 'exist' is to satisfy the egos of the SP leadership.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2013)

richwill72 said:


> Human beings are totally uninterested in TUSC, you mean. Hundreds of elections and an average of seven votes. A total waste of precious resources, and the only reason it continues to 'exist' is to satisfy the egos of the SP leadership.



Who the fuck are you?


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2013)

i don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that TUSC is an utter waste of time tbf.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> I'm also curious about this.




I've had a google but the roots of the revulsion are not plain


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

benedict said:


> Studied a bit of philosophy of science myself, Bolshie, and I'm pretty sure empiricism is not conventionally defined as failure to apply the theoretical models of the IS tradition. Don't think Marx was using those models either. This is just barren dogmatism.


Oh dear talk about not addressing what someone actually said. Empiricism is pretending you don't have a theoretical framework and imagining you're just about the facts, the facts and nothing but the facts. That's never true and as I was addressing someone in the IS tradition and was talking about people in that tradition then yes that would be the theoretical framework that was relevant. I do however realise that Marx hadn't heard of Cliff, thanks for that. The longer this crisis has gone on the less anyone outside the SWP seems to want to even try and understand what 'loyalists' are saying, let alone address it properly. I understand that's cause you all think the game is up, those of us on this side are all evil rape apologists and generally nasty people who are headed for sectarian isolation and so we don't need even addressing properly. Which is totally fine online and it's not as if we're not used to being hated by all sorts of people but I seriously don't think that approach is going to wash in day to day work in the real world.


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh dear talk about not addressing what someone actually said.


*snorts*


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> i don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that TUSC is an utter waste of time tbf.



Bit of a stretch to suggest that it's about massaging the SP Leadership's egos though, especiaLLy with the 7 votes etc - if it was just about the SP standing they'd stand as sociaList aLternative, as they have in Coventry for fuck knows how Long - that's why I'm curious as to who this new poster is.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 21, 2013)

richwill72 said:


> Human beings are totally uninterested in TUSC, you mean. Hundreds of elections and an average of seven votes. A total waste of precious resources, and the only reason it continues to 'exist' is to satisfy the egos of the SP leadership.



Hi new poster person. No, the results aren't spectacular and very few people have heard of TUSC, but that wasn't what was being discussed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh dear talk about not addressing what someone actually said. Empiricism is pretending you don't have a theoretical framework and imagining you're just about the facts, the facts and nothing but the facts. That's never true and as I was addressing someone in the IS tradition and was talking about people in that tradition then yes that would be the theoretical framework that was relevant. I do however realise that Marx hadn't heard of Cliff, thanks for that. The longer this crisis has gone on the less anyone outside the SWP seems to want to even try and understand what 'loyalists' are saying, let alone address it properly. I understand that's cause you all think the game is up, those of us on this side are all evil rape apologists and generally nasty people who are headed for sectarian isolation and so we don't need even addressing properly. Which is totally fine online and it's not as if we're not used to being hated by all sorts of people but I seriously don't think that approach is going to wash in day to day work in the real world.



I don't think you're rape apologists. I think you're rape _deniers._


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> Wrong way around bolshie. He begins with the most minute 'barnacle' like aspect of capitalism possible, the commodity, and unravels the rest from there.
> 
> But I was thinking of this, when I replied to you:
> 
> ...


Totally agree with that passage from the GI and yes empty abstractions need to be made concrete and that's what Kapital is all about but his starting point is the abstractions, is a theoretical stance, he knows you can never operate without one. But I guess this thread isn't the place to address this stuff fully 

On your question no I really don't think that's what's going on (shock I know!) There are people who seem committed to the belief he could have done no wrong. I don't understand them despite having been a huge admirer of him myself. Surely the official position is clear enough, if he hadn't gone and left he would have a real case to answer, there is some damning stuff that needed answering. Mind you he would get a chance to answer it as well which is where the cc statement is totally right. But no nobody is above any process and nobody is worth this crisis. But as I've tried to argue, maybe not convincingly for anyone here, but I have tried, I don't accept that the crisis is only about what went on between three people.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Totally agree with that passage from the GI and yes empty abstractions need to be made concrete and that's what Kapital is all about but his starting point is the abstractions, is a theoretical stance, he knows you can never operate without one. But I guess this thread isn't the place to address this stuff fully
> 
> On your question no I really don't think that's what's going on (shock I know!) There are people who seem committed to the belief he could have done no wrong. I don't understand them despite having been a huge admirer of him myself. Surely the official position is clear enough, if he hadn't gone and left he would have a real case to answer, there is some damning stuff that needed answering. Mind you he would get a chance to answer it as well which is where the cc statement is totally right. But no nobody is above any process and nobody is worth this crisis. But as I've tried to argue, maybe not convincingly for anyone here, but I have tried, I don't accept that the crisis is only about what went on between three people.



I think the last sentence is correct but not for the reasons you'd give.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> It doesn't alienate people I want to communicate with, only moralistic cunts who like to mimic whatever the US left does (and ignore that while in the US cunt is a gendered insult aimed mainly at women in the UK it just isn't).


Stereotyping again, Spiney. I think they're wrong to take it so seriously, but there are plenty of otherwise good non-moralistic people who do see the UK usage (which is normally applied to men here) as gendered, only in a different way - i.e. using part of the female anatomy as a term of abuse.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Stereotyping again, Spiney. I think they're wrong to take it so seriously, but there are plenty of otherwise good non-moralistic people who do see the UK usage (which is normally applied to men here) as gendered, only in a different way - i.e. using part of the female anatomy as a term of abuse.



Which is different from dick (which actually is a gendered term of abuse, beloved of the kind of people who don't like the term 'cunt') cock, nob, tit, etc. in what way? Sometimes stereotypes can be a useful guide, as in this case cos I've never met any of the people you describe here.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't think you're rape apologists. I think you're rape _deniers._


Does that include Stack? I haven't seen the evidence, he did and he thought rape probably hadn't occurred but harassment had. I guess we're back at the integrity of the people on the dc question and whether folk like me are wrong to trust them. Do I deny that MS could ever commit rape? No that would be an absurd thing to say but I have enough respect for the integrity of the people on the dc to believe that if he really had they would have had the balls to admit that. If a new dc met tomorrow and found him guilty of rape that would settle it for me too. I haven't seen the evidence, nobody on this thread has, well maybe some lurkers, and so we have to either rely on the people who did or not. I agree that's not an obvious choice to make and of course it's coloured by your opinion of the people involved in the process.


----------



## Once red (Dec 21, 2013)

How could you have been a huge admirer of Martin Smith bolshie? I only have a vague memory of him from Marxism team one year but he was a man so dearly in love with himself even then! And bossy. - if I have the right person- ponytail? Meetings about music? 
I agree the crisis is about more than three people- there's been an ongoing crisis for a good decade.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 21, 2013)

Jara Handala said:


> That doesn't surprise me.
> 
> I think peeps outside the ISN should know that unless you are in the right loop you never find out what's going on. Take the last two weeks. Even now the ISN has not said who has left, who has resigned from the Steering Cttee. or from any other post. We have a website, an emailed bulletin, but nothing said. Just a few elliptical, vague articles posted on the site with no informative & clear statements by anyone in the 'discussion' threads. It's worse than Plato's cave. We need an Aristotelian faction in the ISN, some straight talking: grab the essence & get to the heart of things, the root of things, be radical.
> 
> ...


To be fair, Jara, though I agree with much of what you say & think banning you was ridiculous, I don't think the ISN has much more clue than anyone else who's left or is planning to leave in the latest exodus. They're not exactly flavour of the month with the new-wave of ship-jumpers, who have their own loop from which the ISN are largely excluded.


----------



## Once red (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Does that include Stack? I haven't seen the evidence, he did and he thought rape probably hadn't occurred but harassment had. I guess we're back at the integrity of the people on the dc question and whether folk like me are wrong to trust them. Do I deny that MS could ever commit rape? No that would be an absurd thing to say but I have enough respect for the integrity of the people on the dc to believe that if he really had they would have had the balls to admit that. If a new dc met tomorrow and found him guilty of rape that would settle it for me too. I haven't seen the evidence, nobody on this thread has, well maybe some lurkers, and so we have to either rely on the people who did or not. I agree that's not an obvious choice to make and of course it's coloured by your opinion of the people involved in the process.


Oh honestly! If he really had they would have had the balls to admit that- did you really say that?!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Does that include Stack? I haven't seen the evidence, he did and he thought rape probably hadn't occurred but harassment had. I guess we're back at the integrity of the people on the dc question and whether folk like me are wrong to trust them. Do I deny that MS could ever commit rape? No that would be an absurd thing to say but I have enough respect for the integrity of the people on the dc to believe that if he really had they would have had the balls to admit that. If a new dc met tomorrow and found him guilty of rape that would settle it for me too. I haven't seen the evidence, nobody on this thread has, well maybe some lurkers, and so we have to either rely on the people who did or not. I agree that's not an obvious choice to make and of course it's coloured by your opinion of the people involved in the process.



The DC that was composed of his mates said he hadn't committed rape and that's good enough for you? And they didn't seem keen to admit anything while they spent two years trying to cover the allegations up.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Which is different from dick (which actually is a gendered term of abuse, beloved of the kind of people who don't like the term 'cunt') cock, nob, tit, etc. in what way? Sometimes stereotypes can be a useful guide, as in this case cos I've never met any of the people you describe here.


I really don't mean this in a patronising way, Spiney, but I think it might be a generational thing. Probably quite correctly, the term has lost a lot of its perceived power over the last few decades (my sons use it all the time & defend it in much the same way as you), but lots of perfectly OK people of my age genuinely do have a big problem with it.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 21, 2013)

Once red said:


> How could you have been a huge admirer of Martin Smith bolshie? I only have a vague memory of him from Marxism team one year but he was a man so dearly in love with himself even then! And bossy. - if I have the right person- ponytail? Meetings about music?
> I agree the crisis is about more than three people- there's been an ongoing crisis for a good decade.


Am man who you respected and admired so much you weren't a member of the swp the entire time he was in office and only rejoined after his fall


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ... I have enough respect for the integrity of the people on the dc to believe that if he really had they would have had the balls to admit that.



Firstly, it was always going to be 'not proven' by the way it was set up. His word versus hers. What proof could they have asked for, in order to find him guilty?
Secondly, we have since heard from the DC in print. Taking Rhetta's contribution to IB3, we can see that she thinks that she is free from bias because through decades of self-formation she has adpoted the standpoint of the proletariat. But believing this means she has to believe Martin, since he has the same track record of dedication to the cause of the proletariat.
Thirdly, they were all his friends.

So its not a question of trusting anyone's integrity, it's a flawed set up. And the subsequent carry on to try to avoid admitting this was a disgrace.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 21, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> I really don't mean this in a patronising way, Spiney, but I think it might be a generational thing. Probably quite correctly, the term has lost a lot of its perceived power over the last few decades (my sons use it all the time & defend it in much the same way as you), but lots of perfectly OK people of my age genuinely do have a big problem with it.



Why would that be patronising? And do you now agree that it isn't sexist?


----------



## tony collins (Dec 21, 2013)

Once red said:


> How could you have been a huge admirer of Martin Smith bolshie?



I've never understood people's admiration for Smith. When he was industrial organiser, as an RMT tube worker I had a lot of dealings with him. He was a bully. He really tried to find people's weaknesses and really pick on them. He seemed to delight in undermining women (I said this long before the rape allegations, so it's not a hindsight realisation) - he stood up at a packed Marxism meeting in 2003/4 and really started belittling this older woman who was being cautious about things in the RMT. She was clearly in real distress at the way he was talking about her (and pointing at her, to make sure everyone could see her), but he didn't stop, and then kept saying "I'm only joking, only joking, you know I love you, I'm only joking". Robust debate is fine, but you don't have to humiliate people to make your point.

He did the same thing to someone who was against the Respect split, really picking on her at an aggregate meeting in 2008, coming close to her while he responded to her and jabbing his finger right up against her. Sure, he picked on blokes too, but he did seem to enjoy bullying women more.

Politically, his actions contradicted the "rank and file" stuff the party had us doing. His discussions were always full of "I'm meeting crow next week" and meeting exec committees; he really pushed for us to take full-time union positions in the RMT. Dave Renton has written about this change, so it's not just something I noticed.

He did seem to have some strengths; he had an ability to summarise people's feelings, and that was useful to a new guy like me. But I guess all you need to know is that he was one of the biggest liars throughout the whole Respect split. He was the one who said "the party will go nuclear" (I was there), he was the one who spread the worst of the smears about people. He was the one who organised the expulsions, "lost" emails, lied about sending letters etc. to make sure people couldn't raise complaints at the conference. He was the one who suspended a woman but wouldn't allow it to be reported at the 2008 conference.

None of this has anything to do with his guilt or innocence of later accusations. But the guy is a thug and a bully; I can imagine he has a certain amount of charm, and I can also imagine that he can make younger women feel intimidated.

(edit - typos)


----------



## tony collins (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If a new dc met tomorrow and found him guilty of rape that would settle it for me too.



bolshiebhoy, after all this time you still think that it's acceptable for a political party's "disputes committee" to find a member "guilty of rape"? You've learned nothing. You understand nothing.


----------



## richwill72 (Dec 21, 2013)

I am Dave Nellist in disguise. This is, you may care to note, a public forum.





SpineyNorman said:


> Who the fuck are you?


----------



## Once red (Dec 21, 2013)

Also on admiring Smith, all this 'leading comrade' and 'great men' stuff is another thing I always found weird about the SWP. Maybe it's a man crush thing? Some comrades are more equal, those comrades are male usually. And women, leading women, in the party being humiliated openly by their super shagging partners. Didn't they pack Judith Orr off on a set of 'women's lib' meetings around the time the Smith stuff came to light. Whyever did she agree to that?! Sad.


----------



## Once red (Dec 21, 2013)

richwill72 said:


> I am Dave Nellist in disguise. This is, you may care to note, a public forum.


Quite the antagonist still then?!


----------



## richwill72 (Dec 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Bit of a stretch to suggest that it's about massaging the SP Leadership's egos though, especiaLLy with the 7 votes etc - if it was just about the SP standing they'd stand as sociaList aLternative, as they have in Coventry for fuck knows how Long - that's why I'm curious as to who this new poster is.


I was in the SWP for a few years, so may be guilty of observing events with a certain degree of  cynicism.


----------



## muscovyduck (Dec 21, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> My barney with the SP comrades last night, which I now feel rather foolish about and for which I apologise insofaras I was at fault (*which I don't think I was completely*), really wasn't occasioned either by a sectarian hangover from the SWP or even by seeing them through a one-size-fits-all lens based on my experience of the SWP, so much as by what I perceived at the time as a disproportionately aggressive response to a few rather flippant & snarky (& probably unfair) remarks I made about their organisation. That did, I'm afraid, remind me of some SWPers' reactions to similarly trivial goads. I'd had a rotten day & a few beers to forget about it & they got my dander up. I'll try & make sure it doesn't happen again. The last thing I want to do is to descend into the puerile (& at times sexist!) name calling that some of your contributors indulge in.



Not sure that counts as an apology.  You've basically made it obvious that you're apologising out the good of your heart rather than because you actually think you were at fault. 

But yeah I'm not a fan of the slate system either.  I know vaguely why I think it's a bad idea but I can't articulate it well enough to talk about ot in real life. I guess that minor differences split any vote and no one's going to have the time to research the politics, work, etc of everyone on the slate.

I would have put more of the quote in bold to highlight my point but my phone's being awkward and it doesn't really matter anyway


----------



## richwill72 (Dec 21, 2013)

Once red said:


> Quite the antagonist still then?!


Actually i did once have a twitter spat with Dave  Nellist on tje subject of TUSC being a load of shite, he seemed to think it was about to turn a corner. Clearly with a name like The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition there is no way whatsoever it could fail.


----------



## Trotter (Dec 21, 2013)

Socialist Worker reports that there were 540 delegates at the SWP Conference. With a delegate ratio of 1-10 that would imply a membership of 5,400 - less than the 7000+ claimed in the internal bulletins.

You might expect a high proportion of these members would have attended the pre-Conference aggregates. After all, there was only one aggregate per district in the pre-Conference period and we were fighting for the future of the SWP.

The faction collected numbers of comrades attending each aggregate. The estimate was a total across the country of 970. This compares to the 1300 who attended the aggregates before the Special Conference in March. That's a drop of over 25%. This reflect the resignations and disaffection before the Conference.

Delegate ratios therefore become more interesting. The CC resisted all calls for proportionality - so it was frequently winner takes all in the aggregates. The faction had about 80 delegates at the Conference. The faction had 300+ supporters most of whom attended the aggregates, say 240. So the faction had a delegate ration of 1:3. That means there were 730 loyalists who got 460 delegates, a ratio of 1:1.6

Most of the faction have or will leave the SWP. That leaves an aggregate attendance - active members - of no more than 800. There will be other members who remain as passive supporters, but it is now difficult for the SWP to claim it is the largest organisation on the far left in Britain.


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2013)

richwill72 said:


> Actually i did once have a twitter spat with Dave  Nellist on tje subject of TUSC being a load of shite, he seemed to think it was about to turn a corner. Clearly with a name like The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition there is no way whatsoever it could fail.


'the left' does seem to be somewhat lacking in snappy names these days. which is definitely it's biggest problem.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 21, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why would that be patronising? And do you now agree that it isn't sexist?


Why would that be patronising? Well, I obviously didn't think it was, but (unlike you seemingly) I do care about being misunderstood & offending other people inadvertently.

Do I now agree that the 'c' word isn't sexist? Although I admit my original complaint didn't make it plain, I think I've now made it obvious that I don't think words have any power in themselves & so can't be described as anything-ist. It's all in how they're used & understood. And if you persist in using a word that you know a lot of women (rightly or wrongly) will be hurt or offended by, & you don't give a shit & think they're all moralistic idiots, well, then, I'm sure a lot of people would interpret that as sexist.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 21, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Not sure that counts as an apology.  You've basically made it obvious that you're apologising out the good of your heart rather than because you actually think you were at fault.
> 
> But yeah I'm not a fan of the slate system either.  I know vaguely why I think it's a bad idea but I can't articulate it well enough to talk about ot in real life. I guess that minor differences split any vote and no one's going to have the time to research the politics, work, etc of everyone on the slate.
> 
> I would have put more of the quote in bold to highlight my point but my phone's being awkward and it doesn't really matter anyway


No, I'm genuinely (though not completely) apologising for mouthing off about something I didn't know enough about. That seems a fairly common failing in these parts!


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 21, 2013)

discokermit said:


> now it's all over a lot of us feel the need to get it out of our systems. i certainly do.
> 
> anyway, my membership was brief compared to some of the others here, i joined in '88.
> 
> ...



Still waiting for part 2, or did I miss it  ?


----------



## ska invita (Dec 21, 2013)

killer b said:


> 'the left' does seem to be somewhat lacking in snappy names these days. which is definitely it's biggest problem.


Its not for lack of trying. I liked it when Left Unity changed its name to Left Unity.


----------



## benedict (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh dear talk about not addressing what someone actually said. Empiricism is pretending you don't have a theoretical framework and imagining you're just about the facts, the facts and nothing but the facts. That's never true and as I was addressing someone in the IS tradition and was talking about people in that tradition then yes that would be the theoretical framework that was relevant. I do however realise that Marx hadn't heard of Cliff, thanks for that. The longer this crisis has gone on the less anyone outside the SWP seems to want to even try and understand what 'loyalists' are saying, let alone address it properly. I understand that's cause you all think the game is up, those of us on this side are all evil rape apologists and generally nasty people who are headed for sectarian isolation and so we don't need even addressing properly. Which is totally fine online and it's not as if we're not used to being hated by all sorts of people but I seriously don't think that approach is going to wash in day to day work in the real world.



Well yes. Thing is I immediately noticed your confusion around Marx's method but knew there are plenty around here who could respond better than I. Talking of which, why don't you respond to one of _those_ posts rather than what is I'm sure we both agree my less erudite response?

Anyway, the point is for you the proper method seems to be you start with the IS tradition, accommodate new facts, and end with the IS tradition. Anything else is eclectic. This is what you said.

And this thing about how we're all being so mean to SWPers doesn't really wash, does it.


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 21, 2013)

A friend of mine was a bus worker with a Jehova's Witness in his garage. Just for the hell of it, he set himself the goal of de-programming the JW and would argue every day in the canteen. After a year or so, my friend achieved his goal. I kind of feel the same way about bolshie.


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2013)

defenstration, no deprogramming.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 21, 2013)

Oisin123 said:


> A friend of mine was a bus worker with a Jehova's Witness in his garage. Just for the hell of it, he set himself the goal of de-programming the JW and would argue every day in the canteen. After a year or so, my friend achieved his goal. I kind of feel the same way about bolshie.


Have you got a couple of decades to spare?


----------



## benedict (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Does that include Stack? I haven't seen the evidence, he did and he thought rape probably hadn't occurred but harassment had. I guess we're back at the integrity of the people on the dc question and whether folk like me are wrong to trust them. Do I deny that MS could ever commit rape? No that would be an absurd thing to say but I have enough respect for the integrity of the people on the dc to believe that if he really had they would have had the balls to admit that. If a new dc met tomorrow and found him guilty of rape that would settle it for me too.



Respect, integrity, balls.  Can you not see thing in more complex terms?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 21, 2013)

you still think martin smith is innocent?? 

what the actual fuck


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 21, 2013)

If you were actually running a revolutionary party that cared about (1) principles (2) Justice and (3) it's own reputation in the world (as opposed to internal reputation of the leaders of a sect) , then the fact that Pat Stack thought Martin was guilty of harassment would have been enough to have him stripped of all party roles - "our leading member is  only guilty of harassment, nothing worse" is a rotten position for a socialist party to be in. But the whole apparatus did not want to hear the truth - witness the really grotesque attempt not to hear the second complaint, along with DC member Rhetta Moran's crazed pronouncement.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Totally agree with that passage from the GI and yes empty abstractions need to be made concrete and that's what Kapital is all about but his starting point is the abstractions, is a theoretical stance, he knows you can never operate without one. But I guess this thread isn't the place to address this stuff fully
> 
> On your question no I really don't think that's what's going on (shock I know!) There are people who seem committed to the belief he could have done no wrong. I don't understand them despite having been a huge admirer of him myself. Surely the official position is clear enough, if he hadn't gone and left he would have a real case to answer, there is some damning stuff that needed answering. Mind you he would get a chance to answer it as well which is where the cc statement is totally right. But no nobody is above any process and nobody is worth this crisis. But as I've tried to argue, maybe not convincingly for anyone here, but I have tried, I don't accept that the crisis is only about what went on between three people.


If Smith had left the SWP when W first made a complaint of sexual harassment do you still think the party would ended up in any faction fights this year? 

I guess it is possible that some Smith admirers may have caused trouble at the time. 

There clearly are some political differences emerging but whereas you seem to think that these were all preexisting before the current crises, I think many of them have been caused by the crises as many members at seeing the SWP in a new light.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Does that include Stack? I haven't seen the evidence, he did and he thought rape probably hadn't occurred but harassment had. I guess we're back at the integrity of the people on the dc question and whether folk like me are wrong to trust them.


What even Retta? 

I have said it before it I cannot understand how that women got anywhere near a disputes committee, I think it speaks volumes about the judgment of leading SWP members.


----------



## laptop (Dec 21, 2013)

Very likely it's featured in one of the past 15,515 posts: but does anyone have links to the documents the SWP (or IS) put out arguing against women organising as women, in the 1970s?

Nails, meet coffin.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Dec 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> What even Retta?
> 
> I have said it before it I cannot understand how that women got anywhere near a disputes committee



Clearly, you fail to *Respect and Honour Democratic Centralism!* She is qualified by virtue of being a *Revolutionary Socialist *in bold opposition to *Formal Bourgeois Morality.*

Hope this helps.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2013)

laptop said:


> Very likely it's featured in one of the past 15,515 posts: but does anyone have links to the documents the SWP (or IS) put out arguing against women organising as women, in the 1970s?
> 
> Nails, meet coffin.



The articles on women's liberation here link to the main relevant ones in the discussions of them.


----------



## laptop (Dec 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The articles on women's liberation here link to the main relevant ones in the discussions of them.



Ah, yes, I think it's the IBs leading up to the closure of _Women's Voice_ that I'm half-remembering.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

emanymton said:


> If Smith had left the SWP when W first made a complaint of sexual harassment do you still think the party would ended up in any faction fights this year?
> 
> I guess it is possible that some Smith admirers may have caused trouble at the time.
> 
> There clearly are some political differences emerging but whereas you seem to think that these were all preexisting before the current crises, I think many of them have been caused by the crises as many members at seeing the SWP in a new light.


Yes I think they would. Call me a hard old bastard but you only need to look at the musings of much of the opposition on Facebook this last year about women's voice, the changing working class and the rest to know that a break was in the offing.

edited: because of what I was told in confidence last night


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> because MS had some very bad sex


Wow. What an arsehole you are.


_Edited because, well, because._


----------



## belboid (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> MS had some very bad sex


wow. That's by far the cuntiest thing you've ever said on here.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

edited because it turns out I knew shit


----------



## Belushi (Dec 21, 2013)

ffs bolshie


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

edited because it turns out I knew shit


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The one thing nobody has ever said was it was forced. we've discussed this mans sex life until we're blue on here and the rape thing is liberally thrown but never because it was forced.


I wouldn't ask for you to be banned for being a cunt bolshie. There are lots on here and lots in life and we all have to deal with them. But if you want to discuss the details of rape accusations I suggest you think again. This is not the place. People have been traumatised and they too have access to the internet. Stop now.


----------



## muscovyduck (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> the rape thing is liberally thrown but never because it was forced.



wow


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 21, 2013)

do you expect any young women with a critique of capitalism to join your organisation after coming out with shit like that bolshie? 

"martin smith had some very bad sex"? 

first of all, rape isn't sex. secondly, your party held a rape case and then tried to cover it up, and treated the women worse than the bourgeois courts would have, asking if they liked a drink etc. 

The left has a problem with sexism, do you really think anyone is going to look at the SWP now and think "yeah this is an organisation I'd really like to join"? Some very bad sex, wtf is wrong with you?


----------



## benedict (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No lets talk turkey, it's been so polite but nobody wants to do that. which allows us the rest of us to be called rape deniers when nobody seems to have evidence for that. He was an arse clearly, possibly an harassing arse. Rapist?



I suggest you take a walk, Bolshie. Get some fresh air. Absorb the beauty of nature.

This is not a discussion we're going to have.


----------



## belboid (Dec 21, 2013)

.


----------



## andysays (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> .



Oops, you did it again...


----------



## belboid (Dec 21, 2013)

can the rest of us agree to ignore this bullshit, and not give him the vile argument he wants


----------



## benedict (Dec 21, 2013)

So what did people think of the Weekly Worker's splash this week? Strange choice, to have put Cliff on front with the take-off of Shelley's Ozymandias. Cliff's empire has fallen all right. But does this mark the definitive death of the style of socialist politics he represented?  The family tree stemming from the post-war Group gets ever more branched, the groupuscules smaller and more irrelevant, yet there seems to be no new paradigm on the horizon unfortunately. 

Anyway, I thought the WW might have gone for something simple and classic like this gem:


----------



## articul8 (Dec 21, 2013)

Bad sexual ettiquette?


----------



## Once red (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The horrible, horrible shit we've had because MS had some very bad sex was only the catalyst. It was always going to happen. I honestly (there you go pickman!) believe that.



Bad sex? If you were my 'comrade' and you'd said that to me in the pub you'd be on the floor.


----------



## SLK (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yes I think they would. Call me a hard old bastard but you only need to look at the musings of much of the opposition on Facebook this last year about women's voice, the changing working class and the rest to know that a break was in the offing. The horrible, horrible shit we've had because MS had some very bad sex was only the catalyst. It was always going to happen. I honestly (there you go pickman!) believe that.



Fucking hell mate. You don't mean this.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Yes I think they would. Call me a hard old bastard but you only need to look at the musings of much of the opposition on Facebook this last year about women's voice, the changing working class and the rest to know that a break was in the offing. The horrible, horrible shit we've had because MS had some very bad sex was only the catalyst. It was always going to happen. I honestly (there you go pickman!) believe that.


I have more time for you than most of here, but are you seriously trying to argue that real rape has to involve force?

Rape as you well know is about consent and not necessarily about force or violence.

But if you what to be honest about what we think happened despite the fact that none of us on here are privy to the facts.

My suspicious is this: edited out


----------



## SLK (Dec 21, 2013)

That's pretty much what I think emanymton, but I think we shouldn't be discussing this. I'm shocked at bolshie.


----------



## mutley (Dec 21, 2013)

So fucking glad I've left reading the shit that BB is arguing. Meanwhile, the cc are desperately trying to stop some key trade union militants resigning but with no success: they're resigning on fb on about an hourly basis. That NUT fraction will have its work cut out. Meanwhile those who have departed are starting to discuss - what next?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

SLK said:


> Fucking hell mate. You don't mean this.


edited: because I did but the facts turn out to be a lot more complex and nasty than publicly revealed. I'm appalled at the facts and myself for not reading between the lines quicker.


----------



## benedict (Dec 21, 2013)

mutley said:


> So fucking glad I've left reading the shit that BB is arguing. Meanwhile, the cc are desperately trying to stop some key trade union militants resigning but with no success: they're resigning on fb on about an hourly basis. That NUT fraction will have its work cut out. Meanwhile those who have departed are starting to discuss - what next?



Thanks for the update mutley. What are the numbers looking like? Leavers and numbers of key members remaining in the fractions? What are they talking about in terms of what's next?


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2013)

The SWP have gone full Assange.


----------



## 8115 (Dec 21, 2013)

Balbi said:


> The SWP have gone full Assange.


They've all locked themselves in the Ecuadorian embassy?

Is he _still_ in there btw?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2013)

And remember, this is what people like bolshie are prepared to say in public. I shudder to think at what's going around in private.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 21, 2013)

FFS BB step back a bit & reread your posts. It's this sort of thinking among the loyalists like you that have driven me from the party that I have over the years have worked hard for.


----------



## Once red (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I do mate. Mrs bb has followed this all very closely cause she thought she had an in to turn me away from Marxism. and I've done my best to describe the evidence, limited as it is that we are all privy to. And her take was, in best working class tory language "fuck me he is a sleazy dick, and men like that who abuse their position are sick cunts but but he isn't a rapist". That's the elephant in the room we can't talk about.




Urgh. Repulsive. Every word.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2013)

8115 said:


> They've all locked themselves in the Ecuadorian embassy?
> 
> Is he _still_ in there btw?



Nah, it's full. Liverpool Hope University though...


----------



## mutley (Dec 21, 2013)

Pulling people together in the localities as the immediate task, so people don't just vanish. I think some kind of meeting in the new year in the big smoke to talk thru the next step after that. There will be a statement on the revolutionary socialism blog in a day or two. Numbers? I'm not sure, people were saying 90 odd a day or two back but it could easily be double that by now. Of course, there are bound to be different strategies and arguments, because the immediate orientation of a new group isn't particularly obvious.

There are some big names staying too (ie former oppo's). The loyalists are saying 'the swp isn't collapsing'. That is true, but its gonna be a long dwindling twilight as they get older and grumpier.


----------



## treelover (Dec 21, 2013)

I know I shouldn't, but...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 21, 2013)

mutley said:


> There are some big names staying too (ie former oppo's).



Like who?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And remember, this is what people like bolshie are prepared to say in public. I shudder to think at what's going around in private.


No that's as bad as it gets I'd say but then I'm not really in the inner sanctum. All I know is I say on here what I say to anybody. Too tired for any other sort of bollox.


----------



## Balbi (Dec 21, 2013)

Speak as I find, me


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

Jeezus everything is a conspiracy. All I know is I love my personal history of fighting for a womans right to choose in Ireland, I love the part the swp has played in most of the major struggles in these islands in my lifetime. And I hate the last year. And the stuff I've had to say in defence of it all. Who wants to talk about other peoples sex lives? Don't know how to square that circle.

edited to say ban away, I can have a quiet Xmas then with the family without banging my head against the wall.


----------



## killer b (Dec 21, 2013)

jesus.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I hate the last year. And the stuff I've had to say in defence of it all. Don't know how to square that circle.



HAD to say? How about don't fucking say it you obnoxious cunt?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 21, 2013)

SLK said:


> That's pretty much what I think emanymton, but I think we shouldn't be discussing this. I'm shocked at bolshie.


Agreed, I've edited.


----------



## mk12 (Dec 21, 2013)

.


----------



## mutley (Dec 21, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Like who?


prob best not to stay, people are changing their minds and stuff so I might get it wrong.


----------



## treelover (Dec 21, 2013)

Any links to these online discussions, see if I recognise any of the ones who were obnoxious/bullying, etc over my time around the left..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 21, 2013)

mutley said:


> prob best not to stay, people are changing their minds and stuff so I might get it wrong.



Fair enough, although are there any big names we haven't heard from other than Gonzalez, Dee and Davidson?


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jeezus everything is a conspiracy. All I know is I love my personal history of fighting for a womans right to choose in Ireland, I love the part the swp has played in most of the major struggles in these islands in my lifetime. And I hate the last year. And the stuff I've had to say in defence of it all. Don't know how to square that circle.



Imagine if a 48 yr police officer had a sexual relationship with a 17 yr old police cadet who later accused him of harassment and later still accused him of rape. Then imagine the police office was investigated by 7 or 8 friends who found him innocent. Then imagine these friends had supplied him with the accusers statements but had not given her his statement. Then imagine that the woman was questioned about her drinking habits and asked if she was just a bitter ex. Then imagine they found him innocent of rape and allowed him to go back to his previous position and at a conference of police officers he was allowed to make a speech berating those who believed the woman and he received a footstamping ovation.
On top of this imagine that a second woman came forward with a complaint of sexual harassment but the friends refused to investigate this as they believed it was irrelevant.

I spent 24 years in the swp...I was an organiser for a short time 19 years ago ... I left 5 yrs or so ago (I explained my history in an earlier post) ... I have known Delta since 1989...I was in the same branch with him for a couple of years...he was then my district organiser between late 94 -97 when I worked in a Council...I regularly came across him and personally found him friendly but I fail to see how I or you can decide that he did NOT rape a women when she says she did NOT consent to sex ... who the fuck are you or your wife or his friends to decide he his telling the truth and that the woman aint?

You and they have decided to believe him over her...the simple question is why?
Because you knew him?
Because he weren't the type?
Because socialists don't rape?
Because you ain't a feminist?
Because socialists with no rape investigation training and no forensic training or evidence who happened to be friends of his said so?

You have no fucking idea what went on apart from these facts:
1) A woman made an allegation of sexual harassment against delta
2) She later made an allegation of rape
3) He denied any wrong doing
4) The investigation was conducted by his friends
5) Another woman mad sexual harassment allegations against delta which they refused to investigate
6) When it became obvious that they would have to investigate he left before they could do so
7) VERY FEW WOMEN LIE ABOUT BEING RAPED

and yet you your wife and the swp know he ain't a rapist...though you and your wife think he is a "sleazy dick" and still you rejoined the swp to help it after it did everything it could to protect this "sleazy dick"...you have some weirdly fucked up sensibilities


----------



## Trotter (Dec 21, 2013)

mutley said:


> Pulling people together in the localities as the immediate task, so people don't just vanish. I think some kind of meeting in the new year in the big smoke to talk thru the next step after that. There will be a statement on the revolutionary socialism blog in a day or two. Numbers? I'm not sure, people were saying 90 odd a day or two back but it could easily be double that by now. Of course, there are bound to be different strategies and arguments, because the immediate orientation of a new group isn't particularly obvious.
> 
> There are some big names staying too (ie former oppo's). The loyalists are saying 'the swp isn't collapsing'. That is true, but its gonna be a long dwindling twilight as they get older and grumpier.


I know of about 150 that have resigned. And it's growing by the hour.


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2013)

I've no idea what's going on here, but will remind posters that making accusations of rape or any other sexual misconduct against named individuals that have not been proven in a court of law is likely to create _serious_ problems for the site. Please edit your posts accordingly.


----------



## benedict (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jeezus everything is a conspiracy. All I know is I love my personal history of fighting for a womans right to choose in Ireland, I love the part the swp has played in most of the major struggles in these islands in my lifetime. And I hate the last year. And the stuff I've had to say in defence of it all. Who wants to talk about other peoples sex lives? Don't know how to square that circle.
> 
> edited to say ban away, I can have a quiet Xmas then with the family without banging my head against the wall.



You're quite the martyr aren't yer?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2013)

editor said:


> I've no idea what's going on here, but will remind posters that making accusations of rape or any other sexual misconduct against named individuals that have not been proven in a court of law is likely to create _serious_ problems for the site. Please edit your posts accordingly.



christ that would be one hell of a libel case....


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

benedict said:


> You're quite the martyr aren't yer?


Christ no, you're right, strictly first world problem.


----------



## Trotter (Dec 21, 2013)

[quote}There are some big names staying too (ie former oppo's). The loyalists are saying 'the swp isn't collapsing'. That is true, but its gonna be a long dwindling twilight as they get older and grumpier.[/quote]
The CC are panicking. Their statement yesterday was not a sign of strength. More people have left than they were expecting. The couple of CC members who are going around trying to persuade people to stay are having a failure rate close to 100%.


----------



## SLK (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I do mate. Mrs bb has followed this all very closely cause she thought she had an in to turn me away from Marxism. and I've done my best to describe the evidence, limited as it is that we are all privy to. And her take was, in best working class tory language "fuck me he is a sleazy dick, and men like that who abuse their position are sick cunts but but he isn't a rapist". That's the elephant in the room we can't talk about.



Utterly fucked up.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

So one take on a situation none of us know enough about to say a fucking word on is fucked up but all the other mutually contradictory ones are ok? Bollox, none of us are qualified to say shit. But its only when anyone vaguely opposed to the demise of the SWP speculates that the world goes apeshit. This situation is a mess but there isn't just one take on it allowed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2013)

the other take is to have the conversation over wether it was 'forced' or not? Calling it 'bad sex'?

have a word with yourself. There's more forms of coercion than physical force ffs. Why are we even having this line from you?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 21, 2013)

I don't know if it was a relationship that went wrong, a psychologically coercive relationship or something ten time worse. none of us do. But one things for sure, if you say rape on this thread you'll get benefit of the doubt, if you assume anything less you're the fucking devil incarnate. I really wish we could have an answer that made everyone happy but the best we have is the process that was followed. Possibly there's no end to this shit in that case.


----------



## SLK (Dec 21, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I don't know if it was a relationship that went wrong, a psychologically coercive relationship or something ten time worse. none of us do. But one things for sure, if you say rape on this thread you'll get benefit of the doubt, if you assume anything less you're the fucking devil incarnate. I really wish we could have an answer that made everyone happy but the best we have is the process that was followed. Possibly there's no end to this shit in that case.



Go to bed. This is not you.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 22, 2013)

I will mate but before I do I have to reiterate there is a difference between harassment and rape (physical or not). It's an important distinction and we are at least allowed to question whether what happened was one or the other. I wish I didn't have to say that cause both acts are repulsive. But you know what one is a fuck load worse.


----------



## SLK (Dec 22, 2013)

But Josh, you appear to have judged it's the one repulsive act. Please relook at your posts tomorrow.


----------



## treelover (Dec 22, 2013)

Have to inform folks B/B's dreadful comments are now flying around the web, not yet the feminist groups, but they will hear soon enough.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 22, 2013)

I have god forbid me, like everyone else I have an opinion about something I have no right to. Problem is mine doesn't tally with the majority on here.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 22, 2013)

.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 22, 2013)

There isn't a facepalm big enough.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I will mate but before I do I have to reiterate there is a difference between harassment and rape (physical or not). It's an important distinction and we are at least allowed to question whether what happened was one or the other. I wish I didn't have to say that cause both acts are repulsive. But you know what one is a fuck load worse.




at this point I don't think anybody associated with the SWP has grounds to do these questions. Look at how the handling of this has gone. One of the things I return to again and again in my head is that the woman in question went to the Party before the bourgeois courts. And the (utterly insane) internal process did her right over. The trust and loyalty led to going before the Party rather than outsiders and look what happened. Thats not defensible


all this 'women and children lie' the mass exodus, the crisis that has gone further than the case itself- these should be of indicator ffs. This isn't just 'we're the swappies everyone hates us and will use any stick'. Your party is heamorraghing  members and support precisely because of how this was handled


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 22, 2013)

My bottom line through all this has been Stack's submission to the dc report session. I trust him, he said probably no rape but probably harassment. If all these people who are going mental know facts that prove that opinion wrong then fine but what the fuck is the average joe who tries to go by the principle that not everyone on the dc was a complete dick to think?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> what the fuck is the average joe who tries to go by the principle that not everyone on the dc was a complete dick to think?



there is no such person


----------



## killer b (Dec 22, 2013)

yeah, there's only two types of people: people who are unaware of the existence of the SWP, and people who think everyone on the DC is a complete dick.


----------



## SLK (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> My bottom line through all this has been Stack's submission to the dc report session. I trust him, he said probably no rape but probably harassment. If all these people who are going mental know facts that prove that opinion wrong then fine but what the fuck is the average joe who tries to go by the principle that not everyone on the dc was a complete dick to think?



First, Stack was under pressure and was 1 to many. And then had to say that to hundreds. As you know.
Second, Stack said not proven, as did the rest of the DC. Why have you made the leap to "didn't".
Third, Stack resigned from the SWP over it. 

Why did he do that? Is this movementism?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> My bottom line through all this has been Stack's submission to the dc report session. I trust him, he said probably no rape but probably harassment. If all these people who are going mental know facts that prove that opinion wrong then fine but what the fuck is the average joe who tries to go by the principle that not everyone on the dc was a complete dick to think?



I too have a lot of confidence in Pat. But the bottom line is that he was involved in a fundamentally flawed process (flawed for reasons we all know, so I'm not going to repeat them for nth time) and even his judgement can't be trusted in this business.

As I have pointed out before the leadership of the SWP have used the question of confidentiality very hypocritically as a smokescreen for their cover up. They have shown zero interest in protecting W and X in this whole horrible business and the question of confidentiality has been used basically to protect first Delta and then their own interests. There must be someone out there who has access to the documentation relating to the case. S/he should publish it, while keeping the names of the two women secret. This won't convince loyalists like "bad sex" BB, Rhetta, Mad Maxine etc, but it will allow the rest of us - inside or outside the SWP - to come to our own conclusions.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 22, 2013)

The problem is exactly that , we can all usually only go on what is publicly out there. stack says he had to resign over the way the women were treated by the process, by the claims about their integrity etc. As far as I can see he hasn't explicitly said he and others knew they were raped and covered it up. Now someone who shall remain nameless and isn't anyone obvious shared some detail with me tonight that If true would very strongly suggest everything I've assumed about the first case at least is bollox and that what I'm assuming here is stack's position may not be at all. I have almost zero emotional attachment to the position I'm arguing, I am completely reliant on the public info on this case, crucially what stack and unwin and others said and we've had that in front of us since roughly page 10 of this thread. As I trust the person who shared this new detail with me tonight and also trust the people who've essentially sworn blind to me that the truth is closer to what stack originally said (or bearing in mind what slk said, fair enough, what i took him to imply really bloody strongly in the hope that if it had been otherwise he wouldn't have said what he said) I have no option but to shut up and not say another word on this matter. As long as it was all about matters of public knowledge I could and did argue for what I thought those publicly known facts suggested. I know my interpretation of those facts puts me in a tiny minority but it was the only one I could come to without believing the worst of some very decent people. But this latest revelation, which clearly I can't and never would reveal leaves me floored and unsure of pretty much anything. so I'm just gonna shut the fuck up which I'm sure will be a relief to most. I know getting me to do that is why the person has told me what they've told me but that doesn't mean I don't believe them in fact Ive been sat here getting more and more depressed since they contacted me four hours ago, so to him/her I say I hear you and I'm out of here.No doubt someone will ask why it took a personal intervention to change my mind but all I can say is if I'm not being lied to tonight then we have all been lied to by a lot of people and the public 'facts' I thought I was operating off of are a joke. There may be an equally devastating fact for the defence which I haven't heard but to be honest after the damning thing I heard last night god only knows what the fuck that could be and the point is we'll probably never know now. All I know is this one piece of information has floored me, sickened me and as of the end of this post totally silenced me on this subject.

Maybe as you say karmickameleon some day this can all be properly cleared up but that's probably less and less likely without causing even more damage to the women in the case. So we're left with this huge grey zone of doubt (and with hindsight drawing any conclusions from a leaked transcript of a confidential report was never to way to get at any truth, shit like this needs to be discussed face to face and I've done too much dancing around the subject when face to face with people, and also with hindsight the one loyalist who told me I probably had more faith in the process, the accused and the verdict than he did was probably trying to hint at what I've been told tonight) but as I say it's impossible for me to have a proper view on any of it any more. I'm stumped and if I'm being told the truth I'm appalled at others and myself and right now seriously don't know which way is up.

edited: to say a) I was sober last night throughout but am getting properly trollied tonight and b)something about the politics. In a week from now the politics of the split on other issues will still be what they are. But right now, this morning they don't seem very important and I don't know how to think about it all politically, don't actually feel confident to say anything about anything.


----------



## Once red (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No that's as bad as it gets I'd say but then I'm not really in the inner sanctum. All I know is I say on here what I say to anybody.





bolshiebhoy said:


> I have god forbid me, like everyone else I have an opinion about something I have no right to.
> Problem is mine doesn't tally with the majority on here.



I get where you are coming from on this- of course people have opinions that differ on this, and yes, shouldn't. 

And polls consistently show that vast numbers of people hold dear to rape myths (including many women who have been raped, which is one reason for late disclosures) don't get the concept of emotional abuse or coercion and aren't very sympathetic to DV victims. Plus, relationships are complicated at the best of times.

But surely socialists should challenge those preconceptions, not succumb to them. Not challenging them, even reinforcing them, as the swp has done,  that's a massive political error.


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The problem is exactly that , we can all usually only go on what is publicly out there. stack says he had to resign over the way the women were treated by the process, by the claims about their integrity etc. As far as I can see he hasn't explicitly said he and others knew they were raped and covered it up. Now someone who shall remain nameless and isn't anyone obvious shared some detail with me tonight that If true would very strongly suggest everything I've assumed about the first case at least is bollox and that what I'm assuming here is stack's position may not be at all. I have almost zero emotional attachment to the position I'm arguing, I am completely reliant on the public info on this case, crucially what stack and unwin and others said and we've had that in front of us since roughly page 10 of this thread. As I trust the person who shared this new detail with me tonight and also trust the people who've essentially sworn blind to me that the truth is closer to what stack originally said (or bearing in mind what slk said, fair enough, what i took him to imply really bloody strongly in the hope that if it had been otherwise he wouldn't have said what he said) I have no option but to shut up and not say another word on this matter. As long as it was all about matters of public knowledge I could and did argue for what I thought those publicly known facts suggested. I know my interpretation of those facts puts me in a tiny minority but it was the only one I could come to without believing the worst of some very decent people. But this latest revelation, which clearly I can't and never would reveal leaves me floored and unsure of pretty much anything. so I'm just gonna shut the fuck up which I'm sure will be a relief to most. I know getting me to do that is why the person has told me what they've told me but that doesn't mean I don't believe them in fact Ive been sat here getting more and more depressed since they contacted me four hours ago, so to him/her I say I hear you and I'm out of here.No doubt someone will ask why it took a personal intervention to change my mind but all I can say is if I'm not being lied to tonight then we have all been lied to by a lot of people and the public 'facts' I thought I was operating off of are a joke. There may be an equally devastating fact for the defence which I haven't heard but to be honest after the damning thing I heard last night god only knows what the fuck that could be and the point is we'll probably never know now. All I know is this one piece of information has floored me, sickened me and as of the end of this post totally silenced me on this subject.
> 
> Maybe as you say karmickameleon some day this can all be properly cleared up but that's probably less and less likely without causing even more damage to the women in the case. So we're left with this huge grey zone of doubt but as I say it's impossible for me to have a proper view on any of it any more. I'm stumped and if I'm being told the truth I'm appalled at others and myself and right now seriously don't know which way is up.


Damascus Road! Will you now consider leaving the SWP as well as this thread?


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The horrible, horrible shit we've had because allegedly someone had very bad sex was only the catalyst. It was always going to happen. I honestly (there you go pickman!) believe that.


Christ you're lower than dogshit.


----------



## manny-p (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Jeezus everything is a conspiracy. All I know is I love my personal history of fighting for a womans right to choose in Ireland, I love the part the swp has played in most of the major struggles in these islands in my lifetime. And I hate the last year. And the stuff I've had to say in defence of it all. Who wants to talk about other peoples sex lives? Don't know how to square that circle.
> 
> edited to say ban away, I can have a quiet Xmas then with the family without banging my head against the wall.



Don't worry I will take pleasure in banging your head against a wall for you.


----------



## Oisin123 (Dec 22, 2013)

So am I right in reconstructing what happened last night as follows:

bolshie comes in around midnight, drunk and pugnacious. He posts aggressively and offensively. Someone starts to circulate those posts on Facebook or somewhere else online.
This leads to bolshie getting a phone call from someone he trusts who provides him with a 'fact' from case one that utterly shocks him. This call lasts maybe three hours because...
After 3a.m. he comes back to give us his distressed confession.

?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The problem is exactly that , we can all usually only go on what is publicly out there.


1. Yes. So why did you assume you were in possession of all the relevant facts? Considering the direness of the 'investigations' conducted, the politicisation of the debates within the SWP, and the lack of a public trial, it seems to me you had no right to assume this. None of us here know all the facts.

2. Why, when you were not in possession of all the facts, did you not have enough (a) sympathy for the alleged abuse victims and (b) awareness of the history of discrediting rape victims, to err on the side of believing them, rather than believing the side of a bunch of people who had a clear interest in denying the allegations?

If you've changed your position I'm glad, but you should have a long hard think about the mental processes you went through in order to hold your previous position.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Maybe as you say karmickameleon some day this can all be properly cleared up but that's probably less and less likely without causing even more damage to the women in the case. So we're left with this huge grey zone of doubt (and with hindsight drawing any conclusions from a leaked transcript of a confidential report was never to way to get at any truth, shit like this needs to be discussed face to face and I've done too much dancing around the subject when face to face with people, and also with hindsight the one loyalist who told me I probably had more faith in the process, the accused and the verdict than he did was probably trying to hint at what I've been told tonight) but as I say it's impossible for me to have a proper view on any of it any more. I'm stumped and if I'm being told the truth I'm appalled at others and myself and right now seriously don't know which way is up.


Bolshie, I really hope that your act of contrition is sincere as you sound (at times!) like a decent bloke. 
There are of course some decent people who are staying in the party although they know that the leadership has lied and covered up over the Delta scandal. They think that a) the party can be changed and b) it is more important to defend the party under attack than offer a genuine apology to W and  X. I - and most of the others on this thread - believe they are profoundly wrong as this crisis has revealed a massive deficit of democracy at the heart of the SWP (and that this is going to get worse with the Idoomers cracking the whip) and that the only way that the party could salvage its reputation is by a sincere act of contrition and transparency. Of course, there is no way this going to happen...
I really don't believe that publishing the documentation relating to the cases would harm the women concerned. You will remember that W wanted to speak before the conference a year ago (something which would have blown her anonymity) and was refused permission to do so and X actually spoke. I am not of course suggesting that their names should be revealed, but I do think that publishing the documents would be better than things leaking out in dribs and drabs (eg the revelation given to you last night) and allowing the other side to insinuate that they are M15 agents or were politically motivated in their accusations. Someone has to publish and be damned .. and sooner rather than later.
Anyway, Christmas is nearly here so I hope that you and your family have a very good one. Ditto the rest of you on this thread. I'm sure we'll have a lot more to talk about in 2014.


----------



## treelover (Dec 22, 2013)

> I too have a lot of confidence in Pat. But the bottom line is that he was involved in a fundamentally flawed process (flawed for reasons we all know, so I'm not going to repeat them for nth time) and even his judgement can't be trusted in this business.





Imo, none of them can, they were members of a Party which for many years has lied, smeared, bullied, manipulated,gerrymandered/packed votes, in more personal ways, used the SWP as their own 'harem' etc, one could go on, for whatever reason, SWP'ers inc many on here, acquiesced or perhaps even endorsed the sort of behaviour exhibited at say, The ESF, by the Party Tops, etc.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 22, 2013)

not that i particularly want to join in the piranha swarm around bb's comments but the 'possible harassment' by Delta of that girl was pretty much proven at the time - he admitted as much in his 'I ain't no angel' speech. that and, even on the basis of harassment he should have been expelled (he's had others expelled for far far less).

i don't know further details but even on the basis of the least of his potential crimes, Delta should have been gone long ago.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> Imo, none of them can, they were members of a Party which for many years has lied, smeared, bullied, manipulated,gerrymandered/packed votes, in more personal ways, used the SWP as their own 'harem' etc, one could go on, for whatever reason, SWP'ers inc many on here, acquiesced or perhaps even endorsed the sort of behaviour exhibited at say, The ESF, by the Party Tops, etc.



have to say that of all the shitty things i saw in the SWP, using the party as a 'personal harem' was not one of them


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

Das Uberdog said:


> not that i particularly want to join in the piranha swarm...



Still got some SWP left in you i see?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 22, 2013)

go on justify that


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

Others are piranhas - doesn't matter if you agree with them or not - they're piranhas. And if they are they are simply reacting to the smell of blood rather than people responding in a principled manner to comments made by a poster.

It's a way of operating that has the swp written all over it. These are habits that those who have left are going to have to leave behind as well if they are to get anywhere - not just leaving the formal party.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 22, 2013)

inventive


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 22, 2013)

the internal atmosphere of the SWP was very much like a piranha swarm, which is why i recognise it outside the party too. but, ftr, the 'method' you ascribe to the party is totally bogus. the SWPs culture of dealing with discussion was nowhere near as sophisticated


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2013)

I don't think its pirahana-behaviour if one person describes a rape accusation as 'really bad sex' then lots of people object to that. A statement like that is gallowayish


----------



## Das Uberdog (Dec 22, 2013)

it's hard to say anything right when every word you say is being scrutinised and disagreed with by 40+ observers. and in fact when those observers are continually throwing in  increasingly hostile responses the tendency is actually to make more errors not less. personally i take from bb what his stated position is, not what might presumably be revealed from a nebulous turn of phrase used in one post. i think there's enough there to get angry about without adding in the extra outrage.

and anyway i totally disagree with him which was my point, i just didn't want to phrase that in a way which perpetuated his role as the thread's loyalist whipping boy (whilst dishonestly ignoring that i disagree with lots of other people here about all manner of issues as well).


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2013)

its not _one_ nebulous turn of phrase and even if it was it shows a thinking thats pretty off-beam imho

The whole thing about 'you aren't in the know so you don't know' stuff is pretty thin imo. BB has explained upthread why he's changed his attitude on the matter as well.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 22, 2013)

Here's a generic letter to fill in:

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/my-resignation-letter-from-the-swp

(for any latecomers)


----------



## Belushi (Dec 22, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Here's a generic letter to fill in:
> 
> http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/my-resignation-letter-from-the-swp
> 
> (for any latecomers)



Never been a member but I might resign anyway


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 22, 2013)

dennisr said:


> Here's a generic letter to fill in:
> 
> http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/my-resignation-letter-from-the-swp
> 
> (for any latecomers)


Good old Boney! I was beginning to worry he'd gone a bit soft what with Class War's born-again electoralism after decades of slagging off everybody else's 'illusions in bourgeois democracy'.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

Class war never did any such thing. And here's another habit the now left-swp are going to have to kick. The pretence of total knowledge. And also swamping this thread in lecturer shit.


----------



## redcogs (Dec 22, 2013)

bolshiebhoys posts have often infuriated, and sometimes repelled.  However i cant help feeling a certain respect towards him for sticking to his misplaced guns, against some very formidable opponents.

Merry yule to one and all - Urban's a great forum, made so by general decency.


----------



## benedict (Dec 22, 2013)

redcogs said:


> bolshiebhoys posts have often infuriated, and sometimes repelled.  However i cant help feeling a certain respect towards him for sticking to his misplaced guns, against some very formidable opponents.
> 
> Merry yule to one and all - Urban's a great forum, made so by general decency.



This is just not the case though, redcogs. 

A couple of days ago, BB's line was that the Delta case was really just a pretext grasped by an opposition itching to turn the IS tradition upside-down. It boils down to a political argument, essentially. Then he rolls in with his misplaced comments on the details of the case. Later he rolls back in with the news that he's shifted to neutral after a middle-of-the-night call from an unnamed old comrade supplying secret information.

I'm probably not the only one who remembers a similar Damascene conversion earlier in the year (can't be bothered to go through the thread to find it) when Bolshie finally admitted the CC got it horribly wrong in dealing with the Delta case - after steadfastly defending the process up to that point. If memory serves, this was after bumping into a long-lost woman comrade who gave him fresh information and perspective on the case. 

I've appreciated BB's sticking with the thread and adding to the debate with his more sober contributions. But consistent he had not been. I think this inconsistency speaks more of his _desire to believe_ in the party, thus the repeated contortions and the vacillation between the kind of shit we've seen over the last 24-hours and a more sensible approach. Plus the interventions he's received from old comrades seem to be able to put some sense into him at times when he's gone right off the Cliff.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 22, 2013)

redcogs said:


> Merry yule to one and all - Urban's a great forum, made so by general decency.





benedict said:


> This is just not the case though, redcogs.


 nonetheless, seasonal tidings everyone

on a different note, if anyone here from the SWP posters knew Chris Maguire, Id like to draw your attention to this free-to-download memorial album put together by urbanites. It would be great if it could be shared around. I think he was a member, and im guessing up in Leeds - if anyone has any knowledge of his closest colleauges in the party that would be useful to know - either PM me or post details on the relevant thread - id like to make them aware of this:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ilation-rise-like-lions-free-download.318657/


----------



## Vladtheimpaler (Dec 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Class war never did any such thing. And here's another habit the now left-swp are going to have to kick. The pretence of total knowledge. And also swamping this thread in lecturer shit.


Pretence of total knowledge? Bullshit! Seems to me like the ex-SWPers on this thread are some of the very few who are prepared to admit that they ever got anything wrong in their lives ever. And meanwhile we're supposed to act like Aunt Sallies for arrogant macho willie wagglers who assume they know everything about us & act like fucking bruised prima donnas every time we take a relatively mild pop at their own far-from-perfect outfits.  

I signed up to this thread a few days ago because I was getting fed up with the over-pompous, over-worthy (yes, lecturish! - fuck you & your workerist stereotypes about lecturers!) discussion that was going on elsewhere & you seemed like a breath of fresh, irreverant air in comparison. But now I'm beginning to think that, although there a lot of good serious people who post on here who are really interested in learning the lessons of the SWP debacle & trying to use those lessons to create a better more unified revolutionary left, & although I think you dealt excellently with the appalling Bolshieboy, & although I know I've cocked up embarassingly a few times, it seems to me all that is undermined by the uncomradly, point-scoring, circle-jerk mentality of a minority, which although it quite correctly attacks the horrific sexism of the SWP seems 90% dominated by hormonally-pumped-up ego-tripping men.

I wish those of you who really are interested in creating something out of this, rather than just destroying ideological 'enemies' (& saying fuck-all about the real class enemies of us all), well. In this, believe it or not, I include Spiney Norman, who (for the record) I don't think is a sexist for using the 'c' word or an equally-bad-to-the-SWP sectarian for being in the SP, but an interesting & intelligent person who sometimes is her/his own worst enemy. 

I'm sure some of you will be glad to see the back of me. Not sure where I'm going now. Certainly not 'the wilderness'.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 22, 2013)

benedict said:


> This is just not the case though, redcogs.
> 
> A couple of days ago, BB's line was that the Delta case was really just a pretext grasped by an opposition itching to turn the IS tradition upside-down. It boils down to a political argument, essentially. Then he rolls in with his misplaced comments on the details of the case. Later he rolls back in with the news that he's shifted to neutral after a middle-of-the-night call from an unnamed old comrade supplying secret information.
> 
> ...


If I remember correctly, it was immediately after his first damascene moment that he then decided to rejoin.
 There must be a surplus of scales on the road to Swindon


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

_


Vladtheimpaler said:



			Pretence of total knowledge? Bullshit! Seems to me like the ex-SWPers on this thread are some of the very few who are prepared to admit that they ever got anything wrong in their lives ever. And meanwhile we're supposed to act like Aunt Sallies for arrogant macho willie wagglers who assume they know everything about us & act like fucking bruised prima donnas every time we take a relatively mild pop at their own far-from-perfect outfits. 

I signed up to this thread a few days ago because I was getting fed up with the over-pompous, over-worthy (yes, lecturish! - fuck you & your workerist stereotypes about lecturers!) discussion that was going on elsewhere & you seemed like a breath of fresh, irreverant air in comparison. But now I'm beginning to think that, although there a lot of good serious people who post on here who are really interested in learning the lessons of the SWP debacle & trying to use those lessons to create a better more unified revolutionary left, & although I think you dealt excellently with the appalling Bolshieboy, & although I know I've cocked up embarassingly a few times, it seems to me all that is undermined by the uncomradly, point-scoring, circle-jerk mentality of a minority, which although it quite correctly attacks the horrific sexism of the SWP seems 90% dominated by hormonally-pumped-up ego-tripping men.

I wish those of you who really are interested in creating something out of this, rather than just destroying ideological 'enemies' (& saying fuck-all about the real class enemies of us all), well. In this, believe it or not, I include Spiney Norman, who (for the record) I don't think is a sexist for using the 'c' word or an equally-bad-to-the-SWP sectarian for being in the SP, but an interesting & intelligent person who sometimes is her/his own worst enemy.

I'm sure some of you will be glad to see the back of me. Not sure where I'm going now. Certainly not 'the wilderness'.
		
Click to expand...


We live in the real world.
_
If that post was serious vlad, you are all fucked. Look, you came on here offering your experience - great, much need, welcomed. But a few days later and we're getting the finger wagging and the interminable SP/SWP stuff. And then this is placed against what this place _should _look like? A place that you decided is here to build a non-swp revolutionary left that doesn't take the piss out of the left. I didn't agree to that. Nor, i think, did the people here years before you. Nor, do i think the people out there in the non-swp non-internet world will either. You may be in for a surprise. And it's ridiculous to leave for being told so.


----------



## benedict (Dec 22, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Pretence of total knowledge? Bullshit! Seems to me like the ex-SWPers on this thread are some of the very few who are prepared to admit that they ever got anything wrong in their lives ever. And meanwhile we're supposed to act like Aunt Sallies for arrogant macho willie wagglers who assume they know everything about us & act like fucking bruised prima donnas every time we take a relatively mild pop at their own far-from-perfect outfits.
> 
> I signed up to this thread a few days ago because I was getting fed up with the over-pompous, over-worthy (yes, lecturish! - fuck you & your workerist stereotypes about lecturers!) discussion that was going on elsewhere & you seemed like a breath of fresh, irreverant air in comparison. But now I'm beginning to think that, although there a lot of good serious people who post on here who are really interested in learning the lessons of the SWP debacle & trying to use those lessons to create a better more unified revolutionary left, & although I think you dealt excellently with the appalling Bolshieboy, & although I know I've cocked up embarassingly a few times, it seems to me all that is undermined by the uncomradly, point-scoring, circle-jerk mentality of a minority, which although it quite correctly attacks the horrific sexism of the SWP seems 90% dominated by hormonally-pumped-up ego-tripping men.
> 
> ...



Why don't you take a deep breath, eat some humble pie for the scraps you got yourself into, then get back to serious discussion? 

You wouldn't roll into a new boozer, start slagging off the years-long regulars, and then throw a huff when they gave you the cold shoulder. Don't do that here.

Just cool down, start contributing seriously, and you'll earn respect.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 22, 2013)

Is the gender ratio in the SWP really 9:1? I don't believe that

Edit: maybe now... Oh I misread, vlad meant here was 90% hulkster macho men


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 22, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> Pretence of total knowledge? Bullshit! Seems to me like the ex-SWPers on this thread are some of the very few who are prepared to admit that they ever got anything wrong in their lives ever. And meanwhile we're supposed to act like Aunt Sallies for arrogant macho willie wagglers who assume they know everything about us & act like fucking bruised prima donnas every time we take a relatively mild pop at their own far-from-perfect outfits.
> 
> I signed up to this thread a few days ago because I was getting fed up with the over-pompous, over-worthy (yes, lecturish! - fuck you & your workerist stereotypes about lecturers!) discussion that was going on elsewhere & you seemed like a breath of fresh, irreverant air in comparison. But now I'm beginning to think that, although there a lot of good serious people who post on here who are really interested in learning the lessons of the SWP debacle & trying to use those lessons to create a better more unified revolutionary left, & although I think you dealt excellently with the appalling Bolshieboy, & although I know I've cocked up embarassingly a few times, it seems to me all that is undermined by the uncomradly, point-scoring, circle-jerk mentality of a minority, which although it quite correctly attacks the horrific sexism of the SWP seems 90% dominated by hormonally-pumped-up ego-tripping men.
> 
> ...


That's us told.
 You know what Vlad, off the fuck with you. Loads of people on here were never taken by the sick cult you have stayed in for so long for, others, like me realised what a pile of shit it was years back, and none of us have been hanging on for some trot cunt to come wet eared out of the afterbirth of the 'IS tradition' to show us the right way to build a'revolutionary movement'
 You sad excuses for Leninists have had 95 years to show your top down murderous centralism could achieve socialism and what have we got?
 Real Leninism gave us a fuck load of mass graves, your playground version finishes in a squalid rape cult.
Off you go to wnerever you end up, just don't pretend that the smith debacle came out of a clear sky. The party you have defended supported and sought to build for years has used the exact same practices against everyone else on the left for all the time you have been a loyal member that the cc has used against the opposition over the past year. 
 You have been made welcome here, but because people don't fall over themselves to fawn in your brilliance you decide to flounce.
  By the way, the 'workerist' slur doesn't cut anywhere outside the middle class ghetto of the swp.


----------



## belboid (Dec 22, 2013)

Vladtheimpaler said:


> an interesting & intelligent person who sometimes is her/his own worst enemy.


that's pretty much all of us, isnt it?


----------



## SLK (Dec 22, 2013)

I see people casting doubt on BB's hearing from comrades. I don't doubt what he says 1 bit and trust him 100%. He seems a bit, well, broken, by the news/ insight from last night. I can only think that it's horrific and unedifying and I feel for him.


----------



## tony collins (Dec 22, 2013)

That's all well and good, but what the hell kind of socialist thinks it's *ever* acceptable to describe a rape allegation as "very bad sex"? 

Bolshibhoy has deleted the comment he made, and I don't care if it's cos he now found out that a rape happened (it's actually cowardly for him to delete the comment). 

He felt it was acceptable to describe it as "very bad sex" even after everything that's been said on and offline for the last year. That's pretty disgusting.


----------



## SLK (Dec 22, 2013)

tony collins said:


> That's all well and good, but what the hell kind of socialist thinks it's *ever* acceptable to describe a rape allegation as "very bad sex"?
> 
> Bolshibhoy has deleted the comment he made, and I don't care if it's cos he now found out that a rape happened (it's actually cowardly for him to delete the comment).
> 
> He felt it was acceptable to describe it as "very bad sex" even after everything that's been said on and offline for the last year. That's pretty disgusting.



I agree. I said that, and have not deleted my post quoting him. You can see what I said. I think he was wrong, is wrong.

I think he should not be judging the case (he thinks or thoguht that everyone else has judged it, so he can to. I disagree, and think that most people haven't judged but are erring towards what they think happened [though some, inc frogwoman have said that MS isn't innocent]).

It's misguided. He's not a sexist. He has a proud record of fighting sexism, including in Ireland when abortions were illegal. He is a good guy.

He wants the SWP to exist because he's spent more than half his life defending or building the SWP, because he believes in a different sort of society and thinks the SWP is the best vehicle. I think he's wrong. I don't really believe like he does any more. I've kind of given up. However, he wants to defend an organisation that fights for socialism because he thinks it's the best organisation to get there.

So I'm not going to say "give him a break". I think he's wrong. And he phrased it wrong. But now that he's gone back on it, please take him at face value because he is a decent bloke.

Edit to add: Charlie Hore opened my eyes (in turn) the other night by saying that his eyes were opened by a young comrade who said that the SWP was a vehicle to get a better society. If it wasn't working, they'd find another vehicle.


----------



## benedict (Dec 22, 2013)

SLK said:


> I see people casting doubt on BB's hearing from comrades. I don't doubt what he says 1 bit and trust him 100%. He seems a bit, well, broken, by the news/ insight from last night. I can only think that it's horrific and unedifying and I feel for him.



To clarify, I didn't mean to cast doubt on the truthfulness of BB's posts about hearing from comrades. I was just trying to point out how his position on the core issues of the case has changed over time. Like I said, I believe this arises out of his desire to believe the party can sustain and that such horrors would not have been instigated by his former comrades.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

SLK said:


> I see people casting doubt on BB's hearing from comrades. I don't doubt what he says 1 bit and trust him 100%. He seems a bit, well, broken, by the news/ insight from last night. I can only think that it's horrific and unedifying and I feel for him.




I don't trust him. I've seen him come up with this _i've just been told, oh i just met someone now i just don't know what to think (_he's even already done it in this bloody thread) _-_ thing enough times over the last 13 years. He'll be back banging the same line come tuesday. He got drunk sat night (this used to be the night he ripped into me and i woke up sunday morning to find reams of it), told the truth about what the thinking is in his and their world. Mug yourself if you like.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 22, 2013)

SLK said:


> I see people casting doubt on BB's hearing from comrades. I don't doubt what he says 1 bit and trust him 100%. He seems a bit, well, broken, by the news/ insight from last night. I can only think that it's horrific and unedifying and I feel for him.


I agree.

I think BB like many loyalists has been stuck trying to mesh his principles with his loyalties and they just wont fit anymore, which has just enhanced the normal human tendency to be somewhat confused and contradictory. None of us are wholly consistent at the best of times and trying to stay true to your principles and loyal to the SWP thorough all this must really screw with your thinking and I think goes someway towards his tendency to shift position at times. I have sympathy for him, but the sad truth is that if he had done what he should have from the start of this mess and stuck to his principles, then whatever he heard last night would not have hit him nearly so hard. I don't accept all this stuff about the necessity of defending the IS tradition. But I think if I was truly committed to the IS tradition, what I would be feeling right now is that it was the opposition that had fought to defend it while the CC and the party loyalists had betrayed it. While no doubt this has been an extremely painful experience for the opposition, especially those that have committed decades to the SWP at least they can still hold their heads high knowing they did the right thing even if their party did not. What struck me in his last post is the realisation that he can't do that.

I will probably get vilified for this post, but I still feel that whatever positions BB has taken over the last year, he is fundamentally on the same side as mean in the class struggle. I will even go as far as saying that despite what he said last night, I still think he has a stronger genuine commitment to women's liberation than the majority of people.

edited to correct spelling.


----------



## SLK (Dec 22, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I will probably get vilified for this post, but I still feel that whatever positions BB has taken over the last year, he is fundamentally on the same side as mean in the class struggle. I will even go as far as saying that despite what he said last night, I still think he has a stronger genuine commitment to women's liberation than the majority of people.



I would go further than that and say "the vast majority, at least".

I also agree with the rest of your post.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

No bolsheviks here then?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 22, 2013)

Not me that's for sure.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

SLK said:


> > I will even go as far as saying that despite what he said last night, I still think he has a stronger genuine commitment to women's liberation than the majority of people.
> 
> 
> I would go further than that and say "the vast majority, at least".
> ...


The swp _mentalite _writ in words. Sort of thing.

Leaving aside your twos mugginess, where does that leave the rest of us without a formal party commitment to womens liberation? By what are we to be judged?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The swp _mentalite _writ in words. Sort of thing.
> 
> Leaving aside your twos mugginess, where does that leave the rest of us without a formal party commitment to womens liberation? By what are we to be judged?


You may well be right about us being mugs.
I don't get the rest of you post though, what has a party commitment got to do with anything?  The SWP's commitment is obviously not worth very much, and in any case signing a membership form does not automatically mean someone has a commitment to woman's liberation just because the party they are joining has one. And I am in no position to judge anyone, as that would imply I have some special authority on the matter, all I can do is say what I think based on what I see.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You may well be right about us being mugs.
> I don't get the rest of you post though, what has a party commitment got to do with anything?  The SWP's commitment is obviously not worth very much, and in any case signing a membership form does not automatically mean someone has a commitment to woman's liberation just because the party they are joining has one. And I am in no position to judge anyone, as that would imply I have some special authority on the matter, all I can do is say what I think based on what I see.


Your belief in his commitment to WL comes in one case from knowing him and the other in from knowing what party he is in. I'm saying - as do you - that this is now worthless as guarantor. I then asked how you judge other people to be able to say that his commitment to wl's is more than the vast majority of people?

Or is is just another unthinking backslap to a comrade?


----------



## SLK (Dec 22, 2013)

emanymton said:


> You may well be right about us being mugs.
> I don't get the rest of you post though, what has a party commitment got to do with anything?  The SWP's commitment is obviously not worth very much, and in any case signing a membership form does not automatically mean someone has a commitment to woman's liberation just because the party they are joining has one. And I am in no position to judge anyone, as that would imply I have some special authority on the matter, all I can do is say what I think based on what I see.



Are you aiming this at me?
I don't know the answers. Sorry.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Your belief in his commitment to WL comes in one case from knowing him and the other in from knowing what party he is in. I'm saying - as do you - that this is now worthless as guarantor. I then asked how you judge other people to be able to say that his commitment to wl's is more than the vast majority of people?
> 
> Or is is just another unthinking backslap to a comrade?


BB has a history of campaigning for and supporting women's rights, most people in this country do not. Most people I meet hold what I believe to be reactionary ideas about the roles of women in society compared to BB. None of this means that they are rampant misogynists, the vast majority of people support the right to abortion, to equal pay and so on. But the majority of people have no _active _commitment to women's liberation and frankly will not even have give it much thought.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 22, 2013)

SLK said:


> Are you aiming this at me?
> I don't know the answers. Sorry.


No BA, whihc was why I quoted his post


----------



## treelover (Dec 22, 2013)

> I wish those of you who really are interested in creating something out of this, rather than just destroying ideological 'enemies' (& saying fuck-all about the real class enemies of us all), well. In this, believe it or not, *I include Spiney Norman, who (for the record) I don't think is a sexist for using the 'c' word or an equally-bad-to-the-SWP sectarian for being in the SP, but an interesting & intelligent person who sometimes is her/his own worst enemy*.



damning with faint praise


----------



## treelover (Dec 22, 2013)

tony collins said:


> That's all well and good, but what the hell kind of socialist thinks it's *ever* acceptable to describe a rape allegation as "very bad sex"?
> 
> Bolshibhoy has deleted the comment he made, and I don't care if it's cos he now found out that a rape happened (it's actually cowardly for him to delete the comment).
> 
> *He felt it was acceptable to describe it as "very bad sex" even after everything that's been said on and offline for the last year. That's pretty disgusting*.



Wonder if Laurie is aware of it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> Wonder if Laurie is aware of it?


Oh just fuck off will you. Pathetic.


----------



## treelover (Dec 22, 2013)

> Emanymton said
> especially those that have committed decades to the SWP at least they can still hold their heads high knowing they did the right thing even if their party did not



but they did the wrong thing for many years, no absolution...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2013)

treelover said:


> but they did the wrong thing for many years, no absolution...


From you? Just fuck off.


----------



## treelover (Dec 23, 2013)

Mr Angry again...


----------



## Before Theory (Dec 23, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I will probably get vilified for this post, but I still feel that whatever positions BB has taken over the last year, he is fundamentally on the same side as mean in the class struggle. I will even go as far as saying that despite what he said last night, I still think he has a stronger genuine commitment to women's liberation than the majority of people.
> 
> I am not going to villify you emanymton, there's more than enough of that on the left as it is.
> 
> ...


----------



## emanymton (Dec 23, 2013)

Before Theory , the detail you have given about the rape case, where have you got that from? Is is a fact or a guess? Also you may want to edit it out.


----------



## Before Theory (Dec 23, 2013)

No need to edit - no names are mentioned, but BB knows the real "story" now, and that's why he's disappeared. 

It's not a guess, read my earlier posts from when I first joined the thread, I gave a lot of information about other events that were eventually shown to be factual - same as this one.

In some countries what he did is not classified as rape, and it gives the apologists room to manoeuvre, but if consent can not be freely given, then in my world that is rape.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2013)

http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/27603475/


----------



## muscovyduck (Dec 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/27603475/


Error?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2013)

muscovyduck said:


> Error?


Try him


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2013)

i don't think you can post links to searches anymore mate, they're individual to the user. what was it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2013)

BT profile

Go to first one (information-->find all content)


----------



## Before Theory (Dec 23, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> BT profile
> 
> Go to first one (information-->find all content)



Or go to p167/p168 and p267/p268


----------



## ska invita (Dec 23, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Or go to p167/p168 and p267/p268


it can be quite hard to navigate back to those pages, so here are links:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-166

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/swp-expulsions-and-squabbles.303876/page-267


----------



## emanymton (Dec 23, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> No need to edit - no names are mentioned, but BB knows the real "story" now, and that's why he's disappeared.
> 
> It's not a guess, read my earlier posts from when I first joined the thread, I gave a lot of information about other events that were eventually shown to be factual - same as this one.
> 
> In some countries what he did is not classified as rape, and it gives the apologists room to manoeuvre, but if consent can not be freely given, then in my world that is rape.


Thank you, it is pretty much what I thought it might me, although somewhat worse than I imagined. 

I have tended to suspect that was I to see the evidence I would probably decide it was rape. Although obviously could not say for certain, but what you describe clearly is. As I said earlier in the thread it is possible that those in the SWP leadership who know the facts and don't dispute them, but still argue no rape took place are true rape apologists, but the majority of the membership is not as they do not know the facts. The sad thing is many don't seem to want to know more about the case. 

As for BB we will just have to see what he says if he ever returns to this thread.


----------



## Bakhtinite (Dec 23, 2013)

It makes the disputes committee questioning the complainant about whether she had been drinking completely and utterly contemptible....

Edited to add: see post below  by others that clarify which complainant was questioned about their drinking - still completeely and utterly contemptible whoever was asked


----------



## emanymton (Dec 23, 2013)

Bakhtinite said:


> It makes the disputes committee questioning the complainant about whether she had been drinking completely and utterly contemptible....


I believe the question was along the lines of 'is it fair to say you like a drunk?' And it was asked of the second women not the one who made the accusation of rape. I don't remember seeing anything saying any question about drinking was ever  asked in the rape case. Still one of the more contemptible things of this whole thing though.


----------



## Bakhtinite (Dec 23, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I believe the question was along the lines of 'is it fair to say you like a drunk?' And it was asked of the second women not the one who made the accusation of rape. I don't remember seeing anything saying any question about drinking was ever  asked in the rape case. Still one of the more contemptible things of this whole thing though.


 
It may be Richard Seymour is an unreliable source

 "The investigation into the rape allegation was corrupt. Sexist and hostile questions had been asked of the women. (Like a drink, do you?). " The crisis in the SWP part 1 http://www.leninology.com/2013_03_01_archive.html


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 23, 2013)

Bakhtinite said:


> It may be Richard Seymour is an unreliable source
> 
> "The investigation into the rape allegation was corrupt. Sexist and hostile questions had been asked of the women. (Like a drink, do you?). " The crisis in the SWP part 1 http://www.leninology.com/2013_03_01_archive.html



Yes, the investigation into the rape allegation was most definitely corrupt and it is also true that sexist and hostile questions were asked of W. See for example the detailed account by Simon et al in IB3 and the uncensored version of the same on the SU website:

_"The questions ranged from a supposed relationship she had had with an older comrade in her district to asking why she had gone for a drink with M and about her previous boyfriends, with specific people named and whether the relationships had been full sexual relationships."_
and
_"Comrade W became very upset and left the room in tears saying that they thought she was a “slut who asked for it”._

But - and this is just a detail -I'm not aware that she was asked "like a drink, do you?". My impression is that question was asked of X:

_"X also faced inappropriate questioning by some members of the DC. CC member Amy L asked if she had misconstrued M’s approaches as he was a friendly man who often bought her coffee, while DC elected member *Maxine B asked her about her drinking habits.*"_

As I said, just a detail. But - given the amount of distortions and lies from the leadership and their lackeys - we need to get our fact absolutely right.


----------



## Before Theory (Dec 23, 2013)

As I said, just a detail. But - given the amount of distortions and lies from the leadership and their lackeys - we need to get our fact absolutely right.[/quote]

Karmickameleon, I should have made it clear that my statement about MS is not based on any of the discussions or posts that subsequently appeared on the internet after the 2012 leak on Socialist Unity. It is not referred to in any of the documents and as far as I am aware, Comrade W was not asked about alcohol consumption when she appeared before the Disputes Committee.

My information predates the 2012 leak. I left after conference 2011 when I had to watch him receive a standing ovation for what I consider non consensual sex.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 23, 2013)

Before Theory said:


> Karmickameleon, I should have made it clear that my statement about MS is not based on any of the discussions or posts that subsequently appeared on the internet after the 2012 leak on Socialist Unity. It is not referred to in any of the documents and as far as I am aware, Comrade W was not asked about alcohol consumption when she appeared before the Disputes Committee.
> 
> My information predates the 2012 leak. I left after conference 2011 when I had to watch him receive a standing ovation for what I consider non consensual sex.



When you refer to your statement about MS, I presume you mean that relating to non-consensual sex/rape. Or perhaps I've missed something in your postings (if so, please give me the reference).
Whatever the case, you certainly got out at the right time. Congratulations!


----------



## Bakhtinite (Dec 23, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> _"X also faced inappropriate questioning by some members of the DC. CC member Amy L asked if she had misconstrued M’s approaches as he was a friendly man who often bought her coffee, while DC elected member *Maxine B asked her about her drinking habits.*"_


 
I have edited my post to avoid starting any confusion, still outrageous whichever complainant  was asked  and  unbelievable that Maxine Bowler was given a standing ovation  by many at the December conference according to reports.

I left the SWP because I disagreed with it, I  sometimes regetted the waste or my time or that I had contributed to stengthening something that, i came to see, was an obstacle to social change,  but I never felt ashamed to have been associated with it, but I do now


----------



## Before Theory (Dec 23, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> When you refer to your statement about MS, I presume you mean that relating to non-consensual sex/rape. Or perhaps I've missed something in your postings (if so, please give me the reference).
> Whatever the case, you certainly got out at the right time. Congratulations!



No, that was what I meant. I was trying to clear up any confusion that my information may have been derived from the internet coverage of the Disputes Committee etc.

I honestly can't see anything to be congratulated about though, nobody would listen to me when I tried to raise the issue, and I had to watch helplessly as a young woman was vilified and her friends attacked and intimidated by the likes of Helen Salmon and Roddy Slorach.

Without wanting to get too "poor me" about it, I also had to come to terms with the fact that the Party I had given 11 years and countless amounts of money to was being run by a semi Stalinist group who put the needs of the Party above the needs of the class, and tried to destroy anyone who opposed them. The smears and lies and misinformation that followed would have done the Stasi proud.

So a young woman has had her life destroyed, hundreds of well meaning comrades have had their reputations and motives impugned, and still Lord Alex and Cheeky Charlie sail on, and don't get me started on Delta himself, laughing at us all when imho he should be locked up somewhere.


----------



## Trotter (Dec 23, 2013)

Resignation statement from 141 ex-SWP members:
http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/70922748501/open-statement-resignation-from-the-swp


----------



## Balbi (Dec 23, 2013)

http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/70922748501/open-statement-resignation-from-the-swp


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 23, 2013)

Balbi said:


> http://revolutionarysocialism.tumblr.com/post/70922748501/open-statement-resignation-from-the-swp



No sign of Hannah Dee or Mike Gonzalez.


----------



## Once red (Dec 23, 2013)

yes a few names missing, bit sad to see that.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 23, 2013)

On a jollier note, does create the opportunity for a Christmas "Name the Baby" competition , with a prize for renaming the new group . I think "Socialism from Below" would be good, as the name isn't much in use, but would be a kind of attempt to snatch the "best" bits off the SWP on the way out.  Hope a new organisation can get going with some minimum level of activity to win over waverers, rather than be caught in a complete inward looking "reevaluation"


----------



## belboid (Dec 23, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> On a jollier note, does create the opportunity for a Christmas "Name the Baby" competition , with a prize for renaming the new group . I think "Socialism from Below" would be good, as the name isn't much in use, but would be a kind of attempt to snatch the "best" bits off the SWP on the way out.  Hope a new organisation can get going with some minimum level of activity to win over waverers, rather than be caught in a complete inward looking "reevaluation"


it's also good because the AWL hate it - http://www.workersliberty.org/node/1206


----------



## krink (Dec 23, 2013)

i actually know someone who is desperately trying to join the swp and has been for years but they won't have him! the current situation has not put him off either. fuck me there's some right arseholes!


----------



## Red Cat (Dec 23, 2013)

Once red said:


> yes a few names missing, bit sad to see that.



Which names did you expect to see?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 23, 2013)

krink said:


> i actually know someone who is desperately trying to join the swp and has been for years but they won't have him! the current situation has not put him off either. fuck me there's some right arseholes!



I think i know who you mean


----------



## krink (Dec 23, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I think i know who you mean



spanky will know who it is. i won't name him as that wouldn't be fair - mind, the person in question wouldn't do the same for anyone else.


----------



## J Ed (Dec 23, 2013)

Why won't they have him?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 23, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> No sign of Hannah Dee or Mike Gonzalez.


Not surprised by Mike G's absence as he and Megan T signed the middle-of-the-roaders' declaration. However, Hannah D is a bit surprising as, following her highly critical contribution to IB2, it seemed difficult for her to stay. The sectarians now in control certainly won't give her an easy time of it.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 23, 2013)

My resignation email to CK was short & to the point. Just asked him to remove me from the mailing list as I am no longer a member.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 23, 2013)

J Ed said:


> Why won't they have him?


Which poses the question just how bad have you got to be for the SWP to turn you down?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 23, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> Not surprised by Mike G's absence as he and Megan T signed the middle-of-the-roaders' declaration. However, Hannah D is a bit surprising as, following her highly critical contribution to IB2, it seemed difficult for her to stay. The sectarians now in control certainly won't give her an easy time of it.


There are a number of people who still haven't made their minds up yet, some may not want to put their name to that particular statement, and others may simply want to leave quietly  without having their name all over the internet.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 23, 2013)

krink said:


> spanky will know who it is. i won't name him as that wouldn't be fair - mind, the person in question wouldn't do the same for anyone else.





J Ed said:


> Why won't they have him?



He's a lunatic who sets out with the aim of working with everyone but then falls out with everyone involved. 

He's criticising all those leaving right now


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 23, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He's a lunatic



Is it too late for PD to headhunt him?


----------



## rekil (Dec 23, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Is it too late for PD to headhunt him?


"The People's Lunatic"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 23, 2013)

copliker said:


> "The People's Lunatic"


Lunar c-for-commissar


----------



## Trotter (Dec 24, 2013)

Once red said:


> yes a few names missing, bit sad to see that.


That statement only went out for signatures on Saturday evening. Not the best time for collecting names just before the holidays. Some comrades are away, others are planning to resign at report back meetings in early January. The remarkable thing is that half the faction signed in under 48 hours. The list will be updated regularly. My estimate is that at least 180 have resigned from the SWP in the last two weeks.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 24, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Which poses the question just how bad have you got to be for the SWP to turn you down?


I know a couple who were expelled in the late 90s, and who have. Remained loyal ever since, they have been pretty quiet over all this on Facebook, perhaps a new party application is on its way?


----------



## Once red (Dec 24, 2013)

Trotter said:


> That statement only went out for signatures on Saturday evening. Not the best time for collecting names just before the holidays. Some comrades are away, others are planning to resign at report back meetings in early January. The remarkable thing is that half the faction signed in under 48 hours. The list will be updated regularly. My estimate is that at least 180 have resigned from the SWP in the last two weeks.


It's a good number and I'm really quite excited to see where this group will go and what they can build. Was just musing aloud really that a couple of people I had hoped to see there aren't there (yet)- on a personal level it's weird to think about those still in, it's baffling. 
So, in total since the start of the year- 500 left? More?


----------



## killer b (Dec 24, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He's a lunatic who sets out with the aim of working with everyone but then falls out with everyone involved.
> 
> He's criticising all those leaving right now


 Does he live in Sunderland?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2013)

Paulo¿


----------



## killer b (Dec 24, 2013)

ah yes. colossal mentallist. complete fucking liability for any vaguely leftish stuff in tyneside, and a bit of a nasty fucker once you stop laughing at the deranged comedy trot stylings. fuck 'im.


----------



## Trotter (Dec 24, 2013)

A comment on the current SWP crisis by a leading member of the Dutch International Socialists - an IST group:

_"I have been (and still am) a member of the Dutch sister-organization of the SWP for the past 18 years. Since 1998, I have visited (and sometimes spoken at) its yearly Marxism event, have contributed frequently to its publications, and have participated in a large number of meetings organized by this party, which in the spirit of internationalism I considered as my own. I owe much of my political education to people like Tony Cliff, Paul Foot, Duncan Hallas, and Chris Harman, all of whom I had the privilege to observe up-close, speaking and arguing. As a member of the leadership of the Dutch IS for almost 15 years upto January 2013, I have had frequent contact with many members of the SWP's changing CC for the same period, sometimes (as is only natural) disagreeing about parts of their political analysis, but on a whole very much sharing the same positions and learning a lot from their experience. For all of those reasons, the events of the past year have been extremely dishartening to me. As many other revolutionary socialists inside and outside the IST, I have watched in complete horror at the unprincipled way in which the current SWP leadership handled the unfolding crisis within the party. Arguing about this with supporters of the SWP majority (including the CC), especially around my resignation in protest from a secretarial job in the IST after the special conference last March, left me thoroughly disappointed in a number of comrades whose intellectual capacities and political integrity I had always valued very highly, and even more convinced about the correctness of the analysis of my comrades in the opposition. I know there is still a (fastly declining) number of comrades critical of the actions of the CC who choose to remain and work inside the SWP, and I respect their choice. But if I had been based in the UK over the past year, my name would have been on this list. I am looking forward to working with comrades like ..., and many others on this list in the future. I am in full solidarity with them. Their principled stance over the past year has been an inspiration to me, and I wish them well in their political ventures of the coming period."_


----------



## krink (Dec 24, 2013)

anyone know how many people are in that counterfire group?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 24, 2013)

krink said:


> anyone know how many people are in that counterfire group?


Can't be more than 1-200?

And they seem to be quite disorganised as well

(Having said that they don't seem to practice standard trot recruitment tactics either)


----------



## krink (Dec 24, 2013)

just wondered if they would be hoping to mop-up some of the ex swappies.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 24, 2013)

krink said:


> just wondered if they would be hoping to mop-up some of the ex swappies.


They may think so, but Rees and German are pretty well despised


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Can't be more than 1-200?
> 
> And they seem to be quite disorganised as well
> 
> (Having said that they don't seem to practice standard trot recruitment tactics either)


read that as 'diagnosed'


----------



## discokermit (Dec 24, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> Still waiting for part 2, or did I miss it  ?


sorry s, was visiting my brother.
things seem to have moved on since the bolshie meltdown though, so i'm not sure of the value of it anyway.


----------



## belboid (Dec 24, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Can't be more than 1-200?)


Much less than that I think. 60-80 odd


----------



## SLK (Dec 24, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> They may think so, but Rees and German are pretty well despised



Had a lengthy conversation with Rees on facebook the other night. I'd had a drink. I think he's a good guy, and I like Lindsey. I just think they made a wrong decision and couldn't go back. He didn't convince me that he believes a future socialist society is possible, and I suspect that is what was behind their move into whatever Counterfire is.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 24, 2013)

discokermit said:


> sorry s, was visiting my brother.
> things seem to have moved on since the bolshie meltdown though, so i'm not sure of the value of it anyway.



You can't stop there. I wanted to know what colour Fred Perry you were wearing when the ISG had the book launch for More Years From The Locust.







Seriously, I thought your first part was interesting. I was looking forward to the second part.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> sorry s, was visiting my brother.
> things seem to have moved on since the bolshie meltdown though, so i'm not sure of the value of it anyway.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 25, 2013)

treelover said:


> Lol at this, but it sounds unlikely.




seriously man, theres loads of weird Dublin children that carry on like oul fellas . Bizarre philosophical statements are their stock in trade . Its a bit unnerving sometimes.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 27, 2013)

discokermit said:


> sorry s, was visiting my brother.
> things seem to have moved on since the bolshie meltdown though, so i'm not sure of the value of it anyway.


I meant to say - the last lot who jumped ship from the SWP will be meeting in January to decide how they should carry on together (if at all) , so I think any discussion about  what ex members thought was good, and what was bad, are very useful indeed - so I still vote you should return with part 2, for the greater good as well as for the gripping story.


----------



## neprimerimye (Dec 27, 2013)

Those staying in the SWP include Megan Trudell who tried to stitch the Faction up by doing a deal with softer elements of the CC supporters immediately prior to the conference. Around 30 Faction comrades signed that statement so some will be taken hostage along with Trudell. Others staying in are hannah Dee and Jim Wolfreys the ostensible leaders of the Faction who decided at the final Faction meeting that they would only stand on a CC slate that included Callinicos and Kimber. Younger elements in the Faction rightly took this as the idiocy it so obviously is and put forward a slate without them. Those comrades who have now signed the collective letter total 165 with a few more to come.


----------



## newbie (Dec 27, 2013)

I was looking forward to part 2 too.... mostly for the clothes (& car?) porn.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 27, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I meant to say - the last lot who jumped ship from the SWP will be meeting in January to decide how they should carry on together (if at all) , so I think any discussion about  what ex members thought was good, and what was bad, are very useful indeed - so I still vote you should return with part 2, for the greater good as well as for the gripping story.


Absolutely. Can't wait for Part 2. As you say, what makes these personal accounts so interesting is that they graphically display what was valuable in the SWP and what went wrong. I can't deny the stuff about clothes is also of interest!


----------



## Trotter (Dec 27, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> Those staying in the SWP include Megan Trudell who tried to stitch the Faction up by doing a deal with softer elements of the CC supporters immediately prior to the conference. Around 30 Faction comrades signed that statement so some will be taken hostage along with Trudell. Others staying in are hannah Dee and Jim Wolfreys the ostensible leaders of the Faction who decided at the final Faction meeting that they would only stand on a CC slate that included Callinicos and Kimber. Younger elements in the Faction rightly took this as the idiocy it so obviously is and put forward a slate without them. Those comrades who have now signed the collective letter total 165 with a few more to come.


Don't be so sure that those you have listed have decided to stay in the SWP. Although the list of signatories of the statement now stands at 169, there are a significant number of other comrades who, for various reasons, have been waiting until after Xmas/New Year to publicly announce their resignations. I know of at least 30 comrades who have already resigned who have not yet signed the statement. And there are a significant number of others who expect to resign shortly.


----------



## neprimerimye (Dec 27, 2013)

Trotter said:


> Don't be so sure that those you have listed have decided to stay in the SWP. Although the list of signatories of the statement now stands at 169, there are a significant number of other comrades who, for various reasons, have been waiting until after Xmas/New Year to publicly announce their resignations. I know of at least 30 comrades who have already resigned who have not yet signed the statement. And there are a significant number of others who expect to resign shortly.



Those I have listed have most certainly decided to stay in the SWP but that does not mean they will change their minds. However their claims to leadership of a new group will be damaged and rightly so. And yes more resignations are to be expected although number guessing strikes me as pointless.


----------



## Trotter (Dec 27, 2013)

neprimerimye said:


> And yes more resignations are to be expected although number guessing strikes me as pointless.


I was not guessing at final figures, just stating what I know as of now.


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 29, 2013)

, BBs rant was posted on SU, and I pointed out that he had until recently been a fellow member of Swindon CLP with Andy Newman, Newman replied: "
_"Well yes and no, someone claiming to have been a member of the Labour Party in Swindon has indeed been posting on Urban75 under the name bolshieboy.

I have checked into this and there are various factual inconsistencies, which mean I am absolutely certain that this is someone who has created an entirely false persona; he almost certainly does not come from Swindon, and has no connection with the Labour Party in that town.

It is certaibly completely untrue that he could possibly be in the same Labour Party branch as me, as South Swindon does not have a branch structure, and has open GC meetings instead._
So is Newman lying, or what?


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 29, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> , BBs rant was posted on SU, and I pointed out that he had until recently been a fellow member of Swindon CLP with Andy Newman, Newman replied: "
> _"Well yes and no, someone claiming to have been a member of the Labour Party in Swindon has indeed been posting on Urban75 under the name bolshieboy.
> 
> I have checked into this and there are various factual inconsistencies, which mean I am absolutely certain that this is someone who has created an entirely false persona; *he almost certainly does not come from Swindon*, and has no connection with the Labour Party in that town.
> ...



He never claimed to have come from Swindon.  He's Irish. He just stated that he was a member of the Labour Party in Swindon. Enough people on this thread seem to know him in real life, and none of them have challenged his statement of residing in Swindon.

I think I even remember him selling Socialist Worker in the Marchmont Centre in Central London back in the mid-90s.


----------



## tony collins (Dec 29, 2013)

I don't think Andy's lying. I know the guy well enough to believe that he doesn't need to lie about shit like that. If he's got it wrong, the worst you can say is that Andy is mistaken.

The way I resolve this is, one of the two of them posted about the rape allegations being about "very bad sex", while the other didn't. So that tips the scales in Andy's favour for me.


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 29, 2013)

Did Bolshie claim he was in the same branch as Andy Newman? I can't remember.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 29, 2013)

tony collins said:


> I don't think Andy's lying. I know the guy well enough to believe that he doesn't need to lie about shit like that. If he's got it wrong, the worst you can say is that Andy is mistaken.
> 
> The way I resolve this is, one of the two of them posted about the rape allegations being about "very bad sex", while the other didn't. So that tips the scales in Andy's favour for me.



Strange logic. Why on earth would BB make it up? I can't see what could possibly be in it for him. I can see why Newman would want to deny it even if it is true though.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 29, 2013)

I don't think either is laying. I think Newman is assuming branch when I don't think BB ever said that, just that he had been in the same meetings as Newman.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 29, 2013)

Either way I'd be staggered to find that BB made any of the Swindon labour party stuff up - why on earth would he do that?


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Either way I'd be staggered to find that BB made any of the Swindon labour party stuff up - why on earth would he do that?



To make himself appear more exciting and glamourous? For the XTC puns? 'Cos this is a thread for leftist trainspotters and Swindon's only famous for trains, the magic roundabout and andy newman?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Either way I'd be staggered to find that BB made any of the Swindon labour party stuff up - why on earth would he do that?


I dread to think what sort of disturbed personality would fantasize about being in Swindon Labour party.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 29, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I dread to think what sort of disturbed personality would fantasize about being in Swindon Labour party.



Seems like Swindon Labour Party is full of fantasist's.

You've got one bloke who thinks the current SWP leadership are defending a principled decision and you've got another one who thinks Labour are some sort of left wing party and that the Chinese Communist Party _really does _have a cunning plan towards a socialist society.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2013)

SpineyNorman said:


> Either way I'd be staggered to find that BB made any of the Swindon labour party stuff up - why on earth would he do that?


because he can?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2013)

barney_pig said:


> , BBs rant was posted on SU, and I pointed out that he had until recently been a fellow member of Swindon CLP with Andy Newman, Newman replied: "
> _"Well yes and no, someone claiming to have been a member of the Labour Party in Swindon has indeed been posting on Urban75 under the name bolshieboy.
> 
> I have checked into this and there are various factual inconsistencies, which mean I am absolutely certain that this is someone who has created an entirely false persona; he almost certainly does not come from Swindon, and has no connection with the Labour Party in that town.
> ...


i wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2013)

SLK said:


> Had a lengthy conversation with Rees on facebook the other night. I'd had a drink. I think he's a good guy, and I like Lindsey. I just think they made a wrong decision and couldn't go back. He didn't convince me that he believes a future socialist society is possible, and I suspect that is what was behind their move into whatever Counterfire is.


something less than  a revolutionary organisation?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 29, 2013)

leyton96 said:


> Seems like Swindon Labour Party is full of fantasist's.
> 
> You've got one bloke who thinks the current SWP leadership are defending a principled decision and you've got another one who thinks Labour are some sort of left wing party and that the Chinese Communist Party _really does _have a cunning plan towards a socialist society.



Why *are* so many left Labour types so into capitalist China and Russia? Is it some sort of established authority fetish that leads these people to admire both the Labour Party and these countries?


----------



## Attila of Fitod (Dec 30, 2013)

Does the support of CWI for NUMSA in South Africa and the position it took on a rape charge against Cmde. Vavi not entirely echo the approach of the SWP to the Cmde. Delta issues?

Ongoing discussion here:
http://www.politicalworld.org/showt...rs-of-South-Africa-(NUMSA)/page2#.UsDjQvt69Ao


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 30, 2013)

emanymton said:


> I dread to think what sort of disturbed personality would fantasize about being in Swindon Labour party.


Lol you have a point! Everyone runs us down but where else but here would all my fellow bus passengers say 'thank you drive'.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 30, 2013)

imposs1904 said:


> He never claimed to have come from Swindon.  He's Irish. He just stated that he was a member of the Labour Party in Swindon. Enough people on this thread seem to know him in real life, and none of them have challenged his statement of residing in Swindon.
> 
> I think I even remember him selling Socialist Worker in the Marchmont Centre in Central London back in the mid-90s.


Crikey yes. With Delta in fact!


----------



## emanymton (Dec 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol you have a point! Everyone runs us down but where else but here would all my fellow bus passengers say 'thank you drive'.


thank you driver, where I grew up.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol you have a point! Everyone runs us down but where else but here would all my fellow bus passengers say 'thank you drive'.


People say that all over Hampshire, Dorset, and parts of Wiltshire


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol you have a point! Everyone runs us down but where else but here would all my fellow bus passengers say 'thank you drive'.



The whole of Wales?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Dec 30, 2013)

Attila of Fitod said:


> Does the support of CWI for NUMSA in South Africa and the position it took on a rape charge against Cmde. Vavi not entirely echo the approach of the SWP to the Cmde. Delta issues?
> 
> Ongoing discussion here:
> http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?15323-Historic-decision-by-the-National-Union-of-Metalworkers-of-South-Africa-(NUMSA)/page2#.UsDjQvt69Ao



No.

What do you think?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 30, 2013)

Don't bite. He's a Stalinist mental.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 30, 2013)

So have we established yet whether or not bolshiebhoy is really Andy Newman?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> People say that all over Hampshire, Dorset, and parts of Wiltshire


And Somerset and bristol and cornwall and deveon and gloucs and dudley and brum and telford and newport and so on...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Dec 30, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And Somerset and bristol and cornwall and deveon and gloucs and dudley and brum and telford and newport and so on...


Fair enough, still can't get used to it though after living in London and Dublin. I like that people do it, just can't get used to it.


----------



## Shoegazer (Dec 30, 2013)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Fair enough, still can't get used to it though after living in London and Dublin. I like that people do it, just can't get used to it.


Just consider it as a glimpse of what an ideal society might be like, one in which people have respect for each other and are happy with public transport. You're right about it being different in London though, it was one of the things I noticed after leaving there to head back 'oop North'


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 30, 2013)

There's a piece on the SWP goings on in the current issue of "Datacide" magazine - it's not been put online as yet, but you can buy the printed version here: http://datacide.c8.com/magazine/

If anyone wants, I can do a short synopsis of what's written once I've read my own copy.


----------



## belboid (Dec 30, 2013)

MellySingsDoom said:


> There's a piece on the SWP goings on in the current issue of "Datacide" magazine - it's not been put online as yet, but you can buy the printed version here: http://datacide.c8.com/magazine/
> 
> If anyone wants, I can do a short synopsis of what's written once I've read my own copy.



anything that isn't on the thread already?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Dec 30, 2013)

belboid said:


> anything that isn't on the thread already?



Not sure - as I say, I haven't had a chance to read the article as yet.  If there's anything new in there, it might be worth adding here.  What do you reckon?


----------



## Trotter (Dec 30, 2013)

I now know of 200 confirmed resignations from the SWP this month - with more to come.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 30, 2013)

Trotter said:


> I now know of 200 confirmed resignations from the SWP this month - with more to come.


Including the last lot, that what, five or six hundred in total? Even with the most optometrist membership figures that's abound 20% gone, more realistically its somewhere between a third and half.


----------



## Trotter (Dec 30, 2013)

emanymton said:


> Including the last lot, that what, five or six hundred in total? Even with the most optometrist membership figures that's abound 20% gone, more realistically its somewhere between a third and half.


Kimber said before the December Conference that 450-500 has resigned, so I think we are looking at 700. That's just over half the total attendance at the pre-Special Conference aggregates (around 1,300). My guess is that the active membership is now something between 800 and 1,200. During the September-December pre-Conference period, the faction circulated reports of branch meetings covering a high percentage of the branches. In most cases these were small meetings, in no way reflecting the claimed membership of the branches (i.e. less than 10%).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

What does _active _mean in your reckoning Trotter?


----------



## killer b (Dec 31, 2013)

Surely for every member resigning publically, there'll be a couple quietly cancelling their standing order and slipping away?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> Surely for every member resigning publically, there'll be a couple quietly cancelling their standing order and slipping away?


Or not cancelling it and still possibly being counted as active.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 31, 2013)

Yes to both killer b and butchersapron's points, but demoralised drift aways tend take longer to go than people who storm out and slam the door.

I reckon that the aggregate attendance (circa 1,000) minus the door slammers  (200) gives a reasonable enough approximation of "active" membership in the sense of people who might be expected to do something on a reasonably regularish basis. But that's going to continue to go down as people drift away demoralised and as difficulties recruiting make natural wastage an issue.


----------



## Trotter (Dec 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What does _active _mean in your reckoning Trotter?


People who are identified as SWP in activity of some sort.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2013)

Trotter said:


> People who are identified as SWP in activity of some sort.


So in reality 150.I'm not jocking


----------



## killer b (Dec 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So in reality 150.I'm not jocking


 interesting number. Can you show your workings?


----------



## imposs1904 (Dec 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So in reality 150.I'm not jocking



"_Is he having a go at us or the SWP_?"


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 31, 2013)

For your information. The following article was written by Robert Owen pre-conference and IMHO makes a lot of sense. He posted it on Facebook a couple of days ago and it has led to a great deal of discussion with interventions from Faction members (wanting some breathing space), ISNers (wanting unification right now) and Counterfirers (just being seductive). Anyway, it's worth a read:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-owen/thoughts-on-life-after-december/10152083986103329


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 31, 2013)

Karmickameleon said:


> For your information. The following article was written by Robert Owen pre-conference and IMHO makes a lot of sense. He posted it on Facebook a couple of days ago and it has led to a great deal of discussion with interventions from Faction members (wanting some breathing space), ISNers (wanting unification right now) and Counterfirers (just being seductive). Anyway, it's worth a read:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-owen/thoughts-on-life-after-december/10152083986103329



Cut and paste? It's not currently accessible


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 31, 2013)

I didn't think the Counterfire crew were being very "seductive" - they don't seem to be making a play for ex-SWP members to join in any numbers (and indeed have not done so much throughout all this party catastrophe). I guess they might be thinking that all the ex SWP types are in such a mix of rage and disappointment that they would be a bit of a handful to deal with all in one go, plus many of the SWP folk seem to have held on to their SWP-dislike of Counterfire.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 31, 2013)

God as much as the details of these cases make me angry and upset, I am happy I was alive and here to witness the end of the SW fucking P. 

after all the shit they put me through as a student it couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of absolute cunts. We started a group in Salford, met at the crescent, managed to get 40-50 people turn up regularly to a cross-left meeting that lasted 12 months (12 meetings in total) and every trot and anarcho group you can think of was there. It was trotspotters delight. It was dead relaxed, didn't really mix much with the student politics (which was dire at Salford) and actually managed to get people into the community and doing useful stuff not NUS shit. The SWP were noticeable from the outset, in and amongst all the little groups, for being the hardest to work with. They turned up, and immediately tried making us affiliate to UAF (which coz we were all young and didn't have much experience of this bureacracy stuff was quite threatening really. We didn't have a bank account to start with, how are we supposed to pay affiliations?) when we said no, we want to be more informal they then basically tried ruining it. Once they realised they couldn't take it over, and turn the whole thing into being a UAF donkey-work society, they then turned up in numbers to meetings being vexatious and dominating meetings using points of order and shouting over people etc. Really astonishing. Then once they realised they couldn't do that, they called their own rival meeting in a nearby pub for the exact same day of the month as we had ours. Didn't work though, apart from their own handful of members they'd conned at freshers stalls, no-one fucking bothered. These were the first "far-left" socialists I ever encountered and it nearly put me off politics for life. It did for some who came. Their behaviour was so fucking outrageous that I basically came to the swift conclusion "trots are fucking mental" and that was a big part of why at the end of it all I ended up joining Labour - they might be disgusting in so many ways but at least they weren't like that. Took me years to realise that was a dead end, by which time I'd fucking had enough of left politics pretty much. 

So yeah fuck them, fuck them a million times over for not just this recent disgusting escapade with Martin Smith but for the decades and decades worth of bullshit they've put people though no different to what I went through. The damange they've done is immense. The ex-members who left get the right to say "at least I'm not a rape apologist" but to be honest that's all they get to say, because they were complicit in the rest of the damage that shitty little group has done and very few of them are even beginning to honestly assess where they went wrong and what they did.


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 31, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> God as much as the details of these cases make me angry and upset, I am happy I was alive and here to witness the end of the SW fucking P.
> 
> after all the shit they put me through as a student it couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of absolute cunts. We started a group in Salford....


 - interested if you could you say when that was ? ta


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 31, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Cut and paste? It's not currently accessible


Too long to paste in one go. So here it is in several parts:

_I wrote this just before conference mainly to think through what was going on in my own head. Not 100% sure about all of it but I think the general thrust is still more or less what I think. Still trying to write something about the tasks of revolutionaries today.

Increasing numbers on all sides of the crisis in the SWP are aware that the situation has tipped unavoidably in one direction. The behaviour of the CC and their majority in the party has, since January, moved to disenfranchise those that have not “been loyal enough” to the central committee.  This document attempts to offer some suggestions for those of us likely to be left behind by the SWP after conference.

Evolution of crisis
Back in May I wrote a piece when I was starting to come to terms with our failure to salvage the situation. I argued that the crisis was being driven by the fact that:
“Those that led the charge (on and off the CC) were in effect a faction lead to defend Comrade Delta but also a particular model of the party – one heavily shaped by the experience of the 1980s. Those in IDOOP were characterised as being soft on the movements by comrades with a model of the Party developed to survive the downturn.  This resonated with a layer of comrades caderised in the 80s who wished to see the party survive but had reduced their day to day relationship with it. Many also had roles in the public sector unions that have been at the centre of our recent perspectives.  This layer was able to pull behind it others with a substitutionist notion of party building and more who simply wished the crisis would blow over.
At the centre of this faction were comrades who had been mobilised to defeat the left platform a few years previously. That had been a faction fight that united them with younger elements in the party. However, they now moved to pressure a weak leadership into moving decisively against a section of the party shaped by the recent crisis of capitalism. This faction now reinforces the most sectarian elements of the leadership and is adjusting the party’s politics to justify a rapid sectarian turn. Their permanent war footing has created a self-fulfilling prophesy that those in IDOOP are on a route out of the party. Elements of the CC that recognised this were either not confident, or unable, to challenge the dynamic or those on the CC who encouraged it.”
This is an analysis which proved depressingly true. As did the prediction of who would depart the SWP first. We have been all but stripped of our younger and most energetic members. Comrades who left were those for whom the SWP was more of a tool in the struggle and less an institution where the weight of the past weighed heavy. Whether we could have done things differently is now pointless speculation. We all have to fight to win at conference while thinking about how we hold our politics together through difficult times.

What will be left of the SWP if we lose?
The SWP will remain a force with many hundreds of committed activists for years to come.  It will continue to contain important individuals, embody many positive ideas and be a principled anti-racist and anti-fascist grouping. However it will be a force robbed of its revolutionary potential. The model of “command Leninism” that Alex Callinicos and the cc are institutionalising represents a retreat from engaging with a wider anti-systemic mood. Those activists beyond our ranks are the people who could renew the SWP, but they will not be won simply because we are the best trade unionists or activists. 
Our tradition always understood the centrality of politics extended beyond trade unionism and party led campaigns. Our slogan fight on every front showed a willingness to engage openly in every spark of resistance.  The combination of organisational pragmatism and theoretical dogmatism that took its place is rapidly turning the SWP into a sect. This reality can be seen in numerous IB pieces including “towards a revolutionary party” and the CC’s response to the faction in IB3.  This is not to redefine the term sect but to use it in its truest sense. The SWP’s practice and culture has become self-referential and self-justifying.  The CC mixes inoffensive broad brush analysis with a wild over estimation of our initiatives without any critical reflection or genuine link.  As an organisation we have become passive propagandists on the one hand and dogmatists on the other. The response of the party to every new development has been to try and fit it into a pre-existing analysis.
There were always “many potential seeds” in the SWP. However, the crisis has nurtured some of the very worst and drawn them in to buttress a weak leadership. If the CC / party grandee alliance wins at conference it will mean smoothing over, denying or embedding some of the worst aspects of the past year.  If this happens the SWP will become an organisation with no space for those unable or unwilling to be “loyal beyond doubt”.  What will remain is an aging and discredited organisation.
The question for us must be how we save the best of our collective experience and ideas. The possibility of a new project should not be judged against the SWP past but the current SWP and its direction of travel._


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 31, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Cut and paste? It's not currently accessible


Part Two Rob Owen:
_Humble origins and future dreams
The beginnings of any new project will have to be tentative and humble. We have emerged from a sustained political crisis and have few if any “great successes” under our belts.  While it would be madness to declare ourselves the nucleus of a mass party we have some important things to offer: 
We come from a political tradition rooted in the idea of socialism from below and critical revolutionary Marxism. As such we have a strong basis to start evaluating perspectives for revolutionaries today.
We contain or relate to a large section of the activists won to revolutionary Marxism since 2001. This includes most of the younger activists who have built the SWP over the past few years.
We are seen as principled and are respected by many on the wider left and contain some of the best known figures in the current SWP.
We have a common experience and trust stretching back many years.  Whatever the difficulties of the faction fight we have retained our shared principles and avoided a (complete) breakdown of trust.
The key question is how many SWP members (within and outside the faction) can we keep active as revolutionaries. This will involve addressing the political debates that opened up this year and establishing new routines of activity.  A new grouping would have to provide a space for revolutionary ideas to be discussed but also be a network of activists trying to apply them in practice. For a group to survive it must:
Be an open and inclusive place to discuss politics and activity
Develop a sense of what ideas (socialism from below, internationalist, tribune of the oppressed) unite it and form the limits of membership.
Support activity that is seen as useful.
Develop a voice to the outside world – through a publication (be it magazine or journal) and a properly resourced website.
Some proposals
If we are likely to be driven out the SWP at conference then we must organise a meeting in the New Year to suggest next steps.  This will have to acknowledge that there would be some areas where people have groups but also many fairly isolated individuals around the country.  We need some means of holding both together. No one can proscribe any conclusions when most of us still hope for some last minute victory.  It will be up to us all to raise and discuss ideas but we should start thinking now. Some of my own suggestions would include:
Asking local groups to set up meetings on the tasks of revolutionaries today in every location we can. Encouraging as many people to circulate ideas and speak at meetings both before and after. Following them up with other discussions related to the wider debates.
Asking groups to pick one campaign and workplace they are going to attempt to work around.  It is important we have some activity that is focused, collective and productive. We are revolutionaries not just to wait for the glorious day but to get stuck into changing the world.
To encourage groups to write up and reflect on their activity. The organisation should become a forum for circulating experiences that could be of use elsewhere.
To start producing a regular magazine that could include some of these reports but mainly analysis of events, more theoretical pieces and some reviews.
To launch a proper website to access a wider audience.
Starting to organise a one day/weekend mini-Marxism event in early March. This would to open up the discussions we have been happening and show others in the SWP diaspora that we are serious about developing the non-sectarian tradition of the SWP.  Why should we not debate Michael Rosen or host him on a platform? Why not debate Owen Jones on reform or revolution? It would however have to be mainly based around major workshops on the key areas of discussion.
We would have course have to elect some temporary committee with comrades delegated to edit what was agreed and coordinate the organisation. This must be an interim steering committee. Organisational questions must be secondary as we aim to develop a structure and leadership that fits the experience of working together outside the SWP. Similarly we can’t allow ourselves to become defined by hostility to the organisation that has left us behind. Bitterness is no basis to build.

How we carry ourselves
We will be what we are: a group of revolutionary socialists with a common experience seeing what we have to offer.  I believe something positive would come of it, I have not spent 13 years in the SWP to leave nothing principled behind. The only guarantee we have is that if we do not try we will definitely fail.
Our aim is to increase the number of active revolutionaries in the here and now and we will seek practical unity with others (including revolutionaries) where ever we can.  However I do not believe a rush to mergers and regroupment is a helpful early step. Let us put the horse in front of the cart and attempt to work together with ourselves and others to see what works.

I think the same applies to many comrades in the ISN – neither of us has the authority to subsume the other. We have ploughed different troughs for a number of months, developed different experiences and learnt different lessons.  That can only be brought back together through patience, goodwill and joint political activity. We do not need an explosion of new groups but neither will we solve the problem by amalgamating the existing ones.  Struggle can unite us but organisational fixes rarely work.

In conclusion
Whatever flaws the SWP had developed it is a tragedy what has occurred this year.  It has been 12 months where different possibilities have been shut down by the CC leaving them with an increasingly sectarian and ageing organisation.  This is a tragedy not because the international struggle is on the brink of revolution but because the revolutionary left is in urgent need of a rigorous assessment of possibilities and perspectives.  We could have been a significant space for discussion but the CC has set its face against it. The crisis over the DC case has over shadowed any other debate and hidden a rapid sectarian drift. As Tony Cliff once said a fish rots from the head and if the rot is not removed this conference then the patient will not be saved.

Rob Owen_


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 31, 2013)

Scribbling S said:


> I didn't think the Counterfire crew were being very "seductive" - they don't seem to be making a play for ex-SWP members to join in any numbers (and indeed have not done so much throughout all this party catastrophe). I guess they might be thinking that all the ex SWP types are in such a mix of rage and disappointment that they would be a bit of a handful to deal with all in one go, plus many of the SWP folk seem to have held on to their SWP-dislike of Counterfire.


Yes, perhaps "seductive" isn't the appropriate word. How about "sweet and reasonable"?


----------



## emanymton (Dec 31, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> God as much as the details of these cases make me angry and upset, I am happy I was alive and here to witness the end of the SW fucking P.
> 
> after all the shit they put me through as a student it couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of absolute cunts. We started a group in Salford, met at the crescent, managed to get 40-50 people turn up regularly to a cross-left meeting that lasted 12 months (12 meetings in total) and every trot and anarcho group you can think of was there. It was trotspotters delight. It was dead relaxed, didn't really mix much with the student politics (which was dire at Salford) and actually managed to get people into the community and doing useful stuff not NUS shit. The SWP were noticeable from the outset, in and amongst all the little groups, for being the hardest to work with. They turned up, and immediately tried making us affiliate to UAF (which coz we were all young and didn't have much experience of this bureacracy stuff was quite threatening really. We didn't have a bank account to start with, how are we supposed to pay affiliations?) when we said no, we want to be more informal they then basically tried ruining it. Once they realised they couldn't take it over, and turn the whole thing into being a UAF donkey-work society, they then turned up in numbers to meetings being vexatious and dominating meetings using points of order and shouting over people etc. Really astonishing. Then once they realised they couldn't do that, they called their own rival meeting in a nearby pub for the exact same day of the month as we had ours. Didn't work though, apart from their own handful of members they'd conned at freshers stalls, no-one fucking bothered. These were the first "far-left" socialists I ever encountered and it nearly put me off politics for life. It did for some who came. Their behaviour was so fucking outrageous that I basically came to the swift conclusion "trots are fucking mental" and that was a big part of why at the end of it all I ended up joining Labour - they might be disgusting in so many ways but at least they weren't like that. Took me years to realise that was a dead end, by which time I'd fucking had enough of left politics pretty much.
> 
> So yeah fuck them, fuck them a million times over for not just this recent disgusting escapade with Martin Smith but for the decades and decades worth of bullshit they've put people though no different to what I went through. The damange they've done is immense. The ex-members who left get the right to say "at least I'm not a rape apologist" but to be honest that's all they get to say, because they were complicit in the rest of the damage that shitty little group has done and very few of them are even beginning to honestly assess where they went wrong and what they did.


edited


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 1, 2014)

Thanks to delroy for reminding me why the SWP will and should survive.


----------



## benedict (Jan 1, 2014)

Care to elaborate Bolshie? Delroy's description maps on to my experience and those of countless others. Is it just the fact that people are sick to the back teeth of the SWP's parasitical and disruptive style of operating that means in your view the party "will and should survive"?

Oh and since this is the time for "year in review" pieces, do you still agree with what you said on January 7 about how your "sympathies were with the opposition factions in everything [you've] heard about the political debates going on inside the party"? How come you've done a 180 on those supposed sympathies?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 1, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thanks to delroy for reminding me why the SWP will and should survive.



What a cock end.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 1, 2014)

benedict said:


> Care to elaborate Bolshie? Delroy's description maps on to my experience and those of countless others. Is it just the fact that people are sick to the back teeth of the SWP's parasitical and disruptive style of operating that means in your view the party "will and should survive"?
> 
> Oh and since this is the time for "year in review" pieces, do you still agree with what you said on January 7 about how your "sympathies were with the opposition factions in everything [you've] heard about the political debates going on inside the party"? How come you've done a 180 on those supposed sympathies?


No benedict of course I don't mean that, I mean it was good to be reminded how much of the hard left animus against the party predates the current appalling mess. It's easy to forget that.

God yeah I've totally changed my mind over the last year. A year ago I thought joining Counterfire might be an option too. The debates around the IS tradition of the last year have helped clarify imho that the swp mostly gets the politics on the working class, on imperialism and yes on feminism right and the diaspora don't. The problem for people like me is that we suspect the party didn't do a very good job of applying it's own politics to the case that started this disaster but (and this is a huge but) unlike quite a lot of the diaspora we still essentially agree with those politics.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 1, 2014)

diaspora lol


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 1, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> God as much as the details of these cases make me angry and upset, I am happy I was alive and here to witness the end of the SW fucking P.
> 
> after all the shit they put me through as a student it couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of absolute cunts. We started a group in Salford, met at the crescent, managed to get 40-50 people turn up regularly to a cross-left meeting that lasted 12 months (12 meetings in total) and every trot and anarcho group you can think of was there. It was trotspotters delight. It was dead relaxed, didn't really mix much with the student politics (which was dire at Salford) and actually managed to get people into the community and doing useful stuff not NUS shit. The SWP were noticeable from the outset, in and amongst all the little groups, for being the hardest to work with. They turned up, and immediately tried making us affiliate to UAF (which coz we were all young and didn't have much experience of this bureacracy stuff was quite threatening really. We didn't have a bank account to start with, how are we supposed to pay affiliations?) when we said no, we want to be more informal they then basically tried ruining it. Once they realised they couldn't take it over, and turn the whole thing into being a UAF donkey-work society, they then turned up in numbers to meetings being vexatious and dominating meetings using points of order and shouting over people etc. Really astonishing. Then once they realised they couldn't do that, they called their own rival meeting in a nearby pub for the exact same day of the month as we had ours. Didn't work though, apart from their own handful of members they'd conned at freshers stalls, no-one fucking bothered. These were the first "far-left" socialists I ever encountered and it nearly put me off politics for life. It did for some who came. Their behaviour was so fucking outrageous that I basically came to the swift conclusion "trots are fucking mental" and that was a big part of why at the end of it all I ended up joining Labour - they might be disgusting in so many ways but at least they weren't like that. Took me years to realise that was a dead end, by which time I'd fucking had enough of left politics pretty much.
> 
> So yeah fuck them, fuck them a million times over for not just this recent disgusting escapade with Martin Smith but for the decades and decades worth of bullshit they've put people though no different to what I went through. The damange they've done is immense. The ex-members who left get the right to say "at least I'm not a rape apologist" but to be honest that's all they get to say, because they were complicit in the rest of the damage that shitty little group has done and very few of them are even beginning to honestly assess where they went wrong and what they did.



being an ex member of the swp (I left in 2009) I would disagree that I was complicit in doing damage. Like many others in different groups I worked with others in different organisations or in no organisations around many issues (anti nazi stuff, asylum seekers, strikers support groups, anti war stuff, abortion rights etc. etc.) and never sought to destroy anything that the swp couldn't control. I agree that many did ... can't say I knew it at the time but have read and listened to enough people to know that the members of the swp and the organisation itself (leadership wise) could be and was sectarian. But to be honest the same can be said of many other groups.
Your experience at uni sounds shit and I don't blame you for hating the swp...I had a similar experience here in SE London after the racist murders of Rohit Duggal Rolan Adams and Stephen Lawrence where people parachuted into Plumstead/eltham/thamesmead, dennounced the area as racist, claimed that no black people were safe here and proceeded to undermine all the hard work local anti racists/ political groups/ unions/ community groups/student groups/ religious groups etc. had been involved in but I wouldn't blame everyone who came as many of them did very good work and helped greatly.
I am not seeking to defend the swp but I am not responsible/ culpable/ or complicit in damage that certain members of the swp caused. I am responsible for my actions and my response once I became aware of the negative behaviour being shown.

From the timing of your experiences I think you had joined the Labour party before they wrecked my council pension, before they crushed my wages (no pay rise in 5 years so I still only earn £900 a month as a class room assistant)  and before tens of thousands of us were kicked out of our jobs (like my partner) ... however, to accuse you of being complicit in this anti working class attack would be wrong imo... as you said you had reasons to join the Labour party and thought that was the best thing to do but once you became aware that the party was damaging things you believed in you left...the same is true of me in the swp and I guess must be true of others.

I honestly ain't looking for a point scoring row and do not blame any one for hating the swp ... the behaviour displayed towards you and others at your university was outragous...but I think that the left as a whole should not be divided by sectarian "you were in the swp" v "you were in the labour party" etc. type arguments and I think that there is a danger of that in your last post.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 1, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thanks to delroy for reminding me why the SWP will and should survive.



I can see how the whole "no one likes us - we don't care" works in a football supporter context, i can't see how it would work as a response to the kind of criticisms outlined by Delroy for someone who supports a party, presumably on its class politics dimensions?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 1, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> diaspora lol



I actually think that's a reasonable enough collective term. Back in the 70s much of the left consisted of recently ex-IS groups, as the various dissident bits of that organisation were tossed out in preparation for the launch of the SWP. Now the SWP has basically split into five groups in a few years. At this point all five groups still have recognisable SWPish political origins,but they won't for long.


----------



## benedict (Jan 1, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No benedict of course I don't mean that, I mean it was good to be reminded how much of the hard left animus against the party predates the current appalling mess. It's easy to forget that.
> 
> God yeah I've totally changed my mind over the last year. A year ago I thought joining Counterfire might be an option too. The debates around the IS tradition of the last year have helped clarify imho that the swp mostly gets the politics on the working class, on imperialism and yes on feminism right and the diaspora don't. The problem for people like me is that we suspect the party didn't do a very good job of applying it's own politics to the case that started this disaster but (and this is a huge but) unlike quite a lot of the diaspora we still essentially agree with those politics.



Yes the animus is real and longstanding enough. No doubt the rump will weather the increased hostility. Still don't see how this is the reason the party _should_ survive though.

Interesting that you've changed your perspective so much. Fair play to you for being honest about that. And at least you came round eventually to accepting the case had been horribly mishandled (notwithstanding your recent misjudged remarks). But what prompted your changed stance on the opposition's political positions? Is it more than your understandable dislike of the Seymourites and misty-eyed nostalgia for what the party once was to you? Nothing has really happened in 2013 to suggest the SWP is fundamentally getting its politics right, has it?


----------



## benedict (Jan 1, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> being an ex member of the swp (I left in 2009) I would disagree that I was complicit in doing damage. Like many others in different groups I worked with others in different organisations or in no organisations around many issues (anti nazi stuff, asylum seekers, strikers support groups, anti war stuff, abortion rights etc. etc.) and never sought to destroy anything that the swp couldn't control. I agree that many did ... can't say I knew it at the time but have read and listened to enough people to know that the members of the swp and the organisation itself (leadership wise) could be and was sectarian. But to be honest the same can be said of many other groups.
> Your experience at uni sounds shit and I don't blame you for hating the swp...I had a similar experience here in SE London after the racist murders of Rohit Duggal Rolan Adams and Stephen Lawrence where people parachuted into Plumstead/eltham/thamesmead, dennounced the area as racist, claimed that no black people were safe here and proceeded to undermine all the hard work local anti racists/ political groups/ unions/ community groups/student groups/ religious groups etc. had been involved in but I wouldn't blame everyone who came as many of them did very good work and helped greatly.
> I am not seeking to defend the swp but I am not responsible/ culpable/ or complicit in damage that certain members of the swp caused. I am responsible for my actions and my response once I became aware of the negative behaviour being shown.
> 
> ...



Two formative experiences for me as a very naive student regarding the SWP's MO were (1) Being in an anti-war group (about a dozen of us) at uni and stumbling into a secret "caucus" (their word) of the SWSS members of our group immediately before one of our meetings, to determine what agenda they would covertly push. Given the scale of our operations this was rather ludicrous but it did result in a pretty serious bust-up about whether secret caucuses were a decent way of operating. (2) Going to one of the Stop the War "conferences" and seeing what an undemocratic stitch-up the whole thing was (remember, I was young and naive), especially the election of the steering committee. Some Maoist students from Brighton took umbrage at this and tried to mount an insurrection. Chris Harman put down the rebels with gusto, spitting some real venom at the microphone, while Lindsey German gurned with outrage. The whole day was one long lecture from the top table to the stupid proles.

And the paper selling! Why do you need two sellers outside the door of a tiny meeting in a uni classroom? Just to reinforce the point to any ordinary anti-war students who stumbled along that this was definitely something for leftist wacko evangelists? Many of their actions were just totally sabotaging and counterproductive. (At least when Socialist Action tried to recruit me [which I only realized some time later] they had the subtlety not to make this obvious and the good grace to treat me like I was one of the elect.)

Having said all this I have worked alongside some outstanding SWP activists in joint campaigns. One remains a close friend despite being a hardcore loyalist now; a wonderful human being. He's been there since a teenager in the pre-IS days and I can see the personal and psychological investment is too great to break with it now. But he's not been heavily involved in branch or national level stuff. In my experience there's a close correlation between level of party activity and the extent to which an SWP member is badgering, unthinking and insufferable.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 1, 2014)

Socialist Action tried to recruit you??!!


----------



## benedict (Jan 1, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Socialist Action tried to recruit you??!!



Believe so, Nigel. Via their student front groups and the Hutchins sisters. I recall being invited to a London "training conference" of about a dozen other students. I was a bit clueless about what the whole thing was to be honest. Somehow they'd managed to fly over a Sinn Fein politician for a session. They also had Paul Mackney there, as well as one of Ken Livingstone's senior advisors. I was perhaps a little too vocal in my disagreements with the line on Cuba, Venezuela and Ireland, as well as showing no interest in NUS bullshit, since they never contacted me again after their previously intense interest. They did continue to court a good friend who'd also been invited though.

There's a whole sociology waiting to be written on these shady and informal networks. They extend well beyond Livingstone's former coterie of advisors.

ETA: Obviously they didn't announce themselves as SA but I learned later that all the key people there were associated with that network.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 1, 2014)

benedict said:


> Believe so, Nigel. Via their student front groups and the Hutchins sisters. I recall being invited to a London "training conference" of about a dozen other students. I was a bit clueless about what the whole thing was to be honest. Somehow they'd managed to fly over a Sinn Fein politician for a session. They also had Paul Mackney there, as well as one of Ken Livingstone's senior advisors. I was perhaps a little too vocal in my disagreements with the line on Cuba, Venezuela and Ireland, as well as showing no interest in NUS bullshit, since they never contacted me again after their previously intense interest. They did continue to court a good friend who'd also been invited though.
> 
> There's a whole sociology waiting to be written on these shady and informal networks. They extend well beyond Livingstone's former coterie of advisors.
> 
> ETA: Obviously they didn't announce themselves as SA but I learned later that all the key people there were associated with that network.



That's really interesting (also bizarre and a bit creepy). I hadn't realised that they were quite this secretive in their approach - I know that the first rule of Socialist Action is that you don't talk about Socialist Action, but I'd have thought they'd at least have announced their existence to prospective recruits at an earlier point than this.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 1, 2014)

This is the way the party ends: not with a bang but with a whimper.

Soviet Goonboy's must read obituary of the the SWP:

http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...arty-ends-not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 1, 2014)

Beat me to it.


----------



## benedict (Jan 1, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's really interesting (also bizarre and a bit creepy). I hadn't realised that they were quite this secretive in their approach - I know that the first rule of Socialist Action is that you don't talk about Socialist Action, but I'd have thought they'd at least have announced their existence to prospective recruits at an earlier point than this.



Yeah the link into this was, I think, through anti-racist work. They ran/run NAAR and this was before I had properly thought through what anti-fascism should entail (their strategy was to get out the core labour vote) and I went along with it a bit. Anyway I reckon their MO was to suss out potential recruits, gradually bringing them into the inner circles if they proved agreeable and were on board with the program; SA do/did have a lot of front organizations/campaigns that could be used in this way. My friend went further down a road of integration with the via NUS student broad left but was never fully initiated. I was severely out of line ideologically so not too surprising there was no follow through with me. SA seems to function mostly as a network for career building and nepotism in lefty circles. It would be interesting to compare their network to the former RCP crew, if it were possible. Looking back I don't know what I was thinking even finding myself on the periphery of that bullshit  Youthful naïveté I guess. Though getting a glimpse of the wheels within wheels would have been fascinating as a lefty train spotter


----------



## Trotter (Jan 1, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> This is the way the party ends: not with a bang but with a whimper.
> 
> Soviet Goonboy's must read obituary of the the SWP:
> 
> http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...arty-ends-not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper/


A substantive piece that locates the problems not in the mishandling of an allegation of sexual misconduct, but in the long term structural decline of the SWP. The mishandling of the allegation reflected the  CC's concept of Leninism and their misguided attempt to protect the organisation as an institution.

What is left out of the article is much discussion about how the sectarian organisational approach has been reflected in political practice. The practice has been driven by mobilising for the next "big event", where allies are important, so the alliances with sections of the TU bureaucracy. But no reflection after the event so no lessons ever learnt. The Manchester demo in September was supposed to provide the impetus for heightened industrial struggle through the autumn. But it didn't happen. And nowhere have the CC been self critical.

The "big event" model can keep people mobilised for a period - some longer than others - but it also leads to cynicism and demoralisation. Most of the comrades who have left over the last year understand this and are not motivated just be the specific cases.


----------



## SLK (Jan 1, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> This is the way the party ends: not with a bang but with a whimper.
> 
> Soviet Goonboy's must read obituary of the the SWP:
> 
> http://sovietgoonboy.wordpress.com/...arty-ends-not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper/



This is a really really good article. Amongst stuff that really chimes with experience...

something unimportant in the article 40 years ago the IS had 4000 members - is that true? I guess 40 years ago was only 1974. Nonetheless...


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 2, 2014)

SLK said:


> This is a really really good article. Amongst stuff that really chimes with experience...
> 
> something unimportant in the article 40 years ago the IS had 4000 members - is that true? I guess 40 years ago was only 1974. Nonetheless...



The figure given is more or less correct. IS went from an organisation of a few hundred in 1968 to something like 4,000 in 1974. But the situation was very fluid with lots of people being recruited but the majority not being retained. What's more not all of those recruited paid subs. If these non-sub paying "members" are included - and in this case they should be as they were often young worker militants who were very active in the industrial struggles of the time and openly declared themselves to be IS members- then we would probably get to something like 4,000. 

Jim Higgins (National Secretary at that time) states in More Years for the Locust:

_Between March 1972 and March 1974 _*the membership of IS increased from 2,351 to 3,310. The number of manual workers increased from 613 to 1,155 during the same period. *_This welcome improvement in the social composition of the Group was not the whole story: d_*uring the membership campaigns of 1973 about 750 additional workers were recruited but could not be integrated into IS.*_ During this same period, the Group was trying very hard to develop a factory branch structure. _*By July 1974, there were a total of 38 workplace branches, organising some 300 members.*_ A measure of the difficulties, and of IS inexperience, in this work can be seen by the fact that _*from March 73 to July 74 a total of 56 factory branches had been recognised but 18 of them disappeared or were dissolved. *(my emphases).


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 2, 2014)

Karmickameleon: In the above, what does “*were recruited but could not be integrated into IS”* mean?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 2, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Karmickameleon: In the above, what does “*were recruited but could not be integrated into IS”* mean?


Good question. You have to realise that this was a period in which a largely student organisation was able to connect with significant numbers of young workers who were engaged in the industrial struggles of that time. They were "recruited" in the sense that they saw themselves as members, they sold the paper in their workplace and defended the politics presented in SW, they brought their mates along to meetings etc However, they didn't always attend branch meetings (remember that the majority of the factory branches had a short life span) and therefore they didn't always pay subs with any degree of regularity (remember that these were generally collected at the meetings in cash). 

I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that "integrated" means "retained + trained" in this context. Actually, the same would be true of many students who were comfortable being members in a student context, but dropped out when confronted with the world of work and being "integrated" into a geographical branch.


----------



## Bakhtinite (Jan 2, 2014)

Trotter said:


> A substantive piece that locates the problems not in the mishandling of an allegation of sexual misconduct, but in the long term structural decline of the SWP. The mishandling of the allegation reflected the  CC's concept of Leninism and their misguided attempt to protect the organisation as an institution.
> 
> What is left out of the article is much discussion about how the sectarian organisational approach has been reflected in political practice. The practice has been driven by mobilising for the next "big event", where allies are important, so the alliances with sections of the TU bureaucracy. But no reflection after the event so no lessons ever learnt. The Manchester demo in September was supposed to provide the impetus for heightened industrial struggle through the autumn. But it didn't happen. And nowhere have the CC been self critical.
> 
> The "big event" model can keep people mobilised for a period - some longer than others - but it also leads to cynicism and demoralisation. Most of the comrades who have left over the last year understand this and are not motivated just be the specific cases.


 
I agree that the article does leave out a discussion of how the internal structure and culture is shaped by the external practice. Becuase of this it falls short of subjecting the SWP to an historical materialist analysis that the article says is needed in the introduction to it.

I do not think that the issue of mobilising for the next big event gets to the heart of it. That too is  symptom. The external practice of the SWP has been shaped by the conviction that it is 'THE party'.  The SWP culture is to talk about 'the party' as if it was the only one, this is still a hallmark of the contributions of those who are leaving.  This leads to a fundamentally sectarian attitude to all its work. I am using sectarian here not primarily as an insult but as a description of the way the SWP has put the interests of its own organisation above the interests of movements it has been part of and so of the working class and the oppressed.  What follows from  the conviction that it is THE party  and its leadership are the most advanced, most far sighted and most knowledgable, is an hostility to any other organised group or tendency and a desire to control anything that it is involved in. It tries to substitute itself for the movements it is part of and so holds back those movements.

Delroy Booth's account in a recent post and many others on this thread as well as elsewhere, give detailed description of what this sectarianism looks like in practice. My own journey out of the SWP began when I found myself running, locally,  an SWP front called the 'Coalition against the Criminal Justice Act' - set up to try to grab leadership of what had emerged as a vibrant, fast growing movement that the SWP had initially ignored and had little purchase on. The gap between the SWP rhetoric 'never lie to the class' and the reality of creating a deception to further the interests of 'the party' led me into opposition.

The soviet goon boy piece misses the dialectic of how the internal life of the organisation - manouvering, cronyism, deception, bullying, organisational tricks -  is the other side of the external practice of the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

benedict said:


> Yeah the link into this was, I think, through anti-racist work. They ran/run NAAR and this was before I had properly thought through what anti-fascism should entail (their strategy was to get out the core labour vote) and I went along with it a bit. Anyway I reckon their MO was to suss out potential recruits, gradually bringing them into the inner circles if they proved agreeable and were on board with the program; SA do/did have a lot of front organizations/campaigns that could be used in this way. My friend went further down a road of integration with the via NUS student broad left but was never fully initiated. I was severely out of line ideologically so not too surprising there was no follow through with me. SA seems to function mostly as a network for career building and nepotism in lefty circles. It would be interesting to compare their network to the former RCP crew, if it were possible. Looking back I don't know what I was thinking even finding myself on the periphery of that bullshit  Youthful naïveté I guess. Though getting a glimpse of the wheels within wheels would have been fascinating as a lefty train spotter



Talking of wheels, when i was in the labour party a trot entryist tried to recruit me into a network he called 'The Wheel'. I never bothered to follow up and uncover whether this was a real thing or just some loons overactive imagination. But i don't think i ever heard it used by anyone else.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> <snip>_As Tony Cliff once said a fish rots from the head and if the rot is not removed this conference then the patient will not be saved.
> 
> Rob Owen_



And, as with so many other things, he was wrong.

(Last one liner from me, going to read the goon boy piece now).


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> uncover whether this was a real thing or just some loons overactive imagination.



Why not both?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 2, 2014)

Have just read the SWP piece in Datacide, and as belboid correctly inferred, the article covers what's already been discussed here.

Three things to note however are: the SWP advising Iranian trade unionists not to go on strike; Gilad Atzmon's ludicrous defence of Martin Smith; and the SWP's interest in the writings of Otto Weininger.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

First thought on the goonboy piece (still reading): he makes the good point about there being two reasons for something happening - a good reason, and the _real _reason (he uses it in relation to splits, but i see no reason why this cannot be extended to other actions). He then goes on to present Cliff's _good _arguments in 68-69 for the adoption of democratic centralism, but, for some reason, neglects to investigate any possible _real _reason - and crucially how that real reason would have set the groundwork for the later centralised top down party culture and organisation that he says developed only after 1975.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 2, 2014)

Bakhtinite said:


> I agree that the article does leave out a discussion of how the internal structure and culture is shaped by the external practice. Becuase of this it falls short of subjecting the SWP to an historical materialist analysis that the article says is needed in the introduction to it...



As do you.

There are several examples of beliefs held by the SWP, including the one that it was THE party that would lead the revolution, that are involved in his disaster. But if you want to approach the subject as a Marxist, rather than an idealist, you have to look at when, historically, such beliefs became prevalent and harmful and what social groupings developed them.

Personally, I think the starting point has to be Jim Higgin's _More Years for the Locust_, updated with a yet-to-be-written (and hopefully as humorous) account of developments in the SWP of the 1990s and 2000s. I suspect an examination of the social background of IDOOM members will find a disproportionate number of grammar school boys and girls among them and perhaps a connection to the low levels of the trade union bureaucracy. If so, a decent history (and the drawing of appropriate lessons) would trace the evolution of certain critical party formulations and structures to an interaction with the outlook of such a social layer. Additionally, the question of why IDOOM types weren't simply hoofed out of leading positions connects to the wider picture of a low level of rank-and-file militancy over more than a decade.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

You don't expect Jo'H to write it though?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> First thought on the goonboy piece (still reading): he makes the good point about there being two reasons for something happening - a good reason, and the _real _reason (he uses it in relation to splits, but i see no reason why this cannot be extended to other actions). He then goes on to present Cliff's _good _arguments in 68-69 for the adoption of democratic centralism, but, for some reason, neglects to investigate any possible _real _reason - and crucially how that real reason would have set the groundwork for the later centralised top down party culture and organisation that he says developed only after 1975.



That strikes me as awarding too much foresight to the Cliff of 68, not to mention too long term an outlook. I'm sceptical not because I think the implied Cliff here is assumed to be too cynical or Machiavellian, but because I don't think he had the attention span. So while yes each tightening up of the organisation made the next tightening easier, I don't think the end product was ever the product of a long term plan. Rather we are talking about a series of short term moves, based on short term thinking, often as reactions to short term problems.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 2, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> As do you.
> 
> There are several examples of beliefs held by the SWP, including the one that it was THE party that would lead the revolution, that are involved in his disaster. But if you want to approach the subject as a Marxist, rather than an idealist, you have to look at when, historically, such beliefs became prevalent and harmful and what social groupings developed them.
> 
> Personally, I think the starting point has to be Jim Higgin's _More Years for the Locust_, updated with a yet-to-be-written (and hopefully as humorous) account of developments in the SWP of the 1990s and 2000s. I suspect an examination of the social background of IDOOM members will find a disproportionate number of grammar school boys and girls among them and perhaps a connection to the low levels of the trade union bureaucracy. If so, a decent history (and the drawing of appropriate lessons) would trace the evolution of certain critical party formulations and structures to an interaction with the outlook of such a social layer. Additionally, the question of why IDOOM types weren't simply hoofed out of leading positions connects to the wider picture of a low level of rank-and-file militancy over more than a decade.



Aren't you one of the better candidates to do this?

I'm a bit dubious about the demographic division you put forward here, by the way, between the IDOOMers and the rest. As far as I can see the best predictor of where someone ended up was age.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That strikes me as awarding too much foresight to the Cliff of 68, not to mention too long term an outlook. I'm sceptical not because I think the implied Cliff here is assumed to be too cynical or Machiavellian, but because I don't think he had the attention span. So while yes each tightening up of the organisation made the next tightening easier, I don't think the end product was ever the product of a long term plan. Rather we are talking about a series of short term moves, based on short term thinking, often as reactions to short term problems.


It stuck me as a mirror to Cliff's pushing the idea that the definitive degeneration of the russian revolution could only be dated to 1928 NEVER BEFORE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT OPEN THAT DOOR. Just writ smaller - Higgins has been used already today so i'm not going to offer the obvious quote, but you all know what i mean.

Anyway, i don't think immediate power games need that much foresight. They play out and then we see them - or their effects later. It doesn't mean that they are not the same power play, the same dynamic, just earlier.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 2, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I actually think that's a reasonable enough collective term. Back in the 70s much of the left consisted of recently ex-IS groups, as the various dissident bits of that organisation were tossed out in preparation for the launch of the SWP. Now the SWP has basically split into five groups in a few years. At this point all five groups still have recognisable SWPish political origins,but they won't for long.



I'm going to take the fact that my beautifully simple post has 3 'likes' and yours only 1 (and since it's from SpackleFrog it really should only count as, at the most, 0.001 of a 'like') as an indication that I'm right and you're wrong.

FACT


----------



## Trotter (Jan 2, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Aren't you one of the better candidates to do this?
> 
> I'm a bit dubious about the demographic division you put forward here, by the way, between the IDOOMers and the rest. As far as I can see the best predictor of where someone ended up was age.


In general age is a good predictor of who has been in the SWP opposition - given that over the last year virtually all of the younger (under 30) members have been part of it.  But that is not the total picture. A  higher than would be expected proportion of those who had joined IS in the 60s and 70s have been in the opposition. The strength of IDOOM lies primarily in the 80s generation - those who have only known the organisation operating in "downturn mode", i.e. highly centralised with the appointed district organiser model.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 2, 2014)

Some interesting comments on Soviet Goon Boy's blog from (among others) Ian Birchall, John Palmer, Lindsey German, Jim Jepps.....
Also, SGB accepts that his figure of 4,000 IS members in 1973/74 is too high. I would suspect that Jim Higgins' estimate of 3,300 is closer to the mark.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

German's claim that the reason that CC splits over RESPECT were kept secret (as per the claim) was because RESPECT's operation were kept secret from the CC is particularly revealing.

That whole German response effectively demonstrates and places the internal culture that the article attacks right back to the late 70s.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Some interesting comments on Soviet Goon Boy's blog from (among others) Ian Birchall, John Palmer, Lindsey German, Jim Jepps.....
> Also, SGB accepts that his figure of 4,000 IS members in 1973/74 is too high. I would suspect that Jim Higgins' estimate of 3,300 is closer to the mark.


A horrifying real life detail too from one commenter. One that i will only say is there openly in the comments.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> A horrifying real life detail too from one commenter. One that i will only say is there openly in the comments.


the jim higgins one?

or bolshie elane?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> the jim higgins one?


Nah, keep going, after that one. It fits in perfectly with the 'bad sex' bollocks from BB as well.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, keep going, after that one. It fits in perfectly with the 'bad sex' bollocks from BB as well.


mid life crisis?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> mid life crisis?


Yep.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, keep going, after that one. It fits in perfectly with the 'bad sex' bollocks from BB as well.



edited. disco and/or yourself have since edited a post.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 2, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> worse than the details of the bolshe elane comment? that's horrendous enough.


i edited. ba must have been replying at the time.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> edited. disco and/or yourself have since edited a post.


Did mean that one/them. All on same page now.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 2, 2014)

discokermit said:


> mid life crisis?


I find the comment that he was confused my her even worse to be honest. It was her fault for committing the crime of being young and female.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 2, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I find the comment that he was confused my her even worse to be honest. It was her fault for committing the crime of being young and female.


Key:



> In my view the problems arose from a culture which was widespread on the left of treating harassment as clumsy seduction and in which there was little understanding of what sexual harassment and rape really look like and their effects.


----------



## killer b (Jan 2, 2014)

who's soviet goonboy? he writes well.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> who's soviet goonboy? he writes well.



he's the artist formerly known as splintered sunrise.

eta: sorry if that sounds snotty. I'm curious to know who he is as well. He was obviously a leading member of the organisation - of the sister party in Ireland* - 'cos he knows many of the leading participants personally.

*splintered sunrise was the name of his old blog.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 2, 2014)

in wolverhampton there was a case of harassment where an on/off member had stalked two female comrades, making both of them feel very unsafe. it was taken to branch committee where his most vocal defender was a woman who recently signed the pro cc document. the arguments were appalling, stuff about being 'led on' and the fact he was a postie (not the one i mentioned before), neither woman was happy nor was most of the branch.
i'm not sure how this fed into our later "faction fight" but the people involved lined up the same way. this was '90.

oddly enough, there was a strange little side skirmish in the branch later on over 'carry on' films. the minority who had defended the stalker, were the most shrill in condemnation of them.


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 2, 2014)

Perhaps not a serious as the issue raised by Elane H., but when Lindsay German says on the SovietGoonBoy website : "You repeat what has become a commonplace, that divisions over Respect were kept within the CC. That isn’t strictly the case: disagreements over Respect were never brought to the CC, (at least only over minor questions) although it is clear to me that there was widespread opposition from the beginning, including from CC members, but they didn’t argue this openly. That is why they were never discussed more widely." - is it just me, or does that not just reinforce (a) what a load of bananas crap Respect was and (b) how dysfunctional the SWP leadership was around Respect (including one L. German). It seems to reflect as badly on German as on everyone else, but I'm not sure she sees that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 3, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> he's the artist formerly known as splintered sunrise.
> 
> eta: sorry if that sounds snotty. I'm curious to know who he is as well. He was obviously a leading member of the organisation - of the sister party in Ireland* - 'cos he knows many of the leading participants personally.
> 
> *splintered sunrise was the name of his old blog.



He was a member in Ireland, but much of the "insider" tone is a stylistic quirk. I don't think he was ever a leading figure.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 3, 2014)

discokermit said:


> oddly enough, there was a strange little side skirmish in the branch later on over 'carry on' films. the minority who had defended the stalker, were the most shrill in condemnation of them.



I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at that really.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He was a member in Ireland, but much of the "insider" tone is a stylistic quirk. I don't think he was ever a leading figure.


Allow me to smile like this


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 3, 2014)

discokermit said:


> oddly enough, there was a strange little side skirmish in the branch later on over 'carry on' films. the minority who had defended the stalker, were the most shrill in condemnation of them.





SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at that really.


They probably caught some clips with Sid James cackling and thought that he was declaiming support for Hayek and his classical liberalism.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 3, 2014)

a pub argument ended up as a public meeting on culture, speaker ian birchill. the 'dickhead' minority had organised it and the first contribution from the floor was a dickhead public schoolboy asking, with a smug grin on his face, what the speaker thought of the films. the speaker immediately replied, looking quite annoyed, saying he'd never seen one. they sulked. it was massively pathetic. as was the argument about supporting england at football.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

discokermit said:


> a pub argument ended up as a public meeting on culture, speaker ian birchill. the 'dickhead' minority had organised it and the first contribution from the floor was a dickhead public schoolboy asking, with a smug grin on his face, what the speaker thought of the films. the speaker immediately replied, looking quite annoyed, saying he'd never seen one. they sulked. it was massively pathetic. as was the argument about supporting england at football.



The thing is the best carry on film is Carry On Screaming, and that's because of Harry H. Corbett. So I'm conflicted by your anecdote  . . . whilst still waiting for your part 2.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 3, 2014)

I would have thought _...At Your Convenience_, with its influential and testosteronic male industrial organiser hero, would be right up IDOOM alley.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 3, 2014)

Tom Walker of the ISN makes an overt appeal to those leaving the SWP now and a more coded appeal to those in the ISN for his particular view (while also admitting ISN is dead in the water).

http://internationalsocialistnetwor...ation/312-a-moment-for-revolutionary-ambition


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 3, 2014)

discokermit said:


> ... the argument about supporting england at football.



Is this definitely a real thing? The person who recruited me to the SP was ex-SWP (now CPB) and one of his biggest gripes was that you weren't allowed to support England at football. Was this common in branches?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 3, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Tom Walker of the ISN makes an overt appeal to those leaving the SWP now and a more coded appeal to those in the ISN for his particular view (while also admitting ISN is dead in the water).
> 
> http://internationalsocialistnetwor...ation/312-a-moment-for-revolutionary-ambition



Interesting that he thinks the SP is still smaller than the SWP. Is he suggesting that because the SWP has haemorrhaged members, so to must the SP have?


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is this definitely a real thing? The person who recruited me to the SP was ex-SWP (now CPB) and one of his biggest gripes was that you weren't allowed to support England at football. Was this common in branches?


absolutely, a regular staple. One time when my branch was considering who to add to the branch committee, one chap was suggested, but vehemently rejected by our full-timer, Nigel, who damned him  - 'he's not a communist.  He can't be, he supports England.'  He remained off the committee (something he was probably grateful for)


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Interesting that he thinks the SP is still smaller than the SWP. Is he suggesting that because the SWP has haemorrhaged members, so to must the SP have?


naah, he's just saying its smaller. Used to be a lot smaller, now just a little bit


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2014)

belboid said:


> absolutely, a regular staple. One time when my branch was considering who to add to the branch committee, one chap was suggested, but vehemently rejected by our full-timer, Nigel, who damned him  - 'he's not a communist.  He can't be, he supports England.'  He remained off the committee (something he was probably grateful for)



Who do 'communists' support?


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Who do 'communists' support?


ABE

unless you're German, in which case ND (Nur Deutschland)


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Who do 'communists' support?



Surely you should always pull out the "90 minute Nationalist" card in such circumstances?

Though being Scottish I haven't had to pull out the card for a while. In fact, where did I put my card? I seem to remember I was using it as a bookmark back in 1998. If I'd known I wouldn't be using it for a while, I should have had it laminated.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jan 3, 2014)

The lack of self-awareness in German and Birchall's defensive comments are pretty outstanding. German's reasoning of "there was no problem with democracy in discussing Respect strategy; in fact, we never discussed it at all" is beyond laughable. Birchall looks very naive as well. "I traveled around as an invited speaker to many branches, and most of them seemed to have a great internal culture of debate." WTactualFuck are you that stupid?

When someone (especially someone who writes fucking books for an organization) visits a branch to speak, everyone wants to present themselves (as individuals) as really responsible and thoughtful. This obviously would seem to reflect itself collectively. Nothing sinister in this; its just how most people work. So, it is very difficult for a leading intellectual like Birchall to get an overall impression of different experiences within their party.

Reminds me of LeBlanc joining the ISO over here with a letter that said "they're very open to debate." Yeah, to YOU! You write the most widely-read books about Lenin on the left. Within weeks, there are a dozen resignations from the ISO with horror-stories of internal life. I'm not saying every internal critic should be taken at face value, and obviously the easiest line of attack against any left org is "this group isn't democratic!" Still, the obliviousness to different experiences within orgs depending on how you're viewed is absolutely astounding.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He was a member in Ireland, but much of the "insider" tone is a stylistic quirk. I don't think he was ever a leading figure.



well, you're one of the people on the thread who I presumed would know his real identity so I'll take your word for him never being a leading member.

However, with regards to the insider tone being a "stylistic quirk" I've always got the sense that he personally knows a lot of the leading characters in this sorry mess, and no one in the comments to his blogs has ever challenged him on it.

edited.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2014)

Wow, it's almost as if they want to deliberately alienate people outside of their narrow subculture. Argh.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 3, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> well, you're one of the people on the thread who I presumed would know his real identity so I'll take your word for him never being a leading member.
> 
> However, with regards to the insider tone being a "stylistic quirk" I've always got the sense that he personally knows a lot of the leading characters in this sorry mess, and no one in the comments to his blogs has ever challenged him on it.
> 
> edited.



He uses the same tone and style when he's writing about Catholic leaders. He certainly will have encountered, met, heard speak, etc most senior SWP people and will have access to a lot of second hand information about them, but he's no more a former top leader of the British SWP than he is a former member of the Bishop's conference.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> He uses the same tone and style when he's writing about Catholic leaders. He certainly will have encountered, met, heard speak, etc most senior SWP people and will have access to a lot of second hand information about them, but he's no more a former top leader of the British SWP than he is a former member of the Bishop's conference.


he did , on the old blog,  get very defensive of the church at one stage. which seeing as it was around the attempts of the church to cover up and defend abusive priests, is alittle ironic..


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 3, 2014)

belboid said:


> naah, he's just saying its smaller. Used to be a lot smaller, now just a little bit


If you're going by active membership then the SP is probably bigger.

Not that that means an awful lot for us since its been "achieved" largely by standing still.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 3, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Not that that means an awful lot for us since its been "achieved" largely by standing still.



Ah the best kind of progress.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 3, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is this definitely a real thing? The person who recruited me to the SP was ex-SWP (now CPB) and one of his biggest gripes was that you weren't allowed to support England at football. Was this common in branches?


It was called something like "revolutionary defeatism"...it was likened to supporting your country in a war if i remember correctly.
as an argument it tended to start off badly, go downwards and end up as a farce...apart from that it made perfect sense...if you were proper cadre!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 3, 2014)

It always struck me as a weirdly counter-cultural stance. Or perhaps the sort of thing that people might have a drunk pseudo-theoretical argument about at 3AM, that somehow found itself as policy.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 3, 2014)

that was a fucking insane line. policy on the team you support in the World Cup is clearly a perfect analogy for the Bolshevik line towards the victory of the Tsarist government in wartime Russia. quite a few present leading ISNers took that argument up quite vociferously


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 3, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Who do 'communists' support?



bizarrely enough when I was in my early twenties and was a council worker and shop steward there was a meeting in a pub when England were playing Germany and some of the working class vanguard swp leadership thought it was cool to sign the German national anthem ...when I asked how singing a national anthem of a country as equally racist and capitalist as ours was showing they were socialists I was informed that I needed to read Trotsky and lenin...when I asked if lenin and trotsky supported germany at football they quoted marx at me...

It was interesting for me as it helped me learn to only agree with things that would 
a) make sense to me and 
b) make sense to my mates outside the swp 

I never really got caught up in the swp's (and the rest of the lefts) love of "I'm right you're wrong" type arguments


----------



## SLK (Jan 3, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is this definitely a real thing? The person who recruited me to the SP was ex-SWP (now CPB) and one of his biggest gripes was that you weren't allowed to support England at football. Was this common in branches?



Yes. I fell for it and even started repeating the ridiculous revolutionary defeatism argument. I remember flyposting during the Euro 96 semi final desperate to watch and know the score but too scared to admit I wanted to know to my comrades at the time.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 3, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> that was a fucking insane line. policy on the team you support in the World Cup is clearly a perfect analogy for the Bolshevik line towards the victory of the Tsarist government in wartime Russia. quite a few present leading ISNers took that argument up quite vociferously


people who did fuck all in the real world with real people to build campaigns and strikes were the most fervent anti england supporters...they were convinced (rightly imo) that being white didn't make you a racist but acted like (wrongly in my opinion) being an england fan made you one step lower than a nazi 
It was like being the most anti england fan made you the best socialist...weird for a party that was anti competition!


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 3, 2014)

before the Bolton anti-EDL demo at an organizing meeting, i remember Delta making a specific point about southern members not chanting 'Narzi Scum' at any old soul they saw in Bolton with an England jersey, so entrenched was the habit and prejudice.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 3, 2014)

So if a German SWP member and an English SWP member were watching football they'd have to support each others national teams, that makes no sense


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 3, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> before the Bolton anti-EDL demo at an organizing meeting, i remember Delta making a specific point about southern members not chanting 'Narzi Scum' at any old soul they saw in Bolton with an England jersey, so entrenched was the habit and prejudice.


 doesn't suprise me at all unfortunately


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 3, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> So if a German SWP member and an English SWP member were watching football they'd have to support each others national teams, that makes no sense



that's cos you haven't read enough Marx, Engles, Luxemburg or Trotsky


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 3, 2014)

What was their attitude to Ireland supporters? Are they backwards nationalists or plucky anti imperialists?


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> bizarrely enough when I was in my early twenties and was a council worker and shop steward there was a meeting in a pub when England were playing Germany and some of the working class vanguard swp leadership thought it was cool to sign the German national anthem ...when I asked how singing a national anthem of a country as equally racist and capitalist as ours was showing they were socialists I was informed that I needed to read Trotsky and lenin...when I asked if lenin and trotsky supported germany at football they quoted marx at me...


when i tried pointing out the same (and I dont particularly support England, not 'politically' but because I just dont really care about them) with relation to a then upcoming England - Germany game, and the fact that RD is rather predicated upon the fat that both countries CAN lose in a war, but not in (knock out) football, they just muttered. The fact that this game was at a time when the fash were weak over her, but busy firebombing asylum seekers' hostels in Germany, made the position seem even madder.

(I was actually delivering a meeting on the Iranian revolution at the time of the match. Very small turnout for some reason. Even smaller meeting by the end of my introduction too...)


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What was their attitude to Ireland supporters? Are they backwards nationalists or plucky anti imperialists?


the latter.  Tho had 'you' not been rubbish that position might have changed.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

SLK said:


> Yes. I fell for it and even started repeating the ridiculous revolutionary defeatism argument. I remember flyposting during the Euro 96 semi final desperate to watch and know the score but too scared to admit I wanted to know to my comrades at the time.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What was their attitude to Ireland supporters? Are they backwards nationalists or plucky anti imperialists?



I don't know about the irish supporters but I do know that McCarthy and McGeady suffer from nationalist illusions. Bastards.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What was their attitude to Ireland supporters? Are they backwards nationalists or plucky anti imperialists?


Backwards anti-imperialists.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 3, 2014)

belboid said:


> when i tried pointing out the same *(and I dont particularly support England, not 'politically' but because I just dont really care about them)* with relation to a then upcoming England - Germany game, and the fact that RD is rather predicated upon the fat that both countries CAN lose in a war, but not in (knock out) football, they just muttered. The fact that this game was at a time when the fash were weak over her, but busy firebombing asylum seekers' hostels in Germany, made the position seem even madder.
> 
> (I was actually delivering a meeting on the Iranian revolution at the time of the match. Very small turnout for some reason. Even smaller meeting by the end of my introduction too...)



ditto...but to be honest the revolutionary defeatism line was just ponciness...Delta was a west ham fan which was ok regardless of some of the west ham crowd being amoungst the most anti semetic fans in England...but a port vale fan would be lectured about being a bad socialist for support british racism if he wanted england to win a match...mind you it was funny to watch their neck veins nearly pop when they saw black people supporting england...it didn't compute or fit into their boxes so they just looked confused

if this has done your head in you should have been around when they argued all socialist should read Salmon Rusdie books cos they are great...I made the mistake of saying I found them unreadable to be told that it was a shame that the education system failed me...it was said a little more subtly but that was the meaning...that was by a lecturer called Gareth J
There was also the time when the real cool dj types (early 90's) argued that sociaists should listen to the clash and pogues because they were good and anything else was shit!!!


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> if this has done your head in you should have been around when they argued all socialist should read Salmon Rusdie books cos they are great...I made the mistake of saying I found them unreadable to be told that it was a shame that the education system failed me...it was said a little more subtly but that was the meaning...that was by a lecturer called Gareth J



For Spurski:


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> if this has done your head in you should have been around when they argued all socialist should read Salmon Rusdie books cos they are great...I made the mistake of saying I found them unreadable to be told that it was a shame that the education system failed me...it was said a little more subtly but that was the meaning...that was by a lecturer called Gareth J


he was right tho!  up to the point you had the conversation, anyway


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2014)

Bet they don't argue that socialists should read Rushdie now.


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Bet they don't argue that socialists should read Rushdie now.


of course they still argue it! Otherwise they'd have to admit something they said in the eighties was wrong


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 3, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Bet they don't argue that socialists should read Rushdie now.



What would John Rees say?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2014)

SLK said:


> Yes. I fell for it and even started repeating the ridiculous revolutionary defeatism argument. I remember flyposting during the Euro 96 semi final desperate to watch and know the score but too scared to admit I wanted to know to my comrades at the time.


You should have tried the old 'I hate England so much I really want to watch the match just so I can cheer for the other side'. 

Thinking about it I don't really remember the argument being applied to sports other than football. But that must just be because football is more prominent.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 3, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> ditto...but to be honest the revolutionary defeatism line was just ponciness...Delta was a west ham fan which was ok regardless of some of the west ham crowd being amoungst the most anti semetic fans in England...but a port vale fan would be lectured about being a bad socialist for support british racism if he wanted england to win a match...mind you it was funny to watch their neck veins nearly pop when they saw black people supporting england...it didn't compute or fit into their boxes so they just looked confused



I remember watching football (world cup?) in ULU during Marxism with a few people from my branch and it did feel like sagging school. Oh how we laughed about our betrayal of the cause.


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Thinking about it I don't really remember the argument being applied to sports other than football. But that must just be because football is more prominent.


definitely used about the rugby too. and then references always made to india-pakistan in cricket


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2014)

Incidentally I wonder what this is like?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Capitalism-...tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1388775172&sr=1-1

Chapter 13 might be of special interest to people.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 3, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> What would John Rees say?


THIS DEMANDS TO BE A TUMBLR


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Incidentally I wonder what this is like?
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Capitalism-...tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1388775172&sr=1-1
> 
> Chapter 13 might be of special interest to people.


looks quite interesting, some good people in there.  

There's quite a good review in one lefty rag - 'But if we only focus on these aspects of sport [its domination by big business and, very often, its nationalism and militarism] we end up with a one-sided reductionist account.' I doubt chapter 13 will pass that test


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 3, 2014)

i remember being told to stop wasting my time watching match of the day or going to see spurs play (apparently I should have been using the time usefully to build the next branch meeting, marxism, demo etc) when I asked why it was ok for certain comrades to watch cricket I was told that CLR James wrote extensively about it!!!!
So I asked if I could take up fox hunting as Trotsky used to like fox hunting...that went down like a lead balloon


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

belboid said:


> looks quite interesting, some good people in there.
> 
> There's quite a good review in one lefty rag - 'But if we only focus on these aspects of sport [its domination by big business and, very often, its nationalism and militarism] we end up with a one-sided reductionist account.' I doubt chapter 13 will pass that test



Is there a list of contents online?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 3, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> i remember being told to stop wasting my time watching match of the day or going to see spurs play (apparently I should have been using the time usefully to build the next branch meeting, marxism, demo etc) when I asked why it was ok for certain comrades to watch cricket I was told that CLR James wrote extensively about it!!!!
> So I asked if I could take up fox hunting as Trotsky used to like fox hunting...that went down like a lead balloon



Sure,y this sort of thing was just down to a few clownish enthusiasts locally rather than some kind of policy.


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> Is there a list of contents online?


if you click on the cover pic it should come up


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

belboid said:


> if you click on the cover pic it should come up



cheers

eta: I see Delta's thanked in the acknowledgements.

I take it that is the same John Foot who wrote a history of Italian football? Is he in the SWP? I see he teaches in the Italian Department at UCL. Him and Robert Lumley must make for interesting coffee mornings.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 3, 2014)

When I was in Southampton swp they used to drink in a pub where the left as a whole congregated, everyone getting on fairly well and happily tolerated by the management and staff. Until the 1990'world cup when the swp decided to loudly and aggressively support every team england were playing against, and abusing anyone who disagreed as a racist. Having a white middle aged middle class head of library services lecture st Mary's West Indian bar staff on their racism was enough to get the swp, and the rest of the lefties banned.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Sure,y this sort of thing was just down to a few clownish enthusiasts locally rather than some kind of policy.


 too many people in the swp only ever mixed with people in the swp...all their friends and social life were in the swp. Therefore they became divorced from reality. Their self esteem and self worth came from it too...they found it impossible to disagree and to be accepted they could become almost evangelical. I remember being "told off" for going to see king kong instead of some ken loach film...the person moaning couldn't cope with me crying with laughter.
I am sure I remember a review of lethal weapon 2 (the south african bad guys) ending with a comment about the film ignoring the south african working class 
I guess i was tolerated in the swp for so long cos I sold around 25 socialist workers each week in work and collected a lot of money for strikes, campaigns sw appeal etc. in the council I worked in and was one of the few genuine working class members who was politically active in work.
I survived by never going to meetings or doing saturday sales from 1999 til i left a decade later.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> i remember being told to stop wasting my time watching match of the day or going to see spurs play (apparently I should have been using the time usefully to build the next branch meeting, marxism, demo etc) when I asked why it was ok for certain comrades to watch cricket I was told that CLR James wrote extensively about it!!!!
> So I asked if I could take up fox hunting as Trotsky used to like fox hunting...that went down like a lead balloon


I did meet plenty of huge football fans in the SWP, so that could have just been your branch.


----------



## SLK (Jan 3, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I did meet plenty of huge football fans in the SWP, so that could have just been your branch.



Yes, when Stack was on the CC I lived with a blind Spurs fan so I often used to go and sit with my flatmate not far from Stack in the disabled section at WHL.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 3, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> I take it that is the same John Foot who wrote a history of Italian football? Is he in the SWP?



I don't know about that, but he is Paul's son.


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

I never met one person who said supporting England was 'racist' either


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

SLK said:


> Yes, when Stack was on the CC I lived with a blind Spurs fan so I often used to go and sit with my flatmate not far from Stack in the disabled section at WHL.



Discokermit in the past has written about the popular five a side tournaments at the SWP's beano in Skegness, so I'm guessing it was never about the SWP's attitude towards football, per se, and more about the England football team and International tournaments.

TBH, there's a lot to be said about hating modern football and its plutocratic ned owners and the dickhead overpaid footballers with their dodgy mates but I'm afraid I can't bring myself to hate football despite all the shite that surrounds it nowadays.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 3, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> Discokermit in the past has written about the popular five a side tournaments at the SWP's beano in Skegness, so I'm guessing it was never about the SWP's attitude towards football, per se, and more about the England football team and International tournaments.
> 
> TBH, there's a lot to be said about hating modern football and its plutocratic ned owners and the dickhead overpaid footballers with their dodgy mates but I'm afraid I can't bring myself to hate football despite all the shite that surrounds it nowadays.



Although they did at one point put out some piece (possibly by Bambery?) saying that under socialism competitive sport would be replaced with cooperative games, didn't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2014)

This is not just a SWP thing - it appears across other parts of the left, esp the academic end of it. See Verso/New Left Books recently publishing Marc Perelman's disgusting book Barbaric Sport: A Global Plague. Sample:



> The phenomenon [sport] we are going to describe in terms of its most salient (but often also most invisible) characteristics pertains more importantly to a _colonization if the body_ in many of those who devote themselves to it relentlessly, and _a mutilation of awareness_ in all those mesmerized by
> it as a spectacle...The everyday lives of billions of individuals are thus contaminated, consumed, infected



edit: phil will now come on and say that he agrees with the sentiment.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Although they did at one point put out some piece (possibly by Bambery?) saying that under socialism competitive sport would be replaced with cooperative games, didn't they?


Yes, it was him.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Although they did at one point put out some piece (possibly by Bambery?) saying that under socialism competitive sport would be replaced with cooperative games, didn't they?



Do you think Bambery was last to be picked in the playground? Whenever I encountered an SPGBer with the same opinion on football - not that many, tbh - that was usually the explanation for their opinion.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> Discokermit in the past has written about the popular five a side tournaments at the SWP's beano in Skegness, so I'm guessing it was never about the SWP's attitude towards football, per se, and more about the England football team and International tournaments.


Or maybe about the _type _of person who a) likes football and b) the _type _of person who doesn't like football and joins the SWP.


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> Discokermit in the past has written about the popular five a side tournaments at the SWP's beano in Skegness, so I'm guessing it was never about the SWP's attitude towards football, per se, and more about the England football team and International tournaments.


yeah, the national team and english teams in europe were no no's.  Quite how anyone was meant to justify to their mates that they wanted their team to the FA Cup, league and whatever else, but not the European Cup, I dont know


----------



## J Ed (Jan 3, 2014)

belboid said:


> yeah, the national team and english teams in europe were no no's.  Quite how anyone was meant to justify to their mates that they wanted their team to the FA Cup, league and whatever else, but not the European Cup, I dont know



...multitudinous positionism?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2014)

For the real headbangers on the issue i think it was a way to culturally reject that which they politically fetishised (white w/c males) and who they had come to rely on for their psychological existence - a resentment breeding situation.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> edit: phil will now come on and say that he agrees with the sentiment.



How little you know me.


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

Wilson blamed Labours loss in the 1970 election on Englands shit world cup performance (a propos of nothing in particular)


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Although they did at one point put out some piece (possibly by Bambery?) saying that under socialism competitive sport would be replaced with cooperative games, didn't they?


Might me worth pointing out that he is a huge sports fan.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Might me worth pointing out that he is a huge sports fan.


Yeah?




			
				bamberry said:
			
		

> Physical recreation and play are about the enjoyment of one's body, human company and the environment. Sport is not. It is about competing, doing better than the next person, being the best. It is about obeying arbitrary rules an ideal preparation for the capitalist productive process.



Cracker this one:




			
				ditto said:
			
		

> But socialists should follow the example of the Bolsheviks in pulling out of all sports competitions based on nationalism, such as the Olympics


----------



## tony.c (Jan 3, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I did meet plenty of huge football fans in the SWP, so that could have just been your branch.


There were those like Deason who made a big point of their team allegiance to emphasise how working class they were.


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah?


he lived in a Celtic top for years (not that proves anything at ll...)


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

tony.c said:


> There were those like Deason who made a big point of their team allegiance to emphasise how working class they were.



team allegiance has nothing to do with class. it's all to do with geography. frank skinner has the correct line on this.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 3, 2014)

Here's another Bamberry cracker:



> Or 2002 when Chris Bamberry tried to discredit Brazillian football by denouncing them for never having had a Black captain...when a speaker slip was put in suggesting 1970 captain Carlos Alberto, he said 'he wasn't really Black, not like Pele' !


----------



## SLK (Jan 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Although they did at one point put out some piece (possibly by Bambery?) saying that under socialism competitive sport would be replaced with cooperative games, didn't they?



Yes, and there was a whole debate on it at a Students fighting for Socialism event (or maybe it was Marxism) one year. I can't remember who the debate was against, but I decided I didn't agree with him. He also debated Ed Horton, who used to post on here, at one event.

He basically said that Sport is a capitalist bastardisation of play, and that it would fade and we would be in stadiums listening to opera and the like rather than competing, and used examples of during the Russian revolution. I can't remember them though.


----------



## tony.c (Jan 3, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> team allegiance has nothing to do with class. it's all to do with geography. frank skinner has the correct line on this.


Not all Man U (or any other team) supporters are from the geographical location of the team, so frank skinner is wrong.


----------



## SLK (Jan 3, 2014)

belboid said:


> he lived in a Celtic top for years (not that proves anything at ll...)



Yes, he thought he was brilliant at football banter. He wasn't.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 3, 2014)

tony.c said:


> Not all Man U (or any other team) supporters are from the geographical location of the team, so frank skinner is wrong.



that was Skinner's point.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah?
> 
> 
> 
> Cracker this one:


None of which means he isn't a sports fan. Just that he also thinks there is a bigger picture.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 3, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> if this has done your head in you should have been around when they argued all socialist should read Salmon Rusdie books cos they are great...I made the mistake of saying I found them unreadable to be told that it was a shame that the education system failed me...it was said a little more subtly but that was the meaning...that was by a lecturer called Gareth J


Rushdie was in my local ANL group in the late 70s, early 80s - and an active member. I remember celebrating with him at a meeting when he won the Booker prize.

But I've never been able to read his novels!


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 3, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> For Spurski:




that really made me laugh...cheers


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2014)

Trotter said:


> Rushdie was in my local ANL group in the late 70s, early 80s - and an active member. I remember celebrating with him at a meeting when he won the Booker prize.
> 
> But I've never been able to read his novels!



go with Shame, Ground Beneath her Feet and Moors Last Sigh. The rest are rubbish


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 4, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> When I was in Southampton swp they used to drink in a pub where the left as a whole congregated, everyone getting on fairly well and happily tolerated by the management and staff. Until the 1990'world cup when the swp decided to loudly and aggressively support every team england were playing against, and abusing anyone who disagreed as a racist. Having a white middle aged middle class head of library services lecture st Mary's West Indian bar staff on their racism was enough to get the swp, and the rest of the lefties banned.





belboid said:


> I never met one person who said supporting England was 'racist' either



I did in the same branch as barney though years later, aand possibly the same person. We were doing a stall (possibly an anti-racist one) in the town centre when a load of chanting England fans rocked up, some of whom I knew quite well from work, and some of whom were actually Polish. They all signed our petition - and afterwards I thought the Swappy idiots heads were going to explode with confusion until one of them pointed out that it was just because I knew them there's no way they agreed with the petition really, and that Poles tend to be really nationalist because of Solidarnosc...

This was the same branch that bullied out a really good activist because she was of CoE (her dad was a local vicar), and all of whoms old hands are currently on the CC side...


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 4, 2014)

I have good memories of my time in Southampton, it pains me to see those names on the loyalist petitions/ motions. But after a lifetime of commitment it cannot be easy to admit it was for a false idol


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 4, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> I have good memories of my time in Southampton, it pains me to see those names on the loyalist petitions/ motions. But after a lifetime of commitment it cannot be easy to admit it was for a false idol



I was only very briefly a member and tbh every time I've bumped into them since I left the city (only about 3 or 4 times) they have been very personable, even the head bangers.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> I never met one person who said supporting England was 'racist' either


Half my Harlesden branch supported England and delighted in pointing out the hipocrisy of the Irish and the plastic paddies who refused to apply rev defeatism to any game between Irish teams and anyone.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 4, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Half my Harlesden branch supported England and delighted in pointing out e hipocrisy of the Irish and the plastic paddies who refused to apply rev defeatism to any game between Irish teams and anyone.


There is no Harlesden branch now.  Barely anythinging in Brent at all these days.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> he lived in a Celtic top for years (not that proves anything at ll...)


He called me a nationalist-populist for wearing an Ireland rugby shirt at Marxism one year, I told him to feck off as it was a united Ireland team.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 4, 2014)

emanymton said:


> None of which means he isn't a sports fan. Just that he also thinks there is a bigger picture.


Think you're right. I broadly agree with his analysis of sport under capitalism and how it might change under socialism. It's also the only real argument I've ever heard for the preservation of capitalism! If Leinster won't still be winning European cups under socialism I'm not sure I want to live under socialism.


----------



## muscovyduck (Jan 4, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> This was the same branch that bullied out a really good activist because she was of CoE (her dad was a local vicar), and all of whoms old hands are currently on the CC side...



Quite a lot of the left act like that about religion. They fail to notice that not everyone who believes in God is a right wing homophobe and that it can be more about culture and family tradition than going to mass every week.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

I've never understood the whole fixation against sport that sometimes emanates from some quarters of the left. Fair doos, i can see how they can be seen to be ideologically linked to capitalist notions of competition within the context of capitalism; but surely competition doesn't always have to signify all the rest of that stuff. Football, i think, yeah its competition between 2 teams, but its co-operation within the team, why not say that that co-operation is symbolic of communism if we are going down that logic? I'd think that if after the revolution, localities, workplaces, whatever were to orgainise their own football teams and play against each other, i don't think all of a sudden they'd be like good match comrade but wouldnt it be even better if it was done under full neoliberalism.. just seems mental the whole anti sports/football thing...


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

The ICC also put out several pamphlets against 'sport in decadent capitalism' which while well researched, came to some awful conclusions IMO


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

_Sport more and more clearly expresses the rottenness of a bourgeois society without a future_


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

it would be interesting to read some of those kinda arguments. Ill know what ill say next time some ISG scotland person trys to convert me to their sect. ill say, "your leader doesn't allow me to go to the football so no thanks"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2014)

Bredrin of mine is proper ABE but because he is scots. Even unto wearing Brazil shirts to work at the point where that would be most provocative.

The trend sounds well facepalm though- I mean nobody likes the brit state but when its just football you should be able to cheer england along. Its not like you are tacitly endorsing the irish famine and indian partition etc


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

http://en.internationalism.org/icco...sm-part-iii-sport-nationalism-and-imperialism here you go


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 4, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> _Sport more and more clearly expresses the rottenness of a bourgeois society without a future_


but this is pretty much true, I assume they are speaking of the comodification of sport rather than the sport itself, no?


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 4, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> http://en.internationalism.org/icco...sm-part-iii-sport-nationalism-and-imperialism here you go


Ill give that a go!


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> http://en.internationalism.org/icco...sm-part-iii-sport-nationalism-and-imperialism here you go



cheers!!


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Bredrin of mine is proper ABE but because he is scots. Even unto wearing Brazil shirts to work at the point where that would be most provocative.
> 
> The trend sounds well facepalm though- I mean nobody likes the brit state but when its just football you should be able to cheer england along. Its not like you are tacitly endorsing the irish famine and indian partition etc



I'm ABE because I'm Welsh.

It's nothing personal, but simply a pragmatic issue.  If England win anything, the entire nation is convulsed for weeks in a patriotic frenzy in which I cannot share.  It creates a triumphalist attitude which is inevitably unpleasant viewed from the outside.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> but this is pretty much true, I assume they are speaking of the comodification of sport rather than the sport itself, no?



The article has some good points and in general I've a lot of time for the ICC but they do appear to be talking about sport itself.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2014)

everything is commodified now. Even our dissidence. So much shit on a shovel to be fed back.

Snooker is probably the last sport where a man can come from disreputable dives and all the way to the Crucible and glory.

I spotted Ebdon in Barrats the other week. On his own, just playing the table. Nearly went for an autograph but manned up instead


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Bredrin of mine is proper ABE but because he is scots. Even unto wearing Brazil shirts to work at the point where that would be most provocative.
> 
> The trend sounds well facepalm though- I mean nobody likes the brit state but when its just football you should be able to cheer england along. Its not like you are tacitly endorsing the irish famine and indian partition etc



I can't stand the ABE one. but thats because, i spent a good chunk of my life living near hampden park and ive grown to detest tartan army fans over the years. (whereas never been any of the annoying stuff you get from them from club fans).. Also, i want to see an amalgamation of the FA and SFA because scottish football is beyond shit, and its peoples fixations on maintaining a scottish national team, the old "no to team GB" mantra that prevents that from ever happening. even when national team football is on the decline, and specifically to scotland that we will never qualify to the world cup or european championships again.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

I'd have to read it again. There are three articles about the history of sport all quite long and detailed but following a similar line of argument, although I know some ICC members are also sports fans  so either I misunderstood something (which is likely) or..


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> everything is commodified now. Even our dissidence. So much shit on a shovel to be fed back.
> 
> Snooker is probably the last sport where a man can come from disreputable dives and all the way to the Crucible and glory.
> 
> I spotted Ebdon in Barrats the other week. On his own, just playing the table. Nearly went for an autograph but manned up instead



Yeah, if ever there was a contentor for _real working class sport _its got to be snooker. DId you fall asleep when seeing ebdon play?

ETA you should have asked him to play a frame against you, or failing that, and you are as shit as me, ask him for a game of pool


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2014)

xslavearcx said:


> Yeah, if ever there was a contentor for _real working class sport _its got to be snooker. DId you fall asleep when seeing ebdon play?
> 
> ETA you should have asked him to play a frame against you, or failing that, and you are as shit as me, ask him for a game of pool



I recall one competition were a fella from the latinate countries proper lost it and threw in his cue cos Ebdon was being such a boring bastard.

I've also watched him up against Rocket Ronnie and having a bad run of balls so Ronnie took the fucker apart. Jobs a goodun.


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 4, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> The article has some good points and in general I've a lot of time for the ICC but they do appear to be talking about sport itself.


Ya there are some good points, its mainly just talking about football though, but..


> The sporting Central Asian Games, organised in Tashkent (Uzbekistan) by the Bolsheviks in 1920, aroused nationalist sentiments and strengthened the local states, a real mosaic of the ex-Russian empire, which only increased political confusion. Worse, it solidified the _cordon sanitaire _of the Entente troops around the besieged Russian soviets. The Spartakiades of Moscow in 1928, completed the defence of the 'socialist country' through sporting games which already embodied the counter-revolution. The only real 'triumph' was that of Stalinism, exhibiting with pride his 'Bolsheviks of Steel'!


is it all just an excuse to attack the revolution?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I'd have to read it again. There are three articles about the history of sport all quite long and detailed but following a similar line of argument, although I know some ICC members are also sports fans  so either I misunderstood something (which is likely) or..



it is quite a verbose article, but all it seems to be giving examples of what sports in the present context _can _and _does _symbolise; but i dont think it demonstrates that this is _necessarily _the case in the capitalist context.

In future post revolutionary times it goes on to say that



> But it is certain that sport, such as it exists now, will disappear in a society without social classes.



which seems to suggest that whilst it will be transformed that it will still exist, albeit in a different form.

it then says:



> It's much more difficult for an amateur to conceive of that today because it's dependent on seeing a world without addictions[16]. To all sorts of artificial separations between physical and intellectual activity, to forced opposition between players and spectators, must be substituted a human world, unitary, creative and free.



which i think rests upon a misconception as to the level of participation in a sport that is involved in being a spectator. Can't speak for all sports since im only really aquainted with football and to a (far) lesser extent american football, but i think fans certainly don't concieve of themselves as not being involved in the game, but rather that their support has some impact upon what happens on the field. That probably does rest in an over-estimation upon what impact being a fan has, but certainly in american football the fans can impact upon the ability the offense to make plays by being too loud to allow players to communicate with each other.

Be that as it may, can't really see what problem there would be with having a spectator/player split, i mean, hey i like playing football, its great fun, but im fucking shit at it, and i quite like seeing people that are amazing at it do amazing things. Both particpation and spectatorship on their own have their charms...


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I recall one competition were a fella from the latinate countries proper lost it and threw in his cue cos Ebdon was being such a boring bastard.
> 
> I've also watched him up against Rocket Ronnie and having a bad run of balls so Ronnie took the fucker apart. Jobs a goodun.



I stopped watching snooker for years when stephen hendrys dominance was too much to take. so i missed out on the rockets best days, which im really kinda gutted about. was he really as good as people described him?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 4, 2014)

imo the reason there's an anti-sport streak in the left derives from a snarky subcultural hangover from the 60s... one which looked down its nose at 'mainstream' culture and defined itself exclusively in some kind of 'enlightened' other. unfortunately the left seems to lap up all that anti-social guff...

it also goes hand in hand with another factor which i think is the tendency of the left to pick up a sector of anti social types. specifically, a mediocre layer of the underachieving middle-class. people who decided they agreed with socialism because criticisms of capitalism gave them an excuse for their general failure to achieve what they expected of themselves in life. the sort who never quite fit in at school and never got picked for the sports teams, etc. radical 60s music and general social subcultures (like left politics?) can satiate these peoples' desire for 'cultured' labels to cement their superiority over all the oiks they grew up with and reify to themselves that they are as superior, innately, as they always secretly thought they were.

an awful lot of those folks in the SWP, occupying positions in social services, teaching, low level lecturing and other halfway professions.

btw i fucking despise teachers.

SWP was the wrong org for me.


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

Yeah maybe its like they see working class people liking sports, and they want wc to like them cause after all, they've read all the books that unlocks the keys to working classes real interests. so when the working class don't join their parties in droves, they have to say fuck sport because if they were to vocalise their hatred of working class for rejecting them, it would undo their whole ration etre!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 4, 2014)

xslavearcx said:


> I stopped watching snooker for years when stephen hendrys dominance was too much to take. so i missed out on the rockets best days, which im really kinda gutted about. was he really as good as people described him?



the Jimmy whirlwind White of his day- when he is on form. Bloke struggles with depression and is from a background where his old man was incarcerated for murder. You can actually see when he throws a match and loses interest. When he is on the for it though, my god. He's a genius.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Jan 4, 2014)

xslavearcx said:


> Yeah, if ever there was a contentor for _real working class sport _its got to be snooker


Interesting that you should choose an individual over a team sport to represent the class.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 4, 2014)

Meanwhile, the ISN start reaching towards the logical endpoint of the "prostitution is just work" position and complain about an escorting job getting taken off Universal Jobmatch: http://internationalsocialistnetwor...stress-magpie-hey-job-centre-sex-work-is-work


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the Jimmy whirlwind White of his day- when he is on form. Bloke struggles with depression and is from a background where his old man was incarcerated for murder. You can actually see when he throws a match and loses interest. When he is on the for it though, my god. He's a genius.



Jimmy white was a legend - my favourite snooker player so he was. Was always a nightmare to see him always nearly clinching the crucible title against stephen hendry but would always fuck up near the end. was a shame, i think any other time he coulda probably dominated the sport for a few years...


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

Brechin Sprout said:


> Interesting that you should choose an individual over a team sport to represent the class.



Only insofar as (IME) snooker clubs still tend to be populated by working class people, that it hasnt really been 'gentrified' like say football arguably has.. But playing it doesnt represent anything, when im watching snooker im not thinking of it as a metaphor for whatever, im just enjoying seeing people with immense skill - a result of a well honed craft that few of us out there probably has the dedication to put in the hours for...

the notion that there is a real class sport is a lot of nonsense anyway. sports change their class compostition all the time, i mean football, considered to be the quintessential working class sport, originated in the posh schools that are (sometimes) associated with rugby union. now its prawn sandwhich brigades, maybe some time else it will be something else. snooker may change as well at some point too, but i think its generally working class people that play it and watch it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 4, 2014)

muscovyduck said:


> Quite a lot of the left act like that about religion. They fail to notice that not everyone who believes in God is a right wing homophobe and that it can be more about culture and family tradition than going to mass every week.



What they ignore of course is the absolutely important role of sport, faith, and family in reinforcing community solidarity which is of course an essential prerequesit of socialism.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 4, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Think you're right. I broadly agree with his analysis of sport under capitalism and how it might change under socialism. It's also the only real argument I've ever heard for the preservation of capitalism! If Leinster won't still be winning European cups under socialism I'm not sure I want to live under socialism.



I guess a pretty good argument for the preservation of capitalism and nation states is that it allows us to witness England getting gubbed - preferably on penalties - at International tournaments every two years.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 4, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> i remember being told to stop wasting my time watching match of the day or going to see spurs play (apparently I should have been using the time usefully to build the next branch meeting, marxism, demo etc) when I asked why it was ok for certain comrades to watch cricket I was told that CLR James wrote extensively about it!!!!
> So I asked if I could take up fox hunting as *Trotsky used to like fox hunting.*..that went down like a lead balloon



i used to dream of being part of  an swp branch that comprised of comrades who indulged in some of Trotsky's hobbies - salmon fishing, rabbit husbandry, hunting, interesting mistresses (no doubt fine wine consumption featured prominently also?).

Instead i was saddled with those whose only discernible passtime was assuaging their middle class guilt through early morning paper sales and smoking dope (never had a problem with that - but the mc guilt thing was a bit wearing)  ;-)


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

is baseball not huge in cuba and venezuala?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 4, 2014)

xslavearcx said:


> is baseball not huge in cuba and venezuala?


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 4, 2014)

thats a great picture


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

What about if an English SWP member moved to Germany? As a minority would he/she be allowed to support England or would they still have to support Germany, which would make things awkward with the German SWP members who would presumably have to support England?


----------



## Trotter (Jan 4, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> What about if an English SWP member moved to Germany? As a minority would he/she be allowed to support England or would they still have to support Germany, which would make things awkward with the German SWP members who would presumably have to support England?


Your main enemy is your home state - wherever home happens to be. When I lived abroad, it would have allowed me to support England, but I didn't because I can't stand English nationalism.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 4, 2014)

I can't stand English nationalism but I stll support England (even though we are always shit)


----------



## laptop (Jan 4, 2014)

The prohibition on supporting England makes perfect sense in terms of *cult* membership.

Rule 1: isolate recruits from family and other ties.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2014)

laptop said:


> The prohibition on supporting England makes perfect sense in terms of *cult* membership.
> 
> Rule 1: isolate recruits from family and other ties.


it also makes sense in terms of glory-hunting.


----------



## laptop (Jan 4, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> glory-hunting


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2014)

laptop said:


>


supporting teams more likely to win the tournament, e.g. australia in the ashes.


----------



## laptop (Jan 4, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> supporting teams more likely to win the tournament, e.g. australia in the ashes.



Ah, the Rupert Murdoch principle


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2014)

laptop said:


> Ah, the Rupert Murdoch principle


abe


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jan 4, 2014)

I find that England fans tend to be among the most optimistic of fans, they always think that this time their team will win


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 4, 2014)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I find that England fans tend to be among the most optimistic of fans, they always think that this time their team will win


the triumph of hope over common sense and experience


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

Would I be allowed to support Wycombe? Also wtf business is it of a political party which football team I support?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 4, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Meanwhile, the ISN start reaching towards the logical endpoint of the "prostitution is just work" position and complain about an escorting job getting taken off Universal Jobmatch: http://internationalsocialistnetwor...stress-magpie-hey-job-centre-sex-work-is-work





> "I am well aware that as sex workers go, I am extremely lucky; I was raised an upper middle class Jew in Midwestern America and have a good education. Moved by nothing worse than a wish to be the author of my own life, I left an interesting office job and a blossoming career to pursue hedonism and kink. I am not trafficked or coerced, and my earnings, after tax, are enough to pay the bills. I’m also lucky to live in the south west of England, a region that is home to a vibrant kink scene. Living and working here, I’ve made friends who step into and out of sex work as casually as they might pick up a second job as a barista."



Such rage. No words.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 4, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Meanwhile, the ISN start reaching towards the logical endpoint of the "prostitution is just work" position and complain about an escorting job getting taken off Universal Jobmatch: http://internationalsocialistnetwor...stress-magpie-hey-job-centre-sex-work-is-work


Comment on ISN to above article:

_Of course we should support sex workers to every degree possible, but to say that 'sex work is work' and equate it to any other type of work, which is, as you point out, all based on coercion, is, I think, missing the point somewhat.

I would say that the right to bodily integrity is possibly the most absolutely fundamental right. If nothing else remains, at least you should be able to decide what happens to your own body.

If we recognise that any job is 'wage slavery' then we must logically also recognise that sex work is 'wage rape'. I would argue that even if we can't prevent slavery, we should at least try to prevent rape.

That's not to say I necessarily disagree with the actual position in the article above, but I feel this needs to be said._


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2014)

International Socialists for mandatory brothel workfare schemes!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Such rage. No words.



It's easy to pick up second job? Just like that eh?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

Also does she not realized that as she chose to take this type of work leaving aside problems with sex work as opposed to other horrible shit jobs, having plenty of other options open and was able to move into a hippy type area her experiences may well be different to other sex workers (or others working two jobs as baristas and something else)


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

Also what is the kink scene? I've engaged in a bit of BDSM in my time but not sure what it is, is it the lifestylers? Like fetish clubs etc?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 4, 2014)

If you call your dad he can stop it all etc


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2014)

Also of course all this unthinking laissez faire advocating on behalf of the legalisation of buying sex ignores that 1) legalisation increases human trafficking/slavery 2) people involved in the sex trade have a professional interest in putting a positive spin on sex work, from talking to a friend who was once involved she said that this also convinced her t

I used to be in favour of decriminalisation of prostitution because I assumed that it was a similar argument to states taking a health based approach to drugs, but it just isn't the same. Decreased drug use follows the Portuguese model to the decriminalisation of drugs which is great and is something every country should adopt alongside the legalisation of cannabis but I think that the Nordic model on prostitution looks to be the best bad option.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Also of course all this unthinking laissez faire advocating on behalf of the legalisation of buying sex ignores that 1) legalisation increases human trafficking/slavery 2) people involved in the sex trade have a professional interest in putting a positive spin on sex work, from talking to a friend who was once involved she said that this also convinced her t
> 
> I used to be in favour of decriminalisation of prostitution because I assumed that it was a similar argument to states taking a health based approach to drugs, but it just isn't the same. Decreased drug use follows the Portuguese model to the decriminalisation of drugs which is great and is something every country should adopt alongside the legalisation of cannabis but I think that the Nordic model on prostitution looks to be the best bad option.



There's no "solution" though is there (short of eradicating poverty), just least bad options.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 5, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Meanwhile, the ISN start reaching towards the logical endpoint of the "prostitution is just work" position and complain about an escorting job getting taken off Universal Jobmatch: http://internationalsocialistnetwor...stress-magpie-hey-job-centre-sex-work-is-work


I wonder if she (lets be fair here it is not necessarily they whole ISN arguing this) would be of the same opinion if a job was withdrawn because it paid less than the minimum wage, after all it would be a job like any other.


----------



## tony.c (Jan 5, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> _Sport more and more clearly expresses the rottenness of a bourgeois society without a future_


Cliff used to say that football was an escapism from the realities of life under a capitalist society, a modern form of 'the opiate of the masses'. He would recount how during the 1974/5 Portuguese revolutionary upheaval, attendances at the Lisbon football matches drastically fell as workers were engaging in political activity.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> imo the reason there's an anti-sport streak in the left derives from a snarky subcultural hangover from the 60s... one which looked down its nose at 'mainstream' culture and defined itself exclusively in some kind of 'enlightened' other. unfortunately the left seems to lap up all that anti-social guff...
> 
> it also goes hand in hand with another factor which i think is the tendency of the left to pick up a sector of anti social types. specifically, a mediocre layer of the underachieving middle-class. people who decided they agreed with socialism because criticisms of capitalism gave them an excuse for their general failure to achieve what they expected of themselves in life. the sort who never quite fit in at school and never got picked for the sports teams, etc. radical 60s music and general social subcultures (like left politics?) can satiate these peoples' desire for 'cultured' labels to cement their superiority over all the oiks they grew up with and reify to themselves that they are as superior, innately, as they always secretly thought they were.
> 
> ...



Except that of course there are/were plenty of people in the SWP who play/ed sport.

And of course a left-wing organisation is going to think about sport, competition, ownership of sport in capitalist society and how that relates to national identity and political standpoints, it would be bizarre if it didn't.

As for your category of social misfits, I should think that being unhappy at school is unlikely to lead to much sport participation regardless of skill and feeling alienated is likely to lead to people to seek an explanation for that; there's no reason to be nasty about it. You do realise that the superior anti-social young people at school are unhappy don't you? That their superiority is a way of managing their loneliness? 

And what is a halfway profession?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2014)

tony.c said:


> Cliff used to say that football was an escapism from the realities of life under a capitalist society, a modern form of 'the opiate of the masses'. He would recount how during the 1974/5 Portuguese revolutionary upheaval, attendances at the Lisbon football matches drastically fell as workers were engaging in political activity.



Well perhaps it is a form of escapism but I think a problem arises if you argue that it's _only_ a form of escapism rather than an activity in which people feel and express a whole range of emotions normally expected to be guarded against, camaraderie, being part of a greater whole, delight in watching great skill etc. It doesn't have to be either or.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 5, 2014)

My friend Lawrence has posted a piece about his (limited - one meeting!) experience of the SWP in Catford/Deptford in the early 90s:
http://englishmanintx.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/swp-confidential.html?spref=tw

The writing is probably only of passing interest and isn't directly about the current turmoil. I liked this cartoon he's done though:


----------



## xslavearcx (Jan 5, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> My friend Lawrence has posted a piece about his (limited - one meeting!) experience of the SWP in Catford/Deptford in the early 90s:
> http://englishmanintx.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/swp-confidential.html?spref=tw
> 
> The writing is probably only of passing interest and isn't directly about the current turmoil. I liked this cartoon he's done though:



ha ha that was a great read - cheers !


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 5, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Except that of course there are/were plenty of people in the SWP who play/ed sport.



no there weren't plenty, but i wasn't drawing a universal rule for all SWP members just pointing to a particular sad demographic.



> And of course a left-wing organisation is going to think about sport, competition, ownership of sport in capitalist society and how that relates to national identity and political standpoints, it would be bizarre if it didn't.



and what _actually_ happened is even more bizarre - applying the theory of revolutionary defeatism to the World Cup.



> As for your category of social misfits, I should think that being unhappy at school is unlikely to lead to much sport participation regardless of skill and feeling alienated is likely to lead to people to seek an explanation for that; there's no reason to be nasty about it. You do realise that the superior anti-social young people at school are unhappy don't you? That their superiority is a way of managing their loneliness?



who on Earth wasn't miserable at school? much of mainstream culture is, imo, shit and boring btw... i thought so at school too. personally i can't stand football. but fundamentally here i think there are two different types of motivations for getting involved in left politics. one reason is that you like people, you think they're great and you hate to see them getting fucked over. the other is that you hate people, you think they're stupid and you think you're better than them. like or dislike of football isn't mutually exclusive to one or the other attitude, but the left itself theorises a defense of the latter attitude through its fetishisation of 'the counterculture' and all the niche, elite cultural snobbery that comes with that. rather than arguing specific and subjective cultural arguments it instead generalises a criticism of mass culture, and places itself in opposition.

the SWP had loads of lower middle-class failures, who as i said justified their laziness and mediocrity through criticisms of the capitalist system and plastered over their personal insecurities with scholastic, dogmatic bullshit. the sport argument we're talking about here is one such example. so many pot smoking part time lecturers, teachers and social service staff. local council bods. counsellors. etc.



> And what is a halfway profession?



... as above, the kind of profession middle-class kids fall into out of convenience, having failed to actually become anything real. teaching and social work prime examples.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 5, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> btw i fucking despise teachers.



Why?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> no there weren't plenty, but i wasn't drawing a universal rule for all SWP members just pointing to a particular sad demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you're in the thinking people are great category, right?


----------



## krink (Jan 5, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Also what is the kink scene?


i thought it was all about me for a second


----------



## muscovyduck (Jan 5, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Also what is the kink scene?


The Kinks split up in the 90s, it's mainly just small scale tribute bands now.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 5, 2014)

muscovyduck said:


> The Kinks split up in the 90s, it's mainly just small scale tribute bands now.


----------



## mutley (Jan 5, 2014)

Is it just me or is das Uberdog sounding like a daily mail letter writer?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2014)

mutley said:


> Is it just me or is das Uberdog sounding like a daily mail letter writer?


more like an sw letter writer i thought


----------



## discokermit (Jan 5, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> more like an sw letter writer i thought


yeh, anti teacher rants in sw. lol!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why?


frontline of oppression.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 5, 2014)

discokermit said:


> frontline of oppression.



'soft' cops


----------



## discokermit (Jan 5, 2014)

to add a bit of colour, imagine the football/revolutionary defeatism argument being carried out with a red faced angry public school educated college lecturer screaming about you "wearing the butchers apron" in your face.

since joining this board, that phrase makes me lol.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 5, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> 'soft'


not at my school.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 5, 2014)

discokermit said:


> frontline of oppression.



Want to expand on that?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Want to expand on that?


or what? you gonna gimme detention?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2014)

we don't need no fort controoool


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why?



Because he was shit at sports and the games teacher took the piss, leading to crushing feelings of inferiority that led him to take it out on teachers as a whole rather than having a critique of that specific teacher?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 5, 2014)

a.t.a.b.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Want to expand on that?


I know that in theory teachers are part of the revolutionary class ... but my there are some horribly cruel and authoritarian creatures among them. Sufficient, that I have no remorse for my part in mocking one of our teachers nicknamed 'Dog Face'. He wasn't the worst, but we used to bark (at a safe distance) at him, by way of reference to his beard-covered jowls. One of us found out his birthday and on that day he arrived at the top desk to find a present wrapped up for him and 'Happy Birthday' written on the blackboard. '4D,' he said, 'I know we've had our differences. But this act of kindness more than makes up for it.' He unwrapped his present: to reveal a can of dog food.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 5, 2014)

> I know that in theory teachers are part of the revolutionary class ... but my there are some horribly cruel and authoritarian creatures among them.



What kind of put me off the Labour Left as a kid first getting interested in politics in the mid-80s - and this was when there was still a serious Labour Left - was to discover that some of more authoritarian wankers masquerading as teachers in my school were Labour Left types in the local Labour Party. And it wasn't even the case that it was that sort of school where teaching was 40% instruction to 60% riot control. It was just a bog standard comp in a 'new town' in the Home Counties.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 5, 2014)

There is something very Malcom Harris about the thread all of a sudden


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 6, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> I know that in theory teachers are part of the revolutionary class ... but my there are some horribly cruel and authoritarian creatures among them. Sufficient, that I have no remorse for my part in mocking one of our teachers nicknamed 'Dog Face'. He wasn't the worst, but we used to bark (at a safe distance) at him, by way of reference to his beard-covered jowls. One of us found out his birthday and on that day he arrived at the top desk to find a present wrapped up for him and 'Happy Birthday' written on the blackboard. '4D,' he said, 'I know we've had our differences. But this act of kindness more than makes up for it.' He unwrapped his present: to reveal a can of dog food.



Che vive.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 6, 2014)

Fuck off Dwyer, even the most craven loyalist in the swp towers above you, you trollish soft fascist scumbucket.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jan 7, 2014)

Didn't the meeting of the recently departed happen this past weekend? Any news?


----------



## Trotter (Jan 7, 2014)

BK Double Stack said:


> Didn't the meeting of the recently departed happen this past weekend? Any news?


This weekend coming.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

Trotter said:


> This weekend coming.


You mean 'the coming weekend'?


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 8, 2014)

Meanwhile over at the TUC: http://whatswrongatthetuc.wordpress.com/

Sounds like the TUC is a pretty horrific place to work if you're not one of the in crowd.

It's worth reminding ourselves on the further left that for all the horror of what's gone in the SWP, those in the trade unions or the Labour Party (I'm looking at you articul8 ) are in no position to take the moral high ground. There's no doubt in my mind that what's gone on in the SWP has happened in some form or another at some stage in the upper reaches of the trade unions or the Labour Party.

That doesn't excuse any wrong doing in our own organisations of course, nor does it mean we can be complacent about this issue. But it does show that what happened in the SWP isn't a result of 'Leninism' or peculiar to the far left. The outworkings of the SWP crisis are the manifestation of general social problems (bullying, harassment, sexual assault etc) in the context of a 'Leninist' organisation, which is what gives the situation it's own particular peculiarities.


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2014)

Why's it taken two years to publish the results?


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> Why's it taken two years to publish the results?



Dunno. I suspect it's the same bureaucratic play as the SWP CC trying to stop and then delay the second hearing into sexual harassment by Delta.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 8, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> It's worth reminding ourselves on the further left that for all the horror of what's gone in the SWP, those in the trade unions or the Labour Party (I'm looking at you articul8 ) are in no position to take the moral high ground. There's no doubt in my mind that what's gone on in the SWP has happened in some form or another at some stage in the upper reaches of the trade unions or the Labour Party


 
Leninist organisations seem prone to this kind of stuff though (eg. Gerry Healey - even your own organisation has seen someone resign after alleging a sexual assault from a leading TU comrade).

IF similar revelations emerge about the leadership of the Labour or the unions I'd want it fully and properly investigated.  Same with the leadership of the LRC.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Meanwhile over at the TUC: http://whatswrongatthetuc.wordpress.com/
> 
> Sounds like the TUC is a pretty horrific place to work if you're not one of the in crowd.
> 
> ...


I'd go further I think the fact that the SWP has torn itself apart over the issue is to the credit of the far left.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Meanwhile over at the TUC: http://whatswrongatthetuc.wordpress.com/
> 
> Sounds like the TUC is a pretty horrific place to work if you're not one of the in crowd.
> 
> ...


You can't compare an employer forcing out workers they don't like to a small political organisation covering up  rape and sexual assault by one of its top leaders for two years.


----------



## lachiemac (Jan 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> Why's it taken two years to publish the results?



They are not published. they have been sat on by the TUC who have tried to cover them up. They lost their IIP status over internal bullying and harassment and have been hounding people who complain out of jobs.


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2014)

lachiemac said:


> They are not published. they have been sat on by the TUC who have tried to cover them up. They lost their IIP status over internal bullying and harassment and have been hounding people who complain out of jobs.


Are you the author of that blog?


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 8, 2014)

I'm not directly comparing the two. Each case has it's own peculiarities. What I'm saying is that similar dynamics are at play in the Labour Party and the upper echelons of the trade unions. There was the case of the NAPO General Secretary that was mentioned further up the thread. In NAPO's case that was handled a lot better than the SWP.
However mysterious payments to people who disappear from the scene abruptly are not at all unheard of within the trade union movement. This generally indicates people are being paid to go away quietly, be they victim or perp. 
As I've said previously, these are social problems that manifest themsleves in all sorts of organisations and situations. To deny bullying, harassment and inappropriate behavior has never happened in the Labour Party seems to me to be the same sort of denialism that afflicted the SWP.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 8, 2014)

> To deny bullying, harassment and inappropriate behavior has never happened in the Labour Party


 
who is issuing blanket denials like this?


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> who is issuing blanket denials like this?



You just did by making the ridiculous statement that 'Lenninst' organisations are particularly prone to these issues. Just off the top of my head I can think of the issues of sexual assault at the Occupy camps in New York and Glasgow. That's about as far away from a 'Leninist' model of organisation as you can get.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 8, 2014)

I'm not saying rape and sexual assault are more likely to take place in Leninst organisations, but that there are more likely to be abuses of power to intimidate people from making allegations against leading figures and others covering up for them to preserve the authority of the leadership.


----------



## lachiemac (Jan 8, 2014)

cesare said:


> Are you the author of that blog?


Yes


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2014)

Interesting little bit from Gareth Edwards - https://www.facebook.com/gareth.edwards.79274/posts/10153673219730153


----------



## cesare (Jan 8, 2014)

lachiemac said:


> Yes


Welcome to urban.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 8, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying rape and sexual assault are more likely to take place in Leninst organisations, but that there are more likely to be abuses of power to intimidate people from making allegations against leading figures and others covering up for them to preserve the authority of the leadership.


 
I think there are eerie parallels with the cover up of the activities of child abuser Mark Trotter by the Labour Party in Hackney in the nineties. Right down to people being accused of factionalism and only exposing his activities for their own political gain.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 8, 2014)

Don't know of the case but sounds grim.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 8, 2014)

belboid said:


> Interesting little bit from Gareth Edwards - https://www.facebook.com/gareth.edwards.79274/posts/10153673219730153


Any chance of a cut and paste?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 8, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Any chance of a cut and paste?


*



			Yesterday a number of Portsmouth comrades who left the SWP over the past nine months met to discuss how we plan to organise in 2014. There were 10 people in the room while another 4 sent apologies. By unanimous vote we agreed to form the Portsmouth Socialist Network.

None of us have followed identical political trajectories over the past year. Some of us had left in March (a few joining the ISN), some had left over the course of the summer after participating in the Fault Lines blog, others stayed inside the SWP until December. Yet all of us remain revolutionaries. All of us remain committed to the idea of socialism from below. It is crystal clear that we need to be working together as a single group.

Constituting ourselves in this way enables us to invite people to something we put on, it means we can approach other groups and propose joint activity, it means we can go to picket lines and offer our collective solidarity. It doesn’t preclude people having membership of, for instance, the ISN or ACI, and it would allow us at some point in the future to affiliate to a new *national*organisation if we so wished. 

We are all agreed that the formation of a new revolutionary organisation must be the central, strategic long-term goal. What that organisation should look like is another matter entirely. We will all, no doubt, have drawn a variety of organisational conclusions from our time within the SWP, and it would be surprising if we were to all agree on what a new organisation should look like. To which I say, “Good!” For too long we have been part of a party that treats the questioning of organisational form with a mixture of contempt and distrust. Let’s debate the options, experiment, learn from what works and what doesn’t.

But. At some stage *all* of the people who have left the SWP in the past twelve months (and, indeed, those who left earlier) need to sit in the same room and discuss in an honest and comradely way what we are going to do. There is something in the region of 700 people in search of a new political home. A political landscape that looks like an explosion of Scrabble tiles is unlikely to appeal to them or anyone else for that matter. The opportunity to forge something new is the one thing we can salvage from this miserable period but without a degree of unity and trust amongst those who have left we run the risk of many hundreds of activists drifting away from revolutionary socialism altogether.
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 8, 2014)

Portsmouth is John Molyneux's old stomping ground. I bet he's chuffed to bits at the news.


----------



## mk12 (Jan 8, 2014)

Sales of Maurice Brinton's work must be going through the roof.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 9, 2014)

mk12 said:


> Sales of Maurice Brinton's work must be going through the roof.



John Quail needs to get his arse in gear and finish his history of Solidarity. He's sitting on a potential gold mine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> John Quail needs to get his arse in gear and finish his history of Solidarity. He's sitting on a potential gold mine.


176 copies sold for sure.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

175 now. Tick tock.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 176 copies sold for sure.



Factor in the library copies as well, and the anarchist bookfair. I'll raise your 176 copies to 643 copies. If it's available as an ebook, make it 644.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> Factor in the library copies as well, and the anarchist bookfair. I'll raise your 176 copies to 643 copies. If it's available as an ebook, make it 644.


We could ULU it,let's get on the oldman's back.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 9, 2014)

LP just retweeted something weird

https://twitter.com/HeardinLondon/status/421028496140677121

*HeardinLondon*‏@HeardinLondon
I have just witnessed a group of Socialist Workers set upon a woman screaming she was a "fucking white liberal" & to "get out of Tottenham."


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 9, 2014)

I think that was outside the police station last night. Doesn't seem all that plausible. There were a few reports of a Daily Mail reporter getting shoved.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 9, 2014)

What's the implication of the tweet and her retweeting it anyway? It would have been alright if it was a bloke? I thought that LP's hierarchy of oppression meant that (presumably) black SWPers had every right to call a white woman racist and that white woman should be checking her privilege?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 9, 2014)

I wouldn't read to much into it, it's LP.

She may have just retweeted it because people were being angry in Tottenham.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I wouldn't read to much into it, it's LP.
> 
> She may have just retweeted it because people were being angry in Tottenham.



Yep

Tottenham I'm not in you


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> LP just retweeted something weird
> 
> https://twitter.com/HeardinLondon/status/421028496140677121
> 
> ...


was it lindsey german?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 9, 2014)

Statement from Kent IS:

_A large number of members have resigned from the Socialist Workers Party in east Kent. We are leaving over the failure of the organisation's national leading bodies to handle the accusations of sexual predation against a former member and National Secretary in line with the party's politics on fighting women's oppression.

We are proud of our time in the party. Locally we have a history going back decades. We have been key activists in the fight against council house sell offs, closure of A&E departments and led many successful battles to drive the Nazi National Front and BNP from our streets. Further, we were at the centre of raising solidarity for the Kent Miners in their epic fight against Thatcher's Tories. We campaigned against the Poll Tax in the 1990's and the Bedroom Tax in 2013. Ten years ago we were among those that mobilised thousands of Kent people to march on the historic anti war demonstrations. 

We are not leaving the field of battle, but will be fighting under a new banner. 

We hope to launch, with others, a new organisation in east Kent that returns to the politics that once informed our old party. It will be based on the tradition of socialism from below, international solidarity and a liberating interpretation of Marxism that sees workers' revolution as the key to the emancipation of all mankind._


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2014)

http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-resignation-of-recent-cc-member

who's this then?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 9, 2014)

X, I think.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2014)

aah, yeah, that fits


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 9, 2014)

Read Ray M's resignation letter, then the Professor in the latest ISJ:

_It is, nevertheless, to be hoped that the decisions of the national conference in mid-December (the third in 2013) will go far enough to address the criticisms made by the opposition faction to mark the beginning of reunification and reconciliation within the SWP._


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 10, 2014)

Ray M's letter pretty much confirms every bad assumption about the SWP CC from within the CC -it's really rotten stuff - and pretty important reading I think for anyone that follows this issue. It's a real shame that he (and Hannah on the CC and the whole of the "soft" opposition in 2012) didn't take a firmer stand earlier - so in private he didn't like the expulsion of the Facebook Four, but he and most of the "opposition" didn't make their reinstatement  a number on demand in the beginning. They didn't -or didn't want to - understand how bad the internal life of the SWP was.

If the party had simply expelled "Delta" at the beginning, instead of disciplining , expelling and driving out everyone else, the SWP would undoubtedly be in a much stronger position. So the leadership - with the willing support of the remaining members - have willingly gone on with this self harm. It makes you wonder for what. Obviously personal loyalty to "Delta" does count for some people, but in the end, he had to go anyway (although I suppose some of them dream of having him back). So I guess what they were fighting to preserve was just pure authoritarianism, a party that doesn't have to listen to annoying complaints from any members about sexual harassment or assault or anything else. It might be a much smaller party, with much less influence, but "leading" members can carry on "leading" what is left without worrying about anyone contradicting them.Very grim.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2014)

Does anyone here think that he will end up back in the party? I've noticed that he's started putting himself about a bit more on twitter over the last few weeks - perhaps a sign of rising confidence about the future?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 10, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> If the party had simply expelled "Delta" at the beginning, instead of disciplining , expelling and driving out everyone else, the SWP would undoubtedly be in a much stronger position. So the leadership - with the willing support of the remaining members - have willingly gone on with this self harm. It makes you wonder for what. Obviously personal loyalty to "Delta" does count for some people, but in the end, he had to go anyway (although I suppose some of them dream of having him back).



Very much in agreement with most of what you say. However, as Michael Rosen and others have pointed out, the SWP should have suspended (rather than expelled) Delta at the very beginning while the best way of handling the accusations was decided on. 

Why did they prefer to cover up for Delta? Personal loyalty may have been a factor, but more important would have been his key role in ousting Rees/German and what they probably perceived to be his indispensability in trade union work and the UAF.


----------



## treelover (Jan 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 176 copies sold for sure.



http://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/mar/24/guardianobituaries.paullewis

Interesting to note that Paul Lewis did the obituary for Maurice Brinton in the Guardian in 2005.


if many ex SWP members did form a libertarian socialist organisation, that can only be a step forward.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Does anyone here think that he will end up back in the party? I've noticed that he's started putting himself about a bit more on twitter over the last few weeks - perhaps a sign of rising confidence about the future?


Given that the SWP has managed to shoot itself in both feet quite so spectactularly, I guess anything is possible. That said, I think Delta's return is highly unlikely. In many of its activities, the SWP relies on the goodwill and the participation of a wider left periphery (so as to "punch above its weight" in the words of a much overused expression). Surely -rightly or wrongly- the general perception in that periphery is that Delta is very probably guilty in the Comrade W case.
Secondly, as I understand it, he would need to reapply for membership, in which case he would have to answer the accusations of sexual harassment in the Comrade X case (copiously documented by her and her witnesses). Now while it is true that his most rabid supporters might argue that there is no longer a case to answer as the woman in question has left the party, others like Sheila M and other "middle-grounders" would undoubtedly kick up an almighty fuss. Another major split would be in the offing.....


----------



## dennisr (Jan 10, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Statement from Kent IS:
> 
> _A large number of members have resigned from the Socialist Workers Party in east Kent. We are leaving over the failure of the organisation's national leading bodies to handle the accusations of sexual predation against a former member and National Secretary in line with the party's politics on fighting women's oppression.
> 
> ...



Still rewriting history then. The new organisation is 'Kent International Socialists'. First issue - front page article and photo on "'building support" for a campaign they have done feck all to build and have played feck all role in for a year. Nothing new - same old politics.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Does anyone here think that he will end up back in the party?



I don't see how that would be in the interests of either the rump SWP or Delta as an individual.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't see how that would be in the interests of either the rump SWP or Delta as an individual.


That's not really the basis on which this whole thing has took place though is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Given that the SWP has managed to shoot itself in both feet quite so spectactularly, I guess anything is possible. That said, I think Delta's return is highly unlikely. In many of its activities, the SWP relies on the goodwill and the participation of a wider left periphery (so as to "punch above its weight" in the words of a much overused expression). Surely -rightly or wrongly- the general perception in that periphery is that Delta is very probably guilty in the Comrade W case.
> Secondly, as I understand it, he would need to reapply for membership, in which case he would have to answer the accusations of sexual harassment in the Comrade X case (copiously documented by her and her witnesses). Now while it is true that his most rabid supporters might argue that there is no longer a case to answer as the woman in question has left the party, others like Sheila M and other "middle-grounders" would undoubtedly kick up an almighty fuss. Another major split would be in the offing.....


I think highly unlikely - i also think the reapplying can be dealt with depending on who controls things. And it's his mates right now. It would be in years rather than months if it ever happened. Right now? Even they won't be that tactically daft.


----------



## killer b (Jan 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I don't see how that would be in the interests of either the rump SWP or Delta as an individual.


in which case, it's a dead cert.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's not really the basis on which this whole thing has took place though is it?



No, but I think a certain basic desire for self-preservation has to reassert itself at some point.


----------



## killer b (Jan 10, 2014)

you'd think that wouldn't you. and yet...


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No, but I think a certain basic desire for self-preservation has to reassert itself at some point.



Except that it's the leadership's desire for (what they see as) self-preservation above all else which has repeatedly got them mired deeper and deeper in this morass.

It's not that they don't wish it, it's more that they appear to have a totally fucked conception of what is important to preserve and, following on from this, how best to go about preserving it


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> Except that it's the leadership's desire for (what they see as) self-preservation above all else which has repeatedly got them mired deeper and deeper in this morass.
> 
> It's not that they don't wish it, it's more that they appear to have a totally fucked conception of what is important to preserve and, following on from this, how best to go about preserving it



They haven't yet got so confused that they could seriously think that bringing back Delta would be a good idea, or at least the Callinicos - Kimber wing aren't that confused. Perhaps a few more years of isolation and decline followed by a Leatherite palace coup could be a route to that sort of bewildering craziness, but warped as the strategic vision of the non IDOOM leaders may be, they aren't that crazy.

Also, the SWP would have to be able to offer Delta something pretty good for it to be worth his while, given the shitstorm that would ensue.


----------



## benedict (Jan 10, 2014)

Agree with this. For the moment the cost would be too great and I believe Lord Acton has a modicum more strategic sense than to stoke the embers of discontent. Certainly not beyond the realms of possibility though...


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2014)

andysays said:


> Except that it's the leadership's desire for (what they see as) self-preservation above all else which has repeatedly got them mired deeper and deeper in this morass.
> 
> It's not that they don't wish it, it's more that they appear to have a totally fucked conception of what is important to preserve and, following on from this, how best to go about preserving it


This is all true, but they did eventually figure out he had to go, I don't think they have forgotten just yet.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 10, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Given that the SWP has managed to shoot itself in both feet quite so spectactularly, I guess anything is possible. That said, I think Delta's return is highly unlikely. In many of its activities, the SWP relies on the goodwill and the participation of a wider left periphery (so as to "punch above its weight" in the words of a much overused expression). Surely -rightly or wrongly- the general perception in that periphery is that Delta is very probably guilty in the Comrade W case.
> Secondly, as I understand it, he would need to reapply for membership, in which case he would have to answer the accusations of sexual harassment in the Comrade X case (copiously documented by her and her witnesses). Now while it is true that his most rabid supporters might argue that there is no longer a case to answer as the woman in question has left the party, *others like Sheila M and other "middle-grounders"* would undoubtedly kick up an almighty fuss. Another major split would be in the offing.....



they sold their souls and shat on their own principles throughout this disgusting episode so to be honest I'd be amazed if they had bottom line that could be crossed


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 10, 2014)

Curious to know if Karen Reissman is still in the party, and known reasons either way. Thanks for any info.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Curious to know if Karen Reissman is still in the party, and known reasons either way. Thanks for any info.


Total Loyalist, it was her who chaired the original disputes committee session.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 10, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Total Loyalist, it was her who chaired the original disputes committee session.



As I recall, didn't thinkthat made her a total loyalist of itself. Thanks for the info. Sure I saw her out and about the other day, she looked a bit stressed IMO. I always found her dead nice. Political loyalty and tribalism can really make for the most bizarre of circs innit.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 10, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> As I recall, didn't thinkthat made her a total loyalist of itself. Thanks for the info. Sure I saw her out and about the other day, she looked a bit stressed IMO. I always found her dead nice. Political loyalty and tribalism can really make for the most bizarre of circs innit.


Really, when I read the transcript I thought her chairing was terrible and very one-sided. In any case she is absolutely a loyalist


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 10, 2014)

Kent ex-SWPers are quick off the mark selling their newspaper in Ramsgate. "Solidarity", now that rings a number of bells ...


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 10, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Kent ex-SWPers are quick off the mark selling their newspaper in Ramsgate. "Solidarity", now that rings a number of bells ...



I'm guessing there's no AWL members in that neck of the woods.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 11, 2014)

Why is it that first thing ex-SWPers seem to do is try and flog a new newspaper?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why is it that first thing ex-SWPers seem to do is try and flog a new newspaper?


Not all of us!


----------



## manny-p (Jan 11, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> I'm guessing there's no AWL members in that neck of the woods.


Don't the AWL have a controversial line over Palestine? Remember hearing they had an 'anti deutch' kinda line.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why is it that first thing ex-SWPers seem to do is try and flog a new newspaper?




sell the paper build the party


----------



## J Ed (Jan 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> sell the paper build the party


----------



## laptop (Jan 11, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> sell the paper build the party



No, no, no.

Build the paper, sell the party!


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2014)

as an aside...

I notice Dave Hyland , former WRP CC member who covered for Healy's sexual assaults for years,  until the Libyan money ran out, has died. He was more recently the British franchise holder for David North/Green's Socialist Equality Party, and North/Green is coming over to deliver memorial lectures. Could be a good time to ask him about his complicity in the fingering of Iraqi dissidents, or his running a multi-million dollar anti-union printing company.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Jan 11, 2014)

manny-p said:


> Don't the AWL have a controversial line over Palestine? Remember hearing they had an 'anti deutch' kinda line.


If the AWL didn't exist, Mossad would have to invent them.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 11, 2014)

belboid said:


> as an aside...
> 
> I notice Dave Hyland , former WRP CC member who covered for Healy's sexual assaults for years,  until the Libyan money ran out, has died. He was more recently the British franchise holder for David North/Green's Socialist Equality Party, and North/Green is coming over to deliver memorial lectures. Could be a good time to ask him about his complicity in the fingering of Iraqi dissidents, or his running a multi-million dollar anti-union printing company.



I hadn't realised it until now but they're the people who spam news stories from the WSWS site?


----------



## chilango (Jan 11, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Kent ex-SWPers are quick off the mark selling their newspaper in Ramsgate. "Solidarity", now that rings a number of bells ...



The more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## Sue (Jan 11, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Kent ex-SWPers are quick off the mark selling their newspaper in Ramsgate. "Solidarity", now that rings a number of bells ...


 
Saw an SWP poster earlier with the same headline. I know there are only so many to go around but...bit of a coincidence?


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why is it that first thing ex-SWPers seem to do is try and flog a new newspaper?




and a petition of course...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2014)

It's actually quite surprising that they got a paper produced this quickly, given that they are a small, new, local group. I wonder how many pages it has and if it's intended to be a regular publication or just a stop gap until a national org gets going (the ex faction meeting is soon I think)

It does seem pretty odd for a new organisation in 2014 to produce a print paper before putting up a website. Do they have one?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2014)

Sue said:


> Saw an SWP poster earlier with the same headline. I know there are only so many to go around but...bit of a coincidence?


I like that Ian Bone has used the swappie version and just cropped their name off 

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/blame-the-etonians/


----------



## ska invita (Jan 11, 2014)

.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's actually quite surprising that they got a paper produced this quickly, given that they are a small, new, local group. I wonder how many pages it has and if it's intended to be a regular publication or just a stop gap until a national org gets going (the ex faction meeting is soon I think)
> 
> It does seem pretty odd for a new organisation in 2014 to produce a print paper before putting up a website. Do they have one?


It is quite surprising, but while it is hard to tell from the photo I would guess it is one sheet folded in half, so 4 pages. So not to hard to get a few dozen printed up.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 11, 2014)

emanymton said:


> It is quite surprising, but while it is hard to tell from the photo I would guess it is one sheet folded in half, so 4 pages. So not to hard to get a few dozen printed up.



It can be trickier than you'd think getting very small runs of a paper printed, simply because it's not worth a printing firm's time. I'd suspect that they will have had to get a lot more printed than they could dream of shifting (although they may be distributing them free).


----------



## Bakunin (Jan 11, 2014)

laptop said:


> No, no, no.
> 
> Build the paper, sell the party!



They would, but who's buying?


----------



## chilango (Jan 11, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's actually quite surprising that they got a paper produced this quickly, given that they are a small, new, local group. I wonder how many pages it has and if it's intended to be a regular publication or just a stop gap until a national org gets going (the ex faction meeting is soon I think)
> 
> It does seem pretty odd for a new organisation in 2014 to produce a print paper before putting up a website. Do they have one?



It seems pretty well-produced, albeit in a very dated, cliched format. But nicely laid out, nice masthead etc. somebody knew what they doing. They may well have access to the kit/contacts to do it. 

I've managed in the past to get fellow travelling printers to run off relatively small runs of publications no problem.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It can be trickier than you'd think getting very small runs of a paper printed, simply because it's not worth a printing firm's time. I'd suspect that they will have had to get a lot more printed than they could dream of shifting (although they may be distributing them free).


True, but it is possible somebody with a decent printer could knock them out themselves. I would guess it is a monthly as well, or even a one-off


----------



## muscovyduck (Jan 11, 2014)

A couple of A4 sheets folded together isn't really a newspaper, is it?


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 11, 2014)

the kent paper puzzle is answered in an IB for one of the 2013 conferences: swp in the county has a small printshop for leaflets, broadsheets, etc. 
guess it's not just members leaving the swp


----------



## chilango (Jan 11, 2014)

muscovyduck said:


> A couple of A4 sheets folded together isn't really a newspaper, is it?



In this world a single double sided A4 counts so long as you have the correct slogans and raise the correct demands on any regular basis.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 12, 2014)

So Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century is the name of the new group founded by the SWP oppos who've left after the last conference:

https://www.facebook.com/neil.rogall

Apparently, about 130 people were at the meeting and there was a debate around several names: Rs21, International Socialists, Revolutionary Socialists, Socialism from Below (my favourite).


----------



## J Ed (Jan 12, 2014)

What about Socialism from Behind?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 12, 2014)

Somebody on the left (not me) needs to start coming up with some decent names.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 12, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Somebody on the left (not me) needs to start coming up with some decent names.



There were a few thousand suggested on this thread. Take your pick.

eta: admittedly, most of them weren't "decent".


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 12, 2014)

Delighted to hear that Colin Barker was at the founding of Revolutionary Socialism. I was wondering what had happened to him. Or have I missed a resignation letter?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2014)

It will be interesting to see if they end up being more stable and coherent than the ISN. On the one hand, they generally represent a more "conservative" wing of the SWP opposition, which may result in a more recognisably SWPish organisation. On the other hand, they face the same problem that once clear of the SWP, members will likely be traveling in different directions.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 12, 2014)

J Ed said:


> What about Socialism from Behind?



I firmly believe Proletarian Democracy should adopt this position.


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> once clear of the SWP, members will likely be traveling in different directions.



But likely not Moving in Several Directions At Once!


----------



## benedict (Jan 12, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> So Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century is the name of the new group founded by the SWP oppos who've left after the last conference:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/neil.rogall
> 
> Apparently, about 130 people were at the meeting and there was a debate around several names: Rs21, International Socialists, Revolutionary Socialists, Socialism from Below (my favourite).



Nice. Something the man/woman on the street can immediately identify with. Why don't more left groups have a century-locating suffix?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 12, 2014)

benedict said:


> Nice. Something the man/woman on the street can immediately identify with. Why don't more left groups have a century-locating suffix?



sounds a bit Mao'ish to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I firmly believe Proletarian Democracy should adopt this position.


We already didn't.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It will be interesting to see if they end up being more stable and coherent than the ISN.


I think it'd be almost impossible for them not to be.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 12, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Delighted to hear that Colin Barker was at the founding of Revolutionary Socialism. I was wondering what had happened to him. Or have I missed a resignation letter?



I think his name was on the opposition resignation statement but it just says Colin not Colin Barker. Ewa Barker signed it.


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 12, 2014)

I think good luck to them, definitely some good people trying to do the right thing in there. But a terrible name "In the 21st Century" is a tautology - we are all in the 21st Century, and don't feel the need to run around reminding eachother. So the fact they feel the need to emphasise it suggests they worry that they really are, like,so last century. And the "Revolutionary Socialism" sounds (a) pretentious (they are a long way from having a revolution) and (b) designed to put people off, unless they have already decided they are "revolutionary", so automatically thinking about appealing to a small group. "Socialism from Below" a much better name.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2014)

From Below is better. SRB is such a  cliched split group name.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 12, 2014)

Belushi said:


> I firmly believe Proletarian Democracy should adopt this position.


prol dem down & let's get started!


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 12, 2014)

laptop said:


> But likely not Moving in Several Directions At Once!


blak background pages do me ead in. (Is that what a blak site is?)


----------



## benedict (Jan 12, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> sounds a bit Mao'ish to me.



Does a bit. I totally agree with Scribbing S on the name. It's an absurd in-group cliche.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 12, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> sounds a bit Mao'ish to me.



Does it? I thought it was an allusion to Bolivarianism


----------



## benedict (Jan 12, 2014)

Inspired by Harman I would think?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 12, 2014)

Boring!! They should have paraphrased his other book and called themselves Zombie Socialism


----------



## J Ed (Jan 12, 2014)




----------



## redcogs (Jan 12, 2014)

Something simple would do?  Howabout  'The Levelling Utopian Dreamerists standing in the Foot Hallas Tradition with a Twist of early Cliffite Humour thrown in for Good Measure'


----------



## dennisr (Jan 13, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I wonder how many pages it has



2 front and back (and yes, they are handed out for free)


----------



## Trotter (Jan 13, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> So Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century is the name of the new group founded by the SWP oppos who've left after the last conference:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/neil.rogall
> 
> Apparently, about 130 people were at the meeting and there was a debate around several names: Rs21, International Socialists, Revolutionary Socialists, Socialism from Below (my favourite).



The decision was an interim one. It reflects the name of the blog which the opposition launched pre-Marxism last year, so it represents some continuity. The full discussion on the name of the new organisation will take place at the next national meeting.

A bit more than 130 at the meeting as well.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 13, 2014)

Trotter said:


> The decision was an interim one. It reflects the name of the blog which the opposition launched pre-Marxism last year, so it represents some continuity. The full discussion on the name of the new organisation will take place at the next national meeting.
> 
> A bit more than 130 at the meeting as well.



Well, that's a relief as I don't like the name at all. BTW, the account I had spoke of 130-140 at the meeting.


----------



## tedsplitter (Jan 13, 2014)

I think the figure of 130 is based on registrations.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 13, 2014)

Are they mostly from a few specific regions (london?) or is it people from across the country?


----------



## tedsplitter (Jan 13, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are they mostly from a few specific regions (london?) or is it people from across the country?



Couldn’t say – I know there was a 3 went from my area (Leicester) which is the same number that went to the ISN politics conference. Relations are very friendly between Decembrists and ISN here and there’s a lot of good will and shared commitment to joint working. I’d like a formal merger sooner rather than later but understand their need for breathing room. I mean it took us ages to get anything together and we have made a whole gaggle of mistakes to draw lessons from. They’ve got all that to come.

I think these comrades will be more London-centric in their national organisation (e.g. less likely to have steering committee meetings rotating around the country). But I doubt if that was reflected in this meeting, the first they’ve held since their departure.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 13, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Well, that's a relief as I don't like the name at all. BTW, the account I had spoke of 130-140 at the meeting.


More like 140-150 over the weekend - some comrades could not make both days.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 13, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are they mostly from a few specific regions (london?) or is it people from across the country?


Majority probably from London, but a good spread from across the country (or countries, if we consider Scotland and Wales to be separate) with most major cities represented. Pooled fare in operation. Well organised child care. But still more difficult for comrades from the north to attend.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 14, 2014)

why isn't this thread on urban's front page anymore? No goss doing the rounds?

anyway, seems Matt Foot (a son) is still in, perhaps he's more of either the Gonny-Megan or the Dee, Wolfreys & Haynes persuasions rather than a cut-throat lyncher:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/04/fighting-for-legal-aid-matt-foot

By the way, anyone got a list of the last-minute 'compromise' signers, the Gonny-Megan initiative? Any of D, W or H on it?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

> Matt, who is a member of the Socialist Workers party as was his father, is proud of his family's liberal tradition and stresses that this is what the coalition is trampling on. Part of the campaign has been sending protest cards to Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg, to remind him of his party's history. "That's what I've been saying the last few months: this is what your tradition is and don't tear it up. It's up to the people at the top to maintain the proud Liberal tradition."



On so many level


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

The new group might be a bit tighter and schooled in the downturn traditions.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 14, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> why isn't this thread on urban's front page anymore? No goss doing the rounds?
> 
> anyway, seems Matt Foot (a son) is still in, perhaps he's more of either the Gonny-Megan or the Dee, Wolfreys & Haynes persuasions rather than a cut-throat lyncher:
> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/04/fighting-for-legal-aid-matt-foot
> ...



Simon Hattenstone: the worst guest EVER on Football Weekly. I got a cold sweat just clicking on that link.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 14, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> By the way, anyone got a list of the last-minute 'compromise' signers, the Gonny-Megan initiative? Any of D, W or H on it?


No.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> On so many level



It's the American use of liberal creeping over here and people getting confused.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

J Ed said:


> It's the American use of liberal creeping over here and people getting confused.


I really don't think that it. I think it's just this dickhead being a living example of what the defend the party types consist of. Empty vessels easily used.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I really don't think that it. I think it's just this dickhead being a living example of what the defend the party types consist of. Empty vessels easily used.


bit harsh. he's hardly gonna say 'my great grandad was a cunt', is he?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

discokermit said:


> bit harsh. he's hardly gonna say 'my great grandad was a cunt', is he?


I wasn't talking about his grandad, his grandad was irrelevant - it was the use of these people to be brought in as socialists as the leadership need.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I wasn't talking about his grandad, his grandad was irrelevant - it was the use of these people to be brought in as socialists as the leadership need.


i know.
i don't know matt foot, never seen him before that article and i don't think i've read anything by him and don't know what role he's played in all this but to call him a dickhead based on that article seems a bit harsh.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2014)

and i liked his dad.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i know.
> i don't know matt foot, never seen him before that article and i don't think i've read anything by him and don't know what role he's played in all this but to call him a dickhead based on that article seems a bit harsh.





> Matt, who is a member of the Socialist Workers party as was his father, is proud of his family's liberal tradition and stresses that this is what the coalition is trampling on. Part of the campaign has been sending protest cards to Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg, to remind him of his party's history. "That's what I've been saying the last few months: this is what your tradition is and don't tear it up. It's up to the people at the top to maintain the proud Liberal tradition."



Deserving of being called a dickhead inside or outside the party. Inside, 100%.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 14, 2014)

i used to like Ralph Millipede, but his sons are not socialists and are a couple of deadbeats.

In Matt Foot's case, we can't 'visit the sins of the father upon the son' around the Delta issue - Paul was long dead by then.  And, generally speaking, he seemed ok to me, apart from being a minor aristo'.


----------



## chilango (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Deserving of being called a dickhead inside or outside the party. Inside, 100%.



Pricks on the outside, eh?

Did they ever call that journal _Cactus_ in the end?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Deserving of being called a dickhead inside or outside the party. Inside, 100%.


i kinda agree. you know i do. but still there are people in there who are decent people. ok, so they've swallowed a huge amount of bullshit, proved themselves to be incapable of independent thought and turned a blind eye to utterly monstrous behaviour but for some people their entire adult lives, for some their entire lives, have been devoted selflessly to the working class, through the party. social circles, work, relationships, children can for some people all hinge around the swp. some of them have made bad judgements and should be called on it but i don't think they're necessarily dickheads.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 14, 2014)

Trotter said:


> No.


thanx, Trotter


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i kinda agree. you know i do. but still there are people in there who are decent people. ok, so they've swallowed a huge amount of bullshit, proved themselves to be incapable of independent thought and turned a blind eye to utterly monstrous behaviour but for some people their entire adult lives, for some their entire lives, have been devoted selflessly to the working class, through the party. social circles, work, relationships, children can for some people all hinge around the swp. some of them have made bad judgements and should be called on it but i don't think they're necessarily dickheads.


This person is precisely not on of them though - that why i'm calling them a dickhead. What sort of member thinks telling clegg that he's not a real liberal by postcard is a real member?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This person is precisely not on of them though - that why i'm calling them a dickhead. What sort of member thinks telling clegg that he's not a real liberal by postcard is a real member?


it's a bunch of lawyers campaigning about legal aid so i suppose that must seem pretty radical to them. and it got in the guardian. and he got to work in a big up to his grandad. you too harsh.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 14, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i know.
> i don't know matt foot, never seen him before that article and i don't think i've read anything by him and don't know what role he's played in all this but to call him a dickhead based on that article seems a bit harsh.


True enough I guess. Worth remembering that this is an article about him rather than one by him, and we all know what journalists can be like.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 14, 2014)

chilango said:


> Pricks on the outside, eh?
> 
> Did they ever call that journal _Cactus_ in the end?



http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/downloads/279-cactus-issue-zero

Don't know if it came with a free dickhead  -  pricked or otherwise. But it did sell-out, apparently.


----------



## belboid (Jan 14, 2014)

Whatever happened to Norah Carlin, btw? Was rereading her Roots of Gay Oppression the other day, n had forgotten how good it was.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> Whatever happened to Norah Carlin, btw? Was rereading her Roots of Gay Oppression the other day, n had forgotten how good it was.


We put her on for a talk down here last month (and a really interesting talk it was) - to say she is not pro-swp full stop would be unfair.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 14, 2014)

Matt Foot is a quite personable bloke irl, however now I know he's an unrepentant SWP loyalist that kind of changes things


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> Whatever happened to Norah Carlin, btw? Was rereading her Roots of Gay Oppression the other day, n had forgotten how good it was.


Those comments of hers that I've read on Facebook have been supportive of the opposition.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 15, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Those comments of hers that I've read on Facebook have been supportive of the opposition.


A comment from Norah on Pat Stack's resignation letter:
_"Best regards and maximum respect to Pat, and in general to all the comrades who have found it necessary to give up what had been a major and positive part of their lives for decades - as I did some years ago. It isn't easy, and it doesn't have to mean you were wrong to belong for so long. No regrets! Maybe it doesn't mean this time that there will be nothing to take its former place in your/our lives."_​


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We put her on for a talk down here last month (and a really interesting talk it was) - to say she is not pro-swp full stop would be unfair.


was it a SWP event, or some other forum that Norah Carlin spoke at?


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We put her on for a talk down here last month (and a really interesting talk it was) - to say she is not pro-swp full stop would be unfair.


There's too many double negatives in there for me to decipher


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> was it a SWP event, or some other forum that Norah Carlin spoke at?


butch is about as likely to put on an SWP event as Callinicos is to appear on Dancing on Ice.



barney_pig said:


> There's too many double negatives in there for me to decipher



same here - but with the other two comments, i think I got there in the end


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> was it a SWP event, or some other forum that Norah Carlin spoke at?


A Bristol Radical History event, she came down to give us an update on her current research into the question of Charles 1 as the 'man of blood'. We wnr for some food and drink afterwards and unsurprisingly the issue of the dispute came up - she was generally favourable to the oppositions attempts to reform the party if not entirely comfortable with all their political positions (she stood by the piece she wrote about 20 years back outlining and defending the classic SWP position on class/gender/sexism etc) but  -and i have to try and be a bit delicate here - she would not have  anything personally and politically to do with certain leading members of the then opposition. Also seemed to be a unaware of a lot of the specifics of the stuff discussed on this thread and elsewhere. A book is planned about the civil war stuff if i remember right.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2014)

the RevSocC21 launch statement is officially up now:

http://revolutionarysocialism.tumbl...0/revolutionary-socialism-in-the-21st-century


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> the RevSocC21 launch statement is officially up now:
> 
> http://revolutionarysocialism.tumbl...0/revolutionary-socialism-in-the-21st-century


Good Luck to them.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2014)

They will certainly need good luck there doesn't seem to be much in their founding statement that recognises the date based part of their name.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> They will certainly need good luck there doesn't seem to be much in their founding statement that recognises the date based part of their name.


'At present, the basis for a genuine mass revolutionary party does not exist in the British working class movement'  makes a pleasant change


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> 'At present, the basis for a genuine mass revolutionary party does not exist in the British working class movement'  makes a pleasant change



Really? I'd have thought that a commonplace.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 15, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Really? I'd have thought that a commonplace.



No, comrades must be kept on their toes at all times as who knows around which corner the revolution lies.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Really? I'd have thought that a commonplace.



There's never been a better time to be a socialist.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> There's never been a better time to be a socialist.



Good point. I wonder did the SWP think that building a real revolutionary party (or a mass or semi mass revolutionary organisation in any form) was on the agenda during the whole "1930s in slow motion" period? The much quoted late period Cliff anecdote about what could be done with 40,000 members at the time of the pit closures also seems to imply a rather inflated view of the possibilities open. So perhaps the statement of the bleeding obvious that there isn't currently the basis for a "real" revolutionary party actually is a "breath of fresh air" for those in the post early 90s SWP?

On another note, I see from the Weekly Worker that the AWL's destructive "factional manipulation", approaching allegations of sexual assault etc primarily as a way to damage rival left groups, has predictably gone badly wrong, leaving them revealed as cynical hypocrites. Whoever could have predicted that?


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 16, 2014)

redcogs said:


> i used to like Ralph Millipede, but his sons are not socialists and are a couple of deadbeats.
> 
> In Matt Foot's case, we can't 'visit the sins of the father upon the son' around the Delta issue - Paul was long dead by then.  And, generally speaking, he seemed ok to me, apart from being a minor aristo'.


He stupidly and persistently defended Wakefield on the MMR vaccine (on a personal level as well as on the overall issue), which deserves some serious criticism.

That's not to say he didn't do some good stuff too of course.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> On another note, I see from the Weekly Worker that the AWL's destructive "factional manipulation", approaching allegations of sexual assault etc primarily as a way to damage rival left groups, has predictably gone badly wrong, leaving them revealed as cynical hypocrites. Whoever could have predicted that?



link?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 16, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> link?



You need a link to find the Weekly Worker? What sort of rabid sectarian are you?!?!

http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/993/pot-calls-kettle-black


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2014)

I'm really tempted to turn up at awl events to rub it in in as sectarian and opportunistic a manner as possible offer principled opposition to their bureaucratic, anti-democratic antics and betrayal of the principles of womens liberation, like what they'd do but I really can't be arsed and it wouldn't be fair on the victims.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You need a link to find the Weekly Worker? What sort of rabid sectarian are you?!?!
> 
> http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/993/pot-calls-kettle-black



The article is bang on about the AWL's cynical sectarian fuckwittery but wildly inaccurate about lots of other stuff - handle with caution.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 16, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> The article is bang on about the AWL's cynical sectarian fuckwittery but wildly inaccurate about lots of other stuff - handle with caution.



This bit (the important bit IMO) is correct as far as we know though, right?



> In September last year, a little-noticed post appeared on the NCAFC Facebook page. In it, a sexual abuse survivor asked why the organisation had not publicly commented on her case. It had, after all, resulted in the expulsion of the man involved from the NCAFC. She claimed that he is a known serial abuser and explained, absolutely correctly, that transparency about his expulsion was necessary to ensure the safety of other women. It emerged that she had turned up to “an event” at ULU only to find her alleged abuser casually socialising as if nothing untoward had happened. She indignantly protested to the organisers.
> 
> Although it was not mentioned in her post, that “event” was Ideas for Freedom, the AWL’s summer school. In the run-up she explained to the AWL’s executive that she would not attend Ideas for Freedom if her alleged abuser was going to be there too. Comrade Ismail reported that EC member Ed Maltby “negotiated an agreement”, so that both parties would “attend different bits” of the school. During one EC meeting, comrade Maltby noted that the man had “got wasted two times and felt people up.”
> 
> At least one AWL member has left the organisation after lodging a complaint over the incident. When the resignation letter was posted to the AWL’s internal email list, comrade Ismail attempted to change the subject, claiming that it came as no surprise, “given the new flurry of pressure on us generated by Pat S’s antics”. He was referring to the resignation and publication of internal AWL documents by former AWL member, Patrick Smith.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

Sacha Ismail posts here.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2014)

this kind of jumped out at me:



> Of course, it was dressed up in calls for the labour movement to stamp out domestic violence - *as if that were possible this side of socialism.*



how is it possible to write something like that with a straight face?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> This bit (the important bit IMO) is correct as far as we know though, right?



Yeah, that's true.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> this kind of jumped out at me:
> 
> 
> 
> how is it possible to write something like that with a straight face?



That's exactly the attitude that makes people think Marxists don't take the issue seriously.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2014)

it's the attitude that makes people think marxists are drooling blank-eyed cultists, more like.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> it's the attitude that makes people think marxists are drooling blank-eyed cultists, more like.


Easy to write off the belief of millions. Bit of fucking equality here brother.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2014)

you might have to run that by me again mate.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> you might have to run that by me again mate.


Your rather easy anger at people writing off the religious in the same terms as you just used above. I think it's a bit of a cheek. A _downright scandal_ in fact.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2014)

erk! consider me chastened.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2014)

although fwiw, if someone claimed that domestic violence was only solvable through the love of jesus, I'd probably call them a drooling blank eyed cultist too.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Sacha Ismail posts here.



Not recently it seems. He is a weird fucker, keeps trying to talk to me on FB.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 17, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Not recently it seems. He is a weird fucker, keeps trying to talk to me on FB.


Less talk, more stalk


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 17, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I think his name was on the opposition resignation statement but it just says Colin not Colin Barker. Ewa Barker signed it.


I am told that Colin Barker hasn't in fact resigned as yet. I assumed he had for the reasons that you give and the fact that he attended the RS21 inaugural meeting. Any more info on this?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 17, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> I am told that Colin Barker hasn't in fact resigned as yet. I assumed he had for the reasons that you give and the fact that he attended the RS21 inaugural meeting. Any more info on this?



No, afraid not. I did think it would be more obvious if and when he resigned.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 17, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> I am told that Colin Barker hasn't in fact resigned as yet. I assumed he had for the reasons that you give and the fact that he attended the RS21 inaugural meeting. Any more info on this?


Karmickameleon - you are correct that Colin B has not resigned. But he also attended the RS21 meeting, spoke, and made a proposal to be voted on. I think comrades can draw their own conclusions from that.


----------



## Simon B (Jan 17, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> This bit (the important bit IMO) is correct as far as we know though, right?


I have no dog in this fight but, in the interests of hearing two sides of an issue, here is the AWL response.
http://www.workersliberty.org/cpgblies
They say that the CPGB article is almost completely inaccurate, and that a) the accused was never an AWL member, b) the event at which the victim was confronted with the accused was not their event and c) no one has resigned from the AWL over this.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2014)

The detail sounds very similar to another swp related case referee to some time ago on this thread - some kind of mix up?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 17, 2014)

Simon B said:


> I have no dog in this fight



Although you do claim to be an ex-AWL member. As for the details, I genuinely wouldn't know which of two compulsively dishonest grouplets to disbelieve first. The CPGB are gossip mongering fantasists, while the AWL are malicious liars.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Simon B said:


> I have no dog in this fight but, in the interests of hearing two sides of an issue, here is the AWL response.
> http://www.workersliberty.org/cpgblies
> They say that the CPGB article is almost completely inaccurate, and that a) the accused was never an AWL member, b) the event at which the victim was confronted with the accused was not their event and c) no one has resigned from the AWL over this.


Being ex-awl means that you probably do have a dog of some sort in this fight.


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 17, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Although you do claim to be an ex-AWL member. As for the details, I genuinely wouldn't know which of two compulsively dishonest grouplets to disbelieve first. The CPGB are gossip mongering fantasists, while the AWL are malicious liars.



Indeed. The only point that both sides agree on is that this individual did attend their 'Ideas for Freedom' event and that the AWL did 'negotiate' how he participated. Now, I don't know what this guy is supposed to have done. It might even be possible (not likely, just possible) that what the AWL did was right and proper. The point however, is that if any other left organisation had acted as the AWL did at IFF then the AWL would have absolutely crucified them.

Once again the hypocrisy of the AWL is nauseating.


----------



## Simon B (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Being ex-awl means that you probably do have a dog of some sort in this fight.


I really don't. It must be about 8 years since I was a member and I haven not attended any of their events since and nor do I identify with their politics. I do still have friends in it.
Anyway, I just wanted to make people aware that the CPGB version of events is contested. I have no knowledge of these events other than the two articles.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

I know nothing about this, just been sent it:

*Warwick Anti-Sexism* @UWASS
Yesterday's protest against Alex Callinicos - letting him know we don't accept rape apologists on our campus.pic.twitter.com/nfaq2GY5zN


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I know nothing about this, just been sent it:
> 
> *Warwick Anti-Sexism* @UWASS
> Yesterday's protest against Alex Callinicos - letting him know we don't accept rape apologists on our campus.pic.twitter.com/nfaq2GY5zN


was the proff there?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

I would guess he was supposed to be. Was this the equivalent of the infamous edl kfc invasion?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Here's a question: how did the prof rise to the top of the SWP? (This isn't a point about his background btw) Is it because he's so much more clever than anyone else? What did he (uniquely?) bring that enabled him to rise so?


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is it because he's so much more clever than anyone else?


Yes.

Far and away the most insightful of the later theorists.  he didn't ever come up with any specific theory that became central to 'the tradition' but he espoused the politics clearly and comparatively concisely (for an academic), and a few of his books are still great.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> Yes.
> 
> Far and away the most insightful of the later theorists.  he didn't ever come up with any specific theory that became central to 'the tradition' but he espoused the politics clearly and comparatively concisely (for an academic), and a few of his books are still great.


I've always defended his books - on here and elsewhere - but i don't see how that would automatically translate into internal power. But, if that's what people who were inside say is the reason, then i can't really argue.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2014)

Well, its that and the fact that there's been no one 'better' to replace him. He's the last of the semi-old guard, on the CC with Cliff, Hallas and Harman, the holy troika, he is the last holder of the sacred flame.


----------



## chilango (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I know nothing about this, just been sent it:
> 
> *Warwick Anti-Sexism* @UWASS
> Yesterday's protest against Alex Callinicos - letting him know we don't accept rape apologists on our campus.pic.twitter.com/nfaq2GY5zN




Hmmm.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Sure, get that. But that itself leaves open the question of how he became a central part of the old guard in the first place. What motivated his promotion and who promoted him. In fact, how does top-level promotion work full stop? I can see the use of him in establishing/re-enforcing the parties intellectual credibility but in what practical way has he helped shape the SWP as a class-fighting force, as something that the w/c sees as theirs? I cannot see that he has at all, and i can only think that those who promoted him (and others) did not seriously expect him (and others) to do so. So we're then left with the basis for elite promotion being intellectual stuff.


----------



## locolomo (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So we're then left with the basis for elite promotion being intellectual stuff.



Wasn't Maxine on the CC for a while?  I think that rules out intellectualism as the basis for promotion.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

locolomo said:


> Wasn't Maxine on the CC for a while?  I think that rules out intellectualism as the basis for promotion.


Yes, bit of flaw in my argument there. More than a few in fact now i think of it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Sure, get that. But that itself leaves open the question of how he became a central part of the old guard in the first place. What motivated his promotion and who promoted him. In fact, how does top-level promotion work full stop? I can see the use of him in establishing/re-enforcing the parties intellectual credibility but in what practical way has he helped shape the SWP as a class-fighting force, as something that the w/c sees as theirs? I cannot see that he has at all, and i can only think that those who promoted him (and others) did not seriously expect him (and others) to do so. So we're then left with the basis for elite promotion being intellectual stuff.


In the early days he seemed to be a bit on the sidelines of the CC, there to provide intellectual cover and deep theoretical justification. Given the choices seemed to be him or John Rees, its not that surprising he came out on top. He only became more central as the other died off.  Combined with the fact that he only took responsibility for international work - which most members (and I suspect CC members) were unaware of - then there was little to explicitly tarnish his star.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Sure, get that. But that itself leaves open the question of how he became a central part of the old guard in the first place. What motivated his promotion and who promoted him. In fact, how does top-level promotion work full stop? I can see the use of him in establishing/re-enforcing the parties intellectual credibility but in what practical way has he helped shape the SWP as a class-fighting force, as something that the w/c sees as theirs? I cannot see that he has at all, and i can only think that those who promoted him (and others) did not seriously expect him (and others) to do so. So we're then left with the basis for elite promotion being intellectual stuff.


First came to prominence as a member of the IS National Student Committee. He was co-opted to the committee because of his "orthodoxy" not because of his student activism. He had already embarked on his academic career at LSE. Later was a supporter of the "revolt of the organisers" challenge to the CC slate in the late 70s who tried to add Paul Holborow to the CC. They lost, but Callinicos was added to the CC not too long afterwards.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Trotter said:


> First came to prominence as a member of the IS National Student Committee. He was co-opted to the committee because of his "orthodoxy" not because of his student activism. He had already embarked on his academic career at LSE. Later was a supporter of the "revolt of the organisers" challenge to the CC slate in the late 70s who tried to add Paul Holborow to the CC. They lost, but Callinicos was added to the CC not too long afterwards.


Cheers. All revolt is useful to someone isn't it? 

I wonder what his reputation is amongst those he directed internationally is.


----------



## treelover (Jan 17, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You need a link to find the Weekly Worker? What sort of rabid sectarian are you?!?!
> 
> http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/993/pot-calls-kettle-black




I think its a retrograde step SPEW leaving the NCAFC, however justified, they were actually moving forward, didn't the SP leave the SA when it was just taking off?, the non party activists must be bewildered by all this, at a time when students and many graduates are worried sick about the student fees privatisations.


----------



## treelover (Jan 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> In the early days he seemed to be a bit on the sidelines of the CC, there to provide intellectual cover and deep theoretical justification. Given the choices seemed to be him or John Rees, its not that surprising he came out on top. He only became more central as the other died off.  Combined with the fact that he only took responsibility for international work - which most members (and I suspect CC members) were unaware of - then there was little to explicitly tarnish his star.




Very prominent in the ESF/Globalise Resistance period, he was at every planning meeting, queuing to speak, etc (must have been a novel experience for him)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> Very prominent in the ESF/Globalise Resistance period, he was at every planning meeting, queuing to speak, etc (must have been a novel experience for him)


Of course, there was the negri confrontation in which he was intellectually destroyed after telling many many lies about Negri and his politics.


----------



## treelover (Jan 17, 2014)

Btw, what does Ed Maltby do, Oxbridge then what?


----------



## treelover (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Of course, there was the negri confrontation in which he was intellectually destroyed after telling many many lies about Negri and his politics.



I witnessed that, sort of, couldn't hear much, exciting times.


----------



## treelover (Jan 17, 2014)

http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-resignation-of-recent-cc-member

Who is this?, sounds a decent sort, initial only ok


----------



## treelover (Jan 17, 2014)

> At the weekly Sparks picket lines in London, student comrades turned out in force and ‘electrified’ the picket lines. There are naturally autonomist and movementist pressures on these comrades in the same way that there are pressures on our trade union comrades to accommodate with the trade union bureaucracy.



bizarre comparing trade union bureaucrats with autonomists, unless he sees them as a threat.


----------



## benedict (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Of course, there was the negri confrontation in which he was intellectually destroyed after telling many many lies about Negri and his politics.



Is there a link for this? What was the context?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

benedict said:


> Is there a link for this? What was the context?


It was  a debate about the idea of the multitude - probably 10 years ago now at one of the esf meetings. Callinicos basically openly lied and used the autonnomist spectre notd above to argue that all others in general and Negri in particular abandoned the idea of class. It was a series of lies that he knew were lies. And Negri told him so. There is vid of part of it - let me have a look. This confrontation caused real consternation across europe as many people could not believe that someone would just openly lie - on the level of talking about ideas and also so instrumentally (_stay away from the autonomists!_)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Negri part here.

Some dodgy translation mind.


----------



## benedict (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It was  a debate about the idea of the multitude - probably 10 years ago now at one of the esf meetings. Callinicos basically openly lied and used the autonnomist spectre notd above to argue that all others in general and Negri in particular abandoned the idea of class. It was a series of lies that he knew were lies. And Negri told him so. There is vid of part of it - let me have a look. This confrontation caused real consternation across europe as many people could not believe that someone would just openly lie - on the level of talking about ideas and also so instrumentally (_stay away from the autonomists!_)



Thanks, butchers. I wish I understood more about Negri's work. Is there a great deal of continuity between his early work and the most recent trilogy of books with Hardt?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

benedict said:


> Thanks, butchers. I wish I understood more about Negri's work. Is there a great deal of continuity between his early work and the most recent trilogy of books with Hardt?


There is in one key continuity - this is the idea of the section of the working class engaged in the most technically advanced section of capitalist production providing a vanguard (a mass vanguard) that disciples and organises the classes political responses (formally and informally). This was what Negri called the Leninist thread. Today, the spread of the use of technology essentially means the class has become this vanguard in itself, in its own (and capitals) reproduction. It was an idea that had good practical use in the 50s and up to the early 80s. It's a very silly idea today.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> I think its a retrograde step SPEW leaving the NCAFC, however justified, they were actually moving forward, didn't the SP leave the SA when it was just taking off?, the non party activists must be bewildered by all this, at a time when students and many graduates are worried sick about the student fees privatisations.



The SP were never in NCAFC in the first place - always been a stitch up between the awl and student broad left. And it's a total fucking basket case - there is absolutely nobody in it who you can have a sensible discussion with, let alone actually do anything.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder what his reputation is amongst those he directed internationally is.


Not great from what I hear in a number of countries.


----------



## Combustible (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I would guess he was supposed to be. Was this the equivalent of the infamous edl kfc invasion?



He was meant to and as far as I can tell it went ahead.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 17, 2014)

Isn't it weird that Callinicos was talking about Marx's Capital in a departmental French seminar? Am I missing something?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 17, 2014)

js21 thread yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Isn't it weird that Callinicos was talking about Marx's Capital in a departmental French seminar? Am I missing something?


After negri he doesn't bother with adults.


----------



## benedict (Jan 17, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Isn't it weird that Callinicos was talking about Marx's Capital in a departmental French seminar? Am I missing something?



His professorial chair's in European Studies, isn't it? Maybe academic French has been colonized by post-Marxist theory in a similar way to postmodernism in English departments?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> I think its a retrograde step SPEW leaving the NCAFC, however justified.



The biggest confirmation of your stupidity in years, fuck off.


----------



## SLK (Jan 18, 2014)

This has turned into a lefty gossip thread then? It's actually boring now the SWP are pretty much nothing.


----------



## SLK (Jan 18, 2014)

On Negri v Callinicos, the interesting part is interpretations. In debates no-one ever seems to take account of cognitive bias - which means that the "winner" is announced by someone who you knew took that side, as if they were independent. It's especially interesting to see that when the recorded evidence is sketchy and the afterwords (eg, "s/he doesn't debate at this level any more") is demonstrably about attacking character.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I've always defended his books - on here and elsewhere


Speaking of which I got hold of a copy of Making History recently. Looks quite interesting if rather academic. Anybody read it? Is it worth my time and effort. 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Hist...390040081&sr=8-1&keywords=Making+history+alex


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/online-only/swp-resignation-of-recent-cc-member
> 
> Who is this?, sounds a decent sort, initial only ok


Edited out, pm me if you really want to know.


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2014)

seeing as he's asked for his name not to be shared, isn't it good manners not to?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> seeing as he's asked for his name not to be shared, isn't it good manners not to?


Yeah your right I just skimmed over the first para when I read it and missed that. I think I named him somewhere up thread as well, I'll see if I can do anything about it when I get back on my laptop. Although I don't really get the issue, his name is already out there as a ex member of the SWP CC.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Speaking of which I got hold of a copy of Making History recently. Looks quite interesting if rather academic. Anybody read it? Is it worth my time and effort.
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-History-Agency-Structure-Change/dp/0745601804/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390040081&sr=8-1&keywords=Making history alex


I enjoyed it, there's no breakthroughs or anything and it's mostly an update/synthesis of his books Social Theory and Theories and Narratives: reflections on the philosophy of history. To be honest though, it could have been written by almost any left wing theorist over the last 30 years, does help to led you to important debates and thinkers on them though. It's very useful in that sense. Copy here btw.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I enjoyed it, there's no breakthroughs or anything and it's mostly an update/synthesis of his books Social Theory and Theories and Narratives: reflections on the philosophy of history. To be honest though, it could have been written by almost any left wing theorist over the last 30 years, does help to led you to important debates and thinkers on them though. It's very useful in that sense. Copy here btw.


Cheers, from skimming a few bits, it did strike me as being a discussion of others writing, rather than at attempt to offer anything original. But then, I have always felt he is a decent scholar rather than an original thinker.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> I think its a retrograde step SPEW leaving the NCAFC, however justified, they were actually moving forward, didn't the SP leave the SA when it was just taking off?, the non party activists must be bewildered by all this, at a time when students and many graduates are worried sick about the student fees privatisations.



Spiney answered the student question. As for the other bit - the SP left the SAs after people desperate for some fantasy 'unity' voted for a non-federal setup (the demand of the SWP before they were to join - after 4 years of refusing to to involved with this unity project...) The SWP then proceeded to use their majority vote to destroy the SAs - to close down the SAs about a year and a half later when they went off on their next opportunist stunt and debarcle - Respect. The SP saw the writing on the wall and walked before they were stitched up. It was an eminently sensible thing to do leaving the poor fools who confused 'unity of lefties' with genuine 'unity' to deal with the consequences of the actions naive they were warned about. Its a shame they try and avoid their own partial responsibility for the results by trying to make out the SP were being sectarian.

This has been repeated endlessly on this website - but the lies - without any irony - thrown by the SWP trying to blame those who did their best to build a genuine SA that could not be controlled or fecked over by one group - including by the SP - still stick.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

dennisr said:


> Spiney answered the student question. As for the other bit - the SP left the SAs after people desperate for some fantasy 'unity' voted for a non-federal setup (the demand of the SWP before they were to join - after 4 years of refusing to to involved with this unity project...) The SWP then proceeded to use their majority vote to destroy the SAs - to close down the SAs about a year and a half later when they went off on their next opportunist stunt and debarcle - Respect. The SP saw the writing on the wall and walked before they were stitched up. It was an eminently sensible thing to do leaving the poor fools who confused 'unity of lefties' with genuine 'unity' to deal with the consequences of the actions naive they were warned about. Its a shame they try and avoid their own partial responsibility for the results by trying to make out the SP were being sectarian.
> 
> This has been repeated endlessly on this website - but the lies - without any irony - thrown by the SWP trying to blame those who did their best to build a genuine SA that could not be controlled or fecked over by one group - including by the SP - still stick.


One Little point of order, the SWP joined before the SP left. 

And you did leave at the high point of the SA, but the ultimate failure of the SA is of course down to the SWP, not the SP leaving.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

It's easy to see 'the writing on the wall' when you put it there yourselves


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> It's easy to see 'the writing on the wall' when you put it there yourselves




Once the SWP rammed through their takeover, the Socialist Alliance ceased being an alliance in any meaningful sense. The little sects didn't care as they were primarily there to try to recruit from the SWP and SP rank and file. The "Left Unity" demographic, mostly nice, mostly useless and mostly concerned with having a nice, useless, political home didn't care either. But those bits of the SA with things to be doing outside the incestuous world of sectarian unity all left.

The decision to leave (by the SP, Red Action and the Preston councillors) didn't doom the SA. They left because the SA was doomed and the only question remaining was how much time and resources they would waste on it while the SWP ran it into the ground.

I really can't believe that we are still having this argument thirteen years later. No doubt there will still be people in Ireland in a decade's time complaining about the "sectarianism" of the SP leaving the ULA. Or blaming its failure on the refusal of the people who put up all of the resources in the first place (ie the SP and to a lesser but still substantial extent the SWP) to keep throwing more resources down the hole. Or ludicrously blaming "competitive recruitment" (what fucking recruitment). Few things are more resilient than the ability of the "Left Unity" demographic to piously denounce the actually existing groups for the fact that its raining.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 18, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Once the SWP rammed through their takeover, the Socialist Alliance ceased being an alliance in any meaningful sense. The little sects didn't care as they were primarily there to try to recruit from the SWP and SP rank and file. The "Left Unity" demographic, mostly nice, mostly useless and mostly concerned with having a nice, useless, political home didn't care either. But those bits of the SA with things to be doing outside the incestuous world of sectarian unity all left.
> 
> The decision to leave (by the SP, Red Action and the Preston councillors) didn't doom the SA. They left because the SA was doomed and the only question remaining was how much time and resources they would waste on it while the SWP ran it into the ground.



I think it is possible to see now, given the total abject failure of all projects based on what dennisr would (rightly) call the unity of left groups that the SA would have failed at some point between then and say 2005/2010 no matter what - the failure of such projects is inevitable given the mad approach to building political power that most of the groups and individuals drawn to them initially have. 

Left Unity the organisation may not be based formally on the unity of some left groups, but as others have said it is still just the unity of left groups and the ex-members of past unity projects.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Once the SWP rammed through their takeover, the Socialist Alliance ceased being an alliance in any meaningful sense. The little sects didn't care as they were primarily there to try to recruit from the SWP and SP rank and file. The "Left Unity" demographic, mostly nice, mostly useless and mostly concerned with having a nice, useless, political home didn't care either. But those bits of the SA with things to be doing outside the incestuous world of sectarian unity all left.
> 
> The decision to leave (by the SP, Red Action and the Preston councillors) didn't doom the SA. They left because the SA was doomed and the only question remaining was how much time and resources they would waste on it while the SWP ran it into the ground.


uh huh, cos that's precisely what happened.

Still, buggered if I'm doing this yet again


----------



## emanymton (Jan 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think it is possible to see now, given the total abject failure of all projects based on what dennisr would (rightly) call the unity of left groups that the SA would have failed at some point between then and say 2005/2010 no matter what - the failure of such projects is inevitable given the mad approach to building political power that most of the groups and individuals drawn to them initially have.
> 
> Left Unity the organisation may not be based formally on the unity of some left groups, but as others have said it is still just the unity of left groups and the ex-members of past unity projects.


I think it is basically impossible to build a viable left organisation in the absence of a serious left movement of some kind.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> uh huh, cos that's precisely what happened.



Yes that is precisely what happened. But some people even thirteen years later refuse to learn any lessons from it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes that is precisely what happened. But some people even thirteen years later refuse to learn any lessons from it.


yes dear, of course


----------



## killer b (Jan 18, 2014)

considering the players involved in the game, i think it's fair to assume that everyone was shit.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> yes dear, of course



A convincing case, well made.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 18, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I think it is basically impossible to build a viable left organisation in the absence of a serious left movement of some kind.



I think we need to focus on building popular self confidence and a popular vision of what could be achieved out of that, and both need to be focussed on peoples self identified needs and wants.


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A convincing case, well made.



I'm not so bored as to repeat the discussion we have had about this for the tenth or twentieth time.

Tho I can well see why you'd rather talk about anything other than the joke that is TUSC


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> I'm not so bored as to repeat the discussion we have had about this for the tenth or twentieth time.
> 
> Tho I can well see why you'd rather talk about anything other than the joke that is TUSC


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-socialist-alliance.215581/

I think you and Nige said it all here


----------



## belboid (Jan 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-socialist-alliance.215581/
> 
> I think you and Nige said it all here


ta - tho even that one is version seven or eight I think


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Left Unity the organisation may not be based formally on the unity of some left groups, but as others have said it is still just the unity of left groups and the ex-members of past unity projects.



I was at a meeting in the Teachers Club in Dublin a few weeks ago, held by the Left Forum on the subject of the need for a united left party. I was at a meeting in the same venue five years ago, held by the Campaign for an Independent Left on the subject of the need for a united left party. I was at an Irish Socialist Alliance meeting in the same venue a dozen years ago on the need for a united left party.

12 years ago, I was in the youngest 20% of the audience. Five years ago I was in the youngest 20% of the audience. A few weeks ago I was in the youngest 20% of the audience.

This is a demographic of nice, well meaning, decent people who are, unfortunately, incapable of learning. It's also a demographic hostile to the existing groups (or at least endlessly patronising about their "sectarianism") yet both created by those groups and permanently stuck in their world. Even when they self-consciously try to get around the existing groups, they end up producing just another such group but with the added ineffectuality and political softness characteristic of the milieu - like Left Unity.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I was at a meeting in the Teachers Club in Dublin a few weeks ago, held by the Left Forum on the subject of the need for a united left party. I was at a meeting in the same venue five years ago, held by the Campaign for an Independent Left on the subject of the need for a united left party. I was at an Irish Socialist Alliance meeting in the same venue a dozen years ago on the need for a united left party.
> 
> 12 years ago, I was in the youngest 20% of the audience. Five years ago I was in the youngest 20% of the audience. A few weeks ago I was in the youngest 20% of the audience.
> 
> This is a demographic of nice, well meaning, decent people who are, unfortunately, incapable of learning. It's also a demographic hostile to the existing groups (or at least endlessly patronising about their "sectarianism") yet both created by those groups and permanently stuck in their world. Even when they self-consciously try to get around the existing groups, they end up producing just another such group but with the added ineffectuality and political softness characteristic of the milieu - like Left Unity.


The irony is you'll get away with that 'sectarian' take on the desire for unity. But if a swper said it they'd be stalin incarnate. One reason why this thread is now a little past it's sell by.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 18, 2014)

Slinking back in like a dog to his vomit. The arch rape denier returns


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 18, 2014)

You know barney I have a c# bot my son wrote for his ICT class that writes better replies than you. The art of debate isn't dead it's just debased by some (not all) of the folk on here.

The only reason to occasionally check back in here is the people who manage a non ad hominem, vaguely cogent reply. Come on surely you don't speak to people like that in the real world?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The irony is you'll get away with that 'sectarian' take on the desire for unity. But if a swper said it they'd be stalin incarnate.



If that really is the case (not sure it is tbh) then it might be worth reflecting on why?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 18, 2014)

Seems RS21 are keen to keep the brand distinct from any associations with the ISN. So since 2008 it's Counterfire, ISG, ISN and RS21 alongside the SWP, will the Kimberites one day lose pole position to Rees-Bambi? And, will we see another faction and split in 9-12 months time? RS21 have done some decent piecemeal improvements of some of the daftest orthodoxies so far but, whatever the ISN's faults it's the only one yet prepared to look Cliff in the eye (figuratively) and tell him how often he talked a lot of old nonsense. 

Apologies if this has been mentioned before when he came up but some fascinating thoughts on value, states and state capitalism from Colin Barker here: https://sites.google.com/site/colinbarkersite/ -- 70s and late 90s section especially. Including highlighting a few shortcomings in state-cap with no obvious means of resolution! Callinicos suprisingly sharp on Cliff as well back in 1981, can't imagine anyone taking that line in recent years (?) http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/callinicos/1981/xx/wagelab-statecap.html . 

Surprised you've not been touting this around given your previous acrimony to the ISO bolshie - http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com/ . Seems the culture isn't much more democratic there despite the undeniably endearing ability to acknowledge that new theoretical insights have indeed been possible post-1977.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 18, 2014)

I heard the other day that the RS21 types have serious reservations about one of the ISNers in particular. Could just be malicious gossip of course.


----------



## benedict (Jan 19, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Come on surely you don't speak to people like that in the real world?



Out of interest do you make public statements about how women's experiences of rape are just "very bad sex" in the real world?


----------



## benedict (Jan 19, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The irony is you'll get away with that 'sectarian' take on the desire for unity. But if a swper said it they'd be stalin incarnate. One reason why this thread is now a little past it's sell by.



I love how the rape apologist gets to judge when a thread is past its sell by date. Why don't you stop the self-pity and get some fucking integrity.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 19, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You know barney I have a c# bot my son wrote for his ICT class that writes better replies than you. The art of debate isn't dead it's just debased by some (not all) of the folk on here.
> 
> The only reason to occasionally check back in here is the people who manage a non ad hominem, vaguely cogent reply. Come on surely you don't speak to people like that in the real world?


In my work everyday we encounter women who have been the victims of sexual assault. Scum who alibi and defend the attacker and belittle the experiences of the victim are not to be debated with.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-socialist-alliance.215581/



My saint like patience shines out in that thread


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 19, 2014)

Somebody slipped something in your tea


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Somebody slipped something in your tea


Brocialismide?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 19, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The irony is you'll get away with that 'sectarian' take on the desire for unity. But if a swper said it they'd be stalin incarnate. One reason why this thread is now a little past it's sell by.



You are getting a bit paranoid here. If you've been following the Left Unity thread, you'll see that "the desire for unity" of the left is not generally held in very high esteem in these parts. Nobody slags off the SWP for being less than keen on the new "Left Unity" party. There are more than enough good reasons to slag the off without adding bad reasons too.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 19, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I heard the other day that the RS21 types have serious reservations about one of the ISNers in particular. Could just be malicious gossip of course.


i heard it was 3


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 19, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> i heard it was 3



don't be bloody coy. are you talking about lenny?


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 19, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> don't be bloody coy. are you talking about lenny?


Lenny the Lion  - or Leo the Lion?

Have they been made honorary members of IS Network? Maybe like Eternal Prez of the Republic Kim Il-sung?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_President_of_the_Republic


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 20, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> Lenny the Lion  - or Leo the Lion?
> 
> Have they been made honorary members of IS Network? Maybe like Eternal Prez of the Republic Kim Il-sung?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_President_of_the_Republic



lenny bennett


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 20, 2014)

oh, RS21 are wrong there, he left with some of the un-named Steering Cttee peeps & no-one's seen any of them this side of Xmas. Hope they didn't take any stationery with them or any of the chairs or the ISN playbook that the ISO gave as a solidarity gift. The combat network was under-resourced from the start.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2014)

benedict said:


> I love how the rape apologist gets to judge when a thread is past its sell by date. Why don't you stop the self-pity and get some fucking integrity.


I know I'll regret asking but here goes nothing. So I'd imagine the only way to get that integrity is to stop supporting the swp and it's brand of politics yes? And to instead support one of the groups formed by the leavers assuming one is still vaguely an IS person? Can we at least have a chance to see what their politics are going to be first or do we have to base everything on a group's attitude to the delta question? Fair enough if you think we should base it on that, big test of a party's politics on oppression, I get that completely. But are we even allowed to wonder about all the other issues that these groups might disagree on, to ask what their ideas are, before we decide that only one course of action is morally/politically acceptable?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 21, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know I'll regret asking but here goes nothing. So I'd imagine the only way to get that integrity is to stop supporting the swp and it's brand of politics yes? And to instead support one of the groups formed by the leavers assuming one is still vaguely an IS person? Can we at least have a chance to see what their politics are going to be first or do we have to base everything on a group's attitude to the delta question? Fair enough if you think we should base it on that, big test of a party's politics on oppression, I get that completely. But are we even allowed to wonder about all the other issues that these groups might disagree on, to ask what their ideas are, before we decide that only one course of action is morally/politically acceptable?



It's a bit too late for you.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 21, 2014)

Rumours on Facebook/Twitter that Kimber has resigned as National Secretary and, more surprisingly, from the SWP.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 21, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Rumours on Facebook/Twitter that Kimber has resigned as National Secretary and, more surprisingly, from the SWP.


Although someone has commented that they saw him leaving home and heading off on his usual route to work at the usual time yesterday.


----------



## cogg (Jan 21, 2014)

Trotter said:


> Although someone has commented that they saw him leaving home and heading off on his usual route to work at the usual time yesterday.


 Well, I saw him driving a cab in Hackney last night.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 21, 2014)

There's a bloke down the chipshop who swears he's Callicinos.


----------



## rekil (Jan 21, 2014)

Balbi said:


> There's a bloke down the chipshop who swears he's Callicinos.


He's a reformist and I'm not sure about you.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 21, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Can we at least have a chance to see what their politics are going to be first or do we have to base everything on a group's attitude to the delta question?


You are still looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. By starting from a desire to have SWP politics unamended by this experience, you'll end up ... supporting the SWP, Delta and all. To have any kind of a future involvement in a mass movement, you have to start from the other end: the handling of the rape accusation was wrong, the efforts to avoid admitting that mistake despicable. There are political lessons to be drawn from this, which even if you want to retain most of the core SWP theoretical positions means a revision of what you thought about how the SWP organise. So, the right thing to do is to join one of the breakaways and help shape them and be part of the discussions. Watching from the side (or from within the SWP) looking for heretical deviations from the line in these new formations is heading for a position of: 'yeah, the Delta thing was wrong but lets move on because we have the best politics'. i.e. political death.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 21, 2014)

Trotter said:


> Although someone has commented that they saw him leaving home and heading off on his usual route to work at the usual time yesterday.


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 21, 2014)

I got the latest Benn diaries for Xmas - he is quite often in a friendly chat with John Rees and Lindsay German through Stop the War, but surprisingly, even Benn relies on the Weekly Worker to know what is going on with them , Benn's diary for 14th Sept 2007 -  "I read an article in the Weekly Worker about the row between the SWP and John Rees on the one hand, and George Galloway on the other, over the body of Respect. My guess us - I may be wrong - that this is going to lead to the break up of Respect, comparable to the break up of the Scottish Socialist Party. You cannot build a political party on the personality of one man, however charismatic" .


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 21, 2014)

(Incidentally, if Charlie Kimber has walked, that is quite a big deal - a casualty of his own Pyrrhic Victory?)


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 21, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Rumours on Facebook/Twitter that Kimber has resigned as National Secretary and, more surprisingly, from the SWP.



Only person I can find is "Jen Izaakson" who's not the most reliable source, to say the least.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 21, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Only person I can find is "Jen Izaakson" who's not the most reliable source, to say the least.


Actually, Jen is fairly reliable and well-informed - for example, her running total of those resigning in December was spot on. There's been more discussion on Facebook though.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 21, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Only person I can find is "Jen Izaakson" who's not the most reliable source, to say the least.


There are others, but I can't discover the original source. Interestingly, this week's Party Notes is not yet up on the SWP website. I would have expected it by now.


----------



## treelover (Jan 21, 2014)

This is the end, my only friend the end...


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 21, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> (Incidentally, if Charlie Kimber has walked, that is quite a big deal - a casualty of his own Pyrrhic Victory?)


Although this is an unconfirmed rumour, it wouldn't surprise me if Kimber has resigned as Nat Sec. Given his role and actions I have zero sympathy with him, but three fractious conferences in one year, splits on the CC, having to defend the indefensible etc must have taken their toll. What's more, the prospect of working with the IDOOM headbangers on the CC can't be very motivating. Anyway, we shall see...


----------



## andysays (Jan 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> This is the end, my only friend the end...





> HUMANITY WON’T BE HAPPY TILL THE LAST BUREAUCRAT MEMBER OF THE CC IS HUNG WITH THE GUTS OF THE LAST CAPITALIST RAPE APOLOGIST


----------



## treelover (Jan 21, 2014)

Anyone got an image of Kimber?, I once met a SWP Journo in Hungary in 86, spent some time with him, think it may be him.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 21, 2014)

think of a kind of washed-out looking Frankenstein's monster - that's him.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 21, 2014)

Kimbers cv will make interesting reading.

Previous Experience:   'Circle squaring and training ferrets to be kind to each other when in a sack.  Finding suitable academic placements for rapists sex harassers'.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 21, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Although this is an unconfirmed rumour, it wouldn't surprise me if Kimber has resigned as Nat Sec. Given his role and actions I have zero sympathy with him, but three fractious conferences in one year, splits on the CC, having to defend the indefensible etc must have taken their toll. What's more, the prospect of working with the IDOOM headbangers on the CC can't be very motivating. Anyway, we shall see...


I've also just seen a post from someone reasonably credible that Kimber has resigned as National Secretary, not from the SWP. This could be a rearrangement of posts on the CC - which itself would be significant. The CC will be meeting this evening, so I'm not expecting to see anything formal until after that meeting.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> You are still looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. By starting from a desire to have SWP politics unamended by this experience, you'll end up ... supporting the SWP, Delta and all. To have any kind of a future involvement in a mass movement, you have to start from the other end: the handling of the rape accusation was wrong, the efforts to avoid admitting that mistake despicable. There are political lessons to be drawn from this, which even if you want to retain most of the core SWP theoretical positions means a revision of what you thought about how the SWP organise. So, the right thing to do is to join one of the breakaways and help shape them and be part of the discussions. Watching from the side (or from within the SWP) looking for heretical deviations from the line in these new formations is heading for a position of: 'yeah, the Delta thing was wrong but lets move on because we have the best politics'. i.e. political death.


The telescope is the wrong analogy though Oisin, we need a pair of binoculars. One lens is the delta mess and I'm sure to everyone who 'always' knew the truth about that then it must look like some of us have had the lens cap on for most of the last year. The problem is apart from our personal prejudices about the people involved (good or bad) and how we think they might have acted we all actually only 'know' what we've been told in private and yes what I've been told most recently is appalling. But the other lens is the politics of the participants and lets not pretend there haven't been agendas beyond the cases. For some like Seymour the whole leninist project and traditional marxism itself are old hat and we all need to ride the post poulantzas wave. For others (generally the most recent departees and their international admirers) the position is less drastic but the delta mess was proof that unreconstructed cliffites are just shit on feminism and questions of internal democracy and have been so roughly since the IS became a party and cliffism with a humanist face was 'abandoned'. A position put most clearly by Shawki last summer and most academically but also most ridiculously in Abbie Bakan's article on the alleged 'epistemological dissonance' between 'certain brands of marxism' and feminism. There is tension between these groups but what both groups share is the belief that delta happened because of a flaw in the party's politics. There is of course a third group who think it happened despite the politics but sincerely believe it makes the politics too toxic to continue with the same leadership in charge, who in their eyes have so badly handled this mess and betrayed their own heritage. If that last group of people were the majority or even a sizable chunk among the leavers then I'd say the new grouping had a chance but I think the truth is they're a tiny minority. They do exist, I can think of one very impressive woman who left well before all the current crop but they are few and far between. Which might be one reason why the heavy hitters like Stack and Birchall have thrown the towel in completely rather than commit themselves to building a new org.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 21, 2014)

"Impressive women are few and far between" 
Presumably an impressive woman is one that doesn't complain about being raped


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 21, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The problem is apart from our personal prejudices about the people involved (good or bad) and how we think they might have acted we all actually only 'know' what we've been told in private and yes what I've been told most recently is appalling.


 is just bullshit, really : The SWP made clear to it's own members how they had gone about 'investigating' the allegations against "Comrade Delta" , and these methods were made public when the transcript of conference was leaked. The methods of investigation were rotten - this was party, then public knowledge : The attempt to negotiate a "compromise" with the woman alleging assault, the Party's decision to "investigate" rape, the use of a panel made up of Comrade Delta's mates, the offensive "like a drink" questioning, the claims that concern about age differences was "bourgeois" , the initial , long, refusal to look at a second complaint of sexual harrassment , moving an employee who complained of sexual harrassment to another job : It was these public acts that led anyone with half a brain to realise that  the SWP took a rotten approach to these complaints [this of course implied they were trying to cover something up, that's a reasonable inference ]. Forming a judgement doesn't depend  on 'confidential' information, it depends on not being an idiot. Or at least, on not decieving yourself.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 21, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The telescope is the wrong analogy though Oisin, we need a pair of binoculars. One lens is the delta mess and I'm sure to everyone who 'always' knew the truth about that then it must look like some of us have had the lens cap on for most of the last year. The problem is apart from our personal prejudices about the people involved (good or bad) and how we think they might have acted we all actually only 'know' what we've been told in private and yes what I've been told most recently is appalling. But the other lens is the politics of the participants and lets not pretend there haven't been agendas beyond the cases. For some like Seymour the whole leninist project and traditional marxism itself are old hat and we all need to ride the post poulantzas wave. For others (generally the most recent departees and their international admirers) the position is less drastic but the delta mess was proof that unreconstructed cliffites are just shit on feminism and questions of internal democracy and have been so roughly since the IS became a party and cliffism with a humanist face was 'abandoned'. A position put most clearly by Shawki last summer and most academically but also most ridiculously in Abbie Bakan's article on the alleged 'epistemological dissonance' between 'certain brands of marxism' and feminism. There is tension between these groups but what both groups share is the belief that delta happened because of a flaw in the party's politics. There is of course a third group who think it happened despite the politics but sincerely believe it makes the politics too toxic to continue with the same leadership in charge, who in their eyes have so badly handled this mess and betrayed their own heritage. If that last group of people were the majority or even a sizable chunk among the leavers then I'd say the new grouping had a chance but I think the truth is they're a tiny minority. They do exist, I can think of one very impressive woman who left well before all the current crop but they are few and far between. Which might be one reason why the heavy hitters like Stack and Birchall have thrown the towel in completely rather than commit themselves to building a new org.


You speak of the Delta "mess" a number of times. But surely what happened is much more than that: the appalling way in which at least two women were treated (some of the details of which you now appear to be aware), the dishonest attempts by the so-called leadership to cover up for Delta, their refusal to apologise for what happened etc etc etc. Surely "scandal" would be a more appropriate word.
The fact that this scandal could happen and that it has led to over 600 members leaving the party indicates to me that there has been failure in the politics of the SWP, of which a major component is the lack of a democracy in the party. As Birchall says:  _"the revolutionary organisation is a means to the end of socialist transformation, but for members of our self-selecting leadership it has become an end in itself." _The party has shown itself to be beyond reform and with its reputation irreparably damaged in the wider socialist movement. It is therefore likely to continue its decline as its ageing membership retires from politics or from life.
So what is the alternative? Now it may be the case that there is not a solid enough basis to build another organisation within the IS tradition. But there is only one way to find out: *in practice*. That's why I wish those in RS21 all the very best and will try to support them as best I can.


----------



## Trotter (Jan 21, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Which might be one reason why the heavy hitters like Stack and Birchall have thrown the towel in completely rather than commit themselves to building a new org.


Stack is on the newly elected Steering Group of RS21.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2014)

Trotter said:


> Stack is on the newly elected Steering Group of RS21.


oh wow sorry didnt realise that, think I conflated bits of his resignation letter with IB's in my head and vice versa. Better that he hasn't just disappeared.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2014)

Victory, for you, is just other groups not being the SWP. You've already won.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 21, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> "Impressive women are few and far between"
> Presumably an impressive woman is one that doesn't complain about being raped


Why stop at just leaving out some of my words when you quote me. If you reorganise the words from all my posts on this thread you can probably reconstruct the first chapter of Mein Kampf as well.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 21, 2014)

> the claims that concern about age differences was "bourgeois"



WTF? 'Lumpen' surely


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 21, 2014)

I thought concern over paedos and exploitation of vulnerable women was confined to the pastry-faced x-factor and EastEnders watching masses  not fine upstanding bastions of proletarianism like Alex Callinicos


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 21, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Why stop at just leaving out some of my words when you quote me. If you reorganise the words from all my posts on this thread you can probably reconstruct the first chapter of Mein Kampf as well.


I was not aware that hitler justified rape in mein kampf


----------



## treelover (Jan 21, 2014)

People can shout and scream as much as they like, but I would like to see apologies from many of these ex SWP hacks, contrition and an awareness of where they went wrong, not just politically but in their relationships with people from other parts of the left, etc.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> People can shout and scream as much as they like, but I would like to see apologies from many of these ex SWP hacks, contrition and an awareness of where they went wrong, not just politically but in their relationships with people from other parts of the left, etc.


How you do intend to facilitate this series of self-criticisms?


----------



## Oisin123 (Jan 21, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ... we all actually only 'know' what we've been told in private and yes what I've been told most recently is appalling.


Erm. I don't know what you have been told in private. I have no insider information. My position was based on the evidence of dishonesty by the CC and their supporters, as per the reminders by Karmickameleon and Scribbling above. As yours should have been.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 21, 2014)

treelover said:


> People can shout and scream as much as they like, but I would like to see apologies from many of these ex SWP hacks, contrition and an awareness of where they went wrong, not just politically but in their relationships with people from other parts of the left, etc.



I'd like to see you apologise for wasting our time with your many ludicrous and overwrought posts like this


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 21, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> WTF? 'Lumpen' surely


One of the "Disputes Committee", describing how they had "investigated" the allegation of rape at SWP conference said. among other things " We also however thought it was important to be clear that the disputes committee doesn’t exist to police moral, er, bourgeois morality, so we agreed that issues that weren’t relevant to us were whether the comrade was monogamous, whether they were having an affair, whether the age differences in their relationship, because as revolutionaries we didn’t consider that should be our remit to consider issues such as those." The big clue in there is "age differences". In fact , there couldn't be anything more "bourgeois" than a middle aged man in a position of authority pestering or assaulting a young - teenage- woman  - just look at the LibDems . This was a minor  one of the many points where anyone who wasn't deceiving themselves could see, without any "inside information".


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

We went through this upthread, and I think their position is correct (despite the 'as revolutionaries' bit being obviously bonkers).  It's just about the only thing they got right.

It's dead easy to patronise young people, but in reality a person over the age of 18 is an adult, not only in the eyes of the law but most importantly, in their own eyes. They're past the point at which other people can legitimately insist "we know best", they're entitled to do the same as any other adult, to have the same freedoms and choices (and the same protections) and that includes being able to form a relationship with "_a middle aged man in a position of authority_" if that's what they want to do.  Without interference by anyone else.

So yes, it isn't, and shouldn't be, within their remit to consider the age difference in a relationship the young woman chose to make.  That's her business, she's an adult.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> We went through this upthread, and I think their position is correct (despite the 'as revolutionaries' bit being obviously bonkers).  It's just about the only thing they got right.
> 
> It's dead easy to patronise young people, but in reality a person over the age of 18 is an adult, not only in the eyes of the law but most importantly, in their own eyes. They're past the point at which other people can legitimately insist "we know best", they're entitled to do the same as any other adult, to have the same freedoms and choices (and the same protections) and that includes being able to form a relationship with "_a middle aged man in a position of authority_" if that's what they want to do.  Without interference by anyone else.
> 
> So yes, it isn't, and shouldn't be, within their remit to consider the age difference in a relationship the young woman chose to make.  That's her business, she's an adult.


Which company did you write this for?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> We went through this upthread, and I think their position is correct (despite the 'as revolutionaries' bit being obviously bonkers).  It's just about the only thing they got right.
> 
> It's dead easy to patronise young people, but in reality a person over the age of 18 is an adult, not only in the eyes of the law but most importantly, in their own eyes. They're past the point at which other people can legitimately insist "we know best", they're entitled to do the same as any other adult, to have the same freedoms and choices (and the same protections) and that includes being able to form a relationship with "_a middle aged man in a position of authority_" if that's what they want to do.  Without interference by anyone else.
> 
> So yes, it isn't, and shouldn't be, within their remit to consider the age difference in a relationship the young woman chose to make.  That's her business, she's an adult.


You, of course, in your rush to condemn forget that we're talking 17. All those words.


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

am I misremebering, I thought she was 18?


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Which company did you write this for?


don't be daft, no-one would ever choose me to write for them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> am I misremebering, I thought she was 18?


17


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

ok I'll take your word for it.

Point stands though, she has the right to choose her relationship.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

You silly silly sod. Fuck off.


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> ok I'll take your word for it.
> 
> Point stands though, she has the right to choose her relationship.


as long as she has a 'free choice' - which is where question of Smith's position of authority over her becomes possibly relevant, and so should be _considered_ to see whether it does have any bearing upon the rest of the case.  It shouldnt be completely dismissed, out of hand


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

indeed but in the statement quoted the DC did not explicitly exclude position of authority from their remit.

Whether they gave the question much actual consideration before reaching their dodgy conclusion is a different matter.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> indeed but in the statement quoted the DC did not explicitly exclude position of authority from their remit.
> 
> Whether they gave the question much actual consideration before reaching their dodgy conclusion is a different matter.


Just fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie on a thread with more than 100 posts, Just die. _Oh i'm so naive._


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 22, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> . . . it wouldn't surprise me if Kimber has resigned as Nat Sec. . . . the prospect of working with the IDOOM headbangers on the CC can't be very motivating.


Good to see the 13 Jan Party Notes (thanx, Trotter) promoting the stiffening of the members' Marxist backbone:
"We are holding a 'Rough Guide to Marxism' school for SWP new members and student son Saturday 1 March in London. This is a real opportunity for comrades to root themselves in Marxism and to power up their theoretical training! Themes and meetings will include: Marxism and Oppression, The Marxist method, Marxist economics and the crisis today, Strategy and tactics, Party and class, The United Front and What is class?"

And that can all be reinforced at Marxism, when a particular oppression in the news can be examined, that of girls & women. In fact, all cdes. have been asked to send in their Marxism ideas to the capable cde. responsible for this year's event:
"The Marxism 2014 planning meeting will take place on Sat 1 Feb, from 3 – 5pm
We would like to encourage as many comrades as possible to attend this planning meeting. It plays a crucial role in helping shape the event. We want comrades to bring ideas for the Marxism event as well as feedback from last year. This both strengthens the event itself while at the same time making it as relevant as possible to all those we hope to bring to the event in July.
If you would like more information or cannot attend and would like to input some ideas please contact Amy in the Marxism Office on amyl@swp.org.uk"

Maybe the teachers would like THE class to send in their suggestions to improve the event, Th-M, 10-14 July. Amy Dried-Skin could do with more fan mail. And bags of the stuff may be carted into Delta Towers, Fauxhall, if she's promoted to Chief Email-Sender.

Moving on  -  or not, in his case  -  Jim Wolfreys is sitting pretty at toppish table, speaking at a 8 Feb day 'skool' on neoliberalism & THE class.

Mr Rosen (& Salma Yaqoob) speaks at Bookmarks on the hoary but worthy topic recounted by Edelman, the Warsaw ghetto uprising.

And the ideological offensive continues amongst the yuhf:
"SWP student members met up yesterday to discuss the strategy for the coming term. It was agreed to continue with weekly SWSS meetings as the ideological backbone of SWSS."
Also a statement of the bleeding obvious: "There are a number of districts where there is no SWSS group but comrades are planning meetings. Every district needs to make a plan that involves a strategy for building at a Uni or college." So more dodgy geezers on campus  -  this time as Party policy. Lock-up your kids.
And after last year's purge by Jo, what she called "revenge" (Ray's 'dear Charlie' letter), it's business as usual but with a greatly reduced sales force: "We want to ensure a good SWSS intervention at NUS conference. That means we need as many comrades as possible to stand for election."
 (Jo, 4 mths. before she stormed into the Student Office)
 (Jo, a mth. or so later, attending to her new charges, refreshed from her purge, calm, not hectoring, not least coz a line had been drawn under everything)
http://swp.org.uk/party-notes



bolshiebhoy said:


> Which might be one reason why the heavy hitters like Stack and Birchall have thrown the towel in completely rather than commit themselves to building a new org.


Ian B has changed tack a lil since his resignation letter, from "I have no desire to engage in further public criticism of the SWP, and, having stated the reasons for my resignation, I hope and intend to refrain from further polemics" (15 Dec, grimanddim) thru "Of course there are reasons for the SWP’s current crisis. I think these probably lie in organisational practices which we adopted and accepted over the years, and about which we were too complacent. When my present anger had dissipated I may try and write more about this" (24 Dec, hatfulofhistory) to "I have not 'retired' and am certainly not contemplating suicide (with or without a bomb). I remain a Marxist, I remain committed to the struggle for socialism. I just don’t happen to belong to an organisation at present" (Th, 16 Jan, News of the Workers). So from no polemic thru explanation to we'll see.



treelover said:


> People can shout and scream as much as they like, but I would like to see apologies from many of these ex SWP hacks, contrition and an awareness of where they went wrong, not just politically but in their relationships with people from other parts of the left, etc.


They made it plain at the 3° Party Conference: they don't do apologies.


----------



## benedict (Jan 22, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I know I'll regret asking but here goes nothing. So I'd imagine the only way to get that integrity is to stop supporting the swp and it's brand of politics yes? And to instead support one of the groups formed by the leavers assuming one is still vaguely an IS person? Can we at least have a chance to see what their politics are going to be first or do we have to base everything on a group's attitude to the delta question? Fair enough if you think we should base it on that, big test of a party's politics on oppression, I get that completely. But are we even allowed to wonder about all the other issues that these groups might disagree on, to ask what their ideas are, before we decide that only one course of action is morally/politically acceptable?



Sure you can. But that's not what you were doing. You came and pronounced this thread past its sell-by on the basis of posters' hostility to the SWP. This after the outrageous comments by yourself (since rescinded) up thread. This to me betrays a lack of integrity. Plus you've got a victim complex about being an SWP fanboy. And didn't you rejoin the SWP after this whole sordid mess became public anyway?

When you're talking seriously about politics of groups and the machinations internally you add a lot to the mix so why not focus on that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2014)

benedict said:


> Sure you can. But that's not what you were doing. You came and pronounced this thread past its sell-by on the basis of posters' hostility to the SWP. This after the outrageous comments by yourself (since rescinded) up thread. This to me betrays a lack of integrity. Plus you've got a victim complex about being an SWP fanboy. And didn't you rejoin the SWP after this whole sordid mess became public anyway?
> 
> When you're talking seriously about politics of groups and the machinations internally you add a lot to the mix so why not focus on that.


Fair enough. Mind you I reserve the right to the occasional snarky one liner designed to annoy given that most of the replies on here (yours and a few others excepted) are usually just that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Victory, for you, is just other groups not being the SWP. You've already won.


Speaking of snarky one liners devoid of content. Truth is most of the groups in the IS tendency only exist because over a period of years or decades in some cases there was patient discussion and debate between the IS leadership and groups that were semi maoist or whatever. It's not about being pure, it's aout the direction groups are travelling.

If the likes of stack and birchall can help stop the rs21 lot morphing into the isn or an iso(gb) then that would be a good thing imho.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> And the ideological offensive continues amongst the yuhf:
> "SWP student members met up yesterday to discuss the strategy for the coming term. It was agreed to continue with weekly SWSS meetings as the ideological backbone of SWSS."
> Also a statement of the bleeding obvious: "There are a number of districts where there is no SWSS group but comrades are planning meetings. Every district needs to make a plan that involves a strategy for building at a Uni or college." So more dodgy geezers on campus  -  this time as Party policy. Lock-up your kids.


Thanks for clarifying Birchall's stance on future activity elsewhere in your post. But I have to ask, I've no idea who you are or what your relationship with the swp is but are you serious about those last two sentences?


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 22, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Thanks for clarifying Birchall's stance on future activity elsewhere in your post. But I have to ask, I've no idea who you are or what your relationship with the swp is but are you serious about those last two sentences?


given the whole post, what do you think?


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> It's just about the only thing they got right.....So yes, it isn't, and shouldn't be, within their remit to consider the age difference in a relationship the young woman chose to make.  That's her business, she's an adult.


 err, the Disputes Committee were never (or should never have been) considering "Her" choices, because the complaint wasn't against "Her" it was against "Him" - Of course people form relationships across ages, and that's all fine and legal. However, when it comes to his choices (1) In considering wether a leading member of the party, a late 40's bloke, is acting responsibly or is in danger of putting the party into "disrepute", then wondering wether he should have been pursuing what he believed to be a "relationship" with a new teenage member is of course very relevant and (2) In considering whether more serious charges had any substance, the age difference might also be a clue. It might make you wonder if something a bit DLT-ish is going on.This is the kind of approach any SWP union member would have taken if they had to deal with a complaint by a young employee against a middle aged middle manager at work. They wouldn't have started off yammering about "bourgeois morality".


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

Of course they had to consider her choices, because all sexual relationships hinge around consent.  

(1) is the point about position of authority which they did not explicitly rule out of their remit, nor should they have done.  If they'd actually considered it properly this thread would have ended long ago.
(2) I haven't followed the DLT stuff but that does not appear to have involved relationships to which both parties initially consented.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie - fuck off.


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 22, 2014)

I guess we are probably going in circles a bit here, and the age thing is only a minor point - but I think it does point to a wider reason the party (deliberately or accidentally) went so badly wrong. The Disputes Committee set themselves up as a pretend police force to "investigate" a charge of "rape" against a "member". Immediately this meant they started thinking things must be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" and "how can we judge" and "what is the truth about consent "  and "one persons word against another" in all this - things which they had little  power to come to any decision about - which allowed them to find it easier to put "Delta" in the clear (and ultimately put the Party in the shit) .Instead they should have acted in the area they could - they were not a police force or a court, but they were in a position  to judge on the more limited matter of  whether a leading member had acted responsibly , in a way that is fit for their office, that is not bringing the party into disrepute. You can see something very similar in the Lord Rennard business, and indeed the Mike Hancock issue. (The Rennard business incidentally not very much reported in Socialist Worker)


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

I don't much disagree with that, but what you wrote above was _The big clue in there is "age differences",_ when in fact age difference is a red herring.  The DC cannot censure him for entering into an age-difference relationship without also censuring her, and she's done nothing to be censured for.  Most older adults might think her choice unwise, but then we think that about a lot of what teenagers get up to.  

They can't even censure him for failing to act responsibly by entering into a relationship with vastly different positions of authority, because even that questions her agency.

As with the 'bourgeois' courts, infidelity and age difference have no bearing on guilt or innocence on charges of what you called _pestering or assaulting_.  They do affect sentencing, but since the DC was entirely rotten to the core it never came to that.


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> As with the 'bourgeois' courts, infidelity and age difference have no bearing on guilt or innocence on charges of what you called _pestering or assaulting_.


but _authority_ absolutely does, and raising that in absolutely no way questions her agency


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> As with the 'bourgeois' courts, infidelity and age difference have no bearing on guilt or innocence on charges of what you called _pestering or assaulting_.  They do affect sentencing, but since the DC was entirely rotten to the core it never came to that.


Do you really think that's how juries actually work?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> So yes, it isn't, and shouldn't be, within their remit to consider the age difference in a relationship the young woman chose to make.  That's her business, she's an adult.



The SWP position on bourgeois sexual morality is that it's seen as a consequence of patriarchal capitalist property relations. A sexual partner is not a possession. So the SWP wouldn't see it as their remit to consider whether or not someone has been unfaithful when the person concerned may not have been having an affair according to their own non-possessive sexual morality.

However, apparently, this is where their analysis stops. It assumes, within a wider context of gender inequality, equality between comrades. It doesn't take into account power not so obviously related to ownership. It's not interested in any feminist perspectives on relationships. It doesn't take into account our greater knowledge over the past few decades of dv and nor do they consider the maltreatment and abuse of children and young people. It takes no account of the unconscious dynamics in relationships because Marxism, apparently, has no need for a psychology. etc.

So all of this should be in their remit because their _own_ political position is that individual sexual mores are determined by property relations and last time I looked the SWP still lived within a capitalist system. The fact that they don't consider it so shows how it's not just accidental that this took place within the organisation but is inseparable from their stunted and deterministic position on women.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

That's an excellent summary - much needed as well.


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> The DC cannot censure him for entering into an age-difference relationship without also censuring her, and she's done nothing to be censured for.  .


 Of course they can. He's in a full time, paid, leading position of the SWP. She isn't. So he has an extra responsibility to behave in a way that can not risk bringing the party into disrepute. It's not complicated: The middle aged leaders of the party should probably think hard before having relationships with teenage members, and if such relationships do arise, they need to take particular care to behave properly (which would put the focus on his social behaviour , around drink for example, rather than hers  ) This was in fact the position one member of the disputes committee took. If all the disputes committee had taken the same position, the problem could possibly have been dealt with. But most of the apparatus seems to have thought that him being a leading member meant he should be more "protected" rather than more "scrutinised" (which in turn suggests a deeper problem)


----------



## treelover (Jan 22, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> The SWP position on bourgeois sexual morality is that it's seen as a consequence of patriarchal capitalist property relations. A sexual partner is not a possession. So the SWP wouldn't see it as their remit to consider whether or not someone has been unfaithful when the person concerned may not have been having an affair according to their own non-possessive sexual morality.
> 
> However, apparently, this is where their analysis stops. It assumes, within a wider context of gender inequality, equality between comrades. It doesn't take into account power not so obviously related to ownership. It's not interested in any feminist perspectives on relationships. It doesn't take into account our greater knowledge over the past few decades of dv and nor do they consider the maltreatment and abuse of children and young people. It takes no account of the unconscious dynamics in relationships because Marxism, apparently, has no need for a psychology. etc.
> 
> So all of this should be in their remit because their _own_ political position is that individual sexual mores are determined by property relations and last time I looked the SWP still lived within a capitalist system. The fact that they don't consider it so shows how it's not just accidental that this took place within the organisation but is inseparable from their stunted and deterministic position on women.



frightening, if they ever were in power,


not of course that they ever will be.


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> Of course they can. He's in a full time, paid, leading position of the SWP. She isn't. So he has an extra responsibility to behave in a way that can not risk bringing the party into disrepute. It's not complicated: The middle aged leaders of the party should probably think hard before having relationships with teenage members, and if such relationships do arise, they need to take particular care to behave properly (which would put the focus on his social behaviour , around drink for example, rather than hers  ) This was in fact the position one member of the disputes committee took. If all the disputes committee had taken the same position, the problem could possibly have been dealt with. But most of the apparatus seems to have thought that him being a leading member meant he should be more "protected" rather than more "scrutinised" (which in turn suggests a deeper problem)



I agree.  He had leadership responsibilities, he should have thought very hard indeed before entering into a relationship with her, he should have taken particular care.   Absolutely.  

But the fact of entering into the relationship with her may show him to be rancid but its not something that can be formally questioned without telling her she was wrong to form the relationship.  And that's not something some committee can say to her, it was her right to do so, whatever wiser heads might think. 

From the point at which she complained, and withdrew her consent, his behaviour and his judgement are up for question. Until then the relationship was their business and no-one elses.  Passing age milestones either means something or it doesn't.

Oh, and they, the DC, should have scrutinised his behaviour properly.  Absolutely.




butch, I've never been on a jury, somewhat to my regret.


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

again, you are completely ignoring the question of to what extent she had genuine 'agency' and the extent to which she was pressured into a 'relationship.'  These are clearly relevant. On those grounds it is entirely fair enough to ask her about how it began, and whether she was a 'free participant.'  If she answered yes, then further questions _might be_ null and void, but she would have to confirm it was an entirely consensual relationship from the off.


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> The SWP position on bourgeois sexual morality is that it's seen as a consequence of patriarchal capitalist property relations. A sexual partner is not a possession. So the SWP wouldn't see it as their remit to consider whether or not someone has been unfaithful when the person concerned may not have been having an affair according to their own non-possessive sexual morality.
> 
> However, apparently, this is where their analysis stops. It assumes, within a wider context of gender inequality, equality between comrades. It doesn't take into account power not so obviously related to ownership. It's not interested in any feminist perspectives on relationships. It doesn't take into account our greater knowledge over the past few decades of dv and nor do they consider the maltreatment and abuse of children and young people. It takes no account of the unconscious dynamics in relationships because Marxism, apparently, has no need for a psychology. etc.
> 
> So all of this should be in their remit because their _own_ political position is that individual sexual mores are determined by property relations and last time I looked the SWP still lived within a capitalist system. The fact that they don't consider it so shows how it's not just accidental that this took place within the organisation but is inseparable from their stunted and deterministic position on women.



You know far more about their theoretical twisting and turning than I.  But do any formal investigatory processes see being unfaithful as part of their remit, in 2014?  Some explicitly moralistic religious groups might I spose, but otherwise?

If your analysis- _stunted and deterministic_- is right (and I'm not disagreeing) why have so many women joined, stayed, even taken leading roles through the years and particularly been heavily involved on theDC then idoom/loyalist side of this saga?


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

belboid said:


> again, you are completely ignoring the question of to what extent she had genuine 'agency' and the extent to which she was pressured into a 'relationship.'  These are clearly relevant. On those grounds it is entirely fair enough to ask her about how it began, and whether she was a 'free participant.'  If she answered yes, then further questions _might be_ null and void, but she would have to confirm it was an entirely consensual relationship from the off.


but those questions apply to an investigation of any relationship about which a complaint has been made.  they have nothing to do with age.


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> but those questions apply to an investigation of any relationship about which a complaint has been made.  they have nothing to do with age.


but they do when age and power are so clearly connected.  17, remember.


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

power yes, age no, she's above the age of consent and that has to mean something.


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

but age is hardly immaterial - the power relationship being obviously different had she been 47


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 22, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> The SWP position on bourgeois sexual morality is that it's seen as a consequence of patriarchal capitalist property relations. A sexual partner is not a possession. So the SWP wouldn't see it as their remit to consider whether or not someone has been unfaithful when the person concerned may not have been having an affair according to their own non-possessive sexual morality.
> 
> However, apparently, this is where their analysis stops. It assumes, within a wider context of gender inequality, equality between comrades. It doesn't take into account power not so obviously related to ownership. It's not interested in any feminist perspectives on relationships. It doesn't take into account our greater knowledge over the past few decades of dv and nor do they consider the maltreatment and abuse of children and young people. It takes no account of the unconscious dynamics in relationships because Marxism, apparently, has no need for a psychology. etc.
> 
> So all of this should be in their remit because their _own_ political position is that individual sexual mores are determined by property relations and last time I looked the SWP still lived within a capitalist system. The fact that they don't consider it so shows how it's not just accidental that this took place within the organisation but is inseparable from their stunted and deterministic position on women.


Sorry but that is a total caricature of the SWP position. It may be a critique of some Marxist accounts of the family and oppression but it's got little to do with the cliff-Harman-German analysis. Just to take one sentence that is plain perverse. You say of their analysis that "It doesn't take into account power not so obviously related to ownership" That is an extraordinary claim when the SWP above all else, with the theory of state cap as the shining example, has done more than other Marxist groups to emphasise how shallow any analysis based on property relations alone is. Almost the first thing theoretically that used to be drummed into new members was how exploitation and oppression are about actual relations of control and power between real people, not legalistic relations of ownership. Anyone who reads Germans Sex, Class and Socialism and her chapter on theories of the family knows how far she is from explaining the continued existence of the working class family by reference to property relations. You're well off the mark here, so much so I'm almost surprised butchers gave you top marks.


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

no, the power relationship relies on their relative positions- he's the head honcho, she's a new recruit. 

are you asking for the age of consent to be raised where the age difference exceeds some threshold?


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> no, the power relationship relies on their relative positions- he's the head honcho, she's a new recruit.
> 
> are you asking for the age of consent to be raised where the age difference exceeds some threshold?


no, i am pointing out that nothing magical happens when you hit 16, and that age is still clearly an _aspect _of power.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> no, the power relationship relies on their relative positions- he's the head honcho, she's a new recruit.
> 
> are you asking for the age of consent to be raised where the age difference exceeds some threshold?


You're making a legalistic argument here. Do you think this is a legalistic issue?


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

belboid said:


> no, i am pointing out that nothing magical happens when you hit 16, and that age is still clearly an _aspect _of power.


yes it does, and yes, as a formal investigatory process, this is legalistic.  

the magical thing that happens is that in both the eyes of the law and crucially in the eyes of the young person concerned, they gain the right to consent to sexual relationships. Once she is able to consent no-one can take that away from her ( well, maybe a judge in some mental health type case but that's not pertinent here).  

She can have sex with any other adult, if they both consent. And that's it really, no-one else has any formal say- her parents, friends and so on have informal views but there is no way they can actually do anything about it and if they try it's them that's in the wrong, her right is legally enforceable.

So to bring age difference up in a formal, legalistic, setting is simply wrong.  Until, that is, he has been judged and found guilty, at which point it becomes relevent to sentencing.


as for age being an aspect of power, do you really think that some teenage heartthrob couldn't exercise power over a fan twice their age?


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> So to bring age difference up in a formal, legalistic, setting is simply wrong.  Until, that is, he has been judged and found guilty, at which point it becomes relevent to sentencing.


well that's contradictory - if its wrong its wrong, including during sentencing.

But I think we both know that if a case like this gets to court, the age difference would be brought up by the prosecution. Repeatedly.



> as for age being an aspect of power, do you really think that some teenage heartthrob couldn't exercise power over a fan twice their age?


of course they could.  but the age would be a part of that power play, would it not?


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

sentencing allows all sorts of extraneous factors to be used as mitigation and  er, whatever the opposite of mitigation is.  Factors which have no bearing on the guilty or not decision.



belboid said:


> But I think we both know that if a case like this gets to court, the age difference would be brought up by the prosecution. Repeatedly.



do we?  Some sort of presumption of guilt, "he's so much older than her, she didn't know what she was doing".  patronising, much?  A jury able to see both parties might well draw their own conclusions, and who's to stop them, but I doubt a judge would allow that to be explicitly argued.  maybe.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> sentencing allows all sorts of extraneous factors to be used as mitigation and  er, whatever the opposite of mitigation is.  Factors which have no bearing on the guilty or not decision.
> 
> 
> 
> do we?  Some sort of presumption of guilt, "he's so much older than her, she didn't know what she was doing".  patronising, much?  A jury able to see both parties might well draw their own conclusions, and who's to stop them, but I doubt a judge would allow that to be explicitly argued.  maybe.


So a non-legal judgment is in order or out of order here? Which is it? can you let us know please?


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> sentencing allows all sorts of extraneous factors to be used as mitigation and  er, whatever the opposite of mitigation is.  Factors which have no bearing on the guilty or not decision.


but age differential isn't one of those factors, which are clearly set out in law. 




> "he's so much older than her, she didn't know what she was doing".


a shit brief may put it so crudely, but a better one wouldn't. Just, tactfully, repeating the fact that she was 17 when they first met, for example.


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

fair enough.  I think we're all agreed their procedure was flawed.  My contention is that they were correct to exclude from their remit the age difference, and I've set out why.  I would also say they should have excluded her previous sexual history, but didn't.  These procedural factors are prescribed in detail for courts of law, but this process was a long, long, LONG way from that.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 22, 2014)

newbie said:


> You know far more about their theoretical twisting and turning than I.  But do any formal investigatory processes see being unfaithful as part of their remit, in 2014?  Some explicitly moralistic religious groups might I spose, but otherwise?



No, the word remit was poorly chosen. It was just an example of what they mean by bourgeois morality and what kind of relationships are politically acceptable.



newbie said:


> If your analysis- _stunted and deterministic_- is right (and I'm not disagreeing) why have so many women joined, stayed, even taken leading roles through the years and particularly been heavily involved on theDC then idoom/loyalist side of this saga?



Because I think generally it was a good organisation for women. When I joined women were really pushed to leadership positions, many women were good, confident speakers, it was inspiring. I was never very attracted to feminism and though of myself as a socialist, so their analysis was convincing to me although I always felt that there was something missing.....

I may post more later but the kids are now in bed and I'm going out before I go mad.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 22, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry but that is a total caricature of the SWP position. It may be a critique of some Marxist accounts of the family and oppression but it's got little to do with the cliff-Harman-German analysis. Just to take one sentence that is plain perverse. You say of their analysis that "It doesn't take into account power not so obviously related to ownership" That is an extraordinary claim when the SWP above all else, with the theory of state cap as the shining example, has done more than other Marxist groups to emphasise how shallow any analysis based on property relations alone is. Almost the first thing theoretically that used to be drummed into new members was how exploitation and oppression are about actual relations of control and power between real people, not legalistic relations of ownership. Anyone who reads Germans Sex, Class and Socialism and her chapter on theories of the family knows how far she is from explaining the continued existence of the working class family by reference to property relations. You're well off the mark here, so much so I'm almost surprised butchers gave you top marks.



I can almost feel the finger jabbing.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 22, 2014)

Well this is a disappointment, I was hoping for a load of gossip and semi-founded rumour about Kimber and maybe an ISN update but it's just someone spouting the same old patriarchal myths that have been covered 20x before upthread.

All the same bolshie, Poulantzas wears a little better with time than some of his less agonized contemporaries. Compare the multi-dimensional examination of the capitalist state's reproduction or the analysis on class and subjectivity....to Cliff hailing the upcoming "pre-revolutionary period" and getting set for tens//hundreds of thousand members. Or having to ditch the permanent arms thesis and flip-flopping into 'downturn'. (which was one of the better post-IS moments I suppose, but on the whole Stuart Hall and crew read the same thing more acutely). Granted I struggle to imagine NP inspiring anything remotely comparable to the ANL but hey!


----------



## newbie (Jan 22, 2014)

oskarsdrum said:


> patriarchal myths



?


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 22, 2014)

Oh let's not go over that again. Where's the news!!


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 22, 2014)

Little theoretical appraisal before bedtime. So the SWP has often sold itself as being the one with the big cheese 110% dialectical theorists, from Kidron and Barker to Callinicos, Rees and Harman. Now Rees aside the other 4 produced some good work now and then. But it all fed into the studenty appeal and misappropriation of "workerism" as an insult. Looking back though, the view of women's oppression is rightly in tatters and the StW/Respect popular frontist era went totally unexamined. The rank-and-file idea hasn't changed since the fertile but distant 70s. Another big ticket gap is that even its proponents long ago owned up to how the "permanent arms economy" delivered merely a couple of partial insights at best (being rebadged "military Keynesianism" analysis basically). It's plainly an inadequate explanation of the whole post-war economic dynamic: and there's little else in the locker.

It's true that good approaches to that topic are in short supply, for me personally the most persuasive framework is that national welfare regimes went a long way towards mediating capitalism's productive-reproductive contradictions but this precarious achievement of crisis-management was blown away by growing global economic integration, and by the power of the working class that it helped create the conditions for. But there's hardly a last word on the matter. Well, I thought I'd throw that out there to pass time while we're delivering some slow-moving last rites.


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 23, 2014)

Looks like Richard Seymour has landed himself into some hot water with the intersectionalistas!

http://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/01/23/live-by-intersectionality-die-by-intersectionality/

There are screen grabs of a thread from Tim Nelson's facebook in the link. It's utterly demented.
I'm not at all ashamed to say I find the monstering he's getting delicious. However, I'll have to ask the landlord to keep a big box of tissues and a mop handy for Apology Bhoy when he reads it.


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Looks like Richard Seymour has landed himself into some hot water with the intersectionalistas!
> 
> http://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/01/23/live-by-intersectionality-die-by-intersectionality/
> 
> ...


pah, they didn't even get the right thread!  It's the one that inspired Tims initial post on hat where Seeless made the complete tit of himself


----------



## articul8 (Jan 23, 2014)

^ link?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

I think that autophagiac dynamic (yes!) was always been there and more experienced people spotted it early on -in a way i reckon it's one reason a lot of people did stay in the SWP  - or just drop out completely. I mean look at the stuff on that argument - it's reached the absurd position of calling white people crackers on an anti-racist principle. Juvenile nonsense. This stuff might be just what the SWP want.


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2014)

so apt, though this frenzy is all at a time when vulnerable people are killing themselves due to ATOS, sanctions, etc, unforgivable.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 23, 2014)

I wonder if Seymour wishes he could put the genie back in the bottle.


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2014)

I was growing to like SEYMOUR! or at least his writings on CIF, etc, even forgiving his Stalinist about turn on the refinery strike/protests.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 23, 2014)

IS Network peeps still haven't been told who has resigned since November, not least those who were on the Steering Cttee., & how many have gone. But I guess transparency always has its limits.

I noticed things becoming more opaque as time goes by. The strangely named Politics Conf. in October had no attendance figure, unlike the two previous National General Meetings (86 at founding in April, then 50 in June).

The minutes of SC mtgs. now don't even say who attended, & how many were there. And the minutes are politically useless coz contributions by individuals are not attributed. Of course it's progress to tell the public ('the class') that something is going on - unlike the secret CC of the SWP - but please be transparent, to both fellow ISN members if not 'the class': your political reputation is at stake. Remember, the Bolsheviks (& the Mensheviks) never, ever had an internal bulletin. Never. That institution only came about in 1921 - as the civil war was ending. The Solidarity [USA] member Bustelo made all this explicit last March in his 'Lenin Was Not a Leninist':
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=7727

What's particularly troubling is that there's no evidence any ISN member cares. But it is, after all, a network, just like a soccer supporters' club. There's never been an attempt to instigate any collective discipline. Peeps just get together to do whatever, be they as women or disabled, or to make a podcast (worth listening to: Oliver Cromwell Cox in the current one; Cox is all there, but after 1 hr the last 15mins is missing). And if the women's group want to tell anyone else what's happening they do, but there's no requirement upon them, or any other fraction of 'the unity'. Likewise about any branch activity. (Surprisingly there has never been a strategy, with milestones, on branch-building.) It's organisational neoliberalism: laissez-faire, let's act. That's really learning from the class enemy.

From the ISN's report of last Saturday's unity mtg. with SocRes, ACI & Wkrs. Pwr. it seems those on top are Tim & Kris, & Tom's left having private chats with Terry. In fact no-one knows if Tom, the Principal, & Me Olde, let alone anyone else, are even still members.

So it goes.

(Should have added that it is to the ISN's credit to alert its website readers that an opposition has arisen during the ISO's pre-conference period. Those who think it a mistake to mention what's happening in the ISO really have a truncated appreciation of what participatory discussion (& decision-making) is all about. If they could read Russian they would be astonished at what went on in the pages of Pravda pre-1928. Yes, ISN members came out of the SWP, but they live in a quite developed liberal democracy. Learn from the class enemy: open discussion is pretty innocuous, it takes a lot more than talk to upset the regime. But open discussion is essential in any healthy organisation: only the rulers need fear openness - & even in groups of 40 people there are rulers, albeit sometimes subject to re-call.)



treelover said:


> . . . SEYMOUR . . . his Stalinist about turn on the refinery strike/protests.


I'm interested, what do you think was Stalinist about it?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 23, 2014)

Tim Nelson is a disgrace of a National Secretary.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Jan 23, 2014)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

I didn't realise he was Nat sec. Silly silly move.


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't realise he was Nat sec. Silly silly move.


why?  his politics are better than most (I know!). 

A substantial group within the ISN only want it to hold together for the sake of the 'unity' offensive, as soon as the merger goes ahead, they'll have nowt to do with the group (or they'll just leave if the merger doesnt go ahead). As for the rest...plenty of good people, but the politics are all over the shop and there is no attempt to seriously try and find out if there are any politics the group does actually agree on.  Just a host of individual thoughts, and it doesnt matter if no one else agrees.

Doomed unless something changes sharpish.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

belboid said:


> why?  his politics are better than most (I know!).
> 
> A substantial group within the ISN only want it to hold together for the sake of the 'unity' offensive, as soon as the merger goes ahead, they'll have nowt to do with the group (or they'll just leave if the merger doesnt go ahead). As for the rest...plenty of good people, but the politics are all over the shop and there is no attempt to seriously try and find out if there are any politics the group does actually agree on.  Just a host of individual thoughts, and it doesnt matter if no one else agrees.
> 
> Doomed unless something changes sharpish.


My personal interactions with him (presuming its the bristol lad that is) were not very promising - he seemed overly concerned with himself and making sure that things flowed through him as well being _at this point _(this was in the period leading up the last wave of student occupations in 2010) very hacky and party-patriotic.


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2014)

I think he got over the party patriotism when they expelled him


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

belboid said:


> I think he got over the party patriotism when they expelled him


Precisely why i'd be very wary of him  - to jump straight from that sort of shit into berating people for racist 'mansplaining' and effectively setting up a circular firing squad/network is pretty revealing i think.


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2014)

he's overwhelmingly avoided such tosh before (and got grief for it from the real intersectionalista's), but I think the anti-seymourism has gotten too much now. any old stick to beat the eejit with


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 23, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Looks like Richard Seymour has landed himself into some hot water with the intersectionalistas!
> 
> http://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/01/23/live-by-intersectionality-die-by-intersectionality/
> 
> ...



sorry for the ignorance but what is race play? the screen shot keeps referring to it


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> sorry for the ignorance but what is race play? the screen shot keeps referring to it


Have a read of this  - 'racialized sexual situations' basically.



> A bitchy white woman belittling her black maid. A Latino man being tied up and called racial slurs. A black woman being offered for sale at a slave auction. All of these are awful in reality, but for people who are into race-play — or racialized sexual situations — they can be extremely hot. I talked to two people familiar with such situations about how the worst parts of racial prejudice can be explored — and even exorcised — through sex.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have a read of this  - 'racialized sexual situations' basically.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have a read of this  - 'racialized sexual situations' basically.








The imbecility of "exorcising" racial prejudice through bedroom role play.

This is where "be the change you want to see in the world" gets you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 23, 2014)

I've heard it all now


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 23, 2014)

I might be wrong  but this sounds like fantasy bedroom role play between consenting adults who want to participate... why has it been turned into a political argument?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 23, 2014)

i lived with Tim for a year, whilst he was still Delta's party lap dog. he's never made a personal political risk in his life, has not an iota of a moral compass. lives primarily off the rush he gets from anaethematizing his latest political opponents... see his long running dispute with Ed Maltby of the AWL


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> ... why has it been turned into a political argument?



Because these people are a bunch of %$*%*(())%^$#$


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Have a read of this  - 'racialized sexual situations' basically.


and it isnt racist, apparently. Altho 'race play play' is


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> I might be wrong  but this sounds like fantasy bedroom role play between consenting adults who want to participate... why has it been turned into a political argument?


came from a rather crass comment on a pic in the daily mail. That kicked off the initial 200+ post thread, which I think has now been deleted, altho its all gone on in almost exactly the same way on the post posted above


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> i lived with Tim for a year, whilst he was still Delta's party lap dog. he's never made a personal political risk in his life,


until  the one that got him kicked out of the party...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> I might be wrong  but this sounds like fantasy bedroom role play between consenting adults who want to participate... why has it been turned into a political argument?


God knows, i found that 'debate' linked to above almost impossible to follow - and i suspect this is not entirely unwelcome to a lot of the participants.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 23, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> This is where "be the change you want to see in the world" gets you.



When stupidities intersect...


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2014)

J Ed said:


> When stupidities intersect...


The stupid turn pro.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 23, 2014)

They've spent decades inside a foul and degenerate party structure, and then when they finally left remained within their own small circle of self congratulation. The same denounciation and dismissal and twisting of the arguments into caricatures of reality in order to prove they are right, to themselves if nobody else.
 Badsexbhoy will be cockahoop, but just because a large section of former swp members are proved to be tossers, doesn't prove the rest aren't even bigger tossers.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> see his long running dispute with Ed Maltby of the AWL



You say that like it's a bad thing to anathemise the AWL.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 23, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Looks like Richard Seymour has landed himself into some hot water with the intersectionalistas!
> 
> http://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/01/23/live-by-intersectionality-die-by-intersectionality/
> 
> ...


My oh my. Well the heart says rejoice in his discomfort but the head says fair dues to him for calling the 'mansplaining', 'whitesplaining', 'cracker' shit out even partially. The interesting thing is how he's moved so far in the direction of reformism that he doesn't feel the need to be embarrassed by them: "it makes no difference to my well being whether some British Trots take a dim view.." Yeah he's done with revolutionary politics and what he probably sees as it's overly shrill representatives. Fair enough. The depressing thing to me at least is that some of those laying into him are among the most recent resigners from the swp. It doesn't bode well for them not ending up like the isn to be honest. In fairness the writing was on the wall. I first came across this stupid cracker shit and the use of mansplaining to shut other male socialists up when 'debating' issues with some iso heavy hitters on fb. And it is their brand of politics that many in the opposition look to. Shrill identity politics is just the down and dirty expression of Abbie Bakan's academic attacks on 'Communist Urgent Man' and 'Anarchist Action Man'. Load of unmarxist bollox if you ask me but I'm probably just Sectarian 80's Man.


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2014)

Some of these internecine but really insignificant disputes can't but help remain one of the literary disputes such as Virginia Woolf and Dorothy L Sayers conducted, fascinating, but futile and of no import in the real world....


----------



## treelover (Jan 23, 2014)

Btw, Ed Maltby must have well graduated(from Cambridge) by now.

btw, in this light of discussing Delta, etc and others, what about 'horizontal recruitment', couldn't that be seen as some kind of abuse?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2014)

treelover said:


> btw, in this light of discussing Delta, etc and others, what about 'horizontal recruitment', couldn't that be seen as some kind of abuse?



It would more accurately be described as a persistent urban myth, I suspect.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2014)

Speaking of the AWL, it seems that their vigorous response to the Weekly Worker's article on their hypocrisy last week may not have been entirely accurate in all material respects. Who would have guessed?

This week, the CPGB provide some rather embarrassing details of AWL internal emails, detailing their relationship with an individual who is alleged to have carried out drunken sexual assaults at leftist events:
http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/994/the-forgotten-ally-and-friend


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 23, 2014)

oskarsdrum said:


> the view of women's oppression is rightly in tatters



What is your explanation for women's oppression?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 23, 2014)

More importantly the ISN is in tatters.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> I might be wrong  but this sounds like fantasy bedroom role play between consenting adults who want to participate... why has it been turned into a political argument?



Internalisation of social relations is surely political but that's not the same as saying that process can or ought to be policed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2014)

belboid said:


> until  the one that got him kicked out of the party...



A fair point, though I suppose there was hardly a risk-free option open to him at that time, given that Deltagate was always gonna come out at some point or another and anyone with any kind of foresight must have been able to see that those who took part in, ignored or cooperated with the cover-up was likely to find themselves in the shit. He did choose the right risk to take though to be fair.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 23, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Speaking of the AWL, it seems that their vigorous response to the Weekly Worker's article on their hypocrisy last week may not have been entirely accurate in all material respects. Who would have guessed?
> 
> This week, the CPGB provide some rather embarrassing details of AWL internal emails, detailing their relationship with an individual who is alleged to have carried out drunken sexual assaults at leftist events:
> http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/994/the-forgotten-ally-and-friend



The author of that piece writes like a wanker - why does he put scare quotes around 'domestic violence'? Just makes him look like a tosser - I guess we shouldn't be surprised by that but you watch the aggressive warmongering labourites focus on that to the exclusion of the substance of the piece.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Internalisation of social relations is surely political but that's not the same as saying that process can or ought to be policed.


My only point is  that if consenting adults willingly take part in any sexual fantasy game why has this turned into a political row?
I understand the point of sexual relationships/instutions (such as marriage) are political but the row seems like having a view on what sexual position someone prefers.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> I understand the point of sexual relationships/instutions (such as marriage) are political but the row seems like having a view on what sexual position someone prefers.



You don't think sexual position is political? So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?


----------



## belboid (Jan 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> The author of that piece writes like a wanker


someone in the CPGB write like a wanker?  Never!


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You don't think sexual position is political? So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?


Sorry but I did  say "willing and consenting"...please don't take anything negative from what I'm saying as I am not dismissing or supporting any kind of shitty sexist or abusive behaviour


----------



## revol68 (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You don't think sexual position is political? So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?



The political aspect is "forced into" and the power dynamics that reproduced it. How two equal and consenting adults choose to bang is of no great political significance, trying to make it so tends to lead to reactionary moralising. A curtain twitcher is a curtain twitcher whether they are of the left or the right.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 23, 2014)

revol68 said:


> The political aspect is "forced into" and the power dynamics that reproduced it. How two equal and consenting adults choose to bang is of no great political significance, trying to make it so tends to lead to reactionary moralising. A curtain twitcher is a curtain twitcher whether they are of the left or the right.



It doesn't have to. I did say that understanding something as political is not the same as saying it ought to be policed. It doesn't even have to be thought of as good or bad, it can just be, and be thought about.

How do you know when two adults are equal?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Sorry but I did  say "willing and consenting"...please don't take anything negative from what I'm saying as I am not dismissing or supporting any kind of shitty sexist or abusive behaviour



I don't think you are saying anything sexist or abusive, I'm just questioning your view of political. Willing and consenting for me has to be examined in context. I'm sure plenty of women consented to lying on their backs to have sex just as women consent to, expect to, lie on their backs during labour, which has to be the most painful position you could adopt to help a baby out of your body.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> *I don't think you are saying anything sexist or abusive,* I'm just questioning your view of political. Willing and consenting for me has to be examined in context. I'm sure plenty of women consented to lying on their backs to have sex just as women consent to, expect to, lie on their backs during labour, which has to be the most painful position you could adopt to help a baby out of your body.



I'm sorry  but when you typed
"*So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary)* in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?"
it read to me like you were implying that I didn't care about women being forced or not having a choice.

Fair enough to question my view of political ... I do not know how to make it clearer about choice...it is different from expectation or coercion but I am obviously being unclear so will stop


----------



## revol68 (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> It doesn't have to. I did say that understanding something as political is not the same as saying it ought to be policed.
> 
> How do you know when two adults are equal?



On a societal level you can politically tackle inequalities but on an individual level well you generally have to take people on their word that they are happy and consenting, especially when you know fuck all about them personally but making judgments from a distance. Friends and family of course may well be in a position to see things differently but even then most people tend to navigate things very subtly on a personal level instead of taking to the twitter to tell them they are racist/sexist stooges, self hating this or that etc

An inability to distinguish between the personal and the political at any level leads to a very patronising policing of peoples lives. A model of false consciousness so totalitarian you can't have as much as a wank without worrying if you are reproducing oppression, a kind of political catholicism.

I mean by all means write articles telling women that hey, you know there is other ways than missionary, I mean it's not 1950 anymore and you might get laughed at and called a patronising dickhead but it's not the same as telling women that if they do missionary they are reinforcing their own oppression.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> I'm sorry  but when you typed
> "*So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary)* in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?"
> it read to me like you were implying that I didn't care about women being forced or not having a choice.
> 
> Fair enough to question my view of political ... I do not know how to make it clearer about choice...it is different from expectation or coercion but I am obviously being unclear so will stop



No, I wasn't implying that. 

Look, I don't agree with you about choice, but I don't have the answers, I'm not interested in being right, I just want to think about things.


----------



## andysays (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think you are saying anything sexist or abusive, I'm just questioning your view of political. Willing and consenting for me has to be examined in context. I'm sure plenty of women consented to lying on their backs to have sex just as women consent to, expect to, lie on their backs during labour, which has to be the most painful position you could adopt to help a baby out of your body.



I think there is sometimes an assumption among what we might call "lifestyle radicals" that any and all non-conventional sexual activity is in some way transgressive and therefore politically anti-status quo.

There also appears to be a belief that this non-conventional sexuality is somehow priviledged "above" politics, that those who embrace it are able to do so without any of the political issues of exploitation or oppression from "normal" people's lives interfering.

Personally, I think it's at least worth exploring whether the wish, or in some cases apparently the need, to act out exploitation and/or oppression within one's sexual activity might be related in some conscious or subconscious way to one's attitudes to their manifestation in the real or wider world, but there sometimes seems to be a suggestion than even to pose this question is to seek to stifle the free expression of someone's sexuality.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 23, 2014)

revol68 said:


> On a societal level you can politically tackle inequalities but on an individual level well you generally have to take people on their word that they are happy and consenting, especially when you know fuck all about them personally but making judgments from a distance. Friends and family of course may well be in a position to see things differently but even then most people tend to navigate things very subtly on a personal level instead of taking to the twitter to tell them they are racist/sexist stooges, self hating this or that etc
> 
> An inability to distinguish between the personal and the political at any level leads to a very patronising policing of peoples lives. A model of false consciousness so totalitarian you can't have as much as a wank without worrying if you are reproducing oppression, a kind of political catholicism.
> 
> I mean by all means write articles telling women that hey, you know there is other ways than missionary, I mean it's not 1950 anymore and you might get laughed at and called a patronising dickhead but it's not the same as telling women that if they do missionary they are reinforcing their own oppression.



I didn't argue any of that though, that is your own extrapolation.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I didn't argue any of that though, that is your own extrapolation.



You asked how can we know two adults in a sexual relationship are equal, I gave you an answer.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> I didn't argue any of that though, that is your own extrapolation.


with all due respect surely I can say the same of your responses to my posts...I didn't argue any of what you did...it was your own extrapolation


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 23, 2014)

revol68 said:


> You asked how can we know two adults in a sexual relationship are equal, I gave you an answer.



Really?


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> with all due respect surely I can say the same of your responses to my posts...I didn't argue any of what you did...it was your own extrapolation



What political position that you didn't express did I extrapolate? I said that I thought certain things like consent and choice take place in a context. I said that sexual position is, or has been, or can be political. I didn't give you views you don't hold did I?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> What political position that you didn't express did I extrapolate? I said that I thought certain things like consent and choice take place in a context. I said that sexual position is, or has been, or can be political. I didn't give you views you don't hold did I?


 yes imo you did precisely that... I said 

*My only point is that if consenting adults willingly take part in any sexual fantasy game why has this turned into a political row?
I understand the point of sexual relationships/instutions (such as marriage) are political but the row seems like having a view on what sexual position someone prefers*

to which you responded

*You don't think sexual position is political? So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?*

I used the words consenting and willing and you spoke of women not having a choice and being forced....they are not the same thing.
I was wondering why a political argument was occuring over a sexual fantasy ... I was not responding to someone saying that the missionary position could be oppressive.
Therefore you took what I said and changed it ... therefore you put views that I do not hold and did not express onto what I wrote


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> yes imo you did precisely that... I said
> 
> *My only point is that if consenting adults willingly take part in any sexual fantasy game why has this turned into a political row?
> I understand the point of sexual relationships/instutions (such as marriage) are political but the row seems like having a view on what sexual position someone prefers*
> ...



You're focusing a lot on my use of the word force when all I was trying to do was say that sexual position can be political. I was talking more of the force of expectation which may involve consent rather than physical force, of course it could have been/could be both. I have already said that I wasn't implying you wouldn't care about the use of physical force, although tbh I'd take that as a given.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 23, 2014)

Christ all this politics of sex is soo fucking 80's.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 23, 2014)

Maybe the 80s never ended


----------



## revol68 (Jan 23, 2014)

Now I've got this atrocity of saccharine PC left liberal shit stuck in my head.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You're focusing a lot on my use of the word force when all I was trying to do was say that sexual position can be political. I was talking more of the force of expectation which may involve consent rather than physical force, of course it could have been/could be both. I have already said that I wasn't implying you wouldn't care about the use of *physical force*, although tbh I'd take that as a given.



I am focusing on your use of words force and the term women didn't have choice.
All I said was 

*My only point is that if consenting adults willingly take part in any sexual fantasy game why has this turned into a political row?
I understand the point of sexual relationships/instutions (such as marriage) are political but the row seems like having a view on what sexual position someone prefers*

I have underlined the words that you responses ignored...nothing I said warranted your response to me of

*So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?*

so I have taken issue with it.

As for physical force ... I do not consider any force acceptable as it clearly means that someone is not consenting and willing

I have no issue with being disagreed with or with being wrong but I do object to having my views twisted or misrepresented.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 23, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You don't think sexual position is political? So when women didn't have choice in position and were forced into a position (missionary) in which it's much harder to orgasm that wasn't political?



Wait, what? That bit really depends on the woman.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 23, 2014)

belboid said:


> until  the one that got him kicked out of the party...



he'd already given up his organiser career and his ambitions within the organisation were already dwindling by that point. tbf i don't know if his inspiration for fucking off the organiser role was due to disgust over the case, but even if it was. he was in his own way quite actively responsible for creating exactly the stifling, undemocratic, hysteria ridden atmosphere of leadership deference which allowed the CC to act with impunity, and made them think their farce of an investigation into Delta could be enough to cover themselves.




			
				Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> You say that like it's a bad thing to anathemise the AWL.



it's certainly not. but there's a different between a political and a personal issue which isn't being adhered to in this case. and it takes a lot to make me empathise with an AWLer.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 23, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> he'd already given up his organiser career and his ambitions within the organisation were already dwindling by that point. tbf i don't know if his inspiration for fucking off the organiser role was due to disgust over the case, but even if it was. he was in his own way quite actively responsible for creating exactly the stifling, undemocratic, hysteria ridden atmosphere of leadership deference which allowed the CC to act with impunity, and made them think their farce of an investigation into Delta could be enough to cover themselves.



You know the guy and I don't but this strikes me as very harsh. Yes he was probably an awful pain in the balls as a young SWP fulltime organiser, but that comes with the territory, given the nature of the role as local frontman for whatever the CC were arguing in any given week. But most people tend to grow out of that sort of behaviour when they leave that job. And ultimately, when it really came down to it, he was on the right side from very early on.




			
				Das Uberdog said:
			
		

> it's certainly not. but there's a different between a political and a personal issue which isn't being adhered to in this case. and it takes a lot to make me empathise with an AWLer.



What's the beef with Maltby, other than a perfectly reasonable hostility towards AWL fulltimers? All I know about him is that he's the guy who accidentally summed himself up as a cynical factional manipulator in a leaked email.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jan 23, 2014)

maybe it is worded harshly. but i do find his general political conduct appalling. and the way he operates in the ISN suggests to me that he hasn't made many of the moves you suggest.

beef with Maltby started because Maltby is a standard representative of the AWL doesn't go much further than a personal dislike. recently that lead him to publically wade in on accusations against the guy from NCAFC over which he knew absolutely nothing.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 24, 2014)

So many isners saying "We need a debate but not on facebook!" yesterday/this morning. Seems they've discovered the dark side of the internet might exist after all.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 24, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> I am focusing on your use of words force and the term women didn't have choice.
> All I said was
> 
> *My only point is that if consenting adults willingly take part in any sexual fantasy game why has this turned into a political row?
> ...



You seem determined to find offence where none was meant. I_'_m talking about internalisation of oppression, or of power relations, and how it manifests in sex, but also in giving consent, making choices. I'm really not particularly interested in sex as a subject, but I am interested in how we internalise relations. And we can do that without being moralistic or getting too into identity politics, I think.

I did NOT conflate giving consent within current conditions of inequality with a man forcing a woman physically. I really can't be clearer than that. I do find it interesting that you assume that I've twisted your words rather than you assuming you've misunderstood me.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 24, 2014)

Red Cat - what do you make of it it? My view: I like Martha Gimenez's take, e.g. http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/pesm/marx and feminism.pdf . The main problems for me with the SWP view were 1) the obsession with "men don't benefit from women's oppression" - that may or may not be the case depending on your definition of the slippery term "benefit", but it led to a total failure to appreciate how pervasively men (well, and women) are tied into it. You know, the attitude was always - when there's a big class struggle on, most of sexism will disappear. And 2) the way of placing gender / women's oppression as nothing more than "superstructural", and not appreciating at all how different forms of labour that capitalist profitability depends on are often gendered. And then, there's a lot to gender that can't be reduced down to the needs of the system as such - ideologies and discourses unfold very differently across global capitalism and that needs careful analysis too. 

So everyone's predicting the ISN's demise, to mark the occassion I had an article on the website yesterday: http://internationalsocialistnetwor...a-further-comment-on-rank-and-file-strategies . The network aspect of the ISN itself has probably been under-explored, strange but true in spite of all the naval gazing we've been doing.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 24, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> So many isners saying "We need a debate but not on facebook!" yesterday/this morning. Seems they've discovered the dark side of the internet might exist after all.


what the class needs right now is a full debate on the intersectional politics of race play


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 24, 2014)

Articul8 said:
			
		

> what the class needs right now is a full debate on the intersectional politics of race play



*insert sweary comment about new labour here*

Actually whilst it's an issue from the far margins of fighting oppression, all the same, if we've got theories then we might as well try and apply and improve them. I don't see the problem with a different type of debating on facebook instead of having less of it, myself.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 24, 2014)

oskarsdrum said:


> Actually whilst it's an issue from the far margins of fighting oppression



I would say that it's somewhere between branston pickle vs marmite and Beyonce vs Miley Cyrus


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 24, 2014)

J Ed said:
			
		

> I would say that it's somewhere between branston pickle vs marmite and Beyonce vs Miley Cyrus



Pickle with cheese, marmite on toast, Beyonce. Easy-peasy!


----------



## discokermit (Jan 24, 2014)

when were women forced into missionary position?
how is it more difficult to orgasm?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 24, 2014)

I think class problems and sexism womens oppresion  are two diffrent things.
 Yes you should deal with both issues but they are not the same its like bringing up lGBT or racsim at every turn sometimes its appopiate other times its not.  
   As in a truly demented discussion I had involving LGBT friendly food????? Which even the bloke who brought the idea couldnt really articulate what he meant.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2014)

likesfish said:


> I think class problems and sexism womens oppresion  are two diffrent things.
> Yes you should deal with both issues but they are not the same its like bringing up lGBT or racsim at every turn sometimes its appopiate other times its not.
> As in a truly demented discussion I had involving LGBT friendly food????? Which even the bloke who brought the idea couldnt really articulate what he meant.


 
how can food be lgbt friendly?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 24, 2014)

Why are so many gay people vegetarian? I have asked gay friends that in the past and they've agreed that a disproportionate amount of gay people are but they didn't know why either!


----------



## Favelado (Jan 24, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why are so many gay people vegetarian? I have asked gay friends that in the past and they've agreed that a disproportionate amount of gay people are but they didn't know why either!



Horribly simplistic guess. More gay people are left-wing and being left-wing makes you more likely to be vegetarian. I'm ready for that bit of genius to get torn to shreds though.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Horribly simplistic guess. More gay people are left-wing and being left-wing makes you more likely to be vegetarian. I'm ready for that bit of genius to get torn to shreds though.


 
Someone i met recently (whose white) who's into all this intersectionality stuff remarked about how he was surprised that at uni so many "brown people" were supporting right-wing positions and he walked into some debate where there were lots of people with different skin colours thinking they'd all be left wing and was shocked when they weren't. I asked him how you could think that someone's skin colour would affect their political views, he said that "well, you'd expect people of colour to be more radical"



er, why? and isn't it a bit weird to notice what colour everyone is all the time? Isn't it actually a bit racist to go on about "brown people" and such like, i was taught not to notice/mention people's skin colour or draw attention to it in any way


----------



## andysays (Jan 24, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Horribly simplistic guess. More gay people are left-wing and being left-wing makes you more likely to be vegetarian. I'm ready for that bit of genius to get torn to shreds though.



Without wanting to tear you to shreads, is it actually the case that

a disproportionate amount of gay people are vegetarian?
more gay people are left-wing?
being left-wing makes you more likely to be vegetarian?
And if I'm neither gay nor vegi, does that mean my leftie cred is shot?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> how can food be lgbt friendly?


 I domt know the bloke who brought it up couldnt really explain his point either just got angry that LGBT people  were not taken into account by the vegan kitchen but children were At which point a lesbian mother laid into him and it kicked off big time
" Lesbians are not proper homosexuals apprantly they  are just looking for a real man to mooch off"
 Now I'm a past master at the stupid and insensative but you'd have thought a black gay man an wouldnt come out with such crap


----------



## Favelado (Jan 24, 2014)

andysays said:


> Without wanting to tear you to shreads, is it actually the case that
> 
> a disproportionate amount of gay people are vegetarian?
> more gay people are left-wing?
> ...



1. I don't know!
2. I don't know but I'd guess yes.
3. I don't know but I'd guess yes.

Finally, no.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 24, 2014)

Well consdiering traditional right wing groups tend to be rather down on the whole  gay rights thing.
 I'd imagine more gay people would tend to be more left than right.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Well consdiering traditional right wing groups tend to be rather down on the whole  gay rights thing.
> I'd imagine more gay people would tend to be more left than right.


 
I've met quite a few gay people who are tories.


----------



## andysays (Jan 24, 2014)

Favelado said:


> 1. I don't know!
> 2. I don't know but I'd guess yes.
> 3. I don't know but I'd guess yes.
> 
> Finally, no.



I'm glad you're able to be definitive about the last one


----------



## Favelado (Jan 24, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm glad you're able to be definitive about the last one



I said it was a guess to start with.


----------



## andysays (Jan 24, 2014)

Favelado said:


> I said it was a guess to start with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I've met quite a few gay people who are tories.


but have you ever met a nice south african?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 24, 2014)

andysays said:


> a disproportionate amount of gay people are vegetarian?




I think it's true


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 24, 2014)

Spanish IST's En Lucha publishes a critical take on the SWP crisis (Google Translate does a fairly acceptable translation):

http://enlucha.org/comunicados/en-l...t-workers-party-en-gran-bretana/#.UuJaX9I1i6o

Don't think they'll get very far with their call for an international commission though.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 24, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:
			
		

> Spanish IST's En Lucha publishes a critical take on the SWP crisis



More feminist movementists pulled by autonomism, most disappointing.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 24, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Looks like Richard Seymour has landed himself into some hot water with the intersectionalistas!
> 
> http://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/01/23/live-by-intersectionality-die-by-intersectionality/
> 
> ...



I can't work out what's going on here but I strongly suspect everybody involved needs to die, if only for the good of humanity.


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 24, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I can't work out what's going on here but I strongly suspect everybody involved needs to die, if only for the good of humanity.



Well I don't know about dying. I think a lot of these intersectionalista/identity politics types are a lot like terriers. They have good instincts and if they are given proper obedience training, with lots of monitoring and keeping on a short leash they can actually be quite useful. But if they don't get that basic training at a young age they just wander round the place biting people and causing a nuisance.


----------



## andysays (Jan 24, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Well I don't know about dying. I think a lot of these intersectionalista/identity politics types are a lot like terriers. They have good instincts and if they are given proper obedience training, with lots of monitoring and keeping on a short leash they can actually be quite useful. But if they don't get that basic training at a young age they just wander round the place biting people and causing a nuisance.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> but have you ever met a nice south african?




My mum 

clearly i need to be shot


----------



## J Ed (Jan 24, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I can't work out what's going on here



It's a dick-waving top trumps oppression off, only the shrillest survive


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2014)

btw, do we take it (from the latest party notes) that the whole Kimber has resigned thing is a load of old tosh then?  Shame


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 24, 2014)

discokermit said:


> when were women forced into missionary position?
> how is it more difficult to orgasm?



Lie back and think of England isn't that long ago is it? I think the church had something to do with it. 

It's more difficult to orgasm than being on top because it's harder to control stimulation of the clitoris and to control the movement of the vaginal muscles. Obviously all women are different and maybe the young women of today are all super multi-orgasmic beings in all positions but this was fairly common knowledge when I was younger, as was the experience of many women not being able to orgasm at all with penetration alone, as was the experience of faking so the man would hurry up and finish.

Caveat: I am one woman in a world of women enjoying sex in all sorts of ways....


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2014)

Someone on my facebook just posted this statement from the ISN steering committee - gotta be about the SEYMOUR! race play bunfight, surely?


> Dear comrades,
> Some of you may have seen, on Facebook and elsewhere, that there has been a serious disagreement breaking out in some parts of the Network recently. Three members, including a steering committee member, engaged in a long argument with a number of people, including a number of black RS21 and IS Network members regarding "race play", and many felt, including an overwhelming majority of steering committee members, that their opinions on the subject were deeply problematic with regards to racial and gender politics, and further than their tone and method of handling criticism was not in keeping with the spirit of allowing people to challenge their own oppression.
> Furthermore, you may have seen circulating among RS21 and IS Network members a discussion between some IS Network members, including two steering committee members, about plans to leave the Network and join RS21. While this is a pity, and a failure on our part in some respects given that we have a responsibility to all our members, we hope that any such a move can be done in as amicable and fraternal way as possible. Charlotte B, one of those steering committee members, has resigned already, so we felt the need to inform members as we don't want to hide such disagreements. To be clear, Charlotte was not involved in any of the arguments about race-play referred to above, but this was the context in which these divisions came to light.
> We remain committed to full transparency, and the right of minorities in the Network to express  disagreements. We hope that other participants in that discussion will remain in the Network, and we welcome a recent platform document which hopefully will allow these discussions and debates to be conducted openly and in a serious and comradely manner.
> ...



Magpie C lol - surely these people don't even take themselves seriously?


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2014)

The leavers, it appears to me, were looking for an excuse to leave anyway.

And it's handed to them on a plate


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> The leavers, it appears to me, were looking for an excuse to leave anyway.
> 
> And it's handed to them on a plate


Quite possibly true, but had they had any lingering doubts the race play nonsense and ensuing debate would have quickly dissipated them. 
On a more positive note, it looks like RS21 is now serious about building an organisation sooner rather than later.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> . . . this statement from the ISN steering committee . . .
> Some of you may have seen, on Facebook and elsewhere . . .


typical lack of Network chauvinism ('patriotism' is the wrong word): why isn't the discussion on the ISN website? (But then this Steering Cttee statement on fb isn't yet on the ISN website: shows the SC's priorities.)

"Three members, including a steering committee member . . ."
who? Typical lack of ISN transparency

"Furthermore, you may have seen circulating among RS21 and IS Network members a discussion between some IS Network members, including two steering committee members, about plans to leave the Network and join RS21 . . ."
ditto

"While this is a pity, and a failure on our part . . ."
typical SWP technique of not saying what the failure is

"we hope that any such a move can be done in as amicable and fraternal way as possible . . ."
sexist: "fraternal". Where have all the cdes. gone? To RS21?

"Charlotte B, one of those steering committee members, has resigned already, so we felt the need to inform members as we don't want to hide such disagreements . . ."
so why no identification of who left the Steering Cttee & resigned from ISN in November & December?

"We remain committed to full transparency . . ."
hardly "full" - semi-opaque more like

"(Magpie C dissented from the above message and did not support its circulation)"
Magpie the Suppressor!

The class demand answers from the ISN teachers!!!!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 24, 2014)

I'm confused. Are the isners who have left to join rs21 the ones who think calling people crackers is cool or not?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> I'm confused. Are the isners who have left to join rs21 the ones who think calling people crackers is cool or not?



No. The other side I think.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2014)

An actual split over whether or not a bizarre and presumably extremely rare sexual fetish is oppressive. Welcome to the British left in 2014. You really couldn't make this shit up.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> No. The other side I think.


He's not confused Nigel for gods sake - he just wants to suggest that all outside the SWP as supportive of oddball racist stuff. Oddly enough, when his mates on here (the swp kids who pushed and pushed identity politics and chest prodding shouts of racism that he later tactically 'turned against') were defending anti-white racism or similar, as a righteous reaction to structural white racism he was right behind them. An intersectionalist before the intersectionalists.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> An actual split over whether or not a bizarre and presumably extremely rare sexual fetish is oppressive. Welcome to the British left in 2014. You really couldn't make this shit up.



Even PD haven't had a split _this _silly. Yet. I think we should consider it a challenge.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2014)

Tom Walker will be the other SC member leaving, Rosie the one that left a bit back (I think)


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> An actual split over whether or not a bizarre and presumably extremely rare sexual fetish is oppressive. Welcome to the British left in 2014. You really couldn't make this shit up.


it's not really over that tho, is it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> Tom Walker will be the other SC member leaving, Rosie the one that left a bit back (I think)



Is that the Rosie from our neck of the woods?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> it's not really over that tho, is it?



Yeah but to be fair Nigel Irritable 's explanation is a lot funnier than the real reasons and that's what really counts IMO.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> it's not really over that tho, is it?



It's what caused the pre-existing resentments to explode and therefore is a pretty good proximate cause, although as always there are underlying issues.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah but to be fair Nigel Irritable 's explanation is a lot funnier than the real reasons and that's what really counts IMO.


It's certainly the one i shall be putting forward to casually interested observers when i go out later.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's not confused Nigel for gods sake - he just wants to suggest that all outside the SWP as supportive of oddball racist stuff.



Maybe he wasn't confused but I was.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 24, 2014)

I think PD has a hard act to follow on this one.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Is that the Rosie from our neck of the woods?


yeah



Nigel Irritable said:


> It's what caused the pre-existing resentments to explode and therefore is a pretty good proximate cause, although as always there are underlying issues.


did it? I don't think so. It's a put up job, a deliberate provocation to get a response to give an excuse.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> did it? I don't think so. It's a put up job, a deliberate provocation to get a response to give an excuse.



Wait, are you saying that Seymour was trolling the other wing of the ISN by arguing with people about a bizarre fetish, in the knowledge that it would result in people hopping up and down and calling him a mansplaining racist?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> My mum
> 
> clearly i need to be shot



i don't think you should be shot frogwoman.  you seem nice.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 24, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Lie back and think of England isn't that long ago is it? I think the church had something to do with it.
> 
> It's more difficult to orgasm than being on top because it's harder to control stimulation of the clitoris and to control the movement of the vaginal muscles. Obviously all women are different and maybe the young women of today are all super multi-orgasmic beings in all positions but this was fairly common knowledge when I was younger, as was the experience of many women not being able to orgasm at all with penetration alone, as was the experience of faking so the man would hurry up and finish.
> 
> Caveat: I am one woman in a world of women enjoying sex in all sorts of ways....




Is all this dirty talk likely to continue for some time redcat, only i'm wanting to watch channel 4 news?


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2014)

no, but he saw his friend and clique member put a ridiculous post up - ("I wish there were hot bdsm pics in the daily fail every day, and that vile racist incidents were not their occasion. I looooooooove using people as furniture!  Also, Mrs Abramovich looks so comfortable there. I wonder if she is a domme?") - and decided that he would take a position to defend her, on the basis that she was a clique member rather, and because he knew him doing it would wind everyone one up. He decided that (other than him) the only person qualified to talk on the subject was the person who also works in 'kink', and didn't really respond to anyone (except in his usual academic not actually addressing specifics way), but especially not to the black posters. He knew what he was doing


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

Get out of this cult while you still can belboid.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 24, 2014)

oskarsdrum said:


> Red Cat - what do you make of it it? My view: I like Martha Gimenez's take, e.g. http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/pesm/marx and feminism.pdf .



I don't mean to ignore you but I don't really know anymore. Am very interested in reading Federici properly and have started Caliban and the Witch but I find it hard to get the time to read in a focused way these days. I'd say though that my experience of being a mother, work in the home, the emotional labour of child mental health work that I do as a job has really influenced the aspects of women's oppression I find interesting these days. I'll have a look at the paper you posted.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Get out of this cult while you still can belboid.


and in anthem form


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> no, but he saw his friend and clique member put a ridiculous post up - ("I wish there were hot bdsm pics in the daily fail every day, and that vile racist incidents were not their occasion. I looooooooove using people as furniture!  Also, Mrs Abramovich looks so comfortable there. I wonder if she is a domme?") - and decided that he would take a position to defend her, on the basis that she was a clique member rather, and because he knew him doing it would wind everyone one up. He decided that (other than him) the only person qualified to talk on the subject was the person who also works in 'kink', and didn't really respond to anyone (except in his usual academic not actually addressing specifics way), but especially not to the black posters. He knew what he was doing



Isn't it simpler and more likely that he defended his mate because she's his mate and did so in an arrogant way because he's arrogant? Rather than assuming he was deliberately calibrating the whole thing to goad oddballs in the other wing of the ISN?

And what does the way they responded say about the other wing?

(Those are real questions by the way, not rhetorical ones)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Get out of this cult while you still can belboid.



I've got to ask - how does someone with apparently reasonable politics and who isn't an off the wall privilege checker survive in that group without murdering someone? Is it as bad on the inside as it looks from the outside belboid ?


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Isn't it simpler and more likely that he defended his mate because she's his mate and did so in an arrogant way because he's arrogant? Rather than assuming he was deliberately calibrating the whole thing to goad oddballs in the other wing of the ISN?
> 
> And what does the way they responded say about the other wing?
> 
> (Those are real questions by the way, not rhetorical ones)


quite possibly, tho I do believe he has been angling for such an excuse for a while now (see the politics of anathema tosh). 

That many of them are as fucking barking as everyone has always said. 

fer fucks sake, at this rate we'll not be allowed to say 'for fucks sake' cos its demeaning to sex workers.



SpineyNorman said:


> I've got to ask - how does someone with apparently reasonable politics and who isn't an off the wall privilege checker survive in that group without murdering someone? Is it as bad on the inside as it looks from the outside belboid ?


but not all of them! there's a good group of sound people amongst them all. A few who are seriously attempting to work their way through the contradictions and messes of the last couple of years.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> no, but he saw his friend and clique member put a ridiculous post up - ("I wish there were hot bdsm pics in the daily fail every day, and that vile racist incidents were not their occasion. I looooooooove using people as furniture!  Also, Mrs Abramovich looks so comfortable there. I wonder if she is a domme?") - and decided that he would take a position to defend her, on the basis that she was a clique member rather, and because he knew him doing it would wind everyone one up. He decided that (other than him) the only person qualified to talk on the subject was the person who also works in 'kink', and didn't really respond to anyone (except in his usual academic not actually addressing specifics way), but especially not to the black posters. He knew what he was doing



His argument was that "race play" carried out by two (or more) consenting adults doesn't necessarily make them racist or reproduce racism in day to day life. This seems like a pretty fair comment, whilst those jumping up and down accused him of being racist for having the audacity to disagree with some black people on the matter. The fact that some black people happily partake in race play apparently isn't something he can mention as to do so is to use black people as puppets for his own racism. 

The logic of the shrill fucks is hilarious because it follows that people involved in S&M or cop roleplays are responsible for reproducing sexism and state violence. These idiots have walked themselves into a Dworkin and MacKinnon territory but are too fucking ignorant to even notice, they will even claim to be sex positive and pro sex worker because they don't have any wort of unified or coherent theory, just a lot of buzzwords and things they no they are meant to be against.

If they were being consistent they'd be trying to ban loads of gay skinhead porn, protesting outside the Torture Garden and moralising/patronising sex workers for reproducing their own oppression.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 24, 2014)

Red Cat said:
			
		

> Am very interested in reading Federici properly and have started Caliban and the Witch but I find it hard to get the time to read in a focused way these days. I'd say though that my experience of being a mother, work in the home, the emotional labour of child mental health work that I do as a job has really influenced the aspects of women's oppression I find interesting these days. I'll have a look at the paper you posted.



I absolutely loved the couple of Federici articles that I read! Such a powerful writer, as well. I totally agree about the whole personal experience and reflection perspective (especially doing welfare state work!). I suppose Marxists tend to see that as being open to lifestylist type approaches but it's not necessarily the case at all. Actually it shows just how much there is to try and understand, it's probably impossible to ever have a fully worked out theory. And that's before you get to the interactions with class, race, sexuality..... Actually Gimenez is quite likely of more interest to recovering SWP types mainly! Do you have any reading recommendations?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I think PD has a hard act to follow on this one.


Like a preemptive strike, PD always leads, never follows.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2014)

oskarsdrum said:


> I absolutely loved the couple of Federici articles that I read! Such a powerful writer, as well. I totally agree about the whole personal experience and reflection perspective (especially doing welfare state work!). I suppose Marxists tend to see that as being open to lifestylist type approaches but it's not necessarily the case at all. Actually it shows just how much there is to try and understand, it's probably impossible to ever have a fully worked out theory. And that's before you get to the interactions with class, race, sexuality..... Actually Gimenez is quite likely of more interest to recovering SWP types mainly! Do you have any reading recommendations?


Autonomism strikes again! Try Leopoldina Fortunati or Mariorosa Dalla Costa.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 24, 2014)

oskarsdrum said:


> I absolutely loved the couple of Federici articles that I read! Such a powerful writer, as well. I totally agree about the whole personal experience and reflection perspective (especially doing welfare state work!). I suppose Marxists tend to see that as being open to lifestylist type approaches but it's not necessarily the case at all. Actually it shows just how much there is to try and understand, it's probably impossible to ever have a fully worked out theory. And that's before you get to the interactions with class, race, sexuality..... Actually Gimenez is quite likely of more interest to recovering SWP types mainly! Do you have any reading recommendations?



you can get Federici's Revolution at Zero Point here



> Written between 1975 and the present, the essays collected in this volume represent years of research and theorizing on questions of social reproduction and the consequences of globalization. Originally inspired by Federici's organizational work in the Wages for Housework movement, the topics discussed include the international restructuring of reproductive work and its effects on the sexual division of labor, the globalization of care work and sex work, the crisis of elder care, and the development of affective labor. Both a brief history of the international feminist movement and a contemporary critique of capitalism, these writings continue the investigation of the economic roots of violence against women.



https://anonfiles.com/file/095a946611622e5473726ffd95eb6ca6

It's a great collection.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 24, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Like a preemptive strike, PD always leads, never follows.


it has to follow earlier stuff chronologically.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2014)

revol68 said:


> His argument was that "race play" carried out by two (or more) consenting adults doesn't necessarily make them racist or reproduce racism in day to day life. This seems like a pretty fair comment, whilst those jumping up and down accused him of being racist for having the audacity to disagree with some black people on the matter. The fact that some black people happily partake in race play apparently isn't something he can mention as to do so is to use black people as puppets for his own racism.
> 
> The logic of the shrill fucks is hilarious because it follows that people involved in S&M or cop roleplays are responsible for reproducing sexism and state violence. These idiots have walked themselves into a Dworkin and MacKinnon territory but are too fucking ignorant to even notice, they will even claim to be sex positive and pro sex worker because they don't have any wort of unified or coherent theory, just a lot of buzzwords and things they no they are meant to be against.
> 
> If they were being consistent they'd be trying to ban loads of gay skinhead porn, protesting outside the Torture Garden and moralising/patronising sex workers for reproducing their own oppression.


you dont have to be reproducing state violence to be reinforcing aspects of internalised racism tho. and i dont think even the most intersected people were saying such things should be banned between strictly consenting adults with no financial interactions.  but seymour was sliding over the questions about what happened when payments were involved, which is key. and ignored everyone else in his usual arrogant way.


----------



## belboid (Jan 24, 2014)

Other RS21 members are going 'those two do NOT represent our general opinion' btw


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah but to be fair Nigel Irritable 's explanation is a lot funnier than the real reasons and that's what really counts IMO.


guess White Dover was wrong, there's not just the given reason & the real reason, but the funny one too


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's not confused Nigel for gods sake - he just wants to suggest that all outside the SWP as supportive of oddball racist stuff. Oddly enough, when his mates on here (the swp kids who pushed and pushed identity politics and chest prodding shouts of racism that he later tactically 'turned against') were defending anti-white racism or similar, as a righteous reaction to structural white racism he was right behind them. An intersectionalist before the intersectionalists.


I was confused fella, sometimes a question is a question. I know the argument about the SWP encouraging these idiots in the past and I think I've agreed with you before on that. Perhaps I'm not as Machiavellian as you think I am.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> you dont have to be reproducing state violence to be reinforcing aspects of internalised racism tho. and i dont think even the most intersected people were saying such things should be banned between strictly consenting adults with no financial interactions.  but seymour was sliding over the questions about what happened when payments were involved, which is key. and ignored everyone else in his usual arrogant way.



I read the wall of hate, he was the only person making a substantial argument, the rest was shrill wankers.

Also I laid out reproducing state violence as separate from reinforcing racism ie internalising racism etc
Can a feminist partake in submissive role play with a man without it representing internalised sexism and misogyny? 
Can such role play not represent a therapeutic practice for some people. Is sexual fantasy something we need to intervene with politically, should people engage in self criticism of their sexual kinks or better yet have other people do it for them? 

Should politics be a cult?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 24, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> An actual split over whether or not a bizarre and presumably extremely rare sexual fetish is oppressive. Welcome to the British left in 2014. You really couldn't make this shit up.



Someone should write an alternate history novel where a split over race play amongst members of the central committee of the ruling party in the Democratic People's Republic of Great Britain leads to a civil war lol


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 24, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Well I don't know about dying. I think a lot of these intersectionalista/identity politics types are a lot like terriers. They have good instincts and if they are given proper obedience training, with lots of monitoring and keeping on a short leash they can actually be quite useful. But if they don't get that basic training at a young age they just wander round the place biting people and causing a nuisance.



I was joking at the time, but actually these people are not just useless, I'm not sure if they have the capacity to engage in meaningful human interaction/relationships or to be happy, and therefore I'm tempted to conclude that it would be a kindness to release them from their miserable existence.

Disclaimer: Tempted, not convinced.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 24, 2014)

revol68 said:


> His argument was that "race play" carried out by two (or more) consenting adults doesn't necessarily make them racist or reproduce racism in day to day life. This seems like a pretty fair comment, whilst those jumping up and down accused him of being racist for having the audacity to disagree with some black people on the matter. The fact that some black people happily partake in race play apparently isn't something he can mention as to do so is to use black people as puppets for his own racism.
> 
> The logic of the shrill fucks is hilarious because it follows that people involved in S&M or cop roleplays are responsible for reproducing sexism and state violence. These idiots have walked themselves into a Dworkin and MacKinnon territory but are too fucking ignorant to even notice, they will even claim to be sex positive and pro sex worker because they don't have any wort of unified or coherent theory, just a lot of buzzwords and things they no they are meant to be against.
> 
> If they were being consistent they'd be trying to ban loads of gay skinhead porn, protesting outside the Torture Garden and moralising/patronising sex workers for reproducing their own oppression.



They were happy enough to have the same person post up a ridiculous article about how the DWP should regard prostitution as work with all the potential nastiness that would entail. Out of those two possibilities which is worse - people being forced to choose between prostitution and benefits or people doing admittedly weird but consensual sex stuff?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2014)

belboid said:


> quite possibly, tho I do believe he has been angling for such an excuse for a while now (see the politics of anathema tosh).
> 
> That many of them are as fucking barking as everyone has always said.
> 
> ...



Are they mainly the older ones? I only really know the young/student members and among them there's only one I can think of (RJ) who's any good (or at least he used to be - not talked to him properly in ages so his political trajectory may have changed since then).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2014)

J Ed said:


> They were happy enough to have the same person post up a ridiculous article about how the DWP should regard prostitution as work with all the potential nastiness that would entail. Out of those two possibilities which is worse - people being forced to choose between prostitution and benefits or people doing admittedly weird but consensual sex stuff?



That article was just bizarre. There seems to be a weird tendency among trendies these days to assume that any criticism of the sex industry is a direct attack on sex workers themselves. I'd fucking love to introduce them to the parts of the sex industry I'm familiar with and see if they maintain that position - and if they do to try and tell them that criticising the fucking dire state of affairs they find themselves in is denying their agency and that they've chosen it because it gives them more freedom or whatever their excuse is. Cunts, the lot of them - might be a choice for some middle class consumer-radical who wants to show everyone how 'edgy' they are but that just shows what kind of bubble they're in.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> That article was just bizarre. There seems to be a weird tendency among trendies these days to assume that any criticism of the sex industry is a direct attack on sex workers themselves. I'd fucking love to introduce them to the parts of the sex industry I'm familiar with and see if they maintain that position - and if they do to try and tell them that criticising the fucking dire state of affairs they find themselves in is evidence of their agency and that they've chosen it because it gives them more freedom or whatever their excuse is. Cunts, the lot of them - might be a choice for some middle class consumer-radical who wants to show everyone how 'edgy' they are but that just shows what kind of bubble they're in.


I don't get whats so difficult about about oposing the sex industry while supporting sex workers. In fact in my book it amounts to the same thing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 24, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I don't get whats so difficult about about oposing the sex industry while supporting sex workers. In fact in my book it amounts to the same thing.



Yeah I agree but we're just political disosaurs and slut shamers or something. I think it's a general inability to differentiate between institutions and individuals who are involved in said institutions - you can see it when they talk about the police and military too (though they take the opposite position here - everyone in the military is a cold blooded muderer and ACAB).


----------



## revol68 (Jan 24, 2014)

Yeah they are all over the place cos there level of analysis is the individual, their focus on policing behaviours.

The other issue is they don't have a cogent theory underlying their politics, just a series of boo hiss cues. So they rant about slut shaming yet the next thing they are judging a tiny sub cultures sexual race play as reproducing internalised racism. The problem is to be consistent on this they have to explain why s&m, power play and all sorts of kinks are above such analysis, surely dressing up in a maids outfits is nothing but the internalisation of womens domestic oppression and that's before we even get to rape fantasies. Afterall if you are reproducing sexism and rape culture in your sex life fantasies aren't you partially responsible for it outside the bedroom/dungeon/wetroom/sauna, y'know if you're going to act like that aren't you asking for it?

Idiots.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 24, 2014)

revol68 said:


> Yeah they are all over the place cos there level of analysis is the individual, their focus on policing behaviours.
> 
> The other issue is they don't have a cogent theory underlying their politics, just a series of boo hiss cues. So they rant about slut shaming yet the next thing they are judging a tiny sub cultures sexual race play as reproducing internalised racism. The problem is to be consistent on this they have to explain why s&m, power play and all sorts of kinks are above such analysis, surely dressing up in a maids outfits is nothing but the internalisation of womens domestic oppression and that's before we even get to rape fantasies. Afterall if you are reproducing sexism and rape culture in your sex life fantasies aren't you partially responsible for it outside the bedroom/dungeon/wetroom/sauna, y'know if you're going to be act like that aren't you asking for it?
> 
> Idiots.



I didn't realise we were all supposed to have opinions on obscure fetishes so bear with me, cos I've only just started thinking about this, but... Surely a consensual sexual encounter doesn't reproduce racism/sexism/rape culture/whatever in the same way that racist/sexist behaviour towards people who don't want you to be racist/sexist to them, regardless of what that sexual encounter consists of? Unless you force others to watch or something. 

Agree that they basically just react to stimulus rather than ever thinking about anything though.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah I agree but we're just political disosaurs and slut shamers or something. I think it's a general inability to differentiate between institutions and individuals who are involved in said institutions - you can see it when they talk about the police and military too (though they take the opposite position here - everyone in the military is a cold blooded muderer and ACAB).


Their right about ACAB though.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 24, 2014)

Seymour didn't like Fischer's article, I wonder if he thinks the metaphor is any more pertinent now...


----------



## revol68 (Jan 24, 2014)

yeah the other key point is that the argument is less important than the person making it, so Seymour being a white male making such a case is a racist piece of shit telling black people what to think, when he links to a black person and race play participant arguing pretty much the same case he is an even bigger bastard using black people as sock puppets to defend his own racism.

This despite he's not even involved in making racist art or race play.

It's irrational shit.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 24, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Lie back and think of England isn't that long ago is it? I think the church had something to do with it.


the church said no sex before marriage but this has been broken on a consistent and widespread basis. also i doubt the lie back thing has much of a basis in fact. it certainly can't be considered as forcing anyone to do anything.



> It's more difficult to orgasm than being on top because it's harder to control stimulation of the clitoris and to control the movement of the vaginal muscles. Obviously all women are different and maybe the young women of today are all super multi-orgasmic beings in all positions but this was fairly common knowledge when I was younger, as was the experience of many women not being able to orgasm at all with penetration alone, as was the experience of faking so the man would hurry up and finish.
> 
> Caveat: I am one woman in a world of women enjoying sex in all sorts of ways....


i'm not gonna go into details but i don't agree with much of that.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 24, 2014)

Gotta love emanymton


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 24, 2014)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Autonomism strikes again! Try Leopoldina Fortunati or Mariorosa Dalla Costa.



Thanks!! Made a note of those. All of the autonomists I've read so far have been terrific and kind of electrifying...although without ending my fondness for left Eurocoms. Obviously, I've much to learn, but I think the class composition/recomposition is really illuminating. I liked this, on Marioros Dalla Costa, although I wouldn't claim it all made sense to me: http://viewpointmag.com/2013/09/28/the-gendered-circuit-reading-the-arcane-of-reproduction/


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 24, 2014)

enanymton said:
			
		

> Their right about ACAB though.



Even that though...what about DV specialists? Half-decent local coppers who do their best to protect vulnerable people from neighbourhood harrassment? Even the traffic police? If they're bastards then most of the public sector workforce aren't a lot different (children's social workers, teachers marking exams, housing rent collectors.....)




			
				revol68 said:
			
		

> It's irrational shit.



Yeah I think that's basically it. There's better and worse ways of trying to make a point and there definitely *are* experiences of oppression that people with those experiences more important to listen to than others, but the whole logic of how it played out would make it impossible for most britons even to have an opinion on a lot of subjects. That's the other thing, is that misusing the valid insights on interpersonal discussions and standpoint/intersectionality brings the whole thing into disrepute!


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 25, 2014)

discokermit said:


> the church said no sex before marriage but this has been broken on a consistent and widespread basis. also i doubt the lie back thing has much of a basis in fact. it certainly can't be considered as forcing anyone to do anything.
> 
> i'm not gonna go into details but i don't agree with much of that.



Maybe, I mean I'm sure there are plenty of myths, and it's not something I've researched, and I don't think there's a monolithic history of repressed sex despite the apparent cultural prohibitions at certain times and places but.... any girl who enjoyed sexual activity when I was at school in the 80s was still called a slut, sometimes daily, and I remember some poor girl being called Orgy (with a hard G) for the last 2 years of school for obvious reasons. I also remember being harassed almost daily by older boys and men and raped more than once. It does make me wonder how then we all became confident and liberated lovers, making our needs and desires known and getting them met.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 25, 2014)

oskarsdrum said:


> I absolutely loved the couple of Federici articles that I read! Such a powerful writer, as well. I totally agree about the whole personal experience and reflection perspective (especially doing welfare state work!). I suppose Marxists tend to see that as being open to lifestylist type approaches but it's not necessarily the case at all.



Surely it's always our experience that leads us to political perspectives? Otherwise it's abstract and not rooted in our lives. I'm interested in housework and childcare in relation to capitalism, hence wanting to read Federici. I'm sure the SWP also had a position on work in the home being unpaid reproduction of the labour force but their answer to the problem was get women out of the home and kids into nurseries, which I think is inadequate (long time since I read Sex, Class and Socialism so may be wrong, again).


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 25, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I didn't realise we were all supposed to have opinions on obscure fetishes so bear with me, cos I've only just started thinking about this, but... Surely a consensual sexual encounter doesn't reproduce racism/sexism/rape culture/whatever in the same way that racist/sexist behaviour towards people who don't want you to be racist/sexist to them, regardless of what that sexual encounter consists of? Unless you force others to watch or something.
> 
> Agree that they basically just react to stimulus rather than ever thinking about anything though.



Seymour is right in that isn't he, that there's no evidence that that kind of sexual play reinforces racism outside of that play.

I think thinking about internalisation gets stuck if we think about it as a kind of static unchanging structural thing that has to be got rid of, rather than thinking that we all have different parts to ourselves that are expressed in different circumstances. 

tbh I don't find saying a man is a sexist particularly helpful, it's more accurate to say we all have sexist and racist thoughts, fantasies. I don't think it's impossible to think about this in a non-policing non self-critical way.

Anyway, I have to go be with my neglected children so I'm leaving that half though there.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 25, 2014)

revol68 said:


> yeah the other key point is that the argument is less important than the person making it, so Seymour being a white male making such a case is a racist piece of shit telling black people what to think, when he links to a black person and race play participant arguing pretty much the same case he is an even bigger bastard using black people as sock puppets to defend his own racism.
> 
> This despite he's not even involved in making racist art or race play.
> 
> It's irrational shit.


That's the word exactly. They are frustrating as hell to argue with and I couldn't put a word to it but you're completely right, it's just irrational. Stark bonkers pre enlightenment nonsense.


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 25, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That's the word exactly. They are frustrating as hell to argue with and I couldn't put a word to it but you're completely right, it's just irrational. Stark bonkers pre enlightenment nonsense.



Indeed, as bonkers as describing Deltagate as bad sex and as frustrating as listening to some one who changes their position depending on how many lemonades they've had that night.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> Maybe, I mean I'm sure there are plenty of myths, and it's not something I've researched, and I don't think there's a monolithic history of repressed sex despite the apparent cultural prohibitions at certain times and places but.... any girl who enjoyed sexual activity when I was at school in the 80s was still called a slut, sometimes daily, and I remember some poor girl being called Orgy (with a hard G) for the last 2 years of school for obvious reasons. I also remember being harassed almost daily by older boys and men and raped more than once. It does make me wonder how then we all became confident and liberated lovers, making our needs and desires known and getting them met.



I don't really know what to write in response to this but I'm so sorry that you had to grow up in that environment and go through those experiences.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 25, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Indeed, as bonkers as describing Deltagate as bad sex and as frustrating as listening to some one who changes their position depending on how many lemonades they've had that night.



I would like to know exactly WHEN the idea that the veracity of a statement is entirely dependent on who is saying it starts to appear logical to someone. Surely no one wakes up one day and begins to think that...


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 25, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> You seem determined to find offence where none was meant. I_'_m talking about internalisation of oppression, or of power relations, and how it manifests in sex, but also in giving consent, making choices. I'm really not particularly interested in sex as a subject, but I am interested in how we internalise relations. And we can do that without being moralistic or getting too into identity politics, I think.
> 
> I did NOT conflate giving consent within current conditions of inequality with a man forcing a woman physically. I really can't be clearer than that. *I do find it interesting that you assume that I've twisted your words rather than you assuming you've misunderstood me.*



fair enough...guess that years in the swp have left their mark in that department...
stopped saying anything and attending meetings cos of the the way people liked to cheap point score by twisting what you said so they could look good.
should have taken you at face value

I remember saying in a meeting about sexism that I had no idea what it was like being on the receiving end of sexism and although I am used to being on the receiving end of racism it's not the same in my opinion...and that although I am committed to anti sexism that I am aware that sometimes I might not be seen a being of help to a woman in my role as a union rep.
I used an example of how a union member came to me as her rep because management wanted her to photocopy some confiscated porn film dvd covers which she found upsetting and decided (while explaining it to me) that she need to speak to only a female rep as she would be understanding of her needs. I found her a female rep and as a result when the same problem occurred a few months later she approached me again and asked me to deal with it as she felt I had been so sympathetic and understanding previously.

the rest of the meeting was spent with (mainly white middle class men) telling me how I had feminist and black nationalist politics and had pandered to bourgeois middle class life style politics.

hope you had fun with your kids ... just taking my daughters out ... love the weekends


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 25, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> fair enough...guess that years in the swp have left their mark in that department...


It's good that you should say that. Many of us (ex-SWP or otherwise) will recognise that same reflex.


----------



## leyton96 (Jan 25, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I would like to know exactly WHEN the idea that the veracity of a statement is entirely dependent on who is saying it starts to appear logical to someone. Surely no one wakes up one day and begins to think that...



The veracity of the statement is not in doubt. A pointed reminder that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones was the aim.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 25, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I don't really know what to write in response to this but I'm so sorry that you had to grow up in that environment and go through those experiences.



Thanks. 

But it wasn't meant as a woe is me, from what I can gather from threads on here where women talk about their experiences it is very far from unusual.

Anyway....


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 25, 2014)

The latest ISN "external" bulletin is now available on their website. The race play furore exploded too late to meet the deadline, so those interested in such questions will have to wait for the February bulletin (in which, I presume there will be copious debate on this topic). However, for those interested in the more prosaic RS21 and LU play:

http://internationalsocialistnetwor...rnational-socialist-network-external-bulletin


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 25, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> The latest ISN "external" bulletin is now available on their website. The race play furore exploded too late to meet the deadline, so those interested in such questions will have to wait for the February bulletin (in which, I presume there will be copious debate on this topic). However, for those interested in the more prosaic RS21 and LU play:
> 
> http://internationalsocialistnetwor...rnational-socialist-network-external-bulletin



The best and most beautifully pointless article is the one from page 8 to 10... It's correct in everything it raises and because of that completly redundent


----------



## emanymton (Jan 25, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The best and most beautifully pointless article is the one from page 8 to 10... It's correct in everything it raises and because of that completly redundent


Is that 8-10 in real page numbers or 8-10 as per the contents page numbering.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 25, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Is that 8-10 in real page numbers or 8-10 as per the contents page numbering.


8 - 10 in real numbers written by some loon called Richard


----------



## belboid (Jan 25, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> 8 - 10 in real numbers written by some loon called Richard


a well known wanker


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 26, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> The latest ISN "external" bulletin is now available on their website. The race play furore exploded too late to meet the deadline, so those interested in such questions will have to wait for the February bulletin (in which, I presume there will be copious debate on this topic). However, for those interested in the more prosaic RS21 and LU play:
> 
> http://internationalsocialistnetwor...rnational-socialist-network-external-bulletin



Had a quick flick through, all fairly asinine apart from Belboid's piece. (I'm assuming its yours Belboid, it all made a lot of sense to me apart from your list of suggested topics - if the ISN did discuss them would either lead to further inactivity, total implosion or both.)

Stand out point for me though-on page 7 Simon H suggests that the ISN should be the wing of the revolutionary left which is "clearest on...solidarity with the Syrian revolution". Do the ISN/people with in it have some daft line on Syria I'm not aware of?


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Had a quick flick through, all fairly asinine apart from Belboid's piece. (I'm assuming its yours Belboid, it all made a lot of sense to me apart from your list of suggested topics - if the ISN did discuss them would either lead to further inactivity, total implosion or both.)


well, that's my (im)plausible deniability blown! I might have to be nice about Seymour now.... (and i'ts _b_elboid, btw, not _B_elboid, i am an anti-capitalist....)

the 'list' came about just cos I'd written everything else and then went 'ohh shit, I have absolutely no suggestions for how to counter any of these problems. Better say something!' - and they sprang to mind



> Stand out point for me though-on page 7 Simon H suggests that the ISN should be the wing of the revolutionary left which is "clearest on...solidarity with the Syrian revolution". Do the ISN/people with in it have some daft line on Syria I'm not aware of?


naah, I think its just the big international issue at the mo, and the one where the groups looking to merge actually basically agree


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 26, 2014)

belboid said:


> well, that's my (im)plausible deniability blown! I might have to be nice about Seymour now.... (and i'ts _b_elboid, btw, not _B_elboid, i am an anti-capitalist....)
> 
> the 'list' came about just cos I'd written everything else and then went 'ohh shit, I have absolutely no suggestions for how to counter any of these problems. Better say something!' - and they sprang to mind
> 
> ...



Sorry mate!

I just found it worded oddly-I don't think anyone sees what's happening in Syria as a revolution but rather a civil war, and I wondered if the writer had anybody in particular in mind to be 'in solidarity' with. Just seemed a really odd thing to include.


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2014)

just realised the fuckers cut out my footnotes! Bloody Stalinists.....


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sorry mate!
> 
> I just found it worded oddly-I don't think anyone sees what's happening in Syria as a revolution but rather a civil war, and I wondered if the writer had anybody in particular in mind to be 'in solidarity' with. Just seemed a really odd thing to include.


I dont really think they do have anyone in mind.  Just not Assad. Or the Islamists. The stuff on Ukraine (such as it is) similarly fails to distinguish between different opposition groups.


----------



## oskarsdrum (Jan 26, 2014)

MASSIVE NEWS, blindsided the weekly worker and everything: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c35lq1ua7kn8gzn/Resignation from the ISN.docx huge 8 resignations from the ISN


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 26, 2014)

oskarsdrum said:


> MASSIVE NEWS, blindsided the weekly worker and everything: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c35lq1ua7kn8gzn/Resignation from the ISN.docx huge 8 resignations from the ISN



Massive is probably an exaggeration.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 26, 2014)

Full text for those (like me) who fear DropBox:

To the SC and our comrades in the ISN

With great regrets, we are resigning from the ISNetwork. Many of us were involved in the setting up of the network, and we are very sad that it has come to this. We remain in full solidarity with ISN comrades, and look forward to working with them on campaigns.

Despite the repeated characterisation of us as a 'right bloc', we do not represent any unified political position beyond our concerns about both the political direction and internal culture of the ISNetwork. It has been clear for some time that our critiques put us in a minority: contrary to a common smear, we have always been willing to argue from this position, and welcomed this political debate. However, there has been an increasing breakdown of trust between us and various leading members of the organisation. It is now clear that we are not welcome in the ISN.

One of us is a woman sex-worker and bdsm practitioner. After many years of self imposed isolation from politics, she believed she had finally found a space where even those comrades who disagreed with her positions would discuss controversial topics of sexuality and desire in respect and comradeship. Instead she has been browbeaten, patronised, marginalised and moralised against, and the topics she wishes to discuss with her comrades dismissed as, in the words of one SC member, self-evidently 'sordid.' She has been made to feel so unwelcome that she feels forced to leave the SC and ISN.

The SC has put out a statement strongly implying racism and claiming 'inappropriate' argumentative techniques against three of our members. We entirely reject these insinuations and urge anyone interested to examine the threads in questionhttps://www.facebook.com/magpie.corvid/posts/250619165114541 &https://www.facebook.com/tim.nelson.7777/posts/10202283062751796 and judge for themselves. That they are over a controversial and charged topic -and one on which the signatories to this letter do not necessarily agree- is not in doubt: however, if there is a single statement made by any comrade that can reasonably be judged 'inappropriate', let alone racist, we urge their accusers to state it.

It is claimed, on the basis of a leaked email thread of a private conversation, that we have been politically dishonest, and set out to split or even destroy the network. This is wholly untrue. As has been made clear in this week's bulletin, we had intended to launch a platform within the ISNetwork in order to argue for our position. However, recent events had given us an increasing sense that we might not be able to remain members, due both to legitimate political differences and to the personalised politics of vituperation at the brunt of which we have felt. Accordingly - as is explicitly allowed in the ISN constitution – we have been discussing among ourselves to work out how best to argue our position within the network, our chances, and our contingency strategies if we felt unable to continue.

At issue here is not just the conduct or content of recent discussions or even the political direction of the ISN, but the question of making a habitable culture of discussion on the Left. When some of us recently wrote an article criticising a politics of anathema within the ISN, we were derided by opponents who denied any such thing exists. Unfortunately, it does. One SC member has recently publicly insisted that 'no one is being targeted personally'. The very same SC member recently seconded a denouncement on Facebook, by another SC member, of several of us as 'arrogant fucks' and 'bad rubbish' to whom 'good riddance'. One leading member expressed a desire on Facebook to strangle one of us - referring to her as a 'nauseating tosser' - and not one of the SC members to whom she said this suggested it was an inappropriate comment to make. Several SC members openly expressed their agreement with a status referring to us as 'parasites'. Another SC member wrote 'they should count themselves lucky they haven't been expelled' – particularly galling to two of the 'Facebook Four' involved in our thread. There are further examples, but this culture is one in which we can no longer work: we also would like comrades to consider whether left organisations can hope to attract a new generation of members if they treat each other in this way.

We look forward to working in a left culture that has ended certain practices inherited from the SWP. These include moralistic browbeating; the implicit claim that various controversial topics are inappropriate for discussion; that certain comrades can not be argued with on them; and that dissenters from these nostrums deserve to be attacked in personalised terms. We know many ISN members look forward to this with similar enthusiasm.

Jamie A
Magpie C
Kieran C
A. M
China M
Richard S
Len T
Rosie W


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2014)

oskarsdrum said:


> MASSIVE NEWS, blindsided the weekly worker and everything: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c35lq1ua7kn8gzn/Resignation from the ISN.docx huge 8 resignations from the ISN



You would think that a group including a number of professional writers would make sure their document was proof read before issuing it.

[edited to add: actually, to be fair, it looks like it was just a formatting issue]


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 26, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Indeed, as bonkers as describing Deltagate as bad sex and as frustrating as listening to some one who changes their position depending on how many lemonades they've had that night.


Only fundamentally changed my mind when someone I trusted told me something I didn't know. Neither beer nor all the abuse in the world from folk on here could do that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2014)

So, the ISN really did manage a split over a row about whether oddball sex games involving racial abuse are oppressive. This quite genuinely may be the single funniest split in the history of British sect madness.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2014)

Where are they off to, by the way?

1) New group?
2) Socialist Resistance?
3) Rs21?
4) No group, retiring to Left Unity?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 26, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So, the ISN really did manage a split over a row about whether oddball sex games involving racial abuse are oppressive. This quite genuinely may be the single funniest split in the history of British sect madness.


No Sects Please, We're British


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 26, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Where are they off to, by the way?
> 
> 1) New group?
> 2) Socialist Resistance?
> ...



This suggests to the right as in not 3.

"We look forward to working in a left culture that has ended certain practices inherited from the SWP. These include moralistic browbeating; the implicit claim that various controversial topics are inappropriate for discussion; that certain comrades can not be argued with on them; and that dissenters from these nostrums deserve to be attacked in personalised terms. We know many ISN members look forward to this with similar enthusiasm."


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 26, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Where are they off to, by the way?
> 
> 1) New group?
> 2) Socialist Resistance?
> ...



It's a fairly small split - small enough to buy a house together, forget about the left and engage in communal living/revolutionary roleplay until they change the world or die of exhaustion.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's a fairly small split - small enough to buy a house together, forget about the left and engage in communal living/revolutionary roleplay until they change the world or die of exhaustion.



I can't really see Seymour or Mieville going Comrade Bala, but its about the only way this could get any funnier.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 26, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> No Sects Please, We're British



This made me laugh quite hysterically.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2014)

Inward looking in the sense that their heads are lodged in their own rectal cavities.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 26, 2014)

Just looked at one of the FB threads that the resignation statement linked and found this link http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey...e_wrong_black_slavery_and_plantation_retreats

People really are so weird



> My major kink-interest is in chattel slave-ownership in today's world but following the historical models of 8,000 years of historical slave-ownership tradition (from Greek-Roman through modern day)...along with everything that might relate to it (which sometimes can go pretty far into the realm of BDSM activities, depending on the partner). I'm very knowlegable in the field of historical slavery.
> Some of my other non-kink interests include history and philosophy, classic cars, music, science, singing and writing lyrics, architecture, comparative culture, language, reading and counseling..
> 
> I get a lot of questions about "Plantation Retreat"...so here are some basic facts:
> ...


----------



## belboid (Jan 26, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Where are they off to, by the way?
> 
> 1) New group?
> 2) Socialist Resistance?
> ...


Rs21, they've already been in discussions about it. Tho their politics (to the extent they are expressed at all as individuals) put them in, probably to the right of, SR


----------



## redcogs (Jan 26, 2014)

Left antics begin to resemble panto


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 26, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Left antics begin to resemble panto



*"OH NO THEY DON'T!"*
_Say leading PD cadres Paul and
Barry Chuckle in their guest editorial_


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2014)

belboid said:


> Rs21, they've already been in discussions about it. Tho their politics (to the extent they are expressed at all as individuals) put them in, probably to the right of, SR



Nobody is to the right of Socialist Resistance while still maintaining a nominal "Trotskyism", bar perhaps their former associates in Socialist Action.

RS21 makes more sense from a viability point of view, simply because SR are locked into terminal decline. There's no point in joining a group of geriatrics who haven't recruited in a decade unless you are bringing a whole bunch of younger people with you.

Is there any indication that RS21 actually want them? I mean, the soft opposition weren't too keen on being associated with Seymour during the fight in the SWP, and perhaps more importantly bringing in someone like Walker who is a prominent member of the Left Unity leadership might imply certain political choices that RS21 haven't discussed yet.

It's not really clear where RS21 will go. Are they relatively conservative, looking to set up a nicer, more open, SWP? Or are they going to start questioning more and more of their heritage, an approach that leads to strong centripetal tendencies, as the ISN are currently demonstrating.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2014)

RS doesnt think of himself as a trotskyist any more (according to his last guardian piece). as for whether RS21 will want them, especially seymour, it's an interesting one. i imagine they want his guardian spots. It is interesting that TW didnt sign the statement. RS21 seem to be a bit all over the shop (not a surprise considering they've only just set up) on whether/to what extent they want to work with the ISN. Some of them already were doing, some probably want even less to do with us after those two threads.

On the 'platform' the leaving group (mostly) formed just before leaving, its marvelously contradictory in wanting an immediate merger now, when the last merger that wanted _now_ would have made it all but impossible for this later merger to happen.  And if this later one happens, the SR/ACI one would be off.  Politically inept, but there you go.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 27, 2014)

It's like an apocryphal story. Did you hear the one about the Trots who adopted twittersectionality? They had a series of increasingly vitriolic social media rows and then had an unbelievably stupid split over an obscure  and rather seedy issue related to identity and sex.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 27, 2014)

belboid said:


> RS doesnt think of himself as a trotskyist any more (according to his last guardian piece). as for whether RS21 will want them, especially seymour, it's an interesting one. i imagine they want his guardian spots. It is interesting that TW didnt sign the statement. RS21 seem to be a bit all over the shop (not a surprise considering they've only just set up) on whether/to what extent they want to work with the ISN. Some of them already were doing, some probably want even less to do with us after those two threads.
> 
> On the 'platform' the leaving group (mostly) formed just before leaving, its marvelously contradictory in wanting an immediate merger now, when the last merger that wanted _now_ would have made it all but impossible for this later merger to happen.  And if this later one happens, the SR/ACI one would be off.  Politically inept, but there you go.



Are you sorry to see them go? How do you feel about a merger with RS21?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2014)

I'm sorry it maybe entirely consensal but my first thought is wtf followed by ewwwww
   You can either do that or politics you cant do both.
 What you get up to with your partner is one thing but being a leftie and role playing as a slave owner really really isnt on

Reg at MI5 must be giggaling as redraws the chart


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 27, 2014)

J Ed said:


> http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey...e_wrong_black_slavery_and_plantation_retreats



They wait nine whole lines before getting to: "As Foucault brilliantly observed...."

The bald frog has much to answer for.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's a fairly small split - small enough to buy a house together, forget about the left and engage in communal living/revolutionary roleplay until they change the world or die of exhaustion.



I'll join so long as the weird racist slave stuff isn't compulsory.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 27, 2014)

likesfish said:


> I'm sorry it maybe entirely consensal but my first thought is wtf followed by ewwwww
> You can either do that or politics you cant do both.
> What you get up to with your partner is one thing but being a leftie and role playing as a slave owner really really isnt on
> 
> Reg at MI5 must be giggaling as redraws the chart



Not my kind of thing and probably not something very big in the UK (well in terms of the chattel slavery one) but I'm hesitant to judge because let's be honest you could extend this to all sorts of shit people with lefty views get up to. Handcuffs, bondage, even something as banal as spanking or whatever, all could be judged to an eroticisation of power, hierarchy or the submission of women, basically once you start down this path it all get's a bit too catholic for my liking.

Probably best to judge people on how they act in their day to day life and politics and leave them to their own shit within the realms of consensual sex.

p.s. I bet you wank yourself sore thinking about a sexy IRA women catching you off the lower falls...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2014)

revol68 said:


> Not my kind of thing and probably not something very big in the UK (well in terms of the chattel slavery one) but I'm hesitant to judge because let's be honest you could extend this to all sorts of shit people with lefty views get up to. Handcuffs, bondage, even something as banal as spanking or whatever, all could be judged to an eroticisation of power, hierarchy or the submission of women, basically once you start down this path it all get's a bit too catholic for my liking.
> 
> Probably best to judge people on how they act in their day to day life and politics and leave them to their own shit within the realms of consensual sex.
> 
> p.s. I bet you wank yourself sore thinking about a sexy IRA women catching you off the lower falls...



But when they insist on talking about it in political discussions and the like it is a bit fucking weird and you have to wonder about their sanity if nothing else.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 27, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> But when they insist on talking about it in political discussions and the like it is a bit fucking weird and you have to wonder about their sanity if nothing else.



LOL I think it came up as a general discussion, you know like normal people have, but became political when people decided that not condemning the people involved as reproducing racism or self hating made you a racist.

As much as I laughedat the jewish guy whopaid to be abused by a "Nazi" dominatrix I'm wary of bringing peoples sanity into question over it, not so long ago gay people were being locked up for their degenerate, pathologised sexuality, infact it still goes on in many parts of the world. Indeed where the left sticks its noses into bedrooms and tries to explain and judge forms of sexuality in a political manner it has a far from glowing record.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 27, 2014)

revol68 said:


> Not my kind of thing and probably not something very big in the UK (well in terms of the chattel slavery one) but I'm hesitant to judge because let's be honest you could extend this to all sorts of shit people with lefty views get up to. Handcuffs, bondage, even something as banal as spanking or whatever, all could be judged to an eroticisation of power, hierarchy or the submission of women, basically once you start down this path it all get's a bit too catholic for my liking.
> 
> Probably best to judge people on how they act in their day to day life and politics and leave them to their own shit within the realms of consensual sex.
> 
> p.s. I bet you wank yourself sore thinking about a sexy IRA women catching you off the lower falls...



i must be well kinked, my fantasy involves a former buxom headmistress 'engaging' me when i was twelve..  i don't know who to turn to now,  Freud or Seymour?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 27, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'll join so long as the weird racist slave stuff isn't compulsory.



Think about who you'll have to share the sex commune with before you make any snap decisions...


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2014)

Ŵ


revol68 said:


> Probably best to judge people on how they act in their day to day life and politics and leave them to their own shit within the realms of consensual sex.
> 
> p.s. I bet you wank yourself sore thinking about a sexy IRA women catching you off the lower falls...



Shudders the pigs disco was well named   once did guard duty on a 14 int  type resistance to interrogation exercise which was nearly ruined by a guards officer type stating if he was ok in a rather braying voice "this dungeon is ok but the mistress could have at least put some effort in" it rather the defeats the object  if the stony faced guards get the giggles
  I think you can enjoy all the kinky sex you want you just cant talk about sexual practices and politics to the same people and hope to be taken seriously.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 27, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Ŵ
> 
> 
> Shudders the pigs disco was well named   once did guard duty on a 14 int  type resistance to interrogation exercise which was nearly ruined by a guards officer type stating if he was ok in a rather braying voice "this dungeon is ok but the mistress could have at least put some effort in" it rather the defeats the object  if the stony faced guards get the giggles
> I think you can enjoy all the kinky sex you want you just cant talk about sexual practices and politics to the same people and hope to be taken seriously.



So feminists who are open about being into such kink can't be taken seriously? Sounds like slut shaming to me.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Are you sorry to see them go? How do you feel about a merger with RS21?


I won't notice most of them have gone. Only magpie and Seymour ever crossed my radar (& china at one meeting). Seymour only cropped upto pick fights of late (almost as if he did it on purpose). 

Rs21? Dunno yet, it's not clear if they want to be SWP v2 or summat better.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 27, 2014)

revol68 said:


> So feminists who are open about being into such kink can't be taken seriously? Sounds like slut shaming to me.



No I meant anyone male or female ,Politics is in one box
Sexual practices is another bringing BDSM into any discussion about anything not related to BDSM is going to end in disaster as it did here ,most people arnt into it and frankly racial domination games are probably a kink to far for a lot of people.
  Bit like reneacting the SS at the weekends most people just like the uniforms and the guns and being seen as the bad guys. But theirs a hint of something really rather sinister hanging about which is sort of unavoidable.
Imperial officers and indian princessess you basically know your dealing with a wrong one


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 27, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is there any indication that RS21 actually want them? I mean, the soft opposition weren't too keen on being associated with Seymour during the fight in the SWP, and perhaps more importantly bringing in someone like Walker who is a prominent member of the Left Unity leadership might imply certain political choices that RS21 haven't discussed yet.



While it's true that Seymour and co published a statement in the latest (now quite redundant!) ISN bulletin advocating more or less immeditate merger with RS21, it's very difficult to conceive that the latter would want them. In fact, my information is most definitely NOT, at least as regards Seymour. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see if the departure of what is clearly a rightward moving tendency, facilitates a merger of the more sensible elements of ISN with RS21.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 27, 2014)

belboid said:


> I won't notice most of them have gone. Only magpie and Seymour ever crossed my radar (& china at one meeting). Seymour only cropped upto pick fights of late (almost as if he did it on purpose).
> 
> Rs21? Dunno yet, it's not clear if they want to be SWP v2 or summat better.



I'm slightly surprised at that since I thought they were mostly/all members of the SC and would be fairly prominent. That said, I'm beginning to suspect that the internal life of the ISN takes place mainly on teh internetz.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2014)

Only magpie was sc, Rosie used to be but stopped because, well because she did absolutely nothing. Seymour's star had wained far too much for him to even consider standing. & yeah, there is hardly any internal life, it's all vomited up on the internet.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 27, 2014)

> We have been conditioned to internalise and perpetuate the (to expand on bell hooks’s term) white supremacist capitalist heteronormative cisnormative ablist neo-colonialist patriarchy


 
<explodes>


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 27, 2014)

belboid said:


> Only magpie was sc, Rosie used to be but stopped because, well because she did absolutely nothing. Seymour's star had wained far too much for him to even consider standing. & yeah, there is hardly any internal life, it's all vomited up on the internet.



I'm not sure I'd describe Seymour or Rosie as leadership material but surely they'd have made more sense on the SC than Magpie?


----------



## treelover (Jan 27, 2014)

> On the other hand, it will be interesting to see if the departure of what is clearly a rightward moving tendency,



Rightwards to where?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 27, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> While it's true that Seymour and co published a statement in the latest (now quite redundant!) ISN bulletin advocating more or less immeditate merger with RS21, it's very difficult to conceive that the latter would want them. In fact, my information is most definitely NOT, at least as regards Seymour. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see if the departure of what is clearly a rightward moving tendency, facilitates a merger of the more sensible elements of ISN with RS21.



I'm not sure this "rightward" thing really makes sense (it sounds a lot like how the SWP characterises everyone who leaves as well) if anything they haven't moved to the right so much as (partially) realised they haven't got a clue.


----------



## treelover (Jan 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> <explodes>




Incredible, but sexual politics is moving very fast, what was considered beyond the pale can within a short time period can robustly be defended even by Tory politicians.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not sure I'd describe Seymour or Rosie as leadership material but surely they'd have made more sense on the SC than Magpie?


I honestly have no idea about Rosie, never heard her say or do owt. Magpie was very active, had lots of ideas and actually got things done, so she was quite useful. Tho when it came to political discussions.....



SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not sure this "rightward" thing really makes sense (it sounds a lot like how the SWP characterises everyone who leaves as well) if anything they haven't moved to the right so much as (partially) realised they haven't got a clue.


read Seymours latest thing on Grangemouth in The Exchange, or look at his positions on realignment. They are fairly clear moves to the right, giving up on revolution, or any hope of a revolutionary organisation, he wants a soggy broad left, syriza lite, and a regular column in the guardian.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 27, 2014)

belboid said:


> read Seymours latest thing on Grangemouth in The Exchange, or look at his positions on realignment. They are fairly clear moves to the right, giving up on revolution, or any hope of a revolutionary organisation, he wants a soggy broad left, syriza lite, and a regular column in the guardian.



I read his piece on Grangemouth as a fairly realistic assessment of the present day left in Britain, probably partly a result of his previously having to regurgitate nonsense about how the revolution is just around the corner.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 27, 2014)

belboid said:


> I honestly have no idea about Rosie, never heard her say or do owt. Magpie was very active, had lots of ideas and actually got things done, so she was quite useful. Tho when it came to political discussions.....
> 
> 
> read Seymours latest thing on Grangemouth in The Exchange, or look at his positions on realignment. They are fairly clear moves to the right, giving up on revolution, or any hope of a revolutionary organisation, he wants a soggy broad left, syriza lite, and a regular column in the guardian.



Can you link me?


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Can you link me?


http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/downloads/287-exchange-issue-03 - is issue 3, I think you've probly seen the re-alignment stuff.



J Ed said:


> I read his piece on Grangemouth as a fairly realistic assessment of the present day left in Britain, probably partly a result of his previously having to regurgitate nonsense about how the revolution is just around the corner.


well, there are the bits he just makes up, and it is utterly defeatist. 'Nothing could ever have been done' - its like a pretentious LLETSA


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> Rightwards to where?


That is the question. As regards Seymour, I agree with belboid when he says:

_read Seymours latest thing on Grangemouth in The Exchange, or look at his positions on realignment. They are fairly clear moves to the right, giving up on revolution, or any hope of a revolutionary organisation, he wants a soggy broad left, syriza lite, and a regular column in the guardian._

IMO Seymour will probably end up in Left Unity - although how race play would go down with them I do not know. That said he's moved so rapidly rightwards in the past year anything is possible.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 27, 2014)

he's presumably already in LU? (yes, he's said on FB he plans to remain in LU after leaving ISN) - don't know whether he's given up on revolutionary organisation or will be throwing in his lot with others


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 27, 2014)

articul8 said:


> he's presumably already in LU? (yes, he's said on FB he plans to remain in LU after leaving ISN) - don't know whether he's given up on revolutionary organisation or will be throwing in his lot with others


Thanks, I noticed his FB post too. He doesn't appear to have been very active in LU. Wonder whether that will change now.


----------



## tedsplitter (Jan 27, 2014)

They had all written decent, interesting stuff whether for the website or in the Exchange. I’m very sad they’ve felt the need to leave and I do think, personally, as an SC member, that we have fucked up a fair bit in not making these comrades feel welcome. Not just these comrades but others who left over the anathema article. They’re all still comrades as far as I’m concerned. I think the toxicity of debate is in part a hangover from the SWP, and also partly a result of the way online debate escalates - but we can’t keep blaming these for everything. We need to recognise the problem, think of ways to resolve it and start taking responsibility for our actions. On the other hand we need to be mindful that if we dwell too much on it we will become even more introspective and stagnant. There is internal life but it ends up being mostly online since the SC is not London-based but scattered around the country. There is local activity starting to take off, the regroupment talks are going pretty well, we’re meeting jointly with RS21 in many areas and working together, the women’s magazine is progressing well, we’re getting stuck into building lots of events nationally (events diary bit is going up on website soon). And I realise how much that makes me sound like an “everything’s really exciting” delusional SWP full-timer haha. There’s lots of mending and reflection to do IMHO – maybe we will be the first far left steering committee to say sorry, personally I’d like that – but if we don’t crack on with the real work we really will implode.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2014)

tedsplitter said:


> They had all written decent, interesting stuff whether for the website or in the Exchange. I’m very sad they’ve felt the need to leave and I do think, personally, as an SC member, that we have fucked up a fair bit in not making these comrades feel welcome. Not just these comrades but others who left over the anathema article.


the SC statement in response to the race play threads was, imo, a mistake. While Seymour was wrong, and deliberately provocative imo, being wrong on an esoteric matter shouldn't require a statement from the leadership, especially one so one-sided, given all the really fucking OTT he (and magpie) were getting


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 27, 2014)

belboid said:


> http://internationalsocialistnetwork.org/index.php/downloads/287-exchange-issue-03 - is issue 3, I think you've probly seen the re-alignment stuff.



I think his point that the workers were possibly not up for the sort of action that would have won might well be right to an extent, although to be honest what I mostly thought was why is somebody who has never been on strike even writing this... The cultural revolution thing was bollocks too.


----------



## belboid (Jan 27, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think his point that the workers were possibly not up for the sort of action that would have won might well be right to an extent, although to be honest what I mostly thought was why is somebody who has never been on strike even writing this... The cultural revolution thing was bollocks too.


oh its certainly right that the workers weren't up for that kind of action - tho its not true that anyone wrote occupations _will definitely_ win, as he claims. And, as you say, it does come over quite clearly that he's never been on strike or been a union militant type in his life. He writes some good stuff on various subjects, but hasn't got a clue when it comes to workplace based stuff.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 27, 2014)

tedsplitter said:


> . . . I’m very sad they’ve felt the need to leave and I do think, personally, as an SC member, that we have fucked up a fair bit in not making these comrades feel welcome. Not just these comrades but others who left over the anathema article . . . We need to recognise the problem, think of ways to resolve it and start taking responsibility for our actions.


did you vote to reject last week's SC resolution criticising Seymour & co.?

If you voted in support do you now regret doing that?

Added: the SC resolution is no longer on the ISN website. Is that a decision of the SC, or someone else? Thanks.


----------



## tedsplitter (Jan 27, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> did you vote to reject last week's SC resolution criticising Seymour & co.?
> 
> If you voted in support do you now regret doing that?
> 
> Added: the SC resolution is no longer on the ISN website. Is that a decision of the SC, or someone else? Thanks.



There was discussion about what was to be done. People were contacting us and asking about it and some were threatening to resign. I voted against the statement to begin with (and some other suggestions such as formal censure which were rejected quite decisively). I said we ought to speak privately to people to try and resolve it. But once I'd lost that one I voted against putting it on the website (not against it being public particularly we appear enough like a bunch of ferrets fighting in a sack as it is, without advertising it further on the front page of the site) - and instead just to email it out to members. I also made suggestions to make the wording a bit less inflammatory.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 27, 2014)

tedsplitter said:


> There was discussion about what was to be done. People were contacting us and asking about it and some were threatening to resign. I voted against the statement to begin with (and some other suggestions such as formal censure which were rejected quite decisively). I said we ought to speak privately to people to try and resolve it. But once I'd lost that one I voted against putting it on the website (not against it being public particularly we appear enough like a bunch of ferrets fighting in a sack as it is, without advertising it further on the front page of the site) - and instead just to email it out to members. I also made suggestions to make the wording a bit less inflammatory.


Thanks for replying, ted, & so swiftly. It's how the teachers should relate to the class.

Added: splitting over war credits is one thing, but over this? Some of these people are in their thirties or forties, some are not impulsive or prone to raging, so their action is non-justifiable. And to think, one day everyone may all be together again in one organisation, BURP, the British United Revolutionary Party.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2014)

lol


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> Thanks for replying, ted, & so swiftly. It's how the teachers should relate to the class.
> 
> Added: splitting over war credits is one thing, but over this? Some of these people are in their thirties or forties, some are not impulsive or prone to raging, so their action is non-justifiable. And to think, one day everyone may all be together again in one organisation, BURP, the British United Revolutionary Party.


Thinking I would prefer to be in the federal alliance of revolutionary parties myself.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Thinking I would prefer to be in the federal alliance of revolutionary parties myself.



Federal Alliance of Revolutionary Tendencies would be even better 

I'd probably hold my nose, ignore the identity politickers and join that just for the name.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 27, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Federal Alliance of Revolutionary Tendencies would be even better
> 
> I'd probably hold my nose, ignore the identity politickers and join that just for the name.



thing is, the smell might be too bad and then you might spew.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 27, 2014)

tedsplitter even if you, or someone else, agrees with the shrillistas over this issue or any other how can anyone possibly expect to do anything of any worth within an organisation in which members are willing to tear each other apart over something so minor? Just curious.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 27, 2014)

J Ed said:


> tedsplitter even if you, or someone else, agrees with the shrillistas over this issue or any other how can anyone possibly expect to do anything of any worth within an organisation in which members are willing to tear each other apart over something so minor? Just curious.



That's the sum total of the shrillistas politics isn't it? Denouncing people as [insert bad thing here]ists, refusing to discuss properly on the basis of privilege theory 'you're a bloke/white/not a sex worker/straight/[insert 'privilege' here] so you should just stfu and defer to the oppressed', then bullying them into submission. The irony is that the wankers think this is a strategy for making those excluded from politics feel 'safe' and 'welcome'. It really does beggar belief.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 27, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> . . . the shrillistas . . . a strategy for making those excluded from politics feel 'safe' and 'welcome'


The Tribune of the Oppressed welcomes you all with open arms! Join us, & together we can vanquish the exploiters & oppressors! Onward revo soldiers, . . .


----------



## emanymton (Jan 27, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Federal Alliance of Revolutionary Tendencies would be even better
> 
> I'd probably hold my nose, ignore the identity politickers and join that just for the name.


Which is what I meant to put, don't know how it changed. I will blame it on being on the train and rushing before I lost the signal.


----------



## Sue (Jan 27, 2014)

belboid said:


> Only magpie was sc, Rosie used to be but stopped because, well because she did absolutely nothing. Seymour's star had wained far too much for him to even consider standing. & yeah, there is hardly any internal life, it's all vomited up on the internet.


 
Don't want to lower the tone of the debate and all but Magpie..?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 27, 2014)

Sue said:


> Don't want to lower the tone of the debate and all but Magpie..?



It's her professional dominatrix name (because why not use the ISN to advertise?). I imagine she goes by a different name when she's in the states being "an upper middle class Jew in Midwestern America".


----------



## Sue (Jan 27, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's her professional dominatrix name (because why not use the ISN to advertise?). I imagine she goes by a different name when she's in the states being "an upper middle class Jew in Midwestern America".


Oh, made me think of the kid's TV programme which is perhaps not the effect intended.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 27, 2014)

There does seem to be a real difficulty in combining accounts of subjective experience with...structural and economic political analysis. It seems that the first has a tendency to end up in narcissistic, anti-universalist, lifestylist, identity politics and the other is frequently experienced as a universalising politics in which other people tell them how it is, and yet I'm sure there has to be another way.

I really liked butchersapron's post a while back on the urban vs commentariat thread. It summed up for me the crux of the thing. Here it is:



butchersapron said:


> I'm going to do some anti-intersectionalist theory: i'm a white working class male from immigrant parents brought up on a council estate and didn't go to university - as a result i share many experiences with others without us being identical. My experiences are directly communicable - and are beyond the individual level. I think that's a good start point and would encourage others to recognise this.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 27, 2014)

Sue said:


> Oh, made me think of the kid's TV programme which is perhaps not the effect intended.


well it could be: there can be more to sex work than 'playing' with racism. Why unnecessarily restrict the available market? After all it's only fantasy, play . . . or is it?

Which leads on to this from Red Cat:



Red Cat said:


> There does seem to be a real difficulty in combining accounts of subjective experience with...structural and economic political analysis


I don't know who has read all of the Magpie thread, which I saw as 48 short pages, but that was one of the Principal's points: what evidence is there that living out some fantasy necessarily, or sometimes, causes harm? His interlocutors were so irrational they just laid into him, refusing to pause & think, well, yes, he's right, what is the evidence?

As others have said, either here or elsewhere, just coz someone has an opinion on the oppression &/or exploitation they either suffer or think they suffer doesn't necessarily mean they cannot be mistaken. Shanice McBean (RS21) asserted the infallibility claim early on in the discussion - a manifestly false idea, especially for a professed Marxist. The Principal challenged her on this, & the buns that were already flying started to have batteries pushed inside them in true British Army style.

If RS21 or someone else open a cafe, pub, or resource centre/social club then I would hope at the first quiz night one question would be, 'what is the connection between Chelsea Football Club & Mr Seymour?' (If I knew photoshop I would superimpose his head onto Terry Butcher's - or one of their goalkeepers' who dropped the ball or bun, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrique_Hilário.)


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 27, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> There does seem to be a real difficulty in combining accounts of subjective experience with...structural and economic political analysis. It seems that the first has a tendency to end up in narcissistic, anti-universalist, lifestylist, identity politics and the other is frequently experienced as a universalising politics in which other people tell them how it is, and yet I'm sure there has to be another way.


They're tendencies but they're contingent, not necessary: it can be otherwise.

I suppose one way of putting it is that the enduring relations within a society are only achieved through what people do, whatever their intentions may be. No-one marries to perpetuate the institution but it is an unintended effect of that wonderful moment at the registry office. Likewise the maternity ward. Or making that widget or cleaning the ass of that 83-year-old bloke in the care home.

The enduring relations precede each individual, we are born into them, & from the get-go we help perpetuate them - that's true, isn't it, mom? That's why workers were called variable capital by Chuck: they're organised by the managers of capital in the first instance. Unions come along later - if you're lucky.

Sometimes we have true insight into what's happening in our lives, sometimes we're mistaken. Ideology is not just distorted, mistaken thoughts, beliefs, ideas, arguments, feelings, emotions & moods, in varying degrees of systematicity, but the things we do, our activities. Outrage, resistance will always be ephemeral without organisation & a developing understanding. A Socratic approach is much more effective than being preachy, peeps have to learn for themselves, at their own pace. It's one reason why the Sojourner Truth Organization refused to push their printed material when they did political work; they simply put their meagre resources at the disposal of others (Michael Staudenmaier's excellent book).
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Revolution-Sojourner-Organization-1969-1986/dp/1849350973/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390866027&sr=8-1&keywords=sojourner truth organization

Our activities can change those enduring relations, but usually we just modify them, rather than transforming them. Reform, not revolution. Enduring relations are by nature robust, obdurate, resistant to change. As such they appear 'out there', 'structures', well 'ard. They're thing-like, what some ISNers would call reified. That's why it seems like there's a dualism, our lil lives down here & those big structures up there, hammering us. 

Any emancipatory politics worth its salt needs, as you made plain, to offer to peeps a way to learn for themselves how to do things better - & that applies just as much to those who have a more abstract understanding of what a better life may look like. It's like re-building a boat whilst out at sea, there's no luxury of a dry-dock, & we may all drown at any moment. 

Just some thoughts on the crucial topic raised by you (& the apron).


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> what evidence is there that living out some fantasy necessarily, or sometimes, causes harm?


mm, where the hell would you get such info from? just give participants a survey on their way out? 'After pretending to be a slave owner, do you now feel more sympathy with the slave, or less?' hmmm


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2014)

on random lefty sectariana - I see the weekly wanker have published a letter from a fascist
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/994/letters


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> on random lefty sectariana - I see the weekly wanker have published a letter from a fascist
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/994/letters


Maybe it was just a bit of harmless role play.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> mm, where the hell would you get such info from?


that was one thing implied in what Seymour asked. In part he simply pointed out what evidence was there for what was asserted by some of the people in the thread. Not all discussion is rooted in evidence, but all useful discussion has to be - or indicate where evidence can be found or how it can be produced.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> on random lefty sectariana - I see the weekly wanker have published a letter from a fascist
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/994/letters


not to go off topic, but do you think socialists (all of them or perhaps only those claiming they are revolutionary) shouldn't discuss anything with either fascists or alleged fascists? Likewise with a racist or alleged racist? Or a sexist or alleged sexist? Ditto homophobe, etc., etc.?


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> not to go off topic, but do you think socialists (all of them or perhaps only those claiming they are revolutionary) shouldn't discuss anything with either fascists or alleged fascists? Likewise with a racist or alleged racist? Or a sexist or alleged sexist? Ditto homophobe, etc., etc.?


i dont think they should give them space in their publications. and it isnt part of a genuine debate with soft fascists who are just confused, its just the same old tosh by committed fascists. Whether one debates a sexist/homophobe etc depends upon context. A debate with Godfrey Bloom on whether women who dont clean the cooker are sluts or not would be of absolutely zero value.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> i dont think they should give them space in their publications. and it isnt part of a genuine debate with soft fascists who are just confused, its just the same old tosh by committed fascists. Whether one debates a sexist/homophobe etc depends upon context. A debate with Godfrey Bloom on whether women who dont clean the cooker are sluts or not would be of absolutely zero value.



I think there's lots of reasons you might interact with fascists publically, but just publishing that daft letter is not one of them.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 28, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> not to go off topic, but do you think socialists (all of them or perhaps only those claiming they are revolutionary) shouldn't discuss anything with either fascists or alleged fascists? Likewise with a racist or alleged racist? Or a sexist or alleged sexist? Ditto homophobe, etc., etc.?


It's a stupid letter from a well known former BNP loon, what is the point?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2014)

SWP join Islamist protest against Quilliam speaker at Plymouth Uni

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Pro...h-University/story-20521964-detail/story.html


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2014)

J Ed said:


> SWP join Islamist protest against Quilliam speaker at Plymouth Uni
> 
> http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Pro...h-University/story-20521964-detail/story.html


 
wtf why??


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2014)

usual crop of twats in the comment thread there


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2014)

Why indeed. I have no idea, although it has applied to any number of actions they have taken in support of Islamists and against non-Islamist Muslims. Even from a realpolitik perspective, what exactly do they expect to get out of it? Members of the SWP have converted to Islam but is there a single documented case of an Islamist becoming a committed left-wing activist in Britain in the past ten years?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2014)

> A PROTEST against a speaker specialising in Islamism and counter-extremism has taken place at Plymouth University tonight.
> Around 30 people gathered to show their anger at Sheikh Dr Usama Husan giving a lecture at the uni.
> It comes after he failed to condemn an image from the online cartoon 'Jesus and Mo' showing Jesus and Mohammed saying 'hey' and 'how ya doin' to each other.


 
words fuckin fail me


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> usual crop of twats in the comment thread there




oh wait- one sane question:

'What are the socialist workers party doing there?'


----------



## J Ed (Jan 30, 2014)

Notice how the two SWP are middle aged blokes. Where are all the Plymouth SWP students? Are there any left? Somehow that makes it even worse, they probably aren't even studying at the university which they are backing up Islamists against moderate Muslims at.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

CNT36 was there.


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 30, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Notice how the two SWP are middle aged blokes. Where are all the Plymouth SWP students? Are there any left? Somehow that makes it even worse, they probably aren't even studying at the university which they are backing up Islamists against moderate Muslims at.


The SP is there as well. A couple near the front are Plymouth SP students for sure or Socialist Students as they're also known - http://www.upsu.com/societies/7411/.


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 30, 2014)

J Ed said:


> SWP join Islamist protest against Quilliam speaker at Plymouth Uni
> 
> http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Pro...h-University/story-20521964-detail/story.html


I'll try and find out what they were actually doing there. On past form although it is likely they were there on the Jesus and Mo issue the fact they were handing out leaflets about Quilliam and Tommy Robinson it is possible they were there because of that. Whether they would of bothered with out the publicity and the back up is another question.


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 30, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> The SP is there as well. A couple near the front are Plymouth SP students for sure or Socialist Students as they're also known - http://www.upsu.com/societies/7411/.


Having said that I went to a Socialist students meeting on an afternoon off. I'm not a student. The person I went with was not a student. The retired disillusioned Lib Dem, who refused to buy the paper due to the lack of a Sudoku, was not a Student. Of the seven only four were students.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> The SP is there as well. A couple near the front are Plymouth SP students for sure or Socialist Students as they're also known - http://www.upsu.com/societies/7411/.


 
WTF why? 

I'm very surprised the SP supported that.


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 30, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> WTF why?
> 
> I'm very surprised the SP supported that.



There is nothing on either their website or Facebook. It may just be that some members went along. I'm still giving them some benefit of the doubt that they were there on the Lennon issue. That is all they tried to talk to me about. I was not aware there was more to it until I got home.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2014)

Seriously, PD couldn't make up anything more ridiculous


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2014)

the gauntlet has been laid


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the gauntlet has been laid



One _throws down_ a gauntlet.
One lays an _egg_.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> One _throws down_ a gauntlet.
> One lays an _egg_.




where do we stand on slapping the other bloke round the face? gauntlet or glove?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> One _throws down_ a gauntlet.
> One lays an _egg_.


I don't want to lay down the linguistic law on this one. But I'm not sure how one lays an egg, at least I can't.


----------



## laptop (Jan 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> where do we stand on slapping the other bloke round the face? gauntlet or glove?



Crack an egg on his nose.

Meanwhile, I look forward to PD establishing the correct line on public appearances by insufficiently-bonkers religionists. 

As a _gedankenexperiment_: should one picket the Archdruid of Canterbury simply for being an appeasing wimp and not Ian Paisley?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2014)

laptop said:


> Crack an egg on his nose.
> 
> Meanwhile, I look forward to PD establishing the correct line on public appearances by insufficiently-bonkers religionists.
> 
> As a _gedankenexperiment_: should one picket the Archdruid of Canterbury simply for being an appeasing wimp and not Ian Paisley?



are their no Archimandrites these days


----------



## laptop (Jan 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> are their no Archimandrites these days



It appears that they still exist in Orthodoxy. As, wonderfully, do hegumens. Hegumenae. Whatever.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the gauntlet has been laid



The fascist octopus has sung its swan song.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2014)

laptop said:


> Crack an egg on his nose.
> 
> Meanwhile, I look forward to PD establishing the correct line on public appearances by insufficiently-bonkers religionists.
> 
> As a _gedankenexperiment_: should one picket the Archdruid of Canterbury simply for being an appeasing wimp and not Ian Paisley?


 
ta, I'm going to write a perspective document later tonight


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

_


Idris2002 said:



			The fascist octopus has sung its swan song.
		
Click to expand...

The dolphin of third worldism lives on_, domesticated though, into intersectionalism - _which species gets to speak and how? How should we deal with the allegations? Who should deal with the allegations? Was it just bad aquatic etiquette?_


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 30, 2014)

.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> One _throws down_ a gauntlet.
> One lays an _egg_.



Might I suggest laying a carpet or laying the table as being closer to the direct experience of the proletariat?

Unless you're proposing directly organising the exploited workers at the lowest level of the egg-production industry


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> Might I suggest laying a carpet or laying the table as being closer to the direct experience of the proletariat?
> 
> Unless you're proposing directly organising the exploited workers at the lowest level of the egg-production industry


Producing a carpet or table yes. Laying, only sometimes.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> Might I suggest laying a carpet or laying the table as being closer to the direct experience of the proletariat?


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

So carpet layers and waiters/waitresses aren't part of the proletariat?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 30, 2014)

This thread's all dead Dave.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


>



Comrade Ginger addresses the inaugural meeting of the Egg, Poultry, Feather and Allied Trades Union


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> So carpet layers and waiters/waitresses aren't part of the proletariat?


Yep


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 30, 2014)

Had to endure a Swop moron all through my Union rep training day today. Some Muppet from Liverpool John Moore's. She had the fucking cheek to use the training course to try to recruit, lectured us about how she would never allow sexism in "her organisation", and actually brought up the rape case herself in order to tell us that Owen Jones was an agent of the state and that the students had all left because they weren't proper Marxists. When I pointed out that it was probably the SWP's fault that the students had an inadequate knowledge of Das Capital she called me a deliberately insulting sectarian and stormed out.

Initially part of me was hopeful it was Rhetta in disguise but alas, no.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 30, 2014)

Doublepostedit


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

Wow. Is this serious?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wow. Is this serious?



Is what serious?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is what serious?


Your experience.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 30, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> WTF why?
> 
> I'm very surprised the SP supported that.



I know one lad there so can find out if you like. He's only young though, make allowances!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Your experience.



Yeah. It was like a cartoon. She spoke entirely in cliche.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah. It was like a cartoon. She spoke entirely in cliche.


Def swp?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 30, 2014)

What Union?


----------



## JHE (Jan 30, 2014)

J Ed said:


> SWP join Islamist protest against Quilliam speaker at Plymouth Uni
> 
> http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Pro...h-University/story-20521964-detail/story.html



Usama Husan had the temerity a couple of years ago to suggest that maybe there might be some truth in the science of evolution.  For this outrageous statement, he lost his part-time job as an imam and received death threats.  Perhaps deciding that discretion was the better part of valour, he retracted his heresy.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jan 30, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> This thread's all dead Dave.


Everyone's dead Dave


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2014)

Proletarian Democracy and Anti Pacifist Action joint statement on Usama Hasan and the SWP

Comrades,

Proletarian Democracy applaud the SWP's stance of solidarity against the pacifist anti-worker running dog Usama Husan and his lack of condemnation for the Jesus and Mo cartoon. Such a shameful display of non confrontational sentiment can only delay the inevitable countdown towards the detonation of the Worker's Bomb. Despite their Cliffite deviations the SWP have proved themselves more genuine Marxists than many on the so-called 'left' such as the Provisional Committee for the Bright Dawn of Proletarian Democracy, the IWBA, and many former comrades who have through backwardness and never fully understanding our Marxist programme, departed from our ranks and found themselves becoming sects on the fringes of the labour movement.

We applaud the SWP's stance. however, we as Posadists committed to the detonation of our bomb must go further. We take this opportunity now to announce a solidarity demo with the Christian Union at Bristol Union against the Archbishop of Canterbury after he said that maybe it might not be such a bad idea for women to be bishops. And we are corresponding with the Israel Society at Doncaster University who have asked us to stand with us in solidarity with them against Rabbi Sternberg and his failure to condemn another rabbi and his pacifist message that sometimes the Palestinians may not be so bad after all. The Burmese branch of Proletarian Democracy is organizing a solidarity demonstration with oppressed workers furious at their local monks not being sufficiently enraged about jokes about the Buddha.

such actions prove that we, Proletarian Democracy, go further than the SWP. Through our support of militant religious activists we are building a bottom up network against pacifism which will put our party in the forefront of the struggle for total nuclear annihilation and the rebuilding of a new socialist world!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 30, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What Union?



Unless SpackleFrog has gone and got himself a proper job in the last 2 days it will be the UCU.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 30, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Proletarian Democracy and Anti Pacifist Action joint statement on Usama Hasan and the SWP
> 
> Comrades,
> 
> ...



you have way too much time on your hands


----------



## Daisy Backayard (Jan 30, 2014)

They can't be serious


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 30, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah. It was like a cartoon. She spoke entirely in cliche.


"A battle plan for building resistance and the revolutionary party . . . We want to continue the good start we have made in the colleges and universities. It’s exciting to see a resurgence of struggle among students—and we want to be at the heart of this. But we also *need to continue our emphasis on ideological meetings* and putting forward a clear socialist analysis." (Cde. Chaplin, 'Conf. Report', SW, 17 December 2013, my emphases).
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/37111/SWP conference discusses the way forward for the left

Welcome to hectoring pseudo-Maoist interventions by *the* interventionist party. (Although only outsiders intervene: those organically inside simply participate as a matter of course.) If this is indeed the UCU (Spiney), it seems what's good enuf for the studes is good enuf for the teachers: the SWP has found out how to teach the teachers. Progress is building on progress. The future is ours.

Added: the need for an educative/ideological offensive amongst the SWP membership was pushed in the pre-conf. bulletins in pieces by the CC & by members. Guess some are already practising outside the group what will become institutionalised within as the study circle, filling up the last available slot in the week's phrenetic activity.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Def swp?



Yeah, she was giving out swp leaflets and talking about the swp.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 31, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Unless SpackleFrog has gone and got himself a proper job in the last 2 days it will be the UCU.



Feck off and get a job you


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 31, 2014)

This morning she is begging us to help get rid of Nasty Nick the Nazi MEP.


----------



## osterberg (Jan 31, 2014)

I wondered who this Usama Hasan chap was and what Quilliam was so I did a bit of googling.
So FYI .
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...nson-quilliam-foundation-questions-motivation


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2014)

osterberg said:


> I wondered who this Usama Hasan chap was and what Quilliam was so I did a bit of googling.
> So FYI .
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...nson-quilliam-foundation-questions-motivation


And what's your conclusion iggy?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And what's your conclusion iggy?



"Vote for Reagan", probably.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Jan 31, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/death-penalty-pain-sadism

The last smirk is with the Principal, or is it the Master - and he gets paid for it. (Does Magpie - with 'raceplay' or forniphilia worked in as a lil extra or two?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forniphilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forniphilic_gag#Forniphilic_gag


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 31, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/death-penalty-pain-sadism
> 
> The last smirk is with the Principal, or is it the Master - and he gets paid for it. (Does Magpie - with 'raceplay' worked in as a lil extra?)


 
I keep reading this as Maggie and doing a double take in case she's been revived


----------



## Scribbling S (Jan 31, 2014)

I think it is certainly true that Quilliam are a very  iffy organisation , their big funding from the Home Office and Foreign Office and the military and political links of a number of their (now former) staff and with very right wing outfits like the  Henry Jackson Society are very dubious. Their Tommy Robinson stunt is really irresponsible. But Maajid Nawaz is principally being attacked for tweeting the "Jesus and Mo" cartoon - that is what the protests are about. And in this case the protestors are wrong. I can't see any excuse for anyone on the left joining these reactionary protests.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 31, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> I think it is certainly true that Quilliam are a very  iffy organisation , their big funding from the Home Office and Foreign Office and the military and political links of a number of their (now former) staff and with very right wing outfits like the  Henry Jackson Society are very dubious. Their Tommy Robinson stunt is really irresponsible. But Maajid Nawaz is principally being attacked for tweeting the "Jesus and Mo" cartoon - that is what the protests are about. And in this case the protestors are wrong. I can't see any excuse for anyone on the left joining these reactionary protests.



This is what I think as well. The most worrying stuff about Quilliam is their legitimisation of Western foreign policy, but the same could really be said for any number of think tanks and political groups that spend time in British universities. What I think is particularly telling is the fact that every single year there are multiple Islamist speakers in the majority of British universities whose views on women, gays, non-Muslims generally and Jews in particular are very worrying. What do we hear from the NUS on that? Where are the SWP to protest outside the lectures of speakers who tell women that they have no right to attend mixed gender classes?

Maybe if moderate Muslims and other groups like Quilliam received a bit more help and solidarity from left leaning groups then there wouldn't be a vacuum for dodgy types like the Henry Jackson Society to fill?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 31, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Maybe if moderate Muslims and other groups like Quilliam received a bit more help and solidarity from left leaning groups then there wouldn't be a vacuum for dodgy types like the Henry Jackson Society to fill?



Why would anyone "left leaning" give "help and solidarity" to "groups like Quilliam"? Fuck them quite frankly.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 31, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Why would anyone "left leaning" give "help and solidarity" to "groups like Quilliam"? Fuck them quite frankly.



I don't mean specifically Quilliam, I mean when moderate Muslims are attacked by Islamists why are groups like the SWP supporting the Islamists? Do you think that it's the left's job to help Islamists enforce their perception of blasphemy on moderate Muslims?

Owen Jones spoke out against enforced gender segregation, stuff like that. It's not complicated.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 31, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I don't mean specifically Quilliam, I mean when moderate Muslims are attacked by Islamists why are groups like the SWP supporting the Islamists? Do you think that it's the left's job to help Islamists enforce their perception of blasphemy on moderate Muslims?
> 
> Owen Jones spoke out against enforced gender segregation, stuff like that. It's not complicated.



Well you specifically said Quilliam. So who did you mean? What "moderate Muslims" are we talking about here, who is attacking them and what are you suggesting "the left" should do about it?

Just to be clear, my starting point is that British political Islamism is completely irrelevant, while Islamophobic racism is a significant political issue.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 31, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well you specifically said Quilliam. So who did you mean? What "moderate Muslims" are we talking about here, who is attacking them and what are you suggesting "the left" should do about it?



Well go back to what we are talking about. Usama Husan faced a protest and calls for his talk to be cancelled because he is a member of an organisation in which a member, who is Muslim, tweeted a pretty innocuous cartoon. That Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, has faced death threats and a political campaign has been waged against him to get him deselected as a PPC.

At the very, very least it makes no sense for the left to intervene ON THE SIDE of the bigots who are trying to enforce their interpretation of Islam on other Muslims, which is what happened in Plymouth. 

I would agree that Islamophobic racism is an issue that in terms of importance outweighs the attacks on moderate Muslims by a minority of bigots but the cool thing is that you  can be against both.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 31, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Well go back to what we are talking about. Usama Husan faced a protest and calls for his talk to be cancelled because he is a member of an organisation in which a member, who is Muslim, tweeted a pretty innocuous cartoon. That Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, has faced death threats and a political campaign has been waged against him to get him deselected as a PPC.



Trivia.

Maajid Nawaz is a cock, Quilliam stink to high heaven and the people protesting are irrelevant. As for why a handful of leftists turned up to the protest, I don't really give a shit. If I did, I'd ask them before getting grouchy about it, but I can't even muster that level of interest.


----------



## dominion (Jan 31, 2014)




----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 31, 2014)

Fuck off Howard, you worthless prick.


----------



## revol68 (Feb 1, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Trivia.
> 
> Maajid Nawaz is a cock, Quilliam stink to high heaven and the people protesting are irrelevant. As for why a handful of leftists turned up to the protest, I don't really give a shit. If I did, I'd ask them before getting grouchy about it, but I can't even muster that level of interest.



bullshit, what are leftists doing siding with islamist shits over cartoons, play the "Islamists are irrelevant here card" all you want but  that only further begs the questions as to what socialists are doing caught up in their twisted campaigns.

Ica imagine this shit from the SWP they are clowns but SP members involving themselves I find odd.


----------



## chilango (Feb 1, 2014)

J Ed said:


> At the very, very least it makes no sense for the left to intervene.



Fify.


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2014)

Well, went to the Northern Regroupment thing today, and it was actually pretty good. And the ISNers actually had the best politics. Which, I realise might make most here people think it must have been shit.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 2, 2014)

You must have a copy of a Haymarket book, those nice ones out of Chicago, named in memory & in honour of those non-Islamic martyrs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_martyrs

Socialists & anarchists are notorious for ignoring financial matters, esp. about their own organisations. But some in the ISO, the SWP's former cdes. in the US, have been asking questions about money & control:
http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/questions-and-concerns-about-the-iso-and-cersc/

Makes one wonder about our own organisations - transparency, accountability, control, informed discussion on matters pecuniary.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 2, 2014)

If what is published in that bulletin is true, then it's another indication that there is no difference at all between the most obscene of Trotskyite cults, the Healyites and, what those of us who were members truly believed, the healthiest, the Cliffites.
   Healy's gross sexual predation of young comrades, and the complicity of much of the WRP in his crimes has been matched by the Delta case and the support he received from the party machine. 
Seymour has made little secret of his admiration of the ISO, given their business practice appears akin to that of David North, could it be that he will become the new Barbara Slaughter?


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 2, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> If what is published in that bulletin is true, then it's another indication that there is no difference at all between the most obscene of Trotskyite cults, the Healyites and, what those of us who were members truly believed, the healthiest, the Cliffites.
> Healy's gross sexual predation of young comrades, and the complicity of much of the WRP in his crimes has been matched by the Delta case and the support he received from the party machine.
> Seymour has made little secret of his admiration of the ISO, given their business practice appears akin to that of David North, could it be that he will become the new Barbara Slaughter?



good points, barney p.

Obviously questions can be asked of all organisations, but this is ostensibly a SWP thread so I may as well stay on theme in asking basic questions of the teachers letting the class, & humble SWP members, know what is going on, day after day.

Simply, when was the last time the SWP's Party Council or National Cttee discussed a quarterly or annual financial report? Likewise an annual audit (either internal or external) of the comings & goings? How often is this done by the Collective & Cumulative Intelligence (CCI) meeting as the Central Cttee? When was the last time a humble member, in no position within the Party, ever received the minutes of *their* CC or a report of what has happened to the money they have given the Party?

Analogous to Haymarket Books (the SWP doesn't have something like the ISO's Center for Economic Research and Social Change), when was the last time either a humble SWP member or an accountable body of the SWP ever received a regular (or occasional) financial report about Bookmarks? Likewise seen a specimen of a standard employment contract for a Bookmarks' worker? Or an agreement, verbal or written, for a volunteer? What union recognition is there? Is there annual collective bargaining? If not, why not? How is Bookmarks accountable to the SWP - or isn't it? Could a humble SWP member answer this question if someone in the class asked them?

The same can be said about district organisers & workers at Delta Towers: where's the transparency, the accountability? If a humble member isn't told then that member is left disarmed by the controllers whenever anyone asks them about transparency & accountability concerning the SWP. Why would anyone consider joining such an opaque organisation, one that has decided not to tell members what goes on financially - & politically, as CC minutes may be taken for CC members but, heaven forbid, not for the Joanna-average member, oh no?

Or have these financial downloads from the Party mainframe simply got mixed up with the membership records, with all that paperwork being uploaded, rising into SWP Fantasy Cloud Land?

January Party Notes also showed that, as if from out of the blue (or Bolshie red), 40 grand or so flooded into Delta Towers in the space of a week or so to overfill the 130 grand Grand Appeal. 

Maybe Bolshie or another interested party can demonstrate to the class that the teachers don't just keep all these things in the staff room but that they're not locked up in the headmaster's office along with the 'persuaders'. The class needs to know coz we need to be able to trust each organisation that aspires to lead us in a socialist revolution.

Let the last word be with Top Cat, who in 1960 obviously felt the cream should be shared about: http://marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm (presumably no pun - or double pun - intended by MIA)


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 2, 2014)

I was a lowly member & no there were never any financial reports or much of any reports to be frank


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2014)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I was a lowly member & no there were never any financial reports or much of any reports to be frank


Why did you put up with it?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why did you put up with it?


Looking  back it beats me


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2014)

KeeperofDragons said:


> Looking  back it beats me


Thanks for the no bullshit reply


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 2, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Well go back to what we are talking about. Usama Husan faced a protest and calls for his talk to be cancelled because he is a member of an organisation in which a member, who is Muslim, tweeted a pretty innocuous cartoon. That Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, has faced death threats and a political campaign has been waged against him to get him deselected as a PPC.
> 
> At the very, very least it makes no sense for the left to intervene ON THE SIDE of the bigots who are trying to enforce their interpretation of Islam on other Muslims, which is what happened in Plymouth.
> 
> I would agree that Islamophobic racism is an issue that in terms of importance outweighs the attacks on moderate Muslims by a minority of bigots but the cool thing is that you  can be against both.



Think you might have got ahead of yourself here mate-Ive spoken to my mate in Plymouth about why the protest happened and it wasn't about cartoons.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2014)

The protest - we have eye-witnesses. Does that change the whole thing? None of which is about cartoons but about social control. What was it in your mates telling?


----------



## J Ed (Feb 2, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Think you might have got ahead of yourself here mate-Ive spoken to my mate in Plymouth about why the protest happened and it wasn't about cartoons.



That sounds positive, what did he say it was about?


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 2, 2014)

KeeperofDragons said:


> Looking  back it beats me


Here's the likeable Cleatus:
http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/_...ns/images/c/c4/Cletus_e_Brandine_Spuckler.jpg

He might also feel as you do, having been a member for 8 long years. (But he does have the compensation of Brandine - & their piglet.) This is what he said a moment ago about the ISO:

"If you don’t control who is in the head of your organization, and you don’t control your finances, what do you control? The two key things that absolutely need to change in this organization are:
1) Abolition of self selected slate elections
and
2) Financial transparency and accountability.

"I also didn’t know CERSC staff was making that much money. Maybe they should make that much… but it sucks being a student living on ramen, paying dues and putting together fundraisers instead of reading the books you went into debt to buy, so that people in an organization you support can make $45,000 a year. Certainly if their talent and time is worth that much, they should have to be subject to periodic performance reviews, as in any organization.

"No one is going to trust any group to lead us to 'socialist democracy from below' when the current capitalist state has a higher degree of financial accountability and, might I say, fluidity in its executive composition.

"I very much respect the members of the ISO, their work, publications, and demonstrations. I was part of the group for 8 years and I support the work of many of my friends who still are part of it. But some changes have got to be made here."
http://externalbulletin.wordpress.c...-the-iso-and-cersc/comment-page-1/#comment-55

General Q: if people are to be judged for what they do shouldn't socialist & anarchist org'ns learn from the rulers & adopt for themselves the despised performance culture? How can we have adequate transparency & accountability without also devising performance benchmarks & targets for our managers? We really do need to develop a science of performance management for our org'ns. But does anyone recognise that an over a hundred years of failure really does warrant some scientific & systematic thinking about all this? Probably not. Welcome to the next 100 years.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 2, 2014)

I'm quite surprised by (a) how big those ISO leader salaries are and (b) the fact that there are significant differences in compensation levels. 

It's not that the salaries are enormous by the standards of "normal" jobs. It's simply that they are paid as if they were "normal" jobs, which in my experience is pretty much unheard of amongst socialist fulltimers. And very expensive.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 2, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> . . . It's not that the salaries are enormous by the standards of "normal" jobs. It's simply that they are paid as if they were "normal" jobs, which in my experience is pretty much unheard of amongst socialist fulltimers. And very expensive.


Ahmed Sehrawy's on $45 228 gross a year, which @ today's 61p a $  =  GBP 27 590, 530 a week. (Haven't looked thru the CERSC public filing doc. to see if there are other payments, such as pension & expenses. Have you seen any?)

Do SWP & Bookmarks have a salary scale, an employer's pension scheme, annual increments, London or urban weighting, bonuses, special payments (sending upsetting emails, nocturnal doorstepping, practising revenge in the Student Office [sorry, Jo probably paid to do that])? How do salaries in the provinces for organisers compare with those in the metropolises (organisers or Delta Towers functionaries)? Has there ever been a history of disputes between grades, in defence of differentials, for example?

There was even talk in the IBs of no longer getting the taxpayer to fund them, JSA & all that.

Being strapped for cash have they ever used tax havens, or tried to earn interest above the going rate? What about any trust funds of members or the org'n? Do they have an 'ethical' investment policy like the ISO (& perhaps the CERSC)?

And thinking about it, has anyone anywhere in the world ever seen a financial report from the International Socialist Tendency - or does it just live off air like the famed Luftmensch?


Added, having read the Federal return:

1) Ahmed (Prez & Secretary) also got "$13 948 benefits" (Statement #12, p.23 of the pdf, year ending 31 Aug 2012). Same page also says he works 40 hrs a week for CERSC. So that's a total of GBP 36 000 gross a year, 700 a week.

2) Ahmed got a surprisingly high proportion of "benefits": 22% of the $63 505 total (Statement of Functional Expenses, p.29 of the pdf). Looks pretty much like China to me: Mr 22%. But maybe he's the closest to retirement.

3) Strangely cash held at year end (31 Aug 2012) was just over 4 times what it was a year before: $329 034 compared with $81 298. That's odd (pdf pp.4 & 30). Hope no-one's about to buy a one-way ticket to Cuba - but they're state cap . . . so where the hell would anyone go??

4) "Significant Concentrations": and there are: "One donor represents 36% and 33% of direct public support revenue during the years ended August 31, 2012 and 2011. One customer represents 30% and 38% of accounts receivable as of August 31, 2012 and 2011" (pdf p.35). Guess they find it hard to spread their risk.

5) Seems the $45 000 salary is a well-established thing: Ahmed seems to have got that in 2000/01, so in real terms he's getting a fair bit poorer. Join a union, Ahmed! Get organised! Put your politics into action! Fight your boss! Recruit your underlings!
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/12/306517.shtml
This article is by Walter Nef, who says, "In the left, all one has to do is follow the money, to see who controls the politics . . .", then a lil unfairly, at least given their present financial structure, he speaks of them being "trustifarians". Babylon!
But when he says, "Thing is, who's on the rest of their payroll is not a matter of public record. And it would be too much to expect an organization for the workers to actually tell the workers who is on the payroll", nothing has changed - the best part of a decade on.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 3, 2014)

It's worth pointing out that CERSC salary figures may or may not reflect what their employees actually keep. It could easily be that they are expected to make substantial donations to the ISO, ie that relatively high salaries are a legal way to move money from CERSC to the ISO. There isn't enough detail in that blog to be sure.


----------



## laptop (Feb 3, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's worth pointing out that CERSC salary figures may or may not reflect what their employees actually keep. It could easily be that they are expected to make substantial donations to the ISO, ie that relatively high salaries are a legal way to move money from CERSC to the ISO. There isn't enough detail in that blog to be sure.



Back in the day of SOGAT and NGA house agreements for typesetters and printers, that's how the SWP did it.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 3, 2014)

laptop said:


> Back in the day of SOGAT and NGA house agreements for typesetters and printers, that's how the SWP did it.


Do you think there is no TU representation or recognition for SWP employees these days, laptop?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 3, 2014)

J Ed said:


> That sounds positive, what did he say it was about?



That the protest was called because they didn't want Quilliam to send speakers to the university, not because of cartoons but because its a government funded org that's attempting to legitimise Yaxley-Lennon and his anti-Muslim views and put the blame for islamophobia on Muslims. He didn't seem to think the Muslims involved were Islamists, just Muslims, a fair few are students at the university. Cartoons were not mentioned.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2014)

Oh god. That's even worse.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2014)

What a bunch of idiots. And what defensive waffle sf. Don't think I need you defending me before I get to make up me own mind.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What a bunch of idiots. And what defensive waffle sf. Don't think I need you defending me before I get to make up me own mind.



Defensive waffle? Don't talk shit. He was there, and those were the reasons he gave for being there. If you disagree with them fine but don't act like I'm desperately trying to legitimise some grave political error in a tiny student protest.


----------



## laptop (Feb 3, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> Do you think there is no TU representation or recognition for SWP employees these days, laptop?



I meant to say "closed shop and house agreements". 

I presume that the Party operates some kind of cash-back scheme now; I know it did then.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 3, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> That the protest was called because they didn't want Quilliam to send speakers to the university, not because of cartoons but because its a government funded org that's attempting to legitimise Yaxley-Lennon and his anti-Muslim views and put the blame for islamophobia on Muslims. He didn't seem to think the Muslims involved were Islamists, just Muslims, a fair few are students at the university. Cartoons were not mentioned.



Going from what is said here, it seems that is not denied that the cartoons were one of the reasons just not the sole reason. And furthermore it wasn't just because they showed Mohammed but they showed Mohammed engaging in non-Islamic behaviour. I have no idea whether Bob Pitt was on or involved in the demonstration, although he seems to be speaking with some authority about the motivations of the organisers. 

Also you can find the facebook page of the Plymouth University Islamic society quite easily and they seem quite clear the protest is about the cartoons



> ATTENTION ALL STUDENTS!! ...... MASS DEMONSTRATION ALERT!
> 
> The university has decided NOT to listen to the concerns of hundreds of it's British & international students regarding banning the Quilliam Foundation event this Wednesday!
> 
> ...


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 3, 2014)

Combustible said:


> ATTENTION ALL STUDENTS!! ...... MASS DEMONSTRATION ALERT!
> 
> . . . has recently posted offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus (peace be upon them) from a comic strip called "Jesus and Mo" which features them drinking at the bar, in bed together and other filthy behaviors


_ATTENTION EVERYONE!! ...... MASS SENSE OF HUMOUR FAIL!_

Back in the day Phil Evans (peace be upon Him) would have helped do that comic strip, & use it in a IS/SWP pamphlet in defence of socialism as a rational idea, & advocating that the pious, of any religion, need to develop a sense of humour suited to the age of the internal combustion engine, electricity, & nuclear fission.

Once more, believers, & this time with feeling?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 3, 2014)

Combustible said:


> Going from what is said here, it seems that is not denied that the cartoons were one of the reasons just not the sole reason. And furthermore it wasn't just because they showed Mohammed but they showed Mohammed engaging in non-Islamic behaviour. I have no idea whether Bob Pitt was on or involved in the demonstration, although he seems to be speaking with some authority about the motivations of the organisers.
> 
> Also you can find the facebook page of the Plymouth University Islamic society quite easily and they seem quite clear the protest is about the cartoons



Hmmmm, it certainly was for at least some of them wasn't it? In addition it seems embarrassingly over-excited. I've no idea who Bob Pitt is though. Anyway, I've passed on what my mate said, make of it what you will. Worth putting this part of the blog here I think though.



> As the Quilliam Foundation NOT welcome in Plymouth Facebook page makes clear, the objection to Usama Hasan’s appearance in Plymouth was also wider than a complaint about a single cartoon. The organisers of the demonstration opposed Quilliam for having promoted the far-right extremists “Tommy Robinson” and Kevin Carroll, and for having “provided lists to the govt of alleged extremist sympathisers which included the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Safety Forum and even the Islam Channel”.
> 
> Plymouth University ISoc also condemned a cartoon tweeted by Usama Hasan himself, which trivialised domestic violence. They were joined by Fawcett Plymouth, who wrote to Plymouth University calling for the cancellation of the event at which Hasan was to speak.
> 
> The organisers’ appeal for support for the demonstration concluded: “We do not want the QF in Plymouth, they are a danger to community cohesion and peaceful relationships that exist here between the mainstream Muslim as well as diverse communities.”


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 3, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I've no idea who Bob Pitt is though.


used to be in the WRP, & wrote a detailed account of Gerry Healy & its break-up.
http://www.whatnextjournal.org.uk/Pages/Healy/Contents.html

Passed thru Livingstone's mayoral office, then with Eddie Truman co-founding Islamophobia Watch in 2005. He split with his co-founder but both remain in the Islamo Industry: Pitt runs http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/, & Truman runs http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/ (the original site, but less up to date). Like PFLJ & the JPLF, ISN#1 & ISN#2. Maybe they split up over a cartoon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_Watch


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 3, 2014)

So has this Pitt character converted to Islam or is he more of a John Rees/Galloway type?


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 3, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So has this Pitt character converted to Islam or is he more of a John Rees/Galloway type?


Sorry, don't keep up with these things, there's enuf in the papers. Can't believe he would adopt religion, any of them. I'd never gone to his site until today, even though I'd known for a few years it existed (or the old one did). Someone here in the collective intel will know, I'm sure. 

Does he support state bans? Doubt it. On what basis would he agree to joint actions with either any Muslim or Islamists? No idea. Guess that's two tests of who he is.


----------



## rekil (Feb 6, 2014)




----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2014)

Yup, he tweeted that he's just been to his last council meeting an hour ago. Personal reasons, notably a sick father in law,apparently.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 6, 2014)

belboid said:


> Yup, he tweeted that he's just been to his last council meeting an hour ago. Personal reasons, notably a sick father in law,apparently.


phew! For a moment I thght it might be coz of stress brought on by the antics of some doctoral student or something.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 7, 2014)

belboid said:


> Yup, he tweeted that he's just been to his last council meeting an hour ago. Personal reasons, notably a sick father in law,apparently.


His father in law is ill, and has apparently had to move in with him and his partner.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 7, 2014)

Here are the ISO 2014 pre-conference bulletins  -  all 19 of them!
http://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/02/07/international-socialist-organization-2014-convention-bulletin/

Additions, as & when, given the Frog's kind request:

1) The ISO is more logical than most lil org'ns in that it has twigs - when the branch is 4 or less. So a member-at-large is a leaf? Is a purge a shake-down, like at olive harvest? So a fall in the double sense. Do ex-members turn into leaf-mould, ending up spread over capitalist roses, crossing class lines, giving nourishment to the class enemy? Who's the fertiliser? Well, it used to be Professor Dark Side, Secretary of the International Socialist Tendency. One could go on.

2) It should be borne in mind that the Bolsheviks, nor the dastardly Mensheviks, never had an internal bulletin. It was instituted in autumn 1920 by the Russian Communist Party (bolsheviks) - yes, lower case in the Russian. Lenin never, ever, wrote in it. The early notable author who took advantage of this opportunity to conceal both views & analysis from the class was the headmaster-to-be, Mr Steel. Lenin, on the other hand, carried on in the traditional way, expressing his opinion in newspapers & at public meetings. Hence the title of Joaquín Bustelo's piece on the topic, 'Lenin Was Not a Leninist':
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=7727 (March 2013; mbr. of Solidarity [USA])

3) There'll be a final PCB, probably sent next Thursday, which will consist in docs. (i.e. articles?) & conf. motions (#19:2). Perhaps Ross will post this next week. (His blog often has fascinating early Soviet cultural items, esp. architecture, with lots of pics; it's a great relief to browse a visually engaging blog, it is one of the few - which partly explains the more than 18 000 subscribers. It even has c. 1930 Soviet erotica, an alphabet book for the literacy campaign, but this was probably done by the artist as a joke.)

The Convention is next weekend.

4) Although PCB #1 didn't have on its cover or first page a SWP-style 'DO NOT DISTRIBUTE ON THE INTERNET', it did have this:
"Please be sure, however, to limit all pre-convention discussions (and documents) ONLY TO DUES-PAYING MEMBERS OF THE ISO. If you believe that close contacts will benefit from the pre-convention discussion, then encourage them to join the ISO and take part!" (#1:1)

So Stalin's love of the IB is used as a moneymaking scheme to tempt peeps to join, 'come-on-in, see-what-we-have: secret-discussions!', filling the coffers along with the tax on earnings & the mandatory official copyrighted merchandise.

Guess, contrary to what Bolshie just said (Fri., afternoon), the openness of the 1960 version of Cliffyism has passed the ISO by:
"The party has to be subordinated to the whole. And so the internal regime in the revolutionary party must be subordinated to the relation between the party and the class. The managers of factories can discuss their business in secret and then put before the workers a _fait accompli_. The revolutionary party that seeks to overthrow capitalism cannot accept the notion of a discussion on policies inside the party without the participation of the mass of the workers – policies which are then brought 'unanimously' ready-made to the class. Since the revolutionary party cannot have interests apart from the class, all the party’s issues of policy are those of the class, and they should therefore be thrashed out in the open, in its presence. The freedom of discussion which exists in the factory meeting, which aims at unity of action after decisions are taken, should apply to the revolutionary party. This means that all discussions on basic issues of policy should be discussed in the light of day: in the open press. Let the mass of the workers take part in the discussion, put pressure on the party, its apparatus and leadership."
http://marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1960/xx/trotsub.htm (@ the end)

So the ISO is securely bunkered, insulated, surrounded by a series of not-in-front-of-the-class defences.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> Here are the ISO 2014 pre-conference bulletins  -  all 19 of them!
> http://thecharnelhouse.org/2014/02/07/international-socialist-organization-2014-convention-bulletin/



Argh. Any chance of a highlights reel?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 7, 2014)

They are short, and its usually quite easy to work out what's of interest from the title. 19 editions is a bit bizarre though. A lot of it is devoted to a faction fight with a minority group of a dozen, so Socialist Party members should feel right at home.

The article about how they handled a sexual assault allegation is interesting. They seem to have made a number of screw ups in doing so, and its worth looking at the kinds of difficulties this sort of process entails away from the high profile Delta controversy.

There's a fair but about elections and the CWI menace, in the wake of the Seattle and Minneapolis council results. Some if it reminds me a bit of the Irish SWP's sudden electoral turn in the wake of the 1996 Dublin West by-election, which Joe Higgins almost won. There's a clear sense that they would much prefer if Sawant was an independent, some defensiveness about their lateness in endorsing her and a comedy article providing a potted list of the alleged crimes of SAlt/CWI, but there's also some stuff about taking a more positive attitude to SAlt.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 7, 2014)

Fascinating reading Sharon Smith on intersectionality and how to stop the baby disappearing down the plug hole with the SWP's dirty anti feminist water. A circle she fails to square.

Her and the rest of the ISO leadership's problem being that no matter how much they rubbish Cliff they are seen by the ankle biters as Cliff's creations.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 7, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Fascinating reading Sharon Smith on intersectionality and how to stop the baby disappearing down the plug hole with the SWP's dirty anti feminist water. A circle she fails to square.
> 
> Her and the rest of the ISO leadership's problem being that no matter how much they rubbish Cliff they are seen by the ankle biters as Cliff's creations.



The last part above is completely wrong and stems from your own immersion in and attachment to "Cliffism" and "the IS tradition", rather than a reasonable assessment of the ISO's environment. None of the people the ISO work with or want to recruit have the slightest idea who Tony Cliff was, nor would they give a shit if you told them. The problem Smith et al have isn't that they are seen as "Cliffites", but more straightforwardly that they have a lot of SWPish arguments of their own on their resumes. But even that's quite a minor consideration, because the ISO isn't high profile enough for its theoretical history to be known to any notable number of people.

Now, you are of course right that abandoning a long settled orthodoxy creates all kind of potential problems, as people work out exactly how far they are traveling in a new direction, try to synthesise previously eclectic ideas and try to work out new boundaries. And I agree that Smith's piece doesn't achieve a coherent synthesis.

The ISO does have the problem that many of the "ankle biters" take it as a given that Marxist groups are sexist, just as "white feminism" is racist etc. But that stupid opinion applies across the board and isn't particularly focused on Cliff's epigones. At least in so far as they aren't using "feminist" as a hostile epithet, something that simply isn't a runner on US campuses in 2014.

As a side issue, its interesting that there is fuck all about building on campus in their "pre convention discussion", which is odd given the ISO's long term orientation.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 7, 2014)

Meanwhile, back in Ukania . . . Here's Birchall & Renton from the other day on 'before-&-after-1968', the SLL/WRP, IS, & IMG (also vids of Tate, Thornett, Shallice, & Duggan):
http://socialistresistance.org/5889/the-emergence-of-the-post-1968-left-videos


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2014)

NI you're talking shite. read the cover statement from the person who shared the ISO bulletins. These fuckers are out for blood and they see the current leadership as infected by the germ of cliff. Have you a) read or watched any of the embarrassingly self critiques of the current ISO leadership or b) argued with any of the frankly much worse than the ISN idiots cause they live in the heart of beast arseholes who define sexual/racial politics of the ISO those days?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2014)

This story only ends one way. and it ain't connected to your CWI silliness. One thing is for sure 50 years from now we'll still be arguing about cliffs Marxist interpretation of feminism. We won't be doing that re ted grant.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> NI you're talking shite. read the cover statement from the person who shared the ISO bulletins



The bulletins are on the blog of someone who is completely anti identity politics. And the person who leaked the documents was an actual Cliffite presumably before these rows.

No significant number of people are going to give the ISO shit about Cliffism


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2014)

Have you been at the sauce by the way?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2014)

Did you read what they said about the iso leadership? I did when I was completely sober.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2014)

"Conversely, Renewal raises the legitimate point of the lingering legacy of Tony Cliff’s brand of Trotskyism in the ISO’s current leadership. Practically all its leading figures were mentored and trained by high-ranking members of the now-discredited British SWP, and before the “Deltagate” coverup scandal first broke it appeared the ISO was about to achieve rapprochement with its co-thinkers across the pond"


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 8, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Have you been at the sauce by the way?


Yes of course (it was a Friday ffs!) but you're still wrong on these people and what they are about. Surprised you're so naive in some ways despite your very technical but sometimes very apolitical sectarian obsessions.


----------



## J Ed (Feb 8, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> This story only ends one way. and it ain't connected to your CWI silliness. One thing is for sure 50 years from now we'll still be arguing about cliffs Marxist interpretation of feminism. We won't be doing that re ted grant.



In 50 years no one in the SWP will be alive.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 8, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> One thing is for sure 50 years from now we'll still be arguing about cliffs Marxist interpretation of feminism.



lol


----------



## manny-p (Feb 8, 2014)

J Ed said:


> In 50 years no one in the SWP will be alive.


insh'allah


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> NI you're talking shite. read the cover statement from the person who shared the ISO bulletins. These fuckers are out for blood and they see the current leadership as infected by the germ of cliff. Have you a) read or watched any of the embarrassingly self critiques of the current ISO leadership or b) argued with any of the frankly much worse than the ISN idiots cause they live in the heart of beast arseholes who define sexual/racial politics of the ISO those days?





bolshiebhoy said:


> This story only ends one way. and it ain't connected to your CWI silliness. One thing is for sure 50 years from now we'll still be arguing about cliffs Marxist interpretation of feminism. We won't be doing that re ted grant.



You are getting incoherent.

The person who put the statements on his blog is a Trotskyist of some persuasion and is more hostile to identity politics than the SWP is. What he thinks of "Cliffism" is entirely irrelevant to the ISO's interactions with the "ankle biters" influenced by identity politics. The only people exposed to both Tony Cliff-Thought and the current brand of US identity politics are actually in the ISO already because nobody else reads Cliff.

I've already said that the ISO leadership's abandonment of IST orthodoxy on identity politics will lead to a certain amount of flailing about as exactly how much is up for grabs is decided. That they are doing so while many of their members are in or recently out of university activist circles, and thus surrounded by this stuff, means that there will be a strong pull to go further than the leadership initially intended.

Nobody will be reading Cliff or Grant on feminism in fifty years, and rightly not as Grant (probably thankfully) never wrote anything of substance on the subject and Cliff laboured mightily to produce a turd of a book.

As for your bizarre remark about "how this ends" and "CWI silliness", I'm not sure that even you are clear on what you were trying to say. The unravelling of Cliffism as a political force has little to do with the CWI either way.


----------



## Ross Wolfe (Feb 8, 2014)

*UPDATE:
53 previously-unreleased secret documents from the International Socialist Organization's 2011, 2012, and 2013 Conventions also posted*

You can find them all in downloadable PDF format by clicking here.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 8, 2014)

Ross Wolfe said:


> *UPDATE:
> 53 previously-unreleased secret documents from the International Socialist Organization's 2011, 2012, and 2013 Conventions also posted*
> 
> You can find them all in downloadable PDF format by clicking here.



Way too much to actually read properly, but there is some interesting stuff there. For instance, the first one I randomly clicked on reveals that the ISO began to revise its SWP-derived theory of women's oppression before rather than after the SWP crisis first exploded.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 8, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Way too much to actually read properly, but there is some interesting stuff there. For instance, the first one I randomly clicked on reveals that the ISO began to revise its SWP-derived theory of women's oppression before rather than after the SWP crisis first exploded.



Must be dull and long winded if even you aren't a big enough train spotter to go through it all!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2014)

we were all thinking it


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2014)

I'm willing to own up to a bit of nerdery, but there must be more than a thousand pages between them all!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2014)

We will still be discussing it in 50 years lol


----------



## leyton96 (Feb 9, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> NI you're talking shite. read the cover statement from the person who shared the ISO bulletins. These fuckers are out for blood and they see the current leadership as infected by the germ of cliff. Have you a) read or watched any of the embarrassingly self critiques of the current ISO leadership or b) argued with any of the frankly much worse than the ISN idiots cause they live in the heart of beast arseholes who define sexual/racial politics of the ISO those days?



Christ you're fucking tedious. Why can't you just bore random strangers in pubs like normal drunks?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2014)

A less tendentious and mendacious report than usual from the AWL, assessing the SWP's recent trade union day school:

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2014/02/08/swp-industrial-strategy-five-three-quarter-truths


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A less tendentious and mendacious report than usual from the AWL, assessing the SWP's recent trade union day school:
> 
> http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2014/02/08/swp-industrial-strategy-five-three-quarter-truths



Surprisingly good article I would say with some reasonable criticisms of the Swaps.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 9, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> This story only ends one way. and it ain't connected to your CWI silliness. One thing is for sure 50 years from now we'll still be arguing about cliffs Marxist interpretation of feminism. We won't be doing that re ted grant.



Your worldview is worthy of a psychiatric research team. In your mind, you really think Cliff is some kind of world renowned theoretical leader who will one day be revered by all as a sort of Jesus-like figure, don't you?


----------



## emanymton (Feb 9, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Surprisingly good article I would say with some reasonable criticisms of the Swaps.


I suspect this is not true though



> University lecturers (the SWP's main "industrial base" these days, I think) may be hit by performance management, and yet the gap (in pay, security, conditions, pensions) between them and the cleaners in their universities may grow.



I would be willing to bet the gap has closed in all 4 cases.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I suspect this is not true though
> I would be willing to bet the gap has closed in all 4 cases.



I would be willing to bet it hasn't in any meaningful way. 

But let's not play into the tories and Martin Thomas's game of dividing them like this.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Feb 9, 2014)

The ISO (biggest left group over here) has become quite pessimistic and hasn't grown in recent years in the US. Meanwhile, the CWI here  has grown rapidly, and Kshama has a higher profile than anyone in the ISO has ever come close to. And this is a big factor in their (low-level) crisis. The ISO opposition is based in my area, and they're on their way out. Some really smart people in the opposition but quite cynical. I think the ISO will have bigger problems in coming years due to being pessimistic at a time that big struggles and steps fwd in consciousness are taking place. I think it might be an over-reaction to the auto-optimism of having been trained by SWP.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 9, 2014)

BK Double Stack said:


> The ISO (biggest left group over here) has become quite pessimistic and hasn't grown in recent years in the US. Meanwhile, the CWI here  has grown rapidly, and Kshama has a higher profile than anyone in the ISO has ever come close to. And this is a big factor in their (low-level) crisis. The ISO opposition is based in my area, and they're on their way out. Some really smart people in the opposition but quite cynical. I think the ISO will have bigger problems in coming years due to being pessimistic at a time that big struggles and steps fwd in consciousness are taking place. I think it might be an over-reaction to the auto-optimism of having been trained by SWP.



That's an interesting idea; something you see a lot in people who leave the SWP in Britain too I think. It makes a lot of sense; years of being force fed constant over-optimism and exaggeration leads people to be very suspicious. "There's never been a better time to be a socialist" seems to have been replaced by "Everything about the movement is terrible" by some in the ISN.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 10, 2014)

Don't know if he ever went to an event of the Socialist Review Group, IS, or SWP, but Stuart Hall died today.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/10/stuart-hall


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 10, 2014)

BK Double Stack said:


> . . . I think the ISO will have bigger problems in coming years due to being pessimistic at a time that big struggles and steps fwd in consciousness are taking place.


Especially for those of us outside North Amerika, how has this pessimism expressed itself in the ISO's practice & its words, including how it outlines the immediate future, its prognosis & perspective?

Thanx.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> Don't know if he ever went to an event of the Socialist Review Group, IS, or SWP, but Stuart Hall died today.
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/10/stuart-hall


Thread here mate.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Feb 10, 2014)

Grumble: You can read their perspectives doc which is more about the setbacks in Egypt than it is about US gov't shutdown, shallow base of Dems, socialist getting 93,000 votes, the huge battles coming to increase the minimum wage...The ISO can be different from area to area, but the pessimism has played out in two ways in practice: 1. Retreating into the existing activists and focusing on coalitions with them or 2. sectarian propagandism of the paper-selling routines without a connection to a broader strategy. I think the first option is more popular, but the second option isn't entirely discouraged.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 10, 2014)

BK Double Stack said:


> . . . their perspectives doc which is more about the setbacks in Egypt than it is about US gov't shutdown, shallow base of Dems, socialist getting 93,000 votes, the huge battles coming to increase the minimum wage . . . the pessimism has played out in two ways in practice: 1. Retreating into the existing activists and focusing on coalitions with them or 2. sectarian propagandism of the paper-selling routines without a connection to a broader strategy. I think the first option is more popular, but the second option isn't entirely discouraged.


In just a few sentences perhaps, what's the outline of an approach that can achieve far more in the coming few years? 

Aren't existing coalitions a means to expand work beyond that of a group of, what, 300? The group shouldn't have interests apart from the class as a whole & oppressed groups, no?


----------



## BK Double Stack (Feb 10, 2014)

Absolutely on working in broader campaigns. CWI has initiated "15Now.Org" with backing from many unions. It is because we have a perspective of big fights for wage increases this year. ISO are mainly commentators on this movement. Their coalitions, the eco-socialist one being most prominent, are often gatherings that have little strategy or connection to perspectives. Just the ISO showing, "We're not sectarian anymore" with little foresight involved. This is what the opposition is complaining about in relation to the "March on Washington" and a the covering for a section of the labor bureaucracy. The ISO has over 800 members. I think the CWI has excellent strategy for the US (15Now), but to be honest we wouldn't need one to grow because of huge profile of our public figure and general openness to socialist ideas in society.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 10, 2014)

BK Double Stack said:


> Absolutely on working in broader campaigns. CWI has initiated "15Now.Org" with backing from many unions. It is because we have a perspective of big fights for wage increases this year . . . The ISO has over 800 members. I think the CWI has excellent strategy for the US (15Now)


Thanx. Does SocAlt have a perspectives article we can all read?

If 15Now.Org was a SocAlt initiative, as you say, is it a front org'n? Were other groups in on this initiative at the beginning, having discussions with SocAlt?  

Naming the org'n as its web address is pretty neat, an excellent way to make it easier to be contacted.

I said 300 for ISO coz their Feb 2013 Convention only disclosed the voting nos. for one motion, & that was 83 (the Post-convention 2013 IB @ thecharnelhouse.org).

What are the numbers for SocAlt membership & periphery?


----------



## BK Double Stack (Feb 10, 2014)

ISO allows one delegate for every 8 members or greater portion thereof to conference. So, that would amount to about 600 going strictly by the numbers from the voting you saw. Members have to be fully caught up on dues to count and maybe some delegates missed the voting. I think 7-800 is about right, but some people say much more than that. As you probably know, CWI folks rarely give exact membership figures publicly. We're about half the size of the ISO but growing very rapidly, having doubled in membership since Occupy and aiming to more-than-double this year with many new branches having already been set up. Every time Kshama speaks, we get a new wave of people applying to join.

15Now flows from the battle in Seattle to lift thousands out of extreme poverty. We had to launch the campaign quickly as the establishment was setting up an "inequality committee" that we were invited to. The Mayor said it would look into 15. We launched 15Now in the following days to show that we focused on mobilizing from below while still being willing to sit on the Mayor's committee to use it as an opportunity. So, really only sections of labor leaders were consulted at the beginning.

We set up 15Now for a few reasons. One because it is a key issue and gives our organization nationally good positioning in the class struggle. Two because the Seattle fight for 15 needed organization beyond the small action that had already taken place. Three because most of the other "fight for 15" campaigns don't allow for actual meaningful participation. Just one-off rallies. As 15Now fills out, it will develop its own structures including neighborhood, campus and workplace committees not led by SA. These are starting to take place (mostly in Seattle). We're taking responsibility for getting it off the ground and contacting others (mostly in the labor and immigrants' rights movement) as we do so. The ISO is the only left group we've talked to about it, mainly because they're the only other one that represents much of anything. THey weren't very interested. 

Thread derail ended?


----------



## BK Double Stack (Feb 10, 2014)

We're working on turning our perspectives doc into an article or series of articles.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 10, 2014)

BK Double Stack said:


> We're working on turning our perspectives doc into an article or series of articles.


Back on the road again.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Feb 10, 2014)

I'll get us started: how were those regroupment meetings?


----------



## Nigel (Feb 11, 2014)

Interesting talk by Dave Renton on the tradition of IS going back to its roots with break away from CP & New Left and where, in his opinion they went wrong!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 13, 2014)

From the weekly worker:

*IS Network: Self-flagellation and the ‘kinky split’*

Pretty sure the author is a poster on here but I won't identify them.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 13, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> From the weekly worker:
> 
> *IS Network: Self-flagellation and the ‘kinky split’*
> 
> Pretty sure the author is a poster on here but I won't identify them.


Just so I am clear both sides of the argument were wrong, right?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 13, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Just so I am clear both sides of the argument were wrong, right?



 that's about the only sensible conclusion to be drawn from this I think, yes


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2014)

sent u a pm


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2014)

treelover said:


> sent u a pm


So what?


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2014)

board police alert


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> From the weekly worker:
> 
> *IS Network: Self-flagellation and the ‘kinky split’*
> 
> Pretty sure the author is a poster on here but I won't identify them.


not sure what 'editorial group' deemed it too 'sensitive' to publish, but it never went to the ISN group.


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 13, 2014)

Nigel said:


> Interesting talk by Dave Renton on the tradition of IS going back to its roots with break away from CP & New Left and where, in his opinion they went wrong!




I just watched that, it was shit and it wasn't interesting and I don't know who the fuck he was or what he was talking about.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 13, 2014)

What Can I Say!


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> not sure what 'editorial group' deemed it too 'sensitive' to publish, but it never went to the ISN group.


 
anti-capitalist initiative


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> anti-capitalist initiative


yes, but they dont publish anything, so why have an editorial group? they cant have been suggesting for The Exchange, that would be bloody stupid.

Either way, we can be fairly sure the WW's 'too sensitive' bit is a lie


----------



## tedsplitter (Feb 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> yes, but they dont publish anything, so why have an editorial group? they cant have been suggesting for The Exchange, that would be bloody stupid.
> 
> Either way, we can be fairly sure the WW's 'too sensitive' bit is a lie



They do publish stuff at http://anticapitalists.org/ but it's been a bit quiet for a couple of weeks. Anyway the article contains some pretty glaring inaccuracies and is not a very good analysis of not a very good situation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> From the weekly worker:
> 
> *IS Network: Self-flagellation and the ‘kinky split’*
> 
> Pretty sure the author is a poster on here but I won't identify them.


that's a headline i never thought to see in the weekly worker.


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2014)

tedsplitter said:


> They do publish stuff at http://anticapitalists.org/ but it's been a bit quiet for a couple of weeks. Anyway the article contains some pretty glaring inaccuracies and is not a very good analysis of not a very good situation.


oh, I'd somehow forgotten about the website.  It probly has fewer factual inaccuracies than the average WW article, not that that's saying much.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 14, 2014)

tedsplitter said:


> They do publish stuff at http://anticapitalists.org/ but it's been a bit quiet for a couple of weeks. Anyway the article contains some pretty glaring inaccuracies and is not a very good analysis of not a very good situation.



the only inaccuracy is the number of SC members who resigned in the official statement - 2 not 7.


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> the only inaccuracy is the number of SC members who resigned in the official statement - 2 not 7.


not really.

1) Most of the 7 resignations were not on the Steering Committee. 
2) Most people involved in the online discussions were not IS Network members. The vast majority of the Network did not follow the discussion either.
3) The IS Network is not "intersectionalist", though some of its members may be.
4) The split wasn't about BDSM or intersectionality.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Feb 14, 2014)

only the first of those is an inaccuracy from the point of view of the article, which doesn't make claims on 2 or 3. and 4 is arguable (as is put forward in the same fb thread those points are quoted from)


----------



## belboid (Feb 14, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> only the first of those is an inaccuracy from the point of view of the article, which doesn't make claims on 2 or 3. and 4 is arguable (as is put forward in the same fb thread those points are quoted from)


The article certainly implies 2, even if it doesnt spell it out. If you had no idea about the background, you would assume it was solely/mainly ISN. 3, again, is implied, altho less strongly. 4 is certainly true, the splitters didnt say it was about those things, nor has anyone else, they are the background.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 14, 2014)

has anyone posted this yet in relation to the ISN split?



Son, I am Magpie, I only went with Seymour because he's dirty


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 14, 2014)

Nigel said:


> What Can I Say!


You could say 'Sorry for wasting your time'


----------



## Nigel (Feb 14, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> You could say 'Sorry for wasting your time'


What contention do you have with this video?
Or am Ijust wasting my time asking this question?


----------



## Buckaroo (Feb 14, 2014)

Nigel said:


> What contention do you have with this video?
> Or am Ijust wasting my time asking this question?



just that you said it was an interesting talk by some bloke and then I wasted my time watching it and I didn't find it interesting, that's all


----------



## Nigel (Feb 14, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> just that you said it was an interesting talk by some bloke and then I wasted my time watching it and I didn't find it interesting, that's all


lol
oki doke!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2014)

The thing about the Weekly Worker these days is that instead of basing stories on leaked emails or minutes of meetings, they just write about Facebook conversations. What was previously a bit strange but sort of a guilty pleasure to read about is now really just stalking people.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 15, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Your worldview is worthy of a psychiatric research team. In your mind, you really think Cliff is some kind of world renowned theoretical leader who will one day be revered by all as a sort of Jesus-like figure, don't you?


No on this subject my money is on German and Harman, Cliff was hardly the main writer of the tradition on this subject. I'd lay odds not more than ten percent of the ISO or ISN have ever read Sex, Class and Socialism. But they know the cliff school needs Vogel. Because? Because 80's Cliffites never wrote anything about social reproduction theory. It's the ignorance of these people that offends most. They don't even feel the need to read this stuff cause Sharon Smith told them Cliff told a sexist joke once.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 15, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> has anyone posted this yet in relation to the ISN split?
> 
> 
> 
> Son, I am Magpie, I only went with Seymour because he's dirty




“He/she/they/ze's gonna step up-step back on you agaaa-in...”


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No on this subject my money is on German and Harman, Cliff was hardly the main writer of the tradition on this subject. I'd lay odds not more than ten percent of the ISO or ISN have ever read Sex, Class and Socialism. But they know the cliff school needs Vogel. Because? Because 80's Cliffites never wrote anything about social reproduction theory. It's the ignorance of these people that offends most. They don't even feel the need to read this stuff cause Sharon Smith told them Cliff told a sexist joke once.



Argh. What's wrong with you?


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 15, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No on this subject my money is on German and Harman, Cliff was hardly the main writer of the tradition on this subject. I'd lay odds not more than ten percent of the ISO or ISN have ever read Sex, Class and Socialism. But they know the cliff school needs Vogel. Because? Because 80's Cliffites never wrote anything about social reproduction theory. It's the ignorance of these people that offends most. They don't even feel the need to read this stuff cause Sharon Smith told them Cliff told a sexist joke once.


----------



## belboid (Feb 15, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No on this subject my money is on German and Harman, Cliff was hardly the main writer of the tradition on this subject. I'd lay odds not more than ten percent of the ISO or ISN have ever read Sex, Class and Socialism. But they know the cliff school needs Vogel. Because? Because 80's Cliffites never wrote anything about social reproduction theory. It's the ignorance of these people that offends most. They don't even feel the need to read this stuff cause Sharon Smith told them Cliff told a sexist joke once.


gobbledygook


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 17, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> . . . Facebook conversations . . .


Speaking of which . . .

This is from a FB convo, posted on a website today, that involved a leader of the Amerikan ISO, Keeanga, passing on some friendly advice to a fellow ISO member, so I guess that makes her a comrade, political sisters:
"Don't start none, won't be done . . . *let the doorknob hit you where the good Lord split you*" 
http://externalbulletin.wordpress.c...rom-the-international-socialist-organization/ (screenshot kindly provided; emphasis added, original ellipsis - wouldn't want to be accused of embellishing; this is the site of the ISO's Renewal Faction )

This is *Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor* in more full flow, this time on the homepage of the site where ISO post their vids & audios. No sight of a doorknob, though:
http://wearemany.org/

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor was (is?) lauded by some in the ISN for her views on feminism (sic), sexism (sic), racism, privilege theory, identity politics, & intersectionality. 

Within half-an-hour of this FB abuse Vanessa B found herself no longer in the ISO - courtesy of . . . K-Y:
"Within half an hour of the November 12 exchange, Vanessa received a message from Tristan B of the DC Branch Committee informing her that she was no longer a member in good standing per an email from . . . Keeanga"
http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/in-defense-of-our-comrades/

Vanessa B's account of her substantive expulsion from the ISO shows how appallingly she was treated. For those who think politics is more than what one says & does, Vanessa who joined the ISO in 2008, is a black woman with multiple chronic illnesses surviving on benefit that she says is "below poverty-level". 

It's a million miles away from the flash online presence of the ISO, the wearemany website, Haymarket Books, Socialist Worker, & the re-launched International Socialist Review.

The ISO certainly has a case to answer. But it will no doubt march on regardless.


----------



## SLK (Feb 18, 2014)

I don't really follow that, but I think it says that someone in the ISO who is in a leadership position expels people that disagree with him/ her.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

Renewal Faction is expelled - http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/we-are-expelled/


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Renewal Faction is expelled - http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/we-are-expelled/


 
Good! Fookin' Splitters!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Renewal Faction is expelled - http://externalbulletin.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/we-are-expelled/


they say a longer statement will be posted. but they've got the important information across already.


----------



## leyton96 (Feb 18, 2014)

Interesting developments at UAF Limited. The London Gazette which is the London arm of Companies House has issued a strike off order against the company.
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06386924/x/companies-house-docs?latest=true

Normally strike off orders are issued when a company hasn't filed their returns with Companies House.
Sure enough the Annual Accounts are way over due, the last accounts being filed on 31st October 2012.
Now it could just be that the officers at UAF are a bit lazy about filing returns. However a strike off notice is usually a sign that a company is circling the drain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Interesting developments at UAF Limited. The London Gazette which is the London arm of Companies House has issued a strike off order against the company.
> http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06386924/x/companies-house-docs?latest=true
> 
> Normally strike off orders are issued when a company hasn't filed their returns with Companies House.
> ...


the coriolis protocol


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Interesting developments at UAF Limited. The London Gazette which is the London arm of Companies House has issued a strike off order against the company.
> http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06386924/x/companies-house-docs?latest=true
> 
> Normally strike off orders are issued when a company hasn't filed their returns with Companies House.
> ...


 
Oh dear, how sad, never mind. Does this mean I never have to hear Weyman Fucking Bennett again?


----------



## leyton96 (Feb 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh dear, how sad, never mind. Does this mean I never have to hear Weyman Fucking Bennett again?



As you should know very well Weyman is a very experienced waffler who is prepared to waffle anytime, anywhere, any place. He won't let Companies House get in the way of his important duty to tell everyone how anti-fascism is done properly and effectively.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Interesting developments at UAF Limited. The London Gazette which is the London arm of Companies House has issued a strike off order against the company.
> http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06386924/x/companies-house-docs?latest=true
> 
> Normally strike off orders are issued when a company hasn't filed their returns with Companies House.
> ...


you sure that's the right UAF? I've never heard of any of the directors, and the lead one, Marcus Weedon, mostly seems to work in film. Oh, and _they_ seem to have applied to be struck off.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 18, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the coriolis protocol


As investigated by Dr BS of the International Drainage Commission, Springfield:


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> you sure that's the right UAF?


The UAF, if they had created a company, would do it by guarantee, not the share capital of the company mentioned.
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06386924/x/companies-house-docs?latest=true

In fact the UAF Ltd. at that registered addy is an engineering practice:
http://www.192.com/atoz/business/lo...6ab985dd7db952bfb1b514afc26d309ef75c8da/comp/

But it doesn't mean that Weyman doesn't work for them - in fact he has been known to engineer things quite a lot.


----------



## belboid (Feb 18, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> http://www.192.com/atoz/business/lo...6ab985dd7db952bfb1b514afc26d309ef75c8da/comp/


mm, still a bit odd, as the lead director works (as mentioned) in film, and the others ran Sankeys. Still, no loss, either way.


----------



## leyton96 (Feb 18, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> As investigated by Dr BS of the International Drainage Commission, Springfield:




D'oh


Mustn't grumble said:


> As investigated by Dr BS of the International Drainage Commission, Springfield:




D'oh!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 18, 2014)

So have Weyman's warriors been struck off or not?


----------



## Ross Wolfe (Feb 18, 2014)

Speaking of the controversy in the International Socialist Organization, I recently decided to reverse my redaction of the leaked members-only Preconvention Bulletins. They are now once again available for download. Along with some info on the smears they've been running against the Renewal Faction, members of other socialist organizations, and myself.

Moreover, an alternative account of the "Comrade Daniel" situation was forwarded to me for publication. It was written by someone who isn't a member of the ISO but was nevertheless involved in trying to get the organization to take respond to allegations of attempted rape. The case of "Comrade Daniel."


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2014)

Ross Wolfe said:


> Speaking of the controversy in the International Socialist Organization, I recently decided to reverse my redaction of the leaked members-only Preconvention Bulletins. They are now once again available for download. Along with some info on the smears they've been running against the Renewal Faction, members of other socialist organizations, and myself.
> 
> Moreover, an alternative account of the "Comrade Daniel" situation was forwarded to me for publication. It was written by someone who isn't a member of the ISO but was nevertheless involved in trying to get the organization to take respond to allegations of attempted rape. The case of "Comrade Daniel."



Oh, fucking hell, not another one...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2014)

The London campaign against police and state violence is holding a 'know your rights training with the Islamic high commission'


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 20, 2014)

https://www.facebook.com/events/584534064968563/?fref=tsts


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 20, 2014)

I just posted this on the Ukraine thread as it was there I learnt of the site in question:


Informative article, J Ed, thanx.

Just an aside, something I'm surprised hasn't already been noted. This site was new to me so I had a lil look. It seems to have started 23 Jan:
http://www.dreamdeferred.org.uk/2014/01/our-new-website/ (cute pic with caption: "Polar bears watch telly. Source unknown")

I went to the 'About'. It talks a lil about "the explosion", "the experience of life", & having to be "patient":
"We have titled our blog Dream Deferred as a homage to Langston [Hughes] and also in the hope that the 'explosion' will come one day soon. The struggle for socialism gives us nourishment, but at the same time the experience of life means we have had to be patient too."
So sensible. Can these be contemporary socialists, activists as they say these days?

It continues:
"Over the past 30 years both of us have been involved in one way or another with the struggle against racism and fascism" . . . yes . . . & then a lil levity:
"We will also write about other political and cultural matters. If you don’t like football, you should look away from posts about West Ham or Spurs!"
Hilário!
http://www.dreamdeferred.org.uk/about/

And we get an article on "the relationship between jazz and revolutionary black nationalism":
http://www.dreamdeferred.org.uk/2014/01/amiri-baraka-soul-and-madness-3/

And one entitled, 'Tracks of the Month: January 2014':
http://www.dreamdeferred.org.uk/2014/01/january-2014-2/

The 'About' ends with an invitation:
"Please feel free to join the debate by posting comments. We welcome serious comments and discussion — whether you agree or disagree.

We hope you enjoy the site.

Martin Smith and Tash Shifrin"

Any takers?

Just saying.




http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/issue.php?issue=381 (June 2013 contents)




We dream, we dream.

From deflected permanent revolution to deferred dreams.

How things could have been . . .




(Mr Hughes reading his own poem, 'Dream Deferred')


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2014)

Probably the appropriate thread to put this (as its's been referred to earlier), after Bruce Wallace's suspension, the SP(EW)/CWI has now suspended Steve Dobbs:
http://socialismiscrucial.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/steve-dobbs-suspended-from-socialist-partycwi/


----------



## leyton96 (Feb 21, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Probably the appropriate thread to put this (as its's been referred to earlier), after Bruce Wallace's suspension, the SP(EW)/CWI has now suspended Steve Dobbs:
> http://socialismiscrucial.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/steve-dobbs-suspended-from-socialist-partycwi/



I don't think Steve really understands what actually happened, which is unusual seen as he fancies himself as a bit of a procedural expert. 
He's right that a branch can't suspend a member, which is why the branch passed a motion calling on the NC/EC to suspend. This has been coming for a while ever since it came out that he had secretly recorded a branch meeting and then stuck it up on the internet. OK they weren't discussing the movement of weapons for a planned uprising or anything life or death, but it is dead creepy to go around secretly recording stuff. In a voluntary organization you can't have any trust in someone as underhanded as that. I can't think of any union branch that would tolerate similar behavior.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2014)

I'd accept that - whatever the rights and wrongs of their critique (I'd sympathise with their annoyance at Peter T's dismissal of Lih, and would want to look further at the LTRPF) - there are some basic protocols of being in a political organisation that need to be respected.   That said, their frustrations are understandable given the leaderships attempts to load the dice when it comes to political debates that might see their authority challenged.


----------



## Dobbo2k (Feb 21, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> I don't think Steve really understands what actually happened, which is unusual seen as he fancies himself as a bit of a procedural expert.
> He's right that a branch can't suspend a member, which is why the branch passed a motion calling on the NC/EC to suspend. This has been coming for a while ever since it came out that he had secretly recorded a branch meeting and then stuck it up on the internet. OK they weren't discussing the movement of weapons for a planned uprising or anything life or death, but it is dead creepy to go around secretly recording stuff. In a voluntary organization you can't have any trust in someone as underhanded as that. I can't think of any union branch that would tolerate similar behavior.



I see the Socialist Party EC propaganda machine has started already. This is a complete fabrication from "leyton96".

The motion did not "call on the NC/EC to suspend me". The motion read exactly like this:

"_This branch believes that trust between Steve Dobbs and the branch has deteriorated to such a degree that he should be suspended from membership of the branch. This is due to his public attacks and accusations against the branch secretary, the branch, the leadership of the party, the CWI, his repeated failure to heed any requests from the branch to stop such attacks, and his secret recording of a branch meeting when members had clearly stated this should not happen without members’ consent."
_
No mention of referral to the EC/NC in that motion. The branch do not have the power to suspend me, so this was unconstitutional, not to mention that the comrades could not reproduce the rules I've meant to have broken, nor the Disciplinary Code that stated they could rush this through as an "emergency motion".

Regarding the "secret recording" of a meeting, it was actually a debate on the cause of capitalist crisis between myself and Lynn Walsh that I recorded for personal reference! There is nothing creepy or underhand about that. And I have NOT "stuck it up on the internet" - this is nonsense. Funny though that the Socialist Party seem quite ok with having a public session on the cause of capitalist crisis at Socialism 2013, where Peter Taaffe accused me of having a "fetish", and then put up an edited version of the video recording, minus the denunciation and contributions from the floor (including mine), on youtube here 

It's sheer hypocrisy. The Socialist Party EC are afraid of genuine public debate because they know they would get crucified and shown up as completely wanting.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2014)

Dobbo2k said:


> I see the Socialist Party EC propaganda machine has started already. This is a complete fabrication from "leyton96".
> 
> The motion did not "call on the NC/EC to suspend me". The motion read exactly like this:
> 
> ...




Hi Steve. I wasn't too upset to hear about BW being suspended (although I fail to see the logic really, guy needs ignoring more than anything else) but I was surprised to hear about this. You shouldn't really record people without their permission though, even if it is just for reference.

One question - I understand while you've been suspended, another member of the opposition in your branch has been re-elected as a branch committee member? Why is that?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 21, 2014)

Dobbo2k said:


> No mention of referral to the EC/NC in that motion.



Also no mention of an actual suspension in its language, just an expression of a belief you should be suspended. Which is either a strange oversight, or reflects an assumption that some other body would do the actual suspending.




			
				Dobbo2k said:
			
		

> It's sheer hypocrisy. The Socialist Party EC are afraid of genuine public debate because they know they would get crucified and shown up as completely wanting



It's not hypocritical to distinguish between the organisation deciding to make some discussion or aspect of a discussion public, and one member unilaterally deciding to do so, nor to distinguish between the organisation openly recording a meeting and an individual secretly doing so.

As someone who generally favours having open discussions where possible, it seems to me that the main impact of something like BW's behaviour - churning out endless vituperation, often aimed at individual other members in public forums - is likely to be that open discussion becomes at least temporarily more difficult. Instead of making a case for the advantages of having theoretical or political arguments in public, you and BW have created an endless argument that it's destructive. I'm not inclined to gratitude for that.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 21, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> secretly recorded a branch meeting and then stuck it up on the internet


leyton, given what Steve has said above:
1) do you still maintain Steve recorded "a branch meeting", rather than a debate in which he was one of the two protagonists?
2) what evidence do you have that this recording was (a) uploaded to the internet, & (b) available to anyone on the net?

Thanx.


----------



## Mustn't grumble (Feb 21, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> [. . .] you and BW have created an endless argument that it's destructive.


I'd heard Mr Wallace had written a fair bit on causes of crises in capitalist production but how can an "endless" presentation of an argument be a problem? Surely cdes. have the right to express themselves; correspondingly cdes. don't have a duty to keep reading what others write or keep listening to what they say. If one is satisfied that nothing new is being offered, & that the view on the matter doesn't need changing, then if one's bored with the repetition then one politely does not engage: there's no compulsion involved, concerning anyone. Certainly no need for punishing anyone. That's plain absurd  - & trying to discipline anyone just gives Marxists, & others, an appalling reputation, one justly deserved.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Feb 21, 2014)

"For personal reference" my ass. He sent the recording along immediately to people all over the world. If you secretly-recorded a meeting in a place where the state regularly spies on the left, then you wouldn't be treated with the kid gloves that the London comrades treated you with.


----------



## BK Double Stack (Feb 21, 2014)

We entertained this boring debate publicly for a year. Wallace was abusive throughout.


----------



## leyton96 (Feb 21, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> leyton, given what Steve has said above:
> 1) do you still maintain Steve recorded "a branch meeting", rather than a debate in which he was one of the two protagonists?
> 2) what evidence do you have that this recording was (a) uploaded to the internet, & (b) available to anyone on the net?
> 
> Thanx.



What happened was this:

There was a branch meeting which involved a debate on the causes of the capitalist crisis between Steve Dobbs and Lynn Walsh. It had been decided previously by the branch committee that this was to be an internal debate not open to the public. Just to be absolutely clear. This was not a public meeting.
At the meeting itself the Chair moved that the the meeting was not to be recorded or disseminated publicly on the internet or elsewhere. This was put to the vote and agreed by the branch.
Steve Dobbs without informing anyone present, recorded the meeting. This was then put on a closed facebook group. One of the members of the facebook group then passed this fact on to the SP centre. It's quite simply not true to say the recording was for personal use.

Despite this display of, at the very best, extreme bad manners (imagine being in a group where you weren't sure if what you were saying was being recorded or not and you couldn't trust the person if you asked them not to?) this didn't prevent him from putting his case about the causes of the capitalist crisis to the rest of the party. After he made the secret recording he was still the platform opposition speaker at a regional meeting called to air the debate. He also had attended and spoke at the London regional debate etc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 21, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> I'd heard Mr Wallace had written a fair bit on causes of crises in capitalist production but how can an "endless" presentation of an argument be a problem?.



I don't think you've read the post you are responding to very carefully. I have no problem with BW raising his disagreements on a particular issue in public, nor with him raising it repeatedly.

Now, as it happens raising some particular hobby horse endlessly, at every opportunity, and with no ability to compartmentalise, can indeed be destructive behaviour as anyone who has ever been in any small organisation with a driven obsessive can tell you. It's my understanding that BWs local branch and the unfortunates in the Socialist Party Scotland leadership who receive his emails etc do think that he's destructive in that manner, but I'm not in a position to judge if they are being fair or not and that wasn't the part of his behaviour I was complaining about.

My issue with his behaviour has been the way in which he has expressed his opinions in public, which has been endlessly and entirely unnecessarily vituperative and has involved turning that public vituperation on individual branch members who disagree with him, young full timers, people who disagree with him on Facebook etc. I think its incumbent on people raising criticisms and disagreements to do so in a friendly and respectful manner. I think its even more incumbent on people who are deliberately pushing the envelope in terms of unilaterally making elements of a discussion public to do so, because otherwise people will inevitably conflate their bad personal behaviour with the results of public dissent.

There are a number of other actions taken by BW and/or one of his co thinkers that I have a significant problem with. These include setting up a Facebook discussion group which inevitably was going to gather every crank with a hostile attitude to the CWI, in Steve's case the apparent secret recording of a meeting (this is the first I've heard of that btw) etc. but my core problem is the one above. This is a debate that could have been generally productive, but instead, has been bad tempered, needlessly factional and damaging to those of us who want an organisation that leans as far as possible towards open discussion.

I don't blame everyone in the "group of eleven" for that, nor do I any by any means absolve everyone in the leadership or the majority for that. But the hostile, vituperative, bitter tone was set and constantly reinforced by BW and to a lesser extent some of his allies in a manner that left me regularly taken aback.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 21, 2014)

All organisations should have the power to suspend or expel members on the grounds of wankerish behaviour


----------



## articul8 (Feb 21, 2014)

Welcome to urban Dobbo2k - though we won't always agree


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 21, 2014)

Mustn't grumble said:


> I'd heard Mr Wallace had written a fair bit on causes of crises in capitalist production but how can an "endless" presentation of an argument be a problem? Surely cdes. have the right to express themselves; correspondingly cdes. don't have a duty to keep reading what others write or keep listening to what they say. If one is satisfied that nothing new is being offered, & that the view on the matter doesn't need changing, then if one's bored with the repetition then one politely does not engage: there's no compulsion involved, concerning anyone. Certainly no need for punishing anyone. That's plain absurd  - & trying to discipline anyone just gives Marxists, & others, an appalling reputation, one justly deserved.



Have you seen his blog? Political and economic arguments are there, but they're accompanied by a series of bizarre and unwarranted personal attacks - often including the full names and photographs of those he's attacking. Shame cos there's loads of people in the party with sympathy certainly for the economic arguments but we've kept out of it because we don't want to be associated with his behaviour. 

To be fair to Steve he's not done any of that stuff.


----------



## Dobbo2k (Feb 21, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> What happened was this:
> 
> There was a branch meeting which involved a debate on the causes of the capitalist crisis between Steve Dobbs and Lynn Walsh. It had been decided previously by the branch committee that this was to be an internal debate not open to the public. Just to be absolutely clear. This was not a public meeting.
> At the meeting itself the Chair moved that the the meeting was not to be recorded or disseminated publicly on the internet or elsewhere. This was put to the vote and agreed by the branch.
> ...



Ah, more distortions from the anonymous Socialist Party hacks.

Actually, there was no decision to make the debate private. It was only when I advertised the meeting on our local website, as I normally do, that suddenly the branch sec contacted me to tell me the debate was not open to non-members. This decision had not been discussed or voted on, and I protested against it

Also, the motion was regarding not to discuss internal matters via social media. This was voted on AFTER the debate, AFTER I had already recorded it.

Now, clearly the Socialist Party EC would not throw a hissy over recording a theoretical debate between 2 members. What this really is an excuse to witch-hunt known dissidents 2 weeks prior to the national congress. Now even NUT Exec member Pete Glover is getting emails threatening him with disciplinary procedures. This is a witch-hunt and your pathetic excuses hold no weight. The CWI is in serious disrepute and a lot of members are very concerned with these blatant attacks on opposition within the Party.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 21, 2014)

Dobbo2k said:


> Ah, more distortions from the anonymous Socialist Party hacks.
> 
> Actually, there was no decision to make the debate private. It was only when I advertised the meeting on our local website, as I normally do, that suddenly the branch sec contacted me to tell me the debate was not open to non-members. This decision had not been discussed or voted on, and I protested against it
> 
> ...


Did you really need to be told not to record a branch meeting?
 I a no friend of Trotsky party's, if you need an expressed order not to behave like a cunt what do you expect?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 21, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Did you really need to be told not to record a branch meeting?
> I a no friend of Trotsky party's, if you need an expressed order not to behave like a cunt what do you expect?



Fuck off and stop being an anonymous SP hack


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 21, 2014)

Quality lurking btw - 2 posts since 2006, both of them today on this thread


----------



## leyton96 (Feb 21, 2014)

Dobbo2k said:


> Ah, more distortions from the anonymous Socialist Party hacks



Cheers mate


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 21, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Cheers mate


Hey at least you haven't posted a recording of a private meeting online and then claimed innocence


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2014)

Dobbo2k said:


> Ah, more distortions from the anonymous Socialist Party hacks.
> 
> Actually, there was no decision to make the debate private. It was only when I advertised the meeting on our local website, as I normally do, that suddenly the branch sec contacted me to tell me the debate was not open to non-members. This decision had not been discussed or voted on, and I protested against it
> 
> ...



Why wasn't the other member of the opposition group in your branch "witch hunted"? I'm just trying to understand the difference in your treatment.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 21, 2014)

Paul le Blanc is a very decent fella and a fine Marxist. But there's something a little ironic about him closing down discussion on his FB wall tonight about anti ISO slurs (on a thread he started) when he was happy enough to join in the avalanche of half truths on the Prof's wall a year ago. Once you let the genie out of the bottle...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Paul le Blanc is a very decent fella and a fine Marxist. But there's something a little ironic about him closing down discussion on his FB wall tonight about anti ISO slurs (on a thread he started) when he was happy enough to join in the avalanche of half truths on the Prof's wall a year ago. Once you let the genie out of the bottle...



By "let the genie out of the bottle" do you mean allow public discussion on issues of contention?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 22, 2014)

top fucking crank this chap


----------



## belboid (Feb 22, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Paul le Blanc is a very decent fella and a fine Marxist. But there's something a little ironic about him closing down discussion on his FB wall tonight about anti ISO slurs (on a thread he started) when he was happy enough to join in the avalanche of half truths on the Prof's wall a year ago. Once you let the genie out of the bottle...


Fuck off


----------



## Oisin123 (Feb 22, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> ...the avalanche of half truths on the Prof's wall a year ago. Once you let the genie out of the bottle...


But if you agree that the rape allegation was unfairly addressed, then in retrospect don't you see that the half-truths (and lies) were from the loyalists? You're still swimming with them?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Feb 23, 2014)

It would appear that the Socialist Party has problems on another front (ie apart from Dobbs/Wallace). While following a Facebook thread I stumbled across this from a male member:

"Because that dirty old pervert is not going to be allowed to rip apart the only party in the UK I consider worth being a member of as a revolutionary. As far as I'm concerned no other party comes close to the SP and I'll be damned if I'm going to leave it and allow that bastard to stay in it!"

And from a female comrade:

"but the leadership have CHOSEN him and women are getting disenfranchised as a result yet there's no public protest or challenge to the leadership from any of you! and if that's your defnition of a revolutionary party - picking a sex offender over the survivor then we clearly have very different ideas of what makes a revolutionary party. and as i've explained, a signifcant reason why i haven't pursued a prosecution (never mind the whole system is against survivors anyway) is that it will mean exposing the SP in the mainstream press! well i refuse to be silent about this stuff, even if i'm not quite ready to go to the guardian yet. what i would like is to be able to see the SP remove him and take a principled position but instead u r no better than the lib dems on this question! i'm sorry but u've made a choice to lose me and keep him"

For those interested, the thread is to be found on Really Radical Marxism Facebook.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 23, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> It would appear that the Socialist Party has problems on another front (ie apart from Dobbs/Wallace). While following a Facebook thread I stumbled across this from a male member:.



Wtf? Is this a reference to the incident in Wales discussed here months ago or something else?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 23, 2014)

Why is there so much talk of the SP on this thread when it is ostensibly about the break-up of the SWP? I know that a lot of the information about the "Delta case" is to be found in the on-line publications of other left groups and sects but I get to feel that members of the SP especially seem to want to say "look at us, we are also having troubles". Maybe there should be a whole new thread about the squabbles in the Socialist Party.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 23, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Why is there so much talk of the SP on this thread when it is ostensibly about the break-up of the SWP? I know that a lot of the information about the "Delta case" is to be found in the on-line publications of other left groups and sects but I get to feel that members of the SP especially seem to want to say "look at us, we are also having troubles"



Pretty much all of that stuff is brought up by non-SP members.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Feb 23, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Wtf? Is this a reference to the incident in Wales discussed here months ago or something else?


Yes, this would appear to be reference to the Wales "incident". Beyond that I can't help you as I know relatively little about the SP (compared to the SWP). As an ex-member of the SWP, I followed the Delta scandal closely over two years as it was clear that it was a time bomb waiting to explode. I sincerely hope that nothing remotely similar will occur in the SP; the British left is weak enough as it is.


----------



## Trotboy (Feb 23, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Hey at least you haven't posted a recording of a private meeting online and then claimed innocence


Steve recorded the meeting and posted the recording on a secret Facebook Group, which serves as a communication forum for those of us in the 'group of 11' - it was never public, and only used as a resource in the debate, in the way notes might be. I hardly see that as controversial - except when it's made out to be something it's not. The leadership of the party are seeking to divide & rule by excommunicating us one at a time. It won't work, it will blow up in their faces. Why have they just published our second and third documents in an internal bulletin a week before moving to suspend some of us?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 23, 2014)

Trotboy said:


> Steve recorded the meeting and posted the recording on a secret Facebook Group, which serves as a communication forum for those of us in the 'group of 11' - it was never public, and only used as a resource in the debate, in the way notes might be. I hardly see that as controversial - except when it's made out to be something it's not. The leadership of the party are seeking to divide & rule by excommunicating us one at a time. It won't work, it will blow up in their faces. Why have they just published our second and third documents in an internal bulletin a week before moving to suspend some of us?



There are only a handful of you. They don't need to divide and rule. You've given them more than enough excuse to just expel you all and have done with it.

They arent threatened by the power of your arguments - even if you are right it's simply too esoteric an issue for you to win large numbers round - they are exasperated by your behaviour. I'm slightly taken aback by just how much leeway BW was allowed before the Scots suspended him. I'd have assumed he'd be out the door the second he started slagging off random branch members on his blog. I'm even more taken aback that people like you seem willing to overlook his behaviour because he agrees with you on the TRPF.


----------



## comrade spurski (Feb 23, 2014)

I aint in the SP, aint affiliated with it so consider myself impartial...recording a meeting without the permission of those taking part is not ok and it ismade worse by then playing that recording to others.


----------



## Trotboy (Feb 23, 2014)

It's the 'taken aback' bs again. I'm getting rather sick of that to be frank. Who says anyone 'overlooks his behaviour'? I don't appreciate the way he chooses to debate on occasions. But just because of that he should be suspended? Pathetic. On that basis Brian you and I should have been 'out the door' many years ago, along with many others. In what way have all of us given 'excuse to expel us' ?? Just by putting an alternate viewpoint? Just by challenging the leadership? I'm 'taken aback' by the blasé way comrades seem to just want rid of us because you can't be bothered to read Capital and understand it, or read the documents and engage in meaningful debate and discussion. It's all 'oh so boring'.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 23, 2014)

Shut up about the SP. Start your own thread.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 24, 2014)

Trotboy said:


> It's the 'taken aback' bs again. I'm getting rather sick of that to be frank. Who says anyone 'overlooks his behaviour'? I don't appreciate the way he chooses to debate on occasions. But just because of that he should be suspended? Pathetic. On that basis Brian you and I should have been 'out the door' many years ago, along with many others. In what way have all of us given 'excuse to expel us' ?? Just by putting an alternate viewpoint? Just by challenging the leadership? I'm 'taken aback' by the blasé way comrades seem to just want rid of us because you can't be bothered to read Capital and understand it, or read the documents and engage in meaningful debate and discussion. It's all 'oh so boring'.



That's just it. Nobody wants rid of anyone for arguing a different view, for challenging the leadership or even for forcing a somewhat esoteric debate on people who might not regard reading documents on the TRPF as a delightful way to fill their spare time. I'm all in favour of people arguing the toss, generally think that any leadership can do with a bit of challenging and occasionally enjoy a bit of nerdy theoretical debate.

But here are some examples of the sort of thing I do have a problem with. I'm not ok with members ridiculing other people in their branch on a blog because they disagreed with them in a meeting. I'm not ok with members secretly taping branch meetings. I'm not ok with members setting up a Facebook site calibrated to attract every crank on the Internet with a grudge against the CWI.

I don't want any of you expelled, but I do think that the organisation has the right to step in and say that things like that are not acceptable. And if, after they've been warned, certain of your co thinkers refuse to step back from that behaviour, as distinct from not arguing their corner any more, well, they understand and have chosen the consequences.

It's unfortunate that those members of the group of eleven who have been more restrained in their behaviour haven't hauled their wilder cothinkers into line. Instead you seem to prefer to treat any attempt to place limits on their right to do and say whatever they like in pursuit of your argument as evidence of an evil bureaucratic conspiracy to shut you all up. Well, I tend pretty strongly towards the more "libertarian" end of the CWI spectrum when it comes to things like public debate, but even I think that membership carries responsibilities as well as rights. Even if I thought that someone behaving like BW in my own branch was correct on every substantive particular of a given debate, I still wouldn't want them in the branch until and unless they'd agreed to abide by those responsibilities.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 24, 2014)

The post above is about the CWI not the SWP which the thread was about from the start. Get your own thread.


----------



## discokermit (Feb 24, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The post above is about the CWI not the SWP which the thread was about from the start. Get your own thread.


what are you on about. it's relevant. if you've read the thread all the way through you would know this.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 24, 2014)

discokermit said:


> what are you on about. it's relevant. if you've read the thread all the way through you would know this.


I have followed this thread from the beginning and there has been a lot of side talk about the SP in particular all along, but now that there is little news about the problems in the SWP the irrelevant stuff about the SP is beginning to dominate. I don't find it possible to be interested in this. I am aware of the rivalry between the two groups and the effect it had on such ventures as the Socialist Alliance but that is not the key to the break up of the SWP or what is to happen to the remnants. More interesting is what Martin Smith is up to these days and I think this needs to be watched.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 24, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The post above is about the CWI not the SWP which the thread was about from the start. Get your own thread.


Who made you the board police?  This thread STARTED with a specific focus on the internal issues within the SWP, but clearly has taken on a broader series of issues with regard to models of Leninist party and the viability or otherwise of them in the UK - particularly where issues of (sexual) exploitation of power differentials are at stake.   Yes, the Cliffite tradition is a major part of that.  But it's not the whole of it.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Feb 24, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Who made you the board police?  This thread STARTED with a specific focus on the internal issues within the SWP, but clearly has taken on a broader series of issues with regard to models of Leninist party and the viability or otherwise of them in the UK - particularly where issues of (sexual) exploitation of power differentials are at stake.   Yes, the Cliffite tradition is a major part of that.  But it's not the whole of it.


Very well put! I can only add that things are likely to be rather quiet as regards SWP "expulsions and squabbles" at least in the short term. The leadership will be desperate to avoid any further splits and those oppositionists who have remained in the party will keep their heads down until the next conference. Of course, given all that has happened in the past year or so, these could be famous last words...
Meanwhile, the SWP car crash has most definitely raised the broader and very important issues you mention (sexual exploitation of power differentials/models of and viability of a Leninist party) and it is inevitable that contributors to this forum will want to comment on them whenever and whereever they arise.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 24, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Who made you the board police?  This thread STARTED with a specific focus on the internal issues within the SWP, but clearly has taken on a broader series of issues with regard to models of Leninist party and the viability or otherwise of them in the UK - particularly where issues of (sexual) exploitation of power differentials are at stake.   Yes, the Cliffite tradition is a major part of that.  But it's not the whole of it.


I have a Police badge and everything. You are a current member of the labour party so you are in no position to speak. You are only here to gloat about problems of minority parties and their rivalries. I am here for information about the SWP. I was at one time a member and still know people who were members at that time. You can sit on your perch like a tennis umpire but have nothing to contribute. "You cannot be serious".


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2014)

I am not gloating - I was in the SP and am by no means simply hostile although I do think there are some serious issues there - which may or may not be inherent to the whole vanguard model.  The SWP is not some uniquely significant example of these issues getting played out.  It;s reasonable to consider other examples in the light of what happened there. 

I'm hardly unaware of the limitations and inadequacies of the Labour party (or the LRC for that matter) - I think an ability to critically reflect on the problems with organisations we nevertheless continue to lay some claim on is essential.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 25, 2014)

I think this has become the generic "trot-trouble" thread tbh


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 25, 2014)

if you do a search for 'Leninist Beef' this thread is the first result


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2014)

articul8 said:


> I am not gloating - I was in the SP and am by no means simply hostile although I do think there are some serious issues there - which may or may not be inherent to the whole vanguard model.  The SWP is not some uniquely significant example of these issues getting played out.  It;s reasonable to consider other examples in the light of what happened there.
> 
> I'm hardly unaware of the limitations and inadequacies of the Labour party (or the LRC for that matter) - I think an ability to critically reflect on the problems with organisations we nevertheless continue to lay some claim on is essential.


What is the use of your 'may or may not' here?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2014)

Well that is what is under debate - obviously I have not chosen to join another group with a vanguardist idea of itself, nor have I attempted to start a new one, or regroup others into something that aspires to be one.  So OK I've essentially drawn the conclusion that the model itself is at fault, not just the SP interation of it.  But others haven't drawn those conclusions, but are raising criticisms that might point in that direction.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2014)

So you seek to encompass every single position possible under your posts do you? Why don't you just say what you think? It would make things easier all round.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2014)

But I was trying to say - this is not my personal beef with the SP or an attempt to gloat at small left groups in general - the issues at stake here are wider, and being actively discussed across the Leninist left.  Which is why @Hocus Eye is wrong to insist "shut up about other groups, I only want to discuss the SWP".


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2014)

articul8 said:


> But I was trying to say - this is not my personal beef with the SP or an attempt to gloat at small left groups in general - the issues at stake here are wider, and being actively discussed across the Leninist left.  Which is why @Hocus Eye is wrong to insist "shut up about other groups, I only want to discuss the SWP".


Of course he's wrong in his usual pompous way, but why don't you ever just say what you mean? 

And you have actually joined the biggest vanguardist gang on the block - precisely _because _they are the largest vanguardist gang on the block. Anyway, silly intervention from me - enough.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2014)

musical interlude


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 25, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if you do a search for 'Leninist Beef' this thread is the first result


what about 'Leninist Beef Curtains'?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 25, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> what about 'Leninist Beef Curtains'?


Now that sounds like Lady Gaga's interior decorating style


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 25, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if you do a search for 'Leninist Beef' this thread is the first result



and if you type in "Leninist beefcake" you get this:


----------



## Karmickameleon (Mar 3, 2014)

Whatever happened to "Neither Washington nor Moscow"?? As the cliché has it, Cliff will be spinning in his proverbial grave:

http://stopwar.org.uk/news/ten-thin...crisis-in-ukraine-and-the-crimea#.UxR2VON5OYC


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2014)

I was going to post that on the Ukraine thread earlier but forgot, ta for reminder:



> Those who demand anti-war activity here in Britain against Russia are ignoring the history and the present reality in Ukraine and Crimea. The B52 liberals only oppose wars when their own rulers do so, and support the ones carried out by our governments. The job of any anti-war movement is to oppose its own government's role in these wars, and to explain what that government and its allies are up to.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I was going to post that on the Ukraine thread earlier but forgot, ta for reminder:


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 3, 2014)

And as if on cue the prof writes a fairly good article for SW that restates the Neither nor position quite well. And takes to task those making excuses for Moscow.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2014)

a former comrade has just posted "nationalise the media under democratic control" under a post about government/BBC censorship.

I'm not being funny, but REALLY????


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2014)

One other thing, the old stalinists on stw were always going to happy with this shit, but if there's now war any popular reaction will be outside of these clowns.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 3, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> a former comrade has just posted "nationalise the media under democratic control" under a post about government/BBC censorship.
> 
> I'm not being funny, but REALLY????



Yeah, but they probably either don't realise how that sounds or the variations on what it could mean.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 3, 2014)

technically the beeb is supposed to be a nationalised industry if you ask frothers from the torygraph. Even though they make most of their money flogging Doctor Who and Top Gear abroad, and the other channels get some of the license money towards their news services.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 3, 2014)

Awful intervention by LG on C4 News tonight. "Russia is concerned".  http://bcove.me/kmvjaz6e


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Awful intervention by LG on C4 News tonight. "Russia is concerned".  http://bcove.me/kmvjaz6e


You bred her.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 3, 2014)

The left and right of British politics are full of people 'bred by' the IS. People move in all sorts of directions. That tells us very little. I'm personally surprised she's moved this far from the fairly obvious bog standard IS position on this subject.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The left and right of British politics are full of people 'bred by' the IS. People move in all sorts of directions. That tells us very little. I'm personally surprised she's moved this far from the fairly obvious bog standard IS position on this subject.


I'm not. It's not that far. And work is hard.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 3, 2014)

That's just silly butchers. Opposition to 'lesser evil' imperialisms was kind of the whole point of state capitalism as a theory. This is a huge reversal of her own history as a socialist.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> technically the beeb is supposed to be a nationalised industry if you ask frothers from the torygraph. Even though they make most of their money flogging Doctor Who and Top Gear abroad, and the other channels get some of the license money towards their news services.


Channel Four is state owned as well


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 3, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That's just silly butchers. Opposition to 'lesser evil' imperialisms was kind of the whole point of state capitalism as a theory. This is a huge reversal of her own history as a socialist.


It's the exact same idiocy that led to working with MAB/Respect etc


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2014)

In practice? From Taking Iraqs side on ward i meant nothing. You were the same as the crude anti-imperialists.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 3, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> That's just silly butchers. Opposition to 'lesser evil' imperialisms was kind of the whole point of state capitalism as a theory. This is a huge reversal of her own history as a socialist.



No it wasn't you lying fuck.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 3, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The left and right of British politics are full of people 'bred by' the IS. People move in all sorts of directions. That tells us very little. I'm personally surprised she's moved this far from the fairly obvious bog standard IS position on this subject.



If hundreds/thousands can pass through your ranks and then abandon socialist ideas entirely, doesn't that tell us you're not doing it right?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 3, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In practice? From Taking Iraqs side on ward i meant nothing. You were the same as the crude anti-imperialists.


Crude is equating Iraq with Russia or any other major imperialist power. Crude and silly.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 3, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> No it wasn't you lying fuck.


It's the articulate rebuttals that make this thread worth coming back to again and again.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 3, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It's the articulate rebuttals that make this thread worth coming back to again and again.


Your contributions on this thread illustrate why so many people regard the swp as a lunatic sect of an organisation. 
You defend the cc when it runs a coach and horse through the very basic socialist principle of women being belived when they say they have been raped.
You attack ex cc members when they break from IS politics.
You defend members of the swp who berate and bully those it disagrees with because they are fighting for socialism.
You attack swp members who disagree with you because they refuse to keep their criticisms of the swp in house because they fear that the swp is damaging the fight for socialism. 

Your politics come across as every bit stalinist as lindsey german.

Part of politics is to continuously learn surely...and I fail to understand how anyone learns without listening...and your contributions rarely show any ability to listen....just like the swp...I dont know you...I may have come across you during my 23 yrs in the swp but the way you present on here explains why I had very few friends in the swp and none in it now

Bizarrely enough I remember charlie kimber standing up at a swp event stating that the swp needs to be involved in " a dialogue not a diatribe"
.....around the time blair was first elected....he like you has a very fucked up view of dialogue.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 3, 2014)

Three things spurski

1) Berating is good and defensible, it's what people do when they believe something to be true, its sometimes called sharp arguing but berating will do as a term if you prefer. Bullying is different and is not something I think anyone beyond the worst hack would defend.

2) Calling LG a Stalinist and then comparing others to her is to rob the term of much useful content. Yes on the question of Ukraine and Syria before it she and Rees seem to have made their peace with the tankies but I'm not sure what else calling her or Counterfire Stalinists tells us. I continue to think she has one of the better, most nuanced positions on women's oppression and Marxism around. If anything the identity politics of the most extreme ex members is much more akin to Stalinist politics than hers or the SWP are.

3) It's difficult to listen when people are shouting which is what most of the people addressing me or anyone who isn't in the smash the SWP now camp tend to do on this thread. That said where people do at least try to understand where the people they disagree with are coming from and pitch their arguments accordingly then yes I do think I've learned things from people on here (but not as much as from oppositionists not posting here). My ideas have changed over the last year or so but I think the current state of the various splits and proposed alternatives leaves me more confident than ever that whatever failings the SWP might have it is still the best option on offer.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Mar 3, 2014)

Seymour adds another episode to his take on the crisis in the SWP:

http://www.leninology.com/2014/03/the-crisis-in-swp-part-v.html


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 3, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Three things spurski
> 
> 1) Berating is good and defensible, it's what people do when they believe something to be true, its sometimes called sharp arguing but berating will do as a term if you prefer. Bullying is different and is not something I think anyone beyond the worst hack would defend.
> 
> ...



1) when arguing that immigration is not the cause of the problems faced by working class people I never berate even though I passionately believe my view point is correct. When arguing that the country can afford better pensions, wages, benefits, to spend more on services I dont berate...even though I am passionate about this. I dont berate when disagreeing because the point is to be heard and to get people to agree ...I have berated managers, I have berated name calling racists and homophobes...cos the point is to shut them up ... this forum is a discusion forum...there are some horrible fuckers on here occasionally but you seem to be incapanle of debating with ANYONE and seem only able to berate imo.

2) fair enough... 

3) in my opinion people shout at you in response to your posts which are at times breathe taking in their callousness. 
You may think the swp is the best option available but the truth is that an organisation ( a party , a campaign group or a union etc.) is simply a tool...and if a tool is broken it not only can not do its job it can also be harmful and in my opinion the swp is extremely harmful


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 3, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It's the articulate rebuttals that make this thread worth coming back to again and again.



Fine. If you're talking about state capitalist theory in general, it was around for years before Cliff was born. If you're talking about his bastardised version, the point was to avoid difficult conversations about what went wrong with the Russian Revolution or how to understand the USSR by dismissing it as the same 'evil' as everything else.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 3, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Seymour adds another episode to his take on the crisis in the SWP:
> 
> http://www.leninology.com/2014/03/the-crisis-in-swp-part-v.html



He is such a fucking drama queen, why is he serialising these?


----------



## treelover (Mar 4, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Seymour adds another episode to his take on the crisis in the SWP:
> 
> http://www.leninology.com/2014/03/the-crisis-in-swp-part-v.html




All of this was only interesting when it looked like something could be learnt from it and that something positive would emerge, it hasn't.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 4, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Awful intervention by LG on C4 News tonight. "Russia is concerned".  http://bcove.me/kmvjaz6e



To  be fair this is pretty ironic - she couldn't support Korea in 1950 but she can support Putin's Russia in 2014.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

edit: apologies to Karmickameleon, hadn't seen s/he had posted it already.

Seymour finally posts part 5.



> When Callinicos phoned back, his disarray was greatly aggravated. As he tried to explain that the meeting was about why I had been shouting my head off to the whole world that the CC was corrupt and covering up rape allegations and all sorts... his voice choked and he broke into quite audible, mournful sobs. I froze. My stomach froze. He was a sixty year old man, of colonial aristocratic pedigree, and fairly tough I assumed. The last thing I expected or knew how to deal with was him weeping down the phone.





> "DON'T PLAY GAMES WITH ME!" Callinicos retorted, really channelling Bishop Brennan at this point.





> Callinicos and Choonara maintained that the crisis was not inevitable, and that the true responsibility for it rested with whoever had leaked the conference transcript, then Tom Walker for what he had said in his resignation statement, and then myself for what I had written on my blog.



And the prof basically adopts the _proletarian standpoint_ nonsense of that fraud whose name i forget whose IB contribution we had a laugh at last year:



> What I had failed to understand, what I plainly did not understand, what I obviously had complete contempt for, was political morality. You see, it is the "political morality" of a revolutionary party which ensures that if members of a disputes committee, long-standing cadres, believe that someone is guilty of rape, they will discipline that person.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 4, 2014)

Rhetta


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 4, 2014)

> At a personal level, the short-term relief and catharsis of publicly lancing the boil started to give way to a new fear: they might not actually fucking expel me, and I would actually have to actually stay in and fight as I was urging everyone else to do. Worse, I would be expected to evince 'leadership'. In an organisation where the majority of people already thought I was suspect because of my mildly heretical leanings on Syriza, I would have to persuade people that the organisation was in such a severe crisis that the entire leadership had to be overthrown and replaced with... well, something nicer. *I would have to attend branch meetings for the first time in years,* that would be fun.



He really is the most awful person. He probably thinks he's being modest here.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

Yes, that lept out at me. I can see bb is going to have some fun with that later.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 4, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It's the articulate rebuttals that make this thread worth coming back to again and again.



You're a rabid dog with just enough smarts left in your addled brain to put on a show of normality to gain acceptance. You need to be kicked every time you come back here with your tail between your legs just to keep your awful yowling to a minimum.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2014)

I shouldn't share this bit of info (and my inner rabid dog is fuming with me) as it only serves to back up what butchers said last night about LG not having far to move from her IS days, but hey ho. She's been discussing Ukraine with me on FB and she did actually use the Iraq example that butchers mentioned. she accused those of us condemning Russia of being abstract in the same way as those who didn't recognise the concrete relative balance of power between the US and Iraq back in the day. Hasnt come back yet on my counter argument that Russia is a slightly bigger fish than Iraq but we'll see. Think they must be feeling the flak from all sides this morning. even Billy Bragg had a pop at them last night!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, that lept out at me. I can see bb is going to have some fun with that later.


It's too easy. The whole thing was clearly an intellectual game to him,the practical outcome of which he couldn't have cared less about, as with his flippant remarks about where people who left would end up. Worth saying though he's a million miles in that indifference from the likes of decent folk like Renton who cared, cared a lot, what happened politically to everyone involved. The opposition (as with the loyalists) had many strange alliances of very disparate people.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 4, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> You're a rabid dog with just enough smarts left in your addled brain to put on a show of normality to gain acceptance. You need to be kicked every time you come back here with your tail between your legs just to keep your awful yowling to a minimum.


Fucking hell, if acceptance by the majority on this thread is what counts as normal!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It's too easy. The whole thing was clearly an intellectual game to him,the practical outcome of which he couldn't have cared less about, as with his flippant remarks about where people who left would end up. Worth saying though he's a million miles in that indifference from the likes of decent folk like Renton who cared, cared a lot, what happened politically to everyone involved. The opposition (as with the loyalists) had many strange alliances of very disparate people.


The thing about that little aside by him is its arrogance - it's easy enough to make a case for him having a different role on the party etc - one that i think Callinicos would be happy to adopt himself even - but that was just dripping with dismissive arrogance and i can see him smirking as he typed it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 4, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Many strange alliances of very disparate people.



Sounds like the good old SWP to me.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 4, 2014)

spoke to my Swappie neighbour this morning - no idea what the Swappie line on Russia/Ukraine is - but her view was that she didn't know what to think, the Ukraine is full of facists, she said.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

marty21 said:


> spoke to my Swappie neighbour this morning - no idea what the Swappie line on Russia/Ukraine is - but her view was that she didn't know what to think, the Ukraine is full of facists, she said.


This is supposed be the brain and memory of the class, able to see further and deeper than others - and that's all she can come up with? Pah! Tell her that there 47 million people in the Ukraine then ask her how many she thinks are fascists.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 4, 2014)

Speaking of Seymour, look at the shit he is promoting here http://www.leninology.com/2014/03/dieudonne-through-prism-of-white-left.html


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Speaking of Seymour, look at the shit he is promoting here http://www.leninology.com/2014/03/dieudonne-through-prism-of-white-left.html


 
someone just posted that on fb ... disgusting (i'll read it properly later)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Speaking of Seymour, look at the shit he is promoting here http://www.leninology.com/2014/03/dieudonne-through-prism-of-white-left.html


Yes, i read that earlier in the week- the argument is that people who don't like anti-semitism don't understand the power of a black man standing up and saying what he thinks - regardless of what he says. It's appalling - it actually does exactly what it accuses others of, it fails utterly to see the terrible damaging power of a black man standing up and endorsing anti-semitism. The CLR James quote is a terrible misuse as well.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, i read that earlier in the week- the argument is that people who don't like anti-semitism don't understand the power of a black man standing up and saying what he thinks - regardless of what he says. It's appalling - it actually does exactly what it accuses others of, it fails utterly to see the terrible damaging power of a black man standing up and endorsing anti-semitism. The CLR James quote is a terrible misuse as well.


 
It's really patronising and a bit racist to assume that dieudonne just says what he says out of ignorance and stupidity. he's mates with batskin ffs.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2014)

whatever else can be said about Dieudonne, he's plainly not an idiot. He's obviously someone who's thought about his views and been quite successful at what he's set out to achieve. He's scum, but he's not stupid

Unlike SEYMOUR! et al (at least in this case) and their pathetic liberal squirming


----------



## J Ed (Mar 4, 2014)

You would think that Seymour would have learnt a bit from his getting burnt by that kind of thinking but obviously not.


----------



## belboid (Mar 4, 2014)

More quotes from 'the excellent Houria Bouteldja':

"the homosexual lifestyle does not exist in poor neighborhoods."...."I do not think universality of homosexual identity politics. I distinguish between the fact that there may actually homosexual practices in neighborhoods or elsewhere, but it does not manifest itself by identity politics claim. "

She sounds like a reactionary fool.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> More quotes from 'the excellent Houria Bouteldja':
> 
> "the homosexual lifestyle does not exist in poor neighborhoods."...."I do not think universality of homosexual identity politics. I distinguish between the fact that there may actually homosexual practices in neighborhoods or elsewhere, but it does not manifest itself by identity politics claim. "
> 
> She sounds like a reactionary fool.


 
 

is that from seymour??

wtf is his problem?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

belboid said:


> More quotes from 'the excellent Houria Bouteldja':
> 
> "the homosexual lifestyle does not exist in poor neighborhoods."...."I do not think universality of homosexual identity politics. I distinguish between the fact that there may actually homosexual practices in neighborhoods or elsewhere, but it does not manifest itself by identity politics claim. "
> 
> She sounds like a reactionary fool.


Her argument is that accepting homosexuality is a form of 'sexual imperialism' imposed on indigènes  and their areas. It's another example of the dieudonne style crossover between far-right politics and community/identity style defence politics. It's rancid.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> is that from seymour??
> 
> wtf is his problem?


That's from the woman who wrote the piece he put up on his site.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Mar 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Her argument is that accepting homosexuality is a form of 'sexual imperialism' imposed on indigènes  and their areas. It's another example of the dieudonne style crossover between far-right politics and community/identity style defence politics. It's rancid.


 
good grief


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2014)

That's almost disgustingly beautiful in how it's adaptable to any cunt wanting to be a cunt.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 4, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Speaking of Seymour, look at the shit he is promoting here http://www.leninology.com/2014/03/dieudonne-through-prism-of-white-left.html


 
WTF is this drivel?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Her argument is that accepting homosexuality is a form of 'sexual imperialism' imposed on indigènes  and their areas.


 
What???

Isn't that sort of Putin's argument?  The idea that homosexuality never existed in Russia and was promoted by the west?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2014)

By the way that was the original far-right's view of homosexuality as well. Back in the 30s etc. Apparently homosexuality "never existed" in germany before ... but you'll never guess who introduced it


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2014)

Reminds me of the apocryphal Dagenham story, someone asked them about race tension..

"Oh no, we don't have none of that round here, 'cause we don't let them live here"

/


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> By the way that was the original far-right's view of homosexuality as well. Back in the 30s etc. Apparently homosexuality "never existed" in germany before ... but you'll never guess who introduced it


Jesse Owens?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2014)

Christoper Isherwood, the swine


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Jesse Owens?


 
some of these identity politics clowns would actually think that


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2014)

Balbi said:


> Christoper Isherwood, the swine


----------



## Bun (Mar 5, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> By the way that was the original far-right's view of homosexuality as well. Back in the 30s etc. Apparently homosexuality "never existed" in germany before ... but you'll never guess who introduced it





frogwoman said:


> is that from seymour??
> 
> wtf is his problem?


I did not think he could get lower than an SWP hack or a stint as Galloway's bag man but he has...well done, you!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2014)

Just quickly back to German on Ukraine/Russia for a sec - headline pieces alongside her nonsense on the counterfire site is a piece The way it starts: Libya and the disaster of humanitarian intervention - and a statement of the Russian Socialist Movement entitled No war with Ukraine! which CF preface with:



> The following statement of the Russian Socialist Movement is an example of how socialists oppose the imperial ambitions of their own ruling class - one the Left in Britain should emulate



I'm looking forward to the coming piece explaining why coherency is overrated and how this is the leninist democratic centralism they wanted the SWP to adopt/return to being put into practice.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Just quickly back to German on Ukraine/Russia for a sec - headline pieces alongside her nonsense on the counterfire site is a piece The way it starts: Libya and the disaster of humanitarian intervention - and a statement of the Russian Socialist Movement entitled No war with Ukraine! which CF preface with:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward to the coming piece explaining why coherency is overrated and how this is the leninist democratic centralism they wanted the SWP to adopt/return to being put into practice.



A fine example of multitudinous positionism.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 6, 2014)

Apparently it's ok cause the Counterfire piece has a single sentence that says they're against all military intervention. Not clear if they're against the de facto partition of Ukraine that's taking place right now or if this is just another example of the 'contested' nationhood that LG listed as one of the 'complications' in her 10 point article.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 7, 2014)

Mark Steel speaks at RS21 event.

http://rs21.org.uk/2014/03/07/mark-steel-joins-rs21-political-weekend/


----------



## treelover (Mar 7, 2014)

They don't hang about, where do they get the funding/resources? and of course, no contrition...


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> where do they get the funding/resources?


they stole it off you


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2014)

treelover said:


> They don't hang about, where do they get the funding/resources? and of course, no contrition...



They get the "funding/resources" and the ability to do some things relatively quickly from having 100-200 relatively dedicated activists and a reasonably competent organisational culture. The only people who would find that sort of basic organisational ability surprising or impressive are fluffy soft lefts on the one hand, or anarchoids on the other, ie the least organisationally competent people there are.

Also, why would they be contrite?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 8, 2014)

For once I totally agree with NI and belboid. good on them, least they haven't just gone meekly into the night.


----------



## treelover (Mar 8, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They get the "funding/resources" and the ability to do some things relatively quickly from having 100-200 relatively dedicated activists and a reasonably competent organisational culture. *The only people who would find that sort of basic organisational ability surprising or impressive are fluffy soft lefts on the one hand, or anarchoids on the other, ie the least organisationally competent people there are.*
> 
> Also, why would they be contrite?




You clearly didn't go to climate camp


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> You clearly didn't go to climate camp



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Mar 8, 2014)

Phil Evans, the talented socialist cartoonist, has died at the age of 68. Old timers may remember his "Our Norman" series from Socialist Worker in the 1970's.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 9, 2014)

:-(


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 9, 2014)

Damn, I love his cartoons. Rest in peace, Phil.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 9, 2014)

An article on Phil Evans and his work from 2010 here.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Mar 9, 2014)

Statement of the International Socialist Tendency on Ukraine:

Neither the West nor Russia – No to imperialist war games over Ukraine: statement by the International Socialist Tendency

The appearance of Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms on the streets of Crimea and the reaction to this of the West and the new Ukrainian government has brought Ukraine to the brink of war.

On its part the US administration has announced sending fighter jets and soldiers to Poland and Lithuania. It is hypocritically denouncing the Russian intervention in Crimea – forgetting not just its own wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also actions in its own “backyard” like the naval blockade of Cuba in October 1962 and the invasion of Panama in December 1989.

In this clash between western and Russian imperialism we cannot support either side. We are opposed to the intervention of any NATO or European Union state in Ukraine. We are also opposed to any Russian intervention.

The imperialist powers have been attempting to use the current crisis to shape the future Ukraine in their own interests. The Russians had banked on Viktor Yanukovych and a stream of Western politicians intervened directly in the Maidan protests.

There is no deliberate push for war in either Washington or Moscow but war may result if the conflict escalates.


There is no progressive imperialism
In contemporary capitalism imperialism is a system of economic and geopolitical competition among the leading powers.

Many people who sincerely oppose war and social injustice are pulled to support what they see as either the progressiveness of the West (chiefly in the guise of the “modernising"” EU) or of Russia (often the same people who had illusions in the socialist nature of the USSR).

For some only the West can be imperialist, for others only Russia.

We have to reject both these positions. Of course the clear internationalist slogan “the main enemy is at home” applies, but this is in no way equivalent to painting any imperialist power in conflict with the ruling class of our own state in progressive colours.

The IS Tendency’s tradition of socialism from below, whose slogan “Neither Washington nor Moscow” helped socialists to keep their bearings during the Cold War, has never been more relevant.

Two main nationalisms

Two main nationalisms are currently dividing people in Ukraine. These nationalisms are entangled with support for the Western powers and Russia.

The anti-Russian nationalism that is strongest in western Ukraine has deep roots. Russia has dominated Ukraine since independence in 1991. The memory of Russian oppression within the USSR is still vivid and reaches even earlier to the independence struggles of the first half of the 20th century.

It must also be remembered that the Crimean Tatars (around 12 percent of the Crimean population) were exiled to Uzbekistan by Stalin in 1944 and have only started coming back in numbers in recent decades. Fear and dislike of Russian power has helped to create an idealised picture of the West.

On the other side, many of the millions of Russian speakers identify with Russia. One of the first acts of the new Ukrainian government after the fall of Yanukovych was to strip Russian of its status as an official language. This encouraged mass protests in the east of the country.

The waving of nationalist flags in western Ukraine and Russian flags in the east symbolises and strengthens these nationalisms – and the divisions between workers in both parts of the country.

Putin is not an antifascist force
The presence of fascist ministers in the new Ukrainian government is a blow to those fighting for social change and greater democracy. It was however a result of the significant role the fascists played in the Maidan occupation. That was possible because the left is historically weak in Ukraine but it also created a serious barrier to the development of an organised left during the protests.

Nevertheless, those who claim Yanukovych’s overthrow was a “fascist coup” are parroting Moscow propaganda. He fell because the section of the oligarchy who had previously backed him withdrew their support in the context of mass protests and clashes resulting in the deaths of around a hundred protesters.

The presence of fascists in the government in no way justifies Vladimir Putin's intervention in Ukraine.

It is absurd to imply that he is fighting fascism. In Russia Putin makes use of extreme right politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky and turns a blind eye to the activities of fascist groups.

And with the weakness of the left in Ukraine Russian imperialist intervention is strengthening all forms of nationalism, including fascism.


For the West on the other hand the fascist ministers are no barrier for them to support the new government. And Western politicians were prepared to meet, and speak on the same platform with fascist leaders at Maidan,

Attacks on workers and the fightback
In addition to the attacks on workers by Ukrainian politicians serving the interests of the oligarchs, the imperialist powers are now adding their own pressure from outside on the living standards of ordinary people in Ukraine. The 11 billion euro aid recently announced by the European Union depends on Ukraine agreeing to a deal with the IMF and the cuts that will follow. The IMF is, for example, insisting that consumer fuel subsidies are scrapped. On the Russian side Gazprom has already decided to withdraw the price reductions on gas Putin offered Yanukoyvich from 1 April.

There is widespread opposition to oligarchic rule in both the west and the east of Ukraine – both at Maidan and pro-Russian protests – but nationalist divisions are currently preventing the unity of workers and the poor against them.

The best hope for the future lies in workers uniting in protests and strikes against all oligarchs, at the same time overcoming the nationalisms that are providing support for the imperialist war games. The explosion of anger in Maidan against Yanukoyvich had its roots in opposition to poverty, austerity and privatisation imposed on the people of Ukraine by all sections of the oligarchs and both the IMF-EU and Moscow.

This may seem a distant aim at present but the example of Bosnia, where working class protesters are actively opposing the nationalist enmities that led to the deaths of 100,000 people in a country of under four million, shows that such unity is possible. If the left in Europe steps up the fight against intervention and austerity it can help the development of a left alternative in Ukraine.

The Coordination of the IS Tendency				9 March 2014


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 10, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Statement of the International Socialist Tendency on Ukraine:
> 
> Neither the West nor Russia – No to imperialist war games over Ukraine: statement by the International Socialist Tendency
> 
> ...



That's the IS tendency as in the SWP, rather than the ISN, right? 

It's far from the worst statement I've seen on the Ukraine tbf


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 10, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's the IS tendency as in the SWP, rather than the ISN, right?



Yes. They don't do much as a collective really, perhaps a statement or two a year, if that.

Website here: internationalsocialists.org

Currently claiming 28 affiliates, which is a little down on the last claim I saw, but that may actually be just a result of not listing "groups" that are just a website any more. They also list groups in Germany and France as "in the IST tradition" (note: not in the IS tradition, which might drag in some more) while not actual IST affiliates. That the Germans aren't formally in the IST any more I already knew, but I hadn't realised that about the smaller French outfit.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Mar 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Yes. They don't do much as a collective really, perhaps a statement or two a year, if that.
> 
> Website here: internationalsocialists.org
> 
> Currently claiming 28 affiliates, which is a little down on the last claim I saw, but that may actually be just a result of not listing "groups" that are just a website any more. They also list groups in Germany and France as "in the IST tradition" (note: not in the IS tradition, which might drag in some more) while not actual IST affiliates. That the Germans aren't formally in the IST any more I already knew, but I hadn't realised that about the smaller French outfit.


The French group, which intermittently publishes the "Que Faire" review, was originally called "Socialisme par en bas". The latter joined the "Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire" as an official faction in 2004 but disbanded in 2007. Its members are now part of the "Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste" and, as such (one supposes), they aren't allowed to be formal affiliates to the IST.


----------



## leyton96 (Mar 10, 2014)

[quote="Karmickameleon, post:  Its members are now part of the "Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste" and, as such (one supposes), they aren't allowed to be formal affiliates to the IST.[/quote]

Dunno about that. The French section of the CWI were in the NPA for a time. Their open affiliation to the CWI was never a bar to their membership afaik.

I suspect they may well have left* the IST for the same reason as their German counterparts. It makes them seem less sectarian and more committed to building the broader formation to the reformist elements in the party than those who are open about their international affiliations. 

* I'm sceptical that being formally in or out of the IST makes much difference in terms of the actual relationship between different groups and the British SWP. That is unless there's a proper bust up with the Brits like the upstart Yanks *breaks out the tranquiliser gun in anticipation of bolshieboys Pavlovian response to mention of the ISO* or the Kiwis or the Ozzies.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 10, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> I suspect they may well have left* the IST for the same reason as their German counterparts. It makes them seem less sectarian and more committed to building the broader formation to the reformist elements in the party than those who are open about their international affiliations.
> 
> * I'm sceptical that being formally in or out of the IST makes much difference in terms of the actual relationship between different groups and the British SWP. That is unless there's a proper bust up with the Brits like the upstart Yanks *breaks out the tranquiliser gun in anticipation of bolshieboys Pavlovian response to mention of the ISO* or the Kiwis or the Ozzies.



Agreed on the most likely reason.

As for how much difference it makes, it's hard to know from outside the leaderships of the various groups. It used to be an occasional meeting in London, once or twice a year, usually at Marxism, plus a whole series of individual relationships between groups abroad and whoever the SWP had in charge of international work (Callinicos for many years). However, there is now a slightly more regularly updated website and one of the people from a European group who resigned over the Delta crisis made mention to working fulltime for the IST for a while. So there may be a little more to it now. Who knows? Certainly not most rank and file SWP members!


----------



## pir (Mar 11, 2014)

The SWP seem to have lost their venue for Marxism:



> *Statement Regarding Marxism Festival 2014 and the Socialist Workers Party*
> 
> The Marxism Festival is the annual summer school event of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP). Our rejection of this year's request to book rooms at the University of London Union for Marxism Festival 2014 is due to the fact that the Socialist Workers' Party has, over the last year, proven itself to be a corrupt, rape apologist organisation which prides itself in creating an unsafe space for young women. As elected officers – like many others in the student movement – we see the SWP’s handling of rape allegations against a senior member as a despicable denial of sexism.
> 
> ...


----------



## JHE (Mar 11, 2014)

pir said:


> The SWP seem to have lost their venue for Marxism:



That's where all the over-the-top accusations get you, I suppose.  People shout that the Social Workers are "rape apologists" and all the rest of it and in the end some people, including student union officials and the like, really believe that shit.

The SWP is a despicable group in some ways and their handling of rape allegations against Smith was (predictably) shit, but they are a political group which should be allowed to meet, hold public meetings, promote their ideas, debate, flog their propaganda and so on.

You can be sure that the little band of banners who won't allow the Social Workers to book the place will continue to allow other much more reactionary groups to meet on the premises.


----------



## laptop (Mar 11, 2014)

JHE said:


> The SWP is a despicable group in some ways and their handling of rape allegations against Smith was (predictably) shit, but they are a political group which should be allowed to meet, hold public meetings, promote their ideas, debate, flog their propaganda and so on.



And ULU is (still, despite the best efforts of the University authorities) a political body that's entitled to send a strong message to the Social Workers this way.








Counting down to cry of "witchhunt" 10, 9, 8...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2014)

i think that statement's fair enough tbh.


----------



## belboid (Mar 11, 2014)

laptop said:


> And ULU is (still, despite the best efforts of the University authorities) a political body that's entitled to send a strong message to the Social Workers this way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it's JHE, he doesn't approve of anyone being discriminated against. Except muslims.


----------



## laptop (Mar 11, 2014)

belboid said:


> it's JHE, he doesn't approve of anyone being discriminated against. Except muslims.



D'oh! Of course.


What about Muslim witches?


----------



## emanymton (Mar 11, 2014)

I didn't think that had used ULU for the last few years?

ETA - Looks like they used ULU last year but pretty sure they didn't use it in 2012.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 11, 2014)

pir said:


> The SWP seem to have lost their venue for Marxism:



Though I agree with a lot of the stuff in that statement the part I've bolded here is obviously not true and just makes it easier for apologists like bolshiebhoy to rubbish it:



> the Socialist Workers' Party has, over the last year, proven itself to be a corrupt, rape apologist organisation *which prides itself in creating an unsafe space for young women.*



Don't know what to think about the ban really - unless it's the fash or something like that I don't like it when student politicos try and prevent people from speaking and I'm far from convinced it's as effective as turning up and having it out with them in front of an audience (and given the size of the opposition to the SWP it wouldn't be that hard to organise an intervention that's big enough to do just that).

And disagreeable as I find JHE and his opinions, I think he's got a point when he says the venue must regularly host events for people with far more reactionary views towards women than the SWP. I don't think it's just his usual tedious hypocrisy hunting.

On the other hand, this is more than just one meeting - it's a weekend long event - and I do take onboard what laptop said about ulu being a political organisation.

I'm just instinctively wary of any attempt to try and prevent political groups meeting, organising, etc. I've made exceptions for the fash in the past but even then it's a tactical thing to be decided on a case by case basis. 

I'm probably not being very clear here but I just worry that this may prove to be a dangerous precendent to set and I do think some people (not anyone here btw) seem to think that the SWP are the greatest enemy of womens liberation when I don't think they're even the biggest enemy on the left if the labour party still counts as left these days.


----------



## belboid (Mar 12, 2014)

New book out from Seymour.  The preface is appallingly written, but the rest of it might not be that bad.

http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745333281

Sample


----------



## BK Double Stack (Mar 12, 2014)

"might not be that bad." actual lulz


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 13, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Though I agree with a lot of the stuff in that statement the part I've bolded here is obviously not true and just makes it easier for apologists like bolshiebhoy to rubbish it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bang on the money mate-and you can bet the SU officers who banned them are bleeding heart liberal scum. Its always nice to see the swops get some grief but this is beyond the pale, and the section you highlighted is ludicrous. Sure its a political body, but that doesn't excuse shit decisions. What if you're a young swop and you go to ULU-are you banned?

I fucking hate students - loads of the so called left ones would have thrived in Nazi Germany. Anyway, see youse later, I'm off to NUS sections conference...


----------



## rekil (Mar 13, 2014)

belboid said:


> New book out from Seymour.  The preface is appallingly written,


You're not wrong. It's dripping with contempt for those who just can't handle his intellectual swagger.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2014)

Wow. Cunt. He does personal emails like that too. Really.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 13, 2014)




----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2014)

copliker said:


> You're not wrong. It's dripping with contempt for those who just can't handle his intellectual swagger...



Is he channeling Stewart Lee there, or what?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

copliker said:


> You're not wrong. It's dripping with contempt for those who just can't handle his intellectual swagger.
> 
> View attachment 50097


 
Not something that I'd expect a socialist to write, sneering at people looking at the 3 for 2 section??


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

Proletarian Democracy needs to use "rococo ornamentation" in one of our articles now.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 13, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is he channeling Stewart Lee there, or what?


 without the irony - Seymour is a comedian alright though, just a second-rate one


----------



## Balbi (Mar 13, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Proletarian Democracy needs to use "rococo ornamentation" in one of our articles now.



Cmmbe Rococo Ornamentation reporting from Ukraine


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

Balbi said:


> Cmmbe Rococo Ornamentation reporting from Ukraine


 
I was thinking along the lines of

"the working class has no need of Seymour!ite rococo ornamentation, the only baubles it needs are the ones which hang off the workers' bomb" etc


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2014)

Workers baublles - don't old tankies 0 if they're alive - bother with the badges and pins anymore?


----------



## rekil (Mar 13, 2014)

Pins and buttons and badges are for sad so old brocialists. PD are all about promo banner bugs.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 13, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Proletarian Democracy needs to use "rococo ornamentation" in one of our articles now.


Perhaps a paragraph entitled Baroque Democracy or how I stopped worrying and learned to love the ornamented bomb.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Proletarian Democracy needs to use "rococo ornamentation" in one of our articles now.




intellectual swagger is gold


----------



## J Ed (Mar 13, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> intellectual swagger is gold



Seymour thinks he's a rapper


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 13, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is he channeling Stewart Lee there, or what?



I have a sneaking suspicion that he'll turn out to be another Hitchens, but the jury's still out on whether it'll be Peter or Christopher.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Proletarian democracy? I should rococo!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

Yo, yo, Proletarian Democracy cuts the bourgeoisie with a plutonium dagger
We don't need no fuckin' Seymour with his intellectual swagger
Rococo ornamentation there, pins and badges here,
fuck that shit we need Barry Mainwaring with his gatt bringin' our revolution near


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2014)

is it him that writes Lenins tomb? Never came off quite so arrogant on that blog but that preface....


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

Some spit rhymes all day about bitches and hoes
But Prole Dem yo, we're all about the isotopes


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 13, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> is it him that writes Lenins tomb? Never came off quite so arrogant on that blog but that preface....


Yes that is he. I don't think his comedy preface is a real reflection of his character. It is a bit self-deprecating really with tongue in, cheek I suspect.


----------



## rekil (Mar 13, 2014)

Intersectionalista posse, we be cuttin' in our low low
Diss us on the twitter, we call the fuckin po-po
Sex work is great, but don't ask us to be no ho
If we was a chocolate, we'd be ferrero rococo


----------



## Balbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Can I get a Sey mour,
Swappie encore,
Hooking y'all
With dialectic brawl
So give me more page views 
Cause I need y'all to roar


----------



## rekil (Mar 13, 2014)

Greatest Hits. A whole album about his blog's stats.

Possibly a double.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

If that Richard Seymour starts up again with race play
I want y'all to know I'll break his fucking face play


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

Richard Seymour and China Meiville
Their dialectical materialism they think it's fucking ill


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2014)

tricky to rhyme callinicos isn't it


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 13, 2014)




----------



## cesare (Mar 13, 2014)

copliker said:


> You're not wrong. It's dripping with contempt for those who just can't handle his intellectual swagger.
> 
> View attachment 50097


He's a pretentious cunt, isn't he?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 13, 2014)

RACE! How low can I go?
Front Row? What does Delta know
Once again back is the deletable
Unrepeatable
Unspeakable Sey, Swappie enemy number one
Callicinos said FREEZE! and I got numb
Can I tell you that I really never had any idea about the extent of Deltas actions and I by them I struck dumb,
Now they got me on CiF, cause my articles riff
Cause a Swappie like me is stiff
Laurie Penny's a prophet I think you better listen to,
What she can sell to you, what brand you oughta use,
Follow her on twitter, Champagne and glitter say
"Monetise yourself, capitalise your wealth"
Identitys back, all in, we're tumblring,
Check your privilege, c'mon, here we go again!

Type it up, bring the hits!
I said
Type it up, bring the hits!


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2014)

articul8 said:


> without the irony - Seymour is a comedian alright though, just a second-rate one


a second rate Callinicos, a third rate Will Self AND a fourth rate comedian all rolled into one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2014)

public enema


----------



## Balbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Still DRCallicinos

I'm representing for the working class around the world, 
STILL! Covering up Delta when he's harassing girls.


----------



## rekil (Mar 13, 2014)

Kickin back at Marxism, two zero to the fourteen
Idris and his fuckin gifs nowhere to be seen
Buff baldy in a black tee, get off the mike
Bought your books by accident, China Mehhhhville more like


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 13, 2014)

copliker said:


> Kickin back at Marxism, two zero to the fourteen
> Idris and his fuckin gifs nowhere to be seen


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

Peter Taaffe says call a 24 hour public sector general strike
Bendin the stick too far, Ma boys, Kimber, Delta and I, we grab the mike
What we need is a campaign called Right to Work
If Seymour comes up here he's gonna get merked


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 13, 2014)

Enough! Stop it all of you!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 13, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Enough! Stop it all of you!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

Callinicos is my name, I'm ahead of my game
Still posting my tweets, still puffing my leafs
Still not loving the SP
Still got my donkey jacket with my papers and my sheets
And I've still got love for the streets
It's the S.W.P


----------



## Balbi (Mar 13, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Enough! Stop it all of you!


----------



## rekil (Mar 13, 2014)

Enough! Stop it all of you!
Introducin, 
The SP crew
The inimitable, Nigel Irritable 
He knows Joe Higgins 
And got more game than kittens


----------



## Balbi (Mar 13, 2014)

KICK OUT!

YOU WAKE UP LATE FOR MARXISM DON'T WANNA GO
YOU ASK THE PROF PLEASE BUT HE STILL SAYS NO
YOU MISSED TWO LECTURES ON DELTAS WORK
BUT YOUR CC HANDLES COMPLAINTS LIKE ITS SOME KINDA JERK

YOU GOTTA FIGHT! FOR YOUR RIGHT! TO A PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARTTTTTTTTTY!

ALEX CAUGHT YOU BLOGGING AND HE SAID NO WAY
THAT HYPOCRITE WRITES FOUR PIECES A DAY!
MAN, PAYING MY SUBS IS SUCH A DRAG
STANDING ON CORNERS SELLING THE RAG

YOU GOTTA FIGHT! FOR YOUR RIGHT! TO A PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARTTTTTTTTTY!

DON'T STEP OUT OF PARTY LINE IF YOU WANT TO BE A PLAYER
ILL KICK YOU OUT OF CONFERENCE IF YOU DON'T VOTE WITH US
THE LEFT BUST IN AND SAID WHATS THAT NOISE?
MAN THEY'RE JUST JEALOUS OF THE SWAPPIE BOYS

YOU GOTTA FIGHT! FOR YOUR RIGHT! TO A PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARTTTTTTTTTY!


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 13, 2014)

The leader of the Urban rap collective, yesterday:


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2014)

Hey Peter, it's your birthday
Gonna have a new workers' party like it's ya birthday
Nationalise some monopolies like its' your birthday
You can find me in the working men's club, bottle full of schnapps
I'm gonna name names if you riot during the poll tax
I'm into selling papers, I'm in the PCS
So come gimme a hug, if want to be on the execs

copliker Delroy Booth


----------



## andysays (Mar 13, 2014)




----------



## BK Double Stack (Mar 13, 2014)

and there I was, excited to see two new pages of this thread. imagine my disappointment. Seymour looks like Mark Corrigan. Also, I imagine him as the worst thing ever.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 13, 2014)

aint no such thing as halfway trots


----------



## Delroy Booth (Mar 13, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Callinicos is my name, I'm ahead of my game
> Still posting my tweets, still puffing my leafs
> Still not loving the SP
> Still got my donkey jacket with my papers and my sheets
> ...



Are you ready for the next episode* (waaay-aaaaay....)

... sell papers every day. 

_* of the class struggle_


----------



## belboid (Mar 13, 2014)

The first couple of pages of Seymour's introduction are terrible too, but after that, he stops showing off and just gets on with making his case - which is actually a perfectly reasonable and fairly well made one. He's weak (tho not completely wrong) on 'the left' but is very good on neoliberalism itself


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 13, 2014)

I dunno with a preface like that...


belboid said:


> The first couple of pages of Seymour's introduction are terrible too, but after that, he stops showing off and just gets on with making his case - which is actually a perfectly reasonable and fairly well made one. He's weak (tho not completely wrong) on 'the left' but is very good on neoliberalism itself


what's the point though? Who is going to read it? Especially after that preface


----------



## BK Double Stack (Mar 13, 2014)

THe point is, as always, to make sure he's a prominent "intellectual". Also, money. Not necessarily in that order.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 13, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I dunno with a preface like that...
> 
> what's the point though? Who is going to read it? Especially after that preface


Anyone who has been following his blog to get info on the background to the SWP debacle.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Mar 19, 2014)

Rather quiet on the SWP front, so -at the risk of being denounced by someone for posting non-SWP stuff on this thread- here's something which struck me as being wildly over optimistic and reminiscent of that party at its Delta tubthumping worst:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/is...paring-for-a-mighty-upsurge-in-class-struggle
Of course, I would be delighted to be proved wrong by a mighty upsurge in the class struggle. But somehow ...


----------



## SLK (Mar 19, 2014)

I am sure Dave Carr was in the SWP.


----------



## belboid (Mar 19, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Rather quiet on the SWP front, so -at the risk of being denounced by someone for posting non-SWP stuff on this thread- here's something which struck me as being wildly over optimistic and reminiscent of that party at its Delta tubthumping worst:
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/is...paring-for-a-mighty-upsurge-in-class-struggle
> Of course, I would be delighted to be proved wrong by a mighty upsurge in the class struggle. But somehow ...


Tssk tssk, do you not read the rest of the boards? That beauty has it's own thread - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/prepare-for-a-mighty-upsurge.321797/


----------



## Karmickameleon (Mar 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> Tssk tssk, do you not read the rest of the boards? That beauty has it's own thread - http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/prepare-for-a-mighty-upsurge.321797/


Thanks for the gentle reprimand. It's true that I haven't followed the other boards (time is short!), but will endeavour to do so now. On the other hand, given its somewhat delusional tone, the "mighty upsurge in the class struggle" does ring bells for ex-SWPers like myself.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 20, 2014)

copliker said:


> Greatest Hits. A whole album about his blog's stats.
> 
> Possibly a double.



A _com_cept album, if you will.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 20, 2014)

Will there be stickers? I bought a vinyl copy of Dark Side of The Moon and there wast stickers. Not my revolution without stickers. And a poster.


----------



## articul8 (Mar 20, 2014)

SLK said:


> I am sure Dave Carr was in the SWP.


 we are all Dave Carr


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2014)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...over-crimea-let-it-be-russia-1.1731105?page=2

Eamonn McCann goes off piste on Crimea. I'm pretty sure this is not the SWP line.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 20, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...over-crimea-let-it-be-russia-1.1731105?page=2
> 
> Eamonn McCann goes off piste on Crimea. I'm pretty sure this is not the SWP line.


Well he does rehearse the old mantra of "neither Washington nor Moscow" even if the gist of the article is that Russia is right.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Well he does rehearse the old mantra of "neither Washington nor Moscow" even if the gist of the article is that Russia is right.



If anything using "neither Washington nor Moscow" in support of an argument for Moscow is likely to raise more hackles than simply making the argument itself.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 20, 2014)

This article is worse than German's. I love almost everything about this man but this is appalling. The weirdest thing is his (him of all people with his background and experience of the reactionary carnival of partition) whitewashing of Russian occupation and partition of Ukraine. It's perverse.

And yes invoking Neither nor only to do precisely the opposite is almost as perverse.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 20, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> And yes invoking Neither nor only to do precisely the opposite is almost as perverse.



That bit reads like something from Spiked


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 20, 2014)

Read it three times now and it's almost like his mention of Ireland at one point is almost a deliberate eff you to everyone who will point out the irony of a Derry man supporting the annexation of part of a country by its larger bullying neighbour.

He has of course always been a maverick who ain't afraid to disagree with any line, that's arguably his strength. But this is so off beam and so counter intuitive for someone in the tradition he belongs to that you'd have to wonder if he'd have written something like this while Cliff and Harman were still alive and before all the shit and splits of the last few years. Counterfire are certainly whooping for joy at this article.


----------



## benedict (Mar 20, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Callinicos is my name, I'm ahead of my game
> Still posting my tweets, still puffing my leafs
> Still not loving the SP
> Still got my donkey jacket with my papers and my sheets
> ...



Nice. I think tan leather jacket is actually the thing though. See if you can work in black dress shirt and green Pentel rollerball as well


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 20, 2014)

I must admit I have never seen Calinicos in a black donkey jacket, I do recognise the green Pentel though and of course the perennial black shirt.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 20, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I must admit I have never seen Calinicos in a black donkey jacket, I do recognise the green Pentel though and of course the perennial black shirt.



Hurrah for Alex!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2014)

if any more of you do trotrap I'm calling the style police on you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2014)

I mean whats next 'I've got subs owed in different area codes''?


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if any more of you do trotrap I'm calling the style police on you.



Trotrap? Have some of the real stuff. Shachtmanite style:



I don't mind this, btw.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 21, 2014)

Weekly worker is on a stormer this week (counterfire thread for more)

"Just a short letter to wish the Communist Platform all the best at the coming Left Unity conference - a real inspiration to an old-timer like me. I enjoyed very much Jack Conrad’s use of Brecht at the last gathering and in a similar vein I have penned these lines that will hopefully inspire your comrades in their Left Unity work:

Our Communist Platform’s on the rise

Play a part and join the cry!

Our opponents, they lack some spine,

Encased in the reformist ball of twine.

Come now, comrades, conference calls.

Let’s knock down some mighty walls!

Our time is coming, just you see.

The Communist Platform is a growing tree!



*Mike Hunt*
email"


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2014)

mike hunt?  has anybody seen etc


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 21, 2014)

I thought it might be one of us


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 21, 2014)

I'd like to think we are better than rhyming couplets


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> mike hunt?  has anybody seen etc



You are Mos Syszlak and I claim my £5.

Dotcommie, yesterday:


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2014)

39thstep?


----------



## killer b (Mar 21, 2014)

Thats amazing. Cardew finally has a worthy heir.


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 21, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Our Communist Platform’s on the rise,
> 
> Play a part and join the cry!
> 
> ...


Reminds me of this


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 22, 2014)

You lot really don't get it do you, nice but dim as most of you are.


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 22, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You lot really don't get it do you, nice but dim as most of you are?



Isn't that the actual, genuine attitude of the Swappie leadership towards the rank and file?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 22, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You lot really don't get it do you, nice but dim as most of you are.




Lead us


----------



## barney_pig (Mar 22, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You lot really don't get it do you, nice but dim as most of you are.


In vino veritas


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2014)

Spiney Norman's the name, I'm ahead of my game
Still, hating posh studes, still with the SP
Still not loving the Greens (Uh huh)
Still hating the hippies with their sandals and peace
Still got love for concrete, chop down all the trees
In the left, ain't too much changed, still

I'm representing all the Green haters across the world
Still get called a racist by that Penny girl
Still taking my time to win a council seat
And I still got stains on my sheets, it's N-O-R-M _[Repeat 2x]_


----------



## rekil (Mar 22, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You lot really don't get it do you, nice but dim as most of you are.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Mar 22, 2014)

You're too easy fellas. I'm not actually sure what I had in mind, it was in fairness the night before the Majeski St Pats game.

That said, there does seem an excessive interest in the minutiae of SWP life here without a feel for the bigger picture. Fair enough I guess, if I hated the SWP I probably wouldn't take it seriously either.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 24, 2014)

The AWL are now on the receiving end of rage from certain elements of the student left, as proxies for the SWP. This stems from their opposition to bans on the SWP. The AWL did all they could to make sure that hostility to the SWP spread, but now they find themselves in a situation where people are declaring that they are just as bad as the SWP, that they are putting debate above "women's safety" etc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 24, 2014)

On another note, an Irish left independent TD (MP) resigned from the Dail yesterday after a newspaper discovered that he'd been sending sleazy messages to women constituents, most notably a 17 year old girl.

The TD, Patrick Nulty, was originally one of a handful of remaining Labour lefts. He resigned to become an independent after refusing to back some particularly reactionary move from the government (there have been so many that I forget which one eventually proved too much for him).


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The AWL are now on the receiving end of rage from certain elements of the student left, as proxies for the SWP. This stems from their opposition to bans on the SWP. The AWL did all they could to make sure that hostility to the SWP spread, but now they find themselves in a situation where people are declaring that they are just as bad as the SWP, that they are putting debate above "women's safety" etc.



Who is saying this? I'm not sure that I have that much of a problem with the SWP being treated the way they have tbh.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Who is saying this? I'm not sure that I have that much of a problem with the SWP being treated the way they have tbh.



Various NUS intersectionals.

The argument is explicitly that the AWL are willing to compromise "women's safety" (that is to say safety from the SWP) in the name of debate, and therefore are themselves scum.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Various NUS intersectionals.
> 
> The argument is explicitly that the AWL are willing to compromise "women's safety" (that is to say safety from the SWP) in the name of debate, and therefore are themselves scum.




A plague on all their houses tbh


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 24, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> A plague on all their houses tbh



Hard to disagree with that.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2014)

Is it wrong that I don't care? Weren't the awl quite serious apologists for the Israeli state at one point because of their position against the SWP?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 24, 2014)

And their slightly mad behaviour towards the SP over the Syria debate... They haven't been around much since then have they?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 24, 2014)

They are a small group, so not usually very visible unless you happen to be involved in something they are also hanging around. Most often that means NUS stuff.

Neither they nor the people who are pissed off with them are significant in and of themselves, but there's a certain irony to the AWL getting bit on the arse over this. Also the framing of issues in terms of "safety" is of some interest, as it immediately delegitimises opposition.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 24, 2014)

The Nulty Dail resignation is the major news story here at the moment and has even made it to the New York Times.


----------



## Trotsky007 (Mar 30, 2014)

The final session of the RS21 political weekend is live streaming now on:


----------



## emanymton (Mar 30, 2014)

It appears a post has been made on this thread after Nigel's, but I can't see it? 

eta- turned up when I posted, most odd.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 30, 2014)

Yes I had the same glitch until your post revealed the previous one


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 9, 2014)

According to twitter, NUS conference had a strong undercurrent of SWP bating. Barred from having a stall inside, their stall outside tipped over, Labour shitheels earning feminist points by denouncing them, someone calling for them to be exterminated etc etc etc


----------



## belboid (Apr 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to twitter, NUS conference had a strong undercurrent of SWP bating. Barred from having a stall inside, their stall outside tipped over, Labour shitheels earning feminist points by denouncing them, someone calling for them to be exterminated etc etc etc


Yes indeedy, more at http://liverpoolclassaction.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/swp-not-welcome-in-liverpool/

The authors of that blog aren't really doing themselves any favours tho.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Labour shitheels earning feminist points by denouncing them



If I was in the SWP I'd be giving out leaflets with all the stuff about labour party paedos, cover-ups of care abuses and rapists and the like that the fash have been collecting for decades at the next one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 9, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> If I was in the SWP I'd be giving out leaflets with all the stuff about labour party paedos, cover-ups of care abuses and rapists and the like that the fash have been collecting for decades at the next one.




not to mention the PIE stuff. People in glass houses.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 9, 2014)

belboid said:


> Yes indeedy, more at http://liverpoolclassaction.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/swp-not-welcome-in-liverpool/
> 
> The authors of that blog aren't really doing themselves any favours tho.



I'm getting more than a whiff of 'maybe if I swear a lot people will believe my pretensions at being working class.'


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 9, 2014)

Perhaps more significantly, NUS appear to have disaffiliated from UAF.


----------



## belboid (Apr 9, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm getting more than a whiff of 'maybe if I swear a lot people will believe my pretensions at being working class.'


Indeed, not to mention the whole idea that "I cant be anti-working class because I *am *working class" is blatantly bollocks


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 9, 2014)

belboid said:


> Yes indeedy, more at http://liverpoolclassaction.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/swp-not-welcome-in-liverpool/
> 
> The authors of that blog aren't really doing themselves any favours tho.



You can taste the self-regard.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 9, 2014)

Whatever you think of the tactics being used here please don't let that make you start feeling sorry for these bastards. The last line of that blog:



> The SWP covered up rape, threw survivors under the bus and intimidate anyone who tries to confront them about it (anyone remember the Glasgow anti-bedroom tax rally?). UAF grasses militant antifascists to the police.



this is the bottom line. A few stalls being turned over is fuck all really when you think what this group has done and the damage they've inflicted not just to themselves and the individuals involved in the issue itself but the entire radical left over the years.


----------



## belboid (Apr 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Perhaps more significantly, NUS appear to have disaffiliated from UAF.


Labour right wing (& AWL) grabbing a left cover to do what they've always wanted to do anyway, shock horror.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Perhaps more significantly, NUS appear to have disaffiliated from UAF.



That's that then - the edl and the BNP will take advantage of this weakening and division of the antifascist movement and sieze parliament in a Kiev style coup


----------



## belboid (Apr 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You can taste the self-regard.


politics as self-satisfaction


----------



## belboid (Apr 9, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's that then - the edl and the BNP will take advantage of this weakening and division of the antifascist movement and sieze parliament in a Kiev style coup


the BNP were actually driving Sheffield city centre this morning, loudly proclaiming that if we hated corporations, and were against fracking, they were the only party to vote for!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 9, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> Whatever you think of the tactics being used here please don't let that make you start feeling sorry for these bastards. The last line of that blog:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the bottom line. A few stalls being turned over is fuck all really when you think what this group has done and the damage they've inflicted not just to themselves and the individuals involved in the issue itself but the entire radical left over the years.



Of course. But, having come into fairly regular contact with their sort, I don't have much time for the kinds of posturing clowns who wrote this and pull those stunts.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 9, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> Whatever you think of the tactics being used here please don't let that make you start feeling sorry for these bastards. The last line of that blog:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the bottom line. A few stalls being turned over is fuck all really when you think what this group has done and the damage they've inflicted not just to themselves and the individuals involved in the issue itself but the entire radical left over the years.



There is no danger of anyone here feeling sorry for the SWP.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 9, 2014)

Delroy Booth said:


> Whatever you think of the tactics being used here please don't let that make you start feeling sorry for these bastards. The last line of that blog:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the bottom line. A few stalls being turned over is fuck all really when you think what this group has done and the damage they've inflicted not just to themselves and the individuals involved in the issue itself but the entire radical left over the years.


who do you write this shit for? like we don't fucking know. on page 568 of this thread.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 9, 2014)

belboid said:


> the BNP were actually driving Sheffield city centre this morning, loudly proclaiming that if we hated corporations, and were against fracking, they were the only party to vote for!



I got a text about that from whatever that new antifascist grouping is calling itself now, just said they were on the Moor with a van and loud hailer - wondered what was going on. (Stuck in Chesterfield so couldn't go and have a look)


----------



## Delroy Booth (Apr 9, 2014)

discokermit said:


> who do you write this shit for? like we don't fucking know. on page 568 of this thread.



Fair enough


----------



## emanymton (Apr 9, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm getting more than a whiff of 'maybe if I swear a lot people will believe my pretensions at being working class.'


Once again I am struck with the impression that someone who has always hated the SWP is just glad to have a really, really big stick to beat them with, with no regard at all for the women involved. It might just be me but is there a certain amount of 'glee' about these events in some quarters?


----------



## emanymton (Apr 9, 2014)

belboid said:


> the BNP were actually driving Sheffield city centre this morning, loudly proclaiming that if we hated corporations, and were against fracking, they were the only party to vote for!


Apparently old one eye has come out against the bedroom tax as well.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 9, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Once again I am struck with the impression that someone who has always hated the SWP is just glad to have a really, really big stick to beat them with, with no regard at all for the women involved. It might just be me but is there a certain amount of 'glee' about these events in some quarters?



Sadly I don't think it is just you.


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> According to twitter, NUS conference had a strong undercurrent of SWP bating. Barred from having a stall inside, their stall outside tipped over, Labour shitheels earning feminist points by denouncing them, someone calling for them to be exterminated etc etc etc




Five years ago they would have been battered for doing that.


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2014)

Toni Pearce been re-elected NUS Pres, that's her set up for life.


----------



## treelover (Apr 9, 2014)

belboid said:


> Yes indeedy, more at http://liverpoolclassaction.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/swp-not-welcome-in-liverpool/
> 
> The authors of that blog aren't really doing themselves any favours tho.



it would seem that is their first post, they seem quite juvenile


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 9, 2014)

treelover said:


> Toni Pearce been re-elected NUS Pres, that's her set up for life.


She's an FE student from a working class background


----------



## treelover (Apr 10, 2014)

I know, but she is still Labour Students, etc


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

Oi belboid is it true that cockers is in the ISN?


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

apparently so, joined with the ACI lot

In other news, the 'Racist Chair' split may no longer be the daftest in political history - in Germany the (nazi) NPD has split over its leader (one Herr Marx) having been seen tucking into a penis shaped cake. The 'Peniskuchen-Affare' has apparently torn the party in two.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> apparently so, joined with the ACI lot
> 
> In other news, the 'Racist Chair' split may no longer be the daftest in political history - in Germany the (nazi) NPD has split over its leader (one Herr Marx) having been seen tucking into a penis shaped cake. The 'Peniskuchen-Affare' has apparently torn the party in two.


Don't try and change the subject. You're in the same network as cockers (or what's left of it)?


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't try and change the subject. You're in the same network as cockers (or what's left of it)?


what's left of cockers? I think there is as much of him left as there ever was


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

The network. Is this there any left?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Don't try and change the subject. You're in the same network as cockers (or what's left of it)?



In fairness it was a pretty _good_ attempt to change the subject.

So was he in the ACI all along when he was appearing under various new names here pretending to be an outraged independent trade unionist with a highly unusual interest in the minutiae of the supposed failings of small left groups?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

Political discussion in the ISN must be quite the experience.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In fairness it was a pretty _good_ attempt to change the subject.
> 
> So was he in the ACI all along when he was appearing under various new names here pretending to be an outraged independent trade unionist with a highly unusual interest in the minutiae of the supposed failings of small left groups?


ta.

Not sure, I didnt think he was initially, but then a few of the PR lot joined when they wound themselves up. Mostly the southerners, the northerners stayed away.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In fairness it was a pretty _good_ attempt to change the subject.
> 
> So was he in the ACI all along when he was appearing under various new names here pretending to be an outraged independent trade unionist with a highly unusual interest in the minutiae of the supposed failings of small left groups?


I'm too skilled to fall for that though. Yes, i think that is the path - it opens many things up if the case.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

I suppose we should look forward to his next identity.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The network. Is this there any left?


sorry, missed that before. The Network has actually been growing in the last month or two (since that there split). Even got one or two from the SP!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> sorry, missed that before. The Network has actually been growing in the last month or two (since that there split). Even got one or two from the SP!



"Better fewer but better" springs to mind if people that silly exist.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> "Better fewer but better" springs to mind if people that silly exist.


And cockers entering. That's double fewer and minus better to give a score of _parts of the old re-configured existing left and not much else._


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And cockers entering. That's double fewer and minus better to give a score of _parts of the old re-configured existing left and not much else._


not 'not much' but 'absolutely nothing' else


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 10, 2014)

Dear symor U R dumpd X


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Dear symor U R dumpd X


ooh, that reminds me, 'I'have a letter to write to WW.  Can't remember what it was about now.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> ooh, that reminds me, 'I'have a letter to write to WW.  Can't remember what it was about now.



It's traditional to wait until you are drunk


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

A former assistant to Tristram Hunt sticks his oar in: http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-defence-of-swp.html


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Odd that that the piece says "self-described autonomist avengers." yet there is no such self-description on the site nor in the article.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> A former assistant to Tristram Hunt sticks his oar in: http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-defence-of-swp.html


the 'For someone who's survived abuse of some kind, are a succession of violent assaults on SWP stalls going to make them feel safer on campus? No, of course they bloody won't.' line isn't bad tho


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Odd that that the piece says "self-described autonomist avengers." yet there is no such self-description on the site nor in the article.


Why did he make it up?


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Odd that that the piece says "self-described autonomist avengers." yet there is no such self-description on the site nor in the article.


'Autonomous anarchist group currently active in Merseyside.' according to the blog.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> 'Autonomous anarchist group currently active in Merseyside.' according to the blog.


"self-described autonomist avengers." according to what he claims that they call themselves. Spot the difference?


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> "self-described autonomist avengers." according to what he claims that they call themselves. Spot the difference?


it's fairly minor. They are self described autonomists, and are clearly acting as avengers.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

just seen the article has now removed all the comments and closed off discussion.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> it's fairly minor. They are self described autonomists, and are clearly acting as avengers.


You mean he made it up and you're now letting him.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> it's fairly minor. They are self described autonomists, and are clearly acting as avengers.


For God's sake this is shit enough without you defending him making stuff up


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You mean he made it up and you're now letting him.


dont be daft. You are picking an incredibly minor thing to quibble about, who gives a shit?


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

Self defined autonomists, who are avengers. Or self defined 'autonomist avengers'. Depends how you read it.  And its trivial either way.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> dont be daft. You are picking an incredibly minor thing to quibble about, who gives a shit?


 it's only other people and who cares what they say, who cares if it's wrong or invented. It's Ok if you don't like them. Grow up. Presumably the writer did.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

what?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

Is whether they describe themselves as "avengers" or not (probably not) really the crucial issue here? They are self described autonomists and that's surely the relevant point, if we are assessing them rather than avps (presumably we can all agree to take a dim view of him regardless?)

This seems to me to be the point within twittersectionalism where certain subsets of anarchoid and certain subsets of liberal feminist start to overlap. A certain type of Trotskyoid also crosses over around parts of the ISN, but they tend to be less gung-ho on ritual banishings of the SWP.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is whether they describe themselves as "avengers" or not (probably not) really the crucial issue here? They are self described autonomists and that's surely the relevant point, if we are assessing them rather than avps (presumably we can all agree to take a dim view of him regardless?)
> 
> This seems to me to be the point within twittersectionalism where certain subsets of anarchoid and certain subsets of liberal feminist start to overlap.


They're not even self described as 'autonomists' for fucks sake.

A totally made up quote is here being defended because you/belboid don't like the people.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They're not even self described as 'autonomists' for fucks sake.
> 
> A totally made up quote is here being defended because you/belboid don't like the people.


Wait does their website not call themselves "autonomist anarchists" whatever that amalgam may be. As for not liking them, all I know about them is this silliness.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Wait does their website not call themselves "autonomist anarchists" whatever that amalgam may be. As for not liking them, all I know about them is this silliness.


No it doesn't.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No it doesn't.


yes it does.

'Autonomous anarchist group currently active in Merseyside.' - top right of the page


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Wait does their website not call themselves "autonomist anarchists" whatever that amalgam may be. As for not liking them, all I know about them is this silliness.


And they sound like twats so you'll allow made up stuff to go by - or are not least even check it's true. And when you check, get it wrong.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And they sound like twats so you'll allow made up stuff to go by - or are not least even check it's true. And when you check, get it wrong.


oh the irony


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> yes it does.
> 
> 'Autonomous anarchist group currently active in Merseyside.' - top right of the page



autonomist anarchists.
Autonomous anarchist


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> oh the irony


Let it fucking flow.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

time to give the shovel to someone else butch


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> time to give the shovel to someone else butch


Why, you've defended someone making up a quote then mistook one word for another (they do sound very similar though - politically not so, as you'd know if you were paying attention for the last 15 years). You're out twice. I'm on a hat-trick.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And they sound like twats so you'll allow made up stuff to go by - or are not least even check it's true. And when you check, get it wrong.



I took belboid at his word which seemed reasonable enough, and which still seems so, unless you are really arguing that their use of autonomous is just a bizarre and unlikely way of saying independent? Or are you saying that they are referencing some separate theoretical tradition of the "autonomous" which doesn't stem from autonomist.

All squabbling aside, I'm increasingly unsure what distinction you are drawing and would welcome an explanation.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I took belboid at his word which seemed reasonable enough, and which still seems so, unless you are really arguing that their use of autonomous is just a bizarre and unlikely way of saying independent?


It's a standard use of independent - it's got nothing to do with _autonomist_. And even if it were, making quotes up is not good or helpful. There is no defence - esp not on the basis of _i don't like them_. Be serious.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's a standard use of independent - it's got nothing to do with _autonomist_. And even if it were, making quotes up is not good or helpful. There is no defence - esp not on the basis of _i don't like them_. Be serious.


its a meaningless use of independent. Independent from what?  The state? Other anarchist groups? That's obvious from the fact that they dont call themselves Liverpool Afed, or whatever. At the very least it seems to be implying a link to autonom_ism_.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> its a meaningless use of independent. Independent from what?  The state? Other anarchist groups? That's obvious from the fact that they dont call themselves Liverpool Afed, or whatever. At the very least it seems to be implying a link to autonom_ism_.


Yeah, the state, labour party, UAF and HnH. Simple. Autonomous. Not autonomist.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's a standard use of independent - it's got nothing to do with _autonomist_. And even if it were, making quotes up is not good or helpful. There is no defence - esp not on the basis of _i don't like them_. Be serious.



There is zero chance in my view that their use of "autonomous" is just an odd way of saying independent and is not meant to reference autonomism. And if you take a step back for a moment, I doubt you will really disagree.

As for defending the avps misquote, I haven't done that and am unlikely to do so on the basis that I don't like these scouse sillies, because I'm pretty sure I like him less.

In my experience, the only people who are almost as prone to misusing the term autonomist as SWPish trots are some of the more pretentious anarchoids. I'm a little surprised they haven't declared themselves comunisateurs while they are at it.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, the state, labour party, UAF and HnH. Simple. Autonomous. Not autonomist.


anarchists need to point out they are independent of the Labour Party?  What?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There is zero chance in my view that their use of "autonomous" is just an odd way of saying independent and is not meant to reference autonomism. And if you take a step back for a moment, I doubt you will really disagree.
> 
> As for defending the avps misquote, I haven't done that and am unlikely to do so on the basis that I don't like these scouse sillies, because I'm pretty sure I like him less.


See above. Autonomous is _always _used in this way in these groups. It never ever means autonomist. Seeing as no such thing exists.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> anarchists need to point out they are independent of the Labour Party?  What?


They certainly can point that out, yes.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They certainly can point that out, yes.


of course they _can_, but why would they need to?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> anarchists need to point out they are independent of the Labour Party?  What?


So let me get this right - they don't think they're automomists, but they really are and when they specifically chose not to to say autonomists but autonomous on their banner they were wrong. So to call them autonomists is the correct. Trot brain in full effect.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> of course they _can_, but why would they need to?


They can do it whether they _need _to or not.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

You see to be implying that because "no such thing exists", sillies wouldn't lay claim to it. This greatly overestimates the rationality and self awareness of sillies.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Seriously, ten years of the SWP bombing away at autonomism/autonmists and you two think it just means autonomous? Like alsatian autonomists or something?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You see to be implying that because "no such thing exists", sillies wouldn't lay claim to it. This greatly overestimates the rationality and self awareness of sillies.


I'm not. I'm saying that's _why _they did it. Because they're young kids who haven't thought things through and so relying on buzzwords.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You see to be implying that because "no such thing exists", sillies wouldn't lay claim to it. This greatly overestimates the rationality and self awareness of sillies.


Oh hang on  you meant autonomist rather than hanging on the end of belboid's last. It not existing is a pretty good reason for people not laying claim to it and for assuming that they haven't - _or not using it at all_. Another existing use _of the term they actually in real reality used_ - i.e independent of the NUS, labour party etc - is a good reason for assuming that this _is _the use intended.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

So why would they use "autonomous", with its obvious allusion, rather than the clear, unencumbered and much more commonly used "independent" if they weren't deliberately making a connection?

"It doesn't exist" is a reason for people versed in it not to claim it. It's not a reason that applies to sillies. Have you ever been on revleft? The world is full of fantasists playing dress up in other people's political clothes, and there is zero reason to suppose that autonomism is immune from the same fancy dress appropriation as situationism, Hoxhaism, Bordigism, black nationalism, councilism etc


----------



## treelover (Apr 10, 2014)

RE, table overturning, I well recall Richard Caborn, son of a communist and previous New Labour minister violently throwing over a table and items(and scuffling) belonging to the SP who had 'gatecrashed' an event at 'Wortley Hall in Yorkshire. This occurred when he still just was an M.P.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So why would they use "autonomous", with its obvious allusion, rather than the clear, unencumbered and much more commonly used "independent" if they weren't deliberately making a connection?
> 
> "It doesn't exist" is a reason for people versed in it not to claim it. It's not a reason that applies to sillies. Have you ever been on revleft? The world is full of fantasists playing dress up in other people's political clothes, and there is zero reason to suppose that autonomism is immune from the same fancy dress appropriation



Because it has a 100+year  meaning of radical. Simple.

No i don't go on your kiddy boards.

If they wanted to say autonomist why didn't they say autonomist? They really really really meant autonomist but just couldn't spell it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

Let me suggest that if you'd ever encountered the fancy dress versions of every current, garbled and spewed up on revleft, you would be much less dismissive of the idea that silly people would try on clothes you don't think are appropriate.

As for why "autonomous", I'd suggest that it's because they want to amalgamate autonomist and anarchist and "autonomous" is a more natural sounding prefix. 

I'd also suggest that you are perhaps getting so combative about this utter triviality (does a group of anarchoid sillies intend to claim some influence from autonomism or not, a question that is entirely unrelated to that of whether they actually have any association) because you are quixotically defending the honour of a current that has no relevance to the discussion at hand.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Let me suggest that if you'd ever encountered the fancy dress versions of every current, garbled and spewed up on revleft, you would be much less dismissive of the idea that silly people would try on clothes you don't think are appropriate.
> 
> As for why "autonomous", I'd suggest that it's because they want to amalgamate autonomist and anarchist and "autonomous" is a more natural sounding prefix.
> 
> I'd also suggest that you are perhaps getting so combative about this utter triviality (does a group of anarchoid sillies intend to claim some influence from autonomism or not, a question that is entirely unrelated to that of whether they actually have any association) because you are quixotically defending the honour of a current that has no relevance to the discussion at hand.


Don't waste your time on kiddy sites nigel.

No, in the context here in this county autonomous means autonomous - it's not a misspellen autonomist (and that your time on the kiddy sites hasn't armed you to the difference is your main failing here). It literally means outside of the NUS and the SWP etc. You're the only one looking to amalgamate autonomist and anarchist here.

I'd suggest that your combative  defence of lies and inventions stems from you being show not to know a damn thing about a part of the left that you, as a trainspotter, should be on top of.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Maybe trotskyist = trotstalinist I'm sure that's what they mean. It's more natural sounding.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe trotskyist = trotstalinist I'm sure that's what they mean. It's more natural sounding.



There's no shortage of sillies who think just that.

But I tell you what, as half these people are on twitter we could just ask them what they mean rather than going back and forth on this forever. Particularly as the question is trivial even by the standards of rows here.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's no shortage of sillies who think just that.
> 
> But I tell you what, as half these people are on twitter we could just ask them what they mean rather than going back and forth on this forever. Particularly as the question is trivial even by the standards of rows here.


Ok, but let's be clear here first:

1) _self-described autonomist avengers. _

didn't happen

2)_ autonomist anarchists_

didn't happen.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 10, 2014)

When I'm talking about very young children, which I do a lot, I always use the word autonomy or autonomous when I'm talking about their self-direction and their pleasure in their sense of agency because it describes the need to make one's own decisions without denying social and emotional inter-dependence. Independent just doesn't have the same meaning.

Missing the point but who cares..


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Red Cat said:


> When I'm talking about very young children, which I do a lot, I always use the word autonomy or autonomous when I'm talking about their self-direction and their pleasure in their sense of agency because it describes the need to make one's own decisions without denying social and emotional inter-dependence. Independent just doesn't have the same meaning.
> 
> Missing the point but who cares..


In the sense used here it means the same thing and they think it means the same as independent.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In the sense used here it means the same thing and they think it means the same as independent.



Yeh, that's why I said I'm missing the point.

But I wanted to make my own point. Autonomously, like.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 10, 2014)

I don't really understand this argument so I'm gonna just declare all of you to be wrong. let that be the end of it.


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

it seems distinctly tautologous and pointless tho. Of course they're autonomous, they're anarchists.  Why not stick anti-authoritarian in as well?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> it seems distinctly tautologous and pointless tho. Of course they're autonomous, they're anarchists.  Why not stick anti-authoritarian in as well?


Why stick autonomous in at all? They did. So what? In what way does it defend the double invented quote - the labour bloke and yours -  invention?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

a) belboid - they said "autonomist anarchists"
b) no they didn't
c) it's what they meant
d) did they say it?
e) yes


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> a) belboid - they said "autonomist anarchists"
> b) no they didn't
> c) it's what they meant
> d) did they say it?
> e) yes


yes dear, that's exactly what happened.  You stick to getting het up over utter trivialities.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> yes dear, that's exactly what happened.  You stick to getting het up over utter trivialities.


You literally invented something and claimed that a group of people said it. Of course it's trivial. You invented something and presented it as fact. Does that not bother you when you realised? Make you think twice about how you read and what you post? For others to double check what you or others say? As i said, of course _it's trivial._


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 10, 2014)

There's one possibility nobody has considered here - maybe they said it but didn't mean it?


----------



## comrade spurski (Apr 10, 2014)

Even by urban standards and this threads standards this is a fucking weird row


----------



## belboid (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You literally invented something and claimed that a group of people said it. Of course it's trivial. You invented something and presented it as fact. Does that not bother you when you realised? Make you think twice about how you read and what you post? For others to double check what you or others say? As i said, of course _it's trivial._


sorry mr pot


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> yes dear, that's exactly what happened.  You stick to getting het up over utter trivialities.


It's 100% accurate - unless you want to take back anything after c). I can back up everything by direct quotes, the rest i have you only 99% saying it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

belboid said:


> sorry mr pot


Oh god.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Even by urban standards and this threads standards this is a fucking weird row


Yes prob time to draw it to a close.

Here's James Heartfield's look at Birchalls's book on cliff

Here be Renton replying

Here's a panel by the platypus weirdos on cliff's legacy.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's 100% accurate - unless you want to take back anything after c). I can back up everything by direct quotes, the rest i have you only 99% saying it.


you win. you're right. no one cares. not even 66.666% of the participants in the argument.
either get deeply personal and offensive or just leave it cos it's going nowhere.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 10, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> There's one possibility nobody has considered here - maybe they said it but didn't mean it?


Or meant it but didn't say it!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 10, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Or meant it but didn't say it!



Or both said it and didn't say it whilst simultaneously neither meaning nor not meaning it.

Multitudinous positionism ftw!


----------



## discokermit (Apr 10, 2014)

i remember heffernan and her clique turning over the table of the radical anthropology group at marxism once. it was one of many things that turned me against the swp leadership.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Even by urban standards and this threads standards this is a fucking weird row


Ridiculous.


----------



## killer b (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> Ridiculous.


quite. we've had _much_ weirder rows.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

killer b said:


> quite. we've had _much_ weirder rows.



What amazes me is that in being desperate to be seen winning an argument (on a semantic point, rather than anything) how someone who used to have so many people hanging on his every argument is reduced to being desperate to show how he can still "win". 

And how few people care now, compared to then.

And he still claims to be involved in politics.

The sad demise.


----------



## killer b (Apr 10, 2014)

Think you're reading a bit too much into it. Or wanting a fight with butchers. Either way, leave me out of it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> What amazes me is that in being desperate to be seen winning an argument (on a semantic point, rather than anything) how someone who used to have so many people hanging on his every argument is reduced to being desperate to show how he can still "win".
> 
> And how few people care now, compared to then.
> 
> ...


Hey stu, still harrassing that girl and pretending to be another poster? 

Me still here, still doing politics - you - scared off this or other threads unless they're about Gove because the truth will be told.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hey stu, still harrassing that girl and pretending to be another poster?
> 
> Me still here, still doing politics - you - scared off this or other threads unless they're about Gove because the truth will be told.



"still here, still doing politics" Oh dear.
Not sure what you're talking about with the rest of it, but I'm sure you'll explain.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hey stu, still harrassing that girl and pretending to be another poster?
> 
> Me still here, still doing politics - you - scared off this or other threads unless they're about Gove because the truth will be told.



I'm on this thread, waiting for the truth to be told. Off you go. You've started with my real name. Go on.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> "still here, still doing politics" Oh dear.
> Not sure what you're talking about with the rest of it, but I'm sure you'll explain.



Yeah i am , you're not. You're off with whatever family it is this time.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah i am , you're not. You're off with whatever family it is this time.


OK. Thanks for that.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> I'm on this thread, waiting for the truth to be told. Off you go. You've started with my real name. Go on.


What's best to start with - the relentless sexual harassment? The blaming of it on someone else? The refusal to admit it?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

How many attempts was it over how long a period sllk?


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What's best to start with - the relentless sexual harassment? The blaming of it on someone else? The refusal to admit it?



Carry on.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How many attempts was it over how long a period sllk?



Go on.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

Nah, this is not the place for this. Sorry to all swp followers.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, this is not the place for this. Sorry to all swp followers.



OK, so as I said, sad.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

It was 500 btw.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

So you name me, start to hint at allegations, then stop. No, I insist, go on.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> OK, so as I said, sad.


Where would you like your latest expose to be carried out flimsier? Tell me. I'll do it.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It was 500 btw.


Carry on, these 500 messages of sexual harrassment. Tell me. Who were they to, and what did they say?


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where would you like your latest expose to be carried out flimsier? Tell me. I'll do it.


Here. Go on. Tell me what happened.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> Carry on, these 500 messages of sexual harrassment. Tell me. Who were they to, and what did they say?


Why are you inventing stuff?


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

Oh, I get it, the website you were utterly paranoid about, I joined in your game. I fucked about and "requested password" of the only username I knew. You're calling that "500 messages of sexual harrassment". HAHAHAHAHAHA. OK, I made a mistake. You carry on "winning the argument" and "doing politics". Nice one.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> Here. Go on. Tell me what happened.


Nah. Call me a liar. Bear in mind i delete nothing. Think what you did after. Then if you have the cheek to show your face round here to me then you're not a socialist.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> Oh, I get it, the website you were utterly paranoid about, I joined in your game. I fucked about and "requested password" of the only username I knew. You're calling that "500 messages of sexual harrassment". HAHAHAHAHAHA. OK, I made a mistake. You carry on "winning the argument" and "doing politics". Nice one.


How many times did you do it?


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

Your paranoia has got ridiculous, and you need help with your alcohol problem.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

You go back to your paranoia from 2006 (or something like that). Carry on.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> Your paranoia has got ridiculous, and you need help with your alcohol problem.


I've not lost a wife and fathered a kid behind her back - i'm doing ok


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I've not lost a wife and fathered a kid behind her back - i'm doing ok



Carry on. I've two kids thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> Carry on. I've two kids thanks.


I'm sure you will.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I'm sure you will.



And you won't. Go to AA.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> Carry on. I've two kids thanks.


Recognised the latest have you?


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Recognised the latest have you?



Pleasant.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SLK said:


> Pleasant.


You wanted to play teacher man.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

Off to bed BA. It's Thursday. Enjoy your Southern Comfort. It's interesting to note your furious reaction to the suggestion that people don't follow you or hang on your every word like they used to. 

Furious.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

I am really angry about that that's right.


----------



## SLK (Apr 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I am really angry about that that's right.



O.K. then.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 10, 2014)

SWP spotters - very sorry about this nights stuff. Well not that sorry, the threads dead now.


----------



## SLK (Apr 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> SWP spotters - very sorry about this nights stuff. Well not that sorry, the threads dead now.



That was it?


----------



## comrade spurski (Apr 11, 2014)

East enders comes to urban
Guys...do this email or person messaging...insinuated abuses and comments about alcholism aint for here surely


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2014)

Ideal for the swp i would have thought'

Sorry for the above, sounds pro-forma, but it's not, I'm only sorry for confronting this now very well off prick here. He chose the grounds.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> the threads dead now.


for now. i'm sure there's more to come.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 11, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i remember heffernan and her clique turning over the table of the radical anthropology group at marxism once. it was one of many things that turned me against the swp leadership.


Physical assaults on other socialists were a regular feature of the SWPs summer school. Almost a tradition.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 11, 2014)

I remember going down there with Class War not long after I left the SWP. The swp had erected gazebos around the front, which had the 'completely coincidental' effect  of stopping the lefties from gathering there.
Watching the wind pick them up and blow them across the road was a joy.
There was an attempt to strong arm us away, it failed.
The swp are simply being repaid in their own coin.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 11, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Physical assaults on other socialists were a regular feature of the SWPs summer school. Almost a tradition.


I used to look forward to the annual throwing out of workers power members


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 11, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> I used to look forward to the annual throwing out of workers power members


Served a purpose for both I think, the swappies got to indulge in their Cheka fantasies, workers power could be in a place whee they had some importance.


----------



## belboid (Apr 11, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> Physical assaults on other socialists were a regular feature of the SWPs summer school. Almost a tradition.


Physical assaults is rather overstating it. A couple of nobs getting manhandled out, leaflets getting chucked was about the size of it. Of course there was the time when the cpgb were viciously assaulted with their own leaflets...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 11, 2014)

I think the AWL put out a whole pamphlet about a brutal and terrifying assault the SWP inflicted on some member of their's at Marxism 20 years ago or some similar nonsense.

I've seen the SWP pull all kinds of embarrassing, silly stuff to remove the irritation presented by other leftists talking to their new members or potential recruits, but I've never seen them indulge in "violence" of any significance. It's not really their style.

Maybe that's just a function of an SP perspective, and they are more prone to getting physical with groups that are too small to give them any hassle in return, but to be blunt I doubt it. They don't really attract goon types.

It should be said, mind you, that the anarchoid stall tippers haven't really gone any further in their own "violence", although presumably sooner or later one of these little set pieces will lead to lost tempers and a bit of scuffling. So far the response has been very restrained - so restrained that you'd have to assume there are internal orders not to clout anyone for pr reasons. They can gain some sympathy from being pushed around, but twitter will go berserk if they respond aggressively.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 11, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i remember heffernan and her clique turning over the table of the radical anthropology group at marxism once. it was one of many things that turned me against the swp leadership.



What was that about? And when?


----------



## treelover (Apr 11, 2014)

Isn't it the Bookfair where the real set to's happen, guy got his glasses smashed once,, reported on here.


----------



## treelover (Apr 11, 2014)

> Maybe that's just a function of an SP perspective, and they are more prone to getting physical with groups that are too small to give them any hassle in return, but to be blunt I doubt it. They don't really attract goon types.



There's a certain party hack in Newcastle who may easily fit that description.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 11, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> What was that about? And when?


synchronised menstruation in pre class societies. early nineties.


----------



## belboid (Apr 11, 2014)

discokermit said:


> synchronised menstruation in pre class societies. early nineties.


i thought it was probably that. Was it the year they were finally allowed a debate, or the one after, where they kept trying to repeat the debate (good ol' sex strike theory)? I was on The Team those years, and can remember they were being a pain in the arse, tho not to the extent that they deserved any physicals.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 11, 2014)

belboid said:


> i thought it was probably that. Was it the year they were finally allowed a debate, or the one after, where they kept trying to repeat the debate (good ol' sex strike theory)? I was on The Team those years, and can remember they were being a pain in the arse, tho not to the extent that they deserved any physicals.


dunno the year. they had a paste table and literature on the grass between ulu and the institute. weren't in anyone's way, weren't bothering anyone.

you were on The Team?

oh dear.
oh dear oh dear.
did you have fun strutting round in your tshirts, chucking people out of their seats at the front of big meetings so as cc members could sit there?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 11, 2014)

Wow, real commitment to a society of equals there.


----------



## belboid (Apr 11, 2014)

discokermit said:


> dunno the year. they had a paste table and literature on the grass between ulu and the institute. weren't in anyone's way, weren't bothering anyone.
> 
> you were on The Team?
> 
> ...


I wandered round, stood on doors letting people in and gave out a few speakers slips. Funnily enough not even a sparkly t-shirt gave me the ability to make anyone do anything.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 11, 2014)

You have to be making that bit up about evicting people to make way for the CC's cosseted buttocks.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Apr 11, 2014)

Well I just checked back on this thread for a few posts and find that it is mostly a discussion of how many autonomist angels can dance on the head of a pin. Meanwhile the SWP awaits the Second Coming of Cliff and hopes for the Resurrection.


----------



## Oisin123 (Apr 11, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You have to be making that bit up about evicting people to make way for the CC's cosseted buttocks.


Once, when Andy Wilson and I wanted to make sure we got to speak in a Marxism meeting - and also because we knew it would have a head-wrecking effect - we came early and sat in the front row, slightly to the right seats that the CC invariably occupied. We had a gentle request to move, I think, but no serious force was applied. And as the CC members came in, it was amusing to see them halt, decide they didn't want to sit next to us and look around for alternatives. It's hard now to capture how defiant this act was and how liberating, because it's hard to remember a time when I was intimidated at the prospect of incurring the wrath of the party apparatus.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 11, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You have to be making that bit up about evicting people to make way for the CC's cosseted buttocks.



Nope I remember seeing that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 11, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> Once, when Andy Wilson and I wanted to make sure we got to speak in a Marxism meeting - and also because we knew it would have a head-wrecking effect - we came early and sat in the front row, slightly to the right seats that the CC invariably occupied. We had a gentle request to move, I think, but no serious force was applied. And as the CC members came in, it was amusing to see them halt, decide they didn't want to sit next to us and look around for alternatives. It's hard now to capture how defiant this act was and how liberating, because it's hard to remember a time when I was intimidated at the prospect of incurring the wrath of the party apparatus.



The manager's reserved parking spot of the revolution.

The status awareness is obviously the oddest thing about that cultural tic, but it's also notable as part of a package with the speakers slip system to keep discussion controlled.

I'm fairly sure I'd have noticed if the Irish lot had that kind of reserved seating. I presume Kieran doesn't have his own throne? I do remember them using slips on occasion, but not in a while. Is that gone entirely now?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 11, 2014)

My posts on here last night. They weren't great. So for my behaviour (badgering, nitpicking, being a dick) i apologise to all. The content, standing by that.


----------



## Geri (Apr 11, 2014)

And you weren't even drunk!


----------



## comrade spurski (Apr 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> My posts on here last night. They weren't great. So for my behaviour (badgering, nitpicking, being a dick) i apologise to all. The content, standing by that.



you sure you are on the left?
Apologies are a sign of weakness


----------



## emanymton (Apr 11, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You have to be making that bit up about evicting people to make way for the CC's cosseted buttocks.


It was not something I ever came across and I did the team a couple of times.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 14, 2014)

The NUS election results were in today. Now, obviously, there is no elected position more trivial than a place on the NUS executive bar perhaps Parish Councillor. However, those elections do give a pretty good idea of the ability of different factions to gather NUS conference delegates which in turn gives an indication of where they are amongst student "movement" type students and sabbatical types.

The SWP were the dominant left group for decades in terms of numbers, although from time to time the AWL were able to temporarily create a larger periphery. They were of course wiped out amongst students by their crisis. This conference provided an opportunity to see if they are making a bit of a comeback. And the answer was no.

On a side issue, having waded through the mire that is the NUS on twitter, it seems that the practice some left groups engage in of having activists sign up for courses in some FE college just to enable them to stand for elections has become a bit of an issue now that they are taking FE reserved seats.


----------



## Grandma Death (Apr 15, 2014)

Can someone condense this thread down a bit? Whats left of the SWP now? Is it in ruin?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 15, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Can someone condense this thread down a bit? Whats left of the SWP now? Is it in ruin?



Stronger than ever. Never been a better time to be a socialist. Biggest Marxism in years etc.


----------



## Grandma Death (Apr 15, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Stronger than ever. Never been a better time to be a socialist. Biggest Marxism in years etc.



...and the fightback against the tories has started. We beat the fash off the streets and the revolution is just around the corner....god I remember those days from my time in the swp. Fucking deluded


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 16, 2014)

Fresh layers of the most advanced workers have been won to our banner


----------



## tony.c (Apr 16, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Whats left of the SWP now? Is it in ruin?


The only show in town. The biggest revolutionary party in the UK, the biggest revolutionary party in the world!


----------



## Scribbling S (Apr 17, 2014)

I think it is fair to say the SWP was very badly damaged by L'affaire Delta - the loss of student members is a real problem that will probably get worse over time as members continue ageing. But they still have a cadre, a presence in some unions, campaigns, localities - they won't fade away - only a serious challenge by a rival group to take over their 'duties' would have a dramatic effect , I think . Which doesn't look that likely. Incidentally, looks like they have recovered slightly (tho certainly not back to their heights) in terms of speakers for next Maxism.


----------



## comrade spurski (Apr 17, 2014)

In lots of areas they have simply faded away...there used to be a regular presence in se london...sales in woolwich, greenwich, deptford, plumstead, thamesmead, lewisham, bromley and bexley on saturdays, there was a big presence in greenwich council, greenwich nut, lewisham council, and regular sales at post offices and bus garages across the area...now  I never see a swp seller in se london , especially wherei live and work in the borough of greenwich.
They may have lots of older members whose personal and social lives are intertwined in the swp, but imo any members with a real life have drifted or walked away...that dont add up to a cadre imo, it kind of adds up to a group of sad individuals who


----------



## JHE (Apr 17, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> They may have lots of older members whose personal and social lives are intertwined in the swp, but imo any members with a real life have drifted or walked away...that dont add up to a cadre imo, it kind of adds up to a group of sad individuals who



Your explanation of how political loyalty is cemented in the SWP is true, I think.  The same thing happens in umpteen other sects and also in bigger more important political groups. On the other hand, I'm not sure why you have to be so contemptuous of the individuals and their personal loyalties.  I despise the SWP.  It's a daft deluded slogan-spewing Islamophile cult run by dishonest third-rate Trot bossy-boots.  But I don't doubt that the lives and personal relationships of the people foolish enough to be long-term members are _just as real_ as yours or mine or anyone else's.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2014)

Didn't know where to post this, but shd go somewhere:

https://www.facebook.com/steveforGS


----------



## dennisr (Apr 17, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> They may have lots of older members whose personal and social lives are intertwined in the swp, but imo any members with a real life have drifted or walked away...that dont add up to a cadre imo, it kind of adds up to a group of sad individuals who



Just a few weirdos left in Kent


----------



## comrade spurski (Apr 17, 2014)

JHE said:


> Your explanation of how political loyalty is cemented in the SWP is true, I think.  The same thing happens in umpteen other sects and also in bigger more important political groups. On the other hand, I'm not sure why you have to be so contemptuous of the individuals and their personal loyalties.  I despise the SWP.  It's a daft deluded slogan-spewing Islamophile cult run by dishonest third-rate Trot bossy-boots.  But I don't doubt that the lives and personal relationships of the people foolish enough to be long-term members are _just as real_ as yours or mine or anyone else's.


Before the delta issue I would not have been so contemptuous or rude about swp members as a whole but I can not find any other reason for some one who claims to be a socialist to remain a member...imho any socialist with a life outside the swp would have realised what a terrible injustice it inflicted on the women involved and how unsocialist the swp behaved...therefore any one who remained an swp member has no life outside the swp ... or they think rape is ok which I dont think they do. But it is just my personal opinion


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> I think it is fair to say the SWP was very badly damaged by L'affaire Delta - the loss of student members is a real problem that will probably get worse over time as members continue ageing. But they still have a cadre, a presence in some unions, campaigns, localities - they won't fade away - only a serious challenge by a rival group to take over their 'duties' would have a dramatic effect , I think . Which doesn't look that likely. Incidentally, looks like they have recovered slightly (tho certainly not back to their heights) in terms of speakers for next Maxism.


Birchall speaking i see. And Sheridan. Hmmm. What a good tactical move.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Apr 17, 2014)

swp, bunch of cunts, what i've always felt.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Apr 17, 2014)

There was an evening paperssale at Dalston a month or so back with 4 older members. Plus a very old member a little way down the street asking people to sign a petition "against racism". 

And they had a presence at the Duggan vigil outside Tottenham police station. 

So they are still about in North London. But nowhere near as ubiquitous as they were.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 17, 2014)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> swp, bunch of cunts, what i've always felt.


if only you'd said that 17,000 posts ago we could have avoided this whole thread.


----------



## belboid (Apr 18, 2014)

The cpgb are annoyed the ISN gave them such a brief response to their request to be involved in the regroup meant talks - http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1006/serious-approach-demanded

Still a damned sight longer response than I'd have given them.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> if only you'd said that 17,000 posts ago we could have avoided this whole thread.


I believe someone did.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> The cpgb are annoyed the ISN gave them such a brief response to their request to be involved in the regroup meant talks - http://cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1006/serious-approach-demanded
> 
> Still a damned sight longer response than I'd have given them.


And it looks like Steve Freeman has been telling them all about the internal discussion


----------



## belboid (Apr 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> And it looks like Steve Freeman has been telling them all about the internal discussion


Dear darling Steve??!! A man who is never deeply tedious and perpetually banging on about the same one subject despite everyone else going 'we don't care'. No way!


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 18, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> Once, when Andy Wilson and I wanted to make sure we got to speak in a Marxism meeting - and also because we knew it would have a head-wrecking effect - we came early and sat in the front row, slightly to the right seats that the CC invariably occupied. We had a gentle request to move, I think, but no serious force was applied. And as the CC members came in, it was amusing to see them halt, decide they didn't want to sit next to us and look around for alternatives. It's hard now to capture how defiant this act was and how liberating, because it's hard to remember a time when I was intimidated at the prospect of incurring the wrath of the party apparatus.


Someone less generous spirited than me (!) might think you only found it so liberating because you were both previously so conscious of your relative positions in the pecking order and perhaps a little jealous. Those of us without a hint of careerism were never that bothered by people who'd earned a position of leadership having a seat at the front to be honest.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 18, 2014)

Nice to see comradely discussions continue in the ISJ now that the split has occurred. http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?s=contents&issue=142

Never say never.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 18, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> Fresh layers of the most advanced workers have been won to our banner


That sounds much more like a bumptious Socialist Party leaflet to be fair.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Someone less generous spirited than me (!) might think you only found it so liberating because you were both previously so conscious of your relative positions in the pecking order and perhaps a little jealous. Those of us without a hint of careerism were never that bothered *by people who'd earned a position of leadership having a seat at the front* to be honest.



cheers for the giggles.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Someone less generous spirited than me (!) might think you only found it so liberating because you were both previously so conscious of your relative positions in the pecking order and perhaps a little jealous. Those of us without a hint of careerism were never that bothered by people who'd earned a position of leadership having a seat at the front to be honest.


The swp is the place for those who know their place


----------



## tony.c (Apr 18, 2014)

The Central Committee and some full timers also got a flat each to themselves at the Easter rally in the Skegness miners' holiday camp. The ordinary rank and file members were three to a room.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 18, 2014)

tony.c said:


> The Central Committee and some full timers also got a flat each to themselves at the Easter rally in the Skegness miners' holiday camp. The ordinary rank and file members were three to a room.



To save BB the bother, I've just paraphrased part of his answer above in reply to this:
"never that bothered by people who'd earned a position of leadership having flats to themselves."

They earned it comrades. Quit complaining.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2014)

tony.c said:


> The Central Committee and some full timers also got a flat each to themselves at the Easter rally in the Skegness miners' holiday camp. The ordinary rank and file members were three to a room.



“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 18, 2014)

The nearest Dachas to the beach


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2014)

treelover said:


> “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”


_That one is a pig and that one is a man_. Simple. Doesn't say much of their/his expectations of the w/c if they're so thick they can't tell man from pig.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 18, 2014)

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that fulltimers for other left wing groups need a better union so they too can collect the little perks they've so far been missing out on.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Those of us without a hint of careerism were never that bothered by people who'd earned a position of leadership having a seat at the front to be honest.


i never wanted a career in the swp and i was disgusted. and by 'earned' do you mean 'appointed by tony cliff'?


----------



## discokermit (Apr 18, 2014)

tony.c said:


> The ordinary rank and file members were three to a room.


that was half the fun. along with watching middle class people being exposed to holiday camp food.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2014)

swp Easter camp sounds great. Like a less earnest ATP


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 18, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that fulltimers for other left wing groups need a better union so they too can collect the little perks they've so far been missing out on.



cesare and I proposed something similar earlier in this thread.

It could be called the Association of Revolutionary Socialist Employees


----------



## comrade spurski (Apr 18, 2014)

i have never understood how any socialist aspires to a career in a left political party...i thought the point of being in a socialist party was to be able to fight injustice, fight for rights, better pay etc and to fight for a better world...not to get a poxy front row seat at a meeting 

used to do my head in watching people sucking up and chatting shit to get "known" ... people used to be desperate to be asked to do a marxism meeting cos it was seen as some sort or an achievement...i thought it just meant you could talk clearly to an audience. 

also struck me as weird how some people  were desperate to go to annual conference , like it was going to change the world and it was vital that they were there so they could spread the politics back in a branch...

in 23 as a member I went to 2 conferences and never did a meeting at marxism ...was often told that i needed to push myself ... when i quit from being an organiser in the swp after 7 months I was told that I'd regret it as I'd never be asked again ... worst job i ever did...spent most of my time (long hours) with just swp members, i don't mean that as harshly as it sounds but i hated the constant internal discussions; the "this is the best time to be a socialist" speech given to organisers who were then expected to regurgitate it out to members and i hated talking with fulltimers who knew all about what needed to happen in work when they had never had a real job so had no idea how easy or hard it was to organise in work cos they drew all their experiences only from those who said what they wanted to hear

bizarrely quite a few members couldn't get their heads around how I just went back to being a council worker

I did lots of work (by no means on my own) in my union to counter racism against asylum seekers and to counter the BNP ... I was a publicity officer and wrote several bulletins to members which helped our branch do some great anti racist work. I worked with the socialist party branch sec, green party members, labour party members and non aligned union members. Cos I did this in the name of the union branch and not as a SWP/Socialist Alliance/ Respect etc. i was told i was being a syndicalist. Same thing happened with an anti war meeting which we refused to insist had an swp member speaking...we were slated by the leadership (a certain hannah dee was involved in that)... we pulled a meeting together of over 150 people (bigger than any other local anti war meeting at the time) and they belittled it...then it and all the other protests against the war we organised as a union got mentioned in the Stop the war book as an example of the good things the unions did.

I always tried to work with others even if they couldn't stand the swp and never understood why people said i was unusual for an swp member but to be honest i do wonder how I stayed a member for so long (other than i rarely went anywhere near other members!)

I have written a couple of rambling contributions on this thread...think its the equivalent of going to a priest and confessing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 18, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> i have never understood how any socialist aspires to a career in a left political party...i thought the point of being in a socialist party was to be able to fight injustice, fight for rights, better pay etc and to fight for a better world...not to get a poxy front row seat at a meeting
> 
> used to do my head in watching people sucking up and chatting shit to get "known" ... people used to be desperate to be asked to do a marxism meeting cos it was seen as some sort or an achievement...i thought it just meant you could talk clearly to an audience.
> 
> ...



During my brief involvement I got criticised for focussing on union/workplace stuff instead of the Iraq war. So this sort of mental shit sounds about right.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> cesare and I proposed something similar earlier in this thread.
> 
> It could be called the Association of Revolutionary Socialist Employees



I could see that being amalgamated with the Federal Association of Revolutionary Theorists at some point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> cesare and I proposed something similar earlier in this thread.
> 
> It could be called the Association of Revolutionary Socialist Employees


shurely 'the association of revolutionary socialist under-comrades'


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 18, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I could see that being amalgamated with the Federal Association of Revolutionary Theorists at some point.



Tried to come up with something that would have the acronym 'FOLLOWTHROUGH' to give it a punchline but got bored and gave up after about 5 minutes


----------



## discokermit (Apr 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> swp Easter camp sounds great. Like a less earnest ATP


it really was. inter branch football, decent bands, shagging, dancing, humorous meetings, laughing at vegetarians foolish enough to get the veggie option (get the meat, swap your sausages, basic really), kids in the creche running riot and getting the police called to them, stamping your feet to 'october' in the cinema, or cheering through 'robocop'. and the chips from the on site chippy were quite nice.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 18, 2014)

discokermit said:


> i never wanted a career in the swp and i was disgusted. and by 'earned' do you mean 'appointed by tony cliff'?


You were disgusted by folks being closer to the speakers slips. Really? You do know that earned was earned in front of everyone, people who'd walked the walk got respect. The arse lickers got booed when the chair asked them to "finish please comrade". Be a little more subtle than this animal farm shit please disco.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You were disgusted by folks being closer to the speakers slips. Really? You do know that earned was earned in front of everyone, people who'd walked the walk got respect. The arse lickers got booed when the chair asked them to "finish please comrade". Be a little more subtle than this animal farm shit please disco.


We now know who walked the walk. Who clapped and foot-stomped delta. And who joined as a result.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You were disgusted by folks being closer to the speakers slips. Really? You do know that earned was earned in front of everyone, people who'd walked the walk got respect. The arse lickers got booed when the chair asked them to "finish please comrade". Be a little more subtle than this animal farm shit please disco.


Charlie Kimber? alex callinicos? Martin smith? Walked the walk? What a sycophantic twat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You were disgusted by folks being closer to the speakers slips.


from the sounds of it you were closer to the speakers' arses than their lips.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You were disgusted by folks being closer to the speakers slips. Really? You do know that earned was earned in front of everyone, people who'd walked the walk got respect. The arse lickers got booed when the chair asked them to "finish please comrade". Be a little more subtle than this animal farm shit please disco.


yeh disgusted. when a disabled contact was told they had to sit upstairs for the final rally after sitting in one of the 'reserved' seats by some jumped up student in a tshirt.
earned? what the fuck did john rees ever earn? walk the walk? acedemics and poshos talking shit isn't walking the walk.
animal farm is shit. orwell is shit. never connect my name to them again.

arselickers got booed? did they fuck. they got promoted and you know it.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 18, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> alex callinicos?


during the poll tax was ambling about with his papers in front of him, squinting and having a go at rioting party members for not selling the paper. that's not walking the walk, that's a complete lack of awareness and instinct.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 18, 2014)

What the fuck is a posho disco, inverted snobbery as a guide to action, really? Waterson, Smith and Allen are the three people I took orders from on the street when the shit hit the fan. Their class was the last thing I considered. 

Butchers, pickman , barney have you ever even tried to make a difference to the point where others listened to your ideas and considered your lead worth following? course not, keyboard warriors all.


----------



## discokermit (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What the fuck is a posho disco, inverted snobbery as a guide to action, really?


nobility on the cc. two of 'em. how the fuck does that happen? is the revolution gonna be us doing the dirty work while lord acton points? fuck that.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What the fuck is a posho disco, inverted snobbery as a guide to action, really? Waterson, Smith and Allen are the three people I took orders from on the street when the shit hit the fan. Their class was the last thing I considered.
> 
> Butchers, pickman , barney have you ever even tried to make a difference to the point where others listened to your ideas and considered your lead worth following? course not, keyboard warriors all.


Quite right too, what has class got to do with socialism? 
 What a twat


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What the fuck is a posho disco, inverted snobbery as a guide to action, really? Waterson, Smith and Allen are the three people I took orders from on the street when the shit hit the fan. Their class was the last thing I considered.
> 
> Butchers, pickman , barney have you ever even tried to make a difference to the point where others listened to your ideas and considered your lead worth following? course not, keyboard warriors all.


What does this mean? Your tradition tried to for 60 years and found no echo. So now you fight each other. The class, well they're elsewhere.  If you find non answer, why is your response - be right a bit more shoutier?

Do you want some moralist stuff about not giving up not never, well you drive more people into giving up than you ever enthused. I was here when it started, was disgusted at the way you behaved, decided never to touch it. That's not opportunistic. I was right.


----------



## comrade spurski (Apr 19, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What the fuck is a posho disco, inverted snobbery as a guide to action, really? Waterson, Smith and Allen are the three people I took orders from on the street when the shit hit the fan. Their class was the last thing I considered.
> 
> Butchers, pickman , barney have you ever even tried to make a difference to the point where others listened to your ideas and considered your lead worth following? course not, keyboard warriors all.



You are the worst keyboard warrior on here bb...you never answer issues...I have raised loads but not once have you responded...instead you mouth off with abstract crap.
I was a union rep at 22, was a rep in a social work section that was on all out strike for 9 months in 1992. I have been on strike countless times. I have been on hundreds of demos, have collected thousands of pounds for different strikes and campaigns. I was involved in organising anti nazi events, campaigns and demos in se london since the late 80s, was heavily involved in the rolan adams, rohit duggal and stephen lawrence justice campaigns and was beaten unconscious on the welling anti nazi demo and ended up in hospital. We were sent razor blades on letters threatening to burn us out of our home when our daughters were babies.
That makes me no better or braver than anyone one else on here...it simply means I was in a situation where I had the time and confidence lots of great support and was in the physical place to get involved.
I am no longer that active due to my childcare responsibilities and health...that dont make me any less than anyone on here...just means I am not as able or confident as others any more.

You make it sound like these people (waterson smith and allen are heroes)... they risked no more than anyone else and in some ways a fuck load less...they had their fines and solicitors paid for and were never at risk of being sacked unlike tens of thousands of others in and out of the swp.
As for smith...what he did as a rep in the 80s is insignificant considering the reasons behind his resignation from the swp.

You are are as good as the last thing you do...everything I have done would be diminished if I was to scab on my union striking...the swp behaviour in relation to womens rights was the equivalent to scabbing yet you blindly refused to see anything wrong in the swp until your road to damascus conversion on the issue a couple of months back but here you are once again praising smith with all the honesty of a stalinist.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 20, 2014)

Marxism 2014 timetable is out. There's a bit of an improvement on last year's disaster in terms of booking speakers from outside their own ranks, but it's still a very long way from the kind of lineups they had pre-crisis.


----------



## Fedayn (Apr 20, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> You were disgusted by folks being closer to the speakers slips. Really? You do know that earned was earned in front of everyone, people who'd walked the walk got respect. The arse lickers got booed when the chair asked them to "finish please comrade". Be a little more subtle than this animal farm shit please disco.



See when the leadership in your party were pissing on your back I bet you complained to your fellow comrades and family that it was raining.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 21, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Marxism 2014 timetable is out. There's a bit of an improvement on last year's disaster in terms of booking speakers from outside their own ranks, but it's still a very long way from the kind of lineups they had pre-crisis.


Separate charge for the main entertainment. Does robb Johnson know he has been booked by the rapists?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 23, 2014)

SWP stalls featuring prominently this week. Another one got "attacked" (ie stuff shoved off it) outside the Unison Health conference. While a second one featured prominently on Newsnight as evidence of a red takeover of the NUT.

(Unfortunately, I can exclusively reveal that there has not been a red takeover of the NUT)


----------



## belboid (Apr 23, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> While a second one featured prominently on Newsnight as evidence of a red takeover of the NUT.
> 
> (Unfortunately, I can exclusively reveal that there has not been a red takeover of the NUT)


it did look a rather shabby, knackered table, not like the old days. It was also a bit odd when the piece was ostensibly about the danger of Martin Powell-Davis winning the presidency, as the SWP still back Blower, dont they?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2014)

fuck me they all drink at the same trough- gove last year dismissed protesting teachers, parent and children as 'trots' on the basis of a few swappie placards.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 23, 2014)

belboid said:


> the SWP still back Blower, dont they?



Yep, the shysters


----------



## redcogs (Apr 23, 2014)

belboid said:


> it did look a rather shabby, knackered table, not like the old days.



Er hem!  Some of us go back to the proper old days, before the SWP became all professionalised
by all this modern megaphone shrieking paper pasting tables bristling with placards and pamphlets.  Back then of course there used to be a class struggle, one that involved actual workers who toiled with their hands (as well as their brains).

All this paper selling with mod cons seems to have been a symptom of the decline of the movement, given its inverse proportionality to the reduced number of strike days being taken by the proletariat!

No doubt the prof can come up with a marxist explanation.


----------



## treelover (Apr 23, 2014)

discokermit said:


> yeh disgusted. *when a disabled contact was told they had to sit upstairs for the final rally after sitting in one of the 'reserved' seats by some jumped up student in a tshirt.*
> earned? what the fuck did john rees ever earn? walk the walk? acedemics and poshos talking shit isn't walking the walk.
> animal farm is shit. orwell is shit. never connect my name to them again.
> 
> arselickers got booed? did they fuck. they got promoted and you know it.




Fucks sake, why didn't all this come out earlier?


----------



## treelover (Apr 23, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> SWP stalls featuring prominently this week. Another one got "attacked" (ie stuff shoved off it) outside the Unison Health conference. While a second one featured prominently on Newsnight as evidence of a red takeover of the NUT.
> 
> (Unfortunately, I can exclusively reveal that there has not been a red takeover of the NUT)




That Newsnight package on 'militant infiltration' of the NUT was incredible, it was like the 80's revisited.


----------



## tony.c (Apr 23, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Back then of course there used to be a class struggle, one that involved actual workers who toiled with their hands (as well as their brains).
> 
> the decline of the movement, given its inverse proportionality to the reduced number of strike days being taken by the proletariat!
> 
> No doubt the prof can come up with a marxist explanation.


Don't you know that the professional university educated white collar workers (as exemplified by the prof) are the new proletariat


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Apr 23, 2014)

tony.c said:


> Don't you know that the professional university educated white collar workers (as exemplified by the prof) are the new proletariat


 
Yes I did comrade.

Proletarian greetings - Dr L. MacNeice


----------



## emanymton (Apr 23, 2014)

tony.c said:


> Don't you know that the professional university educated white collar workers (as exemplified by the prof) are the new proletariat


To be fair I think he argues that while some uni lectures are now working class he is not one of them.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 23, 2014)

emanymton said:


> To be fair I think he argues that while some uni lectures are now working class he is not one of them.



Even when I was working a gig with no actual contract (and when I sometimes didn't get paid on time) I wasn't working class.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 23, 2014)

belboid said:


> it did look a rather shabby, knackered table, not like the old days. It was also a bit odd when the piece was ostensibly about the danger of Martin Powell-Davis winning the presidency, as the SWP still back Blower, dont they?



Not only do they still back Blower, they stood a candidate in the very recent national executive elections, in alliance with Blower and the "left" bureaucrats, specifically against MPD to get him off the executive. It didn't work, but it's a very clear indication of where the SWP are in the NUT - right up the bureacracy's back passage.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 23, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Even when I was working a gig with no actual contract (and when I sometimes didn't get paid on time) I wasn't working class.



Because you had an independent income? Or because you like sun dried tomatoes?


----------



## chilango (Apr 23, 2014)

tony.c said:


> Don't you know that the professional university educated white collar workers (as exemplified by the prof) are the new proletariat



That's pretty true though.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 23, 2014)

tony.c said:


> Don't you know that the professional university educated white collar workers (as exemplified by the prof) are the new proletariat


I thought Muslims were the new proletariat


----------



## emanymton (Apr 23, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Even when I was working a gig with no actual contract (and when I sometimes didn't get paid on time) I wasn't working class.


What was your class position then?


----------



## tony.c (Apr 23, 2014)

barney_pig said:


> I thought Muslims were the new proletariat


That was only during the Respect phase, I think.


----------



## lazythursday (Apr 25, 2014)

Interesting that a couple of my friends who have never been involved in left wing politics are now Liking RS21 on Facebook. It appears that RS21 are winning the struggle through the mechanism of the sponsored post, which must be much more agreeable than the paper sale.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 25, 2014)

emanymton said:


> What was your class position then?



I was the Missing Class System Link - HE BAFFLES SCIENCE.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 25, 2014)

lazythursday said:


> Interesting that a couple of my friends who have never been involved in left wing politics are now Liking RS21 on Facebook. It appears that RS21 are winning the struggle through the mechanism of the sponsored post, which must be much more agreeable than the paper sale.



What's a sponsored post?


----------



## lazythursday (Apr 25, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What's a sponsored post?


A post that they've paid for to reach lots of people. Effectively an ad. You can target them at certain demographics, eg age groups, towns, interests, etc. If my friends are anything to go by they've gone for middle aged men in northern towns with a strong interest in real ale, hard drugs and shouting pointlessly at the television.


----------



## rioted (Apr 25, 2014)

lazythursday said:


> A post that they've paid for to reach lots of people. Effectively an ad. You can target them at certain demographics, eg age groups, towns, interests, etc. If my friends are anything to go by they've gone for middle aged men in northern towns with a strong interest in real ale, hard drugs and shouting pointlessly at the television.


Phew, the lack of television is my saviour.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What does this mean? Your tradition tried to for 60 years and found no echo. So now you fight each other. The class, well they're elsewhere.  If you find non answer, why is your response - be right a bit more shoutier?
> 
> Do you want some moralist stuff about not giving up not never, well you drive more people into giving up than you ever enthused. I was here when it started, was disgusted at the way you behaved, decided never to touch it. That's not opportunistic. I was right.


you were wrong, the fight continues. Don't think I shout, generally quite talky. 

The way I behaved? Don't be daft. There was no evidence in the public domain either way. In fact the honest answer on the basis of the public shot was my position. never, never think you have a moral high ground on me. I defended a position, was shown the stupidity of it by someone, not you, in the know. Was I right to say bad sex? No. But that's only cause someone who knew put me straight. You and I knew nothing.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 26, 2014)

Ignore all I just said, all a bit lame. Not in right frame of mind. See my edl thread post. Game over for my family.


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 26, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> you were wrong, the fight continues. Don't think I shout, generally quite talky.
> 
> The way I behaved? Don't be daft. There was no evidence in the public domain either way. In fact the honest answer on the basis of the public shot was my position. never, never think you have a moral high ground on me. I defended a position, was shown the stupidity of it by someone, not you, in the know. Was I right to say bad sex? No. But that's only cause someone who knew put me straight. You and I knew nothing.


How did they know the truth, and everyone else, including smiths victims, did not?


----------



## belboid (Apr 28, 2014)

http://www.playbuzz.com/keithw10/which-post-swp-crisis-grouplet-are-you

Not at all amusing


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Ignore all I just said, all a bit lame. Not in right frame of mind. See my edl thread post. Game over for my family.


As i hope was that bit. But if you want to do it, then who did know the truth?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> http://www.playbuzz.com/keithw10/which-post-swp-crisis-grouplet-are-you
> 
> Not at all amusing


This - literally- is the dark side of the internet.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> http://www.playbuzz.com/keithw10/which-post-swp-crisis-grouplet-are-you
> 
> Not at all amusing


I got ISN lol


----------



## barney_pig (Apr 28, 2014)

I got to the second question and turned it off


----------



## emanymton (Apr 28, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I got ISN lol


I got CC, which was a but odd as I was trying to confuse it by waving all over the place with my answers.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 29, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I got CC, which was a but odd as I was trying to confuse it by waving all over the place with my answers.


 you obviously bent the stick in best CC fashion


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 29, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This - literally- is the dark side of the internet.



The guy who dreamed it up is an ex-Swoppie full timer who went with the ISN. He's one of these characters who is utterly toxic on the internet  (he goes by the name Keith Watermellon on facebook and twitter). The laugh is when he was still in the SWP fold he was one of their notorious internet howler monkey brigade (think of people like Rabbit Worrier here or "The Undertaker" and "ll" on Socialist Unity) whose shit flinging appearances on any forum mildly critical of the SWP quickly reduced it to a smoking radioactive ruin. He likes to kid himself he's crossed some sort of Rubicon since he's left the SWP but the reality is he's exactly the same in his on-line interactions, he's just wearing a different hat and has broadened the number of enemies to lambaste.


----------



## belboid (Apr 29, 2014)

Eh? He left before the SWP even started complaining about the internet (when Andy W was expelled), so I'm not sure how he could have been an internet howler monkey.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 29, 2014)

i didn't find it funny at all.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> Eh? He left before the SWP even started complaining about the internet (when Andy W was expelled), so I'm not sure how he could have been an internet howler monkey.



different bloke


----------



## belboid (Apr 29, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> different bloke


Is it?!  I saw one appear on fb at the same time the other one disappeared, so put two and two together...


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> Is it?!  I saw one appear on fb at the same time the other one disappeared, so put two and two together...



I'm not 100% sure who 'Keith Watermelon' is but I do know he was an SWP member just a few years back. He was/is part of the Through The Scary Door group blog.


----------



## Horas (Apr 29, 2014)

how do peeps find Counterfire? they are ex swp also, but left before the rape crisis. i get the impression that all these ex swp groups are, for people who do not come from their tradition, still too 'swappie', ie they do things in the same way as the swp and think in the same way as the swp. i cayn't tell whether counterfire is a party or a website or what.


----------



## JHE (Apr 29, 2014)

Horas said:


> i cayn't tell whether counterfire is a party or a website or what.



It's a failed café.


----------



## belboid (Apr 29, 2014)

Horas said:


> how do peeps find Counterfire? they are ex swp also, but left before the rape crisis. i get the impression that all these ex swp groups are, for people who do not come from their tradition, still too 'swappie', ie they do things in the same way as the swp and think in the same way as the swp. i cayn't tell whether counterfire is a party or a website or what.


Counterfire pretty much gave up on 'trotskyism' (as normally recognised) when they left. Ultra 'movementists' (not a million miles away from SR, really) they have just sunk their lot in with the tankies (there only remaining allies in Stop the War), so have moved a fair way from the 'IS tradition.'

And they can't even run a cafe.


----------



## redcogs (Apr 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> Counterfire pretty much gave up on 'trotskyism' (as normally recognised) when they left. Ultra 'movementists' (not a million miles away from SR, really) they have just sunk their lot in with the tankies (there only remaining allies in Stop the War), so have moved a fair way from the 'IS tradition.'
> 
> And they can't even run a cafe.




 i noticed that Socialist Worker are arguing for a Labour vote again.  Treating the working class as turkeys, encouraging em to vote for xmas.


----------



## belboid (Apr 29, 2014)

SWP stall turned over at Leeds Uni.  

Any further appearances will apparently see them removed by security (as none of them are students)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 29, 2014)

belboid said:


> SWP stall turned over at Leeds Uni.
> 
> Any further appearances will apparently see them removed by security (as none of them are students)


What time are UT on?


----------



## Horas (Apr 29, 2014)

was it turned over by counterfire? was there a counterfire stall at leeds uni? feel a little sorry for the swp.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 30, 2014)

Horas said:


> was there a counterfire stall at leeds uni?



You better believe it


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 30, 2014)

don't forget Lyndsey German is in Counterfire their stall would have been full of wraps and samosas.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 30, 2014)

Seen this report of last weekend's revolutionary regroupment meeting between the ISN, RS21, Workers Power, Anti Capitalist Initiative and Socialist Resistance



> 26 April Regroupment Meeting
> 
> I thought he meeting on the 26 April was a very positive start to a process of revolutionary regroupment. There were perhaps 120 people there with RS21 sending about 8-10. But there is an overlapping of membership now with lots of people dual carding ACI/ISN, ISN/RS21 etc - not to mention Left Unity (LU).
> 
> ...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (May 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> As i hope was that bit. But if you want to do it, then who did know the truth?


Thank you for that first comment. Jury is out.

For the rest, spoken to loads but I suspect the truth is a handful. No decent resolution for anyone involved.


----------



## redcogs (May 10, 2014)

When i get an alert to one of your posts bolshie the theme tune of the Archers (an every day story of country folk) comes to mind.  Their recent narrative has involved Tom cruelly jilting Kirsty at the alter, but the real interest is in the reactions of friends and family.  

Your difficult Facebook situation was (for a time), a rival for my attention - but the Archer's has prevailed because it doesn't involve waiting for ages between episodes. 

Anyway, i sincerely hope its all sorted to your satisfaction.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (May 17, 2014)

Haha loved that redcogs.

Right so, back to the swp! The thing is some of the alphabet soup seem to believe this article and it's predictions.

http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2014/05/weeks-new-statesman-fall-swp


----------



## bolshiebhoy (May 17, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> So have we established yet whether or not bolshiebhoy is really Andy Newman?


Just got my pass to the Swindon election count, courtesy of my Lab candidate mum. I'm hoping me and Andy being in the same room will cause a space-time singularity.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Haha loved that redcogs.
> 
> Right so, back to the swp! The thing is some of the alphabet soup seem to believe this article and it's predictions.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2014/05/weeks-new-statesman-fall-swp


What predictions?

And this board is very slow, nothing from the Times?


----------



## BK Double Stack (May 17, 2014)

This is stupid. Like, everything about it. 
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4092616.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_05_16


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2014)

They apparently approached the (non-dissolved) ISN for a comment at ten last night


----------



## DotCommunist (May 17, 2014)

bah, paywall


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2014)

That is,virtually, the whole article. Anyone got the full statesman one?


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2014)

I've just done a scan pic of the times one in the cafe, the really is nothing more to it. I'll post it up when home later.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2014)

It also points out that China is quite posh.  Which is shocking, I mean who'd have thought someone called 'China' was posh??!!


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2014)

Here's the NS article, bit hard to read, but doable


----------



## treelover (May 17, 2014)

Dave Renton is an old Etonian?

they all may be ok, but why so many toffs?


----------



## Bakunin (May 17, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I got ISN lol



So did I.


----------



## treelover (May 17, 2014)

http://bidisha-online.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/venice.html

More accusations?


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2014)

treelover said:


> http://bidisha-online.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/venice.html
> 
> More accusations?


Three and a half years ago , absolutely nothing to do with the SWP. Otherwise, great spot.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2014)

It is to do with one of the leading people in the split though.


----------



## discokermit (May 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It is to do with one of the leading people in the split though.


it equates having an affair with murder at a few points.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2014)

Not read it tbh - just skipped to the bits where i could find out who it was about.


----------



## BK Double Stack (May 17, 2014)

I read it, and it is strange stuff. She's very upset that she wasn't the only affair he was having, and she insults both his partner and women who have casual sex.


----------



## belboid (May 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It is to do with one of the leading people in the split though.


Oh,I missed the 'M', only saw the C bit. Oops. Dire piece, anyway.


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 17, 2014)

BK Double Stack said:


> This is stupid. Like, everything about it.
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4092616.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_05_16





DotCommunist said:


> bah, paywall






			
				The Times said:
			
		

> *No sex please comrades, we’re British*
> 
> When Karl Marx dreamt of the socialist revolution, he failed to anticipate that it could be derailed by the political etiquette of the bedroom.
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> Oh,I missed the 'M', only saw the C bit. Oops. Dire piece, anyway.


Well, it does also helpfully - and repeatedly - hyperlink to his website in case anyone missed the between-the-lines signposting


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Well, it does also helpfully - and repeatedly - hyperlink to his website in case anyone missed the between-the-lines signposting


Blimey, why bother calling him CM then?


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> Blimey, why bother calling him CM then?


To confuse Chris Morris fans?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 18, 2014)

how many socialist workers does it take to change a light bulb?

none, they're all too busy selling fucking newspapers.

cunts.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> To confuse Chris Morris fans?


aah, In was thinking it was Colm Meaney


----------



## belboid (May 20, 2014)

that NS article in more readable format - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/comrades-war-decline-and-fall-socialist-workers-party


----------



## DotCommunist (May 20, 2014)

belboid said:


> It also points out that China is quite posh.  Which is shocking, I mean who'd have thought someone called 'China' was posh??!!




its the typical thing they think the reader wants to hear- shock horror someone who espouses pro-working class politics might not be actually have grown up with rickets and hewn coal with his teeth. See also: the rush to point out that Tony Benn was a bit posh


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 25, 2014)

belboid said:


> They apparently approached the (non-dissolved) ISN for a comment at ten last night



Did anyone give them a comment or was there not time for a democratic sub-committee to discuss the issue?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 3, 2014)

With Marxism 2014 coming up very soon, I thought that it was time to resuscitate this thread! It seems there have been a number of dropouts from the Marxism events scheduled, the latest here:

*Creeping Feminism* ‏@swpoffcampus  Jul 1
So far Piratones, Robb Johnson & Dirty Revolution have pulled out of #Marxism2014! Please help spread the word about #*SWP* rape apologism!















8:17 PM - 1 Jul 2014 · Details


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 3, 2014)

good


----------



## laptop (Jul 3, 2014)

It was - and obviously remains - the Thread That Wouldn't Die


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 3, 2014)

It's faintly surprising that what appears to be a group of students who weren't themselves in the SWP are still engaged in organised anti-SWP activism at this point. It shows more stamina than would have reasonably been expected.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 3, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> With Marxism 2014 coming up very soon, I thought that it was time to resuscitate this thread! It seems there have been a number of dropouts from the Marxism events scheduled, the latest here:
> 
> *Creeping Feminism* ‏@swpoffcampus  Jul 1
> So far Piratones, Robb Johnson & Dirty Revolution have pulled out of #Marxism2014! Please help spread the word about #*SWP* rape apologism!
> ...



They may be pulling out but the main attraction will still be there. Can't wait: 

_"Alex is one of the best known Marxist writers today. His works include Imperialism and Global Political Economy and An Anti-Capitalist Manifesto. *He will launch his new book on Deciphering Capital at Marxism 2014*_"


----------



## Horas (Jul 3, 2014)

flogging a dead horse.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 3, 2014)

In response to the Prof's article in ISJ entitled Thunder on the Left, in which he (AC) says:

"The present crisis is much more diffuse, but in some ways more threatening, because the revolutionary left is much weaker than it was in 1979. This makes the attempts to split and even to destroy organisations such as the NPA and the SWP so irresponsible. These parties represent decades of concentrated efforts by thousands of militants to develop credible revolutionary alternatives. They are not to be thrown away lightly."

Jonny Jones has responded on Facebook thus:

This, I think, is the crux of the problem. I often ask myself: why did Alex ally with a clique who were absolutely determined to split the SWP, at any cost, in order to hold on to Martin Smith? A political operator who was prepared to lie about and smear survivors of his abuse, ably assisted by his chums like Amy L, John McL, etc. Why did Joseph, who admitted to me in person that he was disturbed by the handling of the rape accusation, make his peace with the very people who had organised to vilify him and trivialise his concerns? Why, when they realised that they had been played by Martin, could the comrades who made up the so-called middle ground, with a few honourable exceptions, not row back?
I had a conversation with Paul McG last autumn in which he told me that going for the IDOOM contingent on the Central Committee at the last conference was impossible because it would split the party. Instead, he invited us to ally to isolate them and go for them at the following conference. As he was elected to the CC in December, he didn't raise a single complaint about the conduct of the liars and the smearers; the party wreckers on the CC, NC and elsewhere. Earlier this year, John R took me to task for leaving the party saying the opposition had achieved everything it wanted. Amy was isolated in her Marxism "ghetto", and I should hear the things Alex says about her, "and even about Judith!" Well, yes, I should have. I'd have loved to. But I didn't. All I heard was guff about how the CC was agreed, that "everybody had behaved badly"; equating name-calling on Facebook with a systematic campaign to smear a rape survivor as suffering from mental health problems, and both her and the comrade who Martin sexually harassed of being politically motivated). What rubbish.
In his criticism of Richard in the last ISJ, Alex suggests that 'Slavoj Zizek is much closer to a genuine revolutionary Marxist approach when he says that “authentic politics” is “the art of the impossible-it changes the very parameters of what is considered ‘possible’ in the existing constellation”.' Well quite. What, I wonder, would have happened if the manoeuvres and deals and ploys and arguments that occurred behind the scenes had played out in front of the membership? How would the membership have reacted had the duplicity of Martin Smith and his IDOOM faction been laid bare, and the middle ground who whispered in ears shouted from platforms? I suspect the 'existing constellation' could have been very significantly rearranged in a positive way. However, whether due to conservatism or cowardice, this didn't happen. Instead, the existing constellation of shit hit the fan and was rearranged over all our faces.
The real tragedy of this is that I think this article, while very general, is a good one. It tries to identify and grapple with some of the very real problems we face as the Left. I have some disagreements, and I think that the real devil is in the details a level below this; I only wish that the discussion could have happened on better terms, in an organisation that proved itself willing and able to show *in practice*, at the most critical juncture, that is committed to women's liberation and has no time for victim blaming. Instead, what trumped making that explicit was a cold calculation over numbers, experience, cadre. How could we possibly stay in an organisation in which people who had led the charge were not held to account, were kept on the CC, and even promoted to it?
There was a chance last year to show that the SWP could do things differently. That chance was thrown away. Now that's what I call irresponsible.
---


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 4, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> In response to the Prof's article in ISJ entitled Thunder on the Left, in which he (AC) says:
> 
> "The present crisis is much more diffuse, but in some ways more threatening, because the revolutionary left is much weaker than it was in 1979. This makes the attempts to split and even to destroy organisations such as the NPA and the SWP so irresponsible. These parties represent decades of concentrated efforts by thousands of militants to develop credible revolutionary alternatives. They are not to be thrown away lightly."
> ---



Distinct lack of self awareness and irony there. Surely he can't be that much of an idiot, he's a professor FFS?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 4, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Distinct lack of self awareness and irony there. Surely he can't be that much of an idiot, he's a professor FFS?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 4, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Distinct lack of self awareness and irony there. Surely he can't be that much of an idiot, he's a professor FFS?


Actually, there is some good stuff in the Prof's article, but as you say there is a striking (but hardly) surprising lack of self-awareness and irony. At the end of the day, it all reads like sophisticated sophistry designed to justify his own role in the rape crisis. I was particularly struck by this from AC:

"One reason why we suffered such a severe crisis was because we take combating sexism so seriously."

As a friend has pointed out, this should be rewritten to read:

One reason why we suffered such a severe crisis was because _a lot our members took _combating sexism so seriously.

Exactly! All credit to those like Jonny who did so.


----------



## belboid (Jul 4, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> "They are not to be thrown away lightly."


Absolutely, that is such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further


----------



## treelover (Jul 4, 2014)

> *Against the grain*
> The British far left from 1956
> *Edited by Evan Smith and Matthew Worley*
> 
> http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/cgi-bin/indexer?product=9780719095900




New book coming out for the spotters/academics, etc


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 5, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Distinct lack of self awareness and irony there. Surely he can't be that much of an idiot, he's a professor FFS?



I know a fuckton of professors who are total fucking imbeciles tbh.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jul 5, 2014)

treelover said:


> New book coming out for the spotters/academics, etc



I like that Twentieth Century Communism journal Worley's a part of.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 5, 2014)

treelover said:


> New book coming out for the spotters/academics, etc



75 quid for a 300 page book? I think I'll buy 5 to give out as xmas presents for friends and family.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 5, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> 75 quid for a 300 page book? I think I'll buy 5 to give out as xmas presents for friends and family.



Why, do you hate your friends and family?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 5, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why, do you hate your friends and family?



like I have friends or family


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 5, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> like I have friends or family



Yeah, thought you probably didn't but you did claim to have some!


----------



## imposs1904 (Jul 5, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah, thought you probably didn't but you did claim to have some!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 6, 2014)

family is a bourgeois construct


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 6, 2014)

Cracking article by the Prof that has genuinely confused a lot of leavers by the look of it. His reclaiming of Vogel will have left quite a few scratching their heads.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> family is a bourgeois construct


Your mum is a bourgeois construct


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 6, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cracking article by the Prof that has genuinely confused a lot of leavers by the look of it. His reclaiming of Vogel will have left quite a few scratching their heads.



Claiming rather than reclaiming, surely.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 6, 2014)

"In terms of attempts to destroy an organization, my suggestion to Alex Callinicos is that he takes a look in the mirror at his earliest convenience. There he will find the miscreant most responsible."

http://louisproyect.org/2014/07/04/alex-callinicos-take-a-look-in-the-mirror/


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 7, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Cracking article by the Prof that has genuinely confused a lot of leavers by the look of it. His reclaiming of Vogel will have left quite a few scratching their heads.



In what sense has it confused people?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 7, 2014)

Comrade Delta has a new website 

http://www.dreamdeferred.org.uk/


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 7, 2014)

These should be mandatory at every demo:


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 7, 2014)

No means no


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 9, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Comrade Delta has a new website
> 
> http://www.dreamdeferred.org.uk/



Garry Bushell of all people:



> As well as being an angry funny ranting genius, Steven [Wells] also represented a left-wing skinhead tradition that was also generally over-looked by the mass media. He was a member of the SWP, as I had been, back when the party had a sense of humour and weren’t so keen on rapists.



From piece on poets in Oi! music: http://standupandspit.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/oi-the-poetry-garry-bushell/


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 9, 2014)

Also this is new (to me at least):

http://swpoffcampus.tumblr.com/


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 9, 2014)

It must be Marxism time again as fb is full of irate ex members again, this time their anger is directed at anyone who is friends with delta, they're all scanning their mutual friends lists like it was a matter of life and death


----------



## dennisr (Jul 9, 2014)

"I'm just soooo contraversial"


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 9, 2014)

A leftwing Toby Young


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 9, 2014)

No I just think it's funny that they think it matters


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2014)

yeah I've got loads of rapists on my FB friend list, it aint no thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2014)

In what sense was Swells a skin though beyond having a #1?


bolshiebhoy said:


> It must be Marxism time again as fb is full of irate ex members again, this time their anger is directed at anyone who is friends with delta, they're all scanning their mutual friends lists like it was a matter of life and death


According to the prof, the swp and its anti-fascist fronts are pretty much all that are holding back  racist pogroms - so i suppose that it _is_ a matter of life and death.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah I've got loads of rapists on my FB friend list, it aint no thing.


To be fair didn't you used to share with a granny rapist?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> To be fair didn't you used to share with a granny rapist?




indeed  bailed on that place 2 months later.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> According to the prof, the swp and its anti-fascist fronts are pretty much all that are holding back  racist pogroms - so i suppose that it _is_ a matter of life and death.


Only if you think fb relationships are what keep our streets safe


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Only if you think fb relationships are what keep our streets safe


Excellent - note the implied agreement with the prof.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 9, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Only if you think fb relationships are what keep our streets safe



You are coming from more of a "string 'em up" / "proletarian justice" angle on this one?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Only if you think fb relationships are what keep our streets safe


Hang on, was not the facebook four one of the kicks offs for this ongoing disintegration?  The SWP's leaderships actions over facevook does rather suggest that yes, facebook is a matter of life and death given that they beleived that its use threatened the continued existence of the only force holding back the racist flood.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> In what sense was Swells a skin though beyond having a #1?



Had one of them... jackets. And... boots. Probably. Anyway, Garry is the expert, so shush.



butchersapron said:


> According to the prof, the swp and its anti-fascist fronts are pretty much all that are holding back  racist pogroms - so i suppose that it _is_ a matter of life and death.



UAF's recent call out in Tottenham for a "family event" resulted in two children and the usual hacks attending some boring speeches. And one of the kids was mine.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Had one of them... jackets. And... boots. Probably. Anyway, Garry is the expert, so shush.
> 
> 
> 
> UAF's recent call out in Tottenham for a "family event" resulted in two children and the usual hacks attending some boring speeches. And one of the kids was mine.


I thought i'd deleted that swells thing - i found some pics of him in proper skins gear. Not so keen on this auto-saving drafts.

_Keeping the streets safe.
_


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 9, 2014)

What people say on fb does matter, especially if it gives away the game about offline intentions and actions. But who you're fb friends are isn't something I'd lose sleep over. Some lefties only have ideologically similar fb friends and could never have Tory or ukip fb mates, personally I have all sorts of politically dodgy mates and only draw the line at people who knowingly share fash stuff.

The only reason I'd have qualms about sending delta a friend request is the possibility of losing some ex members I'm chums with as I enjoy chatting with them.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Keeping the streets safe._



_For rapists._


----------



## october_lost (Jul 9, 2014)

I know this has probably even done to death, but was there a discussion on what is on and off limits in terms of disrupting the SWP? Or, are there any blogs or pieces covering said matter?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 9, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> What people say on fb does matter, especially if it gives away the game about offline intentions and actions. But who you're fb friends are isn't something I'd lose sleep over. Some lefties only have ideologically similar fb friends and could never have Tory or ukip fb mates, personally I have all sorts of politically dodgy mates and only draw the line at people who knowingly share fash stuff.
> 
> The only reason I'd have qualms about sending delta a friend request is the possibility of losing some ex members I'm chums with as I enjoy chatting with them.


You are making judgements on other peoples internet priorities?
FFS you really like making an arse of yourself dont you?
You had a fucking meltdown on this site cos a member of your family was involved with the bnp yet you dont get why other people might be fucked off/ upset/ worried etc. about be connected via facebook to people who defend the terrible treatment of the women involved in the delta case?
Seriously...stop posting if all you are going to do is be a prick


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 9, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> You had a fucking meltdown on this site cos a member of your family was involved with the bnp yet you dont get why other people might be fucked off/ upset/ worried etc.



bingo


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 9, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> You are making judgements on other peoples internet priorities?
> FFS you really like making an arse of yourself dont you?
> You had a fucking meltdown on this site cos a member of your family was involved with the bnp



To be fair to BB that hurts, members of my family are proper  "DOC" fascists and for that matter others are also long term SWP and SEP members. It's not easy to accept nor live with situations like that. 

That said Callinicos has to go, total disgrace of a SG, not even the security services would manage to find a leader that managed to weaken the UK Left so much. 

Where's the comrade with the ice-pick?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 9, 2014)

Marxism 2014 is near:


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Marxism 2014 is near:



I saw a paper sale today on my way to work, haven't seen one of those for a while - last ditch attempt to get a few more attendees?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's been some discussion of the latest SWP rows and expulsions over on the Callinicos / Penny thread, but, it tended to get buried under mountains of hate directed at the "left" commentariat. So here's a thread to discuss expulsions and squabbles in one of Britain's main left wing groups.
> 
> The Weekly Worker (as always, caution advised) has an account of four people getting the boot in the run up to SWP conference. There's an amusingly Kafkaesque edge to it too. They were expelled for factionalism, seemingly as a result of facebook messages. But this happened during the "pre-conference period", where for a few months a year, SWP members are supposed by allowed to form factions. The problem is though that to gain factional rights, you need 30 signatories... but to gather those 30 signatories you have to engage in what the Central Committee considers "factionalism". Which is an expellable offence.
> 
> ...




The SWP is a total irrelevance, I cant think of one think its achieved in its whole existence. What a waste of time. They are useful idiots.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> The SWP is a total irrelevance, I cant think of one think its achieved in its whole existence. What a waste of time. They are useful idiots.



Which is why you are wasting your own time posting on a thread about the SWP.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Which is why you are wasting your own time posting on a thread about the SWP.




Because they work against the interests of the working class, they stop young people and radically minded people from engaging in real politics, where they could influence.

All these irrelevant groups are a safety valve where the security services can monitor and contain.

There is only one available route, that's for working class people to reclaim labour. The SWP et al poison people away from that reality.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Because they work against the interests of the working class, they stop young people and radically minded people from engaging in real politics.



That's an argument that they are in fact relevant. It's also a crazy argument.

What "real politics" are you talking about precisely?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's an argument that they are in fact relevant. It's also a crazy argument.
> 
> What "real politics" are you talking about precisely?




Working class people reclaiming labour is a crazy argument ? You tell me the alternative ?Its real politics, community politics, taking back our local labour party branches, reclaiming the only party relevant to the working class.

Its reality not political hobbyism.

You name me one thing the SWP has achieved in its whole existence ? Name me one thing those thousands of marches have achieved ?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Working class people reclaiming labour is a crazy argument ? You tell me the alternative ?Its real politics, community politics, taking back our local labour party branches, reclaiming the only party relevant to the working class.
> 
> Its reality not political hobbyism.
> 
> You name me one thing the SWP has achieved in its whole existence ?



The argument that the SWP has any significant effect on stopping "young people and radically minded people" from doing anything is a crazy argument.

I wasn't responding to your argument about "reclaiming" Labour because you hadn't made it yet. But now that you have, yes, that is a completely fucking crazy argument too.

The Labour left is almost extinct, reduced to a bewildered and atomised rump. If anything it's less relevant than the fucking SWP, and that is no small claim.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The argument that the SWP has any significant effect on stopping "young people and radically minded people" from doing anything is a crazy argument.
> 
> I wasn't responding to your argument about "reclaiming" Labour because you hadn't made it yet. But now that you have, yes, that is a completely fucking crazy argument too.
> 
> The Labour left is almost extinct, reduced to a bewildered and atomised rump. If anything it's less relevant than the fucking SWP, and that is no small claim.




You are half quoting what I said. The SWP stops young idealistic people engaging in real politics, ie joining their local labour branch and becoming politicians and reclaiming it. Its a distraction that works against the interests of the only serious political  route working class people have in Britain.

The labour left must be rebuilt by working class people re-joining labour, you tell me another route ?

Real politics ? That which affects the lives of real people in local communities. Not activism built on marches for abstract causes that change nothing


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2014)

Odd turn.


----------



## Limerick Red (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Working class people reclaiming labour is a crazy argument ? You tell me the alternative ?Its real politics, community politics, taking back our local labour party branches, reclaiming the only party relevant to the working class.
> 
> Its reality not political hobbyism.
> 
> You name me one thing the SWP has achieved in its whole existence ?



Can you tell us how the Labour party intend to be relevant to the working class? which of their planned cuts are the ones that will benefit the working class?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You are half quoting what I said. The SWP stops young idealistic people engaging in real politics, ie joining their local labour branch and becoming politicians and reclaiming it. Its a distraction that works against the interests of the only serious political  route working class people have in Britain.
> 
> The labour left must be rebuilt by working class people re-joining labour, you tell me another route ?



Not that many young people are joining the SWP these days and few of those who do would have any interest in joining Labour anyway.

All of the stuff you are coming out with about the Labour left is what the Catholics would call a Profession of Faith, not an argument based on any kind of strategic reasoning. The Labour Party is not in the process of being reclaimed, instead any such possibility has been closed down. The Labour left has approximately the organised strength of one of the runts of the Trot sect litter. And "radical young people" are about the least likely demographic imaginable to join it in numbers.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Can you tell us how the Labour party intend to be relevant to the working class? which of their planned cuts are the ones that will benefit the working class?



Because working class people are no longer represented in labour, it does not have pro working class policies. The only way this can change is if working class people re-join it, bitching about it achieves nothing, infact it helps the enemies of the working class.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Because working class people are no longer represented in labour, it does not have pro working class policies. The only way this can change is if working class people re-join it, bitching about it achieves nothing, infact it helps the enemies of the working class.



Why not join UKIP instead?


----------



## Limerick Red (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Because working class people are no longer represented in labour, it does not have pro working class policies. The only way this can change is if working class people re-join it, bitching about it achieves nothing, infact it helps the enemies of the working class.


This is the problem with the New Labour rebranding, it fools people into thinking there was  an old labour. Labour have failed the class at every opportunity.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not that many young people are joining the SWP these days and few of those who do would have any interest in joining Labour anyway.
> 
> All







Nigel Irritable said:


> Not that many young people are joining the SWP these days and few of those who do would have any interest in joining Labour anyway.
> 
> All of the stuff you are coming out with about the Labour left is what the Catholics would call a Profession of Faith, not an argument based on any kind of strategic reasoning. The Labour Party is not in the process of being reclaimed, instead any such possibility has been closed down. The Labour left has approximately the organised strength of one of the runts of the Trot sect litter. And "radical young people" are about the least likely demographic imaginable to join it in numbers.




The most logical route for working class people is to re-join labour and rebuild it in their image. That's not an argument of faith, its an argument of logic.

Once again, whats your alternative ?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Because working class people are no longer represented in labour, it does not have pro working class policies. The only way this can change is if working class people re-join it, bitching about it achieves nothing, infact it helps the enemies of the working class.



Working class people aren't represented in the Tories and they don't have pro working class policies. The only way this can change is if working class people join them.

Working class people aren't represented in the Liberal Democrats and they don't have pro working class policies. The only way this can change is if working class people join them.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> The most logical route for working class people is to re-join labour and rebuild it in their image. That's not an argument of faith, its an argument of logic.



The most logical route for working class people is to join UKIP and rebuild it in their image. That's not an argment of faith, it's an argment of logic.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> The most logical route for working class people is to re-join labour and rebuild it in their image. That's not an argument of faith, its an argument of logic.
> 
> Once again, whats your alternative ?



What is logical about joining a party that doesn't represent you or your class in the forlorn hope that one day it might, even though there is zero indication that such a change is even conceivably on the agenda?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> This is the problem with the New Labour rebranding, it fools people into thinking there was  an old labour. Labour have failed the class at every opportunity.




Maybe you need to read some social history, who do you think brought in everything from the NHS to the welfare state ? Political utopians like yourself are as big an enemy to the working class as Tories.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 9, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> This is the problem with the New Labour rebranding, it fools people into thinking there was  an old labour. Labour have failed the class at every opportunity.



That's certainly true but the same is true of the SWP. Not in any way fault of the SWP membership but of their corrupt, bourgeois leadership. If Callinicos had any decency/self awareness he would do the decent thing.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

At least UKIP don't have responsibility for the killing of countless millions of foreigners in neoliberal wars from WW1, to the Malaya emergency, Serbia and Iraq to name just a handful of examples...


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Maybe you need to read some social history, who do you think brought in everything from the NHS to the welfare state ? Political utopians like yourself are as big an enemy to the working class as Tories.



Do you agree with social democratic reforms being built on the back of the oppressed working-class in other countries then? Cos that was Atlee and Bevin's game.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> What is logical about joining a party that doesn't represent you or your class in the forlorn hope that one day it might, even though there is zero indication that such a change is even conceivably on the agenda?




You are not a rational person are you Nigel ? If people re-join labour instead of stupid irrelevant political parties and reclaim their local branches, engage in community politics, they start to rebuild it as a party of working class. Maybe its a bit strategic for you.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

Ok, I think this is a wind up now.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Do you agree with social democratic reforms being built on the back of the oppressed working-class in other countries then? Cos that was Atlee and Bevin's game.





J Ed said:


> At least UKIP don't have responsibility for the killing of countless millions of foreigners in neoliberal wars from WW1, to the Malaya emergency, Serbia and Iraq to name just a handful of examples...




This is typical crazy logic, X did z, therefore x can never be used as a strategic vehicle.Even though in reality its only the name that's potentially the link to the past.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Ok, I think this is a wind up now.




I live in the real world of poor pensioners , unemployed people with no money etc, not your world.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> This is typical crazy logic, X did z, therefore x can never be used as a strategic vehicle.Even though in reality its only the name that's potentially the link to the past.



You literally just argued that the working-class should re-join Labour because of social democratic reforms in 1945. You are not for real.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> You literally just argued that the working-class should re-join Labour because of social democratic reforms in 1945. You are not for real.




Its the only realistic vehicle for working class people to gain power. That's the bottom line.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> The most logical route for working class people is to join UKIP and rebuild it in their image. That's not an argment of faith, it's an argment of logic.




No that's being pedantic, UKIP are a far right party. Labour the only party that has represented the working class in any significant way.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Still waiting for you guys alternative ?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 9, 2014)

This is too stupid to waste time on. I wish you luck in your empty Labour branch and in your canvassing for Blairites.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is too stupid to waste time on. I wish you luck in your empty Labour branch and in your canvassing for Blairites.



In other words you have no alternative, bye, bye.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

That's me told, time for me to climb back into my ivory tower of barely making enough money for food and rent. I'll be sure to vote for my local Progress-endorsed candidate next time round so that Rachel Reeves can ensure that the profits made on making the lives of the disabled and unemployed hell can go to British 'SMEs'.

To be totally honest I prefer SWP hacks to Labour left hacks, the former defend a couple of alleged rapists whereas the Labour left provide cover for decades of much worse behaviour on an unimaginably larger scale.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Still waiting for you guys alternative ?



Have you heard the Good News about the Workers' Bomb?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Labour the only party that has represented bought off the working class in any significant way.



Fixed it for you.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Fixed it for you.



I take pragmatism over idealism any day. Your alternative is nothing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 9, 2014)

with no illusions eh


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> I take pragmatism over idealism any day. Your alternative is nothing.



Do give us a shout when this working class 'reclamation' happens won't you?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> with no illusions eh



Half a loaf is better then none, half a loaf sustains for the future, none leaves you with nothing.



Doctor Carrot said:


> Do give us a shout when this working class 'reclamation' happens won't you?




How can it happen when this country is full of smug know it all types like yourself, who work against the only vehicle the working class have of ever potentially representing them.


----------



## Limerick Red (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Maybe you need to read some social history, who do you think brought in everything from the NHS to the welfare state ? Political utopians like yourself are as big an enemy to the working class as Tories.


How was this paid for after the war, it was paid for by the working class of the empire, as Bevin said "I am not prepared to sacrifice the empire, because I know if the empire fell it would mean the standard for our constituents would fall considerably" 
2 world wars fought for the rites of small countries , but the working class in Greece were still left to be fucked over with Bevin arguing again for the smashing of the ELAS, Vietnam, Indonesia, its plundering of rubber and tin in Malay, the list of labour crimes is endless and every bit as bad as the tories, sending the army into Ireland, fuck we could be here all day.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> How can it happen when this country is full of smug know it all types like yourself, who work against the only vehicle the working class have of ever potentially representing them.



You used the word 'potentially' so even you know on some unconscious level that you're talking out of your arse.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 9, 2014)

If only the smug know it alls and ivory tower irrelevances would join up Labour could be "reclaimed"!

Those smug bastards


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> How was this paid for after the war, it was paid for by the working class of the empire, as Bevin said "I am not prepared to sacrifice the empire, because I know if the empire fell it would mean the standard for our constituents would fall considerably"
> 2 world wars fought for the rites of small countries , but the working class in Greece were still left to be fucked over with Bevin arguing again for the smashing of the ELAS, Vietnam, Indonesia, its plundering of rubber and tin in Malay, the list of labour crimes is endless and every bit as bad as the tories, sending the army into Ireland, fuck we could be here all day.




So your logic says, working class people should not take back labour cause it failed in the past ? Even though its the only possible route.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Plumdaff said:


> If only the smug no it alls and ivory tower irrelevances would join up Labour could be "reclaimed"!




If everyone had your attitude we would have a permanent Tory govt.


----------



## Limerick Red (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> So your logic says, working class people should not take back labour cause it failed in the past ? Even though its the only possible route.


Isnt that one of the signs of madness? doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results, Thats the second sign of madness, the first is Suggs walking down the road of course


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> You used the word 'potentially' so even you know on some unconscious level that you're talking out of your arse.




Im still waiting for the alternative ?


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Isnt that one of the signs of madness? doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results, Thats the second sign of madness, the first is Suggs walking down the road of course



Where did I say the past should be repeated ?


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Im still waiting for the alternative ?



Any alternative that puts Blairites in the highest positions of power in this country instead of in prison is not an alternative.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> If everyone had your attitude we would have a permanent Tory govt.



Of course if everyone had your attitude we could have the full communism of Milliband NOW. Yippee.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Any alternative that puts Blairites in the highest positions of power in this country instead of in prison is not an alternative.



It is to the thousands who killed themselves cause the Tories stopped their benefits.

that's the real world.


----------



## J Ed (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> It is to the thousands who killed themselves cause the Tories stopped their benefits.



LABOUR HAVE PROMISED TO DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING, THEY WON'T EVEN LIE AND PROMISE THEY WON'T

Jesus

Are you even a person or are you some sort of not very complex labour left spambot?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Im still waiting for the alternative ?


----------



## Limerick Red (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> It is to the thousands who killed themselves cause the Tories stopped their benefits.


So which of these cuts have labour said they will be receeding?, with the exception of the bedroom tax, which is carrot, the rest is the same stick as the Condems


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Plumdaff said:


> Of course if everyone had your attitude we could have the full communism of Milliband NOW. Yippee.





J Ed said:


> LABOUR HAVE PROMISED TO DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING, THEY WON'T EVEN LIE AND PROMISE THEY WON'T
> 
> Jesus
> 
> Are you even a person or are you some sort of not very complex labour left spambot?




You obviously have no experience of poverty etc,or the Tory/Labour differences, you can pretend you do, but your attitude shows you don't.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> It is to the thousands who killed themselves cause the Tories stopped their benefits.
> 
> that's the real world.



You mean the stopping of benefits that Labour will continue under the ESA system Labour themselves brought in? Yeah sounds great sign me up!


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


>




This is an immature fantasy, the real worlds more challenging.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> If everyone had your attitude we would have a permanent Tory govt.



As some who has been a  council worker since 1988 the last labour government might as well have been tories...my pay was cut, my pension slashed and the services where I lived were hacked to shit.
reclaim the labour party?
seriously...? and your only reason why is "what's the alternative?"
The Labour party has gone been continuously moving rightwards since the 1960's ... thats 50 years ... what makes you think it'll get better now?
My hopes lay with strikes and activists rebuilding the unions ... may not happen but I can see how the unions can be built from below unlike the labour party


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> This is an immature fantasy, the real worlds more challenging.



Indeed, you should try engaging in it some time.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> You mean the stopping of benefits that Labour will continue under the ESA system Labour themselves brought in? Yeah sounds great sign me up!




So you are claiming the benefit system was no different under Labour and the Tories ?

You are not living in the real world.


----------



## Kalfindin (Jul 9, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Indeed, you should try engaging in it some time.




Im trying to bring you guys into it, out of your political wank fantasies


----------



## Limerick Red (Jul 9, 2014)

Didnt Rachel Reeves just say Labour would be tougher than the Tories in regards to welfare and benefits?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> So you are claiming the benefit system was no different under Labour and the Tories ?
> 
> You are not living in the real world.



No, actually read before you continue making an arse of yourself. I'm saying Labour brought in things like ESA and floated the idea of sanctions. The tory party carried them on and Labour will not rescind a single one of them, except the bedroom tax (maybe) because it's such a disastrous and costly policy that costs more money than it saves anyway.


----------



## Limerick Red (Jul 9, 2014)

P.F fuckin I's


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Im trying to bring you guys into it, out of your political wank fantasies



By telling us we're all smug know it alls who should vote for more of the same under a different coloured banner? What a sterling job you're doing!


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Im trying to bring you guys into it, out of your political wank fantasies



you should be in the swp with that level of arrogance


----------



## october_lost (Jul 9, 2014)




----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 9, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Half a loaf is better then none, half a loaf sustains for the future, none leaves you with nothing.



Half a loaf would indeed be both nutritious and impressive.

In the real world, what proportion of the Labour Party would you say you had already won over to pro-working class politics?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 9, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Half a loaf would indeed be both nutritious and impressive.
> 
> In the real world, what proportion of the Labour Party would you say you had already won over to pro-working class politics?



One eighth of Paul Flynn's beard.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 9, 2014)

Doctor Carrot said:


> One eighth of Paul Flynn's beard.



Well now, that's unfair. 

Kalfindin has clearly put a lot of time and energy into this initiative. I'd like to know more about what progress has been made so far, in the real world.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 10, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> You are making judgements on other peoples internet priorities?
> FFS you really like making an arse of yourself dont you?
> You had a fucking meltdown on this site cos a member of your family was involved with the bnp yet you dont get why other people might be fucked off/ upset/ worried etc. about be connected via facebook to people who defend the terrible treatment of the women involved in the delta case?
> Seriously...stop posting if all you are going to do is be a prick


If you're gonna be such an arse as to tell people where they may and may not post then at least use a less idiotic argument to make your case spurski. Being worried about having FB friends who are IDOOMers is not equivalent to having FB friends/relatives who are nazis you plonker. Amazed anyone could suggest it was. It's fairly unlikely that any of these trots whining about their degrees of separation from fellow trots they've disowned are going to have IDOOMers knocking on their door to tell them their kids are half breed Irish scum, which is what happens when you get into a row with nazi relatives on fb. Wee bit of perspective please, what sort of far left self important bubble do these people live in, they're chucking their toys out the pram about being vaguely associated with lefties with whom, compared to 99% of the population, they agree about 99% of the major issues of the day, it's not very edifying.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 10, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> You are coming from more of a "string 'em up" / "proletarian justice" angle on this one?



proletarian standpoint lol


Kalfindin said:


> The SWP is a total irrelevance, I cant think of one think its achieved in its whole existence. What a waste of time. They are useful idiots.



I'm no fan of the SWP but that's bullshit.


Kalfindin said:


> You are half quoting what I said. The SWP stops young idealistic people engaging in real politics, ie joining their local labour branch and becoming politicians and reclaiming it. Its a distraction that works against the interests of the only serious political  route working class people have in Britain.
> 
> The labour left must be rebuilt by working class people re-joining labour, you tell me another route ?
> 
> Real politics ? That which affects the lives of real people in local communities. Not activism built on marches for abstract causes that change nothing



Ah I see. You're a fucking idiot - sorry about that I didn't realise.


Doctor Carrot said:


> No, actually read before you continue making an arse of yourself. I'm saying Labour brought in things like ESA and floated the idea of sanctions. The tory party carried them on and Labour will not rescind a single one of them, except the bedroom tax (maybe) because it's such a disastrous and costly policy that costs more money than it saves anyway.



and the tories would eventually have to get rid of it in the extremely unlikely event of them getting another term cos it's a fucking disaster and isn't popular with anyone - only reason they haven't is they'd lose face and they know labour will do it for them post-2015


bolshiebhoy said:


> If you're gonna be such an arse as to tell people where they may and may not post then at least use a less idiotic argument to make your case spurski. Being worried about having FB friends who are IDOOMers is not equivalent to having FB friends/relatives who are nazis you plonker. Amazed anyone could suggest it was. It's fairly unlikely that any of these trots whining about their degrees of separation from fellow trots they've disowned are going to have IDOOMers knocking on their door to tell them their kids are half breed Irish scum, which is what happens when you get into a row with nazi relatives on fb. Wee bit of perspective please, what sort of far left self important bubble do these people live in, they're chucking their toys out the pram about being vaguely associated with lefties with whom, compared to 99% of the population, they agree about 99% of the major issues of the day, it's not very edifying.



This is getting painful now, please stop.

I've worked out how to use the multiquote function


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 10, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> If you're gonna be such an arse as to tell people where they may and may not post then at least use a less idiotic argument to make your case spurski. Being worried about having FB friends who are IDOOMers is not equivalent to having FB friends/relatives who are nazis you plonker. Amazed anyone could suggest it was. It's fairly unlikely that any of these trots whining about their degrees of separation from fellow trots they've disowned are going to have IDOOMers knocking on their door to tell them their kids are half breed Irish scum, which is what happens when you get into a row with nazi relatives on fb. Wee bit of perspective please, what sort of far left self important bubble do these people live in, they're chucking their toys out the pram about being vaguely associated with lefties with whom, compared to 99% of the population, they agree about 99% of the major issues of the day, it's not very edifying.



idoomers...fuck right off...their problem is that they believe these people are rape apologists...remember when you discribed it as "bad sex" you arrogant jumped up fuck wit??????
 ... perspective ... you have no fucking idea what it means you fucking idiot...
edifying...you choose to lecture about things not being edifying after describing a woman's allegation of rape as bad sex...serious, fuck off


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 10, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> *If you're gonna be such an arse as to tell people where they may and may not post then at least use a less idiotic argument to make your case spurski.* Being worried about having FB friends who are IDOOMers is not equivalent to having FB friends/relatives who are nazis you plonker. Amazed anyone could suggest it was. It's fairly unlikely that any of these trots whining about their degrees of separation from fellow trots they've disowned are going to have IDOOMers knocking on their door to tell them their kids are half breed Irish scum, which is what happens when you get into a row with nazi relatives on fb. Wee bit of perspective please, what sort of far left self important bubble do these people live in, they're chucking their toys out the pram about being vaguely associated with lefties with whom, compared to 99% of the population, they agree about 99% of the major issues of the day, it's not very edifying.



i didn't tell people where they could and could not post...learn to read instead of twisting things to fit your sad arsed stalinist politics you arrogant prick


----------



## BK Double Stack (Jul 10, 2014)

Imagine my excitement when I saw the amount of activity on this thread today...and my disappointment when I saw its content. Worse than the rap interlude we had a while back.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 10, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I'm no fan of the SWP but that's bullshit.



What have the SWP achieved then?


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2014)

That's odd.

I was going to link to yesterday's _Guardian_ Diary item about the trouble the Social Workers are having getting venues for Marksism.

I remembered this fragment:



> The saboteurs, mainly students, call themselves SWP Off Campus and have adopted the hashtag #*creepingfeminism*.



#*creepingfeminism *shows up in a search of the _Guardian_ website, but links to today's Diary, not yesterday's, which appears to have vanished entirely. Obviously for an entirely unconnected reason. But remind me to get it out of the recycling!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What have the SWP achieved then?



They stopped a bus route through the suburb where I grew up from being abolished.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 10, 2014)

From Socialist Worker's special Class War tribute issue, I presume: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...s-reason-to-save-the-polar-bears-9597931.html


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> I live in the real world of poor pensioners , unemployed people with no money etc, not your world.




You don't know anything about him, stop making assumptions.


----------



## chilango (Jul 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> From Socialist Worker's special Class War tribute issue, I presume: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...s-reason-to-save-the-polar-bears-9597931.html



Fucking idiots.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They stopped a bus route through the suburb where I grew up from being abolished.


I meant in the UK. The Irish left is or was always a bit better imo


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2014)

> The article appears all the more shocking given the fact that the Socialist Workers Party’s own national secretary, Charlie Kimber, is himself reported to be an Old Etonian.



oh dear, having said that, its just the sort of article you used to see in class war and was lapped up by some.


----------



## chilango (Jul 10, 2014)

treelover said:


> oh dear, having said that, its just the sort of article you used to see in class war and was lapped up by some.



Nah. Class War would swear more and hopefully be funny.


----------



## treelover (Jul 10, 2014)

> It is despicable, of course. But considering the torrent of filth poured by the Tory press on their favourite bogeymen every day, it is dreadfully understandable. Not excusable, but certainly understandable.
> By the way, how is it that one privileged schoolboy's death gets a whole story devoted to it, but one has to turn to the alternative media to discover how many people have been killed by this government's so-called "welfare" policies? They would perhaps better be named "illfare". That is a new word, to go with "wealthfare", i.e. the practice of making handouts to the already well-off. The rich get wealthfare, the poor get illfare.
> All deaths are tragedies. Avoidable deaths are worse than tragedies. So why are so many being ignored while this one is highlighted?



Interesting post in the comments.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 10, 2014)

The comment is spot on. This daft article is nothing compared to the SWPs real crimes.


----------



## Horas (Jul 10, 2014)

btw was comrade delta ever charged by the police with anything? 
remember the maoist 'cult' that apparently kept 'slaves' on invisible chains? were they ever charged with anything? 
if they haven't been charged, and there are no charges, then i don't see why this is such an issue tbh. 
i think many left the swp in mass after this not because of this particular case, but of the attitude of the leadership. i don't think the swp are 'rape apologists', and they have suffered enough over this, methinks. who the hell are we to set ourselves up as judge, jury, and executioner?


----------



## Horas (Jul 10, 2014)

then again, they are swappies, fuck'em!


----------



## JHE (Jul 10, 2014)

Horas said:


> btw was comrade delta ever charged by the police with anything?
> remember the maoist 'cult' that apparently kept 'slaves' on invisible chains? were they ever charged with anything?
> if they haven't been charged, and there are no charges, then i don't see why this is such an issue tbh.
> i think many left the swp in mass after this not because of this particular case, but of the attitude of the leadership. i don't think the swp are 'rape apologists', and they have suffered enough over this, methinks. who the hell are we to set ourselves up as judge, jury, and executioner?



Some interesting comments, but surely fair-minded people, who don't go along with the hyperbolic bollocks of calling the Social Workers "rape apologists" or claims that women students are made unsafe by the presence of the sect on campuses, should be able to recognise that the Social Worker bosses handled the whole thing appalling badly, that Martin Smith was guilty at the very least of exploiting his status within the sect to take advantage sexually of naive young women members and that for a long time his chums at the top of the sect were devoted to protecting him despite his predatory behaviour.

It is fair to ask whether the young women went to the police and if not why not.  Personally I think the police are at the moment the only body capable of properly investigating allegations of the sort made and a Trot sect is plainly incapable.  Nevertheless, if they did not go, there are at least two explanations other than that their allegations were false.  Some people, rightly or wrongly, say the police and the judicial system still treat rape victims very badly and the among would-be revolutionaries there is an allergy (which may be mistaken, but sincere) to using 'the state', in this case, plod, the CPS and the courts.


----------



## Horas (Jul 10, 2014)

JHE said:


> Some interesting comments, but surely fair-minded people, who don't go along with the hyperbolic bollocks of calling the Social Workers "rape apologists" or claims that women students are made unsafe by the presence of the sect on campuses, should be able to recognise that the Social Worker bosses handled the whole thing appalling badly, that Martin Smith was guilty at the very least of exploiting his status within the sect to take advantage sexually of naive young women members and that for a long time his chums at the top of the sect were devoted to protecting him despite his predatory behaviour.
> 
> It is fair to ask whether the young women went to the police and if not why not.  Personally I think the police are at the moment the only body capable of properly investigating allegations of the sort made and a Trot sect is plainly incapable.  Nevertheless, if they did not go, there at least two explanations other than that their allegations were false.  Some people, rightly or wrongly, say the police and the judicial system still treat rape victims very badly and the among would-be revolutionaries there is an allergy (which may be mistaken, but sincere) to using 'the state', in this case, plod, the CPS and the courts.



i agree that 'Social Worker bosses handled the whole thing appalling badly, that Martin Smith was guilty at the very least of exploiting his status within the sect to take advantage sexually of naive young women members'. most of the swp i know, and have disagreed with on a comradely basis over many political issues for years, are certainly not rape apologists.  i think the leadership, Alex callinicos, handled the situation very badly. the way this case was handled tells me something about their leadership. 

regarding the police, and the judicial system, there is of course, on the far left, a reluctance to go to the cops. however, there is not a 'peoples court' in existence, and in the real situation of our time, there is no other course. i know many anarchists in particular hate the cops, with good reason, however, if say, there is a racist attack on an asian family in the neighbourhood, should the family not report the crime to the police? of course they should, because there is no other real choice. the police may well be racist, but what other option is there?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 11, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> idoomers...fuck right off...their problem is that they believe these people are rape apologists...remember when you discribed it as "bad sex" you arrogant jumped up fuck wit??????
> ... perspective ... you have no fucking idea what it means you fucking idiot...
> edifying...you choose to lecture about things not being edifying after describing a woman's allegation of rape as bad sex...serious, fuck off


Roar said the lion. On a brighter note least you didn't defend the idea that having swpers on your FB wall is on a par with nazis. 

Let's be clear here this little flurry of excitement was about whether folk should have FB friends who are also friends with the main culprits. So people like Holborrow were getting deleted by the furious ones. Fair enough, if they find PH that annoying then by all means block him. But the moral outrage at finding one is still his friend on FB is just childish. In the real world I'd quite happily stand with any of them or PH or 99% of the folk on here on any numbers of pickets or demos and not jump out of my skin at finding myself next to them, so finding them next to me on FB seems even less startling. A minority of them might feel the need to scream rape apologist at swpers before, during or after everyone links arms against the police or the nazis or whoever but I respectfully suggest that five years from now anyone who is still doing that will just be seen as a little odd, if only because that tone of moral outrage doesn't match what most people who work with swpers know about them. They may get up people's noses but any honest appraisal doesn't include the phrase rape apologist or misogynist or any of the other nonsense being thrown at people whose actual track records over decades suggests the opposite.


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> From Socialist Worker's special Class War tribute issue, I presume: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...s-reason-to-save-the-polar-bears-9597931.html


made the Mail's front page







http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cking-death-Eton-pupil-mauled-polar-bear.html


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2014)

Bit of an overreaction there! Amazing what (upper) class solidarity gets you...


----------



## J Ed (Jul 11, 2014)

I don't like the joke but seeing this overreaction and the behaviour of the left commentariat as quoted in the Mail article... and the fact that the kid was called Horatio Chapple... I no longer give a shit. At least Horatio's family don't have to put up with the sort of defamation in newspapers that people actually read, including the Mail, that the Duggan family had to put up with.



> Stockport councillor Iain Roberts, a Liberal Democrat, said: ‘Saw the article this morning – disgusting that Socialist Worker is gleefully crowing over the death of a child.
> 'Was glad to see others on the Left also appalled.’



lol


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 11, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Roar said the lion. *On a brighter note least you didn't defend the idea that having swpers on your FB wall is on a par with nazis. *
> 
> Let's be clear here this little flurry of excitement was about whether folk should have FB friends who are also friends with the main culprits. So people like Holborrow were getting deleted by the furious ones. Fair enough, if they find PH that annoying then by all means block him. But the moral outrage at finding one is still his friend on FB is just childish. In the real world I'd quite happily stand with any of them or PH or 99% of the folk on here on any numbers of pickets or demos and not jump out of my skin at finding myself next to them, so finding them next to me on FB seems even less startling. A minority of them might feel the need to scream rape apologist at swpers before, during or after everyone links arms against the police or the nazis or whoever but I respectfully suggest that five years from now anyone who is still doing that will just be seen as a little odd, if only because that tone of moral outrage doesn't match what most people who work with swpers know about them. They may get up people's noses but any honest appraisal doesn't include the phrase rape apologist or misogynist or any of the other nonsense being thrown at people whose actual track records over decades suggests the opposite.



never said that in the first place...just told you you were a hypocrite...people find out all kinds of shit about their family and friends that disturbs them and their sense of values...you mock those who are disturbed by having people associated with them on facebook who;
a) are members of a party who behaved so appalling to at least 2 women who have said they were raped by a leading member of that party
b) are members of a party that refuses to accept it has done any wrong.
and while you mock them you have a meltdown on here cos your sister voted/joined the BNP...I had no issue with that at the time...never said anything about it until you started calling people childish and mocking them.

you keep on twisting things but and ignoring simple truths...YOU called it a case of bad sex...and then came on here saying you were wrong cos you had heard new info...now what ever your view on the rape allegations, calling them a case of bad sex is disgusting right wing filth...the swp's behaviour (friends investigating delta; the lies; the standing ovation; the questioning of the victims; the moving of victims from a job when delta was kept in a position of power in the party) are also disgusting right wing filthy behaviour...that's why people who hate rape now hate the swp...

I have never called the swp rape apologists ... I do however think the behaviour of the swp goes completely against the grain of socialism so have no understanding of how any socialists can be in the organisation.


everytime you write on here you come across as an arrogant prick who sees themselves as superior to the rest of us...and as some one incapable of engaging in an argument with out twisting things to suit your own twisted agenda. You chose to stay in a politically bankrupt party so live.

why not do all of us a favour and simply enjoy the company of your comrades who also refuse to accept that the swp has behaved despicably.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 11, 2014)

Fair enough, some conversations just don't go anywhere useful and this is probably one of them, least we've stopped swearing at each other. Mind you there have been some useful convos on this thread and I'm pretty sure people will keep talking in the real world whatever the online explosions. Good to see Birchall is speaking at Marxism.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 11, 2014)

Could the establishment have chosen anyone better at damaging the Left from the inside than Callinicos?


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Could the establishment have chosen anyone better at damaging the Left from the inside than Callinicos?


Smith


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 11, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Im trying to bring you guys into it, out of your political wank fantasies


none more fantastic that the idea that we'll reclaim the Labour Party.


----------



## JHE (Jul 11, 2014)

> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...s-reason-to-save-the-polar-bears-9597931.html



A bear of that sort is bound to polarise opinion.

(BTW, I see the dear old Guardian, the paper of the lower-case social workers, reports that the bear's violent outburst resulted from the furry creature being in pain and stressed, poor thing.)


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2014)

> that Martin Smith was guilty at the very least of exploiting his status within the sect to take advantage sexually of naive young women members and that for a long time his chums at the top of the sect were devoted to protecting him despite his predatory behaviour.



Not just Smith, it was the M.O for many of the SWP's senior cadres

one can argue that these women had autonomy, etc but I've spoken to a few since and they do feel they made mistakes, etc.


----------



## laptop (Jul 11, 2014)

laptop said:


> That's odd.
> 
> I was going to link to yesterday's _Guardian_ Diary item about the trouble the Social Workers are having getting venues for Marksism.
> ...
> #*creepingfeminism *shows up in a search of the _Guardian_ website, but links to today's Diary, not yesterday's, which appears to have vanished entirely. Obviously for an entirely unconnected reason. But remind me to get it out of the recycling!



It's back, _redacted_: quoted for the purposes of criticism and review:



> Fresh headaches for the beleaguered SWP as ex-party members work to sabotage their annual Marxism conference. Plagued by multiple controversies, party officials were counting on this event, reportedly RSVP'd by 2,000 people, to be a roaring success and to boost morale. Alas, detractors have been pressuring venues to withdraw permission. They have also been reminding would-be speakers and performers of the party's cack-handed handling of rape allegations levelled against senior officials. The saboteurs, mainly students, call themselves SWP Off Campus and have adopted the hashtag #creepingfeminism. A touch of feminism in the SWP would be a fine, fine thing, they say.
> 
> • This article was amended on 10 July 2014 to remove a sentence which said the after-party for the Marxism conference hosted by the Socialist Workers party had been cancelled. The SWP says it is going ahead.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/08/hugh-muir-diary-president-tony-blair-sisi



If they pulled it while rewriting, that suggest the Social Workers threatened to sue!


----------



## belboid (Jul 11, 2014)

treelover said:


> Not just Smith, it was the M.O for many of the SWP's senior cadres
> 
> one can argue that these women had autonomy, etc but I've spoken to a few since and they do feel they made mistakes, etc.


fibber


----------



## treelover (Jul 11, 2014)

How may people do you reckon are going to the event?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What have the SWP achieved then?


Got a very good councilor elected in Shirebrook who managed to stop a couple of especially barking labour initiatives, did some excellent casework and put such a rocket up the arses of the incompetent (and a less charitable man than I might say corrupt) labour councilors - many of whom had never even been challenged in an election before - that they got off their arses and actually did a thing or two to help people living in what must be one of the biggest shitholes in the country.


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> Not just Smith, it was the M.O for many of the SWP's senior cadres
> 
> one can argue that these women had autonomy, etc but I've spoken to a few since and they do feel they made mistakes, etc.


 no you haven't.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> Not just Smith, it was the M.O for many of the SWP's senior cadres
> 
> one can argue that these women had autonomy, etc but I've spoken to a few since and they do feel they made mistakes, etc.


Jesus H Christ on a stick


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 12, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Got a very good councilor elected in Shirebrook who managed to stop a couple of especially barking labour initiatives, did some excellent casework and put such a rocket up the arses of the incompetent (and a less charitable man than I might say corrupt) labour councilors - many of whom had never even been challenged in an election before - that they got off their arses and actually did a thing or two to help people living in what must be one of the biggest shitholes in the country.


I'm struggling to see how that is much of an achievement compared to the SP who have had 5 or 6 good councillors at  various times, not to mention Labour, Libdems, Tories and various independent groups who have had decent councillors at various times on a much larger basis than one ward

Also how much was the Shirebrook result down to the SWP and how much down to a couple of really good individuals who weren't even taken seriously by their own party?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 12, 2014)

Haha god but you're bitter


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 12, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Haha god but you're bitter


Not at all, nothing to be bitter about the only time I come across SWP members is when they're standing in the rain clutching a sheaf of soggy papers on the latest pointless march


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What have the SWP achieved then?


That's actually a good question -given the neverending downward spiral in which the party is engaged -and one which deserves some discussion here. Apart from the solitary councillor mentioned above, I would hazard the following as achievements:

Successes in the anti-racist/fascist field against the NF, BNP etc
Keeping alive a certain vision of "socialism from below" during the Cold War period, when others succumbed to variants of Stalinism.
Although it didn't of course stop the invasion of Iraq, playing a key role in organising one of the biggest demos (if not the biggest) that the country has ever seen.
And one the loyalist won't agree with: having recruited many members who - although they/we have since left and are highly critical of the SWP and its current leadership - remain committed socialists and retain something of that "socialism from below" vision.


----------



## treelover (Jul 12, 2014)

Socialism from below, like Harman's 'footsoldiers'

btw, I was not claiming senior SWP cadres raped/abused women, but that they took advantage of the relative power imbalance to pursue young women, often in a predatory way.

some of whom I know regret these relationships.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> Socialism from below, like Harman's 'footsoldiers'
> 
> btw, I was not claiming senior SWP cadres raped/abused women, but that they took advantage of the relative power imbalance to pursue young women, often in a predatory way.
> 
> some of whom I know regret these relationships.


liar


----------



## killer b (Jul 12, 2014)

Did they make you sing the _Internationale_ before confiding in you treelover ?


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 12, 2014)

Don't we all have relationships we regret?


----------



## october_lost (Jul 12, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> What have the SWP achieved then?


The ANL, co-ordinating and nominally training a plethora of workplace militants, successfully rebranded a particular style of leftism that survived after the collapse of the Russian experiment, in addition to having contributed and popularised themes to, and within Marxist theory.

There is an argument to say that CAMRA is the most successful leftist initiative (I kid you not!) but the SWP are easily the most successful leftist group in post-war UK. The various pieces of flotsam and jetsam that most have us have traversed through haven't got anywhere close - which unfortunately says a lot about the state of revolutionary politics in general, in the UK.


----------



## JHE (Jul 12, 2014)

october_lost said:


> There is an argument to say that CAMRA is the most successful leftist initiative (I kid you not!)...



Not much of an argument. Protz abandoned the lost cause of Trottery for the very different and much more modest world of consumer campaigning.  CAMRA may be a worthy cause (though why anyone would choose real ale over real lager is baffling to me - do people really like the taste of yeast?) and may have more than its fair share of the beardy weirdy types who also drone on at left-wing meetings and at greenie gatherings, but CAMRA's cause is not leftist.  If anything, it's (small-c) conservative.


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2014)

JHE said:


> (though why anyone would choose real ale over real lager is baffling to me - do people really like the taste of yeast?)


the only real ale that tasted of yeastI've ever drunk was from my dad's homebrew.  Real ale tastes of hops and/or malt, not lager's piss.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 12, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> That's actually a good question -given the neverending downward spiral in which the party is engaged -and one which deserves some discussion here. Apart from the solitary councillor mentioned above, I would hazard the following as achievements:
> 
> Successes in the anti-racist/fascist field against the NF, BNP etc
> Keeping alive a certain vision of "socialism from below" during the Cold War period, when others succumbed to variants of Stalinism.
> ...




 4. I will give you


----------



## belboid (Jul 12, 2014)

you can hardly deny 3, either, even if you also think they then pissed all that support away

(1 and 2 are at least partially true too, imo, tho I'm notsurprised you dont agree )


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 12, 2014)

[QUOTE="Karmickameleon, post: 13265308, member: 60774" Although it didn't of course stop the invasion of Iraq, playing a key role in organising one of the biggest demos (if not the biggest) that the country has ever seen
[/QUOTE]

This may be controversial but... I'm not sure you can credit SW with organising the demo's exactly - doing all the admin maybe, but not actually getting millions on the streets. Would likely have happened anyway. Speculation of course...

What's not speculation is that leading SWP members blocked with the more conservative elements of STW to rule out tactics such as strikes and direct action against the war - significant when we remember that elements of the FBU were suggesting coordinated strike action as a tactic for the anti-war movement.

My first political experience of the SWP and of activism full stop really was those demo's, and I well remember the SWP members who assumed control of STW branches full of willing but naive people and continuously insisted that all that was needed was more marches, more marches, more marches.

The SWP have achieved things - I'm not convinced that the likes of Rees and German should be as smug about their contribution to the anti-war movement as they are.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 12, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> [QUOTE="Karmickameleon, post: 13265308, member: 60774" Although it didn't of course stop the invasion of Iraq, playing a key role in organising one of the biggest demos (if not the biggest) that the country has ever seen



This may be controversial but... I'm not sure you can credit SW with organising the demo's exactly - doing all the admin maybe, but not actually getting millions on the streets. Would likely have happened anyway. Speculation of course...

What's not speculation is that leading SWP members blocked with the more conservative elements of STW to rule out tactics such as strikes and direct action against the war - significant when we remember that elements of the FBU were suggesting coordinated strike action as a tactic for the anti-war movement.

My first political experience of the SWP and of activism full stop really was those demo's, and I well remember the SWP members who assumed control of STW branches full of willing but naive people and continuously insisted that all that was needed was more marches, more marches, more marches.

The SWP have achieved things - I'm not convinced that the likes of Rees and German should be as smug about their contribution to the anti-war movement as they are.[/QUOTE]
All of which is somewhat at odds with my experience of being in the SWP at the time. The line was consistently that strike action was required to stop the war for example. I don't deny that the leadership pissed away the support but my major criticism is that the SWP should have done everything it could to but the socialist alliance at the heart of stop the war, instead it did the opposite.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 12, 2014)

The line was indeed that strike action was needed, as you'd expect.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 12, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> My first political experience of the SWP and of activism full stop really was those demo's, and I well remember the SWP members who assumed control of STW branches full of willing but naive people and continuously insisted that all that was needed was more marches, more marches, more marches.
> 
> The SWP have achieved things - I'm not convinced that the likes of Rees and German should be as smug about their contribution to the anti-war movement as they are.



Agreed. The achievements I mentioned re anti-fascism/anti-racism and Stop the War are relative ones and aspects of those mobilisations can clearly be criticised. That said,  they do show how far the situation has degenerated with the leadership reduced to frantically mobilising its (remaining) members and supporters so as to achieve a respectable attendance at Marxism 2014.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 12, 2014)

Just noticed the following bizarre Twitter conversation (BTW, how can you embed tweets on this thread??)

*Claire Duffin* ‏@cduffin1  Jul 10
@charlieswp Please could you call me on 0207 ******** as soon as possible. Thank you.





*charlie kimber* ‏@charlieswp  Jul 11
@cduffin1 I did not go to Eton. I am not the son of a baronet. I did not go to any public school. Don't just circulate internet rumour..






*Andy Barton* ‏@onthecouchagain  Jul 11
.@charlieswp last time #*swp* in headlines it was for covering up rape allegations. Now its for jokes about kids being eaten. What next ffs?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 12, 2014)

Daily Telegraph journo making demands there


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 12, 2014)

emanymton said:


> All of which is somewhat at odds with my experience of being in the SWP at the time. The line was consistently that strike action was required to stop the war for example. I don't deny that the leadership pissed away the support but my major criticism is that the SWP should have done everything it could to but the socialist alliance at the heart of stop the war, instead it did the opposite.



I was 14/15 at the time, and in a small town hardly at the heart of the movement (though we did organise a simultaneous walkout in every school which was quite cool) so I can't claim to have been totally up to speed on the line. But I never noticed talk of strike action to stop the war in the various copies of SW I was sold.

I do remember SWP members repeatedly insisting (naively IMO) that we just needed to keep organising marches. That remained the same even in the case of local demo's which were becoming increasingly small. It was the first time I had met revolutionary socialists in any organisation and I resolved never to join them as I didn't get any sense that there members really had a clue about what to about anything. My impression generally was that the leadership of STW (ie the SWP) didn't seem to want to move beyond protest tactics.

I also remember being introduced, very firmly, to their youngest member in my small town, who was 28 or 29 at the time. I never understood why they were so keen for me to get to know this guy  - years later, we met again and he explained he had been tasked to recruit me but didn't want to as he was thinking of leaving. He did recruit me to the SP however.


----------



## october_lost (Jul 12, 2014)

JHE said:


> Not much of an argument. Protz abandoned the lost cause of Trottery for the very different and much more modest world of consumer campaigning.  CAMRA may be a worthy cause (though why anyone would choose real ale over real lager is baffling to me - do people really like the taste of yeast?) and may have more than its fair share of the beardy weirdy types who also drone on at left-wing meetings and at greenie gatherings, but CAMRA's cause is not leftist.  If anything, it's (small-c) conservative.


I didn't perceive the work of CAMRA as just being a consumer rights campaign, but you're probably right...


----------



## Horas (Jul 12, 2014)

october_lost said:


> The ANL, co-ordinating and nominally training a plethora of workplace militants, successfully rebranded a particular style of leftism that survived after the collapse of the Russian experiment, in addition to having contributed and popularised themes to, and within Marxist theory.
> 
> There is an argument to say that CAMRA is the most successful leftist initiative (I kid you not!) but the SWP are easily the most successful leftist group in post-war UK. The various pieces of flotsam and jetsam that most have us have traversed through haven't got anywhere close - which unfortunately says a lot about the state of revolutionary politics in general, in the UK.



as i see it, the swp like all the other left groups, including anarchos, have some good points and some bad points. unfortunately, they come together. as to what they have achieved, we can also ask the opposite, what haven't they achieved? they haven't led a revolution. they don't have mass influence. neither do any other left groups. this is the problem. i don't think too keep on doing the same thing again and again, despite whatever good it did in the past will lead to any great 'achievement'.


----------



## october_lost (Jul 12, 2014)

emanymton said:


> All of which is somewhat at odds with my experience of being in the SWP at the time. The line was consistently that strike action was required to stop the war for example. I don't deny that the leadership pissed away the support but my major criticism is that the SWP should have done everything it could to but the socialist alliance at the heart of stop the war, instead it did the opposite.


I think you're confusing rhetoric with action. 

From my experience of the STWC in Preston, it developed an obsession with doing everything it could to cosy up with a particular mosque, so much so that we had a meeting there, which for a leftist campaigning body outside of a quakers hall is unusual, this happened there at the expense of some of the stuff that was developing at the UCLAN campus, because the mosque (from memory) isn't exactly central. You would have demos that the mosque had clearly mobilised for and shouts of Allah Aqbar were competing with anti war chants. It was fucking odd, surreal and panders to the worst kind of communal thinking by both the SWP thinking they could only engage with a particular group of people through their religious  institution and made outreach to the wider community by the STWC and anti war activists beyond the imposed remit very difficult. 

And the logical trajectory to this relationship was semi permanent alliance between SWP activists and the said mosque that led to 'Socialist Alliance Against the War' and the rest is history. 

I saw the whole Stop The War as the SWP thinking it had seized the moment to develop itself, but it did so at the expense of the moment, and when that had gone, the SWP was in not better position because it lead to a general defeatist attitude because so much had produced so little, the failure of the movement had also lead to a rise in political Islam, which increasingly bolstered the far right...


----------



## Horas (Jul 12, 2014)

october_lost said:


> I think you're confusing rhetoric with action.
> 
> From my experience of the STWC in Preston, it developed an obsession with doing everything it could to cosy up with a particular mosque, so much so that we had a meeting there, which for a leftist campaigning body outside of a quakers hall is unusual, this happened there at the expense of some of the stuff that was developing at the UCLAN campus, because the mosque (from memory) isn't exactly central. You would have demos that the mosque had clearly mobilised for and shouts of Allah Aqbar were competing with anti war chants. It was fucking odd, surreal and panders to the worst kind of communal thinking by both the SWP thinking they could only engage with a particular group of people through their religious  institution and made outreach to the wider community by the STWC and anti war activists beyond the imposed remit very difficult.
> 
> ...




thats true. a line i got from the swp in stwc was that they would win Muslims over to socialism. never really happened that way. i think the term for this is opportunism, for immediate gains that do not lead to anything in the future. counterfire are pretty good at this too.


----------



## Horas (Jul 12, 2014)

the thing i found really odd about the swp/counterfire was the fake working class mockney accents some of the leaders and cadre try to put on. like martin smiff. there is a particular 'swappie' kind of way of talking and asking questions at meetings. i wonder if the cadre are drilled to talk like that?


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2014)

Horas said:


> as i see it, the swp like all the other left groups, including anarchos, have some good points and some bad points. unfortunately, they come together. as to what they have achieved, we can also ask the opposite, what haven't they achieved? they haven't led a revolution. they don't have mass influence. neither do any other left groups. this is the problem. i don't think too keep on doing the same thing again and again, despite whatever good it did in the past will lead to any great 'achievement'.




There is apparently a new group, Plan C, whose stated aim is not to make the same mistakes, etc.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 13, 2014)

october_lost said:


> I think you're confusing rhetoric with action.
> 
> From my experience of the STWC in Preston, it developed an obsession with doing everything it could to cosy up with a particular mosque, so much so that we had a meeting there, which for a leftist campaigning body outside of a quakers hall is unusual, this happened there at the expense of some of the stuff that was developing at the UCLAN campus, because the mosque (from memory) isn't exactly central. You would have demos that the mosque had clearly mobilised for and shouts of Allah Aqbar were competing with anti war chants. It was fucking odd, surreal and panders to the worst kind of communal thinking by both the SWP thinking they could only engage with a particular group of people through their religious  institution and made outreach to the wider community by the STWC and anti war activists beyond the imposed remit very difficult.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't really disagree with much of that. If we are talking about strike action what was the SWP in The position to deliver other than rhetoric? There was the fire fighters strike and I would say the STW stuff actually became secondary then, while of course we attempted to link the two. 

I don't know a single SWP who thought that marching would stop the war, but then to be honest i don't think any of us thought it would be possible to stop it at all. 

I think when people say that the SWP was against more militant action they are confusing a blanket rejection of militant action with some members of the SWP opposing any action they don't control or hasn't been pte-aproved by the Centre. I don't think it is necessarily wrong to favor a march over other types of action in any case, a million + people on the streets of London makes a he'll of an impact.


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 13, 2014)

Horas said:


> ... i wonder if the cadre are drilled to talk like that?


No, but it does seem to be a development that arises in all small political (and other?) organisations. I remember when a Scouse accent was fashionable among the Militant and my friend from school, who had become a full timer for them, developed an outrageous near-parody of one. As an SWP organiser I found myself using 'actually' as a kind of punctuation mark in my own speech - especially when giving a talk - and it was a hard habit to break.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 13, 2014)

You did have it down pat true enough, from memory. In fairness your breadth of knowledge when you spoke made up for it.


----------



## october_lost (Jul 13, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I don't know a single SWP who thought that marching would stop the war, but then to be honest i don't think any of us thought it would be possible to stop it at all.


With the trot left its sometimes hard to distinguish what they believe, from what they say, because they're always formulating demands that are designed to sway public opinion, but are never meant to be enacted or likely to be achievable. I'm thinking of stuff like nationalisation of industries and scrapping nuclear weapons etc. All minimum and maximum programme stuff.

That aside, I do believe that either the SWP thought they could stop the war and thought they would benefit from opposition to it all, or they had a political investment in 'upping the ante' after the movement had failed to achieve its aim but fluffed it when the time came. I'm inclined to to think the former, because STWC ran and ran and they seemed very comfortable with being the opposition movement and the platform speaking for long after the movement had petered out.




emanymton said:


> I think when people say that the SWP was against more militant action they are confusing a blanket rejection of militant action with some members of the SWP opposing any action they don't control or hasn't been pte-aproved by the Centre. I don't think it is necessarily wrong to favor a march over other types of action in any case, a million + people on the streets of London makes a he'll of an impact.


The police were happy to contain a to b marches, but they were running scared of more militant activity. This isn't a small militant, big passive dichotomy. The SWP had amble opportunity to push a more confrontational approach, or allow people to go do their own thing, but instead it criticised sit-downs and anyone trying to develop beyond the well worn path of marches and speeches.


----------



## laptop (Jul 13, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> As an SWP organiser I found myself using 'actually' as a kind of punctuation mark in my own speech - especially when giving a talk - and it was a hard habit to break.



I thought that was taught at Skegness? With the hand-chopping?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 13, 2014)

so on and so forth


----------



## rekil (Jul 13, 2014)

There's a PD agent speaking today.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 13, 2014)

Anyone else remember these well worn favourites:

1) This is no chinese wall between....
2) bending the stick


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> No, but it does seem to be a development that arises in all small political (and other?) organisations. I remember when a Scouse accent was fashionable among the Militant and my friend from school, who had become a full timer for them, developed an outrageous near-parody of one. As an SWP organiser I found myself using 'actually' as a kind of punctuation mark in my own speech - especially when giving a talk - and it was a hard habit to break.




The army have their own kind of language as well.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2014)

> That aside, I do believe that either the SWP thought they could stop the war and thought they would benefit from opposition to it all



Here, they described it as 'getting the dividend'

bit like a bumper payout of green shield stamps.


----------



## mutley (Jul 13, 2014)

On STW, I don't honestly think its fair to say SWP members 'took over' STW groups. In most cases they were the ones setting them up, and very often booking the coaches etc.

 The stuff about turns of phrase and that is a very real effect and hard to see how it works. I wonder if psychologists have looked at it and noticed the effect elsewhere? The millies had it with the fake scouse accents, SWP had it with everyone going 'actually' all the time. There was a period where people would say 'inside of' - for example I remember a meeting where the speaker said se was going to talk about the role of religion inside of the world. My brain meandered off briefly into wondering whether she meant the mantle, the molten core, what? No wonder I never got asked to do a marxism meeting.

Oh and we did not ever get told to speak a certain way. It would just creep in.


----------



## laptop (Jul 13, 2014)

mutley said:


> Oh and we did not ever get told to speak a certain way. It would just creep in.



How can anyone tell whether that's just stick-bending?


----------



## mutley (Jul 13, 2014)

Laptop if that's a serious question you'll have to ask it again cos I don't get it. 'stick bending' meant emphasizing one particular point that everyone absolutely has to take on board, to the edge of exaggeration. Eg 'it is absolutely vital that every comrade, no matter where they are, build a stw group as a matter of absolute urgency. If they don't it doesn't matter how many papers they are selling or whatever because that is the vital task for the moment'. Its an approach which as its place.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 13, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I wouldn't really disagree with much of that. If we are talking about strike action what was the SWP in The position to deliver other than rhetoric? There was the fire fighters strike and I would say the STW stuff actually became secondary then, while of course we attempted to link the two.
> 
> I don't know a single SWP who thought that marching would stop the war, but then to be honest i don't think any of us thought it would be possible to stop it at all.
> 
> I think when people say that the SWP was against more militant action they are confusing a blanket rejection of militant action with some members of the SWP opposing any action they don't control or hasn't been pte-aproved by the Centre. I don't think it is necessarily wrong to favor a march over other types of action in any case, a million + people on the streets of London makes a he'll of an impact.



Yes but the point of a million people on the streets is to mobilise further action is it not? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the SWP insist on giving Charlie Kennedy a chance to speak at one of those big marches? If they were serious about what was neccessary they'd have got trade union leaders prepared to deliver action on the platform - or at least tried too.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 13, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes but the point of a million people on the streets is to mobilise further action is it not? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the SWP insist on giving Charlie Kennedy a chance to speak at one of those big marches? If they were serious about what was neccessary they'd have got trade union leaders prepared to deliver action on the platform - or at least tried too.


Quite right Kennedy should have been told to fuck off, and a Socialist alliance speaker should have been on the platform.  
But to be honest with the big demo it was really really difficult to relate to it in any meaningful way, given the size of the SWP and the wider STWC we would only be able to talk to a tiny percentage of those that were there, I think it was a bit more 'running around like headless chickens not sure what to do' and a bit less deliberate sabotage I think a lot of people on that demo thought it would stop the war, we did not but how do you communicate effectively with that many people when there are ony a couple of thousand of you at most?  Mind you as we can see from future events those SWP members who were leading in the STWC were being pulled away from working class politics by it.
Oh and I can't believe you are younger than me you bastard!


----------



## Horas (Jul 13, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> No, but it does seem to be a development that arises in all small political (and other?) organisations..



i guess thats true. i noticed that when people 'become' anarchists, they tend to swear a lot more than they did previously, there is a certain anarchist swagger, effing this, effing that. I think this is mostly through the influence of Ian Bone.  many of the people, in both socialist and anarchist groups, are university educated and probably not so poor, but feel a need to show their proleterian credentials by putting on a fake accent and swearing


----------



## Horas (Jul 13, 2014)

what bothers me about these unprincipled alliances, such as getting jackie kennedy to speak at the big stwc rally back then, . is that nothing seems to be gained from it. it gave the impression that the lib dems were more left than they really were, and this illusion only ended with the end of cleggomania. also speaking on that demo was imran khan, the former pakistani cricketer and millionaire, also bianca jagger. i am not sure what was the point of promoting these people. what is worse, however, is the left doesn't seem to gain anything from these tactics. 

 as an ardent activist at that time, i am sure i am not the only one who felt that all my actvist work was in the end used to bolster the support of people i don't support ie lib dems, left labour etc, imran khan, bianca jagger etc. 
i wonder if some of this behaviour is due to a great lack of faith in ordinary people, that ordinary people need a celeb to tell them something to give it credibility.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 13, 2014)

Photo of the Prof's meeting at Marxism. It would appear to show a somewhat ageing audience, which is surely bad news for a supposedly revolutionary party (or are the students all standing at the back?):


----------



## Horas (Jul 13, 2014)

isn't the prof the grandson of lord acton? 
proleterian my arse.


----------



## treelover (Jul 13, 2014)

Horas said:


> what bothers me about these unprincipled alliances, such as getting jackie kennedy to speak at the big stwc rally back then, . is that nothing seems to be gained from it. it gave the impression that the lib dems were more left than they really were, and this illusion only ended with the end of cleggomania. also speaking on that demo was imran khan, the former pakistani cricketer and millionaire, also bianca jagger. i am not sure what was the point of promoting these people. what is worse, however, is the left doesn't seem to gain anything from these tactics.
> 
> as an ardent activist at that time, i am sure i am not the only one who felt that all my actvist work was in the end used to bolster the support of people i don't support ie lib dems, left labour etc, imran khan, bianca jagger etc.
> i wonder if some of this behaviour is due to a great lack of faith in ordinary people, that ordinary people need a celeb to tell them something to give it credibility.



Agree with you about L/D's, maybe Khan, but Jagger is now just a human rights workers, albeit one with a very distinguished record.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 14, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm struggling to see how that is much of an achievement compared to the SP who have had 5 or 6 good councillors at  various times, not to mention Labour, Libdems, Tories and various independent groups who have had decent councillors at various times on a much larger basis than one ward
> 
> Also how much was the Shirebrook result down to the SWP and how much down to a couple of really good individuals who weren't even taken seriously by their own party?



I was responding to someone saying they'd never achieved anything in their whole existence by saying that was bullshit. You then asked me what they'd achieved and I gave you an example. I never said I thought they were any good, they're not. The Shirebrook election was most definitely an SWP effort - it had to be the amount of canvassing that had to be done to win it.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 14, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Photo of the Prof's meeting at Marxism. It would appear to show a somewhat ageing audience, which is surely bad news for a supposedly revolutionary party (or are the students all standing at the back?):


Dont be cruel, me and my mum are in that pic and our combined age is only 125.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Photo of the Prof's meeting at Marxism. It would appear to show a somewhat ageing audience, which is surely bad news for a supposedly revolutionary party (or are the students all standing at the back?):


they were a bunch of keen students when they went in 

by the time they left they were all geriatric


----------



## redcogs (Jul 14, 2014)

etcetera etcetera etcetera..

went up like a rocket - but fell like a stick.


----------



## redcogs (Jul 14, 2014)

any green shoots of recovery yet?


----------



## chilango (Jul 14, 2014)

Horas said:


> i guess thats true. i noticed that when people 'become' anarchists, they tend to swear a lot more than they did previously, there is a certain anarchist swagger, effing this, effing that. I think this is mostly through the influence of Ian Bone.  many of the people, in both socialist and anarchist groups, are university educated and probably not so poor, but feel a need to show their proleterian credentials by putting on a fake accent and swearing



Fuck off. That's bollocks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> they were a bunch of keen students when they went in
> 
> by the time they left they were all geriatric


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 14, 2014)

redcogs said:


> any green shoots of recovery yet?


From Facebook, I gathered that 608 people were at the opening rally. This isn't a disaster, but isn't particularly good either - given that the leadership made a major effort to get people there this year. Also, as I pointed out above, many of those in attendance seem to be getting on a bit...

BTW, just in case you missed it, this is a good article from Owen Jones on the SWP's Class War turn:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...vy-socialist-worker-article-polar-bear-attack


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 14, 2014)

In the late 1990s and early 2000's Marxism used to get between 6,000 and 7,500 people who bought tickets to go (according to the SWP).
In 1997 SE London SWP signed up over 230 people to go ... I know that figure was accurate so I can imagine that the above stats are pretty accurate give or take a bit of creative counting

The figures have continuously dropped from 2000 onwards and until I stopped going in 2008 or 2009 it was getting visibly smaller every year.
It also looked older each year, more male and more white...none of which suggests it was an organisation in healthy state.
2000 is the figure being bandied around for this years event which is a problem as I suspect the creative accounting continues so the true figure is probably a couple hundred lower.

Marxism being a third of the size it was 17 years ago, when we have suffered 4 years of Tory austerity, doesn't suggest that the SWP is growing and building...it suggests it has spent a shit load of energy simply to regroup


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 14, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> In the late 1990s and early 2000's Marxism used to get between 6,000 and 7,500 people who bought tickets to go (according to the SWP).
> In 1997 SE London SWP signed up over 230 people to go ... I know that figure was accurate so I can imagine that the above stats are pretty accurate give or take a bit of creative counting
> 
> The figures have continuously dropped from 2000 onwards and until I stopped going in 2008 or 2009 it was getting visibly smaller every year.
> ...



What year did Callinicos become leader?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 14, 2014)

No idea mate...was never in the in crowd


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 14, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> It also looked older each year, more male and more white...none of which suggests it was an organisation in healthy state.



Which reminds me of something I saw on Twitter at the beginning of Marxism. It went something like this: _Why are so many old white dudes wandering around SOAS? Must be Marxism 2014._


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 14, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> What year did Callinicos become leader?


Surely it was -de facto- at the end of 2009 or beginning of 2010. Rees and German were ousted from the CC in January 2009. Smith had led the charge against the two while both Harman and Callinicos were reticent as they thought that it might lead to a major split. In the event, the Counterfire split was minor compared to what we have seen recently (all of which shows how out of touch the leadership can be).
Harman died in November 2009, which left Callinicos and - to a lesser extent - Smith as major players. But then -as we all know - the latter would soon have problems on another front.....


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 14, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Surely it was -de facto- at the end of 2009 or beginning of 2010. Rees and German were ousted from the CC in January 2009. Smith had led the charge against the two while both Harman and Callinicos were reticent as they thought that it might lead to a major split. In the event, the Counterfire split was minor compared to what we have seen recently (all of which shows how out of touch the leadership can be).
> Harman died in November 2009, which left Callinicos and - to a lesser extent - Smith as major players. But then -as we all know - the latter would soon have problems on another front.....



Thanks for the info. Have never been close to the SWP but surely after his disastrous leadership the membership can give him the boot or do the dissenters just get kicked until only the CC remain?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 14, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Thanks for the info. Have never been close to the SWP but surely after his disastrous leadership the membership can give him the boot or do the dissenters just get kicked until only the CC remain?



In theory, he could of course be removed. In practice, that possibility ended when the opposition were finally defeated and the remaining core membership consists of loyalists to the existing leadership.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 14, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In theory, he could of course be removed. In practice, that possibility ended when the opposition were finally defeated and the remaining core membership consists of loyalists to the existing leadership.


Yes, that is the long and short of it and could represent a suitable conclusion to this particular thread. However, until the SWP is dead and buried, I guess we'll have things to discuss here.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 14, 2014)

Glass half full


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Glass half full


Brain half empty


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> Brain half empty


brain?


----------



## belboid (Jul 14, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> brain?


Half?!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 14, 2014)

I don't think Callinicos has ever been considered or considered himself to be the Leader of the SWP. He is more a theoretician more particularly on International political issues. Often the editor of the paper is considered to be the top dog. That is currently Judith Orr. She is strongly feminist as well as socialist but I have never seen a comment from her on the "Delta issue" although I doubt she has any sympathy for "Delta". The party is effectively defunct as far as I can see. I used to go to Marxism but not in the last two years.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 14, 2014)

That'll be news to Judith, that she's a feminist.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 14, 2014)

Lol belboid but the rest of the far left have been telling cliffites they're brain dead since at least the 60's. At least back then the IMG were actually clever little shits, the ones doing it now haven't got a novel idea between them.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 14, 2014)

the problem with BB's arguments (imo) is that he does not comprehend how many people do not understand how socialists can respond to rape allegations in the way that the swp did.
People on the left (understandably and correctly) expect a high level of honesty and integrity from others on the left and the swp failed miserably on this account.
Not only that the swp sort to hide in two ways;
1) by pretending those not in the swp were all sectarian and 
2) by dressing it up as "politics"...a continuation of the splits after the demise of respect etc. and internally feminist politics distorting the swp's view of womens liberation...
this led to the swp battening down the hatches publishing long winded articles/essays which completely missed the point.

the swp and those in it should know better and it is this that pisses off so many people. They betrayed a central plank of socialism with their behaviour to the women involved yet chose to pretend that it was sectarians; wayward members; the press; and creeping feminism that caused their crisis....and this is why they fail to understand why people want it to die and die quickly.

I know some people on here have always hated/ mistrusted the swp but BB seems to think that this is what lays behind their criticism which is borderline childish imo.
I think that the swp is a way of life for many of their long standing members and that is why they cling to it so desperately...I thought any organisation was a tool and when a tool is broken you get rid of it and make/buy a new one rather than continuously use a sticky plaster to patch it up


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 14, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I don't think Callinicos has ever been considered or considered himself to be the Leader of the SWP. He is more a theoretician more particularly on International political issues. Often the editor of the paper is considered to be the top dog. That is currently Judith Orr. She is strongly feminist as well as socialist but I have never seen a comment from her on the "Delta issue" although I doubt she has any sympathy for "Delta". The party is effectively defunct as far as I can see. I used to go to Marxism but not in the last two years.



Callincos has been on the CC for as long as I can remember. For the loyalists, he represents the continuation of the Cliff, Hallas, Harman tradition. Whatever his talents as a theoretician, his leadership qualities were shown to be more than lacking in the Delta scandal, in which he demonstrated both cowardice and dishonesty. As for Judith Orr, she certainly wouldn't describe herself as a feminist and showed herself to be one of the hardline Delta supporters.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 14, 2014)

I think we can all agree there are no feminists on the CC


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I think we can all agree there are no feminists on the CC


and precious few within even the nether reaches of the party


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 14, 2014)

Problem is spurski it's not just one or the other, it's both. Yes the delta disaster was the catalyst but yes there were also many political differences brewing beforehand. Fond as I am of many who ended up in both the isn and rs21 the arguments they have advanced since leaving only bear that out. The warmed up academic feminism of the iso didn't just happen by accident either, it predates delta and it's getting a hearing here isn't all down to moral outrage at delta. The truth is IS tendency groups and their members have always shaded at one end into movementist types and at the other into unpleasant workerists with most members somewhere in between. It's the nature of the best, trying to keep so many different ideas spinning at once. But like it or not the prof and the cadre at the core of the party are the ones still doing that.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 14, 2014)

if the swp had not acted in such an appalling way there would not have been at least two women treated badly by socialists that they'd turned to for help and support and (on a less important note) there would not have been press coverage; internet rows; campaigns against the swp etc.
There undoubtedly would have been people leaving; some more splits etc. and these could have been debated and dismissed until the cows come home and many many people wouldn't be interested. The simple fact is that you fail to see the blatant truth that is obvious to others...the swp acted disgracefully and any socialist organisation that behaves in such a way deserves all the criticism it gets...and deserves to die.
I know there were differences... but they are irrelevant...the only relevant fact is that the swp chose to protect delta rather than support the women he was accused of raping/abusing and no amount of smoke and mirrors can change that one very simple fact


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 15, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The truth is IS tendency groups and their members have always shaded at one end into movementist types and at the other into unpleasant workerists with most members somewhere in between.



"Tell me, Mr. Strachey, what would you do if you saw a German soldier trying to violate your sister?"
"I would try to get between them."


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

Reluctantly sticking my toe into the mire at page 586:



comrade spurski said:


> if the swp had not acted in such an appalling way...


Can't speak for every member, but I don't think there are many who think we didn't f*ck up majorly. In more ways than we care to count.



			
				comrade spurski said:
			
		

> ...the only relevant fact is that the swp chose to protect delta rather than support the women he was accused of raping/abusing and no amount of smoke and mirrors can change that one very simple fact


Except, of course, it isn't a fact. Delta was forced out by the second case.

Other relevant [?] facts:

Not only did the SWP make changes to its procedures to try to overcome the shortcomings that had been highlighted, but it also published the proposed procedures in advance of the conference.

On top of this Socialist Worker carried an apology to the two women involved.

Not enough, perhaps, but public apologies by far left groups - how many have you seen?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Lol belboid but the rest of the far left have been telling cliffites they're brain dead since at least the 60's. At least back then the IMG were actually clever little shits, the ones doing it now haven't got a novel idea between them.


that's just not true tho, no one called the SWP 'brain dead' - they were always slagged off as the intellectuals more interested in theory than 'real' work. The others obviously disagreed with those theories, but (WRP excluded) couldnt just dismiss them as nonsense.  The drivel spoken to justify the Smith disgrace was just embarassing, the theoretical twists and turns since, convince no one, probably not even half the membership. They're dead.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Reluctantly sticking my toe into the mire at page 586:
> 
> 
> Can't speak for every member, but I don't think there are many who think we didn't f*ck up majorly. In more ways than we care to count.
> ...


oh please, the 'apology' had to be dragged screaming from you, and it wasn't even an apology,merely a recognition that things hadn't gone very well. It satisfied no one. If you think it did, you are kidding yourself.

Also, Martin Smith (give the cunt his real name) wasn't forced out, he chose to jump, and your lot were happy just so it didn't rip you apart even more.  That isn't any kind of justice - when cops do it (resign/retire before being disciplined) the party complains, but when it's one of your own... And, just like with ex-coppers, plenty of party members are still supporting Smith, thru his shitty website, MA, and crappy DJing. 

Not to mention that your party is now led by those members who fought desperately and utterly dishonestly to protect the rapist, not one of whom has an ounce of sense. Amy Leather is your future.

You're dead.


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> 2000 is the figure being bandied around for this years event which is a problem as I suspect the creative accounting continues so the true figure is probably a couple hundred lower.



Difficult to judge the size of the whole event from just observation, but I'd agree with well over 500 at the opening rally. Given that it was on a Thursday evening I'd also have expected three to five times that number to turn up over the weekend.

BTW, I made a point of checking out the gender/age/race mix because I was concerned that the splits of the last year might have had severe effects in these areas. 

Yes, there were fewer students than the last few years, but otherwise the age gradient seemed reasonably even. Insofar as it's possible to judge by appearance 

There also seemed to be a good proportion of women. More in some meetings than others, but always well represented as speakers both on platforms and from the floor.

As always, disappointed we couldn't draw more BEM people, but proportion not significantly different to previous years.



> Marxism being a third of the size it was 17 years ago, when we have suffered 4 years of Tory austerity, doesn't suggest that the SWP is growing and building...it suggests it has spent a shit load of energy simply to regroup



A really depressing statistic. If there was a left organisation capable of pulling those sorts of numbers today I'd be thinking about joining it. The fact that the SWP is regrouping at all after the few years it's gone through is enough to keep me slugging away for a while yet.


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> You're dead.


So you keep saying and yet we're still here and still alive. How irritating!


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

The WRP are technically still here,so what?  They're dead.  All that remains of them is all that remains of you, being a minor irritant.

I note you can't deny anything else that I wrote.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

At the strike demo last week the Socialist Appeal sellers were younger than any of those from the SWP.  Socialist _Appeal_.


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> oh please, the 'apology' had to be dragged screaming from you, and it wasn't even an apology,merely a recognition that things hadn't gone very well. It satisfied no one. If you think it did, you are kidding yourself.






			
				Socialist Worker 2384 said:
			
		

> We are sorry for the suffering caused to them by the structural flaws in our disputes procedures, the way in which the two cases became a subject of political conflict within the party and slurs on the internet.


Looks like an apology for something more than "things hadn't gone very well." Did it satisfy everybody? Hell no! But there it is nevertheless.



> Also, Martin Smith (give the cunt his real name) wasn't forced out, he chose to jump


So he just woke up one morning and chose to leave, for no reason at all?



> That isn't any kind of justice - when cops do it (resign/retire before being disciplined) the party complains, but when it's one of your own...



True, it wasn't justice, but then the heaviest sanction the SWP has is to expel someone. When cops are permitted to resign they don't just avoid a hearing they also get substantial financial benefits.



> The WRP are technically still here,so what? They're dead. All that remains of them is all that remains of you, being a minor irritant.



Not convincing.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> At the strike demo last week the Socialist Appeal sellers were younger than any of those from the SWP.  Socialist _Appeal_.


They may be younger but with about 350 members nationally they are even weaker than the SWP.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Looks like an apology for something more than "things hadn't gone very well." Did it satisfy everybody? Hell no! But there it is nevertheless.


It doesn't look like that to non-members.



> So he just woke up one morning and chose to leave, for no reason at all?


he left becausde there was too much shit flying around, at least this way some people still refer to him as 'Comrade Delta' rather than Martin Smith.



> True, it wasn't justice, but then the heaviest sanction the SWP has is to expel someone. When cops are permitted to resign they don't just avoid a hearing they also get substantial financial benefits.


financial benefits like getting you Phd paid for you?  



> Not convincing.


no, you're not.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> They may be younger but with about 350 members nationally they are even weaker than the SWP.


I doubt it's that many. But the thng is, they were always the old farts, who made the CPB look young. Now they're younger than the SWP!  Not good news for the latter.


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> financial benefits like getting you Phd paid for you?



Make your mind up - is it an MA or a PhD?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Make your mind up - is it an MA or a PhD?


once again, you pick up on the irrelevant part.  Almost as if you have no answers for the substantive part. 

You've learnt nothing from this debacle.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> I doubt it's that many. But the thng is, they were always the old farts, who made the CPB look young. Now they're younger than the SWP!  Not good news for the latter.


To be fair nobody under 60 years old has any memory of Socialism being even discussed let alone being practised in any of its forms.


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> once again, you pick up on the irrelevant part.  Almost as if you have no answers for the substantive part.
> 
> You've learnt nothing from this debacle.


Simply trying to establish the facts - one minute it's an MA next it's a paid for PhD.

If you can't be consistent about the course why should I believe you know anything about how it's funded?


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> It doesn't look like that to non-members.


Actually it does, because that is what it is. Also, it was certainly read that way by the non-members I sell SW to at work.




> he left becausde there was too much shit flying around, at least this way some people still refer to him as 'Comrade Delta' rather than Martin Smith.


Nope. There was a ton of shit flying around before he left, but he didn't leave until a decision was made to proceed with the case. It was the prospect of that hearing that forced him to leave. It wasn't an accident or a random event it was the decision of the Central Committee to proceed after the Disputes Committee had been deadlocked.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 15, 2014)

Martin "Delta" Smith has apparently not escaped into anonymity. He was given a place at Liverpool Hope University to take a PhD paid for by people connected to the SWP, It was arranged by Michael Lavalette who is a professor at the university and also a well known supporter of the SWP. There is a website calling itself Delta Removals which is creating publicity around Martin's alleged misdemeanors and it seems that female students in particular have reacted against him. The last information on this I could find on the internet is about 12 months old. Go search. I fear that Smith will drag Lavalette down with him when he is exposed.

Update from the Delta Removals blog dated November 2013 :

_"It has now come to the attention of the Delta Removals campaign that Smith has been put on a distance learning course, meaning that he will only be attending campus infrequently, and may well not be staying in the Liverpool area. This information comes from an anonymous but trusted source.

 It is worth emphasising that Hope University – unlike the other two universities in Liverpool – does not currently have a distance learningprogramme. As Smith was on campus at the start of our campaign, this distance learning placement has therefore been created specifically for him following our activities."_
"


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> He was given a place at Liverpool Hope University to take a PhD paid for by people connected to the SWP


You really should take Critical Reading 101. The blog you mention does not even suggest the PhD is being paid for by anyone connected to the SWP. Rather it claims that it is a funded PhD. I am unable to see any evidence in it that justifies such a claim.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 15, 2014)

Either way with the alleged sexual offences, free courses from mates and book sales for the Dear Leader the rot is certainly from the head.

Total betrayal of the membership and the Left in general, Mi5 couldn't have done a better job than Callinicos and his fellow toffs.


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Either way with the alleged sexual offences, free courses from mates and book sales for the Dear Leader the rot is certainly from the head.
> 
> Total betrayal of the membership and the Left in general, Mi5 couldn't have done a better job than Callinicos and his fellow toffs.


Random insults, no concern to check facts, I can see where the rot sets in.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 15, 2014)

Sleaze is what you get with toffs, never changes.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> that's just not true tho, no one called the SWP 'brain dead' - they were always slagged off as the intellectuals more interested in theory than 'real' work. The others obviously disagreed with those theories, but (WRP excluded) couldnt just dismiss them as nonsense.  The drivel spoken to justify the Smith disgrace was just embarassing, the theoretical twists and turns since, convince no one, probably not even half the membership. They're dead.


belboid, that's the exact inverse of the truth. As long ago as 1979 Ian Birchall (ironically) felt the need to write his 'Premature Burial' piece to defend the is/swp against Martin Shaw's claims (echoed by most of the far left) that Cliffites were workerist, anti-woman and lacking in internal democracy (a polite way of saying brain dead). This crap ain't new, please stop pretending it is.

Welcome to the thread Trappist, expect a warm reception from the folks here


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> belboid, that's the exact inverse of the truth. As long ago as 1979 Ian Birchall (ironically) felt the need to write his 'Premature Burial' piece to defend the is/swp against Martin Shaw's claims (echoed by most of the far left) that Cliffites were workerist, anti-woman and lacking in internal democracy (a polite way of saying brain dead). This crap ain't new, please stop pretending it is.


that isnt a polite way of saying 'brain dead' at all, utter drivel.  Black is white to you. Martin Smith isnt a rapist.  The SWP is alive and well.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Actually it does, because that is what it is. Also, it was certainly read that way by the non-members I sell SW to at work.


oh well, thats convincing. It is because you say it is!



> Nope. There was a ton of shit flying around before he left, but he didn't leave until a decision was made to proceed with the case. It was the prospect of that hearing that forced him to leave. It wasn't an accident or a random event it was the decision of the Central Committee to proceed after the Disputes Committee had been deadlocked.


and you were so grateful he just walked, arent you? All that shit and half the DC _still _supported him.  What complete and utter scum those people are.  And they're nearly all still on the DC.  So the party has clearly learnt nothing.  In fact they're not just in the party, they're leading it now! And asking people to contribute to Smith's Phd, their old mate.

What precisely do you think the SWP has learnt?  Cos from here it looks like absolutely nothing.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

That SWP 'apology'

We are sorry for the suffering caused to them by the structural flaws in our disputes procedures, the way in which the two cases became a subject of political conflict within the party and slurs on the internet.


Nothing about the lies, nothing about the slurs made out by the Party, just a vague 'we could have done it better.'  Utterly worthless.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2014)

'the structural flaws in our disputes procedures'

is not an apology, its a politicians apology.

loyalists allowed on the internet now are they?


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> All that shit and half the DC _still _supported him.


Not a case of supporting anybody - there was a short period of disagreement as to whether the DC as it then existed could hear the case as the second complainant had forcefully said she did not trust them. The logjam was broken by the CC arranging an ad hoc panel of members acceptable to her and her supporters.



> And they're nearly all still on the DC... ...In fact they're not just in the party, they're leading it now!


No, they all stood down at last year's conference and a completely different DC was elected. Nor was anyone from the original DC elected to the CC.



> So the party has clearly learnt nothing.


Oh I think we've learnt a lot. If we hadn't we wouldn't have held a review and developed (and published) a new Disputes Procedure to take on board many of the criticisms levelled at us.

Clearly, some people would only be satisfied if we just fucked off and died. In my experience, the rest are willing to look at the facts and reach their own conclusions.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Not a case of supporting anybody - there was a short period of disagreement as to whether the DC as it then existed could hear the case as the second complainant had forcefully said she did not trust them. The logjam was broken by the CC arranging an ad hoc panel of members acceptable to her and her supporters.


of course the DC supported him ,thats why the second case was initially not heard, why do you think the complainant said she didnt trust them?!



> No, they all stood down at last year's conference and a completely different DC was elected. Nor was anyone from the original DC elected to the CC.


fair enough



> Oh I think we've learnt a lot. If we hadn't we wouldn't have held a review and developed (and published) a new Disputes Procedure to take on board many of the criticisms levelled at us.
> 
> Clearly, some people would only be satisfied if we just fucked off and died. In my experience, the rest are willing to look at the facts and reach their own conclusions.


So the only thing to go wrong was a bit of the procedure?  Really? You honestly believe that? 

Best of luck re-arranging your deckchairs.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

That 'apology' still isn't really an apology tho, is it?  Especially when it is wholly contradicted by the later sentence: All DC hearings have been conducted with integrity.

They weren't.  That was the problem.  Which you have failed to recognise.


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> So the only thing to go wrong was a bit of the procedure?  Really? You honestly believe that?


Both complainants were highly critical of the procedure itself. You stated we had learnt nothing, I merely refuted with actual documented changes that had been made in response to those criticisms. I could, of course, waffle on with undocumented statements about this or that, but then you'd come back with similar and eventually one of us would lose the will to live. Probably long after everyone else had gone to sleep.

As to what I believe, I think my first post was abundantly clear:


> Can't speak for every member, but I don't think there are many who think we didn't f*ck up majorly. In more ways than we care to count.


But feel free to keep recycling.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> that isnt a polite way of saying 'brain dead' at all, utter drivel.  Black is white to you. Martin Smith isnt a rapist.  The SWP is alive and well.


"You're all robots told what to think by your cc" is black and "You're brain dead" is white? Ok.

Is MS a rapist? surely the problem is 99.9% of us aren't qualified to answer that question safely. All we can do is work out which of the people who have seen the evidence we trust. The really head banger moment comes when different people you trust equally (but from different camps) give you opposite answers.


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> That 'apology' still isn't really an apology tho, is it?  Especially when it is wholly contradicted by the later sentence: All DC hearings have been conducted with integrity.
> 
> They weren't.  That was the problem.  Which you have failed to recognise.


Link?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Both complainants were highly critical of the procedure itself. You stated we had learnt nothing, I merely refuted with actual documented changes that had been made in response to those criticisms. I could, of course, waffle on with undocumented statements about this or that, but then you'd come back with similar and eventually one of us would lose the will to live. Probably long after everyone else had gone to sleep.
> 
> As to what I believe, I think my first post was abundantly clear:
> 
> But feel free to keep recycling.


Please do waffle on, otherwise why would anyone believe you have learnt anything?  Everyone knows that procedural changes mean next to nothing by themselves, they are mere symptoms of problems, not causes.

Do you agree that all DC hearings were been conducted with integrity?  Even the bit about asking whether the victim 'liked a drink?'  Why hasn't the person who asked that question been held to account for it?

If you have really learnt lessons, why is the DC dominated by the Leatherettes, the very people who were most vocal in defending Martin Smith? Are you really trying to tell us that despite recognising the party's problems, you have actually promoted the people (other than Smith) largely responsible for those problems? Can't you see the glaring contradiction?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Link?


https://www.swp.org.uk/content/swp-conference-december-2013

Conference recognises, point 1


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> "You're all robots told what to think by your cc" is black and "You're brain dead" is white? Ok.


but even that says the CC have some brains, which isnt the case now. Amy fucking Leather.  Thick as pigshit. Good at bullying tho.


----------



## Trappist (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> Do you agree that all DC hearings were been conducted with integrity?


Just reread the transcript (http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/). The DC were clearly wrong not to recuse themselves, but allowing for that mistake they tried to hear the case impartially. Given the contradiction in the evidence it's hard to see how a different panel would have decided the case proven one way or the other. That said, having been unable to acquit I'd have been happier if they'd taken the approach that CC members needed to be beyond reproach.



> Even the bit about asking whether the victim 'liked a drink?'  Why hasn't the person who asked that question been held to account for it?


It wasn't about victim blaming. My reading is that it was about the allegation of harassment. A woman used to drinking is likely to be less drunk than one who isn't and thus more able to give full consent. Any approach to a drunk woman would of course be inappropriate for that very reason.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 15, 2014)

mien gott


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Just reread the transcript (http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/). The DC were clearly wrong not to recuse themselves, but allowing for that mistake they tried to hear the case impartially. Given the contradiction in the evidence it's hard to see how a different panel would have decided the case proven one way or the other. That said, having been unable to acquit I'd have been happier if they'd taken the approach that CC members needed to be beyond reproach.
> 
> 
> It wasn't about victim blaming. My reading is that it was about the allegation of harassment. A woman used to drinking is likely to be less drunk than one who isn't and thus more able to give full consent. Any approach to a drunk woman would of course be inappropriate for that very reason.


Really?  _Really?_ The person who asked that question (and we all know who it was) should have been expelled. It is not allowed in an actual rape case - and the committee were pretending to follow the legal demands of a trial, but that shows they weren't doing so.  The level of proof their report shows they were working too also shows they were not trying to be wholly fair, and looks like they were bending over backwards to defend Smith. As you recognise, it is clear that Smith's behaviour was not 'beyond reproach' which seems to be saying pretty much the same thing as 'he hassled her', otherwise, what _did _he do?

One of the people that took that decision is still on the CC, at least one other is still a frequent council candidate. Doesn't look much like they were reprimanded in any way for their failures to act in a manner that safeguards the parties interests, does it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 15, 2014)

Hocus Eye. said:


> They may be younger but with about 350 members nationally they are even weaker than the SWP.



350 members nationally? That's one of the more bizarre claims I've seen here in a while. Perhaps 80 and that's assuming some growth.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> 350 members nationally? That's one of the more bizarre claims I've seen here in a while. Perhaps 80 and that's assuming some growth.


They must have had some growth, there were a dozen of them who looked to be in their twenties!  Which is 11 more than I've ever seen before.


----------



## chilango (Jul 15, 2014)

> A woman used to drinking is likely to be less drunk than one who isn't and thus more able to give full consent. Any approach to a drunk woman would of course be inappropriate for that very reason.



Fucking hell Trappist. Fucking hell


----------



## cesare (Jul 15, 2014)

Good grief.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> A woman used to drinking is likely to be less drunk than one who isn't and thus more able to give full consent. Any approach to a drunk woman would of course be inappropriate for that very reason.


oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.


----------



## Limerick Red (Jul 15, 2014)

This is exactly the problem, lay people are not in a position to make these kinds of judgements or assumptions. What you have just assumed is just bonkers to say out loud. The swp thought they could run a criminal investigation, from the sounds of it, by apeing TV courtroom dramas.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

I really don't think that Trappist understands how what s/he is saying comes across. It's just utterly barking, almost exactly the same as the tories with Butler-Sloss. As Judith Orr herself said, the rot goes right to the top. Without anyone being held to account in any way shape or form, why would anyone who knows anything of the case ever trust anything the party has to say?  They're put to the test - which comes first, principle or party, and they plumped for party. Without realising, or even thinking about, how it will make them look.  And they're still doing it!


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Just reread the transcript (http://socialistunity.com/swp-conference-transcript-disputes-committee-report/). The DC were clearly wrong not to recuse themselves, but allowing for that mistake they tried to hear the case impartially. Given the contradiction in the evidence it's hard to see how a different panel would have decided the case proven one way or the other. That said, having been unable to acquit I'd have been happier if they'd taken the approach that CC members needed to be beyond reproach.
> 
> 
> It wasn't about victim blaming. My reading is that it was about the allegation of harassment. A woman used to drinking is likely to be less drunk than one who isn't and thus more able to give full consent. Any approach to a drunk woman would of course be inappropriate for that very reason.


And this, this is from someone claiming that they and the party have learnt their lesson. Sorry, that last paragraph puts you both right back at the start. (_Go directly to jail; do not pass go, do not pick up 200 students_).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> They must have had some growth, there were a dozen of them who looked to be in their twenties!  Which is 11 more than I've ever seen before.



Yes, they have had some growth. For twenty years they've been on a long, slow, decline. A core of very dedicated people, almost all male, almost all ex-Militant. They were shored up over the years by importing a few younger sorts from their larger group in Spain until the Spanish group split with them. Then over the last few years they've finally started recruiting some students. Not huge numbers, but enough to make a visible difference in a group that small. I'd say that they've moved well ahead of Workers Power (40?) and are catching up with the AWL (circa 100) in the battle of the runts of the Trot litter.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 15, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> This is exactly the problem, lay people are not in a position to make these kinds of judgements or assumptions. What you have just assumed is just bonkers to say out loud. The swp thought they could run a criminal investigation, from the sounds of it, by apeing TV courtroom dramas.



The problem with this is that it assumes either that a complainant will be willing to go to the cops or that the organisation concerned should override her wishes and go to the cops themselves. Unless you are willing to assume one of those two things, then organisations do actually have to have some way of dealing with serious allegations of misconduct. That's true of unions, companies, political groups, whatever.

The SWP dealt with the allegations dreadfully, but that doesn't mean that saying "none of our business" was an alternative.


----------



## redcogs (Jul 15, 2014)

If i'd still been a member i'd have argued that the coppers should be involved.  Difficult i know, but better than a committee of yer mates investigating, which inevitably smacks of the most disgusting corruption.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> but even that says the CC have some brains, which isnt the case now. Amy fucking Leather.  Thick as pigshit. Good at bullying tho.


Again not original belboid. Shaw bemoaned the 1970's swp's "“seriously depleted intellectual forces”. Be honest, this tack isn't new, nothing the people leaving the party and their external pals are accusing it of are new.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Again not original belboid. Shaw bemoaned the 1970's swp's "“seriously depleted intellectual forces”. Be honest, this tack isn't new, nothing the people leaving the party and their external pals are accusing it of are new.


having just read thru Birchall's reply, it would appear Shaw's criticisms aren't really what you are claiming. They don't mean the same thing at all.


----------



## Limerick Red (Jul 15, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The problem with this is that it assumes either that a complainant will be willing to go to the cops or that the organisation concerned should override her wishes and go to the cops themselves. Unless you are willing to assume one of those two things, then organisations do actually have to have some way of dealing with serious allegations of misconduct. That's true of unions, companies, political groups, whatever.
> 
> The SWP dealt with the allegations dreadfully, but that doesn't mean that saying "none of our business" was an alternative.


Absolutely not, what I suggested on this thread ages ago was going to someone like the association of socialist lawyers or similar and get independent sympathetic professionals to investigate, who are well aware of peoples issues with the state.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 15, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Absolutely not, what I suggested on this thread ages ago was going to someone like the association of socialist lawyers or similar and get independent sympathetic professionals to investigate, who are well aware of peoples issues with the state.



I'm not sure about the workability of it, but fair enough, you are proposing an alternative.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 15, 2014)

redcogs said:


> If i'd still been a member i'd have argued that the coppers should be involved.  Difficult i know, but better than a committee of yer mates investigating, which inevitably smacks of the most disgusting corruption.



Should be involved covers a lot of ground. More specifically are you saying that the SWP should have gone to the cops against the wishes of the complainant?


----------



## redcogs (Jul 15, 2014)

If some aggrieved comrade had sneaked into the profs Mayfair abode (;-) one dark night following an acrimonious cc meeting, and bumped him off with a ball pane hammer,  would it have been acceptable for a committee of mates to investigate the matter?   Would it buggery.  It wouldn't matter if the profs best friend and bed partner was ideologically opposed to getting the cops in, it would be the least bad option for the party, and for any future it might have.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 15, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Reluctantly sticking my toe into the mire at page 586:
> 
> 
> Can't speak for every member, but I don't think there are many who think we didn't f*ck up majorly. In more ways than we care to count.
> ...



But this is where defenders of the swp part waters with everyone else....

Imagine that you are in a workplace...


a 48 year old manager is accused by a 17 year old female member of staff of sexual harassment and it is pretty much ignored. At a staff meeting where the woman is not present, the manager is allowed to make a speech and fellow managers and staff give him a rousing ovation. The manager has a slight change of role but continues to be a high ranking manager.
Then several months later the same member of staff alleges the manager raped her ... the managers long standing colleagues and friends investigate and find he didn't rape her (effectively calling her a liar) after questioning her on her drinking and relationship history.
When staff start to complain and query what is happening they are told to shut up by the other managers. Then another woman comes forward and claims sexual abuse from the same manager...she is forced from her job and told to work else where as her allegations have made it too difficult for others to accept her back in her previous role...no investigation into her allegations take place but she is questioned about her drinking habits.
Other staff are then sacked for discussing their concerns with colleagues via email
Staff concerned with the list of events demand a staff meeting which is gerrymandered by managers to ensure that many staff can not attend and as a result they get a vote of confidence
lots of staff leave, the press and internet reaction is negative and growing each day and roughly 18 months after the initial allegations the manager is removed as a manager but still kept on in the organisation with lots of support by the top managers
Another meeting is won after the story hits the national press...he finally leaves the organisation...goes on to study at a university (where a keen champion of the company involved is also a lecturer)
after he leaves the second complaints allegations are looked at and it is decided that if the manager was ever to reapply for a job then he has a case to answer but as he has left nothing can be done
After a staff meeting  3 months later the following statement is made....

_*Furthermore the central committee (CC) made a statement that many people have suffered real distress as a result of taking part in or giving evidence to the disputes committee, or due to slurs on the internet and we are sorry to all of them for that.

Specifically two women who brought very serious allegations suffered real distress.

We are sorry for the suffering caused to them by the structural flaws in our disputes procedures, the way in which the two cases became a subject of political conflict within the party and slurs on the internet.*_

Now considering all of the above, would you or any other SWP member consider;

a) that this statement constitutes as serious heart felt apology?
b) that any organisation could be so incompetent in the first place to fuck up so badly?
c) that it be fair the managers responsible for the fuck up (not only the abuser)  havent been removed from their positions?
d) that the company had made ammends?

The answer is no to all of these.

Now consider how much worse it is that a REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST party behaved in this way...

No SOCIALIST should have fucked it up in the first place...it's not hindsight to point this out...the defending of the SWP on here is stunning in its arrogance to be honest


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

redcogs said:


> If some aggrieved comrade had sneaked into the profs Mayfair abode (;-) one dark night following an acrimonious cc meeting, and bumped him off with a ball pane hammer,  would it have been acceptable for a committee of mates to investigate the matter?   Would it buggery.  It wouldn't matter if the profs best friend and bed partner was ideologically opposed to getting the cops in, it would be the least bad option for the party, and for any future it might have.


the difference there being that, the victim is dead, and cant have any objection to police involvement. Not the case when it's rape.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Now considering all of the above, would you or any other SWP member consider;
> 
> a) that this statement constitutes as serious heart felt apology?


especially when we remember the words of one DC member - "I'll say sorry, but I wont apologise"


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 15, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Should be involved covers a lot of ground. More specifically are you saying that the SWP should have gone to the cops against the wishes of the complainant?


One thing is the DC investigating a punch up at a party, quite another is investigating a rape accusation. From the outset, it should have been made to clear to W that there was no way that a committee of non-experts could decide on something as serious as this (ditto for grevious bodily harm or, indeed, manslaughter/murder). Then, she might just have gone to the police instead of being taken through the macabre farce of being "judged" by Smith's mates.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 15, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Should be involved covers a lot of ground. More specifically are you saying that the SWP should have gone to the cops against the wishes of the complainant?



The swp should have been honest...
" we can not investigate a rape claim...we have no ability to do so...we will support you if you decide to go to the police and if you decide not to"
should have been the starting point.
They could have offered access to a sympathetic solicitor...but mostly they should have suspended Delta immediately (...just like they would have done if it had been any other non cc member ) and should have expelled him after the second complaint.
For a socialist party not to realise that by saying he was not guilty of rape that the woman was lying beggars belief.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jul 15, 2014)

redcogs said:


> If some aggrieved comrade had sneaked into the profs Mayfair abode (;-) one dark night following an acrimonious cc meeting, and bumped him off with a ball pane hammer,  would it have been acceptable for a committee of mates to investigate the matter?   Would it buggery.  It wouldn't matter if the profs best friend and bed partner was ideologically opposed to getting the cops in, it would be the least bad option for the party, and for any future it might have.



Callinicos owns a house in Mayfair? Surely not.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> One thing is the DC investigating a punch up at a party, quite another is investigating a rape accusation. From the outset, it should have been made to clear to W that there was no way that a committee of non-experts could decide on something as serious as this (ditto for grevious bodily harm or, indeed, manslaughter/murder). Then, she might just have gone to the police instead of being taken through the macabre farce of being "judged" by Smith's mates.


So if she refused to go to the police, nothing should be done?  That's not good enough, is it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 15, 2014)

redcogs said:


> If some aggrieved comrade had sneaked into the profs Mayfair abode (;-) one dark night following an acrimonious cc meeting, and bumped him off with a ball pane hammer,  would it have been acceptable for a committee of mates to investigate the matter?   Would it buggery.  It wouldn't matter if the profs best friend and bed partner was ideologically opposed to getting the cops in, it would be the least bad option for the party, and for any future it might have.



That's not a very good comparison, as the victim there has no wishes to take into account.

Let's invent a fictitious party called something like the Revolutionary Workers Party. Let's say that within such a party, one member in a senior position, Mr Z, is accused of carrying out a serious sexual assault on another member, Ms E. Ms E does not want to go to the cops because she is traumatised by the whole experience, has a very sceptical view of how the justice system treats sexual assault complainants, etc. However, she does want Mr Z gone from her political organisation and from any position of authority over her or others.

Now, lets say that the RWP actually advises Ms E. to go to the cops, but she is still opposed to so doing. Going to the cops without her consent (a) is a rather brutal thing to do to her and (b)  - this is absolutely crucial - will still not allow the RWP to evade doing something itself. Think about it for a moment. Let's assume the RWP suspend Mr Z without prejudice and then leave the state machinery to do its job. What then?

The state machinery has many of its own flaws, to put it mildly, in how it deals with this kind of allegation. And even if it where to operate as it is "supposed" to do, it is looking into a different question. It is there, effectively, to determine whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Z is guilty of the serious allegations and should be locked up. But the RWP's question should be different - has Mr Z probably behaved in a way incompatible with party membership. There are many circumstances where the answer to the state's question may be "no", including circumstances where the state did something wrong and circumstances where it did everything by its own book, while the answer to the party's question would be yes. Even where the state investigates, the organisation still needs a way to determine the answer to its own question. The same applies to unions etc.


----------



## redcogs (Jul 15, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That's not a very good comparison, as the victim there has no wishes to take into account.
> 
> Let's invent a fictitious party called something like the Revolutionary Workers Party. Let's say that within such a party, one member in a senior position, Mr Z, is accused of carrying out a serious sexual assault on another member, Ms E. Ms E does not want to go to the cops because she is traumatised by the whole experience, has a very sceptical view of how the justice system treats sexual assault complainants, etc. However, she does want Mr Z gone from her political organisation and from any position of authority over her or others.
> 
> ...



In this case the RWP central committee ought to overrule  Ms E's wishes (brutal maybe) and insist that the long term interests of the working class is dependent upon the RWP being able to develop some significance as a trusted organisation, with the potential to become a viable vehicle for ultimately producing social change, which would be unlikely  if allegations of serious sexual assault/s are not seen to be dealt with appropriately.  Revolutionary workers have their eyes wide open to the role of the state and its paid defenders, but the need to subordinate revolutionary understanding in this instance is surely crucial.  Get the coppers in, clear out the sex offenders from the RWP's  leadership and win respect.  At a later stage, the RWP can re assess and re organise in the light of what it has learned from the painful processes it has had to deal with, but at least it has been seen to have behaved responsibly.

CC's are there to offer leadership are they not?

As far as i know the prof doesn't have a Mayfair dwelling BTW, but if i were he,  i'd conceal the ball pane hammer.  You never know who might find it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

redcogs said:


> In this case the RWP central committee ought to overrule  Ms E's wishes (brutal maybe) and insist that the long term interests of the working class is dependent upon the RWP being able to develop some significance as a trusted organisation, with the potential to become a viable vehicle for ultimately producing social change, which would be unlikely  if allegations of serious sexual assault/s are not seen to be dealt with appropriately.  Revolutionary workers have their eyes wide open to the role of the state and its paid defenders, but the need to subordinate revolutionary understanding in this instance is surely crucial.  Get the coppers in, clear out the sex offenders from the RWP's  leadership and win respect.  At a later stage, the RWP can re assess and re organise in the light of what it has learned from the painful processes it has had to deal with, but at least it has been seen to have behaved responsibly.


sorry, but that's a terrible suggestion. Even worse than the one the SWP came up with.


----------



## redcogs (Jul 15, 2014)

And your recipe for a good outcome from similarly disastrous circumstances is?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 15, 2014)

belboid said:


> So if she refused to go to the police, nothing should be done?  That's not good enough, is it?


I didn't say that nothing should be done. As Nigel and others have pointed out, any organisation (and especially a supposedly revolutionary socialist one) would need to decide if a member accused of such a serious offence should be expelled. As a first step, Smith should have been immediately suspended when the accusation was made, this would have given time for the party to seek legal advice on this question and decide how to proceed.
As regards going to the police, W's supposed reluctance to take this path has been used by loyalists as a fig leaf defence: "she wouldn't go to the police, so the DC had to decide" (or similar bullshit). If she had been offered proper support right from the beginning and the alternatives outlined to her by a sympathetic lawyer, then it is quite possible she would have taken the legal road. And who knows, post Savile, Harris etc, perhaps one day she will and good luck to her.


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

There isn't a good answer, but I think rthey should have passed it to their Irish party DC, with full rights to ask about other behaviour and incidents, and for a decision made upon balance of probability, rather than 'proof'. 

I dont think any 'independent' body would touch it, and forcing it on the police would only piss the woman off massively, which would make it even _more _likely that the assaulter got off. As Nigel pointed out above, a police investigation isn't the be all and end all anyway, and given the incredibly low conviction rates for assault, it can be a way of getting the assaulter off the hook.  DC refers to police, woman still wont cooperate, Mr Z walks free, RWP say everything has been done, re-instates Z.


----------



## redcogs (Jul 15, 2014)

Get a private investigator involved maybe? Poirot, Sherlock, Perry Mason?


----------



## belboid (Jul 15, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> As regards going to the police, W's supposed reluctance to take this path has been used by loyalists as a fig leaf defence: "she wouldn't go to the police, so the DC had to decide" (or similar bullshit). If she had been offered proper support right from the beginning and the alternatives outlined to her by a sympathetic lawyer, then it is quite possible she would have taken the legal road. And who knows, post Savile, Harris etc, perhaps one day she will and good luck to her.


Maybe, maybe. Lets hope so - tho given most of those cases have failed, probably not. I think we have to go along withe the claim that she didnt want to go to the police, in which case....


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 15, 2014)

redcogs said:


> And your recipe for a good outcome from similarly disastrous circumstances is?


Surely the only recipe can be NOT to repeat anything that the SWP did in the case of W.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 15, 2014)

According to SW: 2,600 participants at Marxism 2014
Can't see an apology for the polar bear "joke" or have I missed it.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 15, 2014)

redcogs said:


> And your recipe for a good outcome from similarly disastrous circumstances is?


If member of a party accuses a leader member of rape I don't think there is such a thing as a 'good outcome'


----------



## ska invita (Jul 15, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> According to SW: 2,600 participants at Marxism 2014
> Can't see an apology for the polar bear "joke" or have I missed it.


apology? from what i can see of the SWP faithful they think its Owen Jones who should be apologising


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 15, 2014)

Like I said earlier that is around a third of the number from around a decade ago...and we have had four years of a Tory government and austerity yet only 2600 turned up for their flagship event (according to them).
Marxism throughout the time of 1987-2008/9 was always bigger 

As for the "polar bear apology" ... it was an attempt at satire...might have been a shit attempt...might have been tasteless and even hypocritical considering :
1) the big meeting at Marxism 2014 celebrated the life of Paul Foot who was privately educated and grew up very privileged (I have no problem with this as he was a brilliant campaigner and writer who used his skills to help highlight injustice all his adult life)
2) the swp is not short of privately educated members...I was once asked what school I went to by a "leading" member called kevin Ovenden and when I replied "St Pauls" he excitedly asked if I knew X Y and Z in the party cos they had been at St Pauls at the same time...it all went a bit tumble weed when he realised I meant a school in Plumstead SE London rather than the private school he was on about

but the apology bit is a joke ... the media were happy enough to be snidey about bob crow dying and will be about scargill dying so they can fuck right off with their apology demands - imo


----------



## emanymton (Jul 15, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> I didn't say that nothing should be done. As Nigel and others have pointed out, any organisation (and especially a supposedly revolutionary socialist one) would need to decide if a member accused of such a serious offence should be expelled. As a first step, Smith should have been immediately suspended when the accusation was made, this would have given time for the party to seek legal advice on this question and decide how to proceed.
> As regards going to the police, W's supposed reluctance to take this path has been used by loyalists as a fig leaf defence: "she wouldn't go to the police, so the DC had to decide" (or similar bullshit). If she had been offered proper support right from the beginning and the alternatives outlined to her by a sympathetic lawyer, then it is quite possible she would have taken the legal road. And who knows, post Savile, Harris etc, perhaps one day she will and good luck to her.


But again as Nigel said even if the police got involved the SWP sill had to hold its own hearing, the goal of which is not to decide if someone is guilty of rape or not but to decide it Smith behaviour justified censure by the SWP. That the SWP did not fully grasp this distinction was, I think, their first mistake. It is my belief that a revolutionary party should hold its members to a higher standard of behaviour than criminal law, it should be perfectly possible for someone to be found innocent in a court of law yet still be expelled from that party, theoretically the reverse is also true but that does not apply in this case. The problem was not that the SWP had an investigation, one way or another they had to, but that the made a complete balls up of it.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 15, 2014)

emanymton said:


> The problem was not that the SWP had an investigation, one way or another they had to, but that the made a complete balls up of it.


They made complete balls up because the leadership sought to cover up for Delta because he was deemed to be too important a player to lose. Fortunately, many of the members took the position on sexual oppression seriously and couldn't and wouldn't stomach this. But with a loss of 800 + members (including most of the students and many of the post 1960 generation) balls up it certainly is!


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 15, 2014)

emanymton said:


> But again as Nigel said *even if the police got involved the SWP sill had to hold its own hearing, the goal of which is not to decide if someone is guilty of rape or not but to decide it Smith behaviour justified censure by the SWP.* That the SWP did not fully grasp this distinction was, I think, their first mistake. It is my belief that a revolutionary party should hold its members to a higher standard of behaviour than criminal law, it should be perfectly possible for someone to be found innocent in a court of law yet still be expelled from that party, theoretically the reverse is also true but that does not apply in this case. The problem was not that the SWP had an investigation, one way or another they had to, but that the made a complete balls up of it.



But the SWP has done this in plenty of previous cases ... the only difference was on those occasions the members accused were not CC members...that is what makes this so politically corrupt...one (sensible and correct) rule  for members but protection for a CC member ...


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jul 15, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> As for the "polar bear apology" ... it was an attempt at satire...might have been a shit attempt...might have been tasteless and even hypocritical
> but the apology bit is a joke ... the media were happy enough to be snidey about bob crow dying and will be about scargill dying so they can fuck right off with their apology demands - imo


The media made a meal out of the Delta scandal (remember the Daily Mail?), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have demanded a complete apology for W and X. That was (and still is) the correct position.
The polar bear "joke" was vile - a 17 year old being torn to pieces by a polar bear is not to be celebrated whatever his social class. As you point out, some prominent members of the SWP have reneged on their class background to become committed revolutionaries.
I really do believe that as a socialist one has to admit one's mistakes and apologise when necessary. But I guess that's why I never made it as an organiser, just not "hard" enough.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 15, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> But I guess that's why I never made it as an organiser, just not "hard" enough.


or in the wrong group


----------



## comrade spurski (Jul 15, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> *The media made a meal out of the Delta scandal (remember the Daily Mail?), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have demanded a complete apology for W and X. That was (and still is) the correct position.*
> The polar bear "joke" was vile - a 17 year old being torn to pieces by a polar bear is not to be celebrated whatever his social class. As you point out, some prominent members of the SWP have reneged on their class background to become committed revolutionaries.
> I really do believe that as a socialist one has to admit one's mistakes and apologise when necessary. But I guess that's why I never made it as an organiser, just not "hard" enough.



The Delta issue was never a matter of satire so is completely different in my opinion.

I wouldn't have made the joke and don't think it's funny or relevant...in fact I think it's cruel and unnecessary but it's the hypocrisy of the media that piss me off...
As for not being "hard" enough ... that was always the excuse for members to be arrogant, rude and pigheaded...they were just being political hard and bending the stick... stick them in a real workplace and they are considered pricks


----------



## Horas (Jul 16, 2014)

... stick them in a real workplace and they are considered pricks

not necessarily.


----------



## Trappist (Jul 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> Really?  _Really?_



 No, not really. Not thinking straight - shift change.



> It is not allowed in an actual rape case - and the committee were pretending to follow the legal demands of a trial, but that shows they weren't doing so.



No, of course it's not allowed. But looking at the transcript I don't think they were intending to act as a trial - no advocates, no cross examination, agreeing to hear a surprise witness after they'd reached a decision, an intention to consider wider aspects of behaviour not just rape and, worst of all, a belief they would be regarded as fair by both parties and by others.

I suspect in almost every case before there were undisputed facts, witnessed events or some form of confession. I think this resulted in overconfidence in their own abilities and in the way their decisions would be received. The consequence was a massive failure of imagination in deciding to take the case on and in the way they handled it. Errors we've paid for dearly, and will do for some time.


----------



## belboid (Jul 16, 2014)

Trappist said:


> No, not really. Not thinking straight - shift change.


fair do's, we've all been there.



> No, of course it's not allowed. But looking at the transcript I don't think they were intending to act as a trial - no advocates, no cross examination, agreeing to hear a surprise witness after they'd reached a decision, an intention to consider wider aspects of behaviour not just rape and, worst of all, a belief they would be regarded as fair by both parties and by others.
> 
> I suspect in almost every case before there were undisputed facts, witnessed events or some form of confession. I think this resulted in overconfidence in their own abilities and in the way their decisions would be received. The consequence was a massive failure of imagination in deciding to take the case on and in the way they handled it. Errors we've paid for dearly, and will do for some time.


so, you can admit a massive failure to behave appropriately, but none of the people who did so should be held responsible in any way?  That doesn't seem right, does it?  Until they are, why should anyone believe you that you have learnt anything?


----------



## treelover (Jul 16, 2014)

https://www.facebook.com/events/550015598440621/


They have resurrected Globalise Resistance and are having a summer camp, seeing as GR is aimed primarily at the young who do they think will be going.

its a shame it is them as its cheap, etc.


----------



## osterberg (Jul 16, 2014)

treelover said:


> https://www.facebook.com/events/550015598440621/
> 
> 
> They have resurrected Globalise Resistance and are having a summer camp, seeing as GR is aimed primarily at the young who do they think will be going.
> ...



 Just de-lurking to point out that Counterfire's got the custody of GR .
I'll lurk off now .


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 16, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Quite right Kennedy should have been told to fuck off, and a Socialist alliance speaker should have been on the platform.
> But to be honest with the big demo it was really really difficult to relate to it in any meaningful way, given the size of the SWP and the wider STWC we would only be able to talk to a tiny percentage of those that were there, I think it was a bit more 'running around like headless chickens not sure what to do' and a bit less deliberate sabotage I think a lot of people on that demo thought it would stop the war, we did not but how do you communicate effectively with that many people when there are ony a couple of thousand of you at most?  Mind you as we can see from future events those SWP members who were leading in the STWC were being pulled away from working class politics by it.
> Oh and I can't believe you are younger than me you bastard!



Ahhh yeah... Am I the youngest Urbanite? Must be close...

That's the thing isn't it though? When you're a self-professed revolutionary party, and you find yourselves finally at the head of a mass movement, you're supposed to, y'know, know what to do, and not run around like headless chickens. There's nothing wrong with claiming to be the rightful heirs of Bolshevism and all that, but if you do, you've actually got to deliver when you find yourself in a position to do so. That's why I never joined the SWP - I never had a problem with them claiming to be Marxist revolutionaries, its just Stop the War seemed to demonstrate that they either didn't believe their own hype or were incapable of living up to it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 16, 2014)

Trappist said:


> Reluctantly sticking my toe into the mire at page 586:
> 
> 
> Can't speak for every member, but I don't think there are many who think we didn't f*ck up majorly. In more ways than we care to count.
> ...



If he was forced out as you claim, I've no idea why the CC haven't released a statement saying "we've forced the bastard out, he was a right wrong un".


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 16, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Ahhh yeah... Am I the youngest Urbanite? Must be close...



I don't know but you look like one of the oldest.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 17, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't know but you look like one of the oldest.



I don't think I look as old as you you old git.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 17, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't think I look as old as you you old git.


Just think how old you'll look if you make it to my age - it'll be like that episode of doctor who when that psycho timelord reverses the doctor's regeneration so he looks his full 900 and odd years old


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2014)

The Master.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 17, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Just think how old you'll look if you make it to my age - it'll be like that episode of doctor who when that psycho timelord reverses the doctor's regeneration so he looks his full 900 and odd years old



I hope you get one of them really bad diseases and just wither away in a chair, making that weird Steptoe face you do.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 17, 2014)

Mammoth debate going on on FB between John Rees and Rob Ferguson about just about everything the IS has ever talked about. Compulsive reading and largely polite.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 17, 2014)

It doesn't really sound like compulsive reading.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 17, 2014)

Well no not compared to the conversation you were having here of course


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 17, 2014)

Most people would probably agree with you.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 17, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I hope you get one of them really bad diseases and just wither away in a chair, making that weird Steptoe face you do.



That's not very nice, you sound angry (I'd still have a full head of hair though) anger induces stress and you know what stress causes


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 18, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Most people would probably agree with you.


True but the thread is call...oh stuff it


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 18, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> True but the thread is call...oh stuff it



Go on BB, link us to your fucking silly IS thread...I want to see the car crash, blood, guts and all...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 18, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's not very nice, you sound angry (I'd still have a full head of hair though) anger induces stress and you know what stress causes



I am angry. You enrage me. If I ever do go bald it'll be your fault.


----------



## redcogs (Jul 18, 2014)

i could adjudicate in this argument because of considerable experience at being old.  expert in fact.  i've lines n wrinkles in all the correct places, and even some in incorrect ones.  One area of weakness is that i'm a dead loss at being bald, possessing a full hoh.  Greying is another area where i exceed.

i've also noticed that talking (writing) a load of shit comes easily, and, with practice, i reckon i'd be up there amongst the toppermost uppermost. 

there are some exceptional role models knocking about.  ;-)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I am angry. You enrage me. If I ever do go bald it'll be your fault.



My final say on the matter


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Go on BB, link us to your fucking silly IS thread...I want to see the car crash, blood, guts and all...


No, I won't. I'm taking my ball home and sulking. What was interesting though was Rob saying he hoped to meet Rees soon for a proper non fb debate, "We are probably reaching the limits that fb can bear. Part of me hopes though that we can debate the issues at some other juncture"


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 20, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> My final say on the matter



Im gonna work out how to post pictures on this, and when I do, its gonna be really mean. Even meaner than this :/


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jul 20, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No, I won't. I'm taking my ball home and sulking. What was interesting though was Rob saying he hoped to meet Rees soon for a proper non fb debate, "We are probably reaching the limits that fb can bear. Part of me hopes though that we can debate the issues at some other juncture"



Ahhh, go on, I'm interested and I can't find it.


----------



## chilango (Jul 31, 2014)

Looks like the Govt and the SWP are on the same page here 



Seriously though, an appalling poster worthy of its own discussion.


----------



## cesare (Jul 31, 2014)

Dire.

Also should be happen not happens?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jul 31, 2014)

chilango said:


> Looks like the Govt and the SWP are on the same page here
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, an appalling poster worthy of its own discussion.



Agreed, truly appalling


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2014)

The Prof's meeting on the crisis of the far left at Marxism. For anyone who can't be bothered to listen to the whole thing, speech and debate (what's wrong with you?!) the argument is "Yes there is a generalised crisis and we have to hold our nerve".



Dan Swain from RS21 given a polite hearing. Then torn to shreds by Sheila M.


----------



## belboid (Jul 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The Prof's meeting on the crisis of the far left at Marxism. For anyone who can't be bothered to listen to the whole thing, speech and debate (what's wrong with you?!) the argument is "Yes there is a generalised crisis and we have to hold our nerve".


wow, what an amazing insight.  no one else could have worked out there was a generalised crisis.  a genius.

hold our nerve, lol.  back to the eighties - handy as thats when most of the remaining members joined


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2014)

Why must they hold their nerve? What difference would it make if they didn't?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 31, 2014)

Lost people trying to argue with lost people

(Swain Vs Callinicos)


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why must they hold their nerve? What difference would it make if they didn't?


One difference is you end up with marxists who should know better playing lesser evilism with Putin and Assad. Or inventing something called social movement trades unionism.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 31, 2014)

What difference would that make? You know what you can do with the second.


----------



## belboid (Jul 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Or inventing something called social movement trades unionism.


inventing?  The thing that COSATU came up with thirty+ years ago?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jul 31, 2014)

belboid said:


> wow, what an amazing insight.  no one else could have worked out there was a generalised crisis.  a genius.
> 
> hold our nerve, lol.  back to the eighties - handy as thats when most of the remaining members joined


Good god no, the objective situation is much better than that, the crisis is much more a subjective one. The 80's are a totally wrong analogy.


----------



## belboid (Jul 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Good god no, the objective situation is much better than that, the crisis is much more a subjective one.


well that's just bollocks.



> The 80's are a totally wrong analogy.


no, its spot on. Huddle down and protect the party, no compromises with anyone else!


----------



## Oisin123 (Jul 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Then torn to shreds by Sheila M.



"Rise like a rocket, fall like a stick... Actually. Pull of the movements. Actually... Women are leading struggles. Actually."

More a series of soothing slogans, familiar to the majority of the audience who seemed glad to be reassured.


----------



## Bakunin (Jul 31, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> More a series of soothing slogans



Like the political equivalent of Anusol.

And they can stick their soothing slogans up their arse as well.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jul 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> The Prof's meeting on the crisis of the far left at Marxism. For anyone who can't be bothered to listen to the whole thing, speech and debate (what's wrong with you?!) the argument is "Yes there is a generalised crisis and we have to hold our nerve".
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Swain from RS21 given a polite hearing. Then torn to shreds by Sheila M.





What a boring twat


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 1, 2014)

belboid said:


> inventing?  The thing that COSATU came up with thirty+ years ago?



To be fair, the thing that people like to call SMU is not and never was what COSATU did.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 1, 2014)

It's been a staple of societies without a dominate working class. Why drag  that shit out now? What's he been told to concentrate on?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 1, 2014)

Can someone explain the ‘Ed’ Coke bottle on the lectern - is it a gag? - or will I have to wade through the whole video?


----------



## belboid (Aug 1, 2014)

I think it's...a bottle of coke.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 1, 2014)

belboid said:


> I think it's...a bottle of coke.


----------



## treelover (Aug 1, 2014)

Its the latest Coke marketing wheeze, anyone can now ask to be on the bottle.


----------



## tedsplitter (Aug 4, 2014)

http://psychedelicbolshevik.wordpre...-who-should-have-birds-shit-on-him-every-day/ 
Odd piece from this odd lot. Not sure who they are.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 4, 2014)

tedsplitter said:


> http://psychedelicbolshevik.wordpre...-who-should-have-birds-shit-on-him-every-day/
> Odd piece from this odd lot. Not sure who they are.



It's a kind of unfunny proletarian democracy tribute act done by some trendy lefty loons in sheffield who think taking drugs is a wadical means of sticking it to the maaan and that gratuitous swearing makes them appear working class.


----------



## laptop (Aug 4, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> proletarian democracy tribute act



But the existence of such a thing is itself a tribute. Dialectically


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2014)

Some of this writing is so weird...



> Political perspectives were hidden behind emotive speech’s declaring “now was the time” with the political depth and detail of orange zest



What a bizarre metaphor, would it be better to speak with the political and detail of a beef stew or something?

...just having another poke around the site

http://psychedelicbolshevik.wordpre...-dweller-of-the-psychedelic-bolsheviks-hbdpb/



> We believe that we must split the tie between the trade unions and the labour, no more more memberrship money being used to fund the labour party, instead use this money directly to support industrial disputes and provide all picket lies with complimentary 2 cb tablets, for a weirder experience of withdrawing ones labour



Is it just me or does this come across as belittling the seriousness of strike action? If they want to take RCs then fair enough, but normal people just take them go and listen to a bit of drum n bass and don't turn that into some kind of overarching political philosophy or whatever. Wtf is wrong with them, idiots


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2014)

I don't even know what to say about any of this


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> I don't even know what to say about any of this



Pretentious Hipster garbage. They should fuck off back to Hoxton.


----------



## seventh bullet (Aug 5, 2014)

_Wacky_.

Twats.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 5, 2014)

Looks like they are trying to out-do the Association of Musical Marxists.


----------



## chilango (Aug 5, 2014)

I guess they're just bored. 

I suspect the SWP was their life for so long that they don't know what to do with themselves now it's gone.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 5, 2014)

chilango said:


> I guess they're just bored.
> 
> I suspect the SWP was their life for so long that they don't know what to do with themselves now it's gone.



It's not gone, the CC is still there.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 5, 2014)

SWP members at the Mark Duggan vigil last night. Wearing Palestine badges.


----------



## treelover (Aug 5, 2014)

The swipe at Bill Ronksley isn't very nice either


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> It's not gone, the CC is still there.


“They haven't gone away, you know...”


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Looks like they are trying to out-do the Association of Musical Marxists.


Neither would survive a toe-to-toe in a pub car park with AAA.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 5, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> “They haven't gone away, you know...”



I wouldn't leave a house in Mayfair either.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 5, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Neither would survive a toe-to-toe in a pub car park with AAA.



I dunno, Andy Wilson looks a bit tasty. "Violence can be dialectical", he once said to me. 

I was going to mention the Association of Autonomous Astronauts, actually - but then deleted it. I was involved with the AAA (and other wacky stuff) and I think that sort of thing can have value, but only if it doesn't come across as too insular and studenty.

It's increasingly hard to do that sort of thing in the age of memes though (or maybe I have been ground down to the point where I have less of a sense of humour, I dunno).

The only recent stuff I would rate is Deterritorial Support Group and Proletarian Democracy. I think the Association of Musical Marxists are interesting, at least.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 5, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I dunno, Andy Wilson looks a bit tasty. "Violence can be dialectical", he once said to me...



...his hot breath on my neck, panting heavily as his working class destiny teased at my social praxis and stripped away the veil of mystery...


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 5, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> ...his hot breath on my neck, panting heavily as his working class destiny teased at my social praxis and stripped away the veil of mystery...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2014)

I see the psychedelic bolsheviks have consumed so much bath salts they've forgotten how to proof read (DCinz asks 'and whats your excuse' etc)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Some of this writing is so weird...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If it's who I think it is (and I'm pretty confident it is) they're trendy twats who are always on about 'triggering behavour'. That is until they decide - in the middle of a meeting attended by recovering addicts - that they want to nip to the bogs and take fucking horse tranquilisers. And not make any real attempt to hide the fact they're doing so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2014)

given the effects of a ket or ket-like substance theres no real way to hide that you're fucked on it. Even people who don't know the effects would assume you've drank ten pints or had a siezure of some kind


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 5, 2014)

I find not taking it to be a fairly reliable means of ensuring nobody thinks you're fucked on it. I don't give a fuck what drugs they take but there's something quite special about the hypocrisy of people who'd find a way of claiming farting was some kind of triggering behaviour that will alienate [insert oppressed group here], even if there's nobody from said group anywhere near, getting off their box on it in the presence of recovering addicts.


----------



## brokeneggshell (Aug 5, 2014)

I'd like to know when the event in question happened, I can't help think your making this up, or at least getting mixed up with who you are talking about


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 5, 2014)

brokeneggshell said:


> I'd like to know when the event in question happened, I can't help think your making this up, or at least getting mixed up with who you are talking about



Are you a Psychedelic Bolshevik, brokeneggshell ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I find not taking it to be a fairly reliable means of ensuring nobody thinks you're fucked on it. I don't give a fuck what drugs they take but there's something quite special about the hypocrisy of people who'd find a way of claiming farting was some kind of triggering behaviour that will alienate [insert oppressed group here], even if there's nobody from said group anywhere near, getting off their box on it in the presence of recovering addicts.




also, what sort of wanker wants to do class a's in a formal/semi formal setting?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> also, what sort of wanker wants to do class a's in a formal/semi formal setting?



They're just defying convention maaan


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 5, 2014)

brokeneggshell said:


> I'd like to know when the event in question happened, I can't help think your making this up, or at least getting mixed up with who you are talking about



You might like to know but I'm not telling you. SpackleFrog will confirm it happened, he was there.


----------



## brokeneggshell (Aug 5, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Are you a Psychedelic Bolshevik, brokeneggshell ?



no but i was once part of another group that i think spineynorman is confusing that blog with. i'm not part of anything anymore.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 5, 2014)

trouble is, in my experience, drugs are generally fucking great and the class war is generally fucking shit.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 5, 2014)

brokeneggshell said:


> no but i was once part of another group that i think spineynorman is confusing that blog with. i'm not part of anything anymore.



You can be part of the Urban75 retirement home for clapped out old lefties though.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 5, 2014)

Which of us can say, hand on heart, that we haven't considered the use of class A drugs to get us through a boring meeting?


----------



## brokeneggshell (Aug 5, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> You can be part of the Urban75 retirement home for clapped out old lefties though.



Thanks for the welcome. It was stepping away from far left politics that helped me curb my class A usage... 


Also Ket is a class C, still i think.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 5, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Which of us can say, hand on heart, that we haven't considered the use of class A drugs to get us through a boring meeting?



I've done more than consider it 

Didn't have a great deal of choice in the matter mind


----------



## discokermit (Aug 5, 2014)

i did speed on a welling demo. not the good one. or the other one. the shit one, with the tory mayor on the platform. i had massive sweary rows with swp hacks after loudly voicing my disgust at the situation.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 5, 2014)

2cb would be shit on a picket line.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 5, 2014)

WTF is 2cb?


----------



## brokeneggshell (Aug 5, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> WTF is 2cb?



https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/2cb/2cb.shtml


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2014)

discokermit said:


> 2cb would be shit on a picket line.




mdma also. It makes you love _everyone_ and takes the edge of off your righteouse anger


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> WTF is 2cb?


one of these modern wanky faux drugs that purports to ape the effects of mdma. Or mushrooms. Its all a big con anyway


----------



## discokermit (Aug 5, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> WTF is 2cb?


*2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine*


----------



## discokermit (Aug 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> one of these modern wanky faux drugs that purports to ape the effects of mdma. Or mushrooms. Its all a big con anyway


rubbish.
synthesised by alexander shulgin in 1974, the feller who kinda reinvented mdma. it's very trippy and euphoric. very touchy feely. aphrodisiac as well.
it's ace.
i think it was shulgins favourite.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 5, 2014)

There was a time when I prided myself on having taken just about everything apart from PCP and crystal meth - now I've not even heard of half the drugs da yoof are into. 

I'm getting old


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> WTF is 2cb?



Bit like a mix of MDMA and LSD but not as good as the former imo, 2cb isn't even that new anymore


----------



## discokermit (Aug 5, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> mdma also. It makes you love _everyone_ and takes the edge of off your righteouse anger


yes and no. i don't think it would be much use but it would be more use than 2cb. i've been in some pretty hairy situations on ecstasy and everyone involved was well up for it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> There was a time when I prided myself on having taken just about everything apart from PCP and crystal meth - now I've not even heard of half the drugs da yoof are into.
> 
> I'm getting old




now we know how aging mods felt when cocaine and LSD replaced thier purple hearts


----------



## J Ed (Aug 5, 2014)

discokermit said:


> yes and no. i don't think it would be much use but it would be more use than 2cb. i've been in some pretty hairy situations on ecstasy and everyone involved was well up for it.


 
2cb on a picket line sounds terrifying, then again I think other people and being outside in daylight on that drug sounds awful


----------



## discokermit (Aug 5, 2014)

J Ed said:


> 2cb on a picket line sounds terrifying, then again I think other people and being outside in daylight on that drug sounds awful


that's what i thought.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 5, 2014)

link



> *Posadas:*
> We’d like to introduce our new section quotes by Bob J, here’s the first one:
> 
> “Atomic war is inevitable. It will destroy half of humanity: it is going to destroy immense human riches. It is very possible. The atomic war is going to provoke a true inferno on Earth. But it will not impede Communism.” (Posadas)




http://psychedelicbolshevik.wordpress.com/posadas/


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 5, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You might like to know but I'm not telling you. SpackleFrog will confirm it happened, he was there.



It did indeed happen. 

Said dickhead disappeared to the bogs and when I spoke to them after the meeting they said "Er, I'm just coming up on Ket, that's why I left the meeting to go to the bogs."

Weeks later they then claimed on FB that they had had to leave the meeting because it was "triggering".

I actually don't mind said dickhead - he's more pleasant to speak to than the rest of them - but he definitely did this and it was fucking way out of order.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 5, 2014)

time and a place imo.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 5, 2014)

In the right context the satan spawn flotsam and jetsam that the SWP spews out are actually more damaging to the left than the SWP themselves.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 5, 2014)

I went to a Saturday matinee screening of 2001 had a bag of magic mushrooms then went along to an SWP aggregate meeting to elect the delegates to conference, made it much better...

Also once spoke on a platform at some conference (can't remember where) where we had a row with some trendy lefties in the audience about the use of drugs in working class communities and why communities have the right to remove drug dealers by force if needs be, and then did acid and pills at the after party, where my comrade projectile vomited all over my arm while on the same cocktail.


----------



## laptop (Aug 5, 2014)

I'm liking the transition in this thread...

I fondly recall an effective tactic against SWP entrism being to stay up dancing in a marquee until 5am - by which time the senior ones had fucked off to a B&B - and _then_ hold the meeting.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 5, 2014)

Crystal Meth for the Proles, Crystal Magnums for the Central Committee.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 5, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Crystal Meth for the Proles, Crystal Magnums for the Central Committee.


Some of the CC look like they've been doing Crystal Meth


----------



## brokeneggshell (Aug 5, 2014)

24 hr general strike as a transitional demand


----------



## brokeneggshell (Aug 5, 2014)

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/gentrotsky/


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 5, 2014)

Angelfire and a pop up for Lycos!


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 5, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Some of the CC look like they've been doing Crystal Meth



That's very harsh, you try living in Mayfair with all that noise and pollution.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 6, 2014)

Oh my god, they're self aware...

http://psychedelicbolshevik.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/urban75-where-the-sp-go-to-lick-their-wounds/

Well, after a fashion. You're all SP hacks, apparently.


----------



## laptop (Aug 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> they're self aware...



Do you work in artificial intelligence, or is some other _undemanding_ use of "self-aware" that I've not met yet?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 6, 2014)

laptop said:


> Do you work in artificial intelligence, or is some other _undemanding_ use of "self-aware" that I've not met yet?



Perhaps a more accurate characterisation would be "capable of responding to stimuli".


----------



## brokeneggshell (Aug 6, 2014)

aww bless, they think they know who people are


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 6, 2014)

brokeneggshell said:


> aww bless, they think they know who people are



Do we know who you are?


----------



## laptop (Aug 6, 2014)

Do we know who *we* are?

Really?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 6, 2014)

laptop said:


> Do we know who *we* are?
> 
> Really?



Existential. Bet the Psycho Bols would like that.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 6, 2014)

The cloak n dagger approach  keeps em gessin - whoever they are.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 6, 2014)

brokeneggshell said:


> no but i was once part of another group that i think spineynorman is confusing that blog with. i'm not part of anything anymore.



You from Sheffield Eggy?


----------



## redcogs (Aug 6, 2014)

There is precious little anonymity when ones main residence is Mayfair


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 6, 2014)

redcogs said:


> There is precious little anonymity when ones main residence is Mayfair



Still the Prof puts on the dark sunglasses and tries to walk the dog without getting papped though.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 6, 2014)

The prof has a dog?!  Rottweiller no doubt - possibly a staffi?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 6, 2014)

redcogs said:


> The prof has a dog?!  Rottweiller no doubt - possibly a staffi?



I reckon a labradoodle.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 6, 2014)

Apparently vicious dog ownership amongst the lower orders can be seen to compensate for their ever diminishing social status.  The profs possession of a  staffi is probably tipping the wink that the Party is becoming open to the recruitment of lumpens and chavs..

Jusatheoryocourse.


----------



## belboid (Aug 6, 2014)

Fules.

The Prof has a staff, not a staff*i*


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 6, 2014)

redcogs said:


> The prof has a dog?!  Rottweiller no doubt - possibly a staffi?



The rotweiller has left to go to university. I have it on good authority he prefers lapdogs.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 6, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> The rotweiller has left to go to university. .



To study barxist economics ?


----------



## redcogs (Aug 6, 2014)

Reading the Canineist Manifesto


----------



## brokeneggshell (Aug 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> You from Sheffield Eggy?



nope, went to uni there though.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 6, 2014)

Tis obvious i'm floggin a dead orse ere - bunch of humourless gits


----------



## redcogs (Aug 6, 2014)

belboid said:


> Fules.
> 
> The Prof has a staff, f*i*



Like Moses when he parted the red sea?


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 6, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Like Moses when he parted the red sea?



It's so wrong to take the piss out of a great man who is leading the party to the promised land. Without him who knows where the SWP* would be today.

*probably on the bench at QPR


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh my god, they're self aware...
> 
> http://psychedelicbolshevik.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/urban75-where-the-sp-go-to-lick-their-wounds/
> 
> Well, after a fashion. You're all SP hacks, apparently.





can we get carter ruck onto them about the unattributed quotes?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

This is the second time we've all been accused of being SP hacks on this thread by the way - steve dobbs did it after there was an absence of outrage at his being suspended from the SP for being an untrustworthy tosser who secretly records his comrades. IIRC this was thrown at barney_pig and Spanky Longhorn in particular, which seems fair enough if you ask me.

This time J Ed and treelover are among those getting the finger pointed at them - again, not without good reason if you ask me.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> can we get carter ruck onto them about the unattributed quotes?



Is that site a piss take or for real? (genuine question)


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2014)

belboid said:


> Fules.
> 
> The Prof has a staff, not a staff*i*



is it bendy?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Is that site a piss take or for real? (genuine question)


what do you think?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2014)

> attending their branch meetings all those ages ago, *boardem* seeped





for gods sake, even a spellchecker would have clocked that one!


----------



## laptop (Aug 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> is it bendy?



As a nine-bob note.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> for gods sake, even a spellchecker would have clocked that one!



proledem - boardem. democracy for pigs. brocialist pigs tho, as yet sowdem does not exist


----------



## belboid (Aug 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> is it bendy?


sticks are for bending, staff's are for planting firmly in the ground


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2014)

I'm licking my wounds right now


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> proledem - boardem. democracy for pigs. brocialist pigs tho, as yet sowdem does not exist


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> what do you think?



I think he should take his meds.

Can't blame the poor bastard really, the Party's been totally trashed by its leadership, enough to drive most insane.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm licking my wounds right now



Prince allegedly had to have ribs removed to be able to do that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> I think he should take his meds.
> 
> Can't blame the poor bastard really, the Party's been totally trashed by its leadership, enough to drive most insane.



didn't see the word 'site' so I thought you were asking whether I was taking the piss when I asked if we could get carter ruck onto them lol

I suspect the problem is that they've taken too many of their meds - ones they don't have a prescription for.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Prince allegedly had to have ribs removed to be able to do that.



this has been variously attributed to Prince, Bowie and Marylin Manson. Whichever the sexually ambiguous androgynous popstar of the day is (it was manson in my day)

Thing is, if that really was the key to what we all really want, the ability to auto-fellate, then surely rich people would be having it done left right and centre. Which they aren't. I'm afraid it remains only a beautiful dream.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> this has been variously attributed to Prince, Bowie and Marylin Manson. Whichever the sexually ambiguous androgynous popstar of the day is (it was manson in my day)
> 
> Thing is, if that really was the key to what we all really want, the ability to auto-fellate, then surely rich people would be having it done left right and centre. Which they aren't. I'm afraid it remains only a beautiful dream.



But if you were to lay down on your mouth for an hour or so would it feel like someone else was doing it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

They've followed it up with a guest post - by a watermelon  - who makes the astoundingly perceptive observation that SP meetings are a bit boring.

The wounds are now too deep for even prince or marilyn manson to lick now


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> This is the second time we've all been accused of being SP hacks on this thread by the way - steve dobbs did it after there was an absence of outrage at his being suspended from the SP for being an untrustworthy tosser who secretly records his comrades. IIRC this was thrown at barney_pig and Spanky Longhorn in particular, which seems fair enough if you ask me.
> 
> This time J Ed and treelover are among those getting the finger pointed at them - again, not without good reason if you ask me.



Just as long as Im not being called an SP hack


----------



## rekil (Aug 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> this has been variously attributed to Prince, Bowie and Marylin Manson. Whichever the sexually ambiguous androgynous popstar of the day is (it was manson in my day)
> 
> Thing is, if that really was the key to what we all really want, the ability to auto-fellate, then surely rich people would be having it done left right and centre. Which they aren't. I'm afraid it remains only a beautiful dream.


Steven Wells once told me that he interviewed a popster who claimed to have eaten human flesh. He wouldn't say who (he's taken it to the graaaave  ) but I have my suspicions.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Just as long as Im not being called an SP hack



That would simply be too far fetched.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2014)

laptop said:


> Do we know who *we* are?
> 
> Really?


I am the one and only. There's nobody I'd rather be.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> But if you were to lay down on your mouth for an hour or so would it feel like someone else was doing it?




You'd end up with pins and needles of the mouth.

God I'm better at discussing hypothetical sexual perversions than politics. Uncle Joe would have had me in the mines by now


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> They've followed it up with a guest post - by a watermelon  - who makes the astoundingly perceptive observation that SP meetings are a bit boring.
> 
> The wounds are now too deep for even prince or marilyn manson to lick now



3. I've been to three SP meetings. The first alienated me because the entire branch were not of my class. No joking here either, they were all just not my people. Sure they were good people, hearts in the right place etc. but no, not for me. The other one was with Frogwoman and they lot seemed fine, Nigel of this parish was among them. But I was in thrall to alcohol and sketched out so bad I had to go hunt an offy down. Full shakes and incipient panic attack.



What I will never cease to praise them for is turning up on a days notice to a Uni staff picket line complete with megaphone and angry bods. Thats mint. My attempts to change 'they say cut back we say fight back' to 'they say cut back qe say fuck that' were largely ignored.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 6, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> They've followed it up with a guest post - by a watermelon  - who makes the astoundingly perceptive observation that SP meetings are a bit boring.
> 
> The wounds are now too deep for even prince or marilyn manson to lick now



Wherever did this "boring" thing come from? I'm not gonna try and claim an average SP branch  
meeting is exciting or owt but Ive  been to a few SWP meetings and it  seems mad that people who put up with fucking Weyman and the like talking for an hour without saying owt at all beyond "the EDL are a bit nasty" or "Tories are bad" would then have a go at us for being dull. Its especially fucking offensive coming from a bunch of teenagers who aren't exactly thrilling company to be around in the pub, never mind in a meeting.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> 3. I've been to three SP meetings. The first alienated me because the entire branch were not of my class. No joking here either, they were all just not my people. Sure they were good people, hearts in the right place etc. but no, not for me. The other one was with Frogwoman and they lot seemed fine, Nigel of this parish was among them. But I was in thrall to alcohol and sketched out so bad I had to go hunt an offy down. Full shakes and incipient panic attack.
> 
> 
> 
> What I will never cease to praise them for is turning up on a days notice to a Uni staff picket line complete with megaphone and angry bods. Thats mint. My attempts to change 'they say cut back we say fight back' to 'they say cut back qe say fuck that' were largely ignored.



I tried something similar once, inserting 'but crack' in the end but I don't think anyone even noticed  

Not surprised it was full of m/c types down your neck of the woods tbh, was the same with all the left groups in peterborough - if you're in a tory town or one without any kind of popular left/labour movement traditions middle class hobbyists tend to dominate in my experience (granted I'm generalising wildly here - sure there are exceptions). They tend to be more doctrinaire/hackish too IME.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Wherever did this "boring" thing come from?



the boredom possibly?



SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not gonna try and claim an average SP branch
> meeting is exciting or owt but Ive  been to a few SWP meetings and it  seems mad that people who put up with fucking Weyman and the like talking for an hour without saying owt at all beyond "the EDL are a bit nasty" or "Tories are bad" would then have a go at us for being dull. Its especially fucking offensive coming from a bunch of teenagers who aren't exactly thrilling company to be around in the pub, never mind in a meeting.



Irrespective of whether or not SWP meetings (or any other) are more or less boring, I don't think it's possible to defend SP meetings from that particular charge.

They've clearly never been to any of the ones where I use cultural reference points (mostly fart jokes and examples from south park or who lyrics) to make political analogies. They'd not have dared make that charge if they had


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 6, 2014)

Thank heavens the comrades in the psychedelic Bolsheviks never discovered Meanwhile At The Bar. Now that was a place where wounds were licked.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 6, 2014)

it's boring if you know what you are fighting for. Its boring if its just sloganeering around subjects you already have a handle on. Its boring when you try to talk about structural things and get told 'we often have people well read trying to tell us' (this actually happened to me. It might be because I'm a lecturing cock tho). It's boring when the meetings conclusion is 'how many papers will you buy'. It's boring when the vision is limited to vote fucking TUSC. I've got loads of time for the SP, out of all our far left alternatives they make bloody sure to ground themselves in actual community and workplace struggles. But it isn't working. Obviously I have an alternative. Worship me. Actually bow to me as your god-king. I will be kind.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it's boring if you know what you are fighting for. Its boring if its just sloganeering around subjects you already have a handle on. Its boring when you try to talk about structural things and get told 'we often have people well read trying to tell us' (this actually happened to me. It might be because I'm a lecturing cock tho). It's boring when the meetings conclusion is 'how many papers will you buy'. It's boring when the vision is limited to vote fucking TUSC. I've got loads of time for the SP, out of all our far left alternatives they make bloody sure to ground themselves in actual community and workplace struggles. But it isn't working. Obviously I have an alternative. Worship me. Actually bow to me as your god-king. I will be kind.



The alternative is the workers bomb. I'm only involved with the SP for entrist purposes.


----------



## gamerunknown (Aug 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm afraid it remains only a beautiful dream.



Seen Shortbus?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 7, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> the boredom possibly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't neccessarily trying to - although to be fair I think ours in Sheffield can be pretty good now and again, because we've got a few people who have things worth saying even if they do occasionally insist on "listing the program" a bit too much. And you and your fart jokes of course... Think it depends on the branch, as you say branches in Tory areas tend to be a bit wank, and any branch which is a bit small can be very fucking hackish. But for people who spent years listening to the likes of Martin Smith and Weyman Bennett, you'd have thought they could find listening to the speaking clock interesting. I dunno though - maybe their branches are actually dead exciting and I'm talking shit.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> it's boring if you know what you are fighting for. Its boring if its just sloganeering around subjects you already have a handle on. Its boring when you try to talk about structural things and get told 'we often have people well read trying to tell us' (this actually happened to me. It might be because I'm a lecturing cock tho). It's boring when the meetings conclusion is 'how many papers will you buy'. It's boring when the vision is limited to vote fucking TUSC. I've got loads of time for the SP, out of all our far left alternatives they make bloody sure to ground themselves in actual community and workplace struggles. But it isn't working. Obviously I have an alternative. Worship me. Actually bow to me as your god-king. I will be kind.



Excuse me God King, but I think you'll find its "Vote TUSC AND Organise a 24hr General Strike"! 

Which gets a bit dull after the 2nd or 3rd time but what you gonna do? Nature of the period comrade


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 7, 2014)

gamerunknown said:


> Seen Shortbus?



Are the SWP doing a remake?


----------



## emanymton (Aug 7, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> the boredom possibly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What you think people in the SWP never make fart jokes in meetings?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 7, 2014)

emanymton said:


> What you think people in the SWP never make fart jokes in meetings?



Not in the branch I was in anyway - maybe I was in the wrong one lol

DC was talking about why the left is failing a few posts back. I think that's the reason, not enough farts and fart related humour.

*put on scouse accent*

In the coming period the working class will be looking for a political leadership skilled in the ways of farting and the craft of fart jokes. We need to buy the paper, read the paper, sell the paper err I mean eat fucking loads of beans and sherbet

[I only discovered the rocket fuel like properties of sherbet when I took our lass to whitby a few weeks back and ate a massive tub of dracula sherbet before bed - that went down well!]


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 7, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Speaking of Seymour, look at the shit he is promoting here http://www.leninology.com/2014/03/dieudonne-through-prism-of-white-left.html


This far-seeing leader of men is now warning of the dangers of diudonne/soralism and how they promote anti-semitism after the piece of rubbish that he published that you're talking about that suggested that the power of the quenelle and dieudonne is a positive good, that anti-semitism of black people is good because it means they are playing an active political role - they they have a public voice.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 7, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not in the branch I was in anyway - maybe I was in the wrong one lol
> 
> DC was talking about why the left is failing a few posts back. I think that's the reason, not enough farts and fart related humour.
> 
> ...



She's a nice girl, I can't help but feel sorry for her...


----------



## emanymton (Aug 7, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not in the branch I was in anyway - maybe I was in the wrong one lol
> 
> DC was talking about why the left is failing a few posts back. I think that's the reason, not enough farts and fart related humour.
> 
> ...


I have a mate who left the SWP the same time as the ISN lot, who I think might agree with you. I remember buying him to his book for his birthday one year. 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1853754536?pc_redir=1402104382&robot_redir=1
I had a difficult choice to make between that and 'the adventures of captain underpants'. I am sure he must have made a few fart jokes in meetings. 

You know thinking about it farting is something considered funny around the world like  Japanese fart art for instance. 
http://io9.com/5886529/japanese-fart-scrolls-prove-that-human-art-peaked-centuries-ago
So I reckon fart jokes are a great way to break down barriers between workers, while weeding out middle class liberal wankstains.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 7, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I have a mate who left the SWP the same time as the ISN lot, who I think might agree with you. I remember buying him to his book for his birthday one year.
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1853754536?pc_redir=1402104382&robot_redir=1
> I had a difficult choice to make between that and 'the adventures of captain underpants'. I am sure he must have made a few fart jokes in meetings.
> 
> ...



I don't mind Spiney doing fart jokes but I think it would seriously get on my tits if everybody in the branch did.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 7, 2014)

emanymton said:


> I have a mate who left the SWP the same time as the ISN lot, who I think might agree with you. I remember buying him to his book for his birthday one year.
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1853754536?pc_redir=1402104382&robot_redir=1
> I had a difficult choice to make between that and 'the adventures of captain underpants'. I am sure he must have made a few fart jokes in meetings.
> 
> ...



Tell your mate he needs to get a copy of this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Cut-Che...1407441671&sr=8-1&keywords=who+cut+the+cheese


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 7, 2014)

also might want to check out this genuinely fascinating website - it's got everything you could ever want to know about farts and loads of stuff you probably didn't want to know too. Someone's gone to a lot of trouble - there's proper science in there, they've contacted biologists, zoologists etc and it has references to proper scientific papers - if I knew scientists could specialise in farts I'd probably have paid more attention in biology at school: http://www.heptune.com/farts.html


----------



## emanymton (Aug 7, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> also might want to check out this genuinely fascinating website - it's got everything you could ever want to know about farts and loads of stuff you probably didn't want to know too. Someone's gone to a lot of trouble - there's proper science in there, they've contacted biologists, zoologists etc and it has references to proper scientific papers - if I knew scientists could specialise in farts I'd probably have paid more attention in biology at school: http://www.heptune.com/farts.html


Brilliant, I will read that  and pass it on.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Aug 8, 2014)

Colin Barker's response to Historical Materialism's latest bit of vindictive censorship of the Prof is worth sharing:

"I disagree with this decision by the HM committee. We should not support general bans and proscriptions on socialists, even if we disagree with some things they have done. I was relieved to discover that comrades in Manchester agreed with me. I dislike this pong of sanctimonious shit."

Tad Tietze too:

"I agree with Colin. Given the history of godawful crimes on the Marxist Left — which have led directly and indirectly to the destruction of thousands of people's livelihoods and lives (think of Western Communist Parties' collaboration with austerity & mass sackings in the 1970s) this kind of selective banning is not helpful in charting a way forward for us all in dealing with the SWP's specific (and egregious) actions that doesn't simply contribute to the fragmentation."

Really annoyed the obsessives of course.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 8, 2014)

The other obsessives


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 8, 2014)




----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 8, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Colin Barker's response to Historical Materialism's latest bit of vindictive censorship of the Prof is worth sharing:
> 
> "I disagree with this decision by the HM committee. We should not support general bans and proscriptions on socialists, even if we disagree with some things they have done. I was relieved to discover that comrades in Manchester agreed with me. I dislike this pong of sanctimonious shit."
> *
> ...



Writing sentences like the virtually unreadable one in bold above doesn't help any cause. Too many "seghe mentali" as they say in Italy, jerking off on pedanticism.

You need to kick out posh intellectual parasites like Callinicos and Kimber asap.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> DC was talking about why the left is failing a few posts back. I think that's the reason, not enough farts and fart related humour.



The new Central Committee, yesterday:


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 8, 2014)

is pendanticism a word?


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> is pendanticism a word?


_Engelsian Exactitude _is my preferred term.


----------



## laptop (Aug 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> is *pendanticism* a word?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Aug 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not in the branch I was in anyway - maybe I was in the wrong one lol
> 
> DC was talking about why the left is failing a few posts back. I think that's the reason, not enough farts and fart related humour.
> 
> ...


Purple sprouting broccoli is pretty damned good as well, a real duvet raiser if you eat a lot of it


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 8, 2014)

laptop said:


>



You learn something new every day! So it basically means the same as pedantry?


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> is pendanticism a word?



Of course it's a word! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedanticism 

(on second thoughts maybe that one just went right over my head!)


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You learn something new every day! So it basically means the same as pedantry?



That's just pedantic or maybe pedantry. Where's the Prof when he's needed.


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> You learn something new every day! So it basically means the same as pedantry?


A pedant uses pedantry in his* pedanticism.



* and it is always a 'his'


----------



## laptop (Aug 8, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> So it basically means the same as pedantry?



The dictionaries are defining it as one step more abstract than that: having the nature of the behaviour of pedants, IIRC.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 8, 2014)

It's like effect and affect all over again


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 8, 2014)

belboid said:


> A pedant uses pedantry in his* pedanticism.
> 
> 
> 
> * and it is always a 'his'


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 8, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Writing sentences like the virtually unreadable one in bold above doesn't help any cause. Too many "seghe mentali" as they say in Italy, jerking off on pedanticism.
> 
> You need to kick out posh intellectual parasites like Callinicos and Kimber asap.



I hate to break this to you but I don't think kicking out all the posh intellectuals would be all that helpful for Historical Materialism.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I hate to break this to you but I don't think kicking out all the posh intellectuals would be all that helpful for Historical Materialism.


Ooh yeah, reminded me, meant to post this little juxtapostion earlier - this from the prof's whine:

1) This way of conducting criticisms on the part of a Marxist academic journal is a sign of sectarianism, bad faith, and lack of intellectual honesty.

2) It is to HM’s basic ambition to offer a pluralist space in which Marxists of different political tendencies (or none) can engage in research and debate, without 'favouring any one tendency, tradition or variant'.

Marxists = academics for the prof.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 8, 2014)

Now the membership's fled where's the money coming from? Certainly not paper sales.

Follow the money...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ooh yeah, reminded me, meant to post this little juxtapostion earlier - this from the prof's whine:
> 
> 1) This way of conducting criticisms on the part of a Marxist academic journal is a sign of sectarianism, bad faith, and lack of intellectual honesty.
> 
> ...



Aye. I've met quite a few Keep Left (IS) members in South Africa - they are interesting cos they don't even pretend they believe non-academics can be Marxists.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Aye. I've met quite a few Keep Left (IS) members in South Africa - they are interesting cos they don't even pretend they believe non-academics can be Marxists.


Heard this, NUMSA start talking about backing an independent socialist party to challenge ANC/CP corruption etc and then Three Union Leaders Shot Dead


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Heard this, NUMSA start talking about backing an independent socialist party to challenge ANC/CP corruption etc and then Three Union Leaders Shot Dead



Yes, I've just got back from a NUMSA local where this was discussed. Another thread perhaps?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes, I've just got back from a NUMSA local where this was discussed. Another thread perhaps?


By all means, just don't expect much from me tonight, but yes, serious things afoot,


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> By all means, just don't expect much from me tonight, but yes, serious things afoot,



I'll start one tomorrow - been meaning to get some SA stuff going.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> By all means, just don't expect much from me tonight, but yes, serious things afoot,



Storming the Winter Palace/Vauxhall HQ?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 9, 2014)

Look...

I dunno about you but this sick fucking thread about something truly fucking sick when you get right down to it is both dead and sickening. Can we stop posting here? It should stay as a historical record, but I think we all need a bit of distance to get on with the world now. I'm a bit drunk but I feel others will feel the same way about the sad sorry demise of the Sectarian Wankers Party?

Or are there more twists and turns in the death throes that merit discussion...?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 9, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Look...
> 
> I dunno about you but this sick fucking thread about something truly fucking sick when you get right down to it is both dead and sickening. Can we stop posting here? It should stay as a historical record, but I think we all need a bit of distance to get on with the world now. I'm a bit drunk but I feel others will feel the same way about the sad sorry demise of the Sectarian Wankers Party?
> 
> Or are there more twists and turns in the death throes that merit discussion...?



There are still things happening that belong on this thread - the Callinicos / Historical Materialism row for instance, but I'd agree that we really should take most of the general lefty stuff to other threads.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 9, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'll start one tomorrow - been meaning to get some SA stuff going.



NUMSA thread

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/numsa-the-united-front-and-the-movement-for-socialism.326402/


----------



## BK Double Stack (Aug 18, 2014)

http://hopenothate.org.uk/blog/insider/more-white-lies-3940. Conversions of this sort do happen. But seems fishy.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 19, 2014)

BK Double Stack said:


> http://hopenothate.org.uk/blog/insider/more-white-lies-3940. Conversions of this sort do happen. But seems fishy.



Absolute fantasist and nutter. Complete liability. Get rid ASAP.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 19, 2014)

If the SWP have allowed him to join they are thicker than I thought, it's only a few years since him and his mates chased rebel warrior into a sweet shop where had to ring for someone to come and drive him home.


----------



## comrade spurski (Aug 19, 2014)

if he is serious about now being a socialist then surely he'd have publicly renounced his previous activities via groups such as searchlight, hope not hate, uaf etc. The fact he ain't done this suggest that he is lying. If he has joined the swp without publicly cutting his ties with his violent fascist past then they are putting people at risk of a dangerous man...I would say that sounds unbelievable for a socialist organisation but unfortunately recent history suggests this wouldn't be the first time that they have left some members at risk from a dangerous man.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2014)

Has anyone in leeds asked what's left of the SWP there to clarify on this?


----------



## emanymton (Aug 19, 2014)

He says he has joined the SWP, has anyone from the SWP confirmed it? Maybe he was just bullshiting to justify his presence at the demo?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 19, 2014)

Lowles says he/HnH contacted SWP and they said White had approached them but they didn't buy it and he is lying now about being a member and activist. Not that this should really need saying.


----------



## belboid (Aug 19, 2014)

He did, apparently, attend at least one meeting


----------



## osterberg (Aug 20, 2014)

http://swpleeds.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/statement-on-tony-white/


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2014)

That clarifies very little. It doesn't say if any contract was ever made, if they discussed any approach, if they trialed him and he failed, if he was told to forget it, nothing. Nothing beyond attacking their former mate.


----------



## laptop (Aug 20, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That clarifies very little. It doesn't say if any contract was ever made, if they discussed any approach, if they trialed him and he failed, if he was told to forget it, nothing. Nothing beyond attacking their former mate.



Best bit of that is the ads they carry


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 20, 2014)

It's become the Monster Raving Loony Party with added dialectics. Callinicos needs wheeling out and...


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 21, 2014)

I sat next to an otherwise normal young woman on the train this morning reading Tony Cliff's _State Capitalism in Russia_ so perhaps the next generation of untainted Swappies is already being formed. I gave her some paternal advice along the lines of throwing TC's hackery away and reading Hillel Tickton's _Origin of the Crisis in the USSR: Essays on the Political Economy of  Disentegrating System_. However she didn't get the joke and just put her headphones on and looked out of the window.


----------



## J Ed (Aug 21, 2014)

DownwardDog said:


> I sat next to an otherwise normal young woman on the train this morning reading Tony Cliff's _State Capitalism in Russia_ so perhaps the next generation of untainted Swappies is already being formed. I gave her some paternal advice along the lines of throwing TC's hackery away and reading Hillel Tickton's _Origin of the Crisis in the USSR: Essays on the Political Economy of  Disentegrating System_. However she didn't get the joke and just put her headphones on and looked out of the window.



Might have been recommended reading from uni, in which case she must think that you are absolutely crazy lol


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2014)

Ticktin is an unorthodox trot the same as cliff, so what's the joke? You've clearly not read either.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You've clearly not read either.



He clearly hasn't, but he's also his father's son underneath it all.


----------



## Direlectics (Aug 22, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> If it's who I think it is (and I'm pretty confident it is) they're trendy twats who are always on about 'triggering behavour'. That is until they decide - in the middle of a meeting attended by recovering addicts - that they want to nip to the bogs and take fucking horse tranquilisers. And not make any real attempt to hide the fact they're doing so.



Bit late to the party here and unsure how forums like this work but whatever, this only just came to my attention and I'm pretty sure it's about me. Few points of clarification.

1. Not a member of psychbolsh. I know them but ain't been involved.

2. The meeting was an SP meeting on 'women's liberation.' Someone from the AWL brought up the RMT Official Steve Hedley's disciplinary case (where he abused and beat his partner whilst a member of the SP), how even tho he left the SP he's still allowed platforms at Socialism 2013, how the party still wants to 'work with steve' and has been generally weak about this. When challenged, the speaker--an SP student organiser--came out with the most evasive, deflective shite. Having just came out of the SWP crisis some of the comments people made were making me really very angry (they were carbon copies of the horrible sexist shite swappie hacks would come out with) to the point where I was shaking. So I left the meeting a few minutes to calm down so I could make a contribution that wasn't shouted. 

3. After the meeting I picked up some K, went to the student bar. One of the SPers I'm on decent terms with struck up a conversation about Hedley a few minutes after i'd had my first key. I had to cut the conversation short, explaining that I'd just taken K and was getting too confused for such a heavy conversation.

Correct me if this isn't the instance you're talking about but, if it is, basically you're talking out your arse as far as I can see. inabit.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 22, 2014)

> After the meeting I picked up some K, went to the student bar



That's the spirit!


----------



## Direlectics (Aug 22, 2014)

haha.


butchersapron said:


> That's the spirit!



need something to sand the edges off. student politics enit.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 22, 2014)

Direlectics said:


> Bit late to the party here and unsure how forums like this work but whatever, this only just came to my attention and I'm pretty sure it's about me. Few points of clarification.
> 
> 1. Not a member of psychbolsh. I know them but ain't been involved.
> 
> ...



No you didn't - you fucked off to the bogs half way through to do some k. We know you did because you went to the bogs half way through then told people you'd gone there to do k. 

This is genuinely triggering behaviour for a recovering addict - triggering in the sense that it can prompt a re-lapse, not triggering in the sense that I need an excuse for having fucked off to the bogs to do k so I'll say it was triggering. 

You're the one talking out of your arse, I've done similar things in the past so don't try and bullshit me. (though not as cowardly as that - I've never used sexual assault as an excuse - and I only did it because I had to to stop physical withdrawals)

And you fucking love student politics, its all you ever do, so don't come that one either.


----------



## Direlectics (Aug 22, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No you didn't - you fucked off to the bogs half way through to do some k. We know you did because you went to the bogs half way through then told people you'd gone there to do k.
> 
> This is genuinely triggering behaviour for a recovering addict - triggering in the sense that it can prompt a re-lapse, not triggering in the sense that I need an excuse for having fucked off to the bogs to do k so I'll say it was triggering.
> 
> ...



lol. Seriously mate I never did K in the toilets. I fucked off to the bogs in the student bar to do some k,  but I hadn't even picked the shit up until after the meeting. And when was I meant to have told people this? I had a conversation with a SPEW at the bar where I told them I'd just had some K, and a brief one--about the meeting--with another SPEW as I was leaving the meeting. So when did I say 'Oh I went to do some K' in the meeting? Did I stand up and make a contribution? I was genuinely so angered by your student orgs appalling comments I left to calm down. But I guess you can believe what you want. Honestly there's plenty of stuff to criticize people over no need to make stuff up. How very wadical.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 23, 2014)

Direlectics said:


> lol. Seriously mate I never did K in the toilets. I fucked off to the bogs in the student bar to do some k,  but I hadn't even picked the shit up until after the meeting. And when was I meant to have told people this? I had a conversation with a SPEW at the bar where I told them I'd just had some K, and a brief one--about the meeting--with another SPEW as I was leaving the meeting. So when did I say 'Oh I went to do some K' in the meeting? Did I stand up and make a contribution? I was genuinely so angered by your student orgs appalling comments I left to calm down. But I guess you can believe what you want. Honestly there's plenty of stuff to criticize people over no need to make stuff up. How very wadical.



I think this is what you trendies like to refer to as 'gaslighting'.


----------



## Direlectics (Aug 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think this is what you trendies like to refer to as 'gaslighting'.



Again with the deflection techniques. Anyways had my say and you're clearly not gonna answer my questions or defend your position properly so w/e. As you were


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 23, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> No you didn't - you fucked off to the bogs half way through to do some k. We know you did because you went to the bogs half way through then told people you'd gone there to do k.
> 
> This is genuinely triggering behaviour for a recovering addict - triggering in the sense that it can prompt a re-lapse, not triggering in the sense that I need an excuse for having fucked off to the bogs to do k so I'll say it was triggering.
> 
> ...



Hang on - can we just slow down? There was more than one person doing ket during/after the meeting. There was only one who later claimed to have found it triggering. Another ex-SWP person who most definitely was doing ket told me that nothing that happened at any point was anywhere near as bad as SWP meetings. Direlectics is probably one of two or maybe three people.

As it goes it was a fucking tense meeting - first like that I'd experienced, where we realised about an hour before the event someone from the AWL was gonna turn up and lecture us on not doing a good job with Hedley, in front of a reasonable number of contacts by our standards. Funnily enough it was about a week later all their shit with GM came out so they haven't piped up since then, but none of us were sure how to deal with it and the student fulltimer was very nervous, being fairly inexperienced and pretty shocked at AWL members screaming at her that she was a sexist the previous day. I think to be honest she was way too defensive and she didn't have to be and that made the situation worse, but a lot of our members went out of their way to invite suggestions on what could/should be done about Hedley and the only answer we got was "assume he's guilty".


----------



## Direlectics (Aug 23, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Hang on - can we just slow down? There was more than one person doing ket during/after the meeting. There was only one who later claimed to have found it triggering. Another ex-SWP person who most definitely was doing ket told me that nothing that happened at any point was anywhere near as bad as SWP meetings. Direlectics is probably one of two or maybe three people.
> 
> As it goes it was a fucking tense meeting - first like that I'd experienced, where we realised about an hour before the event someone from the AWL was gonna turn up and lecture us on not doing a good job with Hedley, in front of a reasonable number of contacts by our standards. Funnily enough it was about a week later all their shit with GM came out so they haven't piped up since then, but none of us were sure how to deal with it and the student fulltimer was very nervous, being fairly inexperienced and pretty shocked at AWL members screaming at her that she was a sexist the previous day. I think to be honest she was way too defensive and she didn't have to be and that made the situation worse, but a lot of our members went out of their way to invite suggestions on what could/should be done about Hedley and the only answer we got was "assume he's guilty".



Point is I picked up the ket. After the meeting. Unless someone was holding out on me I know for a fact the 2-3 people doing it, were doing it afterwards in & around the Student bar. 

Can't speak for others but I didn't find it triggering it just really pissed me off. There were plenty of other suggestions, like maybe not putting him on platforms at Socialism 2013, not having such a weak statement where you'll "still work with Steve". And like fair people are nervous I get it but I don't think that's an excuse to turn into some awful hack-robot. 

(On a side note, I am aware now that I might have turned a thread on SWP expulsions and squabbles into a self-parody. Oops.)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 23, 2014)

Direlectics said:


> Point is I picked up the ket. After the meeting. Unless someone was holding out on me I know for a fact the 2-3 people doing it, were doing it afterwards in & around the Student bar.
> 
> Can't speak for others but I didn't find it triggering it just really pissed me off.



Wasn't the impression that I got but that's not important - I don't really care who took ket when. I don't understand why anyone would do ket, especially in the middle of a political meeting, but that's not the issue and you get far worse stuff at student meetings anyway. My point was that someone who I spoke too immediately after the meeting to ask them what they thought of it who turned round and said "uh, i'm coming up on ket". They left the meeting about 20 mins before the end and then came back so I assume that's when they took it, but I don't know how long ket takes to work or whatever, I'm not even sure if you snort it or bomb it to be quite honest, I'm not anti-drugs but ket is not something I see the point in. In any case, they didn't look to me to be traumatised and neither then or for weeks later did they say to me they found the meeting difficult. A while later they then popped up on some FB thread saying that it was all terribly triggering, which - and you can say I'm not showing solidarity with people who suffered or whatever - seemed like bullshit to me. Maybe it wasn't, I dunno, but short of not discussing it in the meeting I don't see how we could have avoided "triggering" them, if triggering means "reminding me of bad shit that happened in the SWP".



Direlectics said:


> There were plenty of other suggestions, like maybe not putting him on platforms at Socialism 2013, not having such a weak statement where you'll "still work with Steve".



The statements have been weak because we don't know what the fuck went on and we still don't. SH passed all the police documentation and and I've seen that but we got shit all about the RMT investigation beyond the fact Hedley claimed he had medical evidence to support his accusation she was repeatedly and violently abusive to him and the statement from the RMT saying he had no case to answer. We actually asked people in the meeting if they were suggesting we refuse to work with the RMT leadership (logical - if Hedley is guilty then the RMT has potentially covered up the allegation and have done something far worse than anything the SP has done) and we got no answer, as if it wasn't important about what a militant trade union did or should do. If anything really pissed me off, it's that the real question in the meeting was "how should we view the RMT's decision" and what we ended up talking about was "why didn't the SP condemn Hedley".

They might have been weak statements but you can get sued over that shit you know. At least we put out statements straight away and acknowledged the issue. Neither the SWP or the AWL did that; imo we clearly didn't handle the situation brilliantly but I'm not sure how we could have done a great deal better. Yeah, maybe he shouldn't have spoken at Socialism but that would have meant not inviting Bob Crow, Alex Gordon or anyone else from the RMT. 



Direlectics said:


> And like fair people are nervous I get it but I don't think that's an excuse to turn into some awful hack-robot.



Hmmm. How to put this delicately... I didn't say anyone _turned into _a hack robot.



Direlectics said:


> (On a side note, I am aware now that I might have turned a thread on SWP expulsions and squabbles into a self-parody. Oops.)



You're not as original as you think; that's happened several times on this thread.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 24, 2014)

Who needs K when a couple of lines of Callinicos is enough for anyone.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 24, 2014)

Direlectics said:


> Again with the deflection techniques. Anyways had my say and you're clearly not gonna answer my questions or defend your position properly so w/e. As you were



What questions? What deflection? Stop stomping on my oppression and dismissing my experience - I find it very triggering. I think we might have to review our safe space policy.

I don't know who the fuck you are but if you're who I think you are you did make a contribution - something about how sex work wouldn't exist under communism or something. Unless you're the other one who just swore a lot and rambled incoherently about Fucking Martin bastard Smith.

You're a liar. I know it, you know it. You don't walk out of a room in a pair, looking perfectly calm, then return 10 minutes later looking guilty and even dopier than usual because you had to cool down cos you found something 'triggering'. The comments from clm on headley were pretty weak, but the idea that you were somehow traumatised by them is utterly ludicrous.


----------



## Direlectics (Aug 24, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What questions? What deflection? Stop stomping on my oppression and dismissing my experience - I find it very triggering. I think we might have to review our safe space policy.
> 
> I don't know who the fuck you are but if you're who I think you are you did make a contribution - something about how sex work wouldn't exist under communism or something. Unless you're the other one who just swore a lot and rambled incoherently about Fucking Martin bastard Smith.
> 
> You're a liar. I know it, you know it. You don't walk out of a room in a pair, looking perfectly calm, then return 10 minutes later looking guilty and even dopier than usual because you had to cool down cos you found something 'triggering'. The comments from clm on headley were pretty weak, but the idea that you were somehow traumatised by them is utterly ludicrous.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKqD5iTCEAACcnn.jpg


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> What questions? What deflection? Stop stomping on my oppression and dismissing my experience - I find it very triggering. I think we might have to review our safe space policy.
> 
> I don't know who the fuck you are but if you're who I think you are you did make a contribution - something about how sex work wouldn't exist under communism or something. Unless you're the other one who just swore a lot and rambled incoherently about Fucking Martin bastard Smith.
> 
> You're a liar. I know it, you know it. You don't walk out of a room in a pair, looking perfectly calm, then return 10 minutes later looking guilty and even dopier than usual because you had to cool down cos you found something 'triggering'. The comments from clm on headley were pretty weak, but the idea that you were somehow traumatised by them is utterly ludicrous.



Chill Spiney. I think it might be the one you really hate but he's been quite well behaved of late and he isn't the one who made the "triggering" claim so I don't think there's any point getting that annoyed. Could even have been one of the ones who didn't say a word in the meeting.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2014)

Direlectics said:


> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKqD5iTCEAACcnn.jpg



Feel free to stick around on Urban mate, its a very useful resource and you'll probably learn something (although not on this thread) but if you do you need better comebacks than this. Instagram is that way, nae?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2014)

quiquaquo said:


> Who needs K when a couple of lines of Callinicos is enough for anyone.



All the kids are doing it. It goes by several street names - Calli, Stali, Nico's - and has effects very similar to rohypnol. If taken regularly it will have the desired effect of significant memory loss and a delusional sense that all is well with the world.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 25, 2014)

I've seen  them, sitting in the corner, mumbling _seattle _over and over.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 25, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> All the kids are doing it. It goes by several street names - Calli, Stali, Nico's - and has effects very similar to rohypnol. If taken regularly it will have the desired effect of significant memory loss and a delusional sense that all is well with the world.



The first hit is free, but as time goes on you need more and more Callinicos to get high.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2014)

"Get your copy of the Worker and your first hit free,
Trust in the Party, pay your dues to me,
That's the way it goes, that's the name of the game
Lord Acton getting over by slangin' caine"


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 25, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> "Get your copy of the Worker and your first hit free,
> Trust in the Party, pay your dues to me,
> That's the way it goes, that's the name of the game
> Lord Acton getting over by slangin' caine"



He's never early, he's always late (capitalism)


----------



## past caring (Aug 25, 2014)

First thing you learn is communism will have to wait.


----------



## gamerunknown (Aug 25, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't know who the fuck you are but if you're who I think you are you did make a contribution - something about how sex work wouldn't exist under communism or something.



Sex work won't exist under communism. We'll have free associations of equals, so all sex will be for pleasure.

See here, here, here and here.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2014)

gamerunknown said:


> Sex work won't exist under communism. We'll have free associations of equals, so all sex will be for pleasure.
> 
> See here, here, here and here.



If memory serves that particular genius made a speech about how under communism more women would go into sex work cos it would be like, really well unionised and regulated and stuff.


----------



## past caring (Aug 25, 2014)

gamerunknown said:


> Sex work won't exist under communism. We'll have free associations of equals, so all sex will be for pleasure.
> 
> See here, here, here and here.



That settles it, then.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 25, 2014)

past caring said:


> First thing you learn is communism will have to wait.



Second is that you have to sell the paper in the meantime.


----------



## past caring (Aug 25, 2014)

That doesn't scan, pal.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 26, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> The comments from clm on headley were pretty weak, but the idea that you were somehow traumatised by them is utter
> ly ludicrous.



This though, this is dead on. The idea that that meeting was traumatising for various revcos types who came because they wanted to see some kind of car crash (cos lets face it, normally they'd say an SP meeting would be booooooring) is a bit rich. And for the record anyone taking a political lead from RH should think real hard about what they're doing.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 26, 2014)

past caring said:


> That doesn't scan, pal.



Try printing it out first.


----------



## Direlectics (Aug 26, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> This though, this is dead on. The idea that that meeting was traumatising for various revcos types who came because they wanted to see some kind of car crash (cos lets face it, normally they'd say an SP meeting would be booooooring) is a bit rich. And for the record anyone taking a political lead from RH should think real hard about what they're doing.


you really like your echo chambers dont you. people wanted to go because your org fucked up over hedley and it was an appropriate environment to challenge that. no one i know, and especially not me (which is important cuz spnormans comments have been directed towards me) were 'traumatised'. but i guess that's cult mentality for you: twist all events and contrary attitudes so they conform to the 'line'. "all those who criticise have no basis: they're hypocrites. they even took imaginary ket in a meeting." honestly.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 26, 2014)

Direlectics said:


> you really like your echo chambers dont you. people wanted to go because your org fucked up over hedley and it was an appropriate environment to challenge that.



Do you feel like you succeeded?



Direlectics said:


> no one i know, and especially not me (which is important cuz spnormans comments have been directed towards me) were 'traumatised'. but i guess that's cult mentality for you: twist all events and contrary attitudes so they conform to the 'line'. "all those who criticise have no basis: they're hypocrites. they even took imaginary ket in a meeting." honestly.



As I said before, I don't care about the ket, before or after. I've got no problem with you cos you've said straight up you didn't find it triggering or traumatising or whatever. But one person did claim that and it seemed fucking off balance to me; as you said, no one you knew felt that way. This was really the crux of the point. 

I've got no interest in any kind of 'line' except where it's useful and I don't think you know enough about my politics (or your own) to chuck accusations of cult mentality about. Mind you though, I still don't know for definite who you are so who knows eh?


----------



## chilango (Aug 26, 2014)




----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 26, 2014)

chilango said:


>


----------



## chilango (Aug 26, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


>



Sorry, not aimed at you...but at the whole notion of rocking up to a meeting of a fellow/rival socialist group with the sole intention of causing a row, taking horse tranquillisers during/after said meeting and then defending this on an Internet forum.

Utopian indeed!


----------



## past caring (Aug 26, 2014)

Dystopian, surely?


----------



## discokermit (Aug 26, 2014)

what sort of a person needs tranquillisers in an sp meeting?


----------



## killer b (Aug 26, 2014)




----------



## treelover (Aug 26, 2014)

Direlectics said:


> you really like your echo chambers dont you. people wanted to go because your org fucked up over hedley and it was an appropriate environment to challenge that. no one i know, and especially not me (which is important cuz spnormans comments have been directed towards me) were 'traumatised'. but i guess that's cult mentality for you: twist all events and contrary attitudes so they conform to the 'line'. "all those who criticise have no basis: they're hypocrites. they even took imaginary ket in a meeting." honestly.




What are your views on the welfare cuts, landlordism, the NHS?, just askin like.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 27, 2014)

chilango said:


> Sorry, not aimed at you...but at the whole notion of rocking up to a meeting of a fellow/rival socialist group with the sole intention of causing a row, taking horse tranquillisers during/after said meeting and then defending this on an Internet forum.
> 
> Utopian indeed!



I know, but try telling some of them that, it's like talking to Rik Mayall in The Young Ones.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 27, 2014)

Mean!


discokermit said:


> what sort of a person needs tranquillisers in an sp meeting?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 27, 2014)

I feel a bit bad really cos this whole ketamine thing has derailed the thread, but in a sort of circular way it was kind of relevant:

That whole fucking meeting was a nightmare from the get go, even before we organised it. We knew we had to have a meeting on Marxist-Feminist stuff because it was the main issue on campus at the start of last year, driven I think mainly by the collapse of the SWSS kids group and also just a host of issues around rape, sexual abuse, sexism and feminism. It was like an issue for a brief period, you'd keep meeting freshers saying stuff like "I heard the SP are sexist cos they're only interested in class and they're like the SWP" so we had to attempt some way of explaining why Marxists approach sexism differently to liberals etc. But the atmosphere at the time was so bad that nobody wanted to speak. Some of the more confident female members who would usually be happy addressing a meeting just refused because it was just such a charged issue, with privilege checking kind of exploding for a very brief period beyond the small groups that talk that kind of language, and there was just no way a male speaker could have even tried (not that I'm suggesting one should have, since that would have created even more problems).So we ended up having to get an outside speaker who wasn't really able to judge the mood at the time and shit like that, and while I think honestly given how edgy everybody was beforehand it went ok and most people stayed pretty calm, it didn't feel productive. I suppose as far as I could tell none of the students who weren't already involved in other political groups left thinking we were hideous abuse apologists and at least got the thrust of where we come from politically so not a total loss but still a bizarre circumstance and one I haven't experienced before or since.

I was just wondering, has anyone else had trouble organising meetings or events on similar lines because of a generalised sense of suspicion towards the left on gender issues?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> What are your views on the welfare cuts, landlordism, the NHS?, just askin like.



Why are you asking? Is it relevant?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 27, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I was just wondering, has anyone else had trouble organising meetings or events on similar lines because of a generalised sense of suspicion towards the left on gender issues?



yes. the fledgling ISN plus assorted internet feminists tried to shut down the first spring conference we organised in Manchester as we didn't have enough female speakers. there was a gender disparity it is true, but despite great pains to explain that we had just been unlucky with the female speakers we'd invited (all of whom were busy or unwilling) and that we had had to publicise the event with the people we had (two full time restaurant workers in Manc just basically pulling together what we could out of our existing contacts) they pressured almost half of our panellists to drop out.

in the end both the gender ratio and the political content of the conference was far better for their absence, but the intention to destroy the thing was there.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 27, 2014)

Whose spring conference was this? LU?


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 27, 2014)

discokermit said:


> what sort of a person needs tranquillisers in an sp meeting?



you won the internet yesterday.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 27, 2014)

treelover said:


> What are your views on the welfare cuts, landlordism, the NHS?, just askin like.


You plum - if they had been discussing Palestine or Papuan child abuse you might have a point, but do you really think we don't need to address sexism etc? Plus the SP are ineffective but you can't deny they prioritise all those things you listed


----------



## Direlectics (Sep 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> Sorry, not aimed at you...but at the whole notion of rocking up to a meeting of a fellow/rival socialist group with the sole intention of causing a row, taking horse tranquillisers during/after said meeting and then defending this on an Internet forum.
> 
> Utopian indeed!



what's wrong with taking k in my spare time? id left the meeting. and dont you think its better to challenge politics you find objectionable? at least it gets discussion going.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 1, 2014)

Direlectics said:


> what's wrong with taking k in my spare time? id left the meeting. and dont you think its better to challenge politics you find objectionable? at least it gets discussion going.



And did you challenge politics you find objectionable with some different politics that were much nicer?

Do you find most SP politics objectionable or just the stuff around Hedley? 

Why is the only SP meeting you would ever come to this one? 

As I said before, the sad thing was that there was no discussion, just a lot of finger pointing led by a member of the AWL, an organisation which has certainly dealt with issues around domestic and sexual violence in a far more contemptible manner than the SP. When members responded, there was nothing really - no clear insight into how it could have been dealt with better, just a lot of mumbling about how the left is shit and everything is shit and we don't know what to do about it beyond turning up to a meeting and having a go at some young full timer who was caught out a bit by a difficult situation in which she was trying to do a good job. Even worse, not one of the people who turned up to have a go had any of the understanding of the fact that, if Hedley is guilty, he is the AGS of the RMT and may soon be the GS, and that if so-called Socialist activists are _really _horrified that the SP refused to condemn him automatically, it should follow that they are far more concerned about the RMT and the investigative process they followed in deciding he had no case to answer.

There's nothing wrong with taking K in your spare time if that's what you want to do. But you must understand that taking K means people will take you less seriously, _even if you think that's oppressive and uncool, man. _Ever seen somebody take a pub drunk's political opinion seriously? No. Same goes for Ket - sorry mate.

PS Sorry Palace are having a shit start to the season - were you disappointed to see Pulis go?


----------



## Direlectics (Sep 1, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> And did you challenge politics you find objectionable with some different politics that were much nicer?
> 
> Do you find most SP politics objectionable or just the stuff around Hedley?
> 
> Why is the only SP meeting you would ever come to this one?



I disagree with a lot of the politics but the Hedley stuff is a bit beyond the pail. At least don't invite the fucker to chat shit at your annual socialism thing.



SpackleFrog said:


> As I said before, the sad thing was that there was no discussion, just a lot of finger pointing led by a member of the AWL, an organisation which has certainly dealt with issues around domestic and sexual violence in a far more contemptible manner than the SP. When members responded, there was nothing really - no clear insight into how it could have been dealt with better, just a lot of mumbling about how the left is shit and everything is shit and we don't know what to do about it beyond turning up to a meeting and having a go at some young full timer who was caught out a bit by a difficult situation in which she was trying to do a good job. Even worse, not one of the people who turned up to have a go had any of the understanding of the fact that, if Hedley is guilty, he is the AGS of the RMT and may soon be the GS, and that if so-called Socialist activists are _really _horrified that the SP refused to condemn him automatically, it should follow that they are far more concerned about the RMT and the investigative process they followed in deciding he had no case to answer.



No fan of the AWL or RMT either, if that makes you feel better. But this whole 'lots of other lefties are sexist too' excuse doesn't really wash. It's not something I want to ostracize the sp over, whatever I think of it it's no comrade delta. But it's something that should be challenged because trot sects are too busy patting themselves on the back over their class politics that they utterly fail to engage properly with gender issues.



SpackleFrog said:


> There's nothing wrong with taking K in your spare time if that's what you want to do. But you must understand that taking K means people will take you less seriously, _even if you think that's oppressive and uncool, man. _Ever seen somebody take a pub drunk's political opinion seriously? No. Same goes for Ket - sorry mate.



not arsed about being taken seriously when I'm on ket. that's why I stopped the serious political discussion that was happening.



SpackleFrog said:


> PS Sorry Palace are having a shit start to the season - were you disappointed to see Pulis go?



Nice try


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 1, 2014)

Direlectics said:


> I disagree with a lot of the politics but the Hedley stuff is a bit beyond the pail. At least don't invite the fucker to chat shit at your annual socialism thing.



Now, see, issue is we had three RMT members speaking already, the RMT had just declared he had no case to answer, he was saying he was starting legal proceedings about libel and stuff, and he asked if he could speak in a particular session. Now, yes you can refuse, but then you need to be in a position to say that the investigation the RMT held was unsatisfactory in some way; ie challenge the leadership of the RMT on the issue as oppose to SH. Obviously, if there is no evidence to suggest the process they went through was illegitimate, then that leaves you on shaky ground, especially if you're considering embarking on a political debate with the RMT leadership at what is kind of supposed to be a fundraising/recruitment/educational/social event. When SH was accused and resigned, we lost a lot of inside knowledge of the RMT exec, because he was pissed off we weren't prepared to defend him. Our problem is we don't have access to the information to do much about it.

The broader point is; if the feeling is that association with SH is beyond the pale, then are people suggesting we just assume that the RMT investigation was flawed and wrong, and cease association with leaders in the union (and probably therefore with a large layer of RMT members, or that there should be a campaign for the RMT to discipline Hedley, or that actually it doesn't matter if a wife beater is a leader of a union as long as he gets banned from fucking Socialism?



Direlectics said:


> No fan of the AWL or RMT either, if that makes you feel better. But this whole 'lots of other lefties are sexist too' excuse doesn't really wash.



Actually that's not what I'm saying in regard to the AWL; I'm saying at least we've been open about what decisions have been taken and why and we're not hypocrites. But hang about, what is your criticism of the RMT? Do you think they've failed in some way?  




Direlectics said:


> It's not something I want to ostracize the sp over, whatever I think of it it's no comrade delta. But it's something that should be challenged because trot sects are too busy patting themselves on the back over their class politics that they utterly fail to engage properly with gender issues.



Well, thanks for not wanting to ostracise us  and for the recognition that the two are not comparable cases. Actually what we wanted to use the meeting for was to try to outline a materialist understanding of how class systems produce sexism and homophobia - the two are linked, and in my opinion you can't engage properly with sexism (or 'gender issues' if you prefer) if you don't engage with the class system and the mode of production.



Direlectics said:


> not arsed about being taken seriously when I'm on ket. that's why I stopped the serious political discussion that was happening.



Sorry, I'll rephrase - when you're re-telling the story of how you challenged the SP's politics and then afterwards you spoke to some of them but you didn't wanna talk politics then cos you were on ket, they may make certain judgements about the validity of your politics. 



Direlectics said:


> Nice try



Haha, I'll get there  Love Urban guessing games. Or maybe I won't actually, are you just a background lurker or would I know your name? Either way, stick around now you're here, some of the other threads are actually worth reading.


----------



## chilango (Sep 1, 2014)

Direlectics said:


> what's wrong with taking k in my spare time? id left the meeting. and dont you think its better to challenge politics you find objectionable? at least it gets discussion going.



Funnily enough one of the mums down at the playgroup said exactly the same thing to me the other day...

"...those cunts in the SPEW" she snarled at me before stirring yet another crushed up horse tanquiliser into her rapidly cooling skinny latte.

I wished I'd never raised the issue of childcare costs with her.


----------



## Direlectics (Sep 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> Funnily enough one of the mums down at the playgroup said exactly the same thing to me the other day...
> 
> "...those cunts in the SPEW" she snarled at me before stirring yet another crushed up horse tanquiliser into her rapidly cooling skinny latte.
> 
> I wished I'd never raised the issue of childcare costs with her.



actually lold


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 1, 2014)

chilango said:


> Funnily enough one of the mums down at the playgroup said exactly the same thing to me the other day...
> 
> "...those cunts in the SPEW" she snarled at me before stirring yet another crushed up horse tanquiliser into her rapidly cooling skinny latte.
> 
> I wished I'd never raised the issue of childcare costs with her.



We face a lot of anger. Only last week I was in my local and while Dave and Bill were doing a few lines off the bar and chasing them down with Mandy and Eggy was dusting his pickled egg with PCP, Old Arthur started screaming at me, he were saying "Oi, SPEW cunt, you can fuck right off". Well, he was for a bit, and then the acid kicked in and he just sort of started staring at his hands. Rita the barmaid agreed with him though, she said "You've gotta admit, he's gotta point, you SPEWERS should consider whether your structures are fuckin' adequate. How do you think that makes you look before the class?". Mind you, she's taking speed to get through the late shifts and makes her a bit aggressive like.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 1, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> We face a lot of anger. Only last week I was in my local and while Dave and Bill were doing a few lines off the bar and chasing them down with Mandy and Eggy was dusting his pickled egg with PCP, Old Arthur started screaming at me, he were saying "Oi, SPEW cunt, you can fuck right off". Well, he was for a bit, and then the acid kicked in and he just sort of started staring at his hands. Rita the barmaid agreed with him though, she said "You've gotta admit, he's gotta point, you SPEWERS should consider whether your structures are fuckin' adequate. How do you think that makes you look before the class?". Mind you, she's taking speed to get through the late shifts and makes her a bit aggressive like.


typical SP the only woman in the room is the one serving drinks


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 1, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> typical SP the only woman in the room is the one serving drinks



Nah, I just drink in shit pubs


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 9, 2014)

I don't know if this really belongs here, but what on earth are the Irish SWP playing at?

http://www.swp.ie/content/people-profit-announce-tallaght-election-candidate

This is the second time this year they've stood against Paul Murphy.


----------



## belboid (Sep 9, 2014)

They're standing in an election, that's how elections work. Stop pretending you have some holy right to stand unopposed. You don't stand down against them.


----------



## chilango (Sep 9, 2014)

belboid said:


> They're standing in an election, that's how elections work. Stop pretending you have some holy right to stand unopposed. You don't stand down against them.



Yeah SpackleFrog the working class have the right to choose which Trot sect they're gonna ignore dammit!







...yeah, I know they do actually elect them in Ireland but why let facts get in the way of a sarcky dig eh?


----------



## flypanam (Sep 9, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't know if this really belongs here, but what on earth are the Irish SWP playing at?
> 
> http://www.swp.ie/content/people-profit-announce-tallaght-election-candidate
> 
> This is the second time this year they've stood against Paul Murphy.



Since the ULA fell apart there is no agreement not to stand against one another, afaik. Can't pin this one on the SWP (Ireland) I'm afraid. Both organisations and their respective fronts PBP and AAA need their heads knocked to a degree.


----------



## Limerick Red (Sep 9, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't know if this really belongs here, but what on earth are the Irish SWP playing at?
> 
> http://www.swp.ie/content/people-profit-announce-tallaght-election-candidate
> 
> This is the second time this year they've stood against Paul Murphy.


Murphy will be a shoe in, no? Don't see an issue looking for his second preferences and building their candidates profile in the area.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 9, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Murphy will be a shoe in, no?



Shoo-in!_* SHOO-IN!!!*_



Pass me another temazi, dammit.


----------



## belboid (Sep 9, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Murphy will be a shoe in, no? Don't see an issue looking for his second preferences and building their candidates profile in the area.


Seventh in 2011, 5.2% of the vote.  If they lose, it'll all be down to the SWP.


----------



## leyton96 (Sep 9, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Murphy will be a shoe in, no? Don't see an issue looking for his second preferences and building their candidates profile in the area.



There's only one seat up for grabs and Sinn Fein will win by a mile. However in a general election it is a 5 seater and there's definitely a far left (I.e. further left of Sinn Fein) seat for the taking. Paul is the highest profile left candidate who got a good vote in the constituency in the European elections. The hope is to get a good vote for Paul to put him in a strong position for the general election. 

Paul's campaign has been up and running for a month. The SWP have declared with about a month before the by election. Now, the SWP/PBPA can run where they like but people on the left are entitled to draw conclusions about their real reasons for doing so.

Generally lefts don't stand against sitting lefts in Ireland. The exception to this rule is the SWP/PBPA. The decision to stand a candidate in the Euros was to build a profile to stand against a sitting left TD (MP) in the General Election. In the local elections the SWP/PBPA ran against sitting SP councillors in Mulhuddert in Dublin West. I'm told they ran in Tipperary where another left group the Tipperary Workers Unemployed Action Group who have a number of councillors and were hoping to gain more. Basically the SWP/PBPA have declared war on the rest of the left in Ireland. 

Longstanding observers of the SWP here will know that when they decide to do something particularly sectarian they are normally smart enough to have some sort of bag carriers on board (variously at different times Labour lefts, Socialist Resistance, etc) to give the illusion of cooperation. They seem to have dispensed completely with that method in Ireland for a kamikaze mission. 

There's no love lost for the Irish SP with the rest of the left in Ireland but the SWP are increasingly regarded as an out and out menace. Personally I think they've lost the plot completely, even on their own terms.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 9, 2014)

belboid said:


> They're standing in an election, that's how elections work. Stop pretending you have some holy right to stand unopposed. You don't stand down against them.



Nobody's talking about a holy right. But Paul announced in July. The SWP announced yesterday. Two Socialist organisations standing against each other makes the whole effort pointless. 



flypanam said:


> Since the ULA fell apart there is no agreement not to stand against one another, afaik. Can't pin this one on the SWP (Ireland) I'm afraid. Both organisations and their respective fronts PBP and AAA need their heads knocked to a degree.



Just because they're not part of the same electoral front doesn't mean they can't communicate or avoid clashes. 



Limerick Red said:


> Murphy will be a shoe in, no? Don't see an issue looking for his second preferences and building their candidates profile in the area.



No, he won't be a shoo-in/shoe-in. But he is a relatively high profile candidate and there was a chance to secure a 3rd Socialist TD or at least get a decent vote to build on. That won't happen now.



leyton96 said:


> Now, the SWP/PBPA can run where they like but people on the left are entitled to draw conclusions about their real reasons for doing so.
> 
> The decision to stand a candidate in the Euros was to build a profile to stand against a sitting left TD (MP) in the General Election.



Is the same reasoning on display here? You'll possibly know more than me Leyton, have we made any attempts to contact them and avoid clashes at the general election?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 9, 2014)

To be honest I wouldn't mind so much if we didn't have a situation where in Britain the SWP is basically largely disinterested in TUSC and insists that elections aren't really important, yet in Ireland they seem determined that there should be two Socialist candidates fighting for every seat.


----------



## belboid (Sep 9, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> To be honest I wouldn't mind so much if we didn't have a situation where in Britain the SWP is basically largely disinterested in TUSC and insists that elections aren't really important, yet in Ireland they seem determined that there should be two Socialist candidates fighting for every seat.


you clearly don't understand the dialectic


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 9, 2014)

Whats happened to the WSM?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 9, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> Whats happened to the WSM?



They lost a number of key members a few years ago and have dwindled in size since. Still in existence and now influenced by intersectionalism, but not very visible.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 9, 2014)

It has to be said that since the announcement to run against Murphy in the Euros it has become clear the SWP are on mission to wreck the SP's electoral success in Ireland on some foolish errand to supplant them. 

It's disingenuous to claim that it doesn't matter since he has no hope of winning this time, the point of the by-election is to help build or reinforce a credible profile for the general election. A split vote in the general even in a 5 seat constituency (and I know how STV works thanks) will possibly prevent a genuine socialist getting in.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 9, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> Whats happened to the WSM?



The Darlington branch are still doing well


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 9, 2014)

People are sounding off confidently about Irish electoral politics here without necessarily knowing what they are talking about.

The SWP/PBPA candidacy in Dublin South West is not particularly important. They are unlikely to get a significant vote. In so far as they have any impact it will be to split the left of Sinn Fein vote (the Socialist Party came second in this constituency in the recent European elections and  the Anti-Austerity Alliance got three local councillors elected there), however Sinn Fein are going to romp home regardless. The greater issue is that it indicates that the SWP/PBPA will be standing there in the general election, when the constituency actually will be a target for the AAA.

Now, anyone is entitled run in an election anywhere they like. But that doesn't mean that exercising that right is reasonable, a good idea or likely to make you very popular. In general, there is a strong hostility on the left here to "vote splitting" operations - and that hostility combined with a basic level of responsible behaviour has made electoral clashes quite rare. Strong left candidates have almost always been given a free run, at least in the years from 1997 - when the SWP first moved into electoral politics and stood widely against others - until the recent Euro and local elections. This has been the case regardless of whether there have been formal alliances or pacts or deals in place.

What has changed in the last year or so is that the SWP has fully committed to a strategy of putting building the PBPA above any commitment to the health of the wider left. So they stood in the Europeans, knowing that they couldn't win and could only make things harder for a Socialist Party incumbent. And also stood no hope candidates in target wards for just about every other left group in the locals. In the forthcoming general election they are making it clear that they will again be standing widely against left wing incumbents and left wing candidates who might be in the running - the main point of standing against Murphy in the Euros was to set up their candidate to take out Joan Collins of the United Left in the general election, now they are letting us know that they will be running against Murphy again too.

They are entitled to behave like this. Nobody is suggesting that they should be forbidden from contesting elections. The rest of us however are entitled to regard their behaviour as irresponsible and destructive.

The Workers Party in its heyday had a similar attitude, but at least they generally had the honesty to say that the rest of the left were a shower of Trots, Provos, Provo-Trots, Social Democrats and other bastards and that their only concern was to build their own party. Nobody likes that, but you can sort of respect the honesty. The SWP/PBPA are not so honest. Instead they issue calls for unity while they sharpen the knife. On the same day they announced that they were standing against the Socialist Party in the European elections they attended a protest and handed out a leaflet calling for the left to work together and put old enmities behind us. In the most recent issue of their paper they have a weaselly article semi-justifying the decision to stand in that election and arguing that "instead of raking over the past, it is time to move on and discuss the possibility of united initiatives." Just before they try to stick the knife again. This is the having your cake and eating it too school of politics.


----------



## Oisin123 (Sep 9, 2014)

Nigel, your points would carry a great deal more weight if the SP hadn't walked out of the United Left Alliance. Personally, I don't get worked up about electoral politics. 'One mass strike is worth ten general elections' and all that. But for those interested in getting lots of left TDs elected, the breakthrough at the last general election (2011) for the 5 TDs was real progress. If the ULA had carried on, these clashes wouldn't be happening and I think the ULA would be a powerful electoral force.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 10, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> Nigel, your points would carry a great deal more weight if the SP hadn't walked out of the United Left Alliance. Personally, I don't get worked up about electoral politics. 'One mass strike is worth ten general elections' and all that. But for those interested in getting lots of left TDs elected, the breakthrough at the last general election (2011) for the 5 TDs was real progress. If the ULA had carried on, these clashes wouldn't be happening and I think the ULA would be a powerful electoral force.



The whole idea of the ULA was misconceived. What was needed was a less ambitious pledge to vote and campaign against austerity. That would have provided some measure of coordinated activity without trying to force a shotgun marriage between sects that were never, ever going to agree (wrote the lifelong armchair socialist).


----------



## leyton96 (Sep 10, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> Nigel, your points would carry a great deal more weight if the SP hadn't walked out of the United Left Alliance.



Really? How? 
In what world does it make sense to consistently run candidates in the target areas of other left groups? The only parallel I can think of on the European left is the KKE.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 10, 2014)

Didn't the anarchists do this in the soviet and factory elections ?


----------



## JHE (Sep 10, 2014)

but not for long


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 10, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> Nigel, your points would carry a great deal more weight if the SP hadn't walked out of the United Left Alliance.



This is a disingenuous line of argument. The ULA was entirely non-functional by the time the SP left - the SWP had already left in all but name, relaunching People Before Profit as a direct rival to the ULA and putting its resources into PBPA instead, the WUAG had already left and Daly and Collins were openly more interested in working with Flanagan and Wallace. Meanwhile pretty much nobody else had joined the ULA and most of its branches had a real existence only as long as the Socialist Party kept propping them up.




			
				Oisin said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't get worked up about electoral politics.



In which case you must find it very strange to be a member of the Irish SWP, an organisation which carries out most of its activity under its electoral name People Before Profit, with a central perspective of building PBP into a significant electoral force! It's like an officer of a chess club saying he doesn't care that much about board games. Over the last couple of years, the Irish SWP have been arguably the most electorally focused socialist grouping in the anglophone world.




			
				Oisin123 said:
			
		

> But for those interested in getting lots of left TDs elected, the breakthrough at the last general election (2011) for the 5 TDs was real progress. If the ULA had carried on, these clashes wouldn't be happening and I think the ULA would be a powerful electoral force.



The ULA was almost irrelevant to the electoral fortunes of those TDs - all were elected by a mile except Boyd Barrett and it was only narrow for him against Bacik because SWP/PBPA made a serious mistake in going too soft on Labour locally. The ULA then failed to take off in any meaningful sense, with few people getting involved. The SWP got frustrated and switched horses back to the PBPA. By the time the SP left, it was a shell and a waste of our limited resources.

"These clashes" - and let's be clear by this we are talking not about generalised "clashes" but about one left group, yours, standing no hoper candidates irresponsibly but consistently in the target seats of every other group - are happening for one reason only. And that reason is that the SWP have made a decision to seize every opportunity to build PBP and raise its profile, no matter what damage that does to the wider left. It is, in other words, purest sectarianism. Nobody else is behaving similarly.

As I said above, the Workers Party used to behave like this. But at least they had the basic honesty not to pour out flagrantly, shamelessly, dishonest appeals for "unity" at the same time. Your lot really do seem to believe that everyone else has no memory. That you can fuck the rest of us over, then argue that we should all just get along, then fuck the rest of us over again, then go back to piously calling for unity, without anyone noticing or resenting it.

I note, by the way, that there's no actual defence of the SWP/PBP's actions in your response.


----------



## The39thStep (Sep 10, 2014)

What we need is a Peshmerga  of the left


----------



## J Ed (Sep 10, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> What we need is a Peshmerga  of the left



Why stop at Peshmerga? What about a Godzilla of the left? Or is Godzilla already left-wing anyway?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 10, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> What we need is a Peshmerga  of the left



Well, we did used to have left-nationalists who were occasionally prone to outbreaks of fratricidal internecine violence.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 10, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Well, we did used to have left-nationalists who were occasionally prone to outbreaks of fratricidal internecine violence.


Irps meeting in departure lounges so their comrades couldn't sneak guns into meetings


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 10, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Irps meeting in departure lounges so their comrades couldn't sneak guns into meetings


Pretty sure I saw a big budget action movie about that once

 

Think it was called _O'Toole Recall_.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 11, 2014)




----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 12, 2014)

I see that Kieran Allen's hunchbacked assistant James O'Toole was out on Facebook today peddling the same disingenuous line Oisin123 came out with above, so it seems to be the excuse they are making internally. This clown is the new National Secretary of the SWP, remember.

James O'tooleYes it was unfortunate that the SP left the ULA as it would have been better for the radical left to all come under the same umbrella. But as things stand at the moment we need to prove that a vibrant radical left can be built by building People Before Profit as a network and space where any worker who wants to fight can develop - while at the same time reaching out to the rest of the radical left.

"Reaching out to the rest of the radical left" one sectarian stunt at a time. Still, you can always get a quick handle on the Irish SWP's current obsessions and buzz phrases by listening to a few sentences of inanities from him.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 13, 2014)

Nigel what colour are James O'Toole's eyes?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Oisin123 (Sep 13, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I see that Kieran Allen's hunchbacked assistant James O'Toole was out on Facebook today peddling the same disingenuous line Oisin123 came out with above, so it seems to be the excuse they are making internally.


I haven't seen this point 'internally' in Party Notes or heard it in a branch meeting. It's simply an obvious one that springs to mind when the SP ask for unity.
But we can look forward, not back, if you prefer. Why not propose an agreement for the next election


----------



## killer b (Sep 13, 2014)

'vibrant'


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 13, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> I haven't seen this point 'internally' in Party Notes or heard it in a branch meeting. It's simply an obvious one that springs to mind when the SP ask for unity.
> But we can look forward, not back, if you prefer. Why not propose an agreement for the next election



Clearly you haven't been reading Socialist Worker, not that I blame you. That's the disingenuous line pushed in the most recent paper. Strangely enough it also contains the suggestion that we shouldn't "rake over the past", so despite your apparent memory issues, you are still reliably hitting the right talking points.

The "raking over the past"' "look forward, not back" pieties are, of course, entirely self serving. The SWP has no memory of its own actions and it would very much prefer that nobody else did either.


----------



## Oisin123 (Sep 13, 2014)

It occured to me to ask what you thought of a future electoral pact because that question provides a test your narrative of events. If you offer the SWP a sincere electoral pact, with a fair division of constituencies, and we turn it down and stand as we please then you're right. If you say 'no', then that suggests it is you who is constructing a distorted view of the past to suit a current sectarian policy.


----------



## Coolfonz (Sep 14, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Why stop at Peshmerga? What about a Godzilla of the left? Or is Godzilla already left-wing anyway?



Of course Godzilla is left wing. Not the first American one though, splitting dinosaur fake-ass lizard.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 14, 2014)

.


----------



## Oisin123 (Sep 15, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> .


I did read your post before you edited it. Why did you remove it?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 15, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> I did read your post before you edited it. Why did you remove it?



I was tired when I wrote it and it seemed overly aggressive in tone when I reread it. I was planning to make much the same points without some of the polemical jabs, but I got distracted went and made dinner instead.

I didn't actually mention it in the removed post, but it's worth saying that I don't locate the source of the SWP/PBPA's recent behaviour in some kind of sectarian original sin. It flows from the PBPA gamble. I actually think that the SWP were sincere enough about the ULA in its early days. Even when they set up "Enough!", which trespassed rather too much on the ULA's supposed role, they were still putting resources into the ULA.

It's the effective relaunch of PBPA and the massive shift of resources into it which indicated the change in direction. And that rather amusing leaked circular slagging off everyone else gave an accidental insight into the reasons - the SWP leadership was getting extremely frustrated at the inevitable overheads of working with others on an equal basis, particularly the tiresome task of actually winning support for their views and proposals. The frustration also stemmed from the failure of the ULA to grow on the ground. Without the fetters allegedly imposed by the "conservatism" of Collins or the WUAG and the irritating encumbrance of the Socialist Party, the SWP would use PBPA to demonstrate the superiority of their dynamic leadership and show the huge gains that a more, ahem, vibrant left could make. This is of course in the context of a perspective which has held for more than ten (twelve? fifteen?) years that big advances for the left are there to be made.*

Everything else flows from doubling down on that over and over. It has led internally to a greater and greater emphasis on PBPA work (and inevitably PBPA politics). And from an external point of view it led to what seems like destructive behaviour because building the PBPA came first. Lots of people on the left have an extremely jaundiced view of the SWP and see it as almost unchanging. I actually think the most interesting thing about PBPA is exactly how much it has changed the SWP.

As I said in the removed post, there are two different strands to the SWP/PBPA's "belligerence" when it comes to standing candidates in other group's target seats. 1) moves which are about replacing Collins with Brid Smith. This ultimately included the European election stunt, where hindering the Socialist Party was just a bonus. 2) gratuitously standing no hopers against incumbents or serious contenders. The first is a core interest that they have invested a great deal in. The second, I think, is mostly an artefact of a hope/expectation that the local elections would leave them in a dominant electoral position on the left, with PBPA established as the only or at least the main game in town. As that hasn't worked out, I don't think the SWP/PBPA gains much from antagonising everyone else.

As such, there may well be scope for agreements of the sort which centre around the SWP/PBPA knocking it off with the no hoper vandalism. I don't see how there can be any substantive "unity" involving both Collins and the SWP however. The Socialist Party, it should be noted, has nothing invested in standing candidates in other people's targets and I believe the last time it did anything even slightly comparable was more than 20 years ago.

You may, of course, have a different perspective on all of this, which I would of course be interested to hear.

*eventually this perspective will be right on the stopped clock principle.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Sep 18, 2014)

The article about the disintegration of the SWP which was published in the October 2013 issue of Datacide magazine is now online:
http://datacide.c8.com/crisis-in-the-swp/


----------



## comrade spurski (Sep 27, 2014)

So I left the swp in late 2009...after being a member since I joined as a 18 yr old in 1986
I wrote at the time explaining my decision as I was being described as a lindsey german supporter.
I cancelled by subs.
I have never been near the party since...have never bought a paper or magazine or signed an swp petition. So there is no doubt that I am not a member
This morning...5 years after I left... I received an invoice asking me to pay for copies of socialist worker!

No wonder they claim thousands of members if the disorganised, dishonest organisation still has me on its records


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2014)

Apparently seventeen people have left Counterfire (they don't deserve their own thread) this week. Supposedly over 'internal problems' - tho they are usually a cover for political problems, most likely stemming from the leaderships capitualtion to Stalinism. Neil 'Time Team' Faulkner is the most prominent name to split.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

belboid said:


> Apparently seventeen people have left Counterfire (they don't deserve their own thread) this week. Supposedly over 'internal problems' - tho they are usually a cover for political problems, most likely stemming from the leaderships capitualtion to Stalinism. Neil 'Time Team' Faulkner is the most prominent name to split.


Did you see the kagarlitsky interview they ran?


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Did you see the kagarlitsky interview they ran?


I have not, arshlakhan, perchance?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

belboid said:


> I have not, arshlakhan, perchance?


They allow him to say the most ridiculous stuff without challenge. For example, the west bussed 20 thousand kids into Kiev and paid for them to live there for three months and other such Putinesque nonsense. Total betrayal of is traditions.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 30, 2014)

When did Kagarlitsky lose the plot? I hadn't really been paying attention for quite some time, and then he turned up with all this Russian nationalist shit.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 30, 2014)

the one (apparent) Counterfirist on my facebook intermittently posts nonsense about various national questions. Shame really, because she's otherwise sound


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> When did Kagarlitsky lose the plot? I hadn't really been paying attention for quite some time, and then he turned up with all this Russian nationalist shit.


He's been claiming the donetsk republic is a modern day version of the Paris commune and other fantasies for a year plus now. The aus links people seem to be his main mouth piece. He's been meeting with fascists on the Putin dollar as well. (As did some workers power naifs. Well, it was actually their head honcho). In fact Putin pays him for a number of pro-putin activities.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They allow him to say the most ridiculous stuff without challenge. For example, the west bussed 20 thousand kids into Kiev and paid for them to live there for three months and other such Putinesque nonsense. Total betrayal of is traditions.


My god, he basically says Strelkov is a good guy


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 1, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> So I left the swp in late 2009...after being a member since I joined as a 18 yr old in 1986
> I wrote at the time explaining my decision as I was being described as a lindsey german supporter.
> I cancelled by subs.
> I have never been near the party since...have never bought a paper or magazine or signed an swp petition. So there is no doubt that I am not a member
> ...



A mate of mine claims copies of SW are still sent to all 8 of his previous addresses - including 2 in Spain.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 1, 2014)

belboid said:


> Apparently seventeen people have left Counterfire (they don't deserve their own thread) this week. Supposedly over 'internal problems' - tho they are usually a cover for political problems, most likely stemming from the leaderships capitualtion to Stalinism. Neil 'Time Team' Faulkner is the most prominent name to split.



Where did the Stalinist turn come from exactly? Seems bizarre that people from an org that refused to accept there was anything even slightly progressive about the USSR are now actively claiming Putin is some kind of anti-fascist anti-imperialist hero. Is it all just cos of STW or are there other reasons?


----------



## belboid (Oct 1, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> A mate of mine claims copies of SW are still sent to all 8 of his previous addresses - including 2 in Spain.


I do find that a bit hard to believe. I used to do the paper mailouts and there just weren't that many subscribers, it would have been noticed. Especially the ones in Spain.



SpackleFrog said:


> Where did the Stalinist turn come from exactly? Seems bizarre that people from an org that refused to accept there was anything even slightly progressive about the USSR are now actively claiming Putin is some kind of anti-fascist anti-imperialist hero. Is it all just cos of STW or are there other reasons?


I cant think of anything other than STW, too much time hanging out with the last few Stalinists, the Defend Donetsk (or whatever its called) campaign must be the only new one where anyone listens to them (and Richard 'made an idiot of over Ukraine, _again_' Brenner)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2014)

The cushy RT numbers for Rees and german must ease the way a fair bit. In the same way they said that shop stewards grew away from the members by playing different roles, diff lifes, contacts, networks etc all adding up to diff interests.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The cushy RT numbers for Rees and german must ease the way a fair bit. In the same way they said that shop stewards grew away from the members by playing different roles, diff lifes, contacts, networks etc all adding up to diff interests.



It's amazing when you think about it but Rees is actually arrogant enough to think "well, if RT invite me on to speak they must be an infallible news source."


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 1, 2014)

belboid said:


> Apparently seventeen people have left Counterfire (they don't deserve their own thread) this week. Supposedly over 'internal problems' - tho they are usually a cover for political problems, most likely stemming from the leaderships capitualtion to Stalinism. Neil 'Time Team' Faulkner is the most prominent name to split.



Is that split a sizeable section of their membership?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 1, 2014)

dunno where else to plonk this, but I hold in my hands a piece of paper- its a leaflet from Leicester put out to show that cllr's Barbera Potter and Wayne Naylor have gone TUSC. Acorns etc.


----------



## belboid (Oct 1, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> Is that split a sizeable section of their membership?


I'd have to think so.  They dont exist outside of London any more, at least not in any noticeable form. I cant believe there were ever more than 100 of them, must be well under 50 now


----------



## belboid (Oct 1, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> dunno where else to plonk this, but I hold in my hands a piece of paper- its a leaflet from Leicester put out to show that cllr's Barbera Potter and Wayne Naylor have gone TUSC. Acorns etc.


they split to become Autonomists at the beginning of June.  Ms P has just had a restraining order (for harassment) against her lifted.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 1, 2014)

ah, I just looked at the front- its to advertise the TUSC peoples budget conference (bishop street methodist church, refreshments not specified)


bob crow is on the back.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The cushy RT numbers for Rees and german must ease the way a fair bit. In the same way they said that shop stewards grew away from the members by playing different roles, diff lifes, contacts, networks etc all adding up to diff interests.


partly that - also the orientation to the TU bureuacracy in Unite via the Andrew Murray link in StW and People's Assembly.


----------



## articul8 (Oct 1, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He's been claiming the donetsk republic is a modern day version of the Paris commune and other fantasies for a year plus now. The aus links people seem to be his main mouth piece. He's been meeting with fascists on the Putin dollar as well. (As did some workers power naifs. Well, it was actually their head honcho). In fact Putin pays him for a number of pro-putin activities.



This link apprears to suggest that Kargalitsky has been giving evidence as a prosecution witness for Putin's state - trying some of his former comrades for inciting a riot, and implicating the anarchists in the process.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 1, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> What we need is a Peshmerga  of the left


Eirigi!
http://www.thejournal.ie/eirigi-member-charged-over-gun-find-695865-Nov2012/


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is Margi Clarke's son really a holocaust denier/nazi sympathiser?


Hmmm

Totally OT of course.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 2, 2014)

Have the Counterfire splitters issued a statement? Are they forming a new group?


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2014)

Or at least a pop-up sandwich shop...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 2, 2014)

Is Soloman one of the splitters?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Is Soloman one of the splitters?


Never doubt her judgement


----------



## treelover (Oct 2, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hmmm
> 
> Totally OT of course.




Margi must be mortified, her and her brother Frank Clarke have always spoken out against the fash.



> the quisling's casting dispersions and slander should know better - everything hiden comes clearly into view



update maybe not, this is on his facebook page posted by Margi


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 6, 2014)

If  anyone is still interested, here's the first SWP pre-conference bulletin:

http://www20.zippyshare.com/v/40722985/file.html

Some gems, of course:

From Mark in Manchester: ""Since Conference last year, in Manchester we have renewed and rebuilt a collective political leadership. We have become more experienced at making political turns when needed." 

From Bridget: "In January our district received an email with the subject “Birmingham: Some good news!” I opened it during a boring work meeting, excited to find out what
it was about and discovered that we had been chosen as a Socialist Worker sales
improvement area!...
The district, feeling lucky to be specially selected, took up the challenge and has put
paper sales at the heart of everything we have done this year"


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 6, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> If  anyone is still interested, here's the first SWP pre-conference bulletin:
> 
> http://www20.zippyshare.com/v/40722985/file.html
> 
> ...



"“Enough already!” I hear you cry" - Terry from Wood Green


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 6, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> If  anyone is still interested, here's the first SWP pre-conference bulletin:
> 
> http://www20.zippyshare.com/v/40722985/file.html
> 
> ...



There's still one die-hard optimist with an article in calling for more internal democracy. Other than that, it's as boring as a pre crisis bulletin, although mercifully shorter and lacking the old confidence.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 6, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> From Bridget: "In January our district received an email with the subject “Birmingham: Some good news!” I opened it during a boring work meeting, excited to find out what
> it was about and discovered that we had been chosen as a Socialist Worker sales
> improvement area!...


This sounds like the sort of shit managers would come up with.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 6, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's still one die-hard optimist with an article in calling for more internal democracy. Other than that, it's as boring as a pre crisis bulletin, although mercifully shorter and lacking the old confidence.


Presumably shorter due to the lack of actual members


----------



## rekil (Oct 11, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> There's only one seat up for grabs and Sinn Fein will win by a mile. However in a general election it is a 5 seater and there's definitely a far left (I.e. further left of Sinn Fein) seat for the taking. Paul is the highest profile left candidate who got a good vote in the constituency in the European elections. The hope is to get a good vote for Paul to put him in a strong position for the general election.
> 
> Paul's campaign has been up and running for a month. The SWP have declared with about a month before the by election. Now, the SWP/PBPA can run where they like but people on the left are entitled to draw conclusions about their real reasons for doing so.
> 
> ...


Murphy just about ahead with 36/98 boxes open according to tallies.

Murphy (AAA) 26.8%
King (SF) 26%
Keane (FG) 10.1%
Kearns (Lab) 9.7%
Lahart (FF) 9.3%
McMahon (ind) 9%

SWP/PBP on about 3% - well played comrades!

==========

e2a: From @gavreilly

SF's own #dsw14 tally now complete... 

SF King 30.4% 
AAA Murphy 27.4% 
FF Lahart 8.9% 
Ind McMahon 8.6% 
FG Keane 8.4% 
Lab Kearns 8.4%


----------



## Limerick Red (Oct 11, 2014)

I see o'cuiv has said the by-election results will mean much soul searching for FF and they need to decide whether they are a party of the upper middle class or a Republican Party, I would have thought that was decided when they started executing IRA members.


----------



## treelover (Oct 11, 2014)

> We wonder perhaps if we will soon start seeing a slightly hunted look in the eyes of Bianca Todd.
> Comrade Todd, one of the four directly elected principal speakers of Left Unity, apparently cannot turn up at an LU national council meeting without facing a motion of censure directed at her.
> The latest was referred to briefly in Yassamine Mather’s report last week of the September 20 NC meeting, brought by Simon Hardy on behalf of Lambeth branch. Comrade Mather was one of many who gave the motion a cold reception - it “seemed to me like a witch-hunt … It is unfortunate that comrades who are now part of a culture that is liable to refer to the expression of political opinions different from their own as ‘bullying’ have submitted a critical motion to the NC targeted at one named comrade.”1
> 
> http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1028/no-clean-hands/




Oh dear, it seems Left Unity is now attacking each other

actually, its quite sad.


----------



## treelover (Oct 11, 2014)

> Since its formation last spring, the ISN has become completely crippled by its intersectionalist commitments, to the point where it notoriously split over a controversial work of contemporary sculpture. We have, by lucky happenstance, come upon the minutes of the group’s latest leadership meeting, a good part of which seems to have been taken up by report-backs from no less than six caucuses (disabled members, “LGBTQ+ members”, “members who identify as women”, and their three complements - _non_-disabled members and so on). The more members the ISN loses, the more caucuses it sprouts.



The ISN also looks like supporting...


----------



## rekil (Oct 11, 2014)

Murphy elected thanks to transfers from Fine Gael voters. 



Spoiler


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2014)

treelover said:


> The ISN also looks like supporting...


anyone who believes everything that they read in the Weekly Wanker is a bigger fool than they are


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 11, 2014)

The last two Dail by-elections in urban Ireland have now had the same result - the Socialist Party / Anti Austerity Alliance winning, Sinn Fein coming second and the establishment parties nowhere. Today each of Murphy and King individually got a bigger vote than all of the three parties that have dominated politics here since the foundation of the state combined!

It is interesting to see the difference across the Irish Sea, where anti-establishment or protest votes are tending strongly to the right.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 11, 2014)

Or to put it another way, in May in the Dublin West by-election, 50% of an entire constituency voted Trot or Provo. Today in the Dublin South West by election, 60% of the entire constituency voted Trot or Provo.


----------



## Limerick Red (Oct 11, 2014)

SHOE IN


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 12, 2014)

Nigel, are you really saying that these voters voted either Sinn Fein or SWP? Or is there another deconstruction of your words that makes more sense?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 12, 2014)

Almost. In these by-elections, the Socialist


Hocus Eye. said:


> Nigel, are you really saying that these voters voted either Sinn Fein or SWP? Or is there another deconstruction of your words that makes more sense?



No not the SWP, the Socialist Party. But other than that , yes. The Socialist Party (the Irish section of the Committee for a Worker's International) has just won the last two parliamentary by-elections in Dublin. In both by-elections, Sinn Fein came second, while the traditional establishment parties were not in the running.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 12, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Almost. In these by-elections, the Socialist
> 
> 
> No not the SWP, the Socialist Party. But other than that , yes. The Socialist Party (the Irish section of the Committee for a Worker's International) has just won the last two parliamentary by-elections in Dublin. In both by-elections, Sinn Fein came second, while the traditional establishment parties were not in the running.


Right, got it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 12, 2014)

@IrelandSWP: Well done to Paul Murphy AAA- a radical left victory in #DublinSouthWest shows the thirst for a fightback out there!

There is no reply rude enough.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 12, 2014)

Is it my imagination or is Delta trying to self-rehabilitate as a _street art aficionado_?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 14, 2014)

Not sure it needs a thread of its own but Bianca Todd one of the leaders of Left Unity has resigned and is demanding to stand again in the election to replace her. Shades of Reckless and Carswell?

it's over her behaviour as a director of a charity and stealing wages from her staff

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...when-youve-got-fancy-restaurants-9215416.html


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 15, 2014)

Here's the Prof in the latest SW:

"We have to shake off the petty narcissism of our different projects and work together to create united left wing alternatives to neoliberalism both sides of the border."

Sounds like a change of line .... or is it just desperation kicking in?


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2014)

Dunno, haven't the SWP always paid lip service to the idea of 'working together' (while acting against it, obviously).

He's right, but it's difficult to see what place he can have in such a coalition, considering.


----------



## rekil (Oct 19, 2014)

Boyd-Barrett in big business beverage bust.

I expect he got that shirt and jacket from a "shop" as well. Of all the ways they could attack him and the SWP they go for this?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 19, 2014)

copliker said:


> Boyd-Barrett in big business beverage bust.
> 
> I expect he got that shirt and jacket from a "shop" as well. Of all the ways they could attack him and the SWP they go for this?



He's wearing shoes too. Doesn't the hypocrite know that shoes are made by capitalist businesses?


----------



## JHE (Oct 19, 2014)

copliker said:


> Boyd-Barrett in big business beverage bust.
> 
> I expect he got that shirt and jacket from a "shop" as well. Of all the ways they could attack him and the SWP they go for this?



In what way is that article linked to the poor old Social Workers?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 19, 2014)

JHE said:


> In what way is that article linked to the poor old Social Workers?



Richard Boyd Barrett is the main face of People Before Profit and behind the scenes an SWP leader.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

Was on the demo yesterday in London and was surprised to see far less swp paper sellers than I expected...was also surprised to see so few printed placards from left parties....there were mostly uion flags and placards from united, gmb, unison and pcs etc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Was on the demo yesterday in London and was surprised to see far less swp paper sellers than I expected...was also surprised to sell so few printed placards from left parties....there were mostly uion flags and placards from united, gmb, unison and pcs etc.



Why would you be surprised that the SWP are smaller and less visible? You are posting on this thread: you must know what happened.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Why would you be surprised that the SWP are smaller and less visible? You are posting on this thread: you must know what happened.


Cos they are desperate to pretend they were not devasted as an organisation by their disgusting behaviour...I thought theyd concentrate on getting their placards out as a way of giving an illusion that they are a big organisation. 
Im glad they could not do that...I am just a bit surprised


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Was on the demo yesterday in London and was surprised to see far less swp paper sellers than I expected...was also surprised to sell so few printed placards from left parties....there were mostly uion flags and placards from united, gmb, unison and pcs etc.



I saw a SWP stall outside Blackfriars sometime after the march had passed. Manned by a lonely, but vaguely familiar, face.


----------



## JHE (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> ...was also surprised to sell so few printed placards from left parties....



You'll have to lower the price.  

Have you considered special offers?  For a customer who buys, say, a full set of lefty placards you could provide a complimentary shouty trotogram


----------



## treelover (Oct 19, 2014)

chilango said:


> I saw a SWP stall outside Blackfriars sometime after the march had passed. Manned by a lonely, but vaguely familiar, face.



how the mighty have fallen, lost count how many times I nearly came to blows with the en masse stalls, paper sellers, etc, who used to dominate such events, progress at last maybe.


----------



## chilango (Oct 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> how the mighty have fallen, lost count how many times I nearly came to blows with the en masse stalls, paper sellers, etc, who used to dominate such events, progress at last maybe.



They may have just stuck with the march, I'd missed it and was seeing if I could catch up with the rear.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

treelover said:


> how the mighty have fallen, lost count how many times I nearly came to blows with the en masse stalls, paper sellers, etc, who used to dominate such events, progress at last maybe.


Why did you nearly come to blows?


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

JHE said:


> You'll have to lower the price.
> 
> Have you considered special offers?  For a customer who buys, say, a full set of lefty placards you could provide a complimentary shouty trotogram


Smart arse...
i meant see not sell!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 20, 2014)

The SP were highly visible at all stages of the march, the SWP much less so


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 20, 2014)

Quite a few SWP sellers at the entrance to Hyde Park when I arrived towards the back of the march. 

But hardly any during. 

Was at an event about the 1994 CJA protests yesterday where someone showed a slide showing "the traditional SWP banned with 'socialist worker' ripped off the top". Made me smile.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Not sure it needs a thread of its own but Bianca Todd one of the leaders of Left Unity has resigned and is demanding to stand again in the election to replace her. Shades of Reckless and Carswell?
> 
> it's over her behaviour as a director of a charity and stealing wages from her staff
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...when-youve-got-fancy-restaurants-9215416.html


she is now not standing again - probably having realised she is just rubbish

http://leftunity.org/statement-on-b...ium=rss&utm_campaign=statement-on-bianca-todd


----------



## dennisr (Oct 20, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The SP were highly visible at all stages of the march, the SWP much less so



Gotta give treelover something to rage about


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 21, 2014)

Sinn Fein are now facing a similar crisis.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 21, 2014)

the shinner one has been bubbling away for ages- ever since adams brother got sent down for being a dirty nonce


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 21, 2014)

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/10/20/poll-whats-your-favourite-gerry-adams-denial/


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 21, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> Sinn Fein are now facing a similar crisis.



It will be interesting to see how the SF membership reacts. They do, of course, have a much greater siege mentality and leadership loyalty than the British SWP.


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 21, 2014)

Sinn Fein normally have a 'Putting Irish Unity on the Agenda' conference at TUC HQ every February. 
Will be interesting to see if the intersectionalistas show up to protest that one


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 21, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Sinn Fein normally have a 'Putting Irish Unity on the Agenda' conference at TUC HQ every February.
> Will be interesting to see if the intersectionalistas show up to protest that one


Unlikely you'd have thought, given that their MO seems to be no platforming organisations with less than 1000 members and that are not in fact plausibly scary. SF fits neither category.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 21, 2014)

http://www.journal-online.co.uk/art..._student_council_agenda_due_claims_defamation


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 21, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> Sinn Fein are now facing a similar crisis.


A mere 40 pages, but rumbling along.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ies-demolished-at-brothers-rape-trial.315772/


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

Following last weeks plea for unity from Callinicos, a letter from Ian Birchall. 

Anyone think they published it?  Naah, of course not.

http://grimanddim.org/political-writings/2014-letter-to-socialist-worker/


----------



## Oisin123 (Oct 24, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It will be interesting to see how the SF membership reacts. They do, of course, have a much greater siege mentality and leadership loyalty than the British SWP.


It will be. A sense that there is now a feeding frenzy against them, driven by the mainstream fear of SF being the biggest party in the state, will unite them. But like with the SWP students, there is a newer generation of SF members who are going to be appalled at some of the attitudes of the older men.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 24, 2014)

Out of curiosity is there still a strong Gerry McGough style conservative element within SF?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Out of curiosity is there still a strong Gerry McGough style conservative element within SF?



There are individual SFers with just about every set of opinions, with leftish populism being the dominant brand in the urban parts of the South but less so in the North. There are however no organised currents of any kind, right or left, with a different agenda to the leadership. A high premium is placed on loyalty to the organisation as incarnated in the leadership.

Their moderate anti-choice position on abortion is emblematic of their stance on social issues. "Liberal" enough to be considered abortionists by lifer maniacs but actually opposed to abortion as a choice. And even then one of their TDs refused to back their stance for lifer reasons.

Their members would not by and large have the same level of contact with current feminist ideas through the student movement etc as British SWPers had. There are some SF feminists though I don't know what they are saying, if anything.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 24, 2014)

Oisin123 said:


> It will be. A sense that there is now a feeding frenzy against them, driven by the mainstream fear of SF being the biggest party in the state, will unite them. But like with the SWP students, there is a newer generation of SF members who are going to be appalled at some of the attitudes of the older men.



There's some quite hair raising stuff on social media from some SFers, not all older men.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 26, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> http://www.journal-online.co.uk/art..._student_council_agenda_due_claims_defamation


Good piece from Dave Renton on this question:

https://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/hollow-threats-hollow-people/

For what's worth, my opinion is that the SWP should definitely NOT be banned from having meetings at unis. However, as Renton points out new members (if there are any!) should be made aware of the rape scandal and older members and especially leaders should be constantly reminded of their cover up.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 26, 2014)

So they do not recognise the police and justice system is fair to working class people and the trade union movement, to the oppressed and rape victims but threaten to use it if students tell lies about them...there are not enough  to go round


----------



## redcogs (Oct 26, 2014)

delta's 'Dream Deferred' blog being promoted by Callinicos?!   WTF.  Is Smithy still on the Party payrole?  There seems to be a sickness in the swp that has not been properly purged.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> So they do not recognise the police and justice system is fair to working class people and the trade union movement, to the oppressed and rape victims but threaten to use it if students tell lies about them...there are not enough  to go round



Desperate times call for desperate measures.

This bit is interesting though


> The SWP’s problem is that truth is a complete defence to libel. And the only way that a court can establish whether a person has spoken untruthfully is by ordering both sides to disclose all the documents of a case and forming a view for itself. That means that one of the tasks facing any organisation seriously maintaining libel is to disclose to the court and to the party which it accuses of libel all the documents of the case, both those that support its case, and those that potentially undermine its case





> Charlie Kimber knows very well the catastrophic impact that the details of what happened during the two investigations would have – even on Smith’s most blinkered supporters, let alone on any new recruits to the SWP – if they were finally made public. He has no doubt been advised, or if he has not been advised, he should have been – that once a document has been part of court proceedings, there is nothing you can do to stop its open discussion. For those reasons, he will not pursue a libel threat to court.



He's basically saying it's all a bluff anyway. I wonder if EUSA will consider calling it.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> Desperate times call for desperate measures.
> 
> This bit is interesting though
> 
> ...


The trouble is even the most basic legal fees make it impossible to take the risk so they may well back off


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> The trouble is even the most basic legal fees make it impossible to take the risk so they may well back off



Yeah, I fear you're right.

Does the SWP resorting to threats of libel count as an example of "bending the stick", BTW? I've never been quite sure exactly what that expression refers to.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 26, 2014)

I hated that saying when I was in the swp.
It was used to excuse bullying behaviour...ie I was shouted at once over something ...and I told the person to talk politely or not at all (I may not have been as polite as that in all honesty) and was told they were bending the stick ... they never shouted at me again after I told them where to put their stick.
I was always considered to be influenced by automonism...nothing to do with them having a fear and mistrust of anyone or thing that deviated from their belief that they knew best


----------



## newbie (Oct 26, 2014)

this is a time for solidarity surely, the SWP is not rich enough to take on every student newspaper in the country... 






easy for me to say, of course, I don't publish a student newspaper


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> I hated that saying when I was in the swp.
> It was used to excuse bullying behaviour...ie I was shouted at once over something ...and I told the person to talk politely or not at all (I may not have been as polite as that in all honesty) and was told they were bending the stick ... they never shouted at me again after I told them where to put their stick.
> I was always considered to be influenced by automonism...nothing to do with them having a fear and mistrust of anyone or thing that deviated from their belief that they knew best



So what does it actually mean? I assumed it was something to do with reversing a previous position for reasons of cynical expediency detecting objective changes in the balance of socio-economic forces requiring an honest and genuine revision of policy


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> So what does it actually mean? I assumed it was thing to do with reversing a previous position for reasons of cynical expediency detecting objective changes in the balance of socio-economic forces requiring an honest and genuine revision of policy



It's supposed to mean what you said in the non crossed out bit but was used to for justifying all sorts of shit...think Iits a phrase used by lenin....including changing branch secretaries, paper organisers, meeting titles etc...i was in the party from 86/87 to 2009...out of those 22 or 23 yrs i only regularly attended meetings from 92-99... i only went to the conference twice, was an organiser for 6 months but quit...so never became a name or developed an ego in the organisation so never went along with shit like that. 
I was active in campaigns, my union and workplace so was tolerated but was considered soft  ... presumably cos I did not bend the stick enough


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2014)

No one on here will believe this but I saw Delta having a coffee with a still serving CC member on Thursday evening in central London 

Made me wonder


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 26, 2014)

Nothing about them woukd surprise me tbh


----------



## redcogs (Oct 27, 2014)

i once had an acquaintanceship with a bloke who was a local at one of the pub's i used to frequent.  When it was revealed that he had been sexually fiddling with a minor i remember feeling very shocked indeed.  Subsequently i had to consider how to react towards him (following his release from prison).  Later, when i bumped into him (in a pub) i used the moment to calmly say that i no longer wished to have any conversation with him on any basis, and that he should stay away from me, which he did. It was a hard and emotionally difficult thing to do, even though he was not what i regarded as a friend.  But it was necessary for my own sense of decency.

Delta ought to have been dealt with similarly by the swp high command.  The idea that he is still being courted by some of them seems curious.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 27, 2014)

redcogs said:


> i once had an acquaintanceship with a bloke who was a local at one of the pub's i used to frequent.  When it was revealed that he had been sexually fiddling with a minor i remember feeling very shocked indeed.  Subsequently i had to consider how to react towards him (following his release from prison).  Later, when i bumped into him (in a pub) i used the moment to calmly say that i no longer wished to have any conversation with him on any basis, and that he should stay away from me, which he did. It was a hard and emotionally difficult thing to do, even though he was not what i regarded as a friend.  But it was necessary for my own sense of decency.


 
When I was first a union rep I discovered one of the members in my workplace was a convicted nonce, because the police notified the chair of his local tenants association who told me... Which did make some other things about his behaviour towards a colleagues kid, and some of his comments all fit together so 2+2 made 4.

In the end I didn't tell colleagues (because they might have murdered him) except the one with the kid, who I knew would not react violently or tell anyone else if I asked him not to.

I did tell the bloke I knew though, as we were fairly friendly and I didn't think I could be any more, but also I owed him an explanation - also told him I'd be happy to represent him as a union member as well, it didn't change that.

He excepted it, think he'd got that a lot.

It was all very weird...


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 29, 2014)

IB2 is out. Apparently, it makes for more entertaining reading than IB1 - at least, judging by today's Facebook discussions. If you have a link to the IB, please post it here. Failing that, we'll just have to wait for WW on Friday...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Nothing about them woukd surprise me tbh


i have it on good authority it would. if it ever gets out.


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2014)

It's here - https://www.facebook.com/download/1512585099000058/PreConf Bulletin ii Oct 2014-2.pdf (I dont think you have to be a member of any fb group to grab it)

The bits I've read have been fairly dull.  Nothing completely bonkers.  Nothing insightful either.


----------



## hot air baboon (Oct 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> Yeah, I fear you're right.
> 
> Does the SWP resorting to threats of libel count as an example of "bending the stick", BTW? I've never been quite sure exactly what that expression refers to.





comrade spurski said:


> I hated that saying when I was in the swp.
> It was used to excuse bullying behaviour...ie I was shouted at once over something ...and I told the person to talk politely or not at all (I may not have been as polite as that in all honesty) and was told they were bending the stick ... they never shouted at me again after I told them where to put their stick.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 30, 2014)

belboid said:


> It's here - https://www.facebook.com/download/1512585099000058/PreConf Bulletin ii Oct 2014-2.pdf (I dont think you have to be a member of any fb group to grab it)
> 
> The bits I've read have been fairly dull.  Nothing completely bonkers.  Nothing insightful either.



Doesn't work for me. Thanks anyway.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 30, 2014)

Just received a copy of IB2. Unfortunately, I can't post a link as it was sent to me as an email attachment. 
Haven't had time to read much of it, but was struck by the membership figures claimed: the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year. Can anyone seriously believe either figure? What's more, recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not? 
I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!


----------



## ddraig (Oct 30, 2014)

does that IB thing have the slagging off of anarchists in it?


----------



## Karmickameleon (Oct 30, 2014)

ddraig said:


> does that IB thing have the slagging off of anarchists in it?


Just done a quick search. There is a piece which is very critical of the majority of anarchists in the No to Nato grouping in Newport: apparently, they showed themselves to be "sectarian and ultra-left".


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!


in around 1995 my mate signed his name on a bit of paper on a clip board at a demo...he didnt really look to see what it was but he was being supportive...turns out he gave his name and number to the SWP. He says that he was then assigned a worker who rang him up regularly asking him to come to meetings, help with this and that, and so on. After a few weeks of relentless calling he asked to be left alone. That was both of our introduction to the SWP. It might work with some people, but im not sure its such a great tactic.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 30, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Just done a quick search. There is a piece which is very critical of the majority of anarchists in the No to Nato grouping in Newport: apparently, they showed themselves to be "sectarian and ultra-left".


that's the one! 
and some moaning about refusal to talk to cops or deal with labour party 
swappies calling others sectarian!


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year... recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not?



I have always taken it as a rule of thumb that the "dwell time" of a member was 1.01 year. So many signed up in freshers' week... for a week.


----------



## leyton96 (Oct 30, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Just received a copy of IB2. Unfortunately, I can't post a link as it was sent to me as an email attachment.
> Haven't had time to read much of it, but was struck by the membership figures claimed: the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year. Can anyone seriously believe either figure? What's more, recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not?
> I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!



You can upload the file to drop box then share the link to the file here.
https://www.dropbox.com/help/274


----------



## Limerick Red (Oct 30, 2014)

Cpgb/WW have it up 
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/Preconf_Bulletin_i_Oct_2014_email.pdf


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 30, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Cpgb/WW have it up
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/Preconf_Bulletin_i_Oct_2014_email.pdf



This stuff is awful...with a slightly changed language it is the spitting image of material churned out by the CPB, the NCP and others prior to their rallies; disappointing but unsurprising. I wouldn't normally respond to this sort of stuff but it is really depressing from one of the small but largest left organisations.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Limerick Red (Oct 30, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> This stuff is awful...with a slightly changed language it is the spitting image of material churned out by the CPB, the NCP and others prior to their rallies; disappointing but unsurprising. I wouldn't normally respond to this sort of stuff but it is really depressing from one of the small but largest left organisations.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


Oopps that's Bullitin 1 not 2


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 30, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Oopps that's Bullitin 1 not 2



Doesn't make it any less shit; it really is utterly useless.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2014)

ska invita said:


> in around 1995 my mate signed his name on a bit of paper on a clip board at a demo...he didnt really look to see what it was but he was being supportive...turns out he gave his name and number to the SWP. He says that he was then assigned a worker who rang him up regularly asking him to come to meetings, help with this and that, and so on. After a few weeks of relentless calling he asked to be left alone. That was both of our introduction to the SWP. It might work with some people, but im not sure its such a great tactic.



I've always been slightly sceptical about one aspect of these stories - the "bit of paper signed". The SWP, even when they were notably bigger, younger and more active than today, have never had the numbers of people or degree of organisation it would require to systematically hassle everyone who signed, day, a petition. Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good use of their time.

What they do try to do (and exhort each other to do in turgid internal bulletins) is "follow up" people who have signed a bit of paper indicating that they want to join the SWP. Which is quite a different thing.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> Just received a copy of IB2. Unfortunately, I can't post a link as it was sent to me as an email attachment.
> Haven't had time to read much of it, but was struck by the membership figures claimed: the party is now said to have 5,868 members, down from 7,180 last year. Can anyone seriously believe either figure? What's more, recruitment from 2008-2012 is said to be at a rate of 1,000 a year and that (if true) would represent a pretty massive turnover of members, would it not?
> I was also struck by this from the CC: "We need to relentlessly follow-up contacts and new members". Sounds a bit ominous and WRPish to me.... new contacts and members beware!



1,000 a year is probably a fair enough estimate of people who signed something saying they'd like to join the SWP. That doing so is enough to have the SWP count you as a member is less reasonable and automatically leads to a huge "turnover" of members who were never really members to start with.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've always been slightly sceptical about one aspect of these stories - the "bit of paper signed". The SWP, even when they were notably bigger, younger and more active than today, have never had the numbers of people or degree of organisation it would require to systematically hassle everyone who signed, day, a petition. Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good use of their time.
> 
> What they do try to do (and exhort each other to do in turgid internal bulletins) is "follow up" people who have signed a bit of paper indicating that they want to join the SWP. Which is quite a different thing.


Sometimes I think its an exaggeration and then I remember the time a postman I know signed an AWL petition and forgot about it until three weeks later Martin Thomas turned up on his doorstep several hours journey from central London while he was putting the kids to bed and stood outside in a rain storm asking him to take the paper and come to some demo

ETA I remember during my brief dalliance with the Cliffites every branch meeting would see a list of names shoved round and divvied up for us to contact - these were names from petitions etc


----------



## ska invita (Oct 30, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've always been slightly sceptical about one aspect of these stories - the "bit of paper signed". The SWP, even when they were notably bigger, younger and more active than today, have never had the numbers of people or degree of organisation it would require to systematically hassle everyone who signed, day, a petition. Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good use of their time.
> 
> What they do try to do (and exhort each other to do in turgid internal bulletins) is "follow up" people who have signed a bit of paper indicating that they want to join the SWP. Which is quite a different thing.


the story of my (close) friend is completely true - no axe to grind, he remains someone detached from the organised left. He may have embelished the extent of the calls, but he definitely found it creepy and invasive


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2014)

Southampton SWP kicked a member out because he used to go round people's houses and shout through their letter boxes to get them out. It was a bit much even for them. He went on to join the SLP and be their election agent and then I think joined the Greens


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 30, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Sometimes I think its an exaggeration and then I remember the time a postman I know signed an AWL petition and forgot about it until three weeks later Martin Thomas turned up on his doorstep several hours journey from central London while he was putting the kids to bed and stood outside in a rain storm asking him to take the paper and come to some demo
> 
> ETA I remember during my brief dalliance with the Cliffites every branch meeting would see a list of names shoved round and divvied up for us to contact - these were names from petitions etc





ska invita said:


> the story of my (close) friend is completely true - no axe to grind, he remains someone detached from the organised left. He may have embelished the extent of the calls, but he definitely found it creepy and invasive



I certainly do believe the constant hassle stories, or at least some of them. But for the most part I don't believe that the people who get it are random names harvested straight off petitions lists. That would just be much too labour intensive even if it wasn't completely stupid.

Generally these stories seem to come from people who signed an application form and then forgot about it or didn't realise what they were signing. Or from people who ticked a box seeking more info about joining the SWP on a petition or something like that. And of course there'll be some fuck ups at the other end, where the wrong person's details are taken off said petition etc. But the systematic harassment of everyone who does something like sign a petition gets you into "how does Santa have time to get to every chimney, Dad?" territory. It's not viable and the SWP aren't stupid enough to think its desirable.

That's quite distinct from the hassle you may get once you are semi-accidentally on a membership list, particularly if the local branch secretary was an enthusiast. The extreme difficulty in getting membership lists reduced to realistic scope comes from their dedication to exaggerating their size.


----------



## Red Storm (Oct 30, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Cpgb/WW have it up
> http://www.cpgb.org.uk/assets/files/swpinternalbulletins/Preconf_Bulletin_i_Oct_2014_email.pdf



"The paper [socialist worker] is our organic link with the working class."


----------



## redcogs (Oct 30, 2014)

"Dear redcogs.

Thankyou for your enquiry about the International Socialists.  I am writing to invite you to attend our next public meetings at the Fraternity Hall in (a northern industrial town  ).  The meeting will debate the exciting events of the Portuguese Revolution, and will have a speaker (John A) who has recently returned from there to give our account of this important workers struggle.  Usually, following the meeting, we retire to the (local pub) for a drink, where you might like to get to know a few of our members.

I look forward to meeting you.

Yours Fraternally

Jim."

As someone who was in the process of acquiring socialist consciousness, the above letter fired my enthusiasm immensely.  The lad who wrote it was a local shop steward in engineering, who became a good friend (and comrade).  How the world turns - a proper letter, from a proper human with a courteous  and friendly approach.  No texts or emails or unwelcome robots rapping on the door late at night.  Looking back, the leninist shift, after they became the SWP, set in train a number of unfortunate 'stick bending' maneuvers that allowed the centre to become an entrenched and remote body that can't see that there was any problem with a rape investigation being conducted by the accused person's mates..

Still bitter.


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> You can upload the file to drop box then share the link to the file here.
> https://www.dropbox.com/help/274


https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl1lypz4qo37ts4/PreConf Bulletin ii Oct 2014-2.pdf?dl=0

Should be it


----------



## emanymton (Oct 30, 2014)

It's a difficult balancing act at times, there is nothing wrong with phoning people up if they are generally interested. when I was in the SWP I found you quickly got a sense of who was happy to hear from you and who was just being polite and tolerated you, a few would flat out say they won't interested any more. Also you would find out that some people were only interested in certain things, so you would know there was no point talking to X about the branch meeting but they might want to know about the demo coming up.

I only ever got one bad reaction. I got a phone call from Julie Waterson saying someone had joined on a stall in London but my branch (up north) was the nearest to where they lived. She gave me a name and phone number and asked me to give them a ring. When I phoned up a women answered but It was a blokes name so I asked to speak to X, and the phone was passed over and this kid came on who sounded about 11 or 12! I know some people seem to join pretty young but I was never too comfortable with it, so I felt a bit awkward but started of anyway. I didn't get very far before the women, who was obviously his mother, figured out who I was snatched the phone and started yelling down it that her son would never be standing around in the streets selling papers then slammed the phone down ... Don't think we ever phoned back again. So I guess the moral of this story is that if you don't wont to be hassled by the SWP get you mum to tell them of. 

Oh and to be fair to Julie she complained that they had not used a proper membership form just a cut out slip from Socialist Worker, so I don't think she would have had a DOB.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 30, 2014)

belboid said:


> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl1lypz4qo37ts4/PreConf Bulletin ii Oct 2014-2.pdf?dl=0
> 
> Should be it


Fuck me are they still banging on about unite the resistance!


----------



## belboid (Oct 30, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Fuck me are they still banging on about unite the resistance!


Of course!  This years conference should be massive!! There'll be, oooh, dozens of people there.


----------



## quiquaquo (Oct 31, 2014)

belboid said:


> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tl1lypz4qo37ts4/PreConf Bulletin ii Oct 2014-2.pdf?dl=0
> 
> Should be it



_"No to a word limit in bulletins"_ 

When are Callinicos and Kimber going to do the decent thing and fuck right off?


----------



## Limerick Red (Oct 31, 2014)

I found their bits on UAF quite interesting, UAF are not able to pull the numbers anymore, from what I have seen on the ground is they are moving their UAF full timers (I'm guessing full timers) seamlessly from UAF to "stand up to ukip"(or "shut up and vote labour") 
I'm just baffled at their understanding of a " broad front" against fascism , which in my understanding historically comes from a united working class front of progressive ( revolutionary) organisations, their broad front involves Tories , imans, reverends and priests. If the unions stopped outsourcing their antifascist work to uaf and actually started organising themselves as some branches of the RMT have started doing, it would negate the swp winding down their antifascist fronts when other opertunitues arise, as they have done twice? Before .


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 31, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> I found their bits on UAF quite interesting, UAF are not able to pull the numbers anymore, from what I have seen on the ground is they are moving their UAF full timers (I'm guessing full timers) seamlessly from UAF to "stand up to ukip"(or "shut up and vote labour")
> I'm just baffled at their understanding of a " broad front" against fascism , which in my understanding historically comes from a united working class front of progressive ( revolutionary) organisations, their broad front involves Tories , imans, reverends and priests. If the unions stopped outsourcing their antifascist work to uaf and actually started organising themselves as some branches of the RMT have started doing, it would negate the swp winding down their antifascist fronts when other opertunitues arise, as they have done twice? Before .



Isn't / wasn't it explained as a united front of a special kind ?


----------



## chilango (Oct 31, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I've always been slightly sceptical about one aspect of these stories - the "bit of paper signed". The SWP, even when they were notably bigger, younger and more active than today, have never had the numbers of people or degree of organisation it would require to systematically hassle everyone who signed, day, a petition. Even if they were stupid enough to think that was a good use of their time.
> 
> What they do try to do (and exhort each other to do in turgid internal bulletins) is "follow up" people who have signed a bit of paper indicating that they want to join the SWP. Which is quite a different thing.



Back when I did my time (early '90s) we certainly did (on occasion) hound names from petitions. Anyone signing with the slightest bit of interest/enthusiasm would have a discrete asterix or similar appended to their signature to indicate that they were to be followed up. If in the subsequent chasing they didn't tell us to fuck off they'd be counted as a "contact".

Weren't always that thorough mind, really depended on the zeal of the cadre involved.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 31, 2014)

The39thStep said:


> Isn't / wasn't it explained as a united front of a special kind ?


I think it was respect that was described like that by the cc at a Marxism...think the person was sean vernell...Made no sense to me cos I thought the theory of the united front was based around single issue campaigns and have no idea how an organisation like respect was considered a single issue campaign when they were promoting it as an election alternative for the left.


----------



## Scribbling S (Oct 31, 2014)

University of Sussex Student Union holding Extraordinary General Meeting to sort of ban SWSS/SWP , triggered by 150 signature petition 
http://www.sussexstudent.com/events/6635/621/


----------



## JHE (Oct 31, 2014)

> ------- Motion as Submitted:
> 
> The Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) have had numerous allegations raised that they have a systematic problem of rape, rape cover-up, and rape apologism in their party.
> 
> ...



Do the people who propose this motion, and the people who propose similar motions elsewhere, really _believe_ their shit?  

Maybe they do, but I find it difficult to believe that they do.  I don't know.  Maybe I'm just so old I don't understand stupid intolerant posturing student politicians any more.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 31, 2014)

JHE said:


> Do the people who propose this motion, and the people who propose similar motions elsewhere, really _believe_ their shit?
> 
> Maybe they do, but I find it difficult to believe that they do.  I don't know.  Maybe I'm just so old I don't understand stupid intolerant posturing student politicians any more.



I'm convinced quite a lot of them don't. I actually think some secretly disbelieve all of it but are afraid to say anything because they don't have many friends at uni and are gonna keep up this shit for as long as it takes to graduate and be an accountant.

Nobody _likes _Socialist Worker, but the idea that it is "highly troubling and upsetting to women" is a joke. The motion reads like it was written by a group of Victorian gentlemen, keen to ensure the women folk weren't exposed to anything that could excite them or make them hysterical.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> University of Sussex Student Union holding Extraordinary General Meeting to sort of ban SWSS/SWP , triggered by 150 signature petition
> http://www.sussexstudent.com/events/6635/621/


Amazing they got that many signatures, well maybe not.


----------



## Scribbling S (Oct 31, 2014)

motion just defeated  -by big  majority I am told. I think the proposers were from "anarchist" and "feminist" groups - I don't have the complete story, and think it is very likely that there were anarchists and feminists against the motion as well, but I am guessing that the proposers may also have a mix of motives , including no doubt genuine anger over SWP behaviour, but also opportunism, chance to do down an opposing/rival group , moralism etc. (anarchist for banning other groups doesn't seem to work easily at the level of principle, for example) - and the obvious arguments about democracy , free speech (you'd definitely have to ban the LibDem's on this logic and so on) seem to have won out


----------



## Scribbling S (Oct 31, 2014)

44 in favour, 141 against, 35 abstentions. The motion falls. (on twitter #*SussexEMM* )


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Amazing they got that many signatures, well maybe not.



It's almost like someone's got a list of names of people who used to be members of the students' union, many years ago, or perhaps some of those who came to an open day at Sussex once but then decided to go elsewhere.

Either way, that use of a paper membership is clearly shocking and unprecedented...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2014)

chilango said:


> Back when I did my time (early '90s) we certainly did (on occasion) hound names from petitions. Anyone signing with the slightest bit of interest/enthusiasm would have a discrete asterix or similar appended to their signature to indicate that they were to be followed up. If in the subsequent chasing they didn't tell us to fuck off they'd be counted as a "contact".
> 
> Weren't always that thorough mind, really depended on the zeal of the cadre involved.



Bizarre, but even that was targeted right? In the opinion of some enthusiast on a stall you seemed keen? Not just random name harvesting?

It does begin to explain the occasional story from people who insist they never signed anything that could have indicated a wish to join though.


----------



## Scribbling S (Oct 31, 2014)

I'm not at all surprised they got 150 signatures - it isn't going to be hard to get 150 signatures on the basis of "the SWP who make a lot of noise on campus did this rape cover up" - it's just toxic for the SWP , in exactly the way they were warned . This doesn't finally translate into votes I think because of the arguments about bans, democracy, and the weakness of the "safe space" argument. But (from the twitter description of meeting)  being forced to devote a whole General Meeting to defending themselves, being accused of sending abusive tweets to backers of motion, etc. isn't a good place to be .


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> 44 in favour, 141 against, 35 abstentions. The motion falls. (on twitter #*SussexEMM* )


Fair enough. Would have been quite bizarre if it passed. When I was punched by an rcp guy at the lse he got a week ban I think it was from su property. Passed unanimously (although I was against it and we kissed and made up eventually) but it was deffo seen as a last resort by everyone. Serious shit banning anyone but fash.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

Rather somber tone around a lot of party stuff at the mo. This  from the prof in his review of Daniel Bensaid's (sp!) auto biog struck me as rather gloomy:

' In the book Daniel conveys his meaning when he writes of “an active waiting, an urgent patience, an endurance and a perseverance that are the opposite of passive waiting for a miracle”. This was the stance he believed was necessary for revolutionaries in difficult times. When I first read the book I thought Daniel was exaggerating the difficulties. Now I think what he recommends is exactly what we need.'


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2014)

Cunt. What party is it this week?

Oh, we're all back to _normal _now. Fuck right off. Your _normal _is why this thread and others exist.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> I'm not at all surprised they got 150 signatures - it isn't going to be hard to get 150 signatures on the basis of "the SWP who make a lot of noise on campus did this rape cover up" - it's just toxic for the SWP , in exactly the way they were warned . This doesn't finally translate into votes I think because of the arguments about bans, democracy, and the weakness of the "safe space" argument. But (from the twitter description of meeting)  being forced to devote a whole General Meeting to defending themselves, being accused of sending abusive tweets to backers of motion, etc. isn't a good place to be .


Christ no you're right, it's hard to imagine a worse one. Question is how widespread and long lived that experience will be.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

Nice to hear from you too ba


----------



## imposs1904 (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Fair enough. Would have been quite bizarre if it passed. *When I was punched by an rcp guy at the lse he got a week ban* I think it was from su property. Passed unanimously (although I was against it and we kissed and made up eventually) but it was deffo seen as a last resort by everyone. Serious shit banning anyone but fash.



What was that about? I take it was back in the day.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 31, 2014)

The motion is stupid in my opinion but no where as near as outrageous as the swps behaviour it complains about.
I wouldn't call for them to be banned from my  union and I wouldn't support them being banned but I'm fucked if I'd support them.
Their shit politics and arrogance caused this shit storm so they can sit it out on their own imo


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> What was that about? I take it was back in the day.


Ancient history, week of the big Welling demo in 93, I called him a scab, he split my lip. We were fine after he served his ban, Big red headed Irishman. Delta told me off for calling him a shillelagh swinger which I reckoned was unfair given I was irish too and his first did feel like a shillelagh. Delta demurred.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2014)

other deltas have included lieutenant roger hercule gustave degueldre, commander of the oas's delta commandos in algeria.


----------



## redcogs (Oct 31, 2014)

You know a lot of stuff Pickman sir


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> week of the big Welling demo in 93, I called him a scab



Presumably because the RCP mobilised its cadres at Plumstead Common to try and _prevent_ people from going on the ‘Unity’ demo (short version: “because ‘anti-fascist’ is a meaningless description, even Margaret Thatcher would consider herself ‘anti-fascist...”)?

I assume this chap was IFM also?


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 31, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> The motion is stupid in my opinion but no where as near as outrageous as the swps behaviour it complains about.
> I wouldn't call for them to be banned from my  union and I wouldn't support them being banned but I'm fucked if I'd support them.
> Their shit politics and arrogance caused this shit storm so they can sit it out on their own imo


It's a juvenile motion, but the SWP are a rape apologist party, and they can go fuck themselves.  I'd no platform the fuckers on a personal basis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Presumably because the RCP mobilised its cadres at Plumstead Common to try and _prevent_ people from going on the ‘Unity’ demo (short version: “because ‘anti-fascist’ is a meaningless description, even Margaret Thatcher would consider herself ‘anti-fascist...”)?
> 
> I assume this chap was IFM also?


the first thing i noticed at welling, was that for the first time in my experience the speeches were given before the demonstration. people were nearly bored into submission before the demonstration had begun. it is bad enough being told _why_ you've marched, as though you didn't know, it's worse to be told _why you're about to march._


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> The motion is stupid in my opinion but no where as near as outrageous as the swps behaviour it complains about.
> I wouldn't call for them to be banned from my  union and I wouldn't support them being banned but I'm fucked if I'd support them.
> Their shit politics and arrogance caused this shit storm so they can sit it out on their own imo


I'm sure you're not alone. Reasonable enough position given everything people believe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2014)

redcogs said:


> You know a lot of stuff Pickman sir


the first publication named searchlight of which i'm aware was issued by the ku klux klan.

and as for the first organization including the phrase 'socialist workers party'...

*gets coat*


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Presumably because the RCP mobilised its cadres at Plumstead Common to try and _prevent_ people from going on the ‘Unity’ demo (short version: “because ‘anti-fascist’ is a meaningless description, even Margaret Thatcher would consider herself ‘anti-fascist...”)?
> 
> I assume this chap was IFM also?


Not sure on that, was a union official on the rail before he came to lse. Hence him objecting to the term scab which yes was aimed at their refusal to support the anti bnp campaign. Nice guy actually, proof you can think someone has shot away politics and still get on, eventually


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the first publication named searchlight of which i'm aware was issued by the ku klux klan.
> 
> and as for the first organization including the phrase 'socialist workers party'...
> 
> *gets coat*


hilarious. You are a first in many ways. First person I ever heard call Islam a conquering religion, well before the edl even existed.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> hilarious. You are a first in many ways. First person I ever heard call Islam a conquering religion, well before the edl even existed.


inshallah


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2014)

The fucking filth you've become. Just posting as if you're not covered in shit. The front that takes.  That's one reason  wty all you is mangers and self-employed.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2014)

Hello comrades today i am not covered in shit, in sheff uni someone looked at me like she agreed with some shit stuff that sounded vague enough not to disagree with. Onwards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> hilarious. You are a first in many ways. First person I ever heard call Islam a conquering religion, well before the edl even existed.


u still haven't posted more than whines and farts in your attempt to show i was wrong to so characterise its early years. still waiting after all these years for you to present an argument.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The fucking filth you've become. Just posting as if you're not covered in shit. The front that takes.  That's one reason  wty all you is mangers and self-employed.


Oh dear. You really do hate the fact that this crisis isn't terminal. Grow up lad. No managers or self employed in my house, not that matters.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Ancient history, week of the big Welling demo in 93, I called him a scab, he split my lip. We were fine after he served his ban, Big red headed Irishman. Delta told me off for calling him a shillelagh swinger which I reckoned was unfair given I was irish too and his first did feel like a shillelagh. Delta demurred.



Nice Martin Smith anecdote there; let's put the warm arm of a shared memory round his shoulder and welcome him back in to the revolutionary family...the silly old sausage.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh dear. You really do hate the fact that this crisis isn't terminal. Grow up lad. No managers or self employed in my house, not that matters.


You grow.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 31, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm convinced quite a lot of them don't. I actually think some secretly disbelieve all of it but are afraid to say anything because they don't have many friends at uni and are gonna keep up this shit for as long as it takes to graduate and be an accountant.
> 
> Nobody _likes _Socialist Worker, but the idea that it is "highly troubling and upsetting to women" is a joke. The motion reads like it was written by a group of Victorian gentlemen, keen to ensure the women folk weren't exposed to anything that could excite them or make them hysterical.


I find it especially vile as there are real problems with sexual assault in universities and frankly if they cared about the safety of women at all there are a 1000 better thing they could do with their time.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> It's a juvenile motion, but the SWP are a rape apologist party, and they can go fuck themselves.  I'd no platform the fuckers on a personal basis.


 
FWIW Brog jnr has been reporting rising instances over the term of the Sussex Student Swappie women using seminars etc. as a platform to defend their party against accusations of rape apology. Quite annoying, according to him, to have to put up with such "conflicted" individuals. Might explain why the proposers found it possible to gain a good number of signatures? (I don't know if jnr signed...I doubt it tbh...not a good 'joiner')


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2014)

A historical note:

There's considerable material dealing with the history of the SWP and what NUS types call "liberation politics" in the various essays in Against the Grain, a wildly overpriced book of essays about the history of the British left.

Apparently the first paragraph of Tony Cliff's introduction to the first SWP publication on gay liberation was an almost perfect statement of intersectionalism avant la lettre: "In class infested society there is oppressor and oppressed in all walks of life. Employer oppresses employee; man oppresses woman; white oppresses black; old oppresses young; heterosexual oppresses homosexual."


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

Oh please Cliff being schooled on Marxism and oppression by a Millie. Swp politics on this subject is beyond reproach. The application of it is what's at stake.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh please Cliff being schooled on Marxism and oppression by a Millie. Swp politics on this subject is beyond reproach. The application of it is what's at stake.



Don't be a clown, there's a good lad. There are 604 pages of "reproach" on this thread.

I didn't write the essay. Nor did I write Cliff's pamphlet introduction. It's merely an interesting bit of evidence that the SWP has moved in all kinds of directions over the years on these questions, and Cliff himself more than most. In this case Cliff, was posing the question in a way directly contrary to the SWP theoretical orthodoxy of the eighties, but in a way that would fit well on tumblr today. A few years earlier he had been arguing that he didn't mind IS members doing gay work as long as they didn't think it was political activity.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

Sorry pal but watching the working out of a reasonably advanced Marxist thinker on this subject is bound to be full of contradictions. Point me to the equivalent contributions from your tradition. You won't be able to. Crude workerism followed by a flip to left feminism and no sight of Marxism in between.  Jog on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Oh please Cliff being schooled on Marxism and oppression by a Millie. Swp politics on this subject is beyond reproach. The application of it is what's at stake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2014)

Right... so what yr saying bolshiebhoy is the swp talk a good fight but their deeds belie their fine words


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

I may not agree with her current evolution bit I defy any Marxist account of gender to surpass Lindsey German at her best, and when Cliff was her collaborator.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Sorry pal but watching the working out of a reasonably advanced Marxist thinker on this subject is bound to be full of contradictions. Point me to the equivalent contributions from your tradition. You won't be able to. Crude workerism followed by a flip to left feminism and no sight of Marxism in between.  Jog on.



Christ, this kind of dubious thirty years ago, now just embarrassing, braggadocio on behalf of an organisation you dropped out of decades ago is almost funny.

Cliff, whatever his other merits, contributed pretty much nothing of lasting interest to Marxist understandings of various forms of oppression other than class. Exactly the same can be said of Ted Grant (and thank Christ he didn't produce a book on "the woman question" to go alongside Cliff's embarrassing effort). In so far as there were any interesting theoretical contributions on these issues made in IS/SWP circles they were from other people.

Cliff himself veered all over the place. Largely it seems in response to short term party-building concerns. But as he was the central leader of the SWP, the varying angles he took are of interest not on their own merits but because they indicate the lack of an IS/SWP "tradition" or orthodoxy up until the end of the fights of the eighties. At that point the orthodoxy settled and remained unchanged up until the recent interest in Vogel.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> Right... so what yr saying bolshiebhoy is the swp talk a good fight but their deeds belie their fine words


No I'm not fella . Long proud history. I'm old enough to have been part of some of it. We need no schooling on this subject from anyone.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Christ, this kind of dubious thirty years ago, now just embarrassing, braggadocio on behalf of an organisation you dropped out of decades ago is almost funny.
> 
> Cliff, whatever his other merits, contributed pretty much nothing of lasting interest to Marxist understandings of various forms of oppression other than class. Exactly the same can be said of Ted Grant (and thank Christ he didn't produce a book on "the woman question" to go alongside Cliff's embarrassing effort). In so far as there were any interesting theoretical contributions on these issues made in IS/SWP circles they were from other people.
> 
> Cliff himself veered all over the place. Largely it seems in response to short term party-building concerns. But as he was the central leader of the SWP, the varying angles he took are of interest not on their own merits but because they indicate the lack of an IS/SWP "tradition" or orthodoxy up until the end of the fights of the eighties. At that point the orthodoxy settled and remained unchanged up until the recent interest in Vogel.


i don't dislike you but theoretically you're a dimwit. Totally dependent on sectariana to make you appear interesting as a thinker. Yes Cliff veered until he arrived at a position. And the sad thing is half of the people who left this year and last , well the half that were around at the time, know better because they arrived at that position too. And now what? Dave Renton spends his tone critiqueing the swp on libel law. Come on.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No I'm not fella . Long proud history. I'm old enough to have been part of It. We need no schooling on this subject from anyone.


Everyone and every organisation needs to continue to learn all the time...your arrogance typifies the mentality that led to the swp monumentally fucking up. The idea that the swp or any other organisation has nothing to learn is plainly stupid


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2014)

Fella. fella me lad. Boyo. _Son_.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> i don't dislike you but theoretically you're a dimwit. Totally dependent on sectariana to make you appear interesting as a thinker. Yes Cliff veered until he arrived at a position. And the sad thing is half of the people who left this year and last , well the half that were around at the time, know better because they arrived at that position too. And now what? Dave Renton spends his tone critiqueing the swp on libel law. Come on.



Christ, it's like arguing with an aggressive toddler.

Cliff did indeed "veer" and then arrive at an orthodoxy, but his contributions both pre and post orthodoxy are of no inherent interest to anyone bar the odd retired partisan looking to relive his "glory days". His pre orthodoxy views ranged from the homophobic all the way acrossto the borderline identitarian. His main post orthodoxy contribution was his wooden book on women, mostly now notable for its opposition to campaigns on issues like domestic violence.

There were things written in IS/SWP circles on issues of oppression which may still be of interest, but Tony Cliff didn't produce any of them. I'll tell you what though, oh oracle of Swindon, why don't you take the time to enlighten us assembled "theoretical dimwits" about the theoretical contributions on these subjects made by the messiah of your lost youth?


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> i don't dislike you but theoretically you're a dimwit. Totally dependent on sectariana to make you appear interesting as a thinker. Yes Cliff veered until he arrived at a position. And the sad thing is half of the people who left this year and last , well the half that were around at the time, know better because they arrived at that position too. And now what? Dave Renton spends his tone critiqueing the swp on libel law. Come on.



Seriously?
The swp threaten to use the law to shut people up and Renton criticises this and you have a dig at him?
Do you remember posting that you changed your mind about the rape allegations cos a trusted member told you something?
Yet here you are arrogantly arguing that the swp knows best.
A political party is a tool to bring about political change for those who want it.  You, and others in the swp, have decided the swp is more important than the political change you want. Your arguments on here are arrogant and sad. Your arguments represent everything that is shit on the left. Think back to when you joined the swp ... is this what you thought you'd be spending your time defending?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Oct 31, 2014)

God no the swp is not more important . Could die tomorrow and I'd be happy back in my Lanpur womb . Wouldn't be happy but hey ho. But yes defending the existence of a Leninist party is what it's all about surely? People hate Leninism . That's. Given.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> God no the swp is not more important . Could die tomorrow and I'd be happy back in my Lanpur womb . Wouldn't be happy but hey ho. _*But yes defending the existence of a Leninist party is what it's all about surely? *_People hate Leninism . That's. Given.



No it is not.
Fighting for a better world is what it is all about...I do not know and have never known anyone who became a socialist to defrnd leninism


----------



## mutley (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No I'm not fella . Long proud history. I'm old enough to have been part of some of it. *We need no schooling on this subject from anyone.*



Fuck me you've learned nothing, absolutely nothing from any of this have you? The SWP's rep is in the mud, the average age is what would be pensionable is any decent society and you're having to fight off attempts to ban you outright in the colleges. The IB's, if you read between the lines, paint a picture of an organisation that is watching events pass it by, (eg in spite of shifting a respectable number of papers around the demo's and stuff over Gaza, its obvious that the age, decrepit nature and shit rep of the organisation combined to deliver no actual recruitment). Look for new ideas and you find nothing, nada, not a fucking thing. It's over. The fact that you have a thousand or so people on the books and a few hundred with meaningful union positions will keep it going for a decade or so but nothing of significance is going to happen. It's over.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2014)

bolshiebhoy said:


> No I'm not fella . Long proud history. I'm old enough to have been part of some of it. We need no schooling on this subject from anyone.


apart from people who've taken sexual politics 101, have any interest in democracy with socialist organisations, etc


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 1, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Christ, it's like arguing with an aggressive toddler.
> 
> Cliff did indeed "veer" and then arrive at an orthodoxy, but his contributions both pre and post orthodoxy are of no inherent interest to anyone bar the odd retired partisan looking to relive his "glory days". His pre orthodoxy views ranged from the homophobic all the way acrossto the borderline identitarian. His main post orthodoxy contribution was his wooden book on women, mostly now notable for its opposition to campaigns on issues like domestic violence.
> 
> There were things written in IS/SWP circles on issues of oppression which may still be of interest, but Tony Cliff didn't produce any of them. I'll tell you what though, oh oracle of Swindon, why don't you take the time to enlighten us assembled "theoretical dimwits" about the theoretical contributions on these subjects made by the messiah of your lost youth?


I can't but admire your perserverance with bolshieboy particularly since you must realise that your arguments are unlikely to have much effect on him (although they do entertain other readers, yours truly included). In fact, he reminds me of an ex-WRP member I knew years back who still steadfastly defended the party line in every respect, "if there is ever to be a revolution in Britain, the working class will need a party like the WRP". He just couldn't handle being a member of that organisation.
Bolshieboy also seems to see the SWP as the embodiment of the "Leninist" party with the correct position on everything (although there may be failings in its practice). This reminded me of a day I spent in the company of Chris Harman many years ago. Both of us were on holiday and we had a wide ranging discussion throughout the day with him doing most of the talking (if you've seen the film, a kind of "My Dinner with André", Harman style). At one level, his encyclopedic knowledge was truly impressive, but on the other hand his insistence on taking up a position on every single question under the sun (no ifs and buts) was more than a little disturbing. But as Bolshieboy says: "defending the existence of a Leninist party is what it's all about".


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 1, 2014)

defending the existence of a leninist party  fucking pitiful. as a book i read about post-punk music had it, rip it up and start again.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> defending the existence of a leninist party  fucking pitiful. as a book i read about post-punk music had it, rip it up and start again.



Spot on, but a missed opp to credit (and quote) Edwyn...



> I hope to God you're not as dumb as you make out


----------



## leyton96 (Nov 11, 2014)

I'll just leave this here:
http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/39373/How+the+cops+fail+victims+of+child+sexual+exploitation


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 16, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/16/rape-victim-mairia-cahill-speaks-out

Reading this interview in the Guardian, I was once again struck by the parallels with the Delta rape case (with which participants in this thread will be well aware). Mairia Cahill is a very brave woman and I do hope that one day in the not-too-distant future her courage and tenacity will inspire W to take a similar course of action against the man who raped her.


----------



## killer b (Nov 16, 2014)

Can't see anything there that would inspire someone to take action. Grim reading.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 16, 2014)

killer b said:


> Can't see anything there that would inspire someone to take action. Grim reading.


It's certainly grim reading, but it's Maira's courage which is inspiring. Given that many rapes remain unreported, hopefully this will encourage other victims of sexual abuse to come forward and denounce their aggressors.


----------



## Scribbling S (Nov 17, 2014)

The Yougov profile for Socialist Worker readers , drawn from their database , seems quite accurate and also entertaining https://yougov.co.uk/profiler#/Socialist_Worker . There are other newspapers/groups you can look up , but watch out for small sample sizes (The Morning Star is interesting, also UK Uncut, Occupy, "readers of Owen Jones" etc. Readers of The Socialist come out quite poor, but I think that is a sample size issue - there is quite a different result for "Socialist Party members", but that also has a v. small sample size)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> The Yougov profile for Socialist Worker readers , drawn from their database , seems quite accurate and also entertaining https://yougov.co.uk/profiler#/Socialist_Worker . There are other newspapers/groups you can look up , but watch out for small sample sizes (The Morning Star is interesting, also UK Uncut, Occupy, "readers of Owen Jones" etc. Readers of The Socialist come out quite poor, but I think that is a sample size issue - there is quite a different result for "Socialist Party members", but that also has a v. small sample size)


Aged 45-59. Uh-huh.


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2014)

hmm, SWP's members' favourite dishes - scouse, egg curry, and vegetarian cholent.  i have my doubts


----------



## Scribbling S (Nov 17, 2014)

I think that's where the Yougov algorithm is set a bit high - if you look it says ""What differentiates them from...their comparitor set"" - so it is set to  highlight popular but atypical answers (otherwise every group would just like "pasta" and wear "trousers" or whatever) . This seems to throw up particularly wonky results for smaller sets on the food answers(morning star readers seem entirely drawn to vegetarian curry). But I think otherwise seems pretty solid - a 50  year old left wing man in a Ben Sherman who likes the Clash ? SW probably quite happy withthe C2DE-ness, I suspect that is accurate too.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 17, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> The Yougov profile for Socialist Worker readers , drawn from their database , seems quite accurate and also entertaining https://yougov.co.uk/profiler#/Socialist_Worker . There are other newspapers/groups you can look up , but watch out for small sample sizes (The Morning Star is interesting, also UK Uncut, Occupy, "readers of Owen Jones" etc. Readers of The Socialist come out quite poor, but I think that is a sample size issue - there is quite a different result for "Socialist Party members", but that also has a v. small sample size)



Apparently Socialist Party members favourite sport is boxing...I guess that'll be reassuring on future anti-fash demos...


----------



## belboid (Nov 19, 2014)

3rd SW bulletin out - looks v v boring
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f4dipefr3j8wd8i/Rump-SWP PreConf Bulletin iii Nov 2014.pdf?dl=0


----------



## redcogs (Nov 19, 2014)

i do believe that Marcus believes that the bargee's have a future role not unlike the battleship Potemkin!


----------



## belboid (Nov 19, 2014)

From elsewhere:

SWP and SWSS are now banned from Goldsmiths following Student Assembly last night. The BME officer put in an amendment that included some things about an NUS report on lad culture and sexism in the this union notes bit that should really have been part of a separate motion completely unrelated to the SWP, followed by what was basically a delete all and replace with amendment for this union resolves that sought to ensure the SWP & SWSS could continue to operate on campus by claiming the union is a charity, so can't be seen to take politcal stances on things (fucking lol at so called revolutionaries using the worst defences of right wing union trustees to save their own skin, when in any other circumstances they'd be up in arms about it). Oh and the AWL were handing out stuff asking students not to vote to kick the SWP off campus (presumably cos they fear they'll be next).


----------



## articul8 (Nov 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> defending the existence of a leninist party  fucking pitiful. as a book i read about post-punk music had it, rip it up and start again.



I hope to God you're not as dumb as you make out


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> From elsewhere:
> 
> SWP and SWSS are now banned from Goldsmiths following Student Assembly last night. The BME officer put in an amendment that included some things about an NUS report on lad culture and sexism in the this union notes bit that should really have been part of a separate motion completely unrelated to the SWP, followed by what was basically a delete all and replace with amendment for this union resolves that sought to ensure the SWP & SWSS could continue to operate on campus by claiming the union is a charity, so can't be seen to take politcal stances on things (fucking lol at so called revolutionaries using the worst defences of right wing union trustees to save their own skin, when in any other circumstances they'd be up in arms about it). Oh and the AWL were handing out stuff asking students not to vote to kick the SWP off campus (presumably cos they fear they'll be next).



Christ. These self righteous students are almost enough to make me sympathise with the SWP. But not quite.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 19, 2014)

Yes, IB3 is incredibly boring. But there's always a gem in the general dross:

_The argument for the necessity of a revolutionary party, of a Leninist party, has now been largely won inside the SWP over recent years. 
The debate in the SWP at this year’s conference should move on now to the question of how the party organises itself. 
This contribution will argue that the revolutionary paper, for us Socialist Worker, is central to the actual building of a Leninist organisation. 
At our last four conferences some comrades argued that the Internet, blogs, and Facebook meant that in the 21st century the paper was no longer needed. Others argued that we should keep the paper, but that selling it should be an optional for comrades. These arguments were rejected after long and robust discussions.

_​


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> From elsewhere:
> 
> SWP and SWSS are now banned from Goldsmiths following Student Assembly last night. The BME officer put in an amendment that included some things about an NUS report on lad culture and sexism in the this union notes bit that should really have been part of a separate motion completely unrelated to the SWP, followed by what was basically a delete all and replace with amendment for this union resolves that sought to ensure the SWP & SWSS could continue to operate on campus by claiming the union is a charity, so can't be seen to take politcal stances on things (fucking lol at so called revolutionaries using the worst defences of right wing union trustees to save their own skin, when in any other circumstances they'd be up in arms about it). Oh and the AWL were handing out stuff asking students not to vote to kick the SWP off campus (presumably cos they fear they'll be next).



It wouldn't surprise me if the AWL were attempting to whip up support for a ban while officially claiming not to support bans.

Do you know what role the Labour students group played in getting the motion to ban going? Just out of interest.


----------



## Limerick Red (Nov 19, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if the AWL were attempting to whip up support for a ban while officially claiming not to support bans.


The AWL are alot of things, but short sighted aint one of them. In fairness they, well the members I know have being anti this "no-platform" business since it reared its head.
btw you mentioned them appealing for the SP to be No platformed? was this directly or by proxy?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 19, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Christ. These self righteous students are almost enough to make me sympathise with the SWP. But not quite.



Thing is, I think that might actually be happening to an extent. I've got to say - I was shocked at what the SWP mobilised today at the student demo. It wasn't massive, but they got out lots of placards, leafleted and (tried) to sell papers, with no backlash or attempt by anyone to criticise them etc. Most importantly though, they _seemed_ to have student members. I may be overreacting but I think they'll take confidence from the fact that while they might be a massively reduced force in the student movement, they can still organise in that sphere.

We'll see how long the ban at Goldsmiths last. Probably for about as long as it takes for someone to try and ban another group with the same approach.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 19, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> The AWL are alot of things, but short sighted aint one of them. In fairness they, well the members I know have being anti this "no-platform" business since it reared its head.
> btw you mentioned them appealing for the SP to be No platformed? was this directly or by proxy?



Dunno if you'd call it directly or by proxy but the AWL controls NCAFC:

(I would like to put a link here to a statement on the NCAFC website which argues for no platforming both the SWP and the SP and links to articles on the AWL website about Delta and Hedley but the NCAFC website is mysteriously down)


----------



## Limerick Red (Nov 19, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Dunno if you'd call it directly or by proxy but the AWL controls NCAFC:
> 
> (I would like to put a link here to a statement on the NCAFC website which argues for no platforming both the SWP and the SP and links to articles on the AWL website about Delta and Hedley but the NCAFC website is mysteriously down)


They are fucking scum, in their last paper they had a 20 page supplement proudly exclaiming how their tendency managed to get it wrong on Ireland for almost 8 decades, but thats another story altogether.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 19, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> The AWL are alot of things, but short sighted aint one of them. In fairness they, well the members I know have being anti this "no-platform" business since it reared its head.
> btw you mentioned them appealing for the SP to be No platformed? was this directly or by proxy?



Oh, and re: short sighted. They paid a price today for helping to push the idea that the SWP should be banned, however tacitly, as NUS pulled support for what was to a large extent their demo, using that among other things as an unofficial excuse, and potentially a lot of students stayed away for that reason too.




Limerick Red said:


> They are fucking scum, in their last paper they had a 20 page supplement proudly exclaiming how their tendency managed to get it wrong on Ireland for almost 8 decades, but thats another story altogether.



Have they existed for 8 decades? I get a bit confused on the AWL's lineage.


----------



## Limerick Red (Nov 19, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Have they existed for 8 decades? I get a bit confused on the AWL's lineage.


not them, but third camp trots


----------



## Bakunin (Nov 19, 2014)

redcogs said:


> i do believe that Marcus believes that the bargee's have a future role not unlike the battleship Potemkin!



As opposed to the current crop of leaders who wouldn't have been out of place in charge of battleship Bismarck, judging by their level of general competence.


----------



## Scribbling S (Nov 20, 2014)

The ib3 section on finances is very interesting. Very straightforward statement that party seeks to rebuild by hiring younger organisers focused on universities,  not districts. A tactic that I think may be fairly successful,  even though party has one hand tied behind it's back in the colleges. Also, there is no overall figure for the "pie chart ",  but surely possible to guess?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 21, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> not them, but third camp trots



Did trots of any kind, third camp or otherwise, pay any attention at all to Ireland before the balloon went up in 1969? Genuine question.


----------



## Limerick Red (Nov 21, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Did trots of any kind, third camp or otherwise, pay any attention at all to Ireland before the balloon went up in 1969? Genuine question.


The supplement , which has tonnes and tonnes of references to and quotations from phamphlets going back to the late 30s early 40s, all prefixed with some mad matgama rants against Stalinist Catholics , Dominic behan gets a jolly good roasting from Matagama, who funnily enough for all his "Stalinist this & Stalinist that", ends up sounding like eoghan Harris for the majority of it. In fairness to the AWL it's a very well put together piece , I wonder did they get a few quid from the PUP for it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 21, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> I wonder did they get a few quid from the PUP for it.


 
Fairly unlikely I would have thought, I don't think PUP would stoop that low


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Did trots of any kind, third camp or otherwise, pay any attention at all to Ireland before the balloon went up in 1969? Genuine question.



Yes.

Revolutionary History published an excellent history of the first wave of Irish Trotskyists, some years ago. Their Revolutionary Socialist Party seems to have disappeared by the early fifties. These are the people the AWL and Limerick Red are talking about.

Some years after that the Socialist Labour League (the British organisation led by Ireland's gift to the world, Gerry Healy) had some branches, at least in the North. When exactly they disappeared isn't clear as they were very low profile. I've heard it said that Tom Paulin was in or around them.

Then you had the groups and individuals connected to or stemming from the a London based Irish Workers Group. That's where some of the core people who set up People's Democracy in the North came from. In Dublin they set up the League for a Workers Republic and had a wider milieu in the Young Socialists. They were certainly operating back home before 69.

Post 1969 there are various splits in the LWR/YS milieu, which lead to more groups. The only remnants of this "wave" of Irish Trotskyists are the handful of grumpy old men in Socialist Democracy. SD was originally a merger between what was left of People's Democracy and one of the LWR splinters. You could perhaps consider the Healy brothers to be a leftover of that wave too, I suppose but I don't know if they would still consider themselves Trotskyists.

The groups that actually exist today aren't descended from the Irish Workers Group and instead have their origins a few years later, in the very early seventies.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 21, 2014)

Thanks for that Nigel Irritable. Paulin was def in the WRP. He's written about trying to sell their paper door to door in Belfast.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 21, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> Thanks for that Nigel Irritable. Paulin was def in the WRP. He's written about trying to sell their paper door to door in Belfast.



They were I think unique amongst Irish Trotskyists in setting themselves up as a constituent part of a British party. I've no idea why they did so. It can't have helped them in the South or amongst Northern Catholics. The only other left group I can think of that did something similar was the BICO, but in their case they were an Irish group expanding to the bigger island.

In the early seventies a new Healyite organisation (League for a Workers Vanguard) was born out of a split in the LWR. Presumably that means the original Irish Healyites had disappeared by then.


----------



## Limerick Red (Nov 22, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They were I think unique amongst Irish Trotskyists in setting themselves up as a constituent part of a British party. I've no idea why they did so. It can't have helped them in the South or amongst Northern Catholics. The only other left group I can think of that did something similar was the BICO, but in their case they were an Irish group expanding to the bigger island.
> 
> In the early seventies a new Healyite organisation (League for a Workers Vanguard) was born out of a split in the LWR. Presumably that means the original Irish Healyites had disappeared by then.



who was the group DR Lysaght was/is part of?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 22, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> who was the group DR Lysaght was/is part of?



Socialist Democracy. I think he came from the Movement for a Socialist Republic side of the merger that created SD, rather than the People's Democracy side. MSR was what eventually resulted from a (USFI/Mandelite) split from the League for a Workers Republic. The merged group should really have kept the much better known PD name.

I believe he is still in SD, in so far as SD is still a functioning group.

(What became the MSR overlapped with the Saor Eire milieu, Peter Graham most obviously being a leading figure in both circles)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 22, 2014)

just popped over to the SD website, they use frames!


----------



## chilango (Nov 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> just popped over to the SD website, they use frames!



I remember not so long ago on Wikipedia inspired delve through what happened to PD ending up on the SD website.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 22, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> just popped over to the SD website, they use frames!



They also use zimmer frames.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 24, 2014)

chilango said:


> what happened to PD



To borrow a phrase



> They haven't gone away, you know


----------



## Karmickameleon (Nov 24, 2014)

By all accounts the RIC conference this last weekend was very successful. Not surprisingly, neither Sheridan or the SWP were invited to speak.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 24, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> By all accounts the RIC conference this last weekend was very successful. Not surprisingly, neither Sheridan or the SWP were invited to speak.



That is interesting - Sheridan is calling for tactical vote for the SNP in the 2015 general election.  The SWP's normal position is to vote Labour i believe (unless there is a front organisation that they are supporting like TUSC etc)..

i can see no justification for a Labour vote considering their history and their imperialist type antics re the Independence referendum.

Who can say which way the SWP will jump by May 2015?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 24, 2014)

redcogs said:


> That is interesting - Sheridan is calling for tactical vote for the SNP in the 2015 general election.  The SWP's normal position is to vote Labour i believe (unless there is a front organisation that they are supporting like TUSC etc)..
> 
> i can see no justification for a Labour vote considering their history and their imperialist type antics re the Independence referendum.
> 
> Who can say which way the SWP will jump by May 2015?



TUSC will be standing 100 Parliamentary candidates next year, including in Scotland. The SWP are committed to providing a couple of them - they could easily U-turn on that mind, I know of a few swops who are panicking so much about UKIP they clearly want to call for a Labour vote.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 24, 2014)

UKIP don't seem to have the traction in Scotland that they have south of the border though.  If TUSC are standing 100 candidates, that leaves approx 500 seats where left of Labour candidates will be comparatively rare (except the Greens of course).  In those seats one assumes the Swops will urge a Labour vote.  What a travesty of a socialist position.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 24, 2014)

redcogs said:


> UKIP don't seem to have the traction in Scotland that they have south of the border though.  If TUSC are standing 100 candidates, that leaves approx 500 seats where left of Labour candidates will be comparatively rare (except the Greens of course).  In those seats one assumes the Swops will urge a Labour vote.  What a travesty of a socialist position.



Yeah, possibly. They did that in the by election after Louise Mensch resigned if I recall, and then withdrew it after 24 hours. In Scotland they might well call for an SNP vote though given the mess Scottish Labour is in. Or Scottish Socialist Party. Fuck knows.

(If anyone wants to give us £150,000 by the way we'll stand another 100 candidates, promise  )


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 24, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> (If anyone wants to give us £150,000 by the way we'll stand another 100 candidates, promise  )



The problem is you would just lose another 100 deposits on top of the 96 you will definitely lose anyway. Why participate when you have no strategy?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Nov 24, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The problem is you would just lose another 100 deposits on top of the 96 you will definitely lose anyway. Why participate when you have no strategy?



Who says we have no strategy? Don't get me wrong, we'll lose a LOT of deposits. But I'm genuinely convinced we have to do this.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 25, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who says we have no strategy? Don't get me wrong, we'll lose a LOT of deposits. But I'm genuinely convinced we have to do this.



What's the strategy then?


----------



## redcogs (Nov 25, 2014)

Urging the working class to vote Labour is not a strategy, its a disaster.

i wonder if the Prof and the A team has ever considered asking the membership what the strategic attitude ought to be ?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 25, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Urging the working class to vote Labour is not a strategy, its a disaster.
> 
> i wonder if the Prof and the A team has ever considered asking the membership what the strategic attitude ought to be ?


I don't think anyone is saying it is. I was asking spacklefrog what the strategy behind TUSC is


----------



## belboid (Nov 25, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who says we have no strategy? Don't get me wrong, we'll lose a LOT of deposits. But I'm genuinely convinced we have to do this.


wooh yeah!  Piss a load more money away for no votes and then wind the useless organisation up!  Cracking strategy.

Fucking swappies have promised that they'll stand in my seat, despite their moron of a candidates vote collapsing at the last local election.  Hopefully their conference will decide its time to pull out.


----------



## belboid (Nov 25, 2014)

.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 26, 2014)

London Black Revolutionaries unimpressed with SWP's shenanigans over Ferguson demo:
https://www.facebook.com/events/312433102293366/permalink/312949965575013/


----------



## leyton96 (Nov 26, 2014)

belboid said:


> wooh yeah!  Piss a load more money away for no votes and then wind the useless organisation up!  Cracking strategy.
> 
> Fucking swappies have promised that they'll stand in my seat, despite their moron of a candidates vote collapsing at the last local election.  Hopefully their conference will decide its time to pull out.



What's everyone getting so angry about? 

I can go into the TUSC strategy in detail if you want but the tl;dr version is: 

Stand widely ==> build name recognition, popularise idea of a working class based party
Stand widely ==> give a space for working class people to enter the electoral process, thereby building up a cadre of people across the country familiar with electoral campaigning, organisation etc. This is money in the bank for when a situation more favourable to a new mass working class party develops.

(To save us all a tedious exchange about a new party being about more than electoral politics the above simply relates to standing in elections)

There (probably) won't be that much money wasted as all the deposits will (probably) be paid for from a legacy from a former member of the Socialist Alliance of around £55,000. Before folks get a cob on about the money being better spent on building the movement or something the legacy specifically states it has to be spent on a left electoral challenge. 

http://www.socialistalliance.org.uk/?linkId=1&storyId=124


----------



## belboid (Nov 26, 2014)

It wont build the movement. It isn't worth building name recognition for an organisation with no future. It's a farcical waste of money.  As every single person outside the SP (and those two swappies) knows.


----------



## redcogs (Nov 26, 2014)

Is it a lame question to ask why the SWP, which has its own long standing weekly paper, along with a functioning core etc, why they are not standing candidates on an honest and open basis as the 'Socialist Workers Party', rather than concealing themselves behind/within a variety of  'front' organisations ?  it seems a bit furtive, a bit we've got something to hide-ist to be frank.  Shouldn't the relationship to the working class have a bit more integrity about it?


----------



## belboid (Nov 26, 2014)

Yes it is


----------



## redcogs (Nov 26, 2014)

Why though?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 26, 2014)

belboid said:


> It wont build the movement. It isn't worth building name recognition for an organisation with no future. It's a farcical waste of money.  As every single person outside the SP (and those two swappies) knows.



As opposed to your superior strategy, which you will no doubt be able to outline and which you are no doubt currently carrying out, right?

This exchange mostly reminds me of the kind of sneering you sometimes hear from the stupider Left Unity partisans. As if Left Unity actually was a "British SYRIZA" or "British Podemos" or British whatever the flavour of the month currently is, rather than 300 grey haired cranks, burn outs and other associated well meaning flotsam.

Of course an organisation like Left Unity with even less of a future than TUSC may not be what you prefer to counterpose to it. You may instead be one of the people who prefer the IWCA, an organisation which ran out of future entirely some years ago. I'm not going to bother insinuating that you might prefer the Labour left as I don't think you are an idiot.

It's easy to sneer at the English left. Any part of it. It's harder to come up with a plan that stands a reasonable chance of seeing that left become less marginal in the nearish future. Mind you the same could have been said about the Scottish left two years ago (and there's every possibility they could squander their lucky break still).

I'm not a particular adherent of TUSC's approach. It isn't what we do over here, though then again we have better options to choose from. But if they see spending money that they are being given for that purpose only on standing very widely and go into that process understanding that they will get a low vote, I don't think it's really something that should attract the outraged sneering of other lefts. Much of it looks like displaced self loathing from people who themselves don't know what to do.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 26, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I'm not a particular adherent of TUSC's approach. It isn't what we do over here, though then again we have better options to choose from.



Not the least of the reasons for that is that you have a better electoral system.  Not saying that solves everything, but it least gets you a foot in the door.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 26, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> London Black Revolutionaries unimpressed with SWP's shenanigans over Ferguson demo:
> https://www.facebook.com/events/312433102293366/permalink/312949965575013/



This is interesting because it shows a failure to adapt to new circumstances. The combination of social media plus diminished size and resources plus their almost complete loss of non party allies means that this particular type of SWP manouever is now more likely to be counterproductive than productive.

Now, along with the usual (almost always white) twittersectionals, they have a whole bunch of left leaning black people getting outraged about them (not just LBR but a much wider and more disparate group). And for what? So that one of their fronts gets to provide a fucking compere at a rally? They don't even gain anything out of it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 26, 2014)

articul8 said:


> Not the least of the reasons for that is that you have a better electoral system.  Not saying that solves everything, but it least gets you a foot in the door.



Oddly enough I reckon we wouldn't do too badly under fptp - the left vote is quite geographically concentrated. But yes, our electoral system is certainly better for small parties.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 26, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> London Black Revolutionaries unimpressed with SWP's shenanigans over Ferguson demo:
> https://www.facebook.com/events/312433102293366/permalink/312949965575013/



Isn't this the same behaviour (informing on people to the police, violent threats) that the UAF used against leftists in the anti-edl demo in Newcastle in 2013?


----------



## belboid (Nov 28, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> As opposed to your superior strategy, which you will no doubt be able to outline and which you are no doubt currently carrying out, right?
> 
> This exchange mostly reminds me of the kind of sneering you sometimes hear from the stupider Left Unity partisans. As if Left Unity actually was a "British SYRIZA" or "British Podemos" or British whatever the flavour of the month currently is, rather than 300 grey haired cranks, burn outs and other associated well meaning flotsam.
> 
> ...


oh dear Nige, your defensiveness just shows that you know as well as I do that this is a pointless strategy.  It's a waste of your small forces' time, trying to stand in far too many seats just to get a badly made PPB. Far more sensible to concentrate on a few seats where you could actually get a half decent result, the alternative is largely just demoralisation or feeding the ego's of a few people. It's also the pretense that TUSC has a future, whereas, really, everyone can see its time is past up.

Sad, but true,  We would be far better mostly sitting this election out, with a few candidates in meaningful seats.


----------



## leyton96 (Nov 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> oh dear Nige, your defensiveness just shows that you know as well as I do that this is a pointless strategy.  It's a waste of your small forces' time, trying to stand in far too many seats just to get a badly made PPB. Far more sensible to concentrate on a few seats where you could actually get a half decent result, the alternative is largely just demoralisation or feeding the ego's of a few people. It's also the pretense that TUSC has a future, whereas, really, everyone can see its time is past up.
> 
> Sad, but true,  We would be far better mostly sitting this election out, with a few candidates in meaningful seats.



Well really that's just the IWCA strategy all over again.


----------



## belboid (Nov 28, 2014)

Not really. Carry on campaigning in the way you always have, but just in a targeted manner. By scattering your resources so widely, you'll be sacrificing some good(ish) votes for a lot of poor ones.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> oh dear Nige, your defensiveness just shows that you know as well as I do that this is a pointless strategy.  It's a waste of your small forces' time, trying to stand in far too many seats just to get a badly made PPB. Far more sensible to concentrate on a few seats where you could actually get a half decent result, the alternative is largely just demoralisation or feeding the ego's of a few people. It's also the pretense that TUSC has a future, whereas, really, everyone can see its time is past up.
> 
> Sad, but true,  We would be far better mostly sitting this election out, with a few candidates in meaningful seats.



I'm not even slightly defensive about it - I have zero input into the English SP's tactical decisions and the longer it's been since I lived in England the less feel for the situation there I have.

My point wasn't really a response to people putting forward reasoned disagreements with TUSC's priorities while admitting they don't have much notion of a better plan themselves. It was a response to the all too common outraged sneering from people who are partisans of even less promising outfits, like Left Unity, or who at the very least seem to lack the self-awareness to realise that they are not in a position to be either outraged or sneering without looking like a fool or a hypocrite.

As for the "concentrate resources" argument, that's pretty much what the SP used to both argue for and do ten or fifteen years ago. I'm not at all sure that a balance sheet of that experience would make for encouraging reading for all that it seems reasonable in theory. It takes phenomenal amounts of work to say for instance, win a few council seats on that basis, than even more to sustain them and even so a slight national swing that you have no control over can wipe you out in a moment. One of the problems with that particular line of argument is that it's generally put forward as timeless "common sense", but is pretty much never grounded in experience. And unlike most of the people who think that this approach is somehow obvious, the SP has actually tried it. But this is an argument reasonable people can have - sneering bluster of the type Tom Walker and co personify in Left Unity is a different issue.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> Not really. Carry on campaigning in the way you always have, but just in a targeted manner. By scattering your resources so widely, you'll be sacrificing some good(ish) votes for a lot of poor ones.


I'm torn on the best electoral tactic - widely or concentrate in a few good areas - given the forces available but I'm not so torn as to get my knickers in the major twist you seem to have got yours into about it. Does it matter that much one way or the other?
- And does it matter that we test it out? Personally I'm not so convinced a broadcast is going to make a huge difference - but I guess it could result in an influx. Any electoral strategy would be useful in carrying on and developing existing campaigns outside of the elections - if the right priority is taken to the actual campaigning.

The underlying strategy - it seems to me - is that that the farce that passes for traditional establishment electoral 'politics' is being increasingly bought into question. Thats reflected in the disenfranchisment of the majority. It is likely to result in some wild swings in a short space of time. Even in the UK - as it already has across europe. To new parties and initiatives - left, right and just plain weird. Look at the situation in Scotland for instance despite the failure of the Yes vote - maybe because of that failure. So putting a possible future left alternative - we argue TUSC - on the map must be one consideration when looking at the tactics.

The level of your bile, belboid - over the last few posts on this thread in your response to the very mention of the word TUSC seems to reflect your dislike of and/or lack of confidence in - rather than any alternative - but it is really directed at the source of our collective problems. You don't half tend to throw your toys out of the pram on occasion fella. There's no need for quite that level of anger - you will give yourself high blood preasure 

(you try working in farage land where the joke ex-swp left bumble about cheerleading wet liberal politics, shouting 'wacist' and licking the backside of sort of wet labour career candidate who has allow the neundertals to hookwink us - its a feckin shambles and i can feel my blood vessels bursting as i type this  )


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 29, 2014)

The SP seemed to be doing alright in terms of getting unembarrassing votes in a few areas with some credibility.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 29, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Isn't this the same behaviour (informing on people to the police, violent threats) that the UAF used against leftists in the anti-edl demo in Newcastle in 2013?



I don't know.

Were those "leftists" organising a demo outside the US embassy without informing the police? 

Did the UAF offer them a joint platform and when that was rejected still let them use the UAF PA system?

It seems to me that's what was happening here with SUTR. I could be wrong, maybe LBR will post the correspondence they mention and we can all draw our own conclusions.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 29, 2014)

Is it fair to say that you like a drink, Trappist?


----------



## Scribbling S (Dec 1, 2014)

I went to the Embassy /Ferguson demo at 7pm ish- it was big (considering the short notice), mixed, young and loud - very good all round. In fairness to SUTR and the SWP, they clearly had mobilised people for the demo, and had, as they say, brought the PA, and I think it was pretty much down to them that there was support from some of the Labour figures and I think they helped get some of the other speakers there (I'm saying that because it really annoys me when some of the Labour Party people who wouldn't dream of helping this protest are excited about the criticism of the SWP). However, it also seems to me that, judging on the times people turned up,  London Black Revolutionaries had mobilised probably more people : That the SUTR and SWP people do need to be a bit less the "Big I Am" about this kind of event.


----------



## Limerick Red (Dec 1, 2014)

Scribbling S said:


> I went to the Embassy /Ferguson demo at 7pm ish- it was big (considering the short notice), mixed, young and loud - very good all round. In fairness to SUTR and the SWP, they clearly had mobilised people for the demo, and had, as they say, brought the PA, and I think it was pretty much down to them that there was support from some of the Labour figures and I think they helped get some of the other speakers there (I'm saying that because it really annoys me when some of the Labour Party people who wouldn't dream of helping this protest are excited about the criticism of the SWP). However, it also seems to me that, judging on the times people turned up,  London Black Revolutionaries had mobilised probably more people : That the SUTR and SWP people do need to be a bit less the "Big I Am" about this kind of event.


It's typical swappie behaviour, they pulled the same trick on black revs, LAF, D161 and SLAF, over the marksfield park demo, now of course they have every right to call a demo whenever they want, but blatently on these occasions it's to get the drop on a more militant mobilisation, actually last EDL tower hamlets demo they pulled the same shit, although I'll give em the benifit of the doubt that the assembly point was the most logical one in the area, but again they liased with police and announced their demo was to take place at the same time and place as a planned militant demo not liasing with the shades, so make of that what you will!


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2014)

dennisr said:


> I'm torn on the best electoral tactic - widely or concentrate in a few good areas - given the forces available but I'm not so torn as to get my knickers in the major twist you seem to have got yours into about it. Does it matter that much one way or the other?
> - And does it matter that we test it out? Personally I'm not so convinced a broadcast is going to make a huge difference - but I guess *it could result in an influx*. Any electoral strategy would be useful in carrying on and developing existing campaigns outside of the elections - if the right priority is taken to the actual campaigning.



an influx into what?  As TUSC doesnt have individual membership (or has that changed?).  The whole stand lots and lots of candidates seems to be a simple 'do _something_' response. Give members something to keep them busy rather than being  a serious strategy.  Much better to concentrate on things you can actually influence, and can deliver on - which aint electoral politics this time around.  What was the average vote for the 500 local election candidates?  Under 80 iirr.  Depressing shit.


----------



## belboid (Dec 1, 2014)

on another note...

I saw over the weekend allegations of a complaint of rape being made within Bambery's little lot, that they refused to investigate. Anyone know any more?


----------



## articul8 (Dec 1, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The SP seemed to be doing alright in terms of getting unembarrassing votes in a few areas with some credibility.


they're going backwards at an electoral level (though their recent rally was one of the biggest in years).


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 1, 2014)

Tusc did abysmally in Oxford, 68 votes in total across 3 seats last week


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 1, 2014)

articul8 said:


> they're going backwards at an electoral level (though their recent rally was one of the biggest in years).


I know could be anything to do with TUSC?


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 2, 2014)

Rumblings in the Irish SWP... 

http://sexismonirishleft.wordpress.com/


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 2, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Rumblings in the Irish SWP...
> 
> http://sexismonirishleft.wordpress.com/[/QUOTE
> 
> "This meeting was with a senior leadership female member. I was quite intimidated initially, and as the meeting progressed my intimidation grew." Sounds familiar...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 8, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I don't think anyone is saying it is. I was asking spacklefrog what the strategy behind TUSC is



Sorry, not been ignoring you, just been very busy. Basically the strategy is "Shit, we need to lay the groundwork for what happens after the election and we need to make sure we we're just about important/known enough that if/when the unions pull support for Labour they can't ignore us if/when they decide to look at an alternative". What we want to do is not necessarily secure decent votes but build some kind of name recognition by meeting the fair coverage threshold, getting on tv and radio as much as we can and making sure people know that when the Labour party lets them down, it was us that said they would.

I never said it was a brilliant strategy - but I do think its the best we can hope to do. Otherwise we'd just be abandoning the elections to the likes of Labour, the Greens and UKIP.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 8, 2014)

belboid said:


> wooh yeah!  Piss a load more money away for no votes and then wind the useless organisation up!  Cracking strategy.
> 
> Fucking swappies have promised that they'll stand in my seat, despite their moron of a candidates vote collapsing at the last local election.  Hopefully their conference will decide its time to pull out.



And do what instead? You know they'll just revert to "Vote for anyone to keep out UKIP".

They actually might do this - part of me hopes they will.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 8, 2014)

belboid said:


> We would be far better mostly sitting this election out, with a few candidates in meaningful seats.



Forward to revolutionary abstentionism!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 8, 2014)

Karmickameleon said:


> sexism on the Irish left



To be honest I am not sure that having a majority female leadership can safeguard against such practices either tbh. Women can be just as invested in covering up for the party as men


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 8, 2014)

leyton96 said:


> Rumblings in the Irish SWP...
> 
> http://sexismonirishleft.wordpress.com/



Oh dear. By no means the same as what has happened in the British SWP - but pretty poor as well, definitely sounds deliberately exploitative and manipulating. There's a reference to 'votes' - is this one of the SWP's main electoral candidates?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest I am not sure that having a majority female leadership can safeguard against such practices either tbh. Women can be just as invested in covering up for the party as men



Agree - Maxine Bowler and Amy Leather represent exactly this pretty well.


----------



## emanymton (Dec 8, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> To be honest I am not sure that having a majority female leadership can safeguard against such practices either tbh. Women can be just as invested in covering up for the party as men


Yep, in the original SWP case the majority of the Disputes committee where women.


----------



## belboid (Dec 16, 2014)

Good piece from Ian Birchall.  Haven't finished all 12,000 words yet, but there are some very interesting points made - not least that SW has not made a single solitary mention of the Ched Evans case. nor of the Pistorius trial. Almost as if they were afraid of something.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2014)

belboid said:


> Good piece from Ian Birchall.  Haven't finished all 12,000 words yet, but there are some very interesting points made - not least that SW has not made a single solitary mention of the Ched Evans case. nor of the Pistorius trial. Almost as if they were afraid of something.


This lept out at me whilst skimming:



> It is a statement [from 1972 he think - ba] that has always stayed with me and helped me not to identify the long-term struggle too closely with any particular organisational manifestation.



That's simply not true of your behaviour pre-2013 Ian - in fact for for the 4 decades from 72 on.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Dec 18, 2014)

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/ar...ties+crisis+brings+opportunities+for+the+left

"Socialist Worker editor Judith Orr introduced a session on women’s liberation.

She argued that “rampant” sexism on campuses and *high profile sexual abuse cases have driven resistance to sexism*."

No irony intended I would imagine, as presumably she doesn't include Delta in the high profile category.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2014)

"Charlie disagreed with others on the left who wanted to stand everywhere. “Votes do matter,” he said."

But then goes to support TUSC, who.....want to stand everywhere. And get hardly any votes.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> "Charlie disagreed with others on the left who wanted to stand everywhere. “Votes do matter,” he said."
> 
> But then goes to support TUSC, who.....want to stand everywhere. And get hardly any votes.



What they mean is they won't stand widely.

Incidentally Belboid, did you know the CPB are standing in Central.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Incidentally Belboid, did you know the CPB are standing in Central.


really?  Is it anti-fascist Steve, or Carrie?


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2014)

"Phil from Rotherham said comrades shaped the atmosphere after the child abuse scandal there, by raising the issue of Islamophobia when others were too afraid. "

hmm, absolutely everyone raised it, you dishonest prats.  Especially that Labour vicar they were touting so strongly


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> really?  Is it anti-fascist Steve, or Carrie?



Steve.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> Steve.


aah, good man.  I'd vote for him.  Unless he stood for someone shite like the CPB


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> "Phil from Rotherham said comrades shaped the atmosphere after the child abuse scandal there, by raising the issue of Islamophobia when others were too afraid. "
> 
> mmm, absolutely everyone raised it, you dishonest prats.  Especially that Labour vicar they were touting so strongly



What they mean is their reaction to a labour council covering up and enabling systemic child sex exploitation was to shout "DON'T BE RACIST" at everyone. 

If you think about it, that they can be so proud of how they behave in a situation like that is quite dark.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Dec 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> aah, good man.  I'd vote for him.  Unless he stood for someone shite like the CPB



Which apparently is what they want to do. Not gonna stand for TUSC.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> What they mean is their reaction to a labour council covering up and enabling systemic child sex exploitation was to shout "DON'T BE RACIST" at everyone.
> 
> If you think about it, that they can be so proud of how they behave in a situation like that is quite dark.


and shouting DONT BE RACIST is the key activity for the upcoming six months too.  It's gonna be grim.


----------



## leyton96 (Dec 18, 2014)

belboid said:


> and shouting DONT BE RACIST is the key activity for the upcoming six months too.  It's gonna be grim.



Perhaps they've been taking strategic advice from this chap?


----------



## dominion (Dec 22, 2014)

SP/CWI micro split declared today:

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/two-men-and-blog-form-faction.html


----------



## Trotsky007 (Jan 14, 2015)

A very good and useful 1 year old conference for RS21 at the weekend in London. Lots of debate about the current political situation and where to go from here. It featured a great "what to do when you go to a picket line" role-play for students from Unite members who were going to go to Bus strike picket lines. Practical stuff and good to share.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2015)

Probably not the best thread to post an advert for RS21 one on Trotsky007


----------



## Trotsky007 (Jan 15, 2015)

Is there a better place?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 15, 2015)

start a new thread in this forum?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 15, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> start a new thread in this forum?



Don't do that.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 29, 2015)

International Socialist Network !
Was wondering if anyone knew anything about ISN meeting/debate last weekend. Apparently they split over whether to stay and work in Left Unity or find more creative and imaginative forms of organisational strategies working as a network of individuals


----------



## Trotsky007 (Jan 30, 2015)

I suspect that there may be some movement to join rs21 which would be good.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 30, 2015)

I suspect there won't


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 30, 2015)

I suspect you wouldn't want them


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jan 30, 2015)

Nigel said:


> International Socialist Network !
> Was wondering if anyone knew anything about ISN meeting/debate last weekend. Apparently they split over whether to stay and work in Left Unity or find more creative and imaginative forms of organisational strategies working as a network of individuals


Not exactly what you were asking for, but here's the Weekly Worker report on the recent TUSC conference. If correct, it would appear that ISN are now focussing on TUSC and not LU.
http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1043/dishonesty-and-opportunism/


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2015)

Karmickameleon said:


> Not exactly what you were asking for, but here's the Weekly Worker report on the recent TUSC conference. If correct, it would appear that ISN are now focussing on TUSC and not LU.
> http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1043/dishonesty-and-opportunism/


that's the other ISN

I'd almost forgotten what a terrible writer Manson is


----------



## Nigel (Jan 30, 2015)

Karmickameleon said:


> Not exactly what you were asking for, but here's the Weekly Worker report on the recent TUSC conference. If correct, it would appear that ISN are now focussing on TUSC and not LU.
> http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1043/dishonesty-and-opportunism/


Cheers


----------



## Trotsky007 (Feb 2, 2015)

dennisr said:


> I suspect there won't



Is rs21 that bad that they couldn't join? What would be the issues that stopped them?


----------



## J Ed (Feb 11, 2015)

I see that RS21 are paying for sponsored facebook posts


----------



## Trappist (Feb 12, 2015)

Ever Decreasing Circles or EX SWP Expulsions and Squabbles

It has taken me some time to work through the tangle of statements, counter statements, revisions and tweets to discover some weird goings on and strange facts, including that LBR founder split from the SWP.

- RS21 infiltrating London Black Revs? 
- London Black Rev member convicted of rape(?) expelled (after six months), but were Defend the Right to Protest and Justice 4 Mark informed?
- London Black Revs not allowed to have relationships with women of the political left (unless you're the founder) because of risk of rape allegations?

Sources:

First mention  http://rapistoutblacklivesmatter.tu...ck-lives-matter-demanding-accountability-from

2009 News story [sexual assault, not rape] http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Sex-attacker-gets-years/story-22342117-detail/story.html

LBR statement about "rapist" and other expulsions http://blackrevs.org/?p=266 (very long)

Response by the "others" expelled https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D8AeiYOZHgAlPUuEwcJgQzsfc34_zVE2bzrKFn-dzyg/pub

Rectification by LBR http://blackrevs.org/?p=283 (gives a timeline, but so many unanswered questions)

Spycops* report on strange behaviour by LBR https://spycops.wordpress.com/ (*anarchists?)

Spycops[008] Twitter account https://twitter.com/GCHQDirtyTricks contains strange private tweets from LBR

LBR Facebook account http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...com/LondonBlackRevs+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk (cached)


Something or nothing? Perhaps just a footnote on life in the Twittersphere.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 12, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Ever Decreasing Circles or EX SWP Expulsions and Squabbles
> 
> It has taken me some time to work through the tangle of statements, counter statements, revisions and tweets to discover some weird goings on and strange facts, including that LBR founder split from the SWP.
> 
> ...


Crikey


----------



## treelover (Feb 12, 2015)

> It was then reported by activists external from LBR about an incident in a pub with Speaker D and Steve Hedley, where Speaker D had aggressively defended Steve Hedley, stating that “women can lie” and that there are “two accounts to every story” alongside other misogynistic comments and apologies for domestic violence.



Leaving aside the issues, it seems they are spying on each other, not a good move.


----------



## Trappist (Feb 12, 2015)

Let me declare an interest - I'm still a member of the SWP so I have an axe to grind. I'll try to keep my opinions as non-sectarian as possible and I'm sure you'll let me know if I go too far. Okay?

To start with the press report: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Sex-attacker-gets-years/story-22342117-detail/story.html

Clearly a very bad attack, but it isn't rape. The seriousness of the assault is reflected in the fact that, despite pleading guilty, Kenny got 5 years - the same as Ched Evans who pleaded not guilty to rape. Although this could be due to Evans having more to spend on lawyers.

Once the guilty plea is accepted the court moves on to sentencing. Here the defence claims the attack was out of character and Kenny is ashamed of his actions. Well they would say that wouldn't they? Yet there is no evidence of previous violent and/or sex crimes. Nor is there any mention of remorse, though it may have been included in the shame described by the defence. Either way, remorse at a sentencing hearing isn't likely to be thought terribly convincing.

Despite the clarity of that report, the blog of 28 January 2015 [ http://rapistoutblacklivesmatter.tu...ck-lives-matter-demanding-accountability-from] manages to get basic facts wrong and makes assertions that don't seem to be backed up by any evidence - for instance: [Kenny is] "posing as a revolutionary and continuing to be hyper-masculine and aggressive;" or that his partner Temi Mwale "has covered up his convictions." They also claim that "groups on the left are knowingly harbouring a violent convicted rapist. Defend the Right to Protest, the Justice 4 Mark Campaign, London Black Revolutionaries... ...have all continued to work with a ‘Fidel Santigi’ despite his criminal conviction for a violent rape being found out."

I'm not saying these allegations aren't true, but it isn't good enough to merely assert that individuals and groups are responsible for covering up for, and harbouring, a rapist - provide some evidence or stop witch hunting!

Also, why, when three groups are identified as working with him, only call "on Hannah Dee of Defend the Right to Protest and Carole Duggan of the J4M campaign to remove this convicted rapist?" Especially when the LBR is the only organisation he was a member of!

[Note. Following some of the comments below this post has been edited to remove the suggestion of any "insistence" that there was no rape]

PS - the blog makes suggestions for ways he may be held to account within the left. This is a tricky proposition and I don't know of any evidence for it working, The same can't be said for this old white bloke:  I wonder if it's worth asking if the process worked? 

I'll try to make sense of the LBR statements tomorrow.


----------



## comrade spurski (Feb 13, 2015)

He was convicted of a serious sex attack...so tbh your insistence of him not being a rapist comes across as pedantic and nonsensical


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 13, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> He was convicted of a serious sex attack...so tbh your insistence of him not being a rapist comes across as pedantic and nonsensical


still not surprising behaviour for a member of the SWP


----------



## emanymton (Feb 13, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> He was convicted of a serious sex attack...so tbh your insistence of him not being a rapist comes across as pedantic and nonsensical


Hmm, I am not sure. I think it is best to be as factually accurate as possible otherwise the argument becomes about whether x is true or not rather than the real issue. Is it not enough to say he was convicted of a violent sex attack?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 13, 2015)

possibly but emphasising how it deffo wasn't a PIV rape isn't a good look for a current SWP member now is it


----------



## comrade spurski (Feb 13, 2015)

My point is that who seriously wants to split hairs on this?
He admitted to a "serious sex attack"...he was convicted of it and given a 5 year sentence...so why would anyone feel the need to state "it clear isnt rape"?
You have no idea what he did....just what he admitted to doing.
I think rape has to involve the insertion of a penis or an object into someone...that is a legal definition....everything is classed as sexual assault (to differing degrees) by law.
Maybe he did commit rape but admitted to a lesser charge (that is hardly uncommon).
I find it bizarre that a socialist wants to twice state that this man is not a rapist...it is missing the point by a fucking country mile imo


----------



## Trappist (Feb 13, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> He was convicted of a serious sex attack...so tbh your insistence of him not being a rapist comes across as pedantic and nonsensical


Yes, he was convicted of a very serious sexual assault and affray and whilst it isn't rape he absolutely terrorised both women. I don't trivialise that and I make the point that despite not being rape the attack was serious enough to get the kind of sentence another rapist got. However, given your response I see that my "insistence of him not being a rapist" might have lead you to think I regard the attack as not so serious so I have edited the original post to dial back the "insistence" whilst still being clear about what he did.

Hopefully, this will remove the distraction of having to consider the opinions of an SWP member on rape and allow my main concerns about the blog post to come through - 

Was the assumption that his conviction was known about and covered up justified or is it a smear? 

Why are three women (and two campaigns) targeted for their association with Kenny whilst London Black Revs, of which he was a member, and its leader are not held to account?

The LBR statements are going to have to wait, but feel free to read and comment on them if you have time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 13, 2015)

.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 17, 2015)

Don't want to come across as an ego maniac, however as I post occasionally on here, I thought that it might be appropriate to put this online message of resignation from Socialist Party and some reasons why I've become involved with the International Socialist Network !


After About A Decade Involvement & Being A Member Of Socialist Party, I Have Decided To Part My Ways. The Politics And Organisational Structure I Find Stagnative & Restrictive Apart From The Many Political Differences I Have With This Political Tradition: I've Never Considered Myself A Trotskyist.
I Still Have Tremendous Respect For People I Have Met In The Socialist Party & Hope To Remain In An Amicable Relation Both On An Individual Level & With The Party Itself !
I Have Become Involved With International Socialist Network.
With This I Genuinely Feel That I Have Re-Connected With The Political Tradition That I Started Out With In My Early Teens,Along With That Idealism & Honesty: I Feel Now After Many Years In The Wilderness Back To The Path Of Revolutionary Socialism !


----------



## JHE (Feb 17, 2015)

Is It ISN Policy To Start All Words With A Capital Letter?  Down With Indiscriminate Capitalism!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 17, 2015)

probably joining ISN at about the right time in its lifecycle


----------



## placidlefty (Mar 6, 2015)

Normally just a lurker/reader Just out of curiousity as they appear to have ceased updating their website recently have the ISN decided to go their separate ways?


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2015)

ISN't


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 6, 2015)

belboid said:


> ISN't


are you still involved?


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2015)

in something that no longer exists????

Well, it sorta still does.....everyone pretty much knows its being wound up, but a few still want to continue (mainly the Brum lot who joined having had nothing to do with the SWP). There are tendencies that want to continue as 'some kind of' anti-capitalist group, and others that want to dissolve into RS21.   I still meet up with the Sheffield & Leeds lots, most of whom probly wont join RS21 for various reasons.


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 6, 2015)

belboid said:


> in something that no longer exists????
> 
> Well, it sorta still does.....everyone pretty much knows its being wound up, but a few still want to continue (mainly the Brum lot who joined having had nothing to do with the SWP). There are tendencies that want to continue as 'some kind of' anti-capitalist group, and others that want to dissolve into RS21.   I still meet up with the Sheffield & Leeds lots, most of whom probly wont join RS21 for various reasons.



Sorry to be nosey, but what sort of numbers are we talking about? Any chance they'll end up in Left Unity?


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2015)

ISNers?  Some already are - Simon Hardy, Tom Walker, a smattering of others.  Most wont really touch it with a barge pole, either always thought it was shit or have had too many arguments after all the shit around Bianca Todd.

Oddly, we got an email only a day or two ago asking if we'd put up obits for a couple of SPGB members


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2015)

LU going from strength to strength


----------



## imposs1904 (Mar 6, 2015)

belboid said:


> ISNers?  Some already are - Simon Hardy, Tom Walker, a smattering of others.  Most wont really touch it with a barge pole, either always thought it was shit or have had too many arguments after all the shit around Bianca Todd.
> 
> Oddly, we got an email only a day or two ago asking if *we'd put up obits for a couple of SPGB members*



I'm guessing that's the same letter that was published in this week's Weekly Worker.


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2015)

belboid said:


> LU going from strength to strength




They have a housing conference in Liverpool on Saturday, I hope its a success, they seem to be focussing on identity politics mostly.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 6, 2015)

belboid said:


> in something that no longer exists????
> 
> Well, it sorta still does.....everyone pretty much knows its being wound up, but a few still want to continue (mainly the Brum lot who joined having had nothing to do with the SWP). There are tendencies that want to continue as 'some kind of' anti-capitalist group, and others that want to dissolve into RS21.   I still meet up with the Sheffield & Leeds lots, most of whom probly wont join RS21 for various reasons.



Just wondered whether there was a rump dragging on, I know the last internal bulletin was published in January and a cursory read suggested the contributors still believed it was continuing, and obviously now Nigel has joined...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 6, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Just wondered whether there was a rump dragging on, I know the last internal bulletin was published in January and a cursory read suggested the contributors still believed it was continuing, and obviously now Nigel has joined...



I think they've just published a new bulletin. They formally still exist but are clearly in the process of de facto dissolving as less and less people bother to keep it going. Rs21, Workers Power and Socialist Resistance are the vultures, picking the odd morsel off the bones. RS21 for the SWP revivalists, Workers Power for the harder would-be sectarians, Socialist Resistance for the bewildered social democrats and dopey Left Unity enthusiasts. RS21 will get the biggest chunk despite making the least effort, but I suspect more people will simply drift off than join any of them.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 6, 2015)

treelover said:


> They have a housing conference in Liverpool on Saturday, I hope its a success, they seem to be focussing on identity politics mostly.



Sounds like its a winner


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2015)

imposs1904 said:


> I'm guessing that's the same letter that was published in this week's Weekly Worker.


yup, that was the one


----------



## belboid (Mar 6, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Just wondered whether there was a rump dragging on, I know the last internal bulletin was published in January and a cursory read suggested the contributors still believed it was continuing, and obviously now Nigel has joined...


well, I suspect there will be some kind of continuation.

The ISN wasn't really set up originally to be 'an organisation' - it was pretty much a holding ground for ex-SWPers who wanted to stay active and in contact, and hopefully create something with.....either other lefties generally or people who would come to leave the SWP over the following year.  Only when what became RS21 actually did leave, and immediately showed precious little interest in the ISN, followed by the failure of _Trotcon, _did the ISN start to try to be an ongoing grouping - pushed in part by the newbies from the ACI.

That worked out well.

What we're left with is a deeply incoherent network of individuals and local groups, which wont carry on. It is the newbies  - the ex-ACI and a group from Birmingham - who seem most keen on trying to form a continuing project without dissolving into a wider grouping.  There are a few others who will sympathise/follow largely, imo/ime, because of issues with individual members of RS21, or because they see them simply as _SWPlite_.

There are various local groups, eg Portsmouth, where they have a group that is wider and independent is ISN, and they'll just continue. Some, such as Leeds, may have difficulty joining RS21 for purely local reasons (outstanding from the split) that will be difficult to get over easily. Some, like maybe Bristol, could join pretty much en masse.

WP may be hanging around, but other than the one person they have recruited, they have little chance of further inroads, most people think Brenner's gone barmy. Likewise SR, generally they're viewed as boring old farts, and they see us as nutters.  I'm sure they'd like TW, but otherwise....


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 6, 2015)

belboid said:


> WP may be hanging around, but other than the one person they have recruited, they have little chance of further inroads, most people think Brenner's gone barmy. Likewise SR, generally they're viewed as boring old farts, and they see us as nutters.  I'm sure they'd like TW, but otherwise....



The Birmingham people's last bulletin contribution was very Socialist Resistanceish and Birmingham is one of the few places where SR have a functioning branch. The only thing really standing between the Left Unity / broader / softer wing of the ISN and SR is a generation gap.


----------



## dennisr (Mar 6, 2015)

Nigel Irritable said:


> generation gap.



... or two


----------



## treelover (Mar 6, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Sounds like its a winner




I don't mean the housing conference is, though they may do, just their general direction.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2015)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Birmingham people's last bulletin contribution was very Socialist Resistanceish and Birmingham is one of the few places where SR have a functioning branch. The only thing really standing between the Left Unity / broader / softer wing of the ISN and SR is a generation gap.


That's probly true, I dont really know the Birmingham lot, tho I do see they're co-hosting a meeting with SR & Plan C next week.  The age gap is one reason why they aren't keen on actually joining tho I believe, as there is a distinct whiff of 'ooh, young people!' about SR's overtures.

Meanwhile, there are already discussions going on about what to do with all the money!


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 7, 2015)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The Birmingham people's last bulletin contribution was very Socialist Resistanceish and Birmingham is one of the few places where SR have a functioning branch. The only thing really standing between the Left Unity / broader / softer wing of the ISN and SR is a generation gap.



I met an SR person in Brum once. He was showing his daughter round the Uni campus, and taking the chance to flog the paper as he did so.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> I met an SR person in Brum once. He was showing his daughter round the Uni campus, and taking the chance to flog the paper as he did so.



Jesus. I feel quite sorry for his daughter.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> That's probly true, I dont really know the Birmingham lot, tho I do see they're co-hosting a meeting with SR & Plan C next week.  The age gap is one reason why they aren't keen on actually joining tho I believe, as there is a distinct whiff of 'ooh, young people!' about SR's overtures.
> 
> Meanwhile, there are already discussions going on about what to do with all the money!



I suppose it doesn't really matter if they formally join up and provide Socialist Resistance with a "youth" (no free bus pass) wing. For the next while they will be wasting their time alongside each other in Left Unity anyway, telling rooms of a couple of dozen bald patches and greyhairs how exciting and vibrant this new turn to clapped out social democracy is.

Also "all the money"? The ISN always struck me as a "jar of pennies with a half eaten lollipop in it" kind of operation rather than one with real money.


----------



## belboid (Mar 7, 2015)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Also "all the money"? The ISN always struck me as a "jar of pennies with a half eaten lollipop in it" kind of operation rather than one with real money.


It'll almost amount to six figures.

As long as you include the pennies


----------



## dominion (Mar 14, 2015)

Who is Milo Samuels? Even Owen Jones is concerned on Twitter:

http://brockley.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/who-is-milo-samuels.html

Has delta returned?


----------



## treelover (Mar 15, 2015)

belboid said:


> LU going from strength to strength



Simon looking like a young John Rees.


----------



## treelover (Mar 15, 2015)

> More recently, UAF has secured funding from the National Union of Teachers (NUT) political levy to publish a magazine called _Unity_
> 
> http://brockley.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/who-is-milo-samuels.html



Mmm, I wonder how that was democratically decided on?


----------



## chilango (Mar 15, 2015)

treelover said:


> Mmm, I wonder how that was democratically decided on?



Quick google suggests that in 2008 the members voted 73% in favour of establishing a political fund (note: not levy that's afaik something different) to be used (amongst things) on fighting "racism and fascism". A UAF rag would certainly fall under this mandate.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 17, 2015)

dominion said:


> Who is Milo Samuels? Even Owen Jones is concerned on Twitter:
> 
> http://brockley.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/who-is-milo-samuels.html
> 
> Has delta returned?



What is worse?

1) the swp being prepared to trash an anti nazi organisation and give right wing scum ammunition to slag off decent anti racists and decent trade unionists by allowing Martin Smith to resume his ego trip in the UAF?

or 

2) the swp thinking it's such a great game that they give his alter ego  a name with the same initials?

Did they really imagine this is what they thought they'd be doing when they decided they were socialists?

I really hope they finish dying soon


----------



## Karmickameleon (Mar 18, 2015)

From Dave Renton on Facebook:
​_Yesterday I was send an unpleasant and harassing message by John Parrington, an Associate Professor in the Department of Pharmacology at Oxford University, who felt it appropriate to comment on a public blog on my politics and those of my partner (who is a member of the same political party as him). He opened "fuck off" and signed off his message to me, "you snivelling piece of shit." I had not written to him to prompt this message, nor had I given him any reason at all for sending it.

I would not have been able to identify him - he used an email pseudonym - except that he had sent the message from his work computer (see, image).

So, I wrote to him yesterday at his work email politely pointing out that not merely had he been harassing me but had done so in his work time from his work computer, and invited him to deny sending the message or apologise. He did neither and in the last hour has taken to "liking" a campaign with which I am associated local to where I live (but an hour from where he does), presumably in the hope that he can sit there spying on it and find something negative about me.

Thank you John, and if any readers out there a friends of his or of any other political campaign in which he is lurking, do feel free to share this message widely - this sort of behaviour should not be considered acceptable anywhere in society, still less among people who say that they are trying to change the world for the better





_


----------



## treelover (Mar 18, 2015)

Isn't Renton a lawyer?

bad move.


----------



## Karmickameleon (Mar 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Isn't Renton a lawyer?
> 
> bad move.


He's a barrister But - given that his partner is still apparently very active in the SWP - I would very much doubt that DR will do anything other than making these gratutitous insults public.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 18, 2015)

Karmickameleon said:


> He's a barrister But - given that his partner is still apparently very active in the SWP - I would very much doubt that DR will do anything other than making these gratutitous insults public.


which seems totally fair enough to me.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 19, 2015)

Meanwhile Seymour and Mieville are contributors to a crowd-funded magazine: _Salvage_.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/salvage--3



> The crisis of capitalism has been a crisis of its opposition. We stand in the rubble of the post-Left. The implosion, a few glimmers such as Syriza's embattled triumph aside, has brought no victors but the predators.
> 
> How did the Left fuck this up so badly?
> 
> ...


----------



## Trotsky007 (Mar 19, 2015)

This from their front page.

"We abjure the typical and grotesque left chimera of sentimentalism, moralism and bullshit. We despise the bad dialectic of defensiveness and self-aggrandisement.

We do not despair, but we are despair-curious."

So its reaching out to the masses then?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 19, 2015)

Trotsky007 said:


> This from their front page.
> 
> "We abjure the typical and grotesque left chimera of sentimentalism, moralism and bullshit. We despise the bad dialectic of defensiveness and self-aggrandisement.
> 
> ...


I'm quite glad it's not. But,trotsky007 (if that is your real name) look at the the stuff the prof is involved with - a  book called 'to the masses' that is around 500 dollars.


----------



## Trotsky007 (Mar 19, 2015)

I am sure they are well meaning and on the side of righteousness. However, the choice of language and general tone has a whiff of middle class vanity about it that irks me. It seems to be more about amusing a select circle of people. Marxism is a theory of how to understand the world in order to change it. Less of the 'aren't we clever' please and a bit more 'lets discuss things properly'.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 19, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Meanwhile Seymour and Mieville are contributors to a crowd-funded magazine: _Salvage_.
> 
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/salvage--3
> The crisis of capitalism has been a crisis of its opposition. We stand in the rubble of the post-Left. The implosion, a few glimmers such as Syriza's embattled triumph aside, has brought no victors but the predators.
> ...



ha written by Meiville


----------



## J Ed (Mar 19, 2015)

Why are they trying to get money out of people in order to publish a magazine anyway? This is the 21st Century ffs, put together a decent podcast and you can reach huge numbers of people without haranguing people for £5000 and people outside of your circle of mates might actually take an idea or two on board. Fuck it, just twirl around in your subculture falling out with a handful of people over minutiae of the politicisation of weird sex fetishes and dazzling even smaller numbers of people with your knowledge of Althusser while wondering why your tiny subculture gets smaller and smaller


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 19, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Why are they trying to get money out of people in order to publish a magazine anyway? This is the 21st Century ffs, put together a decent podcast and you can reach huge numbers of people without haranguing people for £5000 and people outside of your circle of mates might actually take an idea or two on board. Fuck it, just twirl around in your subculture falling out with a handful of people over minutiae of the politicisation of weird sex fetishes and dazzling even smaller numbers of people with your knowledge of Althusser while wondering why your tiny subculture gets small



magazines are exciting, those glossy ones look and smell nice.

But they could just print on magcloud for free, and get a nice glossy product with a digital edition as well.

But these are the idiots who paid a law firm to provide them with a constitution so they could register an organisational bank account, instead of just getting a free one off the internet.


----------



## Andy Wilson (Mar 20, 2015)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Someone less generous spirited than me (!) might think you only found it so liberating because you were both previously so conscious of your relative positions in the pecking order and perhaps a little jealous. Those of us without a hint of careerism were never that bothered by people who'd earned a position of leadership having a seat at the front to be honest.



I have long aspired to be more like John Rees. Everyone knows it.


----------



## belboid (Mar 20, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> ha written by Meiville


Nah, written by Seymour. It is surprising that two people who _are_ capable of writing well, turn out such utter drivel. Tho possibly not as surprising as Neil Davison signing up to it


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2015)

Andy Wilson said:


> I have long aspired to be more like John Rees. Everyone knows it.



I can't believe I missed that BB post. Jesus.


----------



## rekil (Mar 20, 2015)

I note that a £150 donation includes "one of three dirty stories written by Magpie Corvid written for and about YOU".

Congratulations Doug Henwood.



The muslim and people of colour representation looks rather bare to me. If Seymour wasn't involved he'd probably be calling it out as a racist and islamophobic mag. Opportunity there for some enterprising personal brand.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 20, 2015)

The


copliker said:


> I note that a £150 donation includes "one of three dirty stories written by Magpie Corvid written for and about YOU".
> 
> Congratulations Doug Henwood.
> 
> View attachment 69051



This has made my day. Please crank up the PD twitter machine!


----------



## rekil (Mar 20, 2015)

Doug Henwood slashfic is a little bit sensational communism.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 20, 2015)

Hang on - it says 

""one of three dirty stories written by Magpie Corvid written for and about YOU"."

Does that mean you only get one of the three dirty stories? And if it does, what are they planning to do with the other two?


----------



## rekil (Mar 20, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Hang on - it says
> 
> ""one of three dirty stories written by Magpie Corvid written for and about YOU"."
> 
> Does that mean you only get one of the three dirty stories? And if it does, what are they planning to do with the other two?


Sadly I think it only means that the first 3 mad enough to cough up 150 get a story.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 20, 2015)

copliker said:


> Sadly I think it only means that the first 3 mad enough to cough up 150 get a story.



Or that Mieville has Corpvid chained up in the cellar with naught but an ancient Amstrad for company.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 21, 2015)

Nigel said:


> Don't want to come across as an ego maniac, however as I post occasionally on here, I thought that it might be appropriate to put this online message of resignation from Socialist Party and some reasons why I've become involved with the International Socialist Network !
> 
> 
> After About A Decade Involvement & Being A Member Of Socialist Party, I Have Decided To Part My Ways. The Politics And Organisational Structure I Find Stagnative & Restrictive Apart From The Many Political Differences I Have With This Political Tradition: I've Never Considered Myself A Trotskyist.
> ...



Now I know who you are...Good riddance you sexist prick.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Now I know who you are...Good riddance you sexist prick.


Mates with Troy Southgates mates as well


----------



## andysays (Mar 21, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Or that Mieville has Corpvid chained up in the cellar with naught but an ancient Amstrad for company.



I thought Corvid was the one who chained people up in cellars etc


----------



## Nigel (Mar 21, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Mates with Troy Southgates mates as well


I've never been 'mates' with Troy Southgate or for that matter only came into contact with him once when physically confronting him at Anarchist Bookfair. I've also had him putting my name around internet as a Anti Fascist Action 'informant'; about 10 years after AFA ceased to exist.

I don't mind you dislking me or calling me names, however saying that I'm involved with far right is completely out of order.


----------



## Nigel (Mar 21, 2015)

Karmickameleon said:


> From Dave Renton on Facebook:
> ​_Yesterday I was send an unpleasant and harassing message by John Parrington, an Associate Professor in the Department of Pharmacology at Oxford University, who felt it appropriate to comment on a public blog on my politics and those of my partner (who is a member of the same political party as him). He opened "fuck off" and signed off his message to me, "you snivelling piece of shit." I had not written to him to prompt this message, nor had I given him any reason at all for sending it.
> 
> I would not have been able to identify him - he used an email pseudonym - except that he had sent the message from his work computer (see, image).
> ...


Not that there is any justification for this sort of 'inverted' snobbery, however John Parrington is hardly one of the 'horny handed sons of toil'.
Isn't he lecturing at Worcester College, Oxford. Saw him chairing meeting there with Weyen Bennet talking bollox about 'Brother Malcolm' and making up some strange; factually incorrect perspectives around Panthers in Detroit! If you didn't have a university or Bod card you couldn't get in. Hardly reaching out to the masses.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2015)

Nigel said:


> I've never been 'mates' with Troy Southgate or for that matter only came into contact with him once when physically confronting him at Anarchist Bookfair. I've also had him putting my name around internet as a Anti Fascist Action 'informant'; about 10 years after AFA ceased to exist.
> 
> I don't mind you dislking me or calling me names, however saying that I'm involved with far right is completely out of order.


I didn't say you were mates with Troy Southgate


----------



## Nigel (Mar 21, 2015)

I haven't really got time for this; however what are you saying; I've had 'sexual relations' with Troy Southgate !


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 21, 2015)

I don't know if you did or not, I was saying you were mates with mates of Troy Southgate - I stand by that claim, given that you have admitted as much yourself.


----------



## Nigel (Mar 21, 2015)

When I was about 11yrs old at YCND meetings, I met  and was good friends with Wayne Sturgeon, whom I was involved in quite a bit of political activity, from animal rights, Stop The City, Squat Party's Benefits, supporting workers at engineering plants in Crawley West Sussex such as APV; selling Direct Action, Class War, involved in local Anarcho paper Nyet Pravda etc. etc. Wayne convinced me to become involved with Libertarian Communist Discussion Group; to become ACF and now AF.
Wayne moved to Luton and I sort of kept in contact with him however he became pretty disillusioned with traditional Anarchist politics when he came into confrontation with a young woman called Lorna over Radical Feminism most controversial issue Molesworth Rapes. During this time he became a Christian.
i spent quite a lot of time with Wayne while living in Brighton, that time he seemed to have moved further from Evangelical Christianity and nearer to Quaker movement. In fact the last time that I physically saw Wayne was when he got married at Brighton Meeting House in the early nineties to his first wife.Around that time I had not kept that much in contact with Wayne as I was occupied with other pursuits, travelling, working in surveying department for Southern Water, Convoys to Bosnia and other political activity; Class War, Anti Poll Tax, AFA etc.
It was around early 2000 when through mainly ex Anarcho, Anti Folk and would be 'peoples poets'  types in Brighton that I re-contacted Wayne, by telephoning him, of which he did not greet me as an old friend as I thought he would. I be-friended him on social media; mainly Facebook and we soon fell out over politics. I still get questioned if not harassed sometimes from people in Brighton; mainly ex Anarchos and hippy types living in Lewes about hardline position in not having anything to do with Wayne.
This is all I can remember on the subject. If you have any other queries please ask. However all I can say is that I didn't think that Wayne's politics were as bad as I thought, after all in mid teens we were involved as Anarchists in anti fascist stuff. However after getting back in contact with him it did not take long for me to cut myself off from him and visa versa.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 28, 2015)

meanwhile it seems ISN are encouraging all members to join RS21 and are thinking of changing their website to the-exchange... presumably the money will be split between the exchange and RS21??


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2015)

http://thefreeuniversityofsheffield.tumblr.com/post/114581921782/statement-on-the-swp


It seems that the SWP are being excluded from the emerging student occupations

life would have been a lot easier and I would argue past mobilisations and campaigns more successful(in time) if they had been excluded in the past, but I'm not sure I feel comfortable with such bannings.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2015)

There was a quite bizarre series of tweets about Steve Hedley and the RMT by members of  Clapham Ulras which I couldn't make sense of last night.


----------



## dominion (Mar 29, 2015)

They wanted him to depart a football game, which I understand he ended up doing from a FB comment I read.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2015)

I hope we are not going back to the times of the witch finder general


----------



## gamerunknown (Mar 29, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Why are three women (and two campaigns) targeted for their association with Kenny whilst London Black Revs, of which he was a member, and its leader are not held to account?



Not an LBR member, but he'd been expelled by that point for unrelated reasons (along with most members afaik). His conviction was given as a retrospective justification once it was discovered.


----------



## treelover (Mar 29, 2015)

Sexual crime may be different but if this expulsion culture extends to others, say those like people who have been in the far right, but changed, then people like Ricky Tomlinson would be excluded.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2015)

Trotskyism and football lol



> . On Saturday 28th of March 2015 an altercation unfolded during a home match of Clapton FC in East London. Clapton FC fans are known for their antifascist politics. The altercation took place between two sets of Clapton fans: on the one side some of the founders of the 'Clapton Ultras' and originators of its antifascist stance and their families, other well known antifascist activists, members of the RMT and visiting Celtic FC fans who had travelled to London from Scotland; on the other side the main bulk of Clapton Ultras this season, who now include members of the ISN and RS21 splits from the SWP.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Trotskyism and football lol



Oh dear.


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2015)

Written by leading Ciarain O'Reilly supporters...an element of 'hmm' does spring to mind


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> Written by leading Ciarain O'Reilly supporters...an element of 'hmm' does spring to mind



who he?


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> who he?


Catholic Worker leader, massive Assange apologist. Supporter, sorry, supporter. His supporters were (largely) behind one of the kerfuffles at the BootCamp a couple of years back.

Of course, just because the people posting the above comment also support someone who appears to be a massive dickhead, it doesn't mean they're talking shite. But it does make me a tad suspicious


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> Catholic Worker leader, massive Assange apologist. Supporter, sorry, supporter. His supporters were (largely) behind one of the kerfuffles at the BootCamp a couple of years back.
> 
> Of course, just because the people posting the above comment also support someone who appears to be a massive dickhead, it doesn't mean they're talking shite. But it does make me a tad suspicious



I hope this sort of stuff doesn't spread to the Premier League


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> Catholic Worker leader, massive Assange apologist. Supporter, sorry, supporter. His supporters were (largely) behind one of the kerfuffles at the BootCamp a couple of years back.
> 
> Of course, just because the people posting the above comment also support someone who appears to be a massive dickhead, it doesn't mean they're talking shite. But it does make me a tad suspicious



If you're excusing Assange and telling Hedley he shouldn't be allowed to watch a football match then you're a hypocrite, simple as.


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> If you're excusing Assange and telling Hedley he shouldn't be allowed to watch a football match then you're a hypocrite, simple as.


The Assange excusers are saying Hedley should be allowed to watch the match uninterrupted.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> The Assange excusers are saying Hedley should be allowed to watch the match uninterrupted.



Oh right, got mixed up there sorry. That's not great. As you were.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 31, 2015)

There is a video on Facebook. From what I can make out there are a load of 'Ultra's' pushing, shoving and threatening Hedley and a group of bemused looking Celtic anti fascists/RMT reps (who, unlike the ultras, actually look like they could handle themselves in a row). The Ultra's then march off and stand behind the goal. 

Hedley apparently attended a Clapton match earlier in the season and had beer chucked at him and was told not to come back by the Ultras for the reasons stated above on the thread.


----------



## J Ed (Mar 31, 2015)




----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2015)

belboid said:


> The Assange excusers are saying Hedley should be allowed to watch the match uninterrupted.


Is it only Assange excusers who are saying that he should be allowed to watch a match uninterrupted ?


----------



## chilango (Mar 31, 2015)

'ckin hell. What is this shit?


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2015)

Does this nonsense happen in other countries, apart from the U.S, its embarrassing.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2015)

Quite a bit unfolding on Twitter about this


----------



## JHE (Mar 31, 2015)

treelover said:


> Does this nonsense happen in other countries, apart from the U.S, its embarrassing.



Is it nonsense?  Is it embarrassing nonsense because Steve H is innocent or because his alleged thuggery is unrelated to football (or both)?

I have no idea whether Steve H is guilty or innocent of the thuggery he's accused of (and so I do not know whether this particular protest is well directed or not), but if you are asking whether the UK and the US are the only countries in which women protest vociferously against men bashing women, the answer is obviously no.


----------



## treelover (Mar 31, 2015)

I wouldn't defend domestic violence but nothing has yet been proven, or is a court of law a bourgeoisie concept?


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Is it only Assange excusers who are saying that he should be allowed to watch a match uninterrupted ?


I have no idea what his mates at the match think about Mr Assange.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2015)

treelover said:


> I wouldn't defend domestic violence but nothing has yet been proven, or is a court of law a bourgeoisie concept?



It's not gonna be proven now is it? Short of him confessing and he says he's got medical evidence she beat him up. You might as well make up your mind to have an opinion or not rather than saying "nothing has been proven yet".


----------



## Karmickameleon (Mar 31, 2015)

Not sure if this is the right place for the link below (and if not, apologies), but the Hedley issue does pop up regularly on this thread:
http://www.janinebooth.com/node/206#.VRrGokG6p4E.facebook


----------



## gamerunknown (Mar 31, 2015)

treelover said:


> I wouldn't defend domestic violence but nothing has yet been proven, or is a court of law a bourgeoisie concept?



Charges are made in fewer than 50% of domestic abuse cases brought to the police (data for 2013, page 98).


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2015)

Karmickameleon said:


> Not sure if this is the right place for the link below (and if not, apologies), but the Hedley issue does pop up regularly on this thread:
> http://www.janinebooth.com/node/206#.VRrGokG6p4E.facebook



I think it's a bit weird Janine wants to publically answer this but nothing else in relation to the whole episode. She's an AWL member with genuine influence in the RMT so she must know at least something of the rationale for them taking no action against Hedley, but she's neither raised any criticism of their handling of the case or of the AWL for writing the speculation pieces.

Mind, I took a look at that bloody Safer Spaces Exposed blog and maybe you can't blame people for not wanting to get involved... Ugh.


----------



## Nigel (Apr 1, 2015)

J Ed said:


>



Lol
Do any of these people go to Clapton F.C. to watch the lousy football,or just get involved in lefty bun fights & slagging matches !


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 2, 2015)

I don't know if this is where this goes but that prat Hedley is now linking to the aforementioned sickening Safer Spaces Exposed.

E2A on Facebook I mean.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 21, 2015)

This could potentially warrant its own thread I guess but I feel its better off stuck in here:

https://peacetothecottageswaronthepalaces.wordpress.com/


----------



## Trotsky007 (Apr 21, 2015)

This is very familiar territory to an ex-swp member. I hope the people involved stay strong and find a political home that is more open and less dogmatic. Something like RS21 perhaps.


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 21, 2015)

Can anyone tell me what's happened to the ISN? Have they all joined rs21 /Green Party then?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 21, 2015)

gamerunknown said:


> Charges are made in fewer than 50% of domestic abuse cases brought to the police (data for 2013, page 98).



what is the biggest reason for not charging?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 21, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> This could potentially warrant its own thread I guess but I feel its better off stuck in here:
> 
> https://peacetothecottageswaronthepalaces.wordpress.com/





> This is certainly true of the full-timers, where not a single full-timer in the past five years has been elected that has not been privately educated



Wow, you even need a private education to be a Trot these days


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow, you even need a private education to be a Trot these days


Trotsky himself was a man schooled so weren't he? I seem to remember reading of legal training..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 21, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> Can anyone tell me what's happened to the ISN? Have they all joined rs21 /Green Party then?



The ISN is dead. They may be having one last meeting or they may not, but either way it's being wound up. As always in such circumstances, most of the nominal members will drift off into inactivity or single issue or union activism. Of the ones who were still active at the end, some have moved to RS21, some to Left Unity, some to the Greens. Ironically, the small number signing up for the Greens tend to come from the wing which was more "left wing" and sceptical in its approach to Left Unity. 

It seems like a pretty demoralised milieu, having been through a major split, a failed courtship process, another smaller split that may have been the stupidest in the history of the left and now the death of their group.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 21, 2015)

Trotsky007 said:


> This is very familiar territory to an ex-swp member. I hope the people involved stay strong and find a political home that is more open and less dogmatic. Something like RS21 perhaps.



Oh dear. Is your little group of social democrats so desperate you want a handful of nouveau Stalinista's to swell the ranks?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Wow, you even need a private education to be a Trot these days



That bit did freak me out somewhat. They can't all be can they?

I've only recently met Socialist Appeal, as they have a group at Shef Uni of late - things must be bad if every full timer is private school educated.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 21, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I've only recently met Socialist Appeal, as they have a group at Shef Uni of late - things must be bad if every full timer is private school educated.



Sample size of "fulltimers hired in the last five years" in a group the size of Socialist Appeal can't be very big.


----------



## gamerunknown (Apr 21, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> what is the biggest reason for not charging?



Well, according to the document I posted, 46% of those indicating they were victims on an online survey didn't report it to the police. 30% of those claimed their reason was lack of confidence in the police. 

The document also notes the following:



> ... in some cases, officers are more inclined to caution (which counts as a detection) because force performance management systems measure success in terms of the numbers of detections achieved. A simple caution can be seen by officers as a quicker and easier route to achieving a detection


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> Can anyone tell me what's happened to the ISN? Have they all joined rs21 /Green Party then?


There's still a national members meeting to decide, but everyone is talking of it as 'the last national members meeting.' It's not quite a complete foregone conclusion, but Tranmere have a better hope of survival at the moment than the ISN does.

Those joining the Greens do, as Nigel says, seem to be the 'leftists' mostly - I can only assume it's because they want to stay active in n organisation bigger than a couple of hundred people.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 22, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh dear. Is your little group of social democrats so desperate you want a handful of nouveau Stalinista's to swell the ranks?


Now I've seen enough posts by you to know you're not a mental - but I hope you realise what this post makes you and your politics look like


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 22, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Now I've seen enough posts by you to know you're not a mental - but I hope you realise what this post makes you and your politics look like



Oooh, touche!

All I've seen from RS21 so far (and to be fair to them I haven't really looked) has been graphs and charts telling people whether to vote Labour or Green. Curiously the SNP don't get a shout out which seems harsh.

We're not Social Democrats, it's a transitional blah blah blah...


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 22, 2015)

gamerunknown said:


> Well, according to the document I posted, 46% of those indicating they were victims on an online survey didn't report it to the police. 30% of those claimed their reason was lack of confidence in the police.
> 
> The document also notes the following:


Thanks , do any of these apply to the Hedley case ?


----------



## gamerunknown (Apr 22, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Thanks , do any of these apply to the Hedley case ?



No, as Caroline Leneghan eventually did contact the police. However, the document also notes that those bringing allegations also face counter-accusations, which is something Caroline did face. The reason I referred to low conviction rates is to demonstrate that there is plenty of domestic violence occurring that isn't “proven” in court and that distrust of justice administered by the state is well-founded.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 22, 2015)

gamerunknown said:


> No, as Caroline Leneghan eventually did contact the police. However, the document also notes that those bringing allegations also face counter-accusations, which is something Caroline did face. The reason I referred to low conviction rates is to demonstrate that there is plenty of domestic violence occurring that isn't “proven” in court and that distrust of justice administered by the state is well-founded.



I take your point in your last sentence but neither of the main reasons explaining the low conviction rate apply in the SH case. Further both an enquiry by the trade union ( which included rank and file members) of which both CL and SH were members of said there was no case to answer


----------



## gamerunknown (Apr 22, 2015)

True, though there is a faction within the RMT that maintains that Steve Hedley has a case to answer (here).


----------



## Das Uberdog (Apr 22, 2015)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The ISN is dead. They may be having one last meeting or they may not, but either way it's being wound up. As always in such circumstances, most of the nominal members will drift off into inactivity or single issue or union activism. Of the ones who were still active at the end, some have moved to RS21, some to Left Unity, some to the Greens. Ironically, the small number signing up for the Greens tend to come from the wing which was more "left wing" and sceptical in its approach to Left Unity.
> 
> It seems like a pretty demoralised milieu, having been through a major split, a failed courtship process, *another smaller split that may have been the stupidest in the history of the left* and now the death of their group.



just for posterity...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 22, 2015)

gamerunknown said:


> True, though there is a faction within the RMT that maintains that Steve Hedley has a case to answer (here).



No there isn't - that's been debunked.


----------



## gamerunknown (Apr 22, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> No there isn't - that's been debunked.



Where?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 22, 2015)

Can't remember - link you posted is over two years old. Point is Littlechild deliberately misquoted the police report which made the whole thing look a bit suspect.

Why did you say "there is a faction" and then refer to an article by an individual by the way?


----------



## gamerunknown (Apr 22, 2015)

It's presumably illustrative of some kind of broader dissent (Caroline Leneghan was a member, after all), though perhaps all have left. 

The "misquote" was included in context in the commentary underneath the article.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 22, 2015)

gamerunknown said:


> It's presumably illustrative of some kind of broader dissent (Caroline Leneghan was a member, after all), though perhaps all have left.
> 
> The "misquote" was included in context in the commentary underneath the article.



It's her rep, not a faction.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 23, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Can't remember - link you posted is over two years old. Point is Littlechild deliberately misquoted the police report which made the whole thing look a bit suspect.


 I know AL a a bit and dont believe he would deliberately misquote a police report that's all I can say for sure on the whole thing


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 23, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I know AL a a bit and dont believe he would deliberately misquote a police report that's all I can say for sure on the whole thing



Fair enough. I don't know them but I have seen the police report.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Apr 23, 2015)

How about this then, from a friend and comrade on his FB page
"Had an unpleasant altercation with Steve Hedley on todays housing march. As a legal observer I've been assaulted many times on demonstrations but never before by the Assistant General Secretary of a major trade union. As for my opinion that he did batter his former partner Caroline Leneghan. It is unaltered by arguments like "hold me to fucking account will you"" (from 31 Jan)


----------



## Limerick Red (Apr 23, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> How about this then, from a friend and comrade on his FB page
> "Had an unpleasant altercation with Steve Hedley on todays housing march. As a legal observer I've been assaulted many times on demonstrations but never before by the Assistant General Secretary of a major trade union. As for my opinion that he did batter his former partner Caroline Leneghan. It is unaltered by arguments like "hold me to fucking account will you"" (from 31 Jan)


In fairness , and I know the person your talking about well and consider him a mate, but what did he think the repercussions  of holding a public meeting called "what's to be done with SH" would be? Real life ain't the internet!


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 23, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> How about this then, from a friend and comrade on his FB page
> "As a legal observer I've been assaulted many times on demonstrations but never before by the Assistant General Secretary of a major trade union. As for my opinion that he did batter his former partner Caroline Leneghan. It is unaltered by arguments like "hold me to fucking account will you"" (from 31 Jan)



I fucking hate people who try to put an equals sign between having abuse shouted at you and being assaulted. Yes getting verbal abuse is unpleasant and sometimes frightening depending on the context. Yes it definitely shouldn't be used when interacting with people at a political event. However it it NOT the same as physical violence and to imply that it is, as this person does, is dishonest as fuck.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Apr 23, 2015)

No, it's not dishonest at all. Hedley took a swing at him, other people including some RMT people pulled him away. Do you think this is a way to behave?


----------



## co-op (Apr 23, 2015)

leyton96 said:


> I fucking hate people who try to put an equals sign between having abuse shouted at you and being assaulted. Yes getting verbal abuse is unpleasant and sometimes frightening depending on the context. Yes it definitely shouldn't be used when interacting with people at a political event. However it it NOT the same as physical violence and to imply that it is, as this person does, is dishonest as fuck.



Drawing a line between what is violence and what isn't (e.g. "physical" vs "non-physical", as you are) is almost impossible. Psychological violence and emotional violence exist and can be far more frightening, traumatising and damaging than physical violence. Often of course they go together which makes neat definitions impossible, but it certainly isn't "as dishonest as fuck" to overlap the two.


----------



## Nice one (Apr 23, 2015)

Limerick Red said:


> In fairness , and I know the person your talking about well and consider him a mate, but what did he think the repercussions  of holding a public meeting called "what's to be done with SH" would be? Real life ain't the internet!



The person in question has got a lot of things he needs to be "held accountable" for. More dangerous and fucked up than hedley could ever be


----------



## gamerunknown (Apr 23, 2015)

leyton96 said:


> I fucking hate people who try to put an equals sign between having abuse shouted at you and being assaulted.



Actually, this is totally within the compass of the legal definition of assault. Fear of imminent attack is all that's necessary for someone to be assaulted. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm is another matter.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 23, 2015)

Nice one said:


> The person in question has got a lot of things he needs to be "held accountable" for. More dangerous and fucked up than hedley could ever be


The polyamerous sect this anarchist comrade belongs to have a lot to answer for.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 23, 2015)

Sheltering a certain rapist for one.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 23, 2015)

Our legal observer probably felt affronted that SH would not submit one of his ridiculous accountability processes.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 23, 2015)

...


----------



## Limerick Red (Apr 23, 2015)

TopCat said:


> Sheltering a certain rapist for one.


Hmmmm I seem to be unaware of what's been referred to here and in other posts!


----------



## TopCat (Apr 23, 2015)

...


----------



## TopCat (Apr 23, 2015)




----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 23, 2015)

"Polyamorous sect"? Are you making this up?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 23, 2015)

Let's all just be reeeeaaaaallly careful of what we say, cos libel and not really fair on mods and that thread about the Clapton lot the other day.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 24, 2015)

gamerunknown said:


> True, though there is a faction within the RMT that maintains that Steve Hedley has a case to answer (here).


Faction normally implies some form of collaboration and cohesion amongst a minority. Aside from this chap where are the other members of this faction?


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 24, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> No, it's not dishonest at all. Hedley took a swing at him, other people including some RMT people pulled him away. Do you think this is a way to behave?


 
If he did take a swing at someone then that's wrong and I'll withdraw the remark about him being dishonest. My reading of it was that there was verbals with SH and he was making out this was an 'assault'
I still stand by my annoyance at equating verbals with actual assault. It's on a spectrum of anti-social behaviour with things like pre-meditated murder on the most extreme end. Whether it's at the mild or extreme end it's unacceptable but that doesn't mean it's right to blur the distinction between different types of anti-social behaviour.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 24, 2015)

If SH swung at Andy then I have no doubt Andy would have got decked. This is bullshit.


----------



## Jezebelle (Apr 24, 2015)

co-op said:


> Drawing a line between what is violence and what isn't (e.g. "physical" vs "non-physical", as you are) is almost impossible. Psychological violence and emotional violence exist and can be far more frightening, traumatising and damaging than physical violence. Often of course they go together which makes neat definitions impossible, but it certainly isn't "as dishonest as fuck" to overlap the two.


Exactly, and what you're saying is entirely consistent with the findings of research studies into domestic violence.


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 24, 2015)

...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 24, 2015)

...


----------



## eoin_k (Apr 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> ...


I beat you to it!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 24, 2015)

...


----------



## TopCat (Apr 25, 2015)

Ok folks no more from me on this.


----------



## Jezebelle (Apr 25, 2015)

Bye then.


----------



## co-op (Apr 25, 2015)

leyton96 said:


> I still stand by my annoyance at equating verbals with actual assault. It's on a spectrum of anti-social behaviour with things like pre-meditated murder on the most extreme end. Whether it's at the mild or extreme end it's unacceptable but that doesn't mean it's right to blur the distinction between different types of anti-social behaviour.



They're clearly very different things (verbals vs - e.g.- punching) but they are (depending on context) both perfectly capable of being acts of "violence". One of the many ironies of the the position apparently taken by Sisters Uncut (i.e. that any act of physical violence against a woman by a man is some kind of whole-new-level-of-taboo and that any man who has done this must be outcast - ?for ever?) is that emotionally and psychologically violent men are often the most dangerous to women in terms of long term outcomes & physical violence is not necessarily a marker for this - weird controlling men who end up killing women are very rarely directly violent until they "lose" the woman.

But I can understand the reluctance of a simplified "ultra-feminist" position in looking too closely at this because once you allow complexities like "emotional violence" or "psychological violence" into the debate then of course women are perfectly capable of inflicting this as easily as men (maybe more easily?) and that makes things complex (which I think this topic is).

For the any left perspective in general surely an essential part of that is seeing that "violence" is often structural and invisible? Reducing it to punching etc is essentially conservative I think.


----------



## co-op (Apr 25, 2015)

.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Apr 25, 2015)

In terms of domestic violence I wouldn't differentiate between physical and psychological violence but i'd define abuse as being patterns of behaviour (rather than isolated incidents) and having a particular motive and effect (to gain power and control).  Otherwise, on the one hand as co-op said, you end up dismissing really dangerous situations of psychological control as not seen as serious abuse, while on the other, if you equate single incidents of physical and verbal violence, this can be manipulated to abuser's advantage (she nagged me until i lost control) and just muddies the waters even further.

While i don't deny that women are capable of being violent assholes (and abusers), i still think don't think that a definition of abuse that includes psychological violence in a context of behavior patterns/motive/effect makes women as likely to be abusers of men as men are of women, simply because domestic violence against women is part of wider structural violence against women.  Surely you're more likely to want to gain power and control in your relationship or family if you're surrounded by cultural messages saying that you should have power in that context, and will find it easier to do this if society has already done some of the work for you?


----------



## co-op (Apr 25, 2015)

crossthebreeze said:


> .
> 
> While i don't deny that women are capable of being violent assholes (and abusers), i still think don't think that a definition of abuse that includes psychological violence in a context of behavior patterns/motive/effect makes women as likely to be abusers of men as men are of women, simply because domestic violence against women is part of wider structural violence against women.  Surely you're more likely to want to gain power and control in your relationship or family if you're surrounded by cultural messages saying that you should have power in that context, and will find it easier to do this if society has already done some of the work for you?



I agree and I shouldn't have said "more easily" of women and emotional violence, I do find it hard to post accurately on BBs sometimes as it's easy to throw a casual phrase out without thinking about it in depth. My point was to argue that this is a complex subject, I'm not trying to push some MRA bullshit.

The wider cultural messages that tell men they ought to control "their" women definitely underlie much violence against women.


----------



## belboid (Apr 26, 2015)

ISN now officially defunct, apparently


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 26, 2015)

belboid said:


> ISN now officially defunct, apparently


----------



## gamerunknown (Apr 26, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Faction normally implies some form of collaboration and cohesion amongst a minority. Aside from this chap where are the other members of this faction?



There isn't a faction within the RMT that feels Steve Hedley has a case to answer to my knowledge. I assumed there was, but having looked for evidence of that, couldn't find any. I was wrong. I apologise.


----------



## belboid (Apr 26, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


>


I am, personally, shocked, stunned, and fear for the future of communism


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 27, 2015)

belboid said:


> I am, personally, shocked, stunned, and fear for the future of communism


Who did they bequeath their assets to?


----------



## leyton96 (Apr 27, 2015)

co-op said:


> They're clearly very different things (verbals vs - e.g.- punching) but they are (depending on context) both perfectly capable of being acts of "violence". One of the many ironies of the the position apparently taken by Sisters Uncut (i.e. that any act of physical violence against a woman by a man is some kind of whole-new-level-of-taboo and that any man who has done this must be outcast - ?for ever?) is that emotionally and psychologically violent men are often the most dangerous to women in terms of long term outcomes & physical violence is not necessarily a marker for this - weird controlling men who end up killing women are very rarely directly violent until they "lose" the woman.
> 
> But I can understand the reluctance of a simplified "ultra-feminist" position in looking too closely at this because once you allow complexities like "emotional violence" or "psychological violence" into the debate then of course women are perfectly capable of inflicting this as easily as men (maybe more easily?) and that makes things complex (which I think this topic is).
> 
> For the any left perspective in general surely an essential part of that is seeing that "violence" is often structural and invisible? Reducing it to punching etc is essentially conservative I think.



There's nothing there I'd disagree with. However that's not the context my criticism was raised in. Allegedly shouting (there's so much accusation and counter accusation at this stage I don't know whether up is down any more!) in an aggressive manner, while unacceptable, is different from a sustained campaign of emotional and psychological abuse. Just as allegedly taking a swing at someone is.

I suppose what I'm driving at is this tactic that tries to anathemise dissenting voices by accusing them of 'violence' when all their really doing is putting across their disagreement in a heated way. For me the best way of dealing with that kind of thing is just a strong word from someone asking them to calm it down rather than accusing them of being some sort of nutter that's a danger to people in the area.


----------



## treelover (Apr 27, 2015)

The SWP rape affair has now become an issue on our local forum due to a candidate from them standing for TUSC.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> The SWP rape affair has now become an issue on our local forum due to a candidate from them standing for TUSC.



Oh dear. Who/where?


----------



## treelover (Apr 27, 2015)

Sheffield Forum


----------



## killer b (Apr 27, 2015)

how? was the candidate involved in some way? If having been in a party who's had high-ups accused of rape and a cover up attempted is a problem, the tories, lib dems and labour party are fucked as well...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> Sheffield Forum



Doesn't look like a lot of interest in it to be fair - can't blame people for bringing it up can you.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

that'll cost her two votes


----------



## treelover (Apr 27, 2015)

killer b said:


> how? was the candidate involved in some way? If having been in a party who's had high-ups accused of rape and a cover up attempted is a problem, the tories, lib dems and labour party are fucked as well...



The candidate was on the disciplinary committee and is a very senior member.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 27, 2015)

treelover said:


> The candidate was on the disciplinary committee and is a very senior member.


do these people just think thier sins won't find them out? or just not give a shit?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 27, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> do these people just think thier sins won't find them out? or just not give a shit?


 
It's not like she will do any worse or any better in this election than all the others she has lost deposits in.


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> It's not like she will do any worse or any better in this election than all the others she has lost deposits in.


she'll do worse. Vote tumbled last time, cant see it getting any better.  She would have saved a few deposits in the council l#elections she's stood in (only been one general, where she did appallingly)


----------



## J Ed (Apr 27, 2015)

belboid said:


> she'll do worse. Vote tumbled last time, cant see it getting any better.  She would have saved a few deposits in the council l#elections she's stood in (only been one general, where she did appallingly)


 
She stood in Hillsborough in 2010 for TUSC and Central in 2005 for Respect, would have lost deposits in both according to wiki


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

J Ed said:


> She stood in Hillsborough in 2010 for TUSC and Central in 2005 for Respect, would have lost deposits in both according to wiki


I'd forgotten all about Central!  Tbf (thru gritted teeth), she did pretty well there, nearly kept the deposit.


----------



## redcogs (Apr 27, 2015)

i think you will find that one strike is worth twenty elections..


----------



## belboid (Apr 27, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i think you will find that one strike is worth twenty elections..


she's never had anything to do with one of them either.

A good trade unionist tho.  Well, good at getting money from TU's for her favourite causes


----------



## co-op (Apr 27, 2015)

leyton96 said:


> There's nothing there I'd disagree with. However that's not the context my criticism was raised in. Allegedly shouting (there's so much accusation and counter accusation at this stage I don't know whether up is down any more!) in an aggressive manner, while unacceptable, is different from a sustained campaign of emotional and psychological abuse. Just as allegedly taking a swing at someone is.
> 
> I suppose what I'm driving at is this tactic that tries to anathemise dissenting voices by accusing them of 'violence' when all their really doing is putting across their disagreement in a heated way. For me the best way of dealing with that kind of thing is just a strong word from someone asking them to calm it down rather than accusing them of being some sort of nutter that's a danger to people in the area.



I see what you're saying, in a way I was trying to open up the deadly taboos surrounding violence within intimate partnerships and make a similar point in that context (whereas the context you are discussing is more of the shouty public political argument) - it's a hard thing to do without sounding like I'm trying to justify violence or make a literal equivalence between different kinds of violence, but there are very complex areas here I think. One persons "aggressive manner" is another persons "normal" - so who should change? Is there some kind of objective measure? (obviously not I guess anyone can see?).

My point is that within intimate relationships violence is a really complex issue and (and within the whole domestic sphere) when it's boiled down to some simplistic formula about "confronting abusers" and then defining as an abuser any (man? or person?) who has ever had a fight with a woman, that is problematic to me. And one of the reasons for that is that violence takes many forms and defining it is highly context dependent.


----------



## Nigel (May 1, 2015)

belboid said:


> ISN now officially defunct, apparently


There's still the 'youth' summer camp that both RS21 & ISN members ex and hangers on have been invited to by another 'post' Trotskyist organisation in Belgium.
You never know; 'Phoenix From The Flames' & all that !


----------



## Trappist (May 6, 2015)

gamerunknown said:


> Not an LBR member, but he'd been expelled by that point for unrelated reasons (*along with most members afaik*). His conviction was given as a retrospective justification once it was discovered.


Been away for a while so didn't see this comment (29 March) on the LBR/Kenny kerfuffle.

Not seeking to re-open that particular discussion, just want to check if you're really saying that most members of LBR were expelled late last year.


----------



## Trappist (May 6, 2015)

Karmickameleon said:


> From Dave Renton on Facebook:
> ​_Yesterday I was send an unpleasant and harassing message...
> 
> 
> ...


Strange one this. I can't trace the image file. Also, I thought Dave Renton had closed down his Facebook account last year and his blog last month.


----------



## belboid (May 14, 2015)

It's that time of year again!

SWP launch 'unity offensive' - https://www.swp.org.uk/resource/1268


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 14, 2015)

belboid said:


> It's that time of year again!
> 
> SWP launch 'unity offensive' - https://www.swp.org.uk/resource/1268



The left is pretty unified in its distaste for the SWP, so they have achieved something.


----------



## Karmickameleon (May 16, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> The left is pretty unified in its distaste for the SWP, so they have achieved something.


I wasn't there, but -from what I am told- the SWP set up a stall outside the RS21 event at the Friends' Meeting House in Euston today. Changing times or part of the "unity offensive or both?


----------



## Trotsky007 (May 16, 2015)

I was there. Three were on the stall and two came in to the event. I spoke to one outside and it is an interesting dilemma. One the one hand *@!@$£! but on the other they are still a part of the UK left. I'm sure I'm not the only one to face this. They were there handing out Marxism leaflets really - not pushing anything about unity. rs21 members aren't exactly jumping at the thought of swp links as you can imagine.

The event itself was great with 200 odd present and a wide range of people. Quite young and a good women to men ratio.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2015)

STOP


----------



## mk12 (May 16, 2015)

Trotsky007 said:


> I was there. Three were on the stall and two came in to the event. I spoke to one outside and it is an interesting dilemma. One the one hand *@!@$£! but on the other they are still a part of the UK left. I'm sure I'm not the only one to face this. They were there handing out Marxism leaflets really - not pushing anything about unity. rs21 members aren't exactly jumping at the thought of swp links as you can imagine.
> 
> The event itself was great with 200 odd present and a wide range of people. Quite young and a good women to men ratio.



Go on, give us an anecdote about a factory worker you got chatting to...


----------



## Trotsky007 (May 17, 2015)

Oh the cynicism. Perhaps the idea of socialists meeting and having a good time is one you have trouble with. Peace and love, people.


----------



## butchersapron (May 17, 2015)

The last two clauses.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 17, 2015)

I looked on the SWP website to see how they are getting on and where they will be holding Marxism this year with the student unions against them. Marxism will happen but no venues are mentioned excerpt for "Central London". I also noticed how expensive it is to join. I don't know if they have put up their prices but they are not affordable by ordinary working class people.


----------



## emanymton (May 18, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I looked on the SWP website to see how they are getting on and where they will be holding Marxism this year with the student unions against them. Marxism will happen but no venues are mentioned excerpt for "Central London". I also noticed how expensive it is to join. I don't know if they have put up their prices but they are not affordable by ordinary working class people.


I can't see a join option anywhere or details of subs. Am I missing it?


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2015)

They are still 'branding' protests with their placards, even though the bulk of people on them have no interest in them and many a sharp antipathy.


----------



## JHE (May 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> They are still 'branding' protests with their placards, even though the bulk of people on them have no interest in them and many a sharp antipathy.



Yes, I'm sure they are.  They've been doing it for so long - 40 years at least - that they'd find it a really difficult habit to break.  You can't teach a flatulent old dog not to fart.


----------



## AC14 (May 18, 2015)

The latest post by Renton on his facebook is interesting.


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2015)

What does it say?


----------



## Trotsky007 (May 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> They are still 'branding' protests with their placards, even though the bulk of people on them have no interest in them and many a sharp antipathy.



The thing is that branding is a good thing if you want to be seen and recognized. This is the case for coca cola or the swp. So handing out placards on a demo is great if you want to get to the very people who are your target audience (the annoyed/angry/rebellious section of society who care enough to get on the streets). I don't have a problem with that. There is no-one forcing anyone to carry a placard. If you hate the swp then don't carry it. If you want other placards to be carried then make them and hand them out.
The issue should really be - is the slogan on the placard a good one? If it captures the message you want to give then fine. "Kick the tories out" is a bad slogan IMO.

There is a problem for the swp with handing out placards and that is that it makes you look bigger/ more influential than you actually are. So the demo may look like it has lots of people who like you but in reality yours were the only placards/ or had the best slogans. I am sure this has been at least part of the problem for the swp in giving them delusions of grandeur.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 18, 2015)

emanymton said:


> I can't see a join option anywhere or details of subs. Am I missing it?


Top right hand corner.


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2015)

Trotsky007 said:


> The thing is that branding is a good thing if you want to be seen and recognized. This is the case for coca cola or the swp. So handing out placards on a demo is great if you want to get to the very people who are your target audience (the annoyed/angry/rebellious section of society who care enough to get on the streets). I don't have a problem with that. There is no-one forcing anyone to carry a placard. If you hate the swp then don't carry it. If you want other placards to be carried then make them and hand them out.
> The issue should really be - is the slogan on the placard a good one? If it captures the message you want to give then fine. "Kick the tories out" is a bad slogan IMO.
> 
> There is a problem for the swp with handing out placards and that is that it makes you look bigger/ more influential than you actually are. So the demo may look like it has lots of people who like you but in reality yours were the only placards/ or had the best slogans. I am sure this has been at least part of the problem for the swp in giving them delusions of grandeur.




Sounds suspiciously like 'let the market decide', which is interesting, as in many ways the SWP has indeed operated like a voracious corporation.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Sounds suspiciously like 'let the market decide', which is interesting, as in many ways the SWP has indeed operated like a voracious corporation.


lefties who don't use useful marketing techniques can fuck off quite frankly and stop wasting everyone's time


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Sounds suspiciously like 'let the market decide', which is interesting, as in many ways the SWP has indeed operated like a voracious corporation.


given that they don't charge for the placards, it isn't really a 'market', is it? It's individuals making their own, free, choice


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> given that they don't charge for the placards, it isn't really a 'market', is it? It's individuals making their own, free, choice


You're never going to make that leap are you?


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You're never going to make that leap are you?


into a refusal to understand basic market economics?  Hell no


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> into a refusal to understand basic market economics?  Hell no



Free choice is the market. What else?


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Free choice is the market. What else?


What?


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> given that they don't charge for the placards, it isn't really a 'market', is it? It's individuals making their own, free, choice


Your post argues that it's not a market, it's free choice. Now, aside from you knowing this is hack bollocks, the market argument is based on the idea of free choice on the same basis as yours. It's a pro-market argument.


----------



## Red Cat (May 18, 2015)

emanymton said:


> I can't see a join option anywhere or details of subs. Am I missing it?



I had to look for a long time too 

Is £10 to £30 a month, depending on income. Which is less than it was? Used to be a percentage didn't it? Something like that, maybe got that totally wrong. If you earned a lot, I'm sure you were expected to pay more than £30 a month. But my memory is bad.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Your post argues that it's not a market, it's free choice. Now, aside from you knowing this is hack bollocks, the market argument is based on the idea of free choice on the same basis as yours. It's a pro-market argument.


lol, what a crock of crap. 

Markets rely on _exchange_, what is being exchanged here? No one makes anyone take a placard (or, at least, anyone other than a party member), they take them because they like the slogan. THE SWP's production of placards doesn't stop anyone else from doing so, so they're not really creating a monopoly position.  It is true that there will be significant over-production, although that is unlikely to lead to the massive systemic failure.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> lol, what a crock of crap.
> 
> Markets rely on _exchange_, what is being exchanged here? No one makes anyone take a placard (or, at least, anyone other than a party member), they take them because they like the slogan. THE SWP's production of placards doesn't stop anyone else from doing so, so they're not really creating a monopoly position.  It is true that there will be significant over-production, although that is unlikely to lead to the massive systemic failure.


Markets rely on far more than exchange - prior dispossession is key. So, map that onto this situation where political possession is marked by holding a placard, it's the SWP program down to a tee. I_t's pro-market logic at best. The consumer with their greater knowledge is sovereign. Free choice, _listen to yourself.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

Proper trottery rides again -fucking hell.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 18, 2015)

Red Cat said:


> I had to look for a long time too
> 
> Is £10 to £30 a month, depending on income. Which is less than it was? Used to be a percentage didn't it? Something like that, maybe got that totally wrong. If you earned a lot, I'm sure you were expected to pay more than £30 a month. But my memory is bad.


If you multiply the amount you pay for a month to how much the same amount comes to for 12 months then it is a lot of money. This is much more than you will be paying for a full union subscription which all employed members will be doing hopefully. Put the two together and that is a lot of money out of your salary. It looks like a rich man's club to me.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Markets rely on far more than exchange - prior dispossession is key. So, map that onto this situation where political possession is marked by holding a placard, it's the SWP program down to a tee. I_t's pro-market logic at best. The consumer with their greater knowledge is sovereign. Free choice, _listen to yourself.


idiotic nonsense. There is no 'dispossession' involved, and you've made a classic logical error.

All birds have wings, this aeroplane has wings, therefore this aeroplane is a bird.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> idiotic nonsense. There is no 'dispossession' involved, and you've made a classic logical error.
> 
> All birds have wings, this aeroplane has wings, therefore this aeroplane is a bird.


Of course there is dispossession involved - oh hang on, no, there's massive record participation etc.

There is no logical error in identifying a key support of pro-market logic being used to buttress an ostensibly anti-market argument.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> idiotic nonsense. There is no 'dispossession' involved, and you've made a classic logical error.
> 
> All birds have wings, this aeroplane has wings, therefore this aeroplane is a bird.


When did you leave the party btw?


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Of course there is dispossession involved - oh hang on, no, there's massive record participation etc.
> 
> There is no logical error in identifying a key support of pro-market logic being used to buttress an ostensibly anti-market argument.


oh dear, pisspoor. Who has been dispossessed by the SWP producing a placard with a slogan on? 

And you haven't shown you have identified anything, you've made an argument, but provided zip to back it up.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> oh dear, pisspoor. Who has been dispossessed by the SWP producing a placard with a slogan on?
> 
> And you haven't shown you have identified anything, you've made an argument, but provided zip to back it up.


Of course there has been a historic course of dispossession of politics by the state and capital - what an odd thing to deny.What next - the enclosures never happened?

I did. The idiocy of free choice. Your comrades have attacked this nonsense for 50+ years.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Of course there has been a historic course of dispossession of politics by the state and capital - what an odd thing to deny.


good thing that isn't what I said.  Don't tire yourself out shifting them goalposts


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> good thing that isn't what I said.  Don't tire yourself out shifting them goalposts


Do review.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> good thing that isn't what I said.  Don't tire yourself out shifting them goalposts



I thought i'd become a shit intellectually lazy poster but  fucking hell.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I thought i'd become a shit intellectually lazy poster but  fucking hell.


try harder then.  Your posts are worthy of the RCP in their level of pointless abstraction


----------



## Epona (May 18, 2015)

Red Cat said:


> I had to look for a long time too
> 
> Is £10 to £30 a month, depending on income. Which is less than it was? Used to be a percentage didn't it? Something like that, maybe got that totally wrong. If you earned a lot, I'm sure you were expected to pay more than £30 a month. But my memory is bad.



As far as I know it has always been pay what you can afford or want to pay - the subs displayed are a guideline, not an absolute.  If you can read, it also says "we recommend that you pay the following", not "this is what you must pay".  If you can only afford 50p a month, that is fine.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2015)

bald men, i've got a spare comb if you need it


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> try harder then.  Your posts are worthy of the RCP in their level of pointless abstraction


_The take up of our placards was a sign of our growing strength. _Uh huh uh huh.
_
Tell the truth_


----------



## emanymton (May 18, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Top right hand corner.


That's weird it is not there for me. Must be because I'm on my phone.


----------



## emanymton (May 18, 2015)

Red Cat said:


> I had to look for a long time too
> 
> Is £10 to £30 a month, depending on income. Which is less than it was? Used to be a percentage didn't it? Something like that, maybe got that totally wrong. If you earned a lot, I'm sure you were expected to pay more than £30 a month. But my memory is bad.


I remember one lecturer paying £150 a month. £10 a month is double for most people I would have thought, less than most union subs. And I am sure they would accept less.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 18, 2015)

emanymton said:


> That's weird it is not there for me. Must be because I'm on my phone.


I have just checked my phone. It is on there in the same place. It is in a green and black background box with the white SWP fist.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> _The take up of our placards was a sign of our growing strength. _Uh huh uh huh.
> _
> Tell the truth_


aah, so all kinds of measurement are now 'the market' is it?  You've been reading too much John Grey.

'Events A and B have C in common, therefore they are the same!'  Grossly simplistic.  Your argument eventually says that _everything _is the market. Now you can make an abstract claim for that being the case, but, by its abstraction,m it is rendered meaningless.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> aah, so all kinds of measurement are now 'the market' is it?  You've been reading too much John Grey.
> 
> 'Events A and B have C in common, therefore they are the same!'  Grossly simplistic.  Your argument eventually says that _everything _is the market. Now you can make an abstract claim for that being the case, but, by its abstraction,m it is rendered meaningless.


My argument is that this is wrong - yours is the free choice nonsense. Remember when Dave macnally destroyed that argument for your tradition in the early 90s?


----------



## emanymton (May 18, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I have just checked my phone. It is on there in the same place. It is in a green and black background box with the white SWP fist.


I have been having problems since the last android  upgrade so I am blaming that.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 18, 2015)

Belboid and butchersapron (in alphabetical order) leave the squabbling alone, there'll be tears before bedtime.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> aah, so all kinds of measurement are now 'the market' is it?  You've been reading too much John Grey.
> 
> 'Events A and B have C in common, therefore they are the same!'  Grossly simplistic.  Your argument eventually says that _everything _is the market. Now you can make an abstract claim for that being the case, but, by its abstraction,m it is rendered meaningless.


I haven't made an identity based argument - i've identified a pro-market tradition and pointed out that its central strut is based on the same logic as what you offer us.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

_I never left the party the party left me_


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> My argument is that this is wrong - yours is the free choice nonsense. Remember when Dave macnally destroyed that argument for your tradition in the early 90s?


what? Stop trying to argue against your own imagination


butchersapron said:


> I haven't made an identity based argument - i've identified a pro-market tradition and pointed out that its central strut is based on the same logic as what you offer us.


I haven't said that you have.  I've said that you made a shit, wholly abstract, argument. Badly.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Belboid and butchersapron (in alphabetical order) leave the squabbling alone, there'll be tears before bedtime.


oi!  This is what we do! Dont deny us our very essence.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

belboid said:


> what? Stop trying to argue against your own imagination
> 
> I haven't said that you have.  I've said that you made a shit, wholly abstract, argument. Badly.


Why did you do it badly?

Review. Do.

Not a word in direct reply to my posts about what you said and what your posts entail. Just keep saying _abstract_.


----------



## butchersapron (May 18, 2015)

This thread has now been ruined


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Not a word in direct reply to my posts about what you said and what your posts entail. Just keep saying _abstract_.


Probably because you just made up what I supposedly said.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 18, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> This thread has now been ruined


----------



## J Ed (May 18, 2015)

One thing that would be an interesting thought exercise - would removing all the SWP, and while we're at it other Trot group, branding on demos give them more credibility and help to build support? Are there many people who would otherwise join who are put off?


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2015)

Imo, yes, people would be more likely to express themselves, but its not just the placards, the Trots restrict who can speak on the platforms, though I do think they are getting a bit better at this as their power wanes.

One thing to note is that all the various sects are calling anti-austerity demos, some on the same day, you couldn't make it up.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> One thing that would be an interesting thought exercise - would removing all the SWP, and while we're at it other Trot group, branding on demos give them more credibility and help to build support? Are there many people who would otherwise join who are put off?



The only people who give a shit are other leftist old lags or, for different reasons, an occasional pompous liberal who objects to "extremists" or to people "politicising" whatever issue is involved.

Similarly treelover's complaint about them "restricting who can speak on the platforms" was true enough when they had the clout to do so, but it was a power they used only to exclude rival far leftists. They were only too pleased to encourage people from outside that milieu to speak whenever possible.

Al of that stuff was aggravating if you were an anarchist or some other breed of socialist, but it's basically trivial in terms of "credibility and building support".


----------



## killer b (May 18, 2015)

It isn't just the trot groups tbf. I think the language, meter and image of much radical left politics alienates huge swathes of the population.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Imo, yes, people would be more likely to express themselves, but its not just the placards, the Trots restrict who can speak on the platforms, though I do think they are getting a bit better at this as their power wanes.
> 
> One thing to note is that all the various sects are calling anti-austerity demos, some on the same day, you couldn't make it up.


I don't believe you; you are making this up.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> It isn't just the trot groups tbf. I think the language, meter and image of much radical left politics alienates huge swathes of the population.


Yep the SWP don't put any normal people off participating demos - the entire left (especially the far-left) alienates people every day in every way. Which is why it makes no sense to say that Labour needs to move left to attract more support.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 18, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yep the SWP don't put any normal people off participating demos - the entire left (especially the far-left) alienates people every day in every way. Which is why it makes no sense to say that Labour needs to move left to attract more support.


So what should Labour do to attract more support?


----------



## J Ed (May 18, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> the entire left (especially the far-left) alienates people every day in every way.



How? I don't think most people have daily interactions with the left, some students maybe...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> How? I don't think most people have daily interactions with the left, some students maybe...


I said people, I didn't say all people or many people. However when people come into contact with the far left they seem at best disinterested and at worse alienated, I wonder why that is? 



> So what should Labour do to attract more support?



Talk to people, ask them about their self identified needs. The same as the far-left should do.


----------



## AC14 (May 18, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yep the SWP don't put any normal people off participating demos - the entire left (especially the far-left) alienates people every day in every way. Which is why it makes no sense to say that Labour needs to move left to attract more support.



Exactly. The reply is 'look at Scotland' but that's also nonsense. It's no surprise that Labour Party members are suddenly seeing the worth in their most successful leader of modern times, you know the one that won three elections - in many cases the only Labour victories they remember - and finally learning the lessons. 

Labour needs to win people that didn't vote for them. Not those that did.


----------



## The39thStep (May 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> Exactly. The reply is 'look at Scotland' but that's also nonsense. It's no surprise that Labour Party members are suddenly seeing the worth in their most successful leader of modern times, you know the one that won three elections - in many cases the only Labour victories they remember - and finally learning the lessons.
> 
> Labour needs to win people that didn't vote for them. Not those that did.



So how is Labour going to square the circle with chasing the middle class vote and the working class vote?


----------



## Trotsky007 (May 18, 2015)

As J Ed said I don't think most people know who the far left is except the swp (from demos and those placards) and Militant now SP (from Liverpool and Kinnock kicking them out of Labour). Even Militant don't mean anything to anyone younger than 40. They may be mentioned by the rightwing media as bogeymen to scare voters away from voting Labour but otherwise they have only minor influence over anything. The trouble is that in the world of activists it can seem as if they/we are big fish but it is a very small pond. 
I would say, however, that Anarchists dressing like they are on their way to a ninja convention are alienating to people on demos as they seem quite aggressive and intent just on ineffective aggro with tooled up riot cops. Its that kind of behaviour which makes your first time demonstrater think that demos aren't really for them.


----------



## belboid (May 18, 2015)

Jugglers.  Don't forget the jugglers.  They put everyone off.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2015)

Trotsky007 said:


> *As J Ed said I don't think most people know who the far left is except the swp* (from demos and those placards) and Militant now SP (from Liverpool and Kinnock kicking them out of Labour). Even Militant don't mean anything to anyone younger than 40. They may be mentioned by the rightwing media as bogeymen to scare voters away from voting Labour but otherwise they have only minor influence over anything. The trouble is that in the world of activists it can seem as if they/we are big fish but it is a very small pond.
> I would say, however, that Anarchists dressing like they are on their way to a ninja convention are alienating to people on demos as they seem quite aggressive and intent just on ineffective aggro with tooled up riot cops. Its that kind of behaviour which makes your first time demonstrater think that demos aren't really for them.



Stop deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote - I said people not all people - of course most people have no idea what the far left is beyond Russel Brand and the rare oddball waving poorly printed papers at them in the high street. The point is they do alienate a very large chunk of the small minority that do try and get involved in politics. 

I agree with you about anarchists - like the anarchist banner at the last anti-austerity march where they stood at the back with a banner saying "kill all those who stand in our way"


----------



## J Ed (May 18, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I said people, I didn't say all people or many people. However when people come into contact with the far left they seem at best disinterested and at worse alienated, I wonder why that is?



Depends on the context really. At university I think what put a lot of people off of the left, even if they were sympathetic to various causes, was the fact that they (imo correctly) saw left wing students as part of an exclusive subculture with particular clothes, musical preferences and even diets. To a lot of people they just *looked* odd, even if you wanted to join in with them... what would your mates say? They might say that you were a bit weird as well.


----------



## J Ed (May 18, 2015)

Another thing that's worth thinking about, in terms of the left alienating potential supporters, is that one way in which so many people exclusively encounter the left, unions, organised labour is when a strike affects them. If you are someone who is on a low wage who is living hand to mouth on a zero hours contract and you are affected by a teachers' strike or a rail strike or whatever then convincing that person of the necessity of workers who are probably on higher pay in the first place succeeding in that strike might be quite difficult except no one is making that argument in the first place. There is zero communication between the more unionised public sector and basically union-free workplace like call centres, meaning that the many people working in the latter workplaces are often only going to think about labour militancy in terms of 1) great inconvenience to themselves 2) the interpretation of a right-wing media which is hostile to trade unions

I don't think that there are any short term solutions to this, the obvious long term solution seems to me to be organising efforts in workplaces like distribution centres and call centres but that is not going to happen overnight if it can happen at all.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2015)

The far-left still exist in sections of the popular imagination, but as a caricature occasionally wheeled out in the media, occasionally faintly remembered from University days or high streets in the 90s.

On the increasingly rare occasion one encounters the far-left in real life they reaffirm that caricature. I passed a TUSC stall in Bristol just before the election. I took a leaflet. A bunch of poorly dressed, middle aged men wielding copies of The Socialist as shield and breastplates against...well I'm not sure really.  Clipboards, petitions, a trestle table. Like the fucking sealed knot or something.

...and, yes, the teenage mutant anarcho-ninjas are just as bad.

Outside and against the class or something.

its a bit more complicated than that...of course. But there you go.

TUSC were in The Sun today by the way...being laughed at for getting zero votes.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Another thing that's worth thinking about, in terms of the left alienating potential supporters, is that one way in which so many people exclusively encounter the left, unions, organised labour is when a strike affects them. If you are someone who is on a low wage who is living hand to mouth on a zero hours contract and you are affected by a teachers' strike or a rail strike or whatever then convincing that person of the necessity of workers who are probably on higher pay in the first place succeeding in that strike might be quite difficult except no one is making that argument in the first place. There is zero communication between the more unionised public sector and basically union-free workplace like call centres, meaning that the many people working in the latter workplaces are often only going to think about labour militancy in terms of 1) great inconvenience to themselves 2) the interpretation of a right-wing media which is hostile to trade unions
> 
> I don't think that there are any short term solutions to this, the obvious long term solution seems to me to be organising efforts in workplaces like distribution centres and call centres but that is not going to happen overnight if it can happen at all.


Maybe time for the left to stop fetishising strikes?


----------



## frogwoman (May 18, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Another thing that's worth thinking about, in terms of the left alienating potential supporters, is that one way in which so many people exclusively encounter the left, unions, organised labour is when a strike affects them. If you are someone who is on a low wage who is living hand to mouth on a zero hours contract and you are affected by a teachers' strike or a rail strike or whatever then convincing that person of the necessity of workers who are probably on higher pay in the first place succeeding in that strike might be quite difficult except no one is making that argument in the first place. There is zero communication between the more unionised public sector and basically union-free workplace like call centres, meaning that the many people working in the latter workplaces are often only going to think about labour militancy in terms of 1) great inconvenience to themselves 2) the interpretation of a right-wing media which is hostile to trade unions
> 
> I don't think that there are any short term solutions to this, the obvious long term solution seems to me to be organising efforts in workplaces like distribution centres and call centres but that is not going to happen overnight if it can happen at all.



Spot on.


----------



## redcogs (May 18, 2015)

The current debates relating to the post election state of the Labour Party are a reminder of just how weak the labour movement has become don't you think? It used to be when Labour lost an election we still had a fall back position of being able to rely upon the trade unions to keep our wage rates and conditions reasonable.  Labour losing the election isn't a disaster for many people, just a few MPs and and a sprinkling of birocrats.  But i reckon the absence of a decent union fightback will be much more critical in the medium/longer term.

Speaking to a former comrade from north England recently (who i once considered a friend, but renegade former SWP members are often de-friended, not unlike a lapsed adherent of the Plymouth Brethren, the sect who notoriously send former members to Coventry).  He had stood for Tusc but did rather badly, despite working very hard on the knocker.  When i explained that the Tory vote was an expression of middle class confidence in the south east of England, and that the SNP vote was an expression of working class confidence in Scotland he strongly disagreed.  The SWP line, if he articulated properly, was that the new Tory government is pretty weak, and will be easily dealt with by a rising tide of class struggle (which, as usual, is just around the corner).

In a way i can see that argument, and one day it might be right, like a stopped clock being correct every 24 hours.  But what i have difficulty with is seeing where the organised blue collar resistance will come from.  Deindustrialisation has done more damage to working class potential than we often allow for - even taking into consideration the 'changing nature of the working class', it is hard to see Unison members, or teachers, or call centre workers being in the vanguard of any future movement for social change, in the way that colliers were for example. 

Pass the bottle.


----------



## Red Cat (May 18, 2015)

emanymton said:


> I remember one lecturer paying £150 a month. £10 a is double for most people I would have thought, less than most union subs. And o am sure they would accept less.



Yes, me too. I don't think cost of subs is a good reason to have a go at the SWP; there are plenty more worthwhile and accurate ones to be had.


----------



## Red Cat (May 18, 2015)

Epona said:


> As far as I know it has always been pay what you can afford or want to pay - the subs displayed are a guideline, not an absolute.  If you can read, it also says "we recommend that you pay the following", not "this is what you must pay".  If you can only afford 50p a month, that is fine.



If I can read?


----------



## AC14 (May 18, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> So how is Labour going to square the circle with chasing the middle class vote and the working class vote?



There is no homogenous working class vote or middle class vote. However, appeasing their traditional vote is going to shore up the 30% they would get anyway. They need to attract people who would otherwise not vote Labour. Not those who will anyway.


----------



## killer b (May 18, 2015)

Scotland has surely just demonstrated what happens when that 30% is taken for granted?


----------



## AC14 (May 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> Scotland has surely just demonstrated what happens when that 30% is taken for granted?



Leaving aside 'taken for granted', no, Scotland has demonstrated the unique circumstances of the referendum and Labour's disastrous position in that referendum.


----------



## killer b (May 18, 2015)

How about all those ex-Labour voters in the north-east who went for UKIP this time?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> There is no homogenous working class vote or middle class vote. However, appeasing their traditional vote is going to shore up the 30% they would get anyway. They need to attract people who would otherwise not vote Labour. Not those who will anyway.



Actually you're half right - they need to appeal to the centre ground swing voters in the marginals and they need to reconnect with traditional voters who went UKIP last time - this will not be achieved by tacking left or to the technocratic right, but by listening to people and helping them to construct a narrative that answers at least some of their aspirations which won't I suspect be that far apart.


----------



## AC14 (May 18, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Actually you're half right - they need to appeal to the centre ground swing voters in the marginals and they need to reconnect with traditional voters who went UKIP last time - this will not be achieved by tacking left or to the technocratic right, but by listening to people and helping them to construct a narrative that answers at least some of their aspirations which won't I suspect be that far apart.



Yes, that's a sophisticated version of what I said. Pulling from UKIP is far from 'move left' and I have to confess I'm not sure about the answer further north. 
I like the use of the word 'technocratic'. 
I do think Labour should read this study: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/45855.html


----------



## AC14 (May 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> How about all those ex-Labour voters in the north-east who went for UKIP this time?


More difficult than my answer, I grant you. As I said in the other reply, the answer isn't to shift left though. Ed Miliband was 'shifting left' and it didn't work, as many Labour members predicted.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2015)

That John McDonnell "radical labour" nonsense will appeal to about 120 people - the danger of him is he doesn't realise why he gets elected as an MP every time - which is because he's an excellent constituency MP his politics have very little to do with it.


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> How about all those ex-Labour voters in the north-east who went for UKIP this time?



Just found out my Nephew, lives in the N.E, first time voter voted UKIP, is joining them and wants to be a UKIP MP or at least a councillor!


----------



## electric.avenue (May 18, 2015)

killer b said:


> How about all those ex-Labour voters in the north-east who went for UKIP this time?



Here in West Yorkshire a lot of the traditional Labour vote is starting to trickle over to UKIP.


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> That John McDonnell "radical labour" nonsense will appeal to about 120 people - the danger of him is he doesn't realise why he gets elected as an MP every time - which is because he's an excellent constituency MP his politics have very little to do with it.




Quite a journey from the SWP you have had.


----------



## AC14 (May 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> What does it say?



As I get older, I become more protective of friendships. People who you have known me for longer have seen different, better sides of me. Few of my more recent friends will have a sense of how much energy I had at my activist best, twenty years ago. 

It is not just about age; I have always been watchful of my friends, inclined to see the best in people and determined to forgive when I can. There are very, very people whose friendship I have deliberately neglected. Most, I hope, know exactly why I did.

One of the difficult, ambiguous consequences of the last ten days is that I have a former friend who is now in a position of influence. You might say that was inevitable: given the school I went to, the university, my family. But this is different. 

I spent most of my teenage years in rebellion against the class into which I was born. And by rebellion, I really do mean the word, inchoate, unformed and violent, running away from home and then school, getting into trouble with police repeatedly, skipping school at times for weeks on end, fighting with teachers, trying to damage the physical environment I was in, at every waking second plotting my escape...

Many people from that time are now in government: as far as I was concerned they were the kids who sat at the back of classes and nodded to the teacher, the ones who understood nothing, read nothing, wanted to know nothing. The ones who had not been outside a tiny set of distinct places (a couple of streets in London, a country estate). The ones who knew no-one outside the friendships tolerated by their parents. The ones who had never walked through a city, taking everything in. 

One, now a Cabinet minister, was never more than a blur of tally-ho subservient goofiness. Nor was his also-promoted brother, save that he lacked the better-known boy’s sly humour. (I remember watching the oldest, the night Pinochet was jailed, wooing an audience of 68-lefties, the way Clinton once did, looking for the person in the room who grimaced at them with the greatest hostility, and speaking to them first). If I really made the effort, there are probably another 10 people like them that I knew as children, who are now in Parliament – but each I saw at a distance. I saw nothing in them that would have justified a greater interest. 

But this boy was different. I knew him when he was 5 (when we were best friends), and again with equal intensity between the ages of 14 and 17. We were in the same classes; we chose the same options. I remember him when he was very young, his face like a monkey and the words rushed out of him without caution. I remember him again in adolescence, his words now guarded by sentries (he had a father who worked in diplomacy, possibly Intelligence). Any bookish kid in an environment like ours saw the hypocrisies at once, knew that we were being fed lies and being trained to feed them out in due course. And when we did speak we agreed. 

At different times since, I have tried to reconstruct the moment when he made peace with a class, two institutions, a whole way of being. It is a pointless exercise; I once though I knew him well. For more than half our lives, we have not spoken.

I miss him. I am still angry with him. I regret our collective failure to summon into being such monsters of the human imagination as to defeat him and his kind.


----------



## discokermit (May 18, 2015)

posh cunt.


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2015)

_Very well written, 

btw, did Renton go to Eton?_


----------



## cesare (May 18, 2015)

Fuck's sake


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2015)

The far-left has nothing concrete to offer people. No real life examples of how it works in practise. Living memory no longer goes back far enough.

A few occupied university buldingp in Paris in 1968, a factory or two in Turin in 1977, some squatted houses in Berlin in 1981 a few villages in the Mexican jungle in 1994. That's all that I can draw on, what chance for everyone else?

The left is living (barely) on a memory of a memory and its practice is naturally therefore ritualised.

Hmm.

...but we've had this argument over and over in ever decreasing circles.

Oh well.


----------



## discokermit (May 18, 2015)

such a rebel he became a barrister.


----------



## AC14 (May 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> _Very well written,
> 
> btw, did Renton go to Eton?_


Yes


----------



## discokermit (May 18, 2015)

chilango said:


> The far-left has nothing concrete to offer people. No real life examples of how it works in practise. Living memory no longer goes back far enough.
> 
> A few occupied university buldingp in Paris in 1968, a factory or two in Turin in 1977, some squatted houses in Berlin in 1981 a few villages in the Mexican jungle in 1994. That's all that I can draw on, what chance for everyone else?
> 
> ...


the closed shop is well within living memory. and most of the people i work with started work in the early seventies.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2015)

discokermit said:


> the closed shop is well within living memory. and most of the people i work with started work in the early seventies.



I'm one of the oldest at my work. I started work this millennium.


----------



## redcogs (May 18, 2015)

Rory Stewart has a monkeyish appearance?  Once a Labour Party member! Similar age to Renton.


----------



## discokermit (May 18, 2015)

chilango said:


> I'm one of the oldest at my work. I started work this millennium.


i'm one of the youngest. i started in '85.
almost fifty percent of the fellers there have moustaches. not hipster ones, proper seventies blokes ones. so my place is in no way typical, but these fellers have still got another seven or eight years to go. i reckon a big chunk of the workforce remember the seventies and your disregarding them.
i don't think it detracts much from your point though.


----------



## chilango (May 18, 2015)

discokermit said:


> i'm one of the youngest. i started in '85.
> almost fifty percent of the fellers there have moustaches. not hipster ones, proper seventies blokes ones. so my place is in no way typical, but these fellers have still got another seven or eight years to go. i reckon a big chunk of the workforce remember the seventies and your disregarding them.
> i don't think it detracts much from your point though.



I don't mean to disregard them.

I've just never come across them. 

I've never worked with anyone whose experiences go that far back.


----------



## discokermit (May 18, 2015)

i've worked with people who fought in the war. i feel old.


----------



## AC14 (May 18, 2015)

discokermit said:


> i've worked with people who fought in the war. i feel old.


You are old.


----------



## discokermit (May 18, 2015)

AC14 said:


> You are old.


i know.


----------



## cesare (May 18, 2015)

discokermit said:


> i've worked with people who fought in the war. i feel old.


Which one?


----------



## redcogs (May 18, 2015)

i'm easily the oldest here..


----------



## discokermit (May 18, 2015)

cesare said:


> Which one?


world war two.
though i've worked with veterans of burma, suez and northern ireland. and a bloke stationed on the czech border in the sixties who spent all day watching guards in a czech tower a hundred yards away. they would wave to each other with their little fingers while they held the binoculars.
and a bloke who fought for smith in rhodesia.


----------



## redcogs (May 18, 2015)

methusulah is a whippersnapper by comparison with me.  Gettin old is depressing.  Or, as Sufjan Stevens recently opined, "we're all gonna die"


----------



## discokermit (May 18, 2015)

that's the spirit.


----------



## redcogs (May 18, 2015)

i remember being young though.  hope seemed to spring eternal back then.


----------



## treelover (May 18, 2015)

chilango said:


> The far-left has nothing concrete to offer people. No real life examples of how it works in practise. Living memory no longer goes back far enough.
> 
> A few occupied university buldingp in Paris in 1968, a factory or two in Turin in 1977, some squatted houses in Berlin in 1981 a few villages in the Mexican jungle in 1994. That's all that I can draw on, what chance for everyone else?
> 
> ...



Yet, they still think they have the answers.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2015)

treelover said:


> Quite a journey from the SWP you have had.


you don't know what you're talking about you div. I was in the SWP for less than 6 months. In 2001.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 18, 2015)

Didn't realise you work in a care home discokermit fairplay.


----------



## Trappist (May 19, 2015)

This article is a potential counter to the whole "Labour needs to appeal to the centre" argument:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/it-was-working-class-not-middle-class-sunk-labour

It suggests that between 2005 and 2015 Labour's "middle class" (A/B/C1) vote held up, but it lost a quarter of its working class (C2/D/E) vote.

I say "potential" because of the lazy use of statistics - what do these numbers represent? and why only go back to 2005?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 19, 2015)

Only if you think appealing to the centre automatically attracts middle class voters over working class.


----------



## Trappist (May 19, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Only if you think appealing to the centre automatically attracts middle class voters over working class.


Ah, what I think is that this whole notion of middle class is illusory and the majority of B/C1s are working class. But even talking about class is too much for Labour these days - "aspirational hard working families" is what it's all about. So let me put it another way.

Wasn't it one of the key aims of the Blair triangulation to pick away at soft Tory voters? Based on the idea that Labour doesn't have to pander to its core constituency because they will always vote Labour, so they needed focus on the centre ground. That's the reasoning behind all the "Labour too left wing" nonsense being pushed relentlessly by the usual suspects.

My view is that the lesson of 2010 should have been that if you piss off that core they just won't turn out. Perhaps the lesson of 2015 is that if you blame immigrants and promise them austerity-lite some will get so pissed off they vote UKIP.


----------



## newbie (May 19, 2015)

discokermit said:


> the closed shop is well within living memory.


of course it is, for good and bad. Protection for the aristocracy inside, with a lot of pre-entry tickets handed down father to son (not daughter) as inheritance rights, demarcation barriers to keep the peasantry outside, structured differentials to denote status and caste.  When I got my ticket and started moving from job to job it gradually became apparent that the guys who did the card checks spent most of their working day sat at the back playing cards. Of course those were the days when a job was supposed to be for life, the employer expected to provide the work, the worker to remain in the same shop (ie same grade) throughout. 

There were positives, of course there were, but as a beneficiary of the tail end of the system I didn't mourn its passing, and certainly wasn't up for more than token resistance, and nor were the factory workers I grew up amongst.  I might occasionally chunter at work that we should fight to bring it back but in reality I quite like working with people who get jobs through equal opps rather than who they know and who they're prepared to salute.

Sorry if that's not what the working class thinks I should think.


----------



## The39thStep (May 19, 2015)

chilango said:


> The far-left has nothing concrete to offer people. No real life examples of how it works in practise. Living memory no longer goes back far enough.
> 
> A few occupied university buldingp in Paris in 1968, a factory or two in Turin in 1977, some squatted houses in Berlin in 1981 a few villages in the Mexican jungle in 1994. That's all that I can draw on, what chance for everyone else?
> 
> ...



Lot of truth in what you say. My son is  27 , he has the values of solidarity and equality for all but has never been in a union , attended a left meeting and despite his mother being in TUSC there is nothing in his daily life experience that would connect him to the cobweb left. The pointers and language that framed left politics for a generation of my age have long since faded and are relevant only to those who are stuck in the left bubble.


----------



## redcogs (May 19, 2015)

The 'middle class' category is an invention of psephologists and academic sociologists (amongst others) designed to fill university departments with impressionable students and allow dons and profs and mere lecturers a strong sense of self importance.

The overwhelming bulk of the UK population sell their labour to employers - ie, they are working class.

What we need here is not a Labour Party (which since its birth has been married to capital and does capital's every bidding), we need a Party with a clear marxist understanding, that fights for the overthrow of the free market system.

That organisations isn't likely to be the SWP, who i believe to be a contaminated brand. But it might contain some of their current number?

init


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2015)

Not all closed shops were like that, though newbie


----------



## Red Cat (May 19, 2015)

treelover said:


> Yet, they still think they have the answers.



As a defence against despair and confusion perhaps.

You're as ritualistic as they are, posting the same stuff over and over and over and over...why do you do that?


----------



## The39thStep (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> of course it is, for good and bad. Protection for the aristocracy inside, with a lot of pre-entry tickets handed down father to son (not daughter) as inheritance rights, demarcation barriers to keep the peasantry outside, structured differentials to denote status and caste.  When I got my ticket and started moving from job to job it gradually became apparent that the guys who did the card checks spent most of their working day sat at the back playing cards. Of course those were the days when a job was supposed to be for life, the employer expected to provide the work, the worker to remain in the same shop (ie same grade) throughout.
> 
> There were positives, of course there were, but as a beneficiary of the tail end of the system I didn't mourn its passing, and certainly wasn't up for more than token resistance, and nor were the factory workers I grew up amongst.  I might occasionally chunter at work that we should fight to bring it back but in reality I quite like working with people who get jobs through equal opps rather than who they know and who they're prepared to salute.
> 
> Sorry if that's not what the working class thinks I should think.



Of course their were good and bad things about the closed shop but since when has management recruiting staff had anything to do with 'equal opps' or not recruiting applicants on either who they know or who they are prepared to salute?
I can recognise some of what you say in your first parody  although I think it was done better in that Peter Sellers film I'm  Alright Jack. Differentials and demarcation was part and parcel in most work places where there were trade unions not just the closed shop , pre entry tickets had very little impact on labour mobility in my own experience. I worked in both the building game and in engineering and where we were able to build a strong rank and file all union officials worked on the job but  had necessary time to carry out duties.


----------



## redcogs (May 19, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Lot of truth in what you say. My son is  27 , he has the values of solidarity and equality for all but has never been in a union , attended a left meeting and despite his mother being in TUSC there is nothing in his daily life experience that would connect him to the cobweb left. The pointers and language that framed left politics for a generation of my age have long since faded and are relevant only to those who are stuck in the left bubble.



The "left bubble" is an interesting idea that fits the Lefts ossified circumstances.

Whenever i meet former cadres from my political past i am struck first of all by how old they are, and more importantly perhaps, how rigidly dogmatic their thinking has become.  Some of them have been involved in the 'revolutionary' process for so long that their mission has become one of defending their entire political lives rather than allowing themselves the flexibility of a good old shake that might enable them to behave less as foot stamping toddlers screaming '*I* told you so' and more like the intelligent individuals that so many clearly are.

i think i'm suggesting that far greater strategic and tactical flexibility would be an excellent development at this point.  The bubble needs bursting before it assumes the character of a boil.


----------



## Trappist (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> There were positives, of course there were, but as a beneficiary of the tail end of the system I didn't mourn its passing, and certainly wasn't up for more than token resistance, and nor were the factory workers I grew up amongst.  I might occasionally chunter at work that we should fight to bring it back but in reality I quite like working with people who get jobs through equal opps rather than who they know and who they're prepared to salute.
> 
> Sorry if that's not what the working class thinks I should think.



The print was the extreme end of the spectrum and as you say there were negatives as well as positives.

I worked for British Rail when we won the closed shop in the 70s. At the time I welcomed it as a sign of the strength of the unions, but later I realised it actually damaged us. For starters it meant we had a layer of members who were opposed to the very idea of a union, then our organisation at the grass roots slowly withered as there was no need for branch officers doing the rounds actively persuading people to join and stay.  

If these things go in cycles, and I suspect they do, then maybe in 30 years employers' forums will be reminiscing about the downsides of zero hours contracts.


----------



## belboid (May 19, 2015)

<bloody bad gateways...lets try that again...in the right thread this time...>

Even the stories of the print are grossly exaggerated. My partners father was a printer at Wapping, having previously been a mechanic who, therefore, knew how machinery worked.  He'd worked on various cars - including the Times editor of the time - and it was that that got him a possibility of a job.  But even then, he couldn't just walk in and do it, he had to prove he was actually capable of doing so. At a time of relatively full employment that was frequently how people got jobs, its not really much different to any other word of mouth. 

The difference with the closed shop was that once he was in, he was staying in.


----------



## redcogs (May 19, 2015)

fascinating.


----------



## newbie (May 19, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Of course their were good and bad things about the closed shop but since when has management recruiting staff had anything to do with 'equal opps' or not recruiting applicants on either who they know or who they are prepared to salute?



I'm not knocking your own experience, but for myself, some kids I went to school with moved seamlessly into a job because of who their father was, others couldn't; I got a union ticket (and from that good, skilled work) because I met people who were prepared to sign my application, and although I don't know for sure certain that I wouldn't have got it if I'd been other than male, white, British, straight I certainly didn't work alongside people obviously outside those narrow criteria.  These days I do.



> I can recognise some of what you say in your first parody  although I think it was done better in that Peter Sellers film I'm  Alright Jack. Differentials and demarcation was part and parcel in most work places where there were trade unions not just the closed shop , pre entry tickets had very little impact on labour mobility in my own experience. I worked in both the building game and in engineering and where we were able to build a strong rank and file all union officials worked on the job but  had necessary time to carry out duties.


I don't see what I wrote as a parody, but you can write off what I experienced if you like.


----------



## The39thStep (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> I'm not knocking your own experience, but for myself, some kids I went to school with moved seamlessly into a job because of who their father was, others couldn't; I got a union ticket (and from that good, skilled work) because I met people who were prepared to sign my application, and although I don't know for sure certain that I wouldn't have got it if I'd been other than male, white, British, straight I certainly didn't work alongside people obviously outside those narrow criteria.  These days I do.
> 
> 
> I don't see what I wrote as a parody, but you can write off what I experienced if you like.



Are you trying to argue  that demographic changes in the work force have taken place due to the abolition of the closed shop?


----------



## redcogs (May 19, 2015)

belboid said:


> <bloody bad gateways...lets try that again...in the right thread this time...>
> 
> Even the stories of the print are grossly exaggerated. My partners father was a printer at Wapping, having previously been a mechanic who, therefore, knew how machinery worked.  He'd worked on various cars - including the Times editor of the time - and it was that that got him a possibility of a job.  But even then, he couldn't just walk in and do it, he had to prove he was actually capable of doing so. At a time of relatively full employment that was frequently how people got jobs, its not really much different to any other word of mouth.
> 
> The difference with the closed shop was that once he was in, he was staying in.



You earlier 'game of thrones' references were not as interesting as this belboid, however, they were not without value in a thread of almost a million posts.  Personally i quite enjoy a bit of random.

When i worked in telecommunications, a long time ago,there was no official 'closed shop', but union density was not far off 100%.  i remember looking admiringly at closed shops in engineering and elsewhere, but in practice whenever we had disputes they were well supported with dispute meetings being genuinely well attended and democratic. 

One time a (non union) scab had the brass neck to turn up to argue his flimsy case and the 'top table' were tolerant of his presence - until i made an appeal that he should have no part in the proceedings (which drew overwhelming support from the rank and file).  The scab wouldn't leave (thick skinned cunt that he was) and there was almost a riot to get him out - the police were eventually summoned, at which point the scumbag fucked off.

Eh, the good old days..


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> I'm not knocking your own experience, but for myself, some kids I went to school with moved seamlessly into a job because of who their father was, others couldn't; I got a union ticket (and from that good, skilled work) because I met people who were prepared to sign my application, and although I don't know for sure certain that I wouldn't have got it if I'd been other than male, white, British, straight I certainly didn't work alongside people obviously outside those narrow criteria.  These days I do.



Not just pre-entry closed shops that had that effect. The whole "getting a union ticket because your Dad was mates with the shop steward" just replaced an even more iniquitous system whereby you got put on because your Dad was mates with the foreman. 

(Would also add that trade unionists played a big part in opening up skilled work eventually too, even if they could have done much more)


----------



## newbie (May 19, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Are you trying to argue  that demographic changes in the work force have taken place due to the abolition of the closed shop?


of course I'm not, any more than I guess you're not trying to argue that equal opps has had no effect in reducing patronage and discrimination.

However, I would argue that the closed shop went without much of a fight and there haven't been great signs of demand for its return.  I don't know how popular it was amongst the w/c as a whole- how could such a thing be measured?- but I suspect those excluded far outweighed those who benefited from it.


----------



## treelover (May 19, 2015)

Trappist said:


> This article is a potential counter to the whole "Labour needs to appeal to the centre" argument:
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/it-was-working-class-not-middle-class-sunk-labour
> 
> ...




There were hundreds of labour posters(and a fair few green ones) in the more leafy and salubrious parts of the city here.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 19, 2015)

Closed shop racism was a symptom of a racist society not a cause.


----------



## treelover (May 19, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Lot of truth in what you say. My son is  27 , he has the values of solidarity and equality for all but has never been in a union , attended a left meeting and despite his mother being in TUSC there is nothing in his daily life experience that would connect him to the cobweb left. The pointers and language that framed left politics for a generation of my age have long since faded and are relevant only to those who are stuck in the left bubble.




maybe something will come out of the phenomenon of lots of primarily young people protesting about austerity after being dormant for some time, but I wouldn't underestimate the capacity of the what is left of the left to fuck it up.


----------



## newbie (May 19, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Closed shop racism was a symptom of a racist society not a cause.


yes that's fair enough, and the same can be said about sexism, homophobia and so on.  It's more difficult to say with much certainty whether it was part of the problem or part of the solution.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> yes that's fair enough, and the same can be said about sexism, homophobia and so on.  It's more difficult to say with much certainty whether it was part of the problem or part of the solution.


Equal opportunities legislation was enacted at least 15 years before the final abolition of the closed shop.


----------



## The39thStep (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> of course I'm not, any more than I guess you're not trying to argue that equal opps has had no effect in reducing patronage and discrimination.
> 
> However, I would argue that the closed shop went without much of a fight and there haven't been great signs of demand for its return.  I don't know how popular it was amongst the w/c as a whole- how could such a thing be measured?- but I suspect those excluded far outweighed those who benefited from it.




It went without much of a fight simply because with the decline of manufacturing and the onslaught against the unions in the 80s  there wasn't much left to fight full stop. The European Courts of Human Rights ruling that dismisal of non union members from closed shops as being against human rights clearly added to anti union legislation.

But back today , what would you say to a workplace where workers wanted an agreement that new staff had to be willing to join the union or a union?


----------



## newbie (May 19, 2015)

cesare said:


> Equal opportunities legislation was enacted at least 15 years before the final abolition of the closed shop.


according to wiki legislation dates back to the Papists Act 1778, but that's perhaps not what you meant


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> according to wiki legislation dates back to the Papists Act 1778, but that's perhaps not what you meant


That's just a smart-arse answer, isn't it?


----------



## newbie (May 19, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> But back today , what would you say to a workplace where workers wanted an agreement that new staff had to be willing to join the union or a union?



well now, if I was one of those on the inside I might see it as a good idea, depending on a whole lot of factors.  However, I have these odd notions of equality and widespread collective solidarity, so no ta.


----------



## newbie (May 19, 2015)

cesare said:


> That's just a smart-arse answer, isn't it?


yes.  but I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was supposed to be answering anything, I thought you were just providing some factual information.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> yes.  but I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was supposed to be answering anything, I thought you were just providing some factual information.


My point was that if there was closed shop racism and sexism, despite eo employee-protective legislation in the mid 70s (and earlier), then they were contributing to a racist and sexist society not merely a symptom of it.


----------



## newbie (May 19, 2015)

cesare said:


> My point was that if there was closed shop racism and sexism, despite eo employee-protective legislation in the mid 70s (and earlier), then they were contributing to a racist and sexist society not merely a symptom of it.


oic, I didn't pick that up, it's a good point and I probably shouldn't have been so flippant about it.


----------



## cesare (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> oic, I didn't pick that up, it's a good point and I probably shouldn't have been so flippant about it.


Tbf I could have made the point more clearly from the outset.


----------



## The39thStep (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> well now, if I was one of those on the inside I might see it as a good idea, depending on a whole lot of factors.  However, I have these odd notions of equality and widespread collective solidarity, so no ta.



You may be surprised that you aren't alone in having notions of equality and widespread solidarity. Some of us think it can be built and sustained form the bottom up, others obviously think that bosses and management have to lead the way or legislation passed.


----------



## newbie (May 19, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> You may be surprised that you aren't alone in having notions of equality and widespread solidarity. Some of us think it can be built and sustained form the bottom up, others obviously think that bosses and management have to lead the way or legislation passed.


well I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'd suggest that equalities legislation largely came from the bottom up and was resisted by 'bosses and management'.  Over the years it's been improved, again from the bottom up, and again those improvements have been resisted.  Having been implemented and improved it has enhanced opportunities for the greater part of the population (ie those who aren't all of male, ethnically acceptable, straight, able bodied and within some preferred agegroup), even though there are probably further improvements necessary.  

Counterposed against that the closed shop may have sprung from skilled and necessary workers but it's hard to see how it improved anything for those it excluded.  Unless you're going to argue that if a bunch of working class blokes do something purely in their own interests they should necessarily be supported, which would seem a little odd.

Whether it's travellers wanting a drink (news yesterday) or someone wanting a cake iced (today), people rely on equalities legislation for protection. 

Do you think it matters whether discrimination stems from management or workforce?


----------



## Trotsky007 (May 19, 2015)

Closed shops were broken by management and the ruling class so they could increase exploitation and increase profits. Whatever criticism you may have of them it is fairly clear that workplaces with strong unions have better health and safety, better conditions and higher pay. If there are groups of workers getting a good deal it tends to act as a benchmark for others to aim for. Workers may not be in the closed shop but the standard of conditions set will help them indirectly.

It is odd to say that it is odd to support 'a bunch of working class blokes' who 'do something purely in their own interest'. (As an aside, would it be ok if it was working class women?) While we would all like to see strikes for others interests such as solidarity strikes most industrial action is exactly about the workers self interest. Read Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet 'The Mass Strike' for a good discussion about this. So yes I would support nearly every bit of industrial action (except if it was racist for example) as it puts the workers into conflict with their ruling class. It then makes them more likely to take political industrial action and eventually puts revolution on the menu. You can't jump straight from inaction to revolution - there are messy intermediates.


----------



## redcogs (May 19, 2015)

Trotsky007 said:


> Closed shops were broken by management and the ruling class so they could increase exploitation and increase profits. Whatever criticism you may have of them it is fairly clear that workplaces with strong unions have better health and safety, better conditions and higher pay. If there are groups of workers getting a good deal it tends to act as a benchmark for others to aim for. Workers may not be in the closed shop but the standard of conditions set will help them indirectly.
> 
> It is odd to say that it is odd to support 'a bunch of working class blokes' who 'do something purely in their own interest'. (As an aside, would it be ok if it was working class women?) While we would all like to see strikes for others interests such as solidarity strikes most industrial action is exactly about the workers self interest. Read Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet 'The Mass Strike' for a good discussion about this. So yes I would support nearly every bit of industrial action (except if it was racist for example) as it puts the workers into conflict with their ruling class. It then makes them more likely to take political industrial action and eventually puts revolution on the menu. You can't jump straight from inaction to revolution - there are messy intermediates.



i'd mostly accept this.  But closed shops are not essential for strong workers organisation and effective militant trade unionism.

i believe in the France of 1968 trade union penetration was quite limited, but that did not prevent the general strike.

And are there not political downsides to closed shop situations? - ie, right wing shits who resist joining can readily become martyrs for the employers anti unionism creating unnecessary divisions.

The circumstances we face today really do not warrant major debates about closed shop trade unionism or not - the main issue is building effective trade union consciousness from the fragments of serious defeat and enduring decline. (imho)


----------



## redcogs (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> Do you think it matters whether discrimination stems from management or workforce?



Employers and their governments (Labour or Conservative) concede progressive legislation when a powerful and effective movement for social change  has already developed within society.  The rafts of empowering UK parliamentary concessions of the 1960s, and the similar turns towards civil rights in the USA at the same time seem to make this quite obvious?

Just an observation.


----------



## newbie (May 19, 2015)

For various reasons you're not going to get much more from me I'm afraid, I've run out of time, but I'll respond to this before I go.


Trotsky007 said:


> Closed shops were broken by management and the ruling class so they could increase exploitation and increase profits. Whatever criticism you may have of them it is fairly clear that workplaces with strong unions have better health and safety, better conditions and higher pay. If there are groups of workers getting a good deal it tends to act as a benchmark for others to aim for. Workers may not be in the closed shop but the standard of conditions set will help them indirectly.


Really?  I'm not so sure.  Obviously I don't dissent from the general point about strong unions.  But closed shops institutionalised differentials, ie cemented the hierarchy within the workforce.  Leapfrog disputes sprang from that and, let's face it, rewarded those with the strongest grip on the levers of production, the skilled workers with the best jobs.  The presence of closed shops did not reward those who would like to have had the opportunity to do the best jobs but were instead stuck doing something more monotonous and less well paid, nor did they reward those without any job at all.  

I could never quite understand how it was in the interests of the working class for an entire factory workforce to lose a days pay when a small closed shop fought to maintain their differential advantage, and I don't think I was alone in that.



> It is odd to say that it is odd to support 'a bunch of working class blokes' who 'do something purely in their own interest'. (As an aside, would it be ok if it was working class women?)


If it's in their own interests as against those less well off than themselves then I'm not predisposed to automatic support.  Each case on its merits though.


----------



## Trappist (May 19, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Whenever i meet former cadres from my political past i am struck first of all by how old they are...


If only they'd done like you and put a magic portrait in the attic.


----------



## The39thStep (May 19, 2015)

newbie said:


> well I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I'd suggest that equalities legislation largely came from the bottom up and was resisted by 'bosses and management'.  Over the years it's been improved, again from the bottom up, and again those improvements have been resisted.  Having been implemented and improved it has enhanced opportunities for the greater part of the population (ie those who aren't all of male, ethnically acceptable, straight, able bodied and within some preferred agegroup), even though there are probably further improvements necessary.
> 
> Counterposed against that the closed shop may have sprung from skilled and necessary workers but it's hard to see how it improved anything for those it excluded.  Unless you're going to argue that if a bunch of working class blokes do something purely in their own interests they should necessarily be supported, which would seem a little odd.
> 
> ...



First of all you counterpose equalities legislation against the closed shop, then you counterpose the closed shop against equality and 'widespread collective solidarity, and finally closed shops against internal recruiment policies and tackling unemployment. We no longer live or work in a society that has the differentials of the 70s or indeed the particular skills and training that were required for production methods at that time nor do we live in an economy that has the huge mass production plants that dominated engineering , steel, the print etc.  The closed shop simply means that all workers have to be in a trade union. Members of trade unions are not all white, all male, all straight or  all anything. They have members who have all sorts of political views and all sorts of abilities and skills. Its then up to the union and the employers to  negotiate working practises within existing legislation.


----------



## newbie (May 20, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> First of all you counterpose equalities legislation against the closed shop, then you counterpose the closed shop against equality and 'widespread collective solidarity, and finally closed shops against internal recruiment policies and tackling unemployment.


that's right, because the posts I initially responded to were about real life examples of how the far-left works in practice, and how that could be applied today, so I said why I don't think the closed shop is an example many would hark back to. 


> We no longer live or work in a society that has the differentials of the 70s or indeed the particular skills and training that were required for production methods at that time nor do we live in an economy that has the huge mass production plants that dominated engineering , steel, the print etc.  The closed shop simply means that all workers have to be in a trade union. Members of trade unions are not all white, all male, all straight or  all anything. They have members who have all sorts of political views and all sorts of abilities and skills. Its then up to the union and the employers to  negotiate working practises within existing legislation.


Closed shops, pre- or post-entry, are unlawful so the point is moot.  I'm not aware that anyone is campaigning for their return, were they to do so I'd need a lot of persuading that they're compatible with my sense of fairness, equality and so on.  And, to pick up on something *Trotsky007* said, that there's any evidence to support the assertion that they provide a '_benchmark for others to aim for'_- which sounds like a variant of trickle-down to me.


----------



## The39thStep (May 20, 2015)

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean when in your first sentence re how far left works in practise. Are you saying the closed shop was an example of how the far left worked in practise ?


----------



## redcogs (May 20, 2015)

Trappist said:


> If only they'd done like you and put a magic portrait in the attic.



Hmm.  i missed this cryptic aside yesterday.

i've pondered upon it, and decided that it is friendly(ish).  i havn't quite arrived at that moment of acute regret, when i plunge the  knife into my "magical portrait", but i will admit that its been a close call several times..

 Ho hum.


----------



## newbie (May 20, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Sorry but I don't understand what you mean when in your first sentence re how far left works in practise. Are you saying the closed shop was an example of how the far left worked in practise ?


I'm saying that I wrote in response to #18511 at the top of page 618 (!!) which brought up the closed shop in that context.  I wouldn't personally want to define what 'far-left' means, but the era when closed shops were high on the agenda was littered with that description of those in them, and those (of us*) who argued for them.	

I don't suppose you want to define 'far-left' either... 

*yes, in their mid/late 70s heyday I defended them and aspired to, and eventually did, join.  Subsequently (and perhaps consequently) I've changed my mind, coming to realise that I don't necessarily have to agree with everything wanted by other enemies of my enemy even if I agree with a lot of what they say.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 20, 2015)

newbie said:


> For various reasons you're not going to get much more from me I'm afraid, I've run out of time, but I'll respond to this before I go.
> 
> Really?  I'm not so sure.  Obviously I don't dissent from the general point about strong unions.  But closed shops institutionalised differentials, ie cemented the hierarchy within the workforce.  Leapfrog disputes sprang from that and, let's face it, rewarded those with the strongest grip on the levers of production, the skilled workers with the best jobs.  The presence of closed shops did not reward those who would like to have had the opportunity to do the best jobs but were instead stuck doing something more monotonous and less well paid, nor did they reward those without any job at all.
> 
> ...



A lot of this isn't really born out by the wage statistics for that period, which show differentials between skilled and unskilled workers in heavily-unionised sectors contracting in the 1960s and 1970s rather than expanding/stabilising. One of the reasons for that is because "leapfrog" actually more often involved lower-paid workers using the rates received by better-paid workers as an argument to improve their own wages. Also, one of the reasons that many workers were often accepting of closing whole factories to support the claims of a particular section was that lots recognised that if the small group won then they'd be in the office asking for the same thing the day after. Finally, the thing about having whole factories as closed shops, rather than just particular sections of them, is that they de facto ended up helping the lowest-paid and most precariously-placed workers to organise, with the result that they often enabled groups of workers stuck in low-skilled work to (a) improve their pay and conditions and (b) started getting groups of well-organised unskilled workers demanding to be given access to better work through progression schemes.

That's the general picture anyway (not saying your particular experience isn't different, btw). IMO, if you're looking for the real culprit when it comes to people being stuck in the same mundane work for years on end, I'd point the finger as British firms' general reluctance to provide in-house training, especially to adults.


----------



## newbie (May 20, 2015)

Interesting, tvm.  I did look for some (unbiased) stats along those lines but couldn't really find anything that distilled wages, inflation, industrial disputes and so on into something digestible.  I'd also want to compare differentials against those who were not in unionised industries- which only covered part of the workforce.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 20, 2015)

newbie said:


> Interesting, tvm.  I did look for some (unbiased) stats along those lines but couldn't really find anything that distilled wages, inflation, industrial disputes and so on into something digestible.  I'd also want to compare differentials against those who were not in unionised industries- which only covered part of the workforce.


The stats I have to hand are for the motor industry (from an article in a peer-reviewed journal) & are as follows:

Skilled toolmaker as percentage of semi-skilled storekeeper: 1967 to 1978 162.1% to 1978 123%
Skilled production to semi-skilled storekeeper: 139.5% to 121.6%
Skilled toolmaker to unskilled labourer 179.2% to 132.9%
Skilled toolmaker to skilled production 105.1% to 101.1%
Semi-skilled storekeeper to unskilled labourer: 122.3% to 108.1%

So basically the less skill you had, the more the "high tide" of trade unionism pushed up your wages, at least in the motor industry.

Elsewhere, the differential between unionised and non-unionised goes from +28% in 1964 to +36% in 1975 (haven't got the figures for the 5 years after that to hand, sorry).
There's a slight compression of wage inequality between industries overall, with some unionised groups rectifying slipping wages (Miners get a huge bump via their strikes in 1972 and 1974, up 34% on other male manuals) and others losing a bit of their differential (car workers wages drop 8% compared to the average male manual in this period). There's also a general decline in the difference between non-manual men to manual men with the former dropping from 134% of the latter down to 122% between 1970 and 1979.
Finally, women's pay relative to men is basically stagnant at sub-50% until the spike in strike levels late 1960s, at which point it jumps to 58% in the mid-1970s (part related to the Sex Discrimination Act, but also related to the example set by various groups of women strikers in this period. Many of them in closed shops).


----------



## cesare (May 20, 2015)

Part related to the Equal Pay Act too, probably more so because that was 1970 whilst the SDA wasn't until 1975


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 20, 2015)

cesare said:


> Part related to the Equal Pay Act too, probably more so because that was 1970 whilst the SDA wasn't until 1975


Sorry yeah, I meant the Equal Pay Act (although even that's phased in. I think the beginnings of a shift happen because of a cultural change... of which Dagenham '68 is both a symptom and a catalyst).

Glad you're not on my viva panel.


----------



## cesare (May 20, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Sorry yeah, I meant the Equal Pay Act (although even that's phased in. I think the beginnings of a shift happen because of a cultural change... of which Dagenham '68 is both a symptom and a catalyst).
> 
> Glad you're not on my viva panel.


 I'd be interested in reading your thesis, mind.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 20, 2015)

cesare said:


> I'd be interested in reading your thesis, mind.


It's about a week from finished and then I'd be glad to send it to you!


----------



## cesare (May 20, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> It's about a week from finished and then I'd be glad to send it to you!


Oh good luck! Yes, that would be great, thank you


----------



## cesare (May 20, 2015)

Also impending entry into the EU in 1973 and compliance with article 141 had an impact too


----------



## The39thStep (May 20, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> The stats I have to hand are for the motor industry (from an article in a peer-reviewed journal) & are as follows:
> 
> Skilled toolmaker as percentage of semi-skilled storekeeper: 1967 to 1978 162.1% to 1978 123%
> Skilled production to semi-skilled storekeeper: 139.5% to 121.6%
> ...


Excellent stats and summary mate


----------



## discokermit (May 20, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Didn't realise you work in a care home discokermit fairplay.


i'm just unfortunate in being the class of person who has to work til they are sixty five and am surrounded by others of the same class.
what happens to the over fifty fives in your world? is it the villa in tuscany?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 20, 2015)

discokermit said:


> i'm just unfortunate in being the class of person who has to work til they are sixty five and am surrounded by others of the same class.
> what happens to the over fifty fives in your world? is it the villa in tuscany?


Dead or on the sick


----------



## discokermit (May 20, 2015)

being an alaskan crab fisherman must be tough. that is what you do?


----------



## Blagsta (May 20, 2015)

discokermit said:


> i'm just unfortunate in being the class of person who has to work til they are sixty five and am surrounded by others of the same class.
> what happens to the over fifty fives in your world? is it the villa in tuscany?



65?  Lucky sod.  I'm gonna have to work until I'm 68


----------



## discokermit (May 20, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> 65?  Lucky sod.  I'm gonna have to work until I'm 68


that's not the rule now though. is it? i'll fucking starve before i work til sixty eight. cunts.


----------



## The39thStep (May 20, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Dead or on the sick


Or on here lol


----------



## Trappist (May 20, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Hmm.  i missed this cryptic aside yesterday.
> 
> i've pondered upon it, and decided that it is friendly(ish).


Well it wasn't meant to be unfriendly, unless you're incredibly thin skinned .

Your remark that 



redcogs said:


> Whenever i meet former cadres from my political past i am struck first of all by how old they are.



tickled me. 

As someone who can remember 70s I am slightly perturbed that the age profiles in my particular niches seem to have kept pace with me. For instance trainspotters and organised lefties are now much older whereas MPs and the police are ever younger.

Also, I did wonder how long since you'd seen these comrades for them to have aged so.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 20, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> Excellent stats and summary mate


Thanks, good to find an outlet for some of this info I've been accumulating for the last three and half years...


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2015)

discokermit said:


> that's not the rule now though. is it? i'll fucking starve before i work til sixty eight. cunts.


depends just how old you are.  I'm meant to work till 67 at the mo, tho the fuckers will probably change that. And I wont be able to afford to quit either


----------



## redcogs (May 21, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Well it wasn't meant to be unfriendly, unless you're incredibly thin skinned .
> 
> Your remark that
> 
> ...



i hadn't seen the geezer who had represented TUSC in the election for almost a decade, which isn't a surprise given the 400 mile geographical distance that separates us 

i was also alluding to an impression that i have about the age of yer average SWP cadre, and the extent to which new faces have failed to emerge since i was active - although i've no evidence for this, just my eyes.

At 64 i am a bit thin skinned, like parchment on the back of my hands.  If the SWP could reverse the ageing process and improve ones general health i might consider rejoining


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2015)

chilango said:


> The far-left has nothing concrete to offer people. No real life examples of how it works in practise. Living memory no longer goes back far enough.
> 
> A few occupied university buldingp in Paris in 1968, a factory or two in Turin in 1977, some squatted houses in Berlin in 1981 a few villages in the Mexican jungle in 1994. That's all that I can draw on, what chance for everyone else?
> 
> ...


 
This is why the "Left" is best conceived as offering a critique of capitalism, rather than an alternative to it.

It's also why the entire concept of the "Left" is obsolete, along with that of the "Right."


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Depends on the context really. At university I think what put a lot of people off of the left, even if they were sympathetic to various causes, was the fact that they (imo correctly) saw left wing students as part of an exclusive subculture with particular clothes, musical preferences and even diets. To a lot of people they just *looked* odd, even if you wanted to join in with them... what would your mates say? They might say that you were a bit weird as well.


 
Well then the solution is simple.  The "Left" needs to dress better.  Then it will attract lots of lovely new followers innit.

Jesus.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 21, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> This is why the "Left" is best conceived as offering a critique of capitalism, rather than an alternative to it.
> 
> It's also why the entire concept of the "Left" is obsolete, along with that of the "Right."


so what you're saying, being as you believe the entire concept of the left is obselete, is that the former left's critique of capitalism is obselete.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> so what you're saying, being as you believe the entire concept of the left is obselete, is that the former left's critique of capitalism is obselete.


 
You catch on fast.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 21, 2015)




----------



## Flavour (May 21, 2015)

Is the rights support of capitalism also obsolete then? I seem to remember being able to trade cows for sheep and there being some abstract relative value to these concepts being the opening salve of a certain posters proof of the Diety.


----------



## phildwyer (May 21, 2015)

Flavour said:


> Is the rights support of capitalism also obsolete then?


 
The idea that only the "Right" supports capitalism is certainly obsolete.


----------



## Trappist (May 21, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> The idea that only the "Right" supports capitalism is certainly obsolete.


And entirely ahistorical.


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Thanks, good to find an outlet for some of this info I've been accumulating for the last three and half years...


I agree with them up there, very interesting.  And I wish you all the best with your viva, whatever that is.

a couple of things I'd reflect on, though it's your specialist subject and I'm loathe to do more than try and learn. 

First the context: British Leyland- 150,000+ workers, 40% of the British car market- went bust and was nationalised in 1975.  10 years later it had collapsed into ruin and many tens of thousands had lost their jobs.  Is that a fair summary? 

I don't know what period your detailed reading covers, but any brief googling about the later 70s will throw up histories pinning the blame on appalling management, on inept political leadership (ie Callaghan, who came from a TU background and led the attack on _In Place of Strife_), on particularly badly designed cars, on the energy crisis, worldwide inflation, etc etc.  But they all seem to agree that industrial relations were a contributory factor, with iro a million or so days per year production affected by strike action.

This contemporary account says "For manual workers in the Cars division alone there are currently 58 bargaining units and 324 pay rates".  How much of what happened really related to closed shop demarcation and differentials I don't know, but whilst the figures you gave are important, it's worth remembering that it all ended in tears.

We all know what happened in 1979, the almost entirely negative effects of which are still reverberating. It would be a bit hard to pretend that the events that kept the car industry in the news week after week, month after month for years didn't have some effect in prompting some w/c voters to swing to the Tories (eg both Oxford, including Cowley, and Brum Northfield, inc Longbridge, went from Lab to Tory between '74 and '79, the latter with a 13% swing).

You don't have to be an arch-capitalist to wonder whether, in retrospect, it was all such a great idea.


----------



## Trappist (May 21, 2015)

newbie said:


> First the context: British Leyland- 150,000+ workers, 40% of the British car market- went bust and was nationalised in 1975.  10 years later it had collapsed into ruin and many tens of thousands had lost their jobs.  Is that a fair summary?
> 
> I don't know what period your detailed reading covers, but any brief googling about the later 70s will throw up histories pinning the blame on appalling management, on inept political leadership (ie Callaghan, who came from a TU background and led the attack on _In Place of Strife_), on particularly badly designed cars, on the energy crisis, worldwide inflation, etc etc.  But they all seem to agree that industrial relations were a contributory factor, with iro a million or so days per year production affected by strike action.
> ...
> You don't have to be an arch-capitalist to wonder whether, in retrospect, it was all such a great idea.


You do have to wonder, don't you. 

Was BL any more strike prone than Ford or GM? Actually, I don't know the comparative figures*, but a comrade in Dagenham told me that in the 70s he put aside enough money each year to see him through at least a week's strike. So maybe not that different.

Another possibility is that BL were rumoured to have lost £30 on each Mini sold. Whose fault was that?

* Don't have time to check**

** Can't be arsed to either


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 21, 2015)

newbie said:


> I agree with them up there, very interesting.  And I wish you all the best with your viva, whatever that is.



Thanks, it's the examination for my doctoral thesis (which is what I did all this research for).



> a couple of things I'd reflect on, though it's your specialist subject and I'm loathe to do more than try and learn.
> 
> First the context: British Leyland- 150,000+ workers, 40% of the British car market- went bust and was nationalised in 1975.  10 years later it had collapsed into ruin and many tens of thousands had lost their jobs.  Is that a fair summary?



Give or take. BL didn't collapse into ruin, it stumbled on as a nationalised company, first as Austin-Rover (1982) then as Rover Group (1986), with bits and pieces being sold off along the way (the government disposed of the last of it to BAE in 1988). Parts of it still exist (Swindon and Cowley as part of BMW Mini, Solihull as part of Jaguar Land Rover).



> I don't know what period your detailed reading covers, but any brief googling about the later 70s will throw up histories pinning the blame on appalling management, on inept political leadership (ie Callaghan, who came from a TU background and led the attack on _In Place of Strife_), on particularly badly designed cars, on the energy crisis, worldwide inflation, etc etc.  But they all seem to agree that industrial relations were a contributory factor, with iro a million or so days per year production affected by strike action.
> 
> This contemporary account says "For manual workers in the Cars division alone there are currently 58 bargaining units and 324 pay rates".  How much of what happened really related to closed shop demarcation and differentials I don't know, but whilst the figures you gave are important, it's worth remembering that it all ended in tears.



Well, first I'd say that this is a very different question to the original one posed around differentials. It's also a question I don't really address in my work, which is mainly about workplace cultures and shop-floor union organisation. If I were to address it though, I'd point out that although BL does have a lot of strikes (more than 1.6m striker days a year 1970-78 in fact), it is by no means alone in that regard, either within Britain or globally. If tranquil industrial relations was a pre-requisite for factories surviving the 1970s then there'd be no European/US car firms left other than the German and Swedish ones by now.



> We all know what happened in 1979, the almost entirely negative effects of which are still reverberating. It would be a bit hard to pretend that the events that kept the car industry in the news week after week, month after month for years didn't have some effect in prompting some w/c voters to swing to the Tories (eg both Oxford, including Cowley, and Brum Northfield, inc Longbridge, went from Lab to Tory between '74 and '79, the latter with a 13% swing).
> 
> You don't have to be an arch-capitalist to wonder whether, in retrospect, it was all such a great idea.



Difficult to unpick that one really. It's a Labour government that starts rationalising BL (under Michael Edwardes from 1977) and Callaghan's administration is consistently critical of motor industry strikes (in fact Labour is in general throughout the post-war period). Also, the Tory election campaign in 1979 is less anti-union than is often imagined after the fact, so I'd say the "car workers voted Tory to end union militancy" is a difficult one to prove.


----------



## redcogs (May 21, 2015)

newbie said:


> I agree with them up there, very interesting.  And I wish you all the best with your viva, whatever that is.
> 
> a couple of things I'd reflect on, though it's your specialist subject and I'm loathe to do more than try and learn.
> 
> ...




it is a bit difficult trying to imagine a (or re-remember in my case) 1960s and 70s world in which trade union influence and militantancy had not arisen isn't it?

Your potted history refers to the economic backdrop of crisis in energy and inflation, but you don't really seem to recognise the link between these factors and how they might have produced a working class response.  What i'm meaning is that when your wages are failing to pay your bills there are only a limited number of reactions that can be taken.  One, of course is not to respond at all and watch your family being driven into deeper poverty and despair by the ever increasing prices of basics..  Another is to chase other forms of employment, if you can, to try to keep your hourly rate for the job to a level that can support expected living standards, which is far easier to achieve as an academic paper exercise than in the reality (for many) of industry related communities (mines, shipbuilding, car working etc).  The favoured option of the period as i recall it was to use your collective bargaining strength of numbers and protect your general interests through trade unionism.  Voting Labour, particularly in the 1970s, wasn't really an immediate or viable means of addressing the rapidly mounting economic problems.  Voting to withdraw your labour until your wages were increased was.

The millions who did so were acting both reasonably and rationally under the social political and economic circumstances of the period.

We could do with a similar reaction from the working class trade union side today.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 21, 2015)

redcogs said:


> The millions who did so were acting both reasonably and rationally under the social political and economic circumstances of the period.


Worth bearing in mind too that it's a bit ahistorical to read backwards from Thatcherism and tell people how they should've behaved in the 1970s. Firstly, because they were reacting to what was happening to them at the time, not thinking about a hypothetical future in which government priorities shifted from maintaining employment to using unemployment to control inflation. Secondly, because not going on strike was by no means a guarantee that your job would eventually survive Thatcherism. Finally, are we really going to hold the people with the least formal authority and deriving the least benefit accountable for the success or failure of the enterprises they worked for?


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 21, 2015)

Trappist said:


> You do have to wonder, don't you.
> 
> Was BL any more strike prone than Ford or GM? Actually, I don't know the comparative figures*, but a comrade in Dagenham told me that in the 70s he put aside enough money each year to see him through at least a week's strike. So maybe not that different.
> 
> ...


The government didn't collate statistics by firm, and the firms' own statistic gathering is too inconsistent to compare but I can tell you that between 1971-79 disproportionately few of the largest dispute take place at BL factories (the largest two are the national Ford strikes in 1971 and 1979, followed by the Vauxhall national strike in 1977, then the BL toolmakers in 1977 - which is a very one-off event, wholly untypical of BL -, followed by a big Ellesmere Port Vauxhall strike and a national Chrysler strike in 1979).

BL did lose money on the Mini's sold (according to Ford anyway), because they basically didn't have a functioning cost control department. Which really does bring home how unlikely it is that BL would've survived even if its workers had been perfectly obedient little angels...


----------



## redcogs (May 21, 2015)

i was proud to own an austin maxi until the bastards set Derek Robinson (remember Red Robbo BL convenor) up and sacked him.

Moved to a Lada riva after that!


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 21, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i was proud to own an austin maxi until the bastards set Derek Robinson (remember Red Robbo BL convenor) up and sacked him.
> 
> Moved to a Lada riva after that!


Irony being that Derek Robinson stopped far more strikes than he ever started. BL just fired him to make a statement really.


----------



## redcogs (May 21, 2015)

i'm sure that is true, on both counts.  But the capitalist press of the time did a serious hatchet job on Robbo, preparing the ground for many similar initiatives across various industries.  

Do you have stats for political victimisations Lo Siento?  Are there any?


----------



## The39thStep (May 21, 2015)

is Newbie wrong?


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 22, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i'm sure that is true, on both counts.  But the capitalist press of the time did a serious hatchet job on Robbo, preparing the ground for many similar initiatives across various industries.
> 
> Do you have stats for political victimisations Lo Siento?  Are there any?


No stats (stats like that are pretty much impossible to collect, because neither employers nor ministries ever list dismissals in that way), but plenty of cases. In the immediate post-war period (say 1945-51) it's pretty much routine. Union organisation is weak and car firms engage in a lot of casual hiring and firing (there remains a tendency to let people go after the annual motor show, for instance). So Ford get rid of a lot of CPers in 1946, as do Morris Motors (including the convenor of Cowley in 1947). At Standard the company wants to use stewards as gang leaders to raise productivity, so they accept a closed shop. They later change their mind and sack the factory convenor (CP) at Canley in 1956. Rootes tries to fire the senior stewards at Ryton in 1948 but backs down after a strike. At Longbridge, they sack the leader of the factory CP branch in 1951, then the NUVB convenor in 1952. 

There is ostensibly a large gap after that. The unions get stronger and management more accepting of them, so _senior_ union figures don't generally get victimised in the 1960s and 1970s. There are some exceptions to this, as firms try to restore some older managerial prerogatives. Ford dismiss 16 CPers, including the convenors and deputy convenor of the Dagenham assembly plant in 1962, essentially because they want more control over line speed. Morris sack the TGWU convenor in 1959 because they want control over overtime rotas. But between them and Robinson there's few cases where senior stewards get sacked. What does happen though is that figures who are more marginal politically and who the established factory leadership aren't prepared to support continue to get fired. For instance, I've got a case from the mid-1960s where Longbridge fire a steward for the labourers called B.A.Lynam. He's a bit of a one-man band who writes a paper called the United Car Worker, and who's part of a tiny group called the Anti-capitalist Tendency. He's evidently quite irritating to both the factory union leadership and management, so they quietly get rid. Chrysler do the same to John Worth, an IS member at their Stoke Aldermoor engine factory, in 1973. There's a brief discussion on the stewards committee about "the merits of Brother Worth" but they never end up in doing anything about it. Ford also sack a load of stewards for leading a mini-riot (where they tour the factory smashing up cars) in the mid-70s.

Then, post-Robbo, it's open season really and the cases of victimisation become more common.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 22, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> is Newbie wrong?


About which bit? 
On the closed shop maintaining differentials, they might have tried to and succeeded in some cases, but generally I don't think the stats bear it out more generally.
On the workers killing BL, I think it was doomed either way for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Trotsky007 (May 22, 2015)

The discussion about closed shops etc has been really interesting. Thanks to all concerned.


----------



## charlie mowbray (May 22, 2015)

B.A. Lynam mentioned by Lo Siento is Brian Lynam. (see the interview by Ian Birchall with the late Alan Woodward. Here's an excerpt

"_When did you first meet Cliff?_

I first got involved in politics – I was on a train and I bumped into a man called Brian Lynam, who is still I understand living in West London, having come back from being a Posadist in Brazil or Argentina or somewhere, and from him I got involved in all sorts of activities in the South Paddington Labour Party, the CND and there was a Socialist Review readers meeting – it had people like John [Alan forgets name, maybe John Palmer or John Phillips] and Brian Lynam and various other people and Cliff naturally came over to speak to this at some point in time. I had long conversations with in particular a man called Jim Plant who now runs a thing called Red Lion out at Stanton Abbots – he’s the British representative of the SWP or one of the old Trotskyist organisations. In my recorded notes I have long accounts of the discussions I had with Jimmy Plant primarily and also Brian Lynam, etc. And that more or less set me into the philosophy that later became the International Socialists.

_When exactly was this?_

That would be from 1960, possibly 1959, onwards. I finished National Service halfway through 1959 and then I did a teacher training course - one of these crash two-year courses at the college up there and while I was there I was in constant contact with Brian Lynam. I used to live with him in the vacations in a flat in Notting Hill. I became great friends with Brian Lynam. He was the best man at my wedding in 1962. And we went on holiday in Scotland, where we slept in barns and railway trains and various things like that. I became very very close to him personally.
In terms of Cliff I invited him down to the college I was at - a teacher training college, St Mark and St John – and I was trying to get him to speak to a small socialist society that I had set up – there hadn’t been one before and I had set it up. But in the end he came down and I met him at the gate in the King’s Road and we went in and there was a very small meeting – about four etc. – However he spoke. I saw him to the gate – I’m not sure if we gave him any money. That was when I lived over in West London. "
So United Car Worker was the car bulletin of the Posadists (the "flying saucer Trots") A Marie Lynam ( wife, daughter, sister?) is still active in them. They also used the moniker "The Class Tendency" as a front name in addition to "The Anti-Capitalist Tendency". Active in Austin and Vauxhall factories.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 22, 2015)

Lo Siento. - did you say this was part of a Doctorate? are you going to publish this work at some point?


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 22, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> B.A. Lynam mentioned by Lo Siento is Brian Lynam. (see the interview by Ian Birchall with the late Alan Woodward. Here's an excerpt
> 
> "_When did you first meet Cliff?_
> 
> ...



That's brilliant CM, thanks!

I've actually found some of his handywork in the Longbridge JSSC correspondence file:

   

See if you can work out why he got sacked... (it's related to the conversation above)


----------



## redcogs (May 22, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> No stats (stats like that are pretty much impossible to collect, because neither employers nor ministries ever list dismissals in that way), but plenty of cases. In the immediate post-war period (say 1945-51) it's pretty much routine. Union organisation is weak and car firms engage in a lot of casual hiring and firing (there remains a tendency to let people go after the annual motor show, for instance). So Ford get rid of a lot of CPers in 1946, as do Morris Motors (including the convenor of Cowley in 1947). At Standard the company wants to use stewards as gang leaders to raise productivity, so they accept a closed shop. They later change their mind and sack the factory convenor (CP) at Canley in 1956. Rootes tries to fire the senior stewards at Ryton in 1948 but backs down after a strike. At Longbridge, they sack the leader of the factory CP branch in 1951, then the NUVB convenor in 1952.
> 
> There is ostensibly a large gap after that. The unions get stronger and management more accepting of them, so _senior_ union figures don't generally get victimised in the 1960s and 1970s. There are some exceptions to this, as firms try to restore some older managerial prerogatives. Ford dismiss 16 CPers, including the convenors and deputy convenor of the Dagenham assembly plant in 1962, essentially because they want more control over line speed. Morris sack the TGWU convenor in 1959 because they want control over overtime rotas. But between them and Robinson there's few cases where senior stewards get sacked. What does happen though is that figures who are more marginal politically and who the established factory leadership aren't prepared to support continue to get fired. For instance, I've got a case from the mid-1960s where Longbridge fire a steward for the labourers called B.A.Lynam. He's a bit of a one-man band who writes a paper called the United Car Worker, and who's part of a tiny group called the Anti-capitalist Tendency. He's evidently quite irritating to both the factory union leadership and management, so they quietly get rid. Chrysler do the same to John Worth, an IS member at their Stoke Aldermoor engine factory, in 1973. There's a brief discussion on the stewards committee about "the merits of Brother Worth" but they never end up in doing anything about it. Ford also sack a load of stewards for leading a mini-riot (where they tour the factory smashing up cars) in the mid-70s.
> 
> Then, post-Robbo, it's open season really and the cases of victimisation become more common.



Quality stuff Lo Siento.  Most of us have probably already got a realistic understanding of the ruthlessness of the boss class in their dealings with those whose ideas that they find inconvenient and challenging, but its good to have some actual examples that illustrate how far they are prepared to go to protect their business interests.

Your phd thesis will make for fascinating reading.  Maybe, as already suggested, you will publish?


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 22, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> Lo Siento. - did you say this was part of a Doctorate? are you going to publish this work at some point?


Hopefully yes, but it'll likely take forever... Part of the research is already published in a journal article (if people want to PM I'll happily send details)


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 22, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Quality stuff Lo Siento.  Most of us have probably already got a realistic understanding of the ruthlessness of the boss class in their dealings with those whose ideas that they find inconvenient and challenging, but its good to have some actual examples that illustrate how far they are prepared to go to protect their business interests.
> 
> Your phd thesis will make for fascinating reading.  Maybe, as already suggested, you will publish?


I think there's been a general forgetting (not amongst most of the people here but still...) that the post-war settlement didn't really extend any new rights to workers, and that people took a lot of risks trying to influence it in positive ways in the decades after.

Planning to publish eventually, but it's a long way off.


----------



## charlie mowbray (May 22, 2015)

More on the Posadists here (including info on the United Car Worker -fucking sick of that Judean People's Front joke though, qouted by every smartarse thinking they are hilarious!)
http://thoughts-of-chairperson-mikey.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/trotskyists-in-space.html


----------



## Trappist (May 22, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> I think there's been a general forgetting (not amongst most of the people here but still...) that the post-war settlement didn't really extend any new rights to workers, and that people took a lot of risks trying to influence it in positive ways in the decades after.
> 
> Planning to publish eventually, but it's a long way off.


It's spooky when you first realise the times you lived through are being taught as history. This really does sound like a worthwhile thesis, hope it gets the attention it deserves.

I won't hold my breath for the publication, I know you'll likely have to rewrite it for a different audience, but I think some of your comments above suggest it might be pertinent to current debates about the precariat.


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> is Newbie wrong?



within the context of U75 that doesn't bother me, I'm more interested in the conversation, in what other people think, than in being part of the crowd that is _right_ or _right-on_.  It's sometimes a little frustrating when people sidestep posting their own views, possibly from concern about being thought _wrong_.

Are people in favour of the return of the closed shop?  More a thought experiment rather than an immediate practical possibility, but possibly worthwhile? 

Post-entry or pre-entry are different, but both have their issues.  One is the ECHR position on human rights- enforcing a closed shop potentially means punishing dissenters for thought crimes.  Another is equal opportunities, can recruitment and retention be seen to be entirely fair if one characteristic- union membership- overrides all other criteria?  Can branch structures really be guaranteed to eliminate discrimination of one sort or another?

Yet as demonstrated there could be real positives for w/c living standards as well as for solidarity and self determination- which are somewhere near the heart of what it means to be on the left.  So maybe it's a fundamental demand?

But it's wider than that... there's a parallel thread about whether cis women should welcome or be able to exclude self-identified trans women from women only spaces; we've just had a fine barney about whether football fans should exclude a 'known abuser' from their stand; part of the election debate was about the extent to which the host community should limit movement of foreign labour; those in the eye of the gentrification storm seek community power to restrain individual capital...  

I'm not looking to bring the detail of any of them (or other, equally pertinent, debates) into this, just noting that this discussion doesn't exist in isolation, that in different contexts we sometimes adopt different positions on whether the collective interests of what might be called 'insiders' trump those of 'outsiders', whether collectively or individually.

There may be no consistent position to take on these disparate issues, but maybe there is.   In wondering whether the closed shop is a desirable part of the programme of whatever it means to be on the left, or on the far left, in 2015 the interplay between collective and individual rights, responbsibilties, aspirations etc seems pretty central.


----------



## The39thStep (May 23, 2015)

> But it's wider than that... there's a parallel thread about whether cis women should welcome or be able to exclude self-identified trans women from women only spaces; we've just had a fine barney about whether football fans should exclude a 'known abuser' from their stand; part of the election debate was about the extent to which the host community should limit movement of foreign labour; those in the eye of the gentrification storm seek community power to restrain individual capital...



Should there be more legislation to cover this or should we welcome challenges using existing legislation to resolves these issues. Should they play out in a political debate or discussion? 

Interesting question by Kenan Malik on one of the court cases that you highlighted in a previous post 





> If gay baker refused to make cake for Christian with the slogan 'Homosexuality is a sin' - would that be illegal too?


----------



## newbie (May 23, 2015)

I think there's possibly a (bottom up) head of steam coming for legislation to cover mental health discrimination, but that's a guess.  Personally I don't have a problem with people using the law to establish whether they're being victimised by bigots.  What's your view?

The answer to the baker question was given in court- there's nothing wrong with a baker refusing to put any political slogans at all, but if they're going to accept one order they have to accept all orders.  That seems perfectly reasonable to me.  The same is true of those running bed and breakfast places, if they're going to take guests they must accept anyone who books.


----------



## Blagsta (May 23, 2015)

Mental health discrimination should already be covered in the 2010 Equality Act


----------



## DotCommunist (May 23, 2015)

weird cakes at the malik house.

It'd be denying goods and services based on someones faith, is that not covered legally already?


----------



## newbie (May 23, 2015)

ok.  In that case I'm not aware of other attempts to extend the legislation, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## The39thStep (May 24, 2015)

obviously need more legislation


----------



## newbie (May 25, 2015)

The39thStep said:


> obviously need more legislation


what equalities legislation would you advocate introducing, extending or getting rid of?


----------



## The39thStep (May 25, 2015)

newbie said:


> what equalities legislation would you advocate introducing, extending or getting rid of?



Bit like asking what would you do if you won the lottery but off the top of my head.Introducing:Mandatory free childcare,mandatory free support for all carers,  election of all managers and boards of directors by workforce, maximum salary differential between CEOs and staff to be no more than five times higher,free  in house training to degree or equivalent if in company for five years or more, state pensions at 2/3rds of average pay.


----------



## newbie (May 25, 2015)

all good and I'd add abolition of anti-equality stuff like private education, healthcare, pensions and unearned wealth from owning housing.

sadly the sky does not contain any pies.


----------



## laptop (May 27, 2015)

newbie said:


> sadly the sky does not contain any pies.



Quantas's catering department: where did we go wrong?


----------



## leyton96 (Jun 4, 2015)

Zoe Williams pulls out of Marxism 

Well folks, the sun is shining, the football season is (almost) over and the annual 'Cyber-hunt of soft left Marxism contributors' has kicked off.
It can only mean the summer has begun!

Edit: Here's a fuller thread. Some interesting remarks from Williams on how she views Marxism. Clearly there are a layer of liberal academics and journos who don't even view Marxism as an SWP event. Genius marketing by the SWP I have to say!


----------



## chilango (Jun 4, 2015)

They really are in WRPland now aren't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 4, 2015)

chilango said:


> They really are in WRPland now aren't they?


The guardian private school oxbridge types?


----------



## chilango (Jun 4, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The guardian private school oxbridge types?



No, the SWP!


----------



## Trappist (Jun 5, 2015)

Strange one this. If I were a cynic I'd wonder if the organisers had included a few lightweights as easy targets for the Twitterers.

The fact that a mass complaint by three people was enough to get her to pull out is mildly surprising, but it's hardly a killing blow - the last session before the rally on the Monday suggests they weren't expecting her to have a mass audience.

Given her output as a Guardian political columnist* I'd have expected something worthy, but hardly a clarion call to occupy the huge number of "investment" flats in London. Though I guess we'll never know.

I honestly wonder how anybody has time for twitter. I also think it might actually be dangerous - yesterday I was driving through London when this guy stepped into the road at a crossing without even looking up from whatever vital tweet he was tapping into his phone. Luckily for both of us he wasn't wearing earphones and so heard the horn and screech of brakes and jumped back out of the way. How's that for a bizarre non sequitur?

Edit * From Wikipedia: Zoe Williams (8 April 2014). "Stop calling Tony Blair a war criminal. The left should be proud of his record". _The Guardian_. Retrieved 12 April 2014.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 5, 2015)

Maybe he was tweeting about how shit the drivers in London are nowadays


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 5, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Strange one this. If I were a cynic I'd wonder if the organisers had included a few lightweights as easy targets for the Twitterers.
> 
> The fact that a mass complaint by three people was enough to get her to pull out is mildly surprising, but it's hardly a killing blow - the last session before the rally on the Monday suggests they weren't expecting her to have a mass audience.
> 
> ...


How could you see he was on Twitter? Maybe it was Facebook or urban75?


----------



## Trappist (Jun 5, 2015)

Sheer bloody minded prejudice is so much more informative than mere fact don't you think?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 5, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Sheer bloody minded prejudice is so much more informative than mere fact don't you think?


You people still exist then.


----------



## Trappist (Jun 5, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> You people still exist then.


Mostly on Twitter


----------



## Karmickameleon (Jun 23, 2015)

Sectarian spoof which might or might not amuse....


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 23, 2015)

Umm...


----------



## cesare (Jun 23, 2015)

PD reaches the SWP thread


----------



## imposs1904 (Jun 23, 2015)

Karmickameleon said:


> Sectarian spoof which might or might not amuse....



Very well done but they fucked up with "tiny sect leader".


----------



## andysays (Jun 23, 2015)

The same ideas, the same people and even the same poster as last year


----------



## treelover (Jun 23, 2015)

Think I will post that on social media, if it had an email it would be interesting to see if it got any replies.


----------



## laptop (Jun 23, 2015)

¿Surely "*¡NTERNATIONALISM!*" _como en español_?


----------



## Limerick Red (Jun 23, 2015)

On a Marxism 2015 poster in kilburn someone scrawled in black marker "killed 100million in the 20th centuary"
I was thinkin to meself the problem with the cliffittes was they didn't kill anyone in the 20th centuary , but then I thought by way of their campaigning and electioneering for labour over the years, we can probably credit them with a million or two.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2015)

Limerick Red said:


> On a Marxism 2015 poster in kilburn someone scrawled in black marker "killed 100million in the 20th centuary"
> I was thinkin to meself the problem with the cliffittes was they didn't kill anyone in the 20th centuary , but then I thought by way of their campaigning and electioneering for labour over the years, we can probably credit them with a million or two.


are you including death by ennui?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 23, 2015)

Limerick Red said:


> On a Marxism 2015 poster in kilburn someone scrawled in black marker "killed 100million in the 20th centuary"
> I was thinkin to meself the problem with the cliffittes was they didn't kill anyone in the 20th centuary , but then I thought by way of their campaigning and electioneering for labour over the years, we can probably credit them with a million or two.


 marxism posters at the start of saturdays demo had 'fuck off rape apologists' written on them.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 11, 2015)

Hey everyone, Salvage has been published


----------



## belboid (Aug 11, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Hey everyone, Salvage has been published


and it looks very pretty.  Until you start reading it.  Actually, Neil Davidson's article is alright


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 11, 2015)

belboid said:


> and it looks very pretty.  Until you start reading it.  Actually, Neil Davison's article is alright



Your hope disgusts them, belboid


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2015)

I've been waiting so long- does china do any short fiction in it?


----------



## belboid (Aug 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> I've been waiting so long- does china do any short fiction in it?


yes!

http://salvage.zone/online-exclusive/the-dusty-hat/


----------



## JimW (Aug 11, 2015)

Worth it to see that Klee pic (I have course am too lazy to read the article)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 11, 2015)

I keep feeling delighted that Salvage exists and disgusted that people gave those fuckers money.


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2015)

Anyone know how much involvement the SWP has in organising the Corbyn rallies, if any, perhaps through the Peoples Assembly?, spotted Chris Nineham (ex SWP) at the London rally with JC looking officious.


----------



## Trappist (Aug 13, 2015)

treelover said:


> Anyone know how much involvement the SWP has in organising the Corbyn rallies, if any, perhaps through the Peoples Assembly?, spotted Chris Nineham (ex SWP) at the London rally with JC looking officious.



Corbyn doesn't strike me as the officious looking type 

I imagine Nineham knows Corbyn through Stop the War/Coalitions of Resistance/etc. I'm not even sure if Chris is still in Counterfire.

Other than that I'm sure JC is cute enough to avoid any involvement with left groups outside the Labour Party, or Trots inside it.

As for the SWP - gritted teeth as they welcome his bandwagon, maybe?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 13, 2015)

Nah, Nineham is still in Counterfire and Counterfire are one of the controlling groups of the People's Assembly which has beeen backing Corbyn for quite a time. Remember the recent A-B anti-austerity march organised by PA which ended up with speakers providing a love-in for Corbyn, so yes Trots are pushing pro-Corbyn stuff in big way as are Left Unity and the RS21 etc etc  lot working inside them


----------



## belboid (Aug 13, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> Nah, Nineham is still in Counterfire and Counterfire are one of the controlling groups of the People's Assembly which has beeen backing Corbyn for quite a time. Remember the recent A-B anti-austerity march organised by PA which ended up with speakers providing a love-in for Corbyn, so yes Trots are pushing pro-Corbyn stuff in big way as are Left Unity and the RS21 etc etc  lot working inside them


RS21 aren't in LU (or the Peoples Assembly, much). And Left Unity is dead now anyway (as compared to its oh so vital lifeforce before Corbynmania)


----------



## the button (Aug 13, 2015)

Trappist said:


> As for the SWP - gritted teeth as they welcome his bandwagon, maybe?


Vote Elbowpatch with no illusions.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 13, 2015)

Not true, LU are still alive and kicking, I've met quite a few recently in the Radical Assemblies. Again , whilst not formally backing LU, some of its members have been active in it from early on. As regards the People's Assemblies ( this is aimed at Treelover) it's not an SWP fief and they don't have much traction there, preferring mainly to sell their papers at PA events with the usual hack intervention.
http://leftunity.org/jeremy-corbyn-a-new-moment-a-new-movement/


----------



## belboid (Aug 13, 2015)

technically, LU are still alive, in reality they're finished. Half the membership has joined Labour.  As for the SWP & the PA - depends where you are. Maybe not in London (the only place Counterfire exists), but in many areas they do operate a dead hand over proceedings.


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> technically, LU are still alive, in reality they're finished. Half the membership has joined Labour.


this will happen to the greens if corbyn gets in too, won't it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

the greens had been an established minor party for quite some time though, got people elected and everything. Perhaps reduced to former size maybe but finished?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 13, 2015)

Well, LU are still alive in the Radical Assemblies in London enough to be noticed  and there is a struggle there ( at a low-level so far) between their advocacy of supporting Corbyn- they end up calling for discussions on this and get stymied- and those opposed who continue to posit a need for a focus on grassroots , horizontal organisation. Belboid, I am willing to believe SWP have more influence in PA outside London, where Counterfire rules the roost.


----------



## belboid (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> this will happen to the greens if corbyn gets in too, won't it?


they'll lose a hell of a lot of those new members, I reckon, but they'll hang on. Hoping that when Corbyn is removed from office they'll be the benficiaries.


----------



## belboid (Aug 13, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> Well, LU are still alive in the Radical Assemblies in London enough to be noticed  and there is a struggle there ( at a low-level so far) between their advocacy of supporting Corbyn- they end up calling for discussions on this and get stymied- and those opposed who continue to posit a need for a focus on grassroots , horizontal organisation. Belboid, I am willing to believe SWP have more influence in PA outside London, where Counterfire rules the roost.


Lambeth branch is certainly hanging on (and the likes of Simon and Tom, who have nowhere else to go), but elsewhere...


----------



## killer b (Aug 13, 2015)

yeah, not finished. But they'll see how solid their support is though - all my recently green-supporting friends are all banging the corbyn drum this week.


----------



## chilango (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> this will happen to the greens if corbyn gets in too, won't it?



They'll lose a fair few newer members - the 2010 Lib Dem types hopping from easy option to easy option. Perhaps a few Labour in exile types too. But at worst they'll be back to where they were in 2010. Not necessarily a bad thing longer term losing the band wagon hopping fair weather left liberals either.


----------



## tufty79 (Aug 13, 2015)

killer b said:


> yeah, not finished. But they'll see how solid their support is though - all my recently green-supporting friends are all banging the corbyn drum this week.


Yep. My HUGELY COMMITTED TO THE GREENS FOREVER mate officially left the party to join labour and vote Corbyn.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 13, 2015)

Just returned from a Corbyn rally in Aberdeen.  It was well attended with a good atmosphere etc.  Not a sign of any swp presence that i could see - no paper sellers surprisingly.  i don't know any of the swp people in the area, or even if there is a local branch, although there was about three years ago when they held a meeting promoting Cliff's memoir.

i hasten to add that i went along out of interest, not as a LP member or supporter, i'm neither.

However, afterwards i wished Corbyn well, and advised him to be prepared to tackle some seriously powerful enemies the moment he comes anywhere near political power.  He said he had "broad shoulders"..


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Just returned from a Corbyn rally in Aberdeen.  It was well attended with a good atmosphere etc.  Not a sign of any swp presence that i could see - no paper sellers surprisingly.  i don't know any of the swp people in the area, or even if there is a local branch, although there was about three years ago when they held a meeting promoting Cliff's memoir.
> 
> i hasten to add that i went along out of interest, not as a LP member or supporter, i'm neither.
> 
> However, afterwards i wished Corbyn well, and advised him to be prepared to tackle some seriously powerful enemies the moment he comes anywhere near political power.  He said he had "broad shoulders"..


unless he's fucking Atlas he may find those shoulders bowed


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 13, 2015)

"RS21 aren't in LU (or the Peoples Assembly, much)."
The RS21ers who attend East London Radical Assembly (from Redbridge and Walthamstow) certainly ARE in Left Unity , so there.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 13, 2015)

What are these radical assemblies? I've never heard of 'em


----------



## chilango (Aug 13, 2015)

I always hated assemblies.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 13, 2015)

chilango said:


> I always hated assemblies.


Cum ba yah


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 14, 2015)

Ever heard of Google, Spanky?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Aug 14, 2015)

OK:
http://heyevent.uk/event/3qcywzrpkxsc2a/radical-left-general-assembly


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 14, 2015)

Nothing came up when I googled but thanks *thumbs*


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 14, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Cum ba yah



Possibly an interminably long version by some twat on an acoustic guitar while his mate tries (and fails on a truly galactic level) to improvise something vaguely resembling a decent rhythm on the fucking bongos, for Christ's sake.


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 14, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> Possibly an interminably long version by some twat on an acoustic guitar while his mate tries (and fails on a truly galactic level) to improvise something vaguely resembling a decent rhythm on the fucking bongos, for Christ's sake.



I seem to remember one school assembly where a  teacher played The Stranglers' Golden Brown on an old tinny cassette recorder, and then tried to bask in the reflected glory that he attended University with Hugh Cornwell. Unfortunately for him, it was 1986, so no one gave a shit about either Hugh Cornwell or The Stranglers.


----------



## Nigel (Aug 17, 2015)

belboid said:


> RS21 aren't in LU (or the Peoples Assembly, much). And Left Unity is dead now anyway (as compared to its oh so vital lifeforce before Corbynmania)


I'm not sure about large towns and cities but
there are a few members of RS21 holding on inside LU in various provincial areas, a few other left groups sympathetic and trying to work with RS21 are sticking in there also, however even they or at least the one's i've talked to reluctantly admit that LU is a mess.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 17, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Corbyn doesn't strike me as the officious looking type
> 
> I imagine Nineham knows Corbyn through Stop the War/Coalitions of Resistance/etc. I'm not even sure if Chris is still in Counterfire.
> 
> ...



He's pretty friendly with SP types so I'm sure its the same with ex and current SWP - many of whom he'll know through StW/CoR/PA etc. He's hardly gonna be discouraging support is he?

Not sure why you use the phrase gritted teeth - most SWP members I know are saying they've registered to vote for him. The Control Committee may be concerned about losing members but that aside, no big deal.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 17, 2015)

Quick perusal of SWP website shows that what they've mainly got to say is that the enthusiasm Corbyn is generating is great but only extra parliamentary movements can win, which is fair enough*. Mostly they're talking about migrants and how we need to fight to let them in though.

E2A: but limited.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 17, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Quick perusal of SWP website shows that what they've mainly got to say is that the enthusiasm Corbyn is generating is great but only extra parliamentary movements can win, which is fair enough*. Mostly they're talking about migrants and how we need to fight to let them in though.
> 
> E2A: but limited.



So there's no Parliamentary road, then they hooked up with Gorgeous George and Wespect which implies that there indeed might have been a Parliamentary road, and now with that all having gone up in smoke there's no Parliamentary road again.

Has anyone told them to check their political satnav because it seems to be on the blink.


----------



## belboid (Aug 17, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Not sure why you use the phrase gritted teeth - most SWP members I know are saying they've registered to vote for him. The Control Committee may be concerned about losing members but that aside, no big deal.




as union supporters maybe, not as actual LP members, surely? The members that are left wont leave until Lenin returns and tells them to


----------



## laptop (Aug 17, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> Has anyone told them to check their political satnav because it seems to be on the blink.


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 17, 2015)

laptop said:


>



Is that taking unsold copies of Socialist Worker for recycling?


----------



## laptop (Aug 17, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> Is that taking unsold copies of Socialist Worker for recycling?



I thought it was full of discarded positions.










Same thing, really?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 17, 2015)

Will this see the return of voting "without illusions" though?


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 17, 2015)

laptop said:


> I thought it was full of discarded positions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True.

The Central Committee's dealt out more 'lines' than Pablo Escobar.


----------



## chilango (Aug 17, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> So there's no Parliamentary road, then they hooked up with Gorgeous George and Wespect which implies that there indeed might have been a Parliamentary road, and now with that all having gone up in smoke there's no Parliamentary road again.
> 
> Has anyone told them to check their political satnav because it seems to be on the blink.






			
				the SWP satnav said:
			
		

> Bear right.
> 
> Left turn ahead.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 17, 2015)

The new SWP logo, yesterday:


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 17, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> The new SWP logo, yesterday:



I initially read that as Discretion.


----------



## Trappist (Aug 17, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> He's pretty friendly with SP types so I'm sure its the same with ex and current SWP - many of whom he'll know through StW/CoR/PA etc. He's hardly gonna be discouraging support is he?



What I was trying to say was that whilst he's got history with a lot of campaigns he's not going to let his campaign get derailed through formal involvement of left groups. Nor do I think that said left groups would wish to embarrass him by, say, instructing members to sign up and vote for him.



SpackleFrog said:


> Not sure why you use the phrase gritted teeth



This was more my take on Corbynmania. It's really heartening to see socialist ideas getting a hearing and so much support that the entire mainstream media feels they have to be rubbished at every turn. The reason for gritting my teeth is I remember the whole post-1979 rise and fall of the Labour left from being a serious, well organised movement through to the less impressive Chesterfield Conferences. Yet even in the late stages the Labour left was, in my view, much more resilient than the support JC is having to rely on, in contrast the PLP is both unaccountable and overwhelmingly Blairite. I really can't see a good outcome.



SpackleFrog said:


> - most SWP members I know are saying they've registered to vote for him. The Control Committee may be concerned about losing members but that aside, no big deal.



After 40 years of paying the political levy I can see a case for handing over another £3 to get a vote, but I won't be wasting my money. Not that I wouldn't enjoy it, but I'm sure I'd be disqualified on account of being known to some senior Labour apparatchiks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2015)

Bakunin said:


> So there's no Parliamentary road, then they hooked up with Gorgeous George and Wespect which implies that there indeed might have been a Parliamentary road, and now with that all having gone up in smoke there's no Parliamentary road again.
> 
> Has anyone told them to check their political satnav because it seems to be on the blink.


multidunious positionism cmrd


----------



## Bakunin (Aug 18, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> multidunious positionism cmrd



Sounds like a political version of the Kama Sutra.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 24, 2015)

belboid said:


> as union supporters maybe, not as actual LP members, surely? The members that are left wont leave until Lenin returns and tells them to



The ones that are left are easily excited/distracted.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 24, 2015)

Trappist said:


> What I was trying to say was that whilst he's got history with a lot of campaigns he's not going to let his campaign get derailed through formal involvement of left groups. Nor do I think that said left groups would wish to embarrass him by, say, instructing members to sign up and vote for him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As you rightly point out, he may _need _left groups very soon. Not too sure why you suggest left groups would definitely derail his campaign?


----------



## Trappist (Aug 25, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> As you rightly point out, he may _need _left groups very soon. Not too sure why you suggest left groups would definitely derail his campaign?


I was thinking actual evidence of left infiltration of the Labour Party, as opposed to rumour and speculation, might damage his campaign. But then I remembered witch-hunts don't need facts, rumour and speculation are enough.

That aside, this might be interesting - http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventrys-dave-nellist-could-seek-9884461

Not sure if Dave Nellist's demand for reinstatement of clause IV as a condition of TUSC joining the Labour Party has been cleared with the other constituents of TUSC.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Aug 25, 2015)

Trappist said:


> I was thinking actual evidence of left infiltration of the Labour Party, as opposed to rumour and speculation, might damage his campaign. But then I remembered witch-hunts don't need facts, rumour and speculation are enough.
> 
> That aside, this might be interesting - http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventrys-dave-nellist-could-seek-9884461
> 
> *Not sure if Dave Nellist's demand for reinstatement of clause IV as a condition of TUSC joining the Labour Party has been cleared with the other constituents of TUSC*.



This is what he actually said:

If those things were to happen [including the reinstatement of clause IV], I would be prepared to go to the TUSC conference in September and say TUSC should be part of that debate.​Which is rather different from what you were implying.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2015)

It's really annoying when people deliberately misquote articles. Please don't do it Trappist.


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2015)

Clause fucking Four. Yes, reinstating a shit, tokenistic, paragraph is really central to changing the Labour Party


----------



## imposs1904 (Aug 25, 2015)

belboid said:


> Clause fucking Four. Yes, reinstating a shit, tokenistic, paragraph is really central to changing the Labour Party



Wasn't it Sidney Webb who drafted Clause 4? That guy had such a high opinion of rank and file members and supporters of the Labour Party:
_" . . .that the constituency parties were frequently unrepresentative groups of nonentities dominated by fanatics and cranks, and extremists, and that *if* the block votes of the trade unions were eliminated it would be impracticable to continue to vest the control of policy in Labour Party Conferences."_​
From here. Old Labour.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2015)

belboid said:


> Clause fucking Four. Yes, reinstating a shit, tokenistic, paragraph is really central to changing the Labour Party



If the LP were to be changed/reclaimed/whatever, presumably you wouldn't actively object to the aims and objectives of the party being rewritten and redefined to include a commitment to workers control and ownership of major sectors of the economy?


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> If the LP were to be changed/reclaimed/whatever, presumably you wouldn't actively object to the aims and objectives of the party being rewritten and redefined to include a commitment to workers control and ownership of major sectors of the economy?


Yes. So not Clause 4 then.  I have no desire to recreate Old Labour, and neither should you. Create something better, dont hark back to a fictitious past


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2015)

belboid said:


> Yes. So not Clause 4 then.  I have no desire to recreate Old Labour, and neither should you. Create something better, dont hark back to a fictitious past



Clause 4 could be interpreted as meaning that. Could also be interpreted in other ways of course. 

I'm not saying I want Clause 4 reinstated exactly as it was, or even a contemporary update of it - just trying to understand your interjection here.


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> Clause 4 could be interpreted as meaning that. Could also be interpreted in other ways of course.
> 
> I'm not saying I want Clause 4 reinstated exactly as it was, or even a contemporary update of it - just trying to understand your interjection here.


That Nellist's insisting on the 're-instatement' of clause 4 is stupid, and would say next to nothing about what Labour should be. Pure tokenism. Still, it is almost an admission that TUSC is dead, so that's something.


----------



## Trappist (Aug 25, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's really annoying when people deliberately misquote articles. Please don't do it Trappist.


In my defence:

"Mr Nellist said *he would also insist* that ‘Clause Four’, viewed as a symbol of the party’s commitment to socialism, was reinstated after it was controversially changed by Mr Blair in 1995." [my emphasis] So not actually a misquote.

You're right though, it was naughty of me to imply Dave might have proposed a merger(?) without consultation . Sloppy too, I should have re-read the whole thing before commenting.

On the general question of Clause IV, my recollection is that it was a cynical ploy to undercut the revolutionary mood at the end of WW1 and then became an important means of tying the left to the party. As can be seen in the idea that it somehow symbolised a commitment to socialism that Labour never had.

Er, which kind of means I agree with Belboid's comment. Whatever next?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2015)

belboid said:


> That Nellist's insisting on the 're-instatement' of clause 4 is stupid, and would say next to nothing about what Labour should be. Pure tokenism. Still, it is almost an admission that TUSC is dead, so that's something.



The article claims DN would insist on that but doesn't quote him directly as saying that. I don't believe he would say something so rigid and foolish; what would be the point? The substantive points that Dave makes are that Corbyn would have to reverse most of what Blair did, hence the picking up on Clause 4, but bringing back party democracy, the union link, CLP powers etc are the meat of what he's saying. Obviously he's not demanding the exact text of Clause 4 but a return to the commitment to public ownership, or better still a clear commitment to socialist transformation, could and should happen alongside that. 

It's in no way an admission that TUSC is dead, I don't know why you would read it as such. Other than the fact that you desperately want that to be the case, obviously.


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> The article claims DN would insist on that but doesn't quote him directly as saying that. I don't believe he would say something so rigid and foolish; what would be the point? The substantive points that Dave makes are that Corbyn would have to reverse most of what Blair did, hence the picking up on Clause 4, but bringing back party democracy, the union link, CLP powers etc are the meat of what he's saying. Obviously he's not demanding the exact text of Clause 4 but a return to the commitment to public ownership, or better still a clear commitment to socialist transformation, could and should happen alongside that.
> 
> It's in no way an admission that TUSC is dead, I don't know why you would read it as such. Other than the fact that you desperately want that to be the case, obviously.


lol

If he hadn't said, directly, that he wanted C4 reinstated, then there is very very very little chance the journo would have reported it as such. You just dont want to believe it. Tho, if you know the journo got it wrong, I'm sure you can point out the real quote, or the response denying he ever said such a thing.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 25, 2015)

belboid said:


> lol
> 
> If he hadn't said, directly, that he wanted C4 reinstated, then there is very very very little chance the journo would have reported it as such. You just dont want to believe it. Tho, if you know the journo got it wrong, I'm sure you can point out the real quote, or the response denying he ever said such a thing.



My reasoning for being skeptical is the amount of misquotes, whether accidental or deliberate, which have appeared in the national papers over the last month or so. They're easy to spot because we put our press releases online. 

I don't know the journo got it wrong (neither am I denying he said it by the way, if you won't read the article at least read my responses to you) but I think it's fair to say Dave is pretty on message, and the general message is not that we would 'insist' on Clause 4 being reinstated but that we would want the question of Clause 4 and what happened in 1995 revisited and the aims and values of the Labour Party to be re-written. A commitment to public ownership and control would be acceptable. A commitment to socialist transformation would be better. I don't really understand your fascination with this; do you honestly read this as Dave saying he won't play unless Clause 4 is resurrected word for word?


----------



## belboid (Aug 25, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> My reasoning for being skeptical is the amount of misquotes, whether accidental or deliberate, which have appeared in the national papers over the last month or so. They're easy to spot because we put our press releases online.
> 
> I don't know the journo got it wrong (neither am I denying he said it by the way, if you won't read the article at least read my responses to you) but I think it's fair to say Dave is pretty on message, and the general message is not that we would 'insist' on Clause 4 being reinstated but that we would want the question of Clause 4 and what happened in 1995 revisited and the aims and values of the Labour Party to be re-written. A commitment to public ownership and control would be acceptable. A commitment to socialist transformation would be better. I don't really understand your fascination with this; do you honestly read this as Dave saying he won't play unless Clause 4 is resurrected word for word?


I've read the article and your comments, my comments are perfectly consistent with both. The actual quote used - "I hope Jeremy does well..." doesn't appear to be directly from a TUSC press release, so maybe they actually spoke, I dont know. But I think it is perfectly plausible that he would call for the re-instatement of Clause 4, as part of a list of demands, it fits perfectly well with his previous rhetoric.


----------



## treelover (Aug 25, 2015)

belboid said:


> Yes. So not Clause 4 then.  I have no desire to recreate Old Labour, and neither should you. Create something better, dont hark back to a fictitious past



I like JC's commitment to support Co-Ops, etc, though they could go the way of the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-oP.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

Clause IV isn't tokenistic, it's a concrete commitment to the collectivisation of social resources... an actual committed statement on an economic methodology (if nothing too specific). Nothing to be pooh-poohed at, even if it won't in and of itself solve anything... but its reinstatement would be an important marker of the concrete commitment to collectivist economics that the new Corbyn lead party would be heralding.


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> Clause IV isn't tokenistic, it's a concrete commitment to the collectivisation of social resources... an actual committed statement on an economic methodology (if nothing too specific). Nothing to be pooh-poohed at, even if it won't in and of itself solve anything... but its reinstatement would be an important marker of the concrete commitment to collectivist economics that the new Corbyn lead party would be heralding.


i take it this is meant to be a joke


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

you're a joke, and no it isn't


----------



## emanymton (Aug 26, 2015)

Because the Labour party did wonderful stuff before they got rid of clause 4.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

they created all the social infrastructure which has made life in the post-war West the best era in human history in which to live, so, yes


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> you're a joke, and no it isn't


please show us your workings then.  Precisely where is this 'concrete commitment,' or the 'economic methodology' - and then show us how these worked in practise.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

it's clearly not a golden bullet or anything, but the statement that it's _meaningless_ is ultra-left twattery of the highest order


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

belboid said:


> please show us your workings then.  Precisely where is this 'concrete commitment,' or the 'economic methodology' - and then show us how these worked in practise.



all of post-war British domestic history up til 1979 - next


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> they created all the social infrastructure which has made life in the post-war West the best era in human history in which to live, so, yes


good old William Beveridge, eh, that staunch socialist, lol



Das Uberdog said:


> it's clearly not a golden bullet or anything, but the statement that it's _meaningless_ is ultra-left twattery of the highest order


but it _is _meaningless, it was deliberately vague and meaningless so that it would be acceptable to left and right in Labour.  the only bit that was correct in your initial post was the word 'marker'


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> all of post-war British domestic history up til 1979 - next


wrong.  try again - and this time at least attempt all parts of the question


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

i'm certainly not here to answer your questions, belboid. i reserve the right to respond when you start spouting this idiotic crap though. seriously - Clause IV is a direct ideological commitment to the collectivization of social resources. the fact that an ideological statement in itself is not enough to guarantee full communism is by the by, it's clearly a step towards that on an abstract front (which aids the practical fight). it's also utterly ridiculous to try and claim that Old Labour was no more committed to collective economics than New Labour, and that the removal of Clause IV meant nothing in regard to that change.

and it is really fucking stupid to act like the social democratic consensus of the post-war era counted for nothing, that Old Labour (and its commitment to its own form of collective economic programs) played no role in its formation and continuation, or that it didn't play hugely important role in the creation of a society in which life for working class people became its most bearable in all human history.

Old Labour was always on the right of the left, but still on the left, and all but the most ridiculous contrarians and sectarians can recognize that.


----------



## andysays (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> it's clearly not a golden bullet or anything, but the statement that it's _meaningless_ is ultra-left twattery of the highest order



I've avoided getting involved in this little spat as it has unfolded, but seriously?

I'd say that Clause 4 was more totemic than tokenistic, in that it has a symbolic value among certain tiny section of the left, both inside and outside the Labour party. It has fuck all resonance with the wider public, even among the significant numbers who are in favour of, for instance, re-nationalisation of the railways.

What is really meaningless, pointless, and self-centred micro-left twattery IMO is for anyone in TUSC to try to set out the conditions under which they would go back to o r support the Labour party, and to focus their demands around an old shibboleth which meant nothing far longer ago than the 20 years since it was abolished.


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> i'm certainly not here to answer your questions, belboid. i reserve the right to respond when you start spouting this idiotic crap though. seriously - Clause IV is a direct ideological commitment to the collectivization of social resources. the fact that an ideological statement in itself is not enough to guarantee full communism is by the by, it's clearly a step towards that on an abstract front (which aids the practical fight). it's also utterly ridiculous to try and claim that Old Labour was no more committed to collective economics than New Labour, and that the removal of Clause IV meant nothing in regard to that change.


Simply repeating your assertion does not make it true. And  I made no claim about any distinction between Old and new Labour, so your second point is wholly irrelevant.



> and it is really fucking stupid to act like the social democratic consensus of the post-war era counted for nothing, that Old Labour (and its commitment to its own form of collective economic programs) played no role in its formation and continuation, or that it didn't play hugely important role in the creation of a society in which life for working class people became its most bearable in all human history.


Again, you are complaining about things I did not say. Yes, that 'social democratic consensus' was important, but it is false to say it was solely down to Labour, and still less to Clause IV. See my point about William Beveridge, to whose name you could add Rab Butlers.



> Old Labour was always on the right of the left, but still on the left, and all but the most ridiculous contrarians and sectarians can recognize that.


Yes, but so what? That has nothing to do with your assertion re Clause IV.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

andysays said:
			
		

> I'd say that Clause 4 was more totemic than tokenistic, in that it has a symbolic value among certain tiny section of the left, both inside and outside the Labour party. It has fuck all resonance with the wider public, even among the significant numbers who are in favour of, for instance, re-nationalisation of the railways.



totems and symbols are important in any political movement, and the modern left's condescension towards them reveals a huge gaping hole in our strategies for building a movement with its own clear sense of self and mission. Clause IV is an important ideological commitment - a statement which all members of the Labour Party would be implicitly signed up to simply by merit of being in the party. as such, it's a constant bearing upon which an argument in favour of retaining that collective economic focus, against the 'reformers' who prefer the fluidity of not being pegged to any kind of ideological mission whatsoever.




			
				belboid said:
			
		

> Simply repeating your assertion does not make it true. And I made no claim about any distinction between Old and new Labour, so your second point is wholly irrelevant.



who's repeating assertions now? and the distinction between Old and New Labour is implicit in your dismissive attitude towards the importance of Clause IV - considering how the battle to remove it was such a significant aspect of putting the cosh over the Labour left during Blair's ascension.



> Again, you are complaining about things I did not say. Yes, that 'social democratic consensus' was important, but it is false to say it was solely down to Labour, and still less to Clause IV. See my point about William Beveridge, to whose name you could add Rab Butlers.



i didn't say it was solely down to Labour, i said that Labour played a massively important role. and it played such a role in the context of being a party which was constitutionally and ideologically committed to its own form of municipal socialism/collectivity. this is not the be all and end all of the left - obviously - but it is massively significant and has directly contributed towards the relative historical wellbeing of the British working class.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> they created all the social infrastructure which has made life in the post-war West the best era in human history in which to live, so, yes



but created in specific circumstances, with the aim of trying to get a war ravaged country back on it's feet, and more importantly, it's workers back to productivity , all  on a socialised basis . As soon as that process was as complete as it was going to get, the LP switched slowly and surely back to privatising the ensuing profits, and were happy to see that infrastructure go back into private hands, so much so they ditched clause 4.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

cantsin said:


> but created in specific circumstances, with the aim of trying to get a war ravaged country back on it's feet, and more importantly, it's workers back to productivity , all  on a socialised basis . As soon as that process was as complete as it was going to get, the LP switched slowly and surely back to privatising the ensuing profits, and were happy to see that infrastructure go back into private hands, so much so they ditched clause 4.



With the obvious exception of Bennism and other leftwards burps... the Labour Party is a complex organization and serves a raft of different historical purposes, relative to your general position on the spectrum. Regardless, Clause IV is clearly of the better aspects.


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> totems and symbols are important in any political movement, and the modern left's condescension towards them reveals a huge gaping hole in our strategies for building a movement with its own clear sense of self and mission. Clause IV is an important ideological commitment - a statement which all members of the Labour Party would be implicitly signed up to simply by merit of being in the party. as such, it's a constant bearing upon which an argument in favour of retaining that collective economic focus, against the 'reformers' who prefer the fluidity of not being pegged to any kind of ideological mission whatsoever.


All of which may well be true, but all of which is a vastly weaker statement than your original one.



> who's repeating assertions now? and the distinction between Old and New Labour is implicit in your dismissive attitude towards the importance of Clause IV - considering how the battle to remove it was such a significant aspect of putting the cosh over the Labour left during Blair's ascension.


still irrelevant.



> i didn't say it was solely down to Labour,


really? Who posted this then?


Das Uberdog said:


> they created *all *the social infrastructure which has made life in the post-war West the best era in human history in which to live, so, yes


oops



> i said that Labour played a massively important role. and it played such a role in the context of being a party which was constitutionally and ideologically committed to its own form of municipal socialism/collectivity. this is not the be all and end all of the left - obviously - but it is massively significant and has directly contributed towards the relative historical wellbeing of the British working class.


that isn't what you said, tho. Of course Labour was important, and played an important role in the 'wellbeing of the working class' - but it is wholly false to ascribe this wholly, or even mostly, to Labour.  And even then it would not justify your initial assertions re Clause IV - especially re it being 'concrete' (which it explicitly wasn't) and an 'economic methodology' (which it just isn't, even if it is a _part _of such a methodology)


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

... the Labour Party _did_ create all the post-war social democratic infrastructure in Britain... which is a different statement from saying the Labour Party was responsible for all of social democracy. yes, Labour was important. very important. they were the organization in actual power which actually did the deed (in the context of all the rest). that puts them on a very high weighting on the 'scales of significance'.

and Clause IV is a concrete commitment to a collective economic strategy. there's no way to interpret it which doesn't mean some form of economic collectivity and public ownership, _in principle_.



> To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.



it could be more specific, i'll warrant you. but there's not a single other statement in the constitution which commits itself to those principles any more clearly. it's a clear statement of ideological commitment - that's clear to elements of the Labour left who want it returned, and it was clear to the Blairites who wanted rid of it. it'd be a great step for it to be brought back into the text and emblematic of the renewed position the Labour left and the Unions have in the leadership of the party.


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> ... the Labour Party _did_ create all the post-war social democratic infrastructure in Britain... which is a different statement from saying the Labour Party was responsible for all of social democracy. yes, Labour was important. very important. they were the organization in actual power which actually did the deed (in the context of all the rest). that puts them on a very high weighting on the 'scales of significance'.


lol.  Have a break, you must be tired after your constant shifting of goalposts. Labour implemented some tory and liberal plans, soe had been begun before Labour took over. So you're just plain wrong.



> and Clause IV is a concrete commitment to a collective economic strategy. there's no way to interpret it which doesn't mean some form of economic collectivity and public ownership, _in principle_.


so is it concrete, or a general principle? You can't have it both ways. The second sentence above essentially recognises that it isn't concrete.  Which is fine, nothing wrong with a general principle, just don't claim it's 'concrete'



> it could be more specific, i'll warrant you. but there's not a single other statement in the constitution which commits itself to those principles any more clearly.


Quite, Labour was, iirr, the only member of the Second International not to be openly, statedly, socialist, they relied on C4 to cover that for them. But it was always deliberately vague and meaningless, a token commitment, that could be interpreted in many ways.



> it's a clear statement of ideological commitment - that's clear to elements of the Labour left who want it returned, and it was clear to the Blairites who wanted rid of it. it'd be a great step for it to be brought back into the text and emblematic of the renewed position the Labour left and the Unions have in the leadership of the party.


meh, I'd want a new, much clearer, statement, one that looks forward not backwards. yes, there'd be a _symbolic_ resonance in bringing C4 back,but I'd prefer something, I dont know, a bit more...concrete.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

shifting of goalposts? my original statement said that Clause IV was more than just a mere tokenistic gesture and that it represented something actually meaningful (for all the reasons subsequently elaborated). there's been absolutely no manouvre on my part - though you have accepted most of the individual points it seems. and yeah, like the 'liberal plans' for the NHS were in any way as comprehensive as the actualization of the NHS. or as though the vast nationalizations of industry/mining/transport would have been enacted by any other party. it's really quite desperate. as is the floundering pedantry over the word 'concrete'. yes it's concrete, concrete is a metaphor for stability and immovability and is totally compatible with association with a general principle. you're lucky i give a damn about content over petty terminological disputes, otherwise we'd be engaged in some ferociously boring argument about the word 'tokenistic' right now


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> though you have accepted most of the individual points it seems.


No I haven't.  I have disputed your wild and unsubstantiated assertions, and argued clearly that you are massively exaggerating both what Labour did, and Clause IV's influence upon that. You have contradicted yourself, and refused to actually respond to direct points. As for concrete being a 'metaphor', it really, really, isn't.  The whole point of concrete proposals are that they are NOT metaphorical, but the exact opposite.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 26, 2015)

christ do we really need to get into a lesson in basic linguistics? the word concrete as it is being used in this thread is a metaphor for stability and immovability. i used it in the context of describing Clause IV as having a concrete commitment to a collectivist economic program, which it does. '_concrete proposals_' are another matter entirely, and since you're the one who started us off down this utterly meaningless semantic path you should stop adapting crucial phrases in the sentence to further cloud this clusterfuck of an argument you're making.

for those who can't be bothered to read this boring drivel, the crux of the actual dispute has fuck all to do with the word concrete or various manifestations thereof - but around belboid's original assertion that the reimposition of Clause IV would be a totally meaningless 'tokenistic' gesture not worth doing, and that Clause IV in and of itself is devoid of any significance written by non-socialists and enforced by a party which didn't build socialism. i disagreed, saying Clause IV has a meaningful commitment to a collective economic program (which once again, it indisputably does) and its removal was part of the final destruction of the left of a party which - for all of its failings - had played a vital role in the development of British post-war social democracy and all of the benefits that brought.

belboid has accepted all the important parts of that argument other than the wording - which he's weasling about with to give off the impression there's actually some kind of serious dispute at stake.


----------



## belboid (Aug 26, 2015)

Das Uberdog said:


> the word concrete as it is being used in this thread is a metaphor for stability and immovability.


oh well, if you are just going to pretend words mean things other than what everyone else in the world thinks they mean, then wibble wobble biscuit barrel to you. 

you have not in any way countered the, decades old, view that Clause IV was a deliberately vague and opaque statement that could mean almost anything to anyone. The new version is even worse, but that does not alter the fact that the old one was tokenistic.



Das Uberdog said:


> belboid's original assertion that the reimposition of Clause IV would be a totally meaningless 'tokenistic' gesture not worth doing, and that Clause IV in and of itself is devoid of any significance written by non-socialists and enforced by a party which didn't build socialism.


please point out where I said that, or stfu


----------



## Nigel (Aug 26, 2015)

andysays said:


> I've avoided getting involved in this little spat as it has unfolded, but seriously?
> 
> I'd say that Clause 4 was more totemic than tokenistic, in that it has a symbolic value among certain tiny section of the left, both inside and outside the Labour party. It has fuck all resonance with the wider public, even among the significant numbers who are in favour of, for instance, re-nationalisation of the railways.
> 
> What is really meaningless, pointless, and self-centred micro-left twattery IMO is for anyone in TUSC to try to set out the conditions under which they would go back to o r support the Labour party, and to focus their demands around an old shibboleth which meant nothing far longer ago than the 20 years since it was abolished.


Wasn't it Wilson who said; along with the statement that he never read passed the first page of Kapital(probably one of the reasons he left Britain in so much debt; borrowing heavily off the Yanks: one of the reasons he gave for not giving them so much grief over Vietnam), Clause IV is like the first chapter of the Bible: No one really believes it, but you wouldn't want to dispense of it.

Many of the reforms pre-war would proposed and initiated by Liberals; Bannerman, Asquith, Lloyd George, based on the foundations of C. Booth, Bentham, J.S. Mill etc.(backed by Churchill when he was a liberal) later Beveridge et al. Labour generally had different ideas about social reform at the beginning of twentieth century; arguably better.

The Atlee government came on the back of a strong and militant trade union movement, a country in which had just fought a world war against Nazism and in much culturally left leaning with a Communist Party in tens of thousands & highly influential; Harry Pollitt for instance being minister during the war & a strong grass root Labour movement. People at that time demanding change and social, if not cultural and meritocratic reform. Labour acting just as much as a safety valve under Keynesian (hardly socialist) socio economic influence and policies rather than anything that was prepared to overthrow the establishment.


----------



## cutandsplice (Aug 27, 2015)

Nigel said:


> Wasn't it Wilson who said; along with the statement that he never read passed the first page of Kapital(probably one of the reasons he left Britain in so much debt; borrowing heavily off the Yanks: one of the reasons he gave for not giving them so much grief over Vietnam), Clause IV is like the first chapter of the Bible: No one really believes it, but you wouldn't want to dispense of it.
> 
> Many of the reforms pre-war would proposed and initiated by Liberals; Bannerman, Asquith, Lloyd George, based on the foundations of C. Booth, Bentham, J.S. Mill etc.(backed by Churchill when he was a liberal) later Beveridge et al. Labour generally had different ideas about social reform at the beginning of twentieth century; arguably better.
> 
> The Atlee government came on the back of a strong and militant trade union movement, a country in which had just fought a world war against Nazism and in much culturally left leaning with a Communist Party in tens of thousands & highly influential; Harry Pollitt for instance being minister during the war & a strong grass root Labour movement. People at that time demanding change and social, if not cultural and meritocratic reform. Labour acting just as much as a safety valve under Keynesian (hardly socialist) socio economic influence and policies rather than anything that was prepared to overthrow the establishment.


Where on earth did you get the idea from that Pollitt was a minister during the war; sure he supported the war effort but he was never part of the government. I bet he would have liked to have been. Incidentally, Wilson was very lukewarm over Vietnam which is why he didn't send any troops there.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> What is really meaningless, pointless, and self-centred micro-left twattery IMO is for anyone in TUSC to try to set out the conditions under which they would go back to o r support the Labour party, and to focus their demands around an old shibboleth which meant nothing far longer ago than the 20 years since it was abolished.



You don't think TUSC supporters should comment on the Labour Party? Why not? And if its meaningless for us to comment, what's the significance of you weighing in?


----------



## andysays (Aug 27, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> You don't think TUSC supporters should comment on the Labour Party? Why not? And if its meaningless for us to comment, what's the significance of you weighing in?



Commenting is one thing (anyone can do that, and I haven't said different).

What I think is meaningless is for Nellist to set out conditions under which TUSC would or might co-operate with Labour, and for those conditions to be based on the revival of clause 4, which as far as I can see and as I've already suggested has no resonance beyond a tiny minority. If he'd said something relating to JC's specific proposals, even if it was that he doesn't think they go far enough, that would be quite another thing and would have some point.

If you don't like the way I've "weighed in", at least criticise what I've actually said rather than a parody version.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Aug 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> Commenting is one thing (anyone can do that, and I haven't said different).
> 
> What I think is meaningless is for Nellist to set out conditions under which TUSC would or might co-operate with Labour, and for those conditions to be based on the revival of clause 4, which as far as I can see and as I've already suggested has no resonance beyond a tiny minority. If he'd said something relating to JC's specific proposals, even if it was that he doesn't think they go far enough, that would be quite another thing and would have some point.
> 
> If you don't like the way I've "weighed in", at least criticise what I've actually said rather than a parody version.



I think you should read the article and consider the context of why DN was being interviewed as the national chair of TUSC, in response to allegations that we're infiltrating the Labour Party.


----------



## andysays (Aug 27, 2015)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think you should read the article and consider the context of why DN was being interviewed as the national chair of TUSC, in response to allegations that we're infiltrating the Labour Party.



Why do you assume I haven't read the article?

Allegations that TUSC are infiltrating the Labour Party are nonsense, as discussed on various other threads. Nellist appears to me to be responding to these allegations with more nonsense, and the context in which he's interviewed does nothing to change that.


----------



## treelover (Sep 7, 2015)

We shall overcome! (@WeShallWeekend) on Twitter


The SWP are going to be thinking they have loads of new members/supporters, the massive 'We shall overcome' music weekend across the Uk has their clenched fist in red as their logo!

yes, I know it predates them but still


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 7, 2015)

Isn't it about time this thread was allowed to die?


----------



## JimW (Sep 7, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Isn't it about time this thread was allowed to die?


Perhaps we could split it into several smaller competing threads


----------



## imposs1904 (Sep 7, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Isn't it about time this thread was allowed to die?



I think it can still be Salvaged.


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2015)

Is Shelley Asquith, really good student activist, NUS VP welfare, etc, Counterfire?


----------



## emanymton (Sep 27, 2015)

So, urmm apparently the SWP have a new book out.


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2015)

Well, that will be a best seller on the campuses.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 27, 2015)

I think"brazen cheek" is the phrase you're looking for.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 27, 2015)

foreward by cmrd Delta?


----------



## comrade spurski (Sep 28, 2015)

Wonder if there's a chapter on how to fight employers who do not take sexual harassment seriously.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 22, 2015)

Interesting accusations & confessions against RS21 supporter Annie Teriba.​Last time I saw her involved in political activity she was chairing and basically running the show of Rhodes Must Fall seminar. There must have been close to 300 people squashed into a basement lecture theatre. At the end it was more like a black Pentecostal church service with all the chanting singing and oaths.
Is this a sign of ultra politically correct intersectionalists turning in on themselves or victims of heinous sexual assault and even rape gaining some some sort of justice and reconciliation.
'Sexually entitled' campaigner admits having sex without woman's consent


----------



## Trappist (Oct 28, 2015)

Nigel said:


> Is this a sign of ultra politically correct intersectionalists turning in on themselves or victims of heinous sexual assault and even rape gaining some some sort of justice and reconciliation.​


​Could be, but to me it reads more like the confession of any number of Hollywood celebrities.

If I were a cynical cove I might propose a sweepstake on how long before Ms Teriba's re-education is complete and she emerges from her self imposed chrysalis.

However, I'm not that twisted. So I'll assume she's sincere and that she placed herself at the centre of the narrative to avoid further causing distress to her victims.


----------



## Trappist (Oct 31, 2015)

Darn, seems we were both wrong Nigel:

joint statement about A


----------



## Nigel (Oct 31, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Darn, seems we were both wrong Nigel:
> 
> joint statement about A


I'm inclined to believe that this is a complete load of bollox and that a lot is going on behind the scenes with this issue regarding Annie !
ISN(before becoming defunct) & RS21 appear to be and are becoming a Nemesis rather than any rectification of the SWP and that tradition of 'Revolutionary' Socialism.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 1, 2015)

I was astonished at how quickly ISN tore itself apart. RS21 seems to me to have a future as a valuable section of the left. But that's only judging from their online presence - I don't have any personal contacts.

I can't imagine what might be "going on behind the scenes." Though I can imagine why the usual Twitterers aren't expressing their outrage - at NUS conference, in the safe space, twice, ffs!


----------



## Lilith Morris (Nov 1, 2015)

And the ISN too Guest post: ‘What’s he done now?’ Abuse in the IS Network!


----------



## Trappist (Nov 2, 2015)

Lilith Morris said:


> And the ISN too Guest post: ‘What’s he done now?’ Abuse in the IS Network!


That is bad. So bad I can't "like" your post, but thank you for posting the link.

If true*, then it's extraordinary that in it's short life the ISN managed to exceed the many failings of the SWP in this regard.

* I'm not saying it's not true, just that the internet gives no way of judging if these things are real or made up. I tend to be wary of accounts that fit too neatly into a set of prejudices.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2015)

Trappist said:


> If true*, then it's extraordinary that in it's short life the ISN managed to exceed the many failings of the SWP in this regard.


I realise that as an SWP member, you must do your best to pretend you're not in the most hated organisation on the left, but even you must know that above sentence is moronic drivel. The issue in the SWP was how you pretended that there was nothing to investigate, that Smith was a naughty hero, and that it was okay to ask a rape victim 'But you like s drink, dont you?' and generally did your utmost to cover up the appalling abuse. If every word in the above statements is true, they are a long way shy of amounting to anything like the same thing as the disgrace of the SWP.  You're still a member aren't you?  Coming back here to try to shitstir and cover for your own groups continued failings.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 2, 2015)

And you have no skin in this game?

Maybe instead of confabulating stories about the SWP you can use the example of the ISN to show how such complaints should be handled. 

I didn't post the link or defame ISN and RS21, if you're looking for a shitstirrer get a mirror.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2015)

Trappist said:


> And you have no skin in this game?


it's not 'a game'



> Maybe instead of confabulating stories about the SWP you can use the example of the ISN to show how such complaints should be handled.


hard for a defunct organisation to deal with issues that were never brought up when it existed. 



> I didn't post the link or defame ISN and RS21, if you're looking for a shitstirrer get a mirror.


bullshit. _You _wrote "in it's short life the ISN managed to exceed the many failings of the SWP in this regard" - which is a statement of such astounding lack of truth, and utter dishonesty as to beggar belief.  Your group took part in a cover up, and most of the leading figures in that cover up are still leading figures in your, ageing, shrinking, group.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 2, 2015)

belboid said:


> it's not 'a game'



Nope, it's 'a metaphor' durh!



belboid said:


> hard for a defunct organisation to deal with issues that were never brought up when it existed.



So let me see if I've got this right - a woman was repeatedly raped by a leading member of the ISN and, because of the levels of abuse she received on another complaint, was unable to raise the rape issue 'in time.' So no problems there then.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Nope, it's 'a metaphor' durh!
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I've got this right - a woman was repeatedly raped by a leading member of the ISN and, because of the levels of abuse she received on another complaint, was unable to raise the rape issue 'in time.' So no problems there then.


That is not what the complaint said.  It explicitly said the sex was consensual.  That you are trying to twist her words to suit your own vile argument just shows how low you are happy to sink.  You have learnt nothing.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 2, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Nope, it's 'a metaphor' durh!
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I've got this right - a woman was repeatedly raped by a leading member of the ISN and, because of the levels of abuse she received on another complaint, was unable to raise the rape issue 'in time.' So no problems there then.



The most telling bit of your post is what's missing; i.e. any response to belboid's last point. But don't worry, just keep the faith and keep selling the paper.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## emanymton (Nov 2, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Nope, it's 'a metaphor' durh!
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I've got this right - a woman was repeatedly raped by a leading member of the ISN and, because of the levels of abuse she received on another complaint, was unable to raise the rape issue 'in time.' So no problems there then.


Where has repeatedly raped come from? She says there was only one incident of sexual assault?


----------



## Trappist (Nov 2, 2015)

belboid said:


> That is not what the complaint said.  It explicitly said the sex was consensual.  That you are trying to twist her words to suit your own vile argument just shows how low you are happy to sink.  You have learnt nothing.


To quote:

"Tim pressured me into having sexual relations with him, which he should have realised I didn’t want, because I repeatedly made that clear to him."


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2015)

"This was the *only *time sexual relations with him felt like sexual assault so I confided in a friend not very long after the incident and she advised me that consent boundaries were crossed."

My emphasis.

You are a liar, Trappist, and are behaving disgustingly in trying to use this case to justify your own inaction over Delta and his fans still controlling your sect. Utterly vile behaviour on your part.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 2, 2015)

belboid said:


> "This was the *only *time sexual relations with him felt like sexual assault so I confided in a friend not very long after the incident and she advised me that consent boundaries were crossed."
> 
> My emphasis.
> 
> You are a liar, Trappist, and are behaving disgustingly in trying to use this case to justify your own inaction over Delta and his fans still controlling your sect. Utterly vile behaviour on your part.



Fair comment, I misread the statement there. However, the point remains that she was not empowered by the ISN to bring a complaint.

As to my own "inaction" - I was a member of the IDOOP faction. What about declaring your own organisation/position?


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2015)

I was a member of the ISN before leaving to join RS21

There has never been any doubt that the ISN was a dysfunctional organisation that lacked proper and appropriate structures to do anything, especially as regards behaviour on Facebook. The failure to look into the complaint properly was a serious and significant failing, and the ISN completely failed to put its supposed politics into practise. No one would deny that. In slight mitigation, the original complaint was over bullying, rather than sexual violence, which would have been investigated more fully, and ongoing complaints were not fully investigated as the group was protractedly winding itself up. 

Tim would not be allowed to join RS21 even if he wanted to - which as a Green Party member, he probably wouldn't anyway. Nor would Annie be allowed to rejoin. In that case, the survivor has made it known they have no wish for any RS21 involvement, having taken the matter up with groups that actually exist where they both live. Both issues have led to RS21 ensuring that better procedures are in place should they be required. Whereas in the SWP....


----------



## Trappist (Nov 3, 2015)

belboid said:


> Whereas in the SWP....


...the whole Martin Smith affair led the SWP to review and revise its internal disciplinary procedures. This was done openly, opinions were solicited and the drafts published for comment and amendment. It was discussed, amended and carried at the December 2013 conference and then published. I do not recall the RS21 comrades opposing the new procedure or offering substantial amendments.

I for one would be interested to know what changes RS21 made to their procedures in light of the Nelson and Teriba cases.


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2015)

What, the cases that are about two weeks old? Stupid question.

And the SWP's changes are irrelevant when the scum that led those investigations are still in control of the party.  Which they are, aren't they?


----------



## Trappist (Nov 3, 2015)

belboid said:


> What, the cases that are about two weeks old? Stupid question.





belboid said:


> Both issues have led to RS21 ensuring that better procedures are in place should they be required.



Clearly me misinterpreting again, or you mistyping?


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2015)

They are under discussion. That takes more than a fortnight.

Now tell me, who has been expelled from the SWP for bringing it into such disrepute?


----------



## Trappist (Nov 3, 2015)

Tell me which members of RS21 called for Martin Smith to be expelled whilst they were in the SWP?

Answer - none.


----------



## belboid (Nov 3, 2015)

Dont know, dont care. 

You are pathetically trying to avoid the main issue - which was that your organisation failed completely and utterly to investigate sexual abuse within your organisation, then covered it up, and have happily left those who did the cover up in place. IDOOP - you - lost the argument within the party. Anyone staying in after that is a sad and unprincipled specimen.

The only reason there wont be a repeat is that it is mindbogglingly unlikely that any young woman would join your rump sect ever again.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2015)

I saw some young women on a SWP stand at the tory conference protest. I was quite surprised.


----------



## Trotsky007 (Nov 3, 2015)

I was in the SWP during the madness and I didn't want Smith expelled until after he had been disciplined. This was because I wanted him properly shown up for what he had done. I was proved right when, following his resignation, some twats argued that he had been 'hounded out' and had never actually been found guilty so therefore he was innocent. OMG and WTF. etc etc

To say that the following conference changed the policies is really missing the point. Everyone who had a backbone had resigned by that point. Those making the changes had already done the damage, already chased good comrades out of the party and already shown that they didn't care about the awful sexist rubbish their supporters were coming out with. So why should they be trusted when they had spent a year fighting against some of the very changes they then said they had always supported? Liars and scumbags. They reminded me of the sharks in finding Nemo.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> IDOOP - you - lost the argument within the party. Anyone staying in after that is a sad and unprincipled specimen.
> 
> The only reason there wont be a repeat is that it is mindbogglingly unlikely that any young woman would join your rump sect ever again.


Actually despite being a member of the faction I was glad it was defeated. If it had won Smith would have been back as a full member at the start of this year. In answer to Trotsky007, Smith was definitely hounded out of the party. A bloody good job too as I don't think we'd have coped with a panel hand-picked by RS21 deciding not to expel him (unlikely, but not inconceivable).

As to staying on after the defeat of IDOOP, I prefer pragmatic. As would, I think, the majority of RS21 comrades who stayed. That includes two who share responsibility for getting this so bloody wrong in the first and second places. RS21 is a real political organisation made up of real people with not altogether perfect pasts, it's not the Simon pure sect of your imagination. Get over yourself!

We're recruiting okay thank you. True, where we lost entire SWSS groups in 2013 it's been between difficult and impossible (eg Goldsmiths and Edinburgh). Where we retained a core we recovered (spectacularly in the case of Sussex) and we've established new groups too. It's not brilliant or even very good, but nor is it the shite of your fantasies.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2015)

Trappist said:


> it's not the Simon pure sect of your imagination. Get over yourself!


I think no such thing.  But I am delighted we have nothing to do with such hypocritical wankers as you. You have no principles, which is why you are happy to sit alongside the scum who tried to cover up sexual abuse.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 4, 2015)

And yet you're content to sit alongside that "scum" in RS21. Go figure.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2015)

Trappist said:


> And yet you're content to sit alongside that "scum" in RS21. Go figure.


Funny how you are so keen to move the topic away from your ongoing support for those who covered up the abuse in the first place. Your inability to face the truth of what you are doing at least shows the SWP has no chance of recovery.  You are dead, but are too foolish to notice.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 4, 2015)

I'm perfectly aware of what I'm doing - enjoying watching you denounce members of your own organisation as unprincipled and scum then squirming as these uncomfortable facts are pointed out to you. It's childish and wouldn't be worth it if you weren't so lacking in awareness of what a self righteous Onanist you are.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2015)

T'rapist said:


> I'm perfectly aware of what I'm doing - enjoying watching you denounce members of your own organisation as unprincipled and scum then squirming as these uncomfortable facts are pointed out to you. It's childish and wouldn't be worth it if you weren't so lacking in awareness of what a self righteous Onanist you are.


Much better people who recognised they fucked up then those who refuse to accept that fact, or do anything about it.

Now, fuck off, haven't you got a rape to help cover up again?


----------



## Trappist (Nov 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> Much better people who recognised they fucked up then those who refuse to accept that fact, or do anything about it.
> 
> Now, fuck off, haven't you got a rape to help cover up again?


I never fucked up, nor did I cover anything up. Speaking of which, why don't you have a word with Pat Stack who'll no doubt tell you there was no rape (his finding, not mine), or Hannah Dee who thought it was perfectly reasonable to deal with the initial complaint informally. They fucked up then ran away. Such inspiring figures - you're welcome to them.


----------



## Trotsky007 (Nov 4, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Actually despite being a member of the faction I was glad it was defeated. If it had won Smith would have been back as a full member at the start of this year. In answer to Trotsky007, Smith was definitely hounded out of the party. A bloody good job too as I don't think we'd have coped with a panel hand-picked by RS21 deciding not to expel him (unlikely, but not inconceivable).



Come on Trappist be real. Of course the faction had lost the argument in the party and this was clear by that point. In fact the proposal by the idoop faction to have a CC with lots of its members wasn't even unanimously supported by its members (me included). So it was more of a final F*** you than a concrete proposal we thought we would win. That said, if they had won then Smith would have been disciplined, the facts would have been heard and he would have been expelled. To say otherwise shows that you don't know what he did. In fact I think there may have been a few posts on this thread about it that perhaps you might like to read.........

He wasn't hounded out - he left before he could be disciplined and so ran away from justice. I had a low view of the man by that point but that just showed he knew he was going to lose. Why else would you resign if you thought you were innocent and had nothing to fear?


----------



## Trappist (Nov 4, 2015)

Sorry 007, you're talking about the Rebuilding the Party Faction. The IDOOP faction called for Smith to be suspended for two years. An appalling prospect, and quite unprincipled. He did indeed resign before he could be disciplined (by a panel approved by RS21). I don't think the outcome of the hearing wouldn't have been expulsion, merely that wasn't guaranteed result. 

What I mean to say is these things are never certain. To illustrate that mundane point - I've been a rep on enough workplace disciplines to know better than to predict what the outcome will be. I've had people given warnings for the most egregious behaviour and sacked for trivial offences.

It's true I don't know what Smith did. Actually, other than the headline accusations, the details are remarkably hard to find. Maybe I missed that post, I know I found this forum relatively late, please enlighten me.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2015)

Trappist said:


> I never fucked up, nor did I cover anything up. Speaking of which, why don't you have a word with Pat Stack who'll no doubt tell you there was no rape (his finding, not mine), or Hannah Dee who thought it was perfectly reasonable to deal with the initial complaint informally. They fucked up then ran away. Such inspiring figures - you're welcome to them.


lol. They fucked up, but then recognised they'd fucked up and tried to makes amends. And you are slating them for that while remaining alongside the people who did everything they could to defend Smith?  Unbelievable.

You, you claim to be one of the small number of faction members who chose to stay in the party. You will happily sit alongside the Bowlers et al, who tried desperately to keep Smith in. Even when more facts came out, after the first (Stack attended) hearing. You claim to be a rep, so you should know how opinions change when more facts come out.  Your opinion seems to have regressed tho, you seem to think that it was just a case of Smith being a bad egg, but that everything else was dandy. Or, if it wasn't dandy, it was the fault of those who complained!

You sound like if you were a member of the faction, you were only in it for one reason, and that wasn't to support it.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 4, 2015)

Did Stack recognise he'd done wrong? I can't find where he changed his view from "conduct unbecoming" to guilty of rape. He done wrong and came to the right verdict or he done wrong and gave the wrong verdict. You tell me.

Nobody involved in this case fails to recognise how they fucked up. Some chose to distance themselves from responsibility by running away, others chose to stay and live with the consequences. Tough call either way.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Did Stack recognise he'd done wrong? I can't find where he changed his view from "conduct unbecoming" to guilty of rape. He done wrong and came to the right verdict or he done wrong and gave the wrong verdict. You tell me.
> 
> Nobody involved in this case fails to recognise how they fucked up. Some chose to distance themselves from responsibility by running away, others chose to stay and live with the consequences. Tough call either way.


Plenty pretend that nothing was done wrong.  Your denial of that fact just shows how deluded you are.  The only person who ran away was Smith. And here you are, pretending that the right result came out in the end, and that those who demanded a bit of justice, but failed to get it, 'ran away.'  So everything is now hunky-dory in the SWP.

you're fooling nobody.  Not even yourself, I suspect. Keep posting your bullshit if you like, but I guarantee you, that not one person will believe a word you say.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 4, 2015)

I certainly won't. What a pile of bullshit from Trappist. Go back to making beer.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 4, 2015)

belboid said:


> You sound like if you were a member of the faction, you were only in it for one reason, and that wasn't to support it.



So it's snitch-jacketing now? You are so fucking impressive!

Why is it that you're refusing to answer the questions about Stack? Not embarrassed to be in the same organisation as the “scum” who found Smith not guilty of rape are you? I'm sure he's on the mailing list, why not drop him a line to check if he's changed his mind yet?

While I'm waiting for your answer (actually I'm not as I've never seen you answer a question yet), I'll answer one of your throwaway questions from earlier.



> What does it feel like to be the most hated group on the left?



There's only one day I've ever felt that. I've had some rough rides visiting picket lines – I've faced down a fascist branch sec on a post office picket and been jostled by the CP at Wapping, but by far the worst was a BA picket one Monday in May 2010 when every striker turned their backs on us as we arrived. Worst part was I couldn't argue against them, I'd have done the same if some bunch of students had invaded my pay talks. Something I never want to experience again. Maybe you can ask your RS21 comrades how it was for them and would they do it again?

Today doesn't feel so bad:

UPDATE: Jeremy Corbyn MP to speak at Refugees Welcome Here Rally: 18.30 on 4 Nov @ Camden Centre - Stand Up To Racism and Fascism

Except for all those speakers refusing to attend because of the SWP's toxic brand. Errr, none.

Or last week:

Activists rally to support victimised rep Sandy Nicoll - go all out to build solidarity

Why would anyone defend an unprincipled shark?

Or most of the year:

National Gallery strikers continue fighting privatisation and attack on their union rep

Btw, I assume you protested to your comrades about their supporting “scum” like Candy

And going forward:

John Burgess for UNISON General Secretary

Support of the SWP enthusiastically welcomed, not turned away as it would be if we were the "most hated group on the left."


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2015)

double post


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2015)

I've been on demonstrations also attended by SWP members since the Smith debacle, I haven't said anything to any of them and I have politely said no thanks to buying the Socialist Worker. I don't really see the point in being impolite to individuals in the SWP. None of this means that I enthusiastically welcome the SWP, there are a handful of decent members still but I think that your party's presence at any event is a liability, you all carry with you some serious toxicity and I wish you would go away.


----------



## Nigel (Nov 4, 2015)

That doesn't stop the fact that the SWP is a disreputable and unintegral organisation !
Just because certain elements of the Labour left and others are too naïve or desperate not to oppose you doesn't change the fact you are an apologist for at the minimum misogynistic culture, if not apologists for rape, undemocratic regime and being completely opportunistic and centrist


----------



## Trappist (Nov 4, 2015)

J Ed, I too wish that some groups on the left would go away. I suspect we'll both be disappointed.

Nigel, next time you see a female SWP member why not lecture her on the misogynistic organisation she's in. Be sure to have someone video her response, I could do with a laugh.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 4, 2015)

Trappist said:


> J Ed, I too wish that some groups on the left would go away. I suspect we'll both be disappointed.



Name some names then


----------



## Trappist (Nov 4, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Name some names then


Now that would be sectarian of me. 

Though, like you, I've occasionally been surprised to find good socialists amongst the dross. Yes even in the Sparts! The only group I found irredeemably bad was the RCP and that was probably because I only met a few of them. But I got my wish as they seem to have disappeared.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2015)

Just read the last few pages - the bloke at the centre of the ISN related complaint is the one i warned about a few years back, and the same one who was known locally for "wandering hand syndrome" (shudders when looks at title of piece) - i mentioned that on here 2 and a half years ago.

(Btw the supporting statement from Kaff on the original piece wasn't me, just need to point that out as i'm in the same city and some of you know i used to use that name on articles).


----------



## Nigel (Nov 5, 2015)

Trappist said:


> J Ed, I too wish that some groups on the left would go away. I suspect we'll both be disappointed.
> 
> Nigel, next time you see a female SWP member why not lecture her on the misogynistic organisation she's in. Be sure to have someone video her response, I could do with a laugh.


I have !
It's usually an embarrassing shrug, followed by unjustifiable excuses and the claim that is was 'a long time ago' !


----------



## Trappist (Nov 5, 2015)

Nigel said:


> I have !
> It's usually an embarrassing shrug, followed by unjustifiable excuses and the claim that is was 'a long time ago' !


Strewth, how we miss Julie Waterson!


----------



## Nigel (Nov 5, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Strewth, how we miss Julie Waterson!


You can say a lot about Julie Waterson, but there is no reason to suggest that she wouldn't stand up against the outrageous way the majority of the now leadership of the SWP performed and acted over the whole Comrade Delta scenario. Although on a personal level I thought she was alright and she definitely had the convictions of her politics; even though misguided and to say the least not integral. However no great fan of hers. However I would like to thin that even someone like Julie Waterson would have had the conviction of her principles to stand up to, oppose the misogynistic bullshit that was going on by party loyalists.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 6, 2015)

Not convinced she would have. I well remember her foul bullying behaviour when the SWP parachuted late in the day into the Mumia Abu Jamal Defence Committee, when it sniffed out that we were arranging a demo,  (they swiftly left as quickly after the demo when they had somehow thought they had built the party through this!). And to be frank some of the most bullying members I've encountered were Lyndsey German and John Rees (now out of the SWP  and in Counterfire). Not convinced they would have rebelled against others in the SWP bureaucracy either.


----------



## Bakunin (Nov 6, 2015)

charlie mowbray said:


> Not convinced she would have. I well remember her foul bullying behaviour when the SWP parachuted late in the day into the Mumia Abu Jamal Defence Committee, when it sniffed out that we were arranging a demo,  (they swiftly left as quickly after the demo when they had somehow thought they had built the party through this!). And to be frank some of the most bullying members I've encountered were Lyndsey German and John Rees (now out of the SWP  and in Counterfire). Not convinced they would have rebelled against others in the SWP bureaucracy either.



I've had the unrivalled joy of being harangued by Waterson as well, back in the day. Can't say one way or the other as to whether she'd have opposed the  bureaucracy over this issue so I won't speculate in either way, but but being harangued about not doing enough when I was one of the most active local members was a less-than-motivating experience.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 6, 2015)

Maxine Bowler once tried to hand me a leaflet, I politely declined and judging by her reaction you'd have thought I'd just pissed in her pocket or something. I can't imagine having to deal with her on an extended basis.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 7, 2015)

Bless.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 7, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Bless.


Do you actually remember that a woman was actually treated really badly within a personal sexual relationship by a leading member of the swp ( if you decide not to believe her testimony ) or was raped  (if you chose to believe it) ... cos your disgusting cuntish behaviour suggests that her pain is just a fucking joke.
You and other cunts CHOSE not to believe her...and continue to do so
She had no choice ... that's why any decent person is appalled at Delta's behaviour and the behaviour of the disciplinary committee (made up of his FRIENDS ) and those who defended and continue to defend the swp stance.

The reaction of the swp was not a political mistake ... it was as self serving and sickening as the cover ups and lack of action inall of the other political and celebrity cases...actually it was worse cos the swp are supposed to be socialists.

you are a fucking appalling human (judging by your disgraceful behaviour on here) being let alone a trade unionist and socialist.

just stop with the playing down of rape and if you can't then fuck off else where


----------



## chilango (Nov 7, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Bless.



You think you're in a position to patronise?


----------



## J Ed (Nov 7, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Bless.



I wasn't upset by the experience though it did make me think that if I were the young woman in the Comrade Delta case then it would have been quite intimidating to be on the receiving end of it. I just found it odd, especially considering that her job is basically to win over people to her cause. Do you really think that being extremely rude to people over nothing is a good method of proselytising?

It reminded me of the sort of people who you figure out exactly who they are when you go to the bar to order a pint because they are incapable of ordering one without being rude to the person pulling the pint. IIRC Anna Chen said that Rees and German treated service staff pretty badly.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 7, 2015)

Trappist, why don't you do like real Trappists do and take the vow of silence. Better than that, just plain fuck off, you patronising git.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 7, 2015)

no, let him speak long and loud. It tells people of the character of those who still remain party loyalists.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 7, 2015)

0.1% of the popular vote the TUSC are about as useful to the labour party as a saxophone


----------



## chilango (Nov 7, 2015)

likesfish said:


> 0.1% of the popular vote the TUSC are about as useful to the labour party as a saxophone



I think you may have the wrong thread.

This one's about some Sealed Knot re-enactment of the WRP's end days.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 8, 2015)

On reflection, Dot, I agree. Let him condemn himself out of his own mouth.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 9, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> Do you actually remember that a woman was actually treated really badly within a personal sexual relationship by a leading member of the swp ( if you decide not to believe her testimony ) or was raped  (if you chose to believe it) ... cos your disgusting cuntish behaviour suggests that her pain is just a fucking joke.
> You and other cunts CHOSE not to believe her...and continue to do so
> She had no choice ... that's why any decent person is appalled at Delta's behaviour and the behaviour of the disciplinary committee (made up of his FRIENDS ) and those who defended and continue to defend the swp stance.
> 
> ...



So I'm a cunt. That's good to know.

It's also very kind of you to tell me what I'm allowed to think, and even what I actually think. Being a cunt I could never work it out for myself.

Fuck off you smug, sanctimonious pratt. No end of people are "treated really badly within personal sexual relationships." Just because it's painful doesn't mean it's criminal, and to suggest I've made a joke of it is just bizarre.

The Disputes Committee weren't chosen because they were friends of Smith. Incidentally, just knowing him (however well) doesn't necessarily make them friends. They were elected because they were trusted to do a difficult job. When they considered the question of how knowing Smith and not knowing comrade W might affect their decisions they didn't consider how it would look to others. Sometimes smart people make stupid choices, this one was spectacularly so.

Where you see a stitch up I see a cock up. Though I'd be interested to know how many friends/colleagues you have who you think would give you a pass on rape. Not just turn a blind eye, but actively cover it up.

Without details of the accusation to go on I can only base an opinion on the limited facts available. For me the key is not one member of the committee took the view that Smith was guilty of rape. The only dissenting view, "conduct unbecoming," was the result of comrade X coming forward. At no time did either of the opposition factions make a case for Smith being guilty.

If you believe the SWP wrecks every progressive movement it touches then you're more likely to believe five women and two men would conspire to cover up compelling evidence of rape and that one of them would maintain the conspiracy having left the party after two of the bitterest faction fights in its history.

Either way it's an opinion/belief based on prejudice/faith nothing more.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 9, 2015)

J Ed said:


> I wasn't upset by the experience though it did make me think that if I were the young woman in the Comrade Delta case then it would have been quite intimidating to be on the receiving end of it.


Naturally there are no circumstances in which the cartoon villains of the SWP could have been compassionate towards the young woman and contemptuous of the man who couldn't keep his dick inside his trousers.


----------



## tony collins (Nov 9, 2015)

Trappist said:


> No end of people are "treated really badly within personal sexual relationships."



You do realise that comrade spurski chose two formulations, and that formulation was for you to use if you don't believe she was raped, right?



Trappist said:


> Where you see a stitch up I see a cock up.



No. That doesn't account for the bullying that the victims went through at the hands of their SWP 'comrades'. It doesn't account for the bullying and intimidation meted out to opponents of Smith. It doesn't account for the attempts to drive the victims' supporters out of the party. It doesn't account for the way one of the women was shouted at in the street. It doesn't account for the extremely obnoxious phone calls made by organisers to opponents. It doesn't account for the threats of violence.

A cock-up would look markedly different. A revolutionary party, interested in self-reflection and political growth, would also look different.

While there are still people like you, apologising for rape and for women being treated like shit, still clinging onto the 'we have better morality' nonsense (which is what you mean when you approvingly say that no one on the DC thought Smith was guilty of rape - *the same committee that felt it was appropriate to ask "is it fair to say you like a drink?"*, which should surely show you that they were not fit to conclude _anything_) the SWP doesn't deserve to survive and any woman would be forgiven for not wanting to listen to a word you have to say about women's oppression and liberation. 

And however much you might smugly talk about being on this or that demo, never ever *ever* let yourself forget that on that demo with you will be people who are disgusted at how you treated those women, and how you chose to stay in a party that not only covered up the rapes, it worked hard to ensure that no one would believe the women either.


----------



## cesare (Nov 9, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> no, let him speak long and loud. It tells people of the character of those who still remain party loyalists.


You were right.


----------



## Trappist (Nov 9, 2015)

Yeah I'm gonna take moral lessons from someone whose party was responsible for the murder of countless thousands  in imperialist wars, etc, etc. Or a bunch who like a bit of paedo banter.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 9, 2015)

that's only because nobody would trust the swp with running brighton (and we let the greens have a go) let alone a country.
the swp proved they zero integrity


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 9, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Yeah I'm gonna take moral lessons from someone whose party was responsible for the murder of countless thousands  in imperialist wars, etc, etc. Or a bunch who like a bit of paedo banter.


What are you on about, you morally bankrupt specimen. you've failed to answer any of the assertions about bullying, threatening of members, etc etc.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Nov 9, 2015)

https://i0.wp.com/i3.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article221874.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/benny-hill-198540674.jpg


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 9, 2015)

Trappist said:


> So I'm a cunt. That's good to know.
> 
> It's also very kind of you to tell me what I'm allowed to think, and even what I actually think. Being a cunt I could never work it out for myself.
> 
> ...


----------



## chilango (Nov 9, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Yeah I'm gonna take moral lessons from someone whose party was responsible for the murder of countless thousands  in imperialist wars, etc, etc. Or a bunch who like a bit of paedo banter.



Huh?


----------



## Trotsky007 (Nov 9, 2015)

Trappist you are confusing what happened with why it happened.

There was no call to re-investigate Smith by the faction but not because we thought he was innocent. There were two reasons - one tactical and one from respect. The latter was because the woman in question did not want to go through the awful process again and she did not trust the party apparatus to organise a fair hearing. Out of respect to her we did not push it. This respect is also why the two comrades on the panel who did break ranks have not gone back over it in public. I think this shows some humanity on their part even if it means Smith gains in some way by their silence.

The tactical aspect was that we knew there were people who might be up for changing future rules/ procedures but had lots of respect for the members of the original panel and didn't want to say or do anything which might be taken to indicate a lack of trust in them. Sometimes you need even flaky allies in a battle and so to try and keep/ attract these we said no to re-opening the case.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 9, 2015)

Trappist said:


> Or a bunch who like a bit of paedo banter.



Who the fuck is this even supposed to be?


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 9, 2015)

Trappist said:


> So I'm a cunt. That's good to know.
> 
> It's also very kind of you to tell me what I'm allowed to think, and even what I actually think. Being a cunt I could never work it out for myself.
> 
> ...




Delta was accused of abuse within a personal relationship and then accused rape.
You and others seek to down play it down as a lovers tiff...that's what my comment of "treated really badly within a personal relationship" was refering to.

That they decided to treat it as a lovers tiff show they were keen to make the issue go away...that makes it a whitewash in the eyes of everyone not blinded by party loyalty

You claim that they didn't think about how it might look to others that they (his friends) were investigating the issue...this just shows how incapable they were of investigating this issue and why they should never have done so and why their findings were unbelievably unjust.

His FRIENDS questioned the woman about her drinking habits...why?
That sort of questioning is not a cock up, it is sexist filth which is used to imply she was to blame.

You say the key for you is that "not one of the committee took the view he was guilty of rape"...how the fuck could they know? They had none of the skills or tools necessary to investigate...and their questioning was fucking appalling when you consider they questioned the woman's drinking habits.

Imagine in your work place that a senior manager in his late 40s had a sexual relationship with a woman working in the same office, which started when she was 17 yrs old.
Imagine that she made the same allegations against the manager that was made against Delta. Then imagine your reaction when you found out that the people investigating it were all his friends and or colleagues whereas no one who knew the woman was on the panel.
Then imagine your reaction when you hear that she was questioned about her drinking habits.
Then you hear that they (this panel of friends with no training in rape investigation ) decided the manager was not guilty of rape. 
After imagine finding out that another woman came forward and said she'd experienced sexual harassment by the same manager and she was told that she could not return to her original job as this would make things difficult in the workplace.
Then imagine finding out that two workers had been suspended for organising against this injustice.
In the meantime the manager concerned goes to the regional meeting and claims he is the victim of a smear campaign from a rival firm and that he received a foot stamping ovation.
Finally imagine that after people had been forced to quit, after people had been sidelined, lied about and ostracised that the manager finally quit and only then did the firm say he had a case to answer but they were unable to do anything as he had already left....but they still kept following him on twitter and senior managers still remained in personal contact with him.

If you think that firm deserves the benefit of the doubt you are a cunt.
I you think they behaved reprehensibly then you are a hypocrite.

One of Delta's well used comments about racists claiming not to be racists was if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then its a duck...the same is true of you and your odious views.


----------



## J Ed (Nov 27, 2015)

Was Frankie Boyle a member of the SWP?


----------



## Trotsky007 (Dec 2, 2015)

I don't know if he was but I'm intrigued as to what made you ask?


----------



## J Ed (Dec 2, 2015)

An ex swper told me that he was when he was at uni


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2015)

Given he was at posho/rich foreigner student sussex he was more likely to be in aufheben or some ultra left ambassadors daughter group.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 2, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Given he was at posho/rich foreigner student sussex he was more likely to be in aufheben or some ultra left ambassadors daughter group.



Oi I went to Sussex and membership of Aufheben was far from compulsory!

Cheers and thanks for the stroll down memory lane - Louis MacNeice


----------



## emanymton (Dec 2, 2015)

J Ed said:


> An ex swper told me that he was when he was at uni


Probably means he paid a quid and signed a SWSS form or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 29, 2015)

Interesting? Potential poster spot too.


----------



## laptop (Dec 29, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting? Potential poster spot too.



Damn. Where did I put my copy of _The smallest mass party in the world_?


----------



## redcogs (Dec 29, 2015)

Anyone seen a pre conference bulletin yet? (Assuming such docu's are still circulated).


----------



## Nigel (Dec 29, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting? Potential poster spot too.


good man butchers


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

have we not got any pre-conf bulletins/post-conf reports to giggle at?


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

does anyone even remember who they are now?


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

The biggest left wing group outside the Labour Party? Yes.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> The biggest left wing group outside the Labour Party? Yes.


They can't be still, surely?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> They can't be still, surely?


Who else Is there? It's either them or the SP.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

Especially since pretty much every other left wing group has joined Labour now.

When the WRP and then Militant collapsed, there was at least somewhere else sizeable to go to, an alternative group that could pick up the baton, that was still on campus.  Not true now, so they have hung on, and even, according to one thing I read or heard somewhere, have risen like a phoenix this year.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> Especially since pretty much every other left wing group has joined Labour now.
> 
> When the WRP and then Militant collapsed, there was at least somewhere else sizeable to go to, an alternative group that could pick up the baton, that was still on campus.  Not true now, so they have hung on, and even, according to one thing I read or heard somewhere, have risen like a phoenix this year.


Did you hear this from the SWP though?


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

Of course!

I do see some element of truth to it tho, a couple of recruits on campus, a SWSS group that isn't run by people over 50...


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> The biggest left wing group outside the Labour Party? Yes.



Surely The Anarchist Bookfair has now taken on that mantle?


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> Especially since pretty much every other left wing group has joined Labour now.
> 
> When the WRP and then Militant collapsed, there was at least somewhere else sizeable to go to, an alternative group that could pick up the baton, that was still on campus.  Not true now, so they have hung on, and even, according to one thing I read or heard somewhere, have risen like a phoenix this year.


Actually, I was surprised to see a stall manned by youngish women at the tory conference protest...


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

imposs1904 said:


> Surely The Anarchist Bookfair has now taken on that mantle?


it cant be too far off the size of Marxism these days.  But it isn't an organisation....


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> it cant be too far off the size of Marxism these days.  But it isn't an organisation....



 just messing. 

I'm writing from distant memory - at least ten years since I've been in a position to attend the London Anarchist Bookfair - but I always thought there was a wee bit of an overlap between attendees of both Recruitathon and the AB. Not the hardcore of either side . . . more the interested politico punter, wanting to pad out their bookshelves.


----------



## chilango (Jan 13, 2016)

Can't be far off the rump of the CP or someone catching up now? They (the SWP) can barely be pushing 4 figures these days surely?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Jan 13, 2016)

Course they are. At the stwc demo just before xmas, it was fairly clear which was the biggest organised group selling papers etc. The sp were noticeable too of course but the swp clearly had more of a presence. My better half even commented on it when we arrived at Oxford Circus just before the March got going. "Jesus your lot are never going to die are they. They even seem to be quite young some of them, not all old codgers  like you" I believe she said.


----------



## treelover (Jan 13, 2016)

Any woman who is still joining these rape apologists need their head examaning.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> Of course!
> 
> I do see some element of truth to it tho, a couple of recruits on campus, a SWSS group that isn't run by people over 50...


I never agreed that the Delta case would be the end of them, but can't say I have noticed much of a surge. 

It's hard to tell, but I felt the SP had a bigger presence at the tory conference demo.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 14, 2016)

I got a computer generated  letter from the swp before xmas requesting paper money...I ain't been a member for 6 years or so...so their membership records ain't worth shit


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2016)

These reports of a comeback strike me as dubious at best. The core problem is their current age demographic. It's very difficult to recruit your way back from being a party of grey hairs and if it can be done at all it takes a very long time. Mind you they aren't going to disappear either. Most of the greyhairs are in for life.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 18, 2016)

RS21 appear to be doing quite well?
They appear to maturing as an organisation and hopefully in the next year or so developing into a reputable political group. There recent magazine shows this positive development and i'm sure there are just as many activists turning out to events that are closer to getting their first homes than collecting their pensions.

Quite recently in Oxford they organised events where two to three hundred people turned out such as Rhodes Must Fall of which I saw quite a few faces today going to get tickets on the same subject at Oxford Union so they appear to be holding on to members and supporters . From what I've heard this is similar in many other areas such as London and Manchester where they have held both people and power base !

Hopefully this is signalling a new kind of politics that will out mode and out manoeuvre the old Trot Hacks such a those in the SWP for a new kind of politics ! (Not slagging off all Trotskyist groups apologies for not making this clearer )

Magazine subscription


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 18, 2016)

Nigel said:


> RS21 appear to be doing quite well?
> They appear to maturing as an organisation and hopefully in the next year or so developing into a reputable political group. There recent magazine shows this positive development and i'm sure there are just as many activists turning out to events that are closer to getting their first homes than collecting their pensions.
> 
> Quite recently in Oxford they organised events where two to three hundred people turned out such as Rhodes Must Fall of which I saw quite a few faces today going to get tickets on the same subject at Oxford Union so they appear to be holding on to members and supporters . From what I've heard this is similar in many other areas such as London and Manchester where they have held both people and power base !
> ...



£3.70? Fuck that - don't they post it online?


----------



## BK Double Stack (Feb 6, 2016)

SWPer with a nose brace spotted tipping over SP tables at the health workers demo. An isolated incident, but reports say that no SWPers stopped him or yelled at him.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 6, 2016)

BK Double Stack said:


> SWPer with a nose brace spotted tipping over SP tables at the health workers demo. An isolated incident, but reports say that no SWPers stopped him or yelled at him.



*googles* nose brace


----------



## Bakunin (Feb 6, 2016)

comrade spurski said:


> I got a computer generated  letter from the swp before xmas requesting paper money...I ain't been a member for 6 years or so...so their membership records ain't worth shit



Neither are their numbers on all sorts of things. I remember helping set up a meeting in Plymouth where literally nobody came except the three people setting it up, of which I was one. The response of the other two was along the lines of:

"Well, I suppose we can spin something for Socialist Worker..."


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2016)

BK Double Stack said:


> SWPer with a nose brace spotted tipping over SP tables at the health workers demo. An isolated incident, but reports say that no SWPers stopped him or yelled at him.



Had the impression with the non aggression TUSC pact, these sort of 'lover's tiffs' were over !
A few years ago outside Marxism was with a senior female member of SP when one of these Cliifitte scallywags attempted to slam the door hard in her face but managed to catch it and stare him down 'til he cowered; looking to his girlfriend for support, she gave him a condescending, 'you're a wanker' look!

That's what you have to do with these SWP would be ruffians; " Aggressive Eye Contact !'
It's the only way !


----------



## articul8 (Feb 23, 2016)

Oh dear, this really does like an endemic problem in Leninist organisations:
Stephen Jolly leads mass resignation from Socialist Party over allegations of abuse cover-up


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2016)

articul8 said:


> Oh dear, this really does like an endemic problem in Leninist organisations:
> Stephen Jolly leads mass resignation from Socialist Party over allegations of abuse cover-up


why, how many parties has stephen jolly resigned from?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2016)

articul8 said:


> Oh dear, this really does like an endemic problem in Leninist organisations:
> Stephen Jolly leads mass resignation from Socialist Party over allegations of abuse cover-up


before we continue could you outline the links between the australian socialist party and the uk party of the same name.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> before we continue could you outline the links between the australian socialist party and the uk party of the same name.


Sister parties - SP in Australia is from the Committee for a Workers International, set up by SP here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2016)

articul8 said:


> Sister parties - SP in Australia is from the Committee for a Workers International, set up by SP here.


and how many parties are affiliated to this cwi? e2a: seems to be at least 35. so saying that abuse cover-ups endemic within these parties appears a bold statement i would like to see you substantiate.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> and how many parties are affiliated to this cwi? e2a: seems to be at least 35. so saying that abuse cover-ups endemic within these parties appears a bold statement i would like to see you substantiate.


It's not entirely clear from their website how many sections they currently have.  A recent meeting had "70 representatives" of various sections, but not clear how these are distributed.   I think they have some quite significant sections, but others are two men and a dog:
CWI International Meeting: Developing a socialist programme to meet the		needs of workers and youth during capitalist crisis


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2016)

articul8 said:


> It's not entirely clear from their website how many sections they currently have.  A recent meeting had "70 representatives" of various sections, but not clear how these are distributed.   I think they have some quite significant sections, but others are two men and a dog:
> CWI International Meeting: Developing a socialist programme to meet the		needs of workers and youth during capitalist crisis


be that as it may, an alleged cover-up in one party out of 20+ is hardly endemic.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 23, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> be that as it may, an alleged cover-up in one party out of 20+ is hardly endemic.


I'm not saying it's more present in CWI than other Leninist groups.  But that it's yet another instance of groups afflicted by this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2016)

articul8 said:


> Oh dear, this really does like an endemic problem in Leninist organisations:
> Stephen Jolly leads mass resignation from Socialist Party over allegations of abuse cover-up





articul8 said:


> I'm not saying it's more present in CWI than other Leninist groups.  But that it's yet another instance of groups afflicted by this.


what about in other organisations? does no abuse take place in tory or lib dem or - dare i say - labour ranks?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what about in other organisations? does no abuse take place in tory or lib dem or - dare i say - labour ranks?



Lets not forget some of the horrific but less notorious cases in anarchist circles...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 24, 2016)

articul8 said:


> I'm not saying it's more present in CWI than other Leninist groups.  But that it's yet another instance of groups afflicted by this.



As opposed to non-Leninist groups where bad things never happen?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Lets not forget some of the horrific but less notorious cases in anarchist circles...


yes, sadly we have our own jerks.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, sadly we have our own jerks.



Believe me, I sympathise


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Believe me, I sympathise


i do believe you


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 24, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> As opposed to non-Leninist groups where bad things never happen?


non-leninist, indeed non-revolutionary, groups better at covering it up


----------



## belboid (Apr 2, 2016)

Soooooo, what's Paul Blackledge been up to?


----------



## treelover (Apr 2, 2016)

More?


----------



## Karmickameleon (May 23, 2016)

A useful and succint summary of the SWP rape crisis and leadership cover-up from David Renton. It is designed for new young recruits (apparently there are some) unaware of the recent and shameful history of the SWP:
Why I don’t buy Socialist Worker

It deserves wider circulation before the forthcoming Marxism. 



belboid said:


> Soooooo, what's Paul Blackledge been up to?


Any news on that front?


----------



## treelover (May 23, 2016)

I spoke to a guy yesterday who worked in the SWP Printshop for many years, lots of stories like when they were having a meeting at Cliffe's house on 'Womens Voice' issues, and Tony said to his wife, "can you bring the teas in dear?" he hates the SWP now.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 23, 2016)

treelover said:


> I spoke to a guy yesterday who worked in the SWP Printshop for many years, lots of stories like when they were having a meeting at Cliffe's house on 'Womens Voice' issues, and Tony said to his wife, "can you bring the teas in dear?" he hates the SWP now.



....not surprised...no bloody _*biscuits*_...!?


----------



## 19force8 (May 23, 2016)

Karmickameleon said:


> A useful and succint summary of the SWP rape crisis and leadership cover-up from David Renton.



Don't see why Renton should be any more trusted to paint a fair and accurate picture of this than he is of the history of anti-fascism.



Karmickameleon said:


> It is designed for new young recruits (apparently there are some) unaware of the recent and shameful history of the SWP



Please, his straw manning is just sad. Does he really believe the SWP would be stupid enough to think they could get away with such a dull-witted "explanation" for the crisis? Or even not have to mention it at all? If he wants new members to leave then at least address the kind of nuanced explanation that would have persuaded them to stay in the first place, not this silly WRP pastiche.


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2016)

What kind of nuanced explanation _is_ being used to persuade people to stay?


----------



## 19force8 (May 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> What kind of nuanced explanation _is_ being used to persuade people to stay?


Dunno, but I bet it's not blaming "sectarians" and claiming Smith was vindicated.

I know a few SWP members who would happily strangle Newman and Collins, I've never heard any say Smith was blameless let alone vindicated.


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2016)

I dunno, that sounds pretty realistic to me. I've not seen any evidence in this sorry mess that they've learned anything from it.


----------



## 19force8 (May 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> I dunno, that sounds pretty realistic to me. I've not seen any evidence in this sorry mess that they've learned anything from it.


And yet they are recruiting (and holding) young people. Or why would Renton feel the need to waste his breath?

Also, think about what he's suggesting - it sounds like the way the WRP failed to ride the storm 30 years ago. Aside from operating in substantially different ways, I can't really believe they'd be stupid enough to give such hostages to fortune, can you? Really?


----------



## belboid (May 23, 2016)

Karmickameleon said:


> Any news on that front?


Nowt I've seen.  May have all been tosh.


----------



## belboid (May 23, 2016)

19force8 said:


> And yet they are recruiting (and holding) young people. Or why would Renton feel the need to waste his breath?
> 
> Also, think about what he's suggesting - it sounds like the way the WRP failed to ride the storm 30 years ago. Aside from operating in substantially different ways, I can't really believe they'd be stupid enough to give such hostages to fortune, can you? Really?


Yes. They certainly do round my way.  If you know differently, please do give us the benefit of your wisdom


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2016)

The SWP has been brought to the brink of destruction by the folly of it's leaders, who remain in place - why would they suddenly wise up now?


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2016)

I mean, sure they might have done, but you'd have thought they weren't stupid enough to do any number of fucking stupid things - but they did.


----------



## Karmickameleon (May 23, 2016)

Ian Birchall agrees with David Renton's analysis, but is still going to Marxism. But I wouldn't put much faith in "dialogue" if Birchall were to raise the question of the cover-up in Marxism this year. That said, he played a very honourable role in the rape crisis and I for one can tolerate his errors.

_Your account of the dispute is, of course correct. If anyone doubts the tremendous damage that the dispute did to the SWP, just have a look at the programme for Marxism 2016 Timetable for Thursday 30th June 2016 | Marxism 2016 It’s about half the size it was a few years back, confined to a few rooms in the Institute, with the Logan Hall only used for the opening and closing rallies when it used to be used almost every session over the weekend.
And there are good reasons for refusing to buy Socialist Worker. One reason is that it’s very boring. The paper of Roger Protz, Paul Foot and Dave Widgery is now scared to take risks and is very predictable and tedious. The website is pretty useless; it took it thirty-six hours to report Eamonn McCann’s election – it’s hardly worth having a website if you’re going to be that slow. Socialist review and International Socialism are a bit more readable.
But your heading could be read as a call to boycott SW – and that I think would be a big mistake. True the thugs are still there, but they were only a small if noxious minority. The CC that oversaw the whole disaster is still there. But there are still quite a few good socialist activists there, including some who sided with the opposition in 2013 but decided not to leave. The SWP claims – and your piece seems to confirm – that they are recruiting young people. If so they are getting a Marxist education of sorts, and that can only be a good thing.
The Marxist far left in Britain now consists of a number of small groups. Whatever their pretentions, all of them are far too small to be the embryo or even the sperm of a future Bolshevik Party. And the Corbyn phenomenon has created new problems. But they at least do the job of presenting and arguing for a Marxist analysis and passing on a tradition to a new generation which, in different circumstances, may develop new forms of organisation.
This process will be best assisted by our all trying to develop a fraternal spirit in which we can discuss our differences constructively, without denunciations. Boycotts are the last thing we need. Historical Materialism is very foolish to continue excluding Alex Callinicos from its London conferences. The SWP was equally foolish – and ineffective – in boycotting last year’s London Historical Materialism conference – without even making a public statement as to why it was boycotting; very few people noticed its absence.
Personally I am taking part in a forum at this year’s Marxism; I am also speaking at the Weekly Worker summer school. The horrific events of 2013 should not be forgotten, but they should not be a barrier to dialogue. If we can all speak to each other in a reasonably constructive and fraternal fashion, it would be, in Paul Weller’s words, “a start”._


----------



## 19force8 (May 23, 2016)

killer b said:


> I mean, sure they might have done, but you'd have thought they weren't stupid enough to do any number of fucking stupid things - but they did.


Not the impression I get from the local members. I'll check with my niece what persuaded her to join swss.

BTW do you have any contact with swp members other than as antagonists?


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2016)

Me? No, of course not. There was only about three members round here anyway, and they all left in 2013.


----------



## 19force8 (May 23, 2016)

Fair enough, I can see why you'd have a less than nuanced view then. ☺


----------



## Plumdaff (May 23, 2016)

Why on earth is the Deputy Leader of the Green Party speaking at Marxism?


----------



## killer b (May 23, 2016)

I've followed this story in detail for years - think I've got the measure of the party and it's leadership, ta.


----------



## belboid (May 23, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Why on earth is the Deputy Leader of the Green Party speaking at Marxism?


as well as Natalie Bennett?  Maybe they're hoping to win their last few students over


----------



## Karmickameleon (May 23, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Why on earth is the Deputy Leader of the Green Party speaking at Marxism?


This is bizarre. Particularly given that her partner detailed the whole sorry scandal on his webpage:
The SWP crisis: accounts and resources | Jim Jepps


----------



## Plumdaff (May 23, 2016)

belboid said:


> as well as Natalie Bennett?  Maybe they're hoping to win their last few students over



Is she speaking too? She prides herself on heading Green Women. Rings a little hollow.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 23, 2016)

If you mix green paint and red paint you get a muddy brown colour. If you do it with light you get yellow.


----------



## Karmickameleon (May 23, 2016)

belboid said:


> Nowt I've seen.  May have all been tosh.


Perhaps I heard the same thing. Tosh as you say. But - as far as I can see - Blackledge doesn't appear to be speaking at Marxism this year....


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 23, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> ....not surprised...no bloody _*biscuits*_...!?



Biscuits are a _bourgeois_ affectation, and you've just earned yourself expulsion from the vanguard, comrade!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 23, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Dunno, but I bet it's not blaming "sectarians" and claiming Smith was vindicated.
> 
> I know a few SWP members who would happily strangle Newman and Collins, I've never heard any say Smith was blameless let alone vindicated.



Well that's just it - you don't hear *anything*. It's basically considered _infra dig_ to mention the whole farrago.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 23, 2016)

19force8 said:


> And yet they are recruiting (and holding) young people. Or why would Renton feel the need to waste his breath?
> 
> Also, think about what he's suggesting - it sounds like the way the WRP failed to ride the storm 30 years ago. Aside from operating in substantially different ways, I can't really believe they'd be stupid enough to give such hostages to fortune, can you? Really?



30-odd years of Swappie-watching - after being a member - means that not only *can* I believe that they'd be stupid enough, but history tell us they *have been* stupid enough, repeatedly, although perhaps not quite on the "Comrade Delta" scale.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 23, 2016)

19force8 said:


> Fair enough, I can see why you'd have a less than nuanced view then. ☺



What about those of us who keep in contact with their old SWP muckers, and with younger, newer members, but share killer b 's analysis? Will you find a reason to brush off our analyses too?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (May 24, 2016)

I've seen no evidence that the British SWP is recruiting and retaining more than a trickle of young people. They still look to be ageing and shrinking, but now at the glacial pace that groups with a committed membership but a radically unfavourable age profile tend to.


----------



## 19force8 (May 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> What about those of us who keep in contact with their old SWP muckers, and with younger, newer members, but share killer b 's analysis? Will you find a reason to brush off our analyses too?


First let me say I didn't intend to brush off anyone's analysis, though I can see how it might be read that way. My own analysis last night [that they wouldn't be so crass] was no more valid - being based on an assessment of a fairly limited sample of two old friends in the SWP and members known to me locally. 

So I told one of those old friends Dave Renton was saying new members were being told Martin Smith had been vindicated and the crisis was all the fault of sectarians splitting the party. Shorn of insults her response was that Renton had lost touch with reality, and she wouldn't want to be in the same party as someone stupid enough to buy such a crock of shit.

In her district, she said, new members are given an outline of what happened and told if they have any questions or concerns they can raise them within the branch. In essence she said denial wasn't even an option when a simple google search would bring the whole sorry mess to light. 

Maybe she's the odd one out, I don't know. What about your muckers?


----------



## discokermit (May 24, 2016)

i think your friend has lost touch with reality. 
and the swp is full of people stupid enough to buy such a crock of shit, and worse, as long as the right person tells them to.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 9, 2016)

Surprised that this thread has withered and halted !
Surely with some of the antics and less than successful outcomes of mobilisations of SWP and their front organsations !
E.g Stand Up To Racism's failure to directly take Aid in convoy to migrants & refugees @ The Jungle Calais: having to hand aid over to other agencies etc.
Aid convoy to Calais turned back - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 11, 2016)

Nigel said:


> Surprised that this thread has withered and halted !
> Surely with some of the antics and less than successful outcomes of mobilisations of SWP and their front organsations !
> E.g Stand Up To Racism's failure to directly take Aid in convoy to migrants & refugees @ The Jungle Calais: having to hand aid over to other agencies etc.
> Aid convoy to Calais turned back - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine



That wasn't a failure. They raised loads of money which never got to its intended destination. Major success for the CC I reckon.


----------



## belboid (Sep 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> That wasn't a failure. They raised loads of money which never got to its intended destination. Major success for the CC I reckon.


Well that is completely untrue isn't it? But don't let facts get in the way of a sectarian smear. 

There were lots of issues with the convoy, it was dishonestly and incompetently organised, but raised a fair amount of aid (all of which did get through eventually) and made a national news story. Not really a complete failure.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 12, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> That wasn't a failure. They raised loads of money which never got to its intended destination. Major success for the CC I reckon.


If that's success.........
Would have been better to go through CalAid or similar which is how most of the aid got through apparently than failed stunt such as this.
There appears apart from online group to be no contact with indigenous people in and around 'The Jungle' creating almost propaganda victory with many locals becoming sympathetic to, without filling vacuum rightist xenophobic political groups and elements ! The patronising way this project operated; parachuting in without even attempting to build a base in the area was not only counter productive but also unstrategically opportunistic ! 
e.g. recent haulage go slow protest backed by Calais FN Mayor Natacha Bouchart !
Calais Migrant Solidarity


----------



## Nigel (Sep 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> Well that is completely untrue isn't it? But don't let facts get in the way of a sectarian smear.
> 
> There were lots of issues with the convoy, it was dishonestly and incompetently organised, but raised a fair amount of aid (all of which did get through eventually) and made a national news story. Not really a complete failure.


So dishonesty, incompetence & raw opportunism aren't counterproductive when exercising a project such as this and doesn't just play into the hands of opposition ?
The fact that they made no attempt to contact local community groups, left organisations trade unions e.g CGT, where right xenophobic tendencies have been allowed to dominate without opposition shows the nature of what this isolated stunt was all about ! 
French unions join far-right movement against refugees in Calais - World Socialist Web Site


----------



## belboid (Sep 12, 2016)

The Worlds Shittest WebSite is almost as reliable a source as the Daily Mail.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> The Worlds Shittest WebSite is almost as reliable a source as the Daily Mail.


That's a bit sectarian !
Although tend to sympathise with you over their take on Libya & Syria !
However what they are saying bout CGT appears to be true, although their must be strong elements tendencies & blocks within CGT and beyond that left in general, within the PS and NPA, not to mention Trot sects such as Lutte Ouvrière those critical of André Victor, elements of LCR that chose not to go into NPA, maybe Anarchist groups for instance Orlean etc.
Grass root trade unionist within CGT appear to be sympathetic and actively work/ing with migrants and refugees i.e Sans Papiers !
https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/ilr.cornell.edu/files/Quintin_CGTSansPapiersCase.pdf


----------



## belboid (Sep 12, 2016)

They're scum


----------



## two sheds (Sep 12, 2016)

Splitters


----------



## Nigel (Sep 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> They're scum


What have they ever done to you ?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> Well that is completely untrue isn't it? But don't let facts get in the way of a sectarian smear.
> 
> There were lots of issues with the convoy, it was dishonestly and incompetently organised, but raised a fair amount of aid (all of which did get through eventually) and made a national news story. Not really a complete failure.



How do you know?

Look, all I know is that the swops in Sheffield were asking for money rather than goods, which is a bit unusual. And I don't know how much money they raised or whether it all got through. What do you know?

It's not like the swops don't have form for raising money for 'broad left' campaigns and pocketing a bit.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2016)

'All I know...' - so you admit you were lying before then, when you claimed that it had not (not that it might have not) got to its destination.  Perhaps you're getting confused by how the old Militant used to split their collections.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Sep 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> 'All I know...' - so you admit you were lying before then, when you claimed that it had not (not that it might have not) got to its destination.  Perhaps you're getting confused by how the old Militant used to split their collections.



Socialist Worker says some of the aid got through, not much: Fury as police and governments block aid convoy to Calais

My original comment was in reply to a poster who linked to this article saying that the aid goods were prevented from being delivered: Aid convoy to Calais turned back - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine

You say:



belboid said:


> There were lots of issues with the convoy, it was dishonestly and incompetently organised, but raised a fair amount of aid (all of which did get through eventually)



I'm going off the evidence I know about, which says not all the aid got through. You say you know it all got through. Fine. Show us your evidence and I'll happily admit I'm wrong.


----------



## Nigel (Sep 15, 2016)

As far as I am aware they handed 'Aid' that didn't get through to Calaid and other charities involved in taking goods and supplies their !


----------



## treelover (Sep 15, 2016)

Hopefully, at Marxism, sorry, the Momentum, 'World Transformed' event in Liverpool, they will be given short shrift.


----------



## treelover (Sep 18, 2016)

.


----------



## General Veers (Dec 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> Soooooo, what's Paul Blackledge been up to?


Who's he?


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 14, 2016)

General Veers said:


> Who's he?


He's you


----------



## General Veers (Dec 14, 2016)

Dom Traynor said:


> He's you


Really?  I never knew I was someone else.  I'm still none the wiser although your reply is one of the most bizarre I've seen in a long time.


----------



## redcogs (Dec 16, 2016)

Was it Paul Blackledge who wrote the hatchetjob 'unofficial biography' of one A Scargill, a former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM)?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Was it Paul Blackledge who wrote the hatchetjob 'unofficial biography' of one A Scargill, a former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM)?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 16, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Was it Paul Blackledge who wrote the hatchetjob 'unofficial biography' of one A Scargill, a former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM)?


----------



## discokermit (Dec 16, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Was it Paul Blackledge who wrote the hatchetjob 'unofficial biography' of one A Scargill, a former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM)?


that was paul routledge.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2016)

Big fat sam alladyrce lookalike.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2016)

blackdledge is proper acadmic type


----------



## redcogs (Dec 16, 2016)

Sorry Pickers, misremembered that, it was hack journo Paul Routledge who hatcheted A Scargill..

ive been on the Balvenie. (hic).


----------



## redcogs (Dec 16, 2016)

Balvenie also slows down your response time discokermit.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Dec 17, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Was it Paul Blackledge who wrote the hatchetjob 'unofficial biography' of one A Scargill, a former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM)?



Ah, the blackledge miner


----------



## Nigel (Mar 13, 2017)

file:///C:/Users/User/Pictures/I%20S%20Paper%20of%20Black%20Worker%20in%20Struggle%20March%201976%20No%204.pdf
Anyone know how to download pdf folders ?
Have old copies of Flame to put here !


----------



## belboid (May 23, 2017)

Hadn't realised that Bambery has a new job - Office

Both ex IMG I suppose


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2017)

job:reads the papers and goes on internet


----------



## DownwardDog (May 23, 2017)

The day the page count of the "Corbyn's Time is Up" thread surpasses this one will be a black day for the British extra-parliamentary left.


----------



## The39thStep (May 23, 2017)

butchersapron said:


> job:reads the papers and goes on internet


An Apprentice  Pickman


----------



## butchersapron (May 23, 2017)

I hope Mr pickman's is being paid as well.


----------



## redcogs (May 23, 2017)

i'm quite surprised about this.  Bamber was regarded as a very hardline bolshevik back in my day, one whose inflexibility from said line was notorious..

Still, good luck with the parliamentary road.


----------



## Nigel (Dec 18, 2017)

Just saw this on Fb !


*David Renton*
2 hrs ·
Tfw you walk into The Salisbury and there’s Martin Smith drinking with Sue Caldwell of the SWP CC ...
https://www.facebook.com/profile.ph...0-mqY16oQhbU7l7eeAztC2D2Eq7IS6gGf15Pk&fref=nf


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 9, 2018)

Nigel said:


> Just saw this on Fb !
> 
> 
> *David Renton*
> ...




Someone saw Martin Smith having a coffee in the Euston Costa with a senior SWP leader about a year after his expulsion, this shows a pattern of continued friendship between the CC and Smith, suggesting that his departure was for show.

I bought the latest issue of Searchlight while back in the UK (yes yes I know, I also bought got Hope not Hate and Notes from the Borderland) and see that Martin Smith’s Dream Deferred had an article in it - all part of his managed return to public left wing life.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 9, 2018)

belboid said:


> Hadn't realised that Bambery has a new job - Office
> 
> Both ex IMG I suppose



Up until a few years ag Kerevan was on a Thatcherite via pro free-market tour and arguing how anything to the left of Labour was finished and free markets were the only show in town.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2018)

This appeared yesterday - unsure whether to tag it on here or what -  very serious ongoing stuff it seems:

AWL rape statement


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> This appeared yesterday - unsure whether to tag it on here or what -  very serious ongoing stuff it seems:
> 
> AWL rape statement



Was reading that this morning. Put me in mind slightly of the statement about Movement for Justice that came out a few months ago, in that it seemed partially written as a response to allegations. 

Which is not to say that an org like AWL is in any way above this sort of stuff as previous allegations show.


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 11, 2018)

butchersapron said:


> This appeared yesterday - unsure whether to tag it on here or what -  very serious ongoing stuff it seems:
> 
> AWL rape statement



The AWL's reply


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jan 12, 2018)

While I don’t particularly like the AWL, as an organisation, and I think there are many slightly strange and awkward people within it, they have never struck me as being cult like, I always thought of them as being like a fairly loose Trot social club with a few shared political positions.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 14, 2018)

imposs1904 said:


> The AWL's reply



"In the last year or so AWL members have taken action to try to defend ourselves against a slanderous online trolling campaign with real world implications for the welfare and employment of individuals. This has involved gathering information, making informal approaches to individuals, making complaints to an online platform, letter writing and logging incidents with the police.The writer was _one of a number_ of individuals against whom we have sought redress."

Crikey. Surprised this hasn't garnered a bit more attention then. Sounds relatively serious.



Dom Traynor said:


> While I don’t particularly like the AWL, as an organisation, and I think there are many slightly strange and awkward people within it, they have never struck me as being cult like, I always thought of them as being like a fairly loose Trot social club with a few shared political positions.



Always a bit hesitant to comment since I'm in the SP and I'm sure a couple of people would throw the "trot cult" label at us, but the AWL has been accused of ignoring and covering up harrassment in the past. And for my money they're bloody weird.

E2A: Having said that they do seem to be acknowledging something went wrong.


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 14, 2018)

Swapies


----------



## Nigel (Jan 17, 2018)

Ralph Llama said:


> Swapies


By the looks of things they appear to be in a position to re-build themselves backed by the leadership in UNITE, Momentum & Corbyn et al.
Appear to be 100% behind SUTR & UAF !


----------



## Ralph Llama (Jan 17, 2018)

Shit, dont get me wrong - They are the best in mainstream politics without a doubt.
I just want a revolution


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 26, 2018)

where are they now?
I was regularly molested during decades as a London hostess to rich and powerful men. This is what it's like


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 26, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> where are they now?
> I was regularly molested during decades as a London hostess to rich and powerful men. This is what it's like



Have you posted this on the rong thread by any chance?


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 26, 2018)

comrade spurski said:


> Have you posted this on the rong thread by any chance?


ex swp/Counterfire member


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 26, 2018)

The39thStep said:


> ex swp/Counterfire member



She was also ULU President during the 2010 student protests.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 26, 2018)

Plumdaff said:


> She was also in charge during the 2010 student protests.



FTFY


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 11, 2018)

SOCIALIST WORKERS TAKE A NEW DIRECTION

Irish SWP dissolve as a party. They will maintain a formal existence as a “network” inside People Before Profit but for practical purposes this is the end.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> SOCIALIST WORKERS TAKE A NEW DIRECTION
> 
> Irish SWP dissolve as a party. They will maintain a formal existence as a “network” inside People Before Profit but for practical purposes this is the end.



It would be interesting to know where/whom the initiative for the dissolution came from Nigel?


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 12, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> SOCIALIST WORKERS TAKE A NEW DIRECTION
> 
> Irish SWP dissolve as a party. They will maintain a formal existence as a “network” inside People Before Profit but for practical purposes this is the end.


Wishful thinking on your part, you're reading a lot into a name change.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 12, 2018)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Wishful thinking on your part, you're reading a lot into a name change.



If this is simply a cosmetic change why bother?  Presumably the Irish SWP is an established organisation with a certain reputation/identity.  If the adjustment is simply a meaningless "name change"  there must have been no grounds for any change, in which case it is/was, a non serious organisation?

i'm intrigued.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 12, 2018)

Maybe it was the "certain reputation/identity" that was the problem.


----------



## redcogs (Feb 12, 2018)

In the 1970s when the IS formally became the SWP the rationale for so doing seemed appropriate and possibly necessary - the organisation had good grounds for believing it could develop into a 'Party' of some significance (politically and in membership quality quantity terms).  There were some grounds for optimism based upon previous successes and growth.

i don't see that in this case, unless there are particular local circumstances in Ireland?  i remain intrigued.

But i do not doubt the "certain reputation/identity" problem.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 12, 2018)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Wishful thinking on your part, you're reading a lot into a name change.



Hardly wishful thinking. PBP has been the main event for years now, the slow winding up of the SWP remnant is just housekeeping.

The name change comes as the culmination of a process that has already seen: the fulltimers now work for PBP not the SWP, the student groups are now PBP, Marxism is no longer advertised as SWP, placards and flags are now PBP not SWP, Kieran Allen’s title is now a PBP post not an SWP one, leaflets on demonstrations are now PBP branded, the Facebook page reposts PBP material and argues no distinct political line. Now they are both abandoning the “party” title and winding up the paper.

You’ve been away a long time. You don’t get the degree to which the SWP has disappeared. It has no public profile - it’s dissolution statement got all of 21 comments, half of which were actually an argument with a Stalinist troll about Syria. 10 years ago there would have been two thousand comments in a furious Indymedia row. 20 years ago there would have been months of polemics in socialist newspapers. Now there’s tumbleweed. It has no apparatus - everything is PBP branded, PBP funded and pushes PBP politics.

There’s no triumphalism in me noting that the SWP has replaced itself with PBP. If anything I’m a bit sad at the disappearance of most of the revolutionary groups. Even the WSM is all but dead.


----------



## Nigel (Jul 8, 2018)

Looks like the Socialist Workers Party & Soggies have re-kindled their unhealthy, co-dependent, homo erotic (amongst male counterparts) sado masochistic 'entente' at Marxism 2018 this weekend !
I wonder if Yunis got a hard on !
Apparently their was also a bit of a bun fight outside between the Sparts & International Bolshevik Tendency !
SWP "stewards" police debate | Workers' Liberty


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jul 10, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Hardly wishful thinking. PBP has been the main event for years now, the slow winding up of the SWP remnant is just housekeeping.
> 
> The name change comes as the culmination of a process that has already seen: the fulltimers now work for PBP not the SWP, the student groups are now PBP, Marxism is no longer advertised as SWP, placards and flags are now PBP not SWP, Kieran Allen’s title is now a PBP post not an SWP one, leaflets on demonstrations are now PBP branded, the Facebook page reposts PBP material and argues no distinct political line. Now they are both abandoning the “party” title and winding up the paper.
> 
> ...


 that last sentence is monumental mate :-(


----------



## charlie mowbray (Jul 11, 2018)

"Even the WSM is all but dead." Is this true? They organised a picket of the Russian Embassy recently in solidarity with Russian anarchist prisoners and they took part in a militant bloc on the Pride march so why this opinion?


----------



## The39thStep (Jul 11, 2018)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Hardly wishful thinking. PBP has been the main event for years now, the slow winding up of the SWP remnant is just housekeeping.
> 
> The name change comes as the culmination of a process that has already seen: the fulltimers now work for PBP not the SWP, the student groups are now PBP, Marxism is no longer advertised as SWP, placards and flags are now PBP not SWP, Kieran Allen’s title is now a PBP post not an SWP one, leaflets on demonstrations are now PBP branded, the Facebook page reposts PBP material and argues no distinct political line. Now they are both abandoning the “party” title and winding up the paper.
> 
> ...


 The Darlington WSM group is still active


----------



## charlie mowbray (Jul 11, 2018)

Ho hum.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 18, 2018)

I heard the guy with the dog has left the Anarchist Federation, and set up the Anarchist Communist Group so now the Afed is literally just two men.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Jul 18, 2018)

What an accomplished comedian. Oh how we laughed.
OR in the words of Danny Dyer ;"Twat!"


----------



## Dom Traynor (Jul 19, 2018)

Soz Charles. Pip pip.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 7, 2019)

PDF's Of Old Copies Of Flame !
IS/SWP Black Section Before They Were Expelled In Late 1970's !


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 3, 2019)

ISO (US) votes to dissolve itself:

The ISO’s vote to dissolve and what comes next


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> ISO (US) votes to dissolve itself:
> 
> The ISO’s vote to dissolve and what comes next


I wondered when someone would notice.

Horribly similar to the UK SWP's cover up, but at least this has been dealt with more openly and honestly. ISO still managed to produce some interesting and useful analyses during that time (retrospectively it is interesting that neither Shawki nor S Smith wrote any of those pieces), and at least Haymarket should carry on.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 3, 2019)

belboid said:


> I wondered when someone would notice.
> 
> Horribly similar to the UK SWP's cover up, but at least this has been dealt with more openly and honestly. ISO still managed to produce some interesting and useful analyses during that time (retrospectively it is interesting that neither Shawki nor S Smith wrote any of those pieces), and at least Haymarket should carry on.



Who actually owns Haymarket?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2019)

Not the ISO - it's totally independent apparently.


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 3, 2019)

Entertaining "analysis" from the Political Committee of the Socialist Equality Party (US) :

Factional provocation, middle-class hysteria, and the collapse of the International Socialist Organization - World Socialist Web Site



> The International Socialist Organization is collapsing just over a month after its national convention, amidst factionally instigated denunciations of sexual assault and cover-up.


(...)


> Amidst unrestrained hysteria, the SC suspended, expelled and forced the resignation of leading members.


(...)


> Readers are expected to believe that the alleged mishandling of an accusation of sexual assault, which occurred six years ago, has caused the political collapse of the International Socialist Organization.





> This is preposterous and will be believed only by those who are either hopelessly naïve or hopelessly stupid. The unleashing of a sex scandal in a political organization is aimed invariably at generating hysteria, stampeding the membership and preventing an open and rational discussion of program, perspective, strategy and the interests of conflicting internal factions and social forces. Only in the aftermath of the organizational massacre, as the smoke begins to clear, do the political interests and aims that precipitated the crisis begin to emerge.


(...)


> The ISO was eminently susceptible to a #MeToo-style operation. The membership of the ISO was recruited on the basis of middle-class identity politics. Those who joined the organization received no education in Marxist theory, let alone the central historical experiences of the Fourth International. Perpetually operating in an environment of unprincipled factionalism, rampant opportunism, political cynicism and extreme subjectivism, the members are conditioned to reject concern for issues of program and political principle.





> Their one abiding passion is hatred of the International Committee of the Fourth International and the World Socialist Web Site. Our fight for the political independence of the working class, on the basis of the Trotskyist program of Permanent Revolution, is condemned as “sectarianism.”



But amidst the entertainment there is also this :



> The chronology of the crisis leaves no doubt that the collapse was instigated by a factional conspiracy organized by a section of the leadership, which was implemented in two stages.
> 
> The operation began barely one month ago. In late February, the ISO held its annual convention. (...)





> The convention voted for a drastic change in the composition of the ISO’s National Committee and the Steering Committee (SC). The latter functions as the day-to-day leadership of the organization. Selected on the basis of a racial quota system, two-thirds of the SC were new to leadership. One half of these politically inexperienced and easily manipulated members were “comrades of color.”



Yes, they went there.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Not the ISO - it's totally independent apparently.



I was aware of that. I'm just curious who actually has the 'name on the deeds', so to speak. I mean, that was the prize in the ISO. And I guess I'm just curious when they decided to detach it from the ISO, who made the decision and who now gets to keep the prize.

eta: That's a nice wee earner for someone.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> I was aware of that. I'm just curious who actually has the 'name on the deeds', so to speak. I mean, that was the prize in the ISO. And I guess I'm just curious when they decided to detach it from the ISO, who made the decision and who now gets to keep the prize.
> 
> eta: That's a nice wee earner for someone.


Seems to be The Center for Economic Research and Social Change. They also run the socialism event which is also independent of the ISO and a few other things people  may not realise (mondoweiss for example). List of Haymarket funders here. I'm sure someone could find some _ghastly _things/people in there.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Seems to be The Center for Economic Research and Social Change. They also run the socialism event which is also independent of the ISO and a few other things people  may not realise (mondoweiss for example). List of Haymarket funders here. I'm sure someone could find some _ghastly _things/people in there.



Somebody posted a link to the CERSC's 990-FF for 2016 (IRS thingy) on Leftist Trainspotters.

I won't pretend to know that I can make hide nor tail of it, but I could make out that three members of the old ISO leadership - Ahmed S., Sharon S. and Paul D. - who got voted out and then resigned from the ISO were salaried employees of CERSC according to the 990-FF.

I wonder if they're still in those paid positions in 2019?


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

Lurdan said:


> Entertaining "analysis" from the Political Committee of the Socialist Equality Party (US) :
> 
> Factional provocation, middle-class hysteria, and the collapse of the International Socialist Organization - World Socialist Web Site
> 
> ...


I really don't think you could call anything those scum in the SEP (who have a long history of helping cover up rape) write as 'entertainment' especially not given the subject matter.


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Seems to be The Center for Economic Research and Social Change. They also run the socialism event which is also independent of the ISO and a few other things people  may not realise (mondoweiss for example). List of Haymarket funders here. I'm sure someone could find some _ghastly _things/people in there.


I'm sure _someone _could.  they have some great writers there, well worth reading.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2019)

belboid said:


> I'm sure _someone _could.  they have some great writers there, well worth reading.


The Lannan Foundation, Caipirinha Foundation, and the Wallace Global Fund do?


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> The Lannan Foundation, Caipirinha Foundation, and the Wallace Global Fund do?


Make grants. Lannan is a publisher, Caipirinha a Brazillian film producer, and Wallace a general funder for left liberal research (investing in  “asset activism” !) - a bit like getting dosh off the Joseph Rowntree Foundation here


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2019)

belboid said:


> Make grants. Lannan is a publisher, Caipirinha a Brazillian film producer, and Wallace a general funder for left liberal research (investing in  “asset activism” !) - a bit like getting dosh off the Joseph Rowntree Foundation here


I know what they are/do! I was asking why you said 'they have some great writers there, well worth reading' because wasn't sure if you were making some other point based on misreading what i had said - maybe thinking i was referring to mondoweiss or something.


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> Somebody posted a link to the CERSC's 990-FF for 2016 (IRS thingy) on Leftist Trainspotters.
> 
> I won't pretend to know that I can make hide nor tail of it, but I could make out that three members of the old ISO leadership - Ahmed S., Sharon S. and Paul D. - who got voted out and then resigned from the ISO were salaried employees of CERSC according to the 990-FF.
> 
> I wonder if they're still in those paid positions in 2019?


not according to a Haymarket post from a couple of weeks ago (there's a comment obliquely but clearly relating to the impending dissolution, signed by The Staff and a list of names, which doesnt include either of those two)


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I know what they are/do! I was asking why you said 'they have some great writers there, well worth reading' because wasn't sure if you were making some other point based on misreading what i had said - maybe thinking i was referring to mondoweiss or something.


they don't write the books. So I'm not sure what the point of referencing them is?  Haymarket put out a lot of really good books, and other materials. Didn't realise mondoweiss was them, but they're always well worth reading too.


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 3, 2019)

belboid said:


> not according to a Haymarket post from a couple of weeks ago (there's a comment obliquely but clearly relating to the impending dissolution, signed by The Staff and a list of names, which doesnt include either of those two)


Says the CERSC board has been replaced, although it doesn't name the new members. Employment by the CERSC presumably isn't the same as employment by Haymarket.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2019)

belboid said:


> they don't write the books. So I'm not sure what the point of referencing them is?  Haymarket put out a lot of really good books, and other materials. Didn't realise mondoweiss was them, but they're always well worth reading too.


Imposs asked who owns Haymarket, it turns out to be the CERSC and i linked to what are the main funders of the haymarket component of the project and said if people were looking for dirt - sectarian or otherwise - that this is where i would look. You replied to this bit specifically saying they have some great writers. I was trying to clarify what you meant - whether you had misread me somehow attacking haymarket or mondoweiss  - as to say that the funders have some great writers doesn't seem to make much sense - and missed that this potential ghastliness referred specifically to the funders.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2019)

Lurdan said:


> Says the CERSC board has been replaced, although it doesn't name the new members. Employment by the CERSC presumably isn't the same as employment by Haymarket.


I bet budgen is on the new board. Although, there' may be some stipulation for the charity recognition that foreign/not in the country types aren't allowed.


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Imposs asked who owns Haymarket, it turns out to be the CERSC and i linked to what are the main funders of the haymarket component of the project and said if people were looking for dirt - sectarian or otherwise - that this is where i would look. You replied to this bit specifically saying they have some great writers. I was trying to clarify what you meant - whether you had misread me somehow attacking haymarket or mondoweiss  - as to say that the funders have some great writers doesn't seem to make much sense - and missed that this potential ghastliness referred specifically to the funders.


no, I got that. I'm just not clear why they are ghastly.


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

Lurdan said:


> Says the CERSC board has been replaced, although it doesn't name the new members. Employment by the CERSC presumably isn't the same as employment by Haymarket.


true, good point. The 'full support and allegiance' bit is fairly clear which side they were on, though. 

(I doubt Budgen will be, just cos he's in the wrong country.  Unless he's moved)


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 3, 2019)

belboid said:


> no, I got that. I'm just not clear why they are ghastly.


I didn't say they were! I was suggesting if those sniffing around their bins looking for stuff to tar haymarket with do come up with anything it would most likely come from there.

And to be clear, you _were _saying the funders have some great writers - not haymarket?


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't say they were! I was suggesting if those sniffing around their bins looking for stuff to tar haymarket with do come up with anything it would most likely come from there.
> 
> And to be clear, you _were _saying the funders have some great writers - not haymarket?


That'll be pretty weak, though, wont it?

And no! Haymarket have some great writers. Caipirinha sound like they do some interesting stuff, but I've never seen any.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 3, 2019)

I suppose on the one hand it's quite refreshing to see a group just wind up, and I'm certainly not aware the ISO were doing anything particularly useful, but am I right in thinking Something Bad happened and that this was covered up/hidden for about 6 years? Seems like quite a lot of people must have known about that.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 3, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't say they were! I was suggesting if those *sniffing around their bins looking for stuff to tar haymarket* with do come up with anything it would most likely come from there.
> 
> And to be clear, you _were _saying the funders have some great writers - not haymarket?



Well, it is a fact that the a number of the leading members of the ISO who covered up the rape allegation in 2013 were the same people who were heading up Haymarket up to - at least - 2016, so it's hardly "sniffing around their bins".

With regards to your previous link, I didn't realise that both ISR and the Annual Socialism conference in Chicago were both under the umbrella of CERSC. I presumed (wrongly) that both were under the control of the ISO itself. So, am I right to assume that at some point in the past the ISO leadership decided to separate/detach the ISR, Socialism Conference and Haymarket away from the ISO itself (and possible democratic accountability) whilst, at the same time, retaining control of the CERSC? 

So, in effect, the ISO organisation was nothing more than little helpers to sell the magazine, sell the books published by Haymarket and get the punters along to the marquee event in Chicago each year to buy said books and magazine.


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> Well, it is a fact that the a number of the leading members of the ISO who covered up the rape allegation in 2013 were the same people who were heading up Haymarket up to - at least - 2016, so it's hardly "sniffing around their bins".
> 
> With regards to your previous link, I didn't realise that both ISR and the Annual Socialism conference in Chicago were both under the umbrella of CERSC. I presumed (wrongly) that both were under the control of the ISO itself. So, am I right to assume that at some point in the past the ISO leadership decided to separate/detach the ISR, Socialism Conference and Haymarket away from the ISO itself (and possible democratic accountability) whilst, at the same time, retaining control of the CERSC?
> 
> So, in effect, the ISO organisation was nothing more than little helpers to sell the magazine, sell the books published by Haymarket and get the punters along to the marquee event in Chicago each year to buy said books and magazine.


ISO published and sold Socialist Worker. The other things were meant be more 'broad based' and independent. Not that weird. Though I am surprised the Socialism events weren't ISO, I think they used to be.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 3, 2019)

belboid said:


> ISO published and sold Socialist Worker. The other things were meant be more *'broad based' and independent*. Not that weird. Though I am surprised the Socialism events weren't ISO, I think they used to be.



Have a look at the ISR's editorial board on their website. It doesn't look that broad based to me. Looks like a list of -  what were up until a few weeks ago - leading ISO members.

I'm not shit stirring. I'm genuinely curious about what were the inner workings of the ISO.

Isn't this kind of similar to the fallout from leading members leaving the British SWP and the Comrade Delta case a few years back? During all the drama it was revealed that certain SWP assets had been hived off to a limited company years previously? I'm relying on a fading memory, so apologies if I've forgotten stuff in the mix.


----------



## belboid (Apr 3, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> Have a look at the ISR's editorial board on their website. It doesn't look that broad based to me. Looks like a list of -  what were up until a few weeks ago - leading ISO members.
> 
> I'm not shit stirring. I'm genuinely curious about what were the inner workings of the ISO.
> 
> Isn't this kind of similar to the fallout from leading members leaving the British SWP and the Comrade Delta case a few years back? During all the drama it was revealed that certain SWP assets had been hived off to a limited company years previously? I'm relying on a fading memory, so apologies if I've forgotten stuff in the mix.


It overwhelmingly is ISO, yes. Not all attempts at being broad based are successful!  I don't really know any particular reasons for separation of entities, though there can be solid financial reasons for doing so, in the UK at least. There are usually interesting devolution of assets after such splits, SWP UK was unusual in that there weren't, really. I think the tussle over Trostky's Death Mask is still going on from the WRP's collapse tho


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 3, 2019)

The twitter account ISO Leaks is posting a lot of documents relating to this dissolution.

Media Tweets by ISO Leaks (@isoleakss) on Twitter

Some of the links are to documents which have been posted on Scribd, including a partly redacted copy of the letter from a former member which acted as a catalyst for the ISO to wind itself up. The document itself can't be downloaded and may not be accessible to everybody so I've made a pdf of it available here.

It's an account of the 2013 National Disciplinary Committee whose conclusions about a member accused of rape were overturned and buried by the ISO's leadership. That Disciplinary Committee had been set up as a direct result of the SWP/Comrade Delta affair. As an example of 'lessons learned' it is quite astonishing. ETA: it is very grim reading.


----------



## Nigel (Apr 4, 2019)

Re-instate Lee Humber !
Anyone aware of this circus ?
SWP/Ruskin College Held 'Mass Rally' Today In Support For Lecturer Lee Humber; suspended after 'their' branch took a vote of No Confidence in the Principal  of the college!

There was a counter rally by students to get rid of Lee; some talking about aggressive and intimidating actions and nature of Lee and possibility & alleged accusations of sexual and physical harassment of by another member of staff there who is also a long term SWP member !

This is after Trade Union Department lecturers lost their jobs and courses 'changed' and closed down with very little support and some would say 'stabbing in the back' by SWP members in Ruskin College UCU branch, of their fellow colleagues some whom close to sycophantically backed all SWP front organisations; one being treasurer of Oxford UAF.

Ruskin Fellowship for over 15yrs implemented & enabled with others, the  SWP to build power base and control of certain departments at the college after many respected credible and 'learned' heads of department either died retired and/or moved on: NEVER MIND THE QUALITY FEEL THE WIDTH.


----------



## Nigel (Apr 4, 2019)

Reinstate victimised UCU rep Lee Humber


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 4, 2019)

Nigel said:


> Re-instate Lee Humber !
> Anyone aware of this circus ?
> SWP/Ruskin College Held 'Mass Rally' Today In Support For Lecturer Lee Humber; suspended after 'their' branch took a vote of No Confidence in the Principal  of the college!
> 
> ...



Do you know something about this or just speculating? I'm in UCU and we're being asked for support.


----------



## Nigel (Apr 4, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Do you know something about this or just speculating? I'm in UCU and we're being asked for support.


I'm not saying not to support of opposition to action against Lee, this is backed locally and nationally, by both branches of UCU locally, trades council (of which Ruskin/SWP UCU with some sectarianism, if not hostility is not affiliated to), regionally by at least UNITE, UNISON, PCS & more than likely by the end of the week GMB & Nationally not only by trade unions but other groups and bodies in and around the Labour Movement; e.g. LRC.

However the sectarian, aggressive, unfraternal, close to cronyist and in many ways farcical manor the SWP have behaved both as a group and individually in and around this issue doesn't help.
I've never seen a 'Rally', Demo or picket line in/or around an educational facility where Trade Union and supporters are campaigning to re-instate and/or end suspension of a lecturer or member of staff with elements of students and possibly staff organising to counter this.


----------



## Nigel (Apr 4, 2019)

You know and are aware of the campaign to stop 'redundancies' and lay offs the closing and 're-organising' of courses and departments and the way SWP & 'Ruskin' UCU branch acted and opportunistically operated around this issue.

Ruskin, the trade union college, is under siege ~ Global Labour Column
Ruskin College staff took voluntary redundancy | Letter


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 4, 2019)

Nigel said:


> I'm not saying not to support of opposition to action against Lee, this is backed locally and nationally, by both branches of UCU locally, trades council (of which Ruskin/SWP UCU with some sectarianism, if not hostility is not affiliated to), regionally by at least UNITE, UNISON, PCS & more than likely by the end of the week GMB & Nationally not only by trade unions but other groups and bodies in and around the Labour Movement; e.g. LRC.
> 
> However the sectarian, aggressive, unfraternal, close to cronyist and in many ways farcical manor the SWP have behaved both as a group and individually in and around this issue doesn't help.
> I've never seen a 'Rally', Demo or picket line in/or around an educational facility where Trade Union and supporters are campaigning to re-instate and/or end suspension of a lecturer or member of staff with elements of students and possibly staff organising to counter this.



But are you saying he's been accused of sexual harrassment and that's why he's been suspended?


----------



## Nigel (Apr 4, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> But are you saying he's been accused of sexual harrassment and that's why he's been suspended?


No, that is not what i am saying; accusations of alleged sexual harassment were apparently made against another member of staff at Ruskin College who is also a member of SWP.
In cronyistic fashion there are about four possibly five there.
Apologies if I didn't make this clearer.


----------



## Nigel (Apr 5, 2019)

The SWP/Ruskin College branch of UCU threatened Libel Action against Oxford Mail's original article on the subject at hand, of which they capitulated. However the article in Oxford Times gives some understanding.
Rival rallies at Ruskin College over tutor Dr Humber's suspension
Rival rallies at Ruskin College over tutor Dr Humber's suspension


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2019)

Nigel said:


> The SWP/Ruskin College branch of UCU threatened Libel Action against Oxford Mail's original article on the subject at hand, of which they capitulated. However the article in Oxford Times gives some understanding.
> Rival rallies at Ruskin College over tutor Dr Humber's suspension
> Rival rallies at Ruskin College over tutor Dr Humber's suspension



An article I read earlier quoted a student regarding the allegations against Humber. This now Is not included in the articles in your above tweet. Presumably that’s what the SWP sought to have removed?


----------



## Nigel (Apr 5, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> An article I read earlier quoted a student regarding the allegations against Humber. This now Is not included in the articles in your above tweet. Presumably that’s what the SWP sought to have removed?


Lee spoke at trades council meeting last night and on areas of disciplinary s, accusations of harassment & meetings he didn't attend was relatively Sketchy; he did mention a confrontation with a student where he was allegedly 'asked outside' presumably if he did so for some sort of physical confrontation: The student was expelled accordingly.

He was also very sheepish, if not passive/aggressive about their, what can be seen as stitch up of their fellow colleagues and threats of legal action against members of Oxford Trade Council.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 5, 2019)

Nigel said:


> Lee spoke at trades council meeting last night and on areas of disciplinary s, accusations of harassment & meetings he didn't attend was relatively Sketchy; he did mention a confrontation with a student where he was allegedly 'asked outside' presumably if he did so for some sort of physical confrontation: The student was expelled accordingly.
> 
> He was also very sheepish, if not passive/aggressive about their, what can be seen as stitch up of their fellow colleagues and threats of legal action against members of Oxford Trade Council.



I wish you would say what you meant. You know this is important right? 

If I've understood properly, you're saying that: 

- A student accused Lee of bullying and harrassing behaviour 
- Another student tried to fight him and was expelled
- You mentioned sexual harrassment, but not for any reason, because someone else was accused of sexual harrassment and this has no bearing on this case. 
-You're accusing the UCU branch of stitching people up but you won't say what you mean

Have I got that right?


----------



## Nigel (Apr 5, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I wish you would say what you meant. You know this is important right?
> 
> If I've understood properly, you're saying that:
> 
> ...


That's about right !
I'll pm you contact details of people who were are more closely involved and have more details if you want.


----------



## Nigel (Apr 7, 2019)

Nigel said:


> That's about right !
> I'll pm you contact details of people who were are more closely involved and have more details if you want.


Although the accusation of alleged physical & sexual assault is relevant as person accused is leading figure in Lee Humber's campaign, works at the college and long term member of SWP.

And the case of SWP/Ruskin UCU stitching up previous colleagues, is pretty well known, Tracy Walsh et al, long term members of staff, members of fellowship, some on Oxford Trades Council among others have been very vociferous about this,   leading to her partner Kieran directly confronting at meeting leading members of SWP Central Committee, who were in his terms relatively dismissive of the cases at hand and more interested in their own opportunistic interests.


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2019)

SWP out in numbers(well visible placards anyway) at the LGBT protests at the Dorchester, along with the Tatch, no sign of them in Birmingham though.


----------



## treelover (Apr 7, 2019)

Nigel said:


> Although the accusation of alleged physical & sexual assault is relevant as person accused is leading figure in Lee Humber's campaign, works at the college and long term member of SWP.
> 
> And the case of SWP/Ruskin UCU stitching up previous colleagues, is pretty well known, Tracy Walsh et al, long term members of staff, members of fellowship, some on Oxford Trades Council among others have been very vociferous about this,   leading to her partner Kieran directly confronting at meeting leading members of SWP Central Committee, who were in his terms relatively dismissive of the cases at hand and more interested in their own opportunistic interests.



This is incredibly vague


----------



## Nigel (Apr 7, 2019)

treelover said:


> This is incredibly vague


Yeah I know !
Apologies for being so vague.

However they have already threatened Oxford Mail and possibly other news & media agencies with Libel, had to make sure what I put down is relatively true from sources; even if subjectively and it was ok by people who gave me this info to let it be known publicly.

I'm sure there will be more on this subject in media up and coming.

*I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT IN MY OPINION THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH PRINCIPAL AND WAY THINGS ARE RUN & GOING: THE HIGH TURNOVER OF STAFF & LECTURERS AND ACADEMIC TREATMENT OF STUDENTS IS A PRIMARY CONCERN.

WHATEVER CRITICISM, CONCERNS & ISSUES OF SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY & RUSKIN UCU, I 100% SUPPORT REINSTATEMENT AND DROPPING OF SUSPENSION OF LEE HARPER ALTHOUGH CRITICALLY.

I AM DEFINITELY NOT RUSKIN UCU !*


----------



## Nigel (Apr 8, 2019)

treelover said:


> This is incredibly vague


This might give some background to previous liquidation & 're-structuring' of departments along with redundancies with SWP/Ruskin UCU were relatively 'slipperary' & unsupportive of and SWP lecturers benefited from.
Save Ruskin’s BA and MA Courses
http://www.global-labour-university...rs/Former_employees_statement_August_2017.pdf


----------



## greenfield (Jun 30, 2019)

Marxism doesn't look like much this year. They still can't get famous names on board...


----------



## treelover (Jun 30, 2019)

A 'Me Too' workshop, mmm.


----------



## belboid (Jun 30, 2019)

greenfield said:


> Marxism doesn't look like much this year. They still can't get famous names on board...


Barghouti, Pape & Roberts are all decent names, would probably say something interesting.  That does appear to be it though.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 30, 2019)

treelover said:


> A 'Me Too' workshop, mmm.



Having just read/vommited my way through this Can Glastonbury help me shed my toxic masculinity – and become a better man? I fear that I may have to give that one a miss...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2019)

belboid said:


> Whatever happened to Norah Carlin, btw? Was rereading her Roots of Gay Oppression the other day, n had forgotten how good it was.





butchersapron said:


> We put her on for a talk down here last month (and a really interesting talk it was) - to say she is not pro-swp full stop would be unfair.


She's got a new book coming out, next month -  if timetable is stuck to anyway.


----------



## belboid (Sep 17, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> She's got a new book coming out, next month if timetable is stuck to anyway.
> 
> She's got a new book coming out, next month -  if timetable is stuck to anyway.


ooh, that looks great, ta.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2019)

belboid said:


> ooh, that looks great, ta.


The talk i mentioned above was great, it was clear the argument was fully formed at that point. My suggestion that the book should be called We Killed The King wasn't taken up - obv.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 17, 2019)

Nigel said:


> Yeah I know !
> Apologies for being so vague.
> 
> However they have already threatened Oxford Mail and possibly other news & media agencies with Libel, had to make sure what I put down is relatively true from sources; even if subjectively and it was ok by people who gave me this info to let it be known publicly.
> ...


Trying To Get Ruskin Student Union Re-Established.
Talked To Fellow Students On Youth & Community Work, Access Course & Social Work Course; Came To General Consensus To Organise A Preliminary Meeting Next Tuesday: 22nd October 2019.
Would Much Appreciate As Much Help As Possible & Anyone Interested Coming Along !
Fraternally
Nigel


----------



## Nigel (Oct 17, 2019)

Nigel said:


> Trying To Get Ruskin Student Union Re-Established.
> Talked To Fellow Students On Youth & Community Work, Access Course & Social Work Course; Came To General Consensus To Organise A Preliminary Meeting Next Tuesday: 22nd October 2019.
> Would Much Appreciate As Much Help As Possible & Anyone Interested Coming Along !
> Fraternally
> Nigel


Booked Room At Ruskin College, Headington, Oxon
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 !
5pm
This is a preliminary meeting to get RSU re-established !


----------



## Kuke (Oct 17, 2019)

Nigel said:


> Trying To Get Ruskin Student Union Re-Established.
> Talked To Fellow Students On Youth & Community Work, Access Course & Social Work Course; Came To General Consensus To Organise A Preliminary Meeting Next Tuesday: 22nd October 2019.
> Would Much Appreciate As Much Help As Possible & Anyone Interested Coming Along !
> Fraternally
> Nigel



Hey Nigel,

We revived a moribund RSU when I was there nine years ago. How long has it been out of action? PM if I can be of any help.


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 25, 2020)

Our Statement
					

We, the undersigned, have resigned from our membership from the SWP. It saddens us deeply to have to take this action, but we feel that the ...




					swpcrisis2020.blogspot.com


----------



## belboid (Apr 25, 2020)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Our Statement
> 
> 
> We, the undersigned, have resigned from our membership from the SWP. It saddens us deeply to have to take this action, but we feel that the ...
> ...


Blimey. _Signed_ by Yunus Baksh!


----------



## Nigel (Apr 27, 2020)

Is this tactical or have they genuinely left


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 27, 2020)

Who is yunus baksh and what’s his relevance here?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Apr 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who is yunus baksh and what’s his relevance here?



Victimised trade unionist/nurse turned employment lawyer, swp stalwart


----------



## PaulOK (Apr 27, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who is yunus baksh and what’s his relevance here?


Northern chap. Very loud and bellicose. Considered an ultra loyal SWP hack. Been in the Party donkeys years. Someone like that signing a factional document is very odd. Must be really bad up there.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 27, 2020)

Ta


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Apr 27, 2020)

Statement on Newcastle allegations  | Socialist Workers Party - an anti-capitalist, revolutionary party
					






					www.swp.org.uk


----------



## two sheds (Apr 27, 2020)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Statement on Newcastle allegations  | Socialist Workers Party - an anti-capitalist, revolutionary party
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Was Comrade Delta involved in any of this?


----------



## redcogs (Apr 27, 2020)

Slowly shakes head.. lost the will to remain alive after reading all those docs.  i assume the CC is more or less the same one that 'dealt with' the Delta matter?


----------



## emanymton (Apr 27, 2020)

bolshiebhoy said:


> Statement on Newcastle allegations  | Socialist Workers Party - an anti-capitalist, revolutionary party
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A public statement on the website. That's an unusual move for the SWP.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 27, 2020)

redcogs said:


> Slowly shakes head.. lost the will to remain alive after reading all those docs.  i assume the CC is more or less the same one that 'dealt with' the Delta matter?


The named people are.

Also I'm pretty sure the person referred to in the SWP reply was a big Delta supporter.


----------



## krink (Apr 27, 2020)

this is exactly the kind of nerd entertainment to keep me occupied during lockdown, especially as I'm local and i hate the swp


----------



## PaulOK (Apr 27, 2020)

emanymton said:


> A public statement on the website. That's an unusual move for the SWP.


After the Delta debacle and the attempted (failed) cover up they probably thought it best to get out a Statement early this time. Can't blame them I suppose.

They do seem to have a recurring problem with bullying and sexual assault allegations.  Leninist groups like that can attract some "Alpha" types.


----------



## 19force8 (Apr 27, 2020)

PaulOK said:


> After the Delta debacle and the attempted (failed) cover up they probably thought it best to get out a Statement early this time. Can't blame them I suppose.
> 
> They do seem to have a recurring problem with bullying and sexual assault allegations.  Leninist groups like that can attract some "Alpha" types.


Was there a sexual assault allegation here?

Genuine question, I don't have the will or the time to read all this stuff atm.

Although I did manage to dig back and find the UCU stuff. Might post later.


----------



## treelover (Apr 28, 2020)

PaulOK said:


> After the Delta debacle and the attempted (failed) cover up they probably thought it best to get out a Statement early this time. Can't blame them I suppose.
> 
> They do seem to have a recurring problem with bullying and sexual assault allegations.  Leninist groups like that can attract some "Alpha" types.



In Newcastle for a bit, (early 90's) came across Yunus, he is a bully himself, and like most (older male) SWP big hitters, had young women around him all the time.


----------



## PaulOK (Apr 29, 2020)

19force8 said:


> Was there a sexual assault allegation here?
> 
> Genuine question, I don't have the will or the time to read all this stuff atm.
> 
> Although I did manage to dig back and find the UCU stuff. Might post later.



No. I don't think there is an allegation of an assault in Newcastle. The allegations are of bullying, misogyny, harrassment etc.. I apologize if my post inferred that there was.

There was an allegation of sexual abuse in the UCU affair involving an SWP member. See here:








						New light on MeTooUCU, involving evidence from within the SWP
					

[Content warning: sexual assault]   On 8 February, our first blog  lifted the lid on sexual abuse in the UCU committed by Paul Blackledge ...




					metooucu.blogspot.com


----------



## 19force8 (Apr 29, 2020)

PaulOK said:


> No. I don't think there is an allegation of an assault in Newcastle. The allegations are of bullying, misogyny, harrassment etc.. I apologize if my post inferred that there was.
> 
> There was an allegation of sexual abuse in the UCU affair involving an SWP member. See here:
> 
> ...


From reading the Newcastle documents [very tedious] I don't see how this is worth calling a scandal. It's more storm in a teacup territory. From the correspondence, the SWP's Disputes Committee seems to have been making every effort to deal with this fairly, but it just escalated too fast. If anything is worth being scandalised by it's Yunus Baksh representing Blackledge at his appeal. I'm not surprised he was suspended as soon as they found out about it. Strange that his defence of his actions (basically that it was a purely commercial matter, and besides, Blackledge tricked him) has disappeared from the documents.

That MeTooUCU stuff came out during the strikes where it had no traction on the picket lines I was on. Mostly because it was seen for what it was - a cynical ploy to weaponise the SWP's reputation against the UCU Left in the elections and against the strikes. It might have had more of a chance had it had a more nuanced take on several highly respected women within the union. Though UCU Left do seem to have taken a hit in the elections.


----------



## 19force8 (Apr 29, 2020)

In trawling this thread I found this from 2016:


belboid said:


> Soooooo, what's Paul Blackledge been up to?


Hmmm


----------



## treelover (Apr 29, 2020)

Bakhsh is now a QC?

Wow!


----------



## 19force8 (Apr 29, 2020)

treelover said:


> Baksh is now a QC?
> 
> Wow!


 

An "unregistered barrister" was the phrase I saw in his "defence."

Your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## belboid (Apr 29, 2020)

19force8 said:


> In trawling this thread I found this from 2016:
> 
> Hmmm


hmm? We know the answer now, all too clearly


----------



## treelover (Apr 29, 2020)

lot of it about in the SWP, perhaps historically as well, fellow travellers not looking too hard, etc.


----------



## 19force8 (Apr 29, 2020)

I did manage to find some of the stuff about the MeTooUCU back in February, but most of it seems to have disappeared. Not surprising really.

Here is Vicky Blake’s response:


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 29, 2020)

treelover said:


> Bakhsh is now a QC?
> 
> Wow!





19force8 said:


> An "unregistered barrister" was the phrase I saw in his "defence."
> 
> Your guess is as good as mine.



Definitely not a QC, but possibly an ‘unregistered barrister’.

He describes himself as a ‘legal advocate’ in his company filings.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 30, 2020)

PaulOK said:


> No. I don't think there is an allegation of an assault in Newcastle. The allegations are of bullying, misogyny, harrassment etc.. I apologize if my post inferred that there was.
> 
> There was an allegation of sexual abuse in the UCU affair involving an SWP member. See here:
> 
> ...



I'm not quite sure what connection is being made here cos YB supposedly represented Blackledge when he appealed his expulsion from the Union. I

I'm also a bit suspicious of that blog series (the UCU ones) as there seems to be a lot of effort being made to connect people not in the SWP or even in UCU Left to the case.


----------



## Nigel (May 3, 2020)

I get the impression that Yunus is relatively friendly with P S !
Is the'scandal' up north going to have any'fall out' or affect on SUTR or UAF do you think?


----------



## emanymton (May 3, 2020)

Nigel said:


> I get the impression that Yunus is relatively friendly with
> Is the'scandal' up north going to have any'fall out' or affect on SUTR or UAF do you think?


Fancy removing the name if the person no named in any of the above stuff?

And no I doubt it.


----------



## frogwoman (May 4, 2020)

Should the Socialist still be produced during the Corona crisis? An exchange with Mark Serwotka about sales of the Socialist - Socialist Party
					

On 7 April Mark Serwotka wrote to Hannah Sell, general secretary of the Socialist Party, asking for an assurance that the Socialist would not be sold outside PCS-organised workplaces during the coronavirus emergency




					www.socialistparty.org.uk
				




Wtf.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 4, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> Should the Socialist still be produced during the Corona crisis? An exchange with Mark Serwotka about sales of the Socialist - Socialist Party
> 
> 
> On 7 April Mark Serwotka wrote to Hannah Sell, general secretary of the Socialist Party, asking for an assurance that the Socialist would not be sold outside PCS-organised workplaces during the coronavirus emergency
> ...



Sadness.


----------



## frogwoman (May 4, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sadness.



I'm glad we're no longer in the party, they'd want us out on a stall!  



> Dear Mark,
> I am writing in response to your letter of 7 April 2020 which complains about a Socialist Party stall outside Jubilee House, Stratford, London, a DWP and HMRC workplace, which took place on Monday 30 March, 2020. The letter also raises broader points about the role of labour and trade union activists during these difficult times.
> 
> The Socialist Party takes the health and safety of all workers very seriously, and the stall you refer to strictly complied with the government's social-distancing guidelines, as do all Socialist Party actions. As you know, the government's guidelines allow the buying and selling of newspapers.


----------



## JimW (May 4, 2020)

There's an unkind comment about the ease of social distancing for a Trot newspaper seller in here somewhere


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> Should the Socialist still be produced during the Corona crisis? An exchange with Mark Serwotka about sales of the Socialist - Socialist Party
> 
> 
> On 7 April Mark Serwotka wrote to Hannah Sell, general secretary of the Socialist Party, asking for an assurance that the Socialist would not be sold outside PCS-organised workplaces during the coronavirus emergency
> ...



Holy fucking shit


----------



## killer b (May 4, 2020)

They did always say that the only thing left after the apocalypse would be cockroaches and paper sellers tbf


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2020)

_ She also raised points about the important role of the Socialist during the crisis _


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2020)

All joking aside tho this is horrific, SP and these groups heavily reliant on youngsters, these kids buy it big time for a while, constant activity, 'why we were right' about xyz. Ostensibly an organisation of working class solidarity. Fucking hell.


----------



## Shechemite (May 4, 2020)

It’s like with the workers party twitter fella. Someone looking for acceptance, meaning all that bollocks.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 4, 2020)

Bizarre that the SP and the PCSU are having a public row about this. I know there are tensions within their broad left but surely even they realise how this looks? 

As for the SP selling papers I’m torn between admiring the lunatic commitment of ‘the comrades’ and despair at the idiocy of it


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 4, 2020)

Tbf I don't think PCS knew they were having a public row, I think serwotka wrote to the SP exec saying don't do stalls outside the tax office or whatever it was during coronavirus and for some reason hannah sell thought it was a good opportunity for a nice bit of back and forth to be subsequently printed in the organ of working class memory


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 4, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Tbf I don't think PCS knew they were having a public row, I think serwotka wrote to the SP exec saying don't do stalls outside the tax office or whatever it was during coronavirus and for some reason hannah sell thought it was a good opportunity for a nice bit of back and forth to be subsequently printed in the organ of working class memory



wouldn’t a word in their ear by a local Steward be the normal approach? Do General Secretaries normally spend their time sending letters like this?

Agree re Hannah Sell’s article. It’s fucking dreadful. Self obsessed (in respect of the centrality of a declining cobweb sect) and politically cloth eared.


----------



## frogwoman (May 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> All joking aside tho this is horrific, SP and these groups heavily reliant on youngsters, these kids buy it big time for a while, constant activity, 'why we were right' about xyz. Ostensibly an organisation of working class solidarity. Fucking hell.



Yep, if I was still in the party they'd have made me go on a stall. I'm actually speechless they thought this was ok.


----------



## Nigel (May 5, 2020)

emanymton said:


> Fancy removing the name if the person no named in any of the above stuff?
> 
> And no I doubt it.


Already removed
However their name, PS, is relatively notorious; significantly regarding bullying and intimidation in and around Comrade Delta scenario.
JG & entourages account at least, if not others around the short running, now defunct ISN!

Both Yunus & PS are long term stalwarts, used by the party to bully intimidate and relatively close and may have some relevance with regard SUTR as it appears to be the SWP's main intervention if not entryism in Labour left; Corbynites etc. If they want to use it as a main recruitment ground for SWP, a change in culture, at least superficially and on surface would be advantageous. For example no public assault or harassment of AWL; last years Marxism must have been one of the few occasions, where this, rarely otherwise homo-erotic symbiotic sado masochistic ritual wasn't even in the wings.


----------



## Nigel (May 5, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> Yep, if I was still in the party they'd have made me go on a stall. I'm actually speechless they thought this was ok.


The fall out between Socialist Party & Socialist Alternative is very strong and by many seen as betrayal by both sides; both have stories of unpricipled and underhanded behaviour. 
People who've been friends and comrades for decades have fallen out; Coventry is an magnified case of example. It's a shame a lot of the younger and talented activists have gone down the reformist root of ISA.


----------



## Nigel (May 5, 2020)

Nigel said:


> The fall out between Socialist Party & Socialist Alternative is very strong and by many seen as betrayal by both sides; both have stories of unpricipled and underhanded behaviour.
> People who've been friends and comrades for decades have fallen out; Coventry is an magnified case of example. It's a shame a lot of the younger and talented activists have gone down the reformist root of ISA.
> 
> A lot of this has to do with maneuvering, tactics & factionalism within white collar unions i.e. PCS & UNISON, so the Serwotka stance if of no surprise really.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2020)

I haven't been following the split that closely, had a look at SA website and from names I spotted it basically looks like anybody under about 45 has gone to SA. 

Anyway, what happens if SP stand in elections now, do they still stand as SA and can SA stand as SA?


----------



## Fedayn (May 5, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Tbf I don't think PCS knew they were having a public row, I think serwotka wrote to the SP exec saying don't do stalls outside the tax office or whatever it was during coronavirus and for some reason hannah sell thought it was a good opportunity for a nice bit of back and forth to be subsequently printed in the organ of working class memory



Mark didn't know he was getting into a public row, The SP in some distorted view of transparency though it would be an idea to compare the timid approach of Serwotka and the heroic commitment to paper sales during social distancing as employed by the heroic  SP. It is basically the SP using it as a stick to push their PCS Broad Left Network and to tie iit in with their opposition to not holding the NEC and GEC annual elections and showing who the 'real fighters' are. The 3 BLN members on the NEC argued that the events of Covid prove they are right to want to hold the elections. They have not explained why but apparently they are those defending the principle of Annual Elections. Those principles seemed quiet when they supported not holding the annual elections a few years back because of an admittedly serious financial position. in PCS at the time. Indeed, they were saying people who blindly opposed holding the elections were not loyal to PCS. They are truly fucking wired.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 5, 2020)

Fedayn said:


> Mark didn't know he was getting into a public row, The SP in some distorted view of transparency though it would be an idea to compare the timid approach of Serwotka and the heroic commitment to paper sales during social distancing as employed by the heroic  SP. It is basically the SP using it as a stick to push their PCS Broad Left Network and to tie iit in with their opposition to not holding the NEC and GEC annual elections and showing who the 'real fighters' are. The 3 BLN members on the NEC argued that the events of Covid prove they are right to want to hold the elections. They have not explained why but apparently they are those defending the principle of Annual Elections. Those principles seemed quiet when they supported not holding the annual elections a few years back because of an admittedly serious financial position. in PCS at the time. Indeed, they were saying people who blindly opposed holding the elections were not loyal to PCS. They are truly fucking wired.



If they really think laymembers are going to think they are the real fighters for being dickheads during lockdown then I think wired is a mild description


----------



## vanya (May 5, 2020)

The SWP's Split on Tyneside
					

A pandemic has circled the globe several times and we see liberal democratic states assume unprecedented powers to stop the spread of cont...




					averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com
				






> A pandemic has circled the globe several times and we see liberal democratic states assume unprecedented powers to stop the spread of contagion. We live in an emergency, and yet the wheels of the mundane continue to turn. People make new connections and fall out with each other. Shopping happens. And murky practices come to light. Unfortunately, we've had our share of that in the labour movement. Mid-month we saw _those leaks_ about senior Labour Party staff, and April's end was graced by the general secretary of a major union resigning amid serious allegations. But unless you were adjacent to the rarefied doings of Britain's far left, you might have missed another tale of miserable woe.
> 
> The Socialist Workers Party these days is, deservedly, a shadow of its former self. Having exposed yourself as a disgusting rape cult and failing to capitalise on the fresh interest in socialism off the back of Jeremy Corbyn might do that to a self-identified vanguard of working class politics. Yet despite their reduced circumstances, the SWP have persisted through its usual round of paper sales and front groups, such as Unite Against Fascism and its own(!) front outfit, Stand Up to Racism. They are still a presence on the left, and their hope is now less focus on matters parliamentary means new pools of young activists (students) for whom Sir Keir Starmer doesn't have quite the same sheen. With new opportunities around the corner and their decade of moral collapse behind them, the return of _more_ bullying allegations is, well, about as welcome as reality intruding in a National Committee meeting.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fedayn (May 6, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> If they really think laymembers are going to think they are the real fighters for being dickheads during lockdown then I think wired is a mild description



How dare you, the SP are the real class fighters, the membership will flock to their banner understanding that the Covid crisis has shown who the real class fighters are. ie those coughing like fuck but still reading Marx, Engels, Lenin and ummm errr… Stal…. Nah, Trotsky.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 8, 2020)

Nigel said:


> It's a shame a lot of the younger and talented activists have gone down the reformist root of ISA.



U wot m8?


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 8, 2020)

frogwoman said:


> I'm glad we're no longer in the party, they'd want us out on a stall!



To be fair it's now very much possible to be a 'member' without ever doing anything or paying any subs.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> To be fair it's now very much possible to be a 'member' without ever doing anything or paying any subs.



Standards are slipping. What's the score with SA then spacklefrog, is it business as usual or is there any sign of a break with the past in terms of organisation, activity etc


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Standards are slipping. What's the score with SA then spacklefrog, is it business as usual or is there any sign of a break with the past in terms of organisation, activity etc



Apparently we've gone down a reformist route  

It depends what you mean by business as usual but I think it's largely too early to tell. I feel personally much better about it and more committed to being involved as of the last few months. I see it more about taking what was good about Militant/the earlier SP and attempting to build on that though. We still do stalls and paper sales etc and obvs for many of the sections in ISA the Taaffe faction didn't have any supporters so they haven't gone through any major changes.


----------



## Nigel (May 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> U wot m8?


What do you not understand ?
(this a thread on SWP so don't really want to de-rail it SP issues; maybe set up a different thread for that)


----------



## muscovyduck (May 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Apparently we've gone down a reformist route
> 
> It depends what you mean by business as usual but I think it's largely too early to tell. I feel personally much better about it and more committed to being involved as of the last few months. I see it more about taking what was good about Militant/the earlier SP and attempting to build on that though. We still do stalls and paper sales etc and obvs for many of the sections in ISA the Taaffe faction didn't have any supporters so they haven't gone through any major changes.


I don't know what any of this means any more. What's the ISA? They have a Taaffe faction?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

muscovyduck said:


> I don't know what any of this means any more. What's the ISA? They have a Taaffe faction?



The new international for socialist alternative - so the split in the UK but most other CWI national sections (some of these are a handful of people I think)


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

(actually tbf it's the CWI renamed as it was the SP that split from CWI, then SA split from the SP)


----------



## muscovyduck (May 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> (actually tbf it's the CWI renamed as it was the SP that split from CWI, then SA split from the SP)


Right is this the same SA as them ones who used to sell newspapers called Socialist Alternative way before the SP/CWI split


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

muscovyduck said:


> Right is this the same SA as them ones who used to sell newspapers called Socialist Alternative way before the SP/CWI split



Is it socialist action you're thinking of? Socialist Alternative is the name SP stood under in elections (as SPGB had socialist party) and the name of the US section of CWI (and some other international sections I think but fucked if I remember which ones)


----------



## muscovyduck (May 8, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Is it socialist action you're thinking of? Socialist Alternative is the name SP stood under in elections (as SPGB had socialist party) and the name of the US section of CWI (and some other international sections I think but fucked if I remember which ones)


I thought the SP used to be SPEW in elections (Socialist Party of England and Wales) and I followed that they were in elections as Socialist Alternative now. 

I was sure there was a newspaper that was called Socialist Alternative, however, even if I am right this may have been some hyper-local thing in my area that didn't exist anywhere else. We all called it a newspaper but really it was only 4-8 pages and had a vibe like the type of newspaper style flyer you get through the door from the local lib dems or whatever. Does that sound like the Socialist Action newspaper?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 8, 2020)

muscovyduck said:


> I thought the SP used to be SPEW in elections (Socialist Party of England and Wales) and I followed that they were in elections as Socialist Alternative now.
> 
> I was sure there was a newspaper that was called Socialist Alternative, however, even if I am right this may have been some hyper-local thing in my area that didn't exist anywhere else. We all called it a newspaper but really it was only 4-8 pages and had a vibe like the type of newspaper style flyer you get through the door from the local lib dems or whatever. Does that sound like the Socialist Action newspaper?



It sounds like most far left papers tbh haha. Nah they couldn't ever stand as SP, if they ever stood on their own ticket rather than as part of a lash up (socialist alliance, TUSC, No2EU etc) it was always as socialist alternative


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 9, 2020)

Nigel said:


> What do you not understand ?
> (this a thread on SWP so don't really want to de-rail it SP issues; maybe set up a different thread for that)



I don't understand why you think I've gone down a 'reformist route'. You just chucking that about for fun or you wanna make a point?


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 9, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> The new international for socialist alternative - so the split in the UK but most other CWI national sections (some of these are a handful of people I think)




Actually the Taaffe faction got the handfuls - mostly in South East Asia.

We've got a handful in Scotland though so Scottish Trots, apply within


----------



## Fedayn (May 9, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Actually the Taaffe faction got the handfuls - mostly in South East Asia.
> 
> We've got a handful in Scotland though so Scottish Trots, apply within




Virtually the entire CWI up here in Scotland went with Taaffe and Co.


----------



## Nigel (May 10, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't understand why you think I've gone down a 'reformist route'. You just chucking that about for fun or you wanna make a point?


I can point out Socialist Party's position on this, which is available all over the net; The whole accusation of Mandelism which Peter Taaffe laid on, what is now ISA from the start implies this.
However there is a lot of bad feeling about at the moment, can't see it as being a constructive way to carry this debate and is too simplistic a definition of the aberrations made towards those braking away.There are individuals within both SA & ISA that this accusation I would find very difficult to believe, significantly in places like Cov. & internationally South African comrades. America however, as far as I see & talking to American students not part of either group, have gone down a capitulating, reformist path.

However the capitulations of American Group, significantly around electoral politics (its role with DSA etc.) & move closer towards identity politics with Irish Group in my opinion gives Peter Taaffe's and official SP line credence. However there are international sections where this may not so much quantitatively be the case, e.g. W.A.S.P. South Africa.

Saying this I have a lot of respect for a significant amount of those that broke away, hopefully after the dust dies down a more clarified analysis can emerge from both perspectives and some sort of working relationship ! The power struggles, dynamics a contestation between 'blocs' & factions within, mainly white collar unions is going to be a major barrier towards this.

THIS IS THE LAST I AM WRITING ON THIS SUBJECT.
(IN FORESEEABLE SHORT TERM)


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 10, 2020)

Nigel said:


> I can point out Socialist Party's position on this, which is available all over the net; The whole accusation of Mandelism which Peter Taaffe laid on, what is now ISA from the start implies this.
> However there is a lot of bad feeling about at the moment, can't see it as being a constructive way to carry this debate and is too simplistic a definition of the aberrations made towards those braking away.There are individuals within both SA & ISA that this accusation I would find very difficult to believe, significantly in places like Cov. & internationally South African comrades. America however, as far as I see & talking to American students not part of either group, have gone down a capitulating, reformist path.
> 
> However the capitulations of American Group, significantly around electoral politics (its role with DSA etc.) & move closer towards identity politics with Irish Group in my opinion gives Peter Taaffe's and official SP line credence. However there are international sections where this may not so much quantitatively be the case, e.g. W.A.S.P. South Africa.
> ...



Repeating Taaffe wholesale then. Presumably cos you've got nothing else to say.


----------



## The39thStep (May 21, 2020)

One of the greatest resignation reasons I've seen. From a split in the ISN 2014



> One of us is a woman sex-worker and bdsm practitioner. After many years of self imposed isolation from politics, she believed she had finally found a space where even those comrades who disagreed with her positions would discuss controversial topics of sexuality and desire in respect and comradeship. Instead she has been browbeaten, patronised, marginalised and moralised against, and the topics she wishes to discuss with her comrades dismissed as, in the words of one SC member, self-evidently ‘sordid.’


----------



## Nigel (May 24, 2020)

The39thStep said:


> One of the greatest resignation reasons I've seen. From a split in the ISN 2014


After disbanding, didn;t many in ISN join the Greens at that time?
Don't know where they are now!


----------



## Nigel (Aug 25, 2020)

Nigel said:


> Trying To Get Ruskin Student Union Re-Established.
> Talked To Fellow Students On Youth & Community Work, Access Course & Social Work Course; Came To General Consensus To Organise A Preliminary Meeting Next Tuesday: 22nd October 2019.
> Would Much Appreciate As Much Help As Possible & Anyone Interested Coming Along !
> Fraternally
> Nigel



Serious Issues At Ruskin Concerning Social Work Department.

Looks Like After Continuous Process Of Over A Decade Of Divide & Rule Tactics & Salami Style Of Slicing Off Department After Department Within Higher Education Academic Disciplines The Social Work Department Has Now Gone Through What Appears Purposeful Mis-Management & Pre-Determined Scheming!

It's Important To Make As Much Noise As Possible About This By As Many People, Ex Allumi, Supporters, Groups As Possible.
 Contact Governers, Education Watchdogs, Oxford Councillors M.P.'s Etc To Show Critical Concern To What Is Going On!





__





						You searched for ruskin college | UNISON South East
					






					southeast.unison.org.uk


----------



## kebabking (Aug 25, 2020)

Nigel said:


> Serious Issues At Ruskin Concerning Social Work Department.
> 
> Looks Like After Continuous Process Of Over A Decade Of Divide & Rule Tactics & Salami Style Of Slicing Off Department After Department Within Higher Education Academic Disciplines The Social Work Department Has Now Gone Through What Appears Purposeful Mis-Management & Pre-Determined Scheming!
> 
> ...



What's with the capital letters at the start of each word?

It looks like one of those letters from a madman to the local rag - green ink, random punctuation, references to stuff no one else has heard of....

(I was a member of SSWS at uni, but only for two weeks - I fancied a girl who was a member, but we both got bored of it and joined the climbing club instead...)


----------



## Oisin123 (Sep 6, 2020)

Episode 4: Conor Kostick: SWP, Independent Left, and Left Organising and Activism — Irish Left Archive Podcast
					

In this episode we talk to Conor Kostick of Independent Left, and formerly the Socialist Workers Party, about a range of areas including his own history, activism and historical research, materials in the Left Archive that he has contributed to and issues like the use of social and other media...




					www.leftarchive.ie
				




Has a bit about the rape case in the UK SWP, from an Irish perspective.


----------



## A380 (Sep 6, 2020)

kebabking said:


> What's with the capital letters at the start of each word?
> ...



Somewhat ironic for an organisation dedicated to the fight against capitalism...


----------



## krink (Apr 29, 2021)

what's the latest twitter ding-dong about? UAF/Resisting Hate/Louise Raw(? i think she wrote some books?) and something about a pile-on about sending banana emojis to black people. Tweets being deleted so i can't figure out wtf it's about. I'm very, very bored so could do with a distraction.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 29, 2021)

Fuck knows, sounds like weird twitter beef to me. Had a look and found this:


Tbh, I'm not sure this is actually more interesting than actually doing work so might go back to that now.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Fuck knows, sounds like weird twitter beef to me. Had a look and found this:
> 
> 
> Tbh, I'm not sure this is actually more interesting than actually doing work so might go back to that now.



I appreciate this may not be the central issue (but I have no idea what that is anyway) but I find myself deeply depressed that racist abuse in emoji form is a thing.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 29, 2021)

If anyone really wants to dive in, more on it here: https://archive.is/eAEGi (linking to archived version so as to try and avoid bringing weird twitter beef here)

Resisting Hate's logo is marvellously shit:


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 29, 2021)

Oh yeah, if anyone's that keen to know more, here's the other side's account of the weird twitter beef: https://archive.is/qLU4w
Seems like the sort of thing where pretty much everyone involved is way too invested in being shouty on twitter?


----------



## 19force8 (Apr 30, 2021)

What a pile of shit. 

This urge to use the slightest fault in someone else in order to denounce them, thereby proclaiming your own superiority, is utterly poisonous.


----------



## imposs1904 (Apr 30, 2021)

19force8 said:


> What a pile of shit.
> 
> This urge to use the slightest fault in someone else in order to denounce them, thereby proclaiming your own superiority, is utterly poisonous.



Welcome to Twitter.


----------



## belboid (Jun 7, 2021)

I see Chanie Rosenberg passed away, aged 99.  She was the last living female member of the (original) RCP, amongst other things.









						Chanie Rosenberg 1922-2021 - Socialist Worker
					

Chanie Rosenberg, who has died aged 99, spent her life fighting the injustices that are still at the centre of world politics today.




					socialistworker.co.uk


----------



## Nigel (Nov 17, 2021)

Nigel said:


> When I was about 11yrs old at YCND meetings, I met  and was good friends with Wayne Sturgeon, whom I was involved in quite a bit of political activity, from animal rights, Stop The City, Squat Party's Benefits, supporting workers at engineering plants in Crawley West Sussex such as APV; selling Direct Action, Class War, involved in local Anarcho paper Nyet Pravda etc. etc. Wayne convinced me to become involved with Libertarian Communist Discussion Group; to become ACF and now AF.
> Wayne moved to Luton and I sort of kept in contact with him however he became pretty disillusioned with traditional Anarchist politics when he came into confrontation with a young woman called Lorna over Radical Feminism most controversial issue Molesworth Rapes. During this time he became a Christian.
> i spent quite a lot of time with Wayne while living in Brighton, that time he seemed to have moved further from Evangelical Christianity and nearer to Quaker movement. In fact the last time that I physically saw Wayne was when he got married at Brighton Meeting House in the early nineties to his first wife.Around that time I had not kept that much in contact with Wayne as I was occupied with other pursuits, travelling, working in surveying department for Southern Water, Convoys to Bosnia and other political activity; Class War, Anti Poll Tax, AFA etc.
> It was around early 2000 when through mainly ex Anarcho, Anti Folk and would be 'peoples poets'  types in Brighton that I re-contacted Wayne, by telephoning him, of which he did not greet me as an old friend as I thought he would. I be-friended him on social media; mainly Facebook and we soon fell out over politics. I still get questioned if not harassed sometimes from people in Brighton; mainly ex Anarchos and hippy types living in Lewes about hardline position in not having anything to do with Wayne.
> This is all I can remember on the subject. If you have any other queries please ask. However all I can say is that I didn't think that Wayne's politics were as bad as I thought, after all in mid teens we were involved as Anarchists in anti fascist stuff. However after getting back in contact with him it did not take long for me to cut myself off from him and visa versa.


Picture of myself with the said infamous and notorious Wayne Sturgeon!
Must mean I'm a Naaarrrttttzzziiii!


----------



## hitmouse (Jan 10, 2022)

Fedayn said:


> Mark didn't know he was getting into a public row, The SP in some distorted view of transparency though it would be an idea to compare the timid approach of Serwotka and the heroic commitment to paper sales during social distancing as employed by the heroic  SP. It is basically the SP using it as a stick to push their PCS Broad Left Network and to tie iit in with their opposition to not holding the NEC and GEC annual elections and showing who the 'real fighters' are. The 3 BLN members on the NEC argued that the events of Covid prove they are right to want to hold the elections. They have not explained why but apparently they are those defending the principle of Annual Elections. Those principles seemed quiet when they supported not holding the annual elections a few years back because of an admittedly serious financial position. in PCS at the time. Indeed, they were saying people who blindly opposed holding the elections were not loyal to PCS. They are truly fucking wired.


On a lefty trainspotter note, there's been some ongoing consequences from this, in that PCS has now officially fucked the NSSN off:
letter from PCS
NSSN reply
Also touches on the Paul Holmes situation in Unison. (ETA: After a brief looking around, I think this is the article, or one of the articles, that the PCS leadership were complaining about?)


----------



## Shechemite (Jan 10, 2022)

Nigel said:


> Picture of myself with the said infamous and notorious Wayne Sturgeon!
> Must mean I'm a Naaarrrttttzzziiii!



Not sure about Nazi. But you do seem a bit odd


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 10, 2022)

Nigel said:


> Picture of myself with the said infamous and notorious Wayne Sturgeon!
> Must mean I'm a Naaarrrttttzzziiii!



Who's the guy on the left? He looks familiar.


----------



## Nigel (Jan 11, 2022)

imposs1904 said:


> Who's the guy on the left? He looks familiar.


The guy skinning up or W  Sturg eon?


----------



## imposs1904 (Jan 11, 2022)

Nigel said:


> The guy skinning up or W  Sturg eon?



skinning up


----------



## Nigel (Jun 21, 2022)

Anyone Going To Or Hanging Around Marxism This Year?


----------

